| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 75 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
|
CCP Falcon
10472
   |
Posted - 2015.01.27 16:35:53 -
[1] - Quote
Since the introduction of the Bowhead freighter, weGÇÖve become aware of a tactic that has been introduced which has become known as GÇ£HyperdunkingGÇ¥. This involves leaving a grid where a criminal action occurs to draw away CONCORD and reshipping to continue shooting at a target. ThereGÇÖs been much discussion among members of the community regarding this tactic, and whether or not it is considered legitimate gameplay.
After meeting with members of the game design and customer support teams and discussing this in depth, we have come to the consensus that due to the fact no rules are being broken and any ship that is involved in a criminal act is being destroyed by CONCORD as intended, that this tactic is simply an unintended but legitimate use of new game mechanics, and is not in breach of the rules. Tactics similar to this have been used with previous hulls before the Bowhead was introduced, and have been considered perfectly legitimate in the past.
With this in mind, at this time we do not consider this tactic to be in breach of the game rules, and as such our customer support team will not be offering reimbursements for hulls lost in this manner.
Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage.
CCP Falcon || Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon
Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3
|
|
Annette Nolen
Red Frog Freight
Red-Frog
64
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 16:51:12 -
[2] - Quote
Thanks for the clear answer on this finally :) |
Makari Aeron
The Shadow's Of Eve
TSOE Consortium
185
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 16:53:32 -
[3] - Quote
Falcon, please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this contradict the ruling from 3 years ago?
http://community.eveonline.com/news/news-channels/eve-online-news/exploit-notification-boomerang-avoiding-concord-in-high-security-space.-updated/
EDIT: or is it because the hyperdunker loses their ship, they aren't actually "avoiding" CONCORD?
CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty.
CCP Goliath: I often believe that the best way to get something done is to shout at the person trying to help you. http://goo.gl/PKGDP
|
|
CCP Falcon
10473
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 16:56:26 -
[4] - Quote
That ruling is from three years ago, before the release of Retribution and before the introduction of the new Crimewatch system.
Therefore, it's no longer applicable, and the current ruling overrides it.
CCP Falcon || Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon
Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3
|
|
Talos Antilles
Red Frog Freight
Red-Frog
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 16:57:33 -
[5] - Quote
I was wondering the same thing:
"..even if you later return to that grid while still affected by that GCC." |
Makari Aeron
The Shadow's Of Eve
TSOE Consortium
185
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:01:40 -
[6] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:That ruling is from three years ago, before the release of Retribution and before the introduction of the new Crimewatch system. Therefore, it's no longer applicable, and the current ruling overrides it.
Thank you for clarifying.
CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty.
CCP Goliath: I often believe that the best way to get something done is to shout at the person trying to help you. http://goo.gl/PKGDP
|
Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
7905
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:25:30 -
[7] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Since the introduction of the Bowhead freighter, weGÇÖve become aware of a tactic that has been introduced which has become known as GÇ£HyperdunkingGÇ¥. This involves leaving a grid where a criminal action occurs to draw away CONCORD and reshipping to continue shooting at a target. ThereGÇÖs been much discussion among members of the community regarding this tactic, and whether or not it is considered legitimate gameplay.
After meeting with members of the game design and customer support teams and discussing this in depth, we have come to the consensus that due to the fact no rules are being broken and any ship that is involved in a criminal act is being destroyed by CONCORD as intended, that this tactic is simply an unintended but legitimate use of new game mechanics, and is not in breach of the rules. Tactics similar to this have been used with previous hulls before the Bowhead was introduced, and have been considered perfectly legitimate in the past.
With this in mind, at this time we do not consider this tactic to be in breach of the game rules, and as such our customer support team will not be offering reimbursements for hulls lost in this manner.
Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage.
So when can we expect CONCORD podding the criminals?
Don't look any further for negative energy, you will find it by being lazy.
|
Mag's
the united
18864
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:28:52 -
[8] - Quote
Thanks for clearing this up. 
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC
Goonswarm Federation
400
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:30:11 -
[9] - Quote
I obviously don't set policy but there's a big difference between the two and so it's reasonable you'd treat them differently.
The boomerang allowed you to get a ****-ton more damage out of a single ship - this just lets you get a lot more damage out of a single pilot in a specific timeframe at a cost of increased ships. With the boomerang (before it was banned) I could clear out most of an ice belt in a single tornado by warping to the top and bottom, alphaing, then warping away before i got blown up - I'd die eventually, but I'd kill way more ships per lost tornado. This doesn't have the same ability to let me get way more out of a single ship before it explodes.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24746
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:33:32 -
[10] - Quote
Talos Antilles wrote:I was wondering the same thing: "..even if you later return to that grid while still affected by that GCC."
The exploit mentioned there was a way to avoid CONCORD retribution by warping around on-grid GÇö breaking the single rule with CONCORD. So two things make it inapplicable in this case: one is that the boomerang tactic was patched out; the other is that it was outlawed because you avoided CONCORD retribution in order to keep your ship and keep killing, whereas the entire point of chain-ganking (I will not use that sophomoric h-word) is that it relies on losing your ship CONCORD retribution in order for the whole thing to actually work.
So as Falcon points out, it's an outdated ruling from a mechanical standpoint, and it is an inapplicable ruling from a technical standpoint.
Bagrat Skalski wrote:So when can we expect CONCORD podding the criminals?
Never. Podding is a 100% player activity and there's no reason for NPCs to ever do it.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
|
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4787
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:36:19 -
[11] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Bagrat Skalski wrote:So when can we expect CONCORD podding the criminals? Never. Podding is a 100% player activity and there's no reason for NPCs to ever do it.
Just keep believing that...
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
tgl3
Wormhole Engineers
Greater Realms
532
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:37:23 -
[12] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Never. Podding is a 100% player activity and there's no reason for NPCs to ever do it.
The new roaming sleepers pod, I think.
Although you have to aggress them first. And they have low DPS. And don't warp scram. But still.
Twitter - TG_3
Ex EVE Blogger - posts still available at Through Newb Eyes
Chat channels in-game; "RvB Spooning R US", "RvB Ganked", "Basket"
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24746
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:39:42 -
[13] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Tippia wrote:
Never. Podding is a 100% player activity and there's no reason for NPCs to ever do it.
Just keep believing that...
I'll keep believing it until there's a reason for NPCs to do it. Until then, it's pointless faff, and even after that, it's still nothing CONCORD has any business doing.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Pooji Bongton
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:44:46 -
[14] - Quote
Ty for the answer. It's in my opinion the wrong answer but I thank you for reacting anyway.
Logical and reasonable.. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4964
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:45:29 -
[15] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Since the introduction of the Bowhead freighter, weGÇÖve become aware of a tactic that has been introduced which has become known as GÇ£HyperdunkingGÇ¥. This involves leaving a grid where a criminal action occurs to draw away CONCORD and reshipping to continue shooting at a target. ThereGÇÖs been much discussion among members of the community regarding this tactic, and whether or not it is considered legitimate gameplay.
After meeting with members of the game design and customer support teams and discussing this in depth, we have come to the consensus that due to the fact no rules are being broken and any ship that is involved in a criminal act is being destroyed by CONCORD as intended, that this tactic is simply an unintended but legitimate use of new game mechanics, and is not in breach of the rules. Tactics similar to this have been used with previous hulls before the Bowhead was introduced, and have been considered perfectly legitimate in the past.
With this in mind, at this time we do not consider this tactic to be in breach of the game rules, and as such our customer support team will not be offering reimbursements for hulls lost in this manner.
Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage. So why is it not considered an exploit considering you are avoiding the entire consequence of having the criminal timer. The criminal timer is supposed to mean that you are prevented from operating while under it, which is why you can't warp with it running. Using an orca to reship on grid avoids this and means that for each gank run you do you are gaining only a criminal timer of a few minutes as your existing timer is refreshed.
What this also means is that almost any ship or structure in the game can now be solo ganked. Considering one of the driving factors for the removal of input broadcasting was preventing people from being able to solo gank large ships and structures with ease, this seems like the exact opposite.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Mag's
the united
18867
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:46:59 -
[16] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:So why is it not considered an exploit considering you are avoiding the entire consequence of having the criminal timer. Because they are not avoiding them.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
1829
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:49:27 -
[17] - Quote
The only outstanding issue not addressed, is the pansies who cried 'exploit!' in the first place, and space-lawyer-up every damned time a content-creator gets creative (sandbox, remember?)...Let us read from the book of HTFU, chapter Ganking...
CCP Falcon wrote:Okay, so what follows is entirely my personal opinion.
It's not a case of not "catering to the tearfilled entitled", it's a case of us staying true to the core of what EVE was built on.
Some of the people complaining in this thread have valid points about the fact that they don't feel safe. Simple fact of the matter is, that you're not suppose to feel safe in New Eden.
Eve is not a game for the faint hearted. It's a game that will chew you up and spit you out in the blink of an eye if you even think about letting your guard down or becoming complacent.
While every other MMO starts off with an intro that tells you you're going to be the savior of the realm, holds your hand, protects you, nurtures your development and ultimately guides you to your destiny as a hero along with several other million players who've had the exact same experience, EVE assaults you from the second you begin to play after you create a character, spitting you out into a universe that under the surface, is so complex that it's enough to make your head explode.
The entire design is based around being harsh, vicious, relentless, hostile and cold. It's about action and reaction, and the story that unfolds as you experience these two things.
True, we're working hard to lower the bar of entry so that more players can enjoy EVE and can get into the game. Our NPE (New Player Experience) is challenging, and we're trying to improve it to better prepare rookies for what lies out there, but when you start to play eve, you'll always start out as the little fish in the big pond.
The only way to grow is to voraciously consume what's around you, and its your choice whether that happens to be New Eden's abundant natural resources, or the other people who're also fighting their way to the top.
EVE is a playing experience like no other, where every action or reaction resonates through a single universe and is felt by players from all corners of the word. There are no shards here, no mirror universes, no instances and very few rules. If you stumble across something valuable, then chances are someone else already knows where you are, or is working their way toward you and you better be prepared to fight for what you've discovered.
EVE will test you from the outset, from the very second you undock and glimpse the stars, and will take pleasure from sorting those who can survive from those who'd rather curl up and perish.
EVE will let you fight until you collapse, then let you struggle to your feet, exhausted from the effort. Then when you can see the light at the end of the tunnel it'll kick you flat on your ass in the mud again and ask you why you deserve to be standing. It'll test you against every other individual playing at some point or another, and it'll ask for answers.
Give it an answer and maybe it'll let you up again, long enough to gather your thoughts. After a few more steps you're on the ground again and it's asking more questions.
EVE is designed to be harsh, it's designed to be challenging, and it's designed to be so deep and complex that it should fascinate and terrify you at the same time.
Corporation, Alliances and coalitions of tens of thousands have risen and fallen on these basic principles, and every one of those thousands of people has their own unique story to tell about how it affected them and what they experienced.
That's the beauty of EVE. Action and reaction. Emergence.
Welcome to the most frightening virtual playground you'll ever experience.
Beautiful.
p.s.
As some now consider the implementing of yet another stealth nerf-hisec mechanic in the form of 'social corporations' that are 100% safe from being wardecced (wtF?!), I think the other devs (or CSM-bears) also missed that memo...
F
Would you like to know more?
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4965
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:50:51 -
[18] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:So why is it not considered an exploit considering you are avoiding the entire consequence of having the criminal timer. Because they are not avoiding them. Of course you are. They may as well have the criminal timer expire once concord blows up their ship and replace it with a suspect timer if they are still allowed to freely operate as if it didn't exist. The criminal timer prevents you warping a ship while it ticks down. Using an alt to warp that ship for you in an orca then hopping into it while in space seems to be against what the criminal timer is for, so why does it even exist?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24747
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:53:14 -
[19] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:So why is it not considered an exploit considering you are avoiding the entire consequence of having the criminal timer. Because it is not avoiding the consequence in the slightest. In fact, you're doing the exact opposite: your applying it to its fullest GÇö even prolonging it for far longer than is usually necessary. The entire trick relies on those consequences to work.
Quote:The criminal timer is supposed to mean that you are prevented from operating while under it, which is why you can't warp with it running. And that is exactly what happens. Not until CONCORD comes along and releases you from those restrictions can the next phase of the gank take place. This is also why the old ruling wouldn't apply regardless: because you are taking the full brunt of the intended punishment and rolling with it.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
Soviet-Union
321
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:55:08 -
[20] - Quote
Will using bumping (and occasionally agressing them with a throwaway alt) to keep a player from logging out be addressed soon?
EVE Online and Multiboxing: My position against the upcoming changes and why Multiboxing is good for EVE and its player economy
|
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24748
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:55:52 -
[21] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:Will using bumping (and occasionally agressing them with a throwaway alt) to keep a player from logging out be addressed soon?
What about it needs to be addressed?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4965
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:55:58 -
[22] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:So why is it not considered an exploit considering you are avoiding the entire consequence of having the criminal timer. Because it is not avoiding the consequence in the slightest. In fact, you're doing the exact opposite: your applying it to its fullest GÇö even prolonging it for far longer than is usually necessary. The entire trick relies on those consequences to work. Quote:The criminal timer is supposed to mean that you are prevented from operating while under it, which is why you can't warp with it running. And that is exactly what happens. Not until CONCORD comes along and releases you from those restrictions can the next phase of the gank take place. This is also why the old ruling wouldn't apply regardless: because you are taking the full brunt of the intended punishment and rolling with it. So what purpose does the criminal timer have once concord blows up the ship? If it's to let people shoot them, a suspect timer can do that. So either the criminal timer is completely useless or the consequences it's supposed to give are being evaded.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Red Teufel
Mafia Redux
416
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:57:10 -
[23] - Quote
CCP Falcon will there be a change in rules regarding this tactic? It smells of bad gameplay design that I think the majority of eve players would agree with me. Would be neat to generate a fatigue timer like the jump mechanics but for a prison sentence :P. |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
429
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 17:57:59 -
[24] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:So why is it not considered an exploit considering you are avoiding the entire consequence of having the criminal timer. The consequences of having a GCC are that you explode at the hands of Concord when you board a ship or undock in one, which is exactly what happens when you use this tactic.
Quote:The criminal timer is supposed to mean that you are prevented from operating while under it, which is why you can't warp with it running. If the purpose of the GCC timer was to completely shut you down, then you wouldn't be able to board a ship while under a GCC timer.
Quote:Using an orca to reship on grid avoids this and means that for each gank run you do you are gaining only a criminal timer of a few minutes as your existing timer is refreshed. Your point is what exactly?
Quote:What this also means is that almost any ship or structure in the game can now be solo ganked. This has always been the case, using an Orca to reship during a POS bash is an old trick. If you don't want your ship or structure to be solo ganked then you take steps to protect it.
Quote:Considering one of the driving factors for the removal of input broadcasting was preventing people from being able to solo gank large ships and structures with ease, this seems like the exact opposite. Citation needed.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
1829
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:00:33 -
[25] - Quote
Red Teufel wrote:CCP Falcon will there be a change in rules regarding this tactic? It smells of bad gameplay design that I think the majority of eve (pansies) would agree with me. Would be neat to generate a fatigue timer like the jump mechanics but for a prison sentence :P.
I corrected your spelling.
Also, this is pretty 'neat', go play that...(and take Lucas/Veers with you)...
F
Would you like to know more?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24748
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:01:22 -
[26] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:So what purpose does the criminal timer have once concord blows up the ship? Same as before: to ensure you still can't avoid CONCORD GÇö that any reshipping just means another loss.
Red Teufel wrote:CCP Falcon will there be a change in rules regarding this tactic? Why should they change when it has been made abundantly clear that both the rules and the mecahnics are working as intended?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
KIller Wabbit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
859
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:08:30 -
[27] - Quote
What a crock.
CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff
CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
Erufen Rito
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
356
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:13:39 -
[28] - Quote
It stands to reason then, to have CONCORD preloaded on grid while mining as a legitimate tactic right? I mean the attacking ship does get killed, as expected, and concord remains on grid, as desired. I paid the price of having concord on my selected grid, and thus I'm not abusing game mechanics. Right?
This is as nice as I get.
Best quote ever
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4137165#post4137165
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
429
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:16:17 -
[29] - Quote
Erufen Rito wrote:It stands to reason then, to have CONCORD preloaded on grid while mining as a legitimate tactic right? I mean the attacking ship does get killed, as expected, and concord remains on grid, as desired. I paid the price of having concord on my selected grid, and thus I'm not abusing game mechanics. Right? Correct
quote=GM Lelouch]We do not consider intentionally spawning CONCORD using disposable ships an exploit at this time[/quote]Source
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24752
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:17:51 -
[30] - Quote
Erufen Rito wrote:It stands to reason then, to have CONCORD preloaded on grid while mining as a legitimate tactic right? I mean the attacking ship does get killed, as expected, and concord remains on grid, as desired. I paid the price of having concord on my selected grid, and thus I'm not abusing game mechanics. Right?
This has pretty much always been the case, as long as you don't go for the mythical recycled alt.
e: Crucial word missing. 
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
|
|
Pharill
An Eye For An Eye
AN EYE F0R AN EYE
8
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:17:54 -
[31] - Quote
What a.. Perfectly wonderful piece of news. CCP has given everything lately to the whiners and complainers. Finally we have an instance where "Working as intended" is perfectly correct and will generate the vastly superior tears of the hichsec carebear. |
Erufen Rito
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
357
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:19:24 -
[32] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Erufen Rito wrote:It stands to reason then, to have CONCORD preloaded on grid while mining as a legitimate tactic right? I mean the attacking ship does get killed, as expected, and concord remains on grid, as desired. I paid the price of having concord on my selected grid, and thus I'm not abusing game mechanics. Right? This has pretty much always been the case, as long as you go for the mythical recycled alt.
It was actually deemed an exploit quite while ago. I'd be happy to show you the source, but I don't have the time for it right now. Im sure someone else knows where it is. But trust me, it was an exploit at some point.
This is as nice as I get.
Best quote ever
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4137165#post4137165
|
Counselor Gina
Silk Road Descendants
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:20:48 -
[33] - Quote
I'm fairly new - not a ganker or a freighter, so I really have no horse in this race - but I've always had a question.
It seems like the vast majority of contested methods of attack all come down to bumping not being considered an act of aggression. Why is it that way? Bumping can almost indefinitely prevent warp (right?), and as long as your locked (another act of non-aggression), you can't log off either? I get bumps happen non-aggressively from time to time - but freighters tell me (I contract them a ton) they get bumped for 10, 20, 30 minutes and more. If this is not an act of aggression, why is my scram or point?
Again, I'm pretty ambivalent to it either way, I'm just wondering the historical roots for this decision? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24752
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:21:39 -
[34] - Quote
Erufen Rito wrote:It was actually deemed an exploit quite while ago. I'd be happy to show you the source, but I don't have the time for it right now. Im sure someone else knows where it is. But trust me, it was an exploit at some point.
Yeah, no.
it has been claimed to be an exploit for ages, and no-one has ever been able to provide any kind of evidence or source to suggest anything of the kind that I've seen. The best that has appeared is a mention that you're not allowed to recycle alts, which they have wilfully misconstrued as a ban on CONCORD manipulation.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
430
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:22:28 -
[35] - Quote
Erufen Rito wrote:It was actually deemed an exploit quite while ago. I'd be happy to show you the source, but I don't have the time for it right now. Im sure someone else knows where it is. But trust me, it was an exploit at some point. It was ruled upon in July last year, the ruling is linked in my previous post.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Arkon Olacar
Bearded BattleBears
Brave Collective
488
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:23:51 -
[36] - Quote
Erufen Rito wrote:Tippia wrote:Erufen Rito wrote:It stands to reason then, to have CONCORD preloaded on grid while mining as a legitimate tactic right? I mean the attacking ship does get killed, as expected, and concord remains on grid, as desired. I paid the price of having concord on my selected grid, and thus I'm not abusing game mechanics. Right? This has pretty much always been the case, as long as you go for the mythical recycled alt. It was actually deemed an exploit quite while ago. I'd be happy to show you the source, but I don't have the time for it right now. Im sure someone else knows where it is. But trust me, it was an exploit at some point.
You're talking nonsense here buddy
Warping to zero
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24752
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:25:57 -
[37] - Quote
Counselor Gina wrote:It seems like the vast majority of contested methods of attack all come down to bumping not being considered an act of aggression. Why is it that way? Bumping can almost indefinitely prevent warp (right?), and as long as your locked (another act of non-aggression), you can't log off either? Quite simple: because it doesn't prevent a ship from warping. In fact, it does not impart any negative effects of any kind; it doesn't change any stats; it uses no aggressive modules or any other items that would trigger anything.
Beyond that, policing collisions would make it trivial to gank for free since intent is not something you can really judge and decide in code, so it would have a decidedly negative effect on the game if something like that were implemented.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Dodo Veetee
Dixon Cox Butte Preservation Society
Black Legion.
17
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:29:16 -
[38] - Quote
"Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage."
Let me just fit weapons on my freighter from now on so I can fight back
OH WAIT
Back to using escorts, bois. |
Mag's
the united
18869
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:34:20 -
[39] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Mag's wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:So why is it not considered an exploit considering you are avoiding the entire consequence of having the criminal timer. Because they are not avoiding them. Of course you are. They may as well have the criminal timer expire once concord blows up their ship and replace it with a suspect timer if they are still allowed to freely operate as if it didn't exist. The criminal timer prevents you warping a ship while it ticks down. Using an alt to warp that ship for you in an orca then hopping into it while in space seems to be against what the criminal timer is for, so why does it even exist? No you're not avoiding them.
The criminal timer means you are to be shot on sight, in any ship in high sec. It does not stop you boarding them. If it were meant to do that, it would.
Just because you are trying to equate your ideals on top of the criminal timer, doesn't change the fact they are not avoid the consequences of it.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
27
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:35:14 -
[40] - Quote
If we want the policy changed, all we have to do is hyperdunk Chribba in his Veldnaught...
CCP would reverse position on this faster than Concord could respond.  |
|
|
Mag's
the united
18870
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:38:12 -
[41] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:If we want the policy changed, all we have to do is hyperdunk Chribba in his Veldnaught... CCP would reverse position on this faster than Concord could respond. You win the Darwin award for best post this month.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
710
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:41:09 -
[42] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Fit a tank
I don't believe you know how this works. In the slightest.
Or did you find a way to ninja an ACTIVE tank onto a freighter?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24760
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:41:27 -
[43] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:If we want the policy changed, all we have to do is hyperdunk Chribba in his Veldnaught... Excellent. Given the repping capacity of a Revelation, the policy will remain until the end of time, as it should. 
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
1482
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:45:45 -
[44] - Quote
The reply from CCP Falcon is welcome.
There should be no ambiguity in this matter.
However. If CCP decide this is not only unintended, but also not desirable or balanced, and make it an exploit later, Then no one will be in any doubt of the matter.
If this is used in a self restrained manner then it is unlikely to need such attention.
we will see if self restraint is shown by the community.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9512
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:48:14 -
[45] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: Considering one of the driving factors for the removal of input broadcasting was preventing people from being able to solo gank large ships and structures with ease, this seems like the exact opposite.
Hey, I get to post my 1st ever "Citation Needed" thing.
So....Citation...It is required.
|
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
1923
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:49:29 -
[46] - Quote
An announcment of CCP not ******* up, and olympic grade mental gymnastics from carebears, all in one thread. I approve.
In my day, we used to call this toasting in an epic bread.
Witty Image - Stream
Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
|
Callic Veratar
654
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:52:11 -
[47] - Quote
I think I'll have to start looking for hyperdunkers and start collecting their abandoned ships. |
Powers Sa
1389
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:57:30 -
[48] - Quote
There is absolutely no NEW MECHANIC.
It's just an abandoned tactic called boomeranging that was repurposed when concord was patched to prevent you from warping.
So you could call it a new tactic.
Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk
Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4969
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 18:58:11 -
[49] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:The consequences of having a GCC are that you explode at the hands of Concord when you board a ship or undock in one, which is exactly what happens when you use this tactic. But that's not the only consequence. You are unable to warp for a reason. Why even bother having that restriction if it can just be bypassed?
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:If the purpose of the GCC timer was to completely shut you down, then you wouldn't be able to board a ship while under a GCC timer. And you shouldn't be able to. Clearly it is supposed to shut you down. Even the OP call it "unintended".
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Your point is what exactly? That you're supposed to get a 15 minute timer for a gank. Instead you get a 2 minute timer if you gank 2 minutes after your first one.
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:This has always been the case, using an Orca to reship during a POS bash is an old trick for example. If you don't want your ship or structure to be solo ganked then you take steps to protect it. I don't disagree, but then the gankers should also have to put some bloody effort in. This means they can just chuck as many 2m isk catalysts at a target as they need.
To be honest it's pointless arguing with someone like you because you're not interested in what's fair and balanced gameplay.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9512
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:02:03 -
[50] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I don't disagree, but then the gankers should also have to put some bloody effort in.
There it is. the underlying emotion based 'reasoning' behind an unreasonable worldview. "But, but, the other guy should have to work as hard as I think I am too!!!! It's not FAIR!!!" This thinking is at the core all every single anti ganking, scamming and afk-cloking post ever posted. Kind of a screwed up video game egalitarianism. |
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4969
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:03:06 -
[51] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Mag's wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:So why is it not considered an exploit considering you are avoiding the entire consequence of having the criminal timer. Because they are not avoiding them. Of course you are. They may as well have the criminal timer expire once concord blows up their ship and replace it with a suspect timer if they are still allowed to freely operate as if it didn't exist. The criminal timer prevents you warping a ship while it ticks down. Using an alt to warp that ship for you in an orca then hopping into it while in space seems to be against what the criminal timer is for, so why does it even exist? No you're not avoiding them. The criminal timer means you are to be shot on sight, in any ship in high sec. It does not stop you boarding them. If it were meant to do that, it would. Just because you are trying to equate your ideals on top of the criminal timer, doesn't change the fact they are not avoid the consequences of it. It's avoiding the consequence, which is supposed to be a 15 minute criminal timer. Using the orca to reship it's effectively a short criminal timer then what is in essence a suspect timer. And it's only possible because for CCP to keep load down on a server they move concord if it's available in the system rather than spawning a new concord response. It's lazy code and a workaround of the mechanics which means you can solo gank basically anything with the cheapest possible ships, making ganking even further lacking in consequence. Empty freighters are already killboard green. Now solo players can farm these themselves. People like yourself go on about how this game is supposed to be harsh so when the **** is it going to be harsh for you.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
15980
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:03:32 -
[52] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Since the introduction of the Bowhead freighter, weGÇÖve become aware of a tactic that has been introduced which has become known as GÇ£HyperdunkingGÇ¥. This involves leaving a grid where a criminal action occurs to draw away CONCORD and reshipping to continue shooting at a target. ThereGÇÖs been much discussion among members of the community regarding this tactic, and whether or not it is considered legitimate gameplay.
After meeting with members of the game design and customer support teams and discussing this in depth, we have come to the consensus that due to the fact no rules are being broken and any ship that is involved in a criminal act is being destroyed by CONCORD as intended, that this tactic is simply an unintended but legitimate use of new game mechanics, and is not in breach of the rules. Tactics similar to this have been used with previous hulls before the Bowhead was introduced, and have been considered perfectly legitimate in the past.
With this in mind, at this time we do not consider this tactic to be in breach of the game rules, and as such our customer support team will not be offering reimbursements for hulls lost in this manner.
Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage.
Thank you for transparently communicating this decision, and thank you again for keeping the faith.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9512
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:04:40 -
[53] - Quote
Crumplecorn wrote:An announcment of CCP not ******* up, and olympic grade mental gymnastics from carebears, all in one thread. I approve.
In my day, we used to call this toasting in an epic bread.
1st of all, Toast is deleicious
2ndly, yes, I too approve. And while watching "Olympic grade mental gymnastics" )from people who just need to warp reality to get their thoughts to fit) is entertaining for a while, it's get's old fast 
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4969
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:05:03 -
[54] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:I don't disagree, but then the gankers should also have to put some bloody effort in. There it is. the underlying emotion based 'reasoning' behind an unreasonable worldview. "But, but, the other guy should have to work as hard as I think I am too!!!! It's not FAIR!!!" This thinking is at the core all every single anti ganking, scamming and afk-cloking post ever posted. Kind of a screwed up video game egalitarianism. Of course they should have to work for it. I'm fed up of listening to CODE players going on and on and on about how easy the carebears have it while ganking is insanely easy, nearly risk free and without consequence. Now it's officially easy to solo gank basically any ship. Excuse me if I thought this is EVE Online where the game is supposed to take a modicum of effort.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eojek
Starlight Moly
56
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:07:38 -
[55] - Quote
Just a suggestion about Hyperdunkers, who also generate a killright.
Sell the kill rights publicly for 0 ISK.
A mechanic I would impliment is being auto-booted out of newbiecorp if that same account is constantly being used for piracy. The ganker would have to plop down 30 bucks for a new account as they ruined the reputation of their old account. More money for CCP's coffers.
A more severe measure is labeling an IP as pirate. The account or IP must eventually join a pirate corporation be forced start in Nulsec, and thereby, place the player in it's own natural environment of internet-spaceship hell.
I'm amazed CONCORD or empires don't impound ships, or even capsules, forcing the perma-pirate to clone-jump back to Nul-Sec. Yes the offender can dock, but they cannot gain benefit from a society who'se ideals the pirate themselves holds in contempt. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24764
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:07:38 -
[56] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:But that's not the only consequence. You are unable to warp for a reason. Why even bother having that restriction if it can just be bypassed? It's not being bypassed. The reason it's there is to ensure you can't warp off and lead CONCORD on a snipe hunt while the timer ticks down. That is not what's happening. The timer and the no-warp effect is doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing.
Quote:And you shouldn't be able to. Clearly it is supposed to shut you down. Even the OP call it "unintended". Why shouldn't it? And no, the OP did not call it GÇ£unintendedGÇ¥ that you can swap ships GÇö what's unintended is that they didn't plan for this to happen. Same as can flipping. Same as can mining. Same as web-sling warping. Same as mwd-cloak warps. Same as any of the emergent tactics that have been discovered in the game, and which have been allowed (and even actively maintained) once they've figured that they don't actually break any rules.
Quote:That you're supposed to get a 15 minute timer for a gank. Instead you get a 2 minute timer if you gank 2 minutes after your first one. No. You get a 15 minute timer that resets for every new aggression. Just as intended.
Quote:I don't disagree, but then the gankers should also have to put some bloody effort in. They are. Chucking as many Catalysts at a target as needed to kill it is vastly more effort than is required of the target. This is the worrying trend in ganking: gankers are forced to put more and more and more effort in, and the feebleminded whiners are never satisfied and refuse to put even the slightest bit of effort in themselves. That is frankly pathetic, as is any claim that ganking takes no effort.
The gankers are working their asses off to think up new strategies and perfecting them. The hapless victims just cry. Why can't the victims put even an ounce of effort GÇö bloody or not GÇö in towards preventing these trivially avoidable events?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
434
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:09:28 -
[57] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:If we want the policy changed, all we have to do is hyperdunk Chribba in his Veldnaught... CCP would reverse position on this faster than Concord could respond. Going by past occurrences of him being killed Chribba would probably say "GF" in local, and that would be the end of it as far as he's concerned.
afkalt wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Fit a tank I don't believe you know how this works. In the slightest. Or did you find a way to ninja an ACTIVE tank onto a freighter? Try quoting the whole post next time so as to not look like a fool, it was an answer to a question that specifically referred to mining, as such it has precisely nothing to do with freighters.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Alli Ginthur
The Mjolnir Bloc
The Bloc
25
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:10:02 -
[58] - Quote
Eojek wrote:Just a suggestion about Hyperdunkers, who also generate a killright.
Sell the kill rights publicly for 0 ISK.
A mechanic I would impliment is being auto-booted out of newbiecorp if that same account is constantly being used for piracy. The ganker would have to plop down 30 bucks for a new account as they ruined the reputation of their old account. More money for CCP's coffers.
A more severe measure is labeling an IP as pirate. The account or IP must eventually join a pirate corporation be forced start in Nulsec, and thereby, place the player in it's own natural environment of internet-spaceship hell.
I'm amazed CONCORD or empires don't impound ships, or even capsules, forcing the perma-pirate to clone-jump back to Nul-Sec. Yes the offender can dock, but they cannot gain benefit from a society who'se ideals the pirate themselves holds in contempt.
More than likely, the dunker will be at -10 or close anyway, so you can shoot him on sight regardless of kill right.
And just no to the rest. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24764
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:11:01 -
[59] - Quote
Eojek wrote:A mechanic I would impliment is being auto-booted out of newbiecorp if that same account is constantly being used for piracy. The ganker would have to plop down 30 bucks for a new account as they ruined the reputation of their old account. More money for CCP's coffers.
A more severe measure is labeling an IP as pirate. The account or IP must eventually join a pirate corporation be forced start in Nulsec, and thereby, place the player in it's own natural environment of internet-spaceship hell.
I'm amazed CONCORD or empires don't impound ships, or even capsules, forcing the perma-pirate to clone-jump back to Nul-Sec. Yes the offender can dock, but they cannot gain benefit from a society who'se ideals the pirate themselves holds in contempt.
Why on earth should any of that happen? And I'm not even commenting on the nonsensical first part since that is already in the game.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9515
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:11:48 -
[60] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:I don't disagree, but then the gankers should also have to put some bloody effort in. There it is. the underlying emotion based 'reasoning' behind an unreasonable worldview. "But, but, the other guy should have to work as hard as I think I am too!!!! It's not FAIR!!!" This thinking is at the core all every single anti ganking, scamming and afk-cloking post ever posted. Kind of a screwed up video game egalitarianism. Of course they should have to work for it. I'm fed up of listening to CODE players going on and on and on about how easy the carebears have it while ganking is insanely easy, nearly risk free and without consequence. Now it's officially easy to solo gank basically any ship. Excuse me if I thought this is EVE Online where the game is supposed to take a modicum of effort.
Thanks for proving my point Emotional bro. I know you're just thinking of the children though
Or did you think that CCP would forever coddle you and the rest of the complainers? Eventually, things have to balance out. instead of whining about it on a forum, why aren't you theory crafting ways to turns this back on the gankers and make them feel bad (that you can then post and otherwise teach to people who would be targets of this tactic)? That's how I deal with gankers (and afk-cloakers et al), out think them before undocking.
Oh yea, that's right, too much EFFORT to actually play the game, much easier to metagame the situation by lobbying CCP to fix it for you. Right?
|
|
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
8664
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:13:35 -
[61] - Quote
*popcorn*
"I'm also quite confident that you are laughing
and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers."
=]I[=
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
15985
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:14:07 -
[62] - Quote
Crumplecorn wrote:An announcment of CCP not ******* up, and olympic grade mental gymnastics from carebears, all in one thread. I approve.
In my day, we used to call this toasting in an epic bread.
In this case, the bread in question would presumably be sourdough?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:15:08 -
[63] - Quote
Tippia wrote:They are. Chucking as many Catalysts at a target as needed to kill it is vastly more effort than is required of the target. This is the worrying trend in ganking: gankers are forced to put more and more and more effort in, and the feebleminded whiners are never satisfied and refuse to put even the slightest bit of effort in themselves. That is frankly pathetic, as is any claim that ganking takes no effort.
The gankers are working their asses off to think up new strategies and perfecting them. The hapless victims just cry. Why can't the victims put even an ounce of effort GÇö bloody or not GÇö in towards preventing these trivially avoidable events? You have a warped sense of what constitutes effort. You seem to be under the impression that a freighter should need to fly with an armada to defend it while a bumper, and orca and a handful of catalysts is enough to gank almost any ship regardless of how much tank is fit.
Honestly I'm done with listening to layer like you crying to no end about how nothing should ever be changed to make your lives harder while everyone else should need to put in more effort, then more effort, then even more effort, just to not die. Gankers are by far the most carebear types of players in the whole game. They don't want effort, they don't want risk, and they demand the game is always changing in favour of their playstyle.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
710
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:16:27 -
[64] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:If we want the policy changed, all we have to do is hyperdunk Chribba in his Veldnaught... CCP would reverse position on this faster than Concord could respond. Going by past occurrences of him being killed Chribba would probably say "GF" in local, and that would be the end of it as far as he's concerned. afkalt wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Fit a tank I don't believe you know how this works. In the slightest. Or did you find a way to ninja an ACTIVE tank onto a freighter? Try quoting the whole post next time so as to not look like a fool, it was an answer to a question that specifically referred to mining, as such it has precisely nothing to do with freighters.
Tell me again how a buffer can help this.
Or do you fit barges with active tanks? >snicker< |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:17:11 -
[65] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:I don't disagree, but then the gankers should also have to put some bloody effort in. There it is. the underlying emotion based 'reasoning' behind an unreasonable worldview. "But, but, the other guy should have to work as hard as I think I am too!!!! It's not FAIR!!!" This thinking is at the core all every single anti ganking, scamming and afk-cloking post ever posted. Kind of a screwed up video game egalitarianism. Of course they should have to work for it. I'm fed up of listening to CODE players going on and on and on about how easy the carebears have it while ganking is insanely easy, nearly risk free and without consequence. Now it's officially easy to solo gank basically any ship. Excuse me if I thought this is EVE Online where the game is supposed to take a modicum of effort. Thanks for proving my point Emotional bro. I know you're just thinking of the children though Or did you think that CCP would forever coddle you and the rest of the complainers? Eventually, things have to balance out. instead of whining about it on a forum, why aren't you theory crafting ways to turns this back on the gankers and make them feel bad (that you can then post and otherwise teach to people who would be targets of this tactic)? That's how I deal with gankers (and afk-cloakers et al), out think them before undocking. Oh yea, that's right, too much EFFORT to actually play the game, much easier to metagame the situation by lobbying CCP to fix it for you. Right? So what you're saying is no, gankers should not have to put in effort. Only the defenders should have to.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
15985
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:21:33 -
[66] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Tippia wrote:They are. Chucking as many Catalysts at a target as needed to kill it is vastly more effort than is required of the target. This is the worrying trend in ganking: gankers are forced to put more and more and more effort in, and the feebleminded whiners are never satisfied and refuse to put even the slightest bit of effort in themselves. That is frankly pathetic, as is any claim that ganking takes no effort.
The gankers are working their asses off to think up new strategies and perfecting them. The hapless victims just cry. Why can't the victims put even an ounce of effort GÇö bloody or not GÇö in towards preventing these trivially avoidable events? You have a warped sense of what constitutes effort. You seem to be under the impression that a freighter should need to fly with an armada to defend it while a bumper, and orca and a handful of catalysts is enough to gank almost any ship regardless of how much tank is fit. Honestly I'm done with listening to layer like you crying to no end about how nothing should ever be changed to make your lives harder while everyone else should need to put in more effort, then more effort, then even more effort, just to not die. Gankers are by far the most carebear types of players in the whole game. They don't want effort, they don't want risk, and they demand the game is always changing in favour of their playstyle.
What was the last thing that CCP changed to make Freighter piloting harder?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Mag's
the united
18874
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:22:21 -
[67] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Mag's wrote:No you're not avoiding them.
The criminal timer means you are to be shot on sight, in any ship in high sec. It does not stop you boarding them. If it were meant to do that, it would.
Just because you are trying to equate your ideals on top of the criminal timer, doesn't change the fact they are not avoid the consequences of it. It's avoiding the consequence, which is supposed to be a 15 minute criminal timer. Using the orca to reship it's effectively a short criminal timer then what is in essence a suspect timer. And it's only possible because for CCP to keep load down on a server they move concord if it's available in the system rather than spawning a new concord response. It's lazy code and a workaround of the mechanics which means you can solo gank basically anything with the cheapest possible ships, making ganking even further lacking in consequence. Empty freighters are already killboard green. Now solo players can farm these themselves. People like yourself go on about how this game is supposed to be harsh so when the **** is it going to be harsh for you. You are wrong, but you'll never accept it. You're not even offering any argument that backs up your claim.
There is little point in continuing this discussion with you. I just enjoy being right and knowing you are wrong.
Have a great evening.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
710
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:23:26 -
[68] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:So what you're saying is no, gankers should not have to put in effort. Only the defenders should have to.
No they definitely do, the key thing here is that no amount of tanking matters any more, if it is not active/regenerative.
It will be more economical to fit and rig it for warp speed and use a pair of guardians instead of traditional buffer. |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
436
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:25:37 -
[69] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:But that's not the only consequence. You are unable to warp for a reason. Why even bother having that restriction if it can just be bypassed? The reason that you are unable to warp is clear, it's so that you can't use the same ship to gank multiple targets before Concord makes your ship explode. The restriction isn't being bypassed, hyperdunking doesn't allow you to gank multiple targets before Concord makes your ship explode.
Quote:And you shouldn't be able to. Clearly it is supposed to shut you down. Even the OP call it "unintended". If CCP intended that you shouldn't be able to board a ship while under GCC they would have coded it that way. What the GCC does is shut down your ability to warp and every ship that you do board or undock in explodes at the hand of Concord.
Quote:That you're supposed to get a 15 minute timer for a gank. Instead you get a 2 minute timer if you gank 2 minutes after your first one. Lets not forget that this is a single gank, it's not multiple ganks and if anything people who hyperdunk are actually extending the GCC timer beyond that which is necessary when ganking with multiple pilots
Quote:I don't disagree, but then the gankers should also have to put some bloody effort in. This means they can just chuck as many 2m isk catalysts at a target as they need. Where are you getting this 2M Catalyst fit from, most gankers use T2 fit Catalysts which cost 4X that. As for effort, the gankers are putting a damn sight more effort into their gameplay than their hapless targets that choose to fly billions of ISK through known ganking hotspots
Quote:To be honest it's pointless arguing with someone like you because you're not interested in what's fair and balanced gameplay. Au contraire, I'm all about balanced gameplay; it's people like you who seek to make it unbalanced in favour of those who fail to use the existing mechanics to protect their stuff from others that would like to relieve them of it.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
8664
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:25:58 -
[70] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:So what you're saying is no, gankers should not have to put in effort. Only the defenders should have to.
No they definitely do, the key thing here is that no amount of tanking matters any more, if it is not active/regenerative. It will be more economical to fit and rig it for warp speed and use a pair of guardians instead of traditional buffer.
or a mate in a daredevil
"I'm also quite confident that you are laughing
and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers."
=]I[=
|
|
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9519
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:26:15 -
[71] - Quote
Tippia wrote:They are. Chucking as many Catalysts at a target as needed to kill it is vastly more effort than is required of the target. This is the worrying trend in ganking: gankers are forced to put more and more and more effort in, and the feebleminded whiners are never satisfied and refuse to put even the slightest bit of effort in themselves. That is frankly pathetic, as is any claim that ganking takes no effort.
This is just who they are. it's like real life. Something happens, someone screams "we need a law" and a law is passed, it happens again, people think "that didn't work, we need more laws" and more laws get passed" And again and again till half your population is in jail and it STILL happens because law was the wrong tool for the job, education, creativity and self reliance-knowing when and how to group with others in opposition would have been better tools.
The game has always had enough tool to totally defeat everything these people have complained about, yet they do nothing, because they don't want tools, they want fixes.
Quote:
The gankers are working their asses off to think up new strategies and perfecting them. The hapless victims just cry. Why can't the victims put even an ounce of effort GÇö bloody or not GÇö in towards preventing these trivially avoidable events?
The coolest thing about EVE is that you get to see human nature in action. You get to see what happens you you put creative, strong willed , ruthless self motivated people up against happless "victim mentality" entitled morons. Hilarity always follows, usually in fine ALOD form.
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
349
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:27:03 -
[72] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:So what you're saying is no, gankers should not have to put in effort. Only the defenders should have to.
Goonie tears best tears
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9519
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:27:10 -
[73] - Quote
This seems appropriate |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24771
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:28:32 -
[74] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:You have a warped sense of what constitutes effort. Yes, GÇ£some > noneGÇ¥ is a really out-of-this-world concept, I know.
Quote:You seem to be under the impression that a freighter should need to fly with an armada to defend it while a bumper, and orca and a handful of catalysts is enough to gank almost any ship regardless of how much tank is fit. No. I am under the impression that ganks are trivially easy to avoid GÇö an impression I've gathered over 7 years of flying them. I am under the impression that if there is a tactic aimed towards me, I need to come up with a tactic to counter it. I am under the impression that three people coordinating the way that's required for this type of gank is more than a single target, and that the single target should therefore be at a severe disadvantage should he be so silly enough as to fall afoul of it. I am also under the impression that adding even a single person as support is a fair cost for some safety GÇö that's all that's needed after all.
Quote:Honestly I'm done with listening to layer like you crying to no end about how nothing should ever be changed to make your lives harder while everyone else should need to put in more effort, then more effort, then even more effort, just to not die. I want my life to be made harder. It has only been made easer and easer and easer due to the crying and whining of idiots who utterly refuse to lift a finger to protect themselves. Meanwhile, my opposition has had to evolve and adapt and think and work harder every time the rules have changed. I am utterly delighted that my life will not be made easier by having this tactic disallowed.
Quote:Gankers are by far the most carebear types of players in the whole game. They don't want effort, they don't want risk, and they demand the game is always changing in favour of their playstyle.
You are clueless. That is the only way to describe it. You are 100% ignorant of the concept of GÇ£carebearGÇ¥. You are 100% ignorant of the concepts of risk, effort, and GÇ£changing in favour ofGÇ¥. You are describing a situation that is in every way 100% contrary to how the game has developed over the years and who has made it happen that way.
This one time GÇö just once GÇö the gankers did not have to put in even more effort, accept even more risk, and have the game change against them yet again. This is just and proper and about bloody time. If the game ever actually changed to make the lives of us freighter pilots more difficult, then what you said might apply. It has not happened once during my years in EVE. Should it ever happen, I'd be absolutely giddy because it would put some fun back in the business. Until then, what you just said is backwards nonsense, and you know it full well. This entire thread shows exactly who is demanding that the game continue to change in their favour, and it definitely isn't the gankers.
afkalt wrote:Tell me again how a buffer can help this. I know that this may be shocking news, but a tank will help you survive for longer. Longer is all you need.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
710
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:28:52 -
[75] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:afkalt wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:So what you're saying is no, gankers should not have to put in effort. Only the defenders should have to.
No they definitely do, the key thing here is that no amount of tanking matters any more, if it is not active/regenerative. It will be more economical to fit and rig it for warp speed and use a pair of guardians instead of traditional buffer. or a mate in a daredevil
Hyena is better. Some gates spit you out miles apart and that can be enough to get you bowled. |
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
1927
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:28:59 -
[76] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:You have a warped sense of what constitutes effort. You seem to be under the impression that a freighter should need to fly with an armada to defend it while a bumper, and orca and a handful of catalysts is enough to gank almost any ship regardless of how much tank is fit. You need an armada to kill a 'handful of catalysts'? Oh, you mean, you need an armada to kill a handful of catalysts. Yeah on that we probably agree.
Witty Image - Stream
Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:29:03 -
[77] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Tippia wrote:They are. Chucking as many Catalysts at a target as needed to kill it is vastly more effort than is required of the target. This is the worrying trend in ganking: gankers are forced to put more and more and more effort in, and the feebleminded whiners are never satisfied and refuse to put even the slightest bit of effort in themselves. That is frankly pathetic, as is any claim that ganking takes no effort.
The gankers are working their asses off to think up new strategies and perfecting them. The hapless victims just cry. Why can't the victims put even an ounce of effort GÇö bloody or not GÇö in towards preventing these trivially avoidable events? You have a warped sense of what constitutes effort. You seem to be under the impression that a freighter should need to fly with an armada to defend it while a bumper, and orca and a handful of catalysts is enough to gank almost any ship regardless of how much tank is fit. Honestly I'm done with listening to layer like you crying to no end about how nothing should ever be changed to make your lives harder while everyone else should need to put in more effort, then more effort, then even more effort, just to not die. Gankers are by far the most carebear types of players in the whole game. They don't want effort, they don't want risk, and they demand the game is always changing in favour of their playstyle. What was the last thing that CCP changed to make Freighter piloting harder? I would have thought as an EX-CSM member you'd have an eye for detail. Maybe that's why it's EX-. I didn't claim they made freighter piloting harder, though the warp changes made it as entertaining as playing pong without a paddle to fly a freighter any significant distances.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
710
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:30:49 -
[78] - Quote
Tippia wrote:afkalt wrote:Tell me again how a buffer can help this. I know that this may be shocking news, but a tank will help you survive for longer. Longer is all you need.
Apparently not any more. Go look at the Alex BlackDevil loss. Two bulkheads and one inertia stab. Killed by two people.
Took over 250k damage.
You're telling me a third bulkhead would have somehow stopped this?
Maybe if they hit downtime |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9519
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:30:51 -
[79] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:So what you're saying is no, gankers should not have to put in effort. Only the defenders should have to.
I'm saying what I always say. The other guys 'effort' level has nothing to do with my reality. My reality is that I can choose to be a victim (in a video game) or I can choose to fight (with my mind parts) and not be a victim while watching gankers break against my tank like waves hitting a beach. How many buttons they click has crap-all to do with this reality.
The above is why i succeed and have no need to whine about gankers where as others....not so much.
The problem isn't EVE, its your mindset. You are too concerned with what others are doing and with ideas of 'fairness' that have no place in this video game we're playing for fun. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
522
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:31:19 -
[80] - Quote
Eojek wrote:A mechanic I would impliment is being auto-booted out of newbiecorp if that same account is constantly being used for piracy. The ganker would have to plop down 30 bucks for a new account as they ruined the reputation of their old account. More money for CCP's coffers.
A more severe measure is labeling an IP as pirate. The account or IP must eventually join a pirate corporation be forced start in Nulsec, and thereby, place the player in it's own natural environment of internet-spaceship hell.
I'm amazed CONCORD or empires don't impound ships, or even capsules, forcing the perma-pirate to clone-jump back to Nul-Sec. Yes the offender can dock, but they cannot gain benefit from a society who'se ideals the pirate themselves holds in contempt.
Friend, let me let you in on a secret: CCP put suicide ganking into the game on purpose! Yes, it's true!
CCP has spent a lot of work implementing the Crimewatch, security status, standings and CONCORD systems to allow highsec criminals engaging in piracy and general mayhem to make the game play more interesting. They are not going to start banning accounts for people engaging in intended game play.
This is a competitive sandbox set in a dystopian, war-plagued universe, not a peaceful, happy future where we all hold hands and get along. But don't worry, CCP has given you plenty of tools to protect yourself, so use them and actually play the game.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
|
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
349
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:31:21 -
[81] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I would have thought as an EX-CSM member you'd have an eye for detail. Maybe that's why it's EX-. I didn't claim they made freighter piloting harder, though the warp changes made it as entertaining as playing pong without a paddle to fly a freighter any significant distances.
SMAs suck metric is just plummeting right now |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:31:40 -
[82] - Quote
Crumplecorn wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:You have a warped sense of what constitutes effort. You seem to be under the impression that a freighter should need to fly with an armada to defend it while a bumper, and orca and a handful of catalysts is enough to gank almost any ship regardless of how much tank is fit. You need an armada to kill a 'handful of catalysts'? Oh, you mean, you need an armada to kill a handful of catalysts. Yeah on that we probably agree. If catalysts were the only threat to freighters perhaps you'd have a point. Even just to get away you need at least enough firepower to gank the bumper, otherwise that freighter isn't likely to be going anywhere.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9519
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:31:58 -
[83] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Tippia wrote:afkalt wrote:Tell me again how a buffer can help this. I know that this may be shocking news, but a tank will help you survive for longer. Longer is all you need. Apparently not any more. Go look at the Alex BlackDevil loss. Two bulkheads and one inertia stab. Killed by two people. Took over 250k damage. You're telling me a third bulkhead would have somehow stopped this? Maybe if they hit downtime
Maybe not, but friends (even alt friends) might have.
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
13954
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:32:36 -
[84] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:If we want the policy changed, all we have to do is hyperdunk Chribba in his Veldnaught... CCP would reverse position on this faster than Concord could respond. Going by past occurrences of him being killed Chribba would probably say "GF" in local, and that would be the end of it as far as he's concerned. Someone pulling this off using Catalysts would surely be getting a GF and tip of my hat in local.
While it wouldn't be much a display compared to a 200 pilot fleet doing an alpha...
(and if everyone pitched in perhaps even the Veldy and its wreck would become a permanent one yay \o/ )
/c
GÿàGÿàGÿà Secure 3rd party service GÿàGÿàGÿà
Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'
Twitter @Chribba
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:33:07 -
[85] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:I would have thought as an EX-CSM member you'd have an eye for detail. Maybe that's why it's EX-. I didn't claim they made freighter piloting harder, though the warp changes made it as entertaining as playing pong without a paddle to fly a freighter any significant distances. SMAs suck metric is just plummeting right now I'm not sure whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. I supposed if it's a metric for how much we suck, that's a good thing that it's going down?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24771
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:34:01 -
[86] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I would have thought as an EX-CSM member you'd have an eye for detail. Maybe that's why it's EX-. I didn't claim they made freighter piloting harder, though the warp changes made it as entertaining as playing pong without a paddle to fly a freighter any significant distances.
This explains a lot. The warp changes sped up freighter runs by a fair margin. The introduction of slots increased it to the point where it can't really be called a margin any more.
afkalt wrote:Apparently not any more. Go look at the Alex BlackDevil loss. Two bulkheads and one inertia stab. Killed by two people.
Took over 250k damage.
You're telling me a third bulkhead would have somehow stopped this? No, but adding some intelligence would have helped.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9519
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:34:02 -
[87] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Eojek wrote:A mechanic I would impliment is being auto-booted out of newbiecorp if that same account is constantly being used for piracy. The ganker would have to plop down 30 bucks for a new account as they ruined the reputation of their old account. More money for CCP's coffers.
A more severe measure is labeling an IP as pirate. The account or IP must eventually join a pirate corporation be forced start in Nulsec, and thereby, place the player in it's own natural environment of internet-spaceship hell.
I'm amazed CONCORD or empires don't impound ships, or even capsules, forcing the perma-pirate to clone-jump back to Nul-Sec. Yes the offender can dock, but they cannot gain benefit from a society who'se ideals the pirate themselves holds in contempt. Friend, let me let you in on a secret: CCP put suicide ganking into the game on purpose! Yes, it's true! CCP has spent a lot of work implementing the Crimewatch, security status, standings and CONCORD systems to allow highsec criminals engaging in piracy and general mayhem to make the game play more interesting. They are not going to start banning accounts for people engaging in intended game play. This is a competitive sandbox set in a dystopian, war-plagued universe, not a peaceful, happy future where we all hold hands and get along. But don't worry, CCP has given you plenty of tools to protect yourself, so use them and actually play the game.
Ahhh, that's so sweet, ole Black Pedro offering advice to people who want INTERVENTION not advice
|
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
1927
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:34:06 -
[88] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:If catalysts were the only threat to freighters perhaps you'd have a point. Even just to get away you need at least enough firepower to gank the bumper, otherwise that freighter isn't likely to be going anywhere. Not if you're piloting it anyway. Meanwhile, everyone else (who is at the keyboard) sails merrily past not being bumped in the first place.
Witty Image - Stream
Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
436
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:34:15 -
[89] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Tell me again how a buffer can help this.
Or do you fit barges with active tanks? >snicker< Buffer tanking a barge works fine thanks. Even a lowly Retriever mining in a 0.5 can be fitted in a way that will thwart the efforts of a solo ganker in a T2 fitted Catalyst; if a ganker wants to kill one that's been fitted properly, it's going to cost them 2 Catalysts, at least one of which has to be T2 fitted.
That makes it an undesirable target, especially when there's plenty of miners out there who think a small shield booster is an effective tank.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
350
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:36:12 -
[90] - Quote
Bumping just to harass someone is against the EULA. If you're getting ganked in this fashion and perpetually bumped, bring one pilot with any remote repair and negate the incoming damage. If they continue to bump you despite "losing" the gank, report them.
Problem solved!
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:36:50 -
[91] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:I'm saying what I always say. The other guys 'effort' level has nothing to do with my reality. My reality is that I can choose to be a victim (in a video game) or I can choose to fight (with my mind parts) and not be a victim while watching gankers break against my tank like waves hitting a beach. How many buttons they click has crap-all to do with this reality.
The above is why i succeed and have no need to whine about gankers where as others....not so much.
The problem isn't EVE, its your mindset. You are too concerned with what others are doing and with ideas of 'fairness' that have no place in this video game we're playing for fun. Oh OK, then what you are saying is that you don't care about balance in the game. So why involve yourself in the discussion? Go off and not be a victim somewhere else. As it stand the game is considerably unbalanced in favour of gankers and CODE are continuously pushing for it to tilt even more in their favour.
And I have no "need" to "whine" about gankers. I don't undock in highsec. That doesn't mean I can't get involved in discussions about the direction the game is heading.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Argent Rotineque
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:39:55 -
[92] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
Friend, let me let you in on a secret: CCP put suicide ganking into the game on purpose! Yes, it's true!
CCP has spent a lot of work implementing the Crimewatch, security status, standings and CONCORD systems to allow highsec criminals engaging in piracy and general mayhem to make the game play more interesting. They are not going to start banning accounts for people engaging in intended game play.
This is a competitive sandbox set in a dystopian, war-plagued universe, not a peaceful, happy future where we all hold hands and get along. But don't worry, CCP has given you plenty of tools to protect yourself, so use them and actually play the game.
I don't think any of those concerned about "hyperdunking" take issue with suicide ganking, rather it's the difficulty of forcefully stopping a neutral bump tackle and relatively small number of player accounts required to gank any ship that cause the concern. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:40:24 -
[93] - Quote
Crumplecorn wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:If catalysts were the only threat to freighters perhaps you'd have a point. Even just to get away you need at least enough firepower to gank the bumper, otherwise that freighter isn't likely to be going anywhere. Not if you're piloting it anyway. Meanwhile, everyone else (who is at the keyboard) sails merrily past not being bumped in the first place. Except now that it legally only takes one ganker, there's a whole bunch of extra character to bump even more people. A group of 12 who used to bump and gank a freighter for example can now bump and gank 4 without worry of being banned. With the amount of gankers usually in the Amarr -> Jita pipe they can pretty much camp all the gates.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Archeras Umangiar
Delian Legion
Legion's.
3
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:41:16 -
[94] - Quote
i love you falcon <3 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24775
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:41:40 -
[95] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Oh OK, then what you are saying is that you don't care about balance in the game. So why involve yourself in the discussion? No, that's what you're saying and it raises the question of why you're involved here.
Why are you so hell-bent on making the game more and more unbalanced? Why are you so adamantly against one side having to put in any kind of effort or strategy? Why do you seem to want to utterly eradicate a play style, all because that one side is determined to remain a perma-victim?
Quote:And I have no "need" to "whine" about gankers. So why are you?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
710
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:43:00 -
[96] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:afkalt wrote:Tippia wrote:afkalt wrote:Tell me again how a buffer can help this. I know that this may be shocking news, but a tank will help you survive for longer. Longer is all you need. Apparently not any more. Go look at the Alex BlackDevil loss. Two bulkheads and one inertia stab. Killed by two people. Took over 250k damage. You're telling me a third bulkhead would have somehow stopped this? Maybe if they hit downtime Maybe not, but friends (even alt friends) might have.
Of course friends would have, they ALWAYS will. The point I'm making is this is a game changer. Buffer doesnt mean jack any more, the standing advice of fit a tank is all but dead. Bring long webs and bring reps. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24775
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:44:05 -
[97] - Quote
Argent Rotineque wrote:I don't think any of those concerned about "hyperdunking" take issue with suicide ganking, rather it's the difficulty of forcefully stopping a neutral bump tackle and relatively small number of player accounts required to gank any ship that cause the concern.
They all take issue with suicide ganking. Scrape away the thin veneer of GÇ£think of the childrenGÇ¥-style reasoning, and it comes down to the same thing: they want it gone because they refuse to do anything about it themselves.
Stopping a chain-gank is easy exactly because the number of accounts is so small.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:44:11 -
[98] - Quote
Tippia wrote:This explains a lot. The warp changes sped up freighter runs by a fair margin. The introduction of slots increased it to the point where it can't really be called a margin any more. You're talking long system distances. Multi-jump short system runs take considerably longer. To use slots to reduce that you have to sacrifice tank. Tank is irrelevant now anyway, so I suppose that can be done.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9524
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:45:03 -
[99] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:
Oh OK, then what you are saying is that you don't care about balance in the game.
And typing that sentence means you are incapable of honesty, even in something as trivial as video game. That's a shame.
Quote:
So why involve yourself in the discussion? Go off and not be a victim somewhere else.
Lol, you're the one with the eternal victim mentality. Your posts reek of it.
Quote:
As it stand the game is considerably unbalanced in favour of gankers and CODE are continuously pushing for it to tilt even more in their favour.
This is exactly what is wrong with a lot of the community that makes suggestions about 'balance'. I'm sorry, but Emotion (such as hate and jealousy of a freaking imaginary in game terrorist group) is no reason to alter a video game's mechancs in favor of people who can't lift a single finger in their own defense.
---
This last part if pure Lucas Kell Gold.
Quote:
And I have no "need" to "whine" about gankers. I don't undock in highsec. That doesn't mean I can't get involved in discussions about the direction the game is heading.
This, after saying Quote:
So why involve yourself in the discussion?
I ACTUALLY PLAY in high sec lol. I'm not afraid to undock. And the real truth of the matter is that you are afraid that, after YEARS of CCP dragging the game down the disastrous 'think of the children' road you favor, it looks like the tide is turning and CCP might actually again start treating it's players like adults who should be figuring stuff out rather than kids who need protecting. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24778
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:46:10 -
[100] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:You're talking long system distances. Multi-jump short system runs take considerably longer. To use slots to reduce that you have to sacrifice tank. Tank is irrelevant now anyway, so I suppose that can be done.
I'm talking about your standard freighter run, which will be a mix of systems, but most of them offering double-digit AU distances between gates. If all you're doing is moving between stations in the same system, or between two neighbouring systems, then maybeGǪ but at that point, a freighter is hardly required anyway.
Like Jenn, and unlike you, I actually do this in highsec. Take it from someone who knows: travel is downright snappy these days.
WellGǪ unless you're using some stupid approach, but that's really your choice and your problem. Funny how that parallels being a target for ganks.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
|
|
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
1931
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:46:53 -
[101] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Except now that it legally only takes one ganker, there's a whole bunch of extra character to bump even more people. A group of 12 who used to bump and gank a freighter for example can now bump and gank 4 without worry of being banned. With the amount of gankers usually in the Amarr -> Jita pipe they can pretty much camp all the gates. Because characters are in such short supply in EVE....?
Everyone in a normal gank fleet could dual client a bumping mach, if they were so inclined. Or dual client a scout, which was more my thing.
Witty Image - Stream
Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
355
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:47:29 -
[102] - Quote
>is in corp named "Internet Terrorists"
>>floodgates break under the pressure of his tear flow about an easily countered highsec ganking tactic
SpaceMonkey's Alliance |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:48:18 -
[103] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Why are you so hell-bent on making the game more and more unbalanced? Why are you so adamantly against one side having to put in any kind of effort or strategy? Why do you seem to want to utterly eradicate a play style, all because that one side is determined to remain a perma-victim? How is it making the game more unbalanced? You know what, don't even bother answering. You're a troll, you've always been a troll and you'll always be a troll. You only care about making the game as tilted towards your playstyle regardless of the effect on other players. This announcement makes tanking irrelevant and means almost any ship can be solo ganked. If you can't see why that's unbalanced then you never will, it's as simple as that. I'm really not interested in debating with people like you, so any further response from yourself will be ignored as a troll post.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
439
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:48:34 -
[104] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:This is exactly what is wrong with a lot of the community that makes suggestions about 'balance'. I'm sorry, but Emotion (such as hate and jealousy of a freaking imaginary in game terrorist group) is no reason to alter a video game's mechancs in favor of people who can't won't lift a single finger in their own defense. FTFY Jenn, there's no can't about it, they simply won't, because they can't be arsed and want CCP to do it for them.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Bronopoly Crushingit
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:49:25 -
[105] - Quote
Tippia, what's your highest thread post percentage? Think you can account for 90% of the posts in this thread?
I BET YOU WON'T |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:49:47 -
[106] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:>is in corp named "Internet Terrorists" >>floodgates break under the pressure of his tear flow about an easily countered highsec ganking tactic SpaceMonkey's Alliance Indeed, this is the floodgates breaking because I believe in maintaining balance within EVE, and think that a decisions which makes almost any ship able to be solo ganked is against that.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9529
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:51:38 -
[107] - Quote
Bronopoly Crushingit wrote:Tippia, what's your highest thread post percentage? Think you can account for 90% of the posts in this thread?
I BET YOU WON'T
15%. That is soooo close to 90 it's not even funny dude!
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24778
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:53:28 -
[108] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:How is it making the game more unbalanced? This change isn't. That's the good news. You are arguing to ban yet another ganking strategy, thereby making the game more unbalanced.
Was that really so hard to understand?
Quote:You only care about making the game as tilted towards your playstyle regardless of the effect on other players. No. I care about the game being welcoming to all kinds of playstyles, including the ones that directly oppose mine (e.g. ganking). In fact, as mentioned, I'd rather like it if my opposition got a few boosts since they've been hammered over and over and over for ages. It's about time ganking got a whole bunch of buffs to counter-balance all of that GÇö that would be bring some much-needed balance to highsecGǪ
GǪand again, let me stress this: such a change would tilt the game against my playstyle.
Quote:This announcement makes tanking irrelevant and means almost any ship can be solo ganked. By very definition, this announcement has nothing to do with solo ganks. Maybe you should actually understand the topic before commenting, hmmGǪ?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9529
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:54:06 -
[109] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:>is in corp named "Internet Terrorists" >>floodgates break under the pressure of his tear flow about an easily countered highsec ganking tactic SpaceMonkey's Alliance Indeed, this is the floodgates breaking because I believe in maintaining balance within EVE, and think that a decisions which makes almost any ship able to be solo ganked is against that.
No, this is simply your standard prejudice (against ganking, and CODE and the like, it's nothing more than 'grr goons' wrapped up in words) rearing it's head again, as it does most of the time when you post. You can try to hide it behind some fake altruistic 'balance' idea, but everyone here has your number on these kinds of discussions. And you know it.
|
Siegfried Cohenberg
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:54:11 -
[110] - Quote
My reign of terror has been given the ok. |
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24778
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:54:52 -
[111] - Quote
Bronopoly Crushingit wrote:Tippia, what's your highest thread post percentage? Think you can account for 90% of the posts in this thread?
I BET YOU WON'T
I think the best I've seen is 100%, but that's because no-one else bothered to post. 
Besides that anomaly, I think I've peaked at ~30% in a proper thread once.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
27
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:55:17 -
[112] - Quote
Crumplecorn wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Except now that it legally only takes one ganker, there's a whole bunch of extra character to bump even more people. A group of 12 who used to bump and gank a freighter for example can now bump and gank 4 without worry of being banned. With the amount of gankers usually in the Amarr -> Jita pipe they can pretty much camp all the gates. Because characters are in such short supply in EVE....? Everyone in a normal gank fleet could dual client a bumping mach, if they were so inclined. Or dual client a scout, which was more my thing.
So what you are saying is Freighter pilots should have friends to help... but gankers shouldn't?
What a double standard |
Mag's
the united
18879
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:57:58 -
[113] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Crumplecorn wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Except now that it legally only takes one ganker, there's a whole bunch of extra character to bump even more people. A group of 12 who used to bump and gank a freighter for example can now bump and gank 4 without worry of being banned. With the amount of gankers usually in the Amarr -> Jita pipe they can pretty much camp all the gates. Because characters are in such short supply in EVE....? Everyone in a normal gank fleet could dual client a bumping mach, if they were so inclined. Or dual client a scout, which was more my thing. So what you are saying is Freighter pilots should have friends to help... but gankers shouldn't? What a double standard Two Darwin award posts in one thread. I think that's a record. 
Well played sir, well played.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
356
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:01:31 -
[114] - Quote
Stop picking on Lucas, guys, he clearly has no idea how this gank works.
If you're actually paying attention and this gank works on you, you deserve to lose everything. |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
441
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:01:50 -
[115] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:You're a troll, you've always been a troll and you'll always be a troll. Have you just looked in a mirror, because you just described yourself perfectly?
Quote:You only care about making the game as tilted towards your playstyle regardless of the effect on other players. You do realise that Tippia is about as far from being a ganker as you can get without being a carebear? His/her playstyle is one that is affected by things like ganking.
Quote:This announcement makes tanking irrelevant and means almost any ship can be solo ganked. No it doesn't make tanking irrelevant, especially if you choose to not load your freighter to the gunnels with isk, as for the rest of your statement, so what? A hyperdunker is still using the same amount of resources as a gank fleet, just in a different way.
Quote:If you can't see why that's unbalanced then you never will, it's as simple as that. You're talking about yourself again, are you sure you're not Veers?
Quote:I'm really not interested in debating with people like you, so any further response from yourself will be ignored as a troll post. You're not interesting in anything that challenges the way you view Eve, no change there. Speaking of trolls, maybe you should stop posting....
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
w1ndstrike
White Talon Holdings
15
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:03:11 -
[116] - Quote
while I agree the ruling is sound, and the tactic does not violate any rulings or evade game mechanics; as a trader this concerns me because of the implications if restraint isn't shown when using the tactic.
highsec ganking does actually contribute to the health of the game by increasing the difference in value of items in different locations, however something like this if done without restraint can have large negative impacts on the costs of doing business for traders.
so please gankers, don't overuse this, pick your targets.
the bad game design in this case looks more to be the ability to keep a freighter out of warp by bumping it continuously than it is any of the mechanics in use by the pilots actually applying damage in the gank. since there is nothing that can be done on the freighter pilot's end to combat the tactic (usually counter-bumping is next to impossible, and requires an alt) |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
356
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:04:03 -
[117] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:You're a troll, you've always been a troll and you'll always be a troll. Have you just looked in a mirror, because you just described yourself perfectly?
Wow, no wonder CCP doesn't actually read through past the first two pages.
|
TheInternet TweepsOnline TheInternet
The Scope
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:05:50 -
[118] - Quote
It's very nice that CCP Falcon cleared this up for all the confused carebears out there. I think it is safe to say that #Hyperdunking will continue for at least 1000 years.
Also, thanks for using the correct term for the tactic. I've seen other less helpful terms like Jollyjabbing being thrown around. At least now we can point to an official CCP post when people begin using the incorrect term. |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
443
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:07:47 -
[119] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:You're a troll, you've always been a troll and you'll always be a troll. Have you just looked in a mirror, because you just described yourself perfectly? Wow, no wonder CCP doesn't actually read through past the first two pages. Hah, I'm not sure if that's a condemnation of my posting, or Lucas's
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24780
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:08:06 -
[120] - Quote
w1ndstrike wrote:while I agree the ruling is sound, and the tactic does not violate any rulings or evade game mechanics; as a trader this concerns me because of the implications if restraint isn't shown when using the tactic.
highsec ganking does actually contribute to the health of the game by increasing the difference in value of items in different locations, however something like this if done without restraint can have large negative impacts on the costs of doing business for traders.
so please gankers, don't overuse this, pick your targets.
They are picking their targets: they go for the easy ones. That's all you need to know to be 100% safe from non-meta ganks in highsec (meta ganks being ones that play towards something outside of the game, be it pure KB epeen or personal vengeance).
TheInternet TweepsOnline TheInternet wrote:Also, thanks for using the correct term for the tactic. I've seen other less helpful terms like Jollyjabbing being thrown around. At least now we can point to an official CCP post when people begin using the incorrect term. Jollyjabbing, huh? I honestly haven't heard that one but it sounds a lot better than *cough*spew*gag* GÇ£hyperdunkingGÇ¥. I think I'll start using that one instead.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
15991
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:09:23 -
[121] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Malcanis wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Tippia wrote:They are. Chucking as many Catalysts at a target as needed to kill it is vastly more effort than is required of the target. This is the worrying trend in ganking: gankers are forced to put more and more and more effort in, and the feebleminded whiners are never satisfied and refuse to put even the slightest bit of effort in themselves. That is frankly pathetic, as is any claim that ganking takes no effort.
The gankers are working their asses off to think up new strategies and perfecting them. The hapless victims just cry. Why can't the victims put even an ounce of effort GÇö bloody or not GÇö in towards preventing these trivially avoidable events? You have a warped sense of what constitutes effort. You seem to be under the impression that a freighter should need to fly with an armada to defend it while a bumper, and orca and a handful of catalysts is enough to gank almost any ship regardless of how much tank is fit. Honestly I'm done with listening to layer like you crying to no end about how nothing should ever be changed to make your lives harder while everyone else should need to put in more effort, then more effort, then even more effort, just to not die. Gankers are by far the most carebear types of players in the whole game. They don't want effort, they don't want risk, and they demand the game is always changing in favour of their playstyle. What was the last thing that CCP changed to make Freighter piloting harder? I would have thought as an EX-CSM member you'd have an eye for detail. Maybe that's why it's EX-. I didn't claim they made freighter piloting harder, though the warp changes made it as entertaining as playing pong without a paddle to fly a freighter any significant distances.
You did say "and they [gankers] demand the game is always changing in favour of their playstyle"
What was the last such change?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
|
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
163
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:12:00 -
[122] - Quote
I think it's still a thing we'll be monitoring.
People are completely correct when they mention this is a game where suicide ganking and non-consentual PvP has been given the thumbs up by developers. That being said, we would still like to see a nice balance between effort and intelligence required on both sides of the coin. Making ganking too easy is not our goal, nor is it the other way around. Where that balance lies, and if hyperdunking has crossed some line, we'll have to see.
There are things we can change if needed. |
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
361
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:12:13 -
[123] - Quote
To clarify- the only way this works is if someone is not at all paying attention or has logged off.
If they have such a skilled bumper that you are unable to make it to the gate nor another celestial, then you would have died no matter the method used against you.
If you want to move billions worth of cargo around without any type of support (one webber?), then you are completely at fault for taking the risk.
High-sec already has the advantage that you can hide in NPC corps that cannot be war-decced. To be fair, they should remove NPC corps (or put a ship size limit on them), and fix the "War" mechanic, and then they could nerf highsec ganking.
Crying that one out of a thousand freighters gets ganked is a joke, everyone already abuses NPC alts to move cargo around in space. |
TheMeanPerson
War Decs Inc
Space Warriors
10
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:12:13 -
[124] - Quote
I'm going to have some fun with this hyperdunking. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9530
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:14:10 -
[125] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Quote:You only care about making the game as tilted towards your playstyle regardless of the effect on other players. You do realise that Tippia is about as far from being a ganker as you can get without being a carebear? His/her playstyle is one that is affected by things like ganking.
Well said.
People like that psoter need to believe that though, they need to believe that the only reason someone would disagree with them is because they benefit in some way from the situation. As you already know, this is because acknowledging the truth destroys the lies they tell themselves in order to keep believing the stuff that they post.
It happens to me al day every day, I'ma pve player that doesn't gank or scam or whatever because I don't see those things as fun and (as much as I hate to admit it), doing so would probably make me feel a bit of shame (for lack of a better word) lol. But i support the existence of gankers because this is a game and true balance means different people doing different thing , not everyone being bound by the Lucas Kell moral code.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24780
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:14:26 -
[126] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:I think it's still a thing we'll be monitoring.
People are completely correct when they mention this is a game where suicide ganking and non-consentual PvP has been given the thumbs up by developers. That being said, we would still like to see a nice balance between effort and intelligence required on both sides of the coin. Making ganking too easy is not our goal, nor is it the other way around. Where that balance lies, and if hyperdunking has crossed some line, we'll have to see.
There are things we can change if needed.
So you'll be adding some requirement for us freighter pilots to put in at least some token effort and intelligenceGǪ when? Soon? Please?!
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
TheInternet TweepsOnline TheInternet
The Scope
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:15:13 -
[127] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:I think it's still a thing we'll be monitoring.
People are completely correct when they mention this is a game where suicide ganking and non-consentual PvP has been given the thumbs up by developers. That being said, we would still like to see a nice balance between effort and intelligence required on both sides of the coin. Making ganking too easy is not our goal, nor is it the other way around. Where that balance lies, and if hyperdunking has crossed some line, we'll have to see.
There are things we can change if needed.
Hyperdunking requires more skill and coordination than most players are not capable of. Or as you put it, 'effort and intelligence'. |
Herpp Derpp
Enlightened Industries
Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:16:25 -
[128] - Quote
Bring a Nestor along to web/logi your freighter. You know you have one. |
TheMeanPerson
War Decs Inc
Space Warriors
11
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:19:31 -
[129] - Quote
The real tragedy here is the billions of isk I gank every day from tier 1 industrials not knowing how to put a buffer tank on their haulers. This is what needs to be addressed, haulers need super buff ungankable, because ganking is bad and wrong. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
15994
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:20:23 -
[130] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:I think it's still a thing we'll be monitoring.
People are completely correct when they mention this is a game where suicide ganking and non-consentual PvP has been given the thumbs up by developers. That being said, we would still like to see a nice balance between effort and intelligence required on both sides of the coin. Making ganking too easy is not our goal, nor is it the other way around. Where that balance lies, and if hyperdunking has crossed some line, we'll have to see.
There are things we can change if needed.
"Hyperdunking" is almost trivially easy to disrupt compared to the standard method.
The issue here is the same as it has always been: the AFK or near-AFK hauling demographic furiously defending its right to haul AFK/solo unmolested
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
|
|
|
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
164
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:22:22 -
[131] - Quote
Tippia wrote:
So you'll be adding some requirement for us freighter pilots to put in at least some token effort and intelligenceGǪ when? Soon? Please?!
I'd like to make hauling more interesting in general. No time frame on that :P
TheInternet TweepsOnline TheInternet wrote:
Hyperdunking requires more skill and coordination than most players are capable of. Or as you put it, more 'effort and intelligence'.
And we've made clear our current stance on it because of this and other factors. |
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
443
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:22:28 -
[132] - Quote
TheMeanPerson wrote:The real tragedy here is the billions of isk I gank every day from tier 1 industrials not knowing how to put a buffer tank on their haulers. This is what needs to be addressed, haulers need super buff ungankable, because ganking is bad and wrong. This is why we need a sarcasm tag
Some people might take it seriously
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Annette Nolen
Red Frog Freight
Red-Frog
64
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:23:21 -
[133] - Quote
Tippia wrote:This explains a lot. The warp changes sped up freighter runs by a fair margin. The introduction of slots increased it to the point where it can't really be called a margin any more.
... what?
The warp speed changes slowed down freighter runs considerably, at least for pretty much any average high sec route. The introduction of slots and the hyperspatial mods allowed you to tweak back to roughly what it had been pre-Rubicon, assuming you are willing to forgo some cargo and tank.
Freighter pilots in extremely large systems (so those in some null and low sec systems) would have definitely seen improvements, but the average gate-to-gate distances in high sec are on the wrong side of the fulcrum for the change and high sec freighters see considerably slower times overall.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy with the results of the warp speed changes and the slot additions. But you are just flat out incorrect if you are trying to argue that the warp speed changes were in any way beneficial to high sec freighter run times.
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
3695
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:24:17 -
[134] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:I think it's still a thing we'll be monitoring.
People are completely correct when they mention this is a game where suicide ganking and non-consentual PvP has been given the thumbs up by developers. That being said, we would still like to see a nice balance between effort and intelligence required on both sides of the coin. Making ganking too easy is not our goal, nor is it the other way around. Where that balance lies, and if hyperdunking has crossed some line, we'll have to see.
There are things we can change if needed.
Just a suggestion: add MJD for Bowheads. That's about the only civil thing I can say about what your company considers worth paying for.
The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
|
Janeos
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
58
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:25:54 -
[135] - Quote
Thank you, CCP Falcon, for this rich harvest of tears.
Hulls for the Hull Throne, pod goo for the Pod Goo God! |
Annette Nolen
Red Frog Freight
Red-Frog
64
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:26:36 -
[136] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Just a suggestion: add MJD for Bowheads. That's about the only civil thing I can say about what your company considers worth paying for.
My vote is for the warp assist module as I suggested over in the F&I forum. Requires alt/fleet assistance (so is not a solo escape), applies to more than just freighters and high-sec, and isn't even close to a 100% effective bumping counter, just balances the table a bit. Also does not require the incredibly tricky task of adding mid-slots to freighters without opening up ridiculous fitting options that probably should not exist :) |
TheMeanPerson
War Decs Inc
Space Warriors
11
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:29:46 -
[137] - Quote
Lets be serious here guys, I hate to be the debbie downer for freighter and industrial pilots, but no matter what happens.
If you fly with something worth ganking, your going to get ganked. Just be smart, dont go afk, use a webber. OTHERWISE, you will end up like the people inside of the player hugh forehead's biography EVERY TIME. WE will FIND you. Hyperdunking or not. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:31:52 -
[138] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:No, this is simply your standard prejudice (against ganking, and CODE and the like, it's nothing more than 'grr goons' wrapped up in words) rearing it's head again, as it does most of the time when you post. You can try to hide it behind some fake altruistic 'balance' idea, but everyone here has your number on these kinds of discussions. And you know it. It's got nothing to do with prejudice. It's not my fault if every time any change of any kind is discussed CODE come filing in insulting everyone and screaming about the carebears. At the end of the day ganking IMO is already unbalanced and this ruling makes it more so.
I understand you don't agree, I understand you don't feel I should be allowed to voice my opinion. I simply don't care whether you like it or not, I'll post whatever I want wherever I want. If the response to that is going to be random people launching personal attacks at me, then that's fine. I'll still continue to hold my opinions.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:33:09 -
[139] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:You're a troll, you've always been a troll and you'll always be a troll. Have you just looked in a mirror, because you just described yourself perfectly? Lol, "I know you are so what am I?", classic!
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
1931
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:34:41 -
[140] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:At the end of the day ganking IMO is already unbalanced and this ruling makes it more so. Actually this ruling just maintains the current status quo... but lets not let little details like the subject of the discussion get in the way of things.
Witty Image - Stream
Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:38:42 -
[141] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:I think it's still a thing we'll be monitoring.
People are completely correct when they mention this is a game where suicide ganking and non-consentual PvP has been given the thumbs up by developers. That being said, we would still like to see a nice balance between effort and intelligence required on both sides of the coin. Making ganking too easy is not our goal, nor is it the other way around. Where that balance lies, and if hyperdunking has crossed some line, we'll have to see.
There are things we can change if needed.
One thing that worries me is that ganking is cheap, like really cheap. An empty freighter is killboard green by a huge margin, no matter how tanked.
The old argument against this used to be "but to gank a freighter you need a lot of players and you can't always get a lot of players organised in time". Now it doesn't. Now a gank of any size requires 3 characters.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
4213
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:40:48 -
[142] - Quote
Locked for a quick cleaning.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
3696
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:55:21 -
[143] - Quote
Annette Nolen wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Just a suggestion: add MJD for Bowheads. That's about the only civil thing I can say about what your company considers worth paying for. My vote is for the warp assist module as I suggested over in the F&I forum. Requires alt/fleet assistance (so is not a solo escape), applies to more than just freighters and high-sec, and isn't even close to a 100% effective bumping counter, just balances the table a bit. Also does not require the incredibly tricky task of adding mid-slots to freighters without opening up ridiculous fitting options that probably should not exist :)
The Bowhead already uses propulsion mods in the middle slots it already haves. But Large MJD are class restricted so can't be mounted on anything else than Battleships.
A solo escape to a solo mean of ganking is not wrong. It's called balance. It's something different than "If you do PvP, you're good to go; If you dare to PvE, you're ****** and pay for it".
The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24782
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:56:34 -
[144] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:It's got nothing to do with prejudice. So how do you explain your apparently prejudiced assumptions about other peopleGÇÖs play styles and what helps and hinders them?
Quote:At the end of the day ganking IMO is already unbalanced and this ruling makes it more so. Yes, ganking is hideously unbalanced. Ganking imposes far too many restrictions and costs on the gankers, and far too few on everyone else unless they go out of their way to make themselves into victims. This ruling does not change the balance in any way GÇö it explicitly maintains the status quo. There simply cannot be any GÇ£moreGÇ¥ (or GÇ£lessGÇ¥) about it.
The fact that you believe that things remaining the same means a change in balance just demonstrates how wrong your entire idea of balance is.
Quote:One thing that worries me is that ganking is cheap, like really cheap. An empty freighter is killboard green by a huge margin, no matter how tanked. So what? ThatGÇÖs what proper balance looks like: a more expensive ship does not grant any kind of special immunity just because itGÇÖs expensive. If it can be killed cheaply, then thatGÇÖs a good thing because it means the designers havenGÇÖt fallen into the trap of thinking that cost relates to balance.
Quote:The old argument against this used to be "but to gank a freighter you need a lot of players and you can't always get a lot of players organised in time". Now it doesn't. Now a gank of any size requires 3 characters. No. A gank of one particular subset of one particular type of targets requires 3 characters. Anything outside of that tiny niche will require far more, same as always. ThatGÇÖs at least 1 more than is required to be completely safe from the same gank. So the same old argument holds as true as it ever did.
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:A solo escape to a solo mean of ganking is not wrong. It's called balance. It's something different than "If you do PvP, you're good to go; If you dare to PvE, you're ****** and pay for it".
Solo ganks already have solo means of escape, so we're all set. vOv
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:58:59 -
[145] - Quote
Crumplecorn wrote:Actually this ruling just maintains the current status quo... Yes and no. It maintainsthe current status quo as in it's not introducing a change, but most gankers either weren't aware or weren't willing to risk doing this. Now that it's officially allowed it's going to become a popular way of ganking, especially for the groups who often struggle to get enough pilots to pull off a freighter gank. It's publicly changed the entry fleet size for a freighter gank down to 3.
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Please enlighten us with your thoughts on how it is unbalanced
I'd like to see the logic, if any, behind your claim. It's incredibly cheap compared to what you can get out of it. A Solo miner ganker can happily gank at a profit from a very young character. Killing a freighter is always killboard green, which used to be constrained by fleet size requirements but now will not.
The repercussions for ganking are shockingly underwhelming. Bounties are irrelevant as the ships they fly are so cheap. Shooting a ganker is pointelss because both his ship and his pod are usually expendable (even more so now that there's no clone grades). Kill rights are insanely pointelss as gankers can usually be shot anyway, and as previously stated shooting them is pointelss. Sec status and is also irrelevant as you can happily fly everywhere in a pod almost unstoppable as there's no bubbles in highsec and insta-docks/insta-undocks exist. Even if you do want your sec status back it costs less than 400m to go from -10 to 0, not that you'll ever need to as a ganker is more often than not an alt and so isn;t needed for anythign other than ganking.
I'd be more inclined to support ganking if it wasn't for things like hauling being so incredibly boring. A freighter pilot to maintain safety needs to fly actively, tanked (irrelevant now) with at least a couple of other pilots, a scout and a webber. The trip is incredibly slow and painful, which is why jump freighters were introduced to reduce the need freighter esorts (of which I have taken part in many) from killing people slowly.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24782
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 21:04:12 -
[146] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Killing a freighter is always killboard green, which used to be constrained by fleet size requirements but now will not. No, the green kill board was never constrained by fleet size. What you're talking about is the minimum requirement to kill a maximum unaware target. That minimum was shockingly high before this tactic evolved GÇö now it is in a far better place.
Quote:The repercussions for ganking are shockingly underwhelming. If they are underwhelming, it's because players choose to make them so. That is not a game design problem, but a people problem, and the people creating the problem are the ones who keep crying that someone design the problem away. The thing is, the problem is already designed away GÇö they just refuse to effect that the design.
Quote:I'd be more inclined to support ganking if it wasn't for things like hauling being so incredibly boring. You know, it's not quite as boring if you try to put some effort into outsmarting the dumb ganksGǪ
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Janeos
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
59
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 21:04:44 -
[147] - Quote
So we're not counting all the Cats blasted by Concord into the cost of the gank? Just the one that gets the kill? Constraining them to one character and distributing the lost Catalysts over a span of 10 minutes doesn't make them any cheaper.
Also: Kick SMA. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 21:10:54 -
[148] - Quote
Janeos wrote:So we're not counting all the Cats blasted by Concord into the cost of the gank? Just the one that gets the kill? Constraining them to one character and distributing the lost Catalysts over a span of 10 minutes doesn't make them any cheaper. Who was not counting those? A max tank Obelisk takes what? 60m in T1 cats or 210m in T2 cats in a 0.5? That was less of a problem when a large fleet was required to control them. Now that they can be controlled by 1 player, I don;t see how this is any different to the argument about ISBoxer gank fleets being able to be controlled by 1 players requiring no coordination with other players.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
688
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 21:13:58 -
[149] - Quote
This thread gon' be long, ain't it?
Vote Sabriz!
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24782
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 21:14:53 -
[150] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Who was not counting those? A max tank Obelisk takes what? 60m in T1 cats or 210m in T2 cats in a 0.5? That was less of a problem when a large fleet was required to control them. Now that they can be controlled by 1 player, I don't see how this is any different to the argument about ISBoxer gank fleets being able to be controlled by 1 players requiring no coordination with other players.
How is the size of the problem determined by the size of the fleet?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
|
|
Alundil
Isogen 5
844
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 21:16:28 -
[151] - Quote
Bagrat Skalski wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:Since the introduction of the Bowhead freighter, weGÇÖve become aware of a tactic that has been introduced which has become known as GÇ£HyperdunkingGÇ¥. This involves leaving a grid where a criminal action occurs to draw away CONCORD and reshipping to continue shooting at a target. ThereGÇÖs been much discussion among members of the community regarding this tactic, and whether or not it is considered legitimate gameplay.
After meeting with members of the game design and customer support teams and discussing this in depth, we have come to the consensus that due to the fact no rules are being broken and any ship that is involved in a criminal act is being destroyed by CONCORD as intended, that this tactic is simply an unintended but legitimate use of new game mechanics, and is not in breach of the rules. Tactics similar to this have been used with previous hulls before the Bowhead was introduced, and have been considered perfectly legitimate in the past.
With this in mind, at this time we do not consider this tactic to be in breach of the game rules, and as such our customer support team will not be offering reimbursements for hulls lost in this manner.
Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage.
So when can we expect CONCORD podding the criminals?
Never. Circadian Sleepers on the other hand though.....
I'm right behind you
|
Dave Stark
7311
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 21:19:39 -
[152] - Quote
this decision makes me happy.
good call. |
Abulurd Boniface
BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP
Brave Collective
151
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 21:36:57 -
[153] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:
Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage.
I keep being squeamish about this option because I can never manage to quite convince myself that Concord is not going to paint a really nice, big bulls-eye on my posterior and drop the hammer on me.
But, I'll keep it in mind :-).
/Always supportive of everything that forces people to pay attention. |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
444
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 21:36:58 -
[154] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:It's incredibly cheap compared to what you can get out of it. A Solo miner ganker can happily gank at a profit from a very young character. That depends entirely on their victims, profitable miner ganking normally requires that the miner is probably afk and using a barge that's un/fail tanked. It's completely possible to tank barges to the extent that they can shrug off the attentions of a very young character in a Catalyst who solo ganks, it's even possible to tank them hard enough to shrug off a solo attack by someone in a T2 fitted Catalyst.
One of the keys to not getting ganked is being harder to gank than the people who can't be bothered to take precautions, 99% of the time gankers will go after the untanked and fail fits before they'll go after someone who has actually fitted their ship properly.
Quote:Killing a freighter is always killboard green, which used to be constrained by fleet size requirements but now will not. Do you mean the amount of pilots you can bring to the party, or the amount of ships required to do the job?
Quote:The repercussions for ganking are shockingly underwhelming. Bounties are irrelevant as the ships they fly are so cheap. Shooting a ganker is pointelss because both his ship and his pod are usually expendable (even more so now that there's no clone grades). Kill rights are insanely pointelss as gankers can usually be shot anyway, and as previously stated shooting them is pointelss. Sec status and is also irrelevant as you can happily fly everywhere in a pod almost unstoppable as there's no bubbles in highsec and insta-docks/insta-undocks exist. Even if you do want your sec status back it costs less than 400m to go from -10 to 0, not that you'll ever need to as a ganker is more often than not an alt and so isn;t needed for anythign other than ganking. The repercussions for ganking are underwhelming because most people can't be bothered to do anything about it, if people want to see more repercussions for ganking then it is up to them to provide those repercussions. People who complain about the lack of repercussions need look no further than themselves for the solution to their complaints.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 21:51:44 -
[155] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:That depends entirely on their victims, profitable miner ganking normally requires that the miner is probably afk and using a barge that's un/fail tanked. It's completely possible to tank barges to the extent that they can shrug off the attentions of a very young character in a Catalyst who solo ganks, it's even possible to tank them hard enough to shrug off an attack by someone in a T2 fitted Catalyst. I'm sure it's possible, that doesn't mean it happens. I've not yet seen many gankers unable to profitably gank with a very young character. You can turn the blame to the victims, but it doesn't change that it's very easy to gank for profit.
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Do you mean the amount of pilots you can bring to the party, or the amount of ships required to do the job? I mean exactly what it says, killboard. Many gankers kill to boss their killboards as well as just gaining profit. All freighters are worth more than the ships it takes to gank them, even empty, so on the killboard they will result in more in kills than in losses (killboard green). What used to be the argument for this, and rightly so, is that getting the number of players together was difficult to do this, so you either had a massive fleet of lots of people in catalysts, or a handful of people in things considerably more expensive but with a higher damage output, like the Talos. What this announcement means is that it's now officially fine to use this method, which means that even using catalysts you only need 1 pilot. More pilots will get the job done faster, but you no longer need to move up to a Talos. 1 pilot running all of the catalysts, 4 pilots running a quarter of them each, it doesn't really matter.
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:The repercussions for ganking are underwhelming because most people can't be bothered to do anything about them, if people want to see more repercussions for ganking then it is up to them to provide those repercussions. People who complain about the lack of repercussions need look no further than themselves for the solution to their complaints. But what repercussions can they realistically provide? It's a disposable character in disposable ships that will generally get to a gank target before you can get to them. Insta-docks/undocks and travelling in a pod make it near impossible to catch them. There's a reason most CODE players troll anti-gankers about wasting their time, it's because they are in fact wasting their time. Even if you manage to catch and kill one, the loss is irrelevant because the ship was disposable.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Roche Pso
Deltole Research Labs
7
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 21:55:10 -
[156] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:
To be honest it's pointless arguing with someone like you because you're not interested in what's fair and balanced gameplay.
Surely a solo player killing another solo player totally IS fair and balanced gameplay?
All you need to do to stop hyperdunking is bring a friend who can jam the dps ships. The pilot is fair game for anyone to use any offensive mods on, so just jam them and they can't damage the target.
Or do you think only carebears should be allowed to fly solo? |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
365
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:07:46 -
[157] - Quote
He seems to be forgetting the part where you need someone actively bumping the (freighter) to keep it from warping or making it back to the gate, all while dodging concord, reshipping, reapplying dps, etc etc
Edit: unless the freighter pilot is completely afk, in which case, theyded |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24784
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:11:20 -
[158] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I'm sure it's possible, that doesn't mean it happens. I've not yet seen many gankers unable to profitably gank with a very young character. You can turn the blame to the victims, but it doesn't change that it's very easy to gank for profit. Even if it were, so what?
Quote:Many gankers kill to boss their killboards as well as just gaining profit. All freighters are worth more than the ships it takes to gank them, even empty, so on the killboard they will result in more in kills than in losses (killboard green). What used to be the argument for this, and rightly so, is that getting the number of players together was difficult to do this, so you either had a massive fleet of lots of people in catalysts, or a handful of people in things considerably more expensive but with a higher damage output, like the Talos. What this announcement means is that it's now officially fine to use this method, which means that even using catalysts you only need 1 pilot. No. You need at least two, and most likely three or four for this method to work. And the argument was not really that it required lots of people GÇö it was that it required far more than the target put up, and that is still true to the point where if the target puts up two ships, the entire method is shot out of the water and the ganker has to go back to large-N engagements to get a kill.
It was a response to the nonsensical Gǣbut a freighter costsGǪGǥ argument, as if the cost was in any way relevant to the balance, when what mattered was that 2+ people > 1.
Quote:But what repercussions can they realistically provide? Any they choose. The entire GÇ£problemGÇ¥ is that they choose GÇ£noneGÇ¥. I say GÇ£problemGÇ¥ in quotation marks because that's not a problem, really. The actual problem is that they then try to blame everyone and everything else for their own deliberate choice, and demand that something be done to fix their choice so that picking GÇ£noneGÇ¥ will suddenly do something.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
444
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:11:36 -
[159] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I'm sure it's possible, that doesn't mean it happens. I've not yet seen many gankers unable to profitably gank with a very young character. You can turn the blame to the victims, but it doesn't change that it's very easy to gank for profit. It's only profitable if the victim makes it so, they choose to fly untanked or failfit ships. They make the choice, it's only right that they should have to live with it.
If gankers take advantage of people who choose to fit their ships inappropriately or take precautions to protect their stuff in a game that's known for allowing people to take advantage of things like that, who is to blame?
Quote:I mean exactly what it says, killboard. Many gankers kill to boss their killboards as well as just gaining profit. All freighters are worth more than the ships it takes to gank them, even empty, so on the killboard they will result in more in kills than in losses (killboard green). What used to be the argument for this, and rightly so, is that getting the number of players together was difficult to do this, so you either had a massive fleet of lots of people in catalysts, or a handful of people in things considerably more expensive but with a higher damage output, like the Talos. What this announcement means is that it's now officially fine to use this method, which means that even using catalysts you only need 1 pilot. More pilots will get the job done faster, but you no longer need to move up to a Talos. 1 pilot running all of the catalysts, 4 pilots running a quarter of them each, it doesn't really matter. If killboards didn't exist nothing would change, gankers would gank, and victims would still choose to be victims.
Quote:But what repercussions can they realistically provide? It's a disposable character in disposable ships that will generally get to a gank target before you can get to them. Insta-docks/undocks and travelling in a pod make it near impossible to catch them. Ask Bronson Hughes, he's done quite well out off popping gankers, as for disposable alts, that doesn't happen mainly because it's a bannable offence.
Quote:There's a reason most CODE players troll anti-gankers about wasting their time, it's because they are in fact wasting their time. Even if you manage to catch and kill one, the loss is irrelevant because the ship was disposable. Ever heard of propaganda? CODE.'s "they're wasting their time" is exactly that, it's to discourage people.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:12:08 -
[160] - Quote
Roche Pso wrote:Surely a solo player killing another solo player totally IS fair and balanced gameplay? That entirely depends on the circumstance. I a rookie ship is able to one shot a battleship then it's pretty unbalanced for example, even though i's one solo player killing another solo player.
Roche Pso wrote:All you need to do to stop hyperdunking is bring a friend who can jam the dps ships. The pilot is fair game for anyone to use any offensive mods on, so just jam them and they can't damage the target. All you need is a jamming ship, fast enough locking to stop them getting volleys off and blind luck that your ECM will land. Een then, there's no stopping them shooting your jamming ship then returning a minute later with a new catalyst until you jamming ship either explodes or has to leave the freighter.
This is the point, with this tactic there is no cap on the damage a ganker can output as long as he has ships. With conventional ganking the DPS is limited to what the fleet can output before they are destroyed, so ganking is weighing up whether you can get the damage out before getting destroyed while the counter is trying to reduce your damage enough for you to not succeed before getting destroyed.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Herpp Derpp
Enlightened Industries
Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:14:56 -
[161] - Quote
Roche Pso wrote:
All you need to do to stop hyperdunking is bring a friend who can jam the dps ships. The pilot is fair game for anyone to use any offensive mods on, so just jam them and they can't damage the target.
This, or the myriad of other ways to avoid the very fragile method of hyperdunking. EVE rewards ingenuity and preparation, and often punishes laziness. ECM the ganker, or logi your freighter until he runs out of catalysts, or don't autopilot, or web your freighter, or don't fly through lower highsec, or warp away to a celestial, or...
Those victims of this skillfully prepared method of death-dealing are can brainstorm ways to not-die, just as the ganker brainstormed a way kill. |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
445
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:16:47 -
[162] - Quote
Herpp Derpp wrote:Roche Pso wrote:
All you need to do to stop hyperdunking is bring a friend who can jam the dps ships. The pilot is fair game for anyone to use any offensive mods on, so just jam them and they can't damage the target.
This, or the myriad of other ways to avoid the very fragile method of hyperdunking. EVE rewards ingenuity and preparation, and often punishes laziness. ECM the ganker, or logi your freighter until he runs out of catalysts, or don't autopilot, or web your freighter, or don't fly through lower highsec, or warp away to a celestial, or... Those victims of this skillfully prepared method of death-dealing are can brainstorm ways to not die, just as the ganker brainstormed a way kill. But that requires effort, and actually having to think about how they play the game.....
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24784
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:20:52 -
[163] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:All you need is a jamming ship, fast enough locking to stop them getting volleys off and blind luck that your ECM will land. Een then, there's no stopping them shooting your jamming ship then returning a minute later with a new catalyst until you jamming ship either explodes or has to leave the freighter. So the first part basically means that the gank fails automatically because GÇ£blind luckGÇ¥ heavily favours the ECM ship. The second part basically means that the gank fails automatically, because now they have to spend a bunch of catalysts on trying (and most likely failing) to kill the ECM ship while the freighter gets away, everyone gets bored, and the session is called off for the night.
Mission kill = you win.
Quote:This is the point, with this tactic there is no cap on the damage a ganker can output as long as he has ships. So in other words, there is a hard cap on the damage a ganker can output just as if it was a fleet attacking parallel, and unlike the fleet situation, it leaves plenty of gaps in that output where the damage done can be nullified or the ship just outright leave. This opens up new avenues of protecting or surviving the gank that are not available to a regular gank, and drastically reduces the sets of targets that become viable for the ganker. In other words, making yourself a non-target is easier than ever.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:24:28 -
[164] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:It's only profitable if the victim makes it so, they choose to fly untanked or failfit ships. They make the choice, it's only right that they should have to live with the repercussions.
If gankers take advantage of people who choose to fit their ships inappropriately or take precautions to protect their stuff in a game that's known for allowing people to take advantage of things like that, who is to blame? Again, that's victim blame. The fact is that on average miners are profitable to gank. If they weren't you'd find another target to gank. If no target were, you'd ask for changes to make them profitable. It still doesn't change the fact that it's easy to gank very profitably. Whether or not you want to blame the miners of the mechanics is irrelevant.
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:If killboards didn't exist nothing would change, gankers would still gank, and victims would still choose to be victims. I honestly don;t believe that with so many gankers in it primarily for showing their killboards off. Fact is that the ships it takes to take down a freighter are shockingly cheap in comparison with the freighter. I know that value doesn't affect how much it should take to drop the ship, but it should have at least a little bit of an impact on it.
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Ever heard of propaganda? CODE.'s "they're wasting their time" is exactly that, it's to discourage people. It may be considered propaganda, but it doesn't make it any less true. It is a waste of time to try to fight a ganker, and there really is nothing you can do to a ganker to affect them. They're just like any other throwaway alt in that way.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
4469
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:24:52 -
[165] - Quote
Dodo Veetee wrote:"Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage."
Let me just fit weapons on my freighter from now on so I can fight back
OH WAIT
Back to using escorts, bois.
I use escorts when moving ships far less expensive than a filled freighter around in highsec.
This is a sensible ruling. There are *plenty* of countermeasures that can be taken to avoid being hyperdunked. Pro tip: If Uedama has had 120 kills in the last hour and you are in a freighter with ten billion in loot, you probably should go the alternate route through quiet lowsec with a small combat escort fleet (2-3 EWAR or damage ships, a Daredevil to web you, and a scout). Even if you derp and go into Uedama, a single friend in an interceptor or even t1 frigate can get you out of a hyperdunk in progress (or any other gank that takes more than a minute).
Freighters are not a ship designed for solo play any more than Dreadnoughts are.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Quantum Distributions
1383
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:28:10 -
[166] - Quote
Erufen Rito wrote:It stands to reason then, to have CONCORD preloaded on grid while mining as a legitimate tactic right? I mean the attacking ship does get killed, as expected, and concord remains on grid, as desired. I paid the price of having concord on my selected grid, and thus I'm not abusing game mechanics. Right?
This was confirmed ad legitimate by a GM a few months ago.
New player resources:
Uni Wiki - General Info
Eve Altruist - PvP
Belligerent Undesirables - High Sec Pvp
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24786
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:30:12 -
[167] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Again, that's victim blame. The fact is that on average miners are profitable to gank. Again, so what if they are? And yes, the victim is to blame for making themselves a profitable target GÇö so what? It is not GÇ£a factGÇ¥ that it is easy to gank miners profitably any more than it is a fact that it is very hard to gank them profitably. It is something that is wholly contextual and reliant on the choice of the specific miner. If they choose to make it easy, then so be it.
And it does matter whether it's the miners or the mechanics' fault, because that's what decides what needs to be fixed. If it's the former (hint: it is), changing the latter will never help unless you utterly break the balance of the game.
Quote: honestly don;t believe that with so many gankers in it primarily for showing their killboards off. Fact is that the ships it takes to take down a freighter are shockingly cheap in comparison with the freighter. I know that value doesn't affect how much it should take to drop the ship, but it should have at least a little bit of an impact on it. Why should it matter in the slightest?
Quote:It may be considered propaganda, but it doesn't make it any less true. Sure, being propaganda doesn't necessary alter how true it is, but it heavily puts into doubt that it's actually true to being with.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:31:59 -
[168] - Quote
Herpp Derpp wrote:This, or the myriad of other ways to avoid the very fragile method of hyperdunking. EVE rewards ingenuity and preparation, and often punishes laziness. ECM the ganker, or logi your freighter until he runs out of catalysts, or don't autopilot, or web your freighter, or don't fly through lower highsec, or warp away to a celestial, or...
Those victims of this skillfully prepared method of death-dealing can brainstorm ways to not die, just as the ganker brainstormed a way kill. Sure, there's ways to preemptively help avoid a gank (though no guarantees), I'm not really sure how warping to a celestial really helps when being bumped though, since the bumping generally means you can't warp. And the realism is that even if you were to logi a freighter to the point it couldn't be ganked, they can still just continue to bump it for pretty much ever. A half awake bumper can keep a freighter in place for hours.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
412nv Yaken
The Conference Elite
CODE.
279
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:32:40 -
[169] - Quote
I dont understand why people are arguing. The game developer says its legal, so its legal.
Now HTFU and stop afking
A True Champion of High Security Space
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
4470
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:33:31 -
[170] - Quote
Erufen Rito wrote:It stands to reason then, to have CONCORD preloaded on grid while mining as a legitimate tactic right? I mean the attacking ship does get killed, as expected, and concord remains on grid, as desired. I paid the price of having concord on my selected grid, and thus I'm not abusing game mechanics. Right?
AFAICT GMs have no issue with moving CONCORD, whether done defensively (by miners or their supporters going GCC in an icebelt) or aggressively (by gankers going GCC on an irrelevant grid)
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
|
|
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Quantum Distributions
1383
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:34:24 -
[171] - Quote
Also, Tippia, you are officially my second favorite person in this thread. (right after CCP falcon of course for breaking the news!) I keep thinking I'll have to respond to Lucas, but every one of your posts have been well reasoned and to the point.
New player resources:
Uni Wiki - General Info
Eve Altruist - PvP
Belligerent Undesirables - High Sec Pvp
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:34:26 -
[172] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:This is a sensible ruling. Of course it is. It supports your playstyle, therefore you are in favour of it. Shocking.
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Freighters are not a ship designed for solo play any more than Dreadnoughts are. But ganking freighters, that is designed to be solo play?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
4470
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:35:41 -
[173] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Herpp Derpp wrote:This, or the myriad of other ways to avoid the very fragile method of hyperdunking. EVE rewards ingenuity and preparation, and often punishes laziness. ECM the ganker, or logi your freighter until he runs out of catalysts, or don't autopilot, or web your freighter, or don't fly through lower highsec, or warp away to a celestial, or...
Those victims of this skillfully prepared method of death-dealing can brainstorm ways to not die, just as the ganker brainstormed a way kill. Sure, there's ways to preemptively help avoid a gank (though no guarantees), I'm not really sure how warping to a celestial really helps when being bumped though, since the bumping generally means you can't warp. And the realism is that even if you were to logi a freighter to the point it couldn't be ganked, they can still just continue to bump it for pretty much ever. A half awake bumper can keep a freighter in place for hours.
You should try other methods of interdicting bump-ganks than logi. I know of two effective ones and a cunning player can no doubt think of more. Neither can be done solo by the freighter pilot, of course, but that's fine because the freighter is not a ship suitable for solo play.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:35:50 -
[174] - Quote
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:Also, Tippia, you are officially my second favorite person in this thread. (right after CCP falcon of course for breaking the news!) I keep thinking I'll have to respond to Lucas, but every one of your posts have been well reasoned and to the point. Oh is that what she's doing? Her posts are ignored as she's generally trolling so they just show up with no content.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Paranoid Loyd
3641
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:36:47 -
[175] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:It's publicly changed the entry fleet size for a freighter gank down to 3.
Lucas Kell wrote:But ganking freighters, that is designed to be solo play?
Common Lucas you are better than this. Which is it solo or 3?
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:38:11 -
[176] - Quote
412nv Yaken wrote:I dont understand why people are arguing. The game developer says its legal, so its legal. I think it's because some people don't agree with what CCP have rules, feel that it creates a bit of a balance issue (which CCP have also stated they will be watching), and therefore want to state their views. As this is a discussion forum, that's precisely what it's for. If you don't like that other people are allowed to state their opinions, get over it, that's not changing.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:39:50 -
[177] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Common Lucas you are better than this. Which is it solo or 3? That entirely depends on your definition of solo. I would generally take "solo" to mean 1 physical player.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9535
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:40:38 -
[178] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:This is a sensible ruling. Of course it is. It supports your playstyle, therefore you are in favour of it. Shocking.
It doesn't support mine, and I think it's a good ruling. Players need to learn how to play rather than run and beg mommy (ccp) for help. If you don't like ganking out think them. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
4470
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:41:16 -
[179] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:This is a sensible ruling. Of course it is. It supports your playstyle, therefore you are in favour of it. Shocking. Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Freighters are not a ship designed for solo play any more than Dreadnoughts are. But ganking freighters, that is designed to be solo play?
I've never been involved in a single hyperdunk. I do, however, understand the mechanics well.
A freighter pilot + an alt in an interceptor have tactics available to counter the bowhead, Machariel + the few Catalyst alts needed for an effective hyperdunk. A freighter pilot with about 6 alts in (ship redacted for #OPSEC reasons) can counter it even more effectively. If a GM or CCP employee wants these tactics explained, EVEmail me and I'll clarify them to you.
Every hyperdunk configuration I can think of can be countered by a smaller number of accounts than they take to perform and a comparable number of actual players.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
342
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:43:45 -
[180] - Quote
Quote:5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
I have removed a trolling reply. Please read our rules before continuing to post. Keep it respectful and on topic!
ISD Decoy
Lieutenant Commander
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
|
|
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Quantum Distributions
1384
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:44:03 -
[181] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:This is a sensible ruling. Of course it is. It supports your playstyle, therefore you are in favour of it. Shocking. Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Freighters are not a ship designed for solo play any more than Dreadnoughts are. But ganking freighters, that is designed to be solo play?
No, it wasn't designed to be solo play. Someone found a system to do it with a series of alts, (three minimum to be exact) and figured out how to bump a freighter back within 3km of a specific point in space over and over. Guess what, that isn't easy in the slightest. There's a reason that globby is ganking with other people in most cases. What this has done is dropped the theoretical minimum from 8* characters down to 4** at the cost of requiring much more skill from the bumper. The exception of course is if the target logs off, but I have difficulty accepting any argument that an agressed target should be safe when logged off.
* 6 Talos pilots, 1 Bumper, 1 Neutral Agressor
** 1 Ganker, 1 Bumper, 1 Orca/Bowhead pilot, 1 Neutral agressor
New player resources:
Uni Wiki - General Info
Eve Altruist - PvP
Belligerent Undesirables - High Sec Pvp
|
Paranoid Loyd
3644
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:44:17 -
[182] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:Common Lucas you are better than this. Which is it solo or 3? That entirely depends on your definition of solo. I would generally take "solo" to mean 1 physical player.
The point is you can't hyperdunk solo. So why should you be able to fly your freighter solo?
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11470
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:44:31 -
[183] - Quote
Not only is justice delightfully served, with a side of carebear tears...
But Tippia is back! Hooray!
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:47:07 -
[184] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:I've never been involved in a single hyperdunk. I do, however, understand the mechanics well. I supports ganking, and CODE, and lets face it your entire CSM platform is based around trying to push the game to support your playstyle over any other, so it really doesn't surprise me that you agree with this change, even though it's practically a reversal of previous concord exploit, just with extra ships being lost.
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:A freighter pilot + an alt in an interceptor have tactics available to counter the bowhead, Machariel + the few Catalyst alts needed for an effective hyperdunk. A freighter pilot with about 6 alts in (ship redacted for #OPSEC reasons) can counter it even more effectively. If a GM or CCP employee wants these tactics explained, EVEmail me and I'll clarify them to you. I'm sure with some good skills and a lot of luck can indeed counter a gank, that still doesn't mean that the amount of isk, effort and skill to avoid the gank is balanced with the amount of isk, effort and skill to execute it. You'll happily march in favour of any change which makes your playstyle more viable with no regard for how it affects opposing styles of play.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9540
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:47:22 -
[185] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: It's called balance. It's something different than "If you do PvP, you're good to go; If you dare to PvE, you're ****** and pay for it".
Don't you even dare suggest such a thing, because it would be a lie. Real EVE PVE players aren't powerless victimhood pansies that complain about "oh whoa is me CCP don't like my play style". We are right there in the arena with the PVP jocks doing our thing, THINKING, acting, winning (wining for us is stacking wealth while "pvp players" shake their fists in the air because they can't hold us long enough to kill us).
So again, don't you dare pretend to speak for the (real) EVE PVE community. We aren't in the surrender business like the fake pve forum whine crowd likes to claim we are.
|
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Quantum Distributions
1384
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:49:03 -
[186] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: It's called balance. It's something different than "If you do PvP, you're good to go; If you dare to PvE, you're ****** and pay for it". Don't you even dare suggest such a thing, because it would be a lie. Real EVE PVE players aren't powerless victimhood pansies that complain about "oh whoa is me CCP don't like my play style". We are right there in the arena with the PVP jocks doing our thing, THINKING, acting, winning (wining for us is stacking wealth while "pvp players" shake their fists in the air because they can't hold us long enough to kill us). So again, don't you dare pretend to speak for the (real) EVE PVE community. We aren't in the surrender business like the fake pve forum whine crowd likes to claim we are.
I can't press like hard enough.
New player resources:
Uni Wiki - General Info
Eve Altruist - PvP
Belligerent Undesirables - High Sec Pvp
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
445
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:50:36 -
[187] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Again, that's victim blame. The fact is that on average miners are profitable to gank. If they weren't you'd find another target to gank. Because they choose to be. The pertinent word is choose, they have a choice. I choose to tank my barges, they choose not to. They are to blame for the choices they make.
Quote:If no target were, you'd ask for changes to make them profitable. It still doesn't change the fact that it's easy to gank very profitably. Whether or not you want to blame the miners of the mechanics is irrelevant. Gankers aren't the ones constantly screaming for change, they're the ones that keep adapting to it. As for the profitability of ganking, if there were no profitable targets, that would mean that CCP had removed the possibility of people making foolish choices; not a good thing for CCP, or people that enjoy Eve.
Quote:I honestly don;t believe that with so many gankers in it primarily for showing their killboards off. Fact is that the ships it takes to take down a freighter are shockingly cheap in comparison with the freighter. I know that value doesn't affect how much it should take to drop the ship, but it should have at least a little bit of an impact on it. That's like complaining that a $500 RPG round or a $300 IED can take out an armoured vehicle costing upwards of $100,000.
Even in the real world "cash-tanking" doesn't work.
[quoteIt may be considered propaganda, but it doesn't make it any less true. It is a waste of time to try to fight a ganker, and there really is nothing you can do to a ganker to affect them. They're just like any other throwaway alt in that way.[/quote]Looks like the propaganda is working as intended tbh, it's certainly made a believer out of you.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11470
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:52:41 -
[188] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I'm sure with some good skills and a lot of luck can indeed counter a gank, that still doesn't mean that the amount of isk, effort and skill to avoid the gank is balanced with the amount of isk, effort and skill to execute it.
Ganks are trivially avoided with a T1 frigate equipped with two webs.
It doesn't get much lower of an investment than that to avoid getting ganked. And I might add that a swarm of catalysts, an Orca/Bowhead, and a pile of shuttles for sprinkles costs a hell of a lot more than a single T1 frigate.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
1932
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:54:41 -
[189] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:it's practically a reversal of previous concord exploit, just with extra ships being lost. "It's a reveral of avoiding losing your ship, just with losing your ship."
Witty Image - Stream
Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:55:13 -
[190] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Don't you even dare suggest such a thing, because it would be a lie. Real EVE PVE players aren't powerless victimhood pansies that complain about "oh whoa is me CCP don't like my play style". We are right there in the arena with the PVP jocks doing our thing, THINKING, acting, winning (wining for us is stacking wealth while "pvp players" shake their fists in the air because they can't hold us long enough to kill us).
So again, don't you dare pretend to speak for the (real) EVE PVE community. We aren't in the surrender business like the fake pve forum whine crowd likes to claim we are. As are most players who perform PVE, most just don't have quite the amount of love for CODE as you do. You like to talk about how super amazing you are at PVE and how you don't need to go on forums and blah, blah, blah *patting own back ad infinitum* but that doesn't automatically make every concern invalid. I get it, you like it as it is. Other's don't. You aren't automatically more right, and other people's opinions are as valid as your own.
At the end of the day CCP rely on feedback to know where to make changes that benefit the community as a whole. Many of us are willing to have reasonable discussions about these things. You coming along insulting people and talking about the "crying" and the "whining pansies" is non-constructive trolling, nothing more. It's not useful to anyone.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
610
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:56:01 -
[191] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:But ganking freighters, that is designed to be solo play?
Of course not. The method discussed here takes at least 3 people (1 Ganker, 1 Bumper, 1 Ship supplier), do you know of a method where you can do it solo?
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11471
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:58:16 -
[192] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:But ganking freighters, that is designed to be solo play? Of course not. The method discussed here takes at least 3 people (1 Ganker, 1 Bumper, 1 Ship supplier), do you know of a method where you can do it solo?
I encountered such a thing once, but it involves facpo and forgetful PL jump freighter pilots.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Herpp Derpp
Enlightened Industries
Goonswarm Federation
22
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 22:59:57 -
[193] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Sure, there's ways to preemptively help avoid a gank (though no guarantees), I'm not really sure how warping to a celestial really helps when being bumped though, since the bumping generally means you can't warp. And the realism is that even if you were to logi a freighter to the point it couldn't be ganked, they can still just continue to bump it for pretty much ever. A half awake bumper can keep a freighter in place for hours.
To answer: occasionally an incompetent bumper may bump you away from a gate and towards a celestial. Doesn't happen too often, but I know that mistake has been made before.
But don't attack just one of my anecdotal examples, attack the idea behind them. Or is part of your defense regarding this change based on bumping? That's a different thread.
To be clear, the point I was trying to make is effort = reward. Just need to put in more effort than the other guy. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24790
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:00:04 -
[194] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Sure, there's ways to preemptively help avoid a gank (though no guarantees), I'm not really sure how warping to a celestial really helps when being bumped though, since the bumping generally means you can't warp. Bumping does not inhibit you from warping GÇö just from moving in a particular direction. Warping to a celestial (or other warpable target) that is in line with your newfound travel vector helps becauseGǪ wellGǪ you've warped off.
Quote:And the realism is that even if you were to logi a freighter to the point it couldn't be ganked, they can still just continue to bump it for pretty much ever. GǪand that is where the entire hypothetical threat abandons all pretences of realism because no ganker will do that. They will just pick a softer target rather than waste forever on one that can't be killed.
Quote:But ganking freighters, that is designed to be solo play? Good news: it isn't. It requires at least three pilots to do it at all, and most likely at least another one to pick good targets.
Quote:I supports ganking, and CODE GǪby consistently arguing for more and more measures aimed specifically at eradicating both? Yeah, no. You can't possible expect anyone to believe that IMMENSE pile of bull manure you just unloaded.
By the way, asking you questions that you can't answer, thereby exposing your ignorance, prejudice, and complete disregard for balance does not equate to trolling. Your refusal to try to at least provide an answer is an answer in and of itself, and not the one you want to provide.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Paranoid Loyd
3645
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:00:11 -
[195] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:But ganking freighters, that is designed to be solo play? Of course not. The method discussed here takes at least 3 people (1 Ganker, 1 Bumper, 1 Ship supplier), do you know of a method where you can do it solo? I encountered such a thing once, but it involves facpo and forgetful PL jump freighter pilots.
One could imagine a well timed duel request just before the webbing alt's duel request might be able to do it as well.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Aleksi Bocharov
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:01:44 -
[196] - Quote
How is it avoiding CONCORD and avoiding the timer? Your ship(s) still die to CONCORD and if anything you're extending the timer. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:03:23 -
[197] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Because they choose to be. The pertinent word is choose, they have a choice. I choose to tank my barges, they choose not to. They are to blame for the choices they make. *Slams head on desk* I give up. You're not going to understand that whether it's by choice or not is irrelevant, the end result is the same. If CCP were able to patch players, I'd ask them to patch miners to make them play more effectively to avoid being ganked. As they can't, the only way to alter the balance is to steer the game though mechanics. If you don't get it that time, you never will, so I'm done with repeating myself.
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Gankers aren't the ones constantly screaming for change, they're the ones that keep adapting to it. As for the profitability of ganking, if there were no profitable targets, that would mean that CCP had removed the possibility of people making foolish choices; not a good thing for CCP, or people that enjoy Eve. Uhhh, except they do ask for changes. Some even scream. The only reason fewer do so now is because it's so much in the gankers favour it's hard to find more to ask for.
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:That's like complaining that a $500 RPG round or a $300 IED can take out an armoured vehicle costing upwards of $100,000. Indeed, and games could be just as unbalanced as real life but generally people find it more fun when players are given a relatively level playing field.
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Looks like the propaganda is working as intended tbh, you've certainly bought into it.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11471
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:03:31 -
[198] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:But ganking freighters, that is designed to be solo play? Of course not. The method discussed here takes at least 3 people (1 Ganker, 1 Bumper, 1 Ship supplier), do you know of a method where you can do it solo? I encountered such a thing once, but it involves facpo and forgetful PL jump freighter pilots. One could imagine a well timed duel request just before the webbing alt's duel request might be able to do it as well.
"An all syrup super squishie? ...such a thing has never been done!"
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24790
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:03:53 -
[199] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:At the end of the day CCP rely on feedback to know where to make changes that benefit the community as a whole. Many of us are willing to have reasonable discussions about these things. So why do you refuse to have one? Why do you instead choose to insult other players and dismiss their arguments out of hand without anything that even remotely resembles a proper, coherent, or well-reasoned argument based on the reality of the game?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11472
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:07:26 -
[200] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: If CCP were able to patch players, I'd ask them to patch miners to make them play more effectively to avoid being ganked. As they can't, the only way to alter the balance is to steer the game though mechanics. If you don't get it that time, you never will, so I'm done with repeating myself.
I don't think you get it.
The correct response is to let them die.
Failure to use the existing tools does not equate to a need for a mechanic change. And if they won't change their attitudes and their lazy playstyles, then they exist solely to be food for someone else.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Aleksi Bocharov
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:10:42 -
[201] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:I don't disagree, but then the gankers should also have to put some bloody effort in. There it is. the underlying emotion based 'reasoning' behind an unreasonable worldview. "But, but, the other guy should have to work as hard as I think I am too!!!! It's not FAIR!!!" This thinking is at the core all every single anti ganking, scamming and afk-cloking post ever posted. Kind of a screwed up video game egalitarianism. Of course they should have to work for it. I'm fed up of listening to CODE players going on and on and on about how easy the carebears have it while ganking is insanely easy, nearly risk free and without consequence. Now it's officially easy to solo gank basically any ship. Excuse me if I thought this is EVE Online where the game is supposed to take a modicum of effort.
Suicide ganking is not without consequence. You lose your ship, you lose security status, and you get killrights on yourself. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4972
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:12:37 -
[202] - Quote
Herpp Derpp wrote:To answer: occasionally an incompetent bumper may bump you away from a gate and towards a celestial. Doesn't happen too often, but I know that mistake has been made before. Indeed, thatwould be a serious meistake on the bumpers part and we even lost a couple of freighters to sneaky warp-offs in burn jita like that. Hoping for a bumper to make a serious error isn't really a defense though.
Herpp Derpp wrote:But don't attack just one of my anecdotal examples, attack the idea behind them. Or is part of your defense regarding this change based on bumping? That's a different thread.
To be clear, the point I was trying to make is effort = reward. Just need to put in more effort than the other guy. No, I don't mind bumping. It's a bit different when people bump for hours for no reason, but bumping for a gank is part of the game. I just like that the gankers had to get the target bumped, get their fleet ready, warp to the target and blitz. At that point it becomes all or nothing, with it being your planning and execution vs whatever defenses the target can muster. Sometimes they don't quit go and you have a hero gank squad nearby that can come and polish off the remaining damage, otherwise it's a wait for the timer while both sides regroup for round 2. That's the exciting type of ganking I like.
This though, it's a cheap tactic. You can just keep adding catalysts until the target drops. You don't need to pre-emptively determine how many you need in fleet or worry about not getting it on the first round. You just keep dropping catalysts until they are a wreck. And considering it's so similar to the old boomerang exploit just with extra catalysts lost, It's really a surprise that CCP allow it to be honest.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
366
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:14:37 -
[203] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: so I'm done with repeating myself.
Praise the lord!
e:f,b
too soon, he repeated himself |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4972
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:15:13 -
[204] - Quote
Aleksi Bocharov wrote:Suicide ganking is not without consequence. You lose your ship, you lose security status, and you get killrights on yourself. All of which mean precisely zip. A disposable ship, sec status which does absolutely nothing beyond not allow you to fly non-gank ships without risking their loss (which a ganker alt does not need to fly) and killrights which are irrelevant as you're usually attackable anyway, and you are still flying a disposable ship you don't care about.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Hippinse
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
39
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:15:34 -
[205] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: If CCP were able to patch players, I'd ask them to patch miners to make them play more effectively to avoid being ganked.
That seems creepy. I'd rather not have CCP messing with my brain, thanks. I like having choices.
Lucas Kell wrote:As they can't, the only way to alter the balance is to steer the game though mechanics. If you don't get it that time, you never will, so I'm done with repeating myself.
No. Some of the miners are being 'steered' to adjust their habits by the application of existing mechanics on the part of the gankers. AKA, learning from their own or the mistakes of others.
For example, I've been ganked hauling goods in a small ship. (A handful of SOE probe launchers in a T1 destroyer.) Once was all it took for me to realize that I'd made SEVERAL mistakes which allowed that to happen.
I mine a lot, but I've never been ganked mining, because I've studied the ganks. (And I know that all 5 or 6 of the things that I do differently than most miners doesn't guarantee my safety.)
CCP doesn't need to change mechanics for me to improve my odds at avoiding ganks. They just need to make it possible. (My ship, my goods, my responsibility.)
I don't think that anyone can argue that the hyperdunking ruling makes protecting one's self impossible. |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
447
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:18:49 -
[206] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Because they choose to be. The pertinent word is choose, they have a choice. I choose to tank my barges, they choose not to. They are to blame* responsible for the choices they make. *Slams head on desk* I give up. You're not going to understand that whether it's by choice or not is irrelevant, the end result is the same. If CCP were able to patch players, I'd ask them to patch miners to make them play more effectively to avoid being ganked. As they can't, the only way to alter the balance is to steer the game though mechanics. If you don't get it that time, you never will, so I'm done with repeating myself. So let me get this straight, you don't feel that people should take responsibility for the choices they make?
*post was changed prior to your quote, edited your quote to reflect that
Quote:Uhhh, except they do ask for changes. Some even scream. The only reason fewer do so now is because it's so much in the gankers favour it's hard to find more to ask for. I won't even bother asking you to prove this, you'll just evade the question. BTW the past 5 years of mechanics changes contradicts your claim of the balance being in the gankers favour, they've received far more nerfs than they have buffs, the inverse is true of "carebears".
Quote:Indeed, and games could be just as unbalanced as real life but generally people find it more fun when players are given a relatively level playing field. It is a fairly level playing field if you choose to take advantage of all of the tools you're given to use.
Gankers use every tool at their disposal because they have to, most of their victims don't because they're complacent, lazy or uninformed.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4972
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:20:09 -
[207] - Quote
Hippinse wrote:No. Some of the miners are being 'steered' to adjust their habits by the application of existing mechanics on the part of the gankers. AKA, learning from their own or the mistakes of others.
For example, I've been ganked hauling goods in a small ship. (A handful of SOE probe launchers in a T1 destroyer.) Once was all it took for me to realize that I'd made SEVERAL mistakes which allowed that to happen.
I mine a lot, but I've never been ganked mining, because I've studied the ganks. (And I know that all 5 or 6 of the things that I do differently than most miners doesn't guarantee my safety.)
CCP doesn't need to change mechanics for me to improve my odds at avoiding ganks. They just need to make it possible. (My ship, my goods, my responsibility.)
I don't think that anyone can argue that the hyperdunking ruling makes protecting one's self impossible. Congratulations. Now go get the majority of other players to change their ways and the game will rapidly move towards being balanced. Oh wait, you can't change how the vast majority of players play the game, so it will remain cheap and easy to gank for considerable profit. I guess all is right in the world, because while it's unbalanced, it's some of the player's faults, therefore it's fine.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
3696
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:20:19 -
[208] - Quote
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: It's called balance. It's something different than "If you do PvP, you're good to go; If you dare to PvE, you're ****** and pay for it". Don't you even dare suggest such a thing, because it would be a lie. Real EVE PVE players aren't powerless victimhood pansies that complain about "oh whoa is me CCP don't like my play style". We are right there in the arena with the PVP jocks doing our thing, THINKING, acting, winning (wining for us is stacking wealth while "pvp players" shake their fists in the air because they can't hold us long enough to kill us). So again, don't you dare pretend to speak for the (real) EVE PVE community. We aren't in the surrender business like the fake pve forum whine crowd likes to claim we are. I can't press like hard enough.
Tell your puppet master that I am thinking too. I want to fit a MJD on a Bowhead so it can jump away 100 km without aligning, thus anyone who wants to gank it will need to sacrifice several pointers and not just DPS ships. Still would be a massive tradeoff in value in favor of the PvPrs, though.
But, for some unknown reason, I can't fit a MJD in a Bowhead. Guess WHO causes that. My lack of intelligence? Or CCP's unlimited love for whatever exits the rectum of PvPrs?
The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
|
Herpp Derpp
Enlightened Industries
Goonswarm Federation
22
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:23:54 -
[209] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:No, I don't mind bumping. It's a bit different when people bump for hours for no reason, but bumping for a gank is part of the game. I just like that the gankers had to get the target bumped, get their fleet ready, warp to the target and blitz. At that point it becomes all or nothing, with it being your planning and execution vs whatever defenses the target can muster. Sometimes they don't quit go and you have a hero gank squad nearby that can come and polish off the remaining damage, otherwise it's a wait for the timer while both sides regroup for round 2. That's the exciting type of ganking I like.
This though, it's a cheap tactic. You can just keep adding catalysts until the target drops. You don't need to pre-emptively determine how many you need in fleet or worry about not getting it on the first round. You just keep dropping catalysts until they are a wreck. And considering it's so similar to the old boomerang exploit just with extra catalysts lost, It's really a surprise that CCP allow it to be honest.
RE: Bumping. You're right and I hope you saw my edit.
I admit your argument has a lot of merit regarding the execution of the gank, but to say that it's a cheap tactic isn't really fair to the preparation work, training, knowledge of mechanics, luck, patience, and shopping lists that all came before the gank. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11473
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:24:08 -
[210] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Congratulations. Now go get the majority of other players to change their ways and the game will rapidly move towards being balanced. Oh wait, you can't change how the vast majority of players play the game, so it will remain cheap and easy to gank for considerable profit. I guess all is right in the world, because while it's unbalanced, it's some of the player's faults, therefore it's fine.
It is balanced. Their failure to play the game correctly does not equate to a mechanical imbalance, what's more.
If you play the game correctly, you are all but invincible.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Hippinse
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
39
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:24:34 -
[211] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Hippinse wrote:No. Some of the miners are being 'steered' to adjust their habits by the application of existing mechanics on the part of the gankers. AKA, learning from their own or the mistakes of others.
For example, I've been ganked hauling goods in a small ship. (A handful of SOE probe launchers in a T1 destroyer.) Once was all it took for me to realize that I'd made SEVERAL mistakes which allowed that to happen.
I mine a lot, but I've never been ganked mining, because I've studied the ganks. (And I know that all 5 or 6 of the things that I do differently than most miners doesn't guarantee my safety.)
CCP doesn't need to change mechanics for me to improve my odds at avoiding ganks. They just need to make it possible. (My ship, my goods, my responsibility.)
I don't think that anyone can argue that the hyperdunking ruling makes protecting one's self impossible. Congratulations. Now go get the majority of other players to change their ways and the game will rapidly move towards being balanced. Oh wait, you can't change how the vast majority of players play the game, so it will remain cheap and easy to gank for considerable profit. I guess all is right in the world, because while it's unbalanced, it's some of the player's faults, therefore it's fine.
Thanks, but I'm not trying to solicit praise. I'm demonstrating that if I can do this, the bar is set pretty low.
Why do I *need* to get the majority of other players to change their ways?
When did we establish that those continuing to afk mine/haul/etc are the majority?
What is so wrong about personal responsibility? |
Aleksi Bocharov
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:26:16 -
[212] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Aleksi Bocharov wrote:Suicide ganking is not without consequence. You lose your ship, you lose security status, and you get killrights on yourself. All of which mean precisely zip. A disposable ship, sec status which does absolutely nothing beyond not allow you to fly non-gank ships without risking their loss (which a ganker alt does not need to fly) and killrights which are irrelevant as you're usually attackable anyway, and you are still flying a disposable ship you don't care about.
If losing your ship means precisely zip, then why are your panties so bunched over ships being lost as targets of suicide ganks? Meaning is assigned by the players. Most players do not suicide gank because the consequences, which they find meaningful, deter them. Others have planned for the consequences and deemed them acceptable.
Working as intended, so sorry for you, but your original statement is that there are no consequences. There clearly are, as you just admitted - but now you're trying to qualify them as "meaningful" or not. |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
448
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:27:42 -
[213] - Quote
Hippinse wrote:What is so wrong about personal responsibility? Lucas appears to feel that taking responsibility for the choices you make is wrong, I call it acting like an adult.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24792
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:29:55 -
[214] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I just like that the gankers had to get the target bumped, get their fleet ready, warp to the target and blitz. At that point it becomes all or nothing, with it being your planning and execution vs whatever defenses the target can muster. Sometimes they don't quit go and you have a hero gank squad nearby that can come and polish off the remaining damage, otherwise it's a wait for the timer while both sides regroup for round 2. That's the exciting type of ganking I like.
This though, it's a cheap tactic. GǪthat offers the exact same dynamic. Sometimes, your planning and execution isn't up to snuff and you'll either need a secondary squad to get in on the action, or you will have to let this target go. You still have to determine how much you need to bring, and you need to determine if your calculations don't match with what you're up against.
If anything, this tactic requires more preparation and planning since a single cockup will screw the whole thing. Incidentally, that's also why it's so trivially easy to disruptGǪ Well, trivially easy if you choose not to be a victim, that is.
Quote:All of which mean precisely zip. GǪif you choose to. You can also choose not to, at which point they will matter a lot. If there is a problem, it's with your specific choice GÇö not a game design problem.
Quote:Congratulations. Now go get the majority of other players to change their ways and the game will rapidly move towards being balanced. What majority are you talking about here?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4972
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:31:21 -
[215] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:So let me get this straight, you don't feel that people should take responsibility for the choices they make? No, I think players should be responsible for their choices, I just don't think that things should be left easy and cheap for the people preying on the terrible players purely because those players are terrible. Perhaps the game isn't intuitive enough, or perhaps it's not clear enough how to avoid a gank, or perhaps ganking mechanics themselves are too weighted in favour of the aggressor. Perhaps all of those, perhaps none of them. The result is the same though. A young character ganking can be very profitable even with a relatively low level of skill.
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:I won't even bother asking you to prove this, you'll just evade the question. BTW the past 5 years of mechanics changes contradicts your claim of the balance being in the gankers favour, they've received far more nerfs than they have buffs, the inverse is true of "carebears". Well for starters you can listen to Sabriz talking about his campaign. A lot of that is geared towards either punishing people for not putting themselves in the line of fire from gankers or rewarding them for putting themselves in the line of fire from gankers even though they lack the skill to go up against veteran players ganking.
And yes, I've heard the whole "ganking got super nerfed!" multiple times before, but I've ganked before and I've ganked recently and it's considerably easier to do now. Perhaps that's purely because the science behind it has been tried and tested so much more now that everything is refined down to perfection so even in the face of negative changes it's excelled, but again the result is the same.
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:It is a fairly level playing field if you choose to take advantage of all of the tools you're given to use. Not really. In any situation I'd rather be the ganker than the target. Far more opportunities for success and far more entertaining gameplay. Slowboating a freighter 20 jumps only to get bumped for three quarters of an hour while waiting for a gank fleet? I'd self destruct by the time they got there. I used to do freighter escorts a long time back, and they were painful. Sod that, red frog can do it. They may just AFK everything from A to B but at least they pay for it when they get toasted and I don't have to watch.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4972
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:34:31 -
[216] - Quote
Aleksi Bocharov wrote:If losing your ship means precisely zip, then why are your panties so bunched over ships being lost as targets of suicide ganks? Meaning is assigned by the players. Most players do not suicide gank because the consequences, which they find meaningful, deter them. Others have planned for the consequences and deemed them acceptable. Most gankers gank with alts specifically to nullify all consequences. And gank ships lost mean precisely zip because they are built to be disposable.
Aleksi Bocharov wrote:Working as intended, so sorry for you, but your original statement is that there are no consequences. There clearly are, as you just admitted - but now you're trying to qualify them as "meaningful" or not. A consequence isn't really a consequence if it doesn't mean or affect anything...
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11475
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:43:29 -
[217] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Most gankers gank with alts specifically to nullify all consequences.
You mean like how Red Frog uses multiple alts and extra contracts to shield the contents of their cargo? Or how people haul with neutral alts to hide? Or how station traders never really undock and can't be touched?
Alts exist, Lucas. Deal with it. If you want to tilt that windmill, this is the wrong thread for it.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24792
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:44:05 -
[218] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:No, I think players should be responsible for their choices, I just don't think that things should be left easy and cheap for the people preying on the terrible players purely because those players are terrible. You're asking for the impossible then. The mere fact that they're terrible GÇö nothing else GÇö is what makes it cheap and easy. There is no way to avoid that since it's an inherent property of being terrible in a PvP environment.
Quote:A young character ganking can be very profitable even with a relatively low level of skill. So what?
Quote:And yes, I've heard the whole "ganking got super nerfed!" multiple times before, but I've ganked before and I've ganked recently and it's considerably easier to do now. It's easier for two reasons: you have learned, and the others have not. They have not learned because, piece by piece, every reason to learn has systematically been removed from the game. In the olden days, the risk of being ganked was high, so people learned to avoid it. Now it's not, so they don't.
Quote:In any situation I'd rather be the ganker than the target. Far more opportunities for success and far more entertaining gameplay. More entertaining, maybe. More opportunities for success? No. To succeed, you actually have to find a target, which is almost entirely out of your control. To succeed as a target, all you have to do isGǪ not be a target. This is so easily done that successes happen every time (-¦+¦ or some similarly statistically insignificant amount).
Quote:Most gankers gank with alts specifically to nullify all consequences. And gank ships lost mean precisely zip because they are built to be disposable. You remain utterly confused about the actual consequence: you miss your gank. The mission kill is how you win against a ganker, and it means they have lost something infinitely more valuable than just the ship. By the way, the exact same mechanics the gankers use are available to those who want to oppose them GÇö passively or actively GÇö and they work exceedingly well.
The consequences of a successful attack on a ganker mean or affect a hell of a lot, and as long as you ignore this simple fact by staring yourself blind at some fictional ship cost, your entire argument has no basis in reality.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Hippinse
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
40
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:46:05 -
[219] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: Perhaps the game isn't intuitive enough, or perhaps it's not clear enough how to avoid a gank, or perhaps ganking mechanics themselves are too weighted in favour of the aggressor. Perhaps all of those, perhaps none of them. The result is the same though. A young character ganking can be very profitable even with a relatively low level of skill.
I agree with a great deal of this. Eve can be a cryptic game, and that can get you killed. Finding info isn't always straightforward, and lots of times what you do find is out of date. (Ironically, some of the efforts CCP is undertaking to make the game less cryptic contributes to the 'out of date' problem.) This game is much harsher than other multiplayer games.
I'm all in favor of making gameplay clearer. I'm all in favor of making the game more intuitive. But even though I'm the prey and not the predator in this scenario, I don't think the ruling is unfair or game-breaking. And I don't have a problem with young characters being profitable/successful in ganking.
They're NOT being successful/profitable against the people who are taking precautions. IOW, If the lion cubs start soloing the biggest and strongest wildebeests then I'll agree with you that something is out of balance. But this doesn't seem like that, to me.
Wow, 'wildebeest' is not spelled 'wildebeast'... that just seems weird. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24795
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:51:20 -
[220] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Not only is justice delightfully served, with a side of carebear tears...
But Tippia is back! Hooray!
Nah. Just on a rightfully deserved break from some proper writing.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
|
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
449
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:55:41 -
[221] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:No, I think players should be responsible for their choices Evidently not, you called it victim blaming in this very thread, so which one of the following is true:
If I make bad choices about how I fit my ships and play the game, it is my responsibility when somebody else takes advantage of the choices I made?
If I make bad choices about how I fit my ships and play the game, it's the fault of the game mechanics when somebody else takes advantage of the choices I made?
Quote: I just don't think that things should be left easy and cheap for the people preying on the terrible players purely because those players are terrible. So if I'm a terrible FPS player then better players shouldn't shoot me in the face because I'm easy meat?
Quote:A young character ganking can be very profitable even with a relatively low level of skill. Only if their targets make terrible choices. There's that responsibility thing again
Quote:Well for starters you can listen to Sabriz talking about his campaign. A lot of that is geared towards either punishing people for not putting themselves in the line of fire from gankers or rewarding them for putting themselves in the line of fire from gankers even though they lack the skill to go up against veteran players ganking. It's called politics, it's full of rhetoric and propaganda designed to stir up the masses, as with most political campaigns it's 99% bullshit and hot air.
Quote:And yes, I've heard the whole "ganking got super nerfed!" multiple times before, but I've ganked before and I've ganked recently and it's considerably easier to do now. Perhaps that's purely because the science behind it has been tried and tested so much more now that everything is refined down to perfection so even in the face of negative changes it's excelled, but again the result is the same. By your own admission, in this very thread, you never undock in hisec, so pray tell how do you know what hisec ganking currently involves?
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
4471
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:59:10 -
[222] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:A freighter pilot + an alt in an interceptor have tactics available to counter the bowhead, Machariel + the few Catalyst alts needed for an effective hyperdunk. A freighter pilot with about 6 alts in (ship redacted for #OPSEC reasons) can counter it even more effectively. If a GM or CCP employee wants these tactics explained, EVEmail me and I'll clarify them to you. I'm sure with some good skills and a lot of luck can indeed counter a gank, that still doesn't mean that the amount of isk, effort and skill to avoid the gank is balanced with the amount of isk, effort and skill to execute it. You'll happily march in favour of any change which makes your playstyle more viable with no regard for how it affects opposing styles of play.
The effort and skill required on behalf of the interceptor pilot is minimal. The other approach is harder to execute particularly for a solo player, but is considerably easier than executing a hyperdunk and it is done by at least one person at present.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
445
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:17:10 -
[223] - Quote
This seems wrong...another gamey tactic just like bumping, and CONCORD failing to act as a law enforcement agency would. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11480
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:23:58 -
[224] - Quote
I have invented something fun.
I call it the Veers Belvar Seal of Disapproval.
Basically, anything that Veers disapproves of is highly likely to be a good thing for the health of the game in general.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
451
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:25:12 -
[225] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:This seems wrong...another gamey tactic just like bumping, and CONCORD failing to act as a law enforcement agency would. Both tactics have been deemed to be legitimate actions, the fact that you don't like their decision is irrelevant in the face of the reality that they are quite literally the masters of this particular universe.
Go and find another windmill to tilt at, preferably in some other game.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Commentus Nolen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:32:46 -
[226] - Quote
If I find the stash of ships the hyperdunker has stashed and they are unpiloted can i destroy them without Concord intervention?
Do I get a kill mail for destroying them? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11481
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:33:42 -
[227] - Quote
Commentus Nolen wrote:If I find the stash of ships the hyperdunker has stashed and they are unpiloted can i destroy them without Concord intervention?
Do I get a kill mail for destroying them?
The beauty of the incredibly unbalanced safety system is that you don't even have to blow yourself up to find out. Try and shoot them with green, if it works, the answer is yes.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
453
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:35:29 -
[228] - Quote
Commentus Nolen wrote:If I find the stash of ships the hyperdunker has stashed and they are unpiloted can i destroy them without Concord intervention?
Do I get a kill mail for destroying them? As far as I know Concord will intervene if you shoot at them, however if you can fly them you can certainly steal them 
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Annette Nolen
Red Frog Freight
Red-Frog
64
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:35:34 -
[229] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:You mean like how Red Frog uses multiple alts and extra contracts to shield the contents of their cargo?
Red Frog does not double-wrap and hasn't for years. Sometimes our clients do it, but our pilots do should not and do not (and get yelled at if caught trying to). |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11481
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:37:08 -
[230] - Quote
Annette Nolen wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:You mean like how Red Frog uses multiple alts and extra contracts to shield the contents of their cargo? Red Frog does not double-wrap and hasn't for years. Sometimes our clients do it, but our pilots do should not and do not (and get yelled at if caught trying to).
Thank you for the correction. Intel file updated.
You guys use an alt passing system of some kind though, yes?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Annette Nolen
Red Frog Freight
Red-Frog
65
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:38:17 -
[231] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:If you play the game correctly, you are all but invincible.
Not so much. Webbing is not a guaranteed avoidance against bumping, and, once bumped, warping out to an aligned inty has... issues. |
Annette Nolen
Red Frog Freight
Red-Frog
65
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:39:08 -
[232] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:You guys use an alt passing system of some kind though, yes?
Yes we use neutral haulers for wardec reasons, but always via exchange and not double-wrapped couriers. The best (historical) defense against ganking was showing everyone how not valuable our cargo is :)
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11481
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:41:06 -
[233] - Quote
Annette Nolen wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:You guys use an alt passing system of some kind though, yes? Yes we use neutral haulers for wardec reasons, but always via exchange and not double-wrapped couriers. The best (historical) defense against ganking was showing everyone how not valuable our cargo is :)
Ah, so your "face" characters pass to neutral haulers. Okay, makes sense.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Aleksi Bocharov
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
17
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:43:46 -
[234] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Aleksi Bocharov wrote:If losing your ship means precisely zip, then why are your panties so bunched over ships being lost as targets of suicide ganks? Meaning is assigned by the players. Most players do not suicide gank because the consequences, which they find meaningful, deter them. Others have planned for the consequences and deemed them acceptable. Most gankers gank with alts specifically to nullify all consequences. And gank ships lost mean precisely zip because they are built to be disposable. Aleksi Bocharov wrote:Working as intended, so sorry for you, but your original statement is that there are no consequences. There clearly are, as you just admitted - but now you're trying to qualify them as "meaningful" or not. A consequence isn't really a consequence if it doesn't mean or affect anything...
Oh well? These are player choices, sorry dude.
Ganking is balanced and perfectly fine. Just fly smarter and don't make yourself a target. |
Paranoid Loyd
3645
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:44:57 -
[235] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Commentus Nolen wrote:If I find the stash of ships the hyperdunker has stashed and they are unpiloted can i destroy them without Concord intervention?
Do I get a kill mail for destroying them? As far as I know Concord will intervene if you shoot at them, but if you can fly them you can certainly board them and steal them . You can also target them to prevent the hyperdunker from boarding them, however if their "drop ship" is still around the pilot can do the same to prevent you from boarding and stealing them.
The cats also need to be dropped close to the target to work, simply bumping the ship out of blaster range would have also stopped this.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Aleksi Bocharov
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:48:11 -
[236] - Quote
ITT, consequences aren't really consequences unless they're unacceptable.
Source: Lucas Kell. |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
912
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:49:55 -
[237] - Quote
seems a bit exploity to me, but as said earlier it is much easier to disrupt than a traditional gank. As long as CCP is fine with it I'm fine with it.
I'll join the chorus asking CCP, don't take my fancy names away from me!
In the name of the Limos, the Malkuth, and the Arbalest, so help me pod
- Mara Rinn
|
Paranoid Loyd
3645
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:55:48 -
[238] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I have invented something fun.
I call it the Veers Belvar Blood & Feathers Seal of Disapproval.
Basically, anything that Veers disapproves of is highly likely to be a good thing for the health of the game in general.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
455
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:57:48 -
[239] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Commentus Nolen wrote:If I find the stash of ships the hyperdunker has stashed and they are unpiloted can i destroy them without Concord intervention?
Do I get a kill mail for destroying them? As far as I know Concord will intervene if you shoot at them, but if you can fly them you can certainly board them and steal them . You can also target them to prevent the hyperdunker from boarding them, however if their "drop ship" is still around the pilot can do the same to prevent you from boarding and stealing them. The cats also need to be dropped close to the target for hyperdunking to work, simply bumping the ship out of blaster range would have also stopped this. Shock, Horror.
Basic knowledge of game mechanics can effectively disrupt a hyperdunk. Who'd have thunk it?
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Paranoid Loyd
3648
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 01:03:31 -
[240] - Quote
Yeah, lets also all keep in mind, the "victim" logged off, which is also necessary to make this possible.
This is all I really need to make a judgment, logging off should never save your ship.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
|
|
d0ubl3 rainb0w
The Congregation
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 01:31:23 -
[241] - Quote
hypothetical question
if someone's hyperdunking a freighter but suddenly frieghter has reps or an escort
if the ganker then deagresses and waits out his criminal timer by just bumping
if the ganker-***-bumper makes the frieghter wait for downtime, is that abuse? |
Icarus Able
Revenant Tactical
534
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 01:35:32 -
[242] - Quote
d0ubl3 rainb0w wrote:hypothetical question
if someone's hyperdunking a freighter but suddenly frieghter has reps or an escort
if the ganker then deagresses and waits out his criminal timer by just bumping
if the ganker-***-bumper makes the frieghter wait for downtime, is that abuse?
Persistant bumping like that would probably be deemed exploit if over a sufficient period of time |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11483
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 01:44:54 -
[243] - Quote
d0ubl3 rainb0w wrote:
if the ganker-***-bumper makes the frieghter wait for downtime, is that abuse?
According to the GM ruling, you have to "make an effort" to move elsewhere or bumping you does not count as abuse.
And being afk doesn't count as making an effort. Nor does being logged out.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Annette Nolen
Red Frog Freight
Red-Frog
65
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 01:45:31 -
[244] - Quote
d0ubl3 rainb0w wrote:hypothetical question
if someone's hyperdunking a freighter but suddenly frieghter has reps or an escort
if the ganker then deagresses and waits out his criminal timer by just bumping
if the ganker-***-bumper makes the frieghter wait for downtime, is that abuse?
Not likely... persistent bumping is only really classified griefing if it's literally across multiple systems and play sessions (as per the last time this was publicly addressed by CCP/GMs, anyway).
And this isn't all that hypothetical... people really like to bump freighters with no intention of ever ganking them. It's pretty common to get bumped for 30m to 60m at a time before any given bumper gets bored. The typical gameplay reason is for ransom, but of course no one is ever going to pay. |
Dalphon Haman
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 01:48:49 -
[245] - Quote
For the first time I'm thinking about letting my subscription lapse. Just one more tool in the griefers box. Fit for tank and watch it just get whittled down unable to warp because of a bumping mach. This game just gets ridiculous the way the scales are tipped towards the griefers. I can't believe I'm saying this but I actually hoping one of these other space games in development pan out. I just want a game. Not a multiple alts logged in chore, when it comes to moving stuff. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11483
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 01:53:47 -
[246] - Quote
Dalphon Haman wrote:For the first time I'm thinking about letting my subscription lapse. Just one more tool in the griefers box. Fit for tank and watch it just get whittled down unable to warp because of a bumping mach. This game just gets ridiculous the way the scales are tipped towards the griefers. I can't believe I'm saying this but I actually hoping one of these other space games in development pan out. I just want a game. Not a multiple alts logged in chore, when it comes to moving stuff.
Don't let the door hit you. I mean, it's not like you don't already have near perfect safety, and CCP removing awoxing wholesale.
Nah, if your sub is contingent on something that is expressly not against the rules being made so just because of QQ, then get the hell out of my EVE and never look back.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Rena Senn
Resurrection Ventures
Un.Bound
136
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 02:10:09 -
[247] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Don't let the door hit you. I mean, it's not like you don't already have near perfect safety, and CCP removing awoxing wholesale.
Nah, if your sub is contingent on something that is expressly not against the rules being made so just because of QQ, then get the hell out of my EVE and never look back.
Plenty of awoxers were QQ over the friendly fire changes to the point of threatening to quit. Guess they should stay the hell out as well by your thinking.
And while gankers always turn to the "perfect safety" refrain whenever carebears complain about poorly implemented mechanics like machariel bumping neutral tackle in hs, they never seem to push for some truly radical forced risk taking like making station traders' inventories gankable. Talk about making money hand over fist in perfect safety. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11483
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 02:16:46 -
[248] - Quote
Rena Senn wrote:
Plenty of awoxers were QQ over the friendly fire changes to the point of threatening to quit.
There is a big damned difference between the deletion of a playstyle, and something that is obviously not against the rules being stated as such.
If you can't figure that out, then you're pretty far gone.
Quote:
And while gankers always turn to the "perfect safety" refrain whenever carebears complain about poorly implemented mechanics like machariel bumping neutral tackle in hs
Bumping isn't going to change for a number of reasons. Chief of which is that if CCP can't even change enough about the game to give us alliance level bookmarks, they damn sure can't redo the physics engine from the ground up.
So hopefully you can figure out how that all works together.
Quote:
they never seem to push for some truly radical forced risk taking like making station traders' inventories gankable. Talk about making money hand over fist in perfect safety.
Probably because that isn't broken. They're not in open space, what's more.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
688
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 02:43:44 -
[249] - Quote
Rena Senn wrote:
Plenty of awoxers were QQ over the friendly fire changes to the point of threatening to quit. Guess they should stay the hell out as well by your thinking.
If they actually quit over the propsed idea, then yeah, I say GTFO. The proposal adds a layer of difficulty to awoxing and, while I do not like the idea of removing risk in any way, I do like the idea of adding new challenges to playstyles. Anyone who quits because things get "too hard", I'm fine without them.
Vote Sabriz!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11484
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 02:46:44 -
[250] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:Rena Senn wrote:
Plenty of awoxers were QQ over the friendly fire changes to the point of threatening to quit. Guess they should stay the hell out as well by your thinking.
If they actually quit over the propsed idea, then yeah, I say GTFO. The proposal adds a layer of difficulty to awoxing and, while I do not like the idea of removing risk in any way, I do like the idea of adding new challenges to playstyles. Anyone who quits because things get "too hard", I'm fine without them.
That'd be true if it didn't have a 24 hour cooldown and a flashing warning to corpies when it's changed. It's not about "additional difficulty", this is intended to be a removal of the mechanic for anyone who can push a single button.
Now all that can reasonably be done is reverse awoxing, inviting people to a friendly fire corp. Personally I've decided to just switch to heavier ganking and scamming, with wardecs mixed in. Likely to officially join Code as well.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Rena Senn
Resurrection Ventures
Un.Bound
137
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 03:17:06 -
[251] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
There is a big damned difference between the deletion of a playstyle, and something that is obviously not against the rules being stated as such.
If you can't figure that out, then you're pretty far gone.
Not being able to fly through any .5 or .6 system in an entire class of ships because any bored multiboxer can blow up your ship with impunity while expending a fraction of the isk sounds like the deletion of a playstyle to me. There's a point where the effort vs reward equation of a scenario shifts so far into one direction that it might as well be the deletion of a playstyle. Awoxers can still con their way into directorship and turn off the corp safety while convincing the rest of the corp that it's business as usual. If despite this awoxers think the safety changes still amount to deleting a playstyle because doing that is too hard or not worth the effort, then I don't see how the exact same argument can't also apply to hyperdunking as the de facto deleting of interhub hauling as a gameplay style because now it's too hard or not worth the effort.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Bumping isn't going to change for a number of reasons. Chief of which is that if CCP can't even change enough about the game to give us alliance level bookmarks, they damn sure can't redo the physics engine from the ground up.
Neither of us know of the technical viability of altering hitbox behavior in highsec. And besides, "can't be done" is not the same as "shouldn't be done." A full overhaul of the POS code probably can't be done right now due to technical and resource constraints, but it's still something that should be worked on so it gets done eventually.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Probably because [station trading] isn't broken. They're not in open space, what's more.
What is and isn't broken is a matter of perspective. Being able to make trillions while having all your assets protected by the equivalent of an impenetrable forcefield with infinite hitpoints at all times looks pretty broken when compared to every other activity that requires you to risk putting assets into space in order to make money. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11489
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 03:21:58 -
[252] - Quote
Rena Senn wrote:[q
Not being able to fly through any .5 or .6 system in an entire class of ships because any bored multiboxer can blow up your ship with impunity while expending a fraction of the isk sounds like the deletion of a playstyle to me.
It's only possible if the other guy is afk.
Afk is not a playstyle.
Quote:Awoxers can still con their way into directorship and turn off the corp safety while convincing the rest of the corp that it's business as usual.
No, they cannot. It gives a 24 hour cooldown prior to activation, and sends a warning to all corp members the literal moment that starts.
Quote:
Neither of us know of the technical viability of altering hitbox behavior in highsec.
Actually, I do. Because I actually play this game. But clueless people like you will always think that you can just wave a magic wand, yell out "computer code!" and your desires are made manifest.
Unless you actually know of a way to debug a two decade old, underwater simulation physics model being press ganged into service as an MMO?
Because if not, shut it.
Quote:
What is and isn't broken is a matter of perspective. Being able to make trillions while having all your assets protected by the equivalent of an impenetrable forcefield with infinite hitpoints at all times looks pretty broken when compared to every other activity that requires you to risk putting assets into space in order to make money.
If it's that easy, I'll expect you to put up a screenshot of your first trillion this time next week.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Griever
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 03:33:10 -
[253] - Quote
CCP, thank you for maintaining consistency in this matter. Your transparency is also greatly appreciated. The next step is to stop preemptive blanket bans for grey area incidents which garner the attention of the Eve Online community at large. While I think everyone who has played the game knows that some players have a tendency to skirt the very limit of allowable gameplay and there's a legitimate fear to declaring precisely what you may not do - I believe posts like this stating exactly what is allowable add a great degree of clarity to the ToS and EULA and benefit your player base greatly. Thank you again. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1885
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 03:38:02 -
[254] - Quote
So, another reason for industrial ships to get proper fitting allowances and slots, comparative to other combat ships of their size. So they can actually choose to fit a tank if they desire (Or not as they desire also and plenty will not).
But hey, gotta keep weak targets out there for people to kill and feel good about themselves. |
Rena Senn
Resurrection Ventures
Un.Bound
138
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 03:38:04 -
[255] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
It's only possible if the other guy is afk.
Afk is not a playstyle.
You may fat finger all your bumps to the point that you can only ever manange to bump an afker, but people who know what they're doing are fully capable of keeping an atk hauler permanently neutral tackled.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No, they cannot. It gives a 24 hour cooldown prior to activation, and sends a warning to all corp members the literal moment that starts.
You can still manipulate people into staying by convincing them that despite the warning message it's still business as usual and they have nothing to worry about. Isn't awoxing all about deception and engendering trust. Are you saying doing that is is now too hard, or not worth the effort?
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rena Senn wrote:
Neither of us know of the technical viability of altering hitbox behavior in highsec.
Actually, I do. Because I actually play this game. But clueless people like you will always think that you can just wave a magic wand, yell out "computer code!" and your desires are made manifest. Unless you actually know of a way to debug a two decade old, underwater simulation physics model being press ganged into service as an MMO? Because if not, shut it.
I also play this game, just like you. There have been plenty of things that people thought could never get fixed, right up to the moment that CCP fixed them. Unless you have some actual experience debugging a two decade old, underwater simulation physics model being press ganged into service as an MMO, I'd appreciate it if you would stop shouting "the computer code is too hard!" without giving any demonstration as to how.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:If [station trading is] that easy, I'll expect you to put up a screenshot of your first trillion this time next week.
I'm not saying it's too easy, but that it's too safe. If I posted a screenshot of my current Jita inventory, can you gank it within a week's time? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11489
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 03:44:26 -
[256] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:So, another reason for industrial ships to get proper fitting allowances and slots, comparative to other combat ships of their size.
No, just another reason to actually be at the keyboard.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11489
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 03:48:45 -
[257] - Quote
Rena Senn wrote:
You may fat finger all your bumps to the point that you can only ever manange to bump an afker, but people who know what they're doing are fully capable of keeping an atk hauler permanently neutral tackled.
You don't actually know how this works, do you? The bumper has to keep the target tackled close to where the Catalyts are being dropped, thanks to their extreme low range.
Quote:
I also play this game, just like you.
Ha ha, no.
Quote: Unless you have some actual experience debugging a two decade old, underwater simulation physics model being press ganged into service as an MMO, I'd appreciate it if you would stop shouting "the computer code is too hard!" without giving any demonstration as to how.
Well, that, and CCP has outright admitted it several times. They can't change the POS code, they can't change the physics engine for the most part, and they can't change the corp/alliance interactions.
Honestly we were lucky they were able to give us the new gate warping animation instead of the old load screen.
Quote:
I'm not saying it's too easy, but that it's too safe. If I posted a screenshot of my current Jita inventory, can you gank it within a week's time?
People can go and wreck your economy if they know what it is, yeah. Are you saying that market PvP isn't a thing? Because if you take a look around, I think you'll find that it is.
(also, I can gank your haulers when you try and move inventory if I know who you are, unless you are actually telling me that you just sit and flip in Jita all day, in which case I'll ask you why you pay for a sub in the first place)
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Gavin Dax
Repercussus
Goonswarm Federation
90
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 03:51:35 -
[258] - Quote
A simple solution to HS bumping would be to implement a maximum time-to-warp. While this wouldn't fix things like a frigate bumping a titan out of rep range, it would at least address the high-sec issue.
It seems broken that a ship can bump a freighter until downtime in HS and not be aggressed without CONCORD intervention.
In response to some of the posts here: I'm also against the requirement of a webbing alt for freighter pilots - it only adds more trivial and tedious things to the game (either you do it or you don't, not really a choice, encourages alts online, etc.). It's also HS and not low/null - there's not much reason from a gameplay perspective to encourage escorts in high-sec (low/null it actually encourages more fights/content).
In general though I think EVE wrongly encourages risk-averse play, to the point where the best way to be successful at EVE is to just be risk-averse. This doesn't sound as appealing as the "harsh" game of great risk/reward that's intended by the designers. There is nothing harsh about risk-averse play, yet high-reward mechanics still exist that encourage it. IMO these mechanics are broken and should be fixed - HS ganking, logi, EWAR, OGB, HS incursion, null sec anom/DED mechanics just to name a few should all be reworked for a better game that more closely matches the supposed intentions of the designers.
Anyway, that's my opinion. This whole "hyperdunking" thing just seems like an extension of other problems with the game. |
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
1935
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 04:05:21 -
[259] - Quote
Dalphon Haman wrote:For the first time I'm thinking about letting my subscription lapse. Just one more tool in the griefers box. The game would be better off with one less person who thinks anyone who opposes them is a griefer.
Gavin Dax wrote:I'm also against the requirement of a webbing alt for freighter pilots - it only adds more trivial and tedious things to the game If the play required of a freighter pilot to be safe(r) is 'trivial and tedious', then perhaps the answer is to make safe travel less trivial, as opposed to making it even safer.
Kind of like how you don't solve being bored by doing less things.
Witty Image - Stream
Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
|
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Quantum Distributions
1385
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 04:43:53 -
[260] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: It's called balance. It's something different than "If you do PvP, you're good to go; If you dare to PvE, you're ****** and pay for it". Don't you even dare suggest such a thing, because it would be a lie. Real EVE PVE players aren't powerless victimhood pansies that complain about "oh whoa is me CCP don't like my play style". We are right there in the arena with the PVP jocks doing our thing, THINKING, acting, winning (wining for us is stacking wealth while "pvp players" shake their fists in the air because they can't hold us long enough to kill us). So again, don't you dare pretend to speak for the (real) EVE PVE community. We aren't in the surrender business like the fake pve forum whine crowd likes to claim we are. I can't press like hard enough. Tell your puppet master that I am thinking too. I want to fit a MJD on a Bowhead so it can jump away 100 km without aligning, thus anyone who wants to gank it will need to sacrifice several pointers and not just DPS ships. Still would be a massive tradeoff in value in favor of the PvPrs, though. But, for some unknown reason, I can't fit a MJD in a Bowhead. Guess WHO causes that. My lack of intelligence? Or CCP's unlimited love for whatever exits the rectum of PvPrs?
I'm confused, why would you be able to? Its already the safest "capital" ship in the game bar none.
New player resources:
Uni Wiki - General Info
Eve Altruist - PvP
Belligerent Undesirables - High Sec Pvp
|
|
|
Siegfried Cohenberg
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 05:01:17 -
[261] - Quote
As the self proclaimed best bumper in the game, I can tell you right now there are not a lot of good bumpers out there. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2602
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 05:13:29 -
[262] - Quote
This is great and all, but the feeling I get from the current situation is that the fight for EVE's core integrity has already been lost.
Wars are going to be neutered this year, and it's downright ignorant to think that CCP isn't going to go back for a "much needed reevaluation" on this whole "ganking situation" when it rightfully gets overused as the only method of bringing aggression to others.
They don't even let us have a thread about awoxing, to say nothing about the possibility of even having a shred of hope of discussing the proposed change with CCP itself.
Are you people blind? Do you not see that the only reason they've given hyperdunking the green light is to set it up for failure later on? It's much easier to push changes through when you justify them as "addressing problems" instead of preventing potential ones.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11497
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 05:32:37 -
[263] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:This is great and all, but the feeling I get from the current situation is that the fight for EVE's core integrity has already been lost.
Wars are going to be neutered this year, and it's downright ignorant to think that CCP isn't going to go back for a "much needed reevaluation" on this whole "ganking situation" when it rightfully gets overused as the only method of bringing aggression to others.
They don't even let us have a thread about awoxing, to say nothing about the possibility of even having a shred of hope of discussing the proposed change with CCP itself.
Are you people blind? Do you not see that the only reason they've given hyperdunking the green light is to set it up for failure later on? It's much easier to push changes through when you justify them as "addressing problems" instead of preventing potential ones.
And then the game will die, and we'll all go play The Repopulation or Archeage or Dreadnaught or something.
If they want to make the final choice to ruin the game and irrevocably **** off their core playerbase, that's their problem. If they haven't learned their lesson by now, they never will, and nothing I say will fix their attitude.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Leelo dallasmultipas
Destry's Lounge
Important Internet Spaceship League
9
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 05:41:03 -
[264] - Quote
Fix: Can't board a ship in space whilst crimflagged? Just like you can't warp off in your ship. |
Siegfried Cohenberg
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 05:42:13 -
[265] - Quote
Leelo dallasmultipas wrote:Fix: Can't board a ship in space whilst crimflagged? Just like you can't warp off in your ship.
if you think for a bit you can find out that hyperdunking is actually easily counterable even after the initial bump
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2602
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 05:44:44 -
[266] - Quote
I don't think it's going to die regardless of any changes. EVE is a game that many have heard about, but few have played. They can keep going off of turnover alone as long as they constantly make changes and put out "here's what we did this time!" press releases. It's a very clever business model for a small company, actually. Besides, neither the people who ask for the changes, nor the ones who get driven out by them, will stick around for the expected "I told you sos" after these things come to pass. Even to a veritable murderer, an EVE without awoxing will feel natural if he started to play it after its removal.
CCP isn't amazing because they created a great game (how many of those people still work in the company, again?). CCP is amazing because they can sell their "cold, harsh universe" marketing pitch regardless of how outdated and irrelevant it becomes.
Like I said, wars, this year. Put my name on a name-and-shame wall if I turn out to be wrong.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Korwin Abre-Kai
lichfield exploration and salvage
10
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 05:52:30 -
[267] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:This is great and all, but the feeling I get from the current situation is that the fight for EVE's core integrity has already been lost.
Wars are going to be neutered this year, and it's downright ignorant to think that CCP isn't going to go back for a "much needed reevaluation" on this whole "ganking situation" when it rightfully gets overused as the only method of bringing aggression to others.
They don't even let us have a thread about awoxing, to say nothing about the possibility of even having a shred of hope of discussing the proposed change with CCP itself.
Are you people blind? Do you not see that the only reason they've given hyperdunking the green light is to set it up for failure later on? It's much easier to push changes through when you justify them as "addressing problems" instead of preventing potential ones.
its called "handing you enough rope to hang your selves with" I don't know that I agree but it is possible, and who exactly will be to blame in the end? if you don't like how CCP "fixes" things might I suggest you all quit making it your business to push 10+ year old game mechanics to the breaking point then maybe CCP wont be forced to make changes in order to preserve their income stream. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2604
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 05:59:14 -
[268] - Quote
Korwin Abre-Kai wrote:its called "handing you enough rope to hang your selves with" I don't know that I agree but it is possible, and who exactly will be to blame in the end? if you don't like how CCP "fixes" things might I suggest you all quit making it your business to push 10+ year old game mechanics to the breaking point then maybe CCP wont be forced to make changes in order to preserve their income stream.
Kind of a Catch-22 then, isn't it? The only way to keep doing what we like is to not do it.
You know, there was a period in EVE's life when people just accepted the game for what it was. Right up until 2008 or so. Which is kind of interesting, when you look at this.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
David Mandrake
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 06:28:18 -
[269] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Hyena is better. Some gates spit you out miles apart and that can be enough to get you bowled.
The Cruor is also a nice choice as you train up to the Hyena, as it also uses the Minmatar Frigate skill and that's the skill which affects webbing range. You'll use an extra 8 hours on Amarr Frigate, but it'll mean you can consistently get better and better web range as you go up to Minmatar Frigate V, and have a fairly decent webber as you get the Electronic Attack Ships skill trained up (which requires Long Range Targeting V).
Additionally, one thing people miss about having an alt is that you can always use it for scouting. I've been saved many times while moving my Orca around because I'll have my webbing alt go ahead of the Orca - while the Orca sits at a safe - and found that the other gate had one or more Machariels or Stabbers on it. This combined with Dotlan's various tools - before I undock on a long trip I'll both run the route through it's planner, giving me the number of recent kills, as well as activate the Radar feature so I can see what the activity in the systems near me are - mean that I've never actually had the opportunity to test some other defensive ideas against ganks, simply because I've managed to avoid them. The trick to not getting suicide ganked is very simply being aware of your surroundings, as you really should be for anything you do in the game. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
524
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 06:52:53 -
[270] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:So, another reason for industrial ships to get proper fitting allowances and slots, comparative to other combat ships of their size. So they can actually choose to fit a tank if they desire (Or not as they desire also and plenty will not).
But hey, gotta keep weak targets out there for people to kill and feel good about themselves.
What are you going on about? Most industrial ships, certainly the T2s, can fit a significant tank - tanked Skiffs are insanely tough, and the bump-resistant DSTs can be made almost ungankable in highsec with freighter level EHPs.
Freighters are capital ships that are vulnerable to bumping, like all capital ships aren't meant to be flown solo. Just bring some combat ships to protect them, or use one of the other techniques to skirt around the gankers.
This is a game about trade-offs - you can't be tanked to the point of 100% safety and be able to haul 1M cubic meters of cargo all the time AFK.
CCP has given you a whole range of ships, modules, tools and information to allow you to trivially avoid most gankers. Spend just a little effort learning and using them, and you won't feel like a "weak target" ever again.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
|
|
Suitonia
Genos Occidere
The Camel Empire
442
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 06:59:17 -
[271] - Quote
If a guy is regularly doing this you can probe the bowhead/orca he is reshipping from (off-grid) and then smartbomb his pod or steal his catalysts with your own pods
Contributer to Eve is Easy:-á
https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos
Check out my PvP Rifter guide for new players;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YReUNRTGcXo
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24802
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 07:24:04 -
[272] - Quote
Leelo dallasmultipas wrote:Fix: Can't board a ship in space whilst crimflagged? Just like you can't warp off in your ship.
Fix for what? What's the problem?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
3699
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 07:36:06 -
[273] - Quote
Siegfried Cohenberg wrote:Leelo dallasmultipas wrote:Fix: Can't board a ship in space whilst crimflagged? Just like you can't warp off in your ship. if you think for a bit you can find out that hyperdunking is actually easily counterable even after the initial bump
Yes, just MJD away as the pointer is concordokken, fit a Higgs anchor and off you go.
Oh wait.
The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11503
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 07:37:20 -
[274] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Siegfried Cohenberg wrote:Leelo dallasmultipas wrote:Fix: Can't board a ship in space whilst crimflagged? Just like you can't warp off in your ship. if you think for a bit you can find out that hyperdunking is actually easily counterable even after the initial bump Yes, just MJD away as the pointer is concordokken, fit a Higgs anchor and off you go. Oh wait.
You forgot to do the first part of his sentence.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
3699
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 07:42:10 -
[275] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:So, another reason for industrial ships to get proper fitting allowances and slots, comparative to other combat ships of their size. So they can actually choose to fit a tank if they desire (Or not as they desire also and plenty will not).
But hey, gotta keep weak targets out there for people to kill and feel good about themselves. What are you going on about? Most industrial ships, certainly the T2s, can fit a significant tank - tanked Skiffs are insanely tough, and the bump-resistant DSTs can be made almost ungankable in highsec with freighter level EHPs. Freighters are capital ships that are vulnerable to bumping, like all capital ships aren't meant to be flown solo. Just bring some combat ships to protect them, or use one of the other techniques to skirt around the gankers. This is a game about trade-offs - you can't be tanked to the point of 100% safety and be able to haul 1M cubic meters of cargo all the time AFK. CCP has given you a whole range of ships, modules, tools and information to allow you to trivially avoid most gankers. Spend just a little effort learning and using them, and you won't feel like a "weak target" ever again.
Unless you're bumped to death by a BS (say, a Machariel), which is a all reward-no risk scenario for the bumper. What CCP calls "f**k the PvErs balance".
I am so bloody tired of this garbage. So. Bloody. Tired. Over and over again CCP insists that PvErs have no place and deserve no chance and no choice in their game.
Want to avoid PvP abuse of a stupid mechanic? PvP yourself. Play our way or go away. No choices. No options. Just fukking PvP, you fukking PvE c*nt.
The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11507
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 08:02:27 -
[276] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Unless you're bumped to death by a BS (say, a Machariel), which is a all reward-no risk scenario for the bumper. What CCP calls "f**k the PvErs balance".
Mechanically, it is completely neutral. The bumper neither gains nor loses anything(well, they lose time. But if that counts, we're all losing time).
What you're protesting is the meta result of bumping. And the answer is and will continue to be "too bad, it's easy to avoid anyway".
Quote:
I am so bloody tired of this garbage. So. Bloody. Tired. Over and over again CCP insists that PvErs have no place and deserve no chance and no choice in their game.
Except for how they incessantly buff Concord, barges, haulers, freighters, and remove awoxing. Among other things.
Quote:
Want to avoid PvP abuse of a stupid mechanic? PvP yourself. Play our way or go away. No choices. No options. Just fukking PvP, you fukking PvE c*nt.
I really don't know what your problem is. Are the simple, obvious ways to avoid being bumped and/or ganked asking too much of you, or what?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
711
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 08:02:37 -
[277] - Quote
You guys know there's a difference between being afk and not having an alt, right? Because it sure doesn't read like it. |
Pooji Bongton
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 08:03:41 -
[278] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Unless you're bumped to death by a BS (say, a Machariel), which is a all reward-no risk scenario for the bumper. What CCP calls "f**k the PvErs balance".
I am so bloody tired of this garbage. So. Bloody. Tired. Over and over again CCP insists that PvErs have no place and deserve no chance and no choice in their game.
Want to avoid PvP abuse of a stupid mechanic? PvP yourself. Play our way or go away. No choices. No options. Just fukking PvP, you fukking PvE c*nt.
You forgot to add that when joining the game, it's probably best to sub two characters, as an alt will be required for most activities in eve... 
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4983
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 08:04:53 -
[279] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Now all that can reasonably be done is reverse awoxing, inviting people to a friendly fire corp. Personally I've decided to just switch to heavier ganking and scamming, with wardecs mixed in. Likely to officially join Code as well. Or you can rob a corp. Or you can convince them to go to lowsec and kill them there, or you can bait them into a wartarget alt. The only thing that's been removed is the easiest form of awoxing. The fact that you describe it as the removal of the playstyle shows that you don't want to have to put any effort in, you just want things handed to you. Well tough luck buddy.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11516
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 08:11:27 -
[280] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:]Or you can rob a corp.
That's just corp theft.
Quote:
Or you can convince them to go to lowsec and kill them there
That's just piracy.
Quote: or you can bait them into a wartarget alt.
And that's just spying and wardeccing.
None of those things are awoxing.
Quote:
The only thing that's been removed is the easiest form of awoxing. The fact that you describe it as the removal of the playstyle shows that you don't want to have to put any effort in, you just want things handed to you. Well tough luck buddy.
Ah yes, and the people who want to have friendly fire removed with the push of one button are totally indicative of effort, and such.
You are such an enormous hypocrite.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Anthar Thebess
838
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 08:20:42 -
[281] - Quote
RIP higsec hauling.
Cost of suicide gank on higsec freighter just dropped to at most 1/10 of current value.
No more need of sharing dropped stuff with any one - makes 500mil freighters worth killing.
Tanked Orca any one?
You build freighters? Start killing empty ones for the cost of few catalist - you will earn much more on each freighter you sell.
The only safer hauling methods will be JF and tons of cyno alts in lowsec around the route or hire escort ships that will guard your freighter! So more work for new players.
I'm happy about this change.
People will finally move to safety of nullsec where you can shoot any one , and you don't need to count on broken CONCORD.
+1 CCP, good policy change.
Now pls focus on nullsec and sov changes. |
Dave Stark
7313
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 08:21:42 -
[282] - Quote
came for the inevitable carbear tears, left soaked.
10/10, would paddle in the lake of tears again. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4983
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 08:26:20 -
[283] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:That's just corp theft.
That's just piracy.
And that's just spying and wardeccing.
None of those things are awoxing. All of those things are part of the same playstyle. If your playstyle is limited to "join corp - shoot ship - repeat" maybe the problem is you. And strictly speaking, Awoxing is pointing a green ship while reds come and blow it up in null. It's definition has generally been extended to mean any planned form of action against your own corp however.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Ah yes, and the people who want to have friendly fire removed with the push of one button are totally indicative of effort, and such. Oh, no wait, they're the ones who want to have literally any burden of their own totally removed with the push of one button.
You are such an enormous hypocrite. I never said it was effort, but what it provides as a benefit far outweighs the cost that it imposes. Following the change there will no longer be a risk barrier preventing day old noobs being invited into any corp, which is vitally important in getting new players into a group where they can learn the game and find what they want to do which is vitally important for the NPE. If the only downside to that is people like you getting upset because you can't do the easiest form of awoxing, I can live with that.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
4213
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 08:30:55 -
[284] - Quote
Removed some more off topic posts.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11524
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 08:39:26 -
[285] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: Following the change there will no longer be a risk barrier preventing day old noobs being invited into any corp
With the exception of that stuff you listed. Corp thefts and spying chief among them.
That's what exposes it as a false flag, that it actually does nothing to accomplish it's intended purpose.
Quote:which is vitally important in getting new players into a group where they can learn the game and find what they want to do which is vitally important for the NPE.
Which is apparently tax farm slumlord highsec corps. Yeah, I can't think of a worse way to hurt retention than to allow those people to operate more safely, so they can poison new players with the most boring content in any contemporary MMO.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24815
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 08:43:05 -
[286] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I doubt it. If every ganker in the game left the game would continue as if nothing happened. The forums would probably be considerably less toxic and actual discussion might happen. You realise, of course, that the self-made victims are by far the least discussion-willing and most toxic part of the equation. They always have been, for the simple reason that they refuse to adapt in any way, and that includes refusing to listen to people explaining the game to them. Instead, they respond with invectives and abuse.
Quote:I think you misunderstand what their core playerbase is. I mean a huge chunk is nullsec and most people in nullsec couldn't care less what happens to highsec. CCPs own stats show that 4 times the number of people that join for interaction with others actually join for "levelling of the raven", and only while "many" of them leave after a few months, I'd bet that considerably more people would choose to stay than those that would choose to leave, and beside that we know that half of the players like yourself would be to addicted to quit anyway. Do you have a link to any of this? The core player base of EVE is one that likes sci fi, that likes complexity and having lots of choices, and that likes exploration. Last time I saw any kind of data on the matter, something that could be construed as GÇ£levelling the ravenGÇ¥ didn't even make it onto the list except maybe hidden in the GÇ£otherGÇ£ category GÇö below the importance of having a Mac client.
Quote:All in all, if CCP decided to move away from their old ideas in a new direction, all it would cause is people like yourself screaming "the end is nigh!" which happens anyway. It wouldn't actually hurt the game. What do I know though, I've only been here coming up for 10 years, so obviously I have no right to comment on the game I play. If you've been coming here for 10 years and still haven't figured out some of the basics that you are continuously wrong about, then yes, your right to comment isGǪ questionable. By the way, CCP have moved away from their old ideas in a new direction. Twice. Both times, it very predictably cost them a double-digit percentage of their players.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Wolf Soprano
Viziam
Amarr Empire
11
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 08:48:36 -
[287] - Quote
I do love reading threads like these.
They are definitely full of a salt like liquid coming from the eyes. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24818
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 08:50:15 -
[288] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:RIP higsec hauling.
Cost of suicide gank on higsec freighter just dropped to at most 1/10 of current value. No. The DPS of catalysts did not suddenly go up by an order of magnitude just because the GM team made a sensible reading of the rules. The cost of a gank is the same as ever GÇö in fact, it's most likely slightly higher with this tactic since you need to put more ships on the line.
Lucas Kell wrote:All of those things are part of the same playstyle. None of them are awoxing, so no, not really. I mean, they exist in the same space of activities, but by that kind of loose definition of a play style, ganking is part of the hauler play style.
Quote:Following the change there will no longer be a risk barrier preventing day old noobs being invited into any corp, which is vitally important in getting new players into a group where they can learn the game and find what they want to do which is vitally important for the NPE. If the only downside to that is people like you getting upset because you can't do the easiest form of awoxing, I can live with that. Here's the thing: that risk never existed. A corp that could actually teach new players anything worthwhile was effectively immune to any ill effects from awoxing. And no, one play style being eradicated is not the only downside. Another one is that more newbies will end up in corps that harm their development because of the incompetence of the leadership since the mechanism for filtering out those griefer corps is now gone.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
15998
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 08:50:24 -
[289] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Black Pedro wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:So, another reason for industrial ships to get proper fitting allowances and slots, comparative to other combat ships of their size. So they can actually choose to fit a tank if they desire (Or not as they desire also and plenty will not).
But hey, gotta keep weak targets out there for people to kill and feel good about themselves. What are you going on about? Most industrial ships, certainly the T2s, can fit a significant tank - tanked Skiffs are insanely tough, and the bump-resistant DSTs can be made almost ungankable in highsec with freighter level EHPs. Freighters are capital ships that are vulnerable to bumping, like all capital ships aren't meant to be flown solo. Just bring some combat ships to protect them, or use one of the other techniques to skirt around the gankers. This is a game about trade-offs - you can't be tanked to the point of 100% safety and be able to haul 1M cubic meters of cargo all the time AFK. CCP has given you a whole range of ships, modules, tools and information to allow you to trivially avoid most gankers. Spend just a little effort learning and using them, and you won't feel like a "weak target" ever again. Unless you're bumped to death by a BS (say, a Machariel), which is a all reward-no risk scenario for the bumper. What CCP calls "f**k the PvErs balance". I am so bloody tired of this garbage. So. Bloody. Tired. Over and over again CCP insists that PvErs have no place and deserve no chance and no choice in their game. Want to avoid PvP abuse of a stupid mechanic? PvP yourself. Play our way or go away. No choices. No options. Just fukking PvP, you fukking PvE c*nt.
It's taken a while but I'm glad to see you finally got it
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
15998
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 08:51:29 -
[290] - Quote
I won't lie to you, I'd pretty much given up hope
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4983
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 08:56:19 -
[291] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:With the exception of that stuff you listed. Corp thefts and spying chief among them.
That's what exposes it as a false flag, that it actually does nothing to accomplish it's intended purpose. Those things are already actively guarded by diligently implementing corp security. The problem is that to diligently implement corp security right now, part of that is not accepting noobs as no history is as bad as bad history. Most corps implement a minimum SP barrier to stop that, which is unhelpful to newbies. This change means that now there's no reason not to let them join, just don't give them roles.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Which is apparently tax farm slumlord highsec corps. Yeah, I can't think of a worse way to hurt retention than to allow those people to operate more safely, so they can poison new players with the most boring content in any contemporary MMO. The vast majority of "tax farm slumlord highsec corps" already openly recruit anyone because they care about tax, not whether or not awoxers shoot the members of their alt corp. This change means that other corps can also recruit openly.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24819
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 09:03:02 -
[292] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:That's what exposes it as a false flag, that it actually does nothing to accomplish it's intended purpose. Those things are already actively guarded by diligently implementing corp security. The problem is that to diligently implement corp security right now, part of that is not accepting noobs as no history is as bad as bad history. Most corps implement a minimum SP barrier to stop that, which is unhelpful to newbies.[/quote]Actually, most corps implement a minimum SP barrier to make sure they don't have to deal with newbies being newbies GÇö they have no interest in teaching them the basics and requiring a couple of months under the wings of a new prospect means they get someone who has a higher chance of being self-sufficient already.
SP barriers don't help against awoxing since awoxing is not a matter of character age. Nor does diligent corp security through mechanics help GÇö what helps is diligent corp security through proper knowledge management. This is why it was rather beneficial from an NPE perspective to have bad corps being filtered out: the ones that relied on the former rather than the latter would be hit and would close up, meaning their lacking ability was willingly kept away from the newbies.
Quote:The vast majority of "tax farm slumlord highsec corps" already openly recruit anyone because they care about tax, not whether or not awoxers shoot the members of their alt corp. This change means that other corps can also recruit openly.
They always could. The only difference is that more corps now have the potential of being implicit tax slumlords, still with no benefit to the new players.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Anthar Thebess
838
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 09:03:26 -
[293] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:RIP higsec hauling.
Cost of suicide gank on higsec freighter just dropped to at most 1/10 of current value. No. The cost of a gank is the same as ever GÇö in fact, it's most likely slightly higher with this tactic since you need to put more ships on the line.
You are wrong.
When you , and 10 of your other friends suicide a freighter then every thing that drop needs to be divided by 11 people.
This made this 1bil rule.
1 bil in cargo 50% burns divide by gankers and you get 40mil per person after counting off ship costs.
Not worth to kill.
New rule.
1 person and alts.
1bil in cargo 50% burns , divide by 1 and reduce by ganking cost is giving you around 450mil per gank.
You see the difference?
40mil cut and 450mil cut on the same ship that dies.
People don't put any more ships in danger.
They just have bowhead, and a freighter to pick up the loot , and a bumping alt , and a suicide alt.
You don't play eve on 1 account.
Even when you need help, and you take a friend to this gank you are still in very good position.
450mil /2 still gives enough isk for gank to happen as you are not only getting ISK , but also tons of fun.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24820
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 09:09:30 -
[294] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:You are wrong. No.
Before, it took X catalysts, a bumper, (preferably) a cleaner, and a hauler to kill and loot a freighter.
With this tactic, it takes X+ catalysts, a delivery vehicle, a bumper, (preferably) a cleaner, and a hauler to kill and loot a freighter.
The added delivery vehicle is perhaps not that much at risk, but you never know when some evil ganker might pass by and say GÇ£hey, I'd like to kill me one of thoseGÇ¥. So that's already more risk right there, if minimal. Then there's the fact that you don't deliver damage in parallel but in series, meaning more HP to chew through, more ships required to do so, and the potential for some nasty evil white knight to come along and kick that HP back up, again raising the cost.
Quote:You see the difference? I know the difference between GÇ£costGÇ¥ and GÇ£cutGÇ¥. You don't. So shush.
Quote:You don't play eve on 1 account. Really? That's news to me. So how many accounts do I play EVE on, because it looks like I need to start looking for the other ones.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
KIller Wabbit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
859
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 09:15:06 -
[295] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:I think I'll have to start looking for hyperdunkers and start collecting their abandoned ships.
Maybe even better, scan down their shuttle cache.
CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff
CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
KIller Wabbit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
860
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 09:19:13 -
[296] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:I think it's still a thing we'll be monitoring.
People are completely correct when they mention this is a game where suicide ganking and non-consentual PvP has been given the thumbs up by developers. That being said, we would still like to see a nice balance between effort and intelligence required on both sides of the coin. Making ganking too easy is not our goal, nor is it the other way around. Where that balance lies, and if hyperdunking has crossed some line, we'll have to see.
There are things we can change if needed.
Well you failed first pass.
However I'm extremely happy that CCP finally gave some approval to solo game play. You've been ******* over the solo players for months now.
CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff
CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
Inslander Wessette
Killers of Paranoid Souls
Universal Paranoia Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 09:23:14 -
[297] - Quote
So just a query about this .
I am not sure if i'm right . If someone can continue to gank after going criminal . Would this mean that the tactic can be done in any security and a work around to gank someone giving bs to concord .
Or would this work only in 0.5 and 0.6 only ?
|
KIller Wabbit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
860
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 09:24:06 -
[298] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:But ganking freighters, that is designed to be solo play? Of course not. The method discussed here takes at least 3 people (1 Ganker, 1 Bumper, 1 Ship supplier), do you know of a method where you can do it solo?
This is done with three account, not with three people.
CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff
CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
Astroid Mistress
Blue Yacht Brigade
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 09:28:42 -
[299] - Quote
Dear CCP Falcon and fellow pilots.
There is no way to escape this "hyperdunk" tactic once a Machariel has bumped you off alignment if you are in a Freighter.
The only way is to log off the game. How can logging off the game be part of normal gameplay? "Hyperdunking" would not last in low or null-sec due to the more ways you can overcome this tactic but exists in hi-sec making hi-sec more dangerous than low sec? The fact that -10 sec status players can live in hi-sec with a now endless ISK making scheme makes your judgement seem hasty? I think some game mechanics have changed with regard to global criminals and what they can and cannot do especially in terms of flying ships. It is very hard to determine what exactly has changed over the iterations of Eve patches with regard to global criminal and ship flying and Concord response time as it seems you have not fully documented these changes. If this type of gameplay remains I am afraid I will be joining them on this free ride to ISK glory. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2606
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 09:32:44 -
[300] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Tippia wrote:No. The cost of a gank is the same as ever GÇö in fact, it's most likely slightly higher with this tactic since you need to put more ships on the line. You are wrong. When you , and 10 of your other friends suicide a freighter then every thing that drop needs to be divided by 11 people. This made this 1bil rule. 1 bil in cargo 50% burns divide by gankers and you get 40mil per person after counting off ship costs. Not worth to kill. New rule. 1 person and alts. 1bil in cargo 50% burns , divide by 1 and reduce by ganking cost is giving you around 450mil per gank. You see the difference? 40mil cut and 450mil cut on the same ship that dies.
What are you, baka-stupid or something? Does your brain really not process the difference between having to split a take and the profitability of an activity?
Anthar Thebess wrote:People don't put any more ships in danger.
They just have bowhead, and a freighter to pick up the loot , and a bumping alt , and a suicide alt.
The fact that you're using an already GCC-flagged character means that CONCORD responds quicker, giving each ship less time to act on the field. This means you need to use more Catalysts, not less.
Astroid Mistress wrote:It is very hard to determine what exactly has changed over the iterations of Eve patches with regard to global criminal and ship flying and Concord response time as it seems you have not fully documented these changes.
The strength and efficiency of CONCORD has been going up in iterations ever since they day they made it immune to player damage.
Astroid Mistress wrote:If this type of gameplay remains I am afraid I will be joining them on this free ride to ISK glory.
Good.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
|
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
4479
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 09:32:56 -
[301] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:RIP higsec hauling.
Cost of suicide gank on higsec freighter just dropped to at most 1/10 of current value.
No more need of sharing dropped stuff with any one - makes 500mil freighters worth killing.
Tanked Orca any one?
You build freighters? Start killing empty ones for the cost of few catalist - you will earn much more on each freighter you sell.
The only safer hauling methods will be JF and tons of cyno alts in lowsec around the route or hire escort ships that will guard your freighter! So more work for new players.
I'm happy about this change.
People will finally move to safety of nullsec where you can shoot any one , and you don't need to count on broken CONCORD.
+1 CCP, good policy change.
Now pls focus on nullsec and sov changes.
This change will make life more profitable for highsec haulers that practice sensible #opsec. They can charge more once all the idiots lose their freighters.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24821
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 09:34:13 -
[302] - Quote
Inslander Wessette wrote:So just a query about this .
I am not sure if i'm right . If someone can continue to gank after going criminal . Would this mean that the tactic can be done in any security and a work around to gank someone giving bs to concord .
Or would this work only in 0.5 and 0.6 only ?
It's no different than any other suicide ganking strategy: it works everywhere, but the higher you go, the tighter your margins become and the less time you have actually delivering damage on target. The downtime between each pass is fairly constant, so the higher the sec rating, the lower your ratio of attack vs restock time goes, and the longer the gank will take GÇö longer obviously meaning more opportunity for things to go wrong (not to mention that 0.7 systems and up tend to have more natural avenues of escape or of simply circumnavigating the gank).
It GÇ£only worksGÇ¥ in 0.5 and 0.6, the same as most ganks really, because above that it just becomes too prolonged, cumbersome, and risky a procedure to be of any value.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11526
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 09:35:59 -
[303] - Quote
Astroid Mistress wrote:
There is no way to escape this "hyperdunk" tactic once a Machariel has bumped you off alignment if you are in a Freighter.
Wrong.
Quote:
The only way is to log off the game.
Also wrong.
Everything else in your post is just you ranting based off of these two falsehoods, so you might as well delete it.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Arla Sarain
259
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 09:42:57 -
[304] - Quote
Bagrat Skalski wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:Since the introduction of the Bowhead freighter, weGÇÖve become aware of a tactic that has been introduced which has become known as GÇ£HyperdunkingGÇ¥. This involves leaving a grid where a criminal action occurs to draw away CONCORD and reshipping to continue shooting at a target. ThereGÇÖs been much discussion among members of the community regarding this tactic, and whether or not it is considered legitimate gameplay.
After meeting with members of the game design and customer support teams and discussing this in depth, we have come to the consensus that due to the fact no rules are being broken and any ship that is involved in a criminal act is being destroyed by CONCORD as intended, that this tactic is simply an unintended but legitimate use of new game mechanics, and is not in breach of the rules. Tactics similar to this have been used with previous hulls before the Bowhead was introduced, and have been considered perfectly legitimate in the past.
With this in mind, at this time we do not consider this tactic to be in breach of the game rules, and as such our customer support team will not be offering reimbursements for hulls lost in this manner.
Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage.
So when can we expect CONCORD podding the criminals?
When can we expect haulers to hire protection? Like play the game and not have CCP play it for them. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
526
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 09:43:06 -
[305] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Unless you're bumped to death by a BS (say, a Machariel), which is a all reward-no risk scenario for the bumper. What CCP calls "f**k the PvErs balance".
I am so bloody tired of this garbage. So. Bloody. Tired. Over and over again CCP insists that PvErs have no place and deserve no chance and no choice in their game.
Want to avoid PvP abuse of a stupid mechanic? PvP yourself. Play our way or go away. No choices. No options. Just fukking PvP, you fukking PvE c*nt.
Forum poster, calm down.
Bumping has a cost - it requires as much of the bumpers time as the target - and puts the undertanked bumping ship at risk of a gank. More importantly, it is easy to avoid by either a scout/webbing escort, or by flying one of the many hauling ships that are effectively immune to bumping.
Freighters have a weakness - harassment by bumpers. Use them appropriately when you need to, and use another ship when you don't.
CCP has never insisted that PvE players have no place in the game. However, New Eden is a competitive, single-shard universe where we all can influence each other, including PvE players. The emergent gameplay that flows from this is a major part of what makes this game interesting. If you really, really don't like it, you can play on the test server where no one is allowed to disturb your PvE activities. Or maybe, you should seriously think about if you are playing the wrong game altogether.
Otherwise, spend just a little effort, and you will easily avoid 99.9% of the already small amount of risk to you and your ships in highsec. CCP has given you a large collection of tools, and plenty of protection, so much that it is hard to imagine anyone saying with a straight face they have "no choices" or "no options" in how to play this game.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Anthar Thebess
838
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 09:48:01 -
[306] - Quote
Tippia wrote:No.
Before, it took X catalysts, a bumper, (preferably) a cleaner, and a hauler to kill and loot a freighter.
With this tactic, it takes X+ catalysts, a delivery vehicle, a bumper, (preferably) a cleaner, and a hauler to kill and loot a freighter.
.
We can argue as much as you can, and we both are right.
For me cost is also time .
Before :
Time of 11 people to prepare every thing and wait for the target.
All people had to be rdy - you where waiting for target.
No one could go afk.
Now it is only 1 person doing it.
You need to go afk - no problem, dock up all ships.
Time is more expensive than isk.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24821
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 09:55:49 -
[307] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:We can argue as much as you can, and we both are right. Not really, no, since you claimed that the costs will magically go down just because of a GM statement. That is pretty much the opposite of being right.
In reality, costs remain the same or go up ever so slightly because the cost lies in the ships being lost, and that number will only go up.
Quote:For me cost is also time . That stays the same too, you know, for pretty much the exact same reason.
Before, you had to deliver, say, 200k damage using 400-DPS ships, meaning you needed 500 damage-seconds for the target to go down. Since you didn't have 500 seconds in one go, you had to cut it up among 20 ships doing it in parallel.
Now, you have to deliver, say, 2000k damage using 400-DPS ships, meaning you need 500 damage-seconds for the target to go down. Since you don't have 500 seconds in one go, you have to cut it up among 20 ships doing it in series.
500 seconds of work is 500 seconds of work. Again, if anything, the total time spent has gone up because you are far more restricted in the number of viable targets so you have to spend more waste time finding one that will work for you.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Canenald
Rubella Solaris
Test Alliance Please Ignore
46
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 10:03:19 -
[308] - Quote
A neat way to solve this would be to make an Orca or any other ship providing services to a capsuleer with a criminal flag gain a suspect flag. It is aiding a criminal after all, isn't it? That would even the odds a bit. Freighters would still have to use alts or buddies for scouting, webs or escort, and gankers would have to use a buddy or be more attentive and stay aligned on their Orca alt so that they don't get pointed and blown up. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24827
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 10:05:25 -
[309] - Quote
Canenald wrote:A neat way to solve this would be to make an Orca or any other ship providing services to a capsuleer with a criminal flag gain a suspect flag. Solve what? What's the problem?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Anthar Thebess
838
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 10:08:18 -
[310] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:We can argue as much as you can, and we both are right. Not really, no, since you claimed that the costs will magically go down just because of a GM statement. That is pretty much the opposite of being right. In reality, costs remain the same or go up ever so slightly because the cost lies in the ships being lost, and that number will only go up. Quote:For me cost is also time . That stays the same too, you know, for pretty much the exact same reason. Before, you had to deliver, say, 200k damage using 400-DPS ships, meaning you needed 500 damage-seconds for the target to go down. Since you didn't have 500 seconds in one go, you had to cut it up among 20 ships doing it in parallel. You then docked up and had a sandwich while the scooper picked the loot apart and the timers counted down. Now, you have to deliver, say, 2000k damage using 400-DPS ships, meaning you need 500 damage-seconds for the target to go down. Since you don't have 500 seconds in one go, you have to cut it up among 20 ships doing it in series. You then dock up and have a sandwich while the scooper picks the loot apart and the timer counts down. 500 seconds of work is 500 seconds of work. Again, if anything, the total time spent has gone up because you are far more restricted in the number of viable targets so you have to spend more waste time finding one that will work for you.
No you are wrong again.
Before.
You needed 11 people ready at all time, sitting and waiting for a expensive ship to come.
This could take 10minutes or 4 hours.
Now.
You are doing this alone.
You don't need to count on any one.
Waiting is also what you need to consider.
I prefer tornado turkey shooting.
I do it without any scaning alt , just one that pick up the stuff.
Now i need to buy myself bownhead
|
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24831
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 10:14:57 -
[311] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:No you are wrong again.
Before.
You needed 11 people GǪwho could do something else while waiting, thereby not wasting any time. The only one that needs to be properly active during the wind-up is the scout GÇö same as now. The work time remains the same. The post-gank time is more time that can be spent on doing other things and thus not wasted. Being inefficient with your use of time is your choice, not a fixed cost for a gank.
Quote:Now.
You are doing this alone. GǪand the before, during, and after-work requirements remains the same (or, wellGǪ the actual gank takes a lot longer due to the restocking time so there's a slight increase there).
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Candi LeMew
Isogen 5
17720
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 10:18:33 -
[312] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Solve what? What's the problem?
It's really nice seeing you around again.
Nothing to solve here, moving right along ...
=ƒÉÆ Bob Is Always Watching ...
"I been kicked out of better homes than this" - Rick James
Dusette SquadGäó endorses Corbexx for CSM X !
|
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Quantum Distributions
1390
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 10:24:02 -
[313] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:You are wrong. No. Before, it took X catalysts, a bumper, (preferably) a cleaner, and a hauler to kill and loot a freighter. With this tactic, it takes X+ catalysts, a delivery vehicle, a bumper, (preferably) a cleaner, and a hauler to kill and loot a freighter. The added delivery vehicle is perhaps not that much at risk, but you never know when some evil ganker might pass by and say GÇ£hey, I'd like to kill me one of thoseGÇ¥. So that's already more risk right there, if minimal. Then there's the fact that you don't deliver damage in parallel but in series, meaning more HP to chew through, more ships required to do so, and the potential for some nasty evil white knight to come along and kick that HP back up, again raising the cost. Quote:You see the difference? I know the difference between GÇ£costGÇ¥ and GÇ£cutGÇ¥. You don't. So shush. Quote:You don't play eve on 1 account. Really? That's news to me. So how many accounts do I play EVE on, because it looks like I need to start looking for the other ones.
You missed neutral agressor on the list of people required, unless you want the target logging off to be the end of the gank attempt.
New player resources:
Uni Wiki - General Info
Eve Altruist - PvP
Belligerent Undesirables - High Sec Pvp
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24834
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 10:57:44 -
[314] - Quote
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:You missed neutral agressor on the list of people required, unless you want the target logging off to be the end of the gank attempt.
Fair point. That's something that's needed under the old model and not the new one, but it is also essentially free since that aggression can be done with a civilian module in a n00bship.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
TheSmokingHertog
TALIBAN EXPRESS
284
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 10:59:00 -
[315] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Tippia wrote:Bagrat Skalski wrote:So when can we expect CONCORD podding the criminals? Never. Podding is a 100% player activity and there's no reason for NPCs to ever do it. Just keep believing that...
He did not read the minutes it seems. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24834
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 11:07:35 -
[316] - Quote
TheSmokingHertog wrote:He did not read the minutes it seems.
You mean the bit where CCP states that they have no plans of announcing such a change, and offers no reason for it to happen?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
680
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 12:24:01 -
[317] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Commentus Nolen wrote:If I find the stash of ships the hyperdunker has stashed and they are unpiloted can i destroy them without Concord intervention?
Do I get a kill mail for destroying them? As far as I know Concord will intervene if you shoot at them, but if you can fly them you can certainly board them and steal them . You can also target them to prevent the hyperdunker from boarding them, however if their "drop ship" is still around the pilot can do the same to prevent you from boarding and stealing them.
Hilariously, you could also board one, shoot another to get yourself concorded, and then keep jumping in the other ships while under the GCC to get Concord to clean the lot up :P
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
31
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 12:27:48 -
[318] - Quote
Tippia wrote:TheSmokingHertog wrote:He did not read the minutes it seems. You mean the bit where CCP states that they have no plans of announcing such a change, and offers no reason for it to happen?
You do know NPCs are podding now and the new Sleeper AI will include podding as well right? And yes, it was in the CSM minutes and all over Reddit. |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
470
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 12:27:50 -
[319] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Commentus Nolen wrote:If I find the stash of ships the hyperdunker has stashed and they are unpiloted can i destroy them without Concord intervention?
Do I get a kill mail for destroying them? As far as I know Concord will intervene if you shoot at them, but if you can fly them you can certainly board them and steal them . You can also target them to prevent the hyperdunker from boarding them, however if their "drop ship" is still around the pilot can do the same to prevent you from boarding and stealing them. Hilariously, you could also board one, shoot another to get yourself concorded, and then keep jumping in the other ships while under the GCC to get Concord to clean the lot up :P Nice, that hadn't even occurred to me.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Mag's
the united
18902
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 12:31:21 -
[320] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:As far as I know Concord will intervene if you shoot at them, but if you can fly them you can certainly board them and steal them . You can also target them to prevent the hyperdunker from boarding them, however if their "drop ship" is still around the pilot can do the same to prevent you from boarding and stealing them. Hilariously, you could also board one, shoot another to get yourself concorded, and then keep jumping in the other ships while under the GCC to get Concord to clean the lot up :P Nice, that hadn't even occurred to me. That is funny stuff and worth a try.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
|
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
31
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 12:31:26 -
[321] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Commentus Nolen wrote:If I find the stash of ships the hyperdunker has stashed and they are unpiloted can i destroy them without Concord intervention?
Do I get a kill mail for destroying them? As far as I know Concord will intervene if you shoot at them, but if you can fly them you can certainly board them and steal them . You can also target them to prevent the hyperdunker from boarding them, however if their "drop ship" is still around the pilot can do the same to prevent you from boarding and stealing them. Hilariously, you could also board one, shoot another to get yourself concorded, and then keep jumping in the other ships while under the GCC to get Concord to clean the lot up :P
Be easier to just fit a SeBo on your Bowhead and lock the cat so ganker can't board it. I think you get 5x locks so you could take a lot of damage off the field unless you have a real slick Orca dropper. |
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
31
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 12:35:45 -
[322] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:Bagrat Skalski wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:Since the introduction of the Bowhead freighter, weGÇÖve become aware of a tactic that has been introduced which has become known as GÇ£HyperdunkingGÇ¥. This involves leaving a grid where a criminal action occurs to draw away CONCORD and reshipping to continue shooting at a target. ThereGÇÖs been much discussion among members of the community regarding this tactic, and whether or not it is considered legitimate gameplay.
After meeting with members of the game design and customer support teams and discussing this in depth, we have come to the consensus that due to the fact no rules are being broken and any ship that is involved in a criminal act is being destroyed by CONCORD as intended, that this tactic is simply an unintended but legitimate use of new game mechanics, and is not in breach of the rules. Tactics similar to this have been used with previous hulls before the Bowhead was introduced, and have been considered perfectly legitimate in the past.
With this in mind, at this time we do not consider this tactic to be in breach of the game rules, and as such our customer support team will not be offering reimbursements for hulls lost in this manner.
Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage.
So when can we expect CONCORD podding the criminals? When can we expect haulers to hire protection? Like play the game and not have CCP play it for them.
It can be a Goon provided service right? No way to scam here. Let me just accept that duel request for fast align times
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24843
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 12:41:46 -
[323] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:You do know NPCs are podding now and the new Sleeper AI will include podding as well right? And yes, it was in the CSM minutes and all over Reddit.
Again: you mean the bit where CCP states that they have no plans of announcing such a change, and offers no reason for it to happen?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Hicksimus
Volatile Instability
Resonance.
531
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 13:01:02 -
[324] - Quote
Same old lazy CCP. Fixing this would require work that we cannot be bothered to do right now so it's not an exploit.
Not that hyperdunking matters to me(maybe I'm doing it) but CCP takes the lazy route every time something comes up that would require actual work to be done.
Recruitment Officer: What type of a pilot are you?
Me: I've been described as a Ray Charles with Parkinsons and a drinking problem.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24847
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 13:06:33 -
[325] - Quote
Hicksimus wrote:Same old lazy CCP. Fixing this would require work that we cannot be bothered to do right now so it's not an exploit.
Not that hyperdunking matters to me(maybe I'm doing it) but CCP takes the lazy route every time something comes up that would require actual work to be done.
What's there to fix? And seeing as how they have fixed some actual exploits and broken code in this area in the past, what makes you think that they're just trying to avoid work?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11532
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 13:10:27 -
[326] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Hicksimus wrote:Same old lazy CCP. Fixing this would require work that we cannot be bothered to do right now so it's not an exploit.
Not that hyperdunking matters to me(maybe I'm doing it) but CCP takes the lazy route every time something comes up that would require actual work to be done. What's there to fix? And seeing as how they have fixed some actual exploits and broken code in this area in the past, what makes you think that they're just trying to avoid work?
Well, that's obvious.
Because he doesn't want it to be true.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
682
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 13:14:42 -
[327] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Arla Sarain wrote:
When can we expect haulers to hire protection? Like play the game and not have CCP play it for them.
It can be a Goon provided service right? No way to scam here. Let me just accept that duel request for fast align times
Are you saying this face doesn't look honest and trustworthy to you?
I wouldn't worry, as a certified F1 monkey, I assure you I could probably very easily lose a 1v1 against an unarmed freighter
|
Anthar Thebess
839
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 13:16:51 -
[328] - Quote
Tippia wrote:
What's there to fix? And seeing as how they have fixed some actual exploits and broken code in this area in the past, what makes you think that they're just trying to avoid work?
Hehe now i know why you have so many likes.
For a week i was telling people that i don't see any thing wrong in this suicide ganking , as all rules are preserved.
Bowhead didn't introduce this possibility either , as you can do the same using orca.
There is no simple "fix" for this issue , if it will be considered by CCP as issue.
# More EHP on freighters - nothing will change, just more stupid people will put all that they own in 1 ship.
# Suspect after you are bumping someone? I will be fist that kill all those people bumping my BS on jita undock or any gate! Damn pirates
Want your cargo secure?
1. Never put to much into 1 ship !
2. If this is slow freighter or orca , ESCORT IT. Something that will provide webs , and kill gankers.
3. Never fly AFK.
CCP made bad decision when they introduced freighters.
Yes they help a lot moving tons of goods, but they move it slow, so people will go afk.
I think you can install this anti bumping rigs to your freighter - but i guess then you never can go afk.
|
Aleksi Bocharov
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 13:29:54 -
[329] - Quote
Rena Senn wrote:Not being able to fly through any .5 or .6 system in an entire class of ships because any bored multiboxer can blow up your ship with impunity while expending a fraction of the isk sounds like the deletion of a playstyle to me.
Hello. I'm currently flying my Jump Freighter through .5 and .6 systems as I type this. I just wanted to test your claim that I wouldn't be able to. Nothing is preventing me. The gates aren't locked or anything. What's preventing you?
Rena Senn wrote:Awoxers can still con their way into directorship and turn off the corp safety while convincing the rest of the corp that it's business as usual.
You can still use an alt or a friend to web your freighter into warp, or take a longer route through higher security ratings, etcetc, business as usual everything is fine.
(P.S. Added CONCORD response to corp-on-corp aggression is a deletion of a playstyle the same way that removal of CONCORD completely from HiSec would be the deletion of HiSec mining/mission/incursion playstyles... but carebears are incapable of empathy so this will never dawn on them).
|
super hornet
Marwolaeth Hyfryd
2
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 13:41:46 -
[330] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Tippia wrote:
Never. Podding is a 100% player activity and there's no reason for NPCs to ever do it.
Just keep believing that... I'll keep believing it until there's a reason for NPCs to do it. Until then, it's pointless faff, and even after that, it's still nothing CONCORD has any business doing.
In the real word the Police Wouldn't, Pop a cap in ya Ass will your naked Would they ? |
|
|
Astroid Mistress
Blue Yacht Brigade
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 13:47:47 -
[331] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Since the introduction of the Bowhead freighter, weGÇÖve become aware of a tactic that has been introduced which has become known as GÇ£HyperdunkingGÇ¥. This involves leaving a grid where a criminal action occurs to draw away CONCORD and reshipping to continue shooting at a target. ThereGÇÖs been much discussion among members of the community regarding this tactic, and whether or not it is considered legitimate gameplay.
After meeting with members of the game design and customer support teams and discussing this in depth, we have come to the consensus that due to the fact no rules are being broken and any ship that is involved in a criminal act is being destroyed by CONCORD as intended, that this tactic is simply an unintended but legitimate use of new game mechanics, and is not in breach of the rules. Tactics similar to this have been used with previous hulls before the Bowhead was introduced, and have been considered perfectly legitimate in the past.
Please explain how anyone who has committed a criminal act and leaves grid can reship and come back to place of original act since you cannot warp while criminal timer is running? You can board another ship but you cannot warp ever until criminal timer runs out. |
Red Teufel
Mafia Redux
422
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 13:49:10 -
[332] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:So what purpose does the criminal timer have once concord blows up the ship? Same as before: to ensure you still can't avoid CONCORD GÇö that any reshipping just means another loss. Red Teufel wrote:CCP Falcon will there be a change in rules regarding this tactic? Why should they change when it has been made abundantly clear that both the rules and the mecahnics are working as intended? Also, how is it GÇ£bad gameplay designGÇ¥ that the mechanics are robust enough to enforce a cost but still allow you to keep shooting as long as you're willing to pay that cost? e: In fact, the thing you're smelling is probably your notion of a GÇ£prisonGÇ¥ GÇö presumably some mechanic to keep people from playing the game. That creates such immensely bad gameplay that it is currently a bannable offence to do it to players.
There is a cost but very little risk involved for the aggressor. CCP only stated that hyperdunking does not break any current rules. It reminds me of the station game where a pirate would store his ship into his carrier to avoid aggression timer and dock. You can't hand me something that looks like poop, smells like poop, feels like poop and tell me it's not poop. |
Dave Stark
7316
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 13:49:47 -
[333] - Quote
i'm just going to throw it out there;
if you don't want to be a victim of hyperdunking because you're bad at flying a freighter, courrier contracts are cheaper than a second rate hooker. |
Mag's
the united
18903
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 13:55:43 -
[334] - Quote
Red Teufel wrote:There is a cost but very little risk involved for the aggressor. CCP only stated that hyperdunking does not break any current rules. It reminds me of the station game where a pirate would store his ship into his carrier to avoid aggression timer and dock. You can't hand me something that looks like poop, smells like poop, feels like poop and tell me it's not poop. And you're full of it, while ever you are being that disingenuous about the subject.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24849
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 13:58:21 -
[335] - Quote
Red Teufel wrote:There is a cost but very little risk involved for the aggressor. CCP only stated that hyperdunking does not break any current rules. It reminds me of the station game where a pirate would store his ship into his carrier to avoid aggression timer and dock. You can't hand me something that looks like poop, smells like poop, feels like poop and tell me it's not poop.
Good thing that I'm not doing that, then. I'm simply asking you a question that you can't answer. Also, once more: this tactic does not avoid aggression timers. It is wholly reliant on them in order to work.
As for risk, there is an immense amount of risk for the aggressor when this tactic is employed GÇö far more than in a regular gank since it can fly off the rails so easily.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
690
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 14:01:35 -
[336] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:You do know NPCs are podding now and the new Sleeper AI will include podding as well right? And yes, it was in the CSM minutes and all over Reddit. Again: you mean the bit where CCP states that they have no plans of announcing such a change, and offers no reason for it to happen?
Think you need to go back and re-read that one. They said that they won't announce the change, not that they won't implement it. Hell, it even says "if you're reading this now, consider yourself lucky". They're intentionally keeping us in the dark on this one.
Vote Sabriz!
|
Draciste
Everyone vs Everything
THE R0NIN
31
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 14:02:04 -
[337] - Quote
Red Teufel wrote:
There is a cost but very little risk involved for the aggressor. CCP only stated that hyperdunking does not break any current rules. It reminds me of the station game where a pirate would store his ship into his carrier to avoid aggression timer and dock. You can't hand me something that looks like poop, smells like poop, feels like poop and tell me it's not poop.
+1
Everyone vs Everything [qEvEp] - https://qevep.zkillboard.com/corporation/98188033/
https://twitter.com/Draciste
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24849
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 14:05:33 -
[338] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:Think you need to go back and re-read that one. They said that they won't announce the change, not that they won't implement it. Hell, it even says "if you're reading this now, consider yourself lucky". They're intentionally keeping us in the dark on this one.
Yes? And I stated otherwise? There's still no reason for them to do it, especially not when applied to CONCORD GÇö podding criminals is something that goes so far beyond the cost imposition purpose of CONCORD that it borders on the silly, and is therefore relegated to being a player activityGǪ
GǪif they choose to, which they don't for some reason (and then, nonsensically, complain about the lack of costs)
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Aleksi Bocharov
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
25
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 14:06:41 -
[339] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Or you can rob a corp. Or you can convince them to go to lowsec and kill them there, or you can bait them into a wartarget alt. The only thing that's been removed is the easiest form of awoxing. The fact that you describe it as the removal of the playstyle shows that you don't want to have to put any effort in, you just want things handed to you. Well tough luck buddy.
Hey if you don't want your freighter bumped and ganked, just use a DST or a cloaky hauler and make several trips. The only thing that's "been removed" is the easiest form of HiSec haulage. The fact that you describe it as the removal of a playsytle shows you don't want to have to put any effort in, you just want things handed to you. Well tough luck buddy.
|
Aleksi Bocharov
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
25
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 14:09:14 -
[340] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:None of those things are awoxing. All of those things are part of the same playstyle. If your playstyle is limited to "join corp - shoot ship - repeat" maybe the problem is you. And strictly speaking, Awoxing is pointing a green ship while reds come and blow it up in null. It's definition has generally been extended to mean any planned form of action against your own corp however.[/quote]
Relevant part emphasized.
Response to emphasized text: No, you're wrong. |
|
|
Dave Stark
7317
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 14:09:56 -
[341] - Quote
Aleksi Bocharov wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Or you can rob a corp. Or you can convince them to go to lowsec and kill them there, or you can bait them into a wartarget alt. The only thing that's been removed is the easiest form of awoxing. The fact that you describe it as the removal of the playstyle shows that you don't want to have to put any effort in, you just want things handed to you. Well tough luck buddy. Hey if you don't want your freighter bumped and ganked, just use a DST or a cloaky hauler and make several trips. The only thing that's "been removed" is the easiest form of HiSec haulage. The fact that you describe it as the removal of a playsytle shows you don't want to have to put any effort in, you just want things handed to you. Well tough luck buddy.
it's not even being removed, over all nothing is changing.
except a guy with no friends online or close by at the time got a ban overturned for clever use of game mechanics. |
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
893
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 14:12:04 -
[342] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:I think it's still a thing we'll be monitoring.
People are completely correct when they mention this is a game where suicide ganking and non-consentual PvP has been given the thumbs up by developers. That being said, we would still like to see a nice balance between effort and intelligence required on both sides of the coin. Making ganking too easy is not our goal, nor is it the other way around. Where that balance lies, and if hyperdunking has crossed some line, we'll have to see.
There are things we can change if needed.
Current system
Currently, we have a situation where suicide ganking of freighters is mostly done in only a handful of systems. Niarja, Uedama, the stretch from Bei to Aufay and major trade hubs take a massive percentage of overall suicide ganks performed in EVE. Apart from the trade hubs, the other active systems are highsec choke points which can not be avoided during an inter-regional or inter-state hauling runs.
The victims can expect most of the ganks to be performed in these systems and can be prepared for it. I have flown a freighter extensively in the last couple of months to better understand the problem. What I gathered from that experience is that you can effectively (but not completely, of course) avoid most of the gank setups with a Hyena / Rapier alt. My freighter, for example, had an instant warp with the help of a Hyena - I'm talking about from freighter decloak to warp in less than 2 seconds. And I only felt a need to use it in the systems listed above.
On the gankers side of things the situation resembles shooting fish in a barrel with little or disproportionate financial loss if the wrong tactics is applied or wrong hauler targeted. The gankers currently have very little motivation or need to move from the choke point and trade hub systems because traffic simply has to go through there.
A proposal
It could be useful to consider diversifying trade routes by adding more inter-regional connections and expanding the list of choke points. The haulers would have an actual choice of what route they want to take based on scouting or corp/alliance intel reports (yes, good highsec corps and alliances do have intel channels from my personal experience) thus actually having an expanded gameplay. The gankers would have that choice as well along with the possibility for expanding the number of interested players in this type of gameplay. This is because of the CONCORD mechanics - when one group operates in a choke point system at any given time, other groups are simply forced out of the area because of the heavy CONCORD presence and because of the intel reports of activity in the system. Adding more inter-regional highsec connections would benefit both types of players and introduce an actual choice in a true manner of a sandbox.
The second issue is the cost of failure, being positioned in the wrong system at the wrong time and/or applying the wrong tactics. The cost of failure is disproportionally higher for the haulers which is something that should be considered for a review. Suicide ganking is currently a random act of picking random targets with only a handful of tactical options depending on how big your ganking fleet is. Applying wrong tactics, being at the wrong place at the wrong time or picking the wrong target does not produce as much loss as it should - and this is a very definition of a method of filtering gankers who are really good at what they do from the gankers who don't have a clue. It's maybe better to say that it produces the same amount of loss as the successful gank does which is out of the vision of EVE that wrong decisions should have more consequences than the right ones.
To tackle this, a tax similar to what the industrial players are already paying should be considered to be added to suicide ganking. A tax which will raise in the system proportionally to the amount of CONCORD activity in the system at the given period of time, exactly the same as the industrial index. The gankers would then be presented with an option to continue to operate in heavily congested systems with an added cost if they see an interest or have the capability of playing like that, or pick some other less congested system either in order to lower the cost of their operation or to minimize the cost of potential failure. Those who are good and effective at what they do should be comfortable at continuing to operate in congested systems, but those who are not as good at it should find operating in heavily congested systems financially nonviable - just like the industrials do.
The intent is to spread the operations across the map instead of having just a handful of systems where pretty much everything happens. The spread of activity should also enlarge the "danger zone" for haulers and open more choices for both haulers and gankers on where and when they want to operate depending on the activity in a given area at a given time. It should encourage more players to use haulers since there would be an actual choice of avoiding choke points and ganks by investing effort in scouting routes instead of knowing that you are forced to go through choke points. It should also make room for more ganking oriented players who can operate despite another group being active in the area. Opening additional inter-regional connections and adding a ganking tax (again - the same have been applied to industrials) which would filter gankers who are good at it from those who are not - should provide more tactical options and gameplay content to both sides. |
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
690
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 14:14:42 -
[343] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:Think you need to go back and re-read that one. They said that they won't announce the change, not that they won't implement it. Hell, it even says "if you're reading this now, consider yourself lucky". They're intentionally keeping us in the dark on this one. Yes? And I stated otherwise? There's still no reason for them to do it, especially not when applied to CONCORD GÇö podding criminals is something that goes so far beyond the cost imposition purpose of CONCORD that it borders on the silly, and is therefore relegated to being a player activityGǪ GǪif they choose to, which they don't for some reason (and then, nonsensically, complain about the lack of costs)
Fair point. And I agree it shouldn't be applied to Concord. Just pointing out that saying "they didn't announce it" isn't a good response to whether or not NPC podding is or will be a thing at this time.
Vote Sabriz!
|
Darkblad
Hilf Dir selbst in EVE
629
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 14:14:43 -
[344] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Hicksimus wrote:Same old lazy CCP. Fixing this would require work that we cannot be bothered to do right now so it's not an exploit.
Not that hyperdunking matters to me(maybe I'm doing it) but CCP takes the lazy route every time something comes up that would require actual work to be done. What's there to fix? And seeing as how they have fixed some actual exploits and broken code in this area in the past, what makes you think that they're just trying to avoid work? Considering that the ganker can't launch the empty ships himself, as nobody can board a ship that belongs to - i.e. was last piloted by - a pilot who currently has a criminal timer. And also keeping in mind that only the previous pilot (i.e. "owner") can board a ship that's currently being targeted by someone, there is a counter to hyperdunking.
Certainly only if there's a ship in range, that can actually lock targets. But anyway, I don't see anything broken here either. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24851
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 14:18:09 -
[345] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:To tackle this, a tax similar to what the industrial players are already paying should be considered to be added to suicide ganking. This is already in the game, and it is already many times higher than anything industrialists pay. Not that the tax burden of industrialists is in any way relevant to suicide ganking.
Quote:The intent is to spread the operations across the map instead of having just a handful of systems where pretty much everything happens. The spread of activity should also enlarge the "danger zone" for haulers and open more choices for both haulers and gankers on where and when they want to operate depending on the activity in a given area at a given time. But it wouldn't really do that, now would it? Rather than enlarging the danger zone, it would just massively reduce the already infinitesimally small danger that exists, while at the same time ramping up the unproportionally high operating costs for the gankers for no good reason. Why on earth does ganking need yet another nerf out of nowhere?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Khan Wrenth
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
92
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 14:27:25 -
[346] - Quote
After reading through this thread, I can honestly say Tippa is dangerously close to becoming my new hero. Each post is direct, concise, logical, and done with the greater health of the game in mind.
Can I petition someone to change her signature to "Wrecking shot!"? Because every one of her posts feels like one.
Each time ganking gets nerfed, the carebears (of which I used to be) get a larger sense of entitlement and laziness that is not healthy for them or the game. The game (which I just lost) empowers those who engage the game, not dismiss it and become complacent. Nerfing ganking is what creates this mindset and subsequent problem, not solves it.
Anyone stop to think that maybe, just maybe, if ganking hadn't been nerfed so many times, these problems might not exist? Look at how many times in this thread alone that people point to ganking nerfs as examples of why they deserve better protection and more nerfs to ganking. Ganking has become so difficult that you have to be highly disciplined and skilled to pull it off, as well as have a ton of support and intimate knowledge of the game's mechanics. No wonder it always seems so one-sided. If any Joe could do it (with a fair bit of difficulty and still understanding the game), those with less skill and dedication would try it, and those less advanced players would be easier to thwart, so we wouldn't be hearing about "oh once a gank starts it's impossible to stop!" Yes, because whining has made it so that only professionals are doing it anymore.
If ganking were a lot easier, if more people did it, people wouldn't wander into EVE with this idea in their head that they should be safe and doing nothing to protect themselves. When it becomes more commonplace people will react accordingly and start taking measures to protect themselves.
There's a point at which people have to start changing their way of thinking to move forward. I am reminded of stories I hear of Portugal. From what I hear, they de-criminalized the use of drugs and the problems/crime/addiction rates actually went down, not up.
Nerfing ganking has only created problems, not solved them. Buff ganking. To be clear - I am not advocating for the abolishment of highsec, nor am I even saying ganking should be trivial or consequence-free. But it is due for some buffs. The game needs it; and if this thread is any indication the carebears need it most of all. I think a good starting point is increasing concord response times slightly. Give gankers a little more time on field. Second, let's tackle that one argument I see from time to time about "security status doesn't matter!". Let's make it matter. Second ganking buff...your positive security status, rounded up to the nearest positive integer, gives you additional seconds where concord "looks the other way" before landing on grid. So those with good positive security standing get more time in their gank attempts than those -10 pirates.
HTFU.-á Adapt or die.-á Beware the falcon punch.
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
893
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 14:30:23 -
[347] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:The intent is to spread the operations across the map instead of having just a handful of systems where pretty much everything happens. The spread of activity should also enlarge the "danger zone" for haulers and open more choices for both haulers and gankers on where and when they want to operate depending on the activity in a given area at a given time. But it wouldn't really do that, now would it? Rather than enlarging the danger zone, it would just massively reduce the already infinitesimally small danger that exists, while at the same time ramping up the unproportionally high operating costs for the gankers for no good reason. Why on earth does ganking need yet another nerf out of nowhere?
It should be implemented in a way that it shouldn't be a nerf if you are doing it right. Maybe add a parameter that eliminates the tax if your loss from CONCORD included you being on an actual killmail at the time. Or maybe game designers in CCP have more creative ideas, but the point is : failure should have consequences.
Besides, gankers have as much reason to complain about nerfs as industrials do, with the exception of a tax that only industrials pay. In both cases only those who are bad at it should actually suffer the losses - like it should be. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
529
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 14:35:12 -
[348] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
The victims can expect most of the ganks to be performed in these systems and can be prepared for it. I have flown a freighter extensively in the last couple of months to better understand the problem. What I gathered from that experience is that you can effectively (but not completely, of course) avoid most of the gank setups with a Hyena / Rapier alt. My freighter, for example, had an instant warp with the help of a Hyena - I'm talking about from freighter decloak to warp in less than 2 seconds. And I only felt a need to use it in the systems listed above.
I am a little confused. You established the fact that freighter ganking can be prevented near 100% by a single escorting ship, yet then go on with a proposal to "fix" the situation as if there is something unbalanced.
Both your fixes are direct nerfs to ganking, which I think the statistics would agree, is not something we need right now. Removing chokes points would just reduce the number of potential targets for gankers and allow haulers to evade them easier, while taxing them is not only infeasible (you tax the loot? Or just put their balance into negative ISK?), would punish gankers needlessly for engaging in intended game play.
Perhaps instead of a stick, you should propose a carrot? Maybe an ISK bounty for successful ganks in systems that haven't have a suicide gank in a certain amount of time? For lore reasons it could be a prize sponsored by a pirate faction, and might encourage gankers to move beyond the same 0.5-0.6 systems by providing a scaling partial subsidy for gankers in higher security status space if that is your goal.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24852
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 14:38:05 -
[349] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:It should be implemented in a way that it shouldn't be a nerf if you are doing it right. Maybe add a parameter that eliminates the tax if your loss from CONCORD included you being on an actual killmail at the time. Or maybe game designers in CCP have more creative ideas, but the point is : failure should have consequences. So really, the best implementation would be none at all since what you're asking for already exists, and adding more of it is a straight up nerf. Doing it right means you pay less; doing it wrong means you pay more. Why should an additional layer of faff be added on top of that, just to increase costs?
Quote:Besides, gankers have as much reason to complain about nerfs as industrials do, with the exception of a tax that only industrials pay. No. Gankers have far more reasons to complain about nerfs since, you know, they are actually constantly being nerfed unlike the industrialists. They already pay a tax on their activity GÇö one of the highest taxes the game GÇö and there's no reason for them to pay a higher one.
You are asking for a GÇ£fixGÇ¥ to a non-issue by implementing something that already exists. You are asking for things to be made easier for those that have it as easy as anything in the game can possible be, and harder for the ones who have seen their activity made harder and harder and harder in a seemingly endless cycle of nerfs. To put it bluntly: your idea makes absolutely no sense whatsoever from any angle.
Black Pedro wrote:Perhaps instead of a stick, you should propose a carrot? Maybe an ISK bounty for successful ganks in systems that haven't have a suicide gank in a certain amount of time? For lore reasons it could be a prize sponsored by a pirate faction, and might encourage gankers to move beyond the same 0.5-0.6 systems by providing a scaling partial subsidy for gankers in higher security status space if that is your goal. This is an interesting idea. Basically belt rat chaining, but with non-AI rats. The only slight issue is that it would divert attention away from haulers and onto other targets since their lootable contents would become less of a variable. As mentioned, haulers aren't really a group that needs a less threatening environment.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
31
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 14:41:45 -
[350] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:It should be implemented in a way that it shouldn't be a nerf if you are doing it right. Maybe add a parameter that eliminates the tax if your loss from CONCORD included you being on an actual killmail at the time. Or maybe game designers in CCP have more creative ideas, but the point is : failure should have consequences. So really, the best implementation would be none at all since what you're asking for already exists, and adding more of it is a straight up nerf. Doing it right means you pay less; doing it wrong means you pay more. Why should an additional layer of faff be added on top of that, just to increase costs? Quote:Besides, gankers have as much reason to complain about nerfs as industrials do, with the exception of a tax that only industrials pay. No. Gankers have far more reasons to complain about nerfs since, you know, they are actually constantly being nerfed unlike the industrialists. They already pay a tax on their activity GÇö one of the highest taxes the game GÇö and there's no reason for them to pay a higher one.
BS
The changes to the game including the addition of BCs that shoot BS sized guns, changes to Dessies and the changes to alpha damage for certain weapon types have been a huge boost to gankers.
Just because the intended purpose of a change wasn't directly related to ganking doesn't mean gankers didnt get a boost.
Yes there have been nerfs, and they are a direct result of "creative" uses of game mechanics in ways CCP never intended, or that are too OP to let stand, but that is the fault of the gankers for exploiting bad game code excessively and then dancing around a fire naked about it. |
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24852
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 14:47:04 -
[351] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:BS
The changes to the game including the addition of BCs that shoot BS sized guns, changes to Dessies and the changes to alpha damage for certain weapon types have been a huge boost to gankers. Oh, you mean those changes that were combined with alterations that made ganking far more costly than before, which at best maintained a status quo? The ones that continued the consistent downwards trend in ganking?
Quote:Just because the intended purpose of a change wasn't directly related to ganking doesn't mean gankers didnt get a boost. No, but the adjoining changes made sure that such a boost didn't take place. In every instance, the balance was skewed further away from the gankers.
Quote:Yes there have been nerfs, and they are a direct result of "creative" uses of game mechanics in ways CCP never intended, or that are too OP to let stand As you say: BS.
Almost none of them have been of that type, except maybe the implementation of CONCORD as an unstoppable force. The rest have all come about because whiners have been too devoid of any kind of cognitive ability beyond slamming their heads into a pulp against their keyboard until the nice men in white coats came and cleaned up the mess and picked out what seemed like at least a consistent message out of the random garbage that ended up on the screen.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
893
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 14:54:36 -
[352] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
The victims can expect most of the ganks to be performed in these systems and can be prepared for it. I have flown a freighter extensively in the last couple of months to better understand the problem. What I gathered from that experience is that you can effectively (but not completely, of course) avoid most of the gank setups with a Hyena / Rapier alt. My freighter, for example, had an instant warp with the help of a Hyena - I'm talking about from freighter decloak to warp in less than 2 seconds. And I only felt a need to use it in the systems listed above.
I am a little confused. You established the fact that freighter ganking can be prevented near 100% by a single escorting ship, yet then go on with a proposal to "fix" the situation as if there is something unbalanced. Both your fixes are direct nerfs to ganking, which I think the statistics would agree, is not something we need right now. Removing chokes points would just reduce the number of potential targets for gankers and allow haulers to evade them easier, while taxing them is not only infeasible (you tax the loot? Or just put their balance into negative ISK?), would punish gankers needlessly for engaging in intended game play. Perhaps instead of a stick, you should propose a carrot? Maybe an ISK bounty for successful ganks in systems that haven't have a suicide gank in a certain amount of time? For lore reasons it could be a prize sponsored by a pirate faction, and might encourage gankers to move beyond the same 0.5-0.6 systems by providing a scaling partial subsidy for gankers in higher security status space if that is your goal.
Exactly That's why I was looking for - a discussion instead of plain complains. The bolded part is an interesting idea... it may be connected with the insurace, for example. The point is to diversify the gameplay, add choices and spread the activity. I have only proposed one possible scenario, but by all means I'm not seeing it as an ultimately great solution.
Regarding the near 100% rate of success with a single escort ship, it's not exactly like that - especially not for everyone. My escape percentage is higher because I'm a veteran with about of 8 years of experience in nullsec, factional warfare (lowsec) and w-space, so naturally my flying skills are contributing to the success rate. Many players, especially in higsec, do not have that kind of experience and their escape will be considerably lower even with the escort. One example are smartbombing Mallers on gates (mostly active in Uttindar and Niarja area) which target small ships and escorts. If you don't have experience with them or don't time your jumps and move safely, your escort will die first and your freighter is usually the next in line. |
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
282
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 14:57:43 -
[353] - Quote
Well until CCP fixes this part of the system, good luck to all you haulers.
I might have to make an alt just for this till they fix it. Killing freighters in highsec solo, without the expense of a war dec, sounds like fun. |
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
31
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 14:58:30 -
[354] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:BS
The changes to the game including the addition of BCs that shoot BS sized guns, changes to Dessies and the changes to alpha damage for certain weapon types have been a huge boost to gankers. Oh, you mean those changes that were combined with alterations that made ganking far more costly than before, which at best maintained a status quo? The ones that continued the consistent downwards trend in ganking? Quote:Just because the intended purpose of a change wasn't directly related to ganking doesn't mean gankers didnt get a boost. No, but the adjoining changes made sure that such a boost didn't take place. In every instance, the balance was skewed further away from the gankers. Quote:Yes there have been nerfs, and they are a direct result of "creative" uses of game mechanics in ways CCP never intended, or that are too OP to let stand As you say: BS. Almost none of them have been of that type, except maybe the implementation of CONCORD as an unstoppable force. The rest have all come about because whiners have been too devoid of any kind of cognitive ability beyond slamming their heads into a pulp against their keyboard until the nice men in white coats came and cleaned up the mess and picked out what seemed like at least a consistent message out of the random garbage that ended up on the screen.
Oh come on... you wanna say that insurance being denied to gankers was a nerf to ganking? Should never have been there in the first place.
So you completely discount the changes that even made Cat ganking viable, or the gankers alpha of choice the Tornado and Talos?
You don't place any blame on gankers for the changes made to warping in the same grid to avoid concord, or what will sure to be in the future a change in policy against this very topic because of almost certain overuse to come?
Please name me a nerf to ganking that actually has had an effect or slowed the proliferation of high sec ganks... I dare ya
How did you get so many likes being so selectively ignorant? Oh, that is right, the good ol boy network of "huck huck, I made a blue wreck, huck huck" |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4991
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:02:39 -
[355] - Quote
Aleksi Bocharov wrote:Hey if you don't want your freighter bumped and ganked, just use a DST or a cloaky hauler and make several trips. The only thing that's "been removed" is the easiest form of HiSec haulage. The fact that you describe it as the removal of a playsytle shows you don't want to have to put any effort in, you just want things handed to you. Well tough luck buddy. I didn't claim it was a removal of a playstyle. You're getting me mixed up with Kaarous who hasn't stopped posting his tears about the removal of playstyles since CCP announced that they support newbie recruitment.
Aleksi Bocharov wrote:Response to emphasized text: No, you're wrong. You might want to explain that to the much of the playerbase then, since most people refer to corp theft and disbandment as part of awoxing. Either way, joining a highsec corp to shoot members on it's own is not a playstyle, it's a single activity of a playstyle. The overreaction of some players to the incoming corp aggression change is pretty dramatic.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24852
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:04:57 -
[356] - Quote
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:Well until CCP fixes this part of the system, good luck to all you haulers.
I might have to make an alt just for this till they fix it.
Fixes what? What's the problem?
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Oh come on... you wanna say that insurance being denied to gankers was a nerf to ganking? You did not just serious say that. You didn't. Wow. ThatsGǪ beyond my words to even describe.
Quote:So you completely discount the changes that even made Cat ganking viable, or the gankers alpha of choice the Tornado and Talos? No. I just completely account for the environment in which they were changed, which led to ganks being made far harder and far more costly. This, since you aren't familiar with the term, is called a nerf.
Quote:You don't place any blame on gankers for the changes made to warping in the same grid to avoid concord, or what will sure to be in the future a change in policy against this very topic because of almost certain overuse to come? This wasn't a ganking nerf GÇö it was a bugfix. The removal of an exploit that allowed players to circumvent the one hard rule in highsec.
Quote:Please name me a nerf to ganking that actually has had an effect or slowed the proliferation of high sec ganks. Removal of insurance. Three instances of reductions of CONCORD response times. Barge buffs. Indy buffs. Freighter buffs. Loot flagging changes. And I didn't even stop writing to think about it. Would you like me to take more than real-time-writing-speed to think about it? Or are you going to continue to speak from a position of absolute ignorance about the history of EVE, and the topic of ganking in general?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
32
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:15:53 -
[357] - Quote
Lets go through a list of all the boosts to ganking... just for you, cuz you seem to be very ungrateful to CCP for the "environment" they created for you.
You now have extremely overpowered Catalysts capable of pumping out dps beyond expected for their size and cost
You now have powerful alpha weapons with changes to Projectiles and Railguns
You now have the Orca and Bowhead, to drop dozens of ships that can't be touched by concord give you a plethora of methods to gank with little player numbers
You now have Freighters who must choose between cargo and ehp, fit for one and lose the other, making your targets potentially easier to gank
You now have warp changes which give you ample time to set up on a gate before a freighter arrives because it takes them minutes to cross a system.
You now have no clone costs in case someone pops your pod after you gank and forget to warp off
You now have tags to get your sec status up without ever having to shoot a red cross
You now have ships capable of bumping a 55m/s boat to 500-800m/s to get them away from the grid
You now have changes to the log-off log-on trick so I can't log my alt in and make my frieghter pilot disappear.
That last one... was HUGE. It doomed freighters to certain death as soon as a Mach bumped them. Now I agree that it was technically an exploit, but you seem to only be claiming ganking got harder, while ignoring how easy they made it.
AND YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ME ONE VALID EXAMPLE OF HOW GANKING IS HARDER |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4991
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:18:07 -
[358] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:After reading through this thread, I can honestly say Tippa is dangerously close to becoming my new hero. Each post is direct, concise, logical, and done with the greater health of the game in mind. The fact that you agree with a troll doesn't make their posts any better.
Khan Wrenth wrote:Each time ganking gets nerfed, the carebears (of which I used to be) get a larger sense of entitlement and laziness that is not healthy for them or the game. The game (which I just lost) empowers those who engage the game, not dismiss it and become complacent. Nerfing ganking is what creates this mindset and subsequent problem, not solves it. This is fundamentally incorrect. The "entitlement" argument is no more valid for carebears than it is for gankers. Gankers are always harping on about how entitled to all of their ganking mechanics they are. Just look at this thread. There's a mechanic which is so close to an existing exploit that it's nearly indistinguishable and CODE members crawl out of the woodwork to explain why it should definitely not be changed. You could very much see that as entitlement.
At the end of the day we're all here to play a game for entertainment. You need to accept that that entertainment comes in many different forms, not just one single playstyle that people like Tippia support. People supporting their own playstyle are not automatically "entitled".
Khan Wrenth wrote:Ganking has become so difficult that you have to be highly disciplined and skilled to pull it off, as well as have a ton of support and intimate knowledge of the game's mechanics. What? Don't make me laugh. Ganking is easy. Like ludicrously easy. Gevlon Goblin who has an incredibly warped understanding of mechanics was able to gank billions with new characters. If you are finding ganking difficult then you are doing it wrong.
Khan Wrenth wrote:If ganking were a lot easier, if more people did it, people wouldn't wander into EVE with this idea in their head that they should be safe and doing nothing to protect themselves. When it becomes more commonplace people will react accordingly and start taking measures to protect themselves. Actually you're sort of correct. If ganking were easier people would come in and leave if they weren't able to defend themselves, leaving only players who are heavily resistant to ganking. At that point gankers would complain that ganking is too difficult and demand nerfs to highsec player. Or what, do you think gankers would just accept ganking is no longer viable if everyone was prepared and able to avoid being ganked?
Prior to this announcement IMHO ganking was at an OK level, needed a bit of variation added like Black Pedro's suggestion of varying concord response times, and perhaps a bit of an increase to what you have to put on the line (though not necessarily lose, a risk rather than a cost) to execute a gank. What this does though is effectively legalise an old exploit and bring in the ability to gank any ship regardless of tank. I understand entirely that it's beneficial to gankers and therefore they are going to argue to the end that it should be kept in, but that just makes them as bad as any highsec carebear demanding they get more safety.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Erika Mizune
The Soul Society
DeepSpace.
14
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:21:59 -
[359] - Quote
The one thing I am not seeing addressed in the OP is the bumping they do to keep you in place while they are reshipping into the new catalysts, after getting Concorded.
In the past, CCP has stated that this type of bumping is considered harassment, and this is a main part of this type of gank. You have a set of Shuttles, Catalysts, the Bowhead, and a ship that is designated to keep the freighter bumped to hell (Usually a Machariel) so they are pretty much screwed to even try to do anything.
Unless I missed it somewhere in the pages, what about the bumping? Is that type of bumping not considered harassment anymore?
DJ Yumene of Eve Radio
[u]Like Music? Check this out!:[/u]
Parody Listing: http://yumene.subspace-radio.net/listing
_Also check out http://www.eve-radio.com/! _
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4991
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:23:27 -
[360] - Quote
Erika Mizune wrote:The one thing I am not seeing addressed in the OP is the bumping they do to keep you in place while they are reshipping into the new catalysts, after getting Concorded.
In the past, CCP has stated that this type of bumping is considered harassment, and this is a main part of this type of gank. You have a set of Shuttles, Catalysts, the Bowhead, and a ship that is designated to keep the freighter bumped to hell (Usually a Machariel) so they are pretty much screwed to even try to do anything.
Unless I missed it somewhere in the pages, what about the bumping? Is that type of bumping not considered harassment anymore? Bumping has been considered not an exploit for a while now. I think there's an exception if you keep someone bumped for a considerable amount of time without actually ganking them because that's simply preventing someone from playing, but if they are doing it to gank you it's definitely OK.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Dave Stark
7317
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:30:50 -
[361] - Quote
Erika Mizune wrote:The one thing I am not seeing addressed in the OP is the bumping they do to keep you in place while they are reshipping into the new catalysts, after getting Concorded.
In the past, CCP has stated that this type of bumping is considered harassment, and this is a main part of this type of gank. You have a set of Shuttles, Catalysts, the Bowhead, and a ship that is designated to keep the freighter bumped to hell (Usually a Machariel) so they are pretty much screwed to even try to do anything.
Unless I missed it somewhere in the pages, what about the bumping? Is that type of bumping not considered harassment anymore?
i think it basically boils down to "if you're bumping some one just for the sake of bumping them" then yeah, it comes under harrassment.
however if you're bumping them as a means to some other end [extortion, setting them up to be ganked, etc], then it's fine. |
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
32
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:31:23 -
[362] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Lets go through a list of all the boosts to ganking... just for you, cuz you seem to be very ungrateful to CCP for the "environment" they created for you.
1. You now have extremely overpowered Catalysts capable of pumping out dps beyond expected for their size and cost
2. You now have powerful alpha weapons with changes to Projectiles and Railguns
3. You now have the Orca and Bowhead, to drop dozens of ships that can't be touched by concord give you a plethora of methods to gank with little player numbers
4. You now have Freighters who must choose between cargo and ehp, fit for one and lose the other, making your targets potentially easier to gank
5. You now have warp changes which give you ample time to set up on a gate before a freighter arrives because it takes them minutes to cross a system.
6. You now have no clone costs in case someone pops your pod after you gank and forget to warp off
7. You now have tags to get your sec status up without ever having to shoot a red cross
8. You now have ships capable of bumping a 55m/s boat to 500-800m/s to get them away from the grid
9. You now have changes to the log-off log-on trick so I can't log my alt in and make my frieghter pilot disappear. 1 & 2 GÇö cancelled out by the much higher costs. 3. Has existed in other forms since the invention of CONCORD, 4. Has existed in other forms since the invention of freighters, and player stupidity is not a boost to ganking. 5. Has existed since the invention of freighters, and in any system where it takes GÇ£minutes to crossGÇ¥, the warp changes means the gankers have less time to prepare, not more. 6. Ooh. One thing! Neat. It makes a difference of all of one gun fitted, i.e. fsck-all. 7. Could be a boost if it offered any kind of useful benefit, which it doesn't. 8. Has existed since the invention of collisions, and is far less effective now than before. 9. I suppose. Not being able to cheese your way out of a loss is generally considered good balance. So that's two things you've completely misidentified as boosts when they're the exact opposite; two things that have been cancelled out and end up as net negatives; four things that aren't changes; two things that make no difference; and one thing that is good design. End result? Pathetic and ignorant, trying to massively inflate changes into something they're not. None of them change the fact that ganking is more costly, requires more effort, and is hellalot easier to avoid than in the past. Quote:AND YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ME ONE VALID EXAMPLE OF HOW GANKING IS HARDER Learn to read.
Learn to answer the question... and you are seriously a troll if you are trying to use "cost" as a deterrent to ganking. You were nerfed by "cost"
Hilarious. You use a bunch of 3 mil isk fit ships to gank a 1.5bil ship with untold isk of cargo... and you want to talk about the cost of Catalysts? Troll
|
Dave Stark
7317
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:37:17 -
[363] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Hilarious. You use a bunch of 3 mil isk fit ships to gank a 1.5bil ship with untold isk of cargo... and you want to talk about the cost of Catalysts? Troll
remind me why 1 pilot should be able to beat 3 pilots? especially when that one pilot willingly chose to fly a ship with 0 offensive capabilities.
edit: oh wait, you mentioned cost not number of pilots... but the point still stands, you're going to need more than one catalyst. |
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
32
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:39:09 -
[364] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Hilarious. You use a bunch of 3 mil isk fit ships to gank a 1.5bil ship with untold isk of cargo... and you want to talk about the cost of Catalysts? Troll
remind me why 1 pilot should be able to beat 3 pilots? especially when that one pilot willingly chose to fly a ship with 0 offensive capabilities.
1 pilot isn't "beating" anything simply by surviving...
You have a warped sense of "beating" |
Dave Stark
7317
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:40:52 -
[365] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Hilarious. You use a bunch of 3 mil isk fit ships to gank a 1.5bil ship with untold isk of cargo... and you want to talk about the cost of Catalysts? Troll
remind me why 1 pilot should be able to beat 3 pilots? especially when that one pilot willingly chose to fly a ship with 0 offensive capabilities. 1 pilot isn't "beating" anything simply by surviving... You have a warped sense of "beating"
the end result is some one ending up without a ship, i'd say that would classify some one as beaten.
*shrug* |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24853
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:42:04 -
[366] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:The fact that you agree with a troll doesn't make their posts any better. Good thing he doesn't agree with you then. You are a troll, after all, since you keep commenting on things you have already admitted you don't know anything about, and since you refuse to actually engage in any kind of debate or answer even the simplest of questions.
Quote:This is fundamentally incorrect. The "entitlement" argument is no more valid for carebears than it is for gankers. Gankers are always harping on about how entitled to all of their ganking mechanics they are. Just look at this thread. There's a mechanic which is so close to an existing exploit that it's nearly indistinguishable and CODE members crawl out of the woodwork to explain why it should definitely not be changed. You could very much see that as entitlement. No, it is not. It is fundamentally true. As more and more nerfs have been piled onto the gankers to make their job harder, their victims have become more and more complacent and less and less willing to learn anything that will help them. Just look at this thread: it is people understanding the mechanics at work trying in vain to explain them to those who don't, while the latter keep harping on about how there is nothing they can do to help themselves.
He's 100% correct on that point: the more pampered they are with protection, the more reliant they become on it and the more their sense of entitlement on mechanical protection will grow. If you've actually been around and paid attention (and not lied to yourself), you will have noticed this trend years ago.
The mechanic at work here is also very easy to distinguish from a long-removed exploit that it's rather odd that it became a question at all. It's only an issue because those who are unwilling to learn about game mechanics are, as a result of that unwillingness, also unfamiliar with the consequences the old ruling was talking about. This announcement has nothing to do with that old exploit because it's a completely different beast. It does not bring in any ability that didn't exist before, nor does it actually change what tactics have ever been allowed when CONCORD is involved.
Quote:At the end of the day we're all here to play a game for entertainment. You need to accept that that entertainment comes in many different forms, not just one single playstyle that people like Tippia support. You don't even know what my play style is, so any thing you say about what I like is pure prejudice.
Quote:What? Don't make me laugh. Ganking is easy. Like ludicrously easy. GǪand yet it is ludicrously rare and limited to a select few individuals who have spent a lot of energy at figuring out how to make it work. How do you square that with it being easy?
Quote:Actually you're sort of correct. If ganking were easier people would come in and leave if they weren't able to defend themselves, leaving only players who are heavily resistant to ganking. At that point gankers would complain that ganking is too difficult and demand nerfs to highsec player. Does it matter? Should we reach that point, then that's a discussion to have there and then. The possibility that at some point, the gankers get the same sense of entitlement that the pampered haulers currently exhibit, is not a reason to actually move in that direction and make people learn.
Ultimately, that is the one thing that will make them safe, and the other route GÇö giving them more protection because they are unwilling to learn GÇö can only end where it simply must not end: by the complete eradication of non-consensual PvP.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
32
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:42:34 -
[367] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Hilarious. You use a bunch of 3 mil isk fit ships to gank a 1.5bil ship with untold isk of cargo... and you want to talk about the cost of Catalysts? Troll
remind me why 1 pilot should be able to beat 3 pilots? especially when that one pilot willingly chose to fly a ship with 0 offensive capabilities. 1 pilot isn't "beating" anything simply by surviving... You have a warped sense of "beating" the end result is some one ending up without a ship, i'd say that would classify some one as beaten. *shrug*
The person without a ship did it themselves... consciously
Seriously put more effort into this.
|
Alli Ginthur
The Mjolnir Bloc
The Bloc
25
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:43:03 -
[368] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Hilarious. You use a bunch of 3 mil isk fit ships to gank a 1.5bil ship with untold isk of cargo... and you want to talk about the cost of Catalysts? Troll
remind me why 1 pilot should be able to beat 3 pilots? especially when that one pilot willingly chose to fly a ship with 0 offensive capabilities. 1 pilot isn't "beating" anything simply by surviving... You have a warped sense of "beating"
Interesting.. I thought when your ship survived and the attack failed... you won, as you beat the challenge placed before you...
So thats not true?!
Have I been lied to all these years? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24853
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:44:15 -
[369] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Learn to answer the question. I did, and I did. Your not liking the answer because it turns out reality conflicts with your hallucination does not constitute a lack of answer.
Quote:you are seriously a troll if you are trying to use "cost" as a deterrent to ganking. Reality conflicts with your hallucination. The reality of the matter is that as costs have gone up, ganking has gone down. If you don't understand why, Economy 101 will probably help you.
Quote:1 pilot isn't "beating" anything simply by surviving. Incorrect. It is a conflict between a predator and a prey. The prey wins by denying the predator. It's called a mission kill, and it counts as winning every time.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Zendon Taredi
Tier Four Technologies
47
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:49:14 -
[370] - Quote
TheMeanPerson wrote:Lets be serious here guys, I hate to be the debbie downer for freighter and industrial pilots, but no matter what happens. If you fly with something worth ganking, your going to get ganked. Just be smart, dont go afk, use a webber. OTHERWISE, you will end up like the people inside of the player hugh forehead's biography EVERY TIME. WE will FIND you. Hyperdunking or not.
And what isnt worth ganking when you are using catalysts? before the problem was getting a fleet large enough to gank freighters with catalysts, now that problem is gone meaning that anyone with an alt or two can take down a freighter at a cost of what, 20m?
Yes, we can get escort, in the form of a webber or a guadian etc but that will double the cost of hauling and that cost will be passed along to the consumers. Also, it would delete this ganking gameplay that people seem to enjoy. Basically less fun for me, and for you.
Also, can we stop pretending that you are somehow immune to the freighter network being diminished? I mean the entire game runs on deliveries being made in freighters around the clock. It's also boring as **** and not especially profitable. So, how far do you want to push these people?
|
|
|
Dave stark
7319
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:49:54 -
[371] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Hilarious. You use a bunch of 3 mil isk fit ships to gank a 1.5bil ship with untold isk of cargo... and you want to talk about the cost of Catalysts? Troll
remind me why 1 pilot should be able to beat 3 pilots? especially when that one pilot willingly chose to fly a ship with 0 offensive capabilities. 1 pilot isn't "beating" anything simply by surviving... You have a warped sense of "beating" the end result is some one ending up without a ship, i'd say that would classify some one as beaten. *shrug* The person without a ship did it themselves... consciously Seriously put more effort into this.
the parting in your hair, i love it.
must have happened as the point sailed over your head.
|
Alli Ginthur
The Mjolnir Bloc
The Bloc
26
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:52:48 -
[372] - Quote
Zendon Taredi wrote:TheMeanPerson wrote:Lets be serious here guys, I hate to be the debbie downer for freighter and industrial pilots, but no matter what happens. If you fly with something worth ganking, your going to get ganked. Just be smart, dont go afk, use a webber. OTHERWISE, you will end up like the people inside of the player hugh forehead's biography EVERY TIME. WE will FIND you. Hyperdunking or not. And what isnt worth ganking when you are using catalysts? before the problem was getting a fleet large enough to gank freighters with catalysts, now that problem is gone meaning that anyone with an alt or two can take down a freighter at a cost of what, 20m? Yes, we can get escort, in the form of a webber or a guadian etc but that will double the cost of hauling and that cost will be passed along to the consumers. Also, it would delete this ganking gameplay that people seem to enjoy. Basically less fun for me, and for you. Also, can we stop pretending that you are somehow immune to the freighter network being diminished? I mean the entire game runs on deliveries being made in freighters around the clock. It's also boring as **** and not especially profitable. So, how far do you want to push these people?
Wow.. when did the price of catalysts drop so much? Did you get a special deal? Mind letting me know your supplier?
Heres a hint... the number of catalysts required didnt change. Only the number of people flying them and setting the gank up. Which is still more than the usual afk freighter pilot brings to the encounter. |
Dave stark
7319
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:53:03 -
[373] - Quote
Zendon Taredi wrote:TheMeanPerson wrote:Lets be serious here guys, I hate to be the debbie downer for freighter and industrial pilots, but no matter what happens. If you fly with something worth ganking, your going to get ganked. Just be smart, dont go afk, use a webber. OTHERWISE, you will end up like the people inside of the player hugh forehead's biography EVERY TIME. WE will FIND you. Hyperdunking or not. And what isnt worth ganking when you are using catalysts? before the problem was getting a fleet large enough to gank freighters with catalysts, now that problem is gone meaning that anyone with an alt or two can take down a freighter at a cost of what, 20m? Yes, we can get escort, in the form of a webber or a guadian etc but that will double the cost of hauling and that cost will be passed along to the consumers. Also, it would delete this ganking gameplay that people seem to enjoy. Basically less fun for me, and for you. Also, can we stop pretending that you are somehow immune to the freighter network being diminished? I mean the entire game runs on deliveries being made in freighters around the clock. It's also boring as **** and not especially profitable. So, how far do you want to push these people?
the cost hasn't changed.
that's fine, hauling is still cheaper than a second rate hooker anyway. even if the prices did double i'd still outsource my hauling because it'd still be comically cheap.
eh, it has been a reasonably long time since i had to create a courrier contract, or haul anything in a freighter myself. so yes, i am pretty immune to it being diminished.
as for how far do i want to push them? far enough so they'll actually stop whining about ganks, and start protecting their cargo. |
Aleksi Bocharov
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
25
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:55:00 -
[374] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I didn't claim it was a removal of a playstyle.
Irrelevant. You were the one whining about "effort", and based on that alone my point stands.
Lucas Kell wrote:You might want to explain that to the much of the playerbase then
No, just you. You're the only one I've seen who uses this weird, expanded definition to include corp theft.
Lucas Kell wrote:Either way, joining a highsec corp to shoot members on it's own is not a playstyle
Source?
|
Dave Stark
7319
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:56:51 -
[375] - Quote
Aleksi Bocharov wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Either way, joining a highsec corp to shoot members on it's own is not a playstyle Source?
doubt he'll find one, since there's literally a whole community built around said activity. |
Aleksi Bocharov
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
25
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 16:01:25 -
[376] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Aleksi Bocharov wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Either way, joining a highsec corp to shoot members on it's own is not a playstyle Source? doubt he'll find one, since there's literally a whole community built around said activity.
Said community is obviously a figment of imagination, since Awoxing is clearly not a playstyle pioneered by the player of the same name. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24853
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 16:02:04 -
[377] - Quote
Zendon Taredi wrote:And what isnt worth ganking when you are using catalysts? before the problem was getting a fleet large enough to gank freighters with catalysts, now that problem is gone meaning that anyone with an alt or two can take down a freighter at a cost of what, 20m? Anything that costs more than the Catalysts, for one. A freighter requires far more than 20M, and costs go up quite rapidly as you add in contingencies to ensure you actually get anything out of it.
Quote:Yes, we can get escort, in the form of a webber or a guadian etc but that will double the cost of hauling and that cost will be passed along to the consumers. You payment structure seems rather odd, I must say, but the cost of hauling is utterly minute so if that's what's needed to make stuff arrive, then pile it on. No-one will even notice.
Quote:Also, can we stop pretending that you are somehow immune to the freighter network being diminished? I mean the entire game runs on deliveries being made in freighters around the clock. It's also boring as **** and not especially profitable. So, how far do you want to push these people? The thing is, we're not really being pushed at all at the moment. We've had our lives made easier in numerous ways, which is part of what makes it boring as **** GÇö there's pretty much nothing to fear or worry about. That's where the complacency sets in, which gets some people killed.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
532
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 16:18:49 -
[378] - Quote
Zendon Taredi wrote:
Yes, we can get escort, in the form of a webber or a guadian etc but that will double the cost of hauling and that cost will be passed along to the consumers.
You and your customers are not entitled to cheap hauling by AFK freighter. If this ruling increases the risk to haulers (which it doesn't - ships with active pilots are no less safe than they were yesterday), the sandbox will adjust, but is player interaction and engagement, not cheap hauling rates that CCP is trying to maximize.
Zendon Taredi wrote:Also, it would delete this ganking gameplay that people seem to enjoy. Basically less fun for me, and for you. Only by the loosest definition is loading up a freighter, undocking pressing 'Autopilot' and going to eat a sandwich actual gameplay. The game for the hauler is to get her goods safely to the destination. How is there any fun or engagement if there is no risk to this activity? Unless you mean the fun of earning ISK for pressing a button and risking nothing.
Zendon Taredi wrote:Also, can we stop pretending that you are somehow immune to the freighter network being diminished? I mean the entire game runs on deliveries being made in freighters around the clock. It's also boring as **** and not especially profitable. So, how far do you want to push these people?
You act as if it is somehow now impossible to use a freighter in highsec because a weaker form of an already accepted activity has been decided to be within the rules. Perhaps there will be more freighter ganks, perhaps not, but for sure this attack is much more susceptible to disruption by an active pilot or white knights/assistance than vanilla freighter ganking.
But from an economic perspective, the prevalence of AFK freighter hauling has driven the price of courier contracts into the ground. There is plenty of room to "push these people" around, and perhaps make some space for the little haulers who are not at the same risk to bumping.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Khan Wrenth
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
94
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 16:19:20 -
[379] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: Each post is direct, concise, logical, and done with the greater health of the game in mind. The fact that you agree with a troll doesn't make their posts any better.[/quote]
To keep things civil and all that, I agree with your sentiment on post quality entirely. I disagree with your assertion she's a troll. That's what it's going to boil down into, so I suppose we can leave it at that?
Quote:This is fundamentally incorrect. The "entitlement" argument is no more valid for carebears than it is for gankers. Gankers are always harping on about how entitled to all of their ganking mechanics they are. Just look at this thread. There's a mechanic which is so close to an existing exploit that it's nearly indistinguishable and CODE members crawl out of the woodwork to explain why it should definitely not be changed. You could very much see that as entitlement.
That is an interesting perspective on the discussion, but one I obviously don't agree with. What I see, and I am being 100% honest here that this is merely my perspective, is that after having witnessed this song and dance play out hundreds of times on the forums over the past few years, is that the gankers do complain, yes. They complain about constant nerfs like every other person. But they've gotten very little to balance out those nerfs. Whereas I have seen the same arguments from the carebears that "it isn't safe enough yet!" screamed at the top of their lungs no matter how many times gankers got nerfed. So you see it as entitlement on both sides. I don't. I see one side getting nerfed more than is necessary, but adapting nonetheless and asking for a bit more to compensate, and the other side gettting more of what they want, and still asking for a bit more. That does not seem equal to me, so I do not put an equivalence there.
Why should one side get nerfed, adapt, and still get nerfed, while most other aspects of the game get buffs and nerfs as a "rebalance". Where's the ganker rebalance? The scope of ganking is so narrow, the ships and tools so few, the locales so few, that I don't see how it is a problem or even that the game might suffer from a few select buffs. Heck, piracy as a legitimate playing option was supposed to be a cornerstone of selling this game to the masses, why is it still being marginalized?
The mechanic/topic of this thread, however, is so fundamentally different than the aforementioned exploit that the Dev's don't agree with you. To paraphrase, they have basically put forth in this thread, "We've had long discussions about this, analyzed it, and found that there is a very fine line that this tactic does NOT cross". Again, I'm paraphrasing what they said, but that is basically what the conclusion was. The added bit of "we'll see if this becomes widespread and might reconsider it then" doesn't mean much in this context because as others have already pointed out in this thread, the use of this tactic is so niche, no easily disrupted, that it can't be widespread because the conditions required for it to happen just don't happen that frequently. Even so, Devs have taken steps to slightly limit things that people decried as exploits because of widespread abuse, but kept the mechanic in place because it itself wasn't an exploit. Remind me how that drone assist thing is these days? Banned yet? Mechanic removed yet?
Quote:At the end of the day we're all here to play a game for entertainment. You need to accept that that entertainment comes in many different forms, not just one single playstyle that people like Tippia support. People supporting their own playstyle are not automatically "entitled".
Again, I agree with what you wrote, just not the implications between the lines. I accept that entertainment comes in many forms, including piracy, which inherently has a victim that isn't a red-cross-NPC. I also have not seen Tippa declare only one playstyle as correct, but if I read through her posts I'm sure I'd find her, at some point, advocating for people to take responsibility for themselves and do something. Do something is NOT the same as saying "you can do only one thing". Quite literally it is the opposite, and there's been dozens of suggestions in this thread alone, not to mention every time this topic comes up. So you put forth an assertion, and I find it completely without merit, therefore it is dismissed.
Quote:What? Don't make me laugh. Ganking is easy. Like ludicrously easy. Gevlon Goblin who has an incredibly warped understanding of mechanics was able to gank billions with new characters. If you are finding ganking difficult then you are doing it wrong.
Like almost everything in life, sure it's easy when you know what you're doing. I'm sure Michael Phelps considers swimming like a torpedo easy. But again, not any Joe Shmoe can do it. He'll just get popped by concord and have a killright on him with nothing to show for it. You have to understand the mechanics of the game, nuances like Concord response times, your damage output, the enemy's resists/tank/buffer, what ammo to use, what ship to use, and all this assumes the other pilot does nothing for his own defense. Literally one thing that isn't accounted for, whether it be a DCUII or a thermal resist module can ruin your attempt. Or, you know, the other pilot seeing you coming and actually doing something besides sitting on his thumb. Ganking relies almost exclusively on players being complacent.
HTFU.-á Adapt or die.-á Beware the falcon punch.
|
Darkblad
Hilf Dir selbst in EVE
629
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 16:25:36 -
[380] - Quote
Erika Mizune wrote:In the past, CCP has stated that this type of bumping is considered harassment, and this is a main part of this type of gank. You have a set of Shuttles, Catalysts, the Bowhead, and a ship that is designated to keep the freighter bumped to hell (Usually a Machariel) so they are pretty much screwed to even try to do anything. Can you provide a source that clearly defines such bumping to prepare a gank is considered harassment and not a strategic element?Quote:CCP considers the act of bumping a normal game mechanic, and does not class the bumping of another playerGÇÖs ship as an exploit. However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment, and this will be judged on a case by case basis. From here. In case that you have trouble accepting that due to the GM posting this, notice that there's a Community Representative's note right below that post.
|
|
|
Annette Nolen
Red Frog Freight
Red-Frog
69
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 16:31:43 -
[381] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Quote:
And while gankers always turn to the "perfect safety" refrain whenever carebears complain about poorly implemented mechanics like machariel bumping neutral tackle in hs
Bumping isn't going to change for a number of reasons. Chief of which is that if CCP can't even change enough about the game to give us alliance level bookmarks, they damn sure can't redo the physics engine from the ground up.
This is a (possibly intentional) strawman to ensure that bumping is never fixed. A rewrite of the physics engine is NOT required to address bumping, nor is the only way to fix the issues with bumping the total and complete nerf or removal of bumping as a mechanic. These are the typically over-exaggerated counter-arguments raised whenever the very real issue of bumping is brought up.
Bumping simply needs a mechanical counter so that it's not a black and white, all or nothing experience. There ought to be a game-mechanics way to counter bumping that doesn't depend solely on the bumper screwing up. The counter should not be 100% certain to succeed, but neither should the act of bumping be so certain either. The current "counter" to bumping is... don't get bumped. That's not a counter.
There is one other sorta half baked thing involving flying inty's off in the best guess of the direction your freighter might be going, but I'm sorry to say a manual piloting trick in an RPG running 1s ticks on a 10 year old submarine simulator is not an acceptable counter to anything. EVE is not a flightsim and any attempt to turn it into one or to heavily depend on piloting tricks is going to wind up losing badly to modern games like Elite in that regard. |
David Mandrake
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 16:33:26 -
[382] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:As far as I know Concord will intervene if you shoot at them, but if you can fly them you can certainly board them and steal them . You can also target them to prevent the hyperdunker from boarding them, however if their "drop ship" is still around the pilot can do the same to prevent you from boarding and stealing them. Hilariously, you could also board one, shoot another to get yourself concorded, and then keep jumping in the other ships while under the GCC to get Concord to clean the lot up :P Nice, that hadn't even occurred to me. That is funny stuff and worth a try.
I may have to train my webber up to fly a Catalyst :D Then sell the killright on it for it shooting my freighter for a billion ISK publicly and see if anyone gives me free money.
Granted this does mean you'd eventually have to buy sec status tags but given how often you're probably going to run in to this sort of a problem that shouldn't be a huge cost (and people sell the tags - at an inflated price - at the lowsec stations where you turn them in so you can just plop your webber in a clean clone and fly it there in a shuttle whenever you need to tag up)
Black Pedro wrote:
You and your customers are not entitled to cheap hauling by AFK freighter. If this ruling increases the risk to haulers (which it doesn't - ships with active pilots are no less safe than they were yesterday), the sandbox will adjust, but is player interaction and engagement, not cheap hauling rates that CCP is trying to maximize.
This is actually part of the reason why I take the time to haul my own stuff. One, it's somewhat interesting during the prep work (planning out routes, looking at what's going on in systems, etc), and I also typically want my stuff to arrive in one piece, which I feel I can better ensure by hauling it myself with a webbing alt. Additionally, I don't really like the idea that someone should be able to undock a ship and make money by pressing a two button combo, so I don't really like to reward the highsec hauling services. In fact, I'm kind of the opinion that Freighters should have had an even more significant EHP nerf, to be coupled with a need to active tank in order to bring EHP back up to previous levels in order to discourage autopiloting. At the moment you literally can't fit an active tank to a freighter (and even if CCP just buffed the CPU/PG it'd be retardedly unbalanced), so one of the big incentives against autopiloting (more EHP) effectively is non-existent on freighters. You can fit for max tank and essentially the only downside to autopiloting is you slowboat to gates, so you can just go to work and tell the ship to autopilot. I think that plus the Tutorial telling you to autopilot may be a good bit of the reason we have the problem we have now; where lots of freighter pilots feel they should be able to autopilot relatively risk-free, and why hyperdunking may also have created as much of a stir (as it happened along the route through Niarja, which is where you'd be running if you wanted to avoid the possible ganks along the Uedama pipe and the longer flight time wouldn't matter if you weren't actually playing) |
Khan Wrenth
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
94
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 16:38:36 -
[383] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Actually you're sort of correct. If ganking were easier people would come in and leave if they weren't able to defend themselves, leaving only players who are heavily resistant to ganking. At that point gankers would complain that ganking is too difficult and demand nerfs to highsec player. Or what, do you think gankers would just accept ganking is no longer viable if everyone was prepared and able to avoid being ganked?
I not only disagree, but I can point out that half of this thread has been gankers giving out every tactic they can so you can defeat what they are doing. Your enemy is offering up their own kryptonite on an engraved silver platter, but you're going to sit there and tell me they're going to endlessly demand buffs in complete parallel to the carebears' constant demands for ganking nerfs? That's a very big disconnect between what is happening in this thread, and what you're claiming.
On your other point, people would come in and leave if they weren't able to defend themselves? That might happen yes, but they already can defend themselves quite well. Too well, in fact. Only the laziest, slowest, fattest targets are getting ganked anymore. The tools are available to them to defend themselves as outlined numerous times already. But to be more direct, no, I don't think most of them will leave, and I genuinely hope most won't. I hope they start doing that awesome HTFU thing, fight back, fit their ships right, fly smart, and make this game more interesting. This game revolves around player choices, risk, playing smart. The gankers are doing it, why can't their victims? I blame the too-safe highsec for creating a headspace where people believe they should be safe. I believe if they were relieved of that notion, they'd play the game better and ENJOY the game better too. I want THEM to have fun too. But they have to play the game, not have the game played for them.
Lastly, do I think gankers would essentially give up? No. I think their ability to gank targets would be severely limited if targets started flying smarter. They still would, but much less than what we see today. But CCP can't protect you in a sandbox, only you can prevent forest fires protect yourself. And if people wouldn't wander into the hornet's nest thinking they were safe because they knew the risks and took all available precautions to prevent 99% of gank attempts, we wouldn't be seeing whiney threads on the forums because they understood the risks better. Problem solved.
Quote:Prior to this announcement IMHO ganking was at an OK level, needed a bit of variation added like Black Pedro's suggestion of varying concord response times, and perhaps a bit of an increase to what you have to put on the line (though not necessarily lose, a risk rather than a cost) to execute a gank. What this does though is effectively legalise an old exploit and bring in the ability to gank any ship regardless of tank. I understand entirely that it's beneficial to gankers and therefore they are going to argue to the end that it should be kept in, but that just makes them as bad as any highsec carebear demanding they get more safety.
I think ganking needs to increase. Not by a lot. Within reason I've heard stories of some heroic men who, between the four of them, could completely shut down systems with their ganking prowess. That's what started the Concord buffs. And those four were banished to the four corners of null. So help me, I hope those guys got immortalized somehow. Anyway, EVE thrived under much worse ganking, and it's about time to reverse the trend of too much safety. Get people's heads back in the game, create more demand for ships and minerals by virtue of more of them exploding, and now we're talking!
This does not legalize an old exploit, and again, the DEVs already pointed this out. The two aren't related. Stop linking them, there's nothing to link.
HTFU.-á Adapt or die.-á Beware the falcon punch.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24854
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:01:06 -
[384] - Quote
It already has a number of them. All bumping does is change your velocity vector. You can approach this in two main ways: try to change it back or try to roll with it. Rolling with it generally means warping out in a direction other that the one you intended, but at least warping out. Once you're off the grid, you're pretty much home safe. The other is to use things like counter-bumps or webs or other external means to get you pointing in the right direction at the right speed. A more violent option is to simply gank the bumper. Given the setups for those ships, this is fairly easy but obviously comes at a cost.
Again, the only thing that isn't a counter is GÇ£do nothingGÇ¥ GÇö the option most seem to go for for some unknowable reason. That will never, and should never, work.
And to just stave off the inevitable answer: no, just because these counters mostly rely on a second ship does not mean they are not viable counters. The hauler and his helper is countering the ganker and his helper GÇö bumping without a gank is countered by simply ignoring it, so that's already a 1:1 option.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Korwin Abre-Kai
lichfield exploration and salvage
10
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:01:53 -
[385] - Quote
as I read through this ....cesspool it becomes apparent that most of the posters are under the impression (on both sides of the issue) that concord exists to protect individual players giving rise to this "nerf them buff us or EVE will die" IDIOCY!........the fact is concord mechanics show this to be false.
the actual mechanics show that concord exists to protect the trade hubs and commerce between them in order to insure that a bare minimum functional economy exists in the game PERIOD no more no less. players as individuals are expendable , losses are expected and part of the game.
EVE is not and never has been simply a game about "blowing up space pixels". sorry "leet" PvPers but if this were COD in space ships we would all be running around in game spawned ships with fixed stats , a match making system , leveling and "leader boards"(in case you missed it all those stats are on out of game sites)
EVE online is at its core an economic simulator set in a scifi sand box as such it must have resource gathering , industry , trade and a competitive context to give it all purpose. sorry PvE fanatics but if you don't want to compete with other players (who can and will shoot you) your playing the wrong game. |
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
32
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:04:36 -
[386] - Quote
Tippia wrote:It already has a number of them. All bumping does is change your velocity vector. You can approach this in two main ways: try to change it back or try to roll with it. Rolling with it generally means warping out in a direction other that the one you intended, but at least warping out. Once you're off the grid, you're pretty much home safe. The other is to use things like counter-bumps or webs or other external means to get you pointing in the right direction at the right speed. A more violent option is to simply gank the bumper. Given the setups for those ships, this is fairly easy but obviously comes at a cost. Again, the only thing that isn't a counter is GÇ£do nothingGÇ¥ GÇö the option most seem to go for for some unknowable reason. That will never, and should never, work. And to just stave off the inevitable answer: no, just because these counters mostly rely on a second ship does not mean they are not viable counters. The hauler and his helper is countering the ganker and his helper GÇö bumping without a gank is countered by simply ignoring it, so that's already a 1:1 option.
But a ship with a max speed of 55m/s should never be able to be bumped to 800m/s for any reason. Period
I don't even just mean for ganking, but there are other exploitable reasons why bumping should be at least limited to some reasonable multiple of your top speed. Also it should be noted that the mass/speed calculations should apply to bumping as they do aligning, which are way out of wack right now. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24854
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:06:15 -
[387] - Quote
Korwin Abre-Kai wrote:the actual mechanics show that concord exists to protect the trade hubs and commerce between them in order to insure that a bare minimum functional economy exists in the game PERIOD no more no less. players as individuals are expendable , losses are expected and part of the game. Not quite.
CONCORD exists to do one thing: to impose a tax on aggression in highsec (which is indeed the defining characteristic of highsec). That is all. You can either pay that tax piece-meal in assets (suicide gank) or wholesale in ISK (wardec). That is all CONCORD does and it is all it is: a cost.
CONCORD only offers protection in the form of a gamble: you are betting that other players' miserliness will be enough to keep them from blowing you up. You can skew that bet in or against your favour depending on what you fly, what you carry, and what people you annoy. As a basis, though, the odds are heavily in your favour and you can go through an entire highsec life without ever getting shot at because miserliness turns out to be a pretty strong motivation.
Market McSelling Alt wrote:But a ship with a max speed of 55m/s should never be able to be bumped to 800m/s for any reason. Period Why not? It's not your engines propelling you so your max speed is not particularly relevant at that point, is it?
Oh, and mass does play a part in bumping, much like it does in acceleration.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Annette Nolen
Red Frog Freight
Red-Frog
70
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:11:23 -
[388] - Quote
Tippia wrote:It already has a number of them. All bumping does is change your velocity vector. You can approach this in two main ways: try to change it back or try to roll with it. Rolling with it generally means warping out in a direction other that the one you intended, but at least warping out. Once you're off the grid, you're pretty much home safe
I don't really want to pollute this thread with the responses; read the linked thread if you have suggestions, but I promise all of your points have been covered.
The only thing I wanted to address here is the assertion that you are home safe if you get into warp. Not even close... good bumpers will follow you and pin you again. And then pop you. Which is kinda fun honestly :) I have had a bumper screw up and put me in alignment with a station whereby I escape into a warp to 0 on said station (did not have an instadock BM), landed at about 500m, and was then successfully prevented from docking by the Mach that followed me (and was eventually ganked). Which was great... I bet the bumpers/gankers got a real thrill out of that one and I certainly enjoyed myself. There are several choices I could have made with my warp to outsmart them that I failed to do. That's real gameplay; both sides with non-zero chances of success once the encounter began. |
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
32
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:16:27 -
[389] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Korwin Abre-Kai wrote:the actual mechanics show that concord exists to protect the trade hubs and commerce between them in order to insure that a bare minimum functional economy exists in the game PERIOD no more no less. players as individuals are expendable , losses are expected and part of the game. Not quite. CONCORD exists to do one thing: to impose a tax on aggression in highsec (which is indeed the defining characteristic of highsec). That is all. You can either pay that tax piece-meal in assets (suicide gank) or wholesale in ISK (wardec). That is all CONCORD does and it is all it is: a cost. CONCORD only offers protection in the form of a gamble: you are betting that other players' miserliness will be enough to keep them from blowing you up. You can skew that bet in or against your favour depending on what you fly, what you carry, and what people you annoy. As a basis, though, the odds are heavily in your favour and you can go through an entire highsec life without ever getting shot at because miserliness turns out to be a pretty strong motivation. Market McSelling Alt wrote:But a ship with a max speed of 55m/s should never be able to be bumped to 800m/s for any reason. Period Why not? It's not your engines propelling you so your max speed is not particularly relevant at that point, is it? Oh, and mass does play a part in bumping, much like it does in acceleration.
Mass calculations in bumping is a freaking joke in this game and you know it. Be better than that.
a 5mil ton ship can bump a giant frieghter 100x the mass over 15x its base speed.... that is OP and frankly not even close to lore if you want to play that card too.
|
Zendon Taredi
Tier Four Technologies
47
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:16:54 -
[390] - Quote
Alli Ginthur wrote:Zendon Taredi wrote:TheMeanPerson wrote:Lets be serious here guys, I hate to be the debbie downer for freighter and industrial pilots, but no matter what happens. If you fly with something worth ganking, your going to get ganked. Just be smart, dont go afk, use a webber. OTHERWISE, you will end up like the people inside of the player hugh forehead's biography EVERY TIME. WE will FIND you. Hyperdunking or not. And what isnt worth ganking when you are using catalysts? before the problem was getting a fleet large enough to gank freighters with catalysts, now that problem is gone meaning that anyone with an alt or two can take down a freighter at a cost of what, 20m? Yes, we can get escort, in the form of a webber or a guadian etc but that will double the cost of hauling and that cost will be passed along to the consumers. Also, it would delete this ganking gameplay that people seem to enjoy. Basically less fun for me, and for you. Also, can we stop pretending that you are somehow immune to the freighter network being diminished? I mean the entire game runs on deliveries being made in freighters around the clock. It's also boring as **** and not especially profitable. So, how far do you want to push these people? Wow.. when did the price of catalysts drop so much? Did you get a special deal? Mind letting me know your supplier? Heres a hint... the number of catalysts required didnt change. Only the number of people flying them and setting the gank up. Which is still more than the usual afk freighter pilot brings to the encounter.
Of course it didnt, why splurge on t2 fittings when you have all the time in the world? t1 fitted should be in the neighborhood of 2m each? |
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24854
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:21:16 -
[391] - Quote
Annette Nolen wrote:I don't really want to pollute this thread with the responses; read the linked thread if you have suggestions, but I promise all of your points have been covered. Including the one that you're asking for something that's already in the game?
Quote:The only thing I wanted to address here is the assertion that you are home safe if you get into warp. Not even close... good bumpers will follow you and pin you again. And then pop you. Bumpers don't pop you, so no. Your idea also breaks the physics engine for no real reason. The fact of the matter is that your suggestion tries to fix something that is problem solely because you make it one by adding something with the potential to completely unbalance the game. Your unwillingness to use the multiple counters that exist is not a good reason to break things willy-nilly.
Quote:There is no perfect avoidance technique This is a good thing. You want one to exist. That is a bad thing. That's as simple as it gets.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Zendon Taredi
Tier Four Technologies
47
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:33:19 -
[392] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:But using Cats, or one guy using Cats that will at most cost him 50mil and able to take down anything in the game that can't fight back is insane. There is no risk, because the character is already -10 and throw away and the isk is minuscule. Everything in the game can fight back against one guy in a Catalyst. Zendon Taredi wrote:That is up for CCP to decide. So it's not needed, then, since that's what they just decided.
Well, i do believe they will regret that. |
Alli Ginthur
The Mjolnir Bloc
The Bloc
26
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:33:49 -
[393] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Zendon Taredi wrote:I'm okay with this if it comes with a dessie nerf so strong that gankers will be forced to use tier 3. That way they are risking something too, and not just reaping a guaranteed profit. See thats the thing. I give mad props to ganker fleets who can organize 10 Tornados or Talos and can pop a hauler the right way. Those guys have to set up, scan out and determine the risk/reward of the gank. But using Cats, or one guy using Cats that will at most cost him 50mil and able to take down anything in the game that can't fight back is insane. There is no risk, because the character is already -10 and throw away and the isk is minuscule.
And the difference between one guy using the 50mil of catalysts and the fleet using 50mil of catalysts is... what? |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14704
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:33:54 -
[394] - Quote
Zendon Taredi wrote:
Well, i do believe they will regret that.
Why?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
33
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:34:42 -
[395] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:But using Cats, or one guy using Cats that will at most cost him 50mil and able to take down anything in the game that can't fight back is insane. There is no risk, because the character is already -10 and throw away and the isk is minuscule. Everything in the game can fight back against one guy in a Catalyst. Zendon Taredi wrote:That is up for CCP to decide. So it's not needed, then, since that's what they just decided.
How does a freighter fight back? How many locked targets can it have? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24854
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:35:05 -
[396] - Quote
Zendon Taredi wrote:Well, i do believe they will regret that. There's no reason to believe they will. After all, changing nothing is not a sufficient reason to suddenly nerf the hell out of an entire play style.
Market McSelling Alt wrote:How does a freighter fight back? How many locked targets can it have? By flying forwards and having more HP than the Catalyst can deliver before it dies. No target locks required.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
33
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:35:56 -
[397] - Quote
Alli Ginthur wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Zendon Taredi wrote:I'm okay with this if it comes with a dessie nerf so strong that gankers will be forced to use tier 3. That way they are risking something too, and not just reaping a guaranteed profit. See thats the thing. I give mad props to ganker fleets who can organize 10 Tornados or Talos and can pop a hauler the right way. Those guys have to set up, scan out and determine the risk/reward of the gank. But using Cats, or one guy using Cats that will at most cost him 50mil and able to take down anything in the game that can't fight back is insane. There is no risk, because the character is already -10 and throw away and the isk is minuscule. And the difference between one guy using the 50mil of catalysts and the fleet using 50mil of catalysts is... what?
Nothing, that is why I said I respect the 10x Tornados....
I never said there was a difference, just more salt in the wound that one guy can do it. But comprehension for the barbaric seems low in this thread. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24862
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:39:11 -
[398] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Nothing, that is why I said I respect the 10x Tornados....
I never said there was a difference, just more salt in the wound that one guy can do it. But comprehension for the barbaric seems low in this thread.
Yes. For instance, your comprehension of basic ganking is so low that you fail to understand that more set-up and skill in playing the game is required from the single guy than from the 10 Tornadoes. F1 monkeying requires very little; multiboxing all the roles required for a jollyjab requires many times more.
So your respect for that much lower amount of effort is kind of curious. It explains a lot, thoughGǪ
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Alli Ginthur
The Mjolnir Bloc
The Bloc
26
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:39:19 -
[399] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Alli Ginthur wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Zendon Taredi wrote:I'm okay with this if it comes with a dessie nerf so strong that gankers will be forced to use tier 3. That way they are risking something too, and not just reaping a guaranteed profit. See thats the thing. I give mad props to ganker fleets who can organize 10 Tornados or Talos and can pop a hauler the right way. Those guys have to set up, scan out and determine the risk/reward of the gank. But using Cats, or one guy using Cats that will at most cost him 50mil and able to take down anything in the game that can't fight back is insane. There is no risk, because the character is already -10 and throw away and the isk is minuscule. And the difference between one guy using the 50mil of catalysts and the fleet using 50mil of catalysts is... what? Nothing, that is why I said I respect the 10x Tornados.... I never said there was a difference, just more salt in the wound that one guy can do it. But comprehension for the barbaric seems low in this thread.
So you respect the 10 tornado fleet for planning and executing a gank, however dont respect the catalyst guy/fleet planning and executing a gank... because :reasons:? |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
765
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:40:31 -
[400] - Quote
To all the carebear whiners who think this is somehow "easy", "free kills", "without consequences" or whatever. Go on and try it yourself before you come to this thread and talk about something you have no idea about. I bet not a single one of you will be able to kill an Orca, Bowhead or Freighter with this tactic.
I even think you will not even try because this will totally ruin your precious sec status. But I am sure it will not prevent you from coming back to the forums and cry about how little consequences ganking has.
This is a very fragile tactic, there are hundreds of ways to stop such a gank with almost zero effort. But that's not enough for you right? All you want is 100% safety in highsec and nothing else, don't even try to pretend something else.
cheers
the Code ALWAYS wins
|
|
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
33
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:41:19 -
[401] - Quote
Alli Ginthur wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Alli Ginthur wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Zendon Taredi wrote:I'm okay with this if it comes with a dessie nerf so strong that gankers will be forced to use tier 3. That way they are risking something too, and not just reaping a guaranteed profit. See thats the thing. I give mad props to ganker fleets who can organize 10 Tornados or Talos and can pop a hauler the right way. Those guys have to set up, scan out and determine the risk/reward of the gank. But using Cats, or one guy using Cats that will at most cost him 50mil and able to take down anything in the game that can't fight back is insane. There is no risk, because the character is already -10 and throw away and the isk is minuscule. And the difference between one guy using the 50mil of catalysts and the fleet using 50mil of catalysts is... what? Nothing, that is why I said I respect the 10x Tornados.... I never said there was a difference, just more salt in the wound that one guy can do it. But comprehension for the barbaric seems low in this thread. So you respect the 10 tornado fleet for planning and executing a gank, however dont respect the catalyst guy/fleet planning and executing a gank... because :reasons:?
Because the Cat fleet has nothing to lose. They can gank just for tears, where the Tornados have to gank to cover their costs.
And no Tippia, 5mil for a Cat is not "cost" its pennies. |
Captain Jazzmag
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:42:52 -
[402] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:
To be honest it's pointless arguing with someone like you because you're not interested in what's fair and balanced gameplay.
Next you'll be telling us about eHonour.
|
Alli Ginthur
The Mjolnir Bloc
The Bloc
29
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:46:28 -
[403] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Alli Ginthur wrote:
So you respect the 10 tornado fleet for planning and executing a gank, however dont respect the catalyst guy/fleet planning and executing a gank... because :reasons:?
Because the Cat fleet has nothing to lose. They can gank just for tears, where the Tornados have to gank to cover their costs. And no Tippia, 5mil for a Cat is not "cost" its pennies.
So the cost of the ship is your primary sticking point. You think the cost of a ship is how to balance ship strength. Its a good thing you arent in charge of balancing. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14705
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:46:43 -
[404] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Because the Cat fleet has nothing to lose. They can gank just for tears, where the Tornados have to gank to cover their costs.
And no Tippia, 5mil for a Cat is not "cost" its pennies.
Show me a t2 cat for 5 mil.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Varrgas Arthurus
Pain Jambon Beurre et Salade
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:48:04 -
[405] - Quote
Ridiculus .... 
This decision make me Disappointed !
Some player find a way to exploit the rules and game mecanics to cross the rules for kill people "alone" and that the most important point for me ! And you let them do it ?
That fuckin stupid !
I didn't want to have an High sc without kill and in an eternal peace, but concord is just usless if you let this happen, remove it.
Sonn this Game will be the "Sucide Gank Game" , nothing else.
Please don't break your game after all your hard work... |
Zendon Taredi
Tier Four Technologies
47
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:49:21 -
[406] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Zendon Taredi wrote:
Well, i do believe they will regret that.
Why?
Whine & petition spam. |
Annette Nolen
Red Frog Freight
Red-Frog
70
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:49:55 -
[407] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Annette Nolen wrote:I don't really want to pollute this thread with the responses; read the linked thread if you have suggestions, but I promise all of your points have been covered. Including the one that you're asking for something that's already in the game?
Webbing is not a counter, just another avoidance. Inty warpouts are a bad counter dependent on something the game engine simply can't handle.
Tippia wrote:Bumpers don't pop you, so no.
Bumpers can chase me and lock me down again just as easily. Or rather, DID. If you leave out the part where I got blown up, nothing has changed with the OP nature of bumping in that scenario.
Tippia wrote:Quote:There is no perfect avoidance technique This is a good thing. You want one to exist. That is a bad thing. That's as simple as it gets.
What I'm actually asking for is a non-perfect counter to active bumping. Not a new technique to avoid ever being bumped, and certainly nothing that is a 100% certain hard counter against active bumping that somehow guarantees escape.
But I'm pretty much just repeating every point/counter-point made in the other thread. You haven't come up with anything original that hasn't already been addressed soundly over there.
There are only two valid positions for the con side to hold. 1) you don't believe active bumping needs a mechanical counter; that's fine, I respect that position (even though it's totally wrong). 2) you believe the module as-described is too certain to guarantee escape; that's fine, tweak the suggested values until it is better balanced in your opinion. |
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
35
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:52:47 -
[408] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Because the Cat fleet has nothing to lose. They can gank just for tears, where the Tornados have to gank to cover their costs.
And no Tippia, 5mil for a Cat is not "cost" its pennies.
Show me a t2 cat for 5 mil.
Why the heck would you need to use T2? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24868
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:53:21 -
[409] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Because the Cat fleet has nothing to lose. They can gank just for tears, where the Tornados have to gank to cover their costs.
And no Tippia, 5mil for a Cat is not "cost" its pennies.
The cat fleet has everything to lose. The entire cat fleet, for instance. In many cases with nothing to show for it, unless they plan and pick their target properly.
And your personal definitions are irrelevant, 5M for a cat is a cost. You can claim otherwise until you're blue in the face, but reality simply will not budge on this matter. Oh, and don't think that ganknados can't be used just for tears GÇö suggesting otherwise also suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of ganking.
AlsoGǪAlli Ginthur wrote:So the cost of the ship is your primary sticking point. You think the cost of a ship is how to balance ship strength. Its a good thing you arent in charge of balancing. GǪthis. Cost is not a factor in balance, and certainly not in being worthy of respect. That seems like the most nonsensical and irrelevant detail to attach anything to.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24873
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:00:42 -
[410] - Quote
Annette Nolen wrote:Webbing is not a counter, just another avoidance. Inty warpouts are a bad counter dependent on something the game engine simply can't handle. In other words, webbing is a counter, as is warping in your new direction. Neither is dependent on something the game can't handle GÇö in fact, they both work exactly because the game can handle them.
Quote:Bumpers can chase me and lock me down again just as easily. GǪand you can escape them again, just as easily.
Quote:What I'm actually asking for is a non-perfect counter to active bumping. Uh-huh. You are dismissing all the existing, perfectly working counters because they are not 100% effective. To fix this oversight, you suggest that a module is made that breaks the physics engine. So yeah, no. That's pretty much exactly what you're asking for.
Oh, and your entire reasoning for needing this is fundamentally flawed since you incorrectly assume that bumping is 100% effective. The only reason you think it's that effective is because you choose GÇ£noneGÇ¥ when you are picking which of the existing counters to use.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
|
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
770
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:11:25 -
[411] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Because the Cat fleet has nothing to lose. They can gank just for tears, where the Tornados have to gank to cover their costs.
And no Tippia, 5mil for a Cat is not "cost" its pennies.
Show me a t2 cat for 5 mil. Why the heck would you need to use T2?
Because of the shield recharge and because the Orca bay is limited. Did you actually try the tactic yourself?
the Code ALWAYS wins
|
Mag's
the united
18908
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:13:16 -
[412] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Because the Cat fleet has nothing to lose. They can gank just for tears, where the Tornados have to gank to cover their costs.
And no Tippia, 5mil for a Cat is not "cost" its pennies.
Show me a t2 cat for 5 mil. Why the heck would you need to use T2? Because of the shield recharge and because the Orca bay is limited. Did you actually try the tactic yourself? Shhh, he's supplying comedy gold. We don't need him to learn the facts just yet.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
39
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:28:28 -
[413] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Because the Cat fleet has nothing to lose. They can gank just for tears, where the Tornados have to gank to cover their costs.
And no Tippia, 5mil for a Cat is not "cost" its pennies.
Show me a t2 cat for 5 mil. Why the heck would you need to use T2? Because of the shield recharge and because the Orca bay is limited. Did you actually try the tactic yourself?
Have you? You know the Orca can go back to the station and get more...
And a T2 fit Cat costs 4x as much as a T1... but only does 20% more damage. So it doesn't take an economics major to figure out the Maths here. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24875
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:30:20 -
[414] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Have you? You know the Orca can go back to the station and get more... Want to guess what happens while it does?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
39
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:31:51 -
[415] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Have you? You know the Orca can go back to the station and get more... Want to guess what happens while it does?
Nothing because my freighter is still being bumped by anything in the game that can fit a MWD
Recharge is chump... seriously even eft can tell you that. |
Annette Nolen
Red Frog Freight
Red-Frog
72
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:32:39 -
[416] - Quote
Alli Ginthur wrote:And the difference between one guy using the 50mil of catalysts and the fleet using 50mil of catalysts is... what?
Yeah can we stop dancing around this please?
We all know what the difference is; the final cut per actual person involved (e.g. the human at the keyboard).
One person using three accounts only has to gank targets with sufficient value to get a cut large enough to warrant ONE PERSON involved. A fleet has to gank targets with sufficient value to get a cut large enough for EACH PERSON involved.
But let's boil it down even further so we can approach this simplistically. Let's assume ALL ganks are done by one perfectly rational multiboxing human.
Traditional freighter gank: 1 bumper + (14 or more gank pilots, depending) = 15 accounts to PLEX from the profit
Hyperdunk: 1 bumper + 1 bowhead/orca pilot + 1 gank pilot = 3 accounts to PLEX from the profit
Provided the hyperdunker is able to gank at least once for every five ganks done the traditional way, they will come out even or on top in terms of profit per account. The primary limitation on traditional ganking is not the time to gank, it's the GCC, so while a hyperdunker is not going to gank as frequently as a traditional ganker, they are still very likely going to gank at better than a 1 to 5 rate.
Net effect? Value of a ship worth ganking just got lower.
For the record, I have no problem with this. I wish every gank was a hyperdunk, it's really easy to defend against (1 remote repper and you're 100% safe). But that doesn't invalidate the concerns raised by the above math. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24875
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:34:55 -
[417] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Nothing because my freighter is still being bumped by anything in the game that can fit a MWD No, what happens is that the ganker gets ganked, the target is repped up, the vultures start showing up, and/or the target just gets away. If you need the fetch more ships, you have long since failed.
You keep stupidly assuming that you have unlimited time, and that drawing things out is somehow a good thing. It is the exact opposite of the truth.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
41
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:37:38 -
[418] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
Don't you even dare suggest such a thing, because it would be a lie. Real EVE PVE players aren't powerless victimhood pansies that complain about "oh whoa is me CCP don't like my play style". We are right there in the arena with the PVP jocks doing our thing, THINKING, acting, winning (wining for us is stacking wealth while "pvp players" shake their fists in the air because they can't hold us long enough to kill us).
So again, don't you dare pretend to speak for the (real) EVE PVE community. We aren't in the surrender business like the fake pve forum whine crowd likes to claim we are.
You, mate, have won the internet for today.
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: It's called balance. It's something different than "If you do PvP, you're good to go; If you dare to PvE, you're ****** and pay for it".
This is a perfect example of the victim mentality at work - "I don't want to PvP, so I shouldn't be forced to, CCP protect me." Guess what? It's up to YOU to protect your assets from loss, regardless of the source of that loss. You don't want to get ganked? Then change your priorities from "Maximum Yield" or "AFK Isk/Hour" to "Protecting my Assets". The advice on how to do so has not changed, and is freely available. Hell, even the gankers will tell you how to better protcet yourself, if you ask without being a whiny ***** about it.
Out mining? Get someone to watch local, and someone else in fleet to watch dscan. When the usual suspects appear, dock up. Don't give them easy targets. Moving freight? Use a scout or a webber (preferably both). Check zkill to see if ganking crews are active in the bottleneck systems. GO A DIFFERENT WAY if one is available. Sure it may take longer, but once you focus on the right priority, it matters less.
Protecting yourself is not hard, nor is it some magical skill that only a select few possess. Anyone can do it. Does it mean you will never get ganked? No, but your chances go down significantly, if you're the harder of the available targets.
Remember - if we are being chased by a bear in the woods, I don't have to be faster than the bear. I just have to faster than you. The same thinking process applies here. You don't have to be impossible to gank. Just harder to gank than the guy next to you. |
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
43
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:37:45 -
[419] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Nothing because my freighter is still being bumped by anything in the game that can fit a MWD No, what happens is that the ganker gets ganked, the target is repped up, the vultures start showing up, and/or the target just gets away. If you need the fetch more ships, you have long since failed. You keep stupidly assuming that you have unlimited time, and that drawing things out is somehow a good thing. It is the exact opposite of the truth.
What are you talking about. The ganker and the orca pilot are not the same. The ganker can keep pulling concord with shuttles while the Orca gets a fresh load of cats. The bumper keeps bumping. No vultures come because you are 5 or 6k off grid by now.
What are you even talking about now. Your points are unraveling and becoming desperate. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24878
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:43:31 -
[420] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:What are you talking about. The ganker and the orca pilot are not the same. The ganker can keep pulling concord with shuttles while the Orca gets a fresh load of cats. The bumper keeps bumping. No vultures come because you are 5 or 6k off grid by now. No, that's not how the tactic works, largely because you're using catalysts of all thingsGǪ
Your answer makes no sense and doesn't really correspond to anything of what I said.
Quote:What are you even talking about now. Your points are unraveling and becoming desperate. You're confusing me with you.
Again, you keep assuming that you have unlimited time and that drawing things out is a good thing. This is the exact opposite of the truth. T1 catalysts might work if you have a big fleet, since it'll be over in 20GÇô30 seconds. For jollyjabbing, the slowness of T1 massively increases the risks involved.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
|
|
Mag's
the united
18908
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:45:05 -
[421] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:What are you even talking about now. Your points are unraveling and becoming desperate. Are they?
I'll leave this here for you.
Annette Nolen wrote:I wish every gank was a hyperdunk, it's really easy to defend against (1 remote repper and you're 100% safe).
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Alli Ginthur
The Mjolnir Bloc
The Bloc
34
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:48:18 -
[422] - Quote
Annette Nolen wrote:Alli Ginthur wrote:And the difference between one guy using the 50mil of catalysts and the fleet using 50mil of catalysts is... what? Yeah can we stop dancing around this please? We all know what the difference is; the final cut per actual person involved (e.g. the human at the keyboard). One person using three accounts only has to gank targets with sufficient value to get a cut large enough to warrant ONE PERSON involved. A fleet has to gank targets with sufficient value to get a cut large enough for EACH PERSON involved. But let's boil it down even further so we can approach this simplistically. Let's assume ALL ganks are done by one perfectly rational multiboxing human. Traditional freighter gank: 1 bumper + (14 or more gank pilots, depending) = 15 accounts to PLEX from the profit Hyperdunk: 1 bumper + 1 bowhead/orca pilot + 1 gank pilot = 3 accounts to PLEX from the profit Provided the hyperdunker is able to gank at least once for every five ganks done the traditional way, they will come out even or on top in terms of profit per account. The primary limitation on traditional ganking is not the time to gank, it's the GCC, so while a hyperdunker is not going to gank as frequently as a traditional ganker, they are still very likely going to gank at better than a 1 to 5 rate. Net effect? Value of a ship worth ganking just got lower. For the record, I have no problem with this. I wish every gank was a hyperdunk, it's really easy to defend against (1 remote repper and you're 100% safe). But that doesn't invalidate the concerns raised by the above math. (EDIT: I forgot to spell it out so in case it's not clear, profit is unchanged in either scenario; drop rates are the same and number of cats/material cost to gank is identical or nearly so -- yes this is a slight oversimplification but the addition of one or two cats to deal with passive shield regen on a hyperdunk is balanced by the traditional method likewise requiring more cats than strictly necessary unless you want to borderline fail a bunch of ganks with 3 hull HP remaining on target).
I get the value calculations that have to go into the decision to gank a freighter, and if the gank is strictly for profit, the calculations are valid.
That said, my comment was in response to being told that its now cheaper to gank, when the exact same numbers of ships are needed using either gank method, so taking that snippet out of context makes it seem you're trying to be a bit dishonest here.
Also there are more reasons to gank, outside of ganking for profit, which im sure you are aware of.
|
Annette Nolen
Red Frog Freight
Red-Frog
73
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:54:27 -
[423] - Quote
Alli Ginthur wrote:That said, my comment was in response to being told that its now cheaper to gank, when the exact same numbers of ships are needed using either gank method, so taking that snippet out of context makes it seem you're trying to be a bit dishonest here.
Well I think it's being ... disingenuous... to pretend that we aren't all aware that people saying "cheaper to gank" really mean "the breakeven/profit point for accounts involved has been lowered", which has a very real effect on target selection. Pretending to think they really meant the actual material cost of ganking has gone down is more fun to troll with I'm sure, but doesn't actually advance the conversation forward much :) |
Alli Ginthur
The Mjolnir Bloc
The Bloc
34
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:03:53 -
[424] - Quote
Annette Nolen wrote:Alli Ginthur wrote:That said, my comment was in response to being told that its now cheaper to gank, when the exact same numbers of ships are needed using either gank method, so taking that snippet out of context makes it seem you're trying to be a bit dishonest here. Well I think it's being ... disingenuous... to pretend that we aren't all aware that people saying "cheaper to gank" really mean "the breakeven/profit point for accounts involved has been lowered", which has a very real effect on target selection. Pretending to think they really meant the actual material cost of ganking has gone down is more fun to troll with I'm sure, but doesn't actually advance the conversation forward much :)
Alli Ginthur wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Zendon Taredi wrote:I'm okay with this if it comes with a dessie nerf so strong that gankers will be forced to use tier 3. That way they are risking something too, and not just reaping a guaranteed profit. See thats the thing. I give mad props to ganker fleets who can organize 10 Tornados or Talos and can pop a hauler the right way. Those guys have to set up, scan out and determine the risk/reward of the gank. But using Cats, or one guy using Cats that will at most cost him 50mil and able to take down anything in the game that can't fight back is insane. There is no risk, because the character is already -10 and throw away and the isk is minuscule. And the difference between one guy using the 50mil of catalysts and the fleet using 50mil of catalysts is... what?
As you can see from the whole conversation, they were literally talking about material cost. 
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24878
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:05:57 -
[425] - Quote
Annette Nolen wrote:Well I think it's being ... disingenuous... to pretend that we aren't all aware that people saying "cheaper to gank" really mean "the breakeven/profit point for accounts involved has been lowered", which has a very real effect on target selection. Pretending to think they really meant the actual material cost of ganking has gone down is more fun to troll with I'm sure, but doesn't actually advance the conversation forward much :)
If that's what they mean then that's what they say. It's not particularly difficult to say GÇ£it's easier to gank for (individual) profitGÇ¥, at which point you'd at least have the beginnings of a leg to stand on, rather than say GÇ£it's cheaper to gankGÇ¥, which is blatantly and categorically untrue.
^^^ And as mentioned, it is often clear that they don't talk about profit, but about actual cost.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
45
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:08:44 -
[426] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Annette Nolen wrote:Well I think it's being ... disingenuous... to pretend that we aren't all aware that people saying "cheaper to gank" really mean "the breakeven/profit point for accounts involved has been lowered", which has a very real effect on target selection. Pretending to think they really meant the actual material cost of ganking has gone down is more fun to troll with I'm sure, but doesn't actually advance the conversation forward much :) If that's what they mean then that's what they say. It's not particularly difficult to say GÇ£it's easier to gank for (individual) profitGÇ¥, at which point you'd at least have the beginnings of a leg to stand on, rather than say GÇ£it's cheaper to gankGÇ¥, which is blatantly and categorically untrue. ^^^ And as mentioned, it is often clear that they don't talk about profit, but about actual cost.
I do believe I said that the difference between cats and tornados was how much the recovery cost was... I said there was little risk using cats because it was cheaper. The reason the risk is lower is because you can fail to gank a few times and still recover your costs.
But like Nolen said, you would rather troll than have a real discussion.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24878
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:13:55 -
[427] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:I do believe I said You are not relevant to this particular discussion. You are not the main authority on or a generalisation of the use of GÇ£costGÇ¥ throughout the thread.
It has been said multiple times that this tactic makes it cheaper to gank. That is blatantly and categorically untrue, since the same number of ships (or more) are required, and the cost the same as they ever did (or more).
Quote:But like Nolen said, you would rather troll than have a real discussion. Like I said, you are confusing me with you.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
45
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:17:56 -
[428] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:I do believe I said You are not relevant to this particular discussion. You are not the main authority on or a generalisation of the use of GÇ£costGÇ¥ throughout the thread. It has been said multiple times that this tactic makes it cheaper to gank. That is blatantly and categorically untrue, since the same number of ships (or more) are required, and the cost the same as they ever did (or more). Quote:But like Nolen said, you would rather troll than have a real discussion. Like I said, you are confusing me with you.
Hilarious... the ol' I am rubber and you're glue line?!
What Nolen said, albeit more beautifully than me, was that it is more profitable to gank as one guy with 50m in cats because it is split one way. As an extension of that costs are offset by the increased singular split profit. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24878
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:21:41 -
[429] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Hilarious... the ol' I am rubber and you're glue line?! If the shoe fits. You keep accusing me of your mistakes. There's no better way of describing without bringing in some rather disturbing implications about dissociative disorders.
Quote:What Nolen said, albeit more beautifully than me, was that it is more profitable to gank as one guy with 50m in cats because it is split one way. GǪand what the rest of us are pointing out is that the cost is the same using this tactic compared to piling the same amount of ships into a fleet. Trying to suggest that ganking has become cheaper is outright wrong, no matter how much you squirm.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Alli Ginthur
The Mjolnir Bloc
The Bloc
34
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:23:25 -
[430] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Tippia wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:I do believe I said You are not relevant to this particular discussion. You are not the main authority on or a generalisation of the use of GÇ£costGÇ¥ throughout the thread. It has been said multiple times that this tactic makes it cheaper to gank. That is blatantly and categorically untrue, since the same number of ships (or more) are required, and the cost the same as they ever did (or more). Quote:But like Nolen said, you would rather troll than have a real discussion. Like I said, you are confusing me with you. Hilarious... the ol' I am rubber and you're glue line?! What Nolen said, albeit more beautifully than me, was that it is more profitable to gank as one guy with 50m in cats because it is split one way. As an extension of that costs are offset by the increased singular split profit.
Well... the goalposts were here a second ago... whered they go? Oh? Clear out in left field now?
Cant even own up to you talking directly about ship cost, when your words are quoted a few posts ago? And you're calling Tippia the troll? Yeesh... |
|
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
45
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:24:34 -
[431] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Hilarious... the ol' I am rubber and you're glue line?! If the shoe fits. You keep accusing me of your mistakes. There's no better way of describing without bringing in some rather disturbing implications about dissociative disorders. Quote:What Nolen said, albeit more beautifully than me, was that it is more profitable to gank as one guy with 50m in cats because it is split one way. GǪand what the rest of us are pointing out is that the cost is the same using this tactic compared to piling the same amount of ships into a fleet. Trying to suggest that ganking has become cheaper is outright wrong, no matter how much you squirm.
But no one claimed the actual total cost of ganking was cheaper. No one. Again, the cost of risk, the split profit, the actual reward were all mentioned. If someone used the term Cost, they were not talking about total value. I even went as far as to say 50mil in cats... I didn't say it was suddenly 40mil in cats now, or 10mil in cats.
Your natural defense for being picked apart is to pull in dissociative disorders, of which you probably know nothing about. |
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
45
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:25:50 -
[432] - Quote
Alli Ginthur wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Tippia wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:I do believe I said You are not relevant to this particular discussion. You are not the main authority on or a generalisation of the use of GÇ£costGÇ¥ throughout the thread. It has been said multiple times that this tactic makes it cheaper to gank. That is blatantly and categorically untrue, since the same number of ships (or more) are required, and the cost the same as they ever did (or more). Quote:But like Nolen said, you would rather troll than have a real discussion. Like I said, you are confusing me with you. Hilarious... the ol' I am rubber and you're glue line?! What Nolen said, albeit more beautifully than me, was that it is more profitable to gank as one guy with 50m in cats because it is split one way. As an extension of that costs are offset by the increased singular split profit. Well... the goalposts were here a second ago... whered they go? Oh? Clear out in left field now? Cant even own up to you talking directly about ship cost, when your words are quoted a few posts ago? And you're calling Tippia the troll? Yeesh...
goalposts... my god. I did talk about ship costs, in terms that 50mil in cats can be used to gank. I never claimed, nor has anyone else that 50mil is less than it was before whatever goal you are setting here. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24878
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:36:55 -
[433] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:But no one claimed the actual total cost of ganking was cheaper. No one. Incorrect. Lucas has claimed it multiple times. Anthar stated it outright. Oh, and you did. You've consistently tried to push a far lower price of a gank than is the reality.
Quote:Again, the cost of risk, the split profit, the actual reward were all mentioned. GǪas were the actual cost of the ships being used, as if they somehow got cheaper or fewer through the magic touch of a GM statement.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
475
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 20:52:03 -
[434] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote: even went as far as to say 50mil in cats... I didn't say it was suddenly 40mil in cats now, or 10mil in cats. Where are you getting this 50M figure from? Because you sure as hell aren't ganking a triple bulkheaded freighter with 5 T2 fitted Catalysts or 25 T1 fitted Catalysts for that matter.
Quote:And a T2 fit Cat costs 4x as much as a T1... but only does 20% more damage. So it doesn't take an economics major to figure out the Maths here. You need to recheck your maths, with a maxed skilled pilot a T1 fitted Cat costing 2M does just under 420DPS without implants and a T2 fitted Cat costing 8M does 680DPS+ without implants; that's considerably more than a 20% increase in damage.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Zendon Taredi
Tier Four Technologies
50
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 21:02:52 -
[435] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote: even went as far as to say 50mil in cats... I didn't say it was suddenly 40mil in cats now, or 10mil in cats. Where are you getting this 50M figure from? Because you sure as hell aren't ganking a freighter with 5 T2 fitted Catalysts or 25 T1 fitted Catalysts for that matter, regardless of the technique that's being used to gank. Quote:And a T2 fit Cat costs 4x as much as a T1... but only does 20% more damage. So it doesn't take an economics major to figure out the Maths here. You need to recheck your maths, with a maxed skilled pilot a T1 fitted Cat costing 2M does just under 420DPS without implants and a T2 fitted Cat costing 8M does 680DPS+ without implants; that's considerably more than a 20% increase in damage.
680 dps from a 8m ship is hysterical. Should be nerfed to 300ish. |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
478
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 21:07:54 -
[436] - Quote
Zendon Taredi wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote: even went as far as to say 50mil in cats... I didn't say it was suddenly 40mil in cats now, or 10mil in cats. Where are you getting this 50M figure from? Because you sure as hell aren't ganking a freighter with 5 T2 fitted Catalysts or 25 T1 fitted Catalysts for that matter, regardless of the technique that's being used to gank. Quote:And a T2 fit Cat costs 4x as much as a T1... but only does 20% more damage. So it doesn't take an economics major to figure out the Maths here. You need to recheck your maths, with a maxed skilled pilot a T1 fitted Cat costing 2M does just under 420DPS without implants and a T2 fitted Cat costing 8M does 680DPS+ without implants; that's considerably more than a 20% increase in damage. 680 dps from a 8m ship is hysterical. Should be nerfed to 300ish. Those figures are for overheated guns and refer to specialised fits that have zero utility beyond pumping out a shitton of DPS and are being flown by a max skilled pilot, also bear in mind the design parameters of destroyers, which is that of cheap DPS platforms; the clue is in the name of the ship class.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
45
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 21:13:04 -
[437] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Zendon Taredi wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote: even went as far as to say 50mil in cats... I didn't say it was suddenly 40mil in cats now, or 10mil in cats. Where are you getting this 50M figure from? Because you sure as hell aren't ganking a freighter with 5 T2 fitted Catalysts or 25 T1 fitted Catalysts for that matter, regardless of the technique that's being used to gank. Quote:And a T2 fit Cat costs 4x as much as a T1... but only does 20% more damage. So it doesn't take an economics major to figure out the Maths here. You need to recheck your maths, with a maxed skilled pilot a T1 fitted Cat costing 2M does just under 420DPS without implants and a T2 fitted Cat costing 8M does 680DPS+ without implants; that's considerably more than a 20% increase in damage. 680 dps from a 8m ship is hysterical. Should be nerfed to 300ish. Those figures are for overheated guns and refer to specialised fits that have zero utility beyond pumping out a shitton of DPS and are being flown by a max skilled pilot, also bear in mind the design parameters of destroyers, which is that of cheap DPS platforms; the clue is in the name of the ship class.
No... named T1 fit is 423 dps with CN anti... unheated.
Yes you are right, 20% was an exaggeration, but you still aren't getting 4x the damage from the fit that is 4x more expensive. 423 dps from a 2mil ship...
|
Alana Charen-Teng
The Stars Like Dust
496
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 21:16:12 -
[438] - Quote
I still think it should be called "Globbyganking" ! |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14712
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 21:22:11 -
[439] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
No... named T1 fit is 423 dps with CN anti... unheated.
Yes you are right, 20% was an exaggeration, but you still aren't getting 4x the damage from the fit that is 4x more expensive. 423 dps from a 2mil ship...
Nothing gives you 4x the DPS for 4x the cost.
The best part about the t2 cat is the irony in that it is profitable to gank.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
479
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 21:26:21 -
[440] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:No... named T1 fit is 423 dps with CN anti... unheated.
Yes you are right, 20% was an exaggeration, but you still aren't getting 4x the damage from the fit that is 4x more expensive. 423 dps from a 2mil ship...
Using meta 4 guns bumps the price to between 3.7M and 10M, the only meta 3 gun that gets close to your figure bumps the price up to 3.7M, seeing as we're talking about a 2M isk fit would you care to try again?
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24881
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 21:31:36 -
[441] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Yes you are right, 20% was an exaggeration, but you still aren't getting 4x the damage from the fit that is 4x more expensive. 423 dps from a 2mil ship... This is how all upscaling in EVE works: marginal improvement for exponential costs.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11535
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 22:47:58 -
[442] - Quote
Alana Charen-Teng wrote:I still think it should be called "Globbyganking" !
When asked about it on reddit, globby said it should be called "globbing".
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Freir9o785tu
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 23:03:36 -
[443] - Quote
Origionally starting to play this game and learning about HighSec as a viable option for game play I saw this as my style of play. I viewed this much like a sports team would have a Jr and Sr group of players. To be more relevant to games in general we will say that typically games have a PVP and Non-PVP (blue/green/newb) server.
Grant it this mechanic could have been introduced at any time when all the needed parts were part of the game. Typically when someone discovers a loop hole in the game mechanics that hole is subsequently plugged to avoid future abuse of the loop hole. In EVE they don't refer to them as loop holes, but rather they refer to them as "Emergent Gaming" or something to that effect. I've never been one to play on PVP servers. I'm sure I wouldn't be the first to say that in general I suck at games that require you enter some sort of entanglement with another player. Be the game Chess or EVE Online. As a freighter pilot I have a biased opinion in regards to Hyperdunking as it has been dubbed.
With that said.....EVE being the sandbox game that it is with one server to rule them all so to speak.....everything that happens in EVE no matter how big or small has a large impact when you view every small thing and large thing together to make up the whole of EVE. When EVE started it was basically an operating system. Everything you see before you now is the result of players from all parts of the world working as a collectively, deviant, cooperative pilot in some shape form or fashion. Everyone has their own end game. For some the end game is the Industry & trade, Player vs Enemy, and Player vs Player. Resources have been constantly accruing. Everything has had it's opposite. For Miners there is refining which causes a loss in minerals, for minerals there is material efficiency, for couriers there is combat. For combat there is stations. This is of course a matter of perspective and not all inclusive.
Miners have been run by Bots for as long as I can remember. Not all of them mind you, but some of them. Ganking keeps those bots on their toes and reduces the flow of incoming resources to the market so players who are legitimately mining without the assistance of an AI playing your character can profit from what they earn. But at the same time you could consider that because of those bot miners the price of minerals is lower, which will either increase profits for production, reduce the price for the end product, which reduces the price for gank ships which increases the likely hood that someone will get concorded 30 times to blow up the toy you've been flying in highsec without concern for 4 years without getting so much as a dent on your ship. HighSec in a way has been a contradiction to game of EVE and the ultimate destruction of materials used to craft a ship that is now nothing more than salvage. Trillions of isk floating between one regional hub and another that has for the most part gone with little concern for their safety. But at the same time despite thinking this could effectively alter the price of the base product to a higher number, it could encourage more competition in local systems where running a freighter would be limited to short range transport as opposed to 30 or more jumps being the norm. This implies that even an empty freighter could turn a profit if ganked.
A defenseless ship regardless of cargo being the job of one pilot to operate could become the career for another to destroy. It could quite honestly be a really profitable business. Specifically because it would be profitable when empty....but who really flies a freighter empty? I mean perhaps fly it to the pickup location such as jita....but 9 out of 10 chance it will have quite a large cargo inside of it as well. An already expensive ship will be getting blown up more often, which will increase the demand for them (or lower it depending on the sociological reaction to hyperdunking) which may overwhelm current manufacturing causing a shortage in freighters. Which will cause people to buy out the lower priced ones faster, increased "Market PVP" on the buy orders for freighters. Which will raise the cost, and thus the profit of hyperdunking.
The implications are endless. It is all a matter of cause and effect on a micro-economical level. Some pilots may be very serious about ending their subscriptions. Which will have an economic impact on CCP. But how many people have been like "Screw this I'm not paying to gang raped" and they still log in today? Maybe if this is so profitable I'll give a whirl :-) Which will be contributing to my creation of freighters, thus sale of freighters, thus it would be a win win situation for me.....except I'd have to park the long distant trips for fear of actually having to engage in something other than conversation with another player. |
Red Teufel
Mafia Redux
424
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 23:22:05 -
[444] - Quote
I find it interesting how Tippia is being so vocal about defending hyperdunking. I think itGÇÖs to fill the forum to save hyperdunking from being removed. Are you sure youGÇÖre not being paid Tippia? |
J'Poll
Green Skull LLC
5716
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 23:28:08 -
[445] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Tippia wrote:
Never. Podding is a 100% player activity and there's no reason for NPCs to ever do it.
Just keep believing that... I'll keep believing it until there's a reason for NPCs to do it. Until then, it's pointless faff, and even after that, it's still nothing CONCORD has any business doing.
Aah look "Mr. I'm ALWAYS right and you are wrong" aka Tippia has returned.
Instead of looking dumb, go play EVE and you would have known we already have podding NPCs called 'Seekers'
Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy
Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded
Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club
|
Paranoid Loyd
3668
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 23:29:10 -
[446] - Quote
Red Teufel wrote:I find it interesting how Tippia is being so vocal about defending hyperdunking. I think itGÇÖs to fill the forum to save hyperdunking from being removed. Are you sure youGÇÖre not being paid Tippia? She is not defending hyperdunking, she is defending logic and reason. The protector of logic and reason does not require payment.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
TheInternet TweepsOnline TheInternet
The Scope
Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 23:35:38 -
[447] - Quote
Reserved |
Daemon Ceed
Relentless Terrorism
Dead Terrorists
395
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 23:46:36 -
[448] - Quote
The ocean of tears in this thread is so vast that I could swim in it for days and never see land. From the bottom of my cold piratey heart, thank you!
PS: PM me if you need an escort for your freighter or Bowhead filled with billions worth of stuff. I'll make sure you get to your destination safely.
The Sandbox = Play however the hell you want.
|
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
19607
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 23:54:51 -
[449] - Quote
Are we even talking about 'hyperdunking' anymore?
It seems the thread has de-evolved into 'Nerf gankers/Catalysts' thread # 2881773374 at this point....
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
Vote Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10!
|
Mag's
the united
18917
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 23:56:58 -
[450] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:Are we even talking about 'hyperdunking' anymore?
It seems the thread has de-evolved into 'Nerf gankers/Catalysts' thread # 2881773374 at this point....
'Just one more nerf and it'll be balanced.'
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
|
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
481
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 23:58:05 -
[451] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:Are we even talking about 'hyperdunking' anymore?
It seems the thread has de-evolved into 'Nerf gankers/Catalysts' thread # 2881773374 at this point....
Shhh, you're lowering the saline content.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
19619
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 00:14:21 -
[452] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Shhh, you're lowering the saline content.
I think this thread reached saturation loooong ago.
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
Vote Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10!
|
Marsan
267
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 02:51:48 -
[453] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:
Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage.
That's all well and good, but how does that help the freighter pilot without any weapons? I've never understood why a freighter lacks the simplest of weapons unlike any of the other ships in the game. Of course even with guns it's questionable what one does in the case of hyper dunking. It's not like you can lock and shoot a Catalysts they just boarded before they shoot you. You can't shoot them before they get on board. You can't pod them. It's just bad game play.
You best case is to have an alt with a warp scram to scram their ship/pod (or does that concord you). Or an alt with a smart bombs to pod them or their ships. Still sounds like horrible game play.
Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a grumpy small portion of the community.
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
48
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 04:03:02 -
[454] - Quote
Hmmm,
You could use the same methodology in reverse.
Line up newb ships at gate (or belt). Shoot something with alt toon to draw Concord. Now just board one of these newb ships to re-draw Concord if they are drawn away. No further shooting required to keep drawing Concord there for 15 minutes.
If you can set your medical clone in system, you don't even have to worry about being podded while CT is active, just warp back to newb ships and board again. And you even get another free newb ship at the station.
All those POS modules in hisec, maybe I need to look more at this hyperdunking... |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
447
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 04:29:15 -
[455] - Quote
Until the broken bumping and aggression mechanics get fixed, smart PvE players will just avoid the risk of hauling. It's already optimal to outsource hauling, and this "hyperdunking" mechanic just makes the equation even worse. |
ISD Supogo
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
464
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 04:47:14 -
[456] - Quote
Removed a rule-breaking post and those quoting it.
Quote:Forum rules8. Use of profanity is prohibited.The use of profanity is prohibited on the EVE Online forums. This includes the partial masking of letters using numbers or alternate symbols, and any attempts at bypassing the profanity filter.
ISD Supogo
Lieutenant
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24887
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 05:13:48 -
[457] - Quote
J'Poll wrote:Aah look "Mr. I'm ALWAYS right and you are wrong" aka Tippia has returned.
Instead of looking dumb, go play EVE and you would have known we already have podding NPCs called 'Seekers'
Instead of looking dumb, go read what wrote and see if you can spot the difference between Seekers and CONCORD and the list of reasons for the former to podGǪ hmm?
Marsan wrote:That's all well and good, but how does that help the freighter pilot without any weapons? It helps them because it means that attackers can be cleared out long before the gank even happens.
And no, having friends is not bad or horrible gameplay. It's simply using the same basic strategy that the gankers are using.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Freir9o785tu
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 06:28:02 -
[458] - Quote
I'm just wondering how long it will take for someone to hyperdunk the hyperdunker.....would be funny to see someone hyperdunking lose their bowhead.....I'm sure even pirates would see the irony in the situation. |
Darkblad
Hilf Dir selbst in EVE
630
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 07:28:29 -
[459] - Quote
J'Poll wrote:Instead of looking dumb, go play EVE and you would have known we already have podding NPCs called 'Seekers' Do they pod players on TQ now? It worked on Sisi during the Proteus test builds, but I could'nt make them do it on Tranquility. Also, they're not CONCORD. |
Dave Stark
7326
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 08:05:02 -
[460] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:Are we even talking about 'hyperdunking' anymore?
It seems the thread has de-evolved into 'Nerf gankers/Catalysts' thread # 2881773374 at this point....
always does because clueless mongs harp on about 2m isk catalysts doing 1k dps are killing the game (you know, killing a game that thrives on destruction), and then the usual people trying to educate people who wallow in their own ignorance and stupidity.
if we got rid of the clueless mongs and their misinformation, there would be no need to spew pages and pages of corrections and we could actually have a concise and useful thread on most topics. |
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16005
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 08:36:44 -
[461] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:Are we even talking about 'hyperdunking' anymore?
It seems the thread has de-evolved into 'Nerf gankers/Catalysts' thread # 2881773374 at this point....
always does because clueless mongs harp on about 2m isk catalysts doing 1k dps are killing the game (you know, killing a game that thrives on destruction), and then the usual people trying to educate people who wallow in their own ignorance and stupidity. if we got rid of the clueless mongs and their misinformation, there would be no need to spew pages and pages of corrections and we could actually have a concise and useful thread on most topics.
It's because the real objection is that freighters can be nonconsensually shot in empire at all.
The exact method is irrelevent.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14720
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 08:42:56 -
[462] - Quote
Marsan wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:
Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage.
That's all well and good, but how does that help the freighter pilot without any weapons? I've never understood why a freighter lacks the simplest of weapons unlike any of the other ships in the game. Of course even with guns it's questionable what one does in the case of hyper dunking. It's not like you can lock and shoot a Catalysts they just boarded before they shoot you. You can't shoot them before they get on board. You can't pod them. It's just bad game play. You best case is to have an alt with a warp scram to scram their ship/pod (or does that concord you). Or an alt with a smart bombs to pod them or their ships. Still sounds like horrible game play.
This is a multiplayer game, a fleet is attacking you. Where is your fleet?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Mag's
the united
18925
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 09:22:18 -
[463] - Quote
Freir9o785tu wrote:I'm just wondering how long it will take for someone to hyperdunk the hyperdunker.....would be funny to see someone hyperdunking lose their bowhead.....I'm sure even pirates would see the irony in the situation. One of us has already suggested jumping in one of the empty ships and shooting another to gain a criminal flag. Then simply jumping in the rest.
That's if the opportunity allows it of course.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
772
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 12:24:30 -
[464] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Freir9o785tu wrote:I'm just wondering how long it will take for someone to hyperdunk the hyperdunker.....would be funny to see someone hyperdunking lose their bowhead.....I'm sure even pirates would see the irony in the situation. One of us has already suggested jumping in one of the empty ships and shooting another to gain a criminal flag. Then simply jumping in the rest. That's if the opportunity allows it of course. (He's -2.7 so technically an outlaw. )
Or just warp in with a tanked Orca and scoop all the Catalysts => profit.
It's extremely easy to come up with counter methods to "Hyperdunking". I only ever used it on POS modules. I tip my hat to the guys who actually managed to kill a ship with it. There really need to be special circumstances to begin with in order for this tactic to work, even without someone interfering.
the Code ALWAYS wins
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
48
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 14:15:38 -
[465] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Freir9o785tu wrote:I'm just wondering how long it will take for someone to hyperdunk the hyperdunker.....would be funny to see someone hyperdunking lose their bowhead.....I'm sure even pirates would see the irony in the situation. One of us has already suggested jumping in one of the empty ships and shooting another to gain a criminal flag. Then simply jumping in the rest. That's if the opportunity allows it of course. (He's -2.7 so technically an outlaw. )
My god Mags, that's just...that's beautiful. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2623
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 14:40:46 -
[466] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Marsan wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:
Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage.
That's all well and good, but how does that help the freighter pilot without any weapons? I've never understood why a freighter lacks the simplest of weapons unlike any of the other ships in the game. Of course even with guns it's questionable what one does in the case of hyper dunking. It's not like you can lock and shoot a Catalysts they just boarded before they shoot you. You can't shoot them before they get on board. You can't pod them. It's just bad game play. You best case is to have an alt with a warp scram to scram their ship/pod (or does that concord you). Or an alt with a smart bombs to pod them or their ships. Still sounds like horrible game play. This is a multiplayer game, a fleet is attacking you. Where is your fleet?
Hang on, let me try. Cough. Okay.
Why should I need a fleet? EVE is a sandbox, and I should be able to play it however I want. I shouldn't be forced to have a fleet just because some angry kid wants to troll people.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Mag's
the united
18934
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 14:44:16 -
[467] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:baltec1 wrote:Marsan wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:
Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage.
That's all well and good, but how does that help the freighter pilot without any weapons? I've never understood why a freighter lacks the simplest of weapons unlike any of the other ships in the game. Of course even with guns it's questionable what one does in the case of hyper dunking. It's not like you can lock and shoot a Catalysts they just boarded before they shoot you. You can't shoot them before they get on board. You can't pod them. It's just bad game play. You best case is to have an alt with a warp scram to scram their ship/pod (or does that concord you). Or an alt with a smart bombs to pod them or their ships. Still sounds like horrible game play. This is a multiplayer game, a fleet is attacking you. Where is your fleet? Hang on, let me try. Cough. Okay. Why should I need a fleet? EVE is a sandbox, and I should be able to play it however I want. I shouldn't be forced to have a fleet just because some angry kid wants to troll people. Yea those psychopathic bullies are going to ruin this game, with their griefing and unnecessary, unwarranted boat violence. 
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Mag's
the united
18936
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 14:46:20 -
[468] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Mag's wrote:Freir9o785tu wrote:I'm just wondering how long it will take for someone to hyperdunk the hyperdunker.....would be funny to see someone hyperdunking lose their bowhead.....I'm sure even pirates would see the irony in the situation. One of us has already suggested jumping in one of the empty ships and shooting another to gain a criminal flag. Then simply jumping in the rest. That's if the opportunity allows it of course. (He's -2.7 so technically an outlaw. ) Or just warp in with a tanked Orca and scoop all the Catalysts => profit. It's extremely easy to come up with counter methods to "Hyperdunking". I only ever used it on POS modules. I tip my hat to the guys who actually managed to kill a ship with it. There really need to be special circumstances to begin with in order for this tactic to work, even without someone interfering. Whilst that is indeed a great way to profit from this, I just really love the thought of doing the other. Let's face it, it's funny as hell.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
50
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 14:46:21 -
[469] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Yea those psychopathic bullies are going to ruin this game, with their griefing and unnecessary, unwarranted boat violence.
But Mag's, my entire game play experience is built around unnecessary and unwarranted boat on boat violence? What about MY sandbox? |
Mag's
the united
18936
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 14:47:43 -
[470] - Quote
Elenahina wrote:Mag's wrote:Freir9o785tu wrote:I'm just wondering how long it will take for someone to hyperdunk the hyperdunker.....would be funny to see someone hyperdunking lose their bowhead.....I'm sure even pirates would see the irony in the situation. One of us has already suggested jumping in one of the empty ships and shooting another to gain a criminal flag. Then simply jumping in the rest. That's if the opportunity allows it of course. (He's -2.7 so technically an outlaw. ) My god Mags, that's just...that's beautiful. Isn't it just. Makes me smile just thinking about it.
Elenahina wrote:Mag's wrote:Yea those psychopathic bullies are going to ruin this game, with their griefing and unnecessary, unwarranted boat violence. But Mag's, my entire game play experience is built around unnecessary and unwarranted boat on boat violence? What about MY sandbox? Well you don't count because your style of play is not nice and you should hang your head in shame. Can we please just think about the children?
Oh yea forgot to add something about sandbox meaning you shouldn't force others into doing things etc etc. My bad. 
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
|
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
500
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 15:08:46 -
[471] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Can we please just think about the children? Doesn't that get you locked up these days?
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Mag's
the united
18944
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 15:12:39 -
[472] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Mag's wrote:Can we please just think about the children? Doesn't that get you locked up these days? Well you could always use my 'He looked at me funny.' Module and all would be well with the world.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Dave Stark
7333
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 15:15:45 -
[473] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Why should I need a fleet? EVE is a sandbox, and I should be able to play it however I want. I shouldn't be forced to have a fleet just because some angry kid wants to troll people.
why should you need a fleet?
you don't, courrier contracts exist. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2629
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 15:15:48 -
[474] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Mag's wrote:Can we please just think about the children? Doesn't that get you locked up these days?
Dang, those gubbermint mind-reading nanobots came much sooner than anyone thought they would.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
502
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 15:22:05 -
[475] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Mag's wrote:Can we please just think about the children? Doesn't that get you locked up these days? Dang, those gubbermint mind-reading nanobots came much sooner than anyone thought they would. I have some Dinsdale approved Millinery products for sale if you're interested, they're made from the finest quality aluminium foil and are available at multiple price points in several attractive styles
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Mag's
the united
18951
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 15:28:47 -
[476] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Mag's wrote:Can we please just think about the children? Doesn't that get you locked up these days? Dang, those gubbermint mind-reading nanobots came much sooner than anyone thought they would. I have some Dinsdale approved millinery products for sale if you're interested, they're made from the finest quality aluminium foil and are available at multiple price points in several attractive styles As I live not far from Sherwood in Nottingham, do you have a Robin Hood style one perchance?
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9565
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 15:42:17 -
[477] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Mag's wrote:Freir9o785tu wrote:I'm just wondering how long it will take for someone to hyperdunk the hyperdunker.....would be funny to see someone hyperdunking lose their bowhead.....I'm sure even pirates would see the irony in the situation. One of us has already suggested jumping in one of the empty ships and shooting another to gain a criminal flag. Then simply jumping in the rest. That's if the opportunity allows it of course. (He's -2.7 so technically an outlaw. ) Or just warp in with a tanked Orca and scoop all the Catalysts => profit.
It's extremely easy to come up with counter methods to "Hyperdunking". I only ever used it on POS modules. I tip my hat to the guys who actually managed to kill a ship with it. There really need to be special circumstances to begin with in order for this tactic to work, even without someone interfering.
I had to highlight the fail, for reasons of :effort:
The very 1st comment I read on Mitten's site tells the entire story:
Quote: Aleqs GÇó a day ago
The solution is to have an alt in an Arti Thrasher popping Criminal pods when they land on grid.
Highsec nerds will, of course, continue to file exploit petitions instead of actually defending themselves.
And so the wheel turns.
|
Nail Zota
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 16:50:42 -
[478] - Quote
Didn't take long.
Some players manage to avoid full payback by jumping into a shuttle (or other cheap ship) before concord intervention. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2634
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 17:18:35 -
[479] - Quote
Nail Zota wrote:Didn't take long.
Some players manage to avoid full payback by jumping into a shuttle (or other cheap ship) before concord intervention.
What? I'm pretty sure this doesn't work.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Paranoid Loyd
3679
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 17:20:36 -
[480] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Nail Zota wrote:Didn't take long.
Some players manage to avoid full payback by jumping into a shuttle (or other cheap ship) before concord intervention. What? I'm pretty sure this doesn't work.
No it doesn't. Another grossly erroneous interpretation of what is going on.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
|
|
Nail Zota
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 17:50:59 -
[481] - Quote
Probably. But I have a hard time explaining why concord insists on blowing this guy shuttles.
https://zkillboard.com/character/94202568/
I'm no pro of hi-sec ops, so I'm surely missing something. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2635
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 17:56:35 -
[482] - Quote
He's probably entering a ship post-gank to draw CONCORD away from the point where the gank was made.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Nail Zota
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 18:21:04 -
[483] - Quote
AFAIK their no way to draw concord with a shuttle. That means he jumps ship before he gets concorded (which is still not permited). Or do I get something wrong? |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2635
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 18:22:06 -
[484] - Quote
If you're GCC, it doesn't matter what ship you enter, it will still draw a CONCORD response. So yes, both shuttles and noob ships will work. A pod, on the other hand, won't.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Paranoid Loyd
3681
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 18:25:48 -
[485] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:If you're GCC, it doesn't matter what ship you enter, it will still draw a CONCORD response. So yes, both shuttles and noob ships will work. A pod, on the other hand, won't.
Confirming this is correct.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Mag's
the united
18957
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 19:07:20 -
[486] - Quote
Nail Zota wrote:AFAIK their no way to draw concord with a shuttle. That means he jumps ship before he gets concorded (which is still not permited). School of applied knowledge? Hmmm
Nail Zota wrote:Or do I get something wrong? Yes, very wrong. Now please stop rumour mongering.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Nail Zota
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 19:32:15 -
[487] - Quote
very wrong? how?
I believed sure that jumping ship before concord intervention was a bannable offense. Is this true or not? that's all I want to know. |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
512
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 19:39:05 -
[488] - Quote
Nail Zota wrote:very wrong? how?
I believed sure that jumping ship before concord intervention was a bannable offense. Is this true or not? that's all I want to know. Your entire premise is wrong, people who hyperdunk don't jump ship before Concord intervention, they let Concord destroy them before reshipping; this is how it works:
- They shoot at someone and gain a GCC flag.
- Concord roll up and destroy their ship
- They warp their pod to a safe spot where an alt or friend has dropped off some shuttles or newb ships
- They board a shuttle or newb ship
- Concord leave the scene of the original crime and roll up to destroy the ship they just boarded
- They warp their pod back to the scene of their original crime
- They board a new gank ship that has been dropped off, along with several other gank ships, by the same alt or friend that dropped off the shuttles
- Concord are still at the spot where the shuttles or newb ships are, giving a window of opportunity to carry out the next step
- They shoot at the target some more extending their GCC flag
- Concord roll up and destroy their gank ship
- Goto step 3 and repeat until their target is dead
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Paranoid Loyd
3687
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 19:56:53 -
[489] - Quote
Nail Zota wrote:very wrong? how?
I believed sure that jumping ship before concord intervention was a bannable offense. Is this true or not? that's all I want to know.
It's not even possible to leave your ship once you have committed a criminal act.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Nail Zota
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 20:05:28 -
[490] - Quote
That makes sense. Thank you.
I guess some kill didn't get posted, and that confused me. |
|
|
Paranoid Loyd
3688
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 21:18:30 -
[491] - Quote
Nail Zota wrote:I guess some kill didn't get posted, and that confused me.
If the DPS ship dies to the gate guns before concord engages there will be no kill mail generated (at least not one that shows on the killboards, there will be one in game). Posax mostly smartbombs on the gates and his tank does not last long enough for Concord to engage so most of his Maller losses won't get posted.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Hallvardr
65
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 01:03:03 -
[492] - Quote
I think I read a related idea .. but if someone appears next to my Bowhead and dumps 8 fitted cats then warps away ... I'd say thank you and scoop to ship maintenance bay. Wouldn't that be a shock on the his first return to grid. |
Valterra Craven
430
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 02:52:38 -
[493] - Quote
I wonder how gankers would react if Concord actually did the correct thing and Podded them to boot... |
Elana Apgar
DarkMatter-Industries
Upholders
12
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 03:24:21 -
[494] - Quote
CCP Falcon,
I understand your position with hyperdunking. However, many people will disagree with you and leave the game. Have you guys considered that while it does generate content, in the long run you will probably lose money. I have personally seen the corp mails of people quitting hauling, something that they genuinely enjoy doing, or unsubbing that account, because the current climate has ruined this aspect of the game for them.
I don't want to see the Eve Online community shrink. I'd rather see it grow.
I hope that this was considered when coming to this ruling.
o7
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2642
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 03:56:45 -
[495] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I wonder how gankers would react if Concord actually did the correct thing and Podded them to boot...
They'd find a way. And that's the difference between the two player demographics in question. One adapts, and the other begs for player interaction to be shifted to NPCs instead.
Elana Apgar wrote:I don't want to see the Eve Online community shrink. I'd rather see it grow.
Ah, yes, the good old "there's more of us than there's of you, so no one would be sad to see you go because the game would be better off without you anyway" argument.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
448
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 04:09:30 -
[496] - Quote
The solution is simple - the 15 minute GCC timer should mean instant death for the entire 15 minutes, without the ability to activate any modules on ships. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2642
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 04:18:24 -
[497] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:The solution is simple - the 15 minute GCC timer should mean instant death for the entire 15 minutes, without the ability to activate any modules on ships.
How would instant death work if CONCORD has a response timer?
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
448
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 04:54:17 -
[498] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:The solution is simple - the 15 minute GCC timer should mean instant death for the entire 15 minutes, without the ability to activate any modules on ships. How would instant death work if CONCORD has a response timer?
Once you go GCC the ship assigned to blow you up follows you around and instajams/scrams you the second you get into a ship. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2642
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 05:06:17 -
[499] - Quote
If we're going to be realistic about it, CONCORD still has a lock timer.
Though I have to say, in a few months, that's probably going to be exactly the way CCP addresses this thing.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
448
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 05:08:23 -
[500] - Quote
If we were going to be realistic about it, someone who committed the exact same crime 30 times in a row would be getting a life senten |
|
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
1211
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 05:15:43 -
[501] - Quote
So, suppose you have access to two -10 eager globby gankers and want to pop a bumped/flagged freighter.....
What would be the best way to employ them? Anyone optimized this yet?
A) Have both chars 'hyperdunk' - ie both warp between the ganksite and the stash of shuttles.....
or
B) Have one ganker simply stay at the site of the gank - while the second GCC'd character stays in station and undocks noobships every 45 seconds or so to constantly draw Concord away from the gank site? (alternatively the second character could sit in a cloud of shuttles and accomplish the same thing if no station is present in system)
Advantage of A)
twice as much damage delivered during each iteration - however twice as many shuttles and concord spawns generated. Firing coordination required to get the most out of both gank ships.
Advantage of B)
-no warping around in a pod, and no shuttles required if a station is there. The ganking pod can simply stay next to the target and hop into a new gank ship every minute or so after the Concord spawn is drawn away by ganker #2. Each character has a relatively simple repetitive task.
(IE, undock, get killed, dock, undock, get killed, rinse repeat - or board ship, shoot, get killed, wait for spawn to leave, board ship, shoot, etc....)
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2642
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 05:20:01 -
[502] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:If we were going to be realistic about it, someone who committed the exact same crime 30 times in a row would be getting a life senten
After a trial that spans a decade, yes.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Freir9o785tu
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 05:22:18 -
[503] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:If we were going to be realistic about it, someone who committed the exact same crime 30 times in a row would be getting a life senten After a trial that spans a decade, yes.
Lol and assuming we are being realistic lets also just walk around on earth and craft real life things and do nothing outside of our current known environment....I've always wanted to be a corn farmer.
ME in Excel =IF(Base>1,ROUND((Base-(((Base*(ME+FacilityBonus)))))*Quantity,0),1*Quantity)
|
Brian Harrelstein
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 08:49:29 -
[504] - Quote
I don't like this ruling, because it clearly sets the precedent that drawing Concord off-grid to prolong a ganking before Concord can turn around and blow up the criminal's ship - would be 100% legal. I've been hoping that CCP would have made a decision that prevented this, because in a way, they're still avoiding Concord (even if temporarily), which at the time was considered an exploit. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24893
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 08:50:52 -
[505] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:The solution is simple - the 15 minute GCC timer should mean instant death for the entire 15 minutes, without the ability to activate any modules on ships.
Solution to what? What's the problem?
Quote:If we were going to be realistic about it, someone who committed the exact same crime 30 times in a row would be getting a life senten No. If we were going to be realistic about it, someone who committed the exact same crime 30 times in a row would most likely not just get no sentence, but evade the police and never be found at all.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Kaely Tanniss
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
195
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 09:07:13 -
[506] - Quote
Brian Harrelstein wrote:I don't like this ruling, because it clearly sets the precedent that drawing Concord off-grid to prolong a ganking before Concord can turn around and blow up the criminal's ship - would be 100% legal. I've been hoping that CCP would have made a decision that prevented this, because in a way, they're still avoiding Concord (even if temporarily), which at the time was considered an exploit.
It has been made painfully clear numerous times that there is no such "avoiding" of CONCORD happening. Each attacking ship gets CONCORDed..which is exactly how the game mechanic is supposed to work. What you have here is a perfect utilization of proper game mechanics to pull off something that is very difficult to do. I'm not sure where the idea this was an exploit came from...please, by all means, post the source that labels this, beyond a doubt, an "exploit" at any point. The problem is, every time someone is clever enough to find a way to make the most of mechanics, the whining ensues by those not clever enough to avoid it. For every action in Eve, there is a reaction. If you do not, or can not react..that falls on you..not someone else. Screaming to change the rules because the few cannot "win" by the current set of rules is ridiculous. If you can't defend yourself, if you are afraid to lose ships..perhaps a rethink of what you do and how you do it is in order. If you are not prepared to defend what is yours, you don't deserve to have it. This is Eve...CCP Falcon said it best: "Eve will chew you up and spit you out." Adapt or die..it's really your choice...and all choices come with consequenses.
If I had a nickel for every time someone said women don't play eve, I'd have a bag of nickels to whack the next person who said it..
|
Brian Harrelstein
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 09:11:43 -
[507] - Quote
Kaely Tanniss wrote:Screaming to change the rules
Who said I was screaming? I believe that my comment was rather civil.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
142
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 11:01:14 -
[508] - Quote
Brian Harrelstein wrote:Kaely Tanniss wrote:Screaming to change the rules Who said I was screaming? I believe that my comment was rather civil.
I agree. Your response seemed civil to me. That said, the phrase "they're still avoiding Concord (even if temporarily)" is demonstrably false. The globbing strategy works precisely because the attacker loses every ship he flies while under a criminal flag (in HiSec). The benefit is that he's pulling CONCORD off grid and restarting his attack with a new ship every time.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Dave Stark
7334
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 11:01:37 -
[509] - Quote
Brian Harrelstein wrote:I don't like this ruling, because it clearly sets the precedent that drawing Concord off-grid to prolong a ganking before Concord can turn around and blow up the criminal's ship - would be 100% legal. I've been hoping that CCP would have made a decision that prevented this, because in a way, they're still avoiding Concord (even if temporarily), which at the time was considered an exploit.
pretty sure influencing concord's location by boarding noobships/shuttles etc has been done for a long time before this.
like pretty much every standard suicide gank where the gankers will undock in noob ships to pull concord away from the gate they just ganked on, so they can resume ganking on that gate as soon as their gcc ends.
it isn't setting a precedent, it's following one.
and concord hasn't been avoided, every time a ship has been boarded, it has been destroyed. |
Kaely Tanniss
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
198
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 11:04:41 -
[510] - Quote
Brian Harrelstein wrote:Kaely Tanniss wrote:Screaming to change the rules Who said I was screaming? I believe that my comment was rather civil.
It wasn't a personal reference to you. I'm sorry you didn't see that.
If I had a nickel for every time someone said women don't play eve, I'd have a bag of nickels to whack the next person who said it..
|
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24893
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 12:10:31 -
[511] - Quote
Brian Harrelstein wrote:I don't like this ruling, because it clearly sets the precedent that drawing Concord off-grid to prolong a ganking before Concord can turn around and blow up the criminal's ship - would be 100% legal. It has been legal since the dawn of CONCORD. No precedent is being set here.
Quote:I've been hoping that CCP would have made a decision that prevented this, because in a way, they're still avoiding Concord (even if temporarily), which at the time was considered an exploit. No. None of those things actually happen. They are not avoiding CONCORD GÇö temporary or otherwise GÇö and not avoiding CONCORD has never been considered an exploit.
GÇ£Avoiding CONCORDGÇ¥ means exactly one thing: having a C-flag while being in a ship, and then not having that ship destroyed (by CONCORD or otherwise). Since every last one of the ganker's ships are distroyed, nothing is being avoided. The only GÇ£temporaryGÇ¥ thing going on here is the CONCORD spawn timer, which is intentional GÇö CONCORD is not an insta-kill; never have been; and never will be, because that would make no sense. The delay between getting flagged and getting blown up is the entire point of having security levels 0.45GÇô1.0. It is there specifically to allow suicide ganks to happen and to make them easier the lower the sec level.
As such, preventing this would be a very odd decision to make, since that would completely alter all of highsec for no apparent reason.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2644
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 12:36:54 -
[512] - Quote
Tippia wrote:...and never will be...
Now now, let's not jump to conclusions here.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11547
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 13:02:33 -
[513] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:If we were going to be realistic about it, someone who committed the exact same crime 30 times in a row would be getting a life senten
If we're being realistic about it, the cop's response time is thirty minutes, not thirty seconds.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24896
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 13:05:24 -
[514] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Tippia wrote:...and never will be... Now now, let's not jump to conclusions here.
Of all conclusions, that one is something you don't have to jump to. You can just gently flop forward.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Dave Stark
7337
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 13:41:37 -
[515] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:If we were going to be realistic about it, someone who committed the exact same crime 30 times in a row would be getting a life senten If we're being realistic about it, the cop's response time is thirty minutes, not thirty seconds.
and then they tell you that there's not much they can do about it because apparently a man in his mid 20s wearing dark jeans and a hoodie isn't a unique enough description. |
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
46
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 13:54:56 -
[516] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:If we were going to be realistic about it, someone who committed the exact same crime 30 times in a row would be getting a life senten If we're being realistic about it, the cop's response time is thirty minutes, not thirty seconds. and then they tell you that there's not much they can do about it because apparently a man in his mid 20s wearing dark jeans and a hoodie isn't a unique enough description.
...Yeah but a license plate number is.
Ok, you can have your 30 minute response time, if every time you suicide gank your character spends 3-5 years in prison afterwards |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
5948
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 14:09:04 -
[517] - Quote
Jus make CONCORD pod criminals and put them effectively under 15 minutes house arrest in their home station because they'd get podded again as soon as they'd undock.
There. Everything solved.
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2648
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 14:15:15 -
[518] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:Jus make CONCORD pod criminals and put them effectively under 15 minutes house arrest in their home station because they'd get podded again as soon as they'd undock.
There. Everything solved.
Indeed, this would cement an end to this unwelcome problem with EVE's undesirables.
A "final solution," if you will.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
46
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 14:17:02 -
[519] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Abrazzar wrote:Jus make CONCORD pod criminals and put them effectively under 15 minutes house arrest in their home station because they'd get podded again as soon as they'd undock.
There. Everything solved. Indeed, this would cement an end to this unwelcome problem with EVE's undesirables. A "final solution," if you will.
But but but, I should be able to be as bad as I want with nothing there to stop me because this is eve! |
Alli Ginthur
The Mjolnir Bloc
The Bloc
35
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 14:41:42 -
[520] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Abrazzar wrote:Jus make CONCORD pod criminals and put them effectively under 15 minutes house arrest in their home station because they'd get podded again as soon as they'd undock.
There. Everything solved. Indeed, this would cement an end to this unwelcome problem with EVE's undesirables. A "final solution," if you will. But but but, I should be able to be as bad as I want with nothing there to stop me because this is eve!
Well its a good thing EVE is a sandbox, because you CAN be as bad as you want to be, just have to deal with the consequences handed out afterwards. |
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24900
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 15:51:29 -
[521] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:Jus make CONCORD pod criminals and put them effectively under 15 minutes house arrest in their home station because they'd get podded again as soon as they'd undock.
There. Everything solved.
GÇ£SolvedGÇ¥ implies there's a problem. Since there isn't one, it'll just create problems.
Market McSelling Alt wrote:But but but, I should be able to be as bad as I want with nothing there to stop me because this is eve! Nope. Reality is once again in complete conflict with your hallucinations.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
48
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 15:57:42 -
[522] - Quote
Alli Ginthur wrote:
Well its a good thing EVE is a sandbox, because you CAN be as bad as Game mechanics allow, just have to bring a very large bucket.
FTFY
|
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
86
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 16:36:35 -
[523] - Quote
First off, this thread keeps referring to them leaving grid... and they don't actually have to leave grid to pull this off, they just leave some shuttles far enough away to cause Concord to have to warp, thereby buying themselves a max response time from Concord. And from what I have been able to gather, there was stated somewhere a list of acceptable ways to manipulate Concord:
"a. Suicide gank. CONCORD is spawned because Player A attacks Player B without the rights to do so.
b. Defensive spawning. CONCORD is spawned because Player A's alt character attacks Player A without the rights to do so."
But neither of these situations cover the criminal pilot warping off in a pod and getting into a ship elsewhere (same grid or at another station etc). So maybe the rules for what is allowed in terms of manipulating Concord should be revised? Because in "Hyperdunking" they are moving Concord away from the site of criminal action without the use of illegal aggression. Therein allowing them to warp back to the gank site and re-ship next to their target, taking no additional security penalty for continued aggression and a freshly restarted timer.
Yes, I know, everyone who is doing this keeps saying "But I'm criminal, you can shoot me"... yes, but, I have to find you first, then I have to get there before you finish the gank, and then I have to lock you and either blow you up or jam you before you kill your target or hit me instead. And with this new 'feature' of being able to re-ship infinitely you can just shoot me until you kill me (re-shipping after each attempt) and then you can go back to shooting your original target. Even if I tanked you indefinitely, you would just wait for me to get bored of waiting and leave and then continue the hit.
Further, if the ganker does this right, there is no actual chance to steal the replacement ships before they get into them or their Concord moving shuttles. If they do it right. But most don't from what I have seen, though the ones that don't do this 100% safely for them still usually have a spare gank pilot in a cata sitting around ready to counter gank anyone that tries to either steal their empty catas or shuttle.
Even further, with the ability to lock people out of boarding a ship that isn't theirs all they have to do is target it, so the spare gank pilot and orca pilots just have to keep a lock on their shuttles/spare catas to keep passby's or white knights from flying off with them.
As a final point, to be quite honest, nearly everyone I've seen doing this is already -10 anyways, so that further nullifies the "omg I can't do anything cause my sec status is so low" argument that -10 pilots always seem to make, yeah its so dangerous and so inconvenient you can kill any target you want anywhere you want.
But really though, the people that are doing this haven't quite realized the full potential of this. You can clear an entire system of miners in one go with this, just fill a bowhead with cata's and have it warp to the next victim as soon as you start on the current one. If you failed to kill the guy in the first pass just have the bowhead warp back and hit him again. Yeah, done correctly this requires 4 pilots if using just 1 gank ship, but that doesn't make it legit just because they have to multibox 4 accounts that may or may not belong to them (account sharing anyone?). |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5006
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 17:05:24 -
[524] - Quote
Alli Ginthur wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Abrazzar wrote:Jus make CONCORD pod criminals and put them effectively under 15 minutes house arrest in their home station because they'd get podded again as soon as they'd undock.
There. Everything solved. Indeed, this would cement an end to this unwelcome problem with EVE's undesirables. A "final solution," if you will. But but but, I should be able to be as bad as I want with nothing there to stop me because this is eve! Well its a good thing EVE is a sandbox, because you CAN be as bad as you want to be, just have to deal with the consequences handed out afterwards. Consequences?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Alli Ginthur
The Mjolnir Bloc
The Bloc
38
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 17:15:09 -
[525] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Alli Ginthur wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:But but but, I should be able to be as bad as I want with nothing there to stop me because this is eve! Well its a good thing EVE is a sandbox, because you CAN be as bad as you want to be, just have to deal with the consequences handed out afterwards. Consequences?
con-+se-+quence
\-êk+ñn(t)-s+Ö--îkwen(t)s, -kw+Ön(t)s\noun
: something that happens as a result of a particular action or set of conditions
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5006
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 17:17:56 -
[526] - Quote
To be honest, the only reason this whole thing works is because CCP's approach to resolving infinite amounts of concord spawns is causing the existing spawn to warp when a crime is committed. Realistically it should just spawn a new concord response for each time a criminal act is made, set to warp off and despawn after 15 minutes. It should then re-use concord spawns as it currently does only when there are above a certain number (say 10) concord spawns in a given system. Also, with the inability to warp or eject from your ship when you've created a criminal act, you should only really need a single concord span to deal with an entire grid anyway, so a gank of 20 people should be dealt with by a single concord blob (perhaps with *slightly* varying sizes depending on the number of ships to deal with).
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24900
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 17:39:23 -
[527] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:To be honest, the only reason this whole thing works is because CCP's approach to resolving infinite amounts of concord spawns is causing the existing spawn to warp when a crime is committed. Realistically it should just spawn a new concord response for each time a criminal act is made, set to warp off and despawn after 15 minutes. That's hardly realistic, now is it?
And what's wrong with the current implementation? The old CONCORD clouds just caused silly amounts of lag for no real benefit.
Quote:Also, with the inability to warp or eject from your ship when you've created a criminal act, you should only really need a single concord span to deal with an entire grid anyway, so a gank of 20 people should be dealt with by a single concord blob (perhaps with *slightly* varying sizes depending on the number of ships to deal with). This is effectively already the case. That's why strategies such as this (and bumping) have had to be invented. So what's this whole GÇ£shouldGÇ¥ thing about? Why GÇ£shouldGÇ¥ it be any other way than how it is right now?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24900
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 17:45:22 -
[528] - Quote
Dangeresque Too wrote:Yes, I know, everyone who is doing this keeps saying "But I'm criminal, you can shoot me"... yes, but, I have to find you first, then I have to get there before you finish the gank, and then I have to lock you and either blow you up or jam you before you kill your target or hit me instead. None of those are particularly hard if you're in a combat ship, and seeing as how this whole strategy relies on a gank that takes place over several minutes, you have more than enough time. Since they can't re-ship infinitely, and since the strategy largely depends on the target not being awake, it poses somewhere in the region of zero threat against any regular pilot.
Quote:As a final point, to be quite honest, nearly everyone I've seen doing this is already -10 anyways, so that further nullifies the "omg I can't do anything cause my sec status is so low" argument that -10 pilots always seem to make, yeah its so dangerous and so inconvenient you can kill any target you want anywhere you want. None of them really ever make that argument. They're just correctly pointing out that the Gǣwe can't do anythingGǥ nonsense that the self-made victims keep spouting isGǪ wellGǪ nonsense.
Quote:But really though, the people that are doing this haven't quite realized the full potential of this. You can clear an entire system of miners in one go with this, just fill a bowhead with cata's and have it warp to the next victim as soon as you start on the current one. No, you really can't, since it's so easy to not just survive, but outright counter.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
51
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 17:46:32 -
[529] - Quote
Alli Ginthur wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Alli Ginthur wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:But but but, I should be able to be as bad as I want with nothing there to stop me because this is eve! Well its a good thing EVE is a sandbox, because you CAN be as bad as you want to be, just have to deal with the consequences handed out afterwards. Consequences? con-+se-+quence \-êk+ñn(t)-s+Ö--îkwen(t)s, -kw+Ön(t)s\noun : something that happens as a result of a particular action or set of conditions
I kept waving donuts but Concord didn't respond. As a consequence, I've had to eat them all myself... |
Shay Reve
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 17:47:09 -
[530] - Quote
Alli Ginthur wrote:
Well its a good thing EVE is a sandbox, because you CAN be as bad as you want to be, just have to deal with the consequences handed out afterwards.
Sandbox games are defined by allowing "total" freedom when any action & consequence involves players. In the case where this is modified by any NPC interference "total" freedom crosses the border of game manipulation and/or mechanics abuse. However CCP states that this in not the case here, aka no bannable offence, so players are correctly using game mechanics in their favor.
Do we get the picture? Obsolete game mechanic (Concord) gets dunked/trolled and some of us ask to ban the players? FFS keep it together. CCP just evades the situation until someone comes up with a real solution. 'Evades' is a very loose term in this case, but I doubt anyone would expect a company to start banning players for something that needs some sort of fixing on their end.
Current Concord mechanics are "Hey there's a criminal in this neighborhood.. lets evaporate his ride.. swoooosh!!.. Ok lets have some coffee now.. Hey he's over that part of town now.. lets evaporate his ride.. swoooosh!!.. So wanna have some coffee guys?" And so on.
Don't tell me you are not tempted to troll this! Come on... just between you and me...
..You get a funny urge to put rides all over a system and hold a tournament of how many warps can you force Concord to have until one shuttle is left. Last man to board it wins. Requirements: -10 Sec status and must get Concorded in a Catalyst when the whistle goes! |
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24900
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 17:59:10 -
[531] - Quote
Shay Reve wrote:Do we get the picture? Obsolete game mechanic (Concord) gets dunked/trolled and some of us ask to ban the players? FFS keep it together. CCP just evades the situation until someone comes up with a real solution. 'Evades' is a very loose term in this case, but I doubt anyone would expect a company to start banning players for something that needs some sort of fixing on their end.
More than that, why would they do anything about something that does not need any kind of fixing, on either the front or the back end?
Quote:Current Concord mechanics are "Hey there's a criminal in this neighborhood.. lets evaporate his ride.. swoooosh!!.. Ok lets have some coffee now.. Hey he's over that part of town now.. lets evaporate his ride.. swoooosh!!.. So wanna have some coffee guys?" And so on.
Don't tell me you are not tempted to troll this! Come on... just between you and me... What's GÇ£trollingGÇ¥ about working within the established mechanics in order to do something those mechanics are explicitly set up to allow?
The current CONCORD mechanics are very simple: unlawful aggression means you lose your current ship after 2GÇô30 seconds (depending on the system and CONCORD placement). That's really all there is to it.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Locke Deathroe
Clan 86
Antesignani Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 18:16:38 -
[532] - Quote
Seems to me given the current Crimewatch 2.0 mechanic and the recent changes to clones (ie. no more skills lost or medical clone cost) why not move the same crimewatch mechanic over to the pod once the ship goes boom. No, not saying CONCORD should podkill, I am saying that warp drive is shut off. The pod can't just warp off after committing the crime, so the pod is stuck there for 60 seconds..... |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24900
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 18:26:57 -
[533] - Quote
Locke Deathroe wrote:Seems to me given the current Crimewatch 2.0 mechanic and the recent changes to clones (ie. no more skills lost or medical clone cost) why not move the same crimewatch mechanic over to the pod once the ship goes boom. Because there's no need to, since scrams and points already exist.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
86
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 18:40:56 -
[534] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Locke Deathroe wrote:Seems to me given the current Crimewatch 2.0 mechanic and the recent changes to clones (ie. no more skills lost or medical clone cost) why not move the same crimewatch mechanic over to the pod once the ship goes boom. Because there's no need to, since scrams and points already exist. So by that argument, Concord shouldn't blow up your ship either because guns and missiles exist?
In order for a player to catch your pod they have to be in a max sebo'd slasher and catch a very lucky server tick, or use smart bombs. Even then, what good does catching your pod do? You don't have to pay for a new med clone, and you don't have implants, and if you are in a NPC corp the person that catches you will take a massive standings hit with that NPC corp.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24900
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 18:45:54 -
[535] - Quote
Dangeresque Too wrote:So by that argument, Concord shouldn't blow up your ship either because guns and missiles exist? That does not follow, no, since blowing up the ship is the entire purpose of CONCORD.
Quote:In order for a player to catch your pod they have to be in a max sebo'd slasher and catch a very lucky server tick, or use smart bombs. Even then, what good does catching your pod do? You don't have to pay for a new med clone, and you don't have implants, and if you are in a NPC corp the person that catches you will take a massive standings hit with that NPC corp. Yes, catching pods is hard. This is by design.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Paranoid Loyd
3697
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 18:46:02 -
[536] - Quote
Dangeresque Too wrote:Tippia wrote:Locke Deathroe wrote:Seems to me given the current Crimewatch 2.0 mechanic and the recent changes to clones (ie. no more skills lost or medical clone cost) why not move the same crimewatch mechanic over to the pod once the ship goes boom. Because there's no need to, since scrams and points already exist. So by that argument, Concord shouldn't blow up your ship either because guns and missiles exist? In order for a player to catch your pod they have to be in a max sebo'd slasher and catch a very lucky server tick, or use smart bombs. Even then, what good does catching your pod do? You don't have to pay for a new med clone, and you don't have implants, and if you are in a NPC corp the person that catches you will take a massive standings hit with that NPC corp.
Your posts are amusing because you seem to think you shouldn't have to make choices/sacrifices to accomplish a goal.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2654
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 19:07:36 -
[537] - Quote
Dangeresque Too wrote:Tippia wrote:Locke Deathroe wrote:Seems to me given the current Crimewatch 2.0 mechanic and the recent changes to clones (ie. no more skills lost or medical clone cost) why not move the same crimewatch mechanic over to the pod once the ship goes boom. Because there's no need to, since scrams and points already exist. So by that argument, Concord shouldn't blow up your ship either because guns and missiles exist? In order for a player to catch your pod they have to be in a max sebo'd slasher and catch a very lucky server tick, or use smart bombs. Even then, what good does catching your pod do? You don't have to pay for a new med clone, and you don't have implants, and if you are in a NPC corp the person that catches you will take a massive standings hit with that NPC corp.
The purpose of CONCORD is to remove an active threat, which is to say the armed ship flown by a pirate. A pod isn't an armed threat. The consequence of crime in EVE is reduced security status, with all of the drawbacks that that implies.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
48
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 19:17:07 -
[538] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Dangeresque Too wrote:Tippia wrote:Locke Deathroe wrote:Seems to me given the current Crimewatch 2.0 mechanic and the recent changes to clones (ie. no more skills lost or medical clone cost) why not move the same crimewatch mechanic over to the pod once the ship goes boom. Because there's no need to, since scrams and points already exist. So by that argument, Concord shouldn't blow up your ship either because guns and missiles exist? In order for a player to catch your pod they have to be in a max sebo'd slasher and catch a very lucky server tick, or use smart bombs. Even then, what good does catching your pod do? You don't have to pay for a new med clone, and you don't have implants, and if you are in a NPC corp the person that catches you will take a massive standings hit with that NPC corp. The purpose of CONCORD is to remove an active threat, which is to say the armed ship flown by a pirate. A pod isn't an armed threat. The consequence of crime in EVE is reduced security status, with all of the drawbacks that that implies.
True, but the consequence of negative sec status is barely worth mentioning.
If perhaps you were unable to dock in high-sec past -5 or unable to perform market transactions in high sec... now we are talking consequence.
All we hear about from the shooty shooty crowd is risk vs reward and safety vs expectations. But when there is nothing of consequence for a ganker to be -10 other than they are fair game by others... (Everyone is fair game according to you guys so this isn't a consequence) then there is something broken. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14750
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 19:20:26 -
[539] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
True, but the consequence of negative sec status is barely worth mentioning.
If perhaps you were unable to dock in high-sec past -5 or unable to perform market transactions in high sec... now we are talking consequence.
All we hear about from the shooty shooty crowd is risk vs reward and safety vs expectations. But when there is nothing of consequence for a ganker to be -10 other than they are fair game by others... (Everyone is fair game according to you guys so this isn't a consequence) then there is something broken.
Drop your sec status down to -10 then go and do what you normally do. You can then come back an tell us how it went.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
51
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 19:28:30 -
[540] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:[quote=Dangeresque Too]
The purpose of CONCORD is to remove an active threat, which is to say the armed ship flown by a pirate. A pod isn't an armed threat. The consequence of crime in EVE is reduced security status, with all of the drawbacks that that implies.
No. That is part of the mechanics of Concord. Both in the Lore and in actual gameplay, the purpose is much different. |
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24900
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 19:29:12 -
[541] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:True, but the consequence of negative sec status is barely worth mentioning. That's not true. The consequences of negative sec status are a microcosm of all of EVE: exactly what players decide them to be in a contest between different wishes, wants, and needs.
CONCORD itself is just a tax like any other, only this one is on the activity of aggression as opposed to, say, trade. It is that tax (in its two incarnations) that define highsec.
Quote:If perhaps you were unable to dock in high-sec past -5 or unable to perform market transactions in high sec... now we are talking consequence. No, that is not a consequence GÇö that is idiotic and arbitrary lock-out of core game content for no sane or sensible reason whatsoever. Also known as fundamentally awful design.
Quote:All we hear about from the shooty shooty crowd is risk vs reward and safety vs expectations. But when there is nothing of consequence for a ganker to be -10 other than they are fair game by others... (Everyone is fair game according to you guys so this isn't a consequence) then there is something broken. No. All it is is some people refusing to make use of the tools at their disposal and willingly voiding the significant consequences of crime by letting the criminals go free. That is not broken GÇö that is just player choice. Player choice is a cornerstone of the game. GÇ£BrokenGÇ¥ would be if that choice was removed; if the game simply enforced one particular outcome without absolutely no player input and no ability to choose.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2654
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 19:29:28 -
[542] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:The purpose of CONCORD is to remove an active threat, which is to say the armed ship flown by a pirate. A pod isn't an armed threat. The consequence of crime in EVE is reduced security status, with all of the drawbacks that that implies. True, but the consequence of negative sec status is barely worth mentioning. If perhaps you were unable to dock in high-sec past -5 or unable to perform market transactions in high sec... now we are talking consequence. All we hear about from the shooty shooty crowd is risk vs reward and safety vs expectations. But when there is nothing of consequence for a ganker to be -10 other than they are fair game by others... (Everyone is fair game according to you guys so this isn't a consequence) then there is something broken.
NPC corporations and empires are neutral parties to the interactions that happen between capsuleers. Indeed, violence between capsuleers isn't even considered "real" crime by them. High society doesn't actually get affected when one pod pilot blows up another one. So why shouldn't they be able to dock? Besides, those flashy -10 guys make for really good business, and money decides pretty much everything.
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:[quote=Dangeresque Too]
The purpose of CONCORD is to remove an active threat, which is to say the armed ship flown by a pirate. A pod isn't an armed threat. The consequence of crime in EVE is reduced security status, with all of the drawbacks that that implies. No. That is part of the mechanics of Concord. Both in the Lore and in actual gameplay, the purpose is much different.
The purpose of an individual, active CONCORD response team. Is that better?
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
51
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 19:41:10 -
[543] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:[quote=Dangeresque Too]
The purpose of CONCORD is to remove an active threat, which is to say the armed ship flown by a pirate. A pod isn't an armed threat. The consequence of crime in EVE is reduced security status, with all of the drawbacks that that implies. No. That is part of the mechanics of Concord. Both in the Lore and in actual gameplay, the purpose is much different. The purpose of an individual, active CONCORD response team. Is that better?
Not trying to nitpick, but establishing purpose is different than mechanics is important to the debate. I assume that the Concord pilot(s) are simply "following orders" and upholding the laws/rules that govern their behavior.
Additionally, the NPC factions DO care about pilot/pilot interactions, or else their ships wouldn't shoot at criminal players who enter their systems. I am sure the criminal players would agree, don't you think? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24901
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 19:50:19 -
[544] - Quote
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:Not trying to nitpick, but establishing purpose is different than mechanics is important to the debate. I assume that the Concord pilot(s) are simply "following orders" and upholding the laws/rules that govern their behavior.
What the CONCORD pilots do has nothing to do with either GÇö that is just lore fluff.
The purpose of CONCORD is very simple: to impose an asset tax on unlawful aggression (aggression tax being the defining characteristic of highsec).
The mechanics of CONCORD are reasonable simple, dealing with seclevel-specific spawn times for cruisers and battleships.
Quote:Additionally, the NPC factions DO care about pilot/pilot interactions, or else their ships wouldn't shoot at criminal players who enter their systems. If you want to nitpick, faction NPCs don't shoot at criminals who enter their systems (largely because criminals can't enter systems) GÇö that's what CONCORD does. The factions only care about outlaws, who CONCORD couldn't care one whit about. The only overlap is sentry guns, who react to sec status changes for whatever reason.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
51
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:05:40 -
[545] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:Not trying to nitpick, but establishing purpose is different than mechanics is important to the debate. I assume that the Concord pilot(s) are simply "following orders" and upholding the laws/rules that govern their behavior. What the CONCORD pilots do has nothing to do with either GÇö that is just lore fluff. The purpose of CONCORD is very simple: to impose an asset tax on unlawful aggression (aggression tax being the defining characteristic of highsec). The mechanics of CONCORD are reasonable simple, dealing with seclevel-specific spawn times for cruisers and battleships. Quote:Additionally, the NPC factions DO care about pilot/pilot interactions, or else their ships wouldn't shoot at criminal players who enter their systems. If you want to nitpick, faction NPCs don't shoot at criminals who enter their systems (largely because criminals can't enter systems) GÇö that's what CONCORD does. The factions only care about outlaws, who CONCORD couldn't care one whit about. The only overlap is sentry guns, who react to sec status changes for whatever reason.
Yes, I changed my post to 'Empires' to reflect that. I have to constantly mind the correct terminology when dealing with mechanics of NPC's. There are, as you stated, differences between the distinct NPC elements and their responses. (let's not get into FW or standings, lol)
Really, my point in relation to this thread is that "purpose" is what is intended, whereas "mechanics" is what actually happens. Eve players are notorious for manipulating the differences.
I love a good discussion |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
523
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 21:05:33 -
[546] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
True, but the consequence of negative sec status is barely worth mentioning.
If this were true the same could be said of AFKing while in space, the consequences of doing so are barely worth mentioning; primarily because there's not enough gankers to force a change in the way that they play, despite the best efforts of the gankers.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
48
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 21:08:11 -
[547] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
True, but the consequence of negative sec status is barely worth mentioning.
If this were true the same could be said of AFKing while in space, the consequences of doing so are barely worth mentioning; primarily because there's not enough gankers to force a change in the way that they play, despite the best efforts of the gankers.
No one should AFK in space, nor would I advocate that they do. My problem isn't that people should AFK haul, it is that being a ganker has less consequence than being in Faction Warfare... and tbh a ganker should be hunted by all empires and that should mean something. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24902
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 21:22:17 -
[548] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:No one should AFK in space, nor would I advocate that they do. My problem isn't that people should AFK haul, it is that being a ganker has less consequence than being in Faction Warfare... and tbh a ganker should be hunted by all empires and that should mean something.
Why? After all, he's not at war with the factions. If he's a criminal, he's already hunted by the police, and both police and navies are purposefully design to be more of an inconvenience than anything (which is why they can be defeated).
Again, the consequences of ganking are whatever players choose them to be. If they choose GÇ£noneGÇ¥, then the don't have a leg to stand on if they complain that the consequences are tough enough for their tastes.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
144
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 21:22:19 -
[549] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
True, but the consequence of negative sec status is barely worth mentioning.
If this were true the same could be said of AFKing while in space, the consequences of doing so are barely worth mentioning; primarily because there's not enough gankers to force a change in the way that they play, despite the best efforts of the gankers. No one should AFK in space, nor would I advocate that they do. My problem isn't that people should AFK haul, it is that being a ganker has less consequence than being in Faction Warfare... and tbh a ganker should be hunted by all empires and that should mean something.
Sitting at -10 sec status has a greater implication that FW status.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14753
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 21:24:24 -
[550] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
True, but the consequence of negative sec status is barely worth mentioning.
If this were true the same could be said of AFKing while in space, the consequences of doing so are barely worth mentioning; primarily because there's not enough gankers to force a change in the way that they play, despite the best efforts of the gankers. No one should AFK in space, nor would I advocate that they do. My problem isn't that people should AFK haul, it is that being a ganker has less consequence than being in Faction Warfare... and tbh a ganker should be hunted by all empires and that should mean something.
They do get hunted.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
|
Paranoid Loyd
3698
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 21:25:28 -
[551] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
True, but the consequence of negative sec status is barely worth mentioning.
If this were true the same could be said of AFKing while in space, the consequences of doing so are barely worth mentioning; primarily because there's not enough gankers to force a change in the way that they play, despite the best efforts of the gankers. No one should AFK in space, nor would I advocate that they do. My problem isn't that people should AFK haul, it is that being a ganker has less consequence than being in Faction Warfare... and tbh a ganker should be hunted by all empires and that should mean something. Sitting at -10 sec status has a greater implication that FW status.
He probably thinks the police are the same that attack you, when the reality is the Faction Navy is very weak and slow compared to the Faction Police.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
48
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 21:25:58 -
[552] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
True, but the consequence of negative sec status is barely worth mentioning.
If this were true the same could be said of AFKing while in space, the consequences of doing so are barely worth mentioning; primarily because there's not enough gankers to force a change in the way that they play, despite the best efforts of the gankers. No one should AFK in space, nor would I advocate that they do. My problem isn't that people should AFK haul, it is that being a ganker has less consequence than being in Faction Warfare... and tbh a ganker should be hunted by all empires and that should mean something. They do get hunted.
Oh boo hoo. Not really. And last I checked you can still use a cloak at -10 sec status. Ever tried cloaking in highsec of the opposing faction?
You cant even dock at a contested station of the opposing faction. Come on man, try a little
Being a ganker should mean you live your life in low security space, and risk something to come to high security to do something bad. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24902
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 21:28:34 -
[553] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Oh boo hoo. Not really. Yes, really. What you're asking for is in the game already GÇö boo hoo indeed. If it's slightly less than what FWers face from the NPCs, then that seems appropriate seeing as how you're not at war with them.
Quote:Being a ganker should mean you live your life in low security space, and risk something to come to high security to do something bad. Why should it mean anything of the kind? That sounds like horrible design. And it does mean you risk something when you come to highsec.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
524
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 21:34:47 -
[554] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:baltec1 wrote:They do get hunted. Oh boo hoo. Not really. If you feel that gankers aren't hunted enough then you should do something about it, all the tools are there, the thing that is missing is people willing to make the effort.
Quote:You cant even dock at a contested station of the opposing faction. Which makes sense, why would they give shelter to someone they're at war with?
Quote:Being a ganker should mean you live your life in low security space, and risk something to come to high security to do something bad. Why? I hesitate to make a real life comparison but there's plenty of known criminals walking the streets of major cities without consequence, quite a sizable proportion of them wear suits and hold positions of influence too.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14754
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 22:28:54 -
[555] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Oh boo hoo. Not really. And last I checked you can still use a cloak at -10 sec status. Ever tried cloaking in highsec of the opposing faction?
You cant even dock at a contested station of the opposing faction. Come on man, try a little
Being a ganker should mean you live your life in low security space, and risk something to come to high security to do something bad.
I once flew a megathron through enemy faction space and attacked wartargets I found. I am still a wanted man in gal high sec for that rampage.
Also Gank ships don't fit cloaks. Before spouting nonsense like this you should go to -10 and see how much fun it is doing activities you currently enjoy.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
52
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 22:41:36 -
[556] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Oh boo hoo. Not really. And last I checked you can still use a cloak at -10 sec status. Ever tried cloaking in highsec of the opposing faction?
You cant even dock at a contested station of the opposing faction. Come on man, try a little
Being a ganker should mean you live your life in low security space, and risk something to come to high security to do something bad.
I once flew a megathron through enemy faction space and attacked wartargets I found. I am still a wanted man in gal high sec for that rampage. Also Gank ships don't fit cloaks. Before spouting nonsense like this you should go to -10 and see how much fun it is doing activities you currently enjoy.
The Outlaws who use their mains have my respect, for the path they choose limits their choices in gameplay. If ever there was a more (dis)honorable profession |
Kaely Tanniss
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
203
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 23:37:37 -
[557] - Quote
Wow...just wow. The tears are epic. How about this..pay attention to the game, take steps to prevent or lessen the chance you get hyperdunked (which is NOT common btw), don't carry cargo values that would make you a target to everyone or take the steps to protect it....why is this so hard? Every single PvP player has to do it. Just because you don't PvP doesn't mean you don't need to protect your assets. The sooner people realize this, the better off they will be. On and on the whining goes, asking for a change because people can't figure it out or take personal responsibility for their own safety and/or protection. It's really sad tbh. How about this...try to be as clever as the person who has targeted you. Reply after reply of "solutions" to something that is not a problem. Post your "solutions" in the game ideas forum where such "ideas" belong. The bottom line is there is no problem...there is no exploit. Get over it, adapt, and move on. What's next..calls to remove shootting other players all together? Ridiculous.
If I had a nickel for every time someone said women don't play eve, I'd have a bag of nickels to whack the next person who said it..
|
John E Normus
New Order Logistics
CODE.
482
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 00:08:56 -
[558] - Quote
There is a mountain of good advice out there to help pilots avoid these kinds of bad situations. If you want to have a chat about it literally every New Order agent you see will happily tell you what to do to survive us in any given situation. Try it out, play eve like someone is out to blow up your stuff! Anyway...
There was a vote, James 315 won.
The beatings will continue until we reach full compliance.
Between Ignorance and Wisdom
|
Kaely Tanniss
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
206
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 00:17:05 -
[559] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Okay, so what follows is entirely my personal opinion.
It's not a case of not "catering to the tearfilled entitled", it's a case of us staying true to the core of what EVE was built on.
Some of the people complaining in this thread have valid points about the fact that they don't feel safe. Simple fact of the matter is, that you're not suppose to feel safe in New Eden.
Eve is not a game for the faint hearted. It's a game that will chew you up and spit you out in the blink of an eye if you even think about letting your guard down or becoming complacent.
While every other MMO starts off with an intro that tells you you're going to be the savior of the realm, holds your hand, protects you, nurtures your development and ultimately guides you to your destiny as a hero along with several other million players who've had the exact same experience, EVE assaults you from the second you begin to play after you create a character, spitting you out into a universe that under the surface, is so complex that it's enough to make your head explode.
The entire design is based around being harsh, vicious, relentless, hostile and cold. It's about action and reaction, and the story that unfolds as you experience these two things.
True, we're working hard to lower the bar of entry so that more players can enjoy EVE and can get into the game. Our NPE (New Player Experience) is challenging, and we're trying to improve it to better prepare rookies for what lies out there, but when you start to play eve, you'll always start out as the little fish in the big pond.
The only way to grow is to voraciously consume what's around you, and its your choice whether that happens to be New Eden's abundant natural resources, or the other people who're also fighting their way to the top.
EVE is a playing experience like no other, where every action or reaction resonates through a single universe and is felt by players from all corners of the word. There are no shards here, no mirror universes, no instances and very few rules. If you stumble across something valuable, then chances are someone else already knows where you are, or is working their way toward you and you better be prepared to fight for what you've discovered.
EVE will test you from the outset, from the very second you undock and glimpse the stars, and will take pleasure from sorting those who can survive from those who'd rather curl up and perish.
EVE will let you fight until you collapse, then let you struggle to your feet, exhausted from the effort. Then when you can see the light at the end of the tunnel it'll kick you flat on your ass in the mud again and ask you why you deserve to be standing. It'll test you against every other individual playing at some point or another, and it'll ask for answers.
Give it an answer and maybe it'll let you up again, long enough to gather your thoughts. After a few more steps you're on the ground again and it's asking more questions.
EVE is designed to be harsh, it's designed to be challenging, and it's designed to be so deep and complex that it should fascinate and terrify you at the same time.
Corporation, Alliances and coalitions of tens of thousands have risen and fallen on these basic principles, and every one of those thousands of people has their own unique story to tell about how it affected them and what they experienced.
That's the beauty of EVE. Action and reaction. Emergence.
Welcome to the most frightening virtual playground you'll ever experience.
It's been posted by Feyd. It's been posted by many others. Read it, don't forget it. The point is, there is no better way to say it than the way CCP Falcon said it. Try to remember it. Eve is not WoW, it is not SWTOR..it is like nothing else. It weeds out who can hack it and who cannot. If you aren't prepared to fight to survive...you aren't prepared for Eve..
If I had a nickel for every time someone said women don't play eve, I'd have a bag of nickels to whack the next person who said it..
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
52
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 00:22:28 -
[560] - Quote
John E Normus wrote:There is a mountain of good advice out there to help pilots avoid these kinds of bad situations. If you want to have a chat about it literally every New Order agent you see will happily tell you what to do to survive us in any given situation. Try it out, play eve like someone is out to blow up your stuff! Anyway...
There was a vote, James 315 won.
The beatings will continue until we reach full compliance.
I gots my new tank fitted to pertect meez |
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11556
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 00:29:33 -
[561] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:If we were going to be realistic about it, someone who committed the exact same crime 30 times in a row would be getting a life senten If we're being realistic about it, the cop's response time is thirty minutes, not thirty seconds. and then they tell you that there's not much they can do about it because apparently a man in his mid 20s wearing dark jeans and a hoodie isn't a unique enough description. ...Yeah but a license plate number is. Ok, you can have your 30 minute response time, if every time you suicide gank your character spends 3-5 years in prison afterwards
Or, we can abandon the ridiculous premise that this imaginary Magic Space Police in any way does or should behave like anything in real life.
Since, you know, it's a videogame set in outer space featuring players who are functionally demigods, and all.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
48
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 00:41:24 -
[562] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:If we were going to be realistic about it, someone who committed the exact same crime 30 times in a row would be getting a life senten If we're being realistic about it, the cop's response time is thirty minutes, not thirty seconds. and then they tell you that there's not much they can do about it because apparently a man in his mid 20s wearing dark jeans and a hoodie isn't a unique enough description. ...Yeah but a license plate number is. Ok, you can have your 30 minute response time, if every time you suicide gank your character spends 3-5 years in prison afterwards Or, we can abandon the ridiculous premise that this imaginary Magic Space Police in any way does or should behave like anything in real life. Since, you know, it's a videogame set in outer space featuring players who are functionally demigods, and all.
Yeah, I wasn't the one trying to make that leap there chap. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11556
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 00:44:23 -
[563] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Yeah, I wasn't the one trying to make that leap there chap.
No, but you seem to have missed the whole "sarcasm" part of it.
"realism" is not something any reasonable person asks for in a freaking videogame. It was just Veers trying to justify his absurd bleating for something that is totally unacceptable in this game.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
48
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 00:47:26 -
[564] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Yeah, I wasn't the one trying to make that leap there chap.
No, but you seem to have missed the whole "sarcasm" part of it. "realism" is not something any reasonable person asks for in a freaking videogame. It was just Veers trying to justify his absurd bleating for something that is totally unacceptable in this game.
.... except for the large rolly eyes I put in my post.
Whatever man, how are things? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11556
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 00:50:59 -
[565] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Whatever man, how are things?
Not bad, my wife is getting out of the hospital soon, so I may actually be able to play the game for the first time in more than a month.
Thinking about getting some scamming started, or if I can get an Orca fit up right I might try hyperdunking myself. (just to keep it on topic)
Globby really should post a "how to" up on YouTube or something.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14758
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 01:05:07 -
[566] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Globby really should post a "how to" up on YouTube or something.
Its rather easy to understand and somewhat harder to pull off. The bowhead that got highlighted more or less tackled himself when he logged off with aggression.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11556
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 01:10:07 -
[567] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Globby really should post a "how to" up on YouTube or something.
Its rather easy to understand and somewhat harder to pull off. The bowhead that got highlighted more or less tackled himself when he logged off with aggression.
I'm aware of that, I meant it more towards encouragement of proliferation of the tactic.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Quantum Distributions
1405
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 01:31:51 -
[568] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Globby really should post a "how to" up on YouTube or something.
Its rather easy to understand and somewhat harder to pull off. The bowhead that got highlighted more or less tackled himself when he logged off with aggression.
We've done this without the target logging off, though that is *significantly* harder.
New player resources:
Uni Wiki - General Info
Eve Altruist - PvP
Belligerent Undesirables - High Sec Pvp
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
1212
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 01:56:20 -
[569] - Quote
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Oh boo hoo. Not really. And last I checked you can still use a cloak at -10 sec status. Ever tried cloaking in highsec of the opposing faction?
You cant even dock at a contested station of the opposing faction. Come on man, try a little
Being a ganker should mean you live your life in low security space, and risk something to come to high security to do something bad.
I once flew a megathron through enemy faction space and attacked wartargets I found. I am still a wanted man in gal high sec for that rampage. Also Gank ships don't fit cloaks. Before spouting nonsense like this you should go to -10 and see how much fun it is doing activities you currently enjoy. The Outlaws who use their mains have my respect, for the path they choose limits their choices in gameplay. If ever there was a more (dis)honorable profession
But what if the 'outlaw that uses their main' to gank, also has a well trained high sec alt for doing things without Faction Police interference in highsec? Do they still have your respect? Or have they now lost it because they use alts like everyone else in this game? |
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
52
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 02:11:47 -
[570] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:
But what if the 'outlaw that uses their main' to gank, also has a well trained high sec alt for doing things without Faction Police interference in highsec? Do they still have your respect? Or have they now lost it because they use alts like everyone else in this game?
Why would that change things? That toon is still limited to being an outlaw. To invest that time and training is still the same, whether they have an alt or not. |
|
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
715
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 02:12:39 -
[571] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:my wife is getting out of the hospital soon
Just wanted to pop in and say I'm very happy to hear this and to raise a glass to hospitals not being in anyone's foreseeable future.
Have fun with it all, man :)
Vote Sabriz!
|
Rift Tarkken
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 03:37:43 -
[572] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:I don't disagree, but then the gankers should also have to put some bloody effort in. There it is. the underlying emotion based 'reasoning' behind an unreasonable worldview. "But, but, the other guy should have to work as hard as I think I am too!!!! It's not FAIR!!!" This thinking is at the core all every single anti ganking, scamming and afk-cloking post ever posted. Kind of a screwed up video game egalitarianism. Of course they should have to work for it. I'm fed up of listening to CODE players going on and on and on about how easy the carebears have it while ganking is insanely easy, nearly risk free and without consequence. Now it's officially easy to solo gank basically any ship. Excuse me if I thought this is EVE Online where the game is supposed to take a modicum of effort.
"Excuse me if I thought this is EVE Online where the game is supposed to take a modicum of effort." - It's only supposed to be harder if you're a miner, mission runner, FW pilot, industrialist, hauler, etc. If you PvP or gank, it needs to be easier. Especially if you are PVP'ing or Ganking one of the above. Didn't you know that? :-) |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2657
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 04:12:35 -
[573] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:baltec1 wrote:They do get hunted. Oh boo hoo. Not really. And last I checked you can still use a cloak at -10 sec status. Ever tried cloaking in highsec of the opposing faction? You cant even dock at a contested station of the opposing faction. Come on man, try a little Being a ganker should mean you live your life in low security space, and risk something to come to high security to do something bad.
Uh, you do realize that there are no contested stations in high-sec, right? When you're in high-sec and in FW, you can dock at any station just fine. I see plenty of Minmatar Militia guys docked in the Amarr hub on my alt.
Rift Tarkken wrote:"Excuse me if I thought this is EVE Online where the game is supposed to take a modicum of effort." - It's only supposed to be harder if you're a miner, mission runner, FW pilot, industrialist, hauler, etc. If you PvP or gank, it needs to be easier. Especially if you are PVP'ing or Ganking one of the above. Didn't you know that? :-)
I have two questions:
1. Is the difficulty for, say, a miner, set by the game, or by other players?
2. Is the difficulty for, say, a ganker, set by the game, or by other players?
In both cases, let's state that training skills isn't difficulty, because it;s simply a time constant in the game.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11562
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 04:17:44 -
[574] - Quote
Rift Tarkken wrote:
"Excuse me if I thought this is EVE Online where the game is supposed to take a modicum of effort." - It's only supposed to be harder if you're a miner, mission runner, FW pilot, industrialist, hauler, etc. If you PvP or gank, it needs to be easier. Especially if you are PVP'ing or Ganking one of the above. Didn't you know that? :-)
Please point out any way in which mining has punitive mechanical effects.
In fact, all those you listed and cried about, have zero mechanical consequences for doing them. (and no, mission running faction rep doesn't count)
And only ganking actually has any mechanical repercussion for doing it.
So, yeah... shut it, carebear, and play the game already.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
48
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 04:30:31 -
[575] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:baltec1 wrote:They do get hunted. Oh boo hoo. Not really. And last I checked you can still use a cloak at -10 sec status. Ever tried cloaking in highsec of the opposing faction? You cant even dock at a contested station of the opposing faction. Come on man, try a little Being a ganker should mean you live your life in low security space, and risk something to come to high security to do something bad. Uh, you do realize that there are no contested stations in high-sec, right? When you're in high-sec and in FW, you can dock at any station just fine. I see plenty of Minmatar Militia guys docked in the Amarr hub on my alt. Rift Tarkken wrote:"Excuse me if I thought this is EVE Online where the game is supposed to take a modicum of effort." - It's only supposed to be harder if you're a miner, mission runner, FW pilot, industrialist, hauler, etc. If you PvP or gank, it needs to be easier. Especially if you are PVP'ing or Ganking one of the above. Didn't you know that? :-) I have two questions: 1. Is the difficulty for, say, a miner, set by the game, or by other players? 2. Is the difficulty for, say, a ganker, set by the game, or by other players? In both cases, let's state that training skills isn't difficulty, because it's simply a time constant in the game.
Actually that isn't true, you can't dock at any high sec faction warfare station either. But I do believe I specifically said low-sec anyways.
Regardless, why is being hunted by two empires harder to deal with than being hunted by all four? I don't want to hear that crap from Tippy again about how easy FW is to deal with, or have someone tell me I need to be -10 to see for myself. There is no risk in flying around in a pod and having safe alts drop your ships for you.
Again, no one -10 should be docking at any high sec station. Why would any of the empires harbor criminals? |
Paranoid Loyd
3707
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 04:41:53 -
[576] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote: you can't dock at any high sec faction warfare station either. Since when? Oh, are talking about mechanics you don't understand again?
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11562
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 04:50:06 -
[577] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote: you can't dock at any high sec faction warfare station either. Since when? Oh, are talking about mechanics you don't understand again?
I mean, those guys who camp Hek are there almost every day. This is not some secret.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Paranoid Loyd
3707
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 04:51:01 -
[578] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote: you can't dock at any high sec faction warfare station either. Since when? Oh, are talking about mechanics you don't understand again? I mean, those guys who camp Hek are there almost every day. This is not some secret.
Not to mention a whine thread is usually open
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=395372&find=unread
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2657
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 04:52:19 -
[579] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Actually that isn't true, you can't dock at any high sec faction warfare station either. But I do believe I specifically said low-sec anyways.
Then it doesn't matter, because there are no free-roam faction navies in low-sec. And also plenty of non-FW stations everywhere.
PS: Source on the bolded part?
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Regardless, why is being hunted by two empires harder to deal with than being hunted by all four? I don't want to hear that crap from Tippy again about how easy FW is to deal with, or have someone tell me I need to be -10 to see for myself. There is no risk in flying around in a pod and having safe alts drop your ships for you.
Except that's pretty much the limit of what you can do. You can get into dropped ships for a short duration of time, and that's it. Every other high-sec activity aside from station trading is pretty much cut off from you.
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Again, no one -10 should be docking at any high sec station. Why would any of the empires harbor criminals?
Because the empires don't see them as criminals.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
86
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 04:52:54 -
[580] - Quote
EU, US, AU tz - -> Cynosural Edge <- - Recruitment |
|
|
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
86
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 05:08:03 -
[581] - Quote
I had a nice response typed up but then the forums ate it entirely and spit out garbage.... grrr (the one time I don't copy/paste into notepad before clicking the button)
baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:True, but the consequence of negative sec status is barely worth mentioning.
If perhaps you were unable to dock in high-sec past -5 or unable to perform market transactions in high sec... now we are talking consequence. Drop your sec status down to -10 then go and do what you normally do. You can then come back an tell us how it went. Except that most -10 pilots don't want to do the things that PvE carebears do, so they could care less if they can't do them with bad sec status. So by not wanting to do something and not caring if you can even do it really matter in the discussion of you saying you can't do it? If you wanted to you would easily correct your sec status and keep it high enough to do what you wanted. But as most -10's usually admit, they don't care and don't want to do the things carebears do, so not really a consequence. They don't want to fix their sec status, which means they don't need/want to do what higher sec status people do.
But back on topic here...
Concord is sending mixed messages here, and it seems CCP isn't exactly on the same page with what they want to happen and how the system works. A great example of why this doesn't make sense when taken into account with other Concord actions. If you previously ejected from a ship at the spot where you gank someone, Concord will vaporize the empty ship along with your active one. If you leave an empty ship somewhere else and try to board it under the criminal flag, Concord tells you no: "That ship, or its owner, are currently engaged with local police forces. CONCORD prohibits you from boarding it until the engagement is over.".
But somehow it is OK to board someone else's ship where you did your gank, with the exception that Concord will insta pop you after boarding the new ship without going somewhere else first. And if you do go somewhere else first before boarding someone else's ship, its somehow OK now? Like they are saying "You can't do it here but if you just go over there you can and we will give you some more time, just not right here". The only reason "Hyperdunking" works is because Concord seems to forget you are an active criminal if you are 150k or further away from where you performed your last criminal action or if you board a ship that doesn't belong to you. That is what makes this smell of non-intended/exploited mechanic.
So then what is your translation of Concord not letting you board one of your own ships in space if being able to infinitely re-ship and continue a gank is an intended feature? Why should you have to bother going through the trouble of using other peoples ships or moving away just to come back again? |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2657
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 05:20:29 -
[582] - Quote
Dangeresque Too wrote:Except that most -10 pilots don't want to do the things that PvE carebears do, so they could care less if they can't do them with bad sec status. So by not wanting to do something and not caring if you can even do it really matter in the discussion of you saying you can't do it?
Yes, it does. Objectively so.
Dangeresque Too wrote:If you previously ejected from a ship at the spot where you gank someone, Concord will vaporize the empty ship along with your active one.
The ganker isn't the one leaving the ships out.
Dangeresque Too wrote:If you leave an empty ship somewhere else and try to board it under the criminal flag, Concord tells you no: "That ship, or its owner, are currently engaged with local police forces. CONCORD prohibits you from boarding it until the engagement is over."
Right. This lasts for the duration of CONCORD shooting the criminal, not for the duration of the GCC flag.
Dangeresque Too wrote:But somehow it is OK to board someone else's ship where you did your gank, with the exception that Concord will insta pop you after boarding the new ship without going somewhere else first. And if you do go somewhere else first before boarding someone else's ship, its somehow OK now? Like they are saying "You can't do it here but if you just go over there you can and we will give you some more time, just not right here".
CONCORD doesn't follow criminal pods around. Why should they? Pods are harmless. If they weren't, CONCORD would destroy them too.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11562
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 05:44:52 -
[583] - Quote
Dangeresque Too wrote:Except that most -10 pilots don't want to do the things that PvE carebears do, so they could care less if they can't do them with bad sec status.
So what? That doesn't mean that the consequence isn't there, it just means that they accept it and deal with it.
Quote:So then what is your translation of Concord not letting you board one of your own ships in space if being able to infinitely re-ship and continue a gank is an intended feature? Why should you have to bother going through the trouble of using other peoples ships or moving away just to come back again?
Do you know how the game's ownership token system works? Because it really seems like you don't.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Hope Alar
Blue Tridents
Sev3rance
3
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 06:06:45 -
[584] - Quote
I don't see the logic in allowing one guy with 8 catalysts gank a freighter worth far more than his catalysts are worth. How is this avoidable if the pilot were at the keyboard? He has a parner/alt bumping the freighter off, and if the freighter logs off he is dead. You cannot warp off due to the bumping and iirc you cannot safe log because you now have an aggression timer. So if a pilot absolutely wants to kill your freighter for a pittance compared to the ship, there is nothing stopping him? He just has to throw more ships at it.
This is a bad decision. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11562
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 06:10:46 -
[585] - Quote
Hope Alar wrote:I don't see the logic in allowing one guy with 8 catalysts gank a freighter worth far more than his catalysts are worth. How is this avoidable if the pilot were at the keyboard? He has a parner/alt bumping the freighter off, and if the freighter logs off he is dead. You cannot warp off due to the bumping and iirc you cannot safe log because you now have an aggression timer. So if a pilot absolutely wants to kill your freighter for a pittance compared to the ship, there is nothing stopping him? He just has to throw more ships at it.
This is a bad decision.
Literally every sentence is wrong.
Impressive.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
David Mandrake
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 06:29:20 -
[586] - Quote
Dangeresque Too wrote:Except that most -10 pilots don't want to do the things that PvE carebears do
True, but at the same time, it's not entirely easy moving around highsec when you've got a bunch of people that want to shoot you (try going suspect and see what happens). Fact is this does leave them open to punitive action if you actually want to put in the effort to do it, because even if they decide to only use their capsules/shuttles/instawarping interceptors to move around, eventually they're going to have to board that gank ship, and those ships are fit to kill things, not to enter warp quickly. Sure, they can do it relatively quickly but if you're fast enough, you could still catch one and blow it up (since they're also not fit for tank). Even with their larger Catalyst fleets, I'm not entirely sure why you couldn't have an alt with combat scan probes out near where they're going to be operating so you can instantly get a fix on them and have a smartbombing battleship set up to warp in on them and go blow them all up (might be stupid, but just something that poped in my head of "how do you deal with a bunch of non-tanky ships all grouped together?), or even play the long game and just make note of where their safespots and instaundocks are in their favorite ganking systems and lay a trap for them. Sure it takes effort to do it, but if you want to fight other players you're going to have to put some sort of effort in to it. It's not like fighting NPCs or anything like that where everything is set in stone and defined for you; you're fighting real, thinking people that don't want to get caught by you and thus you're going to have to figure out how to catch them. It can be done - you've just got to try hard enough.
Quote:That is what makes this smell of non-intended/exploited mechanic.
There are plenty of non-intended mechanics. That doesn't mean they're bad, and entire playstyles have come out of them - living in W-space, for example, was never intended. One great unintended mechanic you might want to look at is webbing your freighter in to warp; it can make it almost impossible to actually bump, and unless you've actually done something to really make it worth the effort, most ganking groups are not going to bother chasing you, they'll just go for the guy after you that's autopiloting.
Hope Alar wrote:I don't see the logic in allowing one guy with 8 catalysts gank a freighter worth far more than his catalysts are worth. How is this avoidable if the pilot were at the keyboard? He has a parner/alt bumping the freighter off, and if the freighter logs off he is dead. You cannot warp off due to the bumping and iirc you cannot safe log because you now have an aggression timer. So if a pilot absolutely wants to kill your freighter for a pittance compared to the ship, there is nothing stopping him? He just has to throw more ships at it.
This is a bad decision.
Several different ways; one thing is that actually keeping you bumped is a bit more difficult (assuming they're actually doing it and not having banked on your autopilot shutting down when they scrammed you, which does happen), and thus they may wind up having to bump you towards something you can warp to, thus allowing you to warp to it. They've now got to chase you, rebump you, pick up their remaining catalysts, warp that ship to you, and then set the whole thing up again and hope they don't bump you in a way that you can warp out again; which again is difficult at the best of times, and likely moreso when they have to keep you near their Catalysts (as the instant they board one CONCORD will immediately begin moving to blow up their ship again and thus every second getting in range of your freighter is wasted time).
Additionally if you have an alt webbing you - something that's very much recommended nowadays, particularly if you're going to be flying ships around whose hulls alone are worth more than a billion ISK (imagine a dude complaining that they shouldn't have to have a cyno character on another account to move their carrier around; those cost about as much as a freighter nowadays) - it's not a long train to put them in to a Catalyst, and then you can simply board the catalysts and steal them by warping them to a station, docking up, warping back and stealing more, or just simply sacrifice the webbing ship by setting safeties red, webbing the nearest illegal target, getting CONCORDED, and then board every Catalyst as quickly as the game allows you to and have them all the blown up too. Or have the webber capable of targeting several ships at once and just lock all the Catalysts, which means they can't be boarded or scooped up, essentially rendering them worthless. Assuming they actually catch you when you have a webbing alt - I've had my freighter just about do a 180 degree warp with a pair of meta 4 webs from a Cruor; unless you managed to get insanely lucky with the placement of your Machariel and are right on top of it/can immediately bump it, you're not going to catch it. And assuming you jump in to a bumping trap; before I undock my freighter I hit up Dotlan and plug in my intended route to see if there's anything that looks like freighter ganking has been going on, and then take a look at any systems that seem suspicious. If there's a problem, I can either avoid it or not take the trip. Add the radar feature on top of that, liberal use of safespots and scouting, and hauling in highsec is stupid safe to do. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
1213
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 06:43:29 -
[587] - Quote
Dangeresque Too wrote:First off, this thread keeps referring to them leaving grid... and they don't actually have to leave grid to pull this off, they just leave some shuttles far enough away to cause Concord to have to warp, thereby buying themselves a max response time from Concord. And from what I have been able to gather, there was stated somewhere a list of acceptable ways to manipulate Concord:
"a. Suicide gank. CONCORD is spawned because Player A attacks Player B without the rights to do so.
b. Defensive spawning. CONCORD is spawned because Player A's alt character attacks Player A without the rights to do so."
But neither of these situations cover the criminal pilot warping off in a pod and getting into a ship elsewhere (same grid or at another station etc). So maybe the rules for what is allowed in terms of manipulating Concord should be revised? Because in "Hyperdunking" they are moving Concord away from the site of criminal action without the use of illegal aggression. Therein allowing them to warp back to the gank site and re-ship next to their target, taking no additional security penalty for continued aggression and a freshly restarted timer.
Yes, I know, everyone who is doing this keeps saying "But I'm criminal, you can shoot me"... yes, but, I have to find you first, then I have to get there before you finish the gank, and then I have to lock you and either blow you up or jam you before you kill your target or hit me instead. And with this new 'feature' of being able to re-ship infinitely you can just shoot me until you kill me (re-shipping after each attempt) and then you can go back to shooting your original target. Even if I tanked you indefinitely, you would just wait for me to get bored of waiting and leave and then continue the hit.
Further, if the ganker does this right, there is no actual chance to steal the replacement ships before they get into them or their Concord moving shuttles. If they do it right. But most don't from what I have seen, though the ones that don't do this 100% safely for them still usually have a spare gank pilot in a cata sitting around ready to counter gank anyone that tries to either steal their empty catas or shuttle.
Even further, with the ability to lock people out of boarding a ship that isn't theirs all they have to do is target it, so the spare gank pilot and orca pilots just have to keep a lock on their shuttles/spare catas to keep passby's or white knights from flying off with them.
As a final point, to be quite honest, nearly everyone I've seen doing this is already -10 anyways, so that further nullifies the "omg I can't do anything cause my sec status is so low" argument that -10 pilots always seem to make, yeah its so dangerous and so inconvenient you can kill any target you want anywhere you want.
But really though, the people that are doing this haven't quite realized the full potential of this. You can clear an entire system of miners in one go with this, just fill a bowhead with cata's and have it warp to the next victim as soon as you start on the current one. If you failed to kill the guy in the first pass just have the bowhead warp back and hit him again. Yeah, done correctly this requires 4 pilots if using just 1 gank ship, but that doesn't make it legit just because they have to multibox 4 accounts that may or may not belong to them (account sharing anyone?).
Why do you care so much about what gankers do, and whether or not its 'too easy' or not?
Aren't you the guy that claimed he 'just wanted to salvage freighter wrecks' in an interceptor? You were so scandalized (and demanded explanations from CCP) when you discovered you couldn't destroy freighter loot - in complete safety - with salvagers? Because, I guess, blasting the wreck (or stealing the loot) and getting a flag is too scary?
Now you are here whining about how 'easy' gankers have it? Wow. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16018
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 06:47:46 -
[588] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Hope Alar wrote:I don't see the logic in allowing one guy with 8 catalysts gank a freighter worth far more than his catalysts are worth. How is this avoidable if the pilot were at the keyboard? He has a parner/alt bumping the freighter off, and if the freighter logs off he is dead. You cannot warp off due to the bumping and iirc you cannot safe log because you now have an aggression timer. So if a pilot absolutely wants to kill your freighter for a pittance compared to the ship, there is nothing stopping him? He just has to throw more ships at it.
This is a bad decision. Literally every sentence is wrong. Impressive.
In all justice, the first part of the first sentence is spot on.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16020
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 08:41:45 -
[589] - Quote
Look, let's look at this discussion from first principles.
Here we have people saying that "hyperdunking" is bad because the freighter pilot is left with no way to escape.
Here we have people who knowingly fly a ship that is literally the biggest, clumsiest and slowest ship it is possible to fly in hi-sec. They are further aware that it has no high slots (ergo no DPS) and no medium slots (ergo no EW). And only 3 low slots, so it can be tackled by any ship that can outmanoeuvre it (ie: everything) and that can apply 4 points or more of warp disruption (ie: everything except that one Amarr ship that only has 1 mid, I forget the name).
Can one of these people explain to me what choices they expected to have in any game-legal PvP situation?
Because from reading this thread, it is difficult to avoid the unpleasant suspicion that the not very well hidden subtext here is that a freighter pilot in an NPC corp shouldn't be a legal target at all.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16020
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 08:43:40 -
[590] - Quote
Also can anyone point out a hyperdunked freighter killmail where the freighter has any modules that might even slightly help it to escape? WCS? Istab?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
|
|
Dave Stark
7340
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 09:06:40 -
[591] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Also can anyone point out a hyperdunked freighter killmail where the freighter has any modules that might even slightly help it to escape? WCS? Istab?
a webbing alt doesn't show up on a kill mail, i'm afraid. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16021
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 09:08:03 -
[592] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Malcanis wrote:Also can anyone point out a hyperdunked freighter killmail where the freighter has any modules that might even slightly help it to escape? WCS? Istab? a webbing alt doesn't show up on a kill mail, i'm afraid.
Shouldn't the web alt show up on the list of aggressing ships?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2662
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 11:09:41 -
[593] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Also can anyone point out a hyperdunked freighter killmail where the freighter has any modules that might even slightly help it to escape? WCS? Istab?
Just FYI they can't fit WCs. Not enough CPU.
Malcanis wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Malcanis wrote:Also can anyone point out a hyperdunked freighter killmail where the freighter has any modules that might even slightly help it to escape? WCS? Istab? a webbing alt doesn't show up on a kill mail, i'm afraid. Shouldn't the web alt show up on the list of aggressing ships?
Yes, it will. Any form of in-system aggression will. Even something like a target painter.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Dave stark
7341
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 11:12:32 -
[594] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Malcanis wrote:Also can anyone point out a hyperdunked freighter killmail where the freighter has any modules that might even slightly help it to escape? WCS? Istab? a webbing alt doesn't show up on a kill mail, i'm afraid. Shouldn't the web alt show up on the list of aggressing ships?
If the webbing alt was present, there wouldn't be a killmail! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16027
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 11:33:17 -
[595] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Malcanis wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Malcanis wrote:Also can anyone point out a hyperdunked freighter killmail where the freighter has any modules that might even slightly help it to escape? WCS? Istab? a webbing alt doesn't show up on a kill mail, i'm afraid. Shouldn't the web alt show up on the list of aggressing ships? If the webbing alt was present, there wouldn't be a killmail!
I see what you mean. Well that was kind of my point.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16027
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 11:35:53 -
[596] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Malcanis wrote:Also can anyone point out a hyperdunked freighter killmail where the freighter has any modules that might even slightly help it to escape? WCS? Istab? Just FYI they can't fit WCs. Not enough CPU
There you go then. In any combat situation, there is no reason for a solo freighter pilot to have any expectation of doing anything except dying. Freighters should travel in groups with escorts, or risk being ganked.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1891
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 11:48:46 -
[597] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
Shouldn't the web alt show up on the list of aggressing ships?
Depends....
If they alpha the web alt and it's been more than 15 minutes, no. So Kill mails aren't 100% reliable on that front. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24914
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 12:07:29 -
[598] - Quote
Hope Alar wrote:I don't see the logic in allowing one guy with 8 catalysts gank a freighter worth far more than his catalysts are worth. Well, for one, 8 catalysts can't really gank a freighter, be they flown by one guy or 8. For another, how is it illogical that 12 ships (using your numbers) can kill a single ship? Furthemore, how is it illogical that a cheaper set of ships can kill a more expensive one (usually, this is called GÇ£balancedGÇ¥ not GÇ£illogicalGÇ¥)?
Quote:How is this avoidable if the pilot were at the keyboard? If he's a bit lucky, he can just warp off. If not, he has roughly 15 minutes to ask for help, either in making him lucky or in getting rid of the ganker.
Quote:You cannot warp off due to the bumping Bumping does not disable your warp engines so you can warp off just fine. Coincidentally, this is also why bumping is not an illegal act and why it isn't classified as harassment unless it continues throughout multiple systems over a long period of time.
Quote:So if a pilot absolutely wants to kill your freighter for a pittance compared to the ship, there is nothing stopping him? You can avoid him, shoot him, jam him, warp away from him, steal or otherwise reduce his available ships, or just plain outlast him. All of that at a cost of, oh, zero or so, if that was even relevant, which it isn't.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2662
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 12:10:27 -
[599] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Malcanis wrote:Also can anyone point out a hyperdunked freighter killmail where the freighter has any modules that might even slightly help it to escape? WCS? Istab? Just FYI they can't fit WCs. Not enough CPU There you go then. In any combat situation, there is no reason for a solo freighter pilot to have any expectation of doing anything except dying. Freighters should travel in groups with escorts, or risk being ganked.
Know how I'd "fix" this whole hyperdunking thing? Remove most of the hull buffer, give them slightly bigger armor/shield buffers, change lows to rigs, compensate the base cargo capacities to be the same as they are today, and give them a 10% or maybe even 12.5% resist bonus per level to armor/shields, depending on race. They'd have the exact same cargo/EHP capability/tradeoffs they do today, with an extra something that encourages group play. Then whenever a freighter dies to this tactic, a second subscription automatically gets charged to the victim's account for a single month. See where I'm going with this?
Sounds pretty fair to me.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Dave Stark
7342
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 13:37:52 -
[600] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Know how I'd "fix" this whole hyperdunking thing?
you can't fix something that isn't broken. |
|
|
Daneau
Unconstrained Design
33
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 13:50:04 -
[601] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Know how I'd "fix" this whole hyperdunking thing? you can't fix something that isn't broken.
So you are saying CCP has been doing it wrong from patch 1 ? |
Hope Alar
Blue Tridents
Sev3rance
5
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 14:28:13 -
[602] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Hope Alar wrote:I don't see the logic in allowing one guy with 8 catalysts gank a freighter worth far more than his catalysts are worth. Well, for one, 8 catalysts can't really gank a freighter, be they flown by one guy or 8. For another, how is it illogical that 12 ships (using your numbers) can kill a single ship? Furthemore, how is it illogical that a cheaper set of ships can kill a more expensive one (usually, this is called GÇ£balancedGÇ¥ not GÇ£illogicalGÇ¥)? Quote:How is this avoidable if the pilot were at the keyboard? If he's a bit lucky, he can just warp off. If not, he has roughly 15 minutes to ask for help, either in making him lucky or in getting rid of the ganker. Quote:You cannot warp off due to the bumping Bumping does not disable your warp engines so you can warp off just fine. Coincidentally, this is also why bumping is not an illegal act and why it isn't classified as harassment unless it continues throughout multiple systems over a long period of time. Quote:So if a pilot absolutely wants to kill your freighter for a pittance compared to the ship, there is nothing stopping him? You can avoid him, shoot him, jam him, warp away from him, steal or otherwise reduce his available ships, or just plain outlast him. All of that at a cost of, oh, zero or so, if that was even relevant, which it isn't.
So you need more than 8 catalysts. The point that I was trying to get across is that this makes it far to easy to gank autopiloting freighters. I can understand if you actually had to assemble 12 or so actual pilots in catalysts, but a handful of people doing this in cheap disposable ships is what seems broken to me. That's the design generally of eve. Cheaper ships perform not as well as more expensive ships (think bank cata vs tornado), but more pilots dedicated to doing one thing will trump expensive ships (a group of frigates vs a bs).
You ever fly a freighter through high sec? Its worse than mining. The only reason I can tolerate it is the money it can make if I am dedicated, but with this announcement I will more than likely stop flying my freighter, or stop any hauling altogether. It isn't worth this risk.
I am sure hyper dunking will become more prevalent. I mean hell, I might start doing it too if its this easy. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2663
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 14:34:16 -
[603] - Quote
Hope Alar wrote:You ever fly a freighter through high sec? Its worse than mining. The only reason I can tolerate it is the money it can make if I am dedicated, but with this announcement I will more than likely stop flying my freighter, or stop any hauling altogether. It isn't worth this risk.
While there are "spite" ganks (empty freighter), they're pretty rare. I guarantee that you'll be pretty safe, even if AFK, if you simply tank the ship and not carry more than somewhere between a billion and two billion ISK worth of stuff.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24915
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 14:54:59 -
[604] - Quote
Hope Alar wrote:So you need more than 8 catalysts. The point that I was trying to get across is that GǪyou're clueless, and you managed that with gusto, by being wrong about pretty much ever single detail you offered to support your case.
Quote:this makes it far to easy to gank autopiloting freighters It's actually harder than the regular method since there's such an immense amount of things that can go wrong that a jollyjabber can't do anything about, but which a full fleet can deal with or aren't even bothered by.
Quote:That's the design generally of eve. Cheaper ships perform not as well as more expensive ships (think bank cata vs tornado), but more pilots dedicated to doing one thing will trump expensive ships (a group of frigates vs a bs). In other words, the design of EVE is followed to the letter here. The cheaper ships do no perform as well as a more expensive one in the same category, but they vastly outperform something in a different category. The cheaper ships also allow numbers to trivially trump a single pilot.
So what's broken? You're not making any sense.
Quote:You ever fly a freighter through high sec? It's pretty much what I do. It's trivially easy to the point of almost being boring, but you can spice it up by imagining (contrary to facts) that there are gankers around every corner and that you need to think of something to avoid them. So the risk is zero (or so close that it gets lost in the margin of error), and the rewards are pretty great.
Quote:I might start doing it too if its this easy. You should. You might learn something (of course, given the baseline, it would be hard not to irrespective of the outcome). It will not be what you want to learn. It would be great if you also stopped freightering just because of this status quo GÇö more money for me.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
89
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 14:58:18 -
[605] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Hope Alar wrote:[quote]So if a pilot absolutely wants to kill your freighter for a pittance compared to the ship, there is nothing stopping him? You can avoid him, shoot him, jam him, warp away from him, steal or otherwise reduce his available ships, or just plain outlast him. All of that at a cost of, oh, zero or so, if that was even relevant, which it isn't. Ok, so let me tell you why you are wrong on this:
"avoid him" So a freighter pilot can avoid going to Jita if they have stuff that needs to go to Jita, yeah, need to avoid the gankers even when the gankers are in the choke point of your route or in both your start and end locations... no.
"shoot him" And that would accomplish what exactly? It would blow up his catalyst a little sooner, so he would just use another and another and another, or he would start shooting you instead of the victim while the whole time keeping the victim bumped and unable to warp. Or worst case he would just bat phone his gank buddies and they would facemelt your do good ship with a few dozen catas then finish what they started with their original victim.
"jam him" This is only really partially effective in the cases where they are using not sebo'd thrashers, as a sebo'd thrasher will actually be allowed to start locking its target before the server tells the rest of the players that they are allowed to start locking him, therefore getting his volley off. In the cases it is not a thrasher, jams aren't 100%, and all they need is one missed jam and your fragile little jam ship gets blown up and they continue without your minor annoyance.
"warp away" Yeah, cause that always works for people being bumped. Bumping is an art, it can be hard to do if you aren't good at it, but if you are really good then its not really any trouble to keep the guy bumped. Even if you warped away they would see where you warped to and most likely land before you did.
"steal their ships" My guess is you don't realize the full potential safety of this yet, which I tried to explain above that people aren't fully utilizing this 'feature'. If you did it correctly you would never put a ship in space at all, the ganker just boards straight out of a bowhead/orca for the catas and shuttles.
Also to the mention of being completely safe if doing everything 200% correctly (and yes, I know, I routinely haul double digit billions in my freighter all the time, into/out of Jita, down the Niarja corridor etc). Since a cargo scan will complete whether or not the ship is still on grid by the time the scan finishes cycling, all they have to do is beat a non-sebo'd webbing frig with a sebo'd scan frig. At that point they know what you have.
Then they 2 options available:
1) use a sebo'd tackle frig to stop your warp before your web frig can get the lock, and suddenly you have time to get a bump in, with maybe another suicide noob tackle ship to give you a little extra time. Victim caught, proceed with normal gank via dozen pilots or single pilot hyperdunk.
2) use a sebo'd headshot nado gang, they will out-target a non sebo'd web frig every time, and to be extra sure you just use a sebo'd tackle frig to kill the initial warp for those first few seconds.
This is further worsened by staging the gank on a region gate, as the extreme distance that can be between the friendly web and the intended freighter if he can't hold cloak long enough to get in range.
BACK ON TOPIC: (not sure why the moderators seriously let any thread like this turn into back and forth about the hardships or lack thereof of ganking and all these gankers saying its too hard and complaining the carebears what CCP to hold their hands)
Someone mentioned bumping a gank victim and it being hard to keep dropping fresh catas close to the target. Again, you are thinking about Hyperdunking when not being used to its full potential. A bowhead can get up near 300m/s which is more than fast enough to keep up with a bumped freighter. The criminal just warps his pod to the bowhead and boards out of the maint bay each time, problem solved.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Dangeresque Too wrote:If you leave an empty ship somewhere else and try to board it under the criminal flag, Concord tells you no: "That ship, or its owner, are currently engaged with local police forces. CONCORD prohibits you from boarding it until the engagement is over." Right. This lasts for the duration of CONCORD shooting the criminal, not for the duration of the GCC flag. By saying this I know you have not tried this. I just again confirmed on sisi that it is for the entirety of your 15 minute criminal timer. For it to be only while you were shooting something makes no sense, as you can't change ships while shooting something and having a weapons timer. |
Hope Alar
Blue Tridents
Sev3rance
5
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 15:02:16 -
[606] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Hope Alar wrote:You ever fly a freighter through high sec? Its worse than mining. The only reason I can tolerate it is the money it can make if I am dedicated, but with this announcement I will more than likely stop flying my freighter, or stop any hauling altogether. It isn't worth this risk. While there are "spite" ganks (empty freighter), they're pretty rare. I guarantee that you'll be pretty safe, even if AFK, if you simply tank the ship and not carry more than somewhere between a billion and two billion ISK worth of stuff.
I've been hauling stuff nearly on a daily basis. And I do keep my hauls small (around 300-500m). I was ganked yesterday though, and the only reason I can see it is because a solid group of gank catalysts are cheap as dirt. If this catches on more (which I do not why it would not) this brings down the "safe" amount to afk pilot in a freighter very low. That is why this is poor game design. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16029
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 15:12:11 -
[607] - Quote
Hope Alar wrote:The point that I was trying to get across is that this makes it far to easy to gank autopiloting freighters...
Why shouldn't autopiloted ships be easy to gank?
Come to that why shouldn't a defenceless unescorted large cargo vessel be easy to gank. In the real world, it doesn't even take a Destroyer to do that; 5 Somalian fishermen with hand guns and an RPG-7 or two often manage it pretty handily.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Hope Alar
Blue Tridents
Sev3rance
5
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 15:12:52 -
[608] - Quote
Quote:this makes it far to easy to gank autopiloting freighters It's actually harder than the regular method since there's such an immense amount of things that can go wrong that a jollyjabber can't do anything about, but which a full fleet can deal with or aren't even bothered by.
That depends on how you consider it easier/harder. I was speaking in terms of getting the people to carry out such a gank. It just takes a handful of guys.
Quote:That's the design generally of eve. Cheaper ships perform not as well as more expensive ships (think bank cata vs tornado), but more pilots dedicated to doing one thing will trump expensive ships (a group of frigates vs a bs). In other words, the design of EVE is followed to the letter here. The cheaper ships do no perform as well as a more expensive one in the same category, but they vastly outperform something in a different category. The cheaper ships also allow numbers to trivially trump a single pilot.
The key distinction here is that you need to bring more pilots. Bringing more ships is a work around this, and that is what makes this asinine. 1-3 people can carry this out with very little cost. So tell me, why would Code not start parking gank squads like this at many more gate? I would if I were them. Most freighters are autopiloted.
If I want to take a small null roam out to catch and have a good engagement profile, I need to bring some nice ships generally. If I want to solo pvp you generally need a better ship than your enemy. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16029
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 15:13:36 -
[609] - Quote
Hope Alar wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Hope Alar wrote:You ever fly a freighter through high sec? Its worse than mining. The only reason I can tolerate it is the money it can make if I am dedicated, but with this announcement I will more than likely stop flying my freighter, or stop any hauling altogether. It isn't worth this risk. While there are "spite" ganks (empty freighter), they're pretty rare. I guarantee that you'll be pretty safe, even if AFK, if you simply tank the ship and not carry more than somewhere between a billion and two billion ISK worth of stuff. I've been hauling stuff nearly on a daily basis. And I do keep my hauls small (around 300-500m). I was ganked yesterday though, and the only reason I can see it is because a solid group of gank catalysts are cheap as dirt. If this catches on more (which I do not why it would not) this brings down the "safe" amount to afk pilot in a freighter very low. That is why this is poor game design.
Have you considered hauling such small loads in a faster or more defensible ship? You seem to be under the impression that a solo freighter outght to be safe, but I can't for the life of me think why you'd have that idea.
The Deep Space Transports got a very considerable tanking boost lately IIRC.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Hope Alar
Blue Tridents
Sev3rance
5
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 15:14:53 -
[610] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Hope Alar wrote:The point that I was trying to get across is that this makes it far to easy to gank autopiloting freighters... Why shouldn't autopiloted ships be easy to gank? Come to that why shouldn't a defenceless unescorted large cargo vessel be easy to gank. In the real world, it doesn't even take a Destroyer to do that; 5 Somalian fishermen with hand guns and an RPG-7 or two often manage it pretty handily.
This isn't real world. It shouldn't be easy because then what is the point in flying a freighter? Why should we drag our friends 26 jumps or so just to do nothing. They wouldn't, and I wouldnt ask them to do that. It is b oring enough for one person. |
|
|
Hope Alar
Blue Tridents
Sev3rance
5
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 15:18:31 -
[611] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Hope Alar wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Hope Alar wrote:You ever fly a freighter through high sec? Its worse than mining. The only reason I can tolerate it is the money it can make if I am dedicated, but with this announcement I will more than likely stop flying my freighter, or stop any hauling altogether. It isn't worth this risk. While there are "spite" ganks (empty freighter), they're pretty rare. I guarantee that you'll be pretty safe, even if AFK, if you simply tank the ship and not carry more than somewhere between a billion and two billion ISK worth of stuff. I've been hauling stuff nearly on a daily basis. And I do keep my hauls small (around 300-500m). I was ganked yesterday though, and the only reason I can see it is because a solid group of gank catalysts (with 2-3 pilots) are cheap as dirt. If this catches on more (which I do not why it would not) this brings down the "safe" amount to afk pilot in a freighter very low. That is why this is poor game design. Have you considered hauling such small loads in a faster or more defensible ship? You seem to be under the impression that a solo freighter outght to be safe, but I can't for the life of me think why you'd have that idea. The Deep Space Transports got a very considerable tanking boost lately IIRC.
I would not actually fly a deepspace transport that many jumps while active either. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2663
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 15:24:04 -
[612] - Quote
Hope Alar wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Hope Alar wrote:You ever fly a freighter through high sec? Its worse than mining. The only reason I can tolerate it is the money it can make if I am dedicated, but with this announcement I will more than likely stop flying my freighter, or stop any hauling altogether. It isn't worth this risk. While there are "spite" ganks (empty freighter), they're pretty rare. I guarantee that you'll be pretty safe, even if AFK, if you simply tank the ship and not carry more than somewhere between a billion and two billion ISK worth of stuff. I've been hauling stuff nearly on a daily basis. And I do keep my hauls small (around 300-500m). I was ganked yesterday though, and the only reason I can see it is because a solid group of gank catalysts are cheap as dirt. If this catches on more (which I do not why it would not) this brings down the "safe" amount to afk pilot in a freighter very low. That is why this is poor game design.
What did you carry, how much of it, and what was your setup?
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24915
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 15:28:03 -
[613] - Quote
Dangeresque Too wrote:"avoid him" So a freighter pilot can avoid going to Jita if they have stuff that needs to go to Jita, yeah, need to avoid the gankers even when the gankers are in the choke point of your route or in both your start and end locations... no.
"shoot him" And that would accomplish what exactly? It would blow up his catalyst a little sooner, so he would just use another and another and another, or he would start shooting you instead of the victim while the whole time keeping the victim bumped and unable to warp. Or worst case he would just bat phone his gank buddies and they would facemelt your do good ship with a few dozen catas then finish what they started with their original victim.
"jam him" This is only really partially effective in the cases where they are using not sebo'd thrashers, as a sebo'd thrasher will actually be allowed to start locking its target before the server tells the rest of the players that they are allowed to start locking him, therefore getting his volley off. In the cases it is not a thrasher, jams aren't 100%, and all they need is one missed jam and your fragile little jam ship gets blown up and they continue without your minor annoyance.
"warp away" Yeah, cause that always works for people being bumped. Bumping is an art, it can be hard to do if you aren't good at it, but if you are really good then its not really any trouble to keep the guy bumped. Even if you warped away they would see where you warped to and most likely land before you did.
"steal their ships" My guess is you don't realize the full potential safety of this yet, which I tried to explain above that people aren't fully utilizing this 'feature'. If you did it correctly you would never put a ship in space at all, the ganker just boards straight out of a bowhead/orca for the catas and shuttles.
Yes, avoid him. The gank will not happen in Jita or any of the surrounding system, at least not with this tactic. There are only a handful of systems that you probably have to go through and those are the ones you need to keep an eye on and spot the right moment to go through (or just use other means to skip). No target = no attack = you win.
Yes, shoot him. That would immediately accomplish him not being on the field killing you, and it rapidly eats up his cache of ships which will soon mean the kill becomes impossible. More importantly, it makes you a hard target. Given the already very narrow set of circumstances under which ganks will work to begin with, anything that risks pushing the target outside of that niche will mean it's not worth the gankers' time and effort. Mission kill = you win.
Yes, jam him. This is almost exactly the same thing as shooting him, with the main difference that it's hellalot more effective. He has ~20s to get as much damage in as possible. A jam lastsGǪ (drumroll)GǪ 20 seconds, and against something as tiny as a destroyer, you are pretty much guaranteed to succeed. Cache reduced; he's gone from the field; mission kill = you win.
Yes, warp away. The killing spot is in one place GÇö where the gank ships are being dumped into space. If you are no longer at that spot, he can't re-ship and keep killing you. So chasing you down is not an option GÇö look at the warp speed of Bowheads and Orcas. Bumping does not keep you from warping, it just puts at waaaaaaay above the speed threshold in a new direction. Warping off in that direction happens instantly. Can't follow = mission kill = you win.
Yes, steal his ships. You have apparently not realise this yet, but he needs two sets: one at the killing spot, one at a safe spot. Steal from either, and he no longer has anything to fly and/or kite CONCORD with. Can't attack = mission kill = you win.
Quote:I routinely haul double digit billions in my freighter all the time, into/out of Jita, down the Niarja corridor etc. Case closed. Like everyone else, you know full well that even though employing all the above strategies works perfectly, doing so is utterly unnecessary because there's pretty much nothing to avoid.
We never left the topic. The topic was, is, and remains how this status quo doesn't change of anything, and how some people apparently don't get this redundancy. It is still a woefully useless tactic against any kind of aware target; it is still far less effective, far more cumbersome, and far more risky than a regular gank; and it is still far easier to counter in any of the myriad ways explained to you by both gankers and freighter pilots.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
534
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 15:29:04 -
[614] - Quote
Hope Alar wrote:This isn't real world. Well you got that bit right.
Quote:It shouldn't be easy because then what is the point in flying a freighter? It shouldn't be easy to fly cargos worth billions of isk across a universe that has the occasional pirate looking to liberate that cargo, but for the most part it's so damn easy that you can do it without even being at the keyboard if you're that way inclined.
Quote:Why should we drag our friends 26 jumps or so just to do nothing. So that you don't fall victim to the above mentioned pirates who want to liberate your cargo.
Quote:They wouldn't, and I wouldnt ask them to do that. Why not?
Quote:It is boring enough for one person. So why do it?
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24915
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 15:30:14 -
[615] - Quote
Hope Alar wrote:This isn't real world. True enough. If it were, ganking would be hell of a lot easier.
Quote:It shouldn't be easy because then what is the point in flying a freighter? To haul bulk cargo.
Quote:Why should we drag our friends 26 jumps or so just to do nothing. They wouldn't, and I wouldnt ask them to do that. It is b oring enough for one person. Just having people along makes it a lot less boring; if they're actively scanning for threats, then that reduces the boredom by a significant amount too.
It is boring if you make it boring, so choose not to.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16030
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 15:31:07 -
[616] - Quote
Hope Alar wrote:Malcanis wrote:Hope Alar wrote:The point that I was trying to get across is that this makes it far to easy to gank autopiloting freighters... Why shouldn't autopiloted ships be easy to gank? Come to that why shouldn't a defenceless unescorted large cargo vessel be easy to gank. In the real world, it doesn't even take a Destroyer to do that; 5 Somalian fishermen with hand guns and an RPG-7 or two often manage it pretty handily. This isn't real world. It shouldn't be easy because then what is the point in flying a freighter? Why should we drag our friends 26 jumps or so just to do nothing. They wouldn't, and I wouldnt ask them to do that. It is b oring enough for one person.
The point of the freighter is to move very large amounts of materiel through space that you are sure is safe. For instance that space might be safe for you, because you're travelling in a well escorted convoy. Nowhere is it written in the Freighter's description that it's suitable for solo AFK hauling.
Other haulers are very specifically described as being suitable for moving goods through dangerous space.
If I said that the game was "badly designed" because I couldn't chase and tackle a cruiser gang with my Archon, I'd be laughed off the forums. Yet for some reason you expect to be taken seriously when you want an incredibly slow, easily targetted capital class ship with no highs or mids to be suitable for solo AFK hauling.
In essence, my thesis is that you have wrong expectations and are angry when they are not being met. But the problem is your expectations, not the conditions that fail to meet them.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
559
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 15:33:16 -
[617] - Quote
Hope Alar wrote:I would not actually fly a deepspace transport that many jumps while active either.
So basically you are just not willing to actually play the game.
Why do you feel that you are entitled to have your stuff move around New Eden in 100% safety while you are not at your keyboard? Allowing that would be much worse game design than allowing this difficult-to-execute and easily avoidable ganking attack.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24915
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 15:40:53 -
[618] - Quote
Hope Alar wrote:That depends on how you consider it easier/harder. I was speaking in terms of getting the people to carry out such a gank. It just takes a handful of guys. So, harder. Everyone has more to juggle.
Quote:The key distinction here is that you need to bring more pilots. Bringing more ships is a work around this, and that is what makes this asinine. 1-3 people can carry this out with very little cost. So tell me, why would Code not start parking gank squads like this at many more gate? Because it's less effective and reduces the number of viable targets. That's the key distinction you keep missing: having fewer pilots makes it less efficient. And you keep bringing up cost. You understand that cost is irrelevant, yes? And you understand that, even if it wasn't, this strategy makes the costs go up?
Quote:If I want to take a small null roam out to catch and have a good engagement profile, I need to bring some nice ships generally. Not really, no.
Quote:I would not actually fly a deepspace transport that many jumps while active either. In short, you don't want to fly that many jumps. Have you considered moving your operation closer to your destination? Have you considered a completely different operation? Your problem has nothing to do with the ships or the gankers. They have to do with you and your dislike of flying around in space. That is a problem that will be very hard to solve in EVE, where lots of things rather rely on flying around in space.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
David Mandrake
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
4
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 16:13:34 -
[619] - Quote
Hope Alar wrote:This isn't real world. It shouldn't be easy because then what is the point in flying a freighter? Why should we drag our friends 26 jumps or so just to do nothing. They wouldn't, and I wouldnt ask them to do that. It is b oring enough for one person.
Because if one of them is a webber it doesn't take nearly as long as just flying the freighter there normally. I know I keep harping "use a webbing alt!" but they're just so useful to hauling that it's stupid. Not only do they prevent you from getting ganked(and at the Dangeresque point: Hyenas can web out to 40km with meta webs, a Cruor can do 20km. Regional gates aren't a huge issue, in that case), but they significantly decrease the time it takes you to get to warp. Adding on a warp speed implant to increase your speed a bit and it doesn't take that much time; I can do 20ish jumps in an hour, and that's with scouting and preprep work. If I just wanted to go for speed and just yolo the freighter through I could probably do it a bit faster. As well there's the suggestion to move your operation a bit closer; rather than make 20 jump trips every time I wanted to haul something, I've moved back out to the Forge for my industrial work, allowing me easy access to Jita and relatively close access to Amarr and Dodixie, and the Forge has enough highsec systems that I can generally find somewhere that's cheap to manufacture something, or do research, or whatnot. And I don't really have to make 20+ jump trips every day.
If you're doing courier contracts sure, it might be a bit more difficult... however I'd bring up the point that if you can't find time to play the way you want to, perhaps you should play a different way? I didn't start out wanting to be an industrialist; however it's a great playstyle for someone that doesn't have too much time to play (Initially I'd wanted to actually set up a daily freight run between trade hubs and make ISK that way but then I realized how time consuming it'd be to do it right, and how stupid it'd be to do it wrong). I'm generally only periodically updating market orders (and also proximity to Jita again means that I can actually do that remotely now) and most of my money making activities can actually be done when I'm offline and then dumped on market later when I have the opportunity. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14770
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 18:27:53 -
[620] - Quote
Dangeresque Too wrote:
"avoid him" So a freighter pilot can avoid going to Jita if they have stuff that needs to go to Jita, yeah, need to avoid the gankers even when the gankers are in the choke point of your route or in both your start and end locations... no.
Use a webbing alt/pal/buddy/guy to get you into warp so fast you go sideways.
Dangeresque Too wrote:
"shoot him" And that would accomplish what exactly?
All ganking ships that are t2 fitted are profitable to gank, even cats.
Dangeresque Too wrote:
"jam him" This is only really partially effective in the cases where they are using not sebo'd thrashers, as a sebo'd thrasher will actually be allowed to start locking its target before the server tells the rest of the players that they are allowed to start locking him, therefore getting his volley off. In the cases it is not a thrasher, jams aren't 100%, and all they need is one missed jam and your fragile little jam ship gets blown up and they continue without your minor annoyance.
Thashers are not used in ganking freighters, blaster ships are used so a blackbird can infact cause a lot of problems for the gank ships. Given the need for gal ship you can also fill the mids with the correct ECM for the job too.
Dangeresque Too wrote:
"warp away" Yeah, cause that always works for people being bumped. Bumping is an art, it can be hard to do if you aren't good at it, but if you are really good then its not really any trouble to keep the guy bumped. Even if you warped away they would see where you warped to and most likely land before you did.
Get a fast frigate 150km+ in front of the freighter and it can warp to the frigate.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16033
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 19:57:43 -
[621] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dangeresque Too wrote:
"shoot him" And that would accomplish what exactly?
All ganking ships that are t2 fitted are profitable to gank, even cats.
Especially if they have a GCC,
Ah but we're forgetting that gankers have infinite resources and their time is worth nothing. Also they have special powers like fitting unlimited replacement ships into SMAs
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
49
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 19:59:42 -
[622] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dangeresque Too wrote:
"shoot him" And that would accomplish what exactly?
All ganking ships that are t2 fitted are profitable to gank, even cats. Especially if they have a GCC, Ah but we're forgetting that gankers have infinite resources and their time is worth nothing. Also they have special powers like fitting unlimited replacement ships into SMAs
WTB Ganker that flies around with GCC in his fitted T2 ship...
You are smarter than that. Those ships are dropped at the time they are going to be used, you aren't going to get anything because the wreck you see will be Blue and from Concord. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24915
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 20:13:00 -
[623] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:WTB Ganker that flies around with GCC in his fitted T2 ship... Oh, that would be roughly all of them, at least if they engage in jollyjabbing.
Quote:You are smarter than that. Probably, but there's no need to be smarter than that to figure out that, yes, GCC + T2 fit = very profitable kill.
Quote:Those ships are dropped at the time they are going to be used, you aren't going to get anything because the wreck you see will be Blue and from Concord. That's why makes ganking them so profitable: no risk of counter-gank due to S-timers from the loot.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14771
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 20:59:25 -
[624] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Malcanis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dangeresque Too wrote:
"shoot him" And that would accomplish what exactly?
All ganking ships that are t2 fitted are profitable to gank, even cats. Especially if they have a GCC, Ah but we're forgetting that gankers have infinite resources and their time is worth nothing. Also they have special powers like fitting unlimited replacement ships into SMAs WTB Ganker that flies around with GCC in his fitted T2 ship... You are smarter than that. Those ships are dropped at the time they are going to be used, you aren't going to get anything because the wreck you see will be Blue and from Concord.
Not only will they have this when doing this trick but a great many are -10 to start with.
But lets assume they do not have a GCC and they are +5. You can just gank them and turn a profit.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Rift Tarkken
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 21:00:29 -
[625] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rift Tarkken wrote:
"Excuse me if I thought this is EVE Online where the game is supposed to take a modicum of effort." - It's only supposed to be harder if you're a miner, mission runner, FW pilot, industrialist, hauler, etc. If you PvP or gank, it needs to be easier. Especially if you are PVP'ing or Ganking one of the above. Didn't you know that? :-)
Please point out any way in which mining has punitive mechanical effects. In fact, all those you listed and cried about, have zero mechanical consequences for doing them. (and no, mission running faction rep doesn't count) And only ganking actually has any mechanical repercussion for doing it. So, yeah... shut it, carebear, and play the game already.
LOL! Sarcasm - "the use of irony to mock or convey contempt."
1) "Please point out any way in which mining has punitive mechanical effects." - punitive mechanical effects - WTF? Well, my Hulk's Knurled Piston rubs against the Differential Cones causing excessive wear on my Planetary Gears.
2) "... those you listed and cried about, have zero mechanical consequences for doing them."
a) "... cried about..." - See definition of Sarcasm. Also, taking a minute to bathe in your tears here....
b) "... mechanical consequences..." - None. I'm Gallente, I don't use drones.
3) "... shut it, carebear, and play the game already." - Hmm.. let's see, EVE General Discussions thread. Shouldn't you have just said, "Only my opinion matters. Yours doesn't. You're not allowed to post here because your opinion doesn't agree with mine." ?
Well, off to play the game... :-)
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
537
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 01:17:31 -
[626] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:WTB Ganker that flies around with GCC in his fitted T2 ship...
You are smarter than that. Those ships are dropped at the time they are going to be used, you aren't going to get anything because the wreck you see will be Blue and from Concord. Why would Concord get involved?
Considering it takes very little to kill a T2 fitted gank ship, if more than one module drops you've more than paid for the ship you use to kill them.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 03:50:03 -
[627] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: In any combat situation, there is no reason for a solo freighter pilot to have any expectation of doing anything except dying. Freighters should travel in groups with escorts, or risk being ganked.
Why should that be the logical conclusion? (that freighters should travel in groups or risked being ganked) The problem with this outcome is that it literally makes no sense in the context of space that empire kills happen. Would it make any sense for an area that is controlled by powerful factions such as concord and and the empires to allow the same criminal acts to happen by the same people ad infinitum?
Now before you start in on my about arguments about realism having no place in a gaming context, essentially that's what gankers are adovcating for here: "You have to travel in packs, you have to fit right, you have to carry the right things in the right quantity." All of that is arguing for "realism". So either we can both proffer the same types of arguments or neither of us can without this being a completely pointless conversation.
The problem as I see it is that while ganking in hi sec does have consequences, they don't fit the crime. Note, that I'm not advocating for 100% safety in hi-sec, I'm not advocating for removal of ganking. What I'm merely saying is that all things being equal the fact that its possible to make a daily career out of being a ganker no matter how un-favorable or favorable the game's mechanics makes it, doesn't seem right in the context of space we are talking about.
I think a possible measure to add would be for either concord/faction police to have longer "memories" or for them to start following known criminals around in small numbers no matter where they go in protected space.
The second problem I have with your premise is that industry in Eve already isn't "fun". (I'm not sure who would make the argument that moving anything around in a freighter is fun, but I'm sure someone is going to try anyway) So again if "realism" should have no part of an internet spaceship game, then why shouldn't fun enter the equation? (Unless we also need to look up what the point/definition of a "game" is). Anyway, does it make any sense that the game mechanics should necessitate group play to do some of the most basic and tedious tasks that should all rights be confined to a single player/character? Because based off your reasoning, needing an escort just to move things around in space is going to make the game pretty boring for more people than it should, and if that's the case, then what is the point of it? |
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 03:53:13 -
[628] - Quote
David Mandrake wrote:
I know I keep harping "use a webbing alt!" but they're just so useful to hauling that it's stupid.
With the changes to corp friendly fire, I'm curious how long this is going to remain as useful as it has. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14775
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 04:22:18 -
[629] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:David Mandrake wrote:
I know I keep harping "use a webbing alt!" but they're just so useful to hauling that it's stupid.
With the changes to corp friendly fire, I'm curious how long this is going to remain as useful as it has.
This is yet another case of high sec begging for a change that has backfired. It is still possible to pull off just quite as easily.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
David Mandrake
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
7
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 04:53:22 -
[630] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:David Mandrake wrote:
I know I keep harping "use a webbing alt!" but they're just so useful to hauling that it's stupid.
With the changes to corp friendly fire, I'm curious how long this is going to remain as useful as it has.
You can toggle friendly fire to be on; and I believe it's going to be on by default for old corps (off by default for new ones). I personally plan to leave it turned on in my alt corp specifically to allow me to use a webbing alt, as I don't want to mess around with duel requests. However, in anticipation of there not being a toggle switch, I had planned to simply have a second alt corp which would house my webbing alt. This corp and my primary alt corp would then declare a mutual war, costing me whatever the minimum wardec fee is for the first week (50m I think?); and afterwards be free and essentially not change anything about how I operate on a day to day basis.
In any case even if they removed intra-corp aggression and wardecs entirely from the game(which I sincerely hope they don't), you can always simply have the freighter request a duel with your webbing alt and have the freighter set to autoreject duels, so that any accidental acceptance of duels in space would simply result in the loss of the webber, which is going to be the cheaper of the two ships. I believe duels can also be initiated while docked in station (the option is there), so if you slip your finger and invite the wrong person to the duel, you can always remain docked up until the limited engagement timer expires, and then try again.
So at current despite the intra-corp aggression changes, there are many options available to you if you would like to use a webbing alt. You simply have to choose the one that works best for you, and go with it. |
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14775
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 05:12:01 -
[631] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Malcanis wrote: In any combat situation, there is no reason for a solo freighter pilot to have any expectation of doing anything except dying. Freighters should travel in groups with escorts, or risk being ganked.
Why should that be the logical conclusion?
They are under attack from a fleet, why wouldn't it die?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2663
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 05:42:47 -
[632] - Quote
Wait a second, grinding for money, for example by hauling huge amounts of cargo from one place to another in a slow, defenseless ship, is supposed to be easy and fun just because it's a mechanic in a video game? But if that were to be fun, then why would anyone do anything else that's arguably more risky and less enjoyable because of potential setbacks and...
Oh.
I get it now.
I get what these people are arguing for.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
454
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 05:49:57 -
[633] - Quote
It's not a question of being easy...it's a question of having an effective enough criminal justice system to deter repeated illegal ganking of empty freighters. The solution isn't alts, webbing, escorts, etc.... the solution is for meaningful punishments for repeat offenders, so that they need to be much more discriminating about when they commit crimes...and no more of the absurd gankfests in Uedama. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11586
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 05:51:05 -
[634] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:It's not a question of being easy...it's a question of having an effective enough criminal justice system to deter repeated illegal ganking of empty freighters. The solution isn't alts, webbing, escorts, etc.... the solution is for meaningful punishments for repeat offenders, so that they need to be much more discriminating about when they commit crimes...and no more of the absurd gankfests in Uedama.
No.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2665
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 05:53:35 -
[635] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:It's not a question of being easy...it's a question of having an effective enough criminal justice system to deter repeated illegal ganking of empty freighters. The solution isn't alts, webbing, escorts, etc.... the solution is for meaningful punishments for repeat offenders, so that they need to be much more discriminating about when they commit crimes...and no more of the absurd gankfests in Uedama.
I agree; players in the law-abiding category should get together in groups and enforce justice against EVE's criminal element.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
454
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 05:59:43 -
[636] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:It's not a question of being easy...it's a question of having an effective enough criminal justice system to deter repeated illegal ganking of empty freighters. The solution isn't alts, webbing, escorts, etc.... the solution is for meaningful punishments for repeat offenders, so that they need to be much more discriminating about when they commit crimes...and no more of the absurd gankfests in Uedama. I agree; players in the law-abiding category should get together in groups and enforce justice against EVE's criminal element.
And how do you propose that they do that? Blow up nearly worthless glass cannon catalysts? Blow up empty pods? Force the gankers to reveal the identity of their nullsec PvE alts? Give the gankers 15 year jail sentences? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11586
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:03:31 -
[637] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
And how do you propose that they do that?
Being a real player instead of a carebear.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:12:20 -
[638] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
And how do you propose that they do that?
Being a real player instead of a carebear.
Then why have concord at all? |
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:13:08 -
[639] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
They are under attack from a fleet, why wouldn't it die?
Why would it be under attack from a fleet in the first place?
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:14:52 -
[640] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Wait a second, grinding for money, for example by hauling huge amounts of cargo from one place to another in a slow, defenseless ship, is supposed to be easy and fun just because it's a mechanic in a video game? But if that were to be fun, then why would anyone do anything else that's arguably more risky and less enjoyable because of potential setbacks and...
Oh.
I get it now.
I get what these people are arguing for.
The word grind is not usually synonymous with the word fun... but for some people... maybe. |
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14777
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:19:10 -
[641] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
They are under attack from a fleet, why wouldn't it die?
Why would it be under attack from a fleet in the first place?
Because piracy.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:19:21 -
[642] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:players in the law-abiding category should get together in groups and enforce justice against EVE's criminal element.
I'm curious, what does this actually look like in practical terms? Or rather I'm curious why there hasn't been any real attempt. Surely if its as easy as everyone says it is, SOMEONE would have been successful enough at to be newsworthy though?
Either its so easy to enforce justice that no one wants to bother, or its so hard to enforce justice that no one wants to bother, or no one wants to bother. So from a game design standpoint, the devs should be asking the question, why does no one bother? |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2666
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:20:37 -
[643] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
And how do you propose that they do that?
Being a real player instead of a carebear.
No, he brings at least a somewhat valid point with that. Now, we can agree that the mechanics for doing this are in place (you can freely engage the pirates). All that's left now is incentive. Half of the equation already exists in the form of bounties, but we can't make bounties worth more than a certain percentage of the kills themselves, or they will be exploited. So how about we have CCP implement some things like ranks and medals for enforcing the law against criminal scumbags? We can even translate some of the bonuses into direct gains, such as increased mission payouts/LP gains (basically, rewards applicable for content that the gankers wouldn't engage in to begin with, preventing self-benefit exploits). Perfect solution? No, but it's something.
See, when you're talking about defending yourself , the incentives are already there (mainly, that you get to live and keep your stuff if you succeed). Granted, very few carebears are proactive enough to even attempt to try to defend themselves, let alone other people. The trick to changing this isn't to force them into doing something, but to make them think that they should be doing something. This is where CCP has failed, although by Zeus I think they're starting to realize this, after twelve years, with things like burner missions.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:21:08 -
[644] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
They are under attack from a fleet, why wouldn't it die?
Why would it be under attack from a fleet in the first place? Because piracy.
Because piracy happens so often in heavily guarded locations in the same way by the same people all the time... Oh... right. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14777
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:22:16 -
[645] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:players in the law-abiding category should get together in groups and enforce justice against EVE's criminal element. I'm curious, what does this actually look like in practical terms? Or rather I'm curious why there hasn't been any real attempt. Surely if its as easy as everyone says it is, SOMEONE would have been successful enough at to be newsworthy though? Either its so easy to enforce justice that no one wants to bother, or its so hard to enforce justice that no one wants to bother, or no one wants to bother. So from a game design standpoint, the devs should be asking the question, why does no one bother?
It requires an alt/corpmate in a webbing ship worth less than a million isk.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:23:37 -
[646] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:players in the law-abiding category should get together in groups and enforce justice against EVE's criminal element. I'm curious, what does this actually look like in practical terms? Or rather I'm curious why there hasn't been any real attempt. Surely if its as easy as everyone says it is, SOMEONE would have been successful enough at to be newsworthy though? Either its so easy to enforce justice that no one wants to bother, or its so hard to enforce justice that no one wants to bother, or no one wants to bother. So from a game design standpoint, the devs should be asking the question, why does no one bother? It requires an alt/corpmate in a webbing ship worth less than a million isk.
No. Avoiding fights is not the same as enforcing justice. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14777
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:24:51 -
[647] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Because piracy happens so often in heavily guarded locations in the same way by the same people all the time... Oh... right.
Yes it does.
It also helps when the target is effectively transporting gold bullion on the back of a flatbed with zero guards or defences.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14777
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:26:00 -
[648] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
No. Avoiding fights is not the same as enforcing justice.
It keeps you alive.
If you want to kill them then do so. Even the cats are profitable to gank.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:27:13 -
[649] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
No. Avoiding fights is not the same as enforcing justice.
It keeps you alive. If you want to kill them then do so. Even the cats are profitable to gank.
So why don't people? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11589
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:27:40 -
[650] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
And how do you propose that they do that?
Being a real player instead of a carebear. Then why have concord at all?
Good point. It's long outlived it's usefulness, and is a painfully antiquated mechanic.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2666
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:28:43 -
[651] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:players in the law-abiding category should get together in groups and enforce justice against EVE's criminal element. I'm curious, what does this actually look like in practical terms? Or rather I'm curious why there hasn't been any real attempt. Surely if its as easy as everyone says it is, SOMEONE would have been successful enough at to be newsworthy though? Either its so easy to enforce justice that no one wants to bother, or its so hard to enforce justice that no one wants to bother, or no one wants to bother. So from a game design standpoint, the devs should be asking the question, why does no one bother?
I've trained people to survive in this game. Not on a mass scale, and not using the same logic as the major rookie training organizations. But I have taken some individuals and shaped them in a manner they weren't pursuing by their own volition. Most have turned out quite well.
Could I do this on a bigger scale? Probably, if I were motivated enough (my life is pretty ****** atm), and had access to significant funding. The problem is that aside from altruism, there's nothing in it for me. This is likely the case for other people similar to myself as well.
CCP has failed here too. Were I in charge, I would have created CCP-sanctioned corporations with leaders chosen from the community to teach new players skills that go beyond which mining crystal to use when, and what type of hardener to fit for what mission. Granted, EVE-Uni and Brave do this, but where's a training corporation to teach new players actual piracy, or infiltration, or extortion? Why are these things not included in the tutorial?
Have you noticed how many people turn out when CCP is running their own fleet? People drop their mining lasers and everything just to try to get in on that.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:29:25 -
[652] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Because piracy happens so often in heavily guarded locations in the same way by the same people all the time... Oh... right.
Yes it does. It also helps when the target is effectively transporting gold bullion on the back of a flatbed with zero guards or defences.
Hmm. I'll remember that the next time I take a trip to the coin show and bring a few gold bars home.
Maybe the real problem is that cargo scanners exist. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11589
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:32:31 -
[653] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Hmm. I'll remember that the next time I take a trip to the coin show and bring a few gold bars home.
Maybe the real problem is that cargo scanners exist.
The real problem is that people like you think that you shouldn't have to put any effort into defending yourself in a PvP game.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:32:53 -
[654] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I've trained people to survive in this game.
And as I've been arguing with Baltec, survival != enforcing justice. There's a big gap between the original post I quoted and players "surviving".
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
The problem is that aside from altruism, there's nothing in it for me. This is likely the case for other people similar to myself as well.
I thought ganking cats was profitable? Oh, I get it, you mean that there are more profitable things for you to do, i.e. opportunity costs. |
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:33:40 -
[655] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Hmm. I'll remember that the next time I take a trip to the coin show and bring a few gold bars home.
Maybe the real problem is that cargo scanners exist.
The real problem is that people like you think that you shouldn't have to put any effort into defending yourself in a PvP game.
The real problem is that people like you think that you should be able to do the same things over and over and over again without real consequences. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14785
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:34:20 -
[656] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
So why don't people?
Lazy, cowardly, idiotic, greedy.
I often wonder why people stuff several billion into an unescorted, anti-tanked hauler.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14788
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:35:30 -
[657] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Hmm. I'll remember that the next time I take a trip to the coin show and bring a few gold bars home.
Maybe the real problem is that cargo scanners exist.
The real problem is that people like you think that you shouldn't have to put any effort into defending yourself in a PvP game. The real problem is that people like you think that you should be able to do the same things over and over and over again without real consequences.
There is consequences.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2666
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:36:44 -
[658] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
The problem is that aside from altruism, there's nothing in it for me. This is likely the case for other people similar to myself as well.
I thought ganking cats was profitable? Oh, I get it, you mean that there are more profitable things for you to do, i.e. opportunity costs.
I was talking about teaching players, not counter-ganking gankers. Please read (all) of my posts carefully.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:37:45 -
[659] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
There is consequences.
Sure, never said there were no consequences. I believe what I was saying was that there were no meaningful consequences. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11589
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:39:01 -
[660] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
The real problem is that people like you think that you should be able to do the same things over and over and over again without real consequences.
If you really want to go down that road, I'd like to talk about mission running and mining.
Besides, just because we deal with and accept the consequences, doesn't mean they don't exist.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14788
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:40:21 -
[661] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Sure, never said there were no consequences. I believe what I was saying was that there were no meaningful consequences.
In that case Im sure you wont mind having all of the the same consequences happen to every other high sec activity such as mining and mission running. Afterall, they are not meaningful.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:41:50 -
[662] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
The problem is that aside from altruism, there's nothing in it for me. This is likely the case for other people similar to myself as well.
I thought ganking cats was profitable? Oh, I get it, you mean that there are more profitable things for you to do, i.e. opportunity costs. I was talking about teaching players, not counter-ganking gankers. Please read (all) of my posts carefully.
Oh? Its kinda hard to gather that from this post. I'm not sure given the context of the other posts around it or what you were replying to that you were ever implying that training players was what you were talking about.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I agree; players in the law-abiding category should get together in groups and enforce justice against EVE's criminal element.
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:43:11 -
[663] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Sure, never said there were no consequences. I believe what I was saying was that there were no meaningful consequences.
In that case Im sure you wont mind having all of the the same consequences happen to every other high sec activity such as mining and mission running. Afterall, they are not meaningful.
Are referring to how most of the PVE mods in this game have penalites, but most of the PVP mods don't? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11589
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:43:39 -
[664] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Sure, never said there were no consequences. I believe what I was saying was that there were no meaningful consequences.
Yes, there are, or gankers would be able to fly around in blinged ships, or anything that isn't disposable for that matter.
The consequences are there, and are visible because of how they effect the actions of the gankers.
You're just butthurt because you think consequences should result in them being unable to gank. Too bad.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:46:26 -
[665] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Besides, just because we deal with and accept the consequences, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Who said anything about consequences not existing? I surely didn't. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14789
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:48:00 -
[666] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Sure, never said there were no consequences. I believe what I was saying was that there were no meaningful consequences.
In that case Im sure you wont mind having all of the the same consequences happen to every other high sec activity such as mining and mission running. Afterall, they are not meaningful. Are referring to how most of the PVE mods in this game have penalites, but most of the PVP mods don't?
Now you are just being stupid, you know exactly what I mean. Every time you attack an NPC or mine a rock you will suffer all the mechanics that come into play for gankers. Concord will kill you, sec status loss, GCC, ect.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:51:18 -
[667] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Yes, there are, or gankers would be able to fly around in blinged ships, or anything that isn't disposable for that matter.
The consequences are there, and are visible because of how they effect the actions of the gankers.
You're just butthurt because you think consequences should result in them being unable to gank. Too bad.
See this is why I don't generally like making comments on these boards, because people have a bad tendency to accuse you of saying things that you never said even after you've made disclaimers stating that you weren't saying it.
Also, A. I'm not buthurtt about because, well I haven't lost anything to a gank. (Well at least not a hi sec one). You are more than welcome to check the billboards. B. I think people should be able to gank. Murders happen all the time. What I am saying however, is that in Eve's context , it makes no logical sense that one should be able to repeatedly attack targets in heavily patrolled areas on a daily basis.
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:53:03 -
[668] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Now you are just being stupid, you know exactly what I mean. Every time you attack an NPC or mine a rock you will suffer all the mechanics that come into play for gankers. Concord will kill you, sec status loss, GCC, ect.
Why would concord attack you for doing their job for them? OHHH. This actually gives me a great idea. We should remove NPCS completely from the game and all missions should be to attack people with bounties and sec status below 0.0! |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11589
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:56:28 -
[669] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:What I am saying however, is that in Eve's context , it makes no logical sense that one should be able to repeatedly attack targets in heavily patrolled areas on a daily basis.
It also makes no logical sense that the Magic Space Police can find you without fail, scram you without fail, and blow you up without fail. 100% of the time.
Or you know what really makes no sense? That you can ever repeat a mission. That same girl can't possibly be kidnapped that many times from exactly the same place. Or heck, the mere fact that missions don't run out, you can do them over and over and over and over from the same agent.
That makes no logical sense.
Or hey, maybe we're playing a videogame?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 06:59:38 -
[670] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
It also makes no logical sense that the Magic Space Police can find you without fail, scram you without fail, and blow you up without fail. 100% of the time.
You mean because its so hard to find people that are attacking others in broad day light in the middle of busy intersections? Or the fact that scrams are actually chance based, or that ships die under concentrated fire when they can't escape?
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Or hey, maybe we're playing a videogame?
Well some people are.
EDIT: HAHA, If you want to argue that the magic space police shouldn't be able to find you anywhere that you are when aren't attacking others but still have your concord timer. Sure, that's logical. Granted that would also make this entire thread utterly pointless... |
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11589
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 07:03:06 -
[671] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
You mean because its so hard to find people that are attacking others in broad day light in the middle of busy intersections?
I learned to drive in Las Vegas, that isn't hard to believe at all. Police response time even to a ten man gun battle isn't less than ten minutes.
Quote:
Or the fact that scrams are actually chance based, or that ships die under concentrated fire when they can't escape?
No, that the Magic Space Police don't obey any of the game's rules for ships, and are completely arbitrary. They should be tankable, fallible, and not magically show up like they're omnipotent or something.
If you actually care about what makes logical sense, and you aren't just trying to twist that statement to your own benefit, you will have to agree.
Quote:
Well some people are.
And judging by your statements, you aren't one of them.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 07:08:17 -
[672] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No, that the Magic Space Police don't obey any of the game's rules for ships, and are completely arbitrary. They should be tankable, fallible, and not magically show up like they're omnipotent or something.
Because the rest of the games NPCs aren't immune to almost all types of EWAR and they obey all the laws and rules that we are bound by...
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If you actually care about what makes logical sense, and you aren't just trying to twist that statement to your own benefit, you will have to agree.
I would if you statements made any logical sense. I'm pretty agreeable to most points that are logical. For one thing I think the arguement that isk tanking should be a thing is pretty stupid.. in other words 2bil freighter > 600mil in cats.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And judging by your statements, you aren't one of them.
Right back at ya. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11594
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 07:13:01 -
[673] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: I'm pretty agreeable to most points that are logical.
And yet, "the single most explicitly non combat ship in the game should not have a chance against 15+ combat ships" is something you take exception to?
Yeah, somehow I don't believe you. You are only talking about "logic" when it serves to advance your heinous agenda.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2666
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 07:13:37 -
[674] - Quote
The game has two distinct play styles.
One play style's consequences are created by the players themselves.
The other play style's consequences are created by the developers in the form of NPC intervention.
This already implies that one side is operating at a massive handicap. If there was true fairness, all consequences would either be provided by NPCs or players, for all play styles.
And I'm going to have to go ahead and remind you that this is a social, player-driven, sandbox game.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 07:15:16 -
[675] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And yet, "the single most explicitly non combat ship in the game should not have a chance against 15+ combat ships" is something you take exception to?
Yeah, somehow I don't believe you. You are only talking about "logic" when it serves to advance your heinous agenda.
I could see your point, if that is actually what I'm talking about, but since its not, I will let you continue to believe what you want.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11595
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 07:17:40 -
[676] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
I could see your point, if that is actually what I'm talking about, but since its not, I will let you continue to believe what you want.
Spin all you want. When you are actually willing to discuss something, this thread will still be here.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 07:21:21 -
[677] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
I could see your point, if that is actually what I'm talking about, but since its not, I will let you continue to believe what you want.
Spin all you want. When you are actually willing to discuss something, this thread will still be here.
Spin? I wasn't aware that I was discussing tops or yoyos. I'm not sure how I could be spinning anything when I've repeatedly said ad nasuem that the ONLY thing I'm talking about is that it makes no logical sense that the same people would be allowed to attack the same targets in the same locations on a daily basis. Nothing more, nothing less. If you've got an actual counter to that argument, I'd be more than willing to listen. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2667
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 07:25:15 -
[678] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Spin? I wasn't aware that I was discussing tops or yoyos. I'm not sure how I could be spinning anything when I've repeatedly said ad nasuem that the ONLY thing I'm talking about is that it makes no logical sense that the same people would be allowed to attack the same targets in the same locations on a daily basis. Nothing more, nothing less. If you've got an actual counter to that argument, I'd be more than willing to listen.
It's pretty simple, actually: no innocent bystanders are getting hurt, and the violence is both good business for the locals, and keeps the doughnut paychecks coming in for the coppers. Why would anyone want to get rid of that gravy train?
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 07:29:41 -
[679] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
It's pretty easy, actually: no innocent bystanders are getting hurt, and the violence is both good business for the locals, and keeps the doughnut paychecks coming in for the coppers. Why would anyone want to get rid of that gravy train?
So your counter is to instead invent lore to have it make sense?
Ok, I'm fine with that. How much are you guys paying "the locals" to keep them off your back? Keep in mind that sec for tags only goes to concord, not the people that actually have to live there.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11596
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 07:30:45 -
[680] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:the ONLY thing I'm talking about is that it makes no logical sense that the same people would be allowed to attack the same targets in the same locations on a daily basis.
And the only reason you say that, when you repeatedly ignore other points of logic, is to try and advance a carebear agenda.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2667
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 07:32:13 -
[681] - Quote
Wait, you weren't looking for a RP explanation?
Okay, I'll give you a non-RP explanation: CCP deemed the level of destruction fit for a sandbox game with a player-driven economy.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 07:32:26 -
[682] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And the only reason you say that, when you repeatedly ignore other points of logic, is to try and advance a carebear agenda.
Carebear agenda? I'm sorry, could you enlighten me as to what that is again? Or what the other points of logic where that I've ignored? |
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 07:33:24 -
[683] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Okay, I'll give you a non-RP explanation: CCP deemed the level of destruction fit for a sandbox game with a player-driven economy.
So you're saying that CCP never changes its mind based on player feedback. (OH MY GOSH SOMETIMES IT FEELS LIKE IT THOUGH, I'm not even talking about this lol) |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2667
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 07:34:49 -
[684] - Quote
It most definitely does. But it obviously hasn't changed its mind on this particular issue yet. Are you saying it should? Are you saying CCP should remove ganking?
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 07:35:54 -
[685] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: But it obviously hasn't changed its mind on this particular issue yet. [/quote/
True enough.
[quote=Destiny Corrupted]
Are you saying CCP should remove ganking?
Nope.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2668
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 07:37:29 -
[686] - Quote
Then what exactly are you saying?
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 07:39:39 -
[687] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Then what exactly are you saying?
Valterra Craven wrote:
It makes no logical sense that the same people would be allowed to attack the same targets in the same locations on a daily basis.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11597
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 07:40:21 -
[688] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Then what exactly are you saying? Valterra Craven wrote:
It makes no logical sense that the same people would be allowed to attack the same targets in the same locations on a daily basis.
So what?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 07:41:31 -
[689] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
So what?
*Shrug* Dunno. You guys were the ones arguing against it. I was just pointing it out. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2668
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 07:42:45 -
[690] - Quote
It makes plenty of logical sense to us. You're the one who didn't like the explanations presented.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11597
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 07:42:53 -
[691] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
So what?
*Shrug* Dunno. You guys were the ones arguing against it. I was just pointing it out.
There are lots of things in the game that don't make sense, why bother posting about just one thing?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 07:44:52 -
[692] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:You're the one who didn't like the explanations presented.
Like has nothing to do with it. Just because I pointed out how your arguments were not effective doesn't mean you've proved your point. |
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 07:45:38 -
[693] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:[
There are lots of things in the game that don't make sense, why bother posting about just one thing?
Cuse talking about everything that doesn't make sense in eve in the context of a ganking thread would be silly? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11598
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 07:48:27 -
[694] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Cuse talking about everything that doesn't make sense in eve in the context of a ganking thread would be silly?
Spinning again, I see.
You're only going after one thing, because you are opposed to ganking. You're just trying to advance a carebear agenda.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 08:02:26 -
[695] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Yes. The reason should be obvious.
*Sigh* And this is why I don't generally get involved in these threads. Gankers would rather troll than have a serious conversation.
So I cede to the only thing that is actually obvious. At 2 am its past my bedtime. Good night. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11598
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 08:03:37 -
[696] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Yes. The reason should be obvious.
*Sigh* And this is why I don't generally get involved in these threads. Gankers would rather troll than have a serious conversation. So I cede to the only thing that is actually obvious. At 2 am its past my bedtime. Good night.
I was being serious.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2671
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 08:07:02 -
[697] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Do you still think that it would make sense that they would allow you to repeatedly attack targets in the same system on a daily basis?
Because applying realism to a single concept in the game when the others are as unrealistic as possible isn't good game design.
Why would it make sense that a miner can mine out the same asteroid belt every day?
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
562
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 08:21:13 -
[698] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Cuse talking about everything that doesn't make sense in eve in the context of a ganking thread would be silly?
Spinning again, I see. You're only going after one thing, because you are opposed to ganking. You're just trying to advance a carebear agenda. Wow, you are really bad at debate. I already ceded to you that I think ganking should exist in this game. I'm not particularly after anything (other than Eve making more sense in a lot of areas other than just this). At least when I counter people I don't lie about they are saying. BUT just because I'm nice. Lets for example, try to make the game make sense in this context. So let me set up a scenario for you. Concord has to be stationed inside a station. Concord has to warp from that station to an area thats distressed. Concord can be tanked by things that make sense, like bricked battlecruisers or battleships (heck even t3 is you are crazy) Concord has appropriate locking times for the class of ship they fly Concord is not immune to offensive ewar. Concord does not immediately show up and wack you in the middle of nowhere when you aren't attacking anyone. Now with all these changes (which by the way I'm perfectly happy to cede to you): Do you still think that it would make since that they would allow you to repeatedly attack targets in the same system on a daily basis?
See here is the problem. There are two reasons people like to argue for more "consequences" for suicide ganking. Either they present some "immersion" angle where the NPC-behaviour does not make sense either with a real-world comparison or not, or they think that ganking itself is bad and should be removed from the game. Many people come to the forums and argue for the first point (which is perhaps fair - although this is a futuristic space game the mechanics themselves should make as much sense as can be made keeping a functional game) claiming that they don't want to remove ganking despite the fact that the changes they are arguing for are going to do exactly that. Whether they are being disingenuous or just don't really have a coherent view of what the changes would do to the overall game beyond this one issue that annoys them is hard to say, but many players are no longer tolerant of these ganker-nerfs-masked-as-lore-changes arguments.
Eve is a game. CCP has decided that to keep highsec interesting it will allow highsec criminals to operate. You can claim that you are interested in making the space police "make sense" but changing the mechanics so that gankers cannot operate at all, or to the point where it is so tedious no player actual will take up the profession is completely counter-productive to all the effort CCP spent coding the Crimewatch, security status and CONCORD systems. The lore and back-story elements are secondary to publishing a functioning, and engaging MMO for CCP.
And to tie this back to the OP it is the same with this hyperdunking. The ruling adds a minute amount of additional risk to the game, maybe none at all compared to what was in the game before from regular freighter gankers, yet you have people going on about punitive consequences for players engaging in intended and emergent gameplay. If hyperdunking or freighter ganking/bumping ever gets out of control - that is too many players are exploding despite their best efforts - then CCP will change something as CCP Terminus indicated earlier in this thread.
You cannot say you want ganking in the game and then argue for changes that make that effectively impossible for "lore reasons". The lore follows the game mechanics, not the other way around. A CCP writer didn't come up with CONCORD thinking it was a great story idea and then asked the game designers to fit them in somehow in the game - it was the other way around. So it follows that any rational discussion of ganking should focus on the game mechanics involved and the reasons it is in the game in the first place, rather than tacked on back-story of CONCORD or the "it doesn't make sense" arguments.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
145
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 08:50:25 -
[699] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:It's not a question of being easy...it's a question of having an effective enough criminal justice system to deter repeated illegal ganking of empty freighters.
If this were true, everyone would be killing freighters. Considering that the killboards show the vast majority of suicide attacks are commited by CODE and goons (as in, almost exclusively so), that really doesn't appear to be the case.
Sounds like the repurcussions for criminal activity are a sufficient deterrent to me.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
145
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 08:52:20 -
[700] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
And how do you propose that they do that?
Being a real player instead of a carebear. Then why have concord at all?
To give newbros a more stable learning experience.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
|
|
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
145
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 08:56:15 -
[701] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:It requires an alt/corpmate in a webbing ship worth less than a million isk. No. Avoiding fights is not the same as enforcing justice.
As long as FacPo and CONCORD exist in their current form, you'll never have the justice you're looking for. Consider moving your operations outside HiSec where you're empowered to dispense your own version of justice.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
145
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 09:08:13 -
[702] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Okay, I'll give you a non-RP explanation: CCP deemed the level of destruction fit for a sandbox game with a player-driven economy.
So you're saying that CCP never changes its mind based on player feedback.
He's saying CCP maintains the game such that it offers a balanced experience. It's essentially a question of destruction vs productivity.
Your argument is that it's disproportinately difficult to be productive thanks to freighter vulnerability. The profitablity of HiSec and the success of haulage corps such as Red Frog and PushX suggests otherwise.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
145
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 09:15:26 -
[703] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Yes. The reason should be obvious.
*Sigh* And this is why I don't generally get involved in these threads. Gankers would rather troll than have a serious conversation.
The issue is balanced around making players choose whether or not they want to engage in ganking activity at all. The vast majority of players aren't willign to accept those consequences because they would have too great an impact on their game. You can't balance a game around a single minute long event, followed by hours of "time out". It's unfun to the point that career gankers would start dedicating multiple alts to ganking to evade the timers - only to have people complain, once again, that gankers are allowed to gank too frequenetly.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2673
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 09:43:57 -
[704] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Okay, I'll give you a non-RP explanation: CCP deemed the level of destruction fit for a sandbox game with a player-driven economy.
So you're saying that CCP never changes its mind based on player feedback. He's saying CCP maintains the game such that it offers a balanced experience. It's essentially a question of destruction vs productivity. Your argument is that it's disproportinately difficult to be productive thanks to freighter vulnerability. The profitablity of HiSec and the success of haulage corps such as Red Frog and PushX suggests otherwise.
Furthermore, the profitability of an action is also determined in part by the danger involved. If it was that difficult/dangerous to transport things, our prices would reflect that. If 10 widgets cost 10 bucks to make/transport/sell, and assuming a perfect market so that the profit margin approaches 0, then people would sell each widget for 1 buck. If one widget was guaranteed to be destroyed during the process, then each would be sold not for 1 bucks, but for ~1.11. But the prices we see on the market are pretty close to production costs (for t1 goods at least), so it's fairly obvious that the overall risk in the system is low.
The flip side of this is that prices don't rise even with a danger factor for hauling. This would mean that hauling in itself is obsolete, and unnecessary. I'm not entirely sure this is the case, but it's possible.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24919
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 11:28:51 -
[705] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:It makes no logical sense that the same people would be allowed to attack the same targets in the same locations on a daily basis. Ever heard of the Horn of Africa? It makes plenty sense.
Quote:Now with all these changes (which by the way I'm perfectly happy to cede to you):
Do you still think that it would make sense that they would allow you to repeatedly attack targets in the same system on a daily basis? It would actually make even more sense then, since it would be trivially easy to never get caught in the first place. With time, the haulers would get fed up with the slow and inefficient police and start hiring security contractors who'd do some law-breaking on their ownGǪ
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
541
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 14:38:50 -
[706] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ever heard of the Horn of Africa?
~snip~
With time, the haulers would get fed up with the slow and inefficient police and start hiring security contractors who'd do some law-breaking on their ownGǪ As above, so below.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
David Mandrake
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
7
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 15:12:47 -
[707] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Then what exactly are you saying? Valterra Craven wrote:
It makes no logical sense that the same people would be allowed to attack the same targets in the same locations on a daily basis.
When you say "logical", what do you mean by that? You've said you're not looking for a lore-based reason - of which there are many that would explain why a .5 or .6 system wouldn't have a huge amount of protection against ganks from the various forces in system (quite frankly they just don't have the resources to effectively combat ganking which is why those systems have been assigned a lower security status; and these ganking groups are being funded by capsuleer alliances and the empires are supposed to be losing their grip on power... so this fits perfectly in to the story). Throwing out the roleplaying elements, then it becomes a matter of game design choice. The game design choice that has been made is to allow groups of players to conduct repeated gankings in these chokepoint systems - because seriously, if CCP didn't want these systems to be the chokepoints they are, they could just change the routes (which they've done before) or simply raise the security status of the systems or both; or even just let the sec status determine only the type of pirate NPCs and other aspects of a system, and just make CONCORD response time the same as a 1.0 across the board. All of these would only require modifications to the game's database and not require a major mechanics change. CCP has elected not to do that, because they feel that this sort of gameplay does have a place in this game.
You might not have to like that gameplay style - and, having tried suicide ganking myself (even have an alt with a 10 billion ISK freighter kill) I can't really say that I find it enjoyable - but that doesn't mean that it's an invalid playstyle. I *also* don't enjoy mission running, or mining, or station trading, or faction warfare, or any of that. I'm not going to campaign that the playstyles are dramatically nerfed, however.
You can argue that CCP is in the wrong for allowing people to gank at these chokepoints - and you do have a right to do so - but that's not the argument you've presented thus far (and if you've intended to present that sort of an argument, you've failed to do so well). However at the end of the day much of the community disagrees with you, and simply because you have an opinion on the way the game should be changed doesn't necessarily mean that it's the way the game will or should be changed. This is meant to be a difficult game, and CCP has stated many times that they'd rather have it continue to be a difficult game rather than be just another hand-holding MMO like all the others out there. They want more subscribers, sure - but they want the game to also be something difficult, where when you play it, you have to think about what you're doing. The suicide gank groups have gotten what they're doing down to a pattern because they've figured out what the mechanics are and how to best make use of the ones that are in their favor and avoid or diminish the impact of the ones which are not. That's something that CCP wants it's players to do, and that's the sort of thing that makes the game fun. I personally like to have to think about what other players are doing and how that might impact what I want to do in the game today. I like coming up with strategies and examining the types of ships that I can or could fly, and determining what the best course of action is to ensure that I can do what I want to do. It's fun. It's a great change from other games, and although there are days where I don't always want to have other players actions color what I do, it's simple enough to just play another game until I feel like playing Eve again. The magic of Eve is that I often get to think creatively in ways that other games simply won't let you or aren't capable of allowing you to do. So I'll agree that you're allowed to disagree with me on that; but I will also disagree with any sort of change which makes the game less of a thinking game, and I'll agree with any change that I feel follows in that vein (so while I'm not for "Highsec should be safe", there are many aspects of highsec PvP which I think need an overhaul; suicide ganking just isn't one of them) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16045
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 15:16:43 -
[708] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Hmm. I'll remember that the next time I take a trip to the coin show and bring a few gold bars home.
Maybe the real problem is that cargo scanners exist.
The real problem is that people like you think that you shouldn't have to put any effort into defending yourself in a PvP game. The real problem is that people like you think that you should be able to do the same things over and over and over again without real consequences.
Like AFK solo flying fat, slow, vulnerable haulers full of valuable goods along exactly the same route over and over again?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
454
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 15:19:08 -
[709] - Quote
The fact that people are blowing up empty freighters shows how broken the system is. If punishments were raised to a meaningful level, only high value targets would get hit. |
David Mandrake
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
7
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 15:41:02 -
[710] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:The fact that people are blowing up empty freighters shows how broken the system is. If punishments were raised to a meaningful level, only high value targets would get hit.
They're billion+ ISK ships. The hull makes them a high value target by themselves, as they're usually near the price of a cheap Capital.
To give an example, here is an empty Fenrir kill, valued at 1.27 billion ISK. This is an Archon kill, valued at 1.73 ISK, just a half billion ISK difference (primarily due to the fitted modules, which are a mix of Tech I and II items). There's also a similar number of people on both killmails. Why is the freighter kill invalid?
Of course you might quibble over the 500 million ISK difference. That's fine. This is a 1.17 billion ISK Thanatos that was fit just slightly better than that freighter was (it's at least tanked). 15 people on the killmail. People would probably call the Carrier pilot stupid because they undocked in a half fit carrier with apparently either no drones or no drone reserves (as it's possible they could have launched a few drones from their bay and those would not have shown up on the killmail). How is that a valid kill, but an autopiloted, untanked freighter isn't? Because one was in highsec and one was in lowsec? Why should highsec automatically change what people want to kill? What's the threshold for something being "high value"? I mean seriously, people will also go *nuts* and try to gank you over a PLEX in the hold. A freighter is worth a lot more than that.
Freighters are expensive ships. You can't just expect people not to want to kill them just because they're empty; not in this game. |
|
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
454
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 15:43:54 -
[711] - Quote
David Mandrake wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:The fact that people are blowing up empty freighters shows how broken the system is. If punishments were raised to a meaningful level, only high value targets would get hit. They're billion+ ISK ships. The hull makes them a high value target by themselves, as they're usually near the price of a cheap Capital. To give an example, here is an empty Fenrir kill, valued at 1.27 billion ISK. This is an Archon kill, valued at 1.73 ISK, just a half billion ISK difference (primarily due to the fitted modules, which are a mix of Tech I and II items). There's also a similar number of people on both killmails. Why is the freighter kill invalid? Of course you might quibble over the 500 million ISK difference. That's fine. This is a 1.17 billion ISK Thanatos that was fit just slightly better than that freighter was (it's at least tanked). 15 people on the killmail. People would probably call the Carrier pilot stupid because they undocked in a half fit carrier with apparently either no drones or no drone reserves (as it's possible they could have launched a few drones from their bay and those would not have shown up on the killmail). How is that a valid kill, but an autopiloted, untanked freighter isn't? Because one was in highsec and one was in lowsec? Why should highsec automatically change what people want to kill? What's the threshold for something being "high value"? I mean seriously, people will also go *nuts* and try to gank you over a PLEX in the hold. A freighter is worth a lot more than that. Freighters are expensive ships. You can't just expect people not to want to kill them just because they're empty; not in this game.
You do realize that the archon kill was in lowsec, right? Meaning no CONCORD and no loss of ships. As opposed to ganking a freighter in highsec, where all the gank ships die. |
David Mandrake
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
7
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 15:49:38 -
[712] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:You do realize that the archon kill was in lowsec, right? Meaning no CONCORD and no loss of ships. As opposed to ganking a freighter in highsec, where all the gank ships die.
Yes, I mentioned that. And I also brought up:
Quote:Why should highsec automatically change what people want to kill?
If you fly something expensive, expect someone to want to kill it no matter where you are, whether it's an officer fit missioning boat or a billion ISK hull. High sec doesn't mean you're safe, and it doesn't mean you get to fly an expensive hull with complete immunity from consequences.
You also didn't answer the other question I raised though - what do you think constitutes a high value target? Because if flying the equivalent to a capital ship doesn't count, then I'm not sure what does. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14791
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 15:49:47 -
[713] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
You do realize that the archon kill was in lowsec, right? Meaning no CONCORD and no loss of ships. As opposed to ganking a freighter in highsec, where all the gank ships die.
Which points out that there is infact a rather big drawback to killing these things in highsec.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16047
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 16:10:51 -
[714] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
You do realize that the archon kill was in lowsec, right? Meaning no CONCORD and no loss of ships. As opposed to ganking a freighter in highsec, where all the gank ships die.
Which points out that there is infact a rather big drawback to killing these things in highsec. And the fact that despite these drawbacks the same folks are killing them over and over again with impunity suggests that the drawbacks are not enough to deter ganking at a massive isk loss.
So in essence, you want to raise the cost to aggress a freighter to the point where no one wants to.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
454
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 16:13:48 -
[715] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
You do realize that the archon kill was in lowsec, right? Meaning no CONCORD and no loss of ships. As opposed to ganking a freighter in highsec, where all the gank ships die.
Which points out that there is infact a rather big drawback to killing these things in highsec. And the fact that despite these drawbacks the same folks are killing them over and over again with impunity suggests that the drawbacks are not enough to deter ganking at a massive isk loss. So in essence, you want to raise the cost to aggress a freighter to the point where no one wants to.
I'd like the cost to rise to the point where people target freighters with significant potential loot drop and leave the empty ones alone. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16047
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 16:18:49 -
[716] - Quote
The huge majority of journeys by empty freighters do not result in the freighter being attacked. We can easily infer this from the fact that people routinely fly their freighters AFK, which is something that one would only do if the perceived risk was very low.
Would you agree with the following proposition
"If the risk of an empty freighter is being ganked is so low that it's not worth the effort to actively fly it (never mind take more active precautions), then that risk is already low enough that it does not require rebalancing."
If not, why not?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
454
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 16:22:34 -
[717] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The huge majority of journeys by empty freighters do not result in the freighter being attacked. We can easily infer this from the fact that people routinely fly their freighters AFK, which is something that one would only do if the perceived risk was very low.
Would you agree with the following proposition
"If the risk of an empty freighter is being ganked is so low that it's not worth the effort to actively fly it (never mind take more active precautions), then that risk is already low enough that it does not require rebalancing."
If not, why not?
People in Eve do things AFK out of laziness...not out of a cost benefit calculation. People routinely AFK carriers in nullsec, and expensive battleships in highsec. Any activity in Eve that can be accomplished while afk, will be accomplished afk.
Your logic would essentially mean that nothing in Eve needs rebalancing...whether ganking, awoxxing, etc....since nearly anything in Eve could be avoided through simple active measures.
The fact that code folks can sit in uedama and gank freighters every 15 minutes with no tangible consequences is telling. |
David Mandrake
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
8
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 16:26:47 -
[718] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Malcanis wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
You do realize that the archon kill was in lowsec, right? Meaning no CONCORD and no loss of ships. As opposed to ganking a freighter in highsec, where all the gank ships die.
Which points out that there is infact a rather big drawback to killing these things in highsec. And the fact that despite these drawbacks the same folks are killing them over and over again with impunity suggests that the drawbacks are not enough to deter ganking at a massive isk loss. So in essence, you want to raise the cost to aggress a freighter to the point where no one wants to. I'd like the cost to rise to the point where people target freighters with significant potential loot drop and leave the empty ones alone.
Define "Significant". Additionally, you presume that the only reason to get these kills is for money. Not everyone in the game really cares about that; heck, I don't care about it. I get 0 ISK from everything I blow up and even I'll lose ships without getting anything on the killboard to show for it - and these are more expensive ships than CODE. files most of the time, and this is talking as someone who doesn't suicide gank. It's a game, I want to have fun, and I'm not going to let a concern about short term quarterly profits get in the way of that. Why should Highsec be any different in that regard? |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14792
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 17:03:44 -
[719] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
And the fact that despite these drawbacks the same folks are killing them over and over again with impunity suggests that the drawbacks are not enough to deter ganking at a massive isk loss.
Thats called balance.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Shay Reve
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 17:12:30 -
[720] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:It's not a question of being easy...it's a question of having an effective enough criminal justice system to deter repeated illegal ganking of empty freighters. If this were true, everyone would be killing freighters. Considering that the killboards show the vast majority of suicide attacks are commited by CODE and goons (as in, almost exclusively so), that really doesn't appear to be the case. Sounds like the repurcussions for criminal activity are a sufficient deterrent to me.
So did you miss the part where the players mainly engaging in those activities (i.e Goons / Code & friends) are capable of doing so because it does not affect their actual EVE gameplay. It is all about having amassed too much ISK/power/whatever you wish to call it, so you can have multiple accounts with multiple alts and an endless supply of disposable ships. But everyone knows that right?
I do believe ganking, suicide or otherwise, must be a part of the game. However it has to be accessible on equal terms and consequences to all. Can anyone honestly say that a player with one character/account without a huge wallet or a huge corp supporting him can engage in non stop suicide ganking of that scale? You need to be able to fund this or you will be left with a -10Sec character in a rookie ship and 1ISK. But guess what..Most if not all of the leet suicide gankers dont care beacuse "Hey its not my main anyway" Anonymity at its finest. And power stuggle is a b****h yeah. But in this case power struggle seems to be extremely outbalanced.
My bottom line on it: Let it unfold for as long as it can sustain itself and see where it takes us. And have someone taking the ISK bets. |
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14793
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 17:23:49 -
[721] - Quote
Shay Reve wrote:
So did you miss the part where the players mainly engaging in those activities (i.e Goons / Code & friends) are capable of doing so because it does not affect their actual EVE gameplay. It is all about having amassed too much ISK/power/whatever you wish to call it, so you can have multiple accounts with multiple alts and an endless supply of disposable ships. But everyone knows that right?
Miniluv does have a budget they have to stick to. Overall they are a profitable organisation.
Shay Reve wrote:
I do believe ganking, suicide or otherwise, must be a part of the game. However it has to be accessible on equal terms and consequences to all. Can anyone honestly say that a player with one character/account without a huge wallet or a huge corp supporting him can engage in non stop suicide ganking of that scale?
It requires a fleet worth of ships to take down a freighter so no, poor man McNubbins cannot do it unless they join an organisation.
Shay Reve wrote:
You need to be able to fund this or you will be left with a -10Sec character in a rookie ship and 1ISK. But guess what..Most if not all of the leet suicide gankers dont care beacuse "Hey its not my main anyway" Anonymity at its finest. And power stuggle is a b****h yeah. But in this case power struggle seems to be extremely outbalanced.
It takes a few days to get all of the skills required to go ganking and the humble cat and thrasher are not overly expensive. The bulk of hauler ganking is done to frigates, shuttles and t1 haulers.
Shay Reve wrote:
My bottom line on it: Let it unfold for as long as it can sustain itself and see where it takes us. And have someone taking the ISK bets.
Over a decade and counting.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
541
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 17:32:07 -
[722] - Quote
Shay Reve wrote: Can anyone honestly say that a player with one character/account without a huge wallet or a huge corp supporting him can engage in non stop suicide ganking of that scale? Using one character is unnecessarily restricting, whereas with one account, all 3 slots used for alts and some knowledge I'd say that it's a definite possibility; especially seeing as CODE. don't restrict their SRP to alliance members, if you kill in the name of James 315 then the odds are you can get at least some of your costs back if even if you use a non sanctioned ship or fit, although many find their operations self supporting.
Quote:Anonymity at its finest. And power stuggle is a b****h yeah. But in this case power struggle seems to be extremely outbalanced. Anonymity which is available to all, there's nothing stopping anybody using an alt to haul, an alt to trade, an alt to mission, an alt to scam or gank etc.
How is it out of balance?
Is the current level of freighter traffic not reaching its destination due to suicide ganking excessive?
What would you consider to be an acceptable loss level of freighter traffic not reaching its destination due to suicide ganking?
Quote:You need to be able to fund this or you will be left with a -10Sec character in a rookie ship and 1ISK. But guess what..Most if not all of the leet suicide gankers dont care beacuse "Hey its not my main anyway" See both of the above.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2687
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 17:47:46 -
[723] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:The fact that people are blowing up empty freighters shows how broken the system is. If punishments were raised to a meaningful level, only high value targets would get hit.
An empty, insured freighter is actually not that big of a loss. Only about ~300m ISK I think? In fact, when you consider the entire expenditures of a gank, including security status, on a freighter that doesn't have a bunch of expanders in its lows, the gankers pay more. I did this math before for cat ganks. Now, I'm not sure how the numbers are for hyperdunking, but it seems to me that the reduced security status cost (if it's reduced at all), is offset by the requirement for more ships.
Regardless, as I mentioned before, if freighter-ganking created a meaningful impact on the market, we would have noticed it in the prices we pay for goods. It seems to me that if anything, hauling in freighters is obsolete/unnecessary.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
541
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 17:53:20 -
[724] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: It seems to me that if anything, hauling in freighters is obsolete/unnecessary. Personal freighter use certainly, 3rd parties like RedFrog and Push-X are a win-win if you set your collateral at the right level, it's a no brainer.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16047
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 17:56:03 -
[725] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Malcanis wrote:The huge majority of journeys by empty freighters do not result in the freighter being attacked. We can easily infer this from the fact that people routinely fly their freighters AFK, which is something that one would only do if the perceived risk was very low.
Would you agree with the following proposition
"If the risk of an empty freighter is being ganked is so low that it's not worth the effort to actively fly it (never mind take more active precautions), then that risk is already low enough that it does not require rebalancing."
If not, why not? People in Eve do things AFK out of laziness...not out of a cost benefit calculation. People routinely AFK carriers in nullsec, and expensive battleships in highsec. Any activity in Eve that can be accomplished while afk, will be accomplished afk. Your logic would essentially mean that nothing in Eve needs rebalancing...whether ganking, awoxxing, etc....since nearly anything in Eve could be avoided through simple active measures.The fact that code folks can sit in uedama and gank freighters every 15 minutes with no tangible consequences is telling.
Yes, that's where logic leads me: to the position that if the "problem" isn't severe enough for the victims to make any effort to address it, then it's not remotely serious enough for CCP to need to lift a finger either.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
David Mandrake
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
8
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 18:00:37 -
[726] - Quote
Shay Reve wrote:So did you miss the part where the players mainly engaging in those activities (i.e Goons / Code & friends) are capable of doing so because it does not affect their actual EVE gameplay. It is all about having amassed too much ISK/power/whatever you wish to call it, so you can have multiple accounts with multiple alts and an endless supply of disposable ships. But everyone knows that right?
The big issue with this is that anything an individual can do, a rich, powerful organization of experienced players can do much, much better (the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts and all that). If you make it more expensive for an Alliance to do a thing, then it'll have to be more expensive for the individual to do as well, otherwise the Alliance's members could do things as individuals with alts or even on their mains and due to having greater numbers and resources, will be able to do this better than an individual or a smaller group would be capable of doing the same activity. Given that Hyperdunking is a good example of this - it's more expensive and difficult to pull off overall than a large group of players making the same attempt - removing it wouldn't really affect much; and given that I doubt most of Goonswarm's money comes from Freighter ganks (nor, I understand, does CODE.'s - they rely on donations I think), changing highsec mechanics really isn't going to affect them that much. There might be an argument to be made about rebalancing things, but that's a bigger, more complex argument, and it's not going to be solved simply by changing a single mechanic, and it's not going to be changed with a mechanics change in another area of space from where their money is made. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
454
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 18:08:02 -
[727] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:The fact that people are blowing up empty freighters shows how broken the system is. If punishments were raised to a meaningful level, only high value targets would get hit. An empty, insured freighter is actually not that big of a loss. Only about ~300m ISK I think? In fact, when you consider the entire expenditures of a gank, including security status, on a freighter that doesn't have a bunch of expanders in its lows, the gankers pay more. I did this math before for cat ganks. Now, I'm not sure how the numbers are for hyperdunking, but it seems to me that the reduced security status cost (if it's reduced at all), is offset by the requirement for more ships. Regardless, as I mentioned before, if freighter-ganking created a meaningful impact on the market, we would have noticed it in the prices we pay for goods. It seems to me that if anything, hauling in freighters is obsolete/unnecessary.
Yes, absolutely...these ganks are a net money loser. The problem is that Goons et al., have a massive isk faucet in nullsec, and are happy to use it to make life miserable for any "pubbies" who want to live in highsec and not be part of a nullsec power bloc. And all this while the police take no action to stop it.
Prognosis: Broken. |
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 18:11:31 -
[728] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I was being serious.
Ok, then what was the obvious reason? |
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 18:13:44 -
[729] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Do you still think that it would make sense that they would allow you to repeatedly attack targets in the same system on a daily basis? Because applying realism to a single concept in the game when the others are as unrealistic as possible isn't good game design. Why would it make sense that a miner can mine out the same asteroid belt every day?
Where in my post did I say other areas of Eve should not be made more realistic. I'll be honest, my "dream" is for Eve to become like the matrix. People plug into the game and get to live completely realistic and separate space lives. That would be utterly amazing. |
David Mandrake
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
8
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 18:18:13 -
[730] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:The fact that people are blowing up empty freighters shows how broken the system is. If punishments were raised to a meaningful level, only high value targets would get hit. An empty, insured freighter is actually not that big of a loss. Only about ~300m ISK I think? In fact, when you consider the entire expenditures of a gank, including security status, on a freighter that doesn't have a bunch of expanders in its lows, the gankers pay more. I did this math before for cat ganks. Now, I'm not sure how the numbers are for hyperdunking, but it seems to me that the reduced security status cost (if it's reduced at all), is offset by the requirement for more ships. Regardless, as I mentioned before, if freighter-ganking created a meaningful impact on the market, we would have noticed it in the prices we pay for goods. It seems to me that if anything, hauling in freighters is obsolete/unnecessary. Yes, absolutely...these ganks are a net money loser. The problem is that Goons et al., have a massive isk faucet in nullsec, and are happy to use it to make life miserable for any "pubbies" who want to live in highsec and not be part of a nullsec power bloc. And all this while the police take no action to stop it. Prognosis: Broken.
Given that there's been several stories of out of corp alts hauling stuff for null power blocks being ganked, as well as a number of nullsec bloc members who have been ganked, I don't think it's entirely that (to be honest, I'd wager that most freighters are carrying stuff for Nullsec bloc members, either for stuff eventually destined for Nullsec, or to assist in their money making).
Additionally, Goons are more than happy to shoot at people from other power blocs and there is some bad feelings between some of the varying blocs. I don't think they'd hold fire just because you're part of a power bloc; if anything I'd think if they found a freighter from my own Alliance they'd be more than happy to explode it in Highsec.
I think the politics in this game and the mechanics are far, far more complicated than you're giving them credit for. |
|
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
454
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 18:21:24 -
[731] - Quote
David Mandrake wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:[quote=Destiny Corrupted][quote=Veers Belvar]The fact that people are blowing up empty freighters shows how broken the system is. If punishments were raised to a meaningful level, only high value targets would get hit. Given that there's been several stories of out of corp alts hauling stuff for null power blocks being ganked, as well as a number of nullsec bloc members who have been ganked, I don't think it's entirely that (to be honest, I'd wager that most freighters are carrying stuff for Nullsec bloc members, either for stuff eventually destined for Nullsec, or to assist in their money making). Additionally, Goons are more than happy to shoot at people from other power blocs and there is some bad feelings between some of the varying blocs. I don't think they'd hold fire just because you're part of a power bloc; if anything I'd think if they found a freighter from my own Alliance they'd be more than happy to explode it in Highsec. I think the politics in this game and the mechanics are far, far more complicated than you're giving them credit for.
Obviously goons will shoot at anyone not blue to them, and are often happy to shoot up blues as well. Their operations have a minimal impact on folks who are part of a powerbloc, since they have access to alliance SRP and easy isk. The ones who get hurt are the independent PvE highsec "pubbies" who are unable to recover from these losses. |
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 18:28:43 -
[732] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
See here is the problem. There are two reasons people like to argue for more "consequences" for suicide ganking. Either they present some "immersion" angle where the NPC-behaviour does not make sense either with a real-world comparison or not, or they think that ganking itself is bad and should be removed from the game. Many people come to the forums and argue for the first point (which is perhaps fair - although this is a futuristic space game the mechanics themselves should make as much sense as can be made keeping a functional game) claiming that they don't want to remove ganking despite the fact that the changes they are arguing for are going to do exactly that. Whether they are being disingenuous or just don't really have a coherent view of what the changes would do to the overall game beyond this one issue that annoys them is hard to say, but many players are no longer tolerant of these ganker-nerfs-masked-as-lore-changes arguments.
Many eve players aren't tolerant of anything these days. But I digress. Personally I have a real hatred for game companies that make their game "cheat" in order to introduce difficulty into it. I have to say that I really LOVE CCPs blackboard idea for NPCs to make them act more human without giving them stupid stats, or making them able to ignore rules that players can't. I'd love it if concord were also to get this Blackboard and be able to act in reasonable ways to dampen criminal activity without altogether removing it. See the argument for realism works both ways. Even in our modern lives crime still exists, and to be fair a lot of it is not prosecuted due to a lack of evidence or lack of police capability. The difference is that criminals in real life are doing it hidden whereas these ganks are happening in front of the police in front of 50 witnesses in broad day light. And people want to sit there and argue that there wouldn't be a massive man hunt to bring perps like that to some immediate justice?! That's really hard for me to believe.
Black Pedro wrote:
You can claim that you are interested in making the space police "make sense" but changing the mechanics so that gankers cannot operate at all
Considering that none of my suggestions that I've offered would change the make mechanic so that gankers can't operate at all, we will have to agree to disagree.
Black Pedro wrote:
You cannot say you want ganking in the game and then argue for changes that make that effectively impossible for lore reasons.
Well I agree with you there, which is why I haven't argued for it to be effectively impossible. The ending to Breaking Bad is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. People have short memories and after a few months a lot of the steam of the manhunt for Walt had died down. My point is merely that while we do have short term memories because people go back to their daily lives, they aren't 15 minutes short. I think maybe introducing a jump fatigue like mechanic to ganking in hi sec would likely be a good way to make things more realistic without removing it completely.
|
David Mandrake
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
8
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 18:31:31 -
[733] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:David Mandrake wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:[quote=Destiny Corrupted][quote=Veers Belvar]The fact that people are blowing up empty freighters shows how broken the system is. If punishments were raised to a meaningful level, only high value targets would get hit. Given that there's been several stories of out of corp alts hauling stuff for null power blocks being ganked, as well as a number of nullsec bloc members who have been ganked, I don't think it's entirely that (to be honest, I'd wager that most freighters are carrying stuff for Nullsec bloc members, either for stuff eventually destined for Nullsec, or to assist in their money making). Additionally, Goons are more than happy to shoot at people from other power blocs and there is some bad feelings between some of the varying blocs. I don't think they'd hold fire just because you're part of a power bloc; if anything I'd think if they found a freighter from my own Alliance they'd be more than happy to explode it in Highsec. I think the politics in this game and the mechanics are far, far more complicated than you're giving them credit for. Obviously goons will shoot at anyone not blue to them, and are often happy to shoot up blues as well. Their operations have a minimal impact on folks who are part of a powerbloc, since they have access to alliance SRP and easy isk. The ones who get hurt are the independent PvE highsec "pubbies" who are unable to recover from these losses.
I've never heard of an Alliance that will SRP your Highsec alt losses like that. If I lost my freighter to a suicide gank and asked TEST to get SRP I'd get laughed at. Even if the freighter were in TEST, I'd still get laughed at. About the only exception is if I were actually on an Alliance Op, but then it'd generally be a PvP ship that's being moved and even then only on my main.
It doesn't have an effect on our operations, though, because ganking simply doesn't kill enough Freighters to have an effect. That's basically all there is to it. People like to pretend like freighters are dying left and right every day, but there's so many freighters in the game that the ones that do die are pretty much a non-issue. |
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 18:33:28 -
[734] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
He's saying CCP maintains the game such that it offers a balanced experience.
I know exactly what he's saying. His argument boils down to "I believe this mechanic is balanced and CCP has stated they believe this mechanic is balanced, therefore it shouldn't change."
My point is that CCP has been that way on other things before, but players have changed their mind and changes happened. I respect other people's opinions, but at the end of the day that argument is not going to dissuade me from trying to show CCP a different line of thinking.
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Your argument is that it's disproportinately difficult to be productive thanks to freighter vulnerability. The profitablity of HiSec and the success of haulage corps such as Red Frog and PushX suggests otherwise.
No I'm not. No where did I make that argument. Please see my original post. |
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 18:34:33 -
[735] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
As long as FacPo and CONCORD exist in their current form, you'll never have the justice you're looking for.
I agree. If I didn't agree with that premise I wouldn't be in this thread arguing that their current form makes no sense. |
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 18:50:47 -
[736] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ever heard of the Horn of Africa? It makes plenty sense.
*Sigh* Ever heard of low sec? Your argument would make plenty of sense in that context. It doesn't make any sense in the context of hi-sec.
Tippia wrote:It would actually make even more sense then, since it would be trivially easy to never get caught in the first place.
Because it was so trivially easy to avoid concord before those changes were put into place? Last time I checked my Eve history books it wasn't trivially easy to evade them before. A lot of thought and time and effort had to be put into it. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14793
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 18:53:04 -
[737] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:David Mandrake wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:[quote=Destiny Corrupted][quote=Veers Belvar]The fact that people are blowing up empty freighters shows how broken the system is. If punishments were raised to a meaningful level, only high value targets would get hit. Given that there's been several stories of out of corp alts hauling stuff for null power blocks being ganked, as well as a number of nullsec bloc members who have been ganked, I don't think it's entirely that (to be honest, I'd wager that most freighters are carrying stuff for Nullsec bloc members, either for stuff eventually destined for Nullsec, or to assist in their money making). Additionally, Goons are more than happy to shoot at people from other power blocs and there is some bad feelings between some of the varying blocs. I don't think they'd hold fire just because you're part of a power bloc; if anything I'd think if they found a freighter from my own Alliance they'd be more than happy to explode it in Highsec. I think the politics in this game and the mechanics are far, far more complicated than you're giving them credit for. Obviously goons will shoot at anyone not blue to them, and are often happy to shoot up blues as well. Their operations have a minimal impact on folks who are part of a powerbloc, since they have access to alliance SRP and easy isk. The ones who get hurt are the independent PvE highsec "pubbies" who are unable to recover from these losses.
We pay nothing to anyone who loses a freighter or any other ship in highsec.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
454
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 18:56:14 -
[738] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
We pay nothing to anyone who loses a freighter or any other ship in highsec.
Well, since you guys are the ones blowing them up no payment is needed. Not to mention that your line members can always go rat in an ishtar for an easy 50 mil an hour...and get discounted plex prices from the alliance.
Point is goon line members can easily replace any highsec losses....independent highsec PvE "pubbies" can't, and are the ones who suffer. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14793
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 19:00:47 -
[739] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:
We pay nothing to anyone who loses a freighter or any other ship in highsec.
Well, since you guys are the ones blowing them up no payment is needed. Not to mention that your line members can always go rat in an ishtar for an easy 50 mil an hour...and get discounted plex prices from the alliance. Point is goon line members can easily replace any highsec losses....independent highsec PvE "pubbies" can't, and are the ones who suffer.
They have access to level 4 mission that pay more than null sec anoms. We also do not have "discounted plex prices from the alliance".
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 19:05:18 -
[740] - Quote
David Mandrake wrote:
When you say "logical", what do you mean by that? You've said you're not looking for a lore-based reason - of which there are many that would explain why a .5 or .6 system wouldn't have a huge amount of protection against ganks from the various forces in system (quite frankly they just don't have the resources to effectively combat ganking which is why those systems have been assigned a lower security status; and these ganking groups are being funded by capsuleer alliances and the empires are supposed to be losing their grip on power... so this fits perfectly in to the story).
I fully accept that there are many lore reasons why a .5 or a .6 system wouldn't have a huge amount of protection from ganks. What I'm saying is merely that in a logical context if you have repeat offenders that are continually doing the same activities that the police would call for some kind of back up or have harsher sentences for repeat offenders. It really is that simple.
David Mandrake wrote:
CCP has elected not to do that, because they feel that this sort of gameplay does have a place in this game.
And I'm fine with that. I'm still going to argue that while it does have a place in this game, the current way things work doesn't make sense.
David Mandrake wrote:
I'm not going to campaign that the playstyles are dramatically nerfed, however.
That's fine. However, it seems you are more than willing to campain that the status quo is maintained. Thats your perogative, just like its mine to campaign that they change.
David Mandrake wrote:
You can argue that CCP is in the wrong for allowing people to gank at these chokepoints - and you do have a right to do so - but that's not the argument you've presented thus far (and if you've intended to present that sort of an argument, you've failed to do so well). However at the end of the day much of the community disagrees with you, and simply because you have an opinion on the way the game should be changed doesn't necessarily mean that it's the way the game will or should be changed.
I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to gank at chokepoints, or wherever the heck they want. What I am arguing is that it make no sense that concord's response stays the same for repeat offenders. That being said, I can easily agree that this debate has two very vocal sides. What I won't agree with is that there is some kind of consensus on the issue because there is no empirical data to back up that argument either way.
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 19:06:57 -
[741] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
Like AFK solo flying fat, slow, vulnerable haulers full of valuable goods along exactly the same route over and over again?
Because that doesn't happen (or will happen in the future with autonomous cars/trucks) in our everyday modern day context? |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
542
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 19:10:03 -
[742] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Malcanis wrote:
Like AFK solo flying fat, slow, vulnerable haulers full of valuable goods along exactly the same route over and over again?
Because that doesn't happen (or will happen in the future with autonomous cars/trucks) in our everyday modern day context? In real life when a hauler gets hit on a regular basis they look into ways of not getting hit, here most of them whine on the forums.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14793
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 19:10:29 -
[743] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
I fully accept that there are many lore reasons why a .5 or a .6 system wouldn't have a huge amount of protection from ganks. What I'm saying is merely that in a logical context if you have repeat offenders that are continually doing the same activities that the police would call for some kind of back up or have harsher sentences for repeat offenders. It really is that simple.
And in BF games you would not park a carrier right next to the beach or have a shotgun that can snipe people 1km away. Its a game, treat it as such.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 19:12:15 -
[744] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:In real life when a hauler gets hit on a regular basis they look into ways of not getting hit, here most of them whine on the forums.
In real life the advanced police forces like the FBI get involved and put a stop to it. That's what taxes are for. I'm sure that you could come up a with a lore reason that all of those market fees go into paying concord to act in the same manner. |
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 19:13:13 -
[745] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
And in BF games you would not park a carrier right next to the beach or have a shotgun that can snipe people 1km away. Its a game, treat it as such.
I'd make the same arguments for realism there too. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
454
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 19:15:48 -
[746] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:
We pay nothing to anyone who loses a freighter or any other ship in highsec.
Well, since you guys are the ones blowing them up no payment is needed. Not to mention that your line members can always go rat in an ishtar for an easy 50 mil an hour...and get discounted plex prices from the alliance. Point is goon line members can easily replace any highsec losses....independent highsec PvE "pubbies" can't, and are the ones who suffer. They have access to level 4 mission that pay more than null sec anoms. We also do not have "discounted plex prices from the alliance".
The folks getting their empty freighters blown up are not the level 4 mission and incursion runners. They are the simple players who mine and run low level missions. Those are the guys suffering here....the better players are good enough to not get hit by any of this. And the point is that goon line members never have to worry about being unable to plex - your alliance takes care of them...not so for independent pve highsec players who can get blown straight out of the game from ganking. |
David Mandrake
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
8
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 19:24:13 -
[747] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Malcanis wrote:
Like AFK solo flying fat, slow, vulnerable haulers full of valuable goods along exactly the same route over and over again?
Because that doesn't happen (or will happen in the future with autonomous cars/trucks) in our everyday modern day context? In real life when a hauler gets hit on a regular basis they look into ways of not getting hit, here most of them whine on the forums.
I get the feeling that a lot of people also assume that the level of protection should be similar to a highway in a first-world country (and a post that just popped up while I was typing this seems to confirm that). New Eden most certainly isn't one; it's a fragmented remnant of the human race which is still trying to recover from the collapse of the Eve Gate (as the lore seems to indicate that old Terran technology was better than what we have now). It's more like trying to haul goods in a third-world country where the police are highly corrupt (I mean seriously, the wardec fee is basically just a bribe) and ineffective. Capsuleers are offered some protections because we're like the top 1% of the 1% of the 1% but especially given that we're semi-immortal demi-gods we shouldn't be complaining when we die.
Veers Belvar wrote:
The folks getting their empty freighters blown up are not the level 4 mission and incursion runners. They are the simple players who mine and run low level missions. Those are the guys suffering here....the better players are good enough to not get hit by any of this. And the point is that goon line members never have to worry about being unable to plex - your alliance takes care of them...not so for independent pve highsec players who can get blown straight out of the game from ganking.
So, how do they afford to drop that billion ISK on the freighter (plus the other billion or so ISK that they will need for collateral, and the 400 million for Insurance), and why are they flying something they can't afford to replace? If you can't afford to lose a freighter, you should not be flying a freighter. Because either they're able to rather easily get the ISK to replace the freighter (in which case losing it is cost of doing business and it's easily replaced), or they shouldn't be flying it if they can't afford to buy another one.
And don't say "Well they had to pay PLEX to do it." That's how I financed my initial acquisition of an Orca and it's mods, and I sold those to finance my freighter (so indirectly I bought mine through PLEX). I'm not sitting here complaining about the mechanics, and I fully understand I may lose my freighter when I undock it. Although I consider PLEX to be a valid way of getting quick cash in-game, I do *not* consider buying stuff with it to be a valid excuse for not understanding the risks in flying it. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16047
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 19:33:24 -
[748] - Quote
I'd honestly be very OK with having a ship with essentially the cargo capacity of a blockade runner and the DPS/Tank slightly inferior to a T1 battlecruiser (it would need to be quite a bit slower than the average BC) so that people who want to haul goods in a ship that can fight back have the option to do so.
For example: A ship that's basically a Ferox but with a 3000m^3 base cargo capacity, and a base speed of say 90m/s & 2.50 AU/s and maybe about 25% less cap recharge and a little less fitting space.
A ship like that can haul a decent amount of cargo and still laugh off tactics like hyperdunking; it would be much more resistant to Catalyst swarms. Of course it's still vulnerable to alpha, but given enough 1400s, so is any other ship. You can get a lot of EHP out of a Ferox if you really want to. 100k/280 regen is trivial, and that fit has 330 DPS with Ion Blaster IIs.
However, do not delude yourself that I believe this would have the tiniest impact on the AFK Freighter community's endless campaign for "just one more" nerf to ganking. What they want is very clearly for freighters not to be subject to ganking at all. Every time ganking has been nerfed, there has been a small pause for celebration, then the whining for the next "just one last" nerf promptly resumes. So it has been since 2006, and so it will be until suicide ganking is outlawed.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
454
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 19:37:14 -
[749] - Quote
David Mandrake wrote:
So, how do they afford to drop that billion ISK on the freighter (plus the other billion or so ISK that they will need for collateral, and the 400 million for Insurance), and why are they flying something they can't afford to replace? If you can't afford to lose a freighter, you should not be flying a freighter. Because either they're able to rather easily get the ISK to replace the freighter (in which case losing it is cost of doing business and it's easily replaced), or they shouldn't be flying it if they can't afford to buy another one.
And don't say "Well they had to pay PLEX to do it." That's how I financed my initial acquisition of an Orca and it's mods, and I sold those to finance my freighter (so indirectly I bought mine through PLEX). I'm not sitting here complaining about the mechanics, and I fully understand I may lose my freighter when I undock it. Although I consider PLEX to be a valid way of getting quick cash in-game, I do *not* consider buying stuff with it to be a valid excuse for not understanding the risks in flying it.
They grinded away at mining to afford it...or they plexed. And it got blown up while EMPTY at a huge loss to the gankers - that is not the type of thing you should need to protect against. Make poor decisions and overstuff your freighter? You probably deserve what you get. Have it blown up at a huge loss in highsec so some gankers can giggle and look for tears? Broken law enforcement mechanics. |
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 19:42:01 -
[750] - Quote
David Mandrake wrote:
I get the feeling that a lot of people also assume that the level of protection should be similar to a highway in a first-world country (and a post that just popped up while I was typing this seems to confirm that). New Eden most certainly isn't one; it's a fragmented remnant of the human race which is still trying to recover from the collapse of the Eve Gate (as the lore seems to indicate that old Terran technology was better than what we have now).
Given the expansive powers and colonization that the empires have undertaken, current hi sec is in no way remotely relateble to the back story that you are trying to link it too. There is also no indication that what the terrans had back then is in any way stronger to what the world is now. In fact given a lot of the pictures and the fact that the collapse of humanity even happened to begin with suggests otherwise.
|
|
|
David Mandrake
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
9
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 19:42:56 -
[751] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:David Mandrake wrote:
So, how do they afford to drop that billion ISK on the freighter (plus the other billion or so ISK that they will need for collateral, and the 400 million for Insurance), and why are they flying something they can't afford to replace? If you can't afford to lose a freighter, you should not be flying a freighter. Because either they're able to rather easily get the ISK to replace the freighter (in which case losing it is cost of doing business and it's easily replaced), or they shouldn't be flying it if they can't afford to buy another one.
And don't say "Well they had to pay PLEX to do it." That's how I financed my initial acquisition of an Orca and it's mods, and I sold those to finance my freighter (so indirectly I bought mine through PLEX). I'm not sitting here complaining about the mechanics, and I fully understand I may lose my freighter when I undock it. Although I consider PLEX to be a valid way of getting quick cash in-game, I do *not* consider buying stuff with it to be a valid excuse for not understanding the risks in flying it.
They grinded away at mining to afford it...or they plexed. And it got blown up while EMPTY at a huge loss to the gankers - that is not the type of thing you should need to protect against. Make poor decisions and overstuff your freighter? You probably deserve what you get. Have it blown up at a huge loss in highsec so some gankers can giggle and look for tears? Broken law enforcement mechanics.
Perhaps if it was such a big loss to them they shouldn't have moved it in to a well-known ganking area, or they should have used a cheaper ship until they could afford to replace it. T1/T2 haulers aren't that expensive compared to a freighter, and a DST can fit a rather serious tank. Most of these kills are in Uedama; and it should be something easy to avoid by now. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
454
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 19:45:53 -
[752] - Quote
David Mandrake wrote:
Perhaps if it was such a big loss to them they shouldn't have moved it in to a well-known ganking area, or they should have used a cheaper ship until they could afford to replace it. T1/T2 haulers aren't that expensive compared to a freighter, and a DST can fit a rather serious tank. Most of these kills are in Uedama; and it should be something easy to avoid by now.
You should not need to be worry about having an empty ship blow up at a huge loss in highsec. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
454
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 19:50:16 -
[753] - Quote
David Mandrake wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:David Mandrake wrote:
Perhaps if it was such a big loss to them they shouldn't have moved it in to a well-known ganking area, or they should have used a cheaper ship until they could afford to replace it. T1/T2 haulers aren't that expensive compared to a freighter, and a DST can fit a rather serious tank. Most of these kills are in Uedama; and it should be something easy to avoid by now.
You should not need to be worry about having an empty ship blow up at a huge loss in highsec. Why?
Because that should not be a concern in a law abiding area patrolled by a competent police force. That is what makes highsec different than low/null. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24920
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 19:52:13 -
[754] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Ever heard of low sec? Your argument would make plenty of sense in that context. It doesn't make any sense in the context of hi-sec. Fine. Gulf of Aden. Same thing: a crucial transport route, full of patrols, that everyone and their dog goes through, and which see regular attacks. Somalia is lowsec; the sea route that passes by it is highsec. So yes, it makes perfect sense that the same people would be allowed to attack the same targets in the same locations on a daily basis. It happens all over the world, actually.
It would be highly suspicious if it weren't the case, especially in a game that is a deep dystopia.
Quote:Because it was so trivially easy to avoid concord before those changes were put into place? You're confusing yourself. It is impossible to avoid CONCORD right now. If the changes in your scenario took place, it would make even more sense to be able to repeatedly attack in the same spot since avoiding them would suddenly be possible.
Quote:Last time I checked my Eve history books it wasn't trivially easy to evade them before. You need to check again. In the early history, you could just blow them up and be on your merry way.
Quote:My point is that CCP has been that way on other things before, but players have changed their mind and changes happened. I respect other people's opinions, but at the end of the day that argument is not going to dissuade me from trying to show CCP a different line of thinking. The problem is that you're not offering them that. You are only demonstrating that CCP's line of thinking is the right one since no coherent argument exist for changing their minds. This is because you reuse and refer to the same irrelevances that have failed to convince them so far: things like lore and GÇ£realismGÇ¥ GÇö neither of which have any bearing whatsoever on gameplay and balance.
Quote:If I didn't agree with that premise I wouldn't be in this thread arguing that their current form makes no sense. But they make perfect sense. That's where your argument falls down completely. CONCORD is a tax; police and navies are a nuisance. That is all. They only GÇ£don't make senseGÇ¥ if you fail to remember that they are game mechanics, nothing more. If they made sense from any other perspective, they would be inherently broken and require immediate removal since they no longer have any place in the game.
Really, the only thing that does not make sense is the hauler pilots' abject refusal to do anything about their situation, in spite of the metric fuckton of means at their disposal. If you want want to bring some sense into the game, that's where you have to start.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24920
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 19:57:20 -
[755] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:The fact that people are blowing up empty freighters shows how broken the system is. How so? Why should people not be able to blow up freighters just because they're empty? If anything, the opposite would be hilariously broken.
Quote:The fact that code folks can sit in uedama and gank freighters every 15 minutes with no tangible consequences is telling. That is a fantasy, not a fact, and the fact that people keep bringing this nonsense up is telling. It shows that they are utterly clueless about all things related to ganking, and yet they feel the urge to change it for no sane or sensible reason.
Quote:Because that should not be a concern in a law abiding area patrolled by a competent police force. That is what makes highsec different than low/null. Incorrect on both points.
it is their concern because the police force does not patrol the area. The fact that you are in higsec does not mean that you can't concern yourself with what other players might do. Quite the opposite. What makes highsec different than low or null is that aggression in highsec comes at a cost GÇö be it cash or assets GÇö that is all. So flying around in highsec comes down to a single, very simple gamble: are you betting that other people will be too cheap and too miserly to blow you up? You can skew that gamble for or against you by making it more or less costly to go for the kill, but at the end of the day, any GÇ£securityGÇ¥ you experience in highsec comes down to that gamble.
What makes highsec high security is that outside of highsec, you're not betting on something as safe as miserliness, but on effort and time. In null, all bets are off.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14794
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 19:58:09 -
[756] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
The folks getting their empty freighters blown up are not the level 4 mission and incursion runners.
Gonna need some evidence for that statement.
Veers Belvar wrote:
They are the simple players who mine and run low level missions.
Yep, people on low incomes are needing and buying billion isk ships with the largest holds in the game...
Veers Belvar wrote:
Those are the guys suffering here....the better players are good enough to not get hit by any of this. And the point is that goon line members never have to worry about being unable to plex - your alliance takes care of them...not so for independent pve highsec players who can get blown straight out of the game from ganking.
Yep, we buy in thousands of plex each month for every memeber
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16047
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 20:00:42 -
[757] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:David Mandrake wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:David Mandrake wrote:
Perhaps if it was such a big loss to them they shouldn't have moved it in to a well-known ganking area, or they should have used a cheaper ship until they could afford to replace it. T1/T2 haulers aren't that expensive compared to a freighter, and a DST can fit a rather serious tank. Most of these kills are in Uedama; and it should be something easy to avoid by now.
You should not need to be worry about having an empty ship blow up at a huge loss in highsec. Why? Because that should not be a concern in a law abiding area patrolled by a competent police force. That is what makes highsec different than low/null.
You're referring to the empire factions who are at war with each other here?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
158
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 20:19:14 -
[758] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:David Mandrake wrote:
Perhaps if it was such a big loss to them they shouldn't have moved it in to a well-known ganking area, or they should have used a cheaper ship until they could afford to replace it. T1/T2 haulers aren't that expensive compared to a freighter, and a DST can fit a rather serious tank. Most of these kills are in Uedama; and it should be something easy to avoid by now.
You should not need to be worry about having an empty ship blow up at a huge loss in highsec.
"Don't fly what you can't afford to lose" applies to the ship just as much as it does to its contents.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 20:25:41 -
[759] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Fine. Gulf of Aden. Same thing: a crucial transport route, full of patrols, that everyone and their dog goes through, and which see regular attacks. Somalia is lowsec; the sea route that passes by it is highsec. So yes, it makes perfect sense that the same people would be allowed to attack the same targets in the same locations on a daily basis. It happens all over the world, actually.
I see a lot of reports of violence in Yemen and Somolia, but what I don't see is a lot of reports of gangs continually attacking ships there. Given the price of oil these days I'd think that'd be just as news worthy as when piracy was a thing off the cape of Africa before American snipers started knocking pirates off.
Tippia wrote:You're confusing yourself. It is impossible to avoid CONCORD right now. If the changes in your scenario took place, it would make even more sense to be able to repeatedly attack in the same spot since avoiding them would suddenly be possible.
Well I'm definitely confused, but more in line with trying to figure out where I stated that it is possible to evade concord now. I'm also confused as how it would make sense that you could evade concord if they didn't have God Powers. See my whole thing is that the God powers aren't necessary to enforce the rule of law. Its not like real cops have them. My point is that in the current scenario of people ganking ships on stations and gates is practically synonymous to a gang of people knocking off 18 wheelers in front of state trooper headquarters... the response would be swift and overwhelming in that case.
TIPPA = "You need to check again. In the early history, you could just blow them up and be on your merry way."
Not sure about the merry way part. But I did find an account of the history you could possibly be talking about. http://www.thecoffeerocks.com/dir/index.php/articles-and-news/84-eve-history-zombies-defied-concord-leading-to-their-revamp
These guys weren't evading them per say, there were merely killing them faster than they could spawn. I don't think that the mechanics back then allowed you to "evade" them.
Tippia wrote:You are only demonstrating that CCP's line of thinking is the right one since no coherent argument exist for changing their minds. This is because you reuse and refer to the same irrelevances that have failed to convince them so far: things like lore and GÇ£realismGÇ¥ GÇö neither of which have any bearing whatsoever on gameplay and balance.
Arguments can be coherent without achieving their desired outcome. It happens all the time in politics because one side is so entrenched in their opinion that no matter what evidence is shown they wont change their mind. Its the same thing here. Two sides are very entrenched and the debate is going to continue for ever whether you like it, or whether you have input or not.
Tippia wrote: That's where your argument falls down completely. CONCORD is a tax; police and navies are a nuisance. That is all. They only GÇ£don't make senseGÇ¥ if you fail to remember that they are game mechanics, nothing more. If they made sense from any other perspective, they would be inherently broken and require immediate removal since they no longer have any place in the game.
So having a police force be actually effective at the job would mean that they are inherently broken and require immediate removal? Not sure what evidence you have to back this up.
Tippia wrote:
Really, the only thing that does not make sense is the hauler pilots' abject refusal to do anything about their situation, in spite of the metric fuckton of means at their disposal. If you want want to bring some sense into the game, that's where you have to start.
Because educating the masses has done so well for CCP, or is there some reason that the NPE has to be continually revised on a regular basis? |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14794
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 21:06:51 -
[760] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
I see a lot of reports of violence in Yemen and Somolia, but what I don't see is a lot of reports of gangs continually attacking ships there. Given the price of oil these days I'd think that'd be just as news worthy as when piracy was a thing off the cape of Africa before American snipers started knocking pirates off.
You should look harder then, there is a multi million pound industry for armed guards in that area with several floating armouries in international waters along with 25 frigates from several nations and costs industry $6.6 to $6.9 billion a year in global trade.
Valterra Craven wrote:
So having a police force be actually effective at the job would mean that they are inherently broken and require immediate removal? Not sure what evidence you have to back this up.
CCP dont want the NPCs to do everything for you. They want you to protect yourself.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24920
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 21:08:58 -
[761] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I see a lot of reports of violence in Yemen and Somolia, but what I don't see is a lot of reports of gangs continually attacking ships there. EhmGǪ You are aware of the on-going piracy problem in places like the Gulf of Aden, right? To the point where various nations have sent navy vessels down there, shipping companies starting to count ransom money as part of the cost of doing business, and private security companies making bank of the whole situation?
Quote:Well I'm definitely confused, but more in line with trying to figure out where I stated that it is possible to evade concord now. I'm also confused as how it would make sense that you could evade concord if they didn't have God Powers. See my whole thing is that the God powers aren't necessary to enforce the rule of law. Its not like real cops have them. My point is that in the current scenario of people ganking ships on stations and gates is practically synonymous to a gang of people knocking off 18 wheelers in front of state trooper headquarters... the response would be swift and overwhelming in that case. GǪand the counter-point is that it would make even more sense that people could continuously attack in the same spot if those powers were removed, compared to the already high amount of sense it makes at the moment. You were drawing up a scenario that would make it easier to avoid any repercussions and then rhetorically asking if it GÇ£would make sense that they would allow you to repeatedly attack targets in the same system on a daily basisGÇ¥ GÇö the answer to which is obviously GÇ£yesGÇ¥ since you've just made it easier.
And yes, back in the day, CONCORD could be evaded GÇö m0o just chose to stay and fight because it was more fun. Or did you really expect the mechanics to be such that they could be destroyed, but were somehow impossible to get away from?
Quote:Arguments can be coherent without achieving their desired outcome. It happens all the time in politics because one side is so entrenched in their opinion that no matter what evidence is shown they wont change their mind. Its the same thing here. Two sides are very entrenched and the debate is going to continue for ever whether you like it, or whether you have input or not. True enough, but the point is that they are not coherent to begin with, since they assume a reality that isGǪ wellGǪ not real. Argument for mechanical change based on lore or based on appeal to GÇ£the real worldGÇ¥ are nonsensical for the simple reason that it is a game. Mechanics serve gameplay GÇö all else is pointless fluff. If the gameplay matches the lore, then great; if not, so what.
So to be coherent, any kind of argument about mechanics have to talk about gameplay or it is just fails to have any kind of point.
Quote:So having a police force be actually effective at the job would mean that they are inherently broken and require immediate removal? Yes. Because if it acted as an effective police force, it would remove tons of content and gameplay, imbalance the game, and completely redefine the entire security system, for no practical reason. Above all, it would mean it would no longer
serve its purpose of being a tax. So to fix the former problem, it would have to be removed; to fix the latter, something else would have to be instituted in its place.
Quote:Because educating the masses has done so well for CCP, or is there some reason that the NPE has to be continually revised on a regular basis? They're getting there, and yes, they're getting better at it. If you take note of all the Gǣthink of the childrenGǥ arguments that fallaciously pop up in these debates, chances are that it's more the older players that are having this problem than the new onesGǪ
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 21:10:26 -
[762] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
You should look harder then, there is a multi million pound industry for armed guards in that area with several floating armouries in international waters along with 25 frigates from several nations and costs industry $6.6 to $6.9 billion a year in global trade.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/world/africa/7-year-low-reported-in-piracy-off-somalia.html
So from what I can tell, piracy has decreased but not stopped with exactly the measures I've been advocating for.
Valterra Craven wrote:
CCP dont want the NPCs to do everything for you. They want you to protect yourself.
Who said anything about making the NPCS do everything for you? On man it would be so cool if I could pay interbus to ship goods for me anywhere in hi sec... or have little mining fleets so neat... /sarcasm.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14794
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 21:11:37 -
[763] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Who said anything about making the NPCS do everything for you?
You are.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 21:23:24 -
[764] - Quote
Tippia wrote:EhmGǪ You are aware of the on-going piracy problem in places like the Gulf of Aden, right? To the point where various nations have sent navy vessels down there, shipping companies starting to count ransom money as part of the cost of doing business, and private security companies making bank of the whole situation?
You mean reinforcements are being sent by policing bodies to stamp down on the issue? GASP the very thing I've been asking for?! Shocker...
Tippia wrote:and the counter-point is that it would make even more sense that people could continuously attack in the same spot if those powers were removed, compared to the already high amount of sense it makes at the moment.
That would be the counter if I was saying they should also be deaf, dumb, and blind. But considering I'm not saying any of that your argument falls flat.
Tippia wrote:
And yes, back in the day, CONCORD could be evaded GÇö m0o just chose to stay and fight because it was more fun. Or did you really expect the mechanics to be such that they could be destroyed, but were somehow impossible to get away from?
I do, because that's how they operated, or did you fail to read the article? It specifically said that concord would continue to spawn UNTIL the player was dealt with. Meaning that the mechanic was not designed in such a way that they were meant to be evaded initially.
Tippia wrote:True enough, but the point is that they are not coherent to begin with, since they assume a reality that isGǪ wellGǪ not real. Argument for mechanical change based on lore or based on appeal to GÇ£the real worldGÇ¥ are nonsensical for the simple reason that it is a game. Mechanics serve gameplay GÇö all else is pointless fluff. If the gameplay matches the lore, then great; if not, so what.
So to be coherent, any kind of argument about mechanics have to talk about gameplay or it is just fails to have any kind of point.
No, the point is that both sides could have competing but equally valid arguments and thus the reason for their being no resolution. As to making arguments for Lore, I'll remember to point that out to CCP the next time they make a change specifically for lore reasons, like the module rebalance where they re-introduced the "eve lingo" back into module names for no other reason than just that.
Tippia wrote:Because if it acted as an effective police force, it would remove tons of content and gameplay.
So empire ganks are "tons of content" now. You will have to forgive me if I think I'm not the one making incoherent arguments here.
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 21:24:49 -
[765] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Who said anything about making the NPCS do everything for you?
You are.
Just because you think I am, doesn't mean that I actually am. |
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 21:39:30 -
[766] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:The fact that code folks can sit in uedama and gank freighters every 15 minutes with no tangible consequences is telling. That is a fantasy, not a fact, and the fact that people keep bringing this nonsense up is telling. It shows that they are utterly clueless about all things related to ganking, and yet they feel the urge to change it for no sane or sensible reason.
Can you be more specific as to what you are saying is fact and not fact?
I did a little research on some code gankers today and judging by the time stamps on this killboard link, there doesn't seem to be any reason why they couldn't gank a target every 15 minutes. I don't know of any game mechanic that would limit their killing. In fact, I think that the only real limit here would be their choice of targets, aka is there someone profitable to nuke every 15 minutes vs I'm going to nuke everyone regardless of profitability every 15 minutes. Either way I'm not sure what evidence you are using to support your dispute of that claim.
https://zkillboard.com/character/1941616627/
Edit: Just in case that killboard link is removed What I'm pointing to is loyalanon's killboard page where he has a freighter kill at:
8:26
8:49
9:07
Some of those kills don't even look profitable. But thats not really the point I'm concerned with or care about. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24920
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 21:40:01 -
[767] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:You mean reinforcements are being sent by policing bodies to stamp down on the issue? No. The policing bodies aren't enough to deal with the matter, so the carriers enlist the help of private companies and unrelated nations GÇö alliances, if you will. Almost like in EVE, except for that last part. So it's the exact opposite of what you're asking for, and entirely in line with what we're suggesting that haulers do to protect themselves.
Quote:That would be the counter if I was saying they should also be deaf, dumb, and blind. No, it's a counter for the simple fact that you say they are less efficient than they are now. You may not realise that you're saying this, but you are.
Quote:I do, because that's how they operated, or did you fail to read the article? It specifically said that concord would continue to spawn UNTIL the player was dealt with. GǪunless the player kept away, which was possible back then. It was more of a faff than just blowing them up, though.
Quote:So to be coherent, any kind of argument about mechanics have to talk about gameplay or it is just fails to have any kind of point. No. To be coherent, the argument has to actually talk about what the argument is about rather than something irrelevant red herring. An argument about a change in mechanics needs to talk about gameplay, not lore or reality, because those are in every way utterly inconsequential.
Quote:So empire ganks are "tons of content" now. Everything players do because NPCs don't do it, and everything players invent as a consequence of both of those is content. Tons of it. Ganking is a small part of it, yes, but it is less than half of the equation. You are asking NPCs to do something players can do just fine on their own, and that is inherently a bad thing since it removes gameplay. It's even worse since there's no coherent reason for doing so.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24920
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 21:41:26 -
[768] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Can you be more specific as to what you are saying is fact and not fact? None of it is fact. As in GÇ£not a single part of that claim was correct.GÇ¥ It doesn't get any more specific than that.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14794
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 21:44:50 -
[769] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Just because you think I am, doesn't mean that I actually am.
You are asking for faction navies to step up patrols in popular choke points for ganking. Thats asking for CCP to protect you.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 21:49:45 -
[770] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:If I make the statement that as of right now people can sit in uedama and gank freighters all day, every day, every 15 minutes, that would be incorrect? Yes. Quote:Even though I just linked to a killboard where exactly that is happening? No.
Please provide evidence proving your point. |
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24920
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 21:53:23 -
[771] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Please provide evidence proving your point. Your link provides the proof, as does even a cursory understanding of CONCORD mechanics and timers.
The timers make it impossible to sit in a system and gank anything every 15 minutes. CONCORD makes it impossible to do so with no tangible consequences. The population distribution and play patterns of EVE (and especially Code) makes it impossible to do so all day, every day.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14794
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 21:56:31 -
[772] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
You are asking for faction navies to step up patrols in popular choke points for ganking. Thats asking for CCP to protect you.
Actually, what I'm asking for escalating consequences for repeated criminal activity. The form of those consequences is irrelevant to me. That is no way asking for CCP to protect me.
You just asked for exactly what I just described again.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 21:57:49 -
[773] - Quote
Tippia wrote:
The timers make it impossible to sit in a system and gank anything every 15 minutes.
And yet, I just showed you exactly where this is happening.
That Code person had 4 freighter kills in the span of 1 hour and 2 minutes Starting at 8:05 and ending at 9:07. So please, tell me what game mechanics should be preventing this so I can report them as exploiters.
Tippia wrote:
CONCORD makes it impossible to do so with no tangible consequences.
Well "tangible consequences" means completely different things to different sets of players. Otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. |
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 22:00:43 -
[774] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
You just asked for exactly what I just described again.
So asking for a scenario where a person could still die (and is entirely likely to still die) is asking for complete protection. Got it. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24920
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 22:02:14 -
[775] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:And yet, I just showed you exactly where this is happening. Nope.
Quote:That Code person had 4 freighter kills in the span of 1 hour and 2 minutes Starting at 8:05 and ending at 9:07. You need to look up the turn GÇ£fence post errorGÇ¥ (or off-by-one error). 4 kills in the span of 1 hour does not mean one happens every 15 minutes. The fact that you can't spot this error by simply looking at the timestamps is worrying.
Quote:Well "tangible consequences" means completely different things to different sets of players. Otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. Yes, there are tons of people who erroneously think that minerals you mine yourself are free. Or that low = zero. Or that by voiding consequences, they don't exist to begin with. Just because they think these things does not mean any of it is actually true GÇö it just means that those people are objectively wrong.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 22:06:58 -
[776] - Quote
Tippia wrote:You need to look up the turn GÇ£fence post errorGÇ¥ (or off-by-one error). 4 kills in the span of 1 hour does not mean one happens every 15 minutes.
I'm sorry, because 15 minutes and 30 seconds is so drastically and radically different than a straight 15 minutes? K, mister specific to the tee. I'll just round up and say its possible to sit in a system and kill things all day every day every 16 minutes.
Tippia wrote:Yes, there are tons of people who erroneously think that minerals you mine yourself are free. Or that low = zero. Or that by voiding consequences, they don't exist to begin with. Just because they think these things does not mean any of it is actually true GÇö it just means that those people are objectively wrong.
All valid points, which don't actually relate to the effectiveness of ganking consequences.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24920
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 22:11:35 -
[777] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I'm sorry, because 15 minutes and 30 seconds is so drastically and radically different than a straight 15 minutes? You are still making the exact same error. Look at the times. Look at how they are spaced. Then look up the term off-by-one error and see where you're going wrong. 4 kills in 62 minutes does not mean that they are [-á62-á/-á4-á=]-á15.5 minutes apart. It means they are [-á62-á/-á3-á=] 20Gàö minutes apart.
So not only do you not understand the basic mechanics of CONCORD and its timers, which will give you the answer anyway, you fail simple subtraction. Do you understand why I was so quick to pull out the word GÇ£incoherentGÇ¥ when generalising about the counter-gank arguments? It's because of face-palmingly silly mistakes such as that one GÇö and again, you are only joining the herd in that regard.
Quote:K, mister specific to the tee. I'll just round up and say its possible to sit in a system and kill things all day every day every 16 minutes. If you want to be specific to the tee, at least be accurate and say that you can kill things every server tick.
Quote:All valid points, which don't actually relate to the effectiveness of ganking consequences. It relates to them being objectively wrong about the consequences, for almost the exact same reasons.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14795
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 22:18:44 -
[778] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
You just asked for exactly what I just described again.
So asking for a scenario where a person could still die (and is entirely likely to still die) is asking for complete protection. Got it.
Its asking for more protection yes. The more you try to worm your way out of what you just said the more stupid you look.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
454
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 22:25:23 -
[779] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
You just asked for exactly what I just described again.
So asking for a scenario where a person could still die (and is entirely likely to still die) is asking for complete protection. Got it. Its asking for more protection yes. The more you try to worm your way out of what you just said the more stupid you look.
Nothing stupid about asking CONCORD to act like any effective police force would and take actual measures to curtail the crime sprees of known repeat criminals. |
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 22:27:16 -
[780] - Quote
Tippia wrote:You are still making the exact same error. Look at the times. Look at how they are spaced. Then look up the term off-by-one error and see where you're going wrong. 4 kills in 62 minutes does not mean that they are [-á62-á/-á4-á=]-á15.5 minutes apart. It means they are [-á62-á/-á3-á=] 20Gàö minutes apart.
I'm not making ANY error because the actual minute differences between 15 minutes, 16 minutes, 20 minutes or more is irrelevant to the point of the argument as ALL of those times are of a similar duration ie: SHORT. You are being obtuse for the sake of it. The POINT of the argument is that it is possible to sit in a system and indiscriminately kill targets in short busts of time.
Tippia wrote:
Do you understand why I was so quick to pull out the word GÇ£incoherentGÇ¥ when generalising about the counter-gank arguments? It's because of face-palmingly silly mistakes such as that one GÇö and again, you are only joining the herd in that regard.
Do you understand why people hate you?
Tippia wrote:Quote:The fact that code folks can sit in uedama and gank freighters every 15 minutes with no tangible consequences is telling. That is a fantasy, not a fact, and the fact that people keep bringing this nonsense up is telling. It shows that they are utterly clueless about all things related to ganking
Because taking his point and blowing it out of proportion to his mistake and mine while failing to address the main point he was making is mean and utterly counterproductive to civil debate? |
|
|
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
159
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 22:28:00 -
[781] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
You just asked for exactly what I just described again.
So asking for a scenario where a person could still die (and is entirely likely to still die) is asking for complete protection. Got it. Its asking for more protection yes. The more you try to worm your way out of what you just said the more stupid you look. Nothing stupid about asking CONCORD to act like any effective police force would and take actual measures to curtail the crime sprees of known repeat criminals.
Oh, mighty NPC overlords. Grant thy boon and cast down the criminals that we mere mortals are too lazy and incompetent to punish, ourselves!
Loot fairy be praised!
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24920
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 22:28:41 -
[782] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Nothing stupid about asking CONCORD to act like any effective police force would and take actual measures to curtail the crime sprees of known repeat criminals.
SoGǪ show up late, most often not catch the criminal, and having very little to go on you mean? Thereby making it possible to more effectively go on crime sprees and become a repeat criminalGǪ
No, that's not so stupid. What's stupid is asking NPCs to do something outside of their design purpose, to harm and reduce gameplay and content, and to take work away from players. It's also pretty stupid to ask for more protection in an area of the game where protection is already far higher than it needs to be.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 22:31:58 -
[783] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Its asking for more protection yes. The more you try to worm your way out of what you just said the more stupid you look.
Asking for more consequences is not the same as asking for more protection.
Let me put it to you this way: the US made certain drug offenses harsher than others. The net result was not that citizens were more protected from dugs. It just meant that when criminals were caught, they had longer jail terms. |
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
159
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 22:32:59 -
[784] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Tippia wrote:You are still making the exact same error. Look at the times. Look at how they are spaced. Then look up the term off-by-one error and see where you're going wrong. 4 kills in 62 minutes does not mean that they are [-á62-á/-á4-á=]-á15.5 minutes apart. It means they are [-á62-á/-á3-á=] 20Gàö minutes apart. I'm not making ANY error because the actual minute differences between 15 minutes, 16 minutes, 20 minutes or more is irrelevant to the point of the argument as ALL of those times are of a similar duration ie: SHORT. You are being obtuse for the sake of it. The POINT of the argument is that it is possible to sit in a system and indiscriminately kill targets in short busts of time.
And the freighter pilots that happily prance through that system despite its killboard lighting up like a Christmas tree had absolutely no choice but to accept their fate, right?
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
456
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 22:35:52 -
[785] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Nothing stupid about asking CONCORD to act like any effective police force would and take actual measures to curtail the crime sprees of known repeat criminals. SoGǪ show up late, most often not catch the criminal, and having very little to go on you mean? Thereby making it possible to more effectively go on crime sprees and become a repeat criminalGǪ No, that's not so stupid. What's stupid is asking NPCs to do something outside of their design purpose, to harm and reduce gameplay and content, and to take work away from players. It's also pretty stupid to ask for more protection in an area of the game where protection is already far higher than it needs to be.
No, what's stupid is "code enforcers" sitting in Uedama and committing the EXACT SAME CRIME over and over again, and yet suffering no penalty beyond loss of gank ship and a 15 minute timeout. What's stupid is that said gankers can do so on a disposable gank alt while their nullsec main happily afk rats or afk mines his way to wealth. That is a crazy and broken system and screams out for a fix. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24920
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 22:40:07 -
[786] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I'm not making ANY error GǪaside from basic maths, basic understanding of game mechanics, and basic application of common sense. Had you applied those in reverse order, you would not have arrived to the point where you are trying to claim that 26-5 = 15, or that 49 - 26 = 15.
Instead, you made the error of outing yourself as fundamentally unqualified to discuss the matter at hand.
Quote:The POINT of the argument is that it is possible to sit in a system and indiscriminately kill targets in short busts of time. Good. The system is purposefully designed to allow for that.
Quote:Do you understand why people hate you? They don't.
Quote:Because taking his point and blowing it out of proportion to his mistake and mine while failing to address the main point he was making is mean and utterly counterproductive to civil debate? No. it's entirely constructive to expose the ignorance, incompetence, incoherence, and outright mendacity that characterises the entire anti-gank faction. The main point has been addressed many times over, and you tried to invent some evidence to prop up a minor GÇö inherently inaccurate GÇö tangent. Now you're upset that this point, too, exploded spectacularly when it came into contact with reality.
Quote:Asking for more consequences is not the same as asking for more protection. Good. Then we can remove the consequences entirely since it won't affect the protection int the slightest.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24920
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 22:44:12 -
[787] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:No, what's stupid is "code enforcers" sitting in Uedama and committing the EXACT SAME CRIME over and over again, and yet suffering no penalty beyond loss of gank ship and a 15 minute timeout. How is that stupid? It's no different than how the game treats miners or mission-runners or traders orGǪ wellGǪ everyone really. Why must criminals be treated differently and not be allowed to grind?
Quote:What's stupid is that said gankers can do so on a disposable gank alt while their nullsec main happily afk rats or afk mines his way to wealth. No, they really can't. Disposable alts aren't really allowed and are probably one of the biggest myths of EVE. And how is it stupid that you can do earn money on one character and spend it on another?
Quote:That is a crazy and broken system and screams out for a fix. What's crazy and broken about it? Why does it need to be fixed?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14795
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 22:45:45 -
[788] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
Nothing stupid about asking CONCORD to act like any effective police force would and take actual measures to curtail the crime sprees of known repeat criminals.
If you want safety for zero effort go play a game that provides it. STO for example.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14795
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 22:46:51 -
[789] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Asking for more consequences is not the same as asking for more protection.
Yes it is.
Valterra Craven wrote:
Let me put it to you this way: the US made certain drug offenses harsher than others. The net result was not that citizens were more protected from dugs. It just meant that when criminals were caught, they had longer jail terms.
Once again, this is a game.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
433
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 22:52:21 -
[790] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GǪaside from basic maths, basic understanding of game mechanics, and basic application of common sense. Had you applied those in reverse order, you would not have arrived to the point where you are trying to claim that 26-5 = 15, or that 49 - 26 = 15.
You mean I don't understand the basic game mechanic that when you shoot something you get a criminal flag for a short duration of time, or that 26-5 = 21 but that the 6 minute gap could mean he didn't have a target to shoot for 6 minutes and therefore could account for the gap without making the first past the post error? I don't understand that being able to kill something in the same spot in the same way every 20 minutes doesn't make much common sense? Ok. Understand.
Tippia wrote:
Instead, you made the error of outing yourself as fundamentally unqualified to discuss the matter at hand.
Well rightly or wrongly the US justice system does not demand that juries be subject matter experts in the case at hand to be able to come to some semblance of a resolution, so your point on its face seems rather silly. Especially when considering those stakes are a lot higher...
You can not categorically state that no one on these forums hate you.
Tippia wrote:No. it's entirely constructive to expose the ignorance, incompetence, incoherence, and outright mendacity that characterises the entire anti-gank faction. The main point has been addressed many times over, and you tried to invent some evidence to prop up a minor GÇö inherently inaccurate GÇö tangent. Now you're upset that this point, too, exploded spectacularly when it came into contact with reality.
Well considering that you agree with the point that gankers can gank in short bursts of time, It would seem that have you failed at your objective to expose those problems.
Tippia wrote: Then we can remove the consequences entirely since it won't affect the protection int the slightest. Course on the flip side asking for more of them won't affect the protection in the slightest either. I'm happy to agree with you on that point.
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
433
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 22:54:51 -
[791] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Asking for more consequences is not the same as asking for more protection.
Yes it is.
We'll agree to disagree.
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Let me put it to you this way: the US made certain drug offenses harsher than others. The net result was not that citizens were more protected from dugs. It just meant that when criminals were caught, they had longer jail terms.
Once again, this is a game.
Once again the example was used to illustrate a point. The fact that the point had to do with a game using a real life example is irrelevant. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24920
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 22:59:46 -
[792] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:You mean I don't understand the basic game mechanic that when you shoot something you get a criminal flag for a short duration of time, or that 26-5 = 21 but that the 6 minute gap could mean he didn't have a target to shoot for 6 minutes and therefore could account for the gap without making the first past the post error? No, it could not mean that, again for game-mechanical reasons. That's why I put that step higher up on the list, and why it's so telling that your internal reasoning wasn't caught at that point. And being able to kill something in the same spot in the same way every 20 minutes is called grinding GÇö it comes with the genre.
Quote:Well rightly or wrongly the US justice system GǪis irrelevant to this discussion.
Quote:You can not categorically state that no one on these forums hate you. I can categorically state that GÇ£peopleGÇ¥ don't hate me. I'm sure there are some people who get terribly upset that their fallacies are exposed and their arguments ground to dust, but they are hardly ones to generalise from.
Quote:Well considering that you agree with the point that gankers can gank in short bursts of time, It would seem that have you failed at your objective to expose those problems. No, moving the goalposts does not make me fail GÇö quite the opposite. It just makes the initial argument that more fallacious, further demonstrating the ignorance, incompetence, incoherence and mendacity of it all.
Quote:Course on the flip side asking for more of them won't affect the protection in the slightest either. I'm happy to agree with you on that point. Nope. I am explaining to you what you just said. No agreement with this obvious nonsense is expressed or implied.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11617
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 23:22:51 -
[793] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
You should not need to be worry about having an empty ship blow up at a huge loss in highsec.
The opposite is true. You should always be worried about that.
Especially if you're stupid enough to be afk.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
456
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 23:26:57 -
[794] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:No, what's stupid is "code enforcers" sitting in Uedama and committing the EXACT SAME CRIME over and over again, and yet suffering no penalty beyond loss of gank ship and a 15 minute timeout. How is that stupid? It's no different than how the game treats miners or mission-runners or traders orGǪ wellGǪ everyone really. Why must criminals be treated differently and not be allowed to grind? Quote:What's stupid is that said gankers can do so on a disposable gank alt while their nullsec main happily afk rats or afk mines his way to wealth. No, they really can't. Disposable alts aren't really allowed and are probably one of the biggest myths of EVE. And how is it stupid that you can do earn money on one character and spend it on another? Quote:That is a crazy and broken system and screams out for a fix. What's crazy and broken about it? Why does it need to be fixed?
Criminals are treated differently because they commit crimes. They could have consequence free PvP in nullsec..but they choose to come to highsec, break the law, and should face appropriate sanctions.
Gankers can have a dedicated -10 gank alt, and their main is insulated from their criminal conduct. They don't bear the consequences of their behavior.
|
Valterra Craven
433
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 23:30:55 -
[795] - Quote
Tippia wrote:No, it could not mean that, again for game-mechanical reasons. It COULD mean that if the game mechanics were different. The point is that based on the data I was looking at, it was not an unreasonable or idiotic mistake to make if the assumption was someone could make criminal kills every 15 minutes. But again that is besides the point.
Tippia wrote:is irrelevant to this discussion. Your point that someone must be a subject matter expect on a given topic before they can offer general opinions about how a system should be made to be more balanced is also irrelevant.
Tippia wrote:I can categorically state that GÇ£peopleGÇ¥ don't hate me. No you can't. If more than one person hates you (which is entirely plausible) then the plural of person is people and therefore you can't state that you know for a fact that people don't hate you.
[Tippia wrote:
No, moving the goalposts does not make me fail GÇö quite the opposite. It just makes the initial argument that more fallacious, further demonstrating the ignorance, incompetence, incoherence and mendacity of it all.
The point of the original argument was that ganks happen in short duration of time in the system for most of the day. You agree that this point is not only possible but that it happens regularly. Therefore, trying to obfuscate the main point by debating minor nuances that have no effect on the general outcome of the main line of thinking means that you are being purposefully argumentative and serve no purpose.
[Tippia wrote:Nope. I am explaining to you what you just said.
No, what you are explaining is one possible outcome of what I was arguing. The expression "throwing the baby out with the bath water" exists for a reason.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11617
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 23:31:19 -
[796] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
Criminals are treated differently because they commit crimes.
Which is presently true. Facpo, Concord and all.
Quote:They could have consequence free PvP in nullsec
You actually don't know that you still lose sec status? Are you kidding me?
Quote:
Gankers can have a dedicated -10 gank alt, and their main is insulated from their criminal conduct.
Haulers should have to use their main to haul, that way I can track and wardec them. Instead they use an alt, and their main is insulated from my wrath.
Alts exist, dumbass. Deal with it.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
433
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 23:35:46 -
[797] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:They could have consequence free PvP in nullsec
You actually don't know that you still lose sec status? Are you kidding me?
So Tippa, if your argument is that a person must have a basic understanding of game mechanics to be allowed to comment on game changes, then does it follow that Kaarous should not longer be allowed to make comments on this topic?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11617
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 23:38:38 -
[798] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:They could have consequence free PvP in nullsec
You actually don't know that you still lose sec status? Are you kidding me? So Tippia, if your argument is that a person must have a basic understanding of game mechanics to be allowed to comment on game changes, then does it follow that Kaarous should no longer be allowed to make comments on this topic?
Lowsec, bro. Veers has a long standing misconstruance that anything but highsec = nullsec.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
433
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 23:40:10 -
[799] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Lowsec, bro. Veers has a long standing misconstruance that anything but highsec = nullsec.
Given that he explicitly stated nullsec, he was not the one making factual errors. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24931
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 23:40:51 -
[800] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Criminals are treated differently because they commit crimes. They could have consequence free PvP in nullsec..but they choose to come to highsec, break the law, and should face appropriate sanctions. They do. But again, why should criminals be treated differently than anyone else who does the same thing over and over again?
Quote:Gankers can have a dedicated -10 gank alt, and their main is insulated from their criminal conduct. They don't bear the consequences of their behavior. Sure they do. It comes inherent with being a criminal and is pretty much unavoidable. Well, aside from the parts that are left to players to effect, but the main reason they don't bear those consequences is because the players in question don't feel the need to inflict them for some reason.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
|
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
456
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 23:42:10 -
[801] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Lowsec, bro. Veers has a long standing misconstruance that anything but highsec = nullsec.
Given that he explicitly stated nullsec, he was not the one making factual errors.
lol...I was scratching my had and madly googling to see if somehow you lose sec status for pvp in nullsec. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11617
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 23:42:25 -
[802] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Lowsec, bro. Veers has a long standing misconstruance that anything but highsec = nullsec.
Given that he explicitly stated nullsec, he was not the one making factual errors.
Living in nullsec means that you never set foot in low? Since when?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24933
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 23:46:05 -
[803] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:It COULD mean that if the game mechanics were different. The point is that based on the data I was looking at, it was not an unreasonable or idiotic mistake to make if the assumption was someone could make criminal kills every 15 minutes. But again that is besides the point. GǪbut the game mechanics aren't different, so no, it could not mean that. Based on the data you were looking at, it was entirely unreasonable and idiotic to assume that you can kill that often because the data does not show it. It was based purely on assumption, not supported by the data, contradicted by actual mechanics, and in conflict with common sense. The point remains the same: one side of this argument will go so far as to invent evidence to cover up the very obvious fact that they have no idea what they're talking about and that their arguments are completely nonsensical from top to bottom.
Yes I can, especially categorically. You see, I know of quite a few ardent supporters, which means that the category GÇ£peopleGÇ¥ is, at worst, divided on the topic. It's certainly not one that hates me.
Quote:The point of the original argument was that ganks happen in short duration of time in the system for most of the day. The point of the original argument was a lie. I exposed it as such. Moving the goal posts to state that it now meant something else is a fallacy and just further proves the ignorance behind it.
Quote:You agree that this point is not only possible but that it happens regularly. Nope and nope, in roughly that order.
Quote:No, what you are explaining is one possible outcome of what I was arguing. No. I'm explaining to you what you said. If you don't like the conclusion of your logic, then perhaps you should perhaps withdraw that logic as part of your argument. What you shouldn't do is assume that others agree with such a silly idea just because you didn't think it through.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Valterra Craven
433
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 23:46:27 -
[804] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Living in nullsec means that you never set foot in low? Since when?
Somehow having to traverse low sec to get to null sec (though I think it would be possible to get to null from hi through wormholes, but I'm not sure about that) means that you also have to start fights in low sec to get there? I lived in delve for the better part of a year. Yet I never once lost sec status in low sec. It wasn't because I was avoiding low sec at all costs... |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11617
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 23:47:54 -
[805] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Yet I never once lost sec status in low sec.
Did you shoot anybody?
Also, there you go, I went and edited it.
"outside of highsec", the context we were talking about in the first place. Hopefully you're done being obtuse/pedantic now.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
456
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 23:48:04 -
[806] - Quote
Actually gankers could kill more frequently than every 15 minutes by using chains of alts....they could even gank continuously..... |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24933
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 23:51:31 -
[807] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:So Tippia, if your argument is that a person must have a basic understanding of game mechanics to be allowed to comment on game changes It's not.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
David Mandrake
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
10
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 23:53:16 -
[808] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
Criminals are treated differently because they commit crimes. They could have consequence free PvP in nullsec..but they choose to come to highsec, break the law, and should face appropriate sanctions.
Nullsec PvP is hardly consequence free, it's just that many of the consequences are brought on by the players themselves utilizing the various mechanics in-game. This is probably part of the reason that many who live in Nullsec question why you need additional mechanics to defend yourself, when the mechanics exist to create further consequences for Criminals in Highsec - they're just not utilized.
In fact Nullsec PvP can come with rather dire consequences, given that losing a fight can leave you locked out of your assets and kicked out of your home. It's not possible to do that elsewhere (even in lowsec faction war, you can hire a hauler to move stuff out of a conqured system; this is just not possible in Null) |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11617
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 23:59:05 -
[809] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:You actually don't know that you still lose sec status outside of highsec? Are you kidding me? In LoSec, yes. But I don't think there's any kind of criminal/suspect flag activity in null/WH space. At least, I don't recall ever getting crim flagged for shooting neutrals.
True, but lowsec combat happens frequently enough that many, many nullsec bloc members are neg tens.
It was especially funny when they had the Caldari Capital ship event last year, with PL in particular flying through highsec like crazy. Local exploded because some people had never seen that many flashies before.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
433
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 00:04:02 -
[810] - Quote
Tippia wrote:but the game mechanics aren't different, so no, it could not mean that. Based on the data you were looking at, it was entirely unrealisable and idiotic to assume that you can kill that often because the data does not show it. It was based purely on assumption, not supported by the data, contradicted by actual mechanics, and in conflict with common sense. The point remains the same: one side of this argument will go so far as to invent evidence to cover up the very obvious fact that they have no idea what they're talking about and that their arguments are completely nonsensical from top to bottom
The fact that I showed an Eve outsider (well a person that's played Eve for less than a month) the same data and asked him if he thought it was possible to gank someone every 15 minutes and he responded yes, means that is not an unreasonable and idiotic to assumption to make. In fact, I bet if you carried the same question over to starter systems and showed them links to the kill mails I wonder how many would disagree.
Tippia wrote:The point of the original argument was a lie. I exposed it as such. Moving the goal posts to state that it now meant something else is a fallacy and just further proves the ignorance behind it.
You did what now? I believe the only thing you exposed was a math error. Errors are not lies. The only one moving goal posts is you.
Tippia wrote:]Nope and nope, in roughly that order. So back in post 757 where you said "Good. The system is purposefully designed to allow for that." was you saying something other than Ganks can and do happen in short succession and that is fine?
Tippia wrote:No. I'm explaining to you what you said. If you don't like the conclusion of your logic, then perhaps you should perhaps withdraw that logic as part of your argument. What you shouldn't do is assume that others agree with such a silly idea just because you didn't think it through.
Ok so lets put this in game context. CCP removed gankers getting insurance payouts for their ship losses. What you are saying is that this made concord more effective at protecting people in hi-sec. The problem is that his conclusion makes no sense because it in no way made concord more effective and in no way changed how much protection people in hi-sec received. The only outcome of this added consequence was that it changed the equation as to what is and is not profitable to gank. Therefore it is entirely possible to conclude that added consequences do not necessarily always translate to more protection.
|
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24933
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 00:05:07 -
[811] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:You actually don't know that you still lose sec status outside of highsec? Are you kidding me? In LoSec, yes. But I don't think there's any kind of criminal/suspect flag activity in null/WH space. At least, I don't recall ever getting crim flagged for shooting neutrals.
CW2.0 took out pretty much all of it yes, so the only two flags that matter for null now are W- and P-flags, and the various police forces in EVE don't care one whit about either. Before that, though, and before the separation between CONCORD standing and sec status, there were a handful of extreme edge cases where you could effectively flag yourself even in null (if you were really quick about it).
Oh, and if we go really far back, we come across mines. Silly things.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 00:06:17 -
[812] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Hopefully you're done being obtuse/pedantic now.
I doubt it. Because apparently that's the requirement to make "coherent" arguments now. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11618
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 00:08:16 -
[813] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Hopefully you're done being obtuse/pedantic now. I doubt it. Because apparently that's the requirement to make "coherent" arguments now.
Not making a 4th grade math error might help.
In case you haven't gotten it yet, the first gank occurs at "Time = zero".
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 00:11:18 -
[814] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Not making a 4th grade math error might help.
Pot, meet Kettle, both black. The requirement that one must make error free arguments in order to make a valid point is inherently stupid. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11618
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 00:12:46 -
[815] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Not making a 4th grade math error might help.
Pot, meet Kettle, both black. The requirement that one must make error free arguments in order to make a valid point is inherently stupid.
Yeah, English is not my first language, and I suck at conveying context. Which has, thanks largely to your insistence on pedantry, been edited back into the quote.
So, we've established that math and grammar are not the same thing. What next? Are we going to discuss the color of the sky vs the color of grass?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24935
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 00:17:34 -
[816] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:The fact that I showed an Eve outsider (well a person that's played Eve for less than a month) the same data and asked him if he thought it was possible to gank someone every 15 minutes and he responded yes, means that is not an unreasonable and idiotic to assumption to make. Unfortunately, it still is as unreasonable and idiotic as ever. He just has the excuse of not being familiar with the game mechanics, but he still has no excuse from extrapolating from data that doesn't show anything of the kind.
I exposed the original argument as being a lie. It was a lie based on the maths, a lie based on mechanics, and a lie based on common sense. Even if it were just an exaggeration for rhetoric effect, it would still be a lie. The supposed GÇ£factGÇ¥ that started it all is just a feverish fantasy.
Quote:So back in post 757 where you said "Good. The system is purposefully designed to allow for that." was you saying something other than Ganks can and do happen in short succession and that is fine? It was not me saying that ganks happen in short duration of time in the system, regularly, or for most of the day. That was entirely your straw man. If you're going to quote mine, make sure you understand the context of the quote.
Quote:Ok so lets put this in game context. CCP removed gankers getting insurance payouts for their ship losses. What you are saying is that this made concord more effective at protecting people in hi-sec. The problem is that his conclusion makes no sense because it in no way made concord more effective and in no way changed how much protection people in hi-sec received. It made CONCORD a lot more effective as a deterrent, and as such, people in highsec were more protected. As a result, ganks became more rare. The conclusion that skewing the fundamental gamble in highsec more in favour of the targets made the targets more safe makes quite a lot of sense once you understand how safety in highsec is constructed.
Quote:The only outcome of this added consequence was that it changed the equation as to what is and is not profitable to gank. GǪthereby making the threat of CONCORD more effective, increasing the protection offered to people. This is not rocket surgery we're talking about, you know.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14806
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 00:19:36 -
[817] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Actually gankers could kill more frequently than every 15 minutes by using chains of alts....they could even gank continuously.....
You have no idea how hyperdunking works do you?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
159
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 00:23:06 -
[818] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Actually gankers could kill more frequently than every 15 minutes by using chains of alts....they could even gank continuously..... You have no idea how hyperdunking works do you?
I don't think he's specifically referring to hyperdunking.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24935
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 00:25:32 -
[819] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Actually gankers could kill more frequently than every 15 minutes by using chains of alts....they could even gank continuously..... You have no idea how hyperdunking works do you? I don't think he's specifically referring to hyperdunking.
True enough. He's basically just saying that lots of people can kill lots of things. As if that kind of tautology was some kind of great and meaningful revelation.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
456
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 00:29:07 -
[820] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Actually gankers could kill more frequently than every 15 minutes by using chains of alts....they could even gank continuously..... You have no idea how hyperdunking works do you? I don't think he's specifically referring to hyperdunking. True enough. He's basically just saying that lots of people can kill lots of things. As if that kind of tautology was some kind of great and meaningful revelation.
Actually one person with many alts can kill multiple things. A guy running 10 clients simultaneously could theoretically pull off 10 ganks per 15 minutes, or 40 ganks an hour, so on average a gank every 1.5 minutes. |
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11618
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 00:30:43 -
[821] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
Actually one person with many alts can kill multiple things. A guy running 10 clients simultaneously could theoretically pull off 10 ganks per 15 minutes, or 40 ganks an hour, so on average a gank every 1.5 minutes.
And since ISBotter is finally illegal now, if they can run ten accounts simultaneously, they deserve it.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 00:35:03 -
[822] - Quote
Tippia wrote:I exposed the original argument as being a lie. So you're saying that you showed that the original poster was being intentionally misleading? Where exactly is the evidence of your claim?[/quote]
Tippia wrote:It was not me saying that ganks happen in short duration of time in the system, regularly, or for most of the day. That was entirely your straw man. If you're going to quote mine, make sure you understand the context of the quote. So just so everything is clear here. This is the entire quote block: Tippia wrote:Quote:The POINT of the argument is that it is possible to sit in a system and indiscriminately kill targets in short busts of time. Good. The system is purposefully designed to allow for that. Will you show exactly where this was taken out of context? And if that is NOT what you were saying, then given that I previously asked you point bank WHAT you were saying and you still didn't answer, will you now answer what you were saying/actually meaning? Tippia wrote:
It made CONCORD a lot more effective as a deterrent, and as such, people in highsec were more protected. As a result, ganks became more rare. The conclusion that skewing the fundamental gamble in highsec more in favour of the targets made the targets more safe makes quite a lot of sense once you understand how safety in highsec is constructed.
Based on the amount of ganks I'm seeing on killboards today, I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I can't see any frequency change in the number of ganks from before that change was implemented compared to the amount of ganks that happen now. However, if you have data to back up that point, I'd love to look at it. thereby making the threat of CONCORD more effective, increasing the protection offered to people. This is not rocket surgery we're talking about, you know.[/quote]
Only if all gankers cared about profitability. The problem is that CODE exists and they frequently kill things that are not profitable to kill which would mean that concord is not any more effective at its job then it was before the insurance change.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24936
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 00:35:45 -
[823] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Actually one person with many alts can kill multiple things. A guy running 10 clients simultaneously could theoretically pull off 10 ganks per 15 minutes, or 40 ganks an hour, so on average a gank every 1.5 minutes.
GǪand it is functionally indistinguishable from 10 people pulling off those 30 ganks per hour GÇö one each every 20 minutes. So all he's effectively saying is lots of people can kill lots of things. This is to be expected and it would be very weird if it wasn't the case.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
160
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 00:48:24 -
[824] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
Actually one person with many alts can kill multiple things. A guy running 10 clients simultaneously could theoretically pull off 10 ganks per 15 minutes, or 40 ganks an hour, so on average a gank every 1.5 minutes.
And since ISBotter is finally illegal now, if they can run ten accounts simultaneously, they deserve it.
Took the words right outta my mouth.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
456
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 00:51:27 -
[825] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
Actually one person with many alts can kill multiple things. A guy running 10 clients simultaneously could theoretically pull off 10 ganks per 15 minutes, or 40 ganks an hour, so on average a gank every 1.5 minutes.
And since ISBotter is finally illegal now, if they can run ten accounts simultaneously, they deserve it. Took the words right outta my mouth.
The fact that one human player can accomplish that is far more troubling than lots of human players working together accomplishing that. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11619
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 00:52:04 -
[826] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
The fact that one human player can accomplish that is far more troubling than lots of human players working together accomplishing that.
Why do you care? You don't want freighters to be attacked at all, the how shouldn't matter.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24937
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 00:52:57 -
[827] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:So you're saying that you showed that the original poster was being intentionally misleading? Where exactly is the evidence of your claim? As mentioned: in your data, in the game mechanics, and in the realm of common sense. He made a claim that is flat out impossible. An attempt was made to buttress this false claim with data that didn't support it, very obviously and blatantly lying about what the data actually said.
Quote:So just so everything is clear here.
This is the entire quote block:
[GǪ]
Will you show exactly where this was taken out of context? It was taken out of context when you said that GÇ£ganks happen in short duration of time in the system for most of the day. You agree that this point is not only possible but that it happens regularly.GÇ¥ I did not agree to either of those. That was entirely something of your invention. Hence my answer of GÇ£nope and nopeGÇ¥, which you tried to twist using the aforementioned quote.
Quote:Based on the amount of ganks I'm seeing on killboards today, I don't know how you came to that conclusion. By experiencing it at the time it happened. You do remember that ganks were cost-effective even if you didn't kill anything before that, right? Now, I'll grant you that the insurance change alone might not have been that big a hit GÇö ganking was already on a downward trend, and yet another nail in its coffin just kept that trend going.
Quote:I can't see any frequency change in the number of ganks from before that change was implemented compared to the amount of ganks that happen now. Yeah, uhm. That's most likely because you haven't looked. If you had, you would probably have noticed that Crucible happened before we had the full loss data collection we have today. If you did look, and can't see any change in frequency in how many ships are lost, then fewer are lost today since you are comparing a much smaller sample to a complete one.
Quote:Only if all gankers cared about profitability. Almost all of them do. Some just operate on statistics rather than individual spotting, and others use different revenue streams than pure loot. Profitability exists behind all of them. Change the profitability GÇö especially on the loss side GÇö and you change the behaviour.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24937
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 00:53:55 -
[828] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:The fact that one human player can accomplish that is far more troubling than lots of human players working together accomplishing that.
1. How is that a fact?
2. What makes it troubling than lots of pilots can kill lots of things?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
456
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 00:54:09 -
[829] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
The fact that one human player can accomplish that is far more troubling than lots of human players working together accomplishing that.
Why do you care? You don't want freighters to be attacked at all, the how shouldn't matter.
Eh? Where did you get that nugget? I personally think that the mechanics should steer crime towards high profitability targets. So empty freighters should be very safe, sure, but not so for ones stuffed with goodies. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
456
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 00:55:27 -
[830] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:The fact that one human player can accomplish that is far more troubling than lots of human players working together accomplishing that. 1. How is that a fact? 2. What makes it troubling than lots of pilots can kill lots of things?
1. Because it's objectively possible and true.
2. Because one person should not be able to replace the efficacy of live human cooperation. That was the problem with the late IsBoxer, and that remains the problem with one man gank fleets. |
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11619
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 00:57:44 -
[831] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I personally think that the mechanics should steer crime towards high profitability targets.
And I personally think that being afk should be a near guaranteed death sentence.
Quote:
So empty freighters should be very safe, sure, but not so for ones stuffed with goodies.
A billion+ isk killmail should never be safe. Ever.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24938
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 01:00:34 -
[832] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
1. Because it's objectively possible and true.
Prove it.
Quote:
2. Because one person should not be able to replace the efficacy of live human cooperation. That was the problem with the late IsBoxer, and that remains the problem with one man gank fleets.
Good news: they can't. A full fleet is far more efficient and capable, as demonstrated by the much reduces circumstances in which jollyjabbing works at all. The reason isboxer exists and was used is exactly because a single person can't juggle that many accounts at once.
Quote: So empty freighters should be very safe, sure, but not so for ones stuffed with goodies. This is already the case (well... except that stuffed freighters are also very safe).
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
456
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 01:20:22 -
[833] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
1. Because it's objectively possible and true.
Prove it. Quote:
2. Because one person should not be able to replace the efficacy of live human cooperation. That was the problem with the late IsBoxer, and that remains the problem with one man gank fleets.
Good news: they can't. A full fleet is far more efficient and capable, as demonstrated by the much reduces circumstances in which jollyjabbing works at all. The reason isboxer exists and was used is exactly because a single person can't juggle that many accounts at once. Quote: So empty freighters should be very safe, sure, but not so for ones stuffed with goodies. This is already the case (well... except that stuffed freighters are also very safe).
Prove that people can control mutliple clients? Doesn't that follow trivially from Green's theorem? |
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 01:22:22 -
[834] - Quote
Tippia wrote:in your data, in the game mechanics, and in the realm of common sense. He made a claim that is flat out impossible. An attempt was made to buttress this false claim with data that didn't support it, very obviously and blatantly lying about what the data actually said.
I fail to see how making a math error is blatant and obvious lying.
Tippia wrote:
That was entirely something of your invention.
So for the last time, what did you mean when you said "The system is purposefully designed to allow for that"?
Tippia wrote:You do remember that ganks were cost-effective even if you didn't kill anything before that, right? Now, I'll grant you that the insurance change alone might not have been that big a hit GÇö ganking was already on a downward trend, and yet another nail in its coffin just kept that trend going.
Yes, I remember that ganks were cost-effective even if you didn't kill anything. What I don't remember is the frequency they were happening.
Tippia wrote: If you did look, and can't see any change in frequency in how many ships are lost, then fewer are lost today since you are comparing a much smaller sample to a complete one. Actually what I found is that zkillboard is garbage when you try to go too far back. Trying to load pages that far back is EXTREMELY laggy for me.
Tippia wrote:Almost all of them do. Some just operate on statistics rather than individual spotting, and others use different revenue streams than pure loot. Profitability exists behind all of them. Change the profitability GÇö especially on the loss side GÇö and you change the behaviour.
I'm sorry but I just don't buy it. Given what I've seen a lot of gankers saying on these forums, I don't see how any change in their profitability is going to change their play style. I could see that if ganking required the use of battleships, but it would take a major shift of game mechanics to make that happen. |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
546
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 02:43:58 -
[835] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I'm sorry but I just don't buy it. Given what I've seen a lot of gankers saying on these forums, I don't see how any change in their profitability is going to change their play style. I could see that if ganking required the use of battleships, but it would take a major shift of game mechanics to make that happen. Something like the reintroduction of ship insurance for suicide ganking? It didn't require the use of battleships but it certainly encouraged it as you invariably profited, it's removal was at least partly responsible for the current choice of ships used in suicide ganking.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Six Beavers
New Order Logistics
CODE.
27
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 04:01:07 -
[836] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
The fact that one human player can accomplish that is far more troubling than lots of human players working together accomplishing that.
Why do you care? You don't want freighters to be attacked at all, the how shouldn't matter. Eh? Where did you get that nugget? I personally think that the mechanics should steer crime towards high profitability targets. So empty freighters should be very safe, sure, but not so for ones stuffed with goodies.
Why do you think mechanics need to steer towards profitability? Not everything is about isk, you do know that?
Since you are fond of taking RL examples and applying them in game I can think of a great many crimes that are done without a profit motive. crimes of passion for example. You are a lawyer i'm sure you can think of a few.
Eve would become boring if all there was to it was a profit motive. I know that's hard for an afk incursion runner to understand but believe me there are other reasons to blow up ships other then profit.
|
David Mandrake
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
11
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 04:46:27 -
[837] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Eh? Where did you get that nugget? I personally think that the mechanics should steer crime towards high profitability targets. So empty freighters should be very safe, sure, but not so for ones stuffed with goodies.
You can't honestly expect that it should only be profitable to gank a 150,000 EHP ship if you spend over a billion ISK on the gank, but still claim that you want to have ganking in the game, right? Because people are autopiloting empty, cargo fit freighters through known gank hotspots and they're getting shot down because they're a rather expensive kill that doesn't have a whole lot in the way of hitpoints. If you make it take a billion ISK to kill that much of a ship, you're essentially going to make it impossible to do smaller scale ganking; and if you raise the hitpoints of the freighters too much you also break other things (you do realize that we use them in other places right? The only way you can carry an Infrastructure Hub in to Nullsec is on a freighter - in fact, a cargo fit freighter is required, I believe, as the hub is 700,000m^3; there's supposed to be some risk in deploying them (as they're a critical part of sov infrastructure). Most of the upgrades also require a freighter that's at least partially cargo fit to install them; this is so you can't just use a jump freighter to jump them in there (you can, of course, bridge it in with a Titan, though this is expensive and potentially risky). Give the freighter too much HP and it's a bit harder to kill and stop from deploying an Ihub or an upgrade. Same for deploying outposts - you need a freighter. This is part of the reason they're supposed to be somewhat easy to kill, as far as my understanding goes; so you're either going to be buffing freighter HP to get what you want and breaking other parts of the game, or you're going to be changing how suicide ganking works and effectively nerfing it in to the ground (and thus breaking parts of the game you say you don't want to break).
Again the fact is that if you want to have an empty freighter survive... just don't autopilot it. Bring an escort. Scout ahead. Do *something* other than tell it to warp through a gank hotspot that's been known to be one for months now. Or heck, if you insist on autopiloting it, maybe make it stop a few jumps short of the gank spot so you can judge whether to go through there or not? I mean this stuff isn't hard to do. It just takes the tiniest bit of effort to prevent your freighter from being killed; and yet freighter after freighter autopilots it's way in to the system (and even then, most of them make it through just fine).
I appreciate the idea that you can have some things in Eve done while you're offline; I really do. I love that I don't have to grind skills; I love that I can set up industry jobs and have them run while I'm not playing, or put up market orders and log out, etc. But moving an expensive ship through a hostile system? That's never something I'd leave up to automation. I don't care if they change the autopilot to warp to 0 and it's supposedly an insta-warping ship or something, or it's too tanky to die. I'm not automating that, because I don't want to have someone else figure out how to kill it and I wind up having no way to defend against it because I wasn't there. But you can't insist that people should be allowed to hit the autopilot button on their billion ISK ships and leave the computer, and then expect that 100% of the time - not 90%, not 99%, not 99.9999999%, but straight 100% of the time - they'll be safe, and not expect people to question what your motives here are. You say you want suicide ganking to exist in some form. That's fine. But an expensive hull is *always* going to be a target, no matter what's in it; not unless you effectively remove ganking from the game or start breaking a whole slew of other things.
In any case, this game is not meant to have any activity be 100% safe. That's the point of it; it's meant to be risky in whatever you do, and that risk is primarily going to be the other players. That's what makes it interesting. I'm not pitting my will against an AI who I'll rather quickly figure out the ins and outs of and essentially slaughter once I figure out how to deal with it. I'm dealing with reasoning people that can figure out new ideas and new tactics to counter my own, and that I have to constantly think of how to deal with. I have to fight to keep my stuff safe, and every time I undock, there's no guarantee I'll make it to my destination (in fact, I'll usually put on "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" during my undock prep just to get me ready for the trip). That's fun, because unlike pretty much every other game out there, I have no idea what's going to happen next. Making it completely safe... well that saps the fun out of it, and to be honest there's plenty of games you can play when you want to do something safe. Sometimes I don't want to be in the unsafe world of Eve. That's fine. I do something else, and then when I'm ready to come back, I come back. But Eve isn't supposed to be safe, and I just don't understand why you think any aspect of it should be 100% safe.
(And before you say docking up is 100% safe, my industry character is also my trading character. A lot of my funds are tied up in stuff in Jita that got knocked way, way down by people outbiding me by just a few thousand ISK... and I'm too far away to change the orders remotely, only have my Freighter in system, and haven't had the time to fly out enough jumps to get close enough to update my order. Someone effectively cut off part of my funding while I was docked up, and until I have time to deal with it, I've really got no way to handle it aside from sucking it up. That's the sort of game I want to play.) |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1891
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 05:26:16 -
[838] - Quote
If Freighters had real capital fitting Hyperdunking wouldn't be a thing to start with since they could actually fit local reps anyway. And ignore a hyperdunker. This still all comes back to all Industrial ships being treated as second class ships when it comes to giving them the ability to actually make creative fits.
Freighters should have the same fittings as a Carrier or Dreadnaught. They are all Capital ships, give them fittings to match, not the insane gimped 'fittings' they have now.
And introduce stacking penalties on cargo expanders/rigs to avoid cargo space getting too excessive.
Sure, base stats may need moving around to do so, but then people actually get some real choices in fitting. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24941
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 05:26:35 -
[839] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Prove that people can control mutliple clients?
No, prove that one person can accomplish the feat that you described, and do it without moving the goalposts.
For an encore, you can demonstrate how it is any way GÇ£troublingGÇ¥.
Valterra Craven wrote:I fail to see how making a math error is blatant and obvious lying. Because the error is blatant and obvious, and yet presented as something it very clearly is not GÇö a fact that should have been spotted during the writing, but which was left in anyway. The lie is a lie, even if it was just incompetence that created it.
Quote:So for the last time, what did you mean when you said "The system is purposefully designed to allow for that"? The same thing it meant the first time I wrote it. Read it in context and look at what was described when I said it. You already have the answer to this and the answer does not and will not change just because you try to link it to a completely different statement or move the goalposts.
Quote:Actually what I found is that zkillboard is garbage when you try to go too far back. Trying to load pages that far back is EXTREMELY laggy for me. I'm curious if how big the database is and if I could get the full thing how to parse that data out. It's not just garbage GÇô before 2013, it is simply massively incomplete. All killboards are, because the reporting structure and API integration of kills left tons of kills and losses out.
Quote:I'm sorry but I just don't buy it. Given what I've seen a lot of gankers saying on these forums, I don't see how any change in their profitability is going to change their play style. So basically, you don't buy that ganking shifted to cheap catalysts? That one entity does it entirely for profit (in fact, being able to do it for profit is how they got famous and managed to make an industry of it)? That the other entity operates almost entirely on a donation basis? That there is no third entity any more, in an area where there were a large number of them before and in spite of the repeated, unproven, spurious claims that it's so cheap and easy anyone can do it? That jollyjabbing was invented because it improves profitability (per gank, if not over time)? You don't buy that if ganks went back to being, not just free, but inherently profitable regardless of outcome, ganking wouldn't become much more prevalent?
You buy the chest-beating rhetoric on one hand, even though it's highly suspect, but you don't believe it when the same entities actually describe the logistics behind it all, even though it makes sense? Why is that?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2691
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 05:28:56 -
[840] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Yes, absolutely...these ganks are a net money loser. The problem is that Goons et al., have a massive isk faucet in nullsec, and are happy to use it to make life miserable for any "pubbies" who want to live in highsec and not be part of a nullsec power bloc.
Seems like a good case of emergent gameplay to me.
Veers Belvar wrote:And all this while the police take no action to stop it.
This is objectively untrue. What you meant to say was that in your opinion, the police don't take enough action to stop it.
Valterra Craven wrote:In real life the advanced police forces like the FBI get involved and put a stop to it. That's what taxes are for. I'm sure that you could come up a with a lore reason that all of those market fees go into paying concord to act in the same manner.
In real life, we pay around half of our incomes to have these levels of safety. What's paid in EVE? The market tax is less than 1% with max skills, and according to its description, it doesn't go to CONCORD, but to the station owners. So why, or better yet, how should EVE citizens get protection that significantly exceeds the protections afforded to us by real-life police, when the former don't even pay anything for it?
Tell you what: you get CCP to implement a 50% tax on all high-sec income, and then we can talk about a stronger police force.
Veers Belvar wrote:The folks getting their empty freighters blown up are not the level 4 mission and incursion runners. They are the simple players who mine and run low level missions. Those are the guys suffering here....the better players are good enough to not get hit by any of this. And the point is that goon line members never have to worry about being unable to plex - your alliance takes care of them...not so for independent pve highsec players who can get blown straight out of the game from ganking.
Most freighter-ganking happens to freighters that are carrying cargo of significant value. Killboards prove this. Multi-billion cargo isn't indicative of a simple player who mines and runs low level missions. Empty freighter ganks are a statistically-insignificant anomaly.
Valterra Craven wrote:Because educating the masses has done so well for CCP, or is there some reason that the NPE has to be continually revised on a regular basis?
So because the masses are so bombastically stupid, and because despite the developers' bestest efforts, they still refuse to learn even the most rudimentary game concepts, we need to dumb down EVE Online to the point that it becomes palatable for them?
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24941
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 05:33:33 -
[841] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:If Freighters had real capital fitting Hyperdunking wouldn't be a thing to start with since they could actually fit local reps anyway. And ignore a hyperdunker. This is pretty much already the case.
It also raises the same old question that people fail to answer every time: why should any of that happen? Why do freighters need GÇ£real capital fittingGÇ¥? Why shouldn't jollyjabbing be a thing?
Quote:This still all comes back to all Industrial ships being treated as second class ships when it comes to giving them the ability to actually make creative fits.
Freighters should have the same fittings as a Carrier or Dreadnaught. Why? They're not even remotely the same class of ships.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2693
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 05:56:38 -
[842] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:So empire ganks are "tons of content" now. You will have to forgive me if I think I'm not the one making incoherent arguments here. Everything players do because NPCs don't do it, and everything players invent as a consequence of both of those is content. Tons of it. Ganking is a small part of it, yes, but it is less than half of the equation. You are asking NPCs to do something players can do just fine on their own, and that is inherently a bad thing since it removes gameplay. It's even worse since there's no coherent reason for doing so.
They are. And I'm saying this as someone who's taken significant losses to ganks.
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:You are asking for faction navies to step up patrols in popular choke points for ganking. Thats asking for CCP to protect you. Actually, what I'm asking for escalating consequences for repeated criminal activity. The form of those consequences is irrelevant to me. That is no way asking for CCP to protect me.
Escalating consequences that are NPC-driven. You can't obscure this.
...
I want to add something, because Tippia talked about private contractors emerging on the scene around Somalia.
I am a mercenary. If someone carrying 5 billion ISK worth of stuff in a freighter paid me 100 million ISK (just 2% of the cargo's value) to escort them, I could, say, bring a webber for instant warps plus a Falcon or two for the trip. I've made these offers to people before. You know what kind of a response I always got?
"no m8 i dun wanan pay u monie cuz y shuld i pay u ur not even doing anything anyway id rather keep the monies sry"
These were people who already got ganked before. To this day, I've never performed such an escort. Offering assistance with wars results in similar conversations, although I'll be honest and tell you that I have done a decent amount of defense contracts. Still, most entities I've made offers to either expected the work to be done for free ("wait wut u meen i hav 2 pay u 4 this??"), or balked at the prices I quoted them, which aren't even high. These are people who literally told me stuff like "LMAO 500m! Are you ******* stupid you dumb kid? I'm not paying you that much rofl!" and then proceeded to lose a few billion in the war.
It used to not even be as bad, until 2011 or so. Used to get contracted for jobs all the time, even if most of them were aggressive in nature. In the past 2-3 years, I probably didn't even have a dozen mails asking for quotes, and most of the ones that I did get had to do with clearing out offline POSes in high-sec.
Think about this for a second. Think about what this means for the people playing this game, and the direction it's heading in.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11625
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 05:57:20 -
[843] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:This still all comes back to all Industrial ships being treated as second class ships when it comes to giving them the ability to actually make creative fits.
They are second class ships. If you want combat capability, fly a different ship class.
There are no Q ships in EVE, and that's a good thing.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2693
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 07:04:49 -
[844] - Quote
I want to write this down before I forget about it.
After my previous post, I've been thinking about why hauling is actually obsolete/unnecessary in this game.
In real life, hauling exists because there are market externalities. Certain resources exist in some parts of the world, but not in others. Similarly, certain things are manufactured in some parts of the world, but not in others. But in EVE, this isn't the case for the grand majority of the goods available. Even moon goo, which is region-specific, isn't as rooted in regional differences today, due to alchemy. It is because of this that hauling is essentially unneeded. At best, it's used as a matter of personal convenience, and as far as that goes, courier contracting services already exist, and are quite profitable in their activities. But as far as the market goes, there's very little incentive to transport across regions, and across those dangerous choke points. That's why the margins that hauler pilots receive for their efforts are so tiny. There's just no reason to haul stuff, because you can always make it where you need it.
So maybe the solution here is to create a reason for hauling to exist, and for haulers to not only have a financial incentive to haul, but to actually have the ability and willingness to afford various means of protection.
What if (and I'm not saying that this is a great idea that absolutely must be implemented or whatever, as I'm only trying to make an example) every race's ships could only be produced at factories located in that race's area of space? This would mean that Gallente ships could only be produced in Gallente space, and in order for people to buy them in Amarr, they'd need to be imported cross-empire. This might result in price markups that would actually reflect the financial and opportunity costs associated with transport. Maybe then haulers (at the very least smart ones) would be willing to hire escorts and such.
And now that I think about it, this idea could be extended to wars as well. Currently, corporations have no reason to exist/defend themselves aside from high-sec POSes and the elimination of a meager 11% CONCORD tax.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
567
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 07:33:07 -
[845] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Tippia wrote:You do remember that ganks were cost-effective even if you didn't kill anything before that, right? Now, I'll grant you that the insurance change alone might not have been that big a hit GÇö ganking was already on a downward trend, and yet another nail in its coffin just kept that trend going. Yes, I remember that ganks were cost-effective even if you didn't kill anything. What I don't remember is the frequency they were happening. Tippia wrote: If you did look, and can't see any change in frequency in how many ships are lost, then fewer are lost today since you are comparing a much smaller sample to a complete one. Actually what I found is that zkillboard is garbage when you try to go too far back. Trying to load pages that far back is EXTREMELY laggy for me. I'm curious if how big the database is and if I could get the full thing how to parse that data out. Tippia wrote:Almost all of them do. Some just operate on statistics rather than individual spotting, and others use different revenue streams than pure loot. Profitability exists behind all of them. Change the profitability GÇö especially on the loss side GÇö and you change the behaviour. I'm sorry but I just don't buy it. Given what I've seen a lot of gankers saying on these forums, I don't see how any change in their profitability is going to change their play style. I could see that if ganking required the use of battleships, but it would take a major shift of game mechanics to make that happen.
It seems that you have been letting the ganking propaganda get to you. Gankers are not unnatural boogeymen that can ignore the economic forces in New Eden. Even if profit doesn't primarily motivate all gankers (although it certainly does for a lot), gankers need ships and some basic resources to keep operating. Sure, an empty freighter may look quite green on a killboard, but that makes no ISK for the gankers and they have just lost a dozen or two gank ships they have to restock.
This is why there are so few gankers left in the game. Aside from overloaded haulers and extremely bling fit mission/mining ships, there is no profit left in the profession and thus very few ganks. This is a direct result of changing the economic equation through a series of direct nerfs to the gankers including the insurance nerf, which made ganking less profitable by increasing the down side for gankers. The historic low rate of miner ganking was explicitly mentioned in the CSM 2012 minutes (page 104) interestingly by the former CCP economist Dr.EyjoG, who highlighted this relationship between profitability and the frequency of ganking.
If you think that since adding "consequences" does not affect the mechanics of the gank you are not arguing for increased protection for your ships you are wrong. Increasing "consequences" or decreasing profitability for gankers will have the predictable outcome that there will be less of it in the game, thus making haulers and miners safer. Some gankers will either not want to jump through all the NPC-enforced hoops, or be unable to afford enough gank ships, and thus miners and haulers will have less risk.
It's the same with bumping. It may not be the greatest game mechanic ever seen, but if you completely nerf it you will make freighter ganking more difficult, and certainly more costly for the gankers, than it currently is. Making freighters less vulnerable to bumping will have the predictable consequence that even less of them will be exploded each day. Freighters are already extremely safe - Red Frog successfully makes over 99.88% of their trips - do we really need to add more protection to freighters by making them even safer?
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
165
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 07:52:58 -
[846] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
Actually one person with many alts can kill multiple things. A guy running 10 clients simultaneously could theoretically pull off 10 ganks per 15 minutes, or 40 ganks an hour, so on average a gank every 1.5 minutes.
And since ISBotter is finally illegal now, if they can run ten accounts simultaneously, they deserve it. Took the words right outta my mouth. The fact that one human player can accomplish that is far more impressive than lots of human players working together accomplishing that.
Fixed.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2693
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 07:53:36 -
[847] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Nothing stupid about asking CONCORD to act like any effective police force would and take actual measures to curtail the crime sprees of known repeat criminals.
If we have both the capability of players to act as a police force and an NPC-driven police force that is absolutely effective, should we not also have the both capability of players to act as the criminal element, and an NPC-driven criminal element that is absolutely effective?
Why do we not have NPC pirates on gates that are perfectly efficient in performing hauler ganks?
Valterra Craven wrote:I'm not making ANY error because the actual minute differences between 15 minutes, 16 minutes, 20 minutes or more is irrelevant to the point of the argument as ALL of those times are of a similar duration ie: SHORT. You are being obtuse for the sake of it. The POINT of the argument is that it is possible to sit in a system and indiscriminately kill targets in short busts of time.
Actually, your original point had to do with the "imbalance" of being able to perform ganks in less than 15-minute intervals on a single character.
Valterra Craven wrote:Asking for more consequences is not the same as asking for more protection.
Let me put it to you this way: the US made certain drug offenses harsher than others. The net result was not that citizens were more protected from dugs. It just meant that when criminals were caught, they had longer jail terms.
Except that the intent of such laws was to achieve a direct decrease in drug usage, thereby protecting citizens from drugs and their various negative health and social effects.
Valterra Craven wrote: You can not categorically state that no one on these forums hate you.
And how is that relevant to the validity of his arguments?
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14820
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 11:45:29 -
[848] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:If Freighters had real capital fitting Hyperdunking wouldn't be a thing to start with since they could actually fit local reps anyway. And ignore a hyperdunker. This still all comes back to all Industrial ships being treated as second class ships when it comes to giving them the ability to actually make creative fits.
Freighters should have the same fittings as a Carrier or Dreadnaught. They are all Capital ships, give them fittings to match, not the insane gimped 'fittings' they have now.
And introduce stacking penalties on cargo expanders/rigs to avoid cargo space getting too excessive.
Sure, base stats may need moving around to do so, but then people actually get some real choices in fitting.
Do this and you would make it impossible to gank freighters in highsec.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16062
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 11:47:39 -
[849] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:If Freighters had real capital fitting Hyperdunking wouldn't be a thing to start with since they could actually fit local reps anyway. And ignore a hyperdunker. This still all comes back to all Industrial ships being treated as second class ships when it comes to giving them the ability to actually make creative fits.
Freighters should have the same fittings as a Carrier or Dreadnaught. They are all Capital ships, give them fittings to match, not the insane gimped 'fittings' they have now.
And introduce stacking penalties on cargo expanders/rigs to avoid cargo space getting too excessive.
Sure, base stats may need moving around to do so, but then people actually get some real choices in fitting. Do this and you would make it impossible to gank freighters in highsec.
Well yes because they wouldn't be allowed in hisec
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24959
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 13:13:50 -
[850] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Do this and you would make it impossible to gank freighters in highsec. Well yes because they wouldn't be allowed in hisec
GǪand they'd probably require a lot more training to compensate. I seem to recall this exact kind of conversation when people asked for rigs or fittings of freighters, and then were shocked to learn that there would be severe drawbacks to the implementation.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
|
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9606
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 13:24:04 -
[851] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
Eh? Where did you get that nugget? I personally think that the mechanics should steer crime towards high profitability targets. So empty freighters should be very safe, sure, but not so for ones stuffed with goodies.
It's not surprising that the underlying motivation here is to control how others play the game. The 'carebearist' view is always external ("you should do something") rather than more properly internal ("I should do something").
All of This rather than simply expecting people to know how to play (my freighter has never been ganked and it only takes a little extra effort to ensure that it stays that way) and educating them how (hard to gank something that that insta warps almost as soon as it decloaks while receiving the benefits of certain boosts via links, boosters and implants).
|
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 16:03:48 -
[852] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
In real life, we pay around half of our incomes to have these levels of safety. What's paid in EVE? The market tax is less than 1% with max skills, and according to its description, it doesn't go to CONCORD, but to the station owners. So why, or better yet, how should EVE citizens get protection that significantly exceeds the protections afforded to us by real-life police, when the former don't even pay anything for it?
Half? Where do you live? I live in America. The marginal tax rate is no where near half of my income or anyone else's. In fact, even if you tacked on sales taxes its only another couple percent of the 8 percent tax that I pay to the Fed every year. On top of that the full 10-12% of taxes I do pay of my income in no way shape or form 100% goes to paying for my safety. I'm sorry but I'm going to need to see some real data of what real modern day protection actually costs, cuse otherwise you are pulling numbers out of your butt.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Tell you what: you get CCP to implement a 50% tax on all high-sec income, and then we can talk about a stronger police force.
Tell you what: prove what protection actually costs and I will support a reasonable facsimile of that in game (yay more isk sinks!)
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
So because the masses are so bombastically stupid, and because despite the developers' bestest efforts, they still refuse to learn even the most rudimentary game concepts, we need to dumb down EVE Online to the point that it becomes palatable for them?
Oh I never once argued that we need to dumb eve down, but frankly the claim that the goal should be to educate everyone to be smarter instead of adding in more consequences for an obviously unreasonable mechanic is just as unrealistic as saying that ganking adds a "ton of content" to the game.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24964
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 16:19:29 -
[853] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Oh I never once argued that we need to dumb eve down GǪaside from suggesting that people are too stupid to analyse and adapt to their environment and therefore need more NPC-created protection.
Quote:but frankly the claim that the goal should be to educate everyone to be smarter instead of adding in more consequences for an obviously unreasonable mechanic is just as unrealistic as saying that ganking adds a "ton of content" to the game. Not really, no. For one, it's not something that's very difficult to understand or educate about. For another, there's nothing particularly unreasonable about the mechanic, and for a third, no-one has said that ganking adds a ton of content.
Education is, realistically speaking, the only conceivable and useful solution to players getting themselves killed in stupid ways.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 16:23:30 -
[854] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Because the error is blatant and obvious, and yet presented as something it very clearly is not GÇö a fact that should have been spotted during the writing, but which was left in anyway. The lie is a lie, even if it was just incompetence that created it.
So blatant and obvious that a roughly 10 year Eve veteran like myself missed it? Look, I'll admit that I've never tried to gank anyone, so I wouldn't have had the knowledge that their timers were 5 minutes longer than all of the other timers I'm used to. (I'm still not really clear on why this is the case since no one has bothered to point out why) In fact, looking at the Evelopedia wouldn't have shown this either (https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Crimewatch). None of the timers listed there are longer than 15 minutes. The very definition of the word lie means that you can't be lying if you are in incompetent/ignorant because the whole point when you are lying is to intentionally deceive someone when you know the truth to be something else. SO I will correct my previous statement. Its for BS like this that SOME people hate you. You exaggerate needlessly to tear down others when it is completely unnecessary instead of just saying "Hey, you are wrong. Here is the evidence that proves it" It really is that simple.
Tippia wrote:Read it in context and look at what was described when I said it. You already have the answer to this and the answer does not and will not change just because you try to link it to a completely different statement or move the goalposts. Ah, I gotcha. Being obtuse for the sake of it. At least I'm willing to try and do some research and leg work and the stuff I say and back what up I say and don't resort to be a butt munch until the last possible second.
Tippia wrote:It's not just garbage GÇô before 2013, it is simply massively incomplete. All killboards are, because the reporting structure and API integration of kills left tons of kills and losses out.
So the question then becomes, what data can either of use to look at to prove the frequency of ganks that happened in empire before and after the insurance change.
Tippia wrote:So basically, you don't buy that ganking shifted to cheap catalysts? That one entity does it entirely for profit (in fact, being able to do it for profit is how they got famous and managed to make an industry of it)? That the other entity operates almost entirely on a donation basis? That there is no third entity any more, in an area where there were a large number of them before and in spite of the repeated, unproven, spurious claims that it's so cheap and easy anyone can do it? That jollyjabbing was invented because it improves profitability (per gank, if not over time)? You don't buy that if ganks went back to being, not just free, but inherently profitable regardless of outcome, ganking wouldn't become much more prevalent?
You buy the chest-beating rhetoric on one hand, even though it's highly suspect, but you don't believe it when the same entities actually describe the logistics behind it all, even though it makes sense? Why is that?
No, what I don't buy is that everyone does everything in Eve for profit. There's a reason people like CODE and RP players exist like CVA.
|
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 16:31:28 -
[855] - Quote
Tippia wrote:aside from suggesting that people are too stupid to analyse and adapt to their environment and therefore need more NPC-created protection.
We'll agree to disagree on what I'm actually asking for.
Tippia wrote:Not really, no. For one, it's not something that's very difficult to understand or educate about. For another, there's nothing particularly unreasonable about the mechanic, and for a third, no-one has said that ganking adds a ton of content.
Education is, realistically speaking, the only conceivable and useful solution to players getting themselves killed in stupid ways.
Oh, if its not very difficult to educate people about ganking and it is the only conceivable and useful solution, then why has it failed? Surely the word would have gotten out by now and surely the people hauling 10 bil worth of stuff through udema yeterday would have known better. I mean its not like newbros have the money to even have 10 bil worth of stuff to haul, nor would they even be able to afford cap ships in the first place...
Also, you yourself said that ganking adds tons of content. But I'm sure I just "misunderstood the context". *eyeroll*
Tippia wrote:Yes. Because if it acted as an effective police force, it would remove tons of content and gameplay, imbalance the game, and completely redefine the entire security system, for no practical reason.
EDIT: Not only did you say but so did someone else
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
They are. And I'm saying this as someone who's taken significant losses to ganks.
So either you haven't read posts in this thread, or as you like to say it: you're a liar. You know what my vote is for. |
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 16:37:25 -
[856] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Think about this for a second. Think about what this means for the people playing this game, and the direction it's heading in.
Thats great, but this just proves my point of why education is a failure of a policy. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24964
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 16:43:37 -
[857] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:So blatant and obvious that a roughly 10 year Eve veteran like myself missed it? So blatant and obvious that an 8-year old would have spotted it, which is what raises the suspicion that it was entirely deliberate attempt at providing false and unsupported data.
As a 10-year vet in EVE, you should know that the timers run from last contact to first ability to even be in a ship again. Now add the time for finding the target before that. Then add the time to warp into position. Then add time to manipulate CONCORD. Then add the time for the actual gank. So the 15-minute timer strictly prohibits a gank from happening every 15 minutes GÇö it's yet another fence post error. The fact that you skipped over this basic functionality further raises the suspicion that it was a deliberate attempt at providing false and unsupported data.
I don't exaggerate needlessly. You are confusing me with the likes of you and Veers, who keep trying to GÇ£augmentGÇ¥ the truth with obviously false claims. I am telling you that you are wrong, and I'm being very precise in telling you what the error was. Any GÇ£tearing downGÇ¥ you encounter at that point is not needless, but rather the appropriate response to the pigheaded attempt at trying to support obvious falsehoods.
Quote:Ah, I gotcha. Being obtuse for the sake of it. No, being very precise. It was you, not me, who obtusely tried to pretend that the response applied to anything other than what it actually responded to. I have done my research and I have a mind for keeping track of these things, which is how I can quickly spot when you haven't done your research or legwork properly.
Quote:So the question then becomes, what data can either of use to look at to prove the frequency of ganks that happened in empire before and after the insurance change. As mentioned above: CCPs internal statistics that show a decrease. A year after the insurance removal, ganking was at a historical low. This was with the advent of the dirt-cheap catalyst.
Quote:No, what I don't buy is that everyone does everything in Eve for profit. There's a reason people like CODE and RP players exist like CVA. CODE does it for profit, and even CVA is subject to economic reality. Something that costs more simply cannot be done as often or using the same set of targets. When ganking is made more expensive, it must forcibly become less frequent.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 16:49:36 -
[858] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Actually, your original point had to do with the "imbalance" of being able to perform ganks in less than 15-minute intervals on a single character.
No, my orginal point was that the frequency of the activity is too high right now. Whether its every 15 or every 20 is immaterial since 5 minutes difference has very little impact on why I think the mechanic is broken. Put another way, I think a better way to balance these timers would be to use a varaiton of the jump fatigue mechanic. The hope is that this would cut down on the ganks that happen in the 1.2 to 2bil range of freighters and make them more picky. I saw some of those CODE ganks yeterday and I have to say some of those people deserved to die. That bowhead carrying billions in BPO's I thought to myself, man I want in on that action!
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Except that the intent of such laws was to achieve a direct decrease in drug usage, thereby protecting citizens from drugs and their various negative health and social effects.
Well we can argue to about the "intent of drug laws" all day (especially given how lop sided the prison population is ethnically. But I will concede that was perhaps not the best example.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
And how is that relevant to the validity of his arguments?
Because arguing with Tippia is mostly pointless. His arguments aren't really arguments so much as picking a part people actually making arguments on technicalities. |
Briar Thrain
Trilogy Incorporated
Vae. Victis.
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 16:49:57 -
[859] - Quote
Hyperdunking is an exploit of game mechanics regardless of it's legality. If the majority of players agreed that they don't want it in the game I would hope that CCP would listen to that.
Also, I think the idea of CONCORD going after criminal pods is a no-brainer. Or perhaps they could transport the criminal pods to a detention center or the middle of Thera? That would be hilarious |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24964
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 17:00:01 -
[860] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:No, my orginal point was that the frequency of the activity is too high right now. Your point is wrong. The frequency of kills is catastrophically low, and it activity is harmfully restricted in the kinds of targets and locations that are viable.
Quote:The hope is that this would cut down on the ganks that happen in the 1.2 to 2bil range of freighters and make them more picky. There is is. More safety, for targets that don't need it, for no good reason.
Briar Thrain wrote:Hyperdunking is an exploit of game mechanics regardless of it's legality Incorrect. Jollyjabbing isn't an exploit, by virtue of CCP asserting that it isn't.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 17:00:28 -
[861] - Quote
Tippia wrote:
The fact that you skipped over this basic functionality further raises the suspicion that it was a deliberate attempt at providing false and unsupported data.
I'd like to point out that there's a VERY big difference between raising suspicion compared to the rhetoric you've been using in this thread.
Tippia wrote:
I don't exaggerate needlessly. You are confusing me with the likes of you and Veers, who keep trying to GÇ£augmentGÇ¥ the truth with obviously false claims. I am telling you that you are wrong, and I'm being very precise in telling you what the error was. Any GÇ£tearing downGÇ¥ you encounter at that point is not needless, but rather the appropriate response to the pigheaded attempt at trying to support obvious falsehoods.
Oh right, I'm the exaggerater. LOL. I've made a lot of attempts to at least SHOW my work and how I arrived at conclusions while also trying to keep the rhetoric down. You've done neither.
Tippia wrote:No, being very precise. It was you, not me, who obtusely tried to pretend that the response applied to anything other than what it actually responded to. I have done my research and I have a mind for keeping track of these things, which is how I can quickly spot when you haven't done your research or legwork properly.
*Facepalm* You've done your research. I have no doubts that you are intensely educated about a vast majority of every little nuance in this game. No problem there. What I have a problem with is how you present that research, or in some cases not presenting it. Whats ironic is that you are espousing education so dang much, but actually doing none of it.
Tippia wrote: CCPs internal statistics that show a decrease. A year after the insurance removal, ganking was at a historical low. This was with the advent of the dirt-cheap catalyst.
Do you have links to this research? Did CODE exist in the form that it does today? |
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 17:06:04 -
[862] - Quote
Tippia wrote:The frequency of kills is catastrophically low, and it activity is harmfully restricted in the kinds of targets and locations that are viable.
Unless you are going to use real numbers or real arguments to support your claim, then it is merely your opinion that the frequency is too low (just like it is my opinion that the number is too high)
Tippia wrote:More safety, for targets that don't need it, for no good reason.
Again, "good reason" is objective. I think given the frequency of CODE's activities that they are borderline greifers. I have no problems with kills that are like OMG I wish I was in on that, but there are just too many kills of them, WTF why would you waste your time on that? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24964
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 17:22:08 -
[863] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I'd like to point out that there's a VERY big difference between raising suspicion compared to the rhetoric you've been using in this thread. The only difference is in how malicious the repeated lying is. It doesn't change the fact that it's a lie being offered as evidence for something that isn't actually the case.
Quote:Oh right, I'm the exaggerater. Yes, you and Veers both. This is shown by how you arrive at GÇ£conclusionsGÇ¥ that has no basis in the existing data, and in how you keep ignoring, distorting, and rejecting out of hand anything that doesn't fit your narrative.
Quote:Do you have links to this research? Did CODE exist in the form that it does today? See above. There's a reason why I'm not going to tone the rhetoric down until you start skipping things you don't want to read.
Quote:Unless you are going to use real numbers or real arguments to support your claim, then it is merely your opinion that the frequency is too low (just like it is my opinion that the number is too high) Yesterday GÇö during the weekday that sees the most server activity GÇö Uedama saw about one hauler (any type) killed per hour listed on zkillboard as far as I can tell. This is for the haven of hauler ganking, with two separate groups patrolling it for victims.
That is a pathetically low amount of kills and any notion that this is too high is nothing short of pure, unadulterated lunacy. The frequency is laughably low, especially since not all of those kills were actual ganks; the number of collectives doing it (two) is equally pathetic; and the threat this insignificantly low number poses to haulers is so low as to not even be worth measuring.
Quote:Again, "good reason" is objective. Not really, no. You simply haven't given any reason why freighters need to be made more safe. Indeed, you haven't given any reason why anyone needs more safety. Thus, there is no good reason: it is non-existant.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 17:48:37 -
[864] - Quote
Tippia wrote:The only difference is in how malicious the repeated lying is. It doesn't change the fact that it's a lie being offered as evidence for something that isn't actually the case. A. Given that I nor really anyone in this thread that I can tell saying that kills can happen every 15 minutes was intentionally trying to deceive anyone, or B. That its been repeated (when I obviously tried to correct what I was saying after presented with the error) Means that you seem to be the one trying to distort the truth here.
Tippia wrote: how you keep ignoring, distorting, and rejecting out of hand anything that doesn't fit your narrative. You mean actually providing links to data and resources? See you've been VERY specific about how you counter arguments. So when I say that I am not specifically asking for increased NPC protection, and argue with people stating that am, I'm somehow the bad guy for doing the same crap you are? (For the record while what I'm asking for would make SOME people safer, asking for exponentially increasing criminal timers based on activity does not in anyway involve NPCs)
Tippia wrote: There's a reason why I'm not going to tone the rhetoric down until you start skipping things you don't want to read. Yeah, there's a reason why your not going to tone the rhetoric down, but it has nothing to do with the actions of others. Further, given how I've replied to almost literally every post that someone mentions something I've said in, your claim that I skipped anything is another falsehood.
Tippia wrote:Yesterday GÇö during the weekday that sees the most server activity GÇö Uedama saw about one hauler (any type) killed per hour listed on zkillboard as far as I can tell. This is for the haven of hauler ganking, with two separate groups patrolling it for victims.
Because ganking is solely defined as killing haulers in one system only? No the point of my argument is that the frequency of CODE's ganking is too high. Ergo you would have to look at all of their kills yesterday.
Funny how you just did the same thing you accused me of, skewing the data. I wonder if you will fess up to it. My guess is no.
Tippia wrote: Indeed, you haven't given any reason why anyone needs more safety. Thus, there is no good reason: it is non-existant.
Just because you don't agree with the reason why I think something doesn't mean that it is non-existant. I for one think activities such as CODEs are bad for the game as it decrease the potential playerbase and therefore the money CCP has to spend on improving eve. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24964
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 17:59:19 -
[865] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:A. Given that I nor really anyone in this thread that I can tell saying that kills can happen every 15 minutes was intentionally trying to deceive anyone, or B. That its been repeated (when I obviously tried to correct what I was saying after presented with the error) Means that you seem to be the one trying to distort the truth here. Yeah, aside from the whole GÇ£I made no errorGÇ¥ and the repetition of the same claim over and over again. So no, the distortion is all yours.
Quote:You mean actually providing links to data and resources? See you've been VERY specific about how you counter arguments. So when I say that I am not specifically asking for increased NPC protection, and argue with people stating that am, I'm somehow the bad guy for doing the same crap you are? The difference is that you are very clearly asking for increased NPC protection, as shown by your suggestions and your last post outright stating it. You can keep claiming that you haven't asked for it, but that doesn't change what's in your actual posts GÇö the ones where you want NPCs to become even more of a hindrance to criminals.
Quote:Further, given how I've replied to almost literally every post that someone mentions something I've said in, your claim that I skipped anything is another falsehood. Given that you keep asking for information you've been provided, the claim that you skip that information is entirely true.
Quote:Because ganking is solely defined as killing haulers in one system only? It is when you explicitly state that you want to make haulers safer.
Quote:Just because you don't agree with the reason why I think something doesn't mean that it is non-existant. I for one think activities such as CODEs are bad for the game as it decrease the potential playerbase and therefore the money CCP has to spend on improving eve. Do you have anything to support this opinion? How do you square this idea with fact that the population has gone up and down pretty much completely independently of the constant downward trend of ganking?
And how do you square it with the simple fact that the more the game caters to that part of the market, the more it competes with a number of (unsuccessful) games over a fickle set of gamers, rather than cater to the strong niche where it has a long history of forging immensely strong customer retention?
Oh, and CODE is not relevant. Again, you are asking for safety for haulers. If all you have as a reason for this increase is GÇ£because CODEGÇ¥, then you have no reason. They, and their minute impact on the overall hauler traffic in EVE, are not a reason to make sweeping balance changes to an entire group of ships or to core mechanics.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 18:06:31 -
[866] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Yeah, aside from the whole GÇ£I made no errorGÇ¥ and the repetition of the same claim over and over again. So no, the distortion is all yours.
Here I will make this simple: "I made no argumentative error". I clearly made a math error, but the math error was minor enough that if did not affect the argument I was making. But I'm sure even that wont please you.
Tippia wrote:The difference is that you are very clearly asking for increased NPC protection, as shown by your suggestions and your last post outright stating it. You can keep claiming that you haven't asked for it, but that doesn't change what's in your actual posts GÇö the ones where you want NPCs to become even more of a hindrance to criminals.
Ok, you define criminal timers as NPCs. Good to know. At least I know where I stand now.
Tippia wrote:Given that you keep asking for information you've been provided, the claim that you skip that information is entirely true.
You mean asking you to provide direct evidence of things that I can't find myself is skipping it? Gotcha.
Tippia wrote:It is when you explicitly state that you want to make haulers safer. Given that I don't think I've ever explicitly said I want to solely make haulers safer, I'll disagree here as well.
Tippia wrote:Do you have anything to support this opinion? How do you square this idea with fact that the population has gone up and down pretty much completely independently of the constant downward trend of ganking?
Again, you are asking for safety for haulers
Are you going to categorically state that empire ganking has cost CCP no subscribers? Didn't think so.
Again, you think I am asking for safety for haulers, but the problem is that what I'm actually asking for would make other players safer that are not flying haulers. Haulers are a part of the equitation, but they are not the sum total of it. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24965
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 18:11:01 -
[867] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Ok, you define criminal timers as NPCs. Yeah, uhmGǪ that's what the C-flag is, you know?
Quote:You mean asking you to provide direct evidence of things that I can't find myself is skipping it? Asking me to provide evidence you've already been provided means you've skipped it, yes.
Quote:Given that I don't think I've ever explicitly said I want to solely make haulers safer, I'll disagree here as well. Fair enough. You did something much worse: you narrowed it down to just freighters. Of course, any suggestion that such increased safety would only benefit freighters is thoroughly disingenuous.
Quote:Are you going to categorically state that empire ganking has cost CCP no subscribers? Didn't think so. So that's a GÇ£noGÇ¥ then. You have nothing to support you opinion.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
168
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 18:28:36 -
[868] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Oh, and CODE is not relevant. Again, you are asking for safety for haulers. If all you have as a reason for this increase is GÇ£because CODEGÇ¥, then you have no reason. They, and their minute impact on the overall hauler traffic in EVE, are not a reason to make sweeping balance changes to an entire group of ships or to core mechanics.
I'm going to expand on this point on CODE's irrelevance - because it turns out this is a pretty major point.
Over the last few days I've been invistigating the plausibility of being a profit-making anti-ganker. Specifically, breaking bump-tackles through the use of counter-bumping, tactical bookmarks and webbing freighters into warp. While the strategy looked trickier than first envisioned, it seemed viable. The biggest drawback was in fact the lack of ganking activity.
I checked the killboards for HiSec freighter ganks (suicide ganks, not war tallies) and at the time I looked, the last 3 days had seen two ganks in the whole of HiSec. Both of which were by Globby and his hyperdunking method against what were almost certainly AFK freighters (one was empty and both kills were accompanied with pod kills).
By far and away the most likely source of content for me was indeed CODE freighter ganking fleets. Going back over a week on the killboards, I can see 3 freighter killing events. All other freighter kills were so infrequent that it was infeasible for me to be in the right place at the right time. The only place where it looked like I could make a meaningful impact and profit was Uedama during these specific events. Even then, I would be met with freighter pilots that simply wouldn't pay me to save them not to mention the significant portion that would be straight up AFK.
This are insurmountable obstacles facing my attempts to save freighters from certain death and they all stem from the fact that freighter ganking simply doesn't happen enough!
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14822
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 18:31:01 -
[869] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Tippia wrote:aside from suggesting that people are too stupid to analyse and adapt to their environment and therefore need more NPC-created protection. We'll agree to disagree on what I'm actually asking for.
You have asked for exactly that every time anyone has asked what you want.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24972
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 18:38:25 -
[870] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Saying that numbers are a certain way is different than actually providing links to them. See unlike you I'm willing to back up what I've done. Again, just because you skip the links does not mean you haven't been provided them, and just because you have half-arsed some misinterpreted numbers does not mean you can actually back anything up.
Quote:Where did I narrow it down to just freighters When you said that you want to GÇ£cut down on the ganks that happen in the 1.2 to 2bil range of freightersGÇ¥.
Quote: That works both ways you know. The difference is that I have actual mechanics, maths, killboards, and CCP statements on my side GÇö all of which you've been provided.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 18:40:30 -
[871] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Over the last few days I've been investigating the plausibility of being a profit-making anti-ganker.
I've actually thought some about this too. (It would be cool to have a rep a bounty hunter etc) And I think there are more problems than you mentioned with this idea. On top of the ones you highlighted I can think of two more: the size differential of potential targets and the fact that they can just dock up when they see you coming.
My endevour would not be to try and "save" people, or ask them to pay me for protection, but in this idea that its actually possible to "dispense justice". It would be incredibly boring to try and hunt people like CODE for the sheer fact that no one is going to want to camp them in stations all day (hey a big reason I got out of null sec). And even if you did get a kill on them, it wouldn't be worth your time. Yes, you would likely be "net positive" on the kill, but how much time would you have wasted on it?
Now my real question: Is it possible to have zbillboard filter kills by hi-sec that weren't war targets without manually trying to figure that out ship by ship?
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9606
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 18:45:21 -
[872] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Tippia wrote:Oh, and CODE is not relevant. Again, you are asking for safety for haulers. If all you have as a reason for this increase is GÇ£because CODEGÇ¥, then you have no reason. They, and their minute impact on the overall hauler traffic in EVE, are not a reason to make sweeping balance changes to an entire group of ships or to core mechanics. I'm going to expand on this point on CODE's irrelevance - because it turns out this is a pretty major point. Over the last few days I've been invistigating the plausibility of being a profit-making anti-ganker. Specifically, breaking bump-tackles through the use of counter-bumping, tactical bookmarks and webbing freighters into warp. While the strategy looked trickier than first envisioned, it seemed viable. The biggest drawback was in fact the lack of ganking activity. I checked the killboards for HiSec freighter ganks (suicide ganks, not war tallies) and at the time I looked, the last 3 days had seen two ganks in the whole of HiSec. Both of which were by Globby and his hyperdunking method against what were almost certainly AFK freighters (one was empty and both kills were accompanied with pod kills). By far and away the most likely source of content for me was indeed CODE freighter ganking fleets. Going back over a week on the killboards, I can see 3 freighter killing events. All other freighter kills were so infrequent that it was infeasible for me to be in the right place at the right time. The only place where it looked like I could make a meaningful impact and profit was Uedama during these specific events. Even then, I would be met with freighter pilots that simply wouldn't pay me to save them not to mention the significant portion that would be straight up AFK. This are insurmountable obstacles facing my attempts to save freighters from certain death and they all stem from the fact that freighter ganking simply doesn't happen enough!
If you listen to the anti-gank crowd, you'd think they happen all the time and simply undocking an ibis with 1 trit in it's hold in high sec is certain death. How dare you inject fact into their fantasies?
|
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 18:47:43 -
[873] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Again, just because you skip the links does not mean you haven't been provided them
I went back 5 pages and looked at all your posts. I didn't see one of them that contained a hyperlink to anything. Please feel free to show me the post number that contains this information so I can go back in review it. (I'm still not sure it even exists)
Tippia wrote:When you said that you want to GÇ£cut down on the ganks that happen in the 1.2 to 2bil range of freightersGÇ¥.
Providing a real use case does not mean that that one use case encompasses everything I wanted to accomplish. |
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 18:48:52 -
[874] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
If you listen to the anti-gank crowd, you'd think they happen all the time and simply undocking an ibis with 1 trit in it's hold in high sec is certain death. How dare you inject fact into their fantasies?
There do seem to be a lot ibis deaths on zkillboard... (yes I know I'm being disingenuous) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24973
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 18:51:52 -
[875] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I went pack 5 pages and looked at all your posts. I didn't see one of them that contained a hyperlink to anything. That's because you skipped reading the many posts where this information was provided to you.
Quote:Providing a real use case does not mean that that one use case encompasses everything I wanted to accomplish. That's why I initially described the class as much larger, but you weren't too happy with that obvious expansion.
Regardless, you are still asking the same thing: more safety for a group of ships that doesn't need it, for no good reason, and NPCs taking over the jobs that are meant to be done by players.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2698
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 18:52:38 -
[876] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Course on the flip side asking for more of them won't affect the protection in the slightest either. I'm happy to agree with you on that point.
Over the past decade, dedicated gankers have already proven that they will continue to gank, and in fact in greater amounts, despite of an ever-increasing amount of obstacles in their way. The only way you'll be able to curb ganking is by making it mechanically impossible.
However, despite the fact that more consequences won't curb dedicated ganking, you need to realize that these additional consequences affect the game as a whole, most often negatively, and in unexpected ways.
Veers Belvar wrote:Actually gankers could kill more frequently than every 15 minutes by using chains of alts....they could even gank continuously.....
And haulers could minimize their risks by using chains of alts to ferry goods from one place to another, thereby minimizing the value of each load to such an extent that ganking them would be nonsensical.
What's your point?
Valterra Craven wrote:Ok so lets put this in game context. CCP removed gankers getting insurance payouts for their ship losses. What you are saying is that this made concord more effective at protecting people in hi-sec. The problem is that his conclusion makes no sense because it in no way made concord more effective and in no way changed how much protection people in hi-sec received. The only outcome of this added consequence was that it changed the equation as to what is and is not profitable to gank. Therefore it is entirely possible to conclude that added consequences do not necessarily always translate to more protection.
It definitely did change the amount of protection that people in high-sec received. By increasing the cost of ganking, it made it less likely that those carrying smaller amounts would get ganked. That's very much equivalent to more protection. A parallel, if you need it, can be made by saying that removing unemployment benefits from convicted criminals would lead to a reduction in crime. This protects the public, because there's less crime.
You don't need to adjust active mechanics in order to change the amount of protection. You could, for example, make it so that ganked targets drop only 10% of their loot on average. This would protect high-sec haulers without making CONCORD more effective.
Valterra Craven wrote:Only if all gankers cared about profitability. The problem is that CODE exists and they frequently kill things that are not profitable to kill which would mean that concord is not any more effective at its job then it was before the insurance change.
They kill for the honor of James 315. They sacrifice their own blood for the purity of his name. What's the problem here?
Jenn aSide wrote: Why play video games at all if you need to be hand held rather than seeing things as a fun challenge to be overcome?
A new generation of gamer was born after autosave on the XBox replaced gambling your quarters on fighting game matches with other people at the local arcade.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
171
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 19:02:23 -
[877] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:On top of the ones you highlighted I can think of two more: the size differential of potential targets and the fact that they can just dock up when they see you coming.
"Over the last few days I've been invistigating the plausibility of being a profit-making anti-ganker. Specifically, breaking bump-tackles through the use of counter-bumping, tactical bookmarks and webbing freighters into warp."
Shooting wasn't involved. None of the ships/fittings I considered even equipping guns. It was all about agility, speed and tank.
e: And webs.
Quote:Now my real question: Is it possible to have zbillboard filter kills by hi-sec that weren't war targets without manually trying to figure that out ship by ship?
Not that I can see. The only bet is to XQUERY the results on the freighter kills with your own filters.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 19:09:35 -
[878] - Quote
Tippia wrote:That's because you skipped reading the many posts where this information was provided to you.
The only post that I believe that even tried to provide data was #817
But again, the problem with the data presented is that its very specific.
This is what I saw in the CSM report on page 104:
"For reasons that are left as an exercise to the reader, Exhumers are now blowing up at historically low
rates."
To that I'd say: "duh". They increased the tankability of mining barges. Therefore they blew up less. How does this report relate to how fast CODE can gank today? Answer it doesn't.
The point that no one seems to be able to concretely prove should be a very simple one if CCP would just release some dang numbers.
What did the frequency of ganks look like in all of hi sec that didn't include war targets a two months after the insurance change?
What does the frequency of ganks look like today in all hi sec that doesn't include war targets?
They are very basic questions that CCP should be able to not only answer, but even break down by ship type and loss numbers. The real question is why haven't they? It seems to me that doing so would help to quell threads like these that happen on regular basis. If the numbers show what I think they do, well then I'd have evidence to point to. If they didn't, then I'd still think CODE were greifers, but I'd have no numerical values to stand on.
Tippia wrote:more safety for a group of ships that doesn't need it, for no good reason, and NPCs taking over the jobs that are meant to be done by players.
We'll agree to disagree. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14824
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 19:16:37 -
[879] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
They are very basic questions that CCP should be able to not only answer, but even break down by ship type and loss numbers.
We have all the data to do that ourselves.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 19:17:54 -
[880] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Over the past decade, dedicated gankers have already proven that they will continue to gank.
Which is kinda my point with my statement that I don't buy that all gankers do it for profitability.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
It definitely did change the amount of protection that people in high-sec received. By increasing the cost of ganking, it made it less likely that those carrying smaller amounts would get ganked. That's very much equivalent to more protection. A parallel, if you need it, can be made by saying that removing unemployment benefits from convicted criminals would lead to a reduction in crime. This protects the public, because there's less crime.
Here, I will make this simple, on this particular topic what we are arguing about is basically semantics and nuances. Did the insurance payout change make some people less likely to be ganked? Yes. Did it increase the amount of protection they got? No. Concord was not made faster, it didn't rep victims, and it didn't alter the mechanics of when they lost a ship.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
They kill for the honor of James 315. They sacrifice their own blood for the purity of his name. What's the problem here?
The rate at which they are able to do so.
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 19:18:57 -
[881] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
They are very basic questions that CCP should be able to not only answer, but even break down by ship type and loss numbers.
We have all the data to do that ourselves.
Did not the great Tippia point out that the killboard data from 2013 was incomplete thus making that task impossible? If you can tell me how to go about doing this, I'm all ears. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14824
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 19:19:25 -
[882] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
A new generation of gamer was born after autosave on the XBox replaced gambling your quarters on fighting game matches with other people at the local arcade.
This sums it up nicely. EVE is effectively the dark souls of the MMO world, full of sadists and unsavory types. If you come here expecting what you get with every other game out there then you are in for a shock.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2700
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 19:21:40 -
[883] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Half? Where do you live? I live in America. The marginal tax rate is no where near half of my income or anyone else's. In fact, even if you tacked on sales taxes its only another couple percent of the 8 percent tax that I pay to the Fed every year. On top of that the full 10-12% of taxes I do pay of my income in no way shape or form 100% goes to paying for my safety. I'm sorry but I'm going to need to see some real data of what real modern day protection actually costs, cuse otherwise you are pulling numbers out of your butt.
And yet, the amount you do pay is currently infinitely greater than the amount paid in EVE.
Valterra Craven wrote:At least I'm willing to try and do some research and leg work and the stuff I say and back what up I say and don't resort to be a butt munch until the last possible second.
Then you'd become a ganker/outlaw, at least for a while.
Valterra Craven wrote:Oh, if its not very difficult to educate people about ganking and it is the only conceivable and useful solution, then why has it failed? Surely the word would have gotten out by now and surely the people hauling 10 bil worth of stuff through udema yeterday would have known better. I mean its not like newbros have the money to even have 10 bil worth of stuff to haul, nor would they even be able to afford cap ships in the first place...
I have many times tried to educate prior victims of ganks/scams/war losses about what they did wrong and how to avoid making the same mistakes in the future. The majority of responses were either in the form of ignoring me entirely ("k m8 thx o/"), or actually being hostile to me with insults/threats ("rofl fu scrub i kno wut i doing"). These people then went on to repeat the same mistakes.
So actually, yeah, Tippia's a little wrong on this, because many of these "victims" are beyond redemption, and education is a hopeless endeavor. And these are not the players around whom the game should be balanced.
Unless you want to destroy it.
Briar Thrain wrote:Hyperdunking is an exploit of game mechanics regardless of it's legality. If the majority of players agreed that they don't want it in the game I would hope that CCP would listen to that. Also, I think the idea of CONCORD going after criminal pods is a no-brainer. Or perhaps they could transport the criminal pods to a detention center or the middle of Thera? That would be hilarious
sum gr8 idaes all around m8 pls run 4 csm k i vote 4 u all tiem
Valterra Craven wrote:Do you have links to this research? Did CODE exist in the form that it does today?
Please, have you seen CODE today? It's like three guys and a Hatsune Miku body pillow sitting around a dollhouse tea table and arguing about whose MLP t-shirt has the best art style. Just because they're super-motivated, doesn't mean that they're an epidemic.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 19:34:49 -
[884] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
And yet, the amount you do pay is currently infinitely greater than the amount paid in EVE.
Infinitely? Exaggerate much? If you look at the current US Budget roughly 22% of it is spent on "defense". http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_pie
Now that roughly equates to military spending, which isn't really what we're talking about here.
If you drill down into protection roughly 1% is spent there on various things such as police and fire. So no, not only do we not spend infinitely more for protection in real life than we do compared to eve, I'd say they were roughly similar if the market taxes were to be lore adjusted to go to concord.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Then you'd become a ganker/outlaw, at least for a while.
How so?
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Unless you want to destroy it.
Well I'm not going to exaggerate here either. I don't think CODE's activities are destroying EVE anymore than I think expanding the timers a bit more would destroy EVE, no more than I think having more stupid people would destroy EVE. That being said I also don't think CODE's negative effects are 0 or near 0. In the end money is money.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Please, have you seen CODE today? It's like three guys and a Hatsune Miku body pillow sitting around a dollhouse tea table and arguing about whose MLP t-shirt has the best art style. Just because they're super-motivated, doesn't mean that they're an epidemic.
With all due respect, I disagree with your assessment based on the number of kills that got yesterday.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2700
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 19:52:06 -
[885] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:(For the record while what I'm asking for would make SOME people safer, asking for exponentially increasing criminal timers based on activity does not in anyway involve NPCs)
So having a GCC doesn't involve NPCs? 
Valterra Craven wrote:Are you going to categorically state that empire ganking has cost CCP no subscribers? Didn't think so.
The concept of nonconsensual pvp itself costs CCP probably around 95% of the players who ever try the game. What's the point? That we should try to increase CCP's subs at the expensive of the core integrity of the game? I'm not sure that's a sound strategy.
Valterra Craven wrote:Again, you think I am asking for safety for haulers, but the problem is that what I'm actually asking for would make other players safer that are not flying haulers. Haulers are a part of the equitation, but they are not the sum total of it.
Even more safety? Why?
Valterra Craven wrote:No, my suggestion of increasing timers would be more effective for ALL ganks.
So now miners and mission-runners, who are already extremely safe with all of the various protections in place, become even safer? It's already futile to dec them because they can easily bail, and now you want them to have increased protection from ganking too?
Valterra Craven wrote:The rate at which they are able to do so.
That would be the rate made mechanically possible by the game. They're not breaking any rules, if you think that the rate is too high, that's just your opinion, and not a factual observation.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2700
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 19:56:07 -
[886] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
And yet, the amount you do pay is currently infinitely greater than the amount paid in EVE.
Infinitely? Exaggerate much? If you look at the current US Budget roughly 22% of it is spent on "defense". http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_pie
Now that roughly equates to military spending, which isn't really what we're talking about here. If you drill down into protection roughly 1% is spent there on various things such as police and fire. So no, not only do we not spend infinitely more for protection in real life than we do compared to eve, I'd say they were roughly similar if the market taxes were to be lore adjusted to go to concord.
Even if we paid only .01% of our real-life incomes for protection (and we pay much more, because the armed forces have to be included in the calculation), that would still be infinitely more than what anyone has paid in EVE over the past 12 years. Don't try to shoehorn the market tax as some kind of excuse. Market tax is affected by your standings to the corporation that owns the station that you're conducting business in, so CONCORD has zero involvement with it.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 20:03:47 -
[887] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:So having a GCC doesn't involve NPCs?
It doesn't if the ganker stays shipless... (yes I know the reason is that there are NPCS "forcing" them to stay shipless)
Destiny Corrupted wrote:That we should try to increase CCP's subs at the expensive of the core integrity of the game? I'm not sure that's a sound strategy.
*Shrug* so we should risk losing some of the subscribers we have now, for what is as stated by you guys an incredibly low amount of ganks?
Destiny Corrupted
So now miners and mission-runners, who are already extremely safe with all of the various protections in place, become even safer? It's already futile to dec them because they can easily bail, and now you want them to have increased protection from ganking too?[/quote wrote: "Extremely Safe" is subjective. I AFKed in an empty shuttle once to get from point A to B. Someone still shot at me. Apparently being able to put a bounty on anyone for any reason was a "good idea".
[quote=Destiny Corrupted]
That would be the rate made mechanically possible by the game. They're not breaking any rules, if you think that the rate is too high, that's just your opinion, and not a factual observation.
Considering I already said that I thought the rate was too high was my opinion, I'm not sure what your point is. |
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 20:09:30 -
[888] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
(and we pay much more, because the armed forces have to be included in the calculation),
Considering concord doesn't protect people from war decs, no "defense" should not be included.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
that would still be infinitely more than what anyone has paid in EVE over the past 12 years. Don't try to shoehorn the market tax as some kind of excuse. Market tax is affected by your standings to the corporation that owns the station that you're conducting business in, so CONCORD has zero involvement with it.
Well if your argument is we pay infinitely more for it in real than eve because we pay zero for it in Eve, I could see your point.
But given that this isn't a free to play, and given the way CCP has set up the game mechanics that I do pay for, even without market taxes its still not zero (I would not play eve if high sec did not exist).
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
In fact, it seems to me that the people paying for your protection in EVE are also the war-deccin' sociopaths that are driving all the poor rookies away from the game. A double-whammy against your argument.
Given that a lot of rookies stay in NPC corps, I don't see that as believable (I've got a 40mil toon in SWA just because they have so many players there) |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2700
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 20:20:12 -
[889] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
(and we pay much more, because the armed forces have to be included in the calculation),
Considering concord doesn't protect people from war decs, no "defense" should not be included.
That would be like faulting the police for not cracking down on UFC cage matches. "Corporate wars" are nothing but a government-sanctioned bloodletting mechanic to keep pod pilots preoccupied with their own crap. So yes, defense does have to be included.
Incursions are literally foreign invasions on empire space, and CONCORD was the first force to stand against them. That's as close to an army/police force as you can get.
Valterra Craven wrote:Well if your argument is we pay infinitely more for it in real than eve because we pay zero for it in Eve, I could see your point.
But given that this isn't a free to play, and given the way CCP has set up the game mechanics that I do pay for, even without market taxes its still not zero (I would not play eve if high sec did not exist).
Then we're in agreement that people don't actually pay for their protection in high-sec, while getting it anyway. Okay.
Maybe now we can start addressing this problem, instead of keeping our focus on why this free protection should increase in scope.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 20:34:03 -
[890] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Incursions are literally foreign invasions on empire space, and CONCORD was the first force to stand against them. That's as close to an army/police force as you can get.
I'd give you incursions if they protected us from them now, but since hi-sec incursions exists I will again disagree with you.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Then we're in agreement that people don't actually pay for their protection in high-sec, while getting it anyway. Okay
No. What I said was every subscriber pays for their protection in high-sec. I don't think this game would exist without it.
|
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14826
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 21:03:36 -
[891] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
They are very basic questions that CCP should be able to not only answer, but even break down by ship type and loss numbers.
We have all the data to do that ourselves. Did not the great Tippia point out that the killboard data from 2013 was incomplete thus making that task impossible? If you can tell me how to go about doing this, I'm all ears.
You make estmates and base your data what you have.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 21:10:47 -
[892] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
You make estmates and base your data what you have.
How do you filter out all the war targets? |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14826
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 21:25:32 -
[893] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
You make estmates and base your data what you have.
How do you filter out all the war targets?
Manually.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Briar Thrain
Trilogy Incorporated
Vae. Victis.
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 21:39:14 -
[894] - Quote
If hyperdunking is deemed legal but there is not enough incentive/opportunities to entice anti-gank 'policing' by other pilots - perhaps they should introduce some interesting game content or modules which would encourage it.
Some half baked ideas for starters -
A module which when activated dramatically increases rate of weapons fire while nerfing dps. Perhaps when activated the only targets that could be fired upon would be criminally flagged ships/pods.
Hired NPC escort squads to get you through a system. Ala insurance payments. Not as powerful as concord or navies providing something rather than nothing.
Personal pulse forcefields of some sort - or a weapon which acts like a directed forcefield that can bump things in the area out of the way. Make it based on the relative mass of the ships ignoring modifications of fitted modules.
If nothing else it would introduce some fun new ways to have the gankers and anti gankers clash. |
David Mandrake
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
16
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 21:39:28 -
[895] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Do this and you would make it impossible to gank freighters in highsec.
Actually I wouldn't have a particular issue with rebalancing freighters so that they have a few more fitting options. In particular, I'd like to see the removal of the sublight velocity bonus, and changing the base hitpoints, powergrid, and CPU to accommodate an active armor tank; the end result EHP-wise being similar to what you can get now. Thus the freighter wouldn't technically be harder to gank; however it would wind up significantly benefiting from an active tank and thus not being autopiloted (whereas right now it's literally impossible to fit a passive tank and the bonuses seem to imply that it should be autopiloted, as you don't really need a sublight bonus in a freighter unless you're slowboating to a gate). So not exactly a buff to freighters, but rather a rebalance that prefers being at the computer vs being afk. That, and the removal of the autopilot from the Tutorial (it literally tells you to autopilot; although it does briefly mention the danger) may help new players avoid that sort of a trap when they get in to a freighter.
Hiasa Kite wrote:These are insurmountable obstacles facing my attempts to save freighters from certain death and they all stem from the fact that freighter ganking simply doesn't happen enough!
It's actually funny that you make that point because I'd been thinking something similar at work today. Back when I was working on my Orca to essentially make it ridiculously difficult to gank, I wanted to better understand bumping mechanics. I had a difficulty, though, in finding a bump fit Machariel on Zkillboard that was obviously fit for that, as I frankly didn't know enough about battleships or fitting at the time to make that determination on my own. But, the great thing is there's a module scanner! I can fit it on a cheap Imicus in a cheap clone, and wait for a Machariel to bump a freighter, then scan it's modules to get what it's fit with and if I get ganked, disposable clone! I'd thought of everything. So I went to Uedama and waited for a gank. And waited. And waited. And waited. And waited. Two days later I gave up, because it was obvious that I wasn't going to catch a gank in action any time soon and had other things to do with my time; and I wanted to actually take what little I did know and head over to Sisi to do some experiments (I *really* wanted to make sure I knew all the risks with my Orca before I dropped a PLEX on it). CODE. just simply wasn't - and still isn't - active enough to really harm the freight population. The only real reason that there was that spike of ganks discussed earlier in the thread is that it was the weekend and that brings more players, and thus it's easier to actually field a fleet that's capable of killing a freighter.
Valterra Craven wrote:How do you filter out all the war targets?
War targets typically will only have a handful of people on the killmail, whereas a freighter gank will usually have dozens (up until the recent advent of hyperdunking but hey, at least now we also have wars show up on Zkillboard so you can better cross-reference it). Additionally war targets will often use more expensive ships; I'm not sure about a few years ago but if you see an Orca in Highsec killed by a T3 or a faction hull, or just anything blingy it's either a war target or the Orca pilot went suspect. |
David Mandrake
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
16
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 21:48:08 -
[896] - Quote
Briar Thrain wrote:A module which when activated dramatically increases rate of weapons fire while nerfing dps. Perhaps when activated the only targets that could be fired upon would be criminally flagged ships/pods.
Ewar. ECM (jams), Damps (to lower targeting range/locking speed), etc. These already fill these rolls; they're not a sure thing - jams in fact are chance based on a few other factors - but any sort of a weapon like that would likely have some downside to using it or not do a whole lot if one ship uses it.
Quote:Hired NPC escort squads to get you through a system. Ala insurance payments. Not as powerful as concord or navies providing something rather than nothing.
There are players in this thread which have offered to do the same thing. Heck, if I thought it could be a viable thing I'd totally train up another character to run highsec escorts for other people. The problem is nobody wants to pay players for it, even though they're the best defense against other players - for some reason everyone wants NPCs to do it, which just isn't how this game is set up (CCP would literally have to code in entirely new NPC mechanics to get them to follow players around and defend ships.)
Quote:Personal pulse forcefields of some sort - or a weapon which acts like a directed forcefield that can bump things in the area out of the way. Make it based on the relative mass of the ships ignoring modifications of fitted modules.
Bring an escort that can fly a Stabber (cheap but effective way to bump things; just not as effective as a Mach) or something and just bump them out of the way. If you've actually got an escort fleet of sorts - again you can pay players - someone can be in a disposable ship (say, an Atron) and just scram the ship that was bumping your freighter. This shuts off their MWD and effectively keeps them from bumping you while they're scrammed, and can buy your freighter some time to escape (or at least summons CONCORD to you so that if your freighter is engaged immediately at least one gank ship is going to die instantly).
Again the mechanics exist within the game to do what you want done, why are you wanting new mechanics coded in to the game? |
Briar Thrain
Trilogy Incorporated
Vae. Victis.
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 02:48:23 -
[897] - Quote
Absolutely David to most of the things you've replied about.
The 'rapid fire' idea was that the increased cycle speed would allow less wasted time when destroying multiple targets. i.e. waiting for the final shot to cycle through before firing on the next target, while still maintaining similar DPS. It would only be making a real difference when fighting waves of fragile frigs/destroyers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but currently the only method of bumping ships is with other ships? Just thought it would be cool to introduce another element to the game such as bumping 'weapons' which ships could use against those smaller than themselves and leave it as an area effect that doesn't trigger suspect/criminal status. |
David Mandrake
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
16
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 03:01:04 -
[898] - Quote
Briar Thrain wrote:Absolutely David to most of the things you've replied about.
The 'rapid fire' idea was that the increased cycle speed would allow less wasted time when destroying multiple targets. i.e. waiting for the final shot to cycle through before firing on the next target, while still maintaining similar DPS. It would only be making a real difference when fighting waves of fragile frigs/destroyers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but currently the only method of bumping ships is with other ships? Just thought it would be cool to introduce another element to the game such as bumping 'weapons' which ships could use against those smaller than themselves and leave it as an area effect that doesn't trigger suspect/criminal status.
Bring a weapon with a fast cycle time in that case, augmented with the various modules which already increase refire time (though keep in mind that the server runs on ticks so you'll only be able to increase it so much).
The second idea could potentially also be terrible when it comes to large fleet fights, as well as allowing people to easily bump supers out of a POS to kill them. |
Briar Thrain
Trilogy Incorporated
Vae. Victis.
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 03:14:30 -
[899] - Quote
David Mandrake wrote:
The second idea could potentially also be terrible when it comes to large fleet fights, as well as allowing people to easily bump supers out of a POS to kill them.
I'm counting on it
Although I was suggesting that you could only bump things of lesser mass than your own ship (the base mass unaltered by fits/skills/modules etc.) Ok, i just want gravity weapons. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
456
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 03:19:53 -
[900] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
A new generation of gamer was born after autosave on the XBox replaced gambling your quarters on fighting game matches with other people at the local arcade.
This sums it up nicely. EVE is effectively the dark souls of the MMO world, full of sadists and unsavory types. If you come here expecting what you get with every other game out there then you are in for a shock.
This is nonsense...there may be a lot of nasty folks in nullsec...but highsec pve players are by and large nice, friendly, and collaborative. |
|
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2701
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 04:06:42 -
[901] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Then we're in agreement that people don't actually pay for their protection in high-sec, while getting it anyway. Okay No. What I said was every subscriber pays for their protection in high-sec. I don't think this game would exist without it. EDIT: That being said I wouldn't be opposed to a .05 market sales tax if CONCORDs capabilities made ganking in general less common. But I could see how neither side would want that.
Not every subscriber needs protection in high-sec. Why should some of us pay for something we don't need?
Valterra Craven wrote:How do you filter out all the war targets?
If you had even a week's worth of experience as a ganker, you could easily tell what type of kill it was by looking at it.
Briar Thrain wrote:Hired NPC escort squads to get you through a system. Ala insurance payments. Not as powerful as concord or navies providing something rather than nothing.
Read one of my earlier posts. This one:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5455475#post5455475
Veers Belvar wrote:This is nonsense...there may be a lot of nasty folks in nullsec...but highsec pve players are by and large nice, friendly, and collaborative.
Bullshit.
By and large, high-sec carebears constitute the most vitriolic group of players I've ever dealt with. Even those I've tried to help have been extremely rude to me at times, and as you can see from my writing, I'm probably not the type of person who goes around insulting peoples' mothers. In all my time playing, I've had a pvper/pirate go off at me less than half a dozen times. With carebears, that number is in the triple digits. Blow up someone's Drake, and then get blindly threatened to have your children raped after pointing out the fitting mistakes and linking a better setup. Yeah, Veers, nice and friendly indeed.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14828
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 04:21:17 -
[902] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
A new generation of gamer was born after autosave on the XBox replaced gambling your quarters on fighting game matches with other people at the local arcade.
This sums it up nicely. EVE is effectively the dark souls of the MMO world, full of sadists and unsavory types. If you come here expecting what you get with every other game out there then you are in for a shock. This is nonsense...there may be a lot of nasty folks in nullsec...but highsec pve players are by and large nice, friendly, and collaborative.
I have never had death threats, threats of lawyers being called and endless insults from null, WH or low sec players. High sec bears are the most vile and anti-social people in the game.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
456
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 04:23:06 -
[903] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Bullshit.
By and large, high-sec carebears constitute the most vitriolic group of players I've ever dealt with. Even those I've tried to help have been extremely rude to me at times, and as you can see from my writing, I'm probably not the type of person who goes around insulting peoples' mothers. In all my time playing, I've had a pvper/pirate go off at me less than half a dozen times. With carebears, that number is in the triple digits. Blow up someone's Drake, and then get blindly threatened to have your children raped after pointing out the fitting mistakes and linking a better setup. Yeah, Veers, nice and friendly indeed.
Classic griefer thinking...of course after you commit crimes against someone and destroy their possessions they will be upset...much like if you went and smashed someone's car window in. The troubled soul here is not the victim - it's the perpetrator. If you would act like a decent person and not try to **** other people off, they might be nicer to you. I personally have had extremely positive interactions with highsec PvE players, who are very friendly to those who treat them with dignity and respect. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
456
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 04:25:32 -
[904] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
A new generation of gamer was born after autosave on the XBox replaced gambling your quarters on fighting game matches with other people at the local arcade.
This sums it up nicely. EVE is effectively the dark souls of the MMO world, full of sadists and unsavory types. If you come here expecting what you get with every other game out there then you are in for a shock. This is nonsense...there may be a lot of nasty folks in nullsec...but highsec pve players are by and large nice, friendly, and collaborative. I have never had death threats, threats of lawyers being called and endless insults from null, WH or low sec players. High sec bears are the most vile and anti-social people in the game.
Oh dear...as opposed to Goons smearing one of their own players as a BL spy, blowing up his ship, and trying to drive him out of the game? Not to mention a full out propaganda campaign against the poor follow. That is a lot worse than anything I have seen from highsec PvE players, who by the way are on the receiving end of crimes. Don't want to face the rage from them? Stop breaking the law and blowing them up. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2701
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 04:27:14 -
[905] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Bullshit.
By and large, high-sec carebears constitute the most vitriolic group of players I've ever dealt with. Even those I've tried to help have been extremely rude to me at times, and as you can see from my writing, I'm probably not the type of person who goes around insulting peoples' mothers. In all my time playing, I've had a pvper/pirate go off at me less than half a dozen times. With carebears, that number is in the triple digits. Blow up someone's Drake, and then get blindly threatened to have your children raped after pointing out the fitting mistakes and linking a better setup. Yeah, Veers, nice and friendly indeed.
Classic griefer thinking...of course after you commit crimes against someone and destroy their possessions they will be upset...much like if you went and smashed someone's car window in. The troubled soul here is not the victim - it's the perpetrator. If you would act like a decent person and not try to **** other people off, they might be nicer to you. I personally have had extremely positive interactions with highsec PvE players, who are very friendly to those who treat them with dignity and respect.
I never committed any crimes. I played a video game within the confines of the rules and regulations laid out by its developers, that all players must agree to before they're able to play it. In fact, in over ten years, I've accumulated exactly zero infractions on my account. Not even a temporary mute; which is more than I can say for a whole bunch of players who've threatened to murder me in real life.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 04:34:26 -
[906] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Not every subscriber needs protection in high-sec.
I disagree. Protection/order is what makes modern economies work.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Why should some of us pay for something we don't need?
A lot of people make that argument about taxes that they pay to the government. Why should I pay for nullsec development. I surely don't need any of that!
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
If you had even a week's worth of experience as a ganker, you could easily tell what type of kill it was by looking at it.
Sure, if I had a weeks worth of time. But that's not how I think. I'm Systems Administrator by trade and the name of the game is automation. Either someone with too much time on their hand does something like that, or someone that doesn't know how to make it go quicker. Either way not interested. Its not like any of the other 500k subscribers have ever bothered to. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14829
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 04:35:45 -
[907] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
A new generation of gamer was born after autosave on the XBox replaced gambling your quarters on fighting game matches with other people at the local arcade.
This sums it up nicely. EVE is effectively the dark souls of the MMO world, full of sadists and unsavory types. If you come here expecting what you get with every other game out there then you are in for a shock. This is nonsense...there may be a lot of nasty folks in nullsec...but highsec pve players are by and large nice, friendly, and collaborative. I have never had death threats, threats of lawyers being called and endless insults from null, WH or low sec players. High sec bears are the most vile and anti-social people in the game. Oh dear...as opposed to Goons smearing one of their own players as a BL spy, blowing up his ship, and trying to drive him out of the game? Not to mention a full out propaganda campaign against the poor follow. That is a lot worse than anything I have seen from highsec PvE players, who by the way are on the receiving end of crimes. Don't want to face the rage from them? Stop breaking the law and blowing them up.
Yea that never happened. Granted he got his titan exploded but he is happily still in the CFC with a shiney new titan. This is a great example of what we are talking about. You white knighters take something like this and expand it with bullshit and lies while everyone in the CFC (including the "victim") laugh it off as yet another shoot blues tell vile rat incident.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 04:38:45 -
[908] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
I have never had death threats, threats of lawyers being called and endless insults from null.
Maybe you aren't trying hard enough? :P Or maybe you weren't around for the Great War? Either way, I remember some pretty bad stuff from both parties... |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2701
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 04:44:41 -
[909] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Not every subscriber needs protection in high-sec.
I disagree. Protection/order is what makes modern economies work.
I don't need CONCORD protection. I'll obviously take it if it's free, but if I had to pay a realistic price for it, I'd opt out.
Valterra Craven wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Why should some of us pay for something we don't need? A lot of people make that argument about taxes that they pay to the government. Why should I pay for nullsec development. I surely don't need any of that!
I don't remember being under the control of any "government" in EVE. I do business with them, but I don't belong to any entity.
Valterra Craven wrote:Sure, if I had a weeks worth of time. But that's not how I think. I'm Systems Administrator by trade and the name of the game is automation. Either someone with too much time on their hand does something like that, or someone that doesn't know how to make it go quicker. Either way not interested. Its not like any of the other 500k subscribers have ever bothered to.
Then you're not qualified to make sweeping claims about ganking. You might have the right to, but not the qualification.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14831
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 04:44:42 -
[910] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
I have never had death threats, threats of lawyers being called and endless insults from null.
Maybe you aren't trying hard enough? :P Or maybe you weren't around for the Great War? Either way, I remember some pretty bad stuff from both parties...
I was around for the great war, the vast bulk of that was on the forums. There is a minority in null like that but nothing like highsec bears.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
456
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 04:51:38 -
[911] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Yea that never happened. Granted he got his titan exploded but he is happily still in the CFC with a shiney new titan. This is a great example of what we are talking about. You white knighters take something like this and expand it with bullshit and lies while everyone in the CFC (including the "victim") laugh it off as yet another shoot blues tell vile rat incident.
Revisionist history much?
Check out TheMittani.com propaganda from your leader. The initial article told us with certainty that the fellow was a BL spy...the next article claimed that he was a BL sympathizer...killed for his own good...and then only after tremendous pressure and the guy quitting the game, did CFC finally reverse course and admit that their allegations were a crock of baloni. That is not dignified behavior, that is simply reprehensible, and far worse than highsec PvE players ever do.
As you so aptly put it, there are a lot of dark and dysfunctional people in this game...and they basically all live in nullsec. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2701
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 04:57:55 -
[912] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:there are a lot of dark and dysfunctional people in this game...and they basically all live in nullsec.
Conjecture. You're basing your conclusion on a very limited number of occurrences.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
456
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 04:59:24 -
[913] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:there are a lot of dark and dysfunctional people in this game...and they basically all live in nullsec. Conjecture. You're basing your conclusion on a very limited number of occurrences.
Yes, absolutely....in the absence of concrete data, conjecture, and certainly when done by smart people, is the way to go. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2701
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 05:04:01 -
[914] - Quote
What concrete data do you want? I can't post chat logs on the forums. And you'd say I faked them anyway. I get more real-life threats out of a month of active wars than the amount of 0.0 drama stories that have been published during EVE's entire history. My data is as valid as yours at this point, and my numbers are higher, so I win by default.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Kaely Tanniss
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
215
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 05:29:08 -
[915] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
I have never had death threats, threats of lawyers being called and endless insults from null.
Maybe you aren't trying hard enough? :P Or maybe you weren't around for the Great War? Either way, I remember some pretty bad stuff from both parties... I was around for the great war, the vast bulk of that was on the forums. There is a minority in null like that but nothing like highsec bears.
Agreed..there is a discourse from highsec bears like no other.
If I had a nickel for every time someone said women don't play eve, I'd have a bag of nickels to whack the next person who said it..
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14832
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 05:44:32 -
[916] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Yea that never happened. Granted he got his titan exploded but he is happily still in the CFC with a shiney new titan. This is a great example of what we are talking about. You white knighters take something like this and expand it with bullshit and lies while everyone in the CFC (including the "victim") laugh it off as yet another shoot blues tell vile rat incident.
Revisionist history much? Check out TheMittani.com propaganda from your leader. The initial article told us with certainty that the fellow was a BL spy...the next article claimed that he was a BL sympathizer...killed for his own good...and then only after tremendous pressure and the guy quitting the game, did CFC finally reverse course and admit that their allegations were a crock of baloni. That is not dignified behavior, that is simply reprehensible, and far worse than highsec PvE players ever do. As you so aptly put it, there are a lot of dark and dysfunctional people in this game...and they basically all live in nullsec.
He never quit the game. I fly in fleets with him, he gives no ***** about this.
All of that stuff you are getting angry about is made up bullshit by the likes of people like you who desperately want to hate goons for whatever reason. If we trolled him out of the alliance then why the Christ would he STILL BE WITH US?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2701
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 05:53:43 -
[917] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:If we trolled him out of the alliance then why the Christ would he STILL BE WITH US?
Because you griefers are keeping him from leaving by refreshing his roles every day, duh!
I are a EVES expert.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
553
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 08:52:31 -
[918] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote: highsec pve players are by and large nice, friendly You have evidence of this? Because there's far more evidence that the opposite is true.
Quote: and collaborative. Yep they're so collaborative they can't even work together to protect themselves, even after being told how to.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
173
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 11:10:52 -
[919] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:By and large, high-sec carebears constitute the most vitriolic group of players I've ever dealt with. Even those I've tried to help have been extremely rude to me at times, and as you can see from my writing, I'm probably not the type of person who goes around insulting peoples' mothers. In all my time playing, I've had a pvper/pirate go off at me less than half a dozen times. With carebears, that number is in the triple digits. Blow up someone's Drake, and then get blindly threatened to have your children raped after pointing out the fitting mistakes and linking a better setup. Yeah, Veers, nice and friendly indeed. of course after you commit crimes against someone and destroy their possessions they will be upset
Wrong. Would you expect them to be happy about it? No. Would you expect them to throw vile insults at you for it? Of course not.
EVE Online was built around the core concept that space ships get blown up. Being on the receiving end should not be such a shocking experience that you lose all rational thought. If your ship gets blown up, you lost, you played poorly and someone was there to punish you for it. Blasting other players as a result of your own failings is incredibly poor show.
Carebears make the mistake of caring about their virtual possessions, possibly as much as real ones. They also assume they have the same rights regarding their virtual possesssions as they do their real ones. Both of these assumptions are false. As a result of these assumptions, they get upset because they take it for granted that they should simply be left alone. Sorry, but that's not EVE. In EVE you can lose your stuff and the only way to prevent that from heppening is by taking the steps necessary to protect it. When you lose, you have no one to blame but yourself.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24980
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 12:13:50 -
[920] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:To that I'd say: "duh". They increased the tankability of mining barges. Therefore they blew up less. GǪa change that happened so close to the summit that it wouldn't have had time to have any impact on the yearly statistics.
Quote:How does this report relate to how fast CODE can gank today? CODE is irrelevant. You can keep bringing them up, and they are still irrelevant. We are talking about the blatantly obvious connection between ganking profitability and safety. As every economic presentation ever has pointed out, the less profitable it gets, the less frequent it is. Today, on a large loss day, one hauler is killed every hour in all of highsec. That's has laughably infrequent it is.
Quote:They are very basic questions that CCP should be able to not only answer, but even break down by ship type and loss numbers. The real question is why haven't they? They have. Go back and read the old QENs and watch the economy presentations, or go through the twitter stream that Diagoras had for a while.
Quote:It seems to me that doing so would help to quell threads like these that happen on regular basis. No, because the gank-whiners are impervious to the truth. The only thing they will accept is a reality where no kills ever happen (which will never happen) and a conclusion that ganking is omnipresent (which will never happen).
CODE are not greifers. You don't need numbers to prove this. You can just point to their continued existence. Claiming otherwise is ignorant of what the term actually means. The only greifers involved in all of this are the carebears who respond to any kind of opposition by sending death threats and personal abuse. We can tell that they are griefers by the fact that they get banned when engaging in this kind of harassment.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11639
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 13:03:21 -
[921] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
I have never had death threats, threats of lawyers being called and endless insults from null.
Maybe you aren't trying hard enough? :P Or maybe you weren't around for the Great War? Either way, I remember some pretty bad stuff from both parties...
I don't. And I (the person, not Kaarous) was around for that too.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9611
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 14:00:27 -
[922] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:By and large, high-sec carebears constitute the most vitriolic group of players I've ever dealt with. Even those I've tried to help have been extremely rude to me at times, and as you can see from my writing, I'm probably not the type of person who goes around insulting peoples' mothers. In all my time playing, I've had a pvper/pirate go off at me less than half a dozen times. With carebears, that number is in the triple digits. Blow up someone's Drake, and then get blindly threatened to have your children raped after pointing out the fitting mistakes and linking a better setup. Yeah, Veers, nice and friendly indeed. of course after you commit crimes against someone and destroy their possessions they will be upset Wrong. Would you expect them to be happy about it? No. Would you expect them to throw vile insults at you for it? Of course not. EVE Online was built around the core concept that space ships get blown up. Being on the receiving end should not be such a shocking experience that you lose all rational thought. If your ship gets blown up, you lost, you played poorly and someone was there to punish you for it. Blasting other players as a result of your own failings is incredibly poor show. Carebears make the mistake of caring about their virtual possessions, possibly as much as real ones. They also assume they have the same rights regarding their virtual possesssions as they do their real ones. Both of these assumptions are false. As a result of these assumptions, they get upset because they take it for granted that they should simply be left alone. Sorry, but that's not EVE. In EVE you can lose your stuff and the only way to prevent that from heppening is by taking the steps necessary to protect it. When you lose, you have no one to blame but yourself.
See the part I bolded. Well, every time I read that I think "well, you' d think it's that way, and for most people it is that way".
But the truth of the matter is that some people, for some reason i can't fathom, put themselves in situations they are not cut out for and are not compatible with, and when things go wrong (things that EVERYONE ELSE could see coming two miles away) they freak out and start blaming others for their mistakes. I can't even count the times I've seen someone complain on these very forums about something that happened in game and think "wtf game did you think you were playing?".
In the past I've liken this phenomenon to someone being epileptic (and knowing that they are) and yet freely choosing to play a game called "FlashyBlinkyStrobelights Online" and THEN having the gall to be outraged when playing induces a seizure.... |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11641
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 14:11:13 -
[923] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
But the truth of the matter is that some people, for some reason i can't fathom, put themselves in situations they are not cut out for and are not compatible with, and when things go wrong (things that EVERYONE ELSE could see coming two miles away) they freak out and start blaming others for their mistakes. I can't even count the times I've seen someone complain on these very forums about something that happened in game and think "wtf game did you think you were playing?".
The best part is that they insist that their misuse of the game be catered to. And the worst part is that it too often is.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 14:57:22 -
[924] - Quote
Tippia wrote:a change that happened so close to the summit that it wouldn't have had time to have any impact on the yearly statistics.
Because apparently you don't know what the term "historic low" means? Yeah sure the change would not have affected the yearly average, just like a couple of days after the change to reprocessing didn't affect the yearly market price of items that are bought and sold solely for their mineral makrup . Doesn't mean that the price on a vast majority of these items was not immediately affected and cut roughly in half.
Tippia wrote:CODE is irrelevant. Today, on a large loss day, one hauler is killed every hour in all of highsec..
No, my two man corp is irrelevant. CODE is too widely known and too effective at what it does to be called irrelevant. Otherwise no one would talk about them. Because gankers confine themselves to just haulers right?
Tippia wrote:No, because the gank-whiners are impervious to the truth. The only thing they will accept is a reality where no kills ever happen (which will never happen) and a conclusion that ganking is omnipresent (which will never happen).
Oh, so you readily admit the educating the massive is an unrealistic goal as a means to achieve change in player behavior? At least we agree on that.
Tippia wrote:
CODE are not greifers. You don't need numbers to prove this, because numbers are not a factor. You can just point to their continued existence.
I know what the term means thank you. I know that CCP disagrees with my assessment otherwise they wouldn't be here. It doesn't change my opinion.
|
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 14:59:41 -
[925] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I don't. And I (the person, not Kaarous) was around for that too.
Well I guess there is no accounting for memory given that both Baltec and I do. Either that are you just didn't pay attention to the forums. Either way its irrelevant. My original post was made in jest and is not something I was seriously debating.
|
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 15:01:51 -
[926] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
There is a minority in null like that but nothing like highsec bears.
*Shrug* To be fair I think the ratios are probably roughly the same. Its not like the population density of null is even remotely the same as hi-sec. |
Valterra Craven
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 15:06:17 -
[927] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I don't need CONCORD protection.
You do if you want to continue playing Eve online as an MMO. Just because you didn't respond to my comment about modern/efficient economies needing protection/order doesn't mean my point disappeared into the ether.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I don't remember being under the control of any "government" in EVE. I do business with them, but I don't belong to any entity
Lol, CCP = Government. They set the laws, rules and game mechanics. They chose how and what to spend subscriber dollars on.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Then you're not qualified to make sweeping claims about ganking.
Being a killboard junkie does not in anyway shape or form make one qualified to talk about a topic. Nor am I aware of having made any "sweeping" claims about ganking.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24985
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 16:51:40 -
[928] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Because apparently you don't know what the term "historic low" means? Apparently, you don't know the kind of statistics the economy team used or the turn-around time on those stats? No, something that happened that close to the summit will not have had much of an impact on the overall image of ganking. Even if the mining ship changes were significant enough, guess what? The reduction is still due to the much lowered profitability. You see, those changes did not make it any more difficult to kill miners GÇö just more costly.
Quote:No, my two man corp is irrelevant. CODE is too widely known and too effective at what it does to be called irrelevant. Otherwise no one would talk about them. Because gankers confine themselves to just haulers right? CODE is still irrelevant. They have nothing to do with the mechanisms that link economics to behaviour.
Quote:Oh, so you readily admit that educating the masses is an unrealistic goal as a means to achieve change in player behavior? No. Educating the masses will work wonders to ensure that fewer people are lost to the cess-pit ranks of the gank whiners.
Quote:I know what the term means thank you. I know that CCP disagrees with my assessment otherwise they wouldn't be here. It doesn't change my opinion. It makes your opinion wrong. And yes, opinions can be wrong, especially when they conflict with reality. CCP defines the term and apply it to the players. Your assessment is like CODE: irrelevant.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2710
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 17:40:56 -
[929] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I don't need CONCORD protection.
You do if you want to continue playing Eve online as an MMO.
The onus is on you to prove that. I know what I need, and what i don't need. If you know better, by all means convince me of it.
Valterra Craven wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I don't remember being under the control of any "government" in EVE. I do business with them, but I don't belong to any entity
Lol, CCP = Government. They set the laws, rules and game mechanics. They chose how and what to spend subscriber dollars on.
No, stop it. Stop constantly switching from role-play to real-life justifications for everything that happens in this game. CCP isn't an in-game entity (yes, I know about they actually have an alliance, but it does nothing). Choose one and stick with it. Stop jerking me around.
Valterra Craven wrote:Being a killboard junkie does not in anyway shape or form make one qualified to talk about a topic. Nor am I aware of having made any "sweeping" claims about ganking.
Okay. I have zero flight hours in an airplane, but I'll go ahead and make my way into the cockpit to tell the pilot which levers to pull. After all, just because I'm not versed in the mechanics of plane operation, I'm quite qualified to talk about them.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2710
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 17:53:20 -
[930] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Tippia wrote:
CODE are not greifers. You don't need numbers to prove this, because numbers are not a factor. You can just point to their continued existence.
I know what the term means thank you. I know that CCP disagrees with my assessment otherwise they wouldn't be here. It doesn't change my opinion.
I'm just going to go ahead and call you a hypocrite here, although I know exactly how you'll respond. Talking about how CCP is the government and how they create all the rules we must follow in one post, and then making a point of how they wrongly define the term "griefer" in another. Please.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 18:43:12 -
[931] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Apparently, you don't know the kind of statistics the economy team used or the turn-around time on those stats?
Considering that I did not see any listed, no I don't. I just have what the actual report linked to said. The bullet point was nothing but a footnote about mining barge ganking, which is a wholly incomplete picture when talking about all of ganking.
Quote:CODE is still irrelevant. They have nothing to do with the mechanisms that link economics to behaviour.
Well on that point you are right. They have no other powers but to use the game mechanics how see they fit, much like goons do. I won't use the term "abuse" here because god knows you'd just go into another tirade about the subtle nuance of the word, but the fact is that CCP can and has used player actions to base their decisions on how to change game mechanics/balance. My point is that player actions no matter how small can and do have relevance to how things can be changed. Therefore in that context, CODE is not irrelevant.
Tippia wrote:No. Educating the masses will work wonders to ensure that fewer people are lost to the cess-pit ranks of the gank whiners.
It will huh? Considering you've got nothing to back that statement up I will agree to disagree with you on that.
Tippia wrote:It makes your opinion wrong. And yes, opinions can be wrong, especially when they conflict with reality. CCP defines the term and apply it to the players. Your assessment is like CODE: irrelevant.
Not really. For example the opinion "I don't like apples" can't be wrong. In my original statement about CODE I said I thought they were "borderline" griefers. Which since you like to argue semantics so much means that I'm not saying that I think CODE are %100 full on griefers which would be wrong. What I am saying is that their activities, while they don't meet the definition of griefing, sometimes get pretty close to it. And given how many times CCP has changed ganking mechanics over the years based on exactly these threads we are talking in, means that time will tell how irrelevant my assessment is. |
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 19:00:05 -
[932] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
The onus is on you to prove that. I know what I need, and what I don't need. If you know better, by all means convince me of it.
Well given that you guys often like to point how much you are right because CCP has dictated current conditions as they are today, then I will use the same argument. The fact that CCP created hi-sec in the first place and the fact that over time they have continually aimed to make ganking less of an issue than it was, means that CCP thinks that the game needs a place like hi-sec in existence for all players regardless on what they think they need or don't need..
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
No, stop it. Stop constantly switching from role-play to real-life justifications for everything that happens in this game. CCP isn't an in-game entity (yes, I know about they actually have an alliance, but it does nothing). Choose one and stick with it. Stop jerking me around.
While I will freely admit to crossing between real life and game mechanics in certain instances, I wasn't the one that brought this justification up. I originally responded to Concord Guy's point about how in real life if things get hit a company will pay for protection where I brought up the point that in real life the FBI exists and actively tries to put a stop to organized crime such as he was describing. To which you piped up with some absurd notion that I pay half my income for that level of protection. So no, in this instance I won't stop "jerking you around" since I am merely responding to points you made in the first place.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Okay. I have zero flight hours in an airplane, but I'll go ahead and make my way into the cockpit to tell the pilot which levers to pull. After all, just because I'm not versed in the mechanics of plane operation, I'm quite qualified to talk about them.
Or are you not going for that angle?
Maybe you're saying that I'm not qualified to talk about ganking despite being a ganker?
Your analogy is completely disingenuous. For one thing, I'm not telling gankers how to gank, nor am I trying to educate others on how to gank, nor am I saying that I have ganked, nor am I attacking your qualifications.
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 19:02:54 -
[933] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I'm just going to go ahead and call you a hypocrite here, although I know exactly how you'll respond. Talking about how CCP is the government and how they create all the rules we must follow in one post, and then making a point of how they wrongly define the term "griefer" in another. Please..
Well given that I've never stated that they wrongly defined the term, or even implied that they wrong defined term, no I am not a hypocrite.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2712
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 20:30:43 -
[934] - Quote
You're being intentionally ambiguous in almost every point you're making. It's a nice way to attempt to cover your bases, but then half the time you're being forced into saying "well that's just my opinion, hmph!" If you try to base your arguments around your opinions, then they will be worth about as much. Do you see the difference between "CODE are griefers, and are objectively bad for the game, therefore changes must be made that restrict their play styles" and "I think CODE are borderline griefers, and because they probably negatively affect the game and its players, it might be a good idea to make some changes that make ganking more difficult"?
"Boy, it sure feels cold in here, Dave."
"Well then you better put some socks on, Bob."
"Why? I didn't say that I'm cold, I said it feels cold. I just think that it's cold enough to turn the temperature up a bit, so people are comfortable."
"But no one else said that they're cold. Look at Steve, for example: he is actually sweating bullets."
"There are 24 whole degrees Celsius. That's way less degrees than we should have."
"And what are you basing that on? What makes you the temperature expert around here?"
"I don't need to be an expert to be qualified to talk about how cold it is in here, and that the temperature should be increased."
"I don't need the temperature to be increased. I'm fine."
"No, you're not. Otherwise they wouldn't have put a thermostat in here when they built the house. And in fact, it's zero degrees outside, but the dial on the thermostat goes from plus ten to plus thirty, which means that the architects of the house thought that this place needs to be warmer regardless of what people think they need or don't need."
"So you're telling me that I don't even know that I'm warm enough?"
"I'm not telling anyone how comfortable they should feel, nor am I trying to educate anyone on how to properly regulate temperature for their own benefit, nor am I saying that I've changed temperatures before, nor am I attacking your qualifications with regard to understanding your own level of warmness."
This is exactly what you're doing right now.
So let's try again: I said that I don't need CONCORD protection. I didn't say that CCP didn't decide to force it on me, and everyone else for that matter, regardless of personal preference. I didn't say that I wouldn't use it if it's made available to me at no cost. I said that I don't need it.* How am I wrong?
* DIsclaimer: I'm obviously discounting the possibility that I'm the only one in the EVE universe who has CONCORD protection removed from them, as that would create an inherently unfair situation in which I'm at a total handicap relative to others. I don't need CONCORD insofar as it's a choice with its own set of risks and rewards attached (a choice which I'm not claiming currently exists).
Go.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 21:42:02 -
[935] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:You're being intentionally ambiguous in almost every point you're making. It's a nice way to attempt to cover your bases, but then half the time you're being forced into saying "well that's just my opinion, hmph!"
Given how people attack others in this thread its no wonder that I'd try to cover my bases... or are you saying that that position is entirely illogical when the goal of the opponent is to make you look stupid and that you aren't qualified to have a voice?
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Do you see the difference between "CODE are griefers, and are objectively bad for the game, therefore changes must be made that restrict their play styles" and "I think CODE are borderline griefers, and because they probably negatively affect the game and its players, it might be a good idea to make some changes that make ganking more difficult"?
Yes.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
So let's try again: I said that I don't need CONCORD protection How am I wrong?.
I guess the answer lies in whether or not you "need" to have Eve online exist or not. Because given everything I know about human nature and about how most humans are risk averse, I don't believe Eve would have made it out of the gate after a few months of release without a place like hi-sec existing. BUT I could be wrong. Do you know of any game that is roughly the size or duration of Eve that also has harsh consequences without any mechanically provided protection? |
David Mandrake
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
16
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 22:31:23 -
[936] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
I guess the answer lies in whether or not you "need" to have Eve online exist or not. Because given everything I know about human nature and about how most humans are risk averse, I don't believe Eve would have made it out of the gate after a few months of release without a place like hi-sec existing. BUT I could be wrong. Do you know of any game that is roughly the size or duration of Eve that also has harsh consequences without any mechanically provided protection?
I'll be honest - I wasn't around back then so this is all second-hand knowledge and there's very little information - but it appears that at one point it was possible to somewhat evade CONCORD and I even recall a story about someone actually getting in to a prolonged fight with CONCORD in the early days. The famous CONCORDOKKEN video also shows someone evading them by logging out, though I don't know if that was just humor or actually a game mechanic. Wardecs were also apparently more insane then than they are now, you'd warp to 15km from the gate when you hit the button and thus would need bookmarks to actually land at 0 on the gate (and apparently people would scam you with them, or lead you in to traps "Buy this bookmark! Avoid ganks!" "Okay!" *warps to 0 on a suicide gank fleet*), and there was no setting to disable criminal actions so you could actually easily get yourself blown up by CONCORD through simple mistakes (like shooting someone who was suspect right as their timer finished, or repping someone who decides to go criminal, etc).
My understanding is that it was considerably less safe back then than it is now, even moreso than the stuff you're requesting get added to the game, and the game did pretty well for itself in the early days despite (or even maybe because of) all that. Given that the game is still gaining new members (I'm hitting my one year mark right now) and not all of us feel that Highsec is too terribly unsafe, I'm not entirely certain that that argument holds merit.
With that said, I do understand where you're coming from; and in any other game the idea of a PvP safe area would not be invalid. However, this is Eve, the game built on these sorts of conflicts; and it's built on player-based interactions and consequences with as minimal NPC interaction as possible. We might get interested in the lore and CCP does put some effort to that - but the meat and potatoes of this game is players. I'd have to find it, but there's a video of CCP talking about Burn Jita and they were just about drooling that players were actually doing something like that with no developer involvement whatsoever. That's the game we want it to be; and there's plenty of tools available to you in order to inflict consequences on suicide gankers. More NPC protection is, while kind of a staple in online games, antithetical to Eve Online's premise and thus that's why you're kind of getting so many people questioning it.
I also believe that Falcon said something about rather having the game die than sell it's soul (this is heavily paraphrased, don't hit me with Falcon Jams D:), so I think CCP would rather still have as much of this game done by players than not, whatever the consequences might be. They want the game to grow and attract new members, certainly, but they also don't want this to be Cookie Cutter MMO #12809780889 either. |
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 22:51:25 -
[937] - Quote
David Mandrake wrote:
I'll be honest - I wasn't around back then so this is all second-hand knowledge and there's very little information - but it appears that at one point it was possible to somewhat evade CONCORD and I even recall a story about someone actually getting in to a prolonged fight with CONCORD in the early days.
Back then it was possible to fight CONCORD. However, it wasn't meant that you could evade them based on the fact that they would keep spawning until they killed you.
David Mandrake wrote:
My understanding is that it was considerably less safe back then than it is now, even moreso than the stuff you're requesting get added to the game, and the game did pretty well for itself in the early days despite (or even maybe because of) all that. Given that the game is still gaining new members (I'm hitting my one year mark right now) and not all of us feel that Highsec is too terribly unsafe, I'm not entirely certain that that argument holds merit.
Well I guess that would really depend on how you defined "safe". As a player just starting out, I went several years before ganks became common enough in hi sec that you actually needed to think about how you were going to do things. While a lot of the mechanics that exist today to keep you safe didn't exist back then, I don't remember there being a lot of empire ganking in the 2006 era that would have made them necessary. Granted I spent most of my time in Delve so I didn't really have to concern myself with empire comings and goings, so it could just be that I wasn't around when it all got started.
David Mandrake wrote:
With that said, I do understand where you're coming from; and in any other game the idea of a PvP safe area would not be invalid.
The idea of a PvP safe area in any game is not inherently valid or invalid. Eve included.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11643
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 23:09:08 -
[938] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:You're being intentionally ambiguous in almost every point you're making.
Bingo. They're trying to dance around asking for carebear buffs.
But it's obvious to anyone who reads the thread.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
David Mandrake
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
16
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 23:12:34 -
[939] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Back then it was possible to fight CONCORD. However, it wasn't meant that you could evade them based on the fact that they would keep spawning until they killed you.
True, though I'd still say that'd make it easier to gank things.
Quote:Well I guess that would really depend on how you defined "safe". As a player just starting out, I went several years before ganks became common enough in hi sec that you actually needed to think about how you were going to do things. While a lot of the mechanics that exist today to keep you safe didn't exist back then, I don't remember there being a lot of empire ganking in the 2006 era that would have made them necessary. Granted I spent most of my time in Delve so I didn't really have to concern myself with empire comings and goings, so it could just be that I wasn't around when it all got started.
I can't really say how it was in 2006; however even nowadays most of what I do to avoid ganks is probably unecessary - I just recognize that it rather cheaply drops my risk in highsec to pretty much 0. In fact, it's to the point where it's just really not worth it for me to attempt to conduct industrial activities in Nullsec; as my ability to move around and pick stations in empire space to build and research in based on their current costs effectively makes doing so rather cheap. The risk that my stuff will be blown up is so small that I could probably get by not even factoring it in, and the availability of materials means that even when trying buy orders I can rather quickly go from "I need these materials" to "I'm building stuff". My experience in Nullsec is that if I want to start any particularly expensive construction project, sourcing the materials can be difficult (not impossible, just difficult), and it's just easier, less risky, and at times more profitable to build things in highsec. Simply put, it'd require a significantly larger investment than I'm currently willing to risk to start building tons of stuff out in Nullsec, whereas the current items I'm looking to build can be built anywhere, and can be built with the same or greater profit in highsec, at a much smaller investment and lower risk.
I do argue against doing things that make you a suicide gank target, however I also recognize that the risk of being ganked at the moment is actually laughably low, and it's really only the propaganda and PR that makes most people that worried about having their freighters get ganked - many people keep autopiloting through Uedama just fine, regardless of anything else.
As such I'd argue that Highsec is particularly safe at the moment.
David Mandrake wrote:
With that said, I do understand where you're coming from; and in any other game the idea of a PvP safe area would not be invalid.
The idea of a PvP safe area in any game is not inherently valid or invalid. Eve included.
[/quote]
It depends on the game. Eve thrives on conflict; and making it possible to entirely shield yourself from that conflict goes against what Eve is set on. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11643
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 23:29:32 -
[940] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
The idea of a PvP safe area in any game is not inherently valid or invalid. Eve included.
Barring being docked, or cloaked up (which is dicey)... it is automatically invalid.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Paranoid Loyd
3739
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 01:16:08 -
[941] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
The idea of a PvP safe area in any game is not inherently valid or invalid. Eve included.
Section 7 would like a word with you.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Ria Nieyli
Alexylva Paradox
Low-Class
31237
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 01:23:46 -
[942] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
The idea of a PvP safe area in any game is not inherently valid or invalid. Eve included.
Section 7 would like a word with you.
He is right though, the idea itself is not inherently invalid or valid. In fact, when it comes to a game like EVE, players should have a space that allows them to recuperate from losses within reason. EVE already provides this space, however, without it being safe from PvP, so one could argue that a PvP exclusion zone is unnecessary. |
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 01:45:41 -
[943] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Bingo. They're trying to dance around asking for carebear buffs.
But it's obvious to anyone who reads the thread.
Well considering that I'd readily acknowledge that what I would be asking for would be a nerf to ganking then it would stand to reason that I would have no problem admitting that it would be a buff. That's pretty apparent.
What I'm essentially arguing however is that in my view more safety != more protection.
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 02:13:04 -
[944] - Quote
David Mandrake wrote:
True, though I'd still say that'd make it easier to gank things.
Oh, I readily agree with you. I just don't remember it being as common then as it is now.
David Mandrake wrote:
I do argue against doing things that make you a suicide gank target, however I also recognize that the risk of being ganked at the moment is actually laughably low, and it's really only the propaganda and PR that makes most people that worried about having their freighters get ganked - many people keep autopiloting through Uedama just fine, regardless of anything else.
I wouldn't call the risk laughably low considering that people have and will gank you even if it wasn't profitable for them. The fact that someone tried to kill me in an empty shuttle is proof of that. (I still can't figure that one out, but *shrug*). My entire point is that CODE don't appear to be picking and choosing their targets from what I can tell on killboard stats. Quite frankly I'd love to get in on some of those 10bil kills that I saw myself. Its not the profitable kills that concern me.
David Mandrake wrote:
With that said, I do understand where you're coming from; and in any other game the idea of a PvP safe area would not be invalid.
The idea itself is not invalid.
David Mandrake wrote:
It depends on the game. Eve thrives on conflict; and making it possible to entirely shield yourself from that conflict goes against what Eve is set on.
You are correct, Eve does thrive on conflict. The problem comes in when people try to argue CODE are irrelevant, and that they do not shape the game tangibly. Because you can't argue that they are providing conflict drivers on one hand, while on the other say they are irrelevant. It just doesn't make sense. |
David Mandrake
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
16
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 03:02:01 -
[945] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I wouldn't call the risk laughably low considering that people have and will gank you even if it wasn't profitable for them. The fact that someone tried to kill me in an empty shuttle is proof of that. (I still can't figure that one out, but *shrug*). My entire point is that CODE don't appear to be picking and choosing their targets from what I can tell on killboard stats. Quite frankly I'd love to get in on some of those 10bil kills that I saw myself. Its not the profitable kills that concern me.
I run a shuttle that I call the "Party shuttle" on autopilot as a screensaver through the trade hubs. It's loaded with exotic dancers, spirits, holoreels, etc. I've been running it pretty much since I started... and I'm on shuttle #4. In fact, the first one survived Burn Jita, despite having a PLEX-sized double wrapped container (I was using it to watch the Perimeter gate/stream it on Twitch)
Quote:The idea itself is not invalid.
It's an idea, yes. However no such area is intended in this game and the developers fairly clearly state that they feel that such an area is against the core idea of the game, so I think it's safe to say that no such area will ever be implemented. As such attempting to structure balance arguments using that idea lead to an invalid argument, because such an area will not exist in this game.
David Mandrake wrote:You are correct, Eve does thrive on conflict. The problem comes in when people try to argue CODE are irrelevant, and that they do not shape the game tangibly. Because you can't argue that they are providing conflict drivers on one hand, while on the other say they are irrelevant. It just doesn't make sense.
Who cares about them? I've not said they were the only ganking group, nor do I have any particular respect for them. On the contrary, I find many of them to take what they do far too seriously and in serious lack of a sense of humor, and they're fairly transparent in their attempts to elicit a response from their gank victims and do so in ways that I feel are uninteresting and uninspired, so even from a trolling standpoint I can't say I find much enjoyment in what they do (this is of course not a blanket dislike of all their members - there's some whom I've conversed with and I've found quite likable - though there's many whom I just don't like or actively dislike, same with any alliance). I will grant that others treat them as if they are the only suicide ganking group, and they are most certainly the most public one - second being MiniLuv with Goonswarm - but I do try and keep tabs on players and organizations which participate in suicide ganking and the list is longer than CODE.'s proponents sometimes state, and not all groups are affiliated with them (though they do claim a by proxy affiliation if you suicide gank, though I could make a similar claim that all haulers haul in my great name by proxy). Additionally I might point out that Globby - the guy who popularized the ganks - is in Goonswarm and although he may or may not follow their code of conduct (I'm not in a position to log in to the game and Eve Gate shows his bio as "a"), he's not actually in CODE. So there are quite a few groups trying to do suicide ganking...
And yet all evidence shows that despite this, the vast, vast majority of freighters gets through - earlier in the thread Red Frog apparently reported a 98% success rate. The number of hauler jumps through Uedama compared to the kill count is rather disproportionate, and that's before you take in to account that the kill count also includes the dead gankers, and also includes the dead gankers for ganks where they didn't succeed, which do happen (they're just not widely publicized). Ganking people is actually rather difficult and a bit expensive, so despite it being a conflict driver it's just not something to worry about on a day to day basis; Hyperdunking (the original topic of this thread) even less so. The big thing though is that a lot of these people arguing for changes to the ganking mechanics are 1) Arguing for things which could be significantly game breaking in other areas of space, 2) Go completely against the idea of the game, and 3) Are a substitution for using a small bit of effort to protect themselves. So all trolling aside, hyperdunking - and ganking in general, isn't a big threat and doesn't really need to be nerfed. It does create some small conflict and thus is relevant to the game, even if the people who partake in it may not really be that terribly important (I mean, you've lived in Delve. Certainly you've encountered propoganda before now. People *always* set themselves out to make themselves look better than they are). Additionally, just because someone supports the playstyle doesn't necessarily mean they support the players who partake in it. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2719
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 03:36:50 -
[946] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Yes. Destiny Corrupted wrote:
So let's try again: I said that I don't need CONCORD protection How am I wrong?.
I guess the answer lies in whether or not you "need" to have Eve online exist or not. Because given everything I know about human nature and about how most humans are risk averse, I don't believe Eve would have made it out of the gate after a few months of release without a place like hi-sec existing. BUT I could be wrong. Do you know of any game that is roughly the size or duration of Eve that also has harsh consequences without any mechanically provided protection?
http://i.imgur.com/RAPW3.jpg
So you're just trolling now. Okay.
It's amazing how a person can type that much and still not answer even 1% of the question.
Valterra Craven wrote:I wouldn't call the risk laughably low considering that people have and will gank you even if it wasn't profitable for them.
Outliers do not an argument make.
Valterra Craven wrote:The idea of a PvP safe area in any game is not inherently valid or invalid. Eve included.
And once again making an anti-pvp argument, but covering it in ambiguity so that people can't judge it directly at face value without you saying something like "oh I'm not saying that it should be, I'm just saying that it would be good if it's necessary, which it is."
David Mandrake wrote:Ganking people is actually rather difficult and a bit expensive, so despite it being a conflict driver it's just not something to worry about on a day to day basis
Remember, he's never ganked before, but that doesn't mean that he's not qualified to talk about all aspects of the activity, and as such, his interpretation that ganking is indeed easy and always profitable is going to be completely valid.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 04:32:07 -
[947] - Quote
David Mandrake wrote:
It's an idea, yes. However no such area is intended in this game and the developers fairly clearly state that they feel that such an area is against the core idea of the game, so I think it's safe to say that no such area will ever be implemented. As such attempting to structure balance arguments using that idea lead to an invalid argument, because such an area will not exist in this game.
I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying here. I'm saying that I don't look at things the same way. Both sides have relevant arguments, whether each chooses to acknowledge them or not. I don't for a second think that CCP would ever completely eliminate ganking, nor would I ever advocate such. Therefore I am not using the idea of a pvp-free area to structure any of arguments. That being said, I don't think that if ganking were eliminated that it would in any way shape of form break or unbalance the game, ya know especially given how low the risk of getting ganked already is...
David Mandrake wrote:
Who cares about them? I've not said they were the only ganking group
The people that they kill? I also haven't said they are the only ganking group. In fact, even given my past history with goons (relatively minor given my spot in BoB at the time) and their very high profile ganking events, I wouldn't even call them gankers. Me thinks that they have much bigger issues to concern themselves with on a regular basis... Regardless, CODE does seem to be the most high profile group. So if the most talked about group is irrelevant, then really whats the point?
David Mandrake wrote:
1) Arguing for things which could be significantly game breaking in other areas of space, 2) Go completely against the idea of the game, and 3) Are a substitution for using a small bit of effort to protect themselves. So all trolling aside, hyperdunking - and ganking in general, isn't a big threat and doesn't really need to be nerfed. It does create some small conflict and thus is relevant to the game, even if the people who partake in it may not really be that terribly important (I mean, you've lived in Delve. Certainly you've encountered propoganda before now. People *always* set themselves out to make themselves look better than they are). Additionally, just because someone supports the playstyle doesn't necessarily mean they support the players who partake in it.
1. Well I don't think the suggestion I proffered is particularly game breaking, and while a lot of people have argued about its necessity, I don't think anyone has combated the idea on the game breaking front. 2.) Given that the same mechanic I'm proposing already exists in another form, I wouldn't think what I'm suggesting goes completely against the gamer either. 3.) Given the goal is to protect people that are not profitable to kill I don't think any amount of effort on their part to protect themselves is going to matter. I'm still getting hung up on the fact that you are arguing that its not a big threat, while saying that its relevant to the game though. And OOOHHH yes I'm familiar with propoganda. I don't know that I'd call Sir Molle the best at it as I think that title would be better served under Mittani, but I've definitely encountered it lol.
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 04:43:17 -
[948] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
So you're just trolling now. Okay.
It's amazing how a person can type that much and still not answer even 1% of the question.
What's amazing is how bitter someone can be about someone else not answering an unanswerable question.
I honestly can't speak to what you individually need or don't need. That's really all there is to it. What I am speaking to is what I think the game needs, and I think without any form of Concord protection that this game would quickly lose a lot of subs which would be bad for almost everyone. Also, if I WERE a troll (which I don't think I am) why would you feed me?
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Outliers do not an argument make.
So you are saying that ganking is an outlier? Cuse while Code does have a fair amount of really good kills, they also have a fair amount of "what?"
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
And once again making an anti-pvp argument, but covering it in ambiguity so that people can't judge it directly at face value without you saying something like "oh I'm not saying that it should be, I'm just saying that it would be good if it's necessary, which it is."
I fail to see how saying that the idea of a PVP safe area is neither valid or invalid is inherently an anti-pvp argument. It would be if I said the entirety of EVE should be pvp free, but I have in no way shape or form said so.Keep in mind, hi-sec is as equally beneficial to PVPers as it is to PVErs. Its not like null sec people don't have alts in hi-sec to do things in relative safety like make money.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Remember, he's never ganked before, but that doesn't mean that he's not qualified to talk about all aspects of the activity, and as such, his interpretation that ganking is indeed easy and always profitable is going to be completely valid.
Right, because you need to be a licensed plumber to see a leaky pipe that needs fixing. If I am a troll, the black kettle in the corner would like to have a word with you. Also, I never said ganking is easy (I don't believe that it is), and I don't believe its always profitable (in fact that's the one case of ganking I think needs to go away, aka unprofitable ganking) |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2719
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 05:15:31 -
[949] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
So you're just trolling now. Okay.
It's amazing how a person can type that much and still not answer even 1% of the question.
What's amazing is how bitter someone can be about someone else not answering an unanswerable question. I honestly can't speak to what you individually need or don't need.
But you did.
Valterra Craven wrote:So you are saying that ganking is an outlier? Cuse while Code does have a fair amount of really good kills, they also have a fair amount of "what?"
No, I am saying that ganking unprofitable targets is an outlier. Just another example of you trying to twist someone else's words around.
Valterra Craven wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Remember, he's never ganked before, but that doesn't mean that he's not qualified to talk about all aspects of the activity, and as such, his interpretation that ganking is indeed easy and always profitable is going to be completely valid.
Right, because you need to be a licensed plumber to see a leaky pipe that needs fixing. If I am a troll, the black kettle in the corner would like to have a word with you.
Context is relevant. You're comparing an objective, mechanical problem, to a perceived one in what essentially amounts to a work of art. If a pipe is leaking, then it's absurd to argue that it isn't. Meanwhile, the balance in a game is a subjective matter, and just because you perceive that the game is broken doesn't mean that it is. Nice try though.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
562
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 12:48:59 -
[950] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: That being said, I don't think that if ganking were eliminated that it would in any way shape or form break or unbalance the game, ya know especially given how low the risk of getting ganked already is... A single shard PvP game/universe, which is what Eve is, where you could safely AFK traverse an area packed with shinies at zero risk or undock your barge, warp to an Ice anom, set lasers and walk away for 30+ minutes at zero risk is inherently broken.
I do mainly mining and industry.
Without the risk, albeit low because I actively mine and use a Procurer or semi disposable Retrievers, I wouldn't do it; I'd simply buy ore from the mindless drones who afk mine in Mackinaws.
I do local hauling, I'm based just off the Uedama pipe, I don't get ganked because I'm not worth ganking, my hauler is tanked and my loads are value limited.
As it is the risk of being suicide ganked outside of well known chokepoints, and some independents patrolling the belts in the name of James, is so low that for the most part you can get away with being AFK. Which is a sure sign that ganking is of no threat to the majority of Eve players.
With ganking eliminated everybody can safely AFK mine, everybody can just afk a freighter around, that's not good gameplay.
It also removes quite a chunk of gameplay from those amongst us that take active steps to make sure that gankers are more likely to gank someone else.
Anything that encourages AFK gameplay is to be discouraged as far as I'm concerned, and that includes the elimination of things like ganking.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 14:48:10 -
[951] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
But you did.
I went back ALLLLL the way to page 41 of this thread. I looked at every post between you and I. You know what I never did, spoke to what you individually needed or didn't need. From the get go this idea of individual needs was started and continued to be argued by you and only you.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
No, I am saying that ganking unprofitable targets is an outlier. Just another example of you trying to twist someone else's words around..
Considering that I've seen ZERO evidence of that either on the killboards or in my personal experience, I will disagree with that point. Based on what I'm seeing more than half of all targets ganked are unprofitable.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Meanwhile, the balance in a game is a subjective matter, and just because you perceive that the game is broken doesn't mean that it is.
And on the flip side, just because you perceive that it isn't broken doesn't mean that it isn't.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
When you balance a game, which is to say a work of art, you need to have experience and understanding from all angles in order to make meaningful changes that create a net positive impact. If you're trying to somehow address ganking without having ganked yourself, you don't grasp the big picture, and the changes you propose end up being skewed.
I disagree. In fact its funny because a lot of the people argue with CCP on "have you guys actually played the game" or not a lot of the times when they make changes. Yet they still do. I'm pretty sure Fozzie and Rise haven't been to art class...
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 14:56:28 -
[952] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: That being said, I don't think that if ganking were eliminated that it would in any way shape or form break or unbalance the game, ya know especially given how low the risk of getting ganked already is... A single shard PvP game/universe, which is what Eve is, where you could safely AFK traverse an area, packed with shinies at zero risk or undock your barge, warp to an Ice anom, set lasers and walk away for 30+ minutes at zero risk would be inherently broken. How could it not be?
I will agree that AFK mining is currently imbalanced and it would be even more so if Hi-sec was PVP safe. That being said IF (which we both realize will never happen so I'm not sure why its a point worth discussion) Hi-sec ever did become PVP safe, the answer to AFK mining would obviously be a design change to make the activity more active. One way would be to drastically reduce the size of of rocks in the game to force you to have to cycle targets a lot, much like you do in missions. Given how mined empire is, this wouldn't exactly be lore breaking either. As far as travel is concerned, shinnies exist to be used. So what if goods move 10 jumps to somewhere else 10 jumps away. That's not inherently game breaking. They are sitting in a station either way not being used. So the second someone puts them on a ship and uses them to PVP then they get risked. The whole point of goods transport is to get things where you need them so they can be useful. Its not like junk sits in jita forever. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9618
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 15:04:37 -
[953] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote: It also removes quite a chunk of gameplay from those amongst us that take active steps to make sure that gankers are more likely to gank someone else.
You're telling this to people who don't care how something they want affects other people. "Carebearism" works that way: pretend that a desired gameplay situation is 'for the people' (especially the new people, because "think of the mother ******* children") when in reality the desire is simply selfish.
Some of us have "Indiana Jones" style avoidance of non-consensual pvp at the heart of our game play and (unlike 'carebears') don't want or need CCP to intervene on our behalf. We don't need CCP to play our game and beat the 'bad guys' (gankers, scammers, afk cloakers, awoxxers, gate campers etc etc) for us, WE use the tools available to do so while still raking in isk like Mad futuristic Space-Trumps (lol).
The Carebearist zeal to meta-game away people they don't like (this is what they are doing when the lobby CCP for more protections) so that they can gather ever more resources (ie affect the game world) in peace isn't a threat to the 'bad guys', those guys adapt and find a way to screw with people. It's a threat to REAL PVErs who take the time and make the effort to compete with PVP players on their own turf and win. |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
565
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 15:19:54 -
[954] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:As far as travel is concerned, shinnies exist to be used. So what if goods move 10 jumps to somewhere else 10 jumps away. That's not inherently game breaking. They are sitting in a station either way not being used. So the second someone puts them on a ship and uses them to PVP then they get risked. The second they leave the hangar they should be at risk, fitted or not.
Quote:The whole point of goods transport is to get things where you need them so they can be useful. Its not like junk sits in jita forever. The whole point of Eve is that other players make up a lot of the content, haulers aren't exempt from that.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2727
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 15:20:21 -
[955] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:The Carebearist zeal to meta-game away people they don't like (this is what they are doing when the lobby CCP for more protections) so that they can gather ever more resources (ie affect the game world) in peace isn't a threat to the 'bad guys', those guys adapt and find a way to screw with people. It's a threat to REAL PVErs who take the time and make the effort to compete with PVP players on their own turf and win.
The answer is obvious, then: everyone needs to become a carebear. That's the logical conclusion of the EVE player evolution process! It's the only noble outcome, and the only one that will result in a game that everyone will enjoy!
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 15:20:42 -
[956] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
You're telling this to people who don't care how something they want affects other people.
Well this works both ways. Gankers don't care how something they want affects their victims. I'm not sure why gankers get a pass and carebears don't. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11646
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 15:21:12 -
[957] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:The Carebearist zeal to meta-game away people they don't like (this is what they are doing when the lobby CCP for more protections) so that they can gather ever more resources (ie affect the game world) in peace isn't a threat to the 'bad guys', those guys adapt and find a way to screw with people. It's a threat to REAL PVErs who take the time and make the effort to compete with PVP players on their own turf and win. The answer is obvious, then: everyone needs to become a carebear. That's the logical conclusion of the EVE player evolution process! It's the only noble outcome, and the only one that will result in a game that everyone will enjoy!
It's emotional fascism at it's finest.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11646
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 15:23:23 -
[958] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:
You're telling this to people who don't care how something they want affects other people.
Well this works both ways. Gankers don't care how something they want affects their victims. I'm not sure why gankers get a pass and carebears don't.
Because we're playing the game. By the rules that exist already.
You want the rules changed to favor you even further than they already do, and to hurt the playstyle of others. It's intellectually dishonest to the highest degree to claim any kind of equivalency between the two groups.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 15:28:26 -
[959] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:The second they leave the hangar they should be at risk, fitted or not.
And I agree with you. But again my point wasn't that they shouldn't be at risk, my point is it wouldn't break the game if someone moved items not being used from one station to another because they still have no affect on the game. Heck even devs see un-use and argue that as people leave the game with billions of assets in their hanger that it helps to keep inflation down.
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:The whole point of Eve is that other players make up a lot of the content, haulers aren't exempt from that.
I agree with you here too. And I don't even have a "but" this time.
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 15:31:47 -
[960] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Because we're playing the game. By the rules that exist already.
If ganking didn't have to use bumping to keep targets in place then I'd agree with you. The whole point of bumping is to avoid the aggression mechanic. But given that this tactic is so heavily used, I don't agree with you.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
It's intellectually dishonest to the highest degree to claim any kind of equivalency between the two groups.
I agree completely. |
|
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9622
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 15:33:26 -
[961] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:
You're telling this to people who don't care how something they want affects other people.
Well this works both ways. Gankers don't care how something they want affects their victims. I'm not sure why gankers get a pass and carebears don't.
How can one be a 'victim' in a video game? I can't imagine how much an individual human being would have to suck to actually be a 'victim' in a situation like this.
And who cares what 'gankers' care about? they are the bad guys, they don't care about anything but themselves.
YOUR (the player's) job isn't to worry about what gankerss care about, it's to worry about what YOU are doing in the game and figure out how to neutralize the gankers before they so much as undock. This is why some of us who prefer pve are successful and happy (and unganked) in the game while 'others' spend thousands of man hours on forums begging CCP to make it all better for them because thinking , even in a video game, is hard.
You post is a perfect example of the carebearist mentality. Worry about what everyone else is doing while not exercising a single brain cell in the direction of taking care of self. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11648
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 15:35:20 -
[962] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
If ganking didn't have to use bumping to keep targets in place then I'd agree with you. The whole point of bumping is to avoid the aggression mechanic. But given that this tactic is so heavily used, I don't agree with you.
That isn't the point of bumping. It surprises me that you don't know that, given that you've chosen to try and lecture about it.
Hint: Gate guns.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 15:38:56 -
[963] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
Worry about what everyone else is doing while not exercising a single brain cell in the direction of taking care of self.
Check my killboard stats. This is not a problem I myself face. |
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 15:40:37 -
[964] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
That isn't the point of bumping. It surprises me that you don't know that, given that you've chosen to try and lecture about it.
I think you need to look up what the word lecture means. That being said, please enlighten me on why bumping is necessary to keep a target in place due to gate guns? |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9623
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 15:49:42 -
[965] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:
Worry about what everyone else is doing while not exercising a single brain cell in the direction of taking care of self.
Check my killboard stats. This is not a problem I myself face.
The forum tactic of replying to a small section of a post instead of the post proper is another example. A person with a carebearist mentality isn't interested in the actual truth of a situation, they are interested in their specific (and selfish) agenda.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
570
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 15:52:42 -
[966] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:And I agree with you. But again my point wasn't that they shouldn't be at risk, my point is it wouldn't break the game if someone moved items not being used from one station to another because they still have no affect on the game. Heck even devs see un-use and argue that as people leave the game with billions of assets in their hanger that it helps to keep inflation down.
Break the game? Well the game client would still function, but the game would be completely changed. Without risk, every hauler would do the simple calculation to find the maximum cargo ship and fit and fly only that. And fly that AFK too.
Is that better or more compelling game play? I'd argue that that isn't even game play at all.
Sure, if they move a completely useless item from one station to another without risk that wouldn't change the game (by why would you even want to?) like how you can deliver goods from the NES magically to any station, but using that as an argument to make all hauling 100% safe, including for the stuff with value but that is presently "unused", is silly.
Removing all risk to haulers makes New Eden a smaller and much less interesting place.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
565
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 15:54:02 -
[967] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
That isn't the point of bumping. It surprises me that you don't know that, given that you've chosen to try and lecture about it.
I think you need to look up what the word lecture means. That being said, please enlighten me on why bumping is necessary to keep a target in place due to gate guns? It's not about keeping them in place, it's about getting them out of range of the gate guns, much like tugs directing a tanker or container ship, except for more nefarious purposes.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 16:01:43 -
[968] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
It's not always about keeping them in place, sometimes it's about getting them out of range of the gate guns, much like tugs directing a tanker or container ship, except for more nefarious purposes.
Ok, so once the target is out of range of the gate guns then why keep bumping it? What risk does the bumper face? Its not like the bumper gets a GCC flag... its not like the ship gets blown up or sec status is lost... |
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 16:13:25 -
[969] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
Without risk, every hauler would do the simple calculation to find the maximum cargo ship and fit and fly only that. And fly that AFK too.
As opposed to players flying PVP ship fitted for max dps? I'm all for removing autopilot. We should all have to be at the keyboard no?
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
571
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 16:28:09 -
[970] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
Without risk, every hauler would do the simple calculation to find the maximum cargo ship and fit and fly only that. And fly that AFK too.
As opposed to players flying PVP ship fitted for max dps? I'm all for removing autopilot. We should all have to be at the keyboard no?
If you are referring to fitting gank ships, you do not always want to fit max DPS. Depending on where and what you are ganking, you need to consider tanking gate guns, align speed to avoid facpo, and whether you need alpha or raw DPS and so forth.
But this is beside the point. Making haulers 100% safe would not only remove fitting choice and tactics for moving safely from haulers, but also remove fitting choice and tactics for ambushing targets from gankers.
The game would be objectively less interesting and therefore less engaging for both players - which is exactly why CCP has explicitly and purposefully enabled suicide ganking in highsec.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 16:59:30 -
[971] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
But this is beside the point. Making haulers 100% safe would not only remove fitting choice and tactics for moving safely from haulers, but also remove fitting choice and tactics for ambushing targets from gankers.
The game would be objectively less interesting and therefore less engaging for both players - which is exactly why CCP has explicitly and purposefully enabled suicide ganking in highsec.
Haulers would still have fitting options even if ganking were eliminated. Max cargo isn't always the most efficient way to do something. This would be doubly true if autopilot was removed. You could fit for align, or speed, or cargo, though admittedly they likely wouldn't fit for tank, at least not in hi-sec anyway. Besides, if the argument is that most people already don't think about their fits under the current situation, what exactly would change if they actually didn't have to think about their fits?
I don't know about less interesting though. Eve already has a rep for being spreadsheets in space. Regardless, I agree that it would definitely not be the same, much like any change to the game well changes it. Though given that I don't want to make hi-sec gank free, the point is neither here nor there. |
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 17:03:18 -
[972] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
The forum tactic of replying to a small section of a post instead of the post proper is another example. A person with a carebearist mentality isn't interested in the actual truth of a situation, they are interested in their specific (and selfish) agenda.
And your style is any better? Calling people names etc?
I responded to the only comment you made that I thought needed a response. Everything else was a game of semantics. Whatever you want to call the person who lost something whether it be "victim" or "loser" or anything else is completely irrelevant. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9623
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 17:08:38 -
[973] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
Without risk, every hauler would do the simple calculation to find the maximum cargo ship and fit and fly only that. And fly that AFK too.
As opposed to players flying PVP ship fitted for max dps? I'm all for removing autopilot. We should all have to be at the keyboard no?
There it is again, that...'external focus' on what other people have or are doing.
Whats funny about this is that you are the type to get mad at CODE for attacking people for being afk (ie something that is none of their business) but then make it a habit of being all up in other people's business lol.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9623
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 17:10:47 -
[974] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:
The forum tactic of replying to a small section of a post instead of the post proper is another example. A person with a carebearist mentality isn't interested in the actual truth of a situation, they are interested in their specific (and selfish) agenda.
And your style is any better? Calling people names etc? I responded to the only comment you made that I thought needed a response. Everything else was a game of semantics. Whatever you want to call the person who lost something whether it be "victim" or "loser" or anything else is completely irrelevant.
This means you didn't comprehend what I was saying to you (if you think that's all I was saying). Another typical carebearist personality trait (live in your own world, ignore the rest).
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 17:12:09 -
[975] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
There it is again, that...'external focus' on what other people have or are doing.
What's funny is that you care what I do. Whether it be in game or on the forums. Again, Pot. Kettle. Black. |
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 17:14:24 -
[976] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
This means you didn't comprehend what I was saying to you (if you think that's all I was saying). Another typical carebearist personality trait (live in your own world, ignore the rest).
No, it just means what you wrote wasn't worth responding to. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9623
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 17:16:03 -
[977] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:
There it is again, that...'external focus' on what other people have or are doing.
What's funny is that you care what I do. Whether it be in game or on the forums. Again, Pot. Kettle. Black.
lol, and exactly who said anything about caring about what you do? You are the one choosing to participate in this open, public discussion are you not?
I'm simply demonstrating the fatal flaws in your line of thinking, and exposing how you aren't interested in the truth but rather in your personal agenda. You can choose to disengage from this discussion, but until you do so, the wrongness of your opinions and general worldview are fair game.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9623
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 17:18:31 -
[978] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:
This means you didn't comprehend what I was saying to you (if you think that's all I was saying). Another typical carebearist personality trait (live in your own world, ignore the rest).
No, it just means what you wrote wasn't worth responding to.
So you made a value judgement and that's ok. CODE/goons.gankers etc make value judgements all the time, but somehow theirs are wrong but you doing it is ok.
Carebearist personality trait number 3 identified: Double standards. |
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 17:23:17 -
[979] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
lol, and exactly who said anything about caring about what you do?
You did. Otherwise you wouldn't have responded to my posts.
Jenn aSide wrote:
I'm simply demonstrating the fatal flaws in your line of thinking, and exposing how you aren't interested in the truth but rather in your personal agenda. You can choose to disengage from this discussion, but until you do so, the wrongness of your opinions and general worldview are fair game.
Fatal? All of you've demonstrated is that you would rather label people rather than have a serious discussion. You could also choose to attack arguments on merit, but until you do so I'm not going to disengage from this discussion. |
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 17:25:53 -
[980] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
So you made a value judgement and that's ok. CODE/goons.gankers etc make value judgements all the time, but somehow theirs are wrong but you doing it is ok.
Carebearist personality trait number 3 identified: Double standards.
Again, more labels. I've never argued about Code/Goons in game decisions being wrong. But good try.
|
|
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9623
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 17:34:10 -
[981] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: You could also choose to attack arguments on merit, but until you do so I'm not going to disengage from this discussion.
That's a flat lie, a good half dozen of our peers have been demonstrating the flaws in your arguments. The idea that you are even capable of accepting the fact that what you are saying is wrong is laughable. You can lie to yourself about your perspective and motivations, but you can't lie to anyone else. Well, not and get away with it. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2727
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 18:53:07 -
[982] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
Without risk, every hauler would do the simple calculation to find the maximum cargo ship and fit and fly only that. And fly that AFK too.
As opposed to players flying PVP ship fitted for max dps? I'm all for removing autopilot. We should all have to be at the keyboard no?
The pvp players don't fly afk. Also, they have to decide between payload and defense, just like the haulers. Except the payload in this case is damage.
Valterra Craven wrote:Besides, if the argument is that most people already don't think about their fits under the current situation, what exactly would change if they actually didn't have to think about their fits?
Are you really saying this? Is this real life?
Is your argument literally "since haulers don't care about their fits now, we can make them invulnerable so they don't have to, and there wouldn't be any difference compared to now!"
wot
Are you just typing these things hoping that some month-old comes along and says "heeey, this guy makes sense!" and throws blind support at you?
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 20:02:28 -
[983] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
That's a flat lie, a good half dozen of our peers have been demonstrating the flaws in your arguments. The idea that you are even capable of accepting the fact that what you are saying is wrong is laughable. You can lie to yourself about your perspective and motivations, but you can't lie to anyone else. Well, not and get away with it.
No, what they've been doing is demonstrating flaws in their mindsets. Given the fact that I've ceded several points to poster over the course of these pages proves that I can accept arguments when they are actually well reasoned. As far as my motivations or perspectives, a I'm not sure how that's relevant, and b I've been pretty clear about what I want to achieve and how I think here.
So to make this really easy I will catalog everything out for you. This is my original post.
Valterra Craven wrote:Malcanis wrote: Freighters should travel in groups with escorts, or risk being ganked.
Why should that be the logical conclusion? (that freighters should travel in groups or risked being ganked) The problem with this outcome is that it literally makes no sense in the context of space that empire kills happen. Would it make any sense for an area that is controlled by powerful factions such as concord and and the empires to allow the same criminal acts to happen by the same people ad infinitum? Now before you start in on me about arguments regarding realism having no place in a gaming context, essentially that's what gankers are advocating for here: "You have to travel in packs, you have to fit right, you have to carry the right things in the right quantity." All of that is arguing for "realism". So either we can both proffer the same types of arguments or neither of us can without this being a completely pointless conversation. The problem as I see it is that while ganking in hi sec does have consequences, they don't fit the crime. Note, that I'm not advocating for 100% safety in hi-sec, I'm not advocating for removal of ganking. What I'm merely saying is that all things being equal, the fact that its possible to make a daily career out of being a ganker no matter how un-favorable or favorable the game's mechanics makes it, doesn't seem right in the context of space we are talking about. I think a possible measure to add would be for either concord/faction police to have longer "memories" or for concord to start following known criminals around in small numbers no matter where they go in protected space. The second problem I have with your premise is that transporting in Eve already isn't "fun". (I'm not sure who would make the argument that moving anything around in a freighter is fun, but I'm sure someone is going to try anyway) So again if "realism" should have no part of an internet spaceship game, then why shouldn't fun enter the equation? (Unless we also need to look up what the point/definition of a "game" is). Anyway, does it make any sense that the game mechanics should necessitate group play to do some of the most basic and tedious tasks that should all rights be confined to a single player/character? Because based off your reasoning, needing an escort just to move things around in space is going to make the game pretty boring for more people than it should, and if that's the case, then what is the point of it? This is especially true since the whole point of an escort is to AVOID fights.
There's not been a single poster that's has been able to effectively show why this is unreasonable.
What your "peers" have argued:
Realism has no business in video games! (Then don't make the argument that freighters should have escorts)
I am not qualified to make judgments about the "art of balance" in eve since I am not an artist. (*eyeroll*)
You're a carebear and are just being selfish and don't care about the game! (And?)
This idea isn't necessary based on the current levels of ganking! (which actually would be a legitimate counter IF there was hard data to compare current levels to previous levels. And no I'm not going to troll killboards for data, given that no one else is either)
Education is the real answer! (again no data to back this claim up)
You are saying that people shouldn't have to think about their fits! (no I'm not)
You don't understand the context of what I'm saying! (given that the context is to denigrate other players I understand it just fine)
What you propose would break the game! (Just like jump fatigue broke nullsec?)
Concord cheats! (all npcs "cheat", though I'm all for more realism in all aspects of game play)
Lore! RP! (If you want to argue lore and RP my idea would make more sense in those contexts than any counter would)
Protection should be expensive! (not based on any model that I've ever seen)
CCP already ruled on this and they are fine with the game as is! (Sure, they have, but that doesn't mean they are incapable of changing their minds and I have no problem in trying to convince them otherwise)
Does that about sum up everything? I could have missed something given this 20 page clusterF@#$ since I'm human and I make mistakes. But given that I'm the only one willing to admit or cede anything, I doubt that would mean anything to you.
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 20:08:08 -
[984] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
The pvp players don't fly afk.
Likely not to their targets no. But EVERYONE afks in this game no matter what your playstyle is. You tell me you have never afked in a ship before and I'm going to call you a liar to your face.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Also, they have to decide between payload and defense, just like the haulers. Except the payload in this case is damage.
Oh? So mag stabs have suddenly decreased your ships role to do its job effectively? Last I checked DPS mods don't decrease your tank, or your speed, or any other penalty besides opportunity costs.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Is your argument literally "since haulers don't care about their fits now, we can make them invulnerable so they don't have to, and there wouldn't be any difference compared to now!"
No, my argument is literally not that. My argument is that if haulers don't care about their fits now, no amount of changes to the game is going to change it one way or another. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9631
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 20:13:35 -
[985] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Does that about sum up everything? I could have missed something given this 20 page clusterF@#$ since I'm human and I make mistakes. But given that I'm the only one willing to admit or cede anything, I doubt that would mean anything to you?
You're right, it doesn't mean anything.
You Don't think people don't know fake, tactical "cede a minor point to defend the larger one" posting when we see it? Do you think no one can see you cherry picking parts of posts to respond to rather than responding to the actual meaning of the post? Do you think ALL of us so stupid that we can't see that your 'opinions' are based on emotion (in this case, a distinct prejudice against CODE, no different than the irrational 'grr goons' bs that came before it) rather than reason?
Come on, you can't think that EVERYONE is insane except you. Or maybe you do, in which case that tells everyone all we need to know lol.
Of course this is GD, we've seen Olympic level rationalizing and mental gymnastics before. we'll unfortunately see it again. Doesn't change the fact that just about everything you've said is wrong.
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 20:19:25 -
[986] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Does that about sum up everything? I could have missed something given this 20 page clusterF@#$ since I'm human and I make mistakes. But given that I'm the only one willing to admit or cede anything, I doubt that would mean anything to you?
You're right, it doesn't mean anything. You Don't think people don't know fake, tactical "cede a minor point to defend the larger one" posting when we see it? Do you think no one can see you cherry picking parts of posts to respond to rather than responding to the actual meaning of the post? Do you think ALL of us so stupid that we can't see that your 'opinions' are based on emotion (in this case, a distinct prejudice against CODE, no different than the irrational 'grr goons' bs that came before it) rather than reason? Come on, you can't think that EVERYONE is insane except you. Or maybe you do, in which case that tells everyone all we need to know lol. Of course this is GD, we've seen Olympic level rationalizing and mental gymnastics before. we'll unfortunately see it again. Doesn't change the fact that just about everything you've said is wrong.
Its funny, every tactic that you've accused me of you have just done in this single post. *slow clap*
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2727
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 20:33:21 -
[987] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
The pvp players don't fly afk.
Likely not to their targets no. But EVERYONE afks in this game no matter what your playstyle is. You tell me you have never afked in a ship before and I'm going to call you a liar to your face.
And if you tell me you've never been perfectly, unconditionally safe from player aggression before, I will do it to yours.
Valterra Craven wrote:Oh? So mag stabs have suddenly decreased your ships role to do its job effectively? Last I checked DPS mods don't decrease your tank, or your speed, or any other penalty besides opportunity costs.
Because a combat ship isn't limited to fitting for two direct stats: hull HP and cargo capacity. Hauling ships can only practically choose between these two stats (and some minor satellite stats, such as agility), and as such, it makes perfect sense that increasing one stat would offset the other, with a default base value acting as the fulcrum.
If CCP removed the penalties from these modules and adjusted hauler EHP, or the efficiency of these modules down, the effect would be the same. At least this way these modules become a bit more dynamic and interesting to use.
Valterra Craven wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Is your argument literally "since haulers don't care about their fits now, we can make them invulnerable so they don't have to, and there wouldn't be any difference compared to now!"
No, my argument is literally not that. My argument is that if haulers don't care about their fits now, no amount of changes to the game is going to change it one way or another.
And your argument is wrong, because haulers care about their fits now, albeit only about one side of the equation: efficiency. This is so, as people have been trying to tell you, because so few ganks happen that most are simply unaware that fitting for defense has practical merit in this game.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 21:22:29 -
[988] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
And if you tell me you've never been perfectly, unconditionally safe from player aggression before, I will do it to yours.
Does never leaving station count? (Sorry, couldn't resist)
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Because a combat ship isn't limited to fitting for two direct stats: hull HP and cargo capacity. Hauling ships can only practically choose between these two stats (and some minor satellite stats, such as agility), and as such, it makes perfect sense that increasing one stat would offset the other, with a default base value acting as the fulcrum.
What about mining ships? They have a plethora of ship stats to modify but all of their "dps upgrades" have penalties...
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
And your argument is wrong, because haulers care about their fits now, albeit only about one side of the equation: efficiency. This is so, as people have been trying to tell you, because so few ganks happen that most are simply unaware that fitting for defense has practical merit in this game.
Fitting a hauler for defense in hi-sec barely has practical merit now. Why? Because your defenses are going to be entirely irrelevant depending on your cargo. You can fit 3 t2 bulkhead's to your freighter and if you are carrying 10bil in goods you are very likely going to get ganked.
Valterra Craven wrote:
Realism isn't the only reason to escort freighters. They may just as well be escorted for in-game reasons.
Then why aren't any of the NPC hi-sec haulers ever escorted? |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
573
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 21:52:37 -
[989] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Fitting a hauler for defense in hi-sec barely has practical merit now. Why? Because your defenses are going to be entirely irrelevant depending on your cargo. You can fit 3 t2 bulkhead's to your freighter and if you are carrying 10bil in goods you are very likely going to get ganked.
This is how it should be. If you put 10B ISK in a single ship, you are painting yourself with a large bulls-eye as you are now a profitable target for everyone. The amount you can carry safely (that is while being unprofitable to gank) is determined by your EHP, and if you stay under that you are much safer from gankers. So no, 10B will make you a target in any case, but 1B? A triple-bulkhead freighter is unprofitable to gank with only 1B in cargo (at least for a fleet of typical size) while a triple-cargo expander is profitable.
While nothing can guarantee your safety in New Eden (as the developers have intended) there is much merit in making yourself an unattractive target by making yourself unprofitable to gank. How you fit your ship, and what you choose to carry determines this, and is completely in the freighter pilot's hands. If you get caught by gankers, this makes how you fit your ship very relevant indeed.
Of course Destiny Corrupted is correct that the chances of getting ganked are so remote, that it probably makes sense just to forgo tank altogether. Freighters are so safe, that the chance of you losing one, even AFK, is low enough probably just to ignore. Personally, I always tank and fly with an escort to be safe, but rationally I know that this is a waste of my time as the chances of running into one of the two freighter ganking organizations is indistinguishable from zero.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 22:03:53 -
[990] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Fitting a hauler for defense in hi-sec barely has practical merit now. Why? Because your defenses are going to be entirely irrelevant depending on your cargo. You can fit 3 t2 bulkhead's to your freighter and if you are carrying 10bil in goods you are very likely going to get ganked.
This is how it should be. If you put 10B ISK in a single ship, you are painting yourself with a large bulls-eye as you are now a profitable target for everyone. The amount you can carry safely (that is while being unprofitable to gank) is determined by your EHP, and if you stay under that you are much safer from gankers. So no, 10B will make you a target in any case, but 1B? A triple-bulkhead freighter is unprofitable to gank with only 1B in cargo (at least for a fleet of typical size) while a triple-cargo expander is profitable. While nothing can guarantee your safety in New Eden (as the developers have intended) there is much merit in making yourself an unattractive target by making yourself unprofitable to gank. How you fit your ship, and what you choose to carry determines this, and is completely in the freighter pilot's hands. If you get caught by gankers, this makes how you fit your ship very relevant indeed. Of course Destiny Corrupted is correct that the chances of getting ganked are so remote, that it probably makes sense just to forgo tank altogether. Freighters are so safe, that the chance of you losing one, even AFK, is low enough probably just to ignore. Personally, I always tank and fly with an escort to be safe, but rationally I know that this is a waste of my time as the chances of running into one of the two freighter ganking organizations is indistinguishable from zero.
Well if gankers were solely motivated by profit then I'd have no problem with the system as it stands. But the fact that it took me all of 5 seconds to find the exact opposite of what you described: https://zkillboard.com/kill/44377934/
I'll say again, fitting a hauler for defense in hi-sec barely has practical merit now. The only practical way to defend yourself is to not play, or to use a web alt. |
|
|
David Mandrake
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
20
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 22:08:20 -
[991] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying here. I'm saying that I don't look at things the same way. Both sides have relevant arguments, whether each chooses to acknowledge them or not. I don't for a second think that CCP would ever completely eliminate ganking, nor would I ever advocate such. Therefore I am not using the idea of a pvp-free area to structure any of my arguments. That being said, I don't think that if ganking were eliminated that it would in any way shape or form break or unbalance the game, ya know especially given how low the risk of getting ganked already is...
The idea of a PvP free area is essentially your argument, as far as you've presented it.
Quote:The people that they kill? I also haven't said that they are the only ganking group. In fact, even given my past history with goons (relatively minor given my spot in BoB at the time) and their very high profile ganking events, I wouldn't even call them gankers. Me thinks that they have much bigger issues to concern themselves with on a regular basis... Regardless, CODE does seem to be the most high profile group. So if the most talked about group is irrelevant, then...?
They're irrelevant in the amount of actual damage they do to the economy. That doesn't mean, however, that their playstyle should be eliminated from the game simply because they're trolls.
Quote:1. Well I don't think the suggestion I proffered is particularly game breaking, and while a lot of people have argued about its necessity, I don't think anyone has combated the idea on the game breaking front. 2.) Given that the same mechanic I'm proposing already exists in another form, I wouldn't think what I'm suggesting goes completely against the game either. 3.) Given the goal is to protect people that are not profitable to kill I don't think any amount of effort on their part to protect themselves is going to matter. I'm still getting hung up on the fact that you are arguing that its not a big threat, while saying that its relevant to the game though. And OOOHHH yes I'm familiar with propoganda. I don't know that I'd call Sir Molle the best at it as I think that title would be better served under Mittani, but I've definitely encountered it lol.
I'm not aware of where a PvP free area exists in another form in this game? Unless you're talking about:
Quote:Does never leaving station count? (Sorry, couldn't resist)
Which I'll refer to my earlier message about having a billion ISK locked in Jita because I couldn't get in range to modify my sell orders so that it'd actually sell. Add on to that scams and the like and although you might technically be safe from combat in a highsec or a lowsec station (in sov nullsec you can, of course, stay docked up all you want while supercarriers are pounding your station, and they won't be able to kill you, but you'll be locked out of station services and be unable to redock when you do finally decide to undock, effectively locking assets in there and making them unusable).
As for being game breaking, if you actually read back through the thread (and not back to page 41 or whatever the latest page you're willing to go back to) you'll find some arguments for why particular ideas that have been suggested would be game breaking (like the guy that wants the Titan bumping cannon or the superspeed guns). This is what it was in reference to (and I apologize if I wasn't clear enough because I was attempting to type the entire post out and research a few points in a 30 minute work break while juggling eating dinner). Towards your particular suggestion, I'll simply point out again that CCP didn't set up this game to be PvP safe, and CCP Falcon specifically said
Quote:Some of the people complaining in this thread have valid points about the fact that they don't feel safe. Simple fact of the matter is, that you're not suppose to feel safe in New Eden.
Eve is not a game for the faint hearted. It's a game that will chew you up and spit you out in the blink of an eye if you even think about letting your guard down or becoming complacent.
While every other MMO starts off with an intro that tells you you're going to be the savior of the realm, holds your hand, protects you, nurtures your development and ultimately guides you to your destiny as a hero along with several other million players who've had the exact same experience, EVE assaults you from the second you begin to play after you create a character, spitting you out into a universe that under the surface, is so complex that it's enough to make your head explode.
The entire design is based around being harsh, vicious, relentless, hostile and cold. It's about action and reaction, and the story that unfolds as you experience these two things.
True, we're working hard to lower the bar of entry so that more players can enjoy EVE and can get into the game. Our NPE (New Player Experience) is challenging, and we're trying to improve it to better prepare rookies for what lies out there, but when you start to play eve, you'll always start out as the little fish in the big pond.
The only way to grow is to voraciously consume what's around you, and its your choice whether that happens to be New Eden's abundant natural resources, or the other people who're also fighting their way to the top.
The thing is, this makes Eve a different game from most and it's why so many people want to defend it. We want a difficult and challenging MMO where our primary opponent is other players. There's countless numbers of other games - MMO and otherwise - which give you varying degrees of difficulty; but they typically do come with some measure of complete safety. Eve is Unique in that it doesn't have that, and most people believe that this is to the betterment of the game. Unfortunately I'm now out of room to type; but that's the view of it that I see. |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
701
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 22:13:53 -
[992] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Why should that be the logical conclusion? (that freighters should travel in groups or risked being ganked) The problem with this outcome is that it literally makes no sense in the context of space that empire kills happen. Would it make any sense for an area that is controlled by powerful factions such as concord and and the empires to allow the same criminal acts to happen by the same people ad infinitum?
You mean the same powerful factions that daily allow thousands of Blood Raider, Gurista, Sansha, and opposite Empire combat ships free roam in every single highsec system? Quite frankly, a squad of 8 catalysts is small intrest in the sheer weight of Angel Macharials sitting in deadspace pockets all over the system. Don't see you calling for Lv4 missions to be erradicated from Highsec.
If you are going to call "realism" in to play, you can't be biasedly selective to only the thing you want to deal with.
|
David Mandrake
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
20
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 22:16:43 -
[993] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Well if gankers were solely motivated by profit then I'd have no problem with the system as it stands. But the fact that it took me all of 5 seconds to find the exact opposite of what you described
That ship was killed by a rather significant number of T3,T2 and faction ships. It likely went Suspect either due to a killright (which doesn't show up on EveKill or ZKB for whatever reason) or due to looting and then dumping cargo, or simply was suspect from something else and undocked in the freighter.
Either way, that's essentially like running your freighter in to Amamake while PL was still there; you're a free target to everyone and you're going to die because you have a big expensive ship. I doubt anyone got CONCORDed for shooting him, and I'd probably have shot him too if I'd been in Amarr at the time. But nobody is going to intentionally suicide gank in a T3 (it does happen but it's usually a "Oh hey free explorer kill... WAIT WHAT DO YOU MEAN I'M IN HIGHSEC D:" type thing), and I'm doubtful someone would use a T2 to suicide gank, or a hauler (there's an Iteron Mk V on there) So the kill just screams suspect freighter to me. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
573
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 22:19:37 -
[994] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Well if gankers were solely motivated by profit then I'd have no problem with the system as it stands. But the fact that it took me all of 5 seconds to find the exact opposite of what you described: [redacted]
I'll say again, fitting a hauler for defense in hi-sec barely has practical merit now. The only practical way to defend yourself is to not play, or to use a web alt.
First, you are not suppose to post kill mails. Second that kill mail was not a gank - the expensive T3 and faction ships are the tipoff.
But that aside, we are going in circles here. I said, there were no guarantees, and ships get blown up for reasons beyond profit. But making yourself unprofitable to gank provides a strong disincentive for gankers to do it. They still might if there is no other target, but if the choice is between your unprofitable triple-bulkheaded freighter and the next guys's overloaded cargo-expander one, you will win every time.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 22:23:31 -
[995] - Quote
David Mandrake wrote:
That ship was killed by a rather significant number of T3,T2 and faction ships. It likely went Suspect either due to a killright (which doesn't show up on EveKill or ZKB for whatever reason) or due to looting and then dumping cargo, or simply was suspect from something else and undocked in the freighter.
Your right, I was trying to figure out why they would use so many expensive ships and they weren't lost when the guy obviously couldn't have been a war target. I did find this one though:
(I've edited my post to reflect the new one) |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9632
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 22:32:34 -
[996] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Fitting a hauler for defense in hi-sec barely has practical merit now. Why? Because your defenses are going to be entirely irrelevant depending on your cargo. You can fit 3 t2 bulkhead's to your freighter and if you are carrying 10bil in goods you are very likely going to get ganked.
This is how it should be. If you put 10B ISK in a single ship, you are painting yourself with a large bulls-eye as you are now a profitable target for everyone. The amount you can carry safely (that is while being unprofitable to gank) is determined by your EHP, and if you stay under that you are much safer from gankers. So no, 10B will make you a target in any case, but 1B? A triple-bulkhead freighter is unprofitable to gank with only 1B in cargo (at least for a fleet of typical size) while a triple-cargo expander is profitable. While nothing can guarantee your safety in New Eden (as the developers have intended) there is much merit in making yourself an unattractive target by making yourself unprofitable to gank. How you fit your ship, and what you choose to carry determines this, and is completely in the freighter pilot's hands. If you get caught by gankers, this makes how you fit your ship very relevant indeed. Of course Destiny Corrupted is correct that the chances of getting ganked are so remote, that it probably makes sense just to forgo tank altogether. Freighters are so safe, that the chance of you losing one, even AFK, is low enough probably just to ignore. Personally, I always tank and fly with an escort to be safe, but rationally I know that this is a waste of my time as the chances of running into one of the two freighter ganking organizations is indistinguishable from zero. Well if gankers were solely motivated by profit then I'd have no problem with the system as it stands. But the fact that it took me all of 5 seconds to find the exact opposite of what you described: kill 44344581 means that not all ganks are motivated by profit. I'll say again, fitting a hauler for defense in hi-sec barely has practical merit now. The only practical way to defend yourself is to not play, or to use a web alt.
New game guys, lets pretend this guy isn't Veers!
And there is that external focus yet again. Now this poster has a say in what motivates a person to do something in a video game, like it's their business. |
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 22:41:23 -
[997] - Quote
David Mandrake wrote:
The idea of a PvP free area is essentially your argument, as far as you've presented it.
Lol, no. Its not. Go back and re-read post 956.
David Mandrake wrote:
They're irrelevant in the amount of actual damage they do to the economy. That doesn't mean, however, that their playstyle should be eliminated from the game simply because they're trolls.
Well given that CCP has now set a precedent for removing things that players don't use (see industry teams), then it would seem that further restrictions or outright removal of their play style would not be unreasonable (only in that context). (For the record I fought pretty hard against that change. My suggestions to alter their gameplay would not remove it however, nor do I think we should remove it, just that this type of argument doesn't sway me)
David Mandrake wrote:
I'm not aware of where a PvP free area exists in another form in this game?
There are none that I know. The mechanic I was referring to was jump fatigue. IE expontentially increases timers depending on number of jumps.
David Mandrake wrote:
Towards your particular suggestion, I'll simply point out again that CCP didn't set up this game to be PvP safe, and CCP Falcon specifically said
[quote]Some of the people complaining in this thread have valid points about the fact that they don't feel safe. Simple fact of the matter is, that you're not suppose to feel safe in New Eden.
I'm not asking for CCP to make this EVE be PVP safe.
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 22:44:53 -
[998] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
And there is that external focus yet again. Now this poster has a say in what motivates a person to do something in a video game, like it's their business.
No there isn't. The external focus came about because of arguments proffered by others. This is my argument:
Valterra Craven wrote:
it make any sense for an area that is controlled by powerful factions such as concord and and the empires to allow the same criminal acts to happen by the same people ad infinitum?
It has nothing to do with people's motivations. But please, continue to do a horrible job of actually keeping up with who said what and where ideas originated from. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16071
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 23:21:00 -
[999] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:David Mandrake wrote:
The idea of a PvP free area is essentially your argument, as far as you've presented it.
Lol, no. Its not. Go back and re-read post 956. David Mandrake wrote:
They're irrelevant in the amount of actual damage they do to the economy. That doesn't mean, however, that their playstyle should be eliminated from the game simply because they're trolls.
Well given that CCP has now set a precedent for removing things that players don't use (see industry teams), then it would seem that further restrictions or outright removal of their play style would not be unreasonable (only in that context).
Like for instance removing autopilot?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Marsha Mallow
1897
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 23:42:36 -
[1000] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Well given that CCP has now set a precedent for removing things that players don't use Like for instance removing autopilot?
Maybe she means the CSM.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11654
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 23:45:49 -
[1001] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
Of course Destiny Corrupted is correct that the chances of getting ganked are so remote, that it probably makes sense just to forgo tank altogether. Freighters are so safe, that the chance of you losing one, even AFK, is low enough probably just to ignore.
You're more likely to get in a real life car accident than ganked in a freighter. Their deaths are exceedingly rare, with very few ship classes having less deaths.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 00:41:26 -
[1002] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
Like for instance removing autopilot?
Well I don't know how many people use autopilot, but I think I've already been pretty clear that I'm not for AFK play, which means that I wouldn't be opposed to them removing that and making AFK mining nearly impossible. Ironically those changes would make the game a lot safer since people would have far less capability for stupidity. |
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 00:50:33 -
[1003] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
You mean the same powerful factions that daily allow thousands of Blood Raider, Gurista, Sansha, and opposite Empire combat ships free roam in every single highsec system? Quite frankly, a squad of 8 catalysts is small intrest in the sheer weight of Angel Macharials sitting in deadspace pockets all over the system. Don't see you calling for Lv4 missions to be erradicated from Highsec.
If you are going to call "realism" in to play, you can't be biasedly selective to only the thing you want to deal with.
I'm pretty sure that I've already stated I'd have no problem with more realism. It would be AMAZING to see npcs actually combat each other. (See CCP's "blackboard" idea for NPC AI). But the problem as it stands is that none of those NPCS actually do anything. They aren't attacking anything on gates or stations. And technically if you had read far enough back I did come up with an idea that CCP should remove all missions and agents should just give missions to hunt down people with sec status below 0.0. (To be fair it wasn't a serious idea) |
Marsha Mallow
1898
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 01:06:19 -
[1004] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:And technically if you had read far enough back I did come up with an idea that CCP should remove all missions and agents should just give missions to hunt down people with sec status below 0.0. (To be fair it wasn't a serious idea)
Why not? I wouldn't mind that at all.
Cite these earlier comments with links please.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 01:33:06 -
[1005] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:
Cite these earlier comments with links please.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=32
Post 632:
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Now you are just being stupid, you know exactly what I mean. Every time you attack an NPC or mine a rock you will suffer all the mechanics that come into play for gankers. Concord will kill you, sec status loss, GCC, ect.
Why would concord attack you for doing their job for them? OHHH. This actually gives me a great idea. We should remove NPCS completely from the game and all missions should be to attack people with bounties and sec status below 0.0! |
Marsha Mallow
1898
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 01:41:22 -
[1006] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Marsha Mallow wrote:
Cite these earlier comments with links please.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=32
Post 632: Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Now you are just being stupid, you know exactly what I mean. Every time you attack an NPC or mine a rock you will suffer all the mechanics that come into play for gankers. Concord will kill you, sec status loss, GCC, ect.
Why would concord attack you for doing their job for them? OHHH. This actually gives me a great idea. We should remove NPCS completely from the game and all missions should be to attack people with bounties and sec status below 0.0!
You presented that as a ludicrous idea, but it sounds fine to me.
Maybe if you tried it again, with your top on.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Valterra Craven
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 02:02:41 -
[1007] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:
You presented that as a ludicrous idea, but it sounds fine to me.
Maybe if you tried it again, with your top on.
Well the problem is that unlike players, npcs are technically infinite. Its basically why null-sec has issues with population density now. What I mean by that is nullsec systems, even the best ones, typically can't support all that many players because the number of activities available to them is comparatively finite to missions in hi sec which are not. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2729
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 05:23:04 -
[1008] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Fitting a hauler for defense in hi-sec barely has practical merit now. Why? Because your defenses are going to be entirely irrelevant depending on your cargo. You can fit 3 t2 bulkhead's to your freighter and if you are carrying 10bil in goods you are very likely going to get ganked.
If I put 10b worth of stuff on my combat ship, I can get ganked just as easily. And yet, I'm not asking for increased CONCORD protection, despite flying ships like that in pvp on a regular basis.
Valterra Craven wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Realism isn't the only reason to escort freighters. They may just as well be escorted for in-game reasons.
Then why aren't any of the NPC hi-sec haulers ever escorted?
How many have you ever seen at gates? The only ones I've ever noticed have all been within cover range of station sentry guns.
Malcanis wrote:Like for instance removing autopilot?
I hope they don't remove that. It's quite convenient for me to safely transfer my assets across empire space while having some free time to do other things.
Marsha Mallow wrote:Maybe she means the CSM.
Better.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2729
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 05:24:32 -
[1009] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
Of course Destiny Corrupted is correct that the chances of getting ganked are so remote, that it probably makes sense just to forgo tank altogether. Freighters are so safe, that the chance of you losing one, even AFK, is low enough probably just to ignore.
You're more likely to get in a real life car accident than ganked in a freighter. Their deaths are exceedingly rare, with very few ship classes having less deaths.
There's also that matter about many of them being "repeat custromers." I'm not kidding.
Valterra Craven wrote:I'm pretty sure that I've already stated I'd have no problem with more realism. It would be AMAZING to see npcs actually combat each other. (See CCP's "blackboard" idea for NPC AI). But the problem as it stands is that none of those NPCS actually do anything. They aren't attacking anything on gates or stations. And technically if you had read far enough back I did come up with an idea that CCP should remove all missions and agents should just give missions to hunt down people with sec status below 0.0. (To be fair it wasn't a serious idea)
It was a pretty serious idea for the pro-sandbox lobby that originally fielded this idea 6-7 years ago, if not earlier. Of course the carebears cried bloody murder, and to this day it's something that will stir up the mission-running community like nothing else. No, go ahead, try to present it formally. See what happens. I've done it before.
Valterra Craven wrote:Well the problem is that unlike players, npcs are technically infinite. Its basically why null-sec has issues with population density now. What I mean by that is nullsec systems, even the best ones, typically can't support all that many players because the number of activities available to them is comparatively finite to missions in hi sec which are not.
Since only about 15% of the game's population lives in null, it means that for most of the day, there are actually more 0.0 systems in the game than there are players located in 0.0.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11658
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 05:36:13 -
[1010] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
Of course Destiny Corrupted is correct that the chances of getting ganked are so remote, that it probably makes sense just to forgo tank altogether. Freighters are so safe, that the chance of you losing one, even AFK, is low enough probably just to ignore.
You're more likely to get in a real life car accident than ganked in a freighter. Their deaths are exceedingly rare, with very few ship classes having less deaths. There's also that matter about many of them being "repeat custromers." I'm not kidding.
You'll find that's also true about car accidents.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 16:25:05 -
[1011] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
If I put 10b worth of stuff on my combat ship, I can get ganked just as easily. And yet, I'm not asking for increased CONCORD protection, despite flying ships like that in pvp on a regular basis.
Ok? I'm not asking for more protection for people with 10bil worth of assests in any ship....
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
How many have you ever seen at gates? The only ones I've ever noticed have all been within cover range of station sentry guns.
Do bumping mechanics not work on npcs as well? (I've honestly never tried to bump one, so serious question) |
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 16:31:20 -
[1012] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
It was a pretty serious idea for the pro-sandbox lobby that originally fielded this idea 6-7 years ago, if not earlier. Of course the carebears cried bloody murder, and to this day it's something that will stir up the mission-running community like nothing else. No, go ahead, try to present it formally. See what happens. I've done it before.
Well given that its something I've wanted for a long time and I have no problem with it, does that finally mean I can shed the carebear label? (The answer is really irrelevant, because labels do nothing to advance civil discourse). In any case, I think the tide is turning there. The NPC AI has been improving over the course of Eve's life and in my humble opinion its only going to be a matter of time before we get something like Blackboard on a vast majority of NPCs.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Since only about 15% of the game's population lives in null, it means that for most of the day, there are actually more 0.0 systems in the game than there are players located in 0.0.
While likely true, that's besides the point. Not all of Null is created equal and I think that null sec alliances have some merit that not all null sec systems are worth living in or fighting for. Regardless, I do think that if some settled null systems could support higher player densities that over time more people would live there. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2741
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 16:31:55 -
[1013] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
If I put 10b worth of stuff on my combat ship, I can get ganked just as easily. And yet, I'm not asking for increased CONCORD protection, despite flying ships like that in pvp on a regular basis.
Ok? I'm not asking for more protection for people with 10bil worth of assests in any ship....
You were making a point that at a certain value, being ganked is almost a guarantee. And my point is that it isn't.
Valterra Craven wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:How many have you ever seen at gates? The only ones I've ever noticed have all been within cover range of station sentry guns. Do bumping mechanics not work on npcs as well? (I've honestly never tried to bump one, so serious question)
They work.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 17:26:30 -
[1014] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
You were making a point that at a certain value, being ganked is almost a guarantee. And my point is that it isn't.
Well actually I was trying to make a point about fitting choices. (Though I will readily admit I might not have taken the best tact) If the argument is going to be that getting ganked is so rare, then why does it matter what you fit? In other words why do the arguments:
Carebears are so stupid, they fit badly, education is the key!
We shouldn't make haulers safer and thereby remove the tank fitting option!
Hold any water if the argument is that ganks are already so rare that you'd get hit by lightening before you get ganked? |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2741
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 17:32:49 -
[1015] - Quote
It's rare, but fitting choices still play a role. If you only (arbitrary numbers here) have a 1% chance of getting ganked with a cargo fit, and a .5% chance of getting ganked with a bulkhead fit, then you're only decreasing your chance to get ganked by .5%, but are now only half as likely to get ganked.
But a more accurate answer is that fittings shift the ganking formula to almost (nothing in life is ever certain, but you can come close) guarantee that you don't get ganked as long as you don't exceed a certain cargo value. Fittings only start helping once you have that winning lottery number.
I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 17:40:21 -
[1016] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:It's rare, but fitting choices still play a role. If you only (arbitrary numbers here) have a 1% chance of getting ganked with a cargo fit, and a .5% chance of getting ganked with a bulkhead fit, then you're only decreasing your chance to get ganked by .5%, but are now only half as likely to get ganked.
But a more accurate answer is that fittings shift the ganking formula to almost (nothing in life is ever certain, but you can come close) guarantee that you don't get ganked as long as you don't exceed a certain cargo value. Fittings only start helping once you have that winning lottery number. There's a flip side to this too, of course: you can buy enough lotto tickets to guarantee winning it.
Which would be a reasonable argument if every gank was conducted on the basis of profitability. |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
611
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 17:48:37 -
[1017] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Which would be a reasonable argument if every gank was conducted on the basis of profitability.
Practically all ganks are made for profit:
- Profit from loot
- Profit from increasing freighter sales
- Profit from winning a war because you disrupted the enemies supply line
- Profit from donors who want to read about your organization
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 17:54:59 -
[1018] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Which would be a reasonable argument if every gank was conducted on the basis of profitability. Practically all ganks are made for profit: - Profit from loot - Profit from increasing freighter sales - Profit from winning a war because you disrupted the enemies supply line - Profit from donors who want to read about your organization
Ok, totally fine with that, which of those cases does the fit of the target actually matter? |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
611
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 18:09:41 -
[1019] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Which would be a reasonable argument if every gank was conducted on the basis of profitability. Practically all ganks are made for profit: - Profit from loot - Profit from increasing freighter sales - Profit from winning a war because you disrupted the enemies supply line - Profit from donors who want to read about your organization Ok, totally fine with that, which of those cases does the fit of the target actually matter?
In all cases, of course. |
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 19:13:12 -
[1020] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
In all cases, of course.
If your point is it matters because of things like how much DPS you need to bring, and other such thoughts, yes I agree with you, the fit matters. But my point is that the fit doesn't matter in the motivation for ganking the target for a majority of those reasons. |
|
|
Paranoid Loyd
3760
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 19:21:54 -
[1021] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
In all cases, of course.
If your point is it matters because of things like how much DPS you need to bring, and other such thoughts, yes I agree with you, the fit matters. But my point is that the fit doesn't matter in the motivation for ganking the target for a majority of those reasons.
If you have multiple scanners looking for targets and you scan one with a tank and one that is anti-tanked which one would you choose to kill?
There are way more freighters than gankers, the proper tactics when trying to be safe when complete safety is not really possible is to be the least attractive target.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 19:55:47 -
[1022] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
If you have multiple scanners looking for targets and you scan one with a tank and one that is anti-tanked which one would you choose to kill?.
Well seems to me that if you are CODE the answer is pretty irrelevant.
https://zkillboard.com/kill
44291340
The values here seem to be well below what the typical threshold are that every one talks about and that one even had tripple bulkheads.
They do seem to have an awful lot of kills that net them zero profit in terms of loot drops (because they are killing empty freighters). I'm trying to find an empty tripple bulkhead fit, but finding one like that would be hard given how silly it would seem to travel max tank with 0 cargo.
The fit on this one is pretty bad, but zero cargo:
https://zkillboard.com/kill
44293086 |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
577
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 20:03:26 -
[1023] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
They do seem to have an awful lot of kills that net them zero profit in terms of loot drops (because they are killing empty freighters). I'm trying to find an empty tripple bulkhead fit, but finding one like that would be hard given how silly it would seem to travel max tank with 0 cargo.
You always should fly empty with max tank because you do not need those low slots for anything else. I always fly with as much tank as my cargo size will allow, and for an empty hold that is triple bulkhead.
No one is going to gank an empty, triple bulkheaded freighter unless you have seriously annoyed them. That is why you don't see them on killboards, not because people would be "silly" to tank their empty ship.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 20:05:29 -
[1024] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
No one is going to gank an empty, triple bulkheaded freighter unless you have seriously annoyed them. That is why you don't see them on killboards, not because people would be "silly" to tank their empty ship.
The problem is that anyone ganks empty anything to begin with. |
Paranoid Loyd
3761
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 20:40:08 -
[1025] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
No one is going to gank an empty, triple bulkheaded freighter unless you have seriously annoyed them. That is why you don't see them on killboards, not because people would be "silly" to tank their empty ship.
The problem is that anyone ganks empty anything to begin with.
Why is it a problem? If I want to waste my isk who are you to say how I waste it?
Also, you already acknowledged this as a valid reason:
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
- Profit from donors who want to read about your organization
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 21:05:09 -
[1026] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
No one is going to gank an empty, triple bulkheaded freighter unless you have seriously annoyed them. That is why you don't see them on killboards, not because people would be "silly" to tank their empty ship.
The problem is that anyone ganks empty anything to begin with. Why is it a problem? If I want to waste my isk who are you to say how I waste it? Also, you already acknowledged this as a valid reason: Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
- Profit from donors who want to read about your organization
Familiarize yourself with this concept and it may become clearer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader
I know what the term loss leader means. My whole point is that I think its currently imbalanced that this option exists in the form it does. Meaning I would like to see the GCC adjusted to act more like the jump fatigue mechanic to make people like CODE actually have to pick and choose who they gank.
|
Paranoid Loyd
3761
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 21:13:49 -
[1027] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
No one is going to gank an empty, triple bulkheaded freighter unless you have seriously annoyed them. That is why you don't see them on killboards, not because people would be "silly" to tank their empty ship.
The problem is that anyone ganks empty anything to begin with. Why is it a problem? If I want to waste my isk who are you to say how I waste it? Also, you already acknowledged this as a valid reason: Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
- Profit from donors who want to read about your organization
Familiarize yourself with this concept and it may become clearer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader I know what the term loss leader means. My whole point is that I think its currently imbalanced that this option exists in the form it does. Meaning I would like to see the GCC adjusted to act more like the jump fatigue mechanic to make people like CODE actually have to pick and choose who they gank.
If I am killing freighters at a loss with the proven fact that the profit of those kills will be coming from those who enjoy reading the stories that it creates how can you argue they are not killing for profit?
Indirect profit is still profit.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
577
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 21:15:42 -
[1028] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I know what the term loss leader means. My whole point is that I think its currently imbalanced that this option exists in the form it does. Meaning I would like to see the GCC adjusted to act more like the jump fatigue mechanic to make people like CODE actually have to pick and choose who they gank.
Then perhaps you should suggest that in the Features and Ideas subforum so we can hash out the pros and cons of your proposal.
Personally however, I think if CODE. chooses to gank at a nominal loss, that is their prerogative. This is suppose to be a sandbox afterall.
But since this thread is intended to discuss hyperdunking, perhaps we can put CODE.'s business plan aside for now?
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 22:14:25 -
[1029] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
how can you argue they are not killing for profit?
I'm not. What I am pointing out is that given CODE's current targets that they are rather indiscriminate with what they kill. Besides other posts were pointing out that if we offer more protection for things that fits will become less relevant. And my point is that they are barely relevant now. Why should a travel fit not be relevant for an empty freighter?
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 22:17:18 -
[1030] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
But since this thread is intended to discuss hyperdunking, perhaps we can put CODE.'s business plan aside for now?
If the whole purpose of hyperdunking is to gank a target, how exactly do you discuss it without also being able to discuss the mechanics of ganking? I believe that that they could leave hyperdunking as is now if they added a jump fatigue type mechanic to criminal timers. Not that hard. |
|
|
Paranoid Loyd
3761
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 22:21:12 -
[1031] - Quote
Relevant is a term of relativity. You think it is not relevant while I do, then again I wouldn't even move a freighter solo, and you would. So we are already at an impasse of what is acceptable and what is not.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 22:29:33 -
[1032] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Relevant is a term of relativity. You think it is not relevant while I do, then again I wouldn't even move a freighter solo, and you would. So we are already at an impasse of what is acceptable and what is not.
*Shrug* But don't you know, ganks are so rare... you live up to your namesake well :) |
Paranoid Loyd
3761
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 22:36:56 -
[1033] - Quote
Yes, they are rare, but they also happen. The game is risk mitigation.
If you don't want to lose something you properly protect it. I don't want to lose my freighter, so I properly protect it.
You are arguing that you shouldn't have to properly protect things you don't want to lose.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 22:38:21 -
[1034] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
You are arguing that you shouldn't have to properly protect things you don't want to lose.
No, I'm arguing that the level of protection is absurd.
|
Paranoid Loyd
3761
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 22:43:13 -
[1035] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:
You are arguing that you shouldn't have to properly protect things you don't want to lose.
No, I'm arguing that the level of protection is absurd.
What protection?
The only protection you can rely on is that which you provide or arrange to have provided for you.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11676
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 23:58:15 -
[1036] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:
You are arguing that you shouldn't have to properly protect things you don't want to lose.
No, I'm arguing that the level of protection is absurd.
Yeah, absurdly too good. It is almost impossible to die if you play with more than half your ass.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
577
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 07:24:34 -
[1037] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
If the whole purpose of hyperdunking is to gank a target, how exactly do you discuss it without also being able to discuss the mechanics of ganking? I believe that that they could leave hyperdunking as is now if they added a jump fatigue type mechanic to criminal timers. Not that hard.
Sure, you can discuss whatever you want. But the ruling was to clear up whether a specific type of ganking was an exploit - that is the unfortunately named hyperdunking - not whether ganking at all is an exploit. It has been made clear several times in the CSM minutes, by CCP Falcon and others from CCP that suicide ganking is an intended game mechanic.
As to your solution, you are of course completely wrong. The whole point that enables hyperdunking is that the ganker continues to board ships and apply damage during the criminal timer. If you added a fatigue-like mechanism, or even increased the criminal timers to two weeks, the criminal would still be able to hyperdunk her target under the current mechanics.
Valterra Craven wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:
You are arguing that you shouldn't have to properly protect things you don't want to lose.
No, I'm arguing that the level of protection is absurd.
This is the game. If you undock your reasonably loaded, cargo-expanded freighter and press 'Autopilot' you have a 99.5% chance of arriving safely at your destination. If you triple-bulkhead it and do the same you now have a 99.8% chance. If you set up some insta-docks and undocks, and bring a competent scout/webbing escort, you now have a 99.99+%. Of course this risk depends on what you are carrying, what systems you are traveling, and so forth, but you, the freighter pilot, have to decide how much risk you are willing to take and how much effort you are willing to put in to protect your stuff. This is why CCP has explicitly put suicide ganking in the game - to provide the risk that forces real and interesting choices for haulers moving about highsec.
Freighter ganking is already incredibly rare and you are arguing for NPC-based mechanisms that shift the risk even lower at no addition cost or effort for yourself. How does that make the game more interesting at all? The numbers above already make it completely rational to use the unengaging two-buttons 'Undock' and 'Autopilot' to move everything in highsec. Why should active freighter piloting and the use of other hauling ships be further disincentivized by making AFK freighter hauling even safer?
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11686
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 10:34:33 -
[1038] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
Freighter ganking is already incredibly rare and you are arguing for NPC-based mechanisms that shift the risk even lower at no additional cost or effort for yourself. How does that make the game more interesting at all? The numbers above already make it completely rational to use the unengaging two-buttons 'Undock' and 'Autopilot' to move everything in highsec. Why should active freighter piloting and the use of other hauling ships be further disincentivized by making AFK freighter hauling even safer?
Because some people think that actively not playing the game should be more viable than actually playing the game.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Khan Wrenth
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
102
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 11:47:52 -
[1039] - Quote
Why do people consider it such a big hassle to get a web or logi friend?
The places you really need escort are the infamous chockepoint systems and their adjacent systems. Just ask one of your corp/alliance mates for 15 minutes of their time to get through there? I don't know, maybe I'm playing EVE wrong, but I frequently have downtime where I can help a corpie. If I'm online and I don't have the time immediately, I can help them when I get back from whatever exploration I'm doing. Do you have to move that cargo right now? If not, see if a corpie can help you whenever he or she is done.
People moving billions in cargo should at the very least have dozens of contacts they can call upon to help them out. Some of them have to be online at any given moment, and at least one isn't doing anything *right now*, or has time in a few minutes.
I honestly don't see how this is a hurdle for anyone.
HTFU.-á Adapt or die.-á Beware the falcon punch.
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 15:47:56 -
[1040] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
Sure, you can discuss whatever you want but there are rules to stay on topic in these forums. The ruling we are discussing in this thread was to clear up whether a specific type of ganking was an exploit - that is the unfortunately named hyperdunking - not whether ganking at all is an exploit. It has been made clear several times in the CSM minutes, by CCP Falcon and others from CCP that suicide ganking is an intended game mechanic.
Well given how crazy CCP ISD are about moderation, you'd think that if those rules were really important to them that this thread would have far fewer replies (because they'd get deleted) or the thread would simply be locked.
Black Pedro wrote:
As to your solution, you are of course completely wrong in regards to hyperdunking, the topic of this thread. The whole point that enables hyperdunking is that the ganker continues to board ships and apply damage during the criminal timer. If you added a fatigue-like mechanism, or even increased the criminal timers to two weeks, the criminal would still be able to hyperdunk her target under the current mechanics.
The solution wasn't to STOP things like hyperdunking, or ganking, or offer more protection. The solution was to try and come up with a way that would give gankers more pause, or force them to think about the targets they gank and if its really worth it to them.
Black Pedro wrote:
This is why CCP has explicitly put suicide ganking in the game - to provide the risk that forces real and interesting choices for haulers moving about highsec.
And I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is that gankers aren't being forced to make the same meaningful choices.
Black Pedro wrote:
Freighter ganking is already incredibly rare and you are arguing for NPC-based mechanisms that shift the risk even lower at no additional cost or effort for yourself. How does that make the game more interesting at all? The numbers above already make it completely rational to use the unengaging two-buttons 'Undock' and 'Autopilot' to move everything in highsec. Why should active freighter piloting and the use of other hauling ships be further disincentivized by making AFK freighter hauling even safer?
Hey, I agree with you, AFK anything shouldn't be a thing. Lets remove autopilot.
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 15:51:20 -
[1041] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:Why do people consider it such a big hassle to get a web or logi friend?
Logi is likely going to be the way to go in the future for most people as A. as rise has stated CCP believes the default for corps will be friendly fire off and B. alot of people in NPC corps already can't use webs. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
582
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 16:11:22 -
[1042] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
This is why CCP has explicitly put suicide ganking in the game - to provide the risk that forces real and interesting choices for haulers moving about highsec.
And I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is that gankers aren't being forced to make the same meaningful choices.
Of course they are. Each gank of a freighter costs many tens of millions (many gankers in Catalysts vs. cargo expanders) to hundreds of millions or even billions of ISK (fewer gankers in Taloses vs. bulkheads). If that freighter is empty or carrying something not that valuable, there is a significant cost to the gankers. Even if it is full of loot, the loot fairy may be unkind and the gankers get nothing. There is clearly a strong financial incentive to go after ships with significant loot.
The gankers are making choices all the time and have to have a way to make ISK to fund their ganking because if not, and they just kept blindly ganking empty freighters all day, they would quickly run out ships and ISK, and end up sitting in their noob ships having nothing to show for it but a green killboard full of empty freighters.
This is a sandbox game however. If gankers want to absorb the cost and blow up a target at a loss, because they either don't like you, or because they are selling freighters on the side, or because they are selling protection, or because they are paid to by shadowy nullsec entities, what does it matter? How can you even know how they are being funded or how they are choosing targets?
Ok, let's try it this way. Say I tell you that there is a massive Goon conspiracy to blow up empty freighters in order to demoralize highsec citizens (kind of along the lines of Burn Jita) and that they are paying a bounty of 2B ISK for every empty freighter that is destroyed by gankers, but only 500M ISK if you blow up a full one. Do you think we should change the game mechanics to prevent them from doing this?
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
787
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 16:18:55 -
[1043] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
But since this thread is intended to discuss hyperdunking, perhaps we can put CODE.'s business plan aside for now?
If the whole purpose of hyperdunking is to gank a target, how exactly do you discuss it without also being able to discuss the mechanics of ganking? I believe that that they could leave hyperdunking as is now if they added a jump fatigue type mechanic to criminal timers. Not that hard.
This would obviously change nothing at all specifically for Hyperdunking. For regular ganks it would mean that we probably would train the other two chars on the accounts as gankers too and then switch to reduce the fatigue. This would probably even increase the rate of ganks since it would lead to optimization efforts no one cares about today with the 15min timers. And don't even start with "but make it account wide.." I would subscribe so much accounts that I can gank every 2min..
If you still think that "this one little nerf" will change the game and protect your AFK Freighter then you may study all the past nerfs to ganking and how that eliminated us.
BTW, I only became a ganker because of people like you who cry so hard and who try to make the game EVE currently is into a joke. Because James 315 was actually right when he wrote his Manifesto II !
the Code ALWAYS wins
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 16:26:00 -
[1044] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
This would obviously change nothing at all specifically for Hyperdunking. For regular ganks it would mean that we probably would train the other two chars on the accounts as gankers too and then switch to reduce the fatigue. This would probably even increase the rate of ganks since it would lead to optimization efforts no one cares about today with the 15min timers. And don't even start with "but make it account wide.." I would subscribe so much accounts that I can gank every 2min..
I have no problems with anything you just said. In fact, these same arguments were used regarding jump fatigue. If you want to go through all the trouble for having that many alts and that many accounts, be my guest.
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
If you still think that "this one little nerf" will change the game and protect your AFK Freighter then you may study all the past nerfs to ganking and how that eliminated us
A. Don't care about AFK Freighters, B. Not trying to eliminate you. C. I'm familiar with all the past nerfs and how they changed the ganking equation.
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
BTW, I only became a ganker because of people like you who cry so hard and who try to make the game EVE currently is into a joke. Because James 315 was actually right when he wrote his Manifesto II !
You must set the bar for people "crying" pretty low. |
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 16:27:31 -
[1045] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
Ok, let's try it this way. Say I tell you that there is a massive Goon conspiracy to blow up empty freighters in order to demoralize highsec citizens (kind of along the lines of Burn Jita) and that they are paying a bounty of 2B ISK for every empty freighter that is destroyed by gankers, but only 500M ISK if you blow up a full one. Do you think we should change the game mechanics to prevent them from doing this?
No, I don't. |
Paranoid Loyd
3776
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 17:00:57 -
[1046] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: alot of people in NPC corps already can't use webs.
That's funny I see them being used all the time. Maybe you don't understand the mechanics as well as you think.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 21:09:09 -
[1047] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: alot of people in NPC corps already can't use webs. That's funny I see them being used all the time. Maybe you don't understand the mechanics as well as you think you do.
Please, enlighten me?
As far as I'm aware aggression works differently for NPC corps than normal cops, aka NPC corps have Friendly Fire turned off already. If you can prove otherwise I'd be interested to know that. |
Paranoid Loyd
3779
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 21:18:44 -
[1048] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: alot of people in NPC corps already can't use webs. That's funny I see them being used all the time. Maybe you don't understand the mechanics as well as you think you do. Please, enlighten me? As far as I'm aware aggression works differently for NPC corps than normal cops, aka NPC corps have Friendly Fire turned off already. If you can prove otherwise I'd be interested to know that.
Non-corp web warping is achieved by dueling.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 21:31:20 -
[1049] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Non-corp web warping is achieved by dueling.
Hmm, that's an entertaining use of that feature. Learn something new every day! Thank you! |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
476
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 21:59:18 -
[1050] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
But since this thread is intended to discuss hyperdunking, perhaps we can put CODE.'s business plan aside for now?
If the whole purpose of hyperdunking is to gank a target, how exactly do you discuss it without also being able to discuss the mechanics of ganking? I believe that that they could leave hyperdunking as is now if they added a jump fatigue type mechanic to criminal timers. Not that hard. This would obviously change nothing at all specifically for Hyperdunking. For regular ganks it would mean that we probably would train the other two chars on the accounts as gankers too and then switch to reduce the fatigue. This would probably even increase the rate of ganks since it would lead to optimization efforts no one cares about today with the 15min timers. And don't even start with "but make it account wide.." I would subscribe so much accounts that I can gank every 2min.. If you still think that "this one little nerf" will change the game and protect your AFK Freighter then you may study all the past nerfs to ganking and how that eliminated us. BTW, I only became a ganker because of people like you who cry so hard and who try to make the game EVE currently is into a joke. Because James 315 was actually right when he wrote his Manifesto II !
Meh....personally I favor a 6 hour timer for -10s.....that would put a stop to the successive ganks rather abruptly. |
|
|
Marsha Mallow
1904
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 22:43:25 -
[1051] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Meh....personally I favor a 6 hour timer for -10s.....that would put a stop to the successive ganks rather abruptly.
What would that achieve given that you can train caty alts in under 10 hours and have 3 per account? It's not alt recycling if you simply wait out the timer. Or are you suggesting something account wide?
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
784
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 01:21:22 -
[1052] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Meh....personally I favor a 6 hour timer for -10s.....that would put a stop to the successive ganks rather abruptly. What would that achieve given that you can train caty alts in under 10 hours and have 3 per account? It's not alt recycling if you simply wait out the timer. Or are you suggesting something account wide?
Well I'll be....Veers is down to a 6 hour timer now? He had gotten up to a 24 hour timer on a sliding scale based on security status similar to Jump Fatigue.
And yes, he has suggested that it be account wide in order to prevent abusing switching to other characters. Although he (nor anyone else) still has yet to answer why their proposed increased penalty for ganking is better than having the ganking ship immediately self destruct the moment it is flagged as "criminal".
I've also never gotten an answer to my other question: why should it be easier to be a miner/hauler/mission runner/etc. than it is to be a ganker?
Vote Sabriz!
|
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
175
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 02:35:15 -
[1053] - Quote
His suggestions are almost getting reasonable. If he's not careful, someone might start taking him seriously.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 04:31:25 -
[1054] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:
I've also never gotten an answer to my other question: why should it be easier to be a miner/hauler/mission runner/etc. than it is to be a ganker?
Well I've give you that its def "easier" on the hauler, because as everyone has pointed out, the only "legit fit" is tank. So no thought there. Course this goes against the whole "choices matter" bs when it comes to fit. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14879
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 08:47:14 -
[1055] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:
I've also never gotten an answer to my other question: why should it be easier to be a miner/hauler/mission runner/etc. than it is to be a ganker?
Well I've give you that its def "easier" on the hauler, because as everyone has pointed out, the only "legit fit" is tank. So no thought there. Course this goes against the whole "choices matter" bs when it comes to fit.
Blockade runners, agility fitted haulers, cov ops frigates, cloaky nullified tengu haulers and so forth. Then we have all the options for escorting. There is a huge number of options for haulers they most chose to ignore.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
582
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 17:00:34 -
[1056] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:
I've also never gotten an answer to my other question: why should it be easier to be a miner/hauler/mission runner/etc. than it is to be a ganker?
Well I've give you that its def "easier" on the hauler, because as everyone has pointed out, the only "legit fit" is tank. So no thought there. Course this goes against the whole "choices matter" bs when it comes to fit. Blockade runners, agility fitted haulers, cov ops frigates, cloaky nullified tengu haulers and so forth. Then we have all the options for escorting. There is a huge number of options for haulers they most chose to ignore. Making a sensible choice is apparently too much effort for some
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
477
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 04:40:09 -
[1057] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:Marsha Mallow wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Meh....personally I favor a 6 hour timer for -10s.....that would put a stop to the successive ganks rather abruptly. What would that achieve given that you can train caty alts in under 10 hours and have 3 per account? It's not alt recycling if you simply wait out the timer. Or are you suggesting something account wide? Well I'll be....Veers is down to a 6 hour timer now? He had gotten up to a 24 hour timer on a sliding scale based on security status similar to Jump Fatigue. And yes, he has suggested that it be account wide in order to prevent abusing switching to other characters. Although he (nor anyone else) still has yet to answer why their proposed increased penalty for ganking is better than having the ganking ship immediately self destruct the moment it is flagged as "criminal". I've also never gotten an answer to my other question: why should it be easier to be a miner/hauler/mission runner/etc. than it is to be a ganker?
Because having ships instantly blow up would make anything but 1 shot ganks impossible and would turn all highsec into 1.0. That would be bad...ganking should be allowed and be possible, and should carry appropriate consequences.
It's "easier" to be a law abiding player than to be a criminal because the space police blow up criminals in highsec. If you want an "easier" life, move to nullsec. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14891
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 05:04:37 -
[1058] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:Marsha Mallow wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Meh....personally I favor a 6 hour timer for -10s.....that would put a stop to the successive ganks rather abruptly. What would that achieve given that you can train caty alts in under 10 hours and have 3 per account? It's not alt recycling if you simply wait out the timer. Or are you suggesting something account wide? Well I'll be....Veers is down to a 6 hour timer now? He had gotten up to a 24 hour timer on a sliding scale based on security status similar to Jump Fatigue. And yes, he has suggested that it be account wide in order to prevent abusing switching to other characters. Although he (nor anyone else) still has yet to answer why their proposed increased penalty for ganking is better than having the ganking ship immediately self destruct the moment it is flagged as "criminal". I've also never gotten an answer to my other question: why should it be easier to be a miner/hauler/mission runner/etc. than it is to be a ganker? Because having ships instantly blow up would make anything but 1 shot ganks impossible and would turn all highsec into 1.0. That would be bad...ganking should be allowed and be possible, and should carry appropriate consequences. It's "easier" to be a law abiding player than to be a criminal because the space police blow up criminals in highsec. If you want an "easier" life, move to nullsec.
Go ahead and fly a freighter through null like you do in high sec.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
477
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 05:19:36 -
[1059] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Go ahead and fly a freighter through null like you do in high sec.
Try to afk rat and afk mine in highsec like you do in null. |
Kaely Tanniss
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
220
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 05:27:54 -
[1060] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Go ahead and fly a freighter through null like you do in high sec.
Try to afk rat and afk mine in highsec like you do in null.
What do you mean...it happens all the time. The percentage of HS miners who get ganked is rather small..it's just the complaining about it that isn't. The difference is..in nul, you expect someone to try to kill you..in HS, miners have become complacent and think hisec means total sec.
If I had a nickel for every time someone said women don't play eve, I'd have a bag of nickels to whack the next person who said it..
|
|
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
477
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 05:33:00 -
[1061] - Quote
Kaely Tanniss wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Go ahead and fly a freighter through null like you do in high sec.
Try to afk rat and afk mine in highsec like you do in null. What do you mean...it happens all the time. The percentage of HS miners who get ganked is rather small..it's just the complaining about it that isn't. The difference is..in nul, you expect someone to try to kill you..in HS, miners have become complacent and think hisec means total sec.
Wrong...in highsec miners are actively targeted for ganking, with many miners getting hit repeatedly by code and similar groups. Many of these gankers are afk mining in null at the same time they are ganking in highsec...demonstrating the huge difference in danger level. |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 05:42:43 -
[1062] - Quote
Kaely Tanniss wrote:
What do you mean...it happens all the time. The percentage of HS miners who get ganked is rather small..it's just the complaining about it that isn't. The difference is..in nul, you expect someone to try to kill you..in HS, miners have become complacent and think hisec means total sec.
I think people complain about it more because they feel powerless to stop it. The game mechanics currently favor the attacker. I think its telling that for all the calls of everyone in this thread for players to dispense their own justice that its even "rarer" than ganking is. |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 05:44:31 -
[1063] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Go ahead and fly a freighter through null like you do in high sec.
Null usually wasn't the problem for us doing freighter ops back when I was in null. Low-sec was far more dangerous than null was or likely ever will be.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14891
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 05:46:04 -
[1064] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Go ahead and fly a freighter through null like you do in high sec.
Try to afk rat and afk mine in highsec like you do in null.
You don't afk mine in null, that's a great way to die.
Meanwhile in highsec, afk skiffs are commonplace.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14891
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 05:49:07 -
[1065] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaely Tanniss wrote:
What do you mean...it happens all the time. The percentage of HS miners who get ganked is rather small..it's just the complaining about it that isn't. The difference is..in nul, you expect someone to try to kill you..in HS, miners have become complacent and think hisec means total sec.
I think people complain about it more because they feel powerless to stop it. The game mechanics currently favor the attacker. I think its telling that for all the calls of everyone in this thread for players to dispense their own justice that its even "rarer" than ganking is.
The skiff has the tank of a battleship, will warp instantly if aligned, can deploy ECM drones and is near impossible to bump if it is moving.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
477
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 05:50:20 -
[1066] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Go ahead and fly a freighter through null like you do in high sec.
Try to afk rat and afk mine in highsec like you do in null. You don't afk mine in null, that's a great way to die. Meanwhile in highsec, afk skiffs are commonplace.
Ya, I forgot, no one ever AFK rats in highsec....it's just a haven of people sitting at the keyboard dutifully locking up the rats every 20 seconds..... |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14891
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 06:00:16 -
[1067] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Ya, I forgot, no one ever AFK rats in highsec....it's just a haven of people sitting at the keyboard dutifully locking up the rats every 20 seconds.....
If you are AFK ratting/mining in null how exactly do you stop someone from blowing you up in just about anything?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
478
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 06:13:21 -
[1068] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Ya, I forgot, no one ever AFK rats in highsec....it's just a haven of people sitting at the keyboard dutifully locking up the rats every 20 seconds..... If you are AFK ratting/mining in null how exactly do you stop someone from blowing you up in just about anything?
You don't....you realize that the combination of desolate space and a giant blue donut means that it isn't worth the effort to actually pay attention. You just consider your (rare) losses part of the cost of doing business. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
587
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 07:25:05 -
[1069] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaely Tanniss wrote:
What do you mean...it happens all the time. The percentage of HS miners who get ganked is rather small..it's just the complaining about it that isn't. The difference is..in nul, you expect someone to try to kill you..in HS, miners have become complacent and think hisec means total sec.
I think people complain about it more because they feel powerless to stop it. The game mechanics currently favor the attacker. I think its telling that for all the calls of everyone in this thread for players to dispense their own justice that its even "rarer" than ganking is.
They are unfortunately wrong. A Skiff makes you essentially immune to anyone messing with you in highsec. For haulers, there are similarly ship choices and tactics that give you the power to avoid being ganked.
The mechanics only favour the attacker in situations where you choose to forgo tank and/or staying at your keyboard. The whole point of Eve is balancing your income generation versus the risk an attacker will blow you up. You are not powerless at all when you make these choices as CCP has given you plenty of tools to protect yourself, and the NPC-enforced mechanics of highsec are heavily on your side.
Don't confuse the "never feel safe in New Eden" design of the game with an inability to protect yourself. You can make yourself nearly perfectly safe in highsec if you choose with only a little effort or sacrificing a little yield. Deciding when you need to do that to protect yourself from those that want to blow you up IS the game.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14892
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 07:41:28 -
[1070] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
You don't....you realize that the combination of desolate space and a giant blue donut means that it isn't worth the effort to actually pay attention. You just consider your (rare) losses part of the cost of doing business.
And at a stroke you show you have zero experience with null ratting.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
175
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 08:19:54 -
[1071] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaely Tanniss wrote:
What do you mean...it happens all the time. The percentage of HS miners who get ganked is rather small..it's just the complaining about it that isn't. The difference is..in nul, you expect someone to try to kill you..in HS, miners have become complacent and think hisec means total sec.
I think people complain about it more because they feel powerless to stop it. The game mechanics currently favor the attacker. I think its telling that for all the calls of everyone in this thread for players to dispense their own justice that its even "rarer" than ganking is.
That's because it's so easy to prevent a gank that there's no reason to dispense justice for it. The miners feel powerless, not because the game balance is stacked against them but because they're not aware of the tools they can use to keep themselves safe in the first place.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11701
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 12:35:18 -
[1072] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
I think people complain about it more because they feel powerless to stop it.
Of course they're powerless to stop it, they're afk.
Quote:The game mechanics currently favor the attacker.
Blatantly false. In EVE in general, and highsec in particular, the mechanics favor the defender across the board.
Quote:
I think its telling that for all the calls of everyone in this thread for players to dispense their own justice that its even "rarer" than ganking is.
You're confusing lack of ability with lack of effort. Of course they aren't getting anything done, they aren't real players to begin with.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 16:58:11 -
[1073] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Of course they're powerless to stop it, they're afk.
A broad generalization that you have zero evidence to support.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Blatantly false. In EVE in general, and highsec in particular, the mechanics favor the defender across the board.
Oh? Its false that people that are grouped together for the sole purpose of killing others and can dictate the time, the place, and the firepower don't have the upper hand in all situations?
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You're confusing lack of ability with lack of effort. Of course they aren't getting anything done, they aren't real players to begin with.
No, what I'm pointing out is the lack of capability. Hunting down cowards that dock up at the first sign of trouble is not a fun thing or even a smart thing to do with your game time. There are no effective ways to dispense justice. Otherwise there would be someone out there doing so. CODE exists because they are able to. Given how much you guys argue about this game being a sandbox its telling that out of 500k subs that NO ONE wants to be a bounty hunter. |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 17:00:11 -
[1074] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote: The miners feel powerless, not because the game balance is stacked against them but because they're not aware of the tools they can use to keep themselves safe in the first place.
You seem to be conflating "keeping oneself safe" with "dispensing justice". |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14894
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 18:50:07 -
[1075] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Oh? Its false that people that are grouped together for the sole purpose of killing others and can dictate the time, the place, and the firepower don't have the upper hand in all situations?
Only when the victim chooses to be anti-social and refuses to work with others.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
176
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 20:23:49 -
[1076] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:No, what I'm pointing out is the lack of capability. Hunting down cowards that dock up at the first sign of trouble is not a fun thing or even a smart thing to do with your game time. There are no effective ways to dispense justice.
If you want to dispense justice, do it in LoSec. You'll never get what you're looking for as long as CONCORD and FacPo stand in your way.
Quote:Otherwise there would be someone out there doing so. CODE exists because they are able to. Given how much you guys argue about this game being a sandbox its telling that out of 500k subs that NO ONE wants to be a bounty hunter.
Bounty hunting does not pay. In fact it cannot pay, not without leaving itself open to exploitation.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Kaely Tanniss
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
223
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 23:14:41 -
[1077] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Kaely Tanniss wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Go ahead and fly a freighter through null like you do in high sec.
Try to afk rat and afk mine in highsec like you do in null. What do you mean...it happens all the time. The percentage of HS miners who get ganked is rather small..it's just the complaining about it that isn't. The difference is..in nul, you expect someone to try to kill you..in HS, miners have become complacent and think hisec means total sec. Wrong...in highsec miners are actively targeted for ganking, with many miners getting hit repeatedly by code and similar groups. Many of these gankers are afk mining in null at the same time they are ganking in highsec...demonstrating the huge difference in danger level.
Veers...with all due respect...what do you know of PvP. Your assumptions are based on the complaining and raging of those who failed to pay attention or take any level or personal responsibility and just want to point the finger. It's like saying that all flying in planes is dangerous because 1 in 10,000 crashes...which is usually do to human error in some regard. The ACTUAL number of active miners that get ganked in any given day are barely a dent on the total number of active players. You just have a bias to the ganked..so of course it seems like an "epidemic" to you. There is a level of personal responsibility each miner/hauler can take to prevent, or lessen, the chances of getting ganked. Repeated ganks you say...well yeah...would you keep walking down the same dark alley that you got mugged in previously..and if you did, would it surprize you if you got mugged again? The problem is laziness, complacency, and lack of knowledge prevent them from doing so. As long as miners and haulers continue to not be proactive, they will remain reactive..and complain about it. Eve is a sand box, not a theme park...and in a sand box other will throw sand in your eyes...
If I had a nickel for every time someone said women don't play eve, I'd have a bag of nickels to whack the next person who said it..
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11708
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 23:18:16 -
[1078] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
A broad generalization that you have zero evidence to support.
Except for, you know, this thread.
The guy who died was afk. Globbing doesn't really work if they aren't afk.
Quote:
Oh? Its false that people that are grouped together for the sole purpose of killing others and can dictate the time, the place, and the firepower don't have the upper hand in all situations?
Yes, because one webbing escort makes all of that moot.
Quote:
No, what I'm pointing out is the lack of capability.
No, you've spent the entire thread crying about how the NPCs don't inflict enough consequences for you.
Quote:
There are no effective ways to dispense justice. Otherwise there would be someone out there doing so.
And yet when wardec corps fight each other, or go after Code, stuff gets done, stuff gets blown up. So it clearly is possible, but not for "rebel miners" and white knights.
Because they aren't real players.
Nevermind that you're really looking at this the wrong way, to begin with. If you want to hurt gankers, blow up their loot or save the freighter with reps or something. You really don't even have to shoot at them yourself, they're going to die anyway thanks to facpo or Concord.
Quote: Given how much you guys argue about this game being a sandbox its telling that out of 500k subs that NO ONE wants to be a bounty hunter.
Now this is a dedication to being obtuse, folks.
Plenty of people want to be a bounty hunter. But the bounty system is necessarily broken, that's all.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 23:30:12 -
[1079] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Only when the victim chooses to be anti-social and refuses to work with others.
So back to victim blaming again? |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 23:33:59 -
[1080] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
If you want to dispense justice, do it in LoSec. You'll never get what you're looking for as long as CONCORD and FacPo stand in your way.
Why would a miner dispense justice to people that had nothing to do with him?
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Bounty hunting does not pay. In fact it cannot pay, not without leaving itself open to exploitation.
Then there is no way practical way for a victim to dispense justice against his attacker. |
|
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 00:15:28 -
[1081] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Yes, because one webbing escort makes all of that moot.
Because web frigates aren't just as gankable as any other ship?
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No, you've spent the entire thread crying about how the NPCs don't inflict enough consequences for you.
No, what I've spent this entire thread doing is rebuffing all the bs arguments that gankers always use for every thread that exists like this. It looks like you also have a very low bar for what you deem "crying". Though I suppose that's not very surprising given how you operate.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And yet when wardec corps fight each other, or go after Code, stuff gets done, stuff gets blown up. So it clearly is possible, but not for "rebel miners" and white knights.
There is no scenario where anyone has the same economic impact on code through violence that code inflicts on others.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Because they aren't real players.
The only "fake" players are bots. And those get banned.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Nevermind that you're really looking at this the wrong way, to begin with. If you want to hurt gankers, blow up their loot or save the freighter with reps or something. You really don't even have to shoot at them yourself, they're going to die anyway thanks to facpo or Concord.
Plenty of people want to be a bounty hunter. But the bounty system is necessarily broken, that's all.
There's no way to hurt gankers that fund themselves through metagaming. Further to the point, at least code gets something out of it while someone trying to hurt, or stop codes gets almost nothing. Yeah their ships are "profitable" to gank, but again not enough to bother with. Opportunity costs exists. Providing neutral logi not only puts yourself at greater risk (you really think code won't try to put a stop that?) with ZERO rewards since its not like you get loot drops from saving a freighter.
Well given, that you've admitted that the bounty system is broken, you've admitted that there are no effective ways to dispense justice.
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
793
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 00:26:37 -
[1082] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Only when the victim chooses to be anti-social and refuses to work with others.
So back to victim blaming again?
Well, it is the victim's fault that they allowed themselves to become a victim so.....yeah, **** the victim.
Vote Sabriz!
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 00:34:32 -
[1083] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:
Well, it is the victim's fault that they allowed themselves to become a victim so.....yeah, **** the victim.
I sure hope you don't feel that way about real life crime. |
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
793
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 00:46:54 -
[1084] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:
Well, it is the victim's fault that they allowed themselves to become a victim so.....yeah, **** the victim.
I sure hope you don't feel that way about real life crime.
Of course I do.
Does that make any more or less difference in a video game than saying "Of course I don't feel that way about [insert RL crime of choice] victims! I'm nice IRL!"? No.
Vote Sabriz!
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 02:46:35 -
[1085] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:
Does that make any more or less difference in a video game .
What it does is tell me what I'm dealing with.
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
793
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 03:02:25 -
[1086] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:
Does that make any more or less difference in a video game .
What it does is tell me what I'm dealing with.
I am every evil thing you could ever conceive and find joy in all that you find deplorable and immoral.
That still makes no difference in regards to the mechanics of a video game.
Vote Sabriz!
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 04:05:29 -
[1087] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:
I am every evil thing you could ever conceive and find joy in all that you find deplorable and immoral.
No, what it tells me is that you don't care to have a conversation on even terms.
Ned Thomas wrote:
That still makes no difference in regards to the mechanics of a video game.
The mechanics of video games are ALL driven by humans. Its why things change, aka some player finds something they can abuse and do so until told to stop or the game makes that activity impossible.
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
793
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 04:20:08 -
[1088] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
No, what it tells me is that you don't care to have a conversation on even terms.
You're correct. I don't.
Quote:
The mechanics of video games are ALL driven by humans. Its why things change, aka some player finds something they can abuse and do so until told to stop or the game makes that activity impossible.
Every thought you have is wrong.
Vote Sabriz!
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 04:23:32 -
[1089] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:
Every thought you have is wrong.
*tips hat* Same to you. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14897
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 04:38:48 -
[1090] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Only when the victim chooses to be anti-social and refuses to work with others.
So back to victim blaming again?
Who else is to blame for their incompetence?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
793
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 04:47:55 -
[1091] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:
Every thought you have is wrong.
*tips hat*
Thank you for admitting defeat so quickly.
Vote Sabriz!
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 04:59:30 -
[1092] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Who else is to blame for their incompetence?
Being anti-social is not incompetence. |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 05:01:35 -
[1093] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:
Thank you for admitting defeat so quickly.
Defeat is nothing but education. |
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
793
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 05:06:41 -
[1094] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:
Thank you for admitting defeat so quickly.
Defeat is nothing but education.
Ah, then I've taught you something. I'll assume you said thank you.
You're welcome.
Vote Sabriz!
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14897
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 05:20:30 -
[1095] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Who else is to blame for their incompetence?
Being anti-social is not incompetence.
Refusing to work with others or use any other tools however is.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9645
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 06:12:55 -
[1096] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Who else is to blame for their incompetence?
Being anti-social is not incompetence.
It is when you are playing an MMO that rewards having and knowing how/when to use social skills.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
176
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 08:11:47 -
[1097] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
If you want to dispense justice, do it in LoSec. You'll never get what you're looking for as long as CONCORD and FacPo stand in your way.
Why would a miner dispense justice to people that had nothing to do with him?
Go to LoSec and find out.
Quote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
Bounty hunting does not pay. In fact it cannot pay, not without leaving itself open to exploitation.
Then there is no way practical way for a victim to dispense justice against his attacker.
Not in HiSec, no. It was never intended to offer that kind of play.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
790
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 08:57:45 -
[1098] - Quote
This discussions always end in everyone versus a new alt of Ripard Teg
the Code ALWAYS wins
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
592
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 09:45:41 -
[1099] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:There's no way to hurt gankers that fund themselves through metagaming. Further to the point, at least code gets something out of it while someone trying to hurt, or stop codes gets almost nothing. Yeah their ships are "profitable" to gank, but again not enough to bother with. Opportunity costs exists. Providing neutral logi not only puts yourself at greater risk (you really think code won't try to put a stop that?) with ZERO rewards since its not like you get loot drops from saving a freighter.
Well given, that you've admitted that the bounty system is broken, you've admitted that there are no effective ways to dispense justice.
There are effective ways to dispense justice, just not ones that are profitable. If you fall into the carebear trap of viewing everything in terms of ISK/hour, then no, there is no direct financial benefit for you to fight the gankers. However, this game is not always maximizing your ISK/hour or there would be no gankers as pretty much any other activity in the game pays more than ganking.
What Eve really is about is imposing your will on New Eden, using whatever game and meta-game machinations you can. That sometimes means the path towards your goal is not to continually do "push-button-receive-cookie" missions or mining in highsec, but will require you to play the long game, and perhaps interact with other players. Do you think that a wormhole corp engaging in the eviction of a competitor is directly profiting from that action? Or that the battle of B-R5RB was entered by both sides thinking they would make ISK out of the engagement?
James 315 and the New Order have claimed highsec for themselves and are engaging in a campaign of suicide ganking of haulers and miners to shape New Eden to their will. They fund their escapades through unconventional, but very much in the spirit of Eve, meta-game means. There are nullsec entities that run ganking operations in highsec to disrupt the logistics of their enemies. And other, more conventional highsec criminals operate purely for profit by carefully picking their targets. All of them do this for their own reasons in the sandbox, and while they are completely avoidable if you spend a little effort, they are also vulnerable to your efforts in opposing them if you wish.
Justice is not something that will be handed to you on a plate in New Eden. If you lose your ship to a roaming lowsec gang you do not get to push a "I demand satisfaction" button and force an honourable duel with them after the fact. Similarly, if a highsec criminal catches you with your pants down and takes your stuff, you do not have a right to free revenge. If you want it that bad, take time out from your min-maxed PvE clicking to earn it yourself, or if you can't be bothered, just change your behaviour so you are not vulnerable to gankers again. New Eden is a harsh, dark place where your safety is entirely in your hands.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16084
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 10:31:33 -
[1100] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
If you want to dispense justice, do it in LoSec. You'll never get what you're looking for as long as CONCORD and FacPo stand in your way.
Why would a miner dispense justice to people that had nothing to do with him? Hiasa Kite wrote:
Bounty hunting does not pay. In fact it cannot pay, not without leaving itself open to exploitation.
Then there is no way practical way for a victim to dispense justice against his attacker.
You mean there is no cheap way.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
|
|
Siegfried Cohenberg
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 12:05:40 -
[1101] - Quote
yeah how many people are actually hyperdunking? serious question |
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
177
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 12:07:17 -
[1102] - Quote
Siegfried Cohenberg wrote:yeah how many people are actually hyperdunking? serious question
From what I've seen on the killboards, maybe 10-20 are involved so far.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11709
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 12:41:18 -
[1103] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Well given, that you've admitted that the bounty system is broken, you've admitted that there are no effective ways to dispense justice.
And again with the outright lies.
There are plenty. But they are pointless if you aren't a real player.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9648
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 13:32:43 -
[1104] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Well given, that you've admitted that the bounty system is broken, you've admitted that there are no effective ways to dispense justice.
And again with the outright lies. There are plenty. But they are pointless if you aren't a real player.
+1
Look at the words that poster uses. "Justice" , "Victim" etc. It all reinforces my belief that when i see such postings, the problem lies in the posters general incompatibility with the kind of game EVE is rather than some glaring issue with game mechanics.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 14:21:04 -
[1105] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
You mean there is no cheap way.
No, I mean there is no practical way. |
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
805
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 14:21:48 -
[1106] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Well given, that you've admitted that the bounty system is broken, you've admitted that there are no effective ways to dispense justice.
And again with the outright lies. There are plenty. But they are pointless if you aren't a real player. +1 Look at the words that poster uses. "Justice" , "Victim" etc. It all reinforces my belief that when i see such postings, the problem lies in the posters general incompatibility with the kind of game EVE is rather than some glaring issue with game mechanics.
I still maintain that if all the horrible no good very bad things that people do to each other in Eve were instead done by computer controlled characters, no one would ever complain.
Vote Sabriz!
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 14:22:37 -
[1107] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And again with the outright lies.
There are plenty. But they are pointless if you aren't a real player.
Well if its an outright lie, surely it would be easy for you to disprove?
But I understand how its easier to just label everyone and not make an actual argument. |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 14:25:04 -
[1108] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
Look at the words that poster uses. "Justice" , "Victim" etc. It all reinforces my belief that when i see such postings, the problem lies in the posters general incompatibility with the kind of game EVE is rather than some glaring issue with game mechanics.
See you should just stop, because you are very bad at this. Try to keep up.
1. Gankers used the argument that the current mechanics are balanced because miners could dispense justice if they so chose.
2. I argued that based on the current mechanics that this is not true. The terms used were proffered by you guys, not me. If you want people to stop using the words justice and victim, then stop using them yourselves.. |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 14:33:17 -
[1109] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
There are effective ways to dispense justice, just not ones that are profitable. If you fall into the carebear trap of viewing everything in terms of ISK/hour, then no, there is no direct financial benefit for you to fight the gankers. However, this game is not always maximizing your ISK/hour or there would be no gankers as pretty much any other activity in the game pays more than ganking.
WOW. Double standards much. You guys have been blasting every anti ganker post in this thread saying that ganking is pretty much solely about profit. So basically what you are saying is that gankers are carebears.
Black Pedro wrote:
What Eve really is about is imposing your will on New Eden
No, what Eve is really about is imposing your will on other players.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 14:34:57 -
[1110] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote: I'll assume.
Assumptions arguments do not make. |
|
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 14:36:05 -
[1111] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:
I still maintain that if all the horrible no good very bad things that people do to each other in Eve were instead done by computer controlled characters, no one would ever complain.
Because people don't/can't naturally find things to complain about? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11711
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 14:36:11 -
[1112] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Well if its an outright lie, surely it would be easy for you to disprove?
Several people have, over the course of the last few days.
And you have ignored it every time. Because they don't fit your agenda.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11711
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 14:38:12 -
[1113] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
1. Gankers used the argument that the current mechanics are balanced because miners could dispense justice if they so chose.
Also because being ganked is 100% avoidable.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
177
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 14:43:56 -
[1114] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:What does lo-sec have to do with ganking?
Nothing. It's an area of space where if someone wrongs you, you're better equipped to deal your own version of justice.
Quote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
Not in HiSec, no. It was never intended to offer that kind of play.
Some sandbox.
If the difficulty in getting vengeance is too annoying in HiSec, move to another region of space. Choice. Sandbox.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
178
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 14:46:43 -
[1115] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:1. Gankers used the argument that the current mechanics are balanced because miners could dispense justice if they so chose.
Actually, they've been arguing it's easy to defend yourself.[/quote]
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:00:13 -
[1116] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Several people have, over the course of the last few days.
And you have ignored it every time. Because they don't fit your agenda.
Oh? that must be a pretty special talent since I've replied to almost 100% of the posts addressing me.
What's my agenda?
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
595
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:00:44 -
[1117] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
There are effective ways to dispense justice, just not ones that are profitable. If you fall into the carebear trap of viewing everything in terms of ISK/hour, then no, there is no direct financial benefit for you to fight the gankers. However, this game is not always maximizing your ISK/hour or there would be no gankers as pretty much any other activity in the game pays more than ganking.
WOW. Double standards much. You guys have been blasting every anti ganker post in this thread saying that ganking is pretty much solely about profit. So basically what you are saying is that gankers are carebears.
You seem to hear only what you want to hear. What I have explained several times in this thread (like here, here and here) to you is that while making yourself an unprofitable target goes a long way to making you safer, this is a sandbox and there are motivations beyond profit to why people explode haulers.
I have never claimed that ganking is solely about profit. In fact I have gone out of my way to point out this is a sandbox game and people do things for all sorts of motivations in addition to profit. But I have said, and will repeat yet again to you, that not making yourself a target by overloading and anti-tanking your ship is a strong disincentive for gankers to gank you.
I don't see how gankers blowing people up for various reasons, including direct profit, makes them carebears by any normal definition of the term, although I guess that depends on what your definition of a carebear is.
Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
What Eve really is about is imposing your will on New Eden
No, what Eve is really about is imposing your will on other players.
Exactly, now you are getting it. Eve is a competitive sandbox game where each of our actions influences all the other players in New Eden. While there are many ways to avoid the direct imposition of another player's will on you, especially in highsec, you are playing the wrong game if you think you have a right to be left alone. You are not suppose to ever feel safe in New Eden, and it is other players imposing their will on you that mostly enforces that.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:02:25 -
[1118] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Nothing. It's an area of space where if someone wrongs you, you're better equipped to deal your own version of justice.
Which has nothing to do with ganking.
Quote:
If the difficulty in getting vengeance is too annoying in HiSec, move to another region of space. Choice. Sandbox.
Some choice. You'd think if ganking was soooo hard that gankers would move to lo-sec. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
795
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:03:44 -
[1119] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:No, what Eve is really about is imposing your will on other players.
Yes
/thread
the Code ALWAYS wins
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
808
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:11:15 -
[1120] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:
I still maintain that if all the horrible no good very bad things that people do to each other in Eve were instead done by computer controlled characters, no one would ever complain.
Because people don't/can't naturally find things to complain about?
No, I'm pretty sure no one would complain about anything if NPC's were the only source of conflict in the video game Eve Online.
Vote Sabriz!
|
|
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
178
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:16:45 -
[1121] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
Nothing. It's an area of space where if someone wrongs you, you're better equipped to deal your own version of justice.
Which has nothing to do with ganking.
Glad we agree.
Quote:Quote:
If the difficulty in getting vengeance is too annoying in HiSec, move to another region of space. Choice. Sandbox.
Some choice. You'd think if ganking was soooo hard that gankers would move to lo-sec.
Their targets live in HiSec. Or is this a stealth buff losec agenda?
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:17:38 -
[1122] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
I have never claimed that ganking is solely about profit.
No, but what everyone else has pointed out is that gankers can not gank unprofitably forever, otherwise they'd run out of money.
Black Pedro wrote:
In fact I have gone out of my way to point out this is a sandbox game and people do things for all sorts of motivations in addition to profit.
OHHHH, so we are back to the motivations for why people do things now? Because the motivations of gankers are sacrosanct and should be honored above all, but the motivations of others should be thrown out the window?
Black Pedro wrote:
But I have said, and will repeat yet again to you, that not making yourself a target by overloading and anti-tanking your ship is a strong disincentive for gankers to gank you.
You can say it all you want, it doesn't change the fact that I already AGREE with you on this point.
Black Pedro wrote:
I don't see how gankers blowing people up for various reasons, including direct profit, makes them carebears by any normal definition of the term, although I guess that depends on what your definition of a carebear is.
As defined by you, a carebear is someone that cares about isk/hour, and by that definition that includes gankers. Where the isk comes from is after all irrelevant since as you already pointed out that meta gaming is a legitimate point of gameplay.
Black Pedro wrote:While there are many ways to avoid the direct imposition of another player's will on you, especially in highsec, you are playing the wrong game if you think you have a right to be left alone. You are not suppose to ever feel safe in New Eden, and it is other players imposing their will on you that mostly enforces that.
Least I be accused of "ignoring this point because it doesn't fit my agenda". Hey, guess what, again I've already agreed with you and EVERY pro-ganker in this thread that you are not supposed to be safe anywhere in eve.
So let me be clear on what my agenda actually is, since everyone seems to be missing it. To argue with pro-gankers. It really is that simple. After all, my motivations on why shouldn't matter, right? |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:20:05 -
[1123] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:
I'm pretty sure no one would complain about anything if NPC's were the only source of conflict in the video game Eve Online.
Well I'm pretty sure that there's a wealth of history on human nature that disagrees with this. There is ALWAYS something to complain about. |
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
178
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:22:51 -
[1124] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:No, but what everyone else has pointed out is that gankers can not gank unprofitably forever, otherwise they'd run out of money.
Hence why the largest ganking alliance in the game is supported via donations.
Quote:OHHHH, so we are back to the motivations for why people do things now? Because the motivations of gankers are sacrosanct and should be honored above all, but the motivations of others should be thrown out the window?
That's a nice strawman you're building there.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:23:00 -
[1125] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Also because being ganked is 100% avoidable.
There's always a way. It just a question of how motivated the attacker is. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
596
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:43:56 -
[1126] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
In fact I have gone out of my way to point out this is a sandbox game and people do things for all sorts of motivations in addition to profit.
OHHHH, so we are back to the motivations for why people do things now? Because the motivations of gankers are sacrosanct and should be honored above all, but the motivations of others should be thrown out the window?
Hauler, calm down. I don't see how you think I am attaching any precedence to ganker motivations over the motivations of others, or that gankers deserve some special rights in the game. People do stuff in this game for many reasons, often complex and opaque to other players. Sometimes it can be as banal as ganking another player for laughs because you have some ships to burn, or it could be part of an elaborate plot to bring down a nullsec power. Whatever motivates a ganker to destroy a ship at loss doesn't change the economic reality that they just lost more ISK in ships than they will gain in loot, which serves as a powerful disincentive, and in-built limit to the the practice.
Valterra Craven wrote:
So let me be clear on what my agenda actually is, since everyone seems to be missing it. To argue with pro-gankers. It really is that simple. After all, my motivations on why shouldn't matter, right?
If you enjoy arguing with people in the forums have at it. It has been apparent for a while now that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and if you find this fun by all means keep going, just like everyone else here. At some point people will tire of you, you will tire of rehashing the same things over and over, or an ISD will decide that this has gone on long enough.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
808
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:49:36 -
[1127] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:
I'm pretty sure no one would complain about anything if NPC's were the only source of conflict in the video game Eve Online.
Well I'm pretty sure that there's a wealth of history on human nature that disagrees with this. There is ALWAYS something to complain about.
Well that's just silly. History is just living in the past.
Vote Sabriz!
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
178
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 16:45:26 -
[1128] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Also because being ganked is 100% avoidable.
There's always a way. It just a question of how motivated the attacker is.
I'm struggling to think of any scenario where a defending player isn't able to defend himself.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14914
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 17:07:50 -
[1129] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Refusing to work with others or use any other tools however is.
No, it isn't.
"Oh hey they are using fleets to attack people, lets not tank our ****, refuse to work with even one other player and fly AFK."
Yea, this is incompetence.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 22:26:44 -
[1130] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
I'm struggling to think of any scenario where a defending player isn't able to defend himself.
I'm struggling to think of any scenario where an attacker can not defeat even the most dedicated defender. |
|
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 22:29:23 -
[1131] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Refusing to work with others or use any other tools however is.
No, it isn't. "Oh hey they are using fleets to attack people, lets not tank our ****, refuse to work with even one other player and fly AFK." Yea, this is incompetence.
Maybe if you put ALL of those arguments together. But if you recall I wasn't refuting all of those arguments together. I was refuting that being anti-social (which is a valid play style no matter how you slice it) is not incompetence. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11712
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 23:41:22 -
[1132] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Also because being ganked is 100% avoidable.
There's always a way. It just a question of how motivated the attacker is.
List one, then. Because if you've discovered some perfect gank method, I'd love to hear it.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Globby
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 23:52:54 -
[1133] - Quote
hi |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
485
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 04:03:51 -
[1134] - Quote
What we obviously need are far more server consequences for ganking, which would lead the gankers themselves to be a lot more selective about who they gank. |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 04:10:57 -
[1135] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
List one, then. Because if you've discovered some perfect gank method, I'd love to hear it.
Gank the webber, then catch the freighter on the next out bound.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 04:31:03 -
[1136] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:
History is just living in the past.
Your never through with the past until the past is through with you. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14922
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 07:33:18 -
[1137] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Refusing to work with others or use any other tools however is.
No, it isn't. "Oh hey they are using fleets to attack people, lets not tank our ****, refuse to work with even one other player and fly AFK." Yea, this is incompetence. Maybe if you put ALL of those arguments together. But if you recall I wasn't refuting all of those arguments together. I was refuting that being anti-social (which is a valid play style no matter how you slice it) is not incompetence.
Yes it is incompetence when you refuse to work with others in a multiplayer game and then whine about how you cannot defend against a fleet.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
179
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 10:05:14 -
[1138] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
List one, then. Because if you've discovered some perfect gank method, I'd love to hear it.
Gank the webber, then catch the freighter on the next out bound.
Gankalysts have neither the tracking nor range to deal with any remotely PvP-capable ship, so the cheap option is out. Thrashers can one- or two-shot frigate sized vessels, but cruisers don't offer any easy & cheap ganks. A tornado can conceivably take down a cruiser (tracking is effectively 20% of what's stated vs cruisers), but that's a 100mil expense to take down 25-50million ISK worth of ship. This also doesn't take into account the fact that the gank fleet is now down a pilot for 15 minutes while the web alt can immediately reship.
By far and away the most effective and easiest strategy for taking down a freighter with a webber is to simply bump-tackle the freighter before he can warp - which is significantly more difficult than doing the same thing to an unescorted freighter. With an escort at hand, and sufficient preparation, the bump tackle can still be broken.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Kaely Tanniss
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
232
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 11:45:04 -
[1139] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:What we obviously need are far more severe consequences for ganking, which would lead the gankers themselves to be a lot more selective about who they gank.
Eve doesn't need more consequences for gankers...it need haulers and miners who aren't complacent and take actions to prevent or lessen the chances of getting ganked. What eve needs is people to take personal responsibility for themselves..rather than taking away from someone else because others don't want to do what it takes to be safer. What eve needs is people to have the common sense to take their own safety into their own hands. Eve was built this way for a reason...if you're not willing to protect what you have, you don't deserve to have it...period.
If I had a nickel for every time someone said women don't play eve, I'd have a bag of nickels to whack the next person who said it..
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11718
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 14:09:04 -
[1140] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
List one, then. Because if you've discovered some perfect gank method, I'd love to hear it.
Gank the webber, then catch the freighter on the next out bound.
Because if my webber is ganked I'm totally just going to keep going along my route, and not, you know, dock. Nevermind that snagging my Dramiel before it warps is a worthy feat for a Catalyst.
I mean, that's just pathetic, if that's all you have to say about it. This has literally never happened to me, and the solution to it easily saves the freighter anyway.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 16:33:09 -
[1141] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
Hauler, calm down. I don't see how you think I am attaching any precedence to ganker motivations over the motivations of others, or that gankers deserve some special rights in the game. People do stuff in this game for many reasons, often complex and opaque to other players. Sometimes it can be as banal as ganking another player for laughs because you have some ships to burn, or it could be part of an elaborate plot to bring down a nullsec power.
My apologies, I was combating Kaarous Aldurald and Jenn aSide's arguments that I as a player shouldn't care about another players motivations. My point is that both sides ("ganker" and "gankee") have motivations on how they play the game. Neither of these motivations are inherently bad or inherently good.
Black Pedro wrote:
Whatever motivates a ganker to destroy a ship at loss doesn't change the economic reality that they just lost more ISK in ships than they will gain in loot, which serves as a powerful disincentive, and in-built limit to the the practice.
It does serve as a powerful disincentive when and only when the income is confined to solely in-game generation means. Given that organizations like CODE have near limitless resources given their meta-game they don't have effective disincentives.
Black Pedro wrote:
If you enjoy arguing with people in the forums have at it. It has been apparent for a while now that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and if you find this fun by all means keep going, just like everyone else here. At some point people will tire of you, you will tire of rehashing the same things over and over, or an ISD will decide that this has gone on long enough.
Well its your opinion that I'm doing it for the sake of it. |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 16:35:19 -
[1142] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Yes it is incompetence when you refuse to work with others in a multiplayer game and then whine about how you cannot defend against a fleet.
Given that I've never made the argument (nor have I seen anyone else in this thread) that a lone player should be able to survive a combined fleet, its not incompetence and its not whining. |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 16:38:47 -
[1143] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Gankalysts have neither the tracking nor range to deal with any remotely PvP-capable ship, so the cheap option is out. Thrashers can one- or two-shot frigate sized vessels, but cruisers don't offer any easy & cheap ganks. A tornado can conceivably take down a cruiser (tracking is effectively 20% of what's stated vs cruisers), but that's a 100mil expense to take down 25-50million ISK worth of ship. This also doesn't take into account the fact that the gank fleet is now down a pilot for 15 minutes while the web alt can immediately reship.
By far and away the most effective and easiest strategy for taking down a freighter with a webber is to simply bump-tackle the freighter before he can warp - which is significantly more difficult than doing the same thing to an unescorted freighter. With an escort at hand, and sufficient preparation, the bump tackle can still be broken.
I never said it wouldn't be hard or a pain in the ass. What I said is that its not 100%. People like PL have shown just how dedicated they can be to their objectives (like their supers watch list of even gamers that have been out for a year or more and when they come back, pop them dead) The internet is a good example of what I'm getting at. There is nothing that is not hackable given a dedicated attacker. |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 16:39:35 -
[1144] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Because if my webber is ganked I'm totally just going to keep going along my route, and not, you know, dock. Nevermind that snagging my Dramiel before it warps is a worthy feat for a Catalyst.
You don't sound like a dedicated attacker.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
180
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 17:45:59 -
[1145] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
Gankalysts have neither the tracking nor range to deal with any remotely PvP-capable ship, so the cheap option is out. Thrashers can one- or two-shot frigate sized vessels, but cruisers don't offer any easy & cheap ganks. A tornado can conceivably take down a cruiser (tracking is effectively 20% of what's stated vs cruisers), but that's a 100mil expense to take down 25-50million ISK worth of ship. This also doesn't take into account the fact that the gank fleet is now down a pilot for 15 minutes while the web alt can immediately reship.
By far and away the most effective and easiest strategy for taking down a freighter with a webber is to simply bump-tackle the freighter before he can warp - which is significantly more difficult than doing the same thing to an unescorted freighter. With an escort at hand, and sufficient preparation, the bump tackle can still be broken.
I never said it wouldn't be hard or a pain in the ass.
Please explain how a dedicated ganker would overcome these obstacles. Bearing in mind he has a window no more than 10 seconds long at any given gate, every gank attempt is guaranteed to run a loss, security status and kill rights, along with the fact that low SP characters will have a significant penalty to their damage projection.
/runonsentence
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 18:18:49 -
[1146] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Bearing in mind he has a window no more than 10 seconds long at any given gate, every gank attempt is guaranteed to run a loss, security status and kill rights, along with the fact that low SP characters will have a significant penalty to their damage projection.
I never said the gankers would be profitable either. Besides, isn't 100% safety the very thing that you guys argue against? |
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
180
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 18:34:34 -
[1147] - Quote
"There's always a way. It just a question of how motivated the attacker is." - Source
Don't get off track. This is your claim, I just want to see you lay out the methods you think gankers use for guaranteed success against targets they really want dead.
I'm not sure anyone, not even the most hardcore gankers have argued against sufficiently prepared & aware players being safe. There have, however, been plenty of voices, my own included, against making 100% safety a trivial matter in HiSec.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 18:41:54 -
[1148] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote: I just want to see you lay out the methods you think gankers use for guaranteed success against targets they really want dead.
Why would I do that? I don't know anything about ganking remember?
Hiasa Kite wrote:
There have, however, been plenty of voices, my own included, against making 100% safety a trivial matter in HiSec.
Well considering that a webbing alt/friend is so trival according to pro-gankers and you guys are arguing that it makes you 100% safe, then it seems like you've already lost. |
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
180
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 18:46:39 -
[1149] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote: I just want to see you lay out the methods you think gankers use for guaranteed success against targets they really want dead.
Why would I do that? I don't know anything about ganking remember?
Don't make sweeping claims about things you don't know about.
Quote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
There have, however, been plenty of voices, my own included, against making 100% safety a trivial matter in HiSec.
Well considering that a webbing alt/friend is so trival according to pro-gankers and you guys are arguing that it makes you 100% safe, then it seems like you've already lost.
Straightforward, well within the capabilities of a freighter pilot & friends? Yes.
Trivial? No.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 18:49:52 -
[1150] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Don't make sweeping claims about things you don't know about.
I don't have to. Its easy to just use pro-gankers own words.
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Straightforward, well within the capabilities of a freighter pilot & friends? Yes.
Trivial? No.
Maybe you should tell that to the other pro-gankers in this thread saying otherwise. |
|
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
180
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 19:06:37 -
[1151] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
Don't make sweeping claims about things you don't know about.
I don't have to. Its easy to just use pro-gankers own words.
Such as?
Quote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
Straightforward, well within the capabilities of a freighter pilot & friends? Yes.
Trivial? No.
Maybe you should tell that to the other pro-gankers in this thread saying otherwise.
Guys. Please stop misusing the term "trivial".
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 19:10:55 -
[1152] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Such as?
Pick one?
See I'm dedicated. I've been cataloging everything that's been said. Cuse spreadsheets in space isn't enough for me. I do spreadsheets in the forums! (I have more, but this is enough)
Destiny Corrupted: GÇ£players in the law-abiding category should get together in groups and enforce justice against EVE's criminal element.GÇ¥
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=30 post 599
Kaarous Aldurald: GÇ£Being a real player instead of a carebear.GÇ¥
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=31 post 601
Baltec1: GÇ£It requires an alt/corpmate in a webbing ship worth less than a million isk.GÇ¥
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=31 post 609
Destiny Corrupted: GÇ£CCP deemed the level of destruction fit for a sandbox game with a player-driven economy.GÇ¥
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=33 post 645
Destiny Corrupted: GÇ£applying realism to a single concept in the game when the others are as unrealistic as possible isn't good game design.GÇ¥
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=34 post 663
Tippia:GÇ¥ Really, the only thing that does not make sense is the hauler pilots' abject refusal to do anything about their situation, in spite of the metric fuckton of means at their disposal. If you want want to bring some sense into the game, that's where you have to start.GÇ¥
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=37 post 722
Tippia: GÇ£any kind of argument about mechanics have to talk about gameplay or it is just fails to have any kind of point.GÇ¥
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=37 post 729
Tippia: GÇ£if it acted as an effective police force, it would remove tons of content and gameplay, imbalance the game, and completely redefine the entire security system, for no practical reasonGÇ¥
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=37 post 729
Tippia: GÇ£being able to kill something in the same spot in the same way every 20 minutes is called grinding GÇö it comes with the genreGÇ¥
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=39 post 763
Tippia: GÇ£Change the profitability GÇö especially on the loss side GÇö and you change the behaviour.GÇ¥
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=40 post 800
Tippia: GÇ£Oh, and CODE is not relevant. Again, you are asking for safety for haulers. If all you have as a reason for this increase is GÇ£because CODEGÇ¥, then you have no reason. They, and their minute impact on the overall hauler traffic in EVE, are not a reason to make sweeping balance changes to an entire group of ships or to core mechanics.GÇ¥
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=42 post 837
Destiny Corrupted: GÇ£In real life, we pay around half of our incomes to have these levels of safety.GÇ¥
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=41 post 812
Destiny Corrupted: GÇ£you're not qualified to make sweeping claims about ganking.GÇ¥
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=45 post 882
Destiny Corrupted: GÇ£If you're trying to somehow address ganking without having ganked yourself, you don't grasp the big picture, and the changes you propose end up being skewed.GÇ¥
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=47 post 922
Jenn aSide: GÇ£How can one be a 'victim' in a video game? I can't imagine how much an individual human being would have to suck to actually be a 'victim' in a situation like this.
And who cares what 'gankers' care about? they are the bad guys, they don't care about anything but themselves.
YOUR (the player's) job isn't to worry about what gankerss care about, it's to worry about what YOU are doing in the game and figure out how to neutralize the gankers before they so much as undock. This is why some of us who prefer pve are successful and happy (and unganked) in the game while 'others' spend th... |
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
180
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 19:26:57 -
[1153] - Quote
Not a single one of those quotes support your claim that players cannot render themselves entirely safe in HiSec.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 19:37:35 -
[1154] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Not a single one of those quotes support your claim that players cannot render themselves entirely safe in HiSec.
Oh I'm sorry, you wanted something ultra specific. Sure, no problem:
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
The idea of a PvP safe area in any game is not inherently valid or invalid. Eve included.
Section 7 would like a word with you.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 19:42:48 -
[1155] - Quote
But please, continue this line of thought. Show the devs how broken the webbing freighter mechanic is based on pro-gankers statements so that I can lobby to have that mechanic removed because it goes against their idea that being 100% safe in Eve shouldn't be possible. |
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
180
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 19:46:43 -
[1156] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:Not a single one of those quotes support your claim that players cannot render themselves entirely safe in HiSec. Oh I'm sorry, you wanted something ultra specific. Sure, no problem: Paranoid Loyd wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
The idea of a PvP safe area in any game is not inherently valid or invalid. Eve included.
Section 7 would like a word with you.
Section 7.2, specifically the last sentence supports the pro-ganker argument.
Everything you've quoted does an excellent job of supporting the notion that ganking is a legitimate and balanced part of the game. Yet somehow you're reading these passages and literally drawing the opposite conclusion from them.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 19:53:20 -
[1157] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Section 7.2, specifically the last sentence supports the pro-ganker argument.
Which is what again...?
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Everything you've quoted does an excellent job of supporting the notion that ganking is a legitimate and balanced part of the game. Yet somehow you're reading these passages and literally drawing the opposite conclusion from them.
Oh, what conclusion would that be? Last I checked I haven't argued that ganking should be remove or is illegitimate.
Just so we're clear on where this discussion is going, the argument as presented by pro-gankers:
It is possible to achieve 100% safety in Eve.
My argument is:
If it is possible to achieve 100% safety in Eve then something is broken, or you are exaggerating your claims.
So which is it? |
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
180
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 20:33:29 -
[1158] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
Section 7.2, specifically the last sentence supports the pro-ganker argument.
Which is what again...?
It states that pilots must be vigilant to protect themselves from gankers. Apologies for paraphrasing, I'm posting on a phone that cannot copy text from PDF files.
Quote:Oh, what conclusion would that be? Last I checked I haven't argued that ganking should be remove or is illegitimate.
Post 1101
Quote:Just so we're clear on where this discussion is going, the argument as presented by pro-gankers:
It is possible to achieve 100% safety in Eve.
My argument is:
If it is possible to achieve 100% safety in Eve then something is broken, or you are exaggerating your claims.
So which is it?
What's wrong with being able to defend yourself? Why is a performance index a sign that a game is broken? Surely people that play poorly will lose while people that play well should be rewarded, right?
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 20:42:52 -
[1159] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
It states that pilots must be vigilant to protect themselves from gankers. Apologies for paraphrasing, I'm posting on a phone that cannot copy text from PDF files.
Ok, no problem with that, that wasn't the argument remember. The argument is that it is possible to achieve 100% safety in hi-sec.
Hiasa Kite wrote:
What's wrong with being able to defend yourself?
No one ever made the argument that you shouldn't be able to defend yourself.
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Why is a performance index a sign that a game is broken? Surely people that play poorly will lose while people that play well should be rewarded, right?
Again, that's not what the argument is about remember? The document you paraphrased, the devs in this thread, the pro-gankers in this thread have all argued that Eve is NOT a safe place to play. Therefore it stands to reason that if %100 safety is indeed achievable that the method to achieve that safety is game breaking since it goes against the intentions of CCP itself. |
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
180
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 21:08:22 -
[1160] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:The document you paraphrased, the devs in this thread, the pro-gankers in this thread have all argued that Eve is NOT a safe place to play. Therefore it stands to reason that if %100 safety is indeed achievable that the method to achieve that safety is game breaking since it goes against the intentions of CCP itself.
Actually, no, it does not stand to reason that an unsafe environment should prevent a player from attaining 100% safety. The player that keeps himself safe is, by definition playing well and is justly rewarded. His actions however, are only part of the overall activity in space. So while he may make the game look statistically safer, the fact of the matter is there are still plenty of players that don't take those measures and consequently die.
Your assertion may hold water if literally every player that flew through HiSec would take appropriate measures to mitigate risk, thus making ganking impossible. In such a scenario CCP would likely revise game balance in favour of the gankers but we're nowhere near this kind of issue.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 21:14:57 -
[1161] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Your assertion may hold water if literally every player that flew through HiSec would take appropriate measures to mitigate risk, thus making ganking impossible. In such a scenario CCP would likely revise game balance in favour of the gankers but we're nowhere near this kind of issue.
Oh right, I forgot. CCP waits to change things based on the fact that 100% of the population of Eve is abusing something wrong. |
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
180
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 21:24:40 -
[1162] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
Your assertion may hold water if literally every player that flew through HiSec would take appropriate measures to mitigate risk, thus making ganking impossible. In such a scenario CCP would likely revise game balance in favour of the gankers but we're nowhere near this kind of issue.
Oh right, I forgot. CCP waits to change things based on the fact that 100% of the population of Eve is abusing something wrong.
Using game mechanics as intended is by definition not abuse. I very much doubt CCP would allow such an imbalance to exist.
Are there any more deflections or straw men you'd like to post?
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 22:30:55 -
[1163] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Using game mechanics as intended is by definition not abuse. I very much doubt CCP would allow such an imbalance to exist.
You can doubt it all you want, but CCP is not infallible.
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Are there any more deflections or straw men you'd like to post?
That depends on your definitions.
See here's the thing, the argument "%100 safety in Eve if achievable would be game breaking" is not a strawman or a deflection.
Disputing the notion that a mechanic is only broken if everyone is using it is not a stawman or a deflection.
If something is gamebreaking, its gamebreaking regardless of the amount or the extent to which it is used.
Now, your argument "it does not stand to reason that an unsafe environment should prevent a player from attaining 100% safety" is false based on the parameters that have been laid out in this thread.
Its been argued that a PVP Safe area would be game breaking for EVE.
Its been argued that webbing mechanics make you %100 safe.
Therefore, if both arguments hold true, webbing mechanics make a player PVP safe and therefore are game breaking.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11723
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 01:07:18 -
[1164] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Because if my webber is ganked I'm totally just going to keep going along my route, and not, you know, dock. Nevermind that snagging my Dramiel before it warps is a worthy feat for a Catalyst.
You don't sound like a dedicated attacker.
What? What in the actual hell does that mean?
First of all, if they actually want to gank both of my ships at once while they're on grid together, they have about a six second window to actually do it. After that, the freighter is in the air.
Secondly, it's a freaking Dramiel. I can kite a Catalyst for more than long enough for them to be destroyed by facpo. Hell I can kite ten of them for long enough. A Thrasher will have some trouble as well, since that thing has a sig radius only slightly higher than a drone, and can get some pretty insane speeds with a T2 afterburner.
So please, I would like you to try and explain your ridiculous statements. And hopefully, actually elaborate this perfect gank you keep talking about.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14925
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 01:26:19 -
[1165] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Given that I've never made the argument (nor have I seen anyone else in this thread) that a lone player should be able to survive a combined fleet, its not incompetence and its not whining.
You demand more NPC action to be made against gankers. You have spent most of the last half of this thread to insist that you should not need to work with others. Christ I was just responding to you saying it.
Frankly, you lost this argument days ago but you simply cannot accept defeat so you continue to dig an ever deeper hole with ever more pants on head arguments. You cant even describe to us how a "perfect gank" can happen without someone instantly telling you that the tactics and ships currently used would render the gank a failure.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
180
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 01:32:51 -
[1166] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Now, your argument "it does not stand to reason that an unsafe environment should prevent a player from attaining 100% safety" is false based on the parameters that have been laid out in this thread.
Its been argued that a PVP Safe area would be game breaking for EVE.
Its been argued that webbing mechanics make you %100 safe.
Therefore, if both arguments hold true, webbing mechanics make a player PVP safe and therefore are game breaking.
This is the core of our disagreement, so I'm going to carefully explain why PvP safe areas are game breaking for EvE and why a player able to make himself completely safe is fine.
Sitting comfortably? This is going to take a while.
Most of this applies to all of EVE, but let's keep this within context of HiSec.
The hauling profession requires the haulage pilot to make decisions about his trip. He needs to decide which ship is best suited to the role, what its fitting needs to be, whether he needs an escort, how much cargo (ISK value) he should be carrying to name a few considerations. Each of these decisions impact how quickly he makes money, what kind of overhead he needs to pay and most notably: whether or not he is able to reach his destination with his ship intact.
Consider Dave and Phil:
Dave could, for example fly a cargo worth no more than 100mil ISK, in his fully tanked Nereus, while actively piloting it to its destination. The ship is low profile enough and agile enough that ganking and bump-tackle shouldn't be a concern, hence no need for an escort. Alternatively, Phil could shoot for as much profit as possible, regardless of risk. He could carry a billion ISK in his fully cargo fitted Iteron and AFK autopilot to his destination. The latter decision can easily make a lot of money with very little effort, but the odds of actually reaching his destination are drastically reduced.
Dave's income might be lower on paper, but it's much more reliable. Phil's desire for a huge payout with little effort will likely cost him dearly.
As the Phils of HiSec make poor decisions that make haulage unprofitable for them, the Daves of HiSec enjoy a larger portion of the overall haulage industry. "What bodes ill for my competitors bodes well for me."
Additionally, there's real choice between various ships. How big is my cargo? Is it ridiculously valuable? What's the quickest way to move it? What's the best route? Is it insanely bulky? Do I need to move it outside HiSec? The different answers to these questions result in different ships being chosen for specific jobs.
What happens if CCP made HiSec safe? Let's say that all damage and negative status effects cannot be inflicted without some sort of legal agression. What happens?
Does tank need to be considered? Not if you're literally invulnerable, no. What about speed? Again, not really, considering that the most player-time efficient way of moving anything would be to simply AFK autopilot everything. Avoidance of danger zones, watching out for ganker activity, escort requirements? Nope, none of that. Suddenly there's no reason to choose Nereus over Iteron, ever. There's no real reason to consider anything but an Iteron, not even for very small packages. Freighters become the undisputed end-game of haulage. No reason to cloak or instant-align, no reason to use escort. Every reason to not use a freighter in HiSec today is gone. There's no reason to limit the value of a haul for loss mitigation. Want to move 100b ISK in a single run? No worries!
Under this system, players can move cargos of any size for a fraction of the price, today. PushX currently charge approx 120mil ISK for a 5bil freighter load from Jita->Dodixie (rush). In safe HiSec, that same service will offer to do the same job with no practical collateral limit for a fraction of the cost. Where do you think the newbie will fit in with that kind of competition? What will a newbie do with a 30,000m3 cargo bay when all potential customers are only willing to pay 100k ISK for a 10b ISK haul?
This is why a perfectly safe HiSec is broken. You take away a player's ability to differentiate himself from the rest of the player base. You take away a massive chunk of depth as all decisions become trivial. A player's sole concern is to fit for as much cargo as possible while cramming in as many contracts as possible.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
180
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 01:34:08 -
[1167] - Quote
cont.
So, why is it OK for a player to make themselves perfectly safe?
Two reasons:
1) The ability to make decisions that ultimately benefit him (such as playing with survival in mind).
2) 100% safety isn't necessarily optimal.
As for point 1:
The reason is pretty self explanatory. It ties in with risk vs. reward and allows him to differentiate himself from other players. It's part of the process to make as much money as possible in as little time as possible given the options available. Maximising ISK/hour is actually a good thing, despite what pro-gankers say against it. The issue with ISK/hour is that many players put too great an emphasis on it, often ignoring that the possibility that an overstuffed hauler is a tempting gank target or trying to do so little work they fail to react to incoming threats.
While 100% safety is available to any "bearish" profession (i.e. any HiSec profession that does not require you to shoot other players), it's most crucial to freighter pilots, specifically because they're simultaneously the most vulnerable and stand to lose a great deal of money from a single gank. A miner could lose dozens of barges but not be hurt financially as a freighter pilot that lost a single ship.
As for point 2:
Consider a HiSec miner. He sits in an NPC corp, keeps to himself and is in a position where he can AFK mine for a significant amount of time each day. His main two choices of mining barge are Procurer and the Retriever. The Procurer, adequately tanked can AFK for up to 15 minutes at a time, happily munching rocks. All the while, he remains as safe as safe gets in HiSec for the simple reason that there's no way to efficiently kill him. Not even CODE. are like to take down such a ship - purely because they can do more elsewhere.
What if our miner can only come back to his keyboard every 30 minutes? Well, that's 15 minutes of downtime for each load. Hardly ideal. Time to consider the Retriever: a tank that can easily be overcome by one or two Catalysts, but has a slightly higher yield and can munch rocks, without input for up to 30 minutes at a time. As long as gankers aren't an issue, our miner can near-as-dammit double his income. The downside however, is that ganks are an issue.
Here's the thing: If the Retriever is mining in a system not often frequented by CODE. it will quickly pay for itself. It's going to die at some point, but it doesn't need to live forever, just long enough to pay for itself. Even though the Retriever's life expectancy is abyssmal compared to the Procurer, the overall income is still significantly higher for the AFK pilot in a reasonably quiet HiSec system.
This is an example of how 100% safety isn't necessarily the best choice. Sometimes it's better to operate with a level of risk to enjoy a higher overall income. The same applies to haulage, traders, mission runners and just about anything, including professions outside HiSec. Yes, all of these pilots can be super cautious 24/7 but the cost is often a lower overall income, not to mention burnout from simply not letting their guard down every now and then. What kind of risks are acceptable varies by profession, environment and personal circumstance.
====
The result is that players can play in a way that suits them best. In addition, players are free to make poor decisions - poor for them, but others benefit as a result. In the end, a potential 100% safety allows pilots to choose to play in a way that's best suited to them or simply in ways that offer best profit and/or more fun.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
180
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 01:38:37 -
[1168] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:So please, I would like you to try and explain your ridiculous statements. And hopefully, actually elaborate this perfect gank you keep talking about.
baltec1 wrote:You cant even describe to us how a "perfect gank" can happen without someone instantly telling you that the tactics and ships currently used would render the gank a failure.
Didn't you know? He never argued that point, instead it was a roundabout way of showing us that making yourself safe in HiSec is against the interests of the game.
Valterra Craven wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
It states that pilots must be vigilant to protect themselves from gankers. Apologies for paraphrasing, I'm posting on a phone that cannot copy text from PDF files.
Ok, no problem with that, that wasn't the argument remember. The argument is that it is possible to achieve 100% safety in hi-sec.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 02:37:17 -
[1169] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
So please, I would like you to try and explain your ridiculous statements. And hopefully, actually elaborate this perfect gank you keep talking about.
Whats to explain? The point of my logic is to paint you guys into a corner. You all argue that risk should be part of the game. Then you argue that tactics like freighter webbing are perfectly fine even though they completely nullify the risk.
Here this is really simple. I will put this in terms of equivalency.
Any ship able to achieve 100% resists on any HP value would be unkillable.
This ship would be 100% safe.
This ship if allowed to fly in game would be game breaking.
Your argument is that based on your tactics that it is impossible to kill a freighter.
This is equivalent to making it game breaking.
So you can either continue to claim that webbing a ship based on your methods is unkillable, or you can admit that there is at least one scenario where your tactics can be effectively countered.
Choose. |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 02:40:36 -
[1170] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
You demand more NPC action to be made against gankers. You have spent most of the last half of this thread to insist that you should not need to work with others. Christ I was just responding to you saying it.
Man you guys sure LOOOOVE to exaggerate. I have "demanded" exactly zero things be changed in this game.
baltec1 wrote:
Frankly, you lost this argument days ago but you simply cannot accept defeat so you continue to dig an ever deeper hole with ever more pants on head arguments. You cant even describe to us how a "perfect gank" can happen without someone instantly telling you that the tactics and ships currently used would render the gank a failure.
Well if I thought I lost this argument days ago I would have stopped. But logic would follow that if you feel you won then it would be pointless to continue to respond to my posts in this thread. So are you claiming victory and leaving?
|
|
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
183
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 02:43:01 -
[1171] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Whats to explain? The point of my logic is to paint you guys into a corner. You all argue that risk should be part of the game. Then you argue that tactics like freighter webbing are perfectly fine even though they completely nullify the risk.
Dropping your risk to effecively zero does not magically lower risk for any other player.
Quote:Here this is really simple. I will put this in terms of equivalency.
Any ship able to achieve 100% resists on any HP value would be unkillable.
This ship would be 100% safe.
This ship if allowed to fly in game would be game breaking.
True.
Quote:Your argument is that based on your tactics that it is impossible to kill a freighter.
This is equivalent to making it game breaking.
False.
In this scenario you can still screw up and die. That's not possible with a literally invulnerable ship.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14932
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 02:44:27 -
[1172] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Man you guys sure LOOOOVE to exaggerate. I have "demanded" exactly zero things be changed in this game.
Apart from the constant calls for "more consequences for busy gank systems from faction navies" AKA, more NPC protection.
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Well if I thought I lost this argument days ago I would have stopped.
Yea well you haven't.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 02:45:11 -
[1173] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Therefore, if both arguments hold true, webbing mechanics make a player PVP safe and therefore are game breaking.
This is the core of our disagreement, so I'm going to carefully explain why PvP safe areas are game breaking for EvE and why a player able to make himself completely safe is fine.[/quote]
You typed a lot of words for no reason. Motivations, efficiency, etc have absolutely zero bearing on the fact that an unkillable ship is game breaking.
Its funny how I am the one that is accused of making "pants on head" arguments. Especially given everything that's been said by the pro-gankers arguing that having zero risk in this game would be game breaking, but that a ship using the right tactics to achieve zero risk is not. Go figure. |
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
184
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 02:46:17 -
[1174] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:Quote:Therefore, if both arguments hold true, webbing mechanics make a player PVP safe and therefore are game breaking. This is the core of our disagreement, so I'm going to carefully explain why PvP safe areas are game breaking for EvE and why a player able to make himself completely safe is fine. You typed a lot of words for no reason. Motivations, efficiency, etc have absolutely zero bearing on the fact that an unkillable ship is game breaking. Its funny how I am the one that is accused of making "pants on head" arguments. Especially given everything that's been said by the pro-gankers arguing that having zero risk in this game would be game breaking, but that a ship using the right tactics to achieve zero risk is not. Go figure.
Read the post. Learn.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 02:46:59 -
[1175] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Apart from the constant calls for "more consequences for busy gank systems from faction navies" AKA, more NPC protection.
Hey, I freely admitted that I asked for consequences, like in my very first post. But you know what a question is not? A demand.
baltec1 wrote:
Yea well you haven't.
Guess that means I don't think I've lost.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 02:48:16 -
[1176] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
In this scenario you can still screw up and die. That's not possible with a literally invulnerable ship.
Oh, so it took you all of those words to admit that there is no such thing as 100% safety. Great. Same page.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
184
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 02:51:23 -
[1177] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
In this scenario you can still screw up and die. That's not possible with a literally invulnerable ship.
Oh, so it took you all of those words to admit that there is no such thing as 100% safety. Great. Same page.
The theory offers 100% safety. The practicality is that any slip in concentration, failure to communicate, deviation from procedure can lead to death.
Wait, your entire argument hinged on this simple premise? That's why you've bobbing around in the bowl for so long?
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 02:52:42 -
[1178] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Wait, your entire argument hinged on this simple premise? That's why you've bobbing around in the bowl for so long?
Lol, no. You guys like to go down the rabbit hole, so I just followed you down it.
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
490
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 03:53:42 -
[1179] - Quote
Seems like Valterra has won this round. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11727
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 05:04:03 -
[1180] - Quote
And when Veers agrees with you, that's when you know that you're well and truly damned.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 14:20:14 -
[1181] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:And when Veers agrees with you, that's when you know that you're well and truly damned.
Did you have rebuttal to my points, or do you just like proving that pro-gankers are in every way comparable and a like to the same carebears they despise? |
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
193
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 14:29:04 -
[1182] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:And when Veers agrees with you, that's when you know that you're well and truly damned. Did you have rebuttal to my points, or do you just like proving that pro-gankers are in every way comparable and a like to the same carebears they despise?
Feel free to reread his posts to pick up on any rebuttals you may have missed. Unless that is you've raised new points yet to be discussed
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 15:51:00 -
[1183] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Feel free to reread his posts to pick up on any rebuttals you may have missed. Unless that is you've raised new points yet to be discussed
Anything worth responding to already has been. Or did you forget that I catalog everything? |
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
193
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 15:57:20 -
[1184] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
Feel free to reread his posts to pick up on any rebuttals you may have missed. Unless that is you've raised new points yet to be discussed
Anything worth responding to already has been. Or did you forget that I catalog everything?
Well there you go. Everything's been sorted.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3827
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 17:19:46 -
[1185] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them.
The Rules:
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11750
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 23:15:11 -
[1186] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Whats to explain?
Well, for starters, when you were first pressed to give an example of a "perfect gank", you gave the incredibly ignorant answer of "gank the webber", as though you thought that such a thing would actually feasibly work.
So you're displaying a large level of ignorance of the very mechanic you've been trying to claim needs a nerf for the last twenty or so pages.
Let's start with that.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Tiffany 'Tiffs' Succeed
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
48
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 03:43:44 -
[1187] - Quote
Hi!
Let me clear this mess up for you....
Valtera, your equivalency doesn't fit. The freighter isn't invulnerable per se. The webber webs it into warp,
which means can be incredibly hard or near impossible to catch the freighter.
As you didn't know this, Kaarous rightfully explained that you don't really understand the mechanics behind this.
What you don't realise is that you do not know enough to actually have a say in this.
You know that you don't know a lot, don't get me wrong ...
... but your blindness about what it is that you are missing ...........
Oh and it's not only you anyway.
The others don't get that they shouldn't keep talking to you like this,
because they can't help you out of your misery anyway.
Tbh, I didn't read any pages before this one ...
... but I didn't want to see you people go on and on and on ......
... especially when it's such a completely screwed conversation. |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 03:58:57 -
[1188] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Let's start with that.
Just in case this wasn't clear the first time: "The point of my logic is to paint you guys into a corner"
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Well, for starters, when you were first pressed to give an example of a "perfect gank", you gave the incredibly ignorant answer of "gank the webber", as though you thought that such a thing would actually feasibly work.
So you're displaying a large level of ignorance of the very mechanic you've been trying to claim needs a nerf for the last twenty or so pages.
So why the farce?
If you guys are constantly going to argue that only gankers are qualified to talk about the mechanics of ganking and you (besides CCP) are the only people that can speak to whether ganking is or is not broken (despite the obvious conflict of interest), then the ONLY way for me to get a point across is for YOU or someone in your camp to mess up. This means that the goal of me saying very little was to draw someone out and make the argument for me.
Since, Hiasa Kite has so graciously provided the necessary evidence and because it did not come from me, you can not argue that I don't know what I'm talking about.
So I will ask you again, since you continue to deflect without actually proving your claims are true, what is your choice?
Continue to claim that webbing a ship based on your methods is unkillable/unstoppable, or admit that there is at least one scenario where your tactics can be effectively countered. |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 04:12:20 -
[1189] - Quote
Tiffany 'Tiffs' Succeed wrote:
Let me clear this mess up for you....
Thanks for your help, but I know perfectly well how the mechanic works and what it enables.
Tiffany 'Tiffs' Succeed wrote:
The freighter isn't invulnerable per se.
I wasn't the one that claimed that the webbing mechanic made freighters 100% safe. (which you would have realized if you had read further back.)That honor belongs to Kaarous. Therefore if as he claims the freighter is 100% safe, then that is the equivalent to being invulnerable.
Tiffany 'Tiffs' Succeed wrote:
The webber webs it into warp, which means can be incredibly hard or near impossible to catch the freighter.
So if NO ONE, including gankers have an effective counter as Kaarous points out then how is what you are saying any different to what I'm saying?
My point is that the freighter doesn't need to be 100% invulnerable for this mechanic to be game breaking. If the goal is to reduce the risk of getting blown up to near zero or actually zero, and the goal is achieved, then by the very nature of the parameters that the way the game is laid out that ability would be game breaking.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
195
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 12:12:31 -
[1190] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:My point is that the freighter doesn't need to be 100% invulnerable for this mechanic to be game breaking. If the goal is to reduce the risk of getting blown up to near zero or actually zero, and the goal is achieved, then by the very nature of the parameters that the way the game is laid out that ability would be game breaking.
You keep trying to force this, but that's not how it works. If freighters that can stay safe is game breaking, then what of:
- Cloaking devices?
- Warp core stabilizers?
- Interdiction nullificattion?
- Instant alignment?
- Local intel?
- D-scan?
- Combat probes?
- Jump drives?
- Tactical bookmarks (instant docks/undocks etc)?
- And indeed, player communication
All of these mechanics, used properly and/or in some combination allow pilots to attain a very high degree of safety and in most cases, near-as-dammit 100% in quite literally any area of space.
To argue that safe freighters are game breaking is to argue all of the above are game breaking, too. Shockingly enough, I don't think anyone's going to support the removal of ALL of those features.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11752
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 12:36:28 -
[1191] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Just in case this wasn't clear the first time: "The point of my logic is to paint you guys into a corner"
Translation:
"You lot exposed that I was trying to dictate changes based on a position of total ignorance, so now being deliberately obtuse is all I have left."
I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Dinsdale. At least he was actually inventive and fun to read, not a total bore shoveling doggerel at everyone.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
602
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 13:40:45 -
[1192] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Dinsdale. At least he was actually inventive and fun to read, not a total bore shoveling doggerel at everyone. Dinsdale occasionally produced quality trolls and tinfoilhattery, the current crop of wannabes are trying to make up with quantity that which they lack in quality.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 14:20:03 -
[1193] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Translation:
"You lot exposed that I was trying to dictate changes based on a position of total ignorance, so now being deliberately obtuse is all I have left."
I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Dinsdale. At least he was actually inventive and fun to read, not a total bore shoveling doggerel at everyone.
Translation: you guys would rather name call and tear people up rather than make actual arguments. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11752
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 14:20:45 -
[1194] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Translation:
"You lot exposed that I was trying to dictate changes based on a position of total ignorance, so now being deliberately obtuse is all I have left."
I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Dinsdale. At least he was actually inventive and fun to read, not a total bore shoveling doggerel at everyone.
Translation: you guys would rather name call and tear people up rather than make actual arguments.
Actually, it's more like we're openly mocking you, since actually making arguments just resulted in you ignoring them repeatedly, while trolling away with the same old narrative.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 14:22:24 -
[1195] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Actually, it's more like we're openly mocking you, since actually making arguments just resulted in you ignoring them repeatedly, while trolling away with the same old narrative.
Well, at least you can admit that you're a douchewaffle, since I actually responded to every single argument you guys made pointing out their flaws. But I can understand how'd you rather whitewash history than actually accomplish anything. |
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
197
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 14:23:52 -
[1196] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Actually, it's more like we're openly mocking you, since actually making arguments just resulted in you ignoring them repeatedly, while trolling away with the same old narrative.
Well, at least you can admit that you're a douchewaffle, since I actually responded to every single argument you guys made pointing out their flaws. But I can understand how'd you rather whitewash history than actually accomplish anything.
Spewing logical fallacies is not pointing out a flaw.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11752
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 14:23:53 -
[1197] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Well, at least you can admit that you're a douchewaffle, since I actually responded to every single argument you guys made pointing out their flaws.
On the literal previous page, you outright admitted that you're just trolling and that you have no clue what you're talking about.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 14:25:22 -
[1198] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:My point is that the freighter doesn't need to be 100% invulnerable for this mechanic to be game breaking. If the goal is to reduce the risk of getting blown up to near zero or actually zero, and the goal is achieved, then by the very nature of the parameters that the way the game is laid out that ability would be game breaking. You keep trying to force this, but that's not how it works. If freighters that can stay safe is game breaking, then what of:
- Cloaking devices?
- Warp core stabilizers?
- Interdiction nullificattion?
- Instant alignment?
- Local intel?
- D-scan?
- Combat probes?
- Jump drives?
- Tactical bookmarks (instant docks/undocks etc)?
- And indeed, player communication
All of these mechanics, used properly and/or in some combination allow pilots to attain a very high degree of safety and in most cases, near-as-dammit 100% in quite literally any area of space. To argue that safe freighters are game breaking is to argue all of the above are game breaking, too. Shockingly enough, I don't think anyone's going to support the removal of ALL of those features.
Because NO ONE has made a complaint about anything on that list when being used improperly being game breaking? Or do do the reams of threads on afk cloaking in NULL pass you by, or the reams of threads about how people were farming Faction Warfare with WCS on? Or the fact that people have complained endlessly about ceptors are overpowere with nullification, or the reams of thread about how broken local is, or the fact that they just nerfed the ever living hell out of jump drives... right...
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 14:26:11 -
[1199] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Spewing logical fallacies is not pointing out a flaw.
Sure, if I had done that, but considering I didn't....
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11752
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 14:27:16 -
[1200] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
Spewing logical fallacies is not pointing out a flaw.
Sure, if I had done that, but considering I didn't....
No, you did. He might not have used a strong enough plural, though, since you've probably snagged the record for the forums.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 14:27:55 -
[1201] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
On the literal previous page, you outright admitted that you're just trolling and that you have no clue what you're talking about.
On the literal previous page I outright admitted to a debate tactic by which you forced me to use because of your asshattery. |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 14:28:42 -
[1202] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No, you did. He might not have used a strong enough plural, though, since you've probably snagged the record for the forums.
Just because you say something doesn't make it true. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11752
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 14:30:14 -
[1203] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
On the literal previous page, you outright admitted that you're just trolling and that you have no clue what you're talking about.
On the literal previous page I outright admitted to a debate tactic by which you forced me to use because of your asshattery.
No, you're simply being obtuse because you lack any knowledge about the subject you've chosen to soapbox about.
You're arguing out of a position of pure ignorance, simple as that.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 14:31:32 -
[1204] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No, you're simply being obtuse because you lack any knowledge about the subject you've chosen to soapbox about.
You're arguing out of a position of pure ignorance, simple as that.
Oh right, still clinging to the tear down the debater rather than the arguments tactic... |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11752
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 14:33:12 -
[1205] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No, you're simply being obtuse because you lack any knowledge about the subject you've chosen to soapbox about.
You're arguing out of a position of pure ignorance, simple as that.
Oh right, still clinging to the tear down the debater rather than the arguments tactic...
Your arguments remain countered, long hence. All you've done so far is spill out more tears about how you aren't able to pontificate from ignorance.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 14:35:33 -
[1206] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Your arguments remain countered, long hence.
Oh, You've gone through and cataloged everything I've said and has been said to me? You have 100% evidence of this? Oh right, you are too lazy to do any actual work and actually show what you've got. (I still haven't forgotten that you've failed to chose)
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
All you've done so far is spill out more tears about how you aren't able to pontificate from ignorance.
All of you done so far is spill out more tears about how you are unable to make any reasonable argument and would rather cry that people don't know what they are talking about.
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
717
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 14:36:58 -
[1207] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:debate tactic
Use of a term like this alone says all that need be said. If your hope here is that some CCP moderator with a clipboard is watching the thread ticking off points, I hate to point out that they probably stopped caring about the contents of posts (other than to watch for obvious rule-breakers) at about page 20, when everything of any worth had already been said twice, and left the rest of the thread to the three people who absolutely have to have the last word to roll the post count up pointlessly.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 14:43:41 -
[1208] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:debate tactic Use of a term like this alone says all that need be said. If your hope here is that some CCP moderator with a clipboard is watching the thread ticking off points, I hate to point out that they probably stopped caring about the contents of posts (other than to watch for obvious rule-breakers) at about page 20, when everything of any worth had already been said twice, and left the rest of the thread to the three people who absolutely have to have the last word to roll the post count up pointlessly.
My post count is irrelevant to me. In fact if you go back through my entire post history (not just this thread) you'll notice that the only threads I post in are threads that either dev's start or dev's post in. I'm not tippia after all. As far debate tactic, given that the opposing forces stoop far lower than that, some modicum of reasonableness must be maintained. As far as everything of any worth being said, I disagree with you there, being that I think I offered a different take on it than other posters had (at least in this thread anyway). That being said I understood your subtle jab and will take it at face value. |
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
197
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 15:01:21 -
[1209] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:My point is that the freighter doesn't need to be 100% invulnerable for this mechanic to be game breaking. If the goal is to reduce the risk of getting blown up to near zero or actually zero, and the goal is achieved, then by the very nature of the parameters that the way the game is laid out that ability would be game breaking. You keep trying to force this, but that's not how it works. If freighters that can stay safe is game breaking, then what of:
- Cloaking devices?
- Warp core stabilizers?
- Interdiction nullificattion?
- Instant alignment?
- Local intel?
- D-scan?
- Combat probes?
- Jump drives?
- Tactical bookmarks (instant docks/undocks etc)?
- And indeed, player communication
All of these mechanics, used properly and/or in some combination allow pilots to attain a very high degree of safety and in most cases, near-as-dammit 100% in quite literally any area of space. To argue that safe freighters are game breaking is to argue all of the above are game breaking, too. Shockingly enough, I don't think anyone's going to support the removal of ALL of those features. Because NO ONE has made a complaint about anything on that list when being used improperly being game breaking? Or do the reams of threads on afk cloaking in NULL pass you by, or the reams of threads about how people were farming Faction Warfare with WCS on? Or the fact that people have complained endlessly about ceptors being overpowered with nullification, or the reams of thread about how broken local is, or the fact that they just nerfed the ever living hell out of jump drives... right...
How is "They're in the same system as me. I deserve to kill them." any different from "I deserve 100% for no effort."?
Both arguments are at the opposite end of the spectrum and both arguments are ridiculous. They're both come from sets of players that simply feel entitled to success and feel that anyone that can out play them should be nerfed.
I like a balanced game. That means people can squeeze by my attempts to kill them and it means others can kill me if I don't play for the utmost safety. Either way, my opponent outplays me and that is fine. In neither scenario is the game broken.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 15:10:43 -
[1210] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
How is "They're in the same system as me. I deserve to kill them." any different from "I deserve 100% for no effort."?
I see what you are saying, but from my perspective the argument "They're in the same system as me. I deserve to kill them." is no different than what the gankers are saying in this thread!
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Both arguments are at the opposite end of the spectrum and both arguments are ridiculous. They're both come from sets of players that simply feel entitled to success and feel that anyone that can out play them should be nerfed.
There should always be an opportunity to outplay someone.
Hiasa Kite wrote:
I like a balanced game. That means people can squeeze by my attempts to kill them and it means others can kill me if I don't play for the utmost safety. Either way, my opponent outplays me and that is fine. In neither scenario is the game broken.
The problem comes in because a lot of these mechanics don't have counters. OR are you suggesting that a game with mechanics that have no counters is balanced? Because from where I sit, a mechanic that has no counter is the very definition of imbalance. |
|
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
198
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 15:21:52 -
[1211] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I see what you are saying, but from my perspective the argument "They're in the same system as me. I deserve to kill them." is no different than what the gankers are saying in this thread!
How so? I've stated that I have no issues with people getting away from me. Hell, the CODE. alliance is built around the entire precept that players should take advantage of the fact they can defend themselves. I very much doubt they're against people who play well enough outplaying them at every encounter.
Quote:Because from where I sit, a mechanic that has no counter is the very definition of imbalance.
Implying that mechanics that do zero damage to you need a counter.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
602
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 15:29:41 -
[1212] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
How is "They're in the same system as me. I deserve to kill them." any different from "I deserve 100% for no effort."?
I see what you are saying, but from my perspective the argument "They're in the same system as me. I deserve to kill them." is no different than what the gankers are saying in this thread! Hiasa Kite wrote:
Both arguments are at the opposite end of the spectrum and both arguments are ridiculous. They're both come from sets of players that simply feel entitled to success and feel that anyone that can out play them should be nerfed.
There should always be an opportunity to outplay someone. Hiasa Kite wrote:
I like a balanced game. That means people can squeeze by my attempts to kill them and it means others can kill me if I don't play for the utmost safety. Either way, my opponent outplays me and that is fine. In neither scenario is the game broken.
The problem comes in because a lot of these mechanics don't have counters. OR are you suggesting that a game with mechanics that have no counters is balanced? Because from where I sit, a mechanic that has no counter is the very definition of imbalance. Which mechanics would those be?
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 15:36:57 -
[1213] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Implying that mechanics that do zero damage to you need a counter.
This is Eve remember. Based on everything said in this thread from pro-gankers, every game mechanic should have a counter.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 15:37:49 -
[1214] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Which mechanics would those be?
Well according to Kaarous, webbing a freighter has no counter, remember? |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
602
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 15:47:33 -
[1215] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Which mechanics would those be? Well according to Kaarous, webbing a freighter has no counter, remember? I seem to remember people saying that it's difficult to counter but not impossible, which is why freighters that use the mechanic don't tend to die. They don't have to be faster than the predator, they just have to be faster than the rest of the prey.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 15:54:49 -
[1216] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:I seem to remember people saying that it's difficult to counter but not impossible.
Well you remembered wrong. Which is funny because its not like I had to go all that far back in this thread to find the exact quotes where exactly the opposite of what you remembered was said. If you are going to mis-remember something, at least make sure that its so far back that its going to be extremely difficult for me to find.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Also because being ganked is 100% avoidable.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=55 post 1089
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
First of all, if they actually want to gank both of my ships at once while they're on grid together, they have about a six second window to actually do it. After that, the freighter is in the air.
Secondly, it's a freaking Dramiel. I can kite a Catalyst for more than long enough for them to be destroyed by facpo. Hell I can kite ten of them for long enough. A Thrasher will have some trouble as well, since that thing has a sig radius only slightly higher than a drone, and can get some pretty insane speeds with a T2 afterburner.
So please, I would like you to try and explain your ridiculous statements. And hopefully, actually elaborate this perfect gank you keep talking about.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=57 post 1140
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
602
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 16:00:21 -
[1217] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Well you remembered wrong. Which is funny because its not like I had to go all that far back in this thread to find the exact quotes where exactly the opposite of what you remembered was said. If you are going to mis-remember something, at least make sure that its so far back that its going to be extremely difficult for me to find. Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Also because being ganked is 100% avoidable.
He's not wrong, it is 100% avoidable, as long as you take precautions and use the tools available to you. For instance: how to 100% avoid getting ganked in Uedama, don't fly through Uedama.
Quote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
First of all, if they actually want to gank both of my ships at once while they're on grid together, they have about a six second window to actually do it. After that, the freighter is in the air.
Secondly, it's a freaking Dramiel. I can kite a Catalyst for more than long enough for them to be destroyed by facpo. Hell I can kite ten of them for long enough. A Thrasher will have some trouble as well, since that thing has a sig radius only slightly higher than a drone, and can get some pretty insane speeds with a T2 afterburner.
So please, I would like you to try and explain your ridiculous statements. And hopefully, actually elaborate this perfect gank you keep talking about.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=57 post 1140 Nowhere in this post does he state that it's impossible to counter a webbing ship, he implies that it's extremely difficult, they do not mean the same thing.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 16:14:06 -
[1218] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:He's not wrong, it is 100% avoidable, as long as you take precautions and use the tools available to you. For instance: how to 100% avoid getting ganked in Uedama, don't fly through Uedama.
Same argument applies to not playing the game. Also last I checked not all ganks are limited to Uedama.
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Nowhere in this post does he state that it's impossible to counter a webbing ship, he implies that it's extremely difficult, they do not mean the same thing.
Actually he implies it with this one line. "So please, I would like you to try and explain your ridiculous statements. And hopefully, actually elaborate this perfect gank you keep talking about."
Because the problem is that this entire statement is predicated on the fact that to have any meaning at all it has to mean that there is no effective counter to his setup. And if there is no effective counter to his setup, then guess what that means! An implication of perfection!
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
your reading comprehension on the other hand, it appears to need some work.
Appearances can be deceiving.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
198
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 16:20:53 -
[1219] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
Implying that mechanics that do zero damage to you need a counter.
This is Eve remember. Based on everything said in this thread from pro-gankers, every game mechanic should have a counter.
I don't recall anyone saying such a thing. Even if anyone has, I disagree with that notion.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
840
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 16:33:29 -
[1220] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
Implying that mechanics that do zero damage to you need a counter.
This is Eve remember. Based on everything said in this thread from pro-gankers, every game mechanic should have a counter. I don't recall anyone saying such a thing. Even if anyone has, I disagree with that notion.
Well, everything does have a counter. It's just that a good majority of the counters aren't programmed into the game.
Vote Sabriz!
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 16:47:49 -
[1221] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:
Well, everything does have a counter.
Not according to Kaarous Aldurald.
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
602
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 17:15:23 -
[1222] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: Also last I checked not all ganks are limited to Uedama. The same advice applies to any chokepoint between market hubs, to 100% avoid exploding there, you don't go there or you pay someone else to move your stuff through there.
Quote:Actually he implies it with this one line. "So please, I would like you to try and explain your ridiculous statements. And hopefully, actually elaborate this perfect gank you keep talking about." WatGäó? That implies nothing of the sort, he's asking for an explanation of something you posted earlier and an elaboration on what you call "a perfect gank".
Quote:Because the problem is that this entire statement is predicated on the fact that to have any meaning at all it has to mean that there is no effective counter to his setup. And if there is no effective counter to his setup, then guess what that means! An implication of perfection! You don't half talk some bollocks.
Quote:Appearances can be deceiving.
Evidently not.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 17:27:27 -
[1223] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:The same advice applies to any chokepoint between market hubs, to 100% avoid exploding there, you don't go there or you pay someone else to move your stuff through there.
And the same could be said about not playing the game. Taking his posts out of context to be completely disingenuous is not a valid argument.
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Wat That implies nothing of the sort, he's asking for an explanation of something you posted earlier and an elaboration on what you call "a perfect gank".
Except reading comprehension means being able to understand context. His argument was that his tactics could not be countered. I said that there should be at least one scenario in which they could be. He referred to this as the perfect gank which he implied was not possible.
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:You don't half talk some bollocks.
Well you make up for it for the both of us.
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Evidently not.
Apparently so. |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
602
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 17:33:06 -
[1224] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Taking his posts out of context to be completely disingenuous is not a valid argument. Maybe you should stop doing it then.
Quote:Except reading comprehension means being able to understand context. His argument was that his tactics could not be countered. I said that there should be at least one scenario in which they could be. He referred to this as the perfect gank which he implied was not possible. You provided the source, I read it. The context is in other posts which you failed to link, see my comment above.
Oh and you're still wrong.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
840
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 17:33:46 -
[1225] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:
Well, everything does have a counter.
Not according to Kaarous Aldurald.
The counter to a webbing dramiel is not a gank catalyst or thrasher =/= there is no counter to a webbing dramiel
The ability to counter a webbing dramiel =/= it is possible to gank a frieghter perfectly every time
Vote Sabriz!
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 17:35:13 -
[1226] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Maybe you should stop doing it then.
Maybe you should come up with an actual true counter.
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:You provided the source, I read it. The context is in other posts which you failed to link, see my comment above.
No, I provided SOME sources. The context I'm talking about still applies.
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Oh and you're still wrong.
Then prove it. I'll be here waiting. |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 17:39:14 -
[1227] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:
The counter to a webbing dramiel is not a gank catalyst or thrasher =/= there is no counter to a webbing dramiel
I agree.
So, if as you say there is a counter to everything, then prove you can counter this tactic.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
198
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 17:43:57 -
[1228] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
Implying that mechanics that do zero damage to you need a counter.
This is Eve remember. Based on everything said in this thread from pro-gankers, every game mechanic should have a counter. I don't recall anyone saying such a thing. Even if anyone has, I disagree with that notion. Well, everything does have a counter. It's just that a good majority of the counters aren't programmed into the game.
That depends on how you define a counter.
I mean, you could get 100+ people together in order to take down an escorted freighter. It's possible but would it be effective considering the effort put in? I'd say no. That's why I disagree with your statement - it can be done but not to the point we can say the escort has been countered.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
842
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 17:54:45 -
[1229] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:
The counter to a webbing dramiel is not a gank catalyst or thrasher =/= there is no counter to a webbing dramiel
I agree. So, if as you say there is a counter to everything, then prove you can counter this tactic.
Off the top of my head, something fast with a sensor boost, sensor damp or ECM, and scram. It would add to the time frame you have to take the freighter down. There would be ways for the drami pilot to mitigate that threat, and there would be ways to counter that counter to the original counter that countered the first counter.
Vote Sabriz!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11753
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 23:14:28 -
[1230] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
The problem comes in because a lot of these mechanics don't have counters.
Except that they do. You lot just reject them because they take more effort than zero. You've demonstrated that quite clearly.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11755
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 23:17:54 -
[1231] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:
Well, everything does have a counter.
Not according to Kaarous Aldurald.
Wow, you're dense. Simply stating that a Dramiel can, in fact, kite a typical gank ship apparently constitutes not having any counter at all.
Color me surprised that you said something that dumb.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 00:52:33 -
[1232] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Except that they do. You lot just reject them because they take more effort than zero. You've demonstrated that quite clearly.
Considering you yourself have spent the last several pages championing that there was no counter to your tactics, your statements are pretty rich. The only rejection that's is that of your stupid ideals that people belong in camps, or that labels actually accomplish anything. Look, I get it, its easier to do that than put in the effort to try to educate people, but of course you'd have to stop drinking your own koolaide first. |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 00:58:06 -
[1233] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Wow, you're dense.
No, I just don't let your bullshit stand without being called it.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Simply stating that a Dramiel can, in fact, kite a typical gank ship apparently constitutes not having any counter at all.
No, that statement in and of itself would not constitute this argument. But what you originally said does.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Also because being ganked is 100% avoidable.
There's always a way. It just a question of how motivated the attacker is. List one, then. Because if you've discovered some perfect gank method, I'd love to hear it.
Everything you've said here is an implication that your methods are full proof and have no counter.
Kaarous Aldurald
"Color me surprised that you said something that dumb."
Color me surprised that you aren't man enough to admit that your original statements were nothing but trolling.
|
ISD Gallifreyan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
317
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 02:34:55 -
[1234] - Quote
Trolling or Flaming on a CCP Falcon thread I think wouldn't be the most well thought out plan.
I will allow him to make his call on his thread.
Take a breath before calling people names and attacking each others intelligence.
ISD Gallifreyan
Lt. Commander
Community Communication Liaisons (CCL)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11759
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 12:42:29 -
[1235] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Color me surprised that you aren't man enough to admit that your original statements were nothing but trolling.
You wouldn't even know what they are. You aren't actually arguing, just mouthing off without any actual substance.
You have outright admitted this. You have no facts, no proof, and no value in anything you say. Merely some rambling about a perfect gank method, that you blatantly failed to materialize on.
Pathetic. Even Lucas, as banal as he is, is better than this.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 14:27:31 -
[1236] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You wouldn't even know what they are.
Its pretty hard to argue substance when you haven't provided any to argue.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You aren't actually arguing, just mouthing off without any actual substance.
Because I'm the one that refuses to answer questions asked point blank? The fact hasn't escaped me that you still have yet to answer this simple question:
Are you going to continue arguing that your tactics have no counter, or are you going to admit that there is at least one scenario where they can be thus proving that ganks are not 100% avoidable outside of not doing anything in game.
So please, in the interest of "substance" answer this question. Because from where I sit the fact that you have yet to answer this question means that you are needlessly stringing this conversation along for your own personal enjoyment, or you refuse to answer because it would prove your original point wrong, or you'd rather feign innocence to try and tear my arguments down without merit.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You have outright admitted this. You have no facts, no proof, and no value in anything you say. Merely some rambling about a perfect gank method, that you blatantly failed to materialize on.
No, what I have outright admitted is that due to how the pro-gankers have set the parameters for what is valid and invalid arguments in this thread, that I'm not allowed to make valid arguments since I am not a ganker. Otherwise anything I said would devolve into the BS argument that I have no idea what I'm talking about. Which is ironic given the stance that pro-gankers think that the answer to safety is education. Well if you guys are the only ones that can educate, then please do so.
But, what I have admitted is far cry from saying I don't know what I'm talking about. Also, this perfect gank bs you keep spouting on about is something entirely of your own making. See I keep track of everything remember? What I said was merely that your tactics could be countered and all it would take is a very dedicated attacker. Which surprisingly, two other pro-ganker posters have admitted to in this thread, but that you refuse to.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Pathetic. Even Lucas, as banal as he is, is better than this.
You don't head warnings very well do you?
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
200
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 14:52:35 -
[1237] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:See I keep track of everything remember? What I said was merely that your tactics could be countered and all it would take is a very dedicated attacker. Which surprisingly, two other pro-ganker posters have admitted to in this thread, but that you refuse to.
Did they say what the strategy was? I've been thinking about ways you could reliably kill a tanked, escorted freighter and have been coming up with nothing.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
864
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 15:10:00 -
[1238] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:See I keep track of everything remember? What I said was merely that your tactics could be countered and all it would take is a very dedicated attacker. Which surprisingly, two other pro-ganker posters have admitted to in this thread, but that you refuse to. Did they say what the strategy was? I've been thinking about ways you could reliably kill a tanked, escorted freighter and have been coming up with nothing.
You wouldn't have to kill the escort, just negate it in some way. For instance, a cheap little Griffin built for spead and fast locking could throw a wrench in the mix for any webber or logi the freighter has with them (in theory, at least) In any scenario, however, it would be more efficient to leave the escorted freighter alone and save your efforts for the un-escorted one coming right behind it.
Yesterday was the first time I ever considered adding a jammer to a gank fleet, so the idea is probably full of holes. And as I don't organize or usually participate in gank fleets, I'm not the most qualified to speak on the subject. But I like trying to think up solutions to problems and that was just the first place my mind went on how to deal with the problem of a freighter escort. Take it as you will.
Vote Sabriz!
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 15:10:29 -
[1239] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Did they say what the strategy was? I've been thinking about ways you could reliably kill a tanked, escorted freighter and have been coming up with nothing.
Ned Thomas wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:
The counter to a webbing dramiel is not a gank catalyst or thrasher =/= there is no counter to a webbing dramiel
I agree. So, if as you say there is a counter to everything, then prove you can counter this tactic. Off the top of my head, something fast with a sensor boost, sensor damp or ECM, and scram. It would add to the time frame you have to take the freighter down. There would be ways for the drami pilot to mitigate that threat, and there would be ways to counter that counter to the original counter that countered the first counter.
This is what we have so far, though I will refrain from commenting on the efficiency of this and will leave that to the "experts". |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11759
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 16:08:10 -
[1240] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
This is what we have so far, though I will refrain from commenting on the efficiency of this and will leave that to the "experts".
If you had only had this thought before posting in this thread in the first place.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11759
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 16:10:33 -
[1241] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Are you going to continue arguing that your tactics have no counter, or are you going to admit that there is at least one scenario where they can be thus proving that ganks are not 100% avoidable outside of not doing anything in game.
Regardless of whether the specific tactic of webbing a freighter into warp is counterable or not (it is), that does not change the fact that being ganked is 100% avoidable. Those two things are not contradictory.
If you are ganked in highsec, it is your own fault. Period.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 16:43:57 -
[1242] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Regardless of whether the specific tactic of webbing a freighter into warp is counterable or not (it is),
Then please provide a counter for the webbing of a freighter.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If you are ganked in highsec, it is your own fault. Period.
The actions of others are never your fault. Period.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 16:47:22 -
[1243] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If you had only had this thought before posting in this thread in the first place.
Funny, considering none of what I originally posted would necessitate me to be an expert on ganking considering I made no comments about how to do it, counter it, or anything related to why people do it, or how they should.
|
Mag's
the united
19019
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 17:03:07 -
[1244] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Regardless of whether the specific tactic of webbing a freighter into warp is counterable or not (it is),
Then please provide a counter for the webbing of a freighter. Kill the webber.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 17:15:38 -
[1245] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Kill the webber.
Apparently you aren't an expert on ganking or counter ganking since this very suggestion was offered to Kaarous Aldurald and yet he labeled it as moronic. |
Mag's
the united
19019
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 17:28:49 -
[1246] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Mag's wrote:Kill the webber. Apparently you aren't an expert on ganking or counter ganking since this very suggestion was offered to Kaarous Aldurald and yet he labeled it as moronic. Well in a way it is moronic, because why bother when there are far more easier targets around?
Which is kind of the point, as gankers will inevitably go for the easy prey. Which leads to the point that ganks are I would suggest, almost 100% avoidable. I say almost, because there is always an exception.
One being that you are a paid for target, then it becomes more of a contract thing.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9770
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 18:41:06 -
[1247] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Are you going to continue arguing that your tactics have no counter, or are you going to admit that there is at least one scenario where they can be thus proving that ganks are not 100% avoidable outside of not doing anything in game.
Regardless of whether the specific tactic of webbing a freighter into warp is counterable or not (it is), that does not change the fact that being ganked is 100% avoidable. Those two things are not contradictory. If you are ganked in highsec, it is your own fault. Period.
People like this cling to a corner of an idea (in this case, the idea that a gank cannot be avoided) because deep down they know that if they accept the actual truth, not even their lie-happy way of thinking will save them from being wrong.
Somehow I've flown industrial, shiny incursion ships (5+ bil vindicator for example), freighters, a jump freighter, and my mission pirate battleships and marauders for 8 years and haven't been ganked, but according to some, that's not even possible. If they let go of the lies they tell themselves and embrace just a fraction of creative thought and self reliance, there'd never be a problem. But for some reason, they can't and that's crazy to me. |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 18:48:55 -
[1248] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
People like this cling to a corner of an idea (in this case, the idea that a gank cannot be avoided) because deep down they know that if they accept the actual truth, not even their lie-happy way of thinking will save them from being wrong.
I really do find it amazing how people can be so utterly ridiculous in their assumptions of how or why other people think the way they do.
Jenn aSide wrote:
Somehow I've flown industrial, shiny incursion ships (5+ bil vindicator for example), freighters, a jump freighter, and my mission pirate battleships and marauders for 8 years and haven't been ganked,
Great. Me too. I guess that means we both get a cookie.
Jenn aSide wrote:
If they let go of the lies they tell themselves and embrace just a fraction of creative thought and self reliance, there'd never be a problem. But for some reason, they can't and that's crazy to me.
Maybe it would help to let go of the lies you believe of other people as well? |
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
201
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 19:11:27 -
[1249] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
Did they say what the strategy was? I've been thinking about ways you could reliably kill a tanked, escorted freighter and have been coming up with nothing.
Ned Thomas wrote:Off the top of my head, something fast with a sensor boost, sensor damp or ECM, and scram. It would add to the time frame you have to take the freighter down. There would be ways for the drami pilot to mitigate that threat, and there would be ways to counter that counter to the original counter that countered the first counter. This is what we have so far, though I will refrain from commenting on the efficiency of this and will leave that to the "experts".
I'd considered various ewar and nothing would be effective.
Damps with resolution scripts will only work if you react to, lock and begin damps before the webber even begins lcking the freighter plus, consider the freighter's size it's unlikely you'll have any impact before he gains a lock.
Damps with range scripts are easily countered with sebos. Considering that you're really going to be trying to get the webber below 10km targeting range to have any notable effect I can't say this is a decent strategy.
ECM on a bonused ship would be effective, particularly when combined with a space yurt to allow the pilot to quickly switch his fit as scouts provide intel on the webber target. The trouble with this is that there'll be a bonused ship with a space yurt hanging around the gate - a huge telltale sign that a potential webber counter is in play. Not only this, but the ship must survive for long enough for the bumpers to start doing their thing. Frigates don't have a great life expectancy when up against gate guns.
Anything with a cloak to prevent giving the game away isn't goin g to help thanks to targeting delay and the fact that cloaky ships have dire tanks (plus it's kinda pricey to suicide such a ship just for an opportunity to suicide gank).
Here's a real oddball solution:
[Sigil - LOLtackle]
800mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
400mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Emergency Damage Control I
Experimental Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane I
Prototype Armor Kinetic Hardener I
Prototype Armor Explosive Hardener I
Initiated Warp Disruptor I
Conjunctive Radar ECCM Scanning Array I
Alumel-Wired Sensor Augmentation,Scan Resolution Script
Alumel-Wired Sensor Augmentation,Scan Resolution Script
280mm Howitzer Artillery I,EMP S
Use it to just plain tackle the frieghter. It's cheap and has a massive tank for the price tag. Easy to fit. Capstable until you need the disruptor. Strong vs ECM (you can swap out an ECCM for another sebo if desired). Doesn't raise suspicion, being a hauler.
The downsides are really quite numerous. This just gives you a chance to establish bump-tackle, nothing more. It's also a pain the behind to manage the kill rights and your sec status which will need to be high enough so that you're not forced to deal with FacPo.
To be frank, Mag's has already perfectly stated why this solution isn't feasible either: " why bother when there are far more easier targets around?"
The targets this ship can help bring down are smarter than your average freighter pilot. They not only have over twice the EHP and an escort, but they won't have overstuffed their ship with goodies either. The result is significantly more effort to try and get a reward that in all likelihood, isn't as high as what you'd get from your average autopiloting moron.
It's all very well and good to say that this might actually help kill a safely flown freighter, but the fact of the matter is, there are always going to be morons out there that are much more profitable to shoot and easier to kill.
Valterra Craven wrote:The actions of others are never your fault. Period.
This is a PvP game. Someone saw you'd made a mistake and killed you. Do better and it won't happen.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 19:16:43 -
[1250] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
This is a PvP game.
Yes
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Someone saw you'd made a mistake and killed you.
No. Someone saw that you could be killed and decided to kill you. Being killable is not in and of itself a "mistake".
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Do better and it won't happen.
Maybe.
|
|
|
Paranoid Loyd
3871
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 21:28:25 -
[1251] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Being killable is not in and of itself a "mistake".
If your goal is to not die, then yes it is.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 21:36:47 -
[1252] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Being killable is not in and of itself a "mistake".
If your goal is to not die, then yes it is.
Considering there is nothing in this game that is player controlled that isn't unkillable, your point is pretty meaningless.
|
Paranoid Loyd
3872
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 22:11:37 -
[1253] - Quote
You're the one who wants to speak in black and white when the reality is everything is a shade of gray.
We all know nothing is 100%, it's a state of mind, not an actual thing.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
201
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 22:14:17 -
[1254] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:We all know nothing is 100%, it's a state of mind, not an actual thing.
Oh, so very zen.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 22:17:28 -
[1255] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:You're the one who wants to speak in black and white
How so? |
Paranoid Loyd
3872
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 22:24:31 -
[1256] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:You're the one who wants to speak in black and white How so?
Valterra Craven wrote:Considering there is nothing in this game that is player controlled that is unkillable, your point is pretty meaningless.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 22:43:27 -
[1257] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:You're the one who wants to speak in black and white How so? Valterra Craven wrote:Considering there is nothing in this game that is player controlled that is unkillable, your point is pretty meaningless.
Quoting my words doesn't really explain anything. Besides aren't you guys the ones trying to paint everything in black in white? IE if you die its your fault? Seems pretty black and white to me. |
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
201
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 22:45:04 -
[1258] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:You're the one who wants to speak in black and white How so? Valterra Craven wrote:Considering there is nothing in this game that is player controlled that is unkillable, your point is pretty meaningless. Quoting my words doesn't really explain anything. Besides aren't you guys the ones trying to paint everything in black in white? IE if you die its your fault? Seems pretty black and white to me.
That's the nature of the game. You have the tools to defend yourself. Failure to do so is no one's fault but your own.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Paranoid Loyd
3875
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 22:51:52 -
[1259] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Quoting my words doesn't really explain anything.
It does if you actually think for yourself. But you have continually demonstrated that you refuse to do this.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
866
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 23:58:24 -
[1260] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:You're the one who wants to speak in black and white How so? Valterra Craven wrote:Considering there is nothing in this game that is player controlled that is unkillable, your point is pretty meaningless. Quoting my words doesn't really explain anything. Besides aren't you guys the ones trying to paint everything in black in white? IE if you die its your fault? Seems pretty black and white to me.
The point of pretty much every game ever is for you to lose. You are supposed to be checkmated in chess. The ball is supposed to fly past your paddle in pong. Mario is supposed to fall down the hole. The cake is supposed to be a lie. The zombies are supposed to eat you. Being successful in a game is doing whatever you can to not lose.
In Eve, you are supposed to die. It is your job to prevent the loss, and if you don't, there is no one to blame but yourself.. Killing things is optional.
(unless all you do is trade and industry, in which case your goods are not supposed to sell and not doing what it takes to sell them is also your fault)
Vote Sabriz!
|
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11765
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 00:44:57 -
[1261] - Quote
Hiasa Kite almost has it figured out, although it's eluded the carebear still, so far.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 02:04:53 -
[1262] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
It does if you actually think for yourself but you have continually demonstrated that you refuse to do this.
You mean like how people of the opposing side incessantly come up with the same stupid arguments that are completely hypocritical?
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 02:05:43 -
[1263] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Hiasa Kite almost has it figured out, although it's eluded the carebear still, so far.
Well I see you still haven't figured out to how to make an actual argument other than to say "carebear bad!". |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 02:08:27 -
[1264] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:
The point of pretty much every game ever is for you to lose. You are supposed to be checkmated in chess. The ball is supposed to fly past your paddle in pong. Mario is supposed to fall down the hole. The cake is supposed to be a lie. The zombies are supposed to eat you. Being successful in a game is doing whatever you can to not lose.
In Eve, you are supposed to die. It is your job to prevent the loss, and if you don't, there is no one to blame but yourself.. Killing things is optional.
(unless all you do is trade and industry, in which case your goods are not supposed to sell and not doing what it takes to sell them is also your fault)
That is an incredibly sad (and rather narrow) definition of "game".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/game
"a physical or mental activity or contest that has rules and that people do for pleasure"
Last part is pretty important there. |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 02:10:21 -
[1265] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
You have the tools to defend yourself. Failure to do so is no one's fault but your own.
And attacking other players is no ones fault but the attacker. |
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
867
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 02:12:51 -
[1266] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:
The point of pretty much every game ever is for you to lose. You are supposed to be checkmated in chess. The ball is supposed to fly past your paddle in pong. Mario is supposed to fall down the hole. The cake is supposed to be a lie. The zombies are supposed to eat you. Being successful in a game is doing whatever you can to not lose.
In Eve, you are supposed to die. It is your job to prevent the loss, and if you don't, there is no one to blame but yourself.. Killing things is optional.
(unless all you do is trade and industry, in which case your goods are not supposed to sell and not doing what it takes to sell them is also your fault)
That is an incredibly sad (and rather narrow) definition of "game". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/game
"a physical or mental activity or contest that has rules and that people do for pleasure" Last part is pretty important there.
Webster's is a very simplistic way to approach a word.
You are supposed to fail games. That's what they are designed for. The pleasure comes in being able to not fail at it.
Vote Sabriz!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11765
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 02:17:31 -
[1267] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Hiasa Kite almost has it figured out, although it's eluded the carebear still, so far. Well I see you still haven't figured out to how to make an actual argument other than to say "carebear bad!".
Still got nothing, huh?
That's okay though, I didn't expect any better.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 02:24:38 -
[1268] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Still got nothing, huh?
If I still have nothing then at least we are on even terms.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
That's okay though, I didn't expect any better.
Right back at ya.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 02:26:43 -
[1269] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:
Webster's is a very simplistic way to approach a word.
So your answer is to define a word even more simply?
Ned Thomas wrote:
You are supposed to fail games. That's what they are designed for. The pleasure comes in being able to not fail at it.
No. You are supposed to have fun in games. Otherwise there'd be no point. How or where the fun is derived is irrelevant. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11765
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 02:33:36 -
[1270] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
If I still have nothing then at least we are on even terms.
That's not how this works.
Are you at least going to try and figure out how webbing a freighter can be countered? Or just complain?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
869
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 02:34:37 -
[1271] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:You are supposed to have fun in games
No you aren't. Purely speaking, the enjoyment of the contestant has nothing to do with the design of the game. The game is created, and then those that find the challenge enjoyable seek it out.
Also, purely speaking words are just placeholders for concepts. It is simplistic to run to a standardized definition for a word than may have broad meanings when taken in different contexts. That's one of my favorite aspects of language, so don't get me started on it because I WILL write out essays on that arguement
Vote Sabriz!
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
203
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 02:35:57 -
[1272] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
You have the tools to defend yourself. Failure to do so is no one's fault but your own.
And attacking other players is no ones fault but the attacker.
Implying that PvPing in a PvP game is a fault.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 02:40:37 -
[1273] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
That's not how this works.
Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that the "meta-game" had such strict "rules".
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Are you at least going to try and figure out how webbing a freighter can be countered?
Why would I do that? You guys claim that education is the answer and that everyone else whose a carebear doesn't know what they are talking about. So please, by all means, educate!
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Or just complain?
Complain? What would I have to complain about?
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 02:41:35 -
[1274] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Implying that PvPing in a PvP game is a fault.
Implying that a Playstyle in a game is valid/invalid is a fault.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
203
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 02:44:11 -
[1275] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
Implying that PvPing in a PvP game is a fault.
Implying that a Playstyle in a game is valid/invalid is a fault.
You're not even making sense any more.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11765
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 02:45:47 -
[1276] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Why would I do that?
And once again, you admit you're trolling.
Quote:You guys claim that education is the answer and that everyone else whose a carebear doesn't know what they are talking about. So please, by all means, educate!
No. You fully deserve to wallow in ignorance and loss.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 02:46:37 -
[1277] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:
No you aren't.
I think even CCP Devs would disagree with this.
Ned Thomas wrote:
Purely speaking, the enjoyment of the contestant has nothing to do with the design of the game. The game is created, and then those that find the challenge enjoyable seek it out.
Purely speaking, the enjoyment of the contestant has everything to do with the design of the game. The game is created, and those that find it enjoyable play it. Think of it this way, why do so many MMO's fail and others succeed? Because either enough people find them enjoyable, or not enough do.
Ned Thomas wrote:Also, purely speaking words are just placeholders for concepts. It is simplistic to run to a standardized definition for a word than may have broad meanings when taken in different contexts. That's one of my favorite aspects of language, so don't get me started on it because I WILL write out essays on that arguement
You can write all the essay's you want, and while some of they may be interesting to read, thats not really the point of the discussion.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 02:47:36 -
[1278] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
You're not even making sense any more.
Lol, that would imply I ever made sense...
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11765
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 02:49:07 -
[1279] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
You're not even making sense any more.
Lol, that would imply I ever made sense...
And yet another admission that you're only here to troll.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 02:49:09 -
[1280] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And once again, you admit you're trolling.
And once again, you admit that you have no argument.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No. You fully deserve to wallow in ignorance and loss.
That's fine, you have every right to be counterproductive to your stated aims. I have no problems taking my ignorance and lack of loss to the bank. |
|
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 02:50:05 -
[1281] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And yet another admission that you're only here to troll.
If I was trolling how would that be any different than what you are doing? Also if I was trolling, at least I could admit so.
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
870
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 02:54:32 -
[1282] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:
No you aren't.
I think even CCP Devs would disagree with this. Ned Thomas wrote:
Purely speaking, the enjoyment of the contestant has nothing to do with the design of the game. The game is created, and then those that find the challenge enjoyable seek it out.
Purely speaking, the enjoyment of the contestant has everything to do with the design of the game. The game is created, and those that find it enjoyable play it. Think of it this way, why do so many MMO's fail and others succeed? Because either enough people find them enjoyable, or not enough do.
If CCP Devs did disagree with it, it would be on the basis of comercial success for a game, which we are not discussing. You're second point was a restatement of what I said, with an additional statement related to commercial success.
Enjoyment is not part of game design. It's a by-product.
Vote Sabriz!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11765
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 02:54:46 -
[1283] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
And once again, you admit that you have no argument.
I do, you're just ignoring it because it doesn't fit with your skewed view of how this game works.
Ganks are avoidable. Period. If someone gets ganked, it is their own fault.
If you can't wrap your head around that truth, that is your problem.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:01:23 -
[1284] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:
If CCP Devs did disagree with it, it would be on the basis of comercial success for a game, which we are not discussing.
Except that statement is completely backwards. Commercial success is driven by how much people enjoy a game. How much people enjoy a game is completely dependent on how well the game's mechanics were crafted to make that happen.
Ned Thomas wrote:
Enjoyment is not part of game design. It's a by-product.
I disagree.
But as you guys like to argue, are you a "game designer"? If so what credits do you have to your name? Were they successes or failures? |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:05:09 -
[1285] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
you're just ignoring it because it doesn't fit with your skewed view of how this game works.
That's an interesting take, given that it's a complete assumption considering I've neither directly nor indirectly spoken to how I think this game works or doesn't work.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Ganks are avoidable. Period.
Yup.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If someone gets ganked, it is their own fault.
Nope.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If you can't wrap your head around that truth, that is your problem.
Well given that you are here arguing about it, it would seem that you've made it your problem as well.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11765
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:07:29 -
[1286] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If someone gets ganked, it is their own fault.
Nope.
Still yep. If it could have been avoided, but wasn't, the fault lies with the person failing at evasion.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:09:33 -
[1287] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Still yep. If it could have been avoided, but wasn't, the fault lies with the person failing at evasion.
Still nope. If it could have been avoided, but wasn't, the fault lies with the person pulling the trigger. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11765
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:14:27 -
[1288] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Still yep. If it could have been avoided, but wasn't, the fault lies with the person failing at evasion.
Still nope. If it could have been avoided, but wasn't, the fault lies with the person pulling the trigger.
Not true, because PvP is a valid playstyle.
Failing to defend yourself is not a valid playstyle.
Ergo, the fault lies with the person failing to defend themselves, and no one else.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:16:56 -
[1289] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
because PvP is a valid playstyle.
Yup.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Failing to defend yourself is not a valid playstyle.
Nope.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Ergo, the fault lies with the person failing to defend themselves, and no one else.
The fault always and will forever lie with the aggressor. This has been true since before Eve, and this will be true well after Eve is long gone.
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
870
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:19:24 -
[1290] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:
If CCP Devs did disagree with it, it would be on the basis of comercial success for a game, which we are not discussing.
Except that statement is completely backwards. Commercial success is driven by how much people enjoy a game. How much people enjoy a game is completely dependent on how well the game's mechanics were crafted to make that happen. Ned Thomas wrote:
Enjoyment is not part of game design. It's a by-product.
I disagree. But as you guys like to argue, are you a "game designer"? If so what credits do you have to your name? Were they successes or failures?
Commercial success is dependent on broad enjoyment. Enjoyment is dependent on the way a specific game works. These two concepts are separate.
And yes, I design games as a hobby (was a college major before I switched to linguistics and then dropped out and then went for CAD). Mostly board and card games, never tried my hand at video games. Had a few minor successes financially, but nothing that ever broke the bank. But it's not like I'm trying to quit my day job for it.
Vote Sabriz!
|
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11765
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:20:37 -
[1291] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Nope.
Yes. Being bad at the game is not a valid playstyle.
Quote:
The fault always and will forever lie with the aggressor. This has been true since before Eve, and this will be true well after Eve is long gone.
Nope. Dangle a steak in front of a lion, and the lion will eat it. If he takes your hand too, it's your own fault for dangling a steak in front of a lion.
Fault always lies with those who fail in their own defense. That is a law of nature.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:24:41 -
[1292] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:
Commercial success is dependent on broad enjoyment. Enjoyment is dependent on the way a specific game works. These two concepts are separate.
So if enjoyment is dependent on the way a specific games works, then it follows that the way a specific game would be designed is around people's enjoyment.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:33:01 -
[1293] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Yes. Being bad at the game is not a valid playstyle.
No. Being bad at a game is not a playstyle at all.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Nope. Dangle a steak in front of a lion, and the lion will eat it. If he takes your hand too, it's your own fault for dangling a steak in front of a lion.
Except, your argument, taken to its logical conclusion, is that the victim is always at fault. Which has never been a valid argument in any context, regardless of how weak or strong the victim is. Otherwise a hole host of atrocities committed by humanity wouldn't actually be deemed atrocities. The fact that the realm that we are discussing is a virtual one doesn't negate this simple fact.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Fault always lies with those who fail in their own defense. That is a law of nature.
I guess its a good thing that man isn't governed by laws of nature then. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11765
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:35:52 -
[1294] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Except, your argument, taken to its logical conclusion, is that the victim is always at fault.
And in a videogame in general, and EVE Online in particular, this is the truth of the matter.
Defend yourself, or die.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:38:14 -
[1295] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And in a videogame in general, and EVE Online in particular, this is the truth of the matter.
Defend yourself, or die.
And yet the game has mechanics like concord deeming that the aggressors are at fault and are killed.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11765
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:40:34 -
[1296] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And in a videogame in general, and EVE Online in particular, this is the truth of the matter.
Defend yourself, or die.
And yet the game has mechanics like concord deeming that the aggressors are at fault and are killed.
No, merely consequences. The only one at fault is the one who died an easily preventable death.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:41:36 -
[1297] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No, merely consequences.
Because consequences denote something other than fault? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11765
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:50:07 -
[1298] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No, merely consequences.
Because consequences denote something other than fault?
Of course.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:52:39 -
[1299] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Of course.
Oh, right, I forgot. |
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
870
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:53:38 -
[1300] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:
Commercial success is dependent on broad enjoyment. Enjoyment is dependent on the way a specific game works. These two concepts are separate.
So if enjoyment is dependent on the way a specific games works, then it follows that the way a specific game would be designed is around people's enjoyment.
Not in the slightest. The game is designed to be a challenge in some way. Whether or not people enjoy that challenge is an entirely different consideration.
Vote Sabriz!
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:58:44 -
[1301] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote: The game is designed to be a challenge in some way.
And the challenge is designed to be fun.
Ned Thomas wrote:
Whether or not people enjoy that challenge is an entirely different consideration.
Whether or not people enjoy the challenge is the vast majority of the consideration. Challenges are not made to be challenging based solely on the sake of challenges. |
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
872
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 04:00:47 -
[1302] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Ned Thomas wrote: The game is designed to be a challenge in some way. And the challenge is designed to be fun. Ned Thomas wrote:
Whether or not people enjoy that challenge is an entirely different consideration.
Whether or not people enjoy the challenge is the vast majority of the consideration.
The challenge is not intended to be fun. It is intended to be challenging.
Enjoyment is not a consideration that affects game design. I can't make that any plainer.
Vote Sabriz!
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 04:14:37 -
[1303] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:
The challenge is not intended to be fun. It is intended to be challenging.
People don't play things solely because they are challenging. Challenges derive no meaning without enjoyment.
Ned Thomas wrote:
Enjoyment is not a consideration that affects game design. I can't make that any plainer.
And I disagree with you. I can't make that any plainer.
And to be honest, I think anyone that's researched Game Design disagrees with you.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDkQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FTilo_Hartmann%2Fpublication%2F220851167_Explaining_the_enjoyment_of_playing_video_games_the_role_of_competition%2Flinks%2F0fcfd510037a364d8c000000.pdf&ei=N8neVI3KKIupyQTKuIHICg&usg=AFQjCNFV81uGW81LufeHHDCkivi0uSlcZw&sig2=pMrKyNi7xKzqAH3c7a8ubA
"a result which influences the enjoyment felt by the player and the configuration of the subsequent situation."
http://blog.artillery.com/2014/07/game-design-101.html
"But the goal of a designer is to create fun. " |
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
872
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 04:23:03 -
[1304] - Quote
Everything you just said and linked is not wrong. You've hit rock bottom on your arguments and are desperate. Just give up.
The enjoyment of the contender is a by-product of the challenge created in a game. Period.
Vote Sabriz!
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 04:30:26 -
[1305] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:You've hit rock bottom on your arguments and are desperate.
Me thinks you doth protest too much. If I'm the one that's hit rock bottom, why am I still countering your arguments?
Ned Thomas wrote:
Just give up.
This works both ways.
Ned Thomas wrote:
The enjoyment of the contender is a by-product of the challenge created in a game. Period.
You guys sure do like to use the word "period" a lot. I'd like to note that I don't disagree with this sentence. My point is that the challenge is not created for the sake of it. Its created so that the by product of enjoyment happens. Fun is one of the biggest factors that challenges are designed around. If it wasn't fun there'd be no point.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11765
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 04:32:28 -
[1306] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: Its created so that the by product of enjoyment happens.
Nope. They were created to pass the time, originally.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 04:34:34 -
[1307] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Nope. They were created to pass the time, originally.
And what is the most efficient way to pass the time: fun.
Also just so we are clear on why this a point I'm debating so fiercely and to tie everything back together: (from my first post in this thread)
Valterra Craven wrote:
The second problem I have with your premise is that transporting in Eve already isn't "fun". (I'm not sure who would make the argument that moving anything around in a freighter is fun, but I'm sure someone is going to try anyway) So again if "realism" should have no part of an internet spaceship game, then why shouldn't fun enter the equation? (Unless we also need to look up what the point/definition of a "game" is). Anyway, does it make any sense that the game mechanics should necessitate group play to do some of the most basic and tedious tasks that should all rights be confined to a single player/character? Because based off your reasoning, needing an escort just to move things around in space is going to make the game pretty boring for more people than it should, and if that's the case, then what is the point of it? This is especially true since the whole point of an escort is to AVOID fights.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
205
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 11:29:15 -
[1308] - Quote
"The second problem I have with your premise is that transporting in Eve already isn't "fun"."
What dev-implemented goal in EVE Online can be considered fun? Mission running has a novelty value while a player learns the ropes, but the become quite repetetive. Exploration has a nice mini-game which holds entertainment value for a while but it's a mini-game, a small amount of entertainment offered as part of a larger package. Mining? Heh, yeah, like anyone has fun mining.
Name any spaceborne money-making profession and you've got a boring game, that is until you consider the element of PvP. That's when they become fun. The knowledge that you're progressing and you're succeeding at stopping those trying to get in your way is quite intoxicating.
"So again if "realism" should have no part of an internet spaceship game, then why shouldn't fun enter the equation?"
As above.
It's not like CCP have said "OK, let's bore our players to death while they try to make money". They rely on us entertaining each other while using the tools they've provided us to do so. Like any MMO, they benefit from players remaining online longer than they would normally play a game to give us a great an oportunity to interact with each other as possible. Creating a sufficient amount of content, particularly when operating at an MMO's tick rate (in EVE's case, it crawls along at 1Hz) compared to most games' 60Hz is, from what I've seen from every MMO to date, an impossibility.
The game's entertainment value is derived from us being online to interact with each other.
"Anyway, does it make any sense that the game mechanics should necessitate group play to do some of the most basic and tedious tasks that should all rights be confined to a single player/character?"
I'm not aware of any basic task requiring more than one player. Do you consider flying billions of ISK worth of ship and cargo to be a "basic" task? Flying from system to system is basic (in EVE - hardly a trival real-life activity), but the cargo makes things that much more complicated.
"Because based off your reasoning, needing an escort just to move things around in space is going to make the game pretty boring for more people than it should, and if that's the case, then what is the point of it? This is especially true since the whole point of an escort is to AVOID fights."
Money. It would be nice if flying stuff through space were more interesting an fun, but not at the expense of the core game play. By all means, please suggest ways to make haulage more fun that doesn't excessively impact players' ability to interact with them.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
377
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 11:50:49 -
[1309] - Quote
Quote:5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.
I have removed several posts.
ISD Decoy
Commander
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 15:12:11 -
[1310] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
What dev-implemented goal in EVE Online can be considered fun? Mission running has a novelty value while a player learns the ropes, but the become quite repetetive. Exploration has a nice mini-game which holds entertainment value for a while but it's a mini-game, a small amount of entertainment offered as part of a larger package. Mining? Heh, yeah, like anyone has fun mining.
If the problem is that no space-born money making activity can be defined fun, then answer is not to make them less fun.
Hiasa Kite wrote:I'm not aware of any basic task requiring more than one player. Do you consider flying billions of ISK worth of ship and cargo to be a "basic" task? Flying from system to system is basic (in EVE - hardly a trival real-life activity), but the cargo makes things that much more complicated.
Well I guess that depends on who you ask what is and is not required. Because according to gankers the basic task of flying things from point a to point be in mostly safe space is required to have at least 2 characters. As to your point about isk, the relative value of a ship is not something that is a balance point remember? If carebears can't argue that a billion dollar ship should be able to defend against 600mil in cats, then conversely you can't make the argument that flying billions of isk of anything is not basic. (Also hauling things in real life is trivial depending on the destination. Goods from LA to Dallas, trivial. Goods from LA to middle of the Yukon, not so trivial). The only problem with your analogy is that in real life cargo scanners don't exist. So unless pirates are going to infiltrate organizations to learn about cargo values and cargo scanners go away then your point is kinda disingenuous.
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Money. It would be nice if flying stuff through space were more interesting an fun, but not at the expense of the core game play.
I agree. |
|
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
206
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 16:43:04 -
[1311] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
What dev-implemented goal in EVE Online can be considered fun? Mission running has a novelty value while a player learns the ropes, but the become quite repetetive. Exploration has a nice mini-game which holds entertainment value for a while but it's a mini-game, a small amount of entertainment offered as part of a larger package. Mining? Heh, yeah, like anyone has fun mining.
If the problem is that no space-born money making activity can be defined fun, then answer is not to make them less fun.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. I've never suggested "bearish" game play should be less fun.
Quote:Well I guess that depends on who you ask what is and is not required. Because according to gankers the basic task of flying things from point a to point be in mostly safe space is required to have at least 2 characters.
Does it? An escort is recommended for a multi billion ISK cargo but for lesser value hauls, a tank fit should suffice.
Quote:As to your point about isk, the relative value of a ship is not something that is a balance point remember?
The price of a ship doesn't impact balance, it does however reflect what players expect to gain from it. Paying a billion ISK for a ship means you expect to gain more from that ship than say, a 10million ISK ship.
Quote:If carebears can't argue that a billion dollar ship should be able to defend against 600mil in cats, then conversely you can't make the argument that flying billions of isk of anything is not basic.
Why not? The ship is worth a billion ISK because of its immense cargo hold, not its combat capability.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
206
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 16:45:07 -
[1312] - Quote
Quote:(Also hauling things in real life is trivial depending on the destination. Goods from LA to Dallas, trivial. Goods from LA to middle of the Yukon, not so trivial).
Transporting something the size of a shoebox, even internationally is easy compared to say, moving a whole house a mere mile down the road.
Quote:The only problem with your analogy is that in real life cargo scanners don't exist.
Eyes do as does organised crime. "That multimillion dollar cargo is on the move, heading on this route with that number plate".
Quote:So unless pirates are going to infiltrate organizations to learn about cargo values and cargo scanners go away then your point is kinda disingenuous.
Cargo scanners won't be removed. Unlike in real life it's easy to ensure spies don't know where or when a valuable cargo is being moved. Thanks to double wraps, it's impossible for a spy to know which ship a given cargo is on.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11776
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 00:05:04 -
[1313] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:The only problem with your analogy is that in real life cargo scanners don't exist.
... you must be kidding me.
Never heard of a shipping manifest?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 01:47:53 -
[1314] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Does it? An escort is recommended for a multi billion ISK cargo but for lesser value hauls, a tank fit should suffice.
Well given that CODE ganks semi indiscriminately that would not be the case. This is especially true given the pro gankers arguments of
If you die it was your fault
If you die it was because you did something wrong
And doing something wrong/ being bad at the game isn't a valid playstyle.
Therefore, in order for you not to be playing bad/invalidly an escort is required.
Given that codes does kill completely empty ships then the cargo amount is irrelevant.
Hiasa Kite wrote:
It does however reflect what players expect to gain from it. Paying a billion ISK for a ship means you expect to gain more from that ship than say, a 10million ISK ship.
I agree with this. The problem is that compared to industrails or transport ships that the freighter's costs in no way reflects the actual value of the ship. Put another way, you are easily going to recoup the investment from buying a Navy scorp in a short amount of time, where an investment in a freighter means that you will likely quit the game before you ever see a good ROI.
Hiasa Kite wrote:
The ship is worth a billion ISK because of its immense cargo hold, not its combat capability.
The ship is worth a billion isk because of its immense build cost, not because of its capabilities.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 01:53:18 -
[1315] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Transporting something the size of a shoebox, even internationally is easy compared to say, moving a whole house a mere mile down the road.
True. The problem with this argument is that freighters are mostly used for transporting lots of intermediate sized goods rather than "houses".
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Eyes do as does organised crime. "That multimillion dollar cargo is on the move, heading on this route with that number plate"
And espionage is not "free" unlike cargo scanners. Almost all expensive cargo is transported via completely enclosed trucks, and the information on which truck is carrying what doesn't necessarily come cheap.
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Cargo scanners won't be removed.
I know.
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Unlike in real life it's easy to ensure spies don't know where or when a valuable cargo is being moved. Thanks to double wraps, it's impossible for a spy to know which ship a given cargo is on.
If you're a criminal and you are already killing empty transports just because, you don't think you wouldn't kill a ship that has a double wrap just to get a chance at the goods?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11777
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 01:54:08 -
[1316] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:The problem is that compared to industrails or transport ships that the freighter's costs in no way reflects the actual value of the ship.
How so? It can get a quarter of a million hitpoints and still have vastly more cargohold than any other ship class.
If you can't make your money back on that, then you're doing it wrong.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 01:54:28 -
[1317] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
... you must be kidding me.
.... I don't kid.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Never heard of a shipping manifest?
Never heard of bribes? Info aint free and it usually aint cheap either.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11777
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 01:57:11 -
[1318] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:[qu
Never heard of bribes? Info aint free and it usually aint cheap either.
Have you ever investigated a shipping company's manifest data? Or their computer systems? Most of them still use Windows XP for crying out loud, you can hack that with a cell phone.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 01:58:46 -
[1319] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
How so? It can get a quarter of a million hitpoints and still have vastly more cargohold than any other ship class.
No. You only get high HP values if you fit for tank, and then you know what you don't have? A lot of cargo. Or you can fit for cargo and have no tank. Either way, its cost in no way reflects its capabilities.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If you can't make your money back on that, then you're doing it wrong.
I didn't say you couldn't. But if you did it'd likely take you a crap load of time to do so. Or do you have some wonderous math to educate us poor slobs on what the actual ROI of a freighter is based on the average contract? |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 02:00:32 -
[1320] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Have you ever investigated a shipping company's manifest data? Or their computer systems? Most of them still use Windows XP for crying out loud, you can hack that with a cell phone.
Oh so you are an expert on hacking things now? The same people knocking off trucks on the free way are not going to be the same ones hacking computers. Experienced hackers aren't cheap either. But given that I work in IT as a Systems Administrator I don't know anything about the subject... |
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11777
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 02:04:02 -
[1321] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
No. You only get high HP values if you fit for tank, and then you know what you don't have? A lot of cargo. Or you can fit for cargo and have no tank. Either way, its cost in no way reflects its capabilities.
Yeah, it does. It's a capital ship, and it has exponentially better abilities than a regular hauler.
Or have you not figured out yet that cost and abilities don't scale linearly? You know, a basic tenet of EVE's game balance?
Quote:
I didn't say you couldn't.
Yes, you did. You said that you would quit the game before earning it back.
And if that's true, you're doing it hilariously wrong.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11777
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 02:05:58 -
[1322] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:[qu
Oh so you are an expert on hacking things now?
My degree is in cyber security, although I'm also well trained in other communications technology.
Quote:
The same people knocking off trucks on the free way are not going to be the same ones hacking computers.
Yeah, just like how the guy using the cargo scanner isn't going to be shooting the freighter.
Duh.
Quote:
Experienced hackers aren't cheap either.
Yeah, they are. You can buy stolen metadata for fifty bucks these days.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11777
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 02:07:13 -
[1323] - Quote
Are you actually trying to mouth at me about how you're a SysAdmin?
The McDonald's manager of the computing world?
Yeah, okay buddy, you go right on being proud of that.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 02:16:11 -
[1324] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
It's a capital ship
In name only. The only thing making it a cap ship is because of the way its built. Nothing else about the ship is capital.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
and it has exponentially better abilities than a regular hauler.
I disagree. It has a huge cargo hold, yes. What it doesn't have is anything else to write home about. At least regular haulers have "capabilities" ie more than one.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Or have you not figured out yet that cost and abilities don't scale linearly? You know, a basic tenet of EVE's game balance?
I know it well.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Yes, you did. You said that you would quit the game before earning it back.
And people say I have bad reading comprehension.
Valterra wrote:
you will likely quit the game before you ever see a good ROI.
You might want to re-read what was said here. Because what it says is that based on the average amount of time someone gets to play Eve and the amount of time required for hauling involved to make money and the average amount of time a player stays subbed to eve, that player is likely to quit the game before he sees a good ROI on that particular purchase.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11777
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 02:18:02 -
[1325] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
In name only.
And, you know, in the game's database.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 02:18:04 -
[1326] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Yeah, they are. You can buy stolen metadata for fifty bucks these days.
Because meta-data is the hole picture and mobsters are good at deciphering things like that?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11777
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 02:20:29 -
[1327] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Yeah, they are. You can buy stolen metadata for fifty bucks these days.
Because meta-data is the hole picture and mobsters are good at deciphering things like that?
You'd be surprised at how sophisticated criminals are. I wouldn't, because I actually bother to educate myself beyond my cubicle walls.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 02:22:15 -
[1328] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Are you actually trying to mouth at me about how you're a SysAdmin?
Lol, mouth? What are you 22? No, the point that I was making is that I actually had a frame of reference for what I was talking about. One that you hadn't yet offered.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
The McDonald's manager of the computing world?
How you have not been warned for trolling is beyond me.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Yeah, okay buddy, you go right on being proud of that.
Well at least I can be proud of my manners and the way I treat people. (But no I was not offering that tid-bit of personal information as a point of pride, I have far greater things to be proud of than a "job")
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 02:24:08 -
[1329] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You'd be surprised at how sophisticated criminals are. I wouldn't, because I actually bother to educate myself beyond my cubicle walls.
Well given that you'd rather talk about hacking than the more likely threats like Social Engineering, which are much harder to counter, and much cheaper to execute, I don't believe you've shown me that you have. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11777
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 02:26:02 -
[1330] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You'd be surprised at how sophisticated criminals are. I wouldn't, because I actually bother to educate myself beyond my cubicle walls.
Well given that you'd rather talk about hacking than the more likely threats like Social Engineering, which are much harder to counter, and much cheaper to execute, I don't believe you've shown me that you have.
Social Engineering is far, far more likely to be used for identity theft than for theft of corporate data.
That's pretty basic, dude.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 02:26:52 -
[1331] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Social Engineering is far, far more likely to be used for identity theft than for theft of corporate data.
That's pretty basic, dude.
Given that I have several decades of experience stating otherwise. I will have to disagree with you. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11777
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 02:30:15 -
[1332] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Social Engineering is far, far more likely to be used for identity theft than for theft of corporate data.
That's pretty basic, dude.
Given that I have several decades of experience stating otherwise. I will have to disagree with you.
Be my guest, everyone is welcome to be wrong.
But given the numerous, high profile data thefts in the past year or so, it's obvious to anyone who cares to look what the truth of the matter is.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 02:35:24 -
[1333] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
But given the numerous, high profile data thefts in the past year or so, it's obvious to anyone who cares to look what the truth of the matter is.
LOL. No, seriously this made me laugh. Because just about every high profile news story I've seen of the past year like the Target and Home Depot breaches were for what? That's right ,people's personal info. Not for actual corporate data. In fact, the only high profile case that wasn't about that was the recent Sony breach, and even then that wasn't to steal anything for the purpose of monetary gain, given that those were state conducted acts for the name of country. But you know what the most high profile cases of corporate "secrets" were? People employed by the company. No hacking needed. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11778
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 02:42:07 -
[1334] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Because just about every high profile news story I've seen of the past year like the Target and Home Depot breaches were for what? That's right ,people's personal info. Not for actual corporate data.
Stealing a few thousand logins, credit card numbers, etc, is corporate data. Because it's not individual data, but a far larger group held by a *drumroll* corporation!
I mean, Jeez, you don't get to redefine things just to suit you.
Quote:
In fact, the only high profile case that wasn't about that was the recent Sony breach, and even then that wasn't to steal anything for the purpose of monetary gain, given that those were state conducted acts for the name of country.
There goes your credibility.
The Sony hack was not, in fact, by North Korea. They don't have anything close to the internet backbone required to download that much data in the timeframe.
Sony is now widely believed to have been an inside job, by someone who had given themselves access they weren't supposed to have.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 03:09:59 -
[1335] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Stealing a few thousand logins, credit card numbers, etc, is corporate data. Because it's not individual data, but a far larger group held by a *drumroll* corporation!
And you know what individual data is not? Shipping manifests. Your point was that hacks were primarily used to steal corporate data while social engineering was used to steal info for identity theft. But given that a vast majority of the high profile hacks recently were to steal data for identity theft and not for you know "corporate secrets" then you are flat out wrong.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I mean, Jeez, you don't get to redefine things just to suit you.
You mean like you just did?
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
There goes your credibility.
The Sony hack was not, in fact, by North Korea. They don't have anything close to the internet backbone required to download that much data in the timeframe.
Sony is now widely believed to have been an inside job, by someone who had given themselves access they weren't supposed to have.
So what you are saying is that I've kept my credibility while you've lost yours? My point was that high profile hacks are not widely used to steal data like shipping manifests or other corporate secrets but instead are more likely to be committed by people looking for info used in identity theft. The Sony example given the data you are arguing perfectly proves my point. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11778
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 03:24:07 -
[1336] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Your point was that hacks were primarily used to steal corporate data while social engineering was used to steal info for identity theft.
You claimed that social engineering is used to steal corporate data, and you lied. I said that social engineering is most often for identity theft, and that is the truth.
That doesn't mean that other things aren't also used for identity theft too. But individual data in extremely large collections is corporate data when it's held by a corporation.
Quote:
But given that a vast majority of the high profile hacks recently were to steal data for identity theft and not for you know "corporate secrets" then you are flat out wrong.
I did not say "corporate secrets", that's just you making up a strawman because you have no actual argument.
Quote:
My point was that high profile hacks are not widely used to steal data like shipping manifests or other corporate secrets but instead are more likely to be committed by people looking for info used in identity theft.
And you're still arguing against a strawman. All I said was that you can hack shipping manifests easily, in counter to your lying about how apparently there is no real world analogy to cargo scanners.
This whole thing started with you lying. Again.
Stop lying.
Quote:
The Sony example given the data you are arguing perfectly proves my point.
No, it proved that you get your "facts" from headline news, which explains why you're so very wrong so very often.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
207
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 03:44:19 -
[1337] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Well given that CODE ganks semi indiscriminately that would not be the case.
It does seem that CODE. and friends have started suicide ganking fully tanked freighters. While the last one reported on zkillboard (I'm afraid forum rules forbid me from linking it) was carrying quite an excessive cargo, it seems that they've taken to globbing to further support their shenanigans. Looks like it is indeed unwise to fly a freighter without an escort, to the point where I'd recommend it for anything but an empty freigher (even then, avoid hotspots).
Quote:If you die it was your fault
If you die it was because you did something wrong
These two sentences mean the same thing.
Remember: These statements aren't a commentary on the victim's personality. They're not synonymous with "They deserved it because they didn't try." Those statements mean that the player had a way to avoid harm, but simply failed to act appropriately.
Quote:And doing something wrong/ being bad at the game isn't a valid playstyle.
Invalid? I'm not so sure. I don't think the game should be changed because playing poorly has anfourable consequences. I think the best thing to do if you're playing poorly is to improve.
Quote:The problem is that compared to industrails or transport ships that the freighter's costs in no way reflects the actual value of the ship.
That's not for any one person to decide. You might not feel they're worth that much, but the ~70 people that buy the four standard freighters in Jita alone disagree.
Quote:Put another way, you are easily going to recoup the investment from buying a Navy scorp in a short amount of time, where an investment in a freighter means that you will likely quit the game before you ever see a good ROI.
Looking at the prices for freighter services, I'd estimate that their pilots can make about 100-150mil ISK/hr. Not amazing, considering the investment (not to mention the collateral), so I wouldn't do it. But hey, they've been operating for years, so they must be doing something right.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
207
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 03:50:16 -
[1338] - Quote
Quote:Hiasa Kite wrote:The ship is worth a billion ISK because of its immense cargo hold, not its combat capability. The ship is worth a billion isk because of its immense build cost, not because of its capabilities.
It's worth a billion ISK because players are willing to pay that much. CCP can decide how much work is needed to make any given ship, but they have obsolutely no power to force players to spend anything more on them than they want to.
Valterra Craven wrote:True. The problem with this argument is that freighters are mostly used for transporting lots of intermediate sized goods rather than "houses".
Splitting hairs.
Even a fairly spacious house weighs in at a mere ~20,000m3. The freighter can shift a darn sight more than that!
Quote:If you're a criminal and you are already killing empty transports just because, you don't think you wouldn't kill a ship that has a double wrap just to get a chance at the goods?
Double wrap doesn't work against indiscriminate killers. It does however deal with profit-seeking gankers.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 04:28:50 -
[1339] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:You claimed that social engineering is used to steal corporate data, and you lied. I said that social engineering is most often for identity theft, and that is the truth.
You guys should seriously learn what the meanings of words mean. A. Nothing I've said is a lie. B. Nothing you've said has proven true. In other words, you've listed no concrete high profile cases were hacking was done to steal corporate data of the type that would relate to this particular thread. Nor have you proven that those cases are not indeed edge cases compared to the vast majority of reasons most networks are hacked.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:That doesn't mean that other things aren't also used for identity theft too. But individual data in extremely large collections is corporate data when it's held by a corporation.
I agree with both of these statements. But again, that is not what you were arguing. The point is that corporate espionage done for gaining information on the activities that the company conducts in order to profit from them is not typically done through hacking.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I did not say "corporate secrets", that's just you making up a strawman because you have no actual argument.
No. My argument, given all data available to the general public, still stands. The vast majority of hacks occur to steal personal information in order to resell to be likely used in identity thefts. This is neither or strawman, or insubstantial to your argument as it relates to Eve game play. But you know what people say when they don't have an idea for an actual counter to a claim: "You have no actual argument." If you had valid counters it would be simple to state them instead.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:And you're still arguing against a strawman. All I said was that you can hack shipping manifests easily, in counter to your lying about how apparently there is no real world analogy to cargo scanners.
And you're still not actually countering my argument. Stealing shipping manifests is more expensive and more complicated than the ease in which the game offers this data for free.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Stop lying.
Stop misusing words.
Kaarous Aldurald: "No, it proved that you get your "facts" from headline news, which explains why you're so very wrong so very often. "
No, it proves that I had not bothered to research the case beyond its reported occurrence almost 2 months ago. But nothing explains why you continue to label people instead of actually doing any real work.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11779
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 04:31:55 -
[1340] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:In other words, you've listed no concrete high profile cases were hacking was done to steal corporate data of the type that would relate to this particular thread.
And once again you're just talking to a strawman.
You tried to claim that there is no real life analogy to cargo scanners. (in typical carebear fashion, in which you only want realism that benefits you)
You're wrong. Accept it and admit it.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 04:43:27 -
[1341] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote: They're not synonymous with "They deserved it because they didn't try."
Except that given the context of this thread and everything argued by pro-gankers that they are indeed synonymous with: "They deserved it because they didn't try"
Hiasa Kite wrote:I don't think the game should be changed because playing poorly has anfourable consequences.
Neither do I.
Hiasa Kite wrote:
You might not feel they're worth that much, but the ~70 people that buy the four standard freighters in Jita every day alone disagree.
Maybe, but given that freighters tend to fill very specific roles that no other ship can fill, it really is besides the point how many people buy them every day.
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Looking at the prices for freighter services, I'd estimate that their pilots can make about 100-150mil ISK/hr. Not amazing, considering the investment (not to mention the collateral), so I wouldn't do it. But hey, they've been operating for years, so they must be doing something right.
Given that its roughly about 1mil per jump (I haven't looked at prices today of Red Frog) I don't see how your numbers would make sense. Your estimates don't seem to be accounting for the fact that roughly half the jumps a freighter makes are not making them money since half of them are just getting to or returning to a point back to pick up more contracts. So to put this in to perspective, what you'd need to do is figure about roughly how long it takes a freighter to warp from one gate to another (without webbers). From there, figure that you'd need roughly 1000 jumps just to break even and then figure out how many hours it takes to do a thousand jumps based on the previous data. Then take that number and double it to account for time to or from pickup points.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 04:45:41 -
[1342] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And once again you're just talking to a strawman.
And once again you aren't actually make a counter argument.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You tried to claim that there is no real life analogy to cargo scanners.
Because there isn't. Shipping manifest data is neither free or instantaneous to acquire.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You're wrong. Accept it and admit it.
If I'm wrong, then prove it. Do so and I will.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11779
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 04:46:52 -
[1343] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
And once again you aren't actually make a counter argument.
No, I am not going to respond to your strawman.
Now admit that you lied. There is a real world analogy to cargo scanners.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 04:48:10 -
[1344] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No, I am not going to respond to your strawman.
Then don't.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Now admit that you lied.
Prove that I lied.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
There is a real world analogy to cargo scanners.
No, there isn't. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11779
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 04:49:21 -
[1345] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Prove that I lied.
I already did. You claimed there was not a real world analogy to a cargo scanner.
There is. Stop lying.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 04:56:04 -
[1346] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
It's worth a billion ISK because players are willing to pay that much.
Except that what people are willing to pay is a price that is reasonably close to build/sell costs.
If they were worth more than that, then prices would be higher.
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Even a fairly spacious house weighs in at a mere ~20,000m3. The freighter can shift a darn sight more than that!
But weight isn't the primary factor. The size of the object is. If I have 100km3 of trit I can choose to move it via a couple transports or I can choose to move it via a host of other means, none of which require a freighter. There are very few objects in game that can't be moved via other means. In fact, until freighters could scope things in space (like large amounts of minerals from hauler spawns) I had the tedious job of recovering hundreds of thousands of m3 of trit via regular haulers. I had access to plenty of freighters, but they couldn't even do the job they were designed for.
Hiasa Kite wrote:
It does however deal with profit-seeking gankers.
Maybe. Its no doubt a gamble for profit seekers, but don't you think anything worth double wrapping would be worth killing for?
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 04:57:06 -
[1347] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I already did.
Claiming you did is not actually the same as doing so.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You claimed there was not a real world analogy to a cargo scanner.
Which has still not been proven false.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
There is. Stop lying.
There isn't. Stop lying.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11779
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 04:59:24 -
[1348] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Which has still not been proven false.
It has been, repeatedly. Your claim that there is no real world analogy to a cargo scanner was a blatant lie.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 05:00:56 -
[1349] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
It has been, repeatedly. Your claim that there is no real world analogy to a cargo scanner was a blatant lie.
It hasn't been. Not even once. Your claim that there is a real world analogy to a cargo scanner was a blatant lie. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11779
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 05:12:07 -
[1350] - Quote
The astonishing hypocrisy of carebears, ladies and gentlemen.
We need to add more inexplicable space magic to Concord, so they can put more consequences on gankers. Because having to defend myself is totally out of bounds.
But cargo scanners!? Oh no, that's gotta go.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 05:13:55 -
[1351] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Except for how I can, in fact, find out what a truck is carrying.
Not unless you break the lock on the door, then manually look through all of the contents.
You what that isn't? Instantaneous. You know what a cargo scanner is? Pretty close to instantaneous.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 05:15:17 -
[1352] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:The astonishing hypocrisy of carebears, ladies and gentlemen.
Is no different than the astonishing hypocrisy of gankers.
"This is PVP game!"
"The way to win the game is not die, and the way to do that is avoid PVP!" |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11779
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 05:16:21 -
[1353] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
You know what a cargo scanner is? Pretty close to instantaneous.
And in a world with faster than light travel, you find that unreasonable.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11779
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 05:17:16 -
[1354] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:The astonishing hypocrisy of carebears, ladies and gentlemen.
Is no different than the astonishing hypocrisy of gankers. "This is PVP game!" "The way to win the game is not die, and the way to do that is avoid PVP!"
Uh, what?
That's kinda how you win a PvP game, by not dying.
Or do you play Call of Duty by whelping repeatedly, having a 0.1 K/D, and then claiming victory?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 05:17:32 -
[1355] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And in a world with faster than light travel, you find that unreasonable.
Nope. |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 05:19:19 -
[1356] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
That's kinda how you win a PvP game, by not dying.
And given everything said in this thread, the way not to die is to actively avoid PVP. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11779
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 05:20:19 -
[1357] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
That's kinda how you win a PvP game, by not dying.
And given everything said in this thread, the way not to die is to actively avoid PVP.
Well, only if you make the choice to be a prey animal. If you're a predator, you kill the other guy and feast on his remains.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 05:21:49 -
[1358] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Well, only if you make the choice to be a prey animal.
No one actively makes a choice to be prey. Unless they are baiting.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If you're a predator, you kill the other guy and feast on his remains.
And yet, that is not the only valid play style of Eve.
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
500
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 05:25:01 -
[1359] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Well, only if you make the choice to be a prey animal.
No one actively makes a choice to be prey. Unless they are baiting. Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If you're a predator, you kill the other guy and feast on his remains.
And yet, that is not the only valid play style of Eve.
Yes - key point. No one would play a game and choose to be prey. A game which required people to be prey for predators would be a game with no players. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11779
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 05:26:49 -
[1360] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
No one actively makes a choice to be prey.
Yeah, they do. Fitting a ship without guns and tank is choosing to be prey for anyone who feels like doing something about it.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 05:28:30 -
[1361] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
fitting a ship without guns and tank is choosing to be prey for anyone who feels like doing something about it.
Except that freighters don't have hi-slots, and tank is not the only valid fitting choice. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11779
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 05:30:54 -
[1362] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
fitting a ship without guns and tank is choosing to be prey for anyone who feels like doing something about it.
Except that freighters don't have hi-slots, and tank is not the only valid fitting choice.
They're not supposed to have highslots. That's exactly what I'm talking about, if you're flying a freighter, you are a prey animal. Act accordingly.
And if you want to anti tank, be my guest. It's always so much easier that way.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 05:33:03 -
[1363] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
if you're flying a freighter, you are a prey animal.
Nope. This is not true in any civilized society of which hi-sec encompasses.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11779
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 05:36:17 -
[1364] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
if you're flying a freighter, you are a prey animal.
Nope. This is not true in any civilized society of which hi-sec encompasses.
New Eden does not count as a civilized society, bro. It's the Wild West at best, even in highsec.
If you fly a freighter, you are a big, gigantic killmail for whoever decides to take it. You should be acting accordingly, and defending yourself.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 05:43:08 -
[1365] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
New Eden does not count as a civilized society, bro. It's the Wild West at best, even in highsec.
Which is only your opinion.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If you fly a freighter, you are a big, gigantic killmail for whoever decides to take it. You should be acting accordingly, and defending yourself.
Which is to avoid PVP in a PVP game. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11780
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 06:40:36 -
[1366] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Which is only your opinion.
No, it's CCP's opinion. Please see the Falcon Punch for reference.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
209
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 08:01:59 -
[1367] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Well, only if you make the choice to be a prey animal.
No one actively makes a choice to be prey. Unless they are baiting. Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If you're a predator, you kill the other guy and feast on his remains.
And yet, that is not the only valid play style of Eve. Yes - key point. No one would play a game and choose to be prey. A game which required people to be prey for predators would be a game with no players.
I do. Guess I'm no one.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Kaely Tanniss
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
267
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 08:17:04 -
[1368] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Well, only if you make the choice to be a prey animal.
No one actively makes a choice to be prey. Unless they are baiting. Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If you're a predator, you kill the other guy and feast on his remains.
And yet, that is not the only valid play style of Eve. Yes - key point. No one would play a game and choose to be prey. A game which required people to be prey for predators would be a game with no players.
Then explain why a lot of haulers won't fit a tank. Explain why miners, no matter how much advice you offer them...refuse to tank and fit for yield. This, to me, is complacent behavior. It is placing yourself in danger by choice..which is essentially choosing to be prey.
If I had a nickel for every time someone said women don't play eve, I'd have a bag of nickels to whack the next person who said it..
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
618
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 08:38:47 -
[1369] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Which is only your opinion.
No, it's CCP's opinion. Please see the Falcon Punch for reference.
You can read CCP's comments summarized here, or starting in the original thread thread this post by CCP Falcon.
Valterra, you seem hung up on this concept of "fault" and taking it personally. It is indeed the haulers fault if the got ganked in the sense that there were steps they could take (and are designed to take as confirmed by CCP Falcon), but that doesn't necessarily mean the ganked players are bad at the game.
If I take my venture into a wormhole looking for gas I am clearly choosing to be the prey animal for the denizens who live there, but I am taking that risk for my own personal benefit - wormhole gas is quite valuable. If I get ganked there, you could argue it was my own fault for taking a ship without guns into extremely dangerous space, and you would be right in that I could have easily prevented that loss. Further that loss was not the outcome I was hoping for and I didn't take all steps to prevent it. However, I choose to take that risk as I could benefit if I was successful so even though it was my fault, I was actually playing the game as designed. The "risk" just won over the "reward" on that day which doesn't make me a bad player, especially if I won the "reward" on the other nine wormhole expeditions.
Freighter hauling is exactly the same. There are ways to prevent your freighter from being exploded by all but the most determined and well-funded attacker. However, most of the time the actual risk to your freighter is so low it does not merit the most extreme of these measures or even your attention at the keyboard. So to save effort and cost, you choose not to take all precautions so you will gain by the movement of goods with little of your time. That benefit comes with a risk but it most cases you benefit with your goods moved safely and ISK in your wallet. There is risk though (as described by Falcon), so if you choose not to take sufficient precautions, in the end you must also take the loss as it was you risking your ship for your benefit.
I occasionally use the 'Autopilot' button on my empty, or my almost-empty tanked freighter when I am off the trade routes, and flying only through 0.7 and greater systems. I know the risk under those conditions to my freighter is near zero, but I also realize that if I come back to my computer and find myself sitting in an empty clone in my station, it is my fault for not protecting my space assets. Even though I done the risk and benefit analysis, I know that there is still a minute chance I will lose my freighter, but I still accept that risk for the very real benefit of moving goods while I am making a sandwich, so if that ever happens I will give a "gf" and move on.
CCP Falcon makes it very clear this is what the game designers intend for you to do. Haulers are suppose to judge the risk and take care to provide sufficient protection for their haulage (for which there are many tools and strategies as discussed in this thread). If your freighter is irreplaceable to you, you should take every step then to protect it even when empty (as well as re-read the basic commandments of Eve including the one about not flying what you can't afford to lose).
This is at the very core of the game play of Eve - balance risk vs. reward. You will lose ships chasing rewards, especially big ones, even when you think the odds are in your favour, as otherwise, there would be no risk and not much of a game.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
210
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 08:54:57 -
[1370] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Except that given the context of this thread and everything argued by pro-gankers that they are indeed synonymous with: "They deserved it because they didn't try"
Not me. I feel the distinction is quite important and I'm fairly sure this opinion isn't actually shared by ay ganker. I say this because when the occasional "why do gankers hate ...?" thread comes up, it's typically filled with gankers clarifying that gankers do not hate their victims. Here's a highly relevant post in a relevant thread. It even refers specifically to one of Kaarous's posts.
Quote:Maybe, but given that freighters tend to fill very specific roles that no other ship can fill, it really is besides the point how many people buy them every day.
Just how many I-Hubs are being deployed each day? Moreover, how many fail to be deployed? Going by zkillboard, not many.
Quote:Given that its roughly about 1mil per jump (I haven't looked at prices today of Red Frog) I don't see how your numbers would make sense.
That's for small cargos with a 1bil ISK collateral. A 5bil ISK collateral, 800,000m3 contract comes with a base price tag of 4.5mil ISK/jump. This doesn't include the 30mil ISK for a rush job. Should their contract come under their internally set collateral limit, they can always pick up multiple items at the same time, further increasing their effective ISK/jump.
That said, I don't think I accounted for bobtails so I guess they're not making 100mil ISK per hour. I really wouldn't want to do that, to be honest. Yet, they do it and they seem happy with their income so as a customer I'm certainly not one to complain.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
|
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
210
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 09:11:10 -
[1371] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Except that what people are willing to pay is a price that is reasonably close to build/sell costs.
People pay what they think an item is worth. If the build cost is higher than what customers are willing to pay, it is not purchased and as a result, rarely built.
Quote:But weight isn't the primary factor. The size of the object is.
"weigh in" is common slang and inapropriately used, here. My bad. 20,000m3 however, is an expression of volume.
Quote:If I have 100km3 of trit I can choose to move it via a couple transports or I can choose to move it via a host of other means, none of which require a freighter.
Freighters are intended to haul large amounts of inexpensive materials - such as tritanium. If you've got 100 million units of trit to shift in HiSec, the freighter is your guy for the job. I shudder to think of the insane number of trips needed for smaller ships to accomplish the same task.
Quote:In fact, until freighters could scoop things in space (like large amounts of minerals from hauler spawns) I had the tedious job of recovering hundreds of thousands of m3 of trit via regular haulers. I had access to plenty of freighters, but they couldn't even do the job they were designed for.
Honest question because I don't know: Were freighters not able to access an Orca's corp hangar bays? Surely the Orca could hoover up cans and the freighter conveniently grab ore from the Orca that way?
Quote:Maybe. Its no doubt a gamble for profit seekers, but don't you think anything worth double wrapping would be worth killing for?
If all double-wrapped shipments were high value, yes. But they're not, in no small part due to haulers deliberately hauling 1 unit of trit double-wrapped (cargo scanners give no indication of volume) to throw off the lottery gankers.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
275
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 18:57:38 -
[1372] - Quote
I don't agree with this decision at all. If it looks like an exploit and sounds like an exploit, it's an exploit.
Hi sec ganks are supposed to have a single countdown before the PO-PO show up and if they aren't successful by then, they fail. This bump-lather-rinse-repeat nonsense is bad gameplay, requires multiple acts of cheese, is griefing by definition, and shouldn't be countenanced.
And I'm all for suicide ganking, having enjoyed it a couple of times and been a good-sport victim a couple of times.
I suspect it's been permitted because distinguishing it from a regular gank might take a modicum of :effort:. |
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
212
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 19:19:19 -
[1373] - Quote
Globbing takes significantly longer than regular tanks which makes them significantly easier to prevent. If globbing made it easier, quicker or cheaper then CCP would likely agree.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3835
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 20:15:35 -
[1374] - Quote
Thread temporarily locked for some cleaning.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Mag's
the united
19045
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 23:11:43 -
[1375] - Quote
AkJon Ferguson wrote:I don't agree with this decision at all. If it looks like an exploit and sounds like an exploit, it's an exploit.
Hi sec ganks are supposed to have a single countdown before the PO-PO show up and if they aren't successful by then, they fail. This bump-lather-rinse-repeat nonsense is bad gameplay, requires multiple acts of cheese, is griefing by definition, and shouldn't be countenanced.
And I'm all for suicide ganking, having enjoyed it a couple of times and been a good-sport victim a couple of times.
I suspect it's been permitted because distinguishing it from a regular gank might take a modicum of :effort:. The only problem you have, is that you're wrong on all accounts.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11787
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 00:10:11 -
[1376] - Quote
AkJon Ferguson wrote:I don't agree with this decision at all. If it looks like an exploit and sounds like an exploit, it's an exploit.
Then I'm sure you'll be fully in favor of the removal of dec dodging.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6247
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 08:19:59 -
[1377] - Quote
OK I just read up on this and I can't help but wonder.
Anybody remember Herr Wilkus' "Boomerang Tornado Trifecta" (or it was called something like that) and how fast the mechanics changed within a week of him posting how he did it in the C&P forums?
Avoiding Concord was said to be bad ju ju . This is not entirely the same, but similar with much less efficiency of course.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
213
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 08:23:20 -
[1378] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:OK I just read up on this and I can't help but wonder.
Anybody remember Herr Wilkus' "Boomerang Tornado Trifecta" (or it was called something like that) and how fast the mechanics changed within a week of him posting how he did it in the C&P forums?
Avoiding Concord was said to be bad ju ju . This is not entirely the same, but similar with much less efficiency of course.
It's literally sitting there waiting for CONCORD to kill you. It's anything but evasion.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11791
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 08:45:48 -
[1379] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Avoiding Concord was said to be bad ju ju . This is not entirely the same, but similar with much less efficiency of course.
It's not avoiding Concord. The ships are still destroyed.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6247
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 09:18:19 -
[1380] - Quote
Seeing that it's "the usual crowd" defending hyperdunking, that will pretty much guide my opinion of it as a new form of grief play.
Funny really how "creative" things get in highsec. Was not always like this, but I'm not going to think of the possibility that the player base is degenerate(ing). I have seen a lot of evidence to the contrary.
But at the same time I see Gurista faction ships and T3 ships farming highsec anoms (You read that right: highsec) and the hue and cry would be "CAREBEARS!!!!! NERF HIGHSEC!!! HURR DURR! "
But then, the griefing is also pretty darn creating after a string of what are called "nerfs".
So what gives?
I think that nullsec and lowsec have become so crappy that even the PVPers and "pirates" (using that term loosely here) won't, or cannot, go there any more.
Meaning that whereby highsec was mostly noobs and some people who lacked the time for (what was once considered) end game of going to null and occasionally some shenanigans, we now have TWO types of players (not one, 2) "bottled up" in highsec for reasons that have nothing to do with carebears, griefers, or PVe.
Looks like predator and prey have something in common.
Oh I'm sure the buttmad patrol will blame it all on highsec and "people won't leave it!" as if feeding ships to gate camps is supposed to be a play style or something somebody wants to do.
So we can poke Mr. Carebear for 'not wanting risk' but highsec PVP is simple controlled risk.
I've watched a progression since I started playing in the middle of 2006, and frankly this hyperdunking is just another chapter where the real issue is not being addressed while other mechanics have more and more players bottled up in highsec. Sure "HURF BLURF!!! JOIN AN ALLIANCE!!!1!!!". Ok, and what are they doing out there? Farming anoms. But that's just like highsec. Highsec has no bubbles. You can be in a wardeccing highsec alliance and travel freely looking for targets, which you cannot do in null or even in low in many case. Do you get a BLOPS drop for no reason in highsec? OK OK, nullsec has a reason for BLOPS drop... you are getting in the way of..... of.... their FARMING.
What a buzzkill. I want to go to nullsec to.... farm? But I can do that in highsec without having to take a multitude of times longer to travel to where I need to go because bubbles, dictors, D-Scan immune recons, inties on the wrong end of the bargain, and instalokis.
Oh and someone AFK in local because the play style of preventing the playing of the game is playing the game I'm told, meaning that the best way to counter it is to.... not play the game? Or go to highsec.
The problem is not more carebearing the problem is low and null becoming unbearable even for PVPers. Best evidence? What do you find way out there past the gank pipelines and intel channels? You find people farming and grinding away. Just like highsec.
Unless you are a trespasser. But they'll clean that up pretty quick and you hardly even get a target.
From a PVe point of view, why go through the trouble of low and null to do PVe? But from the PVP point of view, why go through the trouble to possibly get the jump on some mining ship when you can leisurely travel around highsec and get the jump on some mining ship?
But when too many jumps happen and CCP changes stuff, suddenly all the rage at CCP when we don't wonder about the environment and all of the factors that created this situation in the first place. Would you rather gank a freighter in highsec or nullsec? Would you rather go hunting in highsec or nullsec? Sure sure there's no Concord "out there" but you are going to lose your ship anyway. So highsec ganking is just a different path to the same result: you are going to pounce on some hapless player who did something wrong and then die in a fire. Same results for highsec and null, just different actors.
BFD.
See what I'm getting at here: PVe outside of highsec is a huge pain in the ass. But then, so if PVP. So if I can sneak out to null (where they are farming, just like in highsec) and go hunting, I still have to rely on the prey screwing up. But there's still plenty of screwing up in highsec.
So the HTFU hurr durr crowd is no different from the highsec bear - both groups have chosen the path of least resistance.
And I cannot blame them for the reasons I already cited. But the people on the PVP sides of things are not innocent. If we are to be buttmad over "nerfs to ganking" in highsec, we are wasting our energy for we all need to be buttmad over so many people being bottled up in highsec for it to even be needed and/or matter in the first place. But then, looking at RL politics, people blaming the wrong stuff is not really a new thing.
Sad too. The lore in this game is getting really good, but what we see lately and from the "13 points" thread that is now closed because the same troll brigade showed up is that certain problems are coming to a head that are affecting everybody and everybody has their ego out front and are too married to the wrong things they are blaming.
Hopefully the lore content will get a new novel written about it because I'll enjoy the book more than the game. You see it'll be more entertaining to read about these new Jovians or whatever then say, try to get out to nullsec to see them, take forever to establish safe spots, and die in a fire for no reason anyway.
( I could go on but I'll end up with my usual statement of how gate mechanics comprise 80 percent of the suckage and all that)
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11792
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 09:50:01 -
[1381] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Funny really how "creative" things get in highsec.
If you repeatedly keep trying to build walls around people, don't be surprised when they eventually find ways to knock them down.
Quote:
I think that nullsec and lowsec have become so crappy that even the PVPers and "pirates" (using that term loosely here) won't, or cannot, go there any more.
That's inevitable so long as highsec's income streams are more stable, reliable, and safe, leading to better individual income.
Quote:
Oh I'm sure the buttmad patrol will blame it all on highsec and "people won't leave it!" as if feeding ships to gate camps is supposed to be a play style or something somebody wants to do.
You can't blame the predators for going where the prey are. And since the prey have an income stream that equals or exceeds (most frequently the latter) every other area of space, the prey have no reason to leave either.
Quote:
And I cannot blame them for the reasons I already cited. But the people on the PVP sides of things are not innocent. If we are to be buttmad over "nerfs to ganking" in highsec, we are wasting our energy for we all need to be buttmad over so many people being bottled up in highsec for it to even be needed and/or matter in the first place. But then, looking at RL politics, people blaming the wrong stuff is not really a new thing.
You're not giving the PvP side enough credit. More than a few of us are fully aware that the problem is the existence of highsec in it's present state.
It's too safe, and too lucrative, and there is no reason to go anywhere to do anything else. Fixing this requires nerfing highsec income streams and buffing highsec conflict. CCP however, does not seem to have it in them to make the attempt to get the carebears off the teat.
Quote:
Sad too. The lore in this game is getting really good
EVE has lore? I thought they threw all that away when they wasted nearly half a decade trying to get us to play Barbie dolls in the captain's quarters.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
546
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 11:15:27 -
[1382] - Quote
A friend of mine in Razor being clever and also selling escalations is averaging out at ISK 300m per hour in protected nullsec, can't see anyway to get near that in hisec. He may be over-stating it a bit, but that is the reality what smart people can do in highly protected null sec space.
Recent figures show that with the lack of wars with no one shooting anyone in any meaningful way while waiting for the sov changes people are spending more and more time in protected null sec space, if hisec was so much better why are they moving to null sec for ISK generation.
And I always find it so amusing seeing gankbears cry about the need to nerfi hisec, cry more please!
Ella's Snack bar
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
51
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 13:11:48 -
[1383] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:A friend of mine in Razor being clever and also selling escalations is averaging out at ISK 300m per hour in protected nullsec, can't see anyway to get near that in hisec. He may be over-stating it a bit, but that is the reality what smart people can do in highly protected null sec space.
Recent figures show that with the lack of wars with no one shooting anyone in any meaningful way while waiting for the sov changes people are spending more and more time in protected null sec space, if hisec was so much better why are they moving to null sec for ISK generation.
And I always find it so amusing seeing gankbears cry about the need to nerf hisec, cry more please!
Nullsec is nice. But C5/C6 wormhole space is where the isk is. Even running C3's in a well fit ship will net you more per hour than incursions and you don't need a fleet.
It is a bad myth brought forth by people trying to get more targets in lowsec and by alliance leaderships looking for more chaff to throw on the front line that highsec is some money making utopia.
Gankbears don't have the balls to move to a WH. Too much... Risk |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 14:18:07 -
[1384] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And, you know, in the game's database.
Because a game's database determines the game mechanics of an object? |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 14:25:10 -
[1385] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Not me. I feel the distinction is quite important and I'm fairly sure this opinion isn't actually shared by ay ganker. I say this because when the occasional "why do gankers hate ...?" thread comes up, it's typically filled with gankers clarifying that gankers do not hate their victims.
And this is where you are wrong. Being bad at the game or how valid or invalid a play style being bad is has nothing to do with emotion. Hate is not even on the same planet as this discussion is on. Why? Because as gankers have rightly/wrongly pointed out, players motivations aren't really on trial here.
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Just how many I-Hubs are being deployed each day? Moreover, how many fail to be deployed? Going by zkillboard, not many.
And that's my point. Regular haulers fill much a wider range or roles than freighters do, and the roles that only freighters fill aren't all that big a deal all things considered. And even then those roles are primarily driven by CCP. Their worth is solely defined by their build costs presently. |
Valterra Craven
439
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 14:46:44 -
[1386] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If you repeatedly keep trying to build walls around people, don't be surprised when they eventually find ways to knock them down.
How true. Amazing that people would want to try and break down labels and being defined as confined to one type of play.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
That's inevitable so long as highsec's income streams are more stable, reliable, and safe, leading to better individual income.
You've spent literally this entire thread telling "carebears" that they have no one to blame for their destruction but themselves. But you here you aren't willing to stand up to the same scrutiny. "Oh its CCP's fault that we find null sec space unstable, unreliable, and unsafe." Right.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
since the prey have an income stream that equals or exceeds (most frequently the latter) every other area of space, the prey have no reason to leave either.
Anything in null is light years better than hi-sec. You know why? No one in high sec is going to pay someone else to "rent" hi-sec space (even if they could). And yet so many alliances over the history of Eve have found a way to rent out space that they own. So given that renters only really get the crap space that the big boys don't want, and they have to pay for it, it would stand to reason that their incomes would have to exceed their hi sec possibilities by a large amount to be worth all of that. OR no one would bother. The fact that people bother on a daily basis stands in stark contrast to your "theory".
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You're not giving the PvP side enough credit. More than a few of us are fully aware that the problem is the existence of highsec in it's present state.
It's too safe, and too lucrative, and there is no reason to go anywhere to do anything else.
OR, You can't be bothered to hunt for your targets. I get it, I've been deer hunting before. Sitting in stand all day waiting for prey to come by is really really boring. Why put in all the time and effort when there are literally thousands of people to chose from to shoot all day every day?
I find it hilarious that pro-gankers spend all day every day making arguments that they aren't willing to live under themselves. At the end of the day pro-gankers are no different than carebears. Both PLAYERS are trying to protect their most enjoyed form of gameplay. Its human fricking nature to argue for your interests or to try and get a better hand over someone else. The fact that a majority of you have "Vote Sabriz Adoude!" in your sigs is telling. Pro-gankers have spent this entire thread telling people that asking for changes to make the game better for them is bad, while on the back hand doing exactly the same thing and having the nerve to tell everyone else they are nothing but hypocrites!
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
213
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 16:19:58 -
[1387] - Quote
Quote:And that's my point. Regular haulers fill much a wider range or roles than freighters do, and the roles that only freighters fill aren't all that big a deal all things considered. And even then those roles are primarily driven by CCP. Their worth is solely defined by their build costs presently.
Cost is defined by what people are willing pay for it. Manufacture cost cannot raise a price beyond that point.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
621
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 16:23:55 -
[1388] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Pro-gankers have spent this entire thread telling people that asking for changes to make the game better for them is bad, while on the back hand doing exactly the same thing and having the nerve to tell everyone else they are nothing but hypocrites!
No, people have been pointing out that the changes you are asking for are self-serving and do nothing to make the game better. I don't recall anyone here seriously asking for changes to the game to make hyperdunking or ganking easier. Only people rightly pointing out the number of changes that have been made to increase highsec safety over the years and questioning if we need yet another as you have proposed.
Even Sabriz isn't arguing for changes to "buff" ganking. While he clearly is philosophically for more highsec conflict, nowhere in his platform that I see is he arguing for any changes to game mechanics that will benefit the "ganking playstyle". But even if he was, the CSM is a place for player representation where all views should be listened to and considered before deciding what is best for the game as a whole.
You on the other hand are asking for changes to game mechanics that directly benefit you with no additional effort on your part. You are asking to change the rules of the game in your favour, for no greater reason other than you want it to be that way.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
546
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 16:35:38 -
[1389] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Pro-gankers have spent this entire thread telling people that asking for changes to make the game better for them is bad, while on the back hand doing exactly the same thing and having the nerve to tell everyone else they are nothing but hypocrites! No, people have been pointing out that the changes you are asking for are self-serving and do nothing to make the game better. I don't recall anyone here seriously asking for changes to the game to make hyperdunking or ganking easier. Only people rightly pointing out the number of changes that have been made to increase highsec safety over the years and questioning if we need yet another as you have proposed. Even Sabriz isn't arguing for changes to "buff" ganking. While he clearly is philosophically for more highsec conflict, nowhere in his platform that I see is he arguing for any changes to game mechanics that will benefit the "ganking playstyle". You on the other hand are asking for changes to game mechanics that directly benefit you with no additional effort on your part. You are asking to change the rules of the game in your favour, for no greater reason other than you want it to be that way.
How can you say that with a straight face, I have lost count of the number of people asking for no local or a delay in local which makes ganking easier, you really have selective reading skills...
Ella's Snack bar
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
621
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 16:47:00 -
[1390] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Black Pedro wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Pro-gankers have spent this entire thread telling people that asking for changes to make the game better for them is bad, while on the back hand doing exactly the same thing and having the nerve to tell everyone else they are nothing but hypocrites! No, people have been pointing out that the changes you are asking for are self-serving and do nothing to make the game better. I don't recall anyone here seriously asking for changes to the game to make hyperdunking or ganking easier. Only people rightly pointing out the number of changes that have been made to increase highsec safety over the years and questioning if we need yet another as you have proposed. Even Sabriz isn't arguing for changes to "buff" ganking. While he clearly is philosophically for more highsec conflict, nowhere in his platform that I see is he arguing for any changes to game mechanics that will benefit the "ganking playstyle". You on the other hand are asking for changes to game mechanics that directly benefit you with no additional effort on your part. You are asking to change the rules of the game in your favour, for no greater reason other than you want it to be that way. How can you say that with a straight face, I have lost count of the number of people asking for no local or a delay in local which makes ganking easier, you really have selective reading skills...
Granted this thread has spiraled out of control, I recall no post here asking for that. Could you link those posts?
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
|
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
546
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 16:54:03 -
[1391] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Black Pedro wrote:[ I don't recall anyone here seriously asking for changes to the game to make hyperdunking or ganking easier. y. How can you say that with a straight face, I have lost count of the number of people asking for no local or a delay in local which makes ganking easier, you really have selective reading skills... Granted this thread has spiraled out of control, I recall no post here asking for that. Could you link those posts?
Did you say in this thread, please be more specific next time, lets be more specific in return, many of the people in this thread who are gankbears have called for removing local or adding a time delay to local in many other threads over a number of years, most notably in any thread about AFK cloaking, this is asking to make ganking easier. Its easy to find them!
Ella's Snack bar
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6249
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 17:00:00 -
[1392] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
.. the usual stuff that proves my points and makes me feel sorry for such a sad man
Sticking to your religion as usual. You make me hope Eve gets super-carebeared up just so I know that at least you will be unhappy.
You should know by know that being this way comes back at you.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
621
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 17:06:25 -
[1393] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Black Pedro wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Black Pedro wrote:[ I don't recall anyone here seriously asking for changes to the game to make hyperdunking or ganking easier. y. How can you say that with a straight face, I have lost count of the number of people asking for no local or a delay in local which makes ganking easier, you really have selective reading skills... Granted this thread has spiraled out of control, I recall no post here asking for that. Could you link those posts? Did you say in this thread, please be more specific next time, lets be more specific in return, many of the people in this thread who are gankbears have called for removing local or adding a time delay to local in many other threads over a number of years, most notably in any thread about AFK cloaking, this is asking to make ganking easier. Its easy to find them!
I said "I don't recall anyone here seriously asking for changes" implying here, as in this thread, was my intention.
I will concede there are people proposing all sorts of crazy things on the Eve Online forums. Just take a look at most any Veers Belvar post for example.
But this thread has mostly been one person arguing for why the game should be changed to be made easier for them for no actual reason, and a bunch of people pointing out why they disagree that change.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
548
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 17:21:28 -
[1394] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Black Pedro wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Black Pedro wrote:[ I don't recall anyone here seriously asking for changes to the game to make hyperdunking or ganking easier. y. How can you say that with a straight face, I have lost count of the number of people asking for no local or a delay in local which makes ganking easier, you really have selective reading skills... Granted this thread has spiraled out of control, I recall no post here asking for that. Could you link those posts? Did you say in this thread, please be more specific next time, lets be more specific in return, many of the people in this thread who are gankbears have called for removing local or adding a time delay to local in many other threads over a number of years, most notably in any thread about AFK cloaking, this is asking to make ganking easier. Its easy to find them! I said "I don't recall anyone here seriously asking for changes" implying here, as in this thread, was my intention. I will concede there are people proposing all sorts of crazy things on the Eve Online forums. Just take a look at most any Veers Belvar post for example. But this thread has mostly been one person arguing for why the game should be changed to be made easier for them for no actual reason, and a bunch of people pointing out why they disagree that change.
My dear Sir, thank you for your clarification, I have not gone into this thread deeply as I found posts by Kaarous Aldurald and Jenn a'Side which are full of hot air, the religion of HTFU and self pleasuring aggrandisement that sets my teeth truly on edge, therefore I only reviewed it at a very superficial level, please forgive me. I do stand by my assertion that these people have called for changes in other threads that would benefit ganking.
For my own part today I helped secure the safety of an Ark and a Charon and am enjoying the challenge that this new style of attacks bring to what is normally a quiet TZ. If people in hisec want to have fun there is no better way then counter bumping and jamming people doing this.
The mechanics around this are now resulting in people using the same method to take down off-line towers which I agree are a stain on the heavenly beauty of Eve, I do wonder what CCP thinks of this impact on targets that previously required a war dec, that being said I certainly find it very clever and a wonderful example of this sandbox.
I also take the opportunity to salute the extreme bumping skills of the player who has been the most prolific in the art of Hyperdunking.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
621
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 18:00:01 -
[1395] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:For my own part today I helped secure the safety of an Ark and a Charon and am enjoying the challenge that this new style of attacks bring to what is normally a quiet TZ. If people in hisec want to have fun there is no better way then counter bumping and jamming people doing this.
Excellent work. You have my admiration for playing the game and taking the fight to those evil gankers. Disrupt those ganks!
Dracvlad wrote:The mechanics around this are now resulting in people using the same method to take down off-line towers which I agree are a stain on the heavenly beauty of Eve, I do wonder what CCP thinks of this impact on targets that previously required a war dec, that being said I certainly find it very clever and a wonderful example of this sandbox.
This is true. I think hyperdunking was used before on structures, but this publicity and this clear ruling (thanks CCP Falcon) remove any lingering doubts about this being an exploit will impact on abandoned structures. The towers themselves still have too much EHP so you would need a wardec, but abandoned arrays, labs and structures are at risk. CODE. already seems to be hard at work cleaning up New Eden.
Dracvlad wrote:I also take the opportunity to salute the extreme bumping skills of the player who has been the most prolific in the art of Hyperdunking. Indeed. It takes not only some skills can concentration, but much patience. I too salute the pioneers of this technique for bringing a new tool to the sandbox.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9800
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 18:03:45 -
[1396] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Dracvlad wrote:A friend of mine in Razor being clever and also selling escalations is averaging out at ISK 300m per hour in protected nullsec, can't see anyway to get near that in hisec. He may be over-stating it a bit, but that is the reality what smart people can do in highly protected null sec space.
Recent figures show that with the lack of wars with no one shooting anyone in any meaningful way while waiting for the sov changes people are spending more and more time in protected null sec space, if hisec was so much better why are they moving to null sec for ISK generation.
And I always find it so amusing seeing gankbears cry about the need to nerf hisec, cry more please! Nullsec is nice. But C5/C6 wormhole space is where the isk is. Even running C3's in a well fit ship will net you more per hour than incursions and you don't need a fleet. It is a bad myth brought forth by people trying to get more targets in lowsec and by alliance leaderships looking for more chaff to throw on the front line that highsec is some money making utopia. Gankbears don't have the balls to move to a WH. Too much... Risk
As I've said before, I do't know why sompe people need to lie aboue a video game .
The risk/reward balance issue aren't made up, they are easily observable. I observe it myself all the time.
My mission toon (this character actually) sits in Osmon most of the time, same region as Jita, flys a Rattlesnake or Machariel depending on mission (except special missions like recon, have a ceptor for those). I blitz the right missions and never bomb my standings. After an hour I dock up, open the SOE LP store, select the item or items i want to sell and sell them. No travel time because Im in the same region as jita and people put up buy orders in osmon and remotely in Jita for stuff i sell in Osmon. Doing it casually is 90 to 100 mil per hour (no travel time to market, less than 1 minute to convert LP into itmes like sister's proves or probe launchers or virtue implants).
I've used that exact same ship type (machariel) on another character in all types of SOV null. Guyristas Space (tribute), Angel space (omist, Tenerifis, insmother), Blood space (Querious, Delve), Serpentis space (Fountain), Sansha space (Catch), even Drones (Etherium Reach).
Thart mach never made more than 90 mil per hour (30 mil per tick) unless their was a commander spawn involved, which was rare. The escalations are ok, but DEd plexes are hit or miss random number generator affairs and while you are doing them you aren't doing anomalies for 30 mil per tick (opportunity costs).
TL;DR, the same suub cap that can generate 90-100 mil per hour in HIGH SEC can do about the same but not much more in Null no matter how much you pimp it. Mainly because missions can be blitzed, anoms cannot. That's why this change led to an increase in the high sec population and longer incursion fleet waits.
And you can test it all for yourselves. however, doing so requires actual need to know the truth of a situation, and that need is lacking in high sec forum posters, probably because you all already know the truth...
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
53
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 18:09:18 -
[1397] - Quote
Lie indeed.
90mil hour is very doable in missions in highsec... but dont sell yourself short, Incursions are around 160 an hour if done with good fleets. Oh and Null is safer than High sec, I don't care what you say.
But that doesnt change the fact that 160/hour is very capable in a carrier in null doing sanctums/anoms with a fit that is 1/5th that of a bling vindi for incursions, or that C3's will pump out 30mil+ NR salvage per site for about 10 minutes of work.
Again, the big isk is in C5/C6. I actually didn't even claim Null was where the isk was, but you couldn't read. Most Gankbears only see what they want I suppose. |
Valterra Craven
442
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 18:48:04 -
[1398] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
No, people have been pointing out that the changes you are asking for are self-serving and do nothing to make the game better.
And? The changes being asked for in this thread ARE self-serving for certain people. In fact, just about ANY change asked for is self-serving to a specific class of people. Whether the changes being asked for make the game better or not depends entirely on who you ask.
Black Pedro wrote:
Even Sabriz isn't arguing for changes to "buff" ganking. While he clearly is philosophically for more highsec conflict, nowhere in his platform that I see is he arguing for any changes to game mechanics that will benefit the "ganking playstyle".
I disagree.
Black Pedro wrote:
You on the other hand are asking for changes to game mechanics that directly benefit you with no additional effort on your part.
Again, And? Look in F&I. How many features being requested there require players to do any additional effort?
|
Valterra Craven
442
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 18:50:28 -
[1399] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Cost is defined by what people are willing pay for it. Manufacture cost cannot raise a price beyond that point.
No. It isn't. Eve has practically limitless resources for anything in the t1 meta. This means it can be made by anyone. Therefore the cost is always going to be at or near manufacture price due to the immense competition. The only things defined by what people are willing to pay are scarce things, such as faction models etc.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9801
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 18:52:19 -
[1400] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Lie indeed. 90mil hour is very doable in missions in highsec... but dont sell yourself short, Incursions are around 160 an hour if done with good fleets. Oh and Null is safer than High sec, I don't care what you say.
I know you don't because the actual truth doesn't matter. The chance of a player dying to another player is lower in high sec, period. Have a graph courtesy of DracVlad (see the 'risk' graph).
Quote:
But that doesnt change the fact that 160/hour is very capable in a carrier in null doing sanctums/anoms with a fit that is 1/5th that of a bling vindi for incursions, or that C3's will pump out 30mil+ NR salvage per site for about 10 minutes of work.
That carrier takes a LOT longer to train for than that vindicator. and the fact that a ship that is 5 TIMES the cost of a fit capital ship can fly safely in high sec proves that high sec is safer (not that we need any more proof).
Their is a psychological need (based around prejudice) to believe to 'people I don't like' somehow have it 'better' than 'I' do. This is actually a core cause of oppression of different groups of people in real life. it's a human habit to believe that way, but it's still wrong. People who believe that null is safer than high despite actual testable, observable empirical evidence to the contrary are responding to emotion (hatred) not logic.
Quote:
Again, the big isk is in C5/C6. I actually didn't even claim Null was where the isk was, but you couldn't read. Most Gankbears only see what they want I suppose.
1st of all, who the hell is a gank bear? Everyone knows I'm a PVE fanatic, I only pve in null to support the alliance Im in (as a way of paying my dues for access to null space) and i've never ganked anyone in high sec, I don't find the idea of ganking to be enjoyable personally. The fact that you have to imagine that everyone who disagrees with you is a ganker proves what I said about you above.
Who I am is a EVE player who has experienced (and personally tested) the imblance I'm talking about. While it's cool to be able to set up a mission farm (with 5 instances of Enemies abound 4/5 in a couple systems close together that provides a nice daily income for 6 days), the fact of being able to do that in safety is generally bad.
Null doesn't need buffing, nor does low (though faction warfare low could use a change and l5 mission blitzxing should be nailed) and wormholes are the ONLY space in EVE that works right. But high sec isk making at the top end (mission farming, SOe/thukker and mining corp LP stores, High sec incursions) needs a serious nerfing (middle and low end isk making in high sec itself is fine, we're talking about what pros can squeeze out). |
|
|
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
7781
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 19:01:52 -
[1401] - Quote
CCP has made their decision on this tactic and we are expected to accept it. I'm down with that.
Now, for those interested, here's how to make some money from it.
Freighter alts are selling for pennies on the dollar right now. Buy low sell high is the mantra, right? So go buy five or six while they're dirt cheap and sit on them until CCP comes to their senses and makes transporting stuff viable again. Six months should do it. Not a bad length of time to more than double your investment.
Here's why it will work. CCP has a long history of making mechanics decisions based on their little bubble of 'players play like reasonable human beings' and then find they were completely wrong. This will happen here. Like so many other working as intended mechanics, this will become so abused and common that it will drastically upset the entire balance of the game. When that happens, CCP will (of course) knee jerk in the other direction making it desirable to run the new impossible-to-gank freighters again.
Freighter characters will then become a sellers market in which the smart guys sitting on them will be able to sell high. Don't be one of the losers crying six months from now and wishing you had listened to me. Just listen to me and become space rich.
Mr Epeen
There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
|
Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
6504
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 19:06:45 -
[1402] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Most Gankbears only see what they want I suppose.
That would be worth addressing if you were talking to a ganker. This sentence was not even needed to make your point, all it does is demonstrate the typical tantrum-throwing carebear's predisposition for open hostility and angry spittle-flinging pejoratives before sensible, mature discussion. If you expect other people to listen to you, let alone take you seriously and consider your contribution to the discussion, antagonising them with this kind of talk is not a good way to go about that. In fact, this kind of hostility is more likely to result in the complete opposite - your exclusion from discussion altogether by way of your ridicule, if not the removal of your posts by forum moderators who deem you to be too inflammatory. So grow up, then we can talk.
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
550
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 19:10:52 -
[1403] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Most Gankbears only see what they want I suppose. That would be worth addressing if you were talking to a ganker. This sentence was not even needed to make your point, all it does is demonstrate the typical tantrum-throwing carebear's predisposition for open hostility and angry spittle-flinging pejoratives before sensible, mature discussion. If you expect other people to listen to you, let alone take you seriously and consider your contribution to the discussion, antagonising them with this kind of talk is not a good way to go about that. In fact, this kind of hostility is more likely to result in the complete opposite - your exclusion from discussion altogether by way of your ridicule, if not the removal of your posts by forum moderators who deem you to be too inflammatory. So grow up, then we can talk.
Take away gank and add care, do you feel the same way?
Ella's Snack bar
|
Valterra Craven
442
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 19:17:17 -
[1404] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:I know you don't because the actual truth doesn't matter. The chance of a player dying to another player is lower in high sec, period. Have a graph courtesy of DracVlad (see the 'risk' graph).
This info graphic doesn't do anything for your case. After reading how the numbers are tallied, the graph doesn't care how ships were lost or what ships were lost, just that ships were lost in conjunction with the number of jumps for a band of space.
In other words, "conflict" in null substantially inflates the risk of null in those numbers. What this means is that the graph isn't a complete picture because the point of his argument was that it is safer to carebear in null. So really what you'd need is a graph comparing carebear ship losses in null to carebear ships losses in high sec.
And actually it kinda helps his case more than yours. Its telling that the "carebear" numbers for null and hi-sec are so similiar given that A. The population densities are so different. B. Null is supposed to be riskier. C. Null sec is not supposed to have as good of money making opportunities as hi-sec. Otherwise everyone would be carebearing in hi-sec. |
Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
6504
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 19:17:28 -
[1405] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Most Gankbears only see what they want I suppose. That would be worth addressing if you were talking to a ganker. This sentence was not even needed to make your point, all it does is demonstrate the typical tantrum-throwing carebear's predisposition for open hostility and angry spittle-flinging pejoratives before sensible, mature discussion. If you expect other people to listen to you, let alone take you seriously and consider your contribution to the discussion, antagonising them with this kind of talk is not a good way to go about that. In fact, this kind of hostility is more likely to result in the complete opposite - your exclusion from discussion altogether by way of your ridicule, if not the removal of your posts by forum moderators who deem you to be too inflammatory. So grow up, then we can talk. Take away gank and add care, do you feel the same way?
No, because it's still a baseless pejorative. You have yet to demonstrate, objectively, what makes him a 'carebear' and if you feel the need to call people names, then that's your problem, not the person you're calling names. It's one thing to make an objective assessment of someone - if someone tells me the earth is flat, I can objectively call them a liar, provided they are demonstrably lying. Maybe they're just misinformed, in which case I can say, "you're wrong and you've probably been misled by a liar."
If you're sitting there and trying to think of names to call people just for the sake of calling them names, or just to satisfy some sense of anger you have at them, then you serve your own position no justice, regardless of how right or wrong you are. No one has any need to respond to such petty behaviour with anything other than derision and mockery, and you would deserve it.
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9801
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 19:25:21 -
[1406] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:I know you don't because the actual truth doesn't matter. The chance of a player dying to another player is lower in high sec, period. Have a graph courtesy of DracVlad (see the 'risk' graph). This info graphic doesn't do anything for your case. After reading how the numbers are tallied, the graph doesn't care how ships were lost or what ships were lost, just that ships were lost in conjunction with the number of jumps for a band of space. In other words, "conflict" in null substantially inflates the risk of null in those numbers. What this means is that the graph isn't a complete picture because the point of his argument was that it is safer to carebear in null. So really what you'd need is a graph comparing carebear ship losses in null to carebear ships losses in high sec. And actually it kinda helps his case more than yours. Its telling that the "carebear" numbers for null and hi-sec are so similiar given that A. The population densities are so different. B. Null is supposed to be riskier. C. Null sec is not supposed to have as good of money making opportunities as hi-sec. Otherwise everyone would be carebearing in hi-sec.
Works both ways. There are wars and ganks in high sec and STILL the overall risk doesn't compare. And Null sec is in a 'war slowdown. That means that it's 'safer' to rat null now because of less pvp and WAY fewer 'big fights' and yet null is STILL riskier than high sec.
And you reallly REALLY don't want to compare carebear ships. The last time CCP gave us actual numbers it didn't make high sec look too good. |
Valterra Craven
442
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 19:30:36 -
[1407] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
Works both ways. There are wars and ganks in high sec and STILL the overall risk doesn't compare.
It does work both ways. But in order for your point to remain valid you would have to argue that hi-sec war losses compare to null-sec war losses. I don't have graphs for this, but given how literally fleets of sub caps are thrown away just to try and kill supers makes me think the numbers wouldn't even be close.
Jenn aSide wrote:
And Null sec is in a 'war slowdown. That means that it's 'safer' to rat null now because of less pvp and WAY fewer 'big fights' and yet null is STILL riskier than high sec.
Maybe. What we'd need is yearly averages with tracking for when "declared" (ie Forum post we are coming for your space) wars occurred.
Actually I REALLY REALLY WOULD. See I love data. I'd love it if CCP gave us some sort of API to pull those kinda numbers on a regular basis. Cuse then I could see how things have changed or different time periods. (Like ganking!) That aside, that info is 4 years old. So not relevant in today's discussion. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6250
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 19:41:59 -
[1408] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:CCP has made their decision on this tactic and we are expected to accept it. I'm down with that. Now, for those interested, here's how to make some money from it. Freighter alts are selling for pennies on the dollar right now. Buy low sell high is the mantra, right? So go buy five or six while they're dirt cheap and sit on them until CCP comes to their senses and makes transporting stuff viable again. Six months should do it. Not a bad length of time to more than double your investment. Here's why it will work. CCP has a long history of making mechanics decisions based on their little bubble of 'players play like reasonable human beings' and then find they were completely wrong. This will happen here. Like so many other working as intended mechanics, this will become so abused and common that it will drastically upset the entire balance of the game. When that happens, CCP will (of course) knee jerk in the other direction making it desirable to run the new impossible-to-gank freighters again. Freighter characters will then become a sellers market in which the smart guys sitting on them will be able to sell high. Don't be one of the losers crying six months from now and wishing you had listened to me. Just listen to me and become space rich. Mr Epeen
Indeed we can always count on this.
Every time there is the usual derpery of "oooh tears! I want tears!" I'm compelled to warn people that when you make the sandbox more about hitting the kids with the pail and shovel and then pointing and laughing than about sand, then the playground monitor (who gets paid depending on the quality of that playground) MUST intervene.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Valterra Craven
443
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 19:50:44 -
[1409] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Indeed we can always count on this.
Every time there is the usual derpery of "oooh tears! I want tears!" I'm compelled to warn people that when you make the sandbox more about hitting the kids with the pail and shovel and then pointing and laughing than about sand, then the playground monitor (who gets paid depending on the quality of that playground) MUST intervene.
I actually disagree with this. While CCP has changed game mechanics over time, once they make a choice, they usually always stick to their guns (rightly or wrongly).
Bumping is still a thing.
Scamming is still a thing.
Globbing will likely still be a thing until Eve dies.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
551
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 20:08:49 -
[1410] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Indeed we can always count on this.
Every time there is the usual derpery of "oooh tears! I want tears!" I'm compelled to warn people that when you make the sandbox more about hitting the kids with the pail and shovel and then pointing and laughing than about sand, then the playground monitor (who gets paid depending on the quality of that playground) MUST intervene.
I actually disagree with this. While CCP has changed game mechanics over time, once they make a choice, they usually always stick to their guns (rightly or wrongly). Bumping is still a thing. Scamming is still a thing. Globbing will likely still be a thing until Eve dies.
You have to be careful with generalisations:
Bumping can be changed how, well less of a bump, but you can never make it a criminal act because it will be gamed to death to create absolute mayhem in hisec.
Scamming is something that you tighten up on with improved corp management, and POS management or improved more secure hangers which was implemented by CCP. However the objective was always to make it easier to manage and not enable scamming by the sheer complexity of the interface for example.
Blobbing I assume, well that is part of the game which is to get the drop on people, that is in affect combat in any game worth playing.
I think Herzog is referring to how far CCP lets it go and then panic reacts when the Eve community flogs it to death. I remind you of the debate over POCO's, CCP made a concious decision to require war dec's to be able to attack them, I would have preferred that the person attacking them went suspect, this war dec requirement benefited large alliances.
Think about that in terms of hyperdunking on POS modules people no longer have to do war dec's to take all those lovely BPO's in offline labs, they can sneak in and do it without the owner knowing about it, this is an imbalance in what they intend in terms of their game design and once they realise the impact and scale of it they may well over react and that is what I think is the type of thing he refers to.
Ella's Snack bar
|
|
|
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
7782
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 20:14:24 -
[1411] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Indeed we can always count on this.
Every time there is the usual derpery of "oooh tears! I want tears!" I'm compelled to warn people that when you make the sandbox more about hitting the kids with the pail and shovel and then pointing and laughing than about sand, then the playground monitor (who gets paid depending on the quality of that playground) MUST intervene.
I actually disagree with this. While CCP has changed game mechanics over time, once they make a choice, they usually always stick to their guns (rightly or wrongly). Bumping is still a thing. Scamming is still a thing. Globbing will likely still be a thing until Eve dies.
LOL! Stick to their guns
Nano HACs
Ghost training
Training skills
And at least a dozen more I can name off the top of my head,
Mr Epeen
There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11801
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 20:26:48 -
[1412] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
You've spent literally this entire thread telling "carebears" that they have no one to blame for their destruction but themselves. But you here you aren't willing to stand up to the same scrutiny. "Oh its CCP's fault that we find null sec space unstable, unreliable, and unsafe." Right.
I said none of those things.
Merely that, in comparison, the rewards for living there are not commensurate to the risk of living there. Highsec unbalances the entire game, that's why so freaking many people live there.
Oh, and just so everyone knows, you are a liar and a fraud. But most importantly, someone who argues about things they are wholly ignorant about.
I mean, you only spent two entire pages arguing how real hacking doesn't happen at all, and something about cargo scanners and packing peanuts and shiny mylar balloons.
Quote:
I find it hilarious that pro-gankers spend all day every day making arguments that they aren't willing to live under themselves.
And yet again you're just making **** up. I tank my freighter, I web my freighter, I use d-scan and I don't afk in open space, or if I do (fire alarm), then I expect to come back to my corpse. No matter what part of space I am in.
Quote:Pro-gankers have spent this entire thread telling people that asking for changes to make the game better for them is bad, while on the back hand doing exactly the same thing and having the nerve to tell everyone else they are nothing but hypocrites!
Idk about any of my fellows, but after seeing you mealy mouthed hypocrites doing that for a decade, I kinda gave up on live and let live. I don't want people like you to enjoy the game, period. You deserve nothing less.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
54
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 21:16:56 -
[1413] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:I know you don't because the actual truth doesn't matter. The chance of a player dying to another player is lower in high sec, period. Have a graph courtesy of DracVlad (see the 'risk' graph). This info graphic doesn't do anything for your case. After reading how the numbers are tallied, the graph doesn't care how ships were lost or what ships were lost, just that ships were lost in conjunction with the number of jumps for a band of space. In other words, "conflict" in null substantially inflates the risk of null in those numbers. What this means is that the graph isn't a complete picture because the point of his argument was that it is safer to carebear in null. So really what you'd need is a graph comparing carebear ship losses in null to carebear ships losses in high sec. And actually it kinda helps his case more than yours. Its telling that the "carebear" numbers for null and hi-sec are so similiar given that A. The population densities are so different. B. Null is supposed to be riskier. C. Null sec is not supposed to have as good of money making opportunities as hi-sec. Otherwise everyone would be carebearing in hi-sec. Works both ways. There are wars and ganks in high sec and STILL the overall risk doesn't compare. And Null sec is in a 'war slowdown. That means that it's 'safer' to rat null now because of less pvp and WAY fewer 'big fights' and yet null is STILL riskier than high sec. And you reallly REALLY don't want to compare carebear ships. The last time CCP gave us actual numbers it didn't make high sec look too good.
Yeah I would want to disect anything that claimed Low sec had more pvp kills than that much killing. However FW might have given a nice boost to that.
The problem with graphs without context is most of the deaths in Nullsec are people throwing their ships in harms way on purpose to try and violence someone elses ship. I would wager everything I have in eve that there is more non-consensual pvp in highsec than there is in Null.
I contend that if you are looking to not get killed, it is much easier to not get killed in null sec than it is in high sec. By the same token if you are looking to get killed, it is easier to get killed in null than it is in high.
Either way, WH space per capita is probably the single most dangerous class of space, and that with the most repercussions because being poded might be an absolute one way trip, where in all other parts of space you wake up somewhere with the change of rejoining the fight.
Either way, you can't prove Highsec is safe, I can't prove it is dangerous. But I can prove that earnings potential in Null and WH is higher than High, and it has been proven from many people in many threads. Highsec caps at 160mil/hr with Incursions with high end 5bil fit vindis, the fitting requirements for which are higher than a Sentry Thanny. Null sec has the potential of billions in luck, or 160mil/hr running upgraded systems. WH's are just sick with blue loot.
EDIT: Going back and looking at the original graphs it is comical that hate towards carebears even exists in Highsec. With 1/10th the population Null sec has just as much carebaring npc kills as all of highsec, according to your graph. So carebear density appears to be highest in Nullsec, by a large large per capita margin. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
553
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 21:29:00 -
[1414] - Quote
One aspect that the HTFU church members ignore in their comparisons between hisec and null sec in terms of ISK per hour and risk is the differing levels of security in null, one can hardly compare a Goonwaffe member ratting in deepest Deklin to a member of Rebel Alliance of New Eden member ratting in Wicked Creek, but to the HTFU church they are one and the same.
Its so funny to see them ignore that distinction when talking about nullsec risk, Jenn a'Side was in Initiative Associates who tended to operate in very risky areas, people are of course relating to their own experiences, but I am taking baltecs words into account from a thread on AFK cloaking where he stated just how secure Goon space was.
Risk, a word misunderstood by so many...
Ella's Snack bar
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6251
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 21:29:28 -
[1415] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Indeed we can always count on this.
Every time there is the usual derpery of "oooh tears! I want tears!" I'm compelled to warn people that when you make the sandbox more about hitting the kids with the pail and shovel and then pointing and laughing than about sand, then the playground monitor (who gets paid depending on the quality of that playground) MUST intervene.
I actually disagree with this. While CCP has changed game mechanics over time, once they make a choice, they usually always stick to their guns (rightly or wrongly). Bumping is still a thing. Scamming is still a thing. Globbing will likely still be a thing until Eve dies. You have to be careful with generalisations: Bumping can be changed how, well less of a bump, but you can never make it a criminal act because it will be gamed to death to create absolute mayhem in hisec. Scamming is something that you tighten up on with improved corp management, and POS management or improved more secure hangers which was implemented by CCP. However the objective was always to make it easier to manage and not enable scamming by the sheer complexity of the interface for example. Blobbing I assume, well that is part of the game which is to get the drop on people, that is in affect combat in any game worth playing. I think Herzog is referring to how far CCP lets it go and then panic reacts when the Eve community flogs it to death. I remind you of the debate over POCO's, CCP made a concious decision to require war dec's to be able to attack them, I would have preferred that the person attacking them went suspect, this war dec requirement benefited large alliances. Think about that in terms of hyperdunking on POS modules people no longer have to do war dec's to take all those lovely BPO's in offline labs, they can sneak in and do it without the owner knowing about it, this is an imbalance in what they intend in terms of their game design and once they realise the impact and scale of it they may well over react and that is what I think is the type of thing he refers to.
Pretty much. I don't think the reaction is panic. Though it's rather comical how the people who maintain the "game" think that every player is here to play "this game" when their real game is preventing the playing of the game. At that point, it's not even about space ships.
A general rule I would follow if this game development were my task would be "If the players can take any mechanic to the max of getting just one result, they can and will and they will do it to death".
The bumping thing is not a problem in itself. I recall a time in the past where bumping people in highsec would have been looked down on. This brings me once more to the point that lowsec and nullsec is so bad even the "grief players" don't want to go there. The problem is not "grrrr highsec" the problem is that highsec still matters. But if "they" got their wish and got their nerfs or remove Concord or whatever, the choice will be to get stomped or unsub.
One thing will have to be fixed before the other. When people blindly calling for the fixing of the other refuse to address the root problem they will at least be unhappy or at worst harm themselves more.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11803
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 21:29:37 -
[1416] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Yeah I would want to disect anything that claimed Low sec had more pvp kills than that much killing. However FW might have given a nice boost to that.
Faction Warfare, in which large numbers of small ship combats occur fairly frequently, likely makes up a large portion of that.
Quote:
Either way, you can't prove Highsec is safe, I can't prove it is dangerous.
It can be proved that it's safe, actually. There's a much larger amount of people in highsec. And somehow nullsec has 3.5 times as many deaths.
That's about as safe as it gets.
Conversely, any area of space with that little kills compared to it's population size cannot, in any way, be said to be dangerous.
You don't get to disagree with facts and say that it's just your opinion.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11803
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 21:31:56 -
[1417] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:The problem is not "grrrr highsec" the problem is that highsec still matters. But if "they" got their wish and got their nerfs or remove Concord or whatever, the choice will be to get stomped or unsub.
Yeah, God forbid that people actually have to play the game.
AFK all the way, that's the better idea.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6251
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 21:40:07 -
[1418] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:The problem is not "grrrr highsec" the problem is that highsec still matters. But if "they" got their wish and got their nerfs or remove Concord or whatever, the choice will be to get stomped or unsub.
Yeah, God forbid that people actually have to play the game. AFK all the way, that's the better idea.
Who is AFK? See what you are doing? You are becoming un-hinged and going off the map.
I don't defend anything AFK, even cloaking. The client should have an input timeout and log a player off if too much time goes without it. Anybody using a mouse jiggler or input bot gets banned. Simple as that.
But I'm sure you and your ilk would be angry that AFK cloaking was removed from the game by such changes. And if that day comes, I'm going to dig up your post and show it to you.
As for "playing the game", there is no shortage for examples of people who are not playing the game from everything they do to "play the game" is centered on preventing others from playing the game. Is the Church of HTFU going to take up that mantle?
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Valterra Craven
443
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 21:54:50 -
[1419] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:LOL! Stick to their guns Nano HACs Ghost training Training skills And at least a dozen more I can name off the top of my head, Mr Epeen
I don't recall CCP having strong opinions about any of those things or that they had to make as many statements as they have on the things I mentioned vs your list.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
54
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 23:43:18 -
[1420] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
[quote]
Either way, you can't prove Highsec is safe, I can't prove it is dangerous.
It can be proved that it's safe, actually. There's a much larger amount of people in highsec. And somehow nullsec has 3.5 times as many deaths. That's about as safe as it gets. Conversely, any area of space with that little kills compared to it's population size cannot, in any way, be said to be dangerous. You don't get to disagree with facts and say that it's just your opinion.
No you can't say that either. There could be 1000 people docked in a station that never undock for every one that goes out and gets ganked. You don't know the whole context of the statistic. You cannot tell me Highsec is safe based on deaths alone and in the same breath ignore that there is the same number of npc kills to ship death ratio between the two. To say that Highsec is safe means that Nullsec has astronomically high rates of carebear activity, which negates the entire point you try to make that Highsec is too safe. |
|
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29927
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 00:57:34 -
[1421] - Quote
this ruling on hyperdunking will stand until a veldnought gets ganked.
Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
|
Valterra Craven
443
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 01:30:07 -
[1422] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I said none of those things.
See this is why I love debating you, because you are soooo easy to disprove.
This is what IGÇÖm accusing you of: GÇ£You've spent literally this entire thread telling "carebears" that they have no one to blame for their destruction but themselvesGÇ¥
This is what youGÇÖve said:
GÇ¥Also because being ganked is 100% avoidableGÇ¥https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=55 post 1089
And then I realized just how many of your posts have been wiped off the face of EVE-O since I had to go to eve-search just to get these gems:
http://eve-search.com/thread/400977-1/page/all
GÇ£If you are ganked in highsec, it is your own fault. Period.GÇ¥ Post 1241
GÇ£If someone gets ganked, it is their own fault.GÇ¥ Post 1283
GÇ£if it could have been avoided, but wasn't, the fault lies with the person failing at evasion.GÇ¥ Post 1286
GÇ£Failing to defend yourself is not a valid playstyle. Ergo, the fault lies with the person failing to defend themselves, and no one else.GÇ¥ Post 1288
GÇ£Being bad at the game is not a valid playstyle.GÇ¥ Post 1291
So please, continue to tell me what you have said and havenGÇÖt said, but when you do, remember that IGÇÖm going to back and search every single one of your posts and show you exactly what you did and did not say.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Merely that, in comparison, the rewards for living there are not commensurate to the risk of living there. Highsec unbalances the entire game, that's why so freaking many people live there.
Hey, just because you have argued this, doesnGÇÖt mean that you havenGÇÖt argued anything else.
Also, you discount the many throngs of people in hisec that want to live there just because they donGÇÖt want to live in the BS world that is Null and all the politics and foolishness that encompasses. See IGÇÖve been in BoB remember. I know about all the GÇ£reasonsGÇ¥ for war and all the propaganda etc etc etc. I want no part of that.
And guess what, no amount of nerfs to hi sec income is going to change that. My guess is this is true for a vast majority of hi-sec people as well. But I bet the real people that it would affect is the people that have their mains in null and their alts in hi-sec.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Oh, and just so everyone knows, you are a liar and a fraud. But most importantly, someone who argues about things they are wholly ignorant about.
Oh and just so everyone knows, you are a liar and a fraud and who argues things they are wholly ignorant about. The difference between me saying it and you saying it is that I can actually prove it.
LetGÇÖs go back to beginning of where that particular argument started:
Kaarous Aldurald: GÇ£Social Engineering is far, far more likely to be used for identity theft than for theft of corporate data.GÇ¥
Me: GÇ£Given that I have several decades of experience stating otherwise. I will have to disagree with you.GÇ¥
Kaarous Aldurald : GÇ£given the numerous, high profile data thefts in the past year or so, it's obvious to anyone who cares to look what the truth of the matter isGÇ¥
And, you were wrong, and still are. The crux of WHY I disagreed with you is not because social engineering is not used in identity theft, but because it is far far more likely that HACKING is used to steal that type of information vs things like shipping manifests. No doubt social engineering is used on a wide spread basis to steal individual personal data on a one on one basis, but the fact of the matter is that it is also far more likely to be used when stealing corporate data of the type relating to things like shipping manifests vs hacking. Given that you wanted us to look at all the high profile hacking cases, even a cursory glance shows that hacking is more widely used to steal things like personal info. A few cases like the one you linked above do happen, but what you have failed to show is that those cases are a majority versus the huge volume of hacks that occur to steal personal data: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/worlds-biggest-data-breaches-hacks/
Also, IGÇÖm pretty curious as to why you only listed a cyber-security degree vs any industry experience/jobs.
|
Valterra Craven
443
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 01:30:58 -
[1423] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I mean, you only spent two entire pages arguing how real hacking doesn't happen at all, and something about cargo scanners and packing peanuts and shiny mylar balloons.
No, I didnGÇÖt. In no way shape or form did any of the arguments I made about hacking characterize what you just said.
But feel free to do some legwork and show me how this is the case.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:And yet again you're just making **** up. I tank my freighter, I web my freighter, I use d-scan and I don't afk in open space, or if I do (fire alarm), then I expect to come back to my corpse. No matter what part of space I am in.
Man, you really need to carefully read what IGÇÖve said. ItGÇÖs obvious to me that you are misconstruing what IGÇÖve said for your own personal belief system. Because what IGÇÖve argued is that you guys are hypocrites, not for how you play the game, but for accusing carebears of trying to change the game for their own personal reasons when pro-gankers do the EXACT same thing. I could care less how you play in game, because that was wholly irrelevant to the argument I was making about what you have been accusing people of on these boards.
|
Valterra Craven
443
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 01:47:57 -
[1424] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:The problem is not "grrrr highsec" the problem is that highsec still matters. But if "they" got their wish and got their nerfs or remove Concord or whatever, the choice will be to get stomped or unsub.
Yeah, God forbid that people actually have to play the game. AFK all the way, that's the better idea. I don't defend anything AFK, even cloaking.
Well thats a consistant argument from pro-gankers " but carebears afk!"
Which several "carebears" including myself (since I apparently don't get to choose my label despite in no way shape or form fitting whatever definition they have for the term this week is) have told them that we'd love for CCP to get rid of AFK activities just as much as them. The funny part about this is that its actually counter intuitive for them to argue for it because it means less easy targets for them. Whereas for "us", it means less competition. |
Mag's
the united
19057
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 08:44:04 -
[1425] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I said none of those things. See this is why I love debating you, because you are soooo easy to disprove. I think you went off on one there and didn't read what he actually meant by that statement.
He was referring to this:Quote:"Oh its CCP's fault that we find null sec space unstable, unreliable, and unsafe."
Shown by the fact he then goes on to quantify the point in the next sentence with:
Quote:Merely that, in comparison, the rewards for living there are not commensurate to the risk of living there. Highsec unbalances the entire game, that's why so freaking many people live there. If you weren't so intent on word games and gymnastics, this thread would most likely still be at page 57.
We get it, you have an axe to grind. The trouble is the heads gone and you're only actually holding the handle.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
213
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 09:11:55 -
[1426] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:this ruling on hyperdunking will stand until a veldnought gets ganked.
Pfft. Someone else can do that. I sure as hell won't.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3836
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 11:15:06 -
[1427] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post and the one quoting it.
The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.
The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11809
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 13:12:55 -
[1428] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Who is AFK? See what you are doing? You are becoming un-hinged and going off the map.
Then I'd like to know what in the actual hell you're talking about. Because if you say that the problem is that highsec still matters, but then rampantly oppose any proposed measures to take away some of it's over relevancy, then I have no freaking idea what you are talking about, or what you think is a good path for the game.
As best I can tell, you and I both think that the problem is the same, you're just rejecting that based on who's saying it.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11809
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 13:14:30 -
[1429] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Rain6637 wrote:this ruling on hyperdunking will stand until a veldnought gets ganked. Pfft. Someone else can do that. I sure as hell won't.
How much hitpoints does that thing have, anyway? That'd be a heck of a lot of catalysts.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
215
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 13:37:35 -
[1430] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:Rain6637 wrote:this ruling on hyperdunking will stand until a veldnought gets ganked. Pfft. Someone else can do that. I sure as hell won't. How much hitpoints does that thing have, anyway? That'd be a heck of a lot of catalysts.
I'd be more concerned about its active tank. It's not like a cap fleet's going to alpha it off the field.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11809
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 13:40:35 -
[1431] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:Rain6637 wrote:this ruling on hyperdunking will stand until a veldnought gets ganked. Pfft. Someone else can do that. I sure as hell won't. How much hitpoints does that thing have, anyway? That'd be a heck of a lot of catalysts. I'd be more concerned about its active tank. It's not like a cap fleet's going to alpha it off the field.
He can't fit mods. Just mining lasers and mining drones, and MLUs.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
448
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 14:10:30 -
[1432] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I said none of those things.
This is what IGÇÖm accusing you of: GÇ£You've spent literally this entire thread telling "carebears" that they have no one to blame for their destruction but themselvesGÇ¥
This is what youGÇÖve said:
GÇ¥Also because being ganked is 100% avoidableGÇ¥https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=55 post 1089
And then I realized just how many of your posts have been deleted off EVE-O since I had to go to eve-search just to get these gems:
http://eve-search.com/thread/400977-1/page/all
GÇ£If you are ganked in highsec, it is your own fault. Period.GÇ¥ Post 1241
GÇ£If someone gets ganked, it is their own fault.GÇ¥ Post 1283
GÇ£if it could have been avoided, but wasn't, the fault lies with the person failing at evasion.GÇ¥ Post 1286
GÇ£Failing to defend yourself is not a valid playstyle. Ergo, the fault lies with the person failing to defend themselves, and no one else.GÇ¥ Post 1288
GÇ£Being bad at the game is not a valid playstyle.GÇ¥ Post 1291
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Merely that, in comparison, the rewards for living there are not commensurate to the risk of living there. Highsec unbalances the entire game, that's why so freaking many people live there.
Hey, just because you have argued this, doesnGÇÖt mean that you havenGÇÖt argued anything else.
Also, you discount the many throngs of people in hisec that want to live there just because they donGÇÖt want to live in the BS world that is Null and all the politics and foolishness that encompasses. See IGÇÖve been in BoB remember. I know about all the GÇ£reasonsGÇ¥ for war and all the propaganda etc etc etc. I want no part of that.
And guess what, no amount of nerfs to hi sec income is going to change that. My guess is this is true for a vast majority of hi-sec people as well. But I bet the real people that it would affect is the people that have their mains in null and their alts in hi-sec.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Oh, and just so everyone knows, you are a liar and a fraud. But most importantly, someone who argues about things they are wholly ignorant about.
Oh and just so everyone knows, you are a liar and a fraud and who argues things they are wholly ignorant about. The difference between me saying it and you saying it is that I can actually prove it.
LetGÇÖs go back to beginning of where that particular argument started:
Kaarous Aldurald: GÇ£Social Engineering is far, far more likely to be used for identity theft than for theft of corporate data.GÇ¥
Me: GÇ£Given that I have several decades of experience stating otherwise. I will have to disagree with you.GÇ¥
Kaarous Aldurald : GÇ£given the numerous, high profile data thefts in the past year or so, it's obvious to anyone who cares to look what the truth of the matter isGÇ¥
And, you were wrong, and still are. The crux of WHY I disagreed with you is not because social engineering is not used in identity theft, but because it is far far more likely that HACKING is used to steal that type of information vs things like shipping manifests. No doubt social engineering is used on a wide spread basis to steal individual personal data on a one on one basis, but the fact of the matter is that it is also far more likely to be used when stealing corporate data of the type relating to things like shipping manifests vs hacking. Given that you wanted us to look at all the high profile hacking cases, even a cursory glance shows that hacking is more widely used to steal things like personal info. A few cases like the one you linked above do happen, but what you have failed to show is that those cases are a majority versus the huge volume of hacks that occur to steal personal data: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/worlds-biggest-data-breaches-hacks/ |
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
215
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 14:15:12 -
[1433] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:Rain6637 wrote:this ruling on hyperdunking will stand until a veldnought gets ganked. Pfft. Someone else can do that. I sure as hell won't. How much hitpoints does that thing have, anyway? That'd be a heck of a lot of catalysts. I'd be more concerned about its active tank. It's not like a cap fleet's going to alpha it off the field. He can't fit mods. Just mining lasers and mining drones, and MLUs.
Ooooh. I didn't know that. That makes sense, considering the rules on HiSec caps.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11809
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 14:27:51 -
[1434] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Ooooh. I didn't know that. That makes sense, considering the rules on HiSec caps.
Yeah. It still has a crapton of hitpoints regardless, but I'm curious to see how the math would work out. Whoever knocked off Chribba would be space famous for a long time to come.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
215
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 14:35:14 -
[1435] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
Ooooh. I didn't know that. That makes sense, considering the rules on HiSec caps.
Yeah. It still has a crapton of hitpoints regardless, but I'm curious to see how the math would work out. Whoever knocked off Chribba would be space famous for a long time to come.
I'd be content just watching the majesty of it all. Plus I could say "I was there" which would be pretty awesome.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11810
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 14:45:42 -
[1436] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
Ooooh. I didn't know that. That makes sense, considering the rules on HiSec caps.
Yeah. It still has a crapton of hitpoints regardless, but I'm curious to see how the math would work out. Whoever knocked off Chribba would be space famous for a long time to come. I'd be content just watching the majesty of it all. Plus I could say "I was there" which would be pretty awesome.
I'm pretty sure that there can be no better killmail. It's the white stag of killmails.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
215
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 14:49:34 -
[1437] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I'm pretty sure that there can be no better killmail. It's the white stag of killmails.
Like hunting an endangered species.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11811
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 14:58:58 -
[1438] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I'm pretty sure that there can be no better killmail. It's the white stag of killmails. Like hunting an endangered species.
And then eating it. In full view of an environmentalist convention.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
14011
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 15:41:48 -
[1439] - Quote
ninja brain/edit
/c
GÿàGÿàGÿà Secure 3rd party service GÿàGÿàGÿà
Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'
Twitter @Chribba
|
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
61
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 16:15:36 -
[1440] - Quote
Chribba wrote:ninja brain/edit
/c
Chribba need not worry, he has the ultimate Ship Replacement Program for his Veldnaught... you see he owns EvE. All of it |
|
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6252
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 16:37:28 -
[1441] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Who is AFK? See what you are doing? You are becoming un-hinged and going off the map.
Then I'd like to know what in the actual hell you're talking about. Because if you say that the problem is that highsec still matters, but then rampantly oppose any proposed measures to take away some of it's over relevancy, then I have no freaking idea what you are talking about, or what you think is a good path for the game. As best I can tell, you and I both think that the problem is the same, you're just rejecting that based on who's saying it.
No. I'm the last to do that, because my daily life is immersed in the "who is saying what" instead of the substance of what is being said and I get to watch disaster from that. So I'm careful not to do that.
I do not deny that highsec is the cash cow, but you and I come at it from different angles. You are pushing Church of HTFU rhetoric, almost blindly, and I'm trying to point out that the problem is grounded in the suckage of lowsec and nullsec. Highsec is what it is not because CCP wants to coddle the carebears, it's because the game mechanics and other known factors have made it so that low and null suck even for the people who would normally be out there.
I see the gankers as being driven to highsec by the game mechanics just as much as the other players. Predator and prey are on the same island surrounded by sharks - or bad game mechanics.
You would have it that highsec gets nerfed to death. I say highsec still matters not because players want it to, but because that's all there is left after the crappy mechanics have had their way. The solution is to fix the game so that highsec would no longer matter except to noobs and traders. I have already pointed out four things that need to change: gates, targeting, resources, and SOV. Every time I do, you or your ilk shoots it down. Make those changes I proposed and highsec becomes a starter zone, not by some arbitrary mechanic, but because nobody will want to stay there. Don't make those changes yet complain about the end result of not making those changes, and your sincerity if not your reading comprehension falls into doubt.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6253
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 16:47:16 -
[1442] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:
Ooooh. I didn't know that. That makes sense, considering the rules on HiSec caps.
Yeah. It still has a crapton of hitpoints regardless, but I'm curious to see how the math would work out. Whoever knocked off Chribba would be space famous for a long time to come.
Sometime around 2009 somebody did the math and determined that it would take something on the order of "2000 gank Ravens" or something like that.
But that was before the Tier 3 BC and the arty nado.
It might still take a while and if a call comes out that the Veldnaught is under attack people will show up to defend it. I would bring a Kestrel.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
94
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 17:45:21 -
[1443] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
GÇ£If you are ganked in highsec, it is your own fault. Period.GÇ¥ Post 1241
GÇ£If someone gets ganked, it is their own fault.GÇ¥ Post 1283
GÇ£if it could have been avoided, but wasn't, the fault lies with the person failing at evasion.GÇ¥ Post 1286
GÇ£Failing to defend yourself is not a valid playstyle. Ergo, the fault lies with the person failing to defend themselves, and no one else.GÇ¥ Post 1288
GÇ£Being bad at the game is not a valid playstyle.GÇ¥ Post 1291
I just wanted to help out here and further that ganking is never 100% avoidable. Yes, you can be safer, but not safe. There are numerous ways to attempt to avoid ganks, but if someone sees that you are avoiding ganks, and they really want to hit you, there isn't anything keeping that from happening short of you not logging in. At which point you aren't playing the game so they win.
Instawarp triple webbed freighters for example have numerous counters...
1) gank the webber
2) jam the webber
3) instalock/point the freighter first with a fast locking frigate (gives you enough time for the rest of the gank to get started/bumping)
4) headshot nado fleet
5) btw, cargo scans still work on them so that isn't avoidable either
Did I cover everything? Maybe you were thinking that all of these circumstances is completely inside the freighter pilots control?
And that is just the safest example with its list of very easy counters. Please tell us how then for this one example (don't want to make it too hard on you by asking for safety from all ganks or you might hurt yourself) does one 100% completely insure safety other than not playing at all? |
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
219
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 18:15:06 -
[1444] - Quote
Dangeresque Too wrote:Instawarp triple webbed freighters for example have numerous counters...
1) gank the webber
Inordinately difficult and risky.
As above, but easier to scout out and readily countered with ECCM.
Quote:3) instalock/point the freighter first with a fast locking frigate (gives you enough time for the rest of the gank to get started/bumping)
Gate guns will squash the tackle long before bump tackle is established. You need something beefier (i.e more expensive) plus, the risks associated with point 1.
Quote:4) headshot nado fleet
Inordinately expensive and risky.
Quote:And that is just the safest example with its list of very easy counters. Please tell us how then for this one example (don't want to make it too hard on you by asking for safety from all ganks or you might hurt yourself) does one 100% completely insure safety other than not playing at all?
Please describe counter-counter-ganking technique that doesn't require several people to instalock the target, has sufficient tank to live long enough to make a difference, isn't inordinately expensive through ship replacement or security rating increase, can deal with interference from 3rd parties and isn't easily scouted by the freighter's escort.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
62
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 18:20:20 -
[1445] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:I don't like risk...
If you want the spoils you must accept the risk. Don't be a hypocrite. |
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
219
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 18:23:10 -
[1446] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:I don't like risk... If you want the spoils you must accept the risk. Don't be a hypocrite.
Where did I say that?
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
62
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 18:25:37 -
[1447] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Inordinately difficult and risky.
Hiasa Kite wrote:Gate guns will squash the tackle long before bump tackle is established. You need something beefier (i.e more expensive) plus, the risks associated with point 1.
Hiasa Kite wrote:Inordinately expensive and risky.
Hiasa Kite wrote:Where did I say that?
You have got to be kidding me |
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
219
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 18:34:30 -
[1448] - Quote
Risk mitigation != Risk aversion.
Do you spend 100mil ISK for a 90% chance of killing a target or do you spend 200mil ISK for a 91% chance? You double your operating cost for a mere ~10% reduction in escapees.
Opting for the 90% option isn't as reliable, but the risk analysis indicates it's significantly more efficient. That's risk mitigation.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
622
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 18:55:29 -
[1449] - Quote
Dangeresque Too wrote: just wanted to help out here and further that ganking is never 100% avoidable. Yes, you can be safer, but not safe. There are numerous ways to attempt to avoid ganks, but if someone sees that you are avoiding ganks, and they really want to hit you, there isn't anything keeping that from happening short of you not logging in. At which point you aren't playing the game so they win.
Instawarp triple webbed freighters for example have numerous counters...
1) gank the webber
2) jam the webber
3) instalock/point the freighter first with a fast locking frigate (gives you enough time for the rest of the gank to get started/bumping)
4) headshot nado fleet
5) btw, cargo scans still work on them so that isn't avoidable either
Did I cover everything? Maybe you were thinking that all of these circumstances is completely inside the freighter pilots control?
And that is just the safest example with its list of very easy counters. Please tell us how then for this one example (don't want to make it too hard on you by asking for safety from all ganks or you might hurt yourself) does one 100% completely insure safety other than not playing at all?
Yes this is correct. You are not suppose to feel, or actually be 100% safe anywhere in New Eden. For a freighter in space you can always be brute-forced ganked by a fleet of 150 Tornados pretty much whatever you do (even though this is not a credible risk for anyone worth even considering, but is theoretically possible). This is as intended however, and is not at all a problem with the game design.
That said, I am not sure why though you feel entitled to fly any ship, especially a slow industrial through a system where 150 players are actively hunting you. If a system is that dangerous, or you are being pusued by an enemy with the resources to muster such opposition, you should be seeking out alternatives to moving your goods through the hotspot rather than "counters" to get through a particular system. For example, you might use a small, more nimble ship and go around, or set an alterntive route or time for your hauling, or pass the goods off to a courier company to take the risk.
However, this is just a theoretical risk; under normal circumstances if you take a few precautions (webbing scout, fitting tank, not carrying too much) your chance of being ganked in a freighter is so low, it is statistically indistinguishable from zero giving you a near 100% chance of making any given trip. No adversary is going to commit the resources necessary for such a targetted attack unless you are carrying 100B worth of stuff and if you do that, you better bring a proper escort fleet as the game designers intend.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Valterra Craven
449
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 18:58:12 -
[1450] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Risk mitigation != Risk aversion.
Do you spend 100mil ISK for a 90% chance of killing a target or do you spend 200mil ISK for a 91% chance? You double your operating cost for a mere ~10% reduction in escapees.
Opting for the 90% option isn't as reliable, but the risk analysis indicates it's significantly more efficient. That's risk mitigation.
See its posts like these that necessitate "word games". The original argument was that "being ganked is 100% avoidable."
He provided what he thought were counters to that statement.
The original argument was not that "being ganked is 100% avoidable if you make the costs high enough for the attacker"
Therefore counters were not supplied for that.
As Kaarous Aldurald loves to point out: "Or have you not figured out yet that cost and abilities don't scale linearly? You know, a basic tenet of EVE's game balance?" |
|
|
Valterra Craven
449
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 19:13:52 -
[1451] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Which is only your opinion.
No, it's CCP's opinion. Please see the Falcon Punch for reference. You can read CCP's comments summarized here, or starting in the original thread thread this post by CCP Falcon.
And you know what? Saying that you arenGÇÖt supposed to feel or be safe anywhere in eve != saying that places like hi sec are the wild west. So no, it is still only opinion that hi-sec is tantamount to a wild untamed region where no real or effective rule of law exists.
Black Pedro wrote:
Valterra, you seem hung up on this concept of "fault" and taking it personally. It is indeed the haulers fault if the got ganked in the sense that there were steps they could take (and are designed to take as confirmed by CCP Falcon), but that doesn't necessarily mean the ganked players are bad at the game.
Just as it is conversely the GÇ£faultGÇ¥ of the person pulling the trigger as they could have chosen to do something else, shoot other targets, or instead tell the person BEFORE killing them that there fit is bad and they shouldnGÇÖt be doing that. Considering that Kaarous is the one arguing that players are bad at the game if they get ganked, then perhaps youGÇÖd like to argue with him on this topic instead? |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3839
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 19:25:39 -
[1452] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts. I hopefully do not have to remind you that reposting deleted/moderated posts might have consequences.
The Rules:
3. Ranting is prohibited.
A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counter productive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.
12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.
The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11819
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 23:17:12 -
[1453] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:I have already pointed out four things that need to change: gates, targeting, resources, and SOV. Every time I do, you or your ilk shoots it down. Make those changes I proposed and highsec becomes a starter zone, not by some arbitrary mechanic, but because nobody will want to stay there. Don't make those changes yet complain about the end result of not making those changes, and your sincerity if not your reading comprehension falls into doubt.
Okay, so you think those four things need changed. What about them, and why? And how does that change highsec's basic problems?
And also, how is that different from what I'm proposing? I want highsec to be more friendly towards conflict, less obscenely lucrative, and much less of a radical departure from every other area of space.
Because we both seem to agree that it's too much right now, that's why everyone lives there.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
220
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 23:31:02 -
[1454] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:I have already pointed out four things that need to change: gates, targeting, resources, and SOV. Every time I do, you or your ilk shoots it down. Make those changes I proposed and highsec becomes a starter zone, not by some arbitrary mechanic, but because nobody will want to stay there. Don't make those changes yet complain about the end result of not making those changes, and your sincerity if not your reading comprehension falls into doubt. Okay, so you think those four things need changed. What about them, and why? And how does that change highsec's basic problems? And also, how is that different from what I'm proposing? I want highsec to be more friendly towards conflict, less obscenely lucrative, and much less of a radical departure from every other area of space. Because we both seem to agree that it's too much right now, that's why everyone lives there.
I'm interested in what he has to say, but discuss it elsewhere, where it won't be removed.
/backseatmoderating
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
94
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 00:32:39 -
[1455] - Quote
Well I had a nice post about how ganking isn't 100% avoidable like the gankbears always claim, but its gone now? Ok.
In response to the "if you are ganked you are 100% at fault" and "ganking is completely avoidable" posts. I had them quoted but I'm sure as heck not going to go digging for them again.
Ganking is not completely 100% avoidable, with the exception of not logging in and playing, in which case you can completely avoid being ganked with 100% certainty.
If you are flying a freighter, and have a instawarp webbing buddy, you are not even close to safe. Now all they have to do use a fast locking scan ship can still lock and start the scan, and yes, i've seen it and done it myself just to make sure... Cargo scans still run (as it only takes the initiation of the scan to see the results), which means they see what you have. Instawarping ships aren't safe, just safer... they can still be scanned and still be victim to a headshot nado gang, or a normal gang if properly done. Using a hero tackle frig is another example of a huge weakness they have. Or they could just neutralize the webber while waiting for the freighter. Just cross your fingers and hope they aren't gunning for you this trip.
Unless these are somehow magically 100% avoidable by means unknown to all but the leetest gankbears? Basic rule is if someone wants to grief you enough, there is always a way and a person willing to take it that far. Some have said it has to be avoidable as they have never been ganked, congrats, you win some internets and may have a cookie.
I had another bit of a post about something else that I can't remember anymore, figures. It was in response to something but I'm sure it will come back up again. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6256
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 02:09:21 -
[1456] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:I have already pointed out four things that need to change: gates, targeting, resources, and SOV. Every time I do, you or your ilk shoots it down. Make those changes I proposed and highsec becomes a starter zone, not by some arbitrary mechanic, but because nobody will want to stay there. Don't make those changes yet complain about the end result of not making those changes, and your sincerity if not your reading comprehension falls into doubt. Okay, so you think those four things need changed. What about them, and why? And how does that change highsec's basic problems? And also, how is that different from what I'm proposing? I want highsec to be more friendly towards conflict, less obscenely lucrative, and much less of a radical departure from every other area of space. Because we both seem to agree that it's too much right now, that's why everyone lives there.
I want lowsec and nullsec to be more friendly towards conflict, more obscenely lucrative, and much less of a radical departure from every other area of space.
Think about why I am answering you that way. Let go of the anger, Luke. Use the logic.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15020
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 06:45:15 -
[1457] - Quote
Dangeresque Too wrote:Well I had a nice post about how ganking isn't 100% avoidable like the gankbears always claim, but its gone now? Ok.
In response to the "if you are ganked you are 100% at fault" and "ganking is completely avoidable" posts. I had them quoted but I'm sure as heck not going to go digging for them again.
Ganking is not completely 100% avoidable, with the exception of not logging in and playing, in which case you can completely avoid being ganked with 100% certainty.
If you are flying a freighter, and have a instawarp webbing buddy, you are not even close to safe. Now all they have to do use a fast locking scan ship can still lock and start the scan, and yes, i've seen it and done it myself just to make sure... Cargo scans still run (as it only takes the initiation of the scan to see the results), which means they see what you have. Instawarping ships aren't safe, just safer... they can still be scanned and still be victim to a headshot nado gang, or a normal gang if properly done. Using a hero tackle frig is another example of a huge weakness they have. Or they could just neutralize the webber while waiting for the freighter. Just cross your fingers and hope they aren't gunning for you this trip.
Unless these are somehow magically 100% avoidable by means unknown to all but the leetest gankbears? Basic rule is if someone wants to grief you enough, there is always a way and a person willing to take it that far. Some have said it has to be avoidable as they have never been ganked, congrats, you win some internets and may have a cookie.
I had another bit of a post about something else that I can't remember anymore, figures. It was in response to something but I'm sure it will come back up again.
Who is going to get ganked:
They guy with an escorted, tanked, wrapped uncannable cargo, near instantly warping freighter.
Or the idiot flying afk, solo and with an anti-tank.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
625
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 07:54:45 -
[1458] - Quote
Dangeresque Too wrote:Well I had a nice post about how ganking isn't 100% avoidable like the gankbears always claim, but its gone now? Ok.
You are not suppose to discuss forum moderation. File a ticket.
Dangeresque Too wrote:In response to the "if you are ganked you are 100% at fault" and "ganking is completely avoidable" posts. I had them quoted but I'm sure as heck not going to go digging for them again.
You don't have to.
Dangeresque Too wrote:Ganking is not completely 100% avoidable, with the exception of not logging in and playing, in which case you can completely avoid being ganked with 100% certainty.
If you are flying a freighter, and have a instawarp webbing buddy, you are not even close to safe. Now all they have to do use a fast locking scan ship can still lock and start the scan, and yes, i've seen it and done it myself just to make sure... Cargo scans still run (as it only takes the initiation of the scan to see the results), which means they see what you have. Instawarping ships aren't safe, just safer... they can still be scanned and still be victim to a headshot nado gang, or a normal gang if properly done. Using a hero tackle frig is another example of a huge weakness they have. Or they could just neutralize the webber while waiting for the freighter. Just cross your fingers and hope they aren't gunning for you this trip.
Unless these are somehow magically 100% avoidable by means unknown to all but the leetest gankbears? Basic rule is if someone wants to grief you enough, there is always a way and a person willing to take it that far. Some have said it has to be avoidable as they have never been ganked, congrats, you win some internets and may have a cookie.
Yes this is correct. You are not suppose to feel, or actually be 100% safe anywhere in New Eden. For a freighter in space you can always be brute-forced ganked by a fleet of 150 Tornados pretty much whatever you do (even though this is not a credible risk for anyone worth even considering, but is theoretically possible). This is as intended however, and is not at all a problem with the game design.
That said, I am not sure why though you feel entitled to fly any ship, especially a slow industrial through a system where 150 players are actively hunting you. If a system is that dangerous, or you are being pusued by an enemy with the resources to muster such opposition, you should be seeking out alternatives to moving your goods through the hotspot rather than "counters" to get through a particular system. For example, you might use a small, more nimble ship and go around, or set an alterntive route or time for your hauling, or pass the goods off to a courier company to take the risk.
However, this is just a theoretical risk; under normal circumstances if you take a few precautions (webbing scout, fitting tank, not carrying too much) your chance of being ganked in a freighter is so low, it is statistically indistinguishable from zero giving you a near 100% chance of making any given trip. No adversary is going to commit the resources necessary for such a targetted attack unless you are carrying 100B worth of stuff and if you do that, you better bring a proper escort fleet as the game designers intend.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
625
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 08:16:22 -
[1459] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And also, how is that different from what I'm proposing? I want highsec to be more friendly towards conflict, less obscenely lucrative, and much less of a radical departure from every other area of space.
Because we both seem to agree that it's too much right now, that's why everyone lives there.
I want lowsec and nullsec to be more friendly towards conflict, more obscenely lucrative, and much less of a radical departure from every other area of space. Think about why I am answering you that way. Let go of the anger, Luke. Use the logic.
Sure, but here is is something that might open your eyes to the real issue: income is all relative in this game.
Since Eve is a sandbox game, and the economy very much player-driven, the actual amount of income doesn't really matter for the determining how lucrative an area is, but it is its relative income versus all the others that will dictate how many players go there.
Therefore, if you argue to buff everwhere but highsec, you are actually arguing the exact same thing as nerfing highsec income. Well not exactly the same as there would be different effects on the economy depending how much ISK/resources you flood into the game, but in terms of this discussion they have the exact same effect on a player's earning power.
Now seeing that, do you really think that Kaarous is wrong for proposing that highsec income be taken down a notch to encourage players to leave its NPC-enfocred safety?
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
554
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 08:41:34 -
[1460] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:I have already pointed out four things that need to change: gates, targeting, resources, and SOV. Every time I do, you or your ilk shoots it down. Make those changes I proposed and highsec becomes a starter zone, not by some arbitrary mechanic, but because nobody will want to stay there. Don't make those changes yet complain about the end result of not making those changes, and your sincerity if not your reading comprehension falls into doubt. Okay, so you think those four things need changed. What about them, and why? And how does that change highsec's basic problems? And also, how is that different from what I'm proposing? I want highsec to be more friendly towards conflict, less obscenely lucrative, and much less of a radical departure from every other area of space. Because we both seem to agree that it's too much right now, that's why everyone lives there. I want lowsec and nullsec to be more friendly towards conflict, more obscenely lucrative, and much less of a radical departure from every other area of space. Think about why I am answering you that way. Let go of the anger, Luke. Use the logic.
Herzog let me try:
CCP did a nerf to poor and medium truesec Sov space, this caused a mass exodus of people from 0.0 and into hisec, it was evident before that it was better to be in null than hisec and many people did so, upgrqading their system and surrounding systems to make them lucrative, this enabled them to have fall backs in case of the cloaky camping, so they could use their space to make ISK.
I think that the issue was that it looked likely to cause massive inflation, so CCP nerfed that saying they wanted to create conflict around good truesec systems, instead people just left 0.0. As if these small groups could get a good system, dream on CCP all you did was reinforce the big entities and the malaise we see now was deepened by that decision.
Incursions were introduced which did not help in terms of peoples perception of hisec, though now they are mainly run by alts of null sec players, and in any case they are run by a sub-set of hisec players, and yet they are often cited as being unbalanced as if all of hisec runs them, dream on guys dream on.
In affect it was the simple fact of making null less lucrative.
Another issue, I play as a solo or small group player, and I found that being such a player in null is impossible, many people in hisec play Eve on that basis and most have been forced back to hisec. We have lost ninja mining due to making the sigs warp straight to rather than requiring them to be scanned, ninja belt ratting for faction officers because every man and his dog now has a BLOPS and then to add to the misery D-scan immunity, gathering of resources from gun mining nerfed by refining changes that cut the value by 50%.
So in effect the solo and small gang group that would live in that space have no reason to go there and end up rescuing the damsel every day to make ISK in missions that are so boring it hurts and yet are only relieved from the boredom by having a reasonable ISK level. So people want to nerf the ISK from level 4's and make people grind more, not sensible guys not sensible at all.
I am not going back to 0.0 as a solo or small group player to be carpet AFK cloaky camped by a load of ISK rich bored lazy scum who play other games while waiting for people to do something to get the perfect execution type kill with 0 risk, while my income has been severely reduced. This is the reality of it, you can kid yourself as much as you want, but it is just not going to happen and I was a player who enjoyed the thrill of operating in dangerous areas, now it's just not fun...
Kaarous is a hisec player who has spent time in WH space if I remember from his previous posts, he has no idea of the changes I just detailed. He just sits there going level 4's give too much ISK and they are not dangerous, which in itself is now true because of that nerf to income in null I detailed above
I don't know what CCP are going to do in terms of Sov space, but I am not going there except looking for some helpless sap to try my BLOPS out on and of course add to the pressure. Yes the CFC through hard work and working together have managed to create a relatively safe area and others try to emulate that too, they are playing the game, but once you have done that 4 or 5 times to be crushed by the same overwhelming force you no longer want to play as a punch bag.
So Mr HTFU church member, why are you hanging around in hisec if you do not like it, get your butt out to 0.0 and prove me wrong, but no you would rather sit there criticizing hisec from hisec, does the word hypocrite mean anything to you?
In terms of hyper-dunking, I think the ability to use this to kill offline POS modules is actually going to be an issue that causes CCP to re-think it, people can now attack offline POS's without requiring a war dec, though in reality its only those that have no issue about -10 who will do it...
I had some fun stopping people from hyperdunking and even got rewarded by one Ark pilot that me and two others managed to save, he also saved himself in the end with an out cyno. It was a bump I did at the end when they were firing on him that mitigated the DPS enough.
How to stop it, well its easy enough, the freighter pilots need to safe log off before they get aggro from that lone noob ship, if that fails they need people to bump them as the short range cats try to gank them and to contest the bumping so they do not get bumped where they can be easily killed, they also need people to surround them in plated BS to act as a shield against bumping, they need people to sit there and jam the DPS and remove them from the equation. It requires people to work together, which is the question and issue, herding cats?
Ella's Snack bar
|
|
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
554
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 09:33:32 -
[1461] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Dangeresque Too wrote:Well I had a nice post about how ganking isn't 100% avoidable like the gankbears always claim, but its gone now? Ok. You are not suppose to discuss forum moderation. File a ticket. Dangeresque Too wrote:In response to the "if you are ganked you are 100% at fault" and "ganking is completely avoidable" posts. I had them quoted but I'm sure as heck not going to go digging for them again. You don't have to.Dangeresque Too wrote:Ganking is not completely 100% avoidable, with the exception of not logging in and playing, in which case you can completely avoid being ganked with 100% certainty.
If you are flying a freighter, and have a instawarp webbing buddy, you are not even close to safe. Now all they have to do use a fast locking scan ship can still lock and start the scan, and yes, i've seen it and done it myself just to make sure... Cargo scans still run (as it only takes the initiation of the scan to see the results), which means they see what you have. Instawarping ships aren't safe, just safer... they can still be scanned and still be victim to a headshot nado gang, or a normal gang if properly done. Using a hero tackle frig is another example of a huge weakness they have. Or they could just neutralize the webber while waiting for the freighter. Just cross your fingers and hope they aren't gunning for you this trip.
Unless these are somehow magically 100% avoidable by means unknown to all but the leetest gankbears? Basic rule is if someone wants to grief you enough, there is always a way and a person willing to take it that far. Some have said it has to be avoidable as they have never been ganked, congrats, you win some internets and may have a cookie. Yes this is correct. You are not suppose to feel, or actually be 100% safe anywhere in New Eden. For a freighter in space you can always be brute-forced ganked by a fleet of 150 Tornados pretty much whatever you do (even though this is not a credible risk for anyone worth even considering, but is theoretically possible). This is as intended however, and is not at all a problem with the game design. That said, I am not sure why though you feel entitled to fly any ship, especially a slow industrial through a system where 150 players are actively hunting you. If a system is that dangerous, or you are being pusued by an enemy with the resources to muster such opposition, you should be seeking out alternatives to moving your goods through the hotspot rather than "counters" to get through a particular system. For example, you might use a small, more nimble ship and go around, or set an alterntive route or time for your hauling, or pass the goods off to a courier company to take the risk. However, this is just a theoretical risk; under normal circumstances if you take a few precautions (webbing scout, fitting tank, not carrying too much) your chance of being ganked in a freighter is so low, it is statistically indistinguishable from zero giving you a near 100% chance of making any given trip. No adversary is going to commit the resources necessary for such a targetted attack unless you are carrying 100B worth of stuff and if you do that, you better bring a proper escort fleet as the game designers intend.
You do not need 150 Tornadoes, all you need is 5 Talos, 4 Brutix and 2 Catalysts for a brute force gank on a freighter.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
171
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 16:03:37 -
[1462] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Dracvlad wrote:For my own part today I helped secure the safety of an Ark and a Charon and am enjoying the challenge that this new style of attacks bring to what is normally a quiet TZ. If people in hisec want to have fun there is no better way then counter bumping and jamming people doing this. Excellent work. You have my admiration for playing the game and taking the fight to those evil gankers. Disrupt those ganks! Dracvlad wrote:The mechanics around this are now resulting in people using the same method to take down off-line towers which I agree are a stain on the heavenly beauty of Eve, I do wonder what CCP thinks of this impact on targets that previously required a war dec, that being said I certainly find it very clever and a wonderful example of this sandbox. This is true. I think hyperdunking was used before on structures, but this publicity and this clear ruling (thanks CCP Falcon) remove any lingering doubts about this being an exploit will impact on abandoned structures. The towers themselves still have too much EHP so you would need a wardec, but abandoned arrays, labs and structures are at risk. CODE. already seems to be hard at work cleaning up New Eden. Dracvlad wrote:I also take the opportunity to salute the extreme bumping skills of the player who has been the most prolific in the art of Hyperdunking. Indeed. It takes not only some skills can concentration, but much patience. I too salute the pioneers of this technique for bringing a new tool to the sandbox.
Regarding using hyperdunking to destroy arrays at POSes I presume the towers must be offline ? If they were online the 99% resistances on structure would make it a really tough job.
Regarding hyperdunking as a tactic my personal opinion is that it is being used too much now and CCP should do something about it. But it does seem like they are not going to.
Regarding Sabriz Adoudel stated policies for if/when she joins the CSM I have read some of what she has to say. She has some good ideas on increasing the wardec charges if a large corporation/alliance wishes to attack a small corporation. I would probably go for higher charges though than she has suggested. She also has some good ideas on retention of members in player run corporations with corp members receiving small (One, two, or three percent.) increases to, for example, mining yields if they stay in one player run corporation for say three months or something. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
556
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 18:06:39 -
[1463] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:Black Pedro wrote:Dracvlad wrote:For my own part today I helped secure the safety of an Ark and a Charon and am enjoying the challenge that this new style of attacks bring to what is normally a quiet TZ. If people in hisec want to have fun there is no better way then counter bumping and jamming people doing this. Excellent work. You have my admiration for playing the game and taking the fight to those evil gankers. Disrupt those ganks! Dracvlad wrote:The mechanics around this are now resulting in people using the same method to take down off-line towers which I agree are a stain on the heavenly beauty of Eve, I do wonder what CCP thinks of this impact on targets that previously required a war dec, that being said I certainly find it very clever and a wonderful example of this sandbox. This is true. I think hyperdunking was used before on structures, but this publicity and this clear ruling (thanks CCP Falcon) remove any lingering doubts about this being an exploit will impact on abandoned structures. The towers themselves still have too much EHP so you would need a wardec, but abandoned arrays, labs and structures are at risk. CODE. already seems to be hard at work cleaning up New Eden. Dracvlad wrote:I also take the opportunity to salute the extreme bumping skills of the player who has been the most prolific in the art of Hyperdunking. Indeed. It takes not only some skills can concentration, but much patience. I too salute the pioneers of this technique for bringing a new tool to the sandbox. Regarding using hyperdunking to destroy arrays at POSes I presume the towers must be offline ? If they were online the 99% resistances on structure would make it a really tough job. Regarding hyperdunking as a tactic my personal opinion is that it is being used too much now and CCP should do something about it. But it does seem like they are not going to. Regarding Sabriz Adoudel stated policies for if/when she joins the CSM I have read some of what she has to say. She has some good ideas on increasing the wardec charges if a large corporation/alliance wishes to attack a small corporation. I would probably go for higher charges though than she has suggested. She also has some good ideas on retention of members in player run corporations with corp members receiving small (One, two, or three percent.) increases to, for example, mining yields if they stay in one player run corporation for say three months or something.
The tower has to be offline as you quite correctly stated.
There has beena fall off in recent days of hyperdunking because its is fairly easy to counter if you have people willing to get in the way and there are people doing that, from ganking their Machs, to counter bumping, to repping to jamming the cats. I don't think at this point that CCP needs to do anything about this in terms of ships, but the issue has to be the impact to offline POS modules that required a war dec before.
I have had some discussions on war decs in other threads.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
94
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 18:20:10 -
[1464] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:That said, I am not sure why though you feel entitled to fly any ship, especially a slow industrial through a system where 150 players are actively hunting you. If a system is that dangerous, or you are being pusued by an enemy with the resources to muster such opposition, you should be seeking out alternatives to moving your goods through the hotspot rather than "counters" to get through a particular system. For example, you might use a small, more nimble ship and go around, or set an alterntive route or time for your hauling, or pass the goods off to a courier company to take the risk. However, this is just a theoretical risk; under normal circumstances if you take a few precautions (webbing scout, fitting tank, not carrying too much) your chance of being ganked in a freighter is so low, it is statistically indistinguishable from zero giving you a near 100% chance of making any given trip. No adversary is going to commit the resources necessary for such a targetted attack unless you are carrying 100B worth of stuff and if you do that, you better bring a proper escort fleet as the game designers intend. First, I never said someone should be entitled to do it, the original argument was that ganking was 100% avoidable and completely the victims fault. Not that people should be entitled to do whatever they want without risk.
Second, the falcon punch, its not exactly valid in most cases it is quoted. This thread isn't about CCP protecting carebears and their haulers, its about why a mechanic seems fishy. Concord won't let you board one of your own ships in space while criminal, but its suddenly ok to board someone else's ship? In this case they need to get their stories and policies straight. |
Valterra Craven
449
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 20:29:03 -
[1465] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
Now seeing that, do you really think that Kaarous is wrong for proposing that highsec income be taken down a notch to encourage players to leave its NPC-enfocred safety?
Is he wrong? No. The problem is that this argument has to presume that income is the determinate factor for living in an area or income is the primary motivator for what people do in game. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
557
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 20:42:34 -
[1466] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
Now seeing that, do you really think that Kaarous is wrong for proposing that highsec income be taken down a notch to encourage players to leave its NPC-enfocred safety?
Is he wrong? No. The problem is that this argument has to presume that income is the determinate factor for living in an area or income is the primary motivator for what people do in game.
He is wrong, because in my case I went to NPC 0.0 to belt rat with lower awards than level 4 missions in Osmon because I wanted the fun of hunting and being hunted, my decision to spend more time making ISK in hisec was the lameness of AFK cloaking and the D-scan immunity being an instant I lose button on the ships I was using. Nothing to do with ISK..., it was the fact that it was made too easy for people to hunt which is not the game I thought I was playing.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
68
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 21:00:32 -
[1467] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
Now seeing that, do you really think that Kaarous is wrong for proposing that highsec income be taken down a notch to encourage players to leave its NPC-enfocred safety?
Is he wrong? No. The problem is that this argument has to presume that income is the determinate factor for living in an area or income is the primary motivator for what people do in game.
Where is the line. Get rid of lvl 4's and people blitz level 3's. Get rid of level 3's next?
Force people to leave High-sec on a timer? What other terribly bad ideas for the game can the pro-gank crowd come up with?
Best isk in highsec doesn't even involve leaving the station, can be done on a sub 1mil sp alt and within 2 jumps of a starter system. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
631
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 21:27:03 -
[1468] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
Now seeing that, do you really think that Kaarous is wrong for proposing that highsec income be taken down a notch to encourage players to leave its NPC-enfocred safety?
Is he wrong? No. The problem is that this argument has to presume that income is the determinate factor for living in an area or income is the primary motivator for what people do in game.
It is. I agree that the truly risk-averse that are not comfortable losing ships will always live in highsec as they are the most safe there and will never leave regardless of income potential. But for players that are comfortable living in all spaces and who are in need of ISK, why would they not choose to move the space that is the most lucrative relative to the rest?
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Where is the line. Get rid of lvl 4's and people blitz level 3's. Get rid of level 3's next?
You seem to be missing the point. Nerfing highsec income is exactly the same from the perspective as buffing the income in other spaces. If you could not touch highsec income while making the other spaces more lucrative (without disrupting the economy) it is exactly the same as nerfing highsec income. Would buffing the other spaces be acceptable to you?
Personally, I think nerfing base L4 incomes probably isn't even necessary if some mechanism was put in place to prevent veterans from just grinding them non-stop for their incomes instead of doing PvE in currently empty risker spaces. That would allow casual and newer players to still benefit from them while limiting their damage to the overall economy. Incursion income though is far too high as CCP has acknowledged - expect that to be nerfed when the sov revamp and/or new Jove space comes online.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
69
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 21:42:56 -
[1469] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Where is the line. Get rid of lvl 4's and people blitz level 3's. Get rid of level 3's next? You seem to be missing the point. Nerfing highsec income is exactly the same from the perspective as buffing the income in other spaces. If you could not touch highsec income while making the other spaces more lucrative (without disrupting the economy) it is exactly the same as nerfing highsec income. Would buffing the other spaces be acceptable to you? Personally, I think nerfing base L4 incomes probably isn't even necessary if some mechanism was put in place to prevent veterans from just grinding them non-stop for their incomes instead of doing PvE in currently empty risker spaces. That would allow casual and newer players to still benefit from them while limiting their damage to the overall economy. Incursion income though is far too high as CCP has acknowledged - expect that to be nerfed when the sov revamp and/or new Jove space comes online.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. There needs to be some buffs to FW, level 4 missions in LS and a bunch of added level 5's. Also nullsec needs more content that provides high end stuff for small or single groups.
WH's are still my sugar daddy :) |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
557
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 21:53:55 -
[1470] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
Now seeing that, do you really think that Kaarous is wrong for proposing that highsec income be taken down a notch to encourage players to leave its NPC-enfocred safety?
Is he wrong? No. The problem is that this argument has to presume that income is the determinate factor for living in an area or income is the primary motivator for what people do in game. It is. I agree that the truly risk-averse that are not comfortable losing ships will always live in highsec as they are the most safe there and will never leave regardless of income potential. But for players that are comfortable living in all spaces and who are in need of ISK, why would they not choose to move the space that is the most lucrative relative to the rest? Market McSelling Alt wrote:Where is the line. Get rid of lvl 4's and people blitz level 3's. Get rid of level 3's next? You seem to be missing the point. Nerfing highsec income is exactly the same from the perspective as buffing the income in other spaces. If you could not touch highsec income while making the other spaces more lucrative (without disrupting the economy) it is exactly the same as nerfing highsec income. Would buffing the other spaces be acceptable to you? Personally, I think nerfing base L4 incomes probably isn't even necessary if some mechanism was put in place to prevent veterans from just grinding them non-stop for their incomes instead of doing PvE in currently empty risker spaces. That would allow casual and newer players to still benefit from them while limiting their damage to the overall economy. Incursion income though is far too high as CCP has acknowledged - expect that to be nerfed when the sov revamp and/or new Jove space comes online.
Well some of us were around when the true sec and upgrades enabled even bad systems to be usable for ISK generation and everyone wanted a slice of 0.0, then when CCP nerfed it people went back to hisec. What you just said is utter tosh, I saw people leave 0.0 at that time in a large mass. Anybody who saw that happen like I did knows you are wrong because while people could upgrade bad space smaller groups flocked enmasse to null.
Ella's Snack bar
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
451
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 23:12:45 -
[1471] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:But for players that are comfortable living in all spaces and who are in need of ISK, why would they not choose to move the space that is the most lucrative relative to the rest?
Hi-sec is not the most lucrative space relative to any other region. (unless you want to station trade or are really good at predicting the rise and fall of goods due to patch changes)
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6271
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 23:23:41 -
[1472] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
Now seeing that, do you really think that Kaarous is wrong for proposing that highsec income be taken down a notch to encourage players to leave its NPC-enfocred safety?
Is he wrong? No. The problem is that this argument has to presume that income is the determinate factor for living in an area or income is the primary motivator for what people do in game. He is wrong, because in my case I went to NPC 0.0 to belt rat with lower awards than level 4 missions in Osmon because I wanted the fun of hunting and being hunted, my decision to spend more time making ISK in hisec was the lameness of AFK cloaking and the D-scan immunity being an instant I lose button on the ships I was using. Nothing to do with ISK..., it was the fact that it was made too easy for people to hunt which is not the game I thought I was playing.
Bingo.
Church of HTFU dogma is all about ISK.
I've made the argument that even the PVPers come to highsec and those players are not making ISK. At the same time, nullseccers have highsec incursion alts.
ISK has not been the factor. Game mechanics making "playing the game" more of a headache than entertaining is the factor. People in highsec want to make ISK with "low risk"? Fine maybe they do. But PVPers want to PVP with low risk too, and they are also there for that.
I've watched it do nothing but get worse over the years.
The best indication is this: when the new scanning came about in 2009, the people running lowsec missions or mining started getting slaughtered wholesale because any monkey with probes could scan them out. I remember numerous long threads about it. There was the usual HTFU rhetoric that overlooked that yes, there are ways not to get scanned out in a mission and get ganked, but if you can't even finish said mission it's still a loss. (I recommended that lowsec needed a different mission profile, something more involved with speed that had more challenge but took less time) .
So people stopped taking lowsec missions in most of the cases.
The result of that was a lot of threads from bored campers from lowsec complaining how dead it was (gee guys, you killed everything that moved and "won". Why are you complaining?).
Those threads are gone. The people who made them are gone.
But what's the new common complaint now? Wardec avoidance. And this is an issue strictly for highsec.
Church of HTFU seems to think that the Eve universe was created in 7 days and CCP said "let there be carebears raking in tons of no risk ISK". I'm looking back to 2006 and watching a long slow progression of game denial mechanics that have for the most part driven everybody to highsec And/or ("and" in consideration of nullseccers with highsec mission/incursion alts) nullsec where they can farm deep behind the intel channels and gank pipelines (and then dock up in two seconds if a neutral shows up).
But it's not just the carebears who are driven to highsec. Even the people who used to be "out there" are no longer having a good time (drops, bubbles, etc.)
That's why hyperdunking has become an issue. It went from gate camping to probing, then when people stopped showing up, loot theft and "aggro fu" (which CCP has worked to simplify bringing much wailing and gnashing of the teeth from COHTFU because tripping someone up on technicalities and then destroying them 4 to one at least is "PVP") . Then it became possible to abandon wrecks. So that plus the button was the end of that. Then came bumping and suicide ganking.
And now hyperdunking because every last bit of the mechanics is going to be probed and tested for that one thing that which is deprived by the same mechanics that drove their targets into highsec. People want to get kills, not BLOPS dropped, bubbles camped (or have to take forever to roam to get a fight) or dictor camped for several hours for a shot at putting some green on their board.
Just like the mission runner who won't "chance" it in lowsec, the PVPer don't want to chance it either. Mechanics. All around.
Yes, there was once actually a time when people LEFT highsec to PVP. Be it on roams, to go live out there, to explore, to die in a fire, to get kills, to pirate - whatever. For those of you who cannot believe it, I'll repeat it: There was once a time when people left highsec to PVP. It was not even a question back then. If you said "Yeah I'll get into more PVP" nobody would ask "are you leaving highsec?". They didn't have to.
I kind of imagine that if I took the idea back to 2006 I'd get laughed at and asked "Why?".
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11834
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 03:10:38 -
[1473] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Bingo.
Church of HTFU dogma is all about ISK.
*sigh*
No, it's not. It's about the fact that I love this game, and I'd rather not see it die of stagnation because CCP is unwilling to address the sacred cow of highsec.
As for "buff everywhere else instead!", I don't think that's feasible, nevermind that you and I are talking about near complete equivalents as far as the end results on the players is concerned.
The reason buffing other areas of space will not work is that it creates runaway inflation. Inflation, as you might know, dramatically hurts new players since their ability to generate PvE income scales much less well than everyone else in the game. Their relative purchasing power is cut sharply. (this is in evidence merely in the cost of T1 ship prices over the last five years. That's inflation at work. What used to cost a new player a few hundred thousand isk, now costs 1 or 2 million. But their income from L1 and L2 missions has remained unchanged.
Quote:
The best indication is this: when the new scanning came about in 2009, the people running lowsec missions or mining started getting slaughtered wholesale because any monkey with probes could scan them out. I remember numerous long threads about it. There was the usual HTFU rhetoric that overlooked that yes, there are ways not to get scanned out in a mission and get ganked, but if you can't even finish said mission it's still a loss. (I recommended that lowsec needed a different mission profile, something more involved with speed that had more challenge but took less time) .
Wait... didn't you, just before this part, go off about "mechanics that make playing the game more of a headache"? Or does that only apply when it benefits carebears?
Quote:
Just like the mission runner who won't "chance" it in lowsec, the PVPer don't want to chance it either. Mechanics. All around.
And wrong. Again.
Predators go where the prey are. Since CCP hasn't provided any real reason for the prey to live anywhere else, the prey mostly live in highsec. Well, that and nullsec, but then if I recall correctly you have a huge problem with afk cloaking, one of the few reasonable ways to actually get at people in null, either.
And through all of this, you are missing the real problem.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
451
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 04:40:57 -
[1474] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No, it's not.
Given that a majority of your arguments seem centered around isk in hi-sec, it can be hard to tell.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
As for "buff everywhere else instead!", I don't think that's feasible
The reason buffing other areas of space will not work is that it creates runaway inflation.
Well that would depend on what you were talking about changing. I've been a player since 2006 and you know what hasn't changed much since then? The income that you can get from missions. This is despite the numerous changes to low and null and even the addition of wormholes.
So here is the crux of why I think your arguments about nerfing hi-sec in general are short sited. I'd like you to think about this question, Inflation aside. Why are wormholes some of the most lucrative space despite the fact that very little "isk" is generated from doing things there?
The problem with argument is that buffing other areas of space does not solely have to come from things that are isk printing machines. There are valid ways to buff other areas of space without unbalancing the game due to a high rise of inflation. I think wormholes were a perfect example of how you could create an extremely rich player base without ever really needing to dump isk directly into their pockets.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: (this is in evidence merely in the cost of T1 ship prices over the last five years. That's inflation at work.
I disagree. I argued pretty heavily with Greyscale and other posters in goons whom I have the utmost respect for back before the industry changes happened that having an install cost that scales with the final market price of an item was a supremely bad idea. In the end I did get what I wanted (install costs based on the combined price of the building materials instead) but not without taking a few shots in the side with my arguments on inflation. The problem with my argument as presented to me was that inflation isn't actually all that high in Eve as evidenced by all the reports from the former resident economist. In fact, i think a primary reason why we are paying more for goods now is not due to inflation, but is in actuality due to the changes in industry that were rolled out last year. Not only did the cost of building things go up, but this also introduced a HUUUUGE isk sink into the game that previously did not exist. That alone would have acted as big drag on inflation numbers despite the fact that the market prices on most things went up. Remember inflation is not the sole factor on how much prices rise or fall.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And wrong. Again
Predators go where the prey are.
Here too I believe you are wrong (even if only semantically). Predators go where the weakest and easiest prey are. This is evident in everything found in nature. And funnily enough this is actually something you yourself have argued. ("Why would you gank a tanked webbed freighter when you can kill an untanked afk one?")
But that aside, one thing that I think both of you are missing, is that recent dev posts by CCP indicate that activity in both Null and Low-sec is increasing since the patch cadence has gone through the roof.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Since CCP hasn't provided any real reason for the prey to live anywhere else, the prey mostly live in highsec.
Well given everything you've said about what CCP's role is and is not in this thread, its not up to them to provide prey for you. This is a sandbox remember. Provide your own prey. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6273
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 05:57:07 -
[1475] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Predators go where the prey are. Since CCP hasn't provided any real reason for the prey to live anywhere else, the prey mostly live in highsec. Well, that and nullsec, but then if I recall correctly you have a huge problem with afk cloaking, one of the few reasonable ways to actually get at people in null, either.
And through all of this, you are missing the real problem.
Wrong. You are missing my point that the predators are also prey and are ending up where the prey is for the same reason that the prey was there. Sure you can be the hunter of highsec but it's a target rich environment for the same reasons that low and null are target poor (and when you find a target, you become the prey).
The predators of highsec are having to deal with the same travel and power projection mechanics as the prey. As I recall the prey was everywhere at one time until it became infeasible to be prey.
Of course one need not be prey out of highsec, but farmer and PVPer alike will have to be something undesirable to both parties: renters. And if you want to prey on other renters, then you ain't able to pay your rent and the return on your KB is not going to be like it would be for staying in highsec ganking freighters, AWOXing, and all that.
Hyperdunking is just another invention of the "predators" who are just as much over a barrel as their prey, and like AWOXing and Aggro-fu, it will get overused. I warn you people that making the sandbox less about sand will threaten it, and then the playground monitor has to intervene. And then you will complain about that too.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11835
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 06:05:42 -
[1476] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Hyperdunking is just another invention of the "predators" who are just as much over a barrel as their prey, and like AWOXing and Aggro-fu, it will get overused. I warn you people that making the sandbox less about sand will threaten it, and then the playground monitor has to intervene. And then you will complain about that too.
Stop blaming us for using some of the few avenues we have left to actually play the game.
Your mentality is that, unless we want to have things taken away from us, we better not use them. That's a pathetic way to live, and it handcuffs people every bit as much as the consequences you're promising.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6273
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 06:12:48 -
[1477] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Hyperdunking is just another invention of the "predators" who are just as much over a barrel as their prey, and like AWOXing and Aggro-fu, it will get overused. I warn you people that making the sandbox less about sand will threaten it, and then the playground monitor has to intervene. And then you will complain about that too.
Stop blaming us for using some of the few avenues we have left to actually play the game. Your mentality is that, unless we want to have things taken away from us, we better not use them. That's a pathetic way to live, and it handcuffs people every bit as much as the consequences you're promising.
This is like talking to a wall. Did you know you typed this:
Stop blaming us for using some of the few avenues we have left to actually play the game.
I'm trying to tell you why you have so few avenues left. And it's not carebears and it's not highsec and it's not mission/incursion ISK. Yet you remain blind to the bigger picture.
Ah well. Maybe it's all you know. I have seen the bigger picture. Surely if an activist from a rising society crosses paths with an activist from the same society while it's in decline they'll see different reasons for said decline.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11835
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 06:17:21 -
[1478] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
I'm trying to tell you why you have so few avenues left.
No, you're trying to blame people who are playing the game. In defense of people who actively aren't.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
558
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 10:54:02 -
[1479] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
I'm trying to tell you why you have so few avenues left.
No, you're trying to blame people who are playing the game. In defense of people who actively aren't.
Like AFK Cloaky Campers perhaps
Ella's Snack bar
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
222
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 11:00:55 -
[1480] - Quote
What's wrong with cloaky camping? Are they earning ISK while AFK?
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
|
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
558
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 11:25:46 -
[1481] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:What's wrong with cloaky camping? Are they earning ISK while AFK?
Well Mr anti-Semite named character racist scumbag I think you are too stooopid to work that out!
Ella's Snack bar
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11837
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 11:51:23 -
[1482] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:What's wrong with cloaky camping? Are they earning ISK while AFK?
No, and that's the important distinction that they will go well out of their way to ignore.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
558
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 11:55:25 -
[1483] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
I'm trying to tell you why you have so few avenues left.
No, you're trying to blame people who are playing the game. In defense of people who actively aren't. Like AFK Cloaky Campers perhaps
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:What's wrong with cloaky camping? Are they earning ISK while AFK? No, and that's the important distinction that they will go well out of their way to ignore.
Nothing to do with income, you talked about people not playing the game and I added a group that does not play the game.
As you spend most of your time in hisec you are not aware of people who ask for ISK to leave system, so yes they can earn ISK.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11837
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 12:32:15 -
[1484] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
As you spend most of your time in hisec you are not aware of people who ask for ISK to leave system, so yes they can earn ISK.
That's a meta activity. You can just as easily make them sing you a song too.
There is no mechanical benefit derived from it, and therefore it is not an income generation activity.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
558
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 12:35:35 -
[1485] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
As you spend most of your time in hisec you are not aware of people who ask for ISK to leave system, so yes they can earn ISK.
That's a meta activity. You can just as easily make them sing you a song too. There is no mechanical benefit derived from it, and therefore it is not an income generation activity.
So your simplistic statement is wrong yet again.
Ella's Snack bar
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3848
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 13:05:42 -
[1486] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and the one quoting them. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
558
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 13:11:49 -
[1487] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
As you spend most of your time in hisec you are not aware of people who ask for ISK to leave system, so yes they can earn ISK.
That's a meta activity. You can just as easily make them sing you a song too. There is no mechanical benefit derived from it, and therefore it is not an income generation activity.
So your simplistic comment is proved to be incorrect once again
Ella's Snack bar
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
223
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 13:21:54 -
[1488] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
As you spend most of your time in hisec you are not aware of people who ask for ISK to leave system, so yes they can earn ISK.
That's a meta activity. You can just as easily make them sing you a song too. There is no mechanical benefit derived from it, and therefore it is not an income generation activity. So your simplistic comment is proved to be incorrect once again, because you are having to qualify it A major part of Eve game play is meta gaming, so are you really playing Eve?
Your failure to understand does not make it wrong.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Solonius Rex
F0RCED ENTRY
F0RCED ENTRY.
148
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 15:09:37 -
[1489] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
As you spend most of your time in hisec you are not aware of people who ask for ISK to leave system, so yes they can earn ISK.
If theyre asking for isk to leave system, theyre not AFK..... |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
573
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 15:42:22 -
[1490] - Quote
Solonius Rex wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
As you spend most of your time in hisec you are not aware of people who ask for ISK to leave system, so yes they can earn ISK.
If theyre asking for isk to leave system, theyre not AFK.....
Obviously at that point no, but what difference does that make when they are in system 23.50 / 24 and 7 / 7? They must be AFK at some point to sleep, eat, pee, defecate, work, kick the dog, hump the wife or husband or a goat.or whatever takes their fancy.
Ella's Snack bar
|
|
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3849
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 15:44:13 -
[1491] - Quote
Please refrain from reposting previously moderated posts.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
576
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 16:35:27 -
[1492] - Quote
All I can say is blasted industrials aren't safe
Ella's Snack bar
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
87
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 19:19:22 -
[1493] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Hyperdunking is just another invention of the "predators" who are just as much over a barrel as their prey, and like AWOXing and Aggro-fu, it will get overused. I warn you people that making the sandbox less about sand will threaten it, and then the playground monitor has to intervene. And then you will complain about that too.
Stop blaming us for using some of the few avenues we have left to actually play the game. Your mentality is that, unless we want to have things taken away from us, we better not use them. That's a pathetic way to live, and it handcuffs people every bit as much as the consequences you're promising. This is like talking to a wall. Did you know you typed this: Stop blaming us for using some of the few avenues we have left to actually play the game.I'm trying to tell you why you have so few avenues left. And it's not carebears and it's not highsec and it's not mission/incursion ISK. Yet you remain blind to the bigger picture. Ah well. Maybe it's all you know. I have seen the bigger picture. Surely if an activist from a rising society crosses paths with an activist from the same society while it's in decline they'll see different reasons for said decline.
They act as if the players have no agency, no choice as the whether they will embrace a risk averse pvp in highsec or take risks to find content elsewhere.
If you force all the easy targets, in many cases people who are structurally unable to match you because of SP, to die for your amusement over and over, you'll soon find yourself with none left. What do you think the game will look like when there are no players left save for the risk averse "elite" pvp'ers.
"Few avenues left to play the game." So now killing the easy targets in highsec is the whole game? Wardeccing, ganking, and baiting newbs and dumbs - that's the whole game? I'm going to have to start telling the guys in FW space (arguably the most pvp-active regions in the game) that they're doing it wrong.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
70
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 19:55:14 -
[1494] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
They act as if the players have no agency, no choice as the whether they will embrace a risk averse pvp in highsec or take risks to find content elsewhere.
If you force all the easy targets, in many cases people who are structurally unable to match you because of SP, to die for your amusement over and over, you'll soon find yourself with none left. What do you think the game will look like when there are no players left save for the risk averse "elite" pvp'ers.
"Few avenues left to play the game." So now killing the easy targets in highsec is the whole game? Wardeccing, ganking, and baiting newbs and dumbs - that's the whole game? I'm going to have to start telling the guys in FW space (arguably the most pvp-active regions in the game) that they're doing it wrong.
It is the only avenue for them though because Gankers are everything that they hate in this game, Risk adverse. They pvp by shooting things that can't shoot back because they are to adverse to risk to shoot players who are ready and willing to press F1 in defense. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
634
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 20:30:04 -
[1495] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:If you force all the easy targets, in many cases people who are structurally unable to match you because of SP, to die for your amusement over and over, you'll soon find yourself with none left. What do you think the game will look like when there are no players left save for the risk averse "elite" pvp'ers.
Eve is dying?
Highsec has literally never been safer since Eve was released and you somehow conclude that only now, almost 12 years later, everyone is going to quit because they don't like conflict with other players? If these people who are unable (for some unknown reason) to compete with other players are so fragile, why did they wait around for a dozen years over multiple buffs in security to highsec to only quit now?
I think this is an appropriate quote for this juncture in this thread:
CCP Falcon wrote:I love EVE and the core of what the game stands for. That's why I've been dedicated to it and its community for over 11 years now. Risk vs Reward is a huge part of that. Honestly, if that changed, and the game started to soften out and cater to those who want to have their hand held all the way through their gameplay experience, I'd rather not be working on the project regardless of how many subscribers we had, than sell out the core principles that New Eden was built on. That's a sentiment that I hear a lot around the office, because we are all invested in what makes New Eden so compelling - The dark, gritty, hard reality beneath the pretty ships and nebulas. EVE is built on the core principle that you are never 100% safe, no matter where you go or what you do. When you interact with another player, you roll the dice on whether they're going to screw you over or not. That's a massive part of the social engineering behind the very basic underpinnings of the EVE Universe. Sorry, but your scaremongering counter argument makes no sense to me and carries no weight
Demerius, your argument makes no sense to me and carries no weight.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
225
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 20:42:35 -
[1496] - Quote
Looks like a redditor gets it. Look at him go!
If only more freighter pilots were this resourceful.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
89
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 20:51:16 -
[1497] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:If you force all the easy targets, in many cases people who are structurally unable to match you because of SP, to die for your amusement over and over, you'll soon find yourself with none left. What do you think the game will look like when there are no players left save for the risk averse "elite" pvp'ers. Eve is dying? Highsec has literally never been safer since Eve was released and you somehow conclude that only now, almost 12 years later, everyone is going to quit because they don't like conflict with other players? If these people who are unable (for some unknown reason) to compete with other players are so fragile, why did they wait around for a dozen years over multiple buffs in security to highsec to only quit now? I think this is an appropriate quote for this juncture in this thread: [quote=CCP Falcon]I love EVE and the core of what the game stands for. That's why I've been dedicated to it and its community for over 11 years now. Risk vs Reward is a huge part of that. Honestly, if that changed, and the game started to soften out and cater to those who want to have their hand held all the way through their gameplay experience, I'd rather not be working on the project regardless of how many subscribers we had, than sell out the core principles that New Eden was built on. That's a sentiment that I hear a lot around the office, because we are all invested in what makes New Eden so compelling - The dark, gritty, hard reality beneath the pretty ships and nebulas. EVE is built on the core principle that you are never 100% safe, no matter where you go or what you do. When you interact with another player, you roll the dice on whether they're going to screw you over or not. That's a massive part of the social engineering behind the very basic underpinnings of the EVE Universe. Sorry, but your scaremongering counter argument makes no sense to me and carries no weight
At no point did I say EVE is dying. I said that if you force everyone out of NPC corps through some sort of massive disincentive program so that highsec effectively becomes a killing field for bored bittervets via wardec spam, a large number of the people who presently do PvE in highsec will quit. And then the bittervets will find themselves fighting over a much smaller number of easy targets, and they'll start to quit too. And then the game will die.
My post was specifically addressing what would happen if NPC corps were nerfed enough to force the highsec pve crowd to either 1) try to operate in the face of constant wardecs or 2) play another game that doesn't charge them money to be someone else's amusement with no realistic chance to fight back. And if you tell me these players would be able to organize and effectively combat a community of players which has a much greater reservoir of combat related skills, actual pvp experience, and in many cases ISK, I'm going to stop talking to you. I don't understand why you don't see this it's so obvious. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
580
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 20:55:52 -
[1498] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:If you force all the easy targets, in many cases people who are structurally unable to match you because of SP, to die for your amusement over and over, you'll soon find yourself with none left. What do you think the game will look like when there are no players left save for the risk averse "elite" pvp'ers. Eve is dying? Highsec has literally never been safer since Eve was released and you somehow conclude that only now, almost 12 years later, everyone is going to quit because they don't like conflict with other players? If these people who are unable (for some unknown reason) to compete with other players are so fragile, why did they wait around for a dozen years over multiple buffs in security to highsec to only quit now? I think this is an appropriate quote for this juncture in this thread: CCP Falcon wrote:I love EVE and the core of what the game stands for. That's why I've been dedicated to it and its community for over 11 years now. Risk vs Reward is a huge part of that. Honestly, if that changed, and the game started to soften out and cater to those who want to have their hand held all the way through their gameplay experience, I'd rather not be working on the project regardless of how many subscribers we had, than sell out the core principles that New Eden was built on. That's a sentiment that I hear a lot around the office, because we are all invested in what makes New Eden so compelling - The dark, gritty, hard reality beneath the pretty ships and nebulas. EVE is built on the core principle that you are never 100% safe, no matter where you go or what you do. When you interact with another player, you roll the dice on whether they're going to screw you over or not. That's a massive part of the social engineering behind the very basic underpinnings of the EVE Universe. Sorry, but your scaremongering counter argument makes no sense to me and carries no weight
Demerius, your argument makes no sense to me and carries no weight.
And yet CCP has made it so much easier to get hold of an enemy ships trying to make ISK
Warp changes
D-scan immunity
Changes to WH's so you cannot pick up a new one until people have jumped through
Ore belts and ice belts that do not need to be scanned down
All things that have made it easier for people like you.
I see only a dark hard gritty world for those that want to evade PvP not for those that want to do it.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
89
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 21:07:59 -
[1499] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Looks like a redditor gets it. Look at him go!If only more freighter pilots were this resourceful.
You should probably read the rest of that thread.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
634
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 21:21:09 -
[1500] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
And yet CCP has made it so much easier to get hold of an enemy ships trying to make ISK
Warp changes
D-scan immunity
Changes to WH's so you cannot pick up a new one until people have jumped through
Ore belts and ice belts that do not need to be scanned down
All things that have made it easier for people like you.
I see only a dark hard gritty world for those that want to evade PvP not for those that want to do it.
CCP knows, or at least some of the CCP developers know, that this game only works long-term if there is player conflict. Allowing people to be 100% safe, whether that be in a wormhole, in a nullsec system, or highsec, is just bad game design.
For some reason, likely an attempt to increase player retention, CCP seems more "flexible" in these principles when it comes to highsec, and it is true that highsec today has never been safer. Suicide ganking of miners is no longer profitable except the most extreme situations, highsec awoxing is optional now, and wardec dodging is no longer an exploit. Basically, highsec is now as safe as they can make it and still call it a sandbox, so I would expect the tide to turn once the sov revamp and/or the new space opens up and they want to drive people out of highsec. My guess is there will be a little more risk (partly NPC-based, partly player-based) and a little less income is in the future for highsec residents to prod them out of their complacency to help fulfill CCP Seagull's vision of new and expanded universe full of player-driven conflict.
You will still be able to play this game in relative safety in highsec, however it will no longer be the optimal way to make ISK.
At least that is my hope, and honestly, the only long-term path to success for Eve I see (as does CCP Seagull). Otherwise, continuing on this path towards a game where everyone makes ISK in highsec in safety to spend on consensual, meaningless fights elsewhere will result in stagnation, boredom and the eventual turning off of the servers.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
|
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
225
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 21:30:03 -
[1501] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:Looks like a redditor gets it. Look at him go!If only more freighter pilots were this resourceful. You should probably read the rest of that thread.
I did. It was an entertaining read.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
89
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 21:45:44 -
[1502] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:Looks like a redditor gets it. Look at him go!If only more freighter pilots were this resourceful. You should probably read the rest of that thread. I did. It was an entertaining read.
That one fellow made a pretty good argument about how broken the whole pay 2 win game of alts thing is.
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
89
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 21:56:53 -
[1503] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
And yet CCP has made it so much easier to get hold of an enemy ships trying to make ISK
Warp changes
D-scan immunity
Changes to WH's so you cannot pick up a new one until people have jumped through
Ore belts and ice belts that do not need to be scanned down
All things that have made it easier for people like you.
I see only a dark hard gritty world for those that want to evade PvP not for those that want to do it.
CCP knows, or at least some of the CCP developers know, that this game only works long-term if there is player conflict. Allowing people to be 100% safe, whether that be in a wormhole, in a nullsec system, or highsec, is just bad game design. For some reason, likely an attempt to increase player retention, CCP seems more "flexible" in these principles when it comes to highsec, and it is true that highsec today has never been safer. Suicide ganking of miners is no longer profitable except the most extreme situations, highsec awoxing is optional now, and wardec dodging is no longer an exploit. Basically, highsec is now as safe as they can make it and still call it a sandbox, so I would expect the tide to turn once the sov revamp and/or the new space opens up and they want to drive people out of highsec. My guess is there will be a little more risk (partly NPC-based, partly player-based) and a little less income is in the future for highsec residents to prod them out of their complacency to help fulfill CCP Seagull's vision of new and expanded universe full of player-driven conflict. You will still be able to play this game in relative safety in highsec, however it will no longer be the optimal way to make ISK. At least that is my hope, and honestly, the only long-term path to success for Eve I see (as does CCP Seagull). Otherwise, continuing on this path towards a game where everyone makes ISK in highsec in safety to spend on consensual, meaningless fights elsewhere will result in stagnation, boredom and the eventual turning off of the servers.
The only long term path to success is to make null and lowsec income generation viable enough that smaller groups and solo players will want to live there. And to somehow find a way to disincentivize the forming of ever larger blobs to sit on top of income sources outside highsec, with those massive resources then being used to convert the rest of the player base into content. Nullsec needs to look less like a galactic empire and more like a feudal war zone, but given the human propensity for co-operation to mutual advantage I don't know how to achieve this.
FW lowsec seems to be in a pretty good place as far as activity and conflict - perhaps there is something useful to be learned there.
I don't think we want a game that says you have to join one of these major power blocs to be able to grind ISK safely enough to actually buy ships and play the game.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
582
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 22:00:27 -
[1504] - Quote
But I just showed you four major things that made it easier to catch people, I am not talking about hisec, I am talking about Eve as a whole, should I also add much greater DPS in small hulls and yet the EHP has not moved to the same degree.
Your sandbox is that you don't like hisec, but here is the rub, this Eve you talk about has no place for solo or small groups that want to enjoy their own sandbox on their terms.
And hisec is not the most optimal way to make ISK, its the safest but the CFC are close to that level of security and make much much more as my friend does who is in the CFC at 300m per hour.
All I see is an Eve that has become even easier for the hunters and so much more difficult for the hunted and in truth it is not the game I used to play, its become to easy to kill stuff and in affect the value of killing stuff is devalued massively.
And all this pap about safe hisec, not from my wondow son, I have been watching the destruction of freighter after freighter in Niarja and Uedama, this is not small events, its round the clock massacres and it will have an iimpact.
It is not a dark difficult place for people who want easy kills, its childs play.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6281
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 22:52:39 -
[1505] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:But I just showed you four major things that made it easier to catch people, I am not talking about hisec, I am talking about Eve as a whole, should I also add much greater DPS in small hulls and yet the EHP has not moved to the same degree.
Your sandbox is that you don't like hisec, but here is the rub, this Eve you talk about has no place for solo or small groups that want to enjoy their own sandbox on their terms.
And hisec is not the most optimal way to make ISK, its the safest but the CFC are close to that level of security and make much much more as my friend does who is in the CFC at 300m per hour.
All I see is an Eve that has become even easier for the hunters and so much more difficult for the hunted and in truth it is not the game I used to play, its become to easy to kill stuff and in affect the value of killing stuff is devalued massively.
And all this pap about safe hisec, not from my wondow son, I have been watching the destruction of freighter after freighter in Niarja and Uedama, this is not small events, its round the clock massacres and it will have an iimpact.
It is not a dark difficult place for people who want easy kills, its childs play.
I'm starting to get "evil" thoughts......
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11851
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 00:49:24 -
[1506] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
"Few avenues left to play the game." So now killing the easy targets in highsec is the whole game? Wardeccing, ganking, and baiting newbs and dumbs - that's the whole game?
That isn't what I said. Deliberately mischaracterizing my statements just shows that you don't have any answer for them.
My playstyle is "pirate", if we have to go by the EVE website.
So please, tell me.
Why do you lot cry about my playstyle being allowed to exist in highsec? Why do you cry when you get it nerfed and we find a way around it? Do you seriously think you should be allowed to just afk your way through the entire game?
I already know the answer, by the way. You think non consensual PvP shouldn't be a thing.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Globby
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 01:05:03 -
[1507] - Quote
hello again hyperdunking thread |
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
92
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 04:51:33 -
[1508] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
"Few avenues left to play the game." So now killing the easy targets in highsec is the whole game? Wardeccing, ganking, and baiting newbs and dumbs - that's the whole game?
That isn't what I said. Deliberately mischaracterizing my statements just shows that you don't have any answer for them. My playstyle is "pirate", if we have to go by the EVE website. So please, tell me. Why do you lot cry about my playstyle being allowed to exist in highsec? Why do you cry when you get it nerfed and we find a way around it? Do you seriously think you should be allowed to just afk your way through the entire game? I already know the answer, by the way. You think non consensual PvP shouldn't be a thing.
Well that's not exactly true. I'm a great fan of non-consensual pvp in low or nullsec, though the perpetually campable stargates could use a look.
As for highsec pvp - I don't really have a problem with ganking or suspect baiting as they currently stand. My main concern is with wardecs.
Specifically, the fact that veteran players with resources and SP in massive amounts can sit on a trade hub all day and play Oprah.
"You get a wardec! YOU get a wardec! Annnndd you get a wardec. And that guy, in the orca, he gets a wardec too."
Kills should require risk and effort. Spamming wars on newbie corps in highsec requires neither. And you know it. I don't know about removing wars entirely but the current state of affairs is bad. Hell, I'm not even so upset about the newbies getting slaughtered. It's a valuable learning experience to a point.
I do not think 5-10 year old players should be sitting in highsec greening their kb with proteus vs retriever fights. Which is what I see upon examining the killboards of some supposedly elite c & p denizens. This state of affairs points to a problem and I don't think that problem is so simple as "too much ISK in highsec."
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6283
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 05:36:55 -
[1509] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
"Few avenues left to play the game." So now killing the easy targets in highsec is the whole game? Wardeccing, ganking, and baiting newbs and dumbs - that's the whole game?
That isn't what I said. Deliberately mischaracterizing my statements just shows that you don't have any answer for them. My playstyle is "pirate", if we have to go by the EVE website. So please, tell me. Why do you lot cry about my playstyle being allowed to exist in highsec? Why do you cry when you get it nerfed and we find a way around it? Do you seriously think you should be allowed to just afk your way through the entire game? I already know the answer, by the way. You think non consensual PvP shouldn't be a thing. Well that's not exactly true. I'm a great fan of non-consensual pvp in low or nullsec, though the perpetually campable stargates could use a look. As for highsec pvp - I don't really have a problem with ganking or suspect baiting as they currently stand. My main concern is with wardecs. Specifically, the fact that veteran players with resources and SP in massive amounts can sit on a trade hub all day and play Oprah. "You get a wardec! YOU get a wardec! Annnndd you get a wardec. And that guy, in the orca, he gets a wardec too." Kills should require risk and effort. Spamming wars on newbie corps in highsec requires neither. And you know it. I don't know about removing wars entirely but the current state of affairs is bad. Hell, I'm not even so upset about the newbies getting slaughtered. It's a valuable learning experience to a point. I do not think 5-10 year old players should be sitting in highsec greening their kb with proteus vs retriever fights. Which is what I see upon examining the killboards of some supposedly elite c & p denizens. This state of affairs points to a problem and I don't think that problem is so simple as "too much ISK in highsec."
See that's the point I've been trying to make. The bittervet with the proteus? Why is he in highsec? For the same reason his target is in highsec. And that's all due to mechanics.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11851
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 05:48:58 -
[1510] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Kills should require risk and effort.
I could say the same thing about income generation mechanics.
Quote:
I do not think 5-10 year old players should be sitting in highsec greening their kb with proteus vs retriever fights.
And I think that if you want e-honor, then you're playing the wrong game. EVE is about player freedom, not samurai bushido in space.
If you want them to have a "fair fight", go kill them yourself. Or do you just want the NPCs to do that for you, too?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
586
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 07:13:26 -
[1511] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald,
I am certainly not against things blowing up, neither in hisec nor anywhere else for that matter.
What we are pointing out is that it is easier and easier for the player killer.
Interceptor immunity to bubbles
Differing warp speeds enabling fast intercepts
D-Scan Immunity
Changes to WH's so they only appear when people jump through
Ice and Ore belts that can be warped straight to rather then needing to be scanned
Yet people call for removal of local and a delayed local on top of the above, are they that useless?
In their isolation each is acceptable, but as a whole impact its a massive shift, the game has got so much easier for the hunter and so difficult for the hunted, I went to 0.0 after 8 months of play, my first 6 months of play was in a single system contested by enemies that had 20 times our number and yet I was able to operate and develop ISK in spite of that. I had the experience of doing this in 2010, I could not do it now even with the ability to fly every sub-cap in the game.
In late 2010 I met a player whose main was Gravitas Dignitas, he left the game a couple of years back, he has been in the privateers, the Orphanage and knew the original guys in Project Nemesis, he said before he left the game that the game had got too easy, he enjoyed hunting, but now it was too easy and that was before the changes I detailed above.
There are people who play either solo or in small groups, those in small groups often ISK generate solo, they are sitting ducks, one of my contacts just lost his legion to combat recons, this guy was good at operating in 0.0. Now he is doing level 4's, he realised after a loss that it was now just stupidly easy to catch him.
And you lot are complaining about hisec ISK generation when it is not anywhere near what people generate in deepest Deklin for example.
And hyperdunking is another example of a malise in Eve, in itself I have no issue with it, its clever and it made people attack freighters when they were safe before, however its not the killing of freighters that matters here because to be blunt its really easy to stop hyperdunking as I have done it. The issue with this hyperdunking approach is the impact on offline POS's, amongst all the carnage in Niarja, I saw a number POS module takedowns, it included a corp hanger and a ship bay, the losses were enourmous. It may be that the player who let it go offline is hardly playing, however he did not have a war dec warning him of someone desiring the goodies in his tower, nope, they just got taken out no warning, this is a massive change.
And you people also talk about hisec being safe, the massive numbers of freighters blowing up proves otherwise, as do the numbers of transport and industrials one shotted by Tornado's, as does the number of newbie mining ships ganked in belts, or the mission runners alpha'd as they dock up and of course lets not forget the scatter gun war dec system, even if it can be avoided by people folding their corps and restarting them.
People including myself have gone to hisec because it is too easy now for the hunter, simple as and for one of your group to quote those comments by CCP Falcon which are divorced from the reality of the situation in terms of the ease of catching people makes me spit my dummy out in contempt, CCP Falcon is wrong, very wrong, it is now too easy for player killers, laughingly so.
I call bull on CCP Falcons statement, he has not done a very good job on it has he!
Ella's Snack bar
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15036
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 08:14:28 -
[1512] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:But I just showed you four major things that made it easier to catch people, I am not talking about hisec, I am talking about Eve as a whole, should I also add much greater DPS in small hulls and yet the EHP has not moved to the same degree.
Your sandbox is that you don't like hisec, but here is the rub, this Eve you talk about has no place for solo or small groups that want to enjoy their own sandbox on their terms.
And hisec is not the most optimal way to make ISK, its the safest but the CFC are close to that level of security and make much much more as my friend does who is in the CFC at 300m per hour.
All I see is an Eve that has become even easier for the hunters and so much more difficult for the hunted and in truth it is not the game I used to play, its become to easy to kill stuff and in affect the value of killing stuff is devalued massively.
And all this pap about safe hisec, not from my wondow son, I have been watching the destruction of freighter after freighter in Niarja and Uedama, this is not small events, its round the clock massacres and it will have an iimpact.
It is not a dark difficult place for people who want easy kills, its childs play.
Hi, CFC here.
We do not have better security than highsec, we lose hundreds of ratters every month which dwarfs the much more highly populated high sec attrition rates for mission running systems and when it comes to income you cannot make 300 mil/hr per character in our space. That level of income requires a small fleet of carriers and access you to your very own private best truesec, fully upgraded system with zero interruptions.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11851
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 08:26:20 -
[1513] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
And you lot are complaining about hisec ISK generation when it is not anywhere near what people generate in deepest Deklin for example.
Then why are you complaining about interceptor buffs above?
Nothing has hurt ratting in nullsec more than that. Not cloaks, not cynos, nothing. Buy some consistency.
Quote: The issue with this hyperdunking approach is the impact on offline POS's, amongst all the carnage in Niarja, I saw a number POS module takedowns, it included a corp hanger and a ship bay, the losses were enourmous. It may be that the player who let it go offline is hardly playing, however he did not have a war dec warning him of someone desiring the goodies in his tower, nope, they just got taken out no warning, this is a massive change.
That's a good thing. Offline POS'es squatting in highsec for eternity is abominable. Anywhere else in the game it would be dead in hours, but in highsec you can actually just turn the ****** off and be fine, because CONCORD.
Quote:
And you people also talk about hisec being safe, the massive numbers of freighters blowing up proves otherwise
Massive? Okay, let's take a stroll through zkillboard, shall we? On the 19th of February, there were 24 freighters killed in highsec. Of those, fully half were killed in Uedama or Niarja. Known hotspots. (meaning, no escort)
Looking at those, most of them were anti tanked, with no escort, and looking at the circumstances most likely afk.
So yeah, I'd have to say that highsec is pretty safe. Hell there are more car accidents in my backwood hometown on an average day than freighters ganked in highsec.
Quote: it is now too easy for player killers, laughingly so.
Because people who were afk, anti tanked, with no escorts died while going through the two most highly trafficked gank spots in the game?
I think not.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
586
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 09:07:00 -
[1514] - Quote
When I log on I find a report that a freighter is caught, so I head over there, the guy was in a Charon, he had an alt webbing it, he was not AFK, yet he was still bumped, they took two goes to kill him because people tried to help him. That in itself blows your AFK smokescreen away. Lets repeat he was not AFK and he had a webber yet he was bumped before he could web his freighter into warp, so much for your think not...
The little explanation about things that make catching people easier is to explain that CCP Falcons words are hollow, he is holding the hands of those that hunt, making it easier and easier for player killers, everyone I know believes this is the case and most of those no longer play, and these were people that played all aspects of the game PvP too. Because you look at hisec only and seem to be blind to other aspects of the game in your Grrr hisec.
People are not in hisec because the ISK ratio is better they are in hisec because its too easy to hunt. in other areas
The freighters are losses to people who are solo or small group players like most people in hisec, the numbers getting destroyed per day has been growing, the systems you mention are always going to be the hotspots due to the fact that other routes are massive deviations. If you trade in Jita and come from Amarr, Gallente or Mimatar space you have to use them.
The POS's, I may not disagree with your feeling on them, however the impact is that suddenly there is a mechanic that when used enables people to attack them without a war dec and it is not an exploit, its a major change and a lot of people are going to get caught out and be very upset, and while I agree turning them off and trusting to Concord is lame in itself the fact that it happened just like that with no real warning is the issue. Try to think a bit deeper on such things, yeah perhaps they deserve it for being complacent and al that, but its a game change.
Baltec, the guy I talk about is in the CFC, thats what he said he does per hour in his efforts to get a Super to be part of your glorious space fleet, why would he lie to me. And in any case location is everything now that jumping has been nerfed so much, I used to operate in Cobalt Edge, I know the impact that had in terms of safety, surely a Goon of your strategic capability is not blind to the benefits of your location. Your biggest threat is BLOP's and people coming through WH's and the occasional poke by BL and we know how risk averse BLOP's players are don't we!
Ella's Snack bar
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
750
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 09:13:16 -
[1515] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: The issue with this hyperdunking approach is the impact on offline POS's, amongst all the carnage in Niarja, I saw a number POS module takedowns, it included a corp hanger and a ship bay, the losses were enourmous. It may be that the player who let it go offline is hardly playing, however he did not have a war dec warning him of someone desiring the goodies in his tower, nope, they just got taken out no warning, this is a massive change.
I've seen you bring this up a couple of times, and of all the reasons to object to something, this is truly baffling. Fuel your POS, and get the shield. If you are being cheap and leaving a POS undefended for long periods of time, it deserves to be gone or have things missing when you return. There isn't going to be "backlash" from this, and anyone who comes complaining that bits were missing off the POS they haven't been fuelling deserves to be laughed out. If anything, this new technique is closing a loophole that is obviously being far more massively than I realised - if anything, mechanics changes should be made to restrict this abuse.
[Note: There is a post lower down where someone is complaining that the power projection nerf has devalued Ice and is asking for more uses - here, I have just solved to birds with one stone, make highsec POS users fuel their towers or lose them, that'll bring Ice use up!]
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
228
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 09:22:07 -
[1516] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:On the 19th of February, there were 24 freighters killed in highsec. Of those, fully half were killed in Uedama or Niarja. Known hotspots. (meaning, no escort)
I'm going to add by pointing out that on the 18th there were 2, TWO freighters suicide ganked throughout HiSec.
The "large" numbers of freighter deaths often occur in succession because the ~20+ pilots needed for such operations take time to put together and will usually run for several hours. During this time, they primarily operate in Uedama. If you can see freighter kills, particularly in Niarja/Uedama in the last few hours that's a great indiciator that you need an escort if you really must go through those systems.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11853
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 09:23:46 -
[1517] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:When I log on I find a report that a freighter is caught, so I head over there, the guy was in a Charon, he had an alt webbing it, he was not AFK, yet he was still bumped, they took two goes to kill him because people tried to help him. That in itself blows your AFK smokescreen away.
Yeah, and sets up the "my God he sucks" line instead.
Properly webbed, a freighter is vulnerable for less than eight seconds.
Quote:
Lets repeat he was not AFK and he had a webber yet he was bumped before he could web his freighter into warp, so much for your think not...
No, it still applies fully. Your one, possibly imaginary friend fouling up and getting killed while using one of the most overpowered tricks in the game is not proof of anything, let alone that highsec is too dangerous.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
586
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 09:31:01 -
[1518] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Dracvlad wrote: The issue with this hyperdunking approach is the impact on offline POS's, amongst all the carnage in Niarja, I saw a number POS module takedowns, it included a corp hanger and a ship bay, the losses were enourmous. It may be that the player who let it go offline is hardly playing, however he did not have a war dec warning him of someone desiring the goodies in his tower, nope, they just got taken out no warning, this is a massive change. I've seen you bring this up a couple of times, and of all the reasons to object to something, this is truly baffling. Fuel your POS, and get the shield. If you are being cheap and leaving a POS undefended for long periods of time, it deserves to be gone or have things missing when you return. There isn't going to be "backlash" from this, and anyone who comes complaining that bits were missing off the POS they haven't been fuelling deserves to be laughed out. If anything, this new technique is closing a loophole that is obviously being far more massively than I realised - if anything, mechanics changes should be made to restrict this abuse. [Note: There is a post lower down where someone is complaining that the power projection nerf has devalued Ice and is asking for more uses - here, I have just solved to birds with one stone, make highsec POS users fuel their towers or lose them, that'll bring Ice use up!]
I don't disagree with yor feelings on this to be honest, what they were doing is lame and stupid and something I would never do, however the issue is more to do with customer management, I expect a number of people to drop the game over this, you don't, perhaps that matters to CCP perhaps it does not, but I expect a lot of people are going to be very annoyed when they realise what has happened to their POS modules and that this was not communicated to them in anyway.
But as to your overall feeling on this, I agree with you.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
229
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 09:35:46 -
[1519] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:When I log on I find a report that a freighter is caught, so I head over there, the guy was in a Charon, he had an alt webbing it, he was not AFK, yet he was still bumped, they took two goes to kill him because people tried to help him. That in itself blows your AFK smokescreen away.
It does raise the question on why none of those people didn't get 150km ahead of the freighter to provide an instawarp.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
586
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 09:42:44 -
[1520] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote:When I log on I find a report that a freighter is caught, so I head over there, the guy was in a Charon, he had an alt webbing it, he was not AFK, yet he was still bumped, they took two goes to kill him because people tried to help him. That in itself blows your AFK smokescreen away.
Yeah, and sets up the "my God he sucks" line instead. Properly webbed, a freighter is vulnerable for less than eight seconds. Quote:
Lets repeat he was not AFK and he had a webber yet he was bumped before he could web his freighter into warp, so much for your think not...
No, it still applies fully. Your one, possibly imaginary friend fouling up and getting killed while using one of the most overpowered tricks in the game is not proof of anything, let alone that highsec is too dangerous.
You never read what people write do you, this was some guy who was caught while doing a scam contract that I along with some others tried to save, not an imaginary friend, go look at the loss of a Charon in Raussinen.
I have watched the most prolific bumper in the game, he is good at it, he gets a bump in very fast, unlike you I don't comment from afar I sat watching him. He can get a bump in within the eight seconds, I have seen him do it, its more to do with his fit and ability rather than the failure of the Charon pilot.
Ella's Snack bar
|
|
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
231
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 09:50:05 -
[1521] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:this was some guy who was caught while doing a scam contract that I along with some others tried to save, not an imaginary friend, go look at the loss of a Charon in Raussinen.
I had to check the killmail several times. Why was he using an anti-tanked Charon for a 3m3 cargo?
Quote:I have watched the most prolific bumper in the game, he is good at it, he gets a bump in very fast, unlike you I don't comment from afar I sat watching him. He can get a bump in within the eight seconds, I have seen him do it, its more to do with his fit and ability rather than the failure of the Charon pilot.
Why did no one provide the Charon's warpout?
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15037
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 09:54:41 -
[1522] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:When I log on I find a report that a freighter is caught, so I head over there, the guy was in a Charon, he had an alt webbing it, he was not AFK, yet he was still bumped, they took two goes to kill him because people tried to help him. That in itself blows your AFK smokescreen away. Lets repeat he was not AFK and he had a webber yet he was bumped before he could web his freighter into warp, so much for your think not...
I would like to see the KM for this.
Dracvlad wrote:
Baltec, the guy I talk about is in the CFC, thats what he said he does per hour in his efforts to get a Super to be part of your glorious space fleet, why would he lie to me. And in any case location is everything now that jumping has been nerfed so much, I used to operate in Cobalt Edge, I know the impact that had in terms of safety, surely a Goon of your strategic capability is not blind to the benefits of your location. Your biggest threat is BLOP's and people coming through WH's and the occasional poke by BL and we know how risk averse BLOP's players are don't we!
We have lost titans in our "secure space". I don't believe you do have a friend in the CFC, I think you made that up because it simply have no basis in reality.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
231
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 09:59:51 -
[1523] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:I would like to see the KM for this.
It's on the list of zkillboard's freighter kills. It appears Dravclad is referring to the most recent one in Raussinen.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
590
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 10:02:01 -
[1524] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:When I log on I find a report that a freighter is caught, so I head over there, the guy was in a Charon, he had an alt webbing it, he was not AFK, yet he was still bumped, they took two goes to kill him because people tried to help him. That in itself blows your AFK smokescreen away. Lets repeat he was not AFK and he had a webber yet he was bumped before he could web his freighter into warp, so much for your think not... I would like to see the KM for this. Dracvlad wrote:
Baltec, the guy I talk about is in the CFC, thats what he said he does per hour in his efforts to get a Super to be part of your glorious space fleet, why would he lie to me. And in any case location is everything now that jumping has been nerfed so much, I used to operate in Cobalt Edge, I know the impact that had in terms of safety, surely a Goon of your strategic capability is not blind to the benefits of your location. Your biggest threat is BLOP's and people coming through WH's and the occasional poke by BL and we know how risk averse BLOP's players are don't we!
We have lost titans in our "secure space". I don't believe you do have a friend in the CFC, I think you made that up because it simply have no basis in reality.
I linked the system above, easy to find.
Yes you lost Titans in your space, how many after the jump nerf?
Actually I have 12 friends currently in the CFC of which 2 are in high positions, I was briefly in the CFC myself, its not especially difficult to work out who some of them are, perhaps you might want to kill their Titans, LMAO!!!
Ella's Snack bar
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
751
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 10:02:46 -
[1525] - Quote
One thing I've always wondered is if people think to use is other people as bait. If I was someone who absolutely had to get through that particular choke-point, and was aware gankers were active, I'd be watching every previous gate, looking for a juicy mark to take the hit in my place. Get in formation with them, take the jump alongside, then hold cloak til the bumper is making a move on my unwitting accomplice. Not useful if you are being targetted specifically for your cargo, but if you're well under the profit threshold and fear just being targetted for the sake of targetting someone, letting someone else be your tank seems the obvious.
You don't have to be faster than the predator, just the rest of the prey. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11853
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 10:04:14 -
[1526] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:One thing I've always wondered is if people think to use is other people as bait. If I was someone who absolutely had to get through that particular choke-point, and was aware gankers were active, I'd be watching every previous gate, looking for a juicy mark to take the hit in my place. Get in formation with them, take the jump alongside, then hold cloak til the bumper is making a move on my unwitting accomplice. Not useful if you are being targetted specifically for your cargo, but if you're well under the profit threshold and fear just being targetted for the sake of targetting someone, letting someone else be your tank seems the obvious.
You don't have to be faster than the predator, just the rest of the prey.
That would require being at your keyboard.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15038
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 10:05:19 -
[1527] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
Yes you lost Titans in your space, how many after the jump nerf?
At least 1 that I can recall. Plus a large number of carriers.
Dracvlad wrote:
Actually I have 12 friends currently in the CFC of which 2 are in high positions, I was briefly in the CFC myself, its not especially difficult to work out who some of them are, perhaps you might want to kill their Titans, LMAO!!!
Yea, now I know your lying.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15039
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 10:08:51 -
[1528] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:baltec1 wrote:I would like to see the KM for this. It's on the list of zkillboard's freighter kills. It appears Dravclad is referring to the most recent one in Raussinen.
Turns out he fluffed the web trick and died quickly because he anti-tanked his ship.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
638
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 10:09:28 -
[1529] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:People are not in hisec because the ISK ratio is better they are in hisec because its too easy to hunt. in other areas
Aren't you basically arguing the exact same thing? You say you left nullsec because you thought the mechanics were not balanced (favouring the attacker) and therefore too dangerous for those trying to do PvE. That is the risk side of the equation - the amount of ISK that can be earned in nullsec, is in general, too little as compared to highsec when you factor in the significant increase in risk.
People here are suggesting that the ISK rewards in highsec should be toned down a bit because they are out of balance. You seem to prefer decreasing the risk in nullsec as a solution to the imbalance which is certainly another possibility, but both are addressing the exact same problem. You are living in highsec because the risk-to-reward equation of nullsec was not sufficiently in your favour for you to put up with the hunters chasing you there.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
590
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 10:12:21 -
[1530] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:One thing I've always wondered is if people think to use is other people as bait. If I was someone who absolutely had to get through that particular choke-point, and was aware gankers were active, I'd be watching every previous gate, looking for a juicy mark to take the hit in my place. Get in formation with them, take the jump alongside, then hold cloak til the bumper is making a move on my unwitting accomplice. Not useful if you are being targetted specifically for your cargo, but if you're well under the profit threshold and fear just being targetted for the sake of targetting someone, letting someone else be your tank seems the obvious.
You don't have to be faster than the predator, just the rest of the prey.
But you are part of the best organised and most effective coalition in the game, we are talking about hisec here which is made up of people in the main just doing their own stuff in glorious oblivion, its like herding cats, some are smart that is for sure, but the vast majority, nope and in any case the cargo often dos not matter...
Ella's Snack bar
|
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15039
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 10:14:40 -
[1531] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
But you are part of the best organised and most effective coalition in the game, we are talking about hisec here which is made up of people in the main just doing their own stuff in glorious oblivion, its like herding cats, some are smart that is for sure, but the vast majority, nope and in any case the cargo often dos not matter...
Why exactly should the stupid and the lazy be protected from their own actions?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11853
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 10:18:32 -
[1532] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
But you are part of the best organised and most effective coalition in the game, we are talking about hisec here which is made up of people in the main just doing their own stuff in glorious oblivion, its like herding cats, some are smart that is for sure, but the vast majority, nope and in any case the cargo often dos not matter...
Why exactly should the stupid and the lazy be protected from their own actions?
Because if they aren't, they'll quit and EVE will die without them, apparently.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
590
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 10:48:11 -
[1533] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Dracvlad wrote:People are not in hisec because the ISK ratio is better they are in hisec because its too easy to hunt. in other areas Aren't you basically arguing the exact same thing? You say you left nullsec because you thought the mechanics were not balanced (favouring the attacker) and therefore too dangerous for those trying to do PvE. That is the risk side of the the equation - the amount of ISK that can be earned in nullsec, is in general, too little as compared to highsec when you factor in the significant increase in risk. People here are suggesting that the ISK rewards in highsec should be toned down a bit because they are out of balance. You seem to prefer decreasing the risk in nullsec as a solution to the imbalance which is certainly another possibility, but both are addressing the exact same problem. You are living in highsec because the risk-to-reward equation of nullsec was not sufficiently in your favour for you to put up with the hunters chasing you there.
Its pretty obvious what I am saying, I am saying that your CCP Falcon post was bull because all the mechanics have been changed to hold the hands of player killers and listed them, this made operating in space that was not highly protected a very difficult proposition. There is a major difference between ratting as a member of Goonwaffe in deep Deklin as compared to a member of Rebal Alliance of New Eden in wicked Creek.
In effect the solo or small gang players have it too hard because most of the time they gather ISK solo, so are unprotected and because it has been made easier to catch them the risk is to great so they end up in hisec.
In effect I went back to hisec because it was made too easy for hunters, and I detailed here the improvements that have been made by CCP to make it easier to catch people, so while I say the risk has been increased you talk about me wanting to reduce risk, you are an intelligent player, surely you can see just how much easier it is now, but yet you make statements that I want to decrease risk in null. I am talking about the changes that have made it easier to catch people, so I dispute your slant of me asking to make it less riskier in null, I am detailing the real changes that have increased risk to a level that solo and small groups can no longer operate without losing ship after ship after ship.
The figure of 300m ISK per hour was given to me by a friend in the CFC, I think he is over stating it, but that is the scale that you are talking about, Jenn a'Snide said 90m per hour when using the LP to its best level, I have registered 70m per hour with SOE missions in Osmon, though I was not doing it to the same degree.
I also pointed to some graphs showing more and more people in 0.0, but that is protected 0.0 such as the CFC, the solo and small groups players like me realise that its too loaded against us so back to hisec. Can someone gank my missions boat, well they could but its T2 fitted, but the risk is different its not a direct comparison, but the risk is now very great for freighters, industrials and any mining boat except Skiffs and Procurers. Mission Tengu's with deadspace modules of course get ganked.
The whole thing that we are pointing out that people who are solo or small group orientated are being squeezed back to hisec and then we get the Grrr hisec going on about missions being op, they are not.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
590
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 10:54:02 -
[1534] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
But you are part of the best organised and most effective coalition in the game, we are talking about hisec here which is made up of people in the main just doing their own stuff in glorious oblivion, its like herding cats, some are smart that is for sure, but the vast majority, nope and in any case the cargo often dos not matter...
Why exactly should the stupid and the lazy be protected from their own actions? Because if they aren't, they'll quit and EVE will die without them, apparently.
Sort of less subs, means less resources for CCP and means less people to shoot too, but the amusing part if that you guys are whining about hisec being protected, which from my perspective it is because people have had to follow their prey back to hisec and don't like the mechanics.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
590
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 10:58:00 -
[1535] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:baltec1 wrote:I would like to see the KM for this. It's on the list of zkillboard's freighter kills. It appears Dravclad is referring to the most recent one in Raussinen. Turns out he fluffed the web trick and died quickly because he anti-tanked his ship.
No, your guys locked him and scrammed him as he decloaked, then the Mach got a bump on him, very skillfully done even though he had a webber there, he did not fluff it, your guys did what they needed to do to get him. Why do player of your ilk have to be so condescending and obnoxious, is winning not enough for you? So you lie on what happened to rub his nose in it further, the guy was outplayed, he did not fluff it.
Ella's Snack bar
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15043
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 11:02:16 -
[1536] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:baltec1 wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:baltec1 wrote:I would like to see the KM for this. It's on the list of zkillboard's freighter kills. It appears Dravclad is referring to the most recent one in Raussinen. Turns out he fluffed the web trick and died quickly because he anti-tanked his ship. No, your guys locked him and scrammed him as he decloaked, then the Mach got a bump on him, very skillfully done even though he had a webber there, he did not fluff it, your guys did what they needed to do to get him. Why do player of your ilk have to be so condescending and obnoxious, is winning not enough for you? So you lie on what happened to rub his nose in it further, the guy was outplayed, he did not fluff it.
In which case he got unlucky.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
590
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 11:03:16 -
[1537] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:90 mil an hour is the income you can expect from the best anoms. You can also only have a max of 10 people per system which if you have would mean you cannot make close to 90 mil/hr. You will make more running missions in highsec than in null as it provides the same level of income or better with zero downtime due to hostiles.
The guy is doing the anoms and selling on the escalations, hence his income.
Also it depends on the time of day, the threat where he is comes from BL and during the period he has picked to play they are non-existent.
And you talk about a maxed out mission runner such as Jenn a'Snide, most people are a lot more relaxed than that, you really talk about max out blizting, where as the guy I am talking about plonks a carrier down in anoms and gets too it, been there myself, its easy as hell if you are in a good location.
Ella's Snack bar
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15043
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 11:09:03 -
[1538] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:baltec1 wrote:90 mil an hour is the income you can expect from the best anoms. You can also only have a max of 10 people per system which if you have would mean you cannot make close to 90 mil/hr. You will make more running missions in highsec than in null as it provides the same level of income or better with zero downtime due to hostiles. The guy is doing the anoms and selling on the escalations, hence his income. Also it depends on the time of day, the threat where he is comes from BL and during the period he has picked to play they are non-existent. And you talk about a maxed out mission runner such as Jenn a'Snide, most people are a lot more relaxed than that, you really talk about max out blizting, where as the guy I am talking about plonks a carrier down in anoms and gets too it, been there myself, its easy as hell if you are in a good location.
41 of such carriers have died this month. It is also impossible to get anywhere near the level of income you stated on anoms.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
639
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 11:10:02 -
[1539] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
In effect the solo or small gang players have it too hard because most of the time they gather ISK solo, so are unprotected and because it has been made easier to catch them the risk is to great so they end up in hisec.
Even worse, members of larger nullsec corps are deciding that it isn't worth their time to create the protection to mitigate the risk and also are going back highsec. This is because highsec missions and incursions pay too much compared to nullsec after you factor in the risk and/or effort needed to mitigate that risk.
Dracvlad wrote:The whole thing that we are pointing out that people who are solo or small group orientated are being squeezed back to hisec and then we get the Grrr hisec going on about missions being op, they are not.
Point taken. CCP should make it a priority for there to be mechanisms to encourage and allow smaller entities to set up a home outside of highsec, and hopefully the new sovereignty changes will make space for them in null. Still, the smallest of these groups, and solo players will probably always have to base out of highsec, or perhaps lowsec, because of the way the game is designed.
Personally I am fine with that as the game should be structured to reward cooperative behaviour.
And missions do pay too much. L4s, which were designed a decade ago to be difficult (that is time-consuming) or even require multiple players, now can be blitzed in a fraction of that time with the current ships, and are accessible in unlimited amounts unlike much other PvE content. They need to be nerfed in pay, buffed in difficulty and/or limited in availability to prevent veterans from grinding them non-stop in safety.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11855
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 11:19:11 -
[1540] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
No, your guys locked him and scrammed him as he decloaked, then the Mach got a bump on him
Wait, what?
They scrammed him first and then... bumped him away from the scram? It sounds like you're just tacking on more parts to make the lie plausible.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
231
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 12:29:32 -
[1541] - Quote
Who got the point on the freighter? I'd like to see the relevant lossmail on that one.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
640
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 13:10:13 -
[1542] - Quote
Globby wrote:hello again hyperdunking thread
Hey Globby, this thread doesn't have enough hyperdunking in it. Do you think you could give us a few tips on how to best hyperdunk something ourselves? In particular, how easy is it to keep a target bumped, yet still in range of your Orca and the necessary Catalysts?
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
590
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 13:35:02 -
[1543] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Globby wrote:hello again hyperdunking thread Hey Globby, this thread doesn't have enough hyperdunking in it. Do you think you could give us a few tips on how to best hyperdunk something ourselves? In particular, how easy is it to keep a target bumped, yet still in range of your Orca and the necessary Catalysts?
Actually that is how to stop hyperdunking, but all that happens is they bring in enough to gank it, but its fun...
Ella's Snack bar
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
590
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 13:36:09 -
[1544] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
No, your guys locked him and scrammed him as he decloaked, then the Mach got a bump on him
Wait, what? They scrammed him first and then... bumped him away from the scram? It sounds like you're just tacking on more parts to make the lie plausible.
Once he is bumped he cannot warp so it does not matter, either your trolling or you are ignorant of certain mechanics, which would surprise me.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11857
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 13:41:25 -
[1545] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
No, your guys locked him and scrammed him as he decloaked, then the Mach got a bump on him
Wait, what? They scrammed him first and then... bumped him away from the scram? It sounds like you're just tacking on more parts to make the lie plausible. Once he is bumped he cannot warp so it does not matter, either your trolling or you are ignorant of certain mechanics, which would surprise me.
You said he had an escort. If he was bumped he could still have warped if the escort got involved.
Your story has holes in it.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
590
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 13:42:27 -
[1546] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
In effect the solo or small gang players have it too hard because most of the time they gather ISK solo, so are unprotected and because it has been made easier to catch them the risk is to great so they end up in hisec.
Even worse, members of larger nullsec corps are deciding that it isn't worth their time to create the protection to mitigate the risk and also are going back highsec. This is because highsec missions and incursions pay too much compared to nullsec after you factor in the risk and/or effort needed to mitigate that risk. Dracvlad wrote:The whole thing that we are pointing out that people who are solo or small group orientated are being squeezed back to hisec and then we get the Grrr hisec going on about missions being op, they are not.
Point taken. CCP should make it a priority for there to be mechanisms to encourage and allow smaller entities to set up a home outside of highsec, and hopefully the new sovereignty changes will make space for them in null. Still, the smallest of these groups, and solo players will probably always have to base out of highsec, or perhaps lowsec, because of the way the game is designed. Personally I am fine with that as the game should be structured to reward cooperative behaviour. And missions do pay too much. L4s, which were designed a decade ago to be difficult (that is time-consuming) or even require multiple players, now can be blitzed in a fraction of that time with the current ships, and are accessible in unlimited amounts unlike much other PvE content. They need to be nerfed in pay, buffed in difficulty and/or limited in availability to prevent veterans from grinding them non-stop in safety.
Unless you are ratting as part of the CFC, or are way out in the deep parts of Drone lands you will have a very hard time of it.
Incursions are only run by a sub-set of hisec, and missions for the majority of people are not that great.
The problem is that there has been multiple adjustments that have made it a lot easier to catch people, so the risk is too great, reducing level 4 income will do nothing to change things and may well decrease the number of people taking a risk to roam into low and null because they cannot afford the losses. But if that is what you want go ahead, I am sitting pretty on 47bn so don't care what happens at my own level. Before you say anything, the majority of my ISK was made in 0.0.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
590
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 13:44:32 -
[1547] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
No, your guys locked him and scrammed him as he decloaked, then the Mach got a bump on him
Wait, what? They scrammed him first and then... bumped him away from the scram? It sounds like you're just tacking on more parts to make the lie plausible. Once he is bumped he cannot warp so it does not matter, either your trolling or you are ignorant of certain mechanics, which would surprise me. You said he had an escort. If he was bumped he could still have warped if the escort got involved. Your story has holes in it.
He had a webbing escort, they used a noob ship to scram him then got the bump on and kept bumping him, he asked for help and some people came, he survived one attempt, but not the second, but his ship ended up with holes in it, lots of them, if you like holes of course and who doesn't?
Ella's Snack bar
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11857
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 13:47:01 -
[1548] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
He had a webbing escort, they used a noob ship to scram him then got the bump on and kept bumping him, he asked for help and some people came, he survived one attempt, but not the second, but his ship ended up with holes in it, lots of them, if you like holes of course and who doesn't?
So.
They scrammed him first with a noob ship, then bumped him. Correct? Or did they attack the escort too?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
590
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 14:00:45 -
[1549] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
He had a webbing escort, they used a noob ship to scram him then got the bump on and kept bumping him, he asked for help and some people came, he survived one attempt, but not the second, but his ship ended up with holes in it, lots of them, if you like holes of course and who doesn't?
So. They scrammed him first with a noob ship, then bumped him. Correct? Or did they attack the escort too?
Once they have the bump and keep bumping even with webs on its difficult to get into warp, you should watch this guy at work, he is good at it, so no need to attack the webbing ship, though I do not know what webber was being used.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11857
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 14:13:33 -
[1550] - Quote
So, hold on here. You said he survived one attempt, only to die to the second.
How exactly did that work? I mean, in that whole time the escort plus whoever else decided to help couldn't get him out?
I find this hard to believe.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
231
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 14:17:36 -
[1551] - Quote
Some people were ECMing the gank ships, rightly focusing on the Brutixes and Taloses.
Wouldn't a noobship get crushed by gate gun damage? What's the delay between agression and and gate guns firing?
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Valterra Craven
455
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 14:36:37 -
[1552] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:EVE is about player freedom
If playing Eve badly is not a valid playstyle then Eve is not "free". |
Valterra Craven
455
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 14:41:55 -
[1553] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Offline POS'es squatting in highsec for eternity is abominable. Anywhere else in the game it would be dead in hours, but in highsec you can actually just turn the ****** off and be fine, because CONCORD.
And yet all it takes to quell concord is a wardec. Its funny how you complain about carebears not using the tools available to them when gankers aren't either.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
590
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 14:46:12 -
[1554] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:So, hold on here. You said he survived one attempt, only to die to the second.
How exactly did that work? I mean, in that whole time the escort plus whoever else decided to help couldn't get him out?
I find this hard to believe.
I will humour you.
His own escort was a single webbing character, I did not notice what he was in. Some people came to help, this was not in a normal area because it was a scam contract so very few were close by, I did not see the first gank attempt I was not there, but the bumper was keeping him well bumped. I decided to come with repping ships but when I got there that was already catered for and that is when I found out that he was still bumping the freighter, so I kept one toon there to help rep and went back to get another ship to do something about the Mach, sadly they brought in the ships to kill him before I could return.
The freighter did not die to hyperdunking in the end it was a heavy dps gank and due to my bumping of the Ark they are bringing BC's in the main to stop that from working.
Clever guys and again well executed, including the scam contract which made them a fair chunk of ISK.
You will be happy to know that the freighter pilot was not AFK, there was emergent game play in that people tried to save him, you should also note that the gankers have now war dec'd him to add further to his pain, but he is not whining about it, bore the loss well and learnt from it, bit risky taking that obvious scam contract, what more can one say, he was not afk, had a webber, was tanked but not fully and survived one attack and people tried to help him.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Valterra Craven
458
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 14:55:28 -
[1555] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
This is because highsec missions and incursions pay too much compared to nullsec after you factor in the risk and/or effort needed to mitigate that risk.
See here's the thing. I've been here since 2006. (Actually earlier, but details). You know what has stood virtually unchanged since then? Missions. You know what hasn't gone unchanged? Null sec. The biggest problems I have with the argument that you can make too much isk in hi-sec is it is entirely dependent on what is and is not possible in null sec. Put it this way. Why would nerfing hi-sec income in any way change the current dynamics of null sec? The answer is it wouldn't. People leaving null sec still have absolutely zero reason to go back. The only thing nerfing hi-sec accomplishes is making everyone poorer. Now you can argue about how that affects the game for good or ill, but what it won't do is fix anything anywhere else. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
642
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 15:26:34 -
[1556] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:See here's the thing. I've been here since 2006. (After earlier, but details). You know what has stood virtually unchanged since then? Missions. You know what hasn't gone unchanged? Null sec.
Missions haven't changed yet there have been multiple buffs to ships, and the release of new ships like marauders and their bastion mode. These have perhaps not trivialized the content, they certainly allow a player to run them much more quickly and efficiently. Being able to complete a mission in a half or a third of the time than what the developers intended when it was released is a huge buff in ISK/hour. And I won't even mention the introduction of Incursions and their affect on highsec income.
Valterra Craven wrote:The biggest problems I have with the argument that you can make too much isk in hi-sec is it is entirely dependent on what is and is not possible in null sec. Put it this way. Why would nerfing hi-sec income in any way change the current dynamics of null sec? The answer is it wouldn't. People leaving null sec still have absolutely zero reason to go back. The only thing nerfing hi-sec accomplishes is making everyone poorer. Now you can argue about how that affects the game for good or ill, but what it won't do is fix anything anywhere else.
Of course it would. Some players, who refuse to leave highsec under any circumstances might be poorer, but a large amount of the rest would pick up shop and follow the money back to nullsec, faction warfare or to wormholes as they prefer. I agree, this would be best timed with release of new features (player built stargates? Jove space? new sov mechanics?) so that players would be helped to make the move by the excitement of new shinies, but why wouldn't a player comfortable living in all spaces and needing ISK move to the most lucrative area? I am sure this is what CCP is waiting for before dropping the nerfbat on at least Incursion income.
Highsec can still be highsec and those that want the extra security can live there and do their highsec things. Those that are just after ISK however will move to where they can most efficiently earn it, and for the health of the game, it is better for that to be in riskier spaces that foster player conflict, rather than a zone best characterized by a high level of NPC protection which stifles conflict.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
71
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 15:28:38 -
[1557] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
This is because highsec missions and incursions pay too much compared to nullsec after you factor in the risk and/or effort needed to mitigate that risk.
See here's the thing. I've been here since 2006. (Actually earlier, but details). You know what has stood virtually unchanged since then? Missions. You know what hasn't gone unchanged? Null sec. The biggest problems I have with the argument that you can make too much isk in hi-sec is it is entirely dependent on what is and is not possible in null sec. Put it this way. Why would nerfing hi-sec income in any way change the current dynamics of null sec? The answer is it wouldn't. People leaving null sec still have absolutely zero reason to go back. The only thing nerfing hi-sec accomplishes is making everyone poorer. Now you can argue about how that affects the game for good or ill, but what it won't do is fix anything anywhere else.
Actually there have been two HUGE nerfs to high-sec missions. One is drone agro and agro switching, and the other is the massive nerf to warp drive speeds.
So the argument that CCP hasn't already nerfed Missions while at the same time providing buffs to Null, Low (FW) and WH space is disingenuous at best. Valterra is right, high-sec is kinda like the constant lower middle-class of EVE, which is fine for a majority of players who play part-time which is why the population is so high.
Black Pedro wrote:Missions haven't changed yet there have been multiple buffs to ships, and the release of new ships like marauders and their bastion mode. These have perhaps not trivialized the content, they certainly allow a player to run them much more quickly and efficiently. Being able to complete a mission in a half or a third of the time than what the developers intended when it was released is a huge buff in ISK/hour. And I won't even mention the introduction of Incursions and their affect on highsec income.
Actually you are very very wrong. Isk/hr has decreased massively from a diluted LP market (incursions) and the nerfs I mentioned above. Also changes to Heavy Missiles, and several ships have been negative on Mission income. About the only buff I can see really mattering was the Marauder bastion module, but even that reduces the efficiency of missions by making you sit still. |
Valterra Craven
460
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 15:36:42 -
[1558] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
Missions haven't changed yet there have been multiple buffs to ships, and the release of new ships like marauders and their bastion mode. These have perhaps not trivialized the content, they certainly allow a player to run them much more quickly and efficiently.
The biggest changes CCP ever introduced to missions were the missile changes making torps not be the best choice ever. You know what has had almost no impact on missions? Every other ship change. Marauders are a perfect example. They are completely stupid to use in any lvl 4 mission. Why? They are expensive, and other ships do a better job for cheaper. (My choice is a Navy scorp.) Even the way I fly it is completely overkill for missions and the only reason I use it is because I have a perma active rep on my setup that can handle full room aggro in lvl 4 bonus angel room. You know what also hasn't change since 2006? Game of alts. The reason I specifically use that setup is to make it easier to manage things since I play with two accounts. AND given the fact that all the gankers in this thread are like "use a webber" which in a lot of contexts was also reffered to as an ALT, is a completely legit way to play. My argument stands.
Black Pedro wrote:
a large amount of the rest would pick up shop and follow the money back to nullsec, faction warfare or to wormholes as they prefer.
Why? If the very reason they are leaving is because the risk of dying is too high and the risk of dying isn't changed, why would they go back? Seriously, if you can legit tell me why anyone would go back to those places when they left because the risk was too high, and the changes you propose do not in any way shape or form change the risk side of the equation ON EITHER side, WHY would they go back just because their income stream got nerfed? |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6285
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 16:45:21 -
[1559] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:When I log on I find a report that a freighter is caught, so I head over there, the guy was in a Charon, he had an alt webbing it, he was not AFK, yet he was still bumped, they took two goes to kill him because people tried to help him. That in itself blows your AFK smokescreen away. Lets repeat he was not AFK and he had a webber yet he was bumped before he could web his freighter into warp, so much for your think not... The little explanation about things that make catching people easier is to explain that CCP Falcons words are hollow, he is holding the hands of those that hunt, making it easier and easier for player killers, everyone I know believes this is the case and most of those no longer play, and these were people that played all aspects of the game PvP too. Because you look at hisec only and seem to be blind to other aspects of the game in your Grrr hisec. People are not in hisec because the ISK ratio is better they are in hisec because its too easy to hunt. in other areas The freighters are losses to people who are solo or small group players like most people in hisec, the numbers getting destroyed per day has been growing, the systems you mention are always going to be the hotspots due to the fact that other routes are massive deviations. If you trade in Jita and come from Amarr, Gallente or Mimatar space you have to use them. The POS's, I may not disagree with your feeling on them, however the impact is that suddenly there is a mechanic that when used enables people to attack them without a war dec and it is not an exploit, its a major change and a lot of people are going to get caught out and be very upset, and while I agree turning them off and trusting to Concord is lame in itself the fact that it happened just like that with no real warning is the issue. Try to think a bit deeper on such things, yeah perhaps they deserve it for being complacent and al that, but its a game change. Baltec, the guy I talk about is in the CFC, thats what he said he does per hour in his efforts to get a Super to be part of your glorious space fleet, why would he lie to me. And in any case location is everything now that jumping has been nerfed so much, I used to operate in Cobalt Edge, I know the impact that had in terms of safety, surely a Goon of your strategic capability is not blind to the benefits of your location. Your biggest threat is BLOP's and people coming through WH's and the occasional poke by BL and we know how risk averse BLOP's players are don't we!
And the one point I cannot seem to hammer through Karous' thick skull is that the player killers themselves are in highsec for the same exact reason their prey is in highsec.
And that's why when someone like Karous comes along with the "Hurr durrr HTFU" dogma I have no respect for it. It's they who can't HTFU any more than whoever they are telling it to.
I think we are going to have to help Karous with more extreme measures.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15045
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 16:46:49 -
[1560] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Actually there have been two HUGE nerfs to high-sec missions. One is drone agro and agro switching, and the other is the massive nerf to warp drive speeds.
The first didnt do much to impact mission runners and also impacted every other activity involving shooting NPCs. The second is a buff and I am now near three times faster in warp with a battleship as before.
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
So the argument that CCP hasn't already nerfed Missions while at the same time providing buffs to Null, Low (FW) and WH space is disingenuous at best. Valterra is right, high-sec is kinda like the constant lower middle-class of EVE, which is fine for a majority of players who play part-time which is why the population is so high.
There has been no buffs to sov null sec income and there has not been any direct nerfs that only impacted high sec missions.
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Actually you are very very wrong. Isk/hr has decreased massively from a diluted LP market (incursions) and the nerfs I mentioned above. Also changes to Heavy Missiles, and several ships have been negative on Mission income. About the only buff I can see really mattering was the Marauder bastion module, but even that reduces the efficiency of missions by making you sit still.
Ships of today have more firepower, more tank, faster speeds and far better LP payouts than ever before.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15045
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 16:52:20 -
[1561] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
Unless you are ratting as part of the CFC, or are way out in the deep parts of Drone lands you will have a very hard time of it.
Again, this is a lie. CFC ratting losses are quite high.
Dracvlad wrote:
Incursions are only run by a sub-set of hisec, and missions for the majority of people are not that great.
Incursions are done by a great many null sec alts and missions beat anything we have in sov space.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
465
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 16:56:13 -
[1562] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
There has been no buffs to sov null sec income
How you can say that with a straight face is beyond me. You know what didn't exist when I was in delve? Relic, and data sties. Anoms. "Upgradable" outposts (at least not that had any direct change on the space around you unlike today). Hell even the static complexes where only allowed to be run by a select few. You know what that left? Mining and Belt ratting. All of that came in as I was leaving. Hell I even forgot about gas clouds. |
Valterra Craven
465
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 16:58:07 -
[1563] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
Unless you are ratting as part of the CFC, or are way out in the deep parts of Drone lands you will have a very hard time of it.
Again, this is a lie. CFC ratting losses are quite high.
How is it a lie? Just because you sustain losses doesn't mean the losses of others in crappy null aren't far higher. |
Valterra Craven
465
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 17:05:53 -
[1564] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Ships of today have more firepower, more tank, faster speeds and far better LP payouts than ever before.
Oh and I'd also like to correct this point. You know what adjusts to how quickly missions are done? LP payouts. Thats right, these are averaged and calculated by how people ya know RUN the missions. So given this is true and the payouts have stayed roughly the same, then it would seem that ships having more firepower, more tank, and faster speeds have not changed mission income all that significantly. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15045
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 17:16:23 -
[1565] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
How is it a lie? Just because you sustain losses doesn't mean the losses of others in crappy null aren't far higher.
About the same.
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Ships of today have more firepower, more tank, faster speeds and far better LP payouts than ever before.
Oh and I'd also like to correct this point. You know what adjusts to how quickly missions are done? LP payouts. Thats right, these are averaged and calculated by how people ya know RUN the missions. So given this is true and the payouts have stayed roughly the same, then it would seem that ships having more firepower, more tank, and faster speeds have not changed mission income all that significantly.
It has changed. There used to be a time when belt ratting was a viable activity but the income from it is now worth about the same as level 2 missions. See, we might be getting more LP but the demand for said LP has also gone up. See, LP rises in value with inflation which means its value will only ever go up. Anoms meanwhile deal mostily in bounty which does not rise with inflation.
It was inevitable that missions in highsec would overtake anoms in value, it was only a question of time. The nerfs to anoms over the years didn't help.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
74
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 17:24:05 -
[1566] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Actually there have been two HUGE nerfs to high-sec missions. One is drone agro and agro switching, and the other is the massive nerf to warp drive speeds.
The first didnt do much to impact mission runners and also impacted every other activity involving shooting NPCs. The second is a buff and I am now near three times faster in warp with a battleship as before. Market McSelling Alt wrote:
So the argument that CCP hasn't already nerfed Missions while at the same time providing buffs to Null, Low (FW) and WH space is disingenuous at best. Valterra is right, high-sec is kinda like the constant lower middle-class of EVE, which is fine for a majority of players who play part-time which is why the population is so high.
There has been no buffs to sov null sec income and there has not been any direct nerfs that only impacted high sec missions. Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Actually you are very very wrong. Isk/hr has decreased massively from a diluted LP market (incursions) and the nerfs I mentioned above. Also changes to Heavy Missiles, and several ships have been negative on Mission income. About the only buff I can see really mattering was the Marauder bastion module, but even that reduces the efficiency of missions by making you sit still.
Ships of today have more firepower, more tank, faster speeds and far better LP payouts than ever before.
You are so full of crap your eyes are brown. BS now warp at 2/3 their previous speed and changes to the warp acceleration means it takes them even longer even if you rig them back to 3au/s
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/65418/1/numbers_table.png
Just because YOU put billions into an ascendency set and nerf your fit to put put warp rigs in doesn't mean there was a "buff" with the changes. You're hilarious.
Also the Drone nerf effects only mission runners and anom runners as Sleepers and Incursion rats already switched targets, they simply applied those mechanics to missions.
So you fail on both retorts. Ships today do not have more firepower as a Tengu used to rip through lvl 4's with faster warps, 1000dps at 60km and the option to bring your alt in for salvage while in mission. None of that is possible now. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15045
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 17:29:03 -
[1567] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:You are so full of crap your eyes are brown. BS now warp at 2/3 their previous speed and changes to the warp acceleration means it takes them even longer even if you rig them back to 3au/s http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/65418/1/numbers_table.png
Just because YOU put billions into an ascendency set and nerf your fit to put put warp rigs in doesn't mean there was a "buff" with the changes. You're hilarious.
My mission ship warps at over 8au and warp acceleration does not work they way you think it does.
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Also the Drone nerf effects only mission runners and anom runners as Sleepers and Incursion rats already switched targets, they simply applied those mechanics to missions.
anom rats didn't used to switch targets. CCP also took the further step of adding frigate rats with tackle to some anoms so that they couldn't be powered through with high DPS battleships as quickly or safely. So, the biggest nerf of this change was to anoms.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
King Aires
I'm Sexy And I Know It
51
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 17:30:00 -
[1568] - Quote
Baltec is out of his freaking gourd if he thinks warp speed changes and drone changes "helped" high sec mission runners.
This is all very interesting talk from both sides. Basically carebears like the security of high-sec, and gankbears like the security of high-sec. I say if the two of you can't get along we put you both in time out. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
644
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 17:30:02 -
[1569] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:The biggest changes CCP ever introduced to missions were the missile changes making torps not be the best choice ever. You know what has had almost no impact on missions? Every other ship change. Marauders are a perfect example. They are completely stupid to use in any lvl 4 mission. Why? They are expensive, and other ships do a better job for cheaper. (My choice is a Navy scorp.) Even the way I fly it is completely overkill for missions and the only reason I use it is because I have a perma active rep on my setup that can handle full room aggro in lvl 4 bonus angel room. You know what also hasn't change since 2006? Game of alts. The reason I specifically use that setup is to make it easier to manage things since I play with two accounts. AND given the fact that all the gankers in this thread are like "use a webber" which in a lot of contexts was also reffered to as an ALT, is a completely legit way to play. My argument stands.
The details really don't matter and only CCP has all the statistics anyways so we can argue about specifics until we are blue in the face. The fact is that mission running is faster than when they were first implemented as ships are significantly more powerful then they were upon the release of missions (T3s, marauders came after for example) and in addition to blitz-able L4 missions, we now have Incursions contributing to the problem.
Valterra Craven wrote:
Why? If the very reason they are leaving is because the risk of dying is too high and the risk of dying isn't changed, why would they go back? Seriously, if you can legit tell me why anyone would go back to those places when they left because the risk was too high, and the changes you propose do not in any way shape or form change the risk side of the equation ON EITHER side, WHY would they go back just because their income stream got nerfed?
The risk of dying is too high for the relative low amount of ISK on offer. If CCP went nuts tonight and nerfed L4 missions and incursions income to 10% of what it is now, do you think most people would still keep running them? Of course not, once people accepted that the nerf was here to stay many of the people motivated by ISK would look for the next most lucrative activity to make their income which would be faction warfare, high class wormholes, null anomalies or whatever. They would be forced to move, or, be out-competed by those brave enough to accept more risk and move out of highsec, if they wanted to maintain their income.
Many would quit too and I am not really advocating for that change, just using it as a thought experiment. Many players are doing highsec missions and Incursions not because it their favourite content in Eve, but rather it is just has the best risk vs. reward balance. Make it not, and they will move to more risky space and provide more player conflict.
The risk vs. reward balance in completely relative. If you increase or decrease risk or reward, you will change where the optimal place is to make ISK. For example, if you want to move people from highsec to nullsec you can:
1) increase the reward in nullsec
2) lower the reward in highsec
3) increase the risk in highsec
4) lower the risk in nullsec
Or you could make a combination of these changes. If the pay in highsec is becomes too low, many people will turn their eyes back to other spaces, and move back regardless of the increased risk as long as the pay is their best option.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15045
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 17:31:33 -
[1570] - Quote
King Aires wrote:Baltec is out of his freaking gourd if he thinks warp speed changes and drone changes "helped" high sec mission runners.
This is all very interesting talk from both sides. Basically carebears like the security of high-sec, and gankbears like the security of high-sec. I say if the two of you can't get along we put you both in time out.
I didnt say the frigate changes helped but warp speed changes sure did. You can get even faster warp times out of battleships than before the changes, hence the buff.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
|
King Aires
I'm Sexy And I Know It
51
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 17:32:28 -
[1571] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:You are so full of crap your eyes are brown. BS now warp at 2/3 their previous speed and changes to the warp acceleration means it takes them even longer even if you rig them back to 3au/s http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/65418/1/numbers_table.png
Just because YOU put billions into an ascendency set and nerf your fit to put put warp rigs in doesn't mean there was a "buff" with the changes. You're hilarious. My mission ship warps at over 8au and warp acceleration does not work they way you think it does. Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Also the Drone nerf effects only mission runners and anom runners as Sleepers and Incursion rats already switched targets, they simply applied those mechanics to missions.
anom rats didn't used to switch targets. CCP also took the further step of adding frigate rats with tackle to some anoms so that they couldn't be powered through with high DPS battleships as quickly or safely. So, the biggest nerf of this change was to anoms.
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/warp-drive-active?_ga=1.118072521.1765930751.1420584837
Actually he is right. Warp acceleration is now completely different. And your T2 Rigged Mach with full head of isk can go 8.0 au/sec. Good for you. That is a nerf to mission running because now you can't fit Burst rigs, or Crystals, or anything else to help maximize your income.
Again, just because YOU sir can do something, doesn't mean it was a boost to the overall profession. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15045
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 17:34:19 -
[1572] - Quote
So to point out, an 8au mach will earn 90+ mil/hr from level 3 missions in highsec.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
74
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 17:37:10 -
[1573] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:So to point out, an 8au mach will earn 90+ mil/hr from level 3 missions in highsec.
And? That is crap isk. Missions have been nerfed, and the more people are successful, the more they get nerfed because of LP |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15045
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 17:39:52 -
[1574] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
And? That is crap isk.
Thats the income you get from the best anoms using the best ratting ships.
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Missions have been nerfed,
Feel free to list high sec mission specific nerfs
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
and the more people are successful, the more they get nerfed because of LP
If that is true why are all LP items worth more than they used to be?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9847
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 17:43:57 -
[1575] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
And? That is crap isk.
That crap is is less that what you would make with the SAME HULL (Machariel, which is what I primarily fly everywhere expect Blood/Sansha space because of TDing) in null sec chaining anomalies. Best you get from a mach in SOV null is 90 mil per hour (30 mil ticks) and that's pushing hard as hell.
Glad you can see the imbalance here. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
605
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 18:37:03 -
[1576] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
And? That is crap isk.
That crap is is less that what you would make with the SAME HULL (Machariel, which is what I primarily fly everywhere expect Blood/Sansha space because of TDing) in null sec chaining anomalies. Best you get from a mach in SOV null is 90 mil per hour (30 mil ticks) and that's pushing hard as hell. Glad you can see the imbalance here.
Carriers, carriers, carriers and carriers, or perhaps even carriers, or maybe carriers or likely carriers, that are carriers you know carriers, can I get any more sarky about carriers, Goons use carriers, did you know that carriers
Ella's Snack bar
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15045
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 18:47:15 -
[1577] - Quote
Thats what earns the 90 mil payouts.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9848
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 18:47:42 -
[1578] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
And? That is crap isk.
That crap is is less that what you would make with the SAME HULL (Machariel, which is what I primarily fly everywhere expect Blood/Sansha space because of TDing) in null sec chaining anomalies. Best you get from a mach in SOV null is 90 mil per hour (30 mil ticks) and that's pushing hard as hell. Glad you can see the imbalance here. Carriers, carriers, carriers and carriers, or perhaps even carriers, or maybe carriers or likely carriers, that are carriers you know carriers, can I get any more sarky about carriers, Goons use carriers, did you know that carriers
Which again demonstrates the imbalance. You need CAPITAL SHIPS in null to make a better income than a SUB-CAP in high sec. Thanks for the back up man, couldn't win this argument without your support!
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6285
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 18:58:54 -
[1579] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:The biggest changes CCP ever introduced to missions were the missile changes making torps not be the best choice ever. You know what has had almost no impact on missions? Every other ship change. Marauders are a perfect example. They are completely stupid to use in any lvl 4 mission. Why? They are expensive, and other ships do a better job for cheaper. (My choice is a Navy scorp.) Even the way I fly it is completely overkill for missions and the only reason I use it is because I have a perma active rep on my setup that can handle full room aggro in lvl 4 bonus angel room. You know what also hasn't change since 2006? Game of alts. The reason I specifically use that setup is to make it easier to manage things since I play with two accounts. AND given the fact that all the gankers in this thread are like "use a webber" which in a lot of contexts was also reffered to as an ALT, is a completely legit way to play. My argument stands. The details really don't matter and only CCP has all the statistics anyways so we can argue about specifics until we are blue in the face. The fact is that mission running is faster than when they were first implemented as ships are significantly more powerful then they were upon the release of missions (T3s, marauders came after for example) and in addition to blitz-able L4 missions, we now have Incursions contributing to the problem. Valterra Craven wrote:
Why? If the very reason they are leaving is because the risk of dying is too high and the risk of dying isn't changed, why would they go back? Seriously, if you can legit tell me why anyone would go back to those places when they left because the risk was too high, and the changes you propose do not in any way shape or form change the risk side of the equation ON EITHER side, WHY would they go back just because their income stream got nerfed?
The risk of dying is too high for the relative low amount of ISK on offer. If CCP went nuts tonight and nerfed L4 missions and incursions income to 10% of what it is now, do you think most people would still keep running them? Of course not, once people accepted that the nerf was here to stay many of the people motivated by ISK would look for the next most lucrative activity to make their income which would be faction warfare, high class wormholes, null anomalies or whatever. They would be forced to move, or, be out-competed by those brave enough to accept more risk and move out of highsec, if they wanted to maintain their income. Many would quit too and I am not really advocating for that change, just using it as a thought experiment. Many players are doing highsec missions and Incursions not because it their favourite content in Eve, but rather it is just has the best risk vs. reward balance. Make it not, and they will move to more risky space and provide more player conflict. The risk vs. reward balance in completely relative. If you increase or decrease risk or reward, you will change where the optimal place is to make ISK. For example, if you want to move people from highsec to nullsec you can: 1) increase the reward in nullsec 2) lower the reward in highsec 3) increase the risk in highsec 4) lower the risk in nullsec Or you could make a combination of these changes. If the pay in highsec is becomes too low, many people will turn their eyes back to other spaces, and move back regardless of the increased risk as long as the pay is their best option.
Won't work.
As I keep trying to tell Karous, it's not all about ISK. It's about mechanics.
If you nerf highsec to death, and change nothing else, all you do is say through such actions "OK gate campers the game is all yours here are the targets you asked for".
So you won't be moving people from highsec to nullec. You will be giving them the option to leave the game or become a member of CFC IF and only IF they want to farm in nullsec like they did in highsec.
And given the present mechanics, it won't be "emergent" or "creating content" it'll be a big headache. Just like it is now. And few people will want to be out there. I know way more people who were out there once and left it and won't go back. You won't be forcing them.
Theoretical or not.
And the hunters of highsec and Church of HTFU trying to "go where the prey is" are going to have the same choices and die in the same fires. They won't be sticking around either.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
605
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 19:01:34 -
[1580] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
And? That is crap isk.
That crap is is less that what you would make with the SAME HULL (Machariel, which is what I primarily fly everywhere expect Blood/Sansha space because of TDing) in null sec chaining anomalies. Best you get from a mach in SOV null is 90 mil per hour (30 mil ticks) and that's pushing hard as hell. Glad you can see the imbalance here. Carriers, carriers, carriers and carriers, or perhaps even carriers, or maybe carriers or likely carriers, that are carriers you know carriers, can I get any more sarky about carriers, Goons use carriers, did you know that carriers Which again demonstrates the imbalance. You need CAPITAL SHIPS in null to make a better income than a SUB-CAP in high sec. Thanks for the back up man, couldn't win this argument without your support!
But I cannot use carriers in hisec, SOB!
I want carriers in hisec, please can I use carriers in hisec, doh doh doh and carriers carriers and even carriers, hisec please now please!
EDIT: But seriously to start talking about doing anoms in null sec and not using carriers, your having a laugh aren't you as us Brits would say!
Ella's Snack bar
|
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15046
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 19:05:31 -
[1581] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Won't work.
As I keep trying to tell Karous, it's not all about ISK. It's about mechanics.
If you nerf highsec to death, and change nothing else, all you do is say through such actions "OK gate campers the game is all yours here are the targets you asked for".
So you won't be moving people from highsec to nullec. You will be giving them the option to leave the game or become a member of CFC IF and only IF they want to farm in nullsec like they did in highsec.
And given the present mechanics, it won't be "emergent" or "creating content" it'll be a big headache. Just like it is now. And few people will want to be out there. I know way more people who were out there once and left it and won't go back. You won't be forcing them.
Theoretical or not.
And the hunters of highsec and Church of HTFU trying to "go where the prey is" are going to have the same choices and die in the same fires. They won't be sticking around either.
Its a hollow argument spouted before many nerfs but never carried out.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
645
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 19:18:48 -
[1582] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Won't work.
As I keep trying to tell Karous, it's not all about ISK. It's about mechanics.
If you nerf highsec to death, and change nothing else, all you do is say through such actions "OK gate campers the game is all yours here are the targets you asked for".
So you won't be moving people from highsec to nullec. You will be giving them the option to leave the game or become a member of CFC IF and only IF they want to farm in nullsec like they did in highsec.
And given the present mechanics, it won't be "emergent" or "creating content" it'll be a big headache. Just like it is now. And few people will want to be out there. I know way more people who were out there once and left it and won't go back. You won't be forcing them.
Theoretical or not.
And the hunters of highsec and Church of HTFU trying to "go where the prey is" are going to have the same choices and die in the same fires. They won't be sticking around either.
It will. You will see. CCP has no choice but to do it in some form if CCP Seagull's vision of a player-driven New Eden has any chance of success.
Many players will follow if the new/revamped space is fun, engaging and pays more than highsec. CCP will not jeopardize the future of the game by leaving highsec as too lucrative a draw for players as compared to the new space.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
75
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 19:19:00 -
[1583] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
And? That is crap isk.
That crap is is less that what you would make with the SAME HULL (Machariel, which is what I primarily fly everywhere expect Blood/Sansha space because of TDing) in null sec chaining anomalies. Best you get from a mach in SOV null is 90 mil per hour (30 mil ticks) and that's pushing hard as hell. Glad you can see the imbalance here.
But at any point in time running those anoms you have the potential of getting a rare big payout. There is no random giant payout in high-sec missions. |
Valterra Craven
466
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 19:23:00 -
[1584] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
It has changed. There used to be a time when belt ratting was a viable activity but the income from it is now worth about the same as level 2 missions.
This literally makes no sense. None. The problem is that belt ratting was the SOLE stream of income I had in Delve. It was one of the few things that I knew very well. I made BILLIONS off of it. In fact, combined with the mins I got from reprocing lvl 1 mods, and the few hauler spawns I got, I built 4 freighters, 1 carrier and 1 dred off of it. That doesn't even account for the raw isk in bounties, which if you chain the spawns right (i.e. kill the frig and cruisers spawns till you get trip bs spawns and then don't completely kill those in a system with roughly 8-12 belts) would well exceed income from even lvl 3 missions. If you are belt ratting today and only making enough income to compare to level two missions you are either A. Getting killed a lot, or B. doing something very very wrong. Even with all the changes they've done to reproc, and loot drops, the salvage alone, not taking into account anything else, would kick a level 2 mission's butt.
baltec1 wrote:
See, we might be getting more LP but the demand for said LP has also gone up. See, LP rises in value with inflation which means its value will only ever go up. Anoms meanwhile deal mostily in bounty which does not rise with inflation.
This argument you going to have to spell out for me. Why has the demand for LP gone up, or more importantly do you have examples of this? As far as I'm aware there have been no significant changes to items in the LP stores to make them more or less valuable (which would obviously drive demand). In fact, in large pat what I'm seeing is that LP items have stayed either constant or gone down.
Since Jenna likes to point out she farms the mess out of SOE missions in Osmon, why don't we look at the price of those store items? Soe prob launchers consistent 40mil Soe Probes. pretty consistent between 400-500k The astero is all over the map, but even it wasn't from inflation reasons. Statios, same thing. Nestor, has come down pretty hard. (Granted a lot of things where changed to make that happen) But even so, what are you talking about when you mention LP inflation. Cuse I'm not seeing it.
But that aside, I don't think you can even prove that inflation is all that significant in Eve. Or do you have some reports from Dr. Eroj or whatever his name is that prove otherwise?
Further to the point, you'd think that with everybody running missions like Jenna does that item value would go down, not up. |
Valterra Craven
466
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 19:37:31 -
[1585] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
The details really don't matter and only CCP has all the statistics anyways so we can argue about specifics until we are blue in the face. The fact is that mission running is faster than when they were first implemented as ships are significantly more powerful then they were upon the release of missions (T3s, marauders came after for example) and in addition to blitz-able L4 missions, we now have Incursions contributing to the problem.
The details are ALL the really matter given your argument hinges on them. The fact is that mission running times have not change significantly with maybe two exceptions. Otherwise you would see this reflected in dwindling isk and LP payouts since rewards are calculated on how people actually run missions. In fact, if you have some magic answer as to why rewards have stayed roughly consistent over the years while people are supposedly running them faster, I'd love to hear it.
Black Pedro wrote:
The risk of dying is too high for the relative low amount of ISK on offer. If CCP went nuts tonight and nerfed L4 missions and incursions income to 10% of what it is now, do you think most people would still keep running them? Of course not, once people accepted that the nerf was here to stay many of the people motivated by ISK would look for the next most lucrative activity to make their income which would be faction warfare, high class wormholes, null anomalies or whatever. They would be forced to move, or, be out-competed by those brave enough to accept more risk and move out of highsec, if they wanted to maintain their income.
Many would quit too and I am not really advocating for that change, just using it as a thought experiment. Many players are doing highsec missions and Incursions not because it their favourite content in Eve, but rather it is just has the best risk vs. reward balance. Make it not, and they will move to more risky space and provide more player conflict.
So what your saying is that to make your argument work, you have to come up with a scenario so catastrophic that it literally would break the game. Cuse as it stands, what most people would call reasonable nerfs are in the 10-20% range. And guess what, that is going to have little to no affect on people's actions.
Black Pedro wrote:
The risk vs. reward balance in completely relative. If you increase or decrease risk or reward, you will change where the optimal place is to make ISK. For example, if you want to move people from highsec to nullsec you can:
1) increase the reward in nullsec
2) lower the reward in highsec
3) increase the risk in highsec
4) lower the risk in nullsec
Or you could make a combination of these changes. If the pay in highsec is becomes too low, many people will turn their eyes back to other spaces, and move back regardless of the increased risk as long as the pay is their best option.
You could, but again that assumes that most players do things optimally. But given all the killmails you guys like to point out of people playing stupidly, the affects of nerfing hi-sec income would be neglible if your goal is to get people in null. Balancing the game based on the way you think people play vs the way people actually play the game is stupid.
|
Valterra Craven
466
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 19:40:09 -
[1586] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
If that is true why are all LP items worth more than they used to be?
Please list examples and then compare them to the average prices of other LP items.
You guys (maybe not you specifically) are MASTERs at market manipulation. The fact that you guys do this (Hey rattlesnake price, I'm looking at you) and then pretending like inflation etc is the sole reason prices change on item is rather disingenuous
|
Valterra Craven
466
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 19:44:25 -
[1587] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
It will. You will see. CCP has no choice but to do it in some form if CCP Seagull's vision of a player-driven New Eden has any chance of success.
Many players will follow if the new/revamped space is fun, engaging and pays more than highsec. CCP will not jeopardize the future of the game by leaving highsec as too lucrative a draw for players as compared to the new space.
Its amazing that I'm the one that gets called out for "seeing things in black and white" when the very arguments you are making are the exact same thing. (ie. that the game can only be fixed by this one and only method)
The problem with your argument is that, hey, wormholes exist. They have great money earning potential without being literal isk printing machines. Your argument that the game can only be fixed by nerfing hi-sec is not only short sighted but proven false by all of the examples that exist contrary to this. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15046
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 19:54:16 -
[1588] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
This literally makes no sense. None. The problem is that belt ratting was the SOLE stream of income I had in Delve. It was one of the few things that I knew very well. I made BILLIONS off of it. In fact, combined with the mins I got from reprocing lvl 1 mods, and the few hauler spawns I got, I built 4 freighters, 1 carrier and 1 dred off of it. That doesn't even account for the raw isk in bounties, which if you chain the spawns right (i.e. kill the frig and cruisers spawns till you get trip bs spawns and then don't completely kill those in a system with roughly 8-12 belts) would well exceed income from even lvl 3 missions. If you are belt ratting today and only making enough income to compare to level two missions you are either A. Getting killed a lot, or B. doing something very very wrong. Even with all the changes they've done to reproc, and loot drops, the salvage alone, not taking into account anything else, would kick a level 2 mission's butt.
Wrong on all accounts. Belt ratting is among the worst activities in EVE today for making isk. It is all but abandoned as an activity as level 2 income and even mining earns you more isk.
Valterra Craven wrote:
Why has the demand for LP gone up, or more importantly do you have examples of this?
The population has gone up.
Valterra Craven wrote:
As far as I'm aware there have been no significant changes to items in the LP stores to make them more or less valuable (which would obviously drive demand). In fact, in large pat what I'm seeing is that LP items have stayed either constant or gone down.
More items to buy, more uses for the items and more need for replacing said items.
Valterra Craven wrote:
Since Jenna likes to point out she farms the mess out of SOE missions in Osmon, why don't we look at the price of those store items? Soe prob launchers consistent 40mil Soe Probes. pretty consistent between 400-500k The astero is all over the map, but even it wasn't from inflation reasons. Statios, same thing. Nestor, has come down pretty hard. (Granted a lot of things where changed to make that happen) But even so, what are you talking about when you mention LP inflation. Cuse I'm not seeing it.
But that aside, I don't think you can even prove that inflation is all that significant in Eve. Or do you have some reports from Dr. Eroj or whatever his name is that prove otherwise?
Thats because you were not around back when things like faction damage mods could be picked up for 30 mil rather than todays 80 mil. All LP items have risen in their worth while bounties have been nerfed in null.
Valterra Craven wrote:
Further to the point, you'd think that with everybody running missions like Jenna does that item value would go down, not up.
Demand is matching the supply.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
470
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 20:05:07 -
[1589] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Wrong on all accounts. Belt ratting is among the worst activities in EVE today for making isk. It is all but abandoned as an activity as level 2 income and even mining earns you more isk.
Then please, by all means prove it. Otherwise this is nothing more than a pissing match.
baltec1 wrote:
The population has gone up.
Which, all things considered is irrelevant. If you have more people, then more people run missions, and LP values stay roughly the same. Which is exactly what is happening born out by all the market evidence I'm looking at.
So where are these examples?
baltec1 wrote:
More items to buy, more uses for the items and more need for replacing said items.
There have not been a significant number of items added to LP stores. Fits have not drastically changed over the years. Losses don't appear to have significantly changed either.
So where are your examples?
baltec1 wrote:
Thats because you were not around back when things like faction damage mods could be picked up for 30 mil rather than todays 80 mil. All LP items have risen in their worth while bounties have been nerfed in null.
See here's the problem with your argument. The one example you do have is not worth more because the LP suddenly got more valuable. They are worth more because they have a very limited supply and are very hard to acquire. Have you actually figured out what it takes to acquire damage mods vs things like sisters probes? (I have, so I know your argument makes no sense)
Let me give you a counter example. Faction Shield hardeners. Why on earth would you waste LP on them when rat hardners are cheaper, offer the same values, and are easier to acquire and more plentiful? You wouldn't.
So lets look at the Fed Nacy Mag stab. Just how many items in the market exist that are comparable to it? Very few. Compare it to shield hardeners. How many competitive items exist for it? A whole bunch.
baltec1 wrote:
Demand is matching the supply.
You should really study the markets before you make statements about them.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15046
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 20:23:50 -
[1590] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Then please, by all means prove it. Otherwise this is nothing more than a pissing match.
Income from level 2 missions in a navy osprey with rapid lights stands at a little over 30mil/hr, I can get better with a turret based ship, cynable should do the trick. Belt ratting earns less than mining veldspar in highsec.
Valterra Craven wrote:
Which, all things considered is irrelevant. If you have more people, then more people run missions, and LP values stay roughly the same. Which is exactly what is happening born out by all the market evidence I'm looking at.
So where are these examples?
Compare prices to 9-10 years ago when level 4 missions were added. After a decade of more isk entering the system than leaving it means that prices have gone up due to inflation.
Valterra Craven wrote:
There have not been a significant number of items added to LP stores. Fits have not drastically changed over the years. Losses don't appear to have significantly changed either.
Higher population means more losses which means more demand. To say anything else is stupidity.
Valterra Craven wrote:
See here's the problem with your argument. The one example you do have is not worth more because the LP suddenly got more valuable.
Yes, LP got more valuble because Isk today buys you less. Welcome to inflation.
baltec1 wrote:
Demand is matching the supply.
You should really study the markets before you make statements about them.[/quote]
If demand was not matching supply their cost would be rising, if demand was lower than supply it would be falling. Over the last year the price has risen from an average of 490k to 515k per unit.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
471
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 20:32:44 -
[1591] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Income from level 2 missions in a navy osprey with rapid lights stands at a little over 30mil/hr, I can get better with a turret based ship, cynable should do the trick.
Ok, and? I know for a fact you can make more than that belt ratting.
baltec1 wrote:
Compare prices to 9-10 years ago when level 4 missions were added.
What? No seriously, What? Why would you do that? Of course LP item value would change with lvl 4 missions being added. What makes no sense is under what context your argument would be viable with this data.
Valterra Craven wrote:
Higher population means more losses which means more demand. To say anything else is stupidity.
And you know what more population also means? MORE PRODUCTION. You argument does not exist in a vacuum.
Valterra Craven wrote:
Welcome to inflation.
Which you still have yet to prove is actually a significant factor in Eve's economy.
baltec1 wrote:
If demand was not matching supply their cost would be rising, if demand was lower than supply it would be falling. Over the last year the price has risen from an average of 490k to 515k per unit.
Because again, markets do not exist in a vacuum. Manipulation, especially in Eve is rampant. You of all people should know that. In fact given the market graphs I'm looking at, the prices currently returning to 490k. Or did you miss the huge downward price trend in the past couple of months? |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15046
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 20:48:24 -
[1592] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Because again, markets do not exist in a vacuum. Manipulation, especially in Eve is rampant. You of all people should know that. In fact given the market graphs I'm looking at, the prices currently returning to 490k. Or did you miss the huge downward price trend in the past couple of months?
Currently its at 528k.
Manipulation is only ever temporary, which is why we ignore that blip you pointed out. Prices have consistently risen for the last decade due to the glut of isk entering the system. LP has naturally risen with this inflation while bounties remained the same. End result is LP has overtaken bounties in their worth. Missions becoming worth more than anoms was inevitable, the nerfs only helped speed it up.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
471
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 20:54:11 -
[1593] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Currently its at 528k.
Because nothing in Eve ever changes?
baltec1 wrote:
Manipulation is only ever temporary, which is why we ignore that blip you pointed out.
Right, but what you don't ignore are trends.
baltec1 wrote:
Prices have consistently risen for the last decade due to the glut of isk entering the system.
Oh, you mean thats why Zyd is roughly a quarter of what it used to be 6-7 years ago, or a couple thousand percent less from when the game first released?
You know what leaves the system in gluts? isk. That is why inflation is not significant in Eve.
baltec1 wrote:
LP has naturally risen with this inflation while bounties remained the same. End result is LP has overtaken bounties in their worth. Missions becoming worth more than anoms was inevitable, the nerfs only helped speed it up.
This make no sense. If your argument is that isk has inflated then by definition that means LP is also less valuable. LP is nothing more than a second income stream grounded in isk.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15046
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 21:20:32 -
[1594] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
This make no sense. If your argument is that isk has inflated then by definition that means LP is also less valuable. LP is nothing more than a second income stream grounded in isk.
LP is worth more because its the players that demand the price not the system. Its the exact same reason why a Mars bar costs more today than back in 2004. The freighter I bought in 2010 for 600 mil is now worth 1.3 billion. My archon that was worth 900 mil is now worth almost 1.3 bil. I had one of my ships featured in an article in EON magazine for a 50 mil isk challange. issue 21 of the EON magazine (pages 48-56) if you care to look it up. It cost if I recall 15 mil all together, that same ship cost has doubled from that time.
Bounties do not rise, they are fixed so as more and more isk enters the system the isk you get from said bounties will buy you less and less. This is why caldari navy ballistic control systems have more than doubled in price. The reason why missions are now worth more than anoms. LP is not fixed in place like bounties are, they can rise with inflation. This is why we need to scrap the anom system and move to something more like missions.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
471
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 21:34:06 -
[1595] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
LP is worth more because its the players that demand the price not the system. Its the exact same reason why a Mars bar costs more today than back in 2004. The freighter I bought in 2010 for 600 mil is now worth 1.3 billion. My archon that was worth 900 mil is now worth almost 1.3 bil. I had one of my ships featured in an article in EON magazine for a 50 mil isk challange. issue 21 of the EON magazine (pages 48-56) if you care to look it up. It cost if I recall 15 mil all together, that same ship cost has doubled from that time.
No, the reason your items have doubled in price is because a host of changes have been made to the game. Again, nothing exists in a vaccuum. The build cost of ships have changed over the years and even the job install cost has changed alittle less than a year ago. The bottom line is that goods do not cost more solely due to inflation. Even a cursory understanding of the changes to the game over the years would show you that.
baltec1 wrote:Bounties do not rise, they are fixed so as more and more isk enters the system the isk you get from said bounties will buy you less and less.
And given that LP is grounded in isk then it also means that LP is worth less and less.
baltec1 wrote:
This is why caldari navy ballistic control systems have more than doubled in price.
No, it isn't. You still haven't figured how the process for acquiring things like damage mods works or why their prices are not in any way reflective of inflation.
baltec1 wrote:
The reason why missions are now worth more than anoms. LP is not fixed in place like bounties are, they can rise with inflation. This is why we need to scrap the anom system and move to something more like missions.
Missions are not now worth more than anoms. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15046
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 21:41:05 -
[1596] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
No, the reason your items have doubled in price is because a host of changes have been made to the game. Again, nothing exists in a vaccuum. The build cost of ships have changed over the years and even the job install cost has changed alittle less than a year ago. The bottom line is that goods do not cost more solely due to inflation. Even a cursory understanding of the changes to the game over the years would show you that.
The bulk of mods have not changed their build cost.
Valterra Cravea wrote:
And given that LP is grounded in isk then it also means that LP is worth less and less.
Wrong. Inflation means the cost to buy LP items on the market has gone up along with everything else.
Valterra Craven wrote:
No, it isn't. You still haven't figured how the process for acquiring things like damage mods works or why their prices are not in any way reflective of inflation.
Getting them has not changed in ten years, the LP market works in the exact same way.
Valterra Craven wrote:
Missions are not now worth more than anoms.
Yes, they are. It has been shown time and again how to match anom level income with level 3 missions in highsec, level 4 missions offer even better isk.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
471
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 21:57:54 -
[1597] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
The bulk of mods have not changed their build cost.
And which mods have shown significant changes in price due to inflation?
http://www.eve-markets.net/detail?typeid=1539#history
The 2500 day history of a T1 Power Diag show no signs of inflation.
baltec1 wrote:
Wrong. Inflation means the cost to buy LP items on the market has gone up along with everything else.
And yet despite a few examples, LP item prices are pretty stable.
http://www.eve-markets.net/detail?typeid=30488#history
The 2500 day history of a sisters probe show no signs of inflation.
baltec1 wrote:
Getting them has not changed in ten years, the LP market works in the exact same way.
Your right, you know what has changed? How you acquire the items that are required to buy things from the store in the first place. Hint: Not everything in the LP store needs just the item plus some isk. Let me know when you've done the math on much it costs to acquire something in the LP store like a dmg mod and how its price is reflective of exactly that.
baltec1 wrote:
Yes, they are. It has been shown time and again how to match anom level income with level 3 missions in highsec, level 4 missions offer even better isk.
Ok, then please do so.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15046
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 22:09:26 -
[1598] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Junk
EVE markets goes back to at best 2008, mostly 2010. There will not be records that go back to 2004-5 when level 4 missions were added.
Valterra Craven wrote:
Ok, then please do so.
Oh I have, many many times in many many threads you have posted in. You have ignored this info every time just like you are now. Damn near everyone knows about the mach for level 3s.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
471
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 22:15:06 -
[1599] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
EVE markets goes back to at best 2008, mostly 2010. There will not be records that go back to 2004-5 when level 4 missions were added.
And your point is what exactly?
If you can't prove that inflation is even relevant in a 7 YEAR PEROID, then inflation must not be fricking important TODAY.
Valterra Craven wrote:
Oh I have, many many times in many many threads you have posted in. You have ignored this info every time just like you are now. Damn near everyone knows about the mach for level 3s.
I've ignored nothing you've said as I've responded to every post you've quoted me in. Do you read every single post in every single thread you post in? Do you read every single post that occurs in a day? I personally didn't read anything before page 31 in this thread. But since then I've seen you offer nothing to prove this. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15046
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 22:29:33 -
[1600] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
I have. You managing to find one of two items nobody uses does not change anything. Inflation has happened, CCP themselves have shown this and even taken action to slow it down.
[quote=Valterra Craven]
I've ignored nothing you've said as I've responded to every post you've quoted me in. Do you read every single post in every single thread you post in? Do you read every single post that occurs in a day? I personally didn't read anything before page 31 in this thread. But since then I've seen you offer nothing to prove this.
I have told you directly in several other threads as have others. But hey, lets humour you again. Worth of note is that I have improved upon his fit for even faster times.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9853
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 22:36:23 -
[1601] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
And? That is crap isk.
That crap is is less that what you would make with the SAME HULL (Machariel, which is what I primarily fly everywhere expect Blood/Sansha space because of TDing) in null sec chaining anomalies. Best you get from a mach in SOV null is 90 mil per hour (30 mil ticks) and that's pushing hard as hell. Glad you can see the imbalance here. But at any point in time running those anoms you have the potential of getting a rare big payout. There is no random giant payout in high-sec missions. Also we should point out that upgraded SOV systems always have the anoms that always pay out the same bounties. While unlikely, it is possible that you get a string of missions from an agent that are completely crap, or faction killing. See there is actual in game risk to running missions, you get to watch your opposing faction drop making you essentially a KOS pirate in that space... But according to you being KOS is the end of the world, so Missions are deadly.
Having to use an example that even you have to admit doesn't ever happen should have shown you the flaw there.
And yea, anoms can escalate. Forcing you out of the system you are in (thus creating an opportunity cost situation while you go several jumps for a CHANCE at loot). Meanwhile, you can set your clock by lvl 4 mission rewards.
So, if you are a null pilot and you want isk for pvp ships (and maybe faction gear or hardwiring from the lp store for pvp) which makes more sense:
High sec 90 mil per hour ASSURED in a gank resistant (and 'unprofitable for gankers even if they do gank it) Machariel protected mechanically by CONCORD
or
null sec 90 mil an hour MAYBE if their are no frig gangs or wormhole raiders about and maybe you get an escalation that if it drops nothing but the OPE you just lost isk.
Rhtorical question, the answer is 'C, faction warfare bomber alt', but the point is that the imbalance exists, being able to make the same isk per hour in safety as you can in space where their is no CONCORD violates the very principle of risk vs reward. I pve in null despite this because I like to, but the fact of the imbalance cannot be disputed.
Fixing the imbalance won't make people leave high sec (I don't give a flat damn about where people play), it will simply allow those of us with "out of null" alts to move those alts back to null where they belong, which is better for everyone. And it's not just high sec that needs fixing, pretty much the only space that works correctly in EVE Online along the risk/reward scheme is wormhole space, and that's a shame.
|
Valterra Craven
471
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 22:43:07 -
[1602] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:I have told you directly in several other threads as have others. But hey, lets humour you again. Worth of note is that I have improved upon his fit for even faster times.
That thread seems to be missing something. Store offers aren't free.
So in other words you can't just do a straight conversion of 1k lp into 1-2million isk because store offers cost items and money.
Basically what ever the missions pays out in isk and bonus isk is sunk back into it when you convert the lp into items.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
75
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 22:48:50 -
[1603] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
So, if you are a null pilot and you want isk for pvp ships (and maybe faction gear or hardwiring from the lp store for pvp) which makes more sense:
High sec 90 mil per hour ASSURED in a gank resistant (and 'unprofitable for gankers even if they do gank it) Machariel protected mechanically by CONCORD
or
null sec 90 mil an hour MAYBE if their are no frig gangs or wormhole raiders about and maybe you get an escalation that if it drops nothing but the OPE you just lost isk.
Rhtorical question, the answer is 'C, faction warfare bomber alt', but the point is that the imbalance exists, being able to make the same isk per hour in safety as you can in space where their is no CONCORD violates the very principle of risk vs reward. I pve in null despite this because I like to, but the fact of the imbalance cannot be disputed.
Fixing the imbalance won't make people leave high sec (I don't give a flat damn about where people play), it will simply allow those of us with "out of null" alts to move those alts back to null where they belong, which is better for everyone. And it's not just high sec that needs fixing, pretty much the only space that works correctly in EVE Online along the risk/reward scheme is wormhole space, and that's a shame.
Ah but you are forgetting some very important things. There are gankers in highsec, you have to watch out for them. You are also not assured anything with missions, you might get some very bad missions all in a row which drop your numbers. Anoms always have a respawn so they are much more stable.
The Mach that Baltec uses has no tank, it is easier to kill than a hauler, so you are a sitting duck if you are caught by a group of gankers. Also the income in missions is primarily LP in your scenario, which fluctuates and depends on time spent making things from BPCs and market-foo. The anoms pay you today, now, every tick.
If you are a null pvp pilot, you are far better off running anoms in your intel protected sov space where you know a neutral is trouble and you know when they come into your zone of concern. Also, no matter how you cut it you are taking the top of the line ships for highsec while ignoring the top of the line ships for the null anoms.
Mach vs Ishtar would be more appropriate because Machs are horrible for most null space. Mach vs Thanny far better comparison. Mach+implants as Baltec used to get 90mil/hr is 4x the price of a good fit sentry Thanny. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15046
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 22:49:00 -
[1604] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:I have told you directly in several other threads as have others. But hey, lets humour you again. Worth of note is that I have improved upon his fit for even faster times. That thread seems to be missing something. Store offers aren't free. So in other words you can't just do a straight conversion of 1k lp into 1-2million isk because store offers cost items and money. Basically what ever the missions pays out in isk and bonus isk is sunk back into it when you convert the lp into items.
The calculations are AFTER you buy the item. Thats how much you get per LP.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
75
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 22:49:48 -
[1605] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:I have told you directly in several other threads as have others. But hey, lets humour you again. Worth of note is that I have improved upon his fit for even faster times. That thread seems to be missing something. Store offers aren't free. So in other words you can't just do a straight conversion of 1k lp into 1-2million isk because store offers cost items and money. Basically what ever the missions pays out in isk and bonus isk is sunk back into it when you convert the lp into items.
It is also missing the cost of time to make things from BPCs, haul things to market, buying tags and market-foo for selling at best prices. |
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
95
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 22:52:40 -
[1606] - Quote
LP/ISK conversion is terrible on everything except SoE probe launchers and I've been told, certain Thukker items. This talk about mission LP being such great income is nonsense. Conversion rate on the probe launchers is about 1600 ISK/lp last I checked; most other items don't break 1000. The damage mods which require large numbers of extremely expensive tags are absolutely terrible investments.
I invite someone to show me an item that breaks 2000 lp/isk without extensive manipulation. |
Valterra Craven
471
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 22:54:25 -
[1607] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
The calculations are AFTER you buy the item. Thats how much you get per LP.
Ok, so follow-up question, how many people actually blitz missions like that compared to the way everyone else runs missions? |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15046
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 22:55:04 -
[1608] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Ah but you are forgetting some very important things. There are gankers in highsec, you have to watch out for them.
In 8 years I have not been been scanned let alone ganked doing missions. The risk of getting ganked is close to non existent.
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
You are also not assured anything with missions, you might get some very bad missions all in a row which drop your numbers.
No, you wont.
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
The Mach that Baltec uses has no tank, it is easier to kill than a hauler, so you are a sitting duck if you are caught by a group of gankers.
Its not easier to kill than a hauler and no, it will not get ganked.
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Mach vs Ishtar would be more appropriate because Machs are horrible for most null space. Mach vs Thanny far better comparison. Mach+implants as Baltec used to get 90mil/hr is 4x the price of a good fit sentry Thanny.
thanatox is 1.3 billion just for the hull, the mach I use is 860 million fully fitted.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
471
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 22:56:15 -
[1609] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
I invite someone to show me an item that breaks 2000 lp/isk without extensive manipulation.
I bet you'll be waiting a long time. Most people that make arguments for high LP payouts will never admit what the actual item they are talking about is since that would be a trade secret and would mess with their incomes. Thats assuming it even exists.
|
Valterra Craven
471
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 22:58:48 -
[1610] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
In 8 years I have not been been scanned let alone ganked doing missions. The risk of getting ganked is close to non existent.
Actually that's not true. But it depends entirely on where you missions. I started running some minnie missions to get my corp standing up to run the minnie epic, and I had to move because people were constantly scanning me down and ninja looting over there. An experience I never had until I started to mission there.
|
|
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
75
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 22:59:57 -
[1611] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Ah but you are forgetting some very important things. There are gankers in highsec, you have to watch out for them.
In 8 years I have not been been scanned let alone ganked doing missions. The risk of getting ganked is close to non existent. Market McSelling Alt wrote:
You are also not assured anything with missions, you might get some very bad missions all in a row which drop your numbers.
No, you wont. Market McSelling Alt wrote:
The Mach that Baltec uses has no tank, it is easier to kill than a hauler, so you are a sitting duck if you are caught by a group of gankers.
Its not easier to kill than a hauler and no, it will not get ganked. Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Mach vs Ishtar would be more appropriate because Machs are horrible for most null space. Mach vs Thanny far better comparison. Mach+implants as Baltec used to get 90mil/hr is 4x the price of a good fit sentry Thanny.
thanatox is 1.3 billion just for the hull, the mach I use is 860 million fully fitted.
Check the daily kill logs in Osmon... people get scanned down and ganked every day.
Yes, you will get strings of bad missions, everyone does and they either use their standings buffer or wait out the timer.
Yes your Mach has about 40k ehp
You didn't give us numbers for a Mach, you gave us numbers for a Mach with an Ascendancy implant set that costs 3bil... Stop playing stupid forum games. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15062
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 23:06:53 -
[1612] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:LP/ISK conversion is terrible on everything except SoE probe launchers and I've been told, certain Thukker items. This talk about mission LP being such great income is nonsense. Conversion rate on the probe launchers is about 1600 ISK/lp last I checked; most other items don't break 1000. The damage mods which require large numbers of extremely expensive tags are absolutely terrible investments.
I invite someone to show me an item that breaks 2000 lp/isk without extensive manipulation.
Sisters Combat Scanner Probe = 2182.7
Sisters Expanded Probe Launcher = 2259.7
Mid-grade Virtue Beta = 2560.1
Caldari Navy Warfare Mindlink = 2416.2
Zainou 'Snapshot' FOF Explosion Radius FR-1003 = 2218.3
Imperial Navy Energized Explosive Membrane = 2920.6
Zainou 'Snapshot' FOF Explosion Radius FR-1003 = 2218.3
A great number have 2K+ isk/LP
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
95
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 23:10:39 -
[1613] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Kills should require risk and effort.
I could say the same thing about income generation mechanics. Quote:
I do not think 5-10 year old players should be sitting in highsec greening their kb with proteus vs retriever fights.
And I think that if you want e-honor, then you're playing the wrong game. EVE is about player freedom, not samurai bushido in space. If you want them to have a "fair fight", go kill them yourself. Or do you just want the NPCs to do that for you, too?
Stop strawmanning as if I expect frigates at high noon in the novice for every fight. Kills should require risk and effort. Highsec pvp currently expects little to none of wardec spammers. Their only threat is from other merc corps and that's easily avoidable and short-lived because it's unprofitable for both parties.
The fact that you repeatedly deny this makes me think your sole interest is in CCP subsidized content for your playstyle.
I look at you and your associates' killboards and I laugh. Most of you hardly even log on.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11864
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 23:11:22 -
[1614] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
That thread seems to be missing something. Store offers aren't free.
So in other words you can't just do a straight conversion of 1k lp into 1-2million isk because store offers cost items and money.
Basically what ever the missions pays out in isk and bonus isk is sunk back into it when you convert the lp into items.
Do you even play the game? I hate, I mean I truly despise the PvE activity in this game and even I know better than this.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15062
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 23:12:11 -
[1615] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Check the daily kill logs in Osmon... people get scanned down and ganked every day.
Now look at the 41 carriers we have lost in our space this month alone. Chances of getting ganked is so small you can run hundreds of thousands of missions before it might happen.
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Yes, you will get strings of bad missions, everyone does and they either use their standings buffer or wait out the timer.
No you dont. We can dump the bad ones and have our standings be stable.
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Yes your Mach has about 40k ehp[/quote[
And 1k+ firepower with a fast align time and a rep. They wont bother you unless you are stuipd and fit nothing but pimp.
[quote=Market McSelling Alt]
You didn't give us numbers for a Mach, you gave us numbers for a Mach with an Ascendancy implant set that costs 3bil... Stop playing stupid forum games.
So your using a carrier without ascendancy impants and think you can earn good money? Its also highsec, you have to actively try to lose a pod there.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11864
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 23:14:39 -
[1616] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Kills should require risk and effort. Highsec pvp currently expects little to none of wardec spammers.
That's the fault of the people living there, not the mechanic of wardecs. The mechanic itself is in fact highly weighted in favor of the defender.
Quote:
The fact that you repeatedly deny this makes me think your sole interest is in CCP subsidized content for your playstyle.
Says the carebear....
Quote:
I look at you and your associates' killboards and I laugh. Most of you hardly even log on.
Mine? Yeah, this character's killboard sucks, he's a logi pilot. As for how often I log in, lately you are correct, but that's largely a result of my wife having been hospitalized late last year. The game takes a backseat to real life.
But hey, any more ad hominem? Or are you actually going to try and argue the point?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
607
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 23:22:10 -
[1617] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Check the daily kill logs in Osmon... people get scanned down and ganked every day.
Now look at the 41 carriers we have lost in our space this month alone. Chances of getting ganked is so small you can run hundreds of thousands of missions before it might happen.
Goons are using carriers, can you have a little word with Jenn, she seems a bit confused about what people use in CFC space, I am not, I had one of my scouts in Deklin earlier and all I saw was carriers, not a single Macherial, what is she smoking?
Ella's Snack bar
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
77
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 23:32:04 -
[1618] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Check the daily kill logs in Osmon... people get scanned down and ganked every day.
Now look at the 41 carriers we have lost in our space this month alone. Chances of getting ganked is so small you can run hundreds of thousands of missions before it might happen. Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Yes, you will get strings of bad missions, everyone does and they either use their standings buffer or wait out the timer.
No you dont. We can dump the bad ones and have our standings be stable. Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Yes your Mach has about 40k ehp[/quote[
And 1k+ firepower with a fast align time and a rep. They wont bother you unless you are stuipd and fit nothing but pimp.
[quote=Market McSelling Alt]
You didn't give us numbers for a Mach, you gave us numbers for a Mach with an Ascendancy implant set that costs 3bil... Stop playing stupid forum games.
So your using a carrier without ascendancy impants and think you can earn good money? Its also highsec, you have to actively try to lose a pod there.
Oh no, not 41 carriers (some of which consensual pvp) in your whole space!!!
295 Marauders in Osmon system alone... what were you saying?
|
Paranoid Loyd
3932
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 23:35:12 -
[1619] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:295 Marauders in Osmon system alone... what were you saying?
WTF are talking about? The last marauder death was January 30th, learn to read a KB FFS. 8 were killed in January and none have been killed this month.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11864
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 23:35:55 -
[1620] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Oh no, not 41 carriers (some of which consensual pvp) in your whole space!!!
295 Marauders in Osmon system alone... what were you saying?
That the difference between losing a ship in fundamentally dangerous space and fundamentally safe space shows a huge gap in player skill?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15062
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 23:50:23 -
[1621] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Oh no, not 41 carriers (some of which consensual pvp) in your whole space!!!
None of which consensual. This is before we get into the hundreds of ishtars that die.
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
295 Marauders in Osmon system alone... what were you saying?
Oh we are going to play with every marauder ever recorded on the KB for that system now are we? Oh you didnt know that?
Yea the number of marauders ganked in osmon this month is zero.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
471
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 23:57:00 -
[1622] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Do you even play the game? I hate, I mean I truly despise the PvE activity in this game and even I know better than this.
Likely more than you do. But prove me wrong. I like data. It makes my play better. |
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
97
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 23:58:39 -
[1623] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:LP/ISK conversion is terrible on everything except SoE probe launchers and I've been told, certain Thukker items. This talk about mission LP being such great income is nonsense. Conversion rate on the probe launchers is about 1600 ISK/lp last I checked; most other items don't break 1000. The damage mods which require large numbers of extremely expensive tags are absolutely terrible investments.
I invite someone to show me an item that breaks 2000 lp/isk without extensive manipulation. Sisters Combat Scanner Probe = 2182.7 Sisters Expanded Probe Launcher = 2259.7 Mid-grade Virtue Beta = 2560.1 Caldari Navy Warfare Mindlink = 2416.2 Zainou 'Snapshot' FOF Explosion Radius FR-1003 = 2218.3 Imperial Navy Energized Explosive Membrane = 2920.6 Zainou 'Snapshot' FOF Explosion Radius FR-1003 = 2218.3 A great number have 2K+ isk/LP
I said that don't require extensive market manipulation. That includes playing .01 games in station. You get about 2k on the SoE items from buy orders. I stand corrected on that; that's a reasonably good rate. The rest require serious .01 games so a dedicated station gaming alt is the only way to make it work. The FOF implants don't sell and the buy orders are at 1.5m, and the imperial navy EENM is a fluke that probably won't sell because it has the exact same stats as a dark blood EENM which sells for 2.6M.
Paper conversion rate is meaningless, you ignore a host of other factors that affect your ability to actually get a good conversion.
2K isk/lp for certain SoE items is the best you'll get without serious .01 warfare and I was slightly off on my numbers there. I don't have full market skills so I lose money on transaction costs.
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
97
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 00:02:50 -
[1624] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Kills should require risk and effort. Highsec pvp currently expects little to none of wardec spammers.
That's the fault of the people living there, not the mechanic of wardecs. The mechanic itself is in fact highly weighted in favor of the defender. Quote:
The fact that you repeatedly deny this makes me think your sole interest is in CCP subsidized content for your playstyle.
Says the carebear.... Quote:
I look at you and your associates' killboards and I laugh. Most of you hardly even log on.
Mine? Yeah, this character's killboard sucks, he's a logi pilot. As for how often I log in, lately you are correct, but that's largely a result of my wife having been hospitalized late last year. The game takes a backseat to real life. But hey, any more ad hominem? Or are you actually going to try and argue the point?
I don't know if you can look at my killboard and call me a carebear.
As for the ad hominem - the kills you guys put up are relevant to my argument. Cannibal Kane's kb for the past few months is mostly proteus vs barge or shitfit tech 1s.
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
97
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 00:05:52 -
[1625] - Quote
And I get tired of arguing with alts. |
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
77
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 00:07:00 -
[1626] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Oh no, not 41 carriers (some of which consensual pvp) in your whole space!!!
None of which consensual. This is before we get into the hundreds of ishtars that die. Market McSelling Alt wrote:
295 Marauders in Osmon system alone... what were you saying?
Oh we are going to play with every marauder ever recorded on the KB for that system now are we? Oh you didnt know that? Yea the number of marauders ganked in osmon this month is zero.
Ok, well since we were talking about Machariels anyways, there was 218 of them killed in Jita so far this month... But if you say so. By the way, got a link to pve fit carriers killed in Goonswarm space, because your killboard doesnt allow for that level of customized search. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15062
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 00:07:30 -
[1627] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:baltec1 wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:LP/ISK conversion is terrible on everything except SoE probe launchers and I've been told, certain Thukker items. This talk about mission LP being such great income is nonsense. Conversion rate on the probe launchers is about 1600 ISK/lp last I checked; most other items don't break 1000. The damage mods which require large numbers of extremely expensive tags are absolutely terrible investments.
I invite someone to show me an item that breaks 2000 lp/isk without extensive manipulation. Sisters Combat Scanner Probe = 2182.7 Sisters Expanded Probe Launcher = 2259.7 Mid-grade Virtue Beta = 2560.1 Caldari Navy Warfare Mindlink = 2416.2 Zainou 'Snapshot' FOF Explosion Radius FR-1003 = 2218.3 Imperial Navy Energized Explosive Membrane = 2920.6 Zainou 'Snapshot' FOF Explosion Radius FR-1003 = 2218.3 A great number have 2K+ isk/LP I said that don't require extensive market manipulation. That includes playing .01 games in station. You get about 2k on the SoE items from buy orders. I stand corrected on that; that's a reasonably good rate. The rest require serious .01 games so a dedicated station gaming alt is the only way to make it work. The FOF implants don't sell and the buy orders are at 1.5m, and the imperial navy EENM is a fluke that probably won't sell because it has the exact same stats as a dark blood EENM which sells for 2.6M. Paper conversion rate is meaningless, you ignore a host of other factors that affect your ability to actually get a good conversion. 2K isk/lp for certain SoE items is the best you'll get without serious .01 warfare and I was slightly off on my numbers there. I don't have full market skills so I lose money on transaction costs.
Everything requires .01 games.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15062
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 00:09:10 -
[1628] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Ok, well since we were talking about Machariels anyways, there was 218 of them killed in Jita so far this month... But if you say so. By the way, got a link to pve fit carriers killed in Goonswarm space, because your killboard doesnt allow for that level of customized search.
Jita isnt a mission system or on par with anything else in EVE. Also you can find those carriers the same way I did.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15062
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 00:11:41 -
[1629] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
I don't know if you can look at my killboard and call me a carebear.
As for the ad hominem - the kills you guys put up are relevant to my argument. Cannibal Kane's kb for the past few months is mostly proteus vs barge or shitfit tech 1s.
Carebear is a state of mind. Also, its not smart to start calling out the likes of Cannibal Kane.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
77
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 00:19:27 -
[1630] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Ok, well since we were talking about Machariels anyways, there was 218 of them killed in Jita so far this month... But if you say so. By the way, got a link to pve fit carriers killed in Goonswarm space, because your killboard doesnt allow for that level of customized search.
Jita isnt a mission system or on par with anything else in EVE. Also you can find those carriers the same way I did.
Yeah I see 16 carrier loses for your whole alliance for the month, including 13 of them in pvp.
But I am sure you are talking about renters... by the way, why do people rent that terrible null sec anyways that makes so much less than highsec |
|
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6287
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 00:24:05 -
[1631] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Ok, well since we were talking about Machariels anyways, there was 218 of them killed in Jita so far this month... But if you say so. By the way, got a link to pve fit carriers killed in Goonswarm space, because your killboard doesnt allow for that level of customized search.
Jita isnt a mission system or on par with anything else in EVE. Also you can find those carriers the same way I did. Yeah I see 16 carrier loses for your whole alliance for the month, including 13 of them in pvp. But I am sure you are talking about renters... by the way, why do people rent that terrible null sec anyways that makes so much less than highsec
Must be the ISK they are making. Unless they didn't get the memo that all the ISK was in highsec.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15062
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 00:31:00 -
[1632] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Ok, well since we were talking about Machariels anyways, there was 218 of them killed in Jita so far this month... But if you say so. By the way, got a link to pve fit carriers killed in Goonswarm space, because your killboard doesnt allow for that level of customized search.
Jita isnt a mission system or on par with anything else in EVE. Also you can find those carriers the same way I did. Yeah I see 16 carrier loses for your whole alliance for the month, including 13 of them in pvp. But I am sure you are talking about renters... by the way, why do people rent that terrible null sec anyways that makes so much less than highsec
So you don't even know about the CFC. Do you know anything about this game?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
97
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 03:51:02 -
[1633] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:baltec1 wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:LP/ISK conversion is terrible on everything except SoE probe launchers and I've been told, certain Thukker items. This talk about mission LP being such great income is nonsense. Conversion rate on the probe launchers is about 1600 ISK/lp last I checked; most other items don't break 1000. The damage mods which require large numbers of extremely expensive tags are absolutely terrible investments.
I invite someone to show me an item that breaks 2000 lp/isk without extensive manipulation. Sisters Combat Scanner Probe = 2182.7 Sisters Expanded Probe Launcher = 2259.7 Mid-grade Virtue Beta = 2560.1 Caldari Navy Warfare Mindlink = 2416.2 Zainou 'Snapshot' FOF Explosion Radius FR-1003 = 2218.3 Imperial Navy Energized Explosive Membrane = 2920.6 Zainou 'Snapshot' FOF Explosion Radius FR-1003 = 2218.3 A great number have 2K+ isk/LP I said that don't require extensive market manipulation. That includes playing .01 games in station. You get about 2k on the SoE items from buy orders. I stand corrected on that; that's a reasonably good rate. The rest require serious .01 games so a dedicated station gaming alt is the only way to make it work. The FOF implants don't sell and the buy orders are at 1.5m, and the imperial navy EENM is a fluke that probably won't sell because it has the exact same stats as a dark blood EENM which sells for 2.6M. Paper conversion rate is meaningless, you ignore a host of other factors that affect your ability to actually get a good conversion. 2K isk/lp for certain SoE items is the best you'll get without serious .01 warfare and I was slightly off on my numbers there. I don't have full market skills so I lose money on transaction costs. Everything requires .01 games.
As I said one can currently do about 2000 ISK/LP selling certain SoE items to buy orders, which is pretty good. Obviously there is an extremely high demand for SoE scanning equipment.
But .01 games aside some of the items you listed simply don't sell. High sell orders is not the only factor that must be considered when choosing conversion items.
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
97
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 03:57:31 -
[1634] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
I don't know if you can look at my killboard and call me a carebear.
As for the ad hominem - the kills you guys put up are relevant to my argument. Cannibal Kane's kb for the past few months is mostly proteus vs barge or shitfit tech 1s.
Carebear is a state of mind. Also, its not smart to start calling out the likes of Cannibal Kane.
He doesn't appear to play anymore, unless it's on an alt. I heard he sold that character.
Regardless, someone who slaughters newbies in a proteus doesn't faze me. And I'm immune to wardecs unless one is in faction warfare. He's welcome to come to lowsec!
I'm not sure how you define "carebear" then. I lose a lot of ships. I can only do the ISK grinding thing so long before I have to go die in a glorious explosion. In my mind the true carebears are those who enjoy playing duck hunter on hub undocks.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
611
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 09:01:41 -
[1635] - Quote
Lets do a little comparison, we don't have carriers in hisec, so we want to compare levels of PvP which I will call non-consensual, people of course want to gank ratting carriers if they can, but the question is how many of those 41 that Baltec mention were engaged in an offensive action so the numbers cannot be directly comparable, to talk about marauders is irrelevent, as irrelevent as Jenn talking about using a Macherial for level 4's when no one in CFC space uses them.
Hisec is effectively Jita and the market, Deklin or Goon space is of course getting the benefits of their space, so while I have no idea what this 41 carriers denotes I will asses that below, but Freighters are the capital ships of hisec.
I have taken freighters and jump freighters destroyed in hisec, this does include wars, but as most of them are to go after people who cannot defend themselves I define them as non-consensual.
February so far
41 Charons
10 Rhea
26 Providence
0 Ark
50 Obelisk
4 Anshar
29 Fenrir
5 Nomad
165 freighters in what is 2/3rds of the month and the majority of those on the way to Jita and an eyeball assessment it looks like 80% of those were killed by CODE /CFC / Miniluv.
So lets go and look at the Goons.
Deklin is the Goons ratting area, simple as.
10 Goon alliance carriers lost in Deklin, of which 4 looked to be in PvP against BL. So 6 which look like ratting carriers.
Now lets compare to Osmon:
Marauders 0 however 34 ratting battleships killed.
Its as simple as that and has backed up everything I said before.
Ella's Snack bar
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15064
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 10:49:16 -
[1636] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Lets do a little comparison, we don't have carriers in hisec, so we want to compare levels of PvP which I will call non-consensual, people of course want to gank ratting carriers if they can, but the question is how many of those 41 that Baltec mention were engaged in an offensive action so the numbers cannot be directly comparable, to talk about marauders is irrelevent, as irrelevent as Jenn talking about using a Macherial for level 4's when no one in CFC space uses them.
Hisec is effectively Jita and the market, Deklin or Goon space is of course getting the benefits of their space, so while I have no idea what this 41 carriers denotes I will asses that below, but Freighters are the capital ships of hisec.
I have taken freighters and jump freighters destroyed in hisec, this does include wars, but as most of them are to go after people who cannot defend themselves I define them as non-consensual.
February so far
41 Charons
10 Rhea
26 Providence
0 Ark
50 Obelisk
4 Anshar
29 Fenrir
5 Nomad
165 freighters in what is 2/3rds of the month and the majority of those on the way to Jita and an eyeball assessment it looks like 80% of those were killed by CODE /CFC / Miniluv.
So lets go and look at the Goons.
Deklin is the Goons ratting area, simple as.
10 Goon alliance carriers lost in Deklin, of which 4 looked to be in PvP against BL. So 6 which look like ratting carriers.
Now lets compare to Osmon:
Marauders 0 however 34 ratting battleships killed.
Its as simple as that and has backed up everything I said before.
"hey guys, lets compare all of highsec with one alliance in one region of null"
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
flakeys
Arkham Innovations
2686
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 10:51:32 -
[1637] - Quote
MMMmm dracvlad vs baltec .This thread has the potential to get a daily new page for as long as eve keeps running.
Btw if we're talking about risk vs reward this post might add to the discussion .
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
611
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 12:18:31 -
[1638] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Lets do a little comparison, we don't have carriers in hisec, so we want to compare levels of PvP which I will call non-consensual, people of course want to gank ratting carriers if they can, but the question is how many of those 41 that Baltec mention were engaged in an offensive action so the numbers cannot be directly comparable, to talk about marauders is irrelevent, as irrelevent as Jenn talking about using a Macherial for level 4's when no one in CFC space uses them.
Hisec is effectively Jita and the market, Deklin or Goon space is of course getting the benefits of their space, so while I have no idea what this 41 carriers denotes I will asses that below, but Freighters are the capital ships of hisec.
I have taken freighters and jump freighters destroyed in hisec, this does include wars, but as most of them are to go after people who cannot defend themselves I define them as non-consensual.
February so far
41 Charons
10 Rhea
26 Providence
0 Ark
50 Obelisk
4 Anshar
29 Fenrir
5 Nomad
165 freighters in what is 2/3rds of the month and the majority of those on the way to Jita and an eyeball assessment it looks like 80% of those were killed by CODE /CFC / Miniluv.
So lets go and look at the Goons.
Deklin is the Goons ratting area, simple as.
10 Goon alliance carriers lost in Deklin, of which 4 looked to be in PvP against BL. So 6 which look like ratting carriers.
Now lets compare to Osmon:
Marauders 0 however 34 ratting battleships killed.
Its as simple as that and has backed up everything I said before. "hey guys, lets compare all of highsec with one alliance in one region of null" Zero battleships ganked in osmon this month.
In terms of the Freighters 90% were lost around Jita, so if you want I could just focus on those numbers. But your region is the region which has the most ratting going on in the game, which is why I picked it and yet you lost 6 carriers.
That was the battleship numbers that I took from Zkill which were lost in Osmon in February, so wrong, we are talking PvP here not just ganked, though CrazedCC going criminal with a Fenrir getting shot, docking and coming out and shooting the surprised mission runner is classified as a PvP loss.
Why the change to ganked, don't like what you see?
Ella's Snack bar
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11865
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 13:00:50 -
[1639] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
That was the battleship numbers that I took from Zkill which were lost in Osmon in February, so wrong, we are talking PvP here not just ganked
The thread is literally about ganking.
Stop trying to pad your stats to suit your agenda.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
77
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 13:36:23 -
[1640] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
That was the battleship numbers that I took from Zkill which were lost in Osmon in February, so wrong, we are talking PvP here not just ganked
The thread is literally about ganking. Stop trying to pad your stats to suit your agenda.
Confirming ganking means shooting only things that are incapable of shooting back. Your cowardice is so engrained in you that you expose your inner thoughts on your own risk aversion.
|
|
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
611
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 14:27:53 -
[1641] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
That was the battleship numbers that I took from Zkill which were lost in Osmon in February, so wrong, we are talking PvP here not just ganked
The thread is literally about ganking. Stop trying to pad your stats to suit your agenda.
Ganking is PvP, and I was just showing certain stats to refute your agenda.
There is a lot of PvP in hisec and it can be fun, certainly this hyperdunking is clever and I respect the guy doing it because he is clever ruthless and resourceful in game. Of course I am trying to help stop him at times and mostly losing but its all fun...
Ella's Snack bar
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15069
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 16:59:13 -
[1642] - Quote
You just changed from ganking to all pvp losses, very well.
If we are going to move the goalposts away from only ganking and include everything from highsec then we might as well go for full pvp in null too.
625 capital hulls killed this month, or a 3.7 times higher death rate of high sec.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
611
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 17:08:24 -
[1643] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:You just changed from ganking to all pvp losses, very well.
If we are going to move the goalposts away from only ganking and include everything from highsec then we might as well go for full pvp in null too.
625 capital hulls killed this month, or a 3.7 times higher death rate of high sec.
Still no issue on what I said, dropping BLOP's on a null sec ratter is ganking, you blap them fast and get out, difference is that they don't have Concord to come in and kill everything. The Goons are Concord in Deklin, they are far from any threat and have lots of resources to deal with threats as you have detailed in another thread.
We are looking at the safety of Goon main area ratting which is 6 ratting carriers killed in Feb so far. During the same period 165 freighters were killed in hisec, the majority of them in the pipes around and leading to Jita, and the majority of them were killed by Goon aligned groups.
To also address you point on carriers I then detailed battleship losses in Osmon, as you might be aware Osmon is the main ratting system due to the SOE LP being the best one to go for. Battleships are the best ships to use for level 4's, while carriers are the best ships for anom ratting in null, so they are the flagship types for ratting and ganking. I showed you that Osmon on its own saw 34 battleship losses and a good number were rattlesnakes which is much more than the number of 6 carriers.
So we are comparing Osmon a single system in hisec against Deklin for the lead ship type to make ISK.
So in a nutshell all your arguments are wrong.
Ella's Snack bar
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15069
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 17:29:18 -
[1644] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
We are looking at the safety of Goon main area ratting which is 6 ratting carriers killed in Feb so far.
41 CFC ratting carriers lost in DEK this month. 42 as of today.
Dracvlad wrote:
During the same period 165 freighters were killed in hisec
Again, you are comparing everything in highsec with a single region in null with a ratting population at around the same level as a single mission system in highsec. This is nothing but an attempt to try to pad your numbers. You can only compare all of high sec with all of nullsec, not a single region.
Dracvlad wrote:
To also address you point on carriers I then detailed battleship losses in Osmon, as you might be aware Osmon is the main ratting system due to the SOE LP being the best one to go for. Battleships are the best ships to use for level 4's, while carriers are the best ships for anom ratting in null, so they are the flagship types for ratting and ganking. I showed you that Osmon on its own saw 34 battleship losses and a good number were rattlesnakes which is much more than the number of 6 carriers.
So we are comparing Osmon a single system in hisec against Deklin for the lead ship type to make ISK.
So in a nutshell all your arguments are wrong.
None of those battleship were ganked, they all died to wardecs so are irrelevant. But hey, even if we did include them, 41 carriers vs 34 battleships and this is before we get to the battleships (88) and ishtars (hundreds) that have been lost this month. Wanna toss in all of the pvp ships that are lost too while were at it? Osmon has a similar mission runner population to Dek ratters so the only person bullshitting here is yourself.
Buy hey, speaking of danger, people have a new tactic to play with called drifter dunking and it is shockingly effective.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
611
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 17:36:02 -
[1645] - Quote
6 ratting Goon carriers lost in all of Deklin so far in February. I am not talking about your minions, I am talking about the ones that everyone protects.
War decs are a form of ganking, the Concord protection is removed, people try to continue but they risk death, so it is directly comparable to ratting in Deklin.
EDIT
I could have added a load of very shiny T3's too all of this, quite a lot of them killed too.
Ella's Snack bar
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15069
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 17:38:05 -
[1646] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:6 ratting Goon carriers lost in all of Deklin so far in February. I am not talking about your minions, I am talking about the ones that everyone protects.
War decs are a form of ganking, the Concord protection is removed, people try to continue but they risk death, so it is directly comparable to ratting in Deklin.
You dont even know what the CFC is do you?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
611
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 17:43:45 -
[1647] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:6 ratting Goon carriers lost in all of Deklin so far in February. I am not talking about your minions, I am talking about the ones that everyone protects.
War decs are a form of ganking, the Concord protection is removed, people try to continue but they risk death, so it is directly comparable to ratting in Deklin.
You dont even know what the CFC is do you?
What I do see is an area set back from the borders areas which is mainly for Goons to rat in and the other alliances sit in the border areas and are much more exposed. The reason I selected that area is because it is remote and heavily used mainly by the Goons in the best systems.
Of course I know what the CFC is.
Ella's Snack bar
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15069
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 17:50:20 -
[1648] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:6 ratting Goon carriers lost in all of Deklin so far in February. I am not talking about your minions, I am talking about the ones that everyone protects.
War decs are a form of ganking, the Concord protection is removed, people try to continue but they risk death, so it is directly comparable to ratting in Deklin.
You dont even know what the CFC is do you? What I do see is an area set back from the borders areas which is mainly for Goons to rat in and the other alliances sit in the border areas and are much more exposed. The reason I selected that area is because it is remote and heavily used mainly by the Goons in the best systems. Of course I know what the CFC is.
No you dont, not with that answer.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
611
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 18:08:04 -
[1649] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:6 ratting Goon carriers lost in all of Deklin so far in February. I am not talking about your minions, I am talking about the ones that everyone protects.
War decs are a form of ganking, the Concord protection is removed, people try to continue but they risk death, so it is directly comparable to ratting in Deklin.
You dont even know what the CFC is do you? What I do see is an area set back from the borders areas which is mainly for Goons to rat in and the other alliances sit in the border areas and are much more exposed. The reason I selected that area is because it is remote and heavily used mainly by the Goons in the best systems. Of course I know what the CFC is. No you dont, not with that answer.
I look at reality not what people say it is, there is one Goon ratting carrier killed outside of Deklin in Cloud Ring during Feb.
Ella's Snack bar
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15069
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 19:27:48 -
[1650] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
I look at reality not what people say it is, there is one Goon ratting carrier killed outside of Deklin in Cloud Ring during Feb.
You look at anything but reality. Come back when you learn what the CFC is not what you think it is.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
92
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 20:16:37 -
[1651] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
I look at reality not what people say it is, there is one Goon ratting carrier killed outside of Deklin in Cloud Ring during Feb.
You look at anything but reality. Come back when you learn what the CFC is not what you think it is.
You are just making yourself look silly now. In all the regions with all the pets you are claiming 42 ratting carriers at around what, 2-3bil a pop killed...
We just showed you that in ONE system in high-sec, a .7 none the less that almost the same number of BS class ships were ganked in the same time. That doesn't include Tengu's, Gilas, Command Ships, Ishtars or anything else used to mission.
You don't think that high-sec is more dangerous than CFC space? Hilarious. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6291
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 20:20:01 -
[1652] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
I look at reality not what people say it is, there is one Goon ratting carrier killed outside of Deklin in Cloud Ring during Feb.
You look at anything but reality. Come back when you learn what the CFC is not what you think it is.
The CFC is basically the highsec of nullsec and the large membership is due to having sold the same dream of carebearing and raking in the ISK that highsec offers. If nullsec was the bubbling cauldron of PVP that good mechanics would make it, provided such a thing existed, CFC would not be so big.
So Dracvlad's observation:
Quote:Ganking is effectively getting in fast killing something that is not able to fight back or avoid the attack and get out fast, the only difference between that in hisec and that in Deklin is that the players are doing the protection and are not as effective as Concord.
I went to Uedama and Niarja to look around and drew this conclusion: you can expect a war of attrition in nullsec and losec where you can get kills and die in a fire. But you can operate under the same presumption in highsec. The only difference in the outcome is that outside of highsec the fire is player-provided while in highsec the fire comes from NPCs.
From looking at local in these highsec regions and the adjacent systems, the levels of fear and knowledge of "who's who" going on is comparable to what I have experienced in NPC nullsec and Old Man Star. There is even an intel channel around what goes on in Uedama and Niarja, just like the kind you would find in nullsec.
It's very impressive to see that CODE. and comparable groups (or cohorts in crime) have established a highsec gank pipeline.
In the end, hyperdunking is just another "thing". An adaptation to game mechanics. Game mechanics that have put predator and prey in the same bottle for the same reasons.
Leading me to conclude on the matter that is we went full carebear in highsec and "blackboxed" all turrets and bays so that they cannot work in the confines of highsec, this would in fact be more of a pro-nullsec move than pro-highsec. The final choice would be "if you want PVP you have to leave highsec."
But because nullsec, or the largest coalitions out there, "sell" carebearing and safe farming, grr blue donut and all that, the same people doing the ganking in highsec would not find a paradise of PVP "out there" either. And that's why they are in highsec in the first place. In nullsec you will hunt into an overwhelping force is dropped on you and you die in a fire and the key is to get kills as cheaply as possible (green the killboard) before that happens. In highsec you can hunt with the same ease as that of a mission or incursion runner under the protection of the space police, until you pick out the right target and get a kill exceeding the cost of the kill, and still die in a fire as superior force in the form of NPCs arrives for your actions.
Though with some irony we could then conclude that if the Church of HTFU were to get it's way, they too would find themselves in nullsec looking for targets (there would be far fewer in highsec) but having a much harder time of it, just like a mission runner, miner, or incursioner would if they were trying to do the same stuff in nullsec.
We can observe at this point where the dog is just chasing its tail when making these comparisons. And COHTFU and nullsec agendas trying to hold their breaths and pretend otherwise, as if that's going to change reality, is not going to change what people do. Even the gankers didn't bother to wait for permission any more than the nullbears seek an excuse (we can make fun of them as they swim in oceans of ISK they won't hear us).
After my observation runs I find myself in somewhat of an implied facepalm for not having noticed a highsec gank pipeline so active and full of lively content. Were CCP to have actually had a decent advertising campaign, there would be many white fedoras about. Unfortunately that banner add with the ISK counter climbing through a montage of activities has left us with hordes of people who, if you try to suggest anything other than "make ISK", will flatly say "you don't make ISK doing that", and then go back to their farming in highsec or nullsec (or nullsec mainly unless there's an AFK cloaker so they JC to highsec to run incursions).
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
617
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 20:20:44 -
[1653] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
I look at reality not what people say it is, there is one Goon ratting carrier killed outside of Deklin in Cloud Ring during Feb.
You look at anything but reality. Come back when you learn what the CFC is not what you think it is.
Why would I care what you think, you have already proved to me that your posts are full of distortions and propaganda, if you told me it was dark outside I would go check.
Ella's Snack bar
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15069
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 20:53:06 -
[1654] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
You are just making yourself look silly now. In all the regions with all the pets you are claiming 42 ratting carriers at around what, 2-3bil a pop killed...
We just showed you that in ONE system in high-sec, a .7 none the less that almost the same number of BS class ships were ganked in the same time. That doesn't include Tengu's, Gilas, Command Ships, Ishtars or anything else used to mission.
You don't think that high-sec is more dangerous than CFC space? Hilarious.
And as I said, a highsec mission system has the same population as our entire region. We cant stuff 300 ratters in a system, most cant even handle 10. So when we look at our population vs a high sec mission system we see huge losses in null for damn near none in the highsec mission hub. Remember, ganking is the only way you can get most of these mission runners. A handful of idiots undocking into a wardec does not make highsec more dangerous than null.
216 things were killed in your mission hub over the last month. Goonwaffe alone has killed 111 more targets in dek in that time, more has died in dek today than in the last 4 days in your mission hub even when we add in all of mobile structures and concorded ships. So, a similar population in both areas and we see a huge difference in kills. High sec being more dangerous is nothing but a lie.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
flakeys
Arkham Innovations
2689
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 21:54:08 -
[1655] - Quote
One has to wonder why we rarely get people from low-sec complaining about risk vs reward , since we are talking about the most utterly **** risk vs reward in that part of space....
Ow sorry nevermind that , sorry i'm actually making sense , let's keep the high-sec vs null-sec income going ...
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
618
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 22:17:35 -
[1656] - Quote
flakeys wrote:One has to wonder why we rarely get people from low-sec complaining about risk vs reward , since we are talking about the most utterly **** risk vs reward in that part of space.... Ow sorry nevermind that , sorry i'm actually making sense , let's keep the high-sec vs null-sec income going ...
That is simple its where the real PvP'rs are, people who shoot each other and don't pretend that they do and go all HTFU on the forums.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
92
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 23:02:59 -
[1657] - Quote
flakeys wrote:One has to wonder why we rarely get people from low-sec complaining about risk vs reward , since we are talking about the most utterly **** risk vs reward in that part of space.... Ow sorry nevermind that , sorry i'm actually making sense , let's keep the high-sec vs null-sec income going ...
I spent a long time living in Hophib and Fob before moving to a wormhole... I wholeheartedly agree. low sec needs help. it has nothing to offer that high sec has to offer and is second in riskiness only to WH space.
In this thread you have a collection of panzi-candi-a$$ gankers who cant make it pvping so they shoot things with no highslots, and null-sec dwellers that want to pretend they don't live in the blue donut of wealth... sad really, now that we are on the topic they are saying somethings that completely contradict their argument for hyperdunking and ganking in the first place. |
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
92
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 23:26:32 -
[1658] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
You are just making yourself look silly now. In all the regions with all the pets you are claiming 42 ratting carriers at around what, 2-3bil a pop killed...
We just showed you that in ONE system in high-sec, a .7 none the less that almost the same number of BS class ships were ganked in the same time. That doesn't include Tengu's, Gilas, Command Ships, Ishtars or anything else used to mission.
You don't think that high-sec is more dangerous than CFC space? Hilarious.
And as I said, a highsec mission system has the same population as our entire region. We cant stuff 300 ratters in a system, most cant even handle 10. So when we look at our population vs a high sec mission system we see huge losses in null for damn near none in the highsec mission hub. Remember, ganking is the only way you can get most of these mission runners. A handful of idiots undocking into a wardec does not make highsec more dangerous than null. 216 things were killed in your mission hub over the last month. Goonwaffe alone has killed 111 more targets in dek in that time, more has died in dek today than in the last 4 days in your mission hub even when we add in all of mobile structures and concorded ships. So, a similar population in both areas and we see a huge difference in kills. High sec being more dangerous is nothing but a lie.
https://zkillboard.com/kill/44763183/
For the record you can stop counting carriers killed by NPCs only lol. Being bad at PVE has nothing to do with PVP lol |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11870
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 23:41:26 -
[1659] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: High sec being more dangerous is nothing but a lie.
And that's the crux of the matter, right there.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
92
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 23:54:29 -
[1660] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:baltec1 wrote: High sec being more dangerous is nothing but a lie. And that's the crux of the matter, right there.
What that you guys are lying to us and yourselves?
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/stats/2015-02
You can stop talking out your bums now. |
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11870
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 23:57:31 -
[1661] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:baltec1 wrote: High sec being more dangerous is nothing but a lie. And that's the crux of the matter, right there. What that you guys are lying to us and yourselves?
No, that you people think that if you lie often enough about highsec supposedly being dangerous, that eventually CCP will believe it, despite having the literal stats that show it for the lie that it is.
Why do carebears lie so much, anyway?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
92
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 00:00:32 -
[1662] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:baltec1 wrote: High sec being more dangerous is nothing but a lie. And that's the crux of the matter, right there. What that you guys are lying to us and yourselves? No, that you people think that if you lie often enough about highsec supposedly being dangerous, that eventually CCP will believe it, despite having the literal stats that show it for the lie that it is. Why do carebears lie so much, anyway?
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/stats/2015-02
You can check it for the entirety of last year too: http://evemaps.dotlan.net/stats/2014
There are more ship kills in High than anywhere, Low next, Null last. Null also had almost as many faction npc kills as highsec. Most dangerous region of space: Forge, followed by Black Rise and Citadel.
You wanted stats, now put your money where your mouth is and admit you were wrong. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23054
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 00:01:16 -
[1663] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:baltec1 wrote: High sec being more dangerous is nothing but a lie. And that's the crux of the matter, right there. What that you guys are lying to us and yourselves? http://evemaps.dotlan.net/stats/2015-02
You can stop talking out your bums now. You're failing to take population density into account, on a per capita basis highsec is extremely safe when compared to elsewhere.
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11870
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 00:04:06 -
[1664] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
You wanted stats, now put your money where your mouth is and admit you were wrong.
Congrats, you're using 2 months of the year and making an error that a 3 week Statistics 101 student would laugh at.
Here's the real story, from CCP themselves no less.
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/65749/1/productionVsDestruction_2013.png
Now put your money where your mouth is, and admit that you lied.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
92
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 00:05:32 -
[1665] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:baltec1 wrote: High sec being more dangerous is nothing but a lie. And that's the crux of the matter, right there. What that you guys are lying to us and yourselves? http://evemaps.dotlan.net/stats/2015-02
You can stop talking out your bums now. You're failing to take population density into account, on a per capita basis highsec is extremely safe when compared to elsewhere.
You are forgetting to take context into account. You have no idea how many people do or do not undock in Highsec. And you have no idea how many people do or do not travel to and from each security area. So in context to what we are discussing it doesn't matter.
What does matter is, on a NPC kill / Ship kill ratio, Null is safest as there are a lot of NPC kills and little ship kills.
Also interesting to note that going back to 2010,2011, 2012, 2013 we see an ever increase in Null NPC kill rates while Highsec has been decreasing every year... which contradicts the statements that Highsec income is too great when people are preferring to kill npcs in null over Highsec. |
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
92
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 00:06:44 -
[1666] - Quote
That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Production does not equal anything into this discussion. Besides most of that production was for Null sec anyways... You don't even know what you are looking at in that picture do you |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11870
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 00:09:31 -
[1667] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Production does not equal anything into this discussion.
Try reading the right side of the graph.
Quote:
Besides most of that production was for Null sec anyways...
And you're confirmed in your dedication to your lie.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
92
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 00:16:53 -
[1668] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Production does not equal anything into this discussion.
Try reading the right side of the graph. Quote:
Besides most of that production was for Null sec anyways...
And you're confirmed in your dedication to your lie.
Protip... the biggest bubbles are the places with the most destruction in that image... and those are in HIGHSEC
While the left side is completely irrelevant, the right side proves my point. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11870
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 00:20:12 -
[1669] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Protip... the biggest bubbles are the places with the most destruction in that image... and those are in HIGHSEC
Specifically, Jita, Amarr, a couple of their outlying systems, and not much else.
If weren't for a handful of systems, literally less than a dozen, highsec would have functionally zero loss compared to everywhere else in the game.
Please, cry more.
Quote:
While the left side is completely irrelevant
Then why were you blathering on about it, while lying about how the left side shows more production in null than in high, when that is obviously and observably another lie?
Stop lying.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
92
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 00:23:33 -
[1670] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Protip... the biggest bubbles are the places with the most destruction in that image... and those are in HIGHSEC
Specifically, Jita, Amarr, a couple of their outlying systems, and not much else. If weren't for a handful of systems, literally less than a dozen, highsec would have functionally zero loss compared to everywhere else in the game. Please, cry more. Quote:
While the left side is completely irrelevant
Then why were you blathering on about it, while lying about how the left side shows more production in null than in high, when that is obviously and observably another lie? Stop lying.
The biggest bubbles for destruction include Uedema, Niarja, Osmon, Josameto and then we start to get down to numbers for places like M-O and HED-GP... Regardless, I have the actual stats for the whole security area and they are far higher than Null too.
I never said production was done IN null, I said it was done FOR null... learn2read |
|
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23055
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 00:23:43 -
[1671] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:You are forgetting to take context into account. You have no idea how many people do or do not undock in Highsec. And you have no idea how many people do or do not travel to and from each security area. So in context to what we are discussing it doesn't matter. Your point is what? Population density is a valid metric that you appear to have disregarded because it doesn't suit your argument.
IIRC 75% of characters reside in highsec, regardless of whether or not they undock or travel to other security areas that figure has to be taken into account when judging how safe highsec is. Not doing so is disingenuous at best.
I stand by my point, on a per capita basis the chances of having your space canoe violenced is extremely low in highsec.
Quote:What does matter is, on a NPC kill / Ship kill ratio, Null is safest as there are a lot of NPC kills and little ship kills.
Also interesting to note that going back to 2010,2011, 2012, 2013 we see an ever increase in Null NPC kill rates while Highsec has been decreasing every year... which contradicts the statements that Highsec income is too great when people are preferring to kill npcs in null over Highsec. I mission in highsec, amongst other things; highsec bounties and mission rewards aren't where the money is. Most of my mission income comes from the LP stores, as such I don't kill every rat, just the ones I need to; in short, like many others I go for maximum returns in the shortest time period.
Nullsec rats tend to pay better than highsec ones too.
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
92
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 00:29:46 -
[1672] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:You are forgetting to take context into account. You have no idea how many people do or do not undock in Highsec. And you have no idea how many people do or do not travel to and from each security area. So in context to what we are discussing it doesn't matter. Your point is what? Population density is a valid metric that you appear to have disregarded because it doesn't suit your argument. IIRC 75% of characters reside in highsec, regardless of whether or not they undock or travel to other security areas that figure has to be taken into account when judging how safe highsec is. Not doing so is disingenuous at best. I stand by my point, on a per capita basis the chances of having your space canoe violenced is extremely low in highsec. Quote:What does matter is, on a NPC kill / Ship kill ratio, Null is safest as there are a lot of NPC kills and little ship kills.
Also interesting to note that going back to 2010,2011, 2012, 2013 we see an ever increase in Null NPC kill rates while Highsec has been decreasing every year... which contradicts the statements that Highsec income is too great when people are preferring to kill npcs in null over Highsec. I mission in highsec, amongst other things; highsec bounties and mission rewards aren't where the money is. Most of my mission income comes from the LP stores, as such I don't kill every rat, just the ones I need to; in short, like many others I go for maximum returns in the shortest time period. Nullsec rats tend to pay better than highsec ones too.
Do me a favor, open your in game map... zoom out. Go to statistics and click average number of players... take note
Now do the same, but this time click docked and active... watch the red blobs appear.
You can't lose a ship in a station. Regardless, more ships die per NPC kill in highsec. You want to talk about Kills per Jump, you might have an argument to make, but even then, the numbers aren't gonna help you much. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 00:37:09 -
[1673] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
I never said production was done IN null, I said it was done FOR null.
How is production done for null if your lie claims that they lose so much less ships?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
92
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 00:42:00 -
[1674] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
I never said production was done IN null, I said it was done FOR null.
How is production done for null if your lie claims that they lose so much less ships?
Because the only thing made in this game is ships right? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 00:45:57 -
[1675] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
I never said production was done IN null, I said it was done FOR null.
How is production done for null if your lie claims that they lose so much less ships? Because the only thing made in this game is ships right?
Nice try. You can't even keep your lies straight anymore. Just give up dude.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23059
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 00:53:46 -
[1676] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Do me a favor, open your in game map... zoom out. Go to statistics and click average number of players... take note
Now do the same, but this time click docked and active... watch the red blobs appear. The average number of players in space is taken over 30 minutes whereas the number docked and active is a current figure, as such the data is inherently skewed.
Point of fact I dock up multiple times an hour, normally to get a new mission, imagine how much that skews the data when you apply it to everybody that also runs missions.
Quote:You can't lose a ship in a station. State the obvious why don't you.
Quote: Regardless, more ships die per NPC kill in highsec. You want to talk about Kills per Jump, you might have an argument to make, but even then, the numbers aren't gonna help you much. If you play the statistics game in terms of highsec safety specifically relating to player on player violence you should disregard all kills by NPCs.
Newbie systems will have quite a high number of players dying to NPCs, due to the 2 tutorial missions that require your ship to explode for completion.
I would wager that the majority of kills in the highsec chokepoints are courtesy of Concord, suicide gankers are forced to use numbers to succeed, as such they lose multiple ships for every kill they make.
Do me a favour, when you choose to use statistics to make your point, don't disregard any relevant data or choose to ignore that the data is skewed due to game mechanics and collection methods.
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Valterra Craven
491
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 01:05:28 -
[1677] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:admit that you lied.
You and baltec really need to come up with better ways to talk to people. Or, at the very least find more apt words. Or maybe even more varied ones. I bet if I counted how many times you guys have used the word lie or lied in this thread it would equal or surpass the number of code's ganks during their primary tz. Seriously though, about the only credible word you could use is maybe "delusional", or "miss-informed", oh oh what about "self-deceived"... |
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
92
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 01:17:27 -
[1678] - Quote
http://evelostfound.blogspot.com/2015/01/is-pve-safer-in-high-sec-or-null-sec.html
This was a very nice and recent analysis using not only ship death/npc ratios but also ship death value.
Their conclusion? Null PVE is completely broken because of how safe it is. Even the worst people at defending their ratters (CFC) were more than 3x safer in terms of real isk value than comparable highsec systems. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15075
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 01:32:21 -
[1679] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:admit that you lied. You and baltec really need to come up with better ways to talk to people. Or, at the very least find more apt words. Or maybe even more varied ones. I bet if I counted how many times you guys have used the word lie or lied in this thread it would equal or surpass the number of code's ganks during their primary tz. Seriously though, about the only credible word you could use is maybe "delusional", or "miss-informed", oh oh what about "self-deceived"...
Why call a lie anything other than what it is?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 01:33:40 -
[1680] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Why call a lie anything other than what it is?
Because it hurts their feelings when they called out on their bullshit.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15075
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 01:35:19 -
[1681] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:http://evelostfound.blogspot.com/2015/01/is-pve-safer-in-high-sec-or-null-sec.html
This was a very nice and recent analysis using not only ship death/npc ratios but also ship death value.
Their conclusion? Null PVE is completely broken because of how safe it is. Even the worst people at defending their ratters (CFC) were more than 3x safer in terms of real isk value than comparable highsec systems.
So how do you explain the fact that we are taking over three times more losses than people in highsec despite the fact that highsec has six times more population?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
491
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 01:36:07 -
[1682] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Why call a lie anything other than what it is?
A. Because its not actually a lie.
B. Because it serves no purpose
C. It makes you worse than your opponent. |
Valterra Craven
491
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 01:36:53 -
[1683] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Because it hurts their feelings when they're called out on their bullshit.
Hey, if you think its bullshit, then the counter to bullshit is facts and data. You know what bullshit isn't? A lie.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 01:38:16 -
[1684] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:http://evelostfound.blogspot.com/2015/01/is-pve-safer-in-high-sec-or-null-sec.html
This was a very nice and recent analysis using not only ship death/npc ratios but also ship death value.
Their conclusion? Null PVE is completely broken because of how safe it is. Even the worst people at defending their ratters (CFC) were more than 3x safer in terms of real isk value than comparable highsec systems. So how do you explain the fact that we are taking over three times more losses than people in highsec despite the fact that highsec has six times more population?
Oh that's not relevant because it doesn't serve their narrative.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
491
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 01:38:25 -
[1685] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
So how do you explain the fact that we are taking over three times more losses than people in highsec despite the fact that highsec has six times more population?
How do you explain the fact that null-sec carebears as much as hi-sec despite having 6 times less population? |
Valterra Craven
491
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 01:39:10 -
[1686] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Oh that's not relevant because it doesn't serve their narrative.
Oh its definitely relevant.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23061
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 01:39:16 -
[1687] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:http://evelostfound.blogspot.com/2015/01/is-pve-safer-in-high-sec-or-null-sec.html
This was a very nice and recent analysis using not only ship death/npc ratios but also ship death value.
Their conclusion? Null PVE is completely broken because of how safe it is. Even the worst people at defending their ratters (CFC) were more than 3x safer in terms of real isk value than comparable highsec systems. My conclusions from reading the article.
More people fly blingy ships for highsec PvE than for nullsec PvE.
People in nullsec dock up when there are neutrals or reds in local, people in highsec generally don't.
Far more NPCs die in highsec than in nullsec, probably as a result of the much higher player population and the resulting higher number of players who kill NPCs for income.
The comments on that article are bang on the money, even Gevlons....
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
92
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 01:41:18 -
[1688] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:http://evelostfound.blogspot.com/2015/01/is-pve-safer-in-high-sec-or-null-sec.html
This was a very nice and recent analysis using not only ship death/npc ratios but also ship death value.
Their conclusion? Null PVE is completely broken because of how safe it is. Even the worst people at defending their ratters (CFC) were more than 3x safer in terms of real isk value than comparable highsec systems. So how do you explain the fact that we are taking over three times more losses than people in highsec despite the fact that highsec has six times more population?
You arent, I already posted the STATS... number don't lie, but I know of quite a few Goons that do |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23061
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 01:42:29 -
[1689] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:http://evelostfound.blogspot.com/2015/01/is-pve-safer-in-high-sec-or-null-sec.html
This was a very nice and recent analysis using not only ship death/npc ratios but also ship death value.
Their conclusion? Null PVE is completely broken because of how safe it is. Even the worst people at defending their ratters (CFC) were more than 3x safer in terms of real isk value than comparable highsec systems. So how do you explain the fact that we are taking over three times more losses than people in highsec despite the fact that highsec has six times more population? You arent, I already posted the STATS... number don't lie, but I know of quite a few Goons that do Nope you posted a link to an article that the author admits is methodologically weak.
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15077
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 01:44:48 -
[1690] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
A. Because its not actually a lie.
B. Because it serves no purpose
C. It makes you worse than your opponent.
If people don't like being called out then perhaps they should not lie in the first place.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
92
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 01:45:26 -
[1691] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:http://evelostfound.blogspot.com/2015/01/is-pve-safer-in-high-sec-or-null-sec.html
This was a very nice and recent analysis using not only ship death/npc ratios but also ship death value.
Their conclusion? Null PVE is completely broken because of how safe it is. Even the worst people at defending their ratters (CFC) were more than 3x safer in terms of real isk value than comparable highsec systems. My conclusions from reading the article. More people fly blingy ships for highsec PvE than for nullsec PvE. People in nullsec dock up when there are neutrals or reds in local, people in highsec generally don't. Far more NPCs die in highsec than in nullsec, probably as a result of the much higher player population and the resulting higher number of players who kill NPCs for income. The comments on that article are bang on the money, even Gevlons....
Again, you can't argue numbers. NPC kills in nullsec are not lower by a significant margin compared to highsec. So you have 1/6th the population as you guys claim but only 25% less npc kills.... must mean you are all carebears. |
Valterra Craven
494
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 01:52:14 -
[1692] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Feel free to find where I have lied.
Feel free to find where anyone else has lied. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 01:53:59 -
[1693] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Feel free to find where I have lied.
Feel free to find where anyone else has lied.
The alt has in the last few pages notably.
You, across the whole thread.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15078
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 01:54:26 -
[1694] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Again, you can't argue numbers. NPC kills in nullsec are not lower by a significant margin compared to highsec. So you have 1/6th the population as you guys claim but only 25% less npc kills.... must mean you are all carebears.
Primary source of income in null is from bounties. Primary source of income in highsec is LP.
We have to kill a lot of NPCs in null to make isk while high sec players need to do missions for LP, killing rats is secondary at best.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
92
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 01:56:20 -
[1695] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Again, you can't argue numbers. NPC kills in nullsec are not lower by a significant margin compared to highsec. So you have 1/6th the population as you guys claim but only 25% less npc kills.... must mean you are all carebears.
Primary source of income in null is from bounties. Primary source of income in highsec is LP. We have to kill a lot of NPCs in null to make isk while high sec players need to do missions for LP, killing rats is secondary at best.
Back that up...
And, again what does that have to do with Null being safer? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 01:56:45 -
[1696] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Again, you can't argue numbers. NPC kills in nullsec are not lower by a significant margin compared to highsec. So you have 1/6th the population as you guys claim but only 25% less npc kills.... must mean you are all carebears.
Primary source of income in null is from bounties. Primary source of income in highsec is LP. We have to kill a lot of NPCs in null to make isk while high sec players need to do missions for LP, killing rats is secondary at best.
Aww, you gave it away. I was wondering how many pages they could go before they managed to figure that out.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15082
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 01:58:47 -
[1697] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Feel free to find where anyone else has lied.
How about the last few days where three posters have said:
More people die in highsec than in null.
Null is safer than highsec
You earn more running anoms than running level 4 missions or incursions in highsec
Goons are the only people ratting in Dek
only 9 ratting carriers died in dek this month
and so forth. All have been shown to be wrong but they continue to insist that the above is true. This is why we are calling them out for lying.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23062
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 01:59:25 -
[1698] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:http://evelostfound.blogspot.com/2015/01/is-pve-safer-in-high-sec-or-null-sec.html
This was a very nice and recent analysis using not only ship death/npc ratios but also ship death value.
Their conclusion? Null PVE is completely broken because of how safe it is. Even the worst people at defending their ratters (CFC) were more than 3x safer in terms of real isk value than comparable highsec systems. My conclusions from reading the article. More people fly blingy ships for highsec PvE than for nullsec PvE. People in nullsec dock up when there are neutrals or reds in local, people in highsec generally don't. Far more NPCs die in highsec than in nullsec, probably as a result of the much higher player population and the resulting higher number of players who kill NPCs for income. The comments on that article are bang on the money, even Gevlons.... Again, you can't argue numbers. NPC kills in nullsec are not lower by a significant margin compared to highsec. So you have 1/6th the population as you guys claim but only 25% less npc kills.... must mean you are all carebears. You certainly can argue numbers when the comparisons are skewed, in the article you linked the author takes 3 highsec systems, and compares them to 8 nullsec systems.
If you take the top 3 nullsec systems and compare them to the top 3 highsec systems the numbers are vastly different.
For example:
Sheroo compared to S-DN5M reveals 822,000+ more NPC kills in Sheroo than in S-DN5M for the month of december. Over double the amount of NPC Kills for 12 more ship losses (21-9)
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15082
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:00:31 -
[1699] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Again, you can't argue numbers. NPC kills in nullsec are not lower by a significant margin compared to highsec. So you have 1/6th the population as you guys claim but only 25% less npc kills.... must mean you are all carebears.
Primary source of income in null is from bounties. Primary source of income in highsec is LP. We have to kill a lot of NPCs in null to make isk while high sec players need to do missions for LP, killing rats is secondary at best. Back that up... And, again what does that have to do with Null being safer?
And shock horror, when its pointed out that you are again trying to twist the number to your argument you again try to change the subject with another lie.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
92
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:01:48 -
[1700] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Feel free to find where anyone else has lied.
How about the last few days where three posters have said: More people die in highsec than in null. Null is safer than highsec You earn more running anoms than running level 4 missions or incursions in highsec Goons are the only people ratting in Dek only 9 ratting carriers died in dek this month and so forth. All have been shown to be wrong but they continue to insist that the above is true. This is why we are calling them out for lying.
More people do die in Highsec than null... API data proves that
Null has less death, astronomically less death than low as well
No one said goons are the only ratters in Dek... in fact I even said I wasn't counting the renters. But you only read what you want to read
Only 9 ratting carriers from Goons died
You are trying to find lies where there isn't any by twisting words and taking things out of context. In fact that makes you the worst kind of liar. |
|
|
Valterra Craven
495
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:02:08 -
[1701] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
The alt has in the last few pages notably.
You, across the whole thread.
So you got nothing. |
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
92
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:02:38 -
[1702] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Again, you can't argue numbers. NPC kills in nullsec are not lower by a significant margin compared to highsec. So you have 1/6th the population as you guys claim but only 25% less npc kills.... must mean you are all carebears.
Primary source of income in null is from bounties. Primary source of income in highsec is LP. We have to kill a lot of NPCs in null to make isk while high sec players need to do missions for LP, killing rats is secondary at best. Back that up... And, again what does that have to do with Null being safer? And shock horror, when its pointed out that you are again trying to twist the number to your argument you again try to change the subject with another lie.
How the F can a question be a lie? |
Valterra Craven
495
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:03:16 -
[1703] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:[quote=Market McSelling Alt]
Primary source of income in null is from bounties. Primary source of income in highsec is LP.
We have to kill a lot of NPCs in null to make isk while high sec players need to do missions for LP, killing rats is secondary at best.
Except that you don't even understand how the LP market works. |
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
92
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:04:02 -
[1704] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:http://evelostfound.blogspot.com/2015/01/is-pve-safer-in-high-sec-or-null-sec.html
This was a very nice and recent analysis using not only ship death/npc ratios but also ship death value.
Their conclusion? Null PVE is completely broken because of how safe it is. Even the worst people at defending their ratters (CFC) were more than 3x safer in terms of real isk value than comparable highsec systems. My conclusions from reading the article. More people fly blingy ships for highsec PvE than for nullsec PvE. People in nullsec dock up when there are neutrals or reds in local, people in highsec generally don't. Far more NPCs die in highsec than in nullsec, probably as a result of the much higher player population and the resulting higher number of players who kill NPCs for income. The comments on that article are bang on the money, even Gevlons.... Again, you can't argue numbers. NPC kills in nullsec are not lower by a significant margin compared to highsec. So you have 1/6th the population as you guys claim but only 25% less npc kills.... must mean you are all carebears. You certainly can argue numbers when the comparisons are skewed, in the article you linked the author takes 3 highsec systems, and compares them to 8 nullsec systems. If you take the top 3 nullsec systems and compare them to the top 3 highsec systems the numbers are vastly different. For example: Sheroo compared to S-DN5M reveals 822,000+ more NPC kills in Sheroo than in S-DN5M for the month of december. Over double the amount of NPC Kills for 12 more ship losses (21-9)
So now you just want to cherry pick? Yes certain high sec systems have far more NPC kills than any individual nullsec system, but Nullsec had so few kills that the ratios show the proof. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:04:11 -
[1705] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
More people do die in Highsec than null... API data proves that
And once again with the lying.
Concord's kills count for those, since they added them to the killboard pulls. So for every person killed by suicide gankers, one or more people are also killed by Concord.
That makes the number less than half of what you claim it is.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
495
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:04:57 -
[1706] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
How about the last few days where three posters have said:
More people die in highsec than in null.
Null is safer than highsec
You earn more running anoms than running level 4 missions or incursions in highsec
Goons are the only people ratting in Dek
only 9 ratting carriers died in dek this month
and so forth. All have been shown to be wrong but they continue to insist that the above is true.
Proving someone wrong != proving that they are lying
baltec1 wrote:
This is why we are calling them out for lying.
No, you are name calling because it suits your typing style.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23062
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:05:30 -
[1707] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:More people do die in Highsec than null... API data proves that
Null has less death, astronomically less death than low as well
Massively higher population density, it's like comparing death rates in a major city like London or NYC to that of a small village in the middle of nowhere.
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:06:07 -
[1708] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
So now you just want to cherry pick?
No, you do. That's the entire basis for your argument, lies of omission.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23065
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:12:01 -
[1709] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
More people do die in Highsec than null... API data proves that
And once again with the lying. Concord's kills count for those, since they added them to the killboard pulls. So for every person killed by suicide gankers, one or more people are also killed by Concord. That makes the number less than half of what you claim it is. Actually it doesn't. If the argument is "More people die in highsec than nullsec" and the api proves this, then the statement is true. (At least that's how a computer would evaluate it) The context of the argument doesn't help in that case since its irrelevant. The statement is either true or false based on the data. Nobody is denying that more people die in highsec than nullsec, what they are pointing out is that per capita the actual death rate is much lower in highsec than it is in nullsec.
As I said in a previous post it's like comparing the death rate in a major city to that of a small village.
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Valterra Craven
495
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:13:02 -
[1710] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:More people do die in Highsec than null... API data proves that
Null has less death, astronomically less death than low as well
Massively higher population density, it's like comparing death rates in a major city like London or NYC to that of a small village in the middle of nowhere.
Maybe, but given that you guys are cherry picking just as much as you are accusing him of, your argument is tainted.
No one has answered the relevant question of why we should ignore the fact that despite the population density differences, null carebears just as much as hi-sec. |
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:15:30 -
[1711] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Maybe, but given that you guys are cherry picking just as much as you are accusing him of, your argument is tainted.
We're not. Pointing out that he deliberately omitted important, and putting it back in is not cherrypicking.
You don't get to change definitions to favor yourself, or try and put up some false equivalency here.
Quote:
No one has answered the relevant question of why we should ignore the fact that despite the population density differences, null carebears just as much as hi-sec.
That's not a relevant question at all. In fact it's a blatantly off topic lie.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
495
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:15:40 -
[1712] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Nobody is denying that more people die in highsec than nullsec, what they are pointing out is that per capita the actual death rate is much lower in highsec than it is in nullsec.
And that's fine. That wasn't the problem. The problem is this incessant need to call others liars when they can't or haven't proven that their opponents are intentionally deceiving others for a purpose. Its stupid showmanship that serves no purpose.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23066
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:17:23 -
[1713] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:More people do die in Highsec than null... API data proves that
Null has less death, astronomically less death than low as well
Massively higher population density, it's like comparing death rates in a major city like London or NYC to that of a small village in the middle of nowhere. Maybe, but given that you guys are cherry picking just as much as you are accusing him of, your argument is tainted. No one has answered the relevant question of why we should ignore the fact that despite the population density differences, null carebears just as much as hi-sec. How is the post you quoted tainted?
If 1000 people die in an area with a population numbering in the hundreds of thousands and 1000 people die in an area with a population of tens of thousands in the same time period, which has the higher death rate?
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15083
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:18:49 -
[1714] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
More people do die in Highsec than null... API data proves that
So why does CCPs own charts show that "stuff gets built in highsec and goes to die in nullsec"
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Null has less death, astronomically less death than low as well
[/quote]
One battle last year in null killed more assets than all of highsec combined for the entire month of January.
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
No one said goons are the only ratters in Dek... in fact I even said I wasn't counting the renters. But you only read what you want to read
Yes, they did. We dont have renters in dek.
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Only 9 ratting carriers from Goons died
You are trying to find lies where there isn't any by twisting words and taking things out of context. In fact that makes you the worst kind of liar.
It is a lie when there was 41 killed in our space, not 9.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
495
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:18:58 -
[1715] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
We're not. Pointing out that he deliberately omitted important, and putting it back in is not cherrypicking.
Except that you haven't actually proved that it was deliberate. Key difference.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:[
You don't get to change definitions to favor yourself, or try and put up some false equivalency here.
Then why do you?
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
That's not a relevant question at all. In fact it's a blatantly off topic lie.
Well if you are going to argue that death is only relevant if you study the per capita rates, and the whole point of the discussion is the relative safety of null vs hi-sec when you pve, then the fact that you blatantly disregard relevant data given your definition of lying means that you are indeed calling someone out for doing the exact same things you do. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:21:11 -
[1716] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: and the whole point of the discussion is the relative safety of null vs hi-sec when you pve
Actually, the whole point of the discussion is Hyperdunking, not that lie you just said.
You and that other monkey are just derailing the thread by lying incessantly in a "grr nullsec" narrative that no one but you believes.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
93
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:23:07 -
[1717] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:More people do die in Highsec than null... API data proves that
Null has less death, astronomically less death than low as well
Massively higher population density, it's like comparing death rates in a major city like London or NYC to that of a small village in the middle of nowhere. Maybe, but given that you guys are cherry picking just as much as you are accusing him of, your argument is tainted. No one has answered the relevant question of why we should ignore the fact that despite the population density differences, null carebears just as much as hi-sec. How is the post you quoted tainted? If 1000 people die in an area with a population numbering in the hundreds of thousands and 1000 people die in an area with tens of thousands in the same time period, which has the higher death rate?
Look either you have the same actual number of people in null PVEing that you do in Highsec to get the same kill numbers, or you have a very small population that is exploiting the riches of nullsec with near 24/7 PVE activity. But at the end of the day if there were 100% of that population number in highsec in PVE, then the numbers on the API would show a large difference between the two.
We are of course ignoring that belts have 3-5 rats and missions have 30-50. But for the sake of simplicity no one has been able to explain how Null is dangerous when so much PVE is actually happening.
Also last numbers from Dr Eyjo before he left was 21% population living in Null, 65% in High, but he admitted at fanfest that most null players return to Highsec to log off for extended periods of time so the numbers could be wrong. |
Valterra Craven
495
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:24:23 -
[1718] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Actually, the whole point of the discussion is Hyperdunking, not that lie you just said.
Oh, so you admit to being an accessory in derailing this thread?
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You and that other monkey are just derailing the thread by lying incessantly in a "grr nullsec" narrative that no one but you believes.
Well given my original post had nothing to do with nullsec, and none of my arguments did after, maybe you want to actually read what I've been arguing instead of making assumptions? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:25:18 -
[1719] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:But at the end of the day if there were 100% of that population number in highsec in PVE, then the numbers on the API would show a large difference between the two.
Another lie.
No, it would not. The resources of nullsec are finite, and rather small in comparison to the literally limitless missions of highsec.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
93
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:25:37 -
[1720] - Quote
CCP's chart shows that stuff is produced in Highsec and it dies in High and Low
I already told you that zkillboard and your own killboards don't show 41 carriers, so if you have links to your data I would make a correction in my statement. But you now have made this claim over and over but I don't see said data. |
|
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
93
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:26:23 -
[1721] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:But at the end of the day if there were 100% of that population number in highsec in PVE, then the numbers on the API would show a large difference between the two. Another lie. No, it would not. The resources of nullsec are finite, and rather small in comparison to the literally limitless missions of highsec.
BS
Anoms are guaranteed to respawn, belts always get new rats. How can you with a straight face call ME the liar? |
Valterra Craven
496
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:27:53 -
[1722] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:[How is the post you quoted tainted?
How is it not tainted? If your argument is that the numbers need to be weighted on a per capita basis to make things fair, then you can't on the other hand say that the actual activity in the two regions shouldn't add additional weight to the argument as well. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15084
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:28:16 -
[1723] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
We are of course ignoring that belts have 3-5 rats and missions have 30-50. But for the sake of simplicity no one has been able to explain how Null is dangerous when so much PVE is actually happening.
Once again. Mission runners do not need to kill those NPCs, the income comes from LP not rat bounties. Just about every mission does not require full room clearing.
Null sec the primary income comes from anoms and the isk comes from almost entirely bounties and you must clear the entire anom to get it to respawn. Nobody belt rats, as has already been explained twice now.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:28:24 -
[1724] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:But at the end of the day if there were 100% of that population number in highsec in PVE, then the numbers on the API would show a large difference between the two. Another lie. No, it would not. The resources of nullsec are finite, and rather small in comparison to the literally limitless missions of highsec. BS Anoms are guaranteed to respawn, belts always get new rats. How can you with a straight face call ME the liar?
Yes, I call you the liar with a straight face.
Or are you actually so ignorant as to understand how anoms work in proportion to population density?
Both are equally damning of your own argument, as well as the remaining shreds of your credibility.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23068
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:29:11 -
[1725] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Well if you are going to argue that death is only relevant if you study the per capita ratesa nd the whole point of the discussion is the relative safety of null vs hi-sec when you pve When comparing relative safety, the per capita rate is the one that is commonly used; population numbers have a very definite effect on crime and death.
Quote:then the fact that you blatantly disregard relevant data You mean like Market McSelling Alt does?
Quote:who given your definition of lying means that you are indeed calling someone out for doing the exact same things you do. I don't see Kaarous ignoring data because it doesn't fit his arguments.
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Valterra Craven
496
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:29:33 -
[1726] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No, it would not. The resources of nullsec are finite, and rather small in comparison to the literally limitless missions of highsec.
Actually that's not true. Given that you acknowledged that things like asteroids infinitely respawn, and npcs also exist in null sec space, (as well as missions) then null sec space also has infinite resources. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15084
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:32:36 -
[1727] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
CCP's chart shows that stuff is produced in Highsec and it dies in High and Low
Wrong
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
I already told you that zkillboard and your own killboards don't show 41 carriers, so if you have links to your data I would make a correction in my statement. But you now have made this claim over and over but I don't see said data.
CFC is not just goons.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
496
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:33:09 -
[1728] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: the income comes from LP not rat bounties.
And once again, you haven't actually proven that this is the case. The problem with this argument is that it assume everyone in hi-sec is doing all missions optimally and only for LP. Which again you have yet to prove is even a majority, or an average, of even relevant to how most people run missions. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:33:33 -
[1729] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No, it would not. The resources of nullsec are finite, and rather small in comparison to the literally limitless missions of highsec.
Actually that's not true. Given that you acknowledged that things like asteroids infinitely respawn, and npcs also exist in null sec space, (as well as missions) then null sec space also has infinite resources.
And yet more lies.
Anoms are not infinite, nor infinitely scalable to population size. Missions are.
And somehow, you dispute this fact.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
93
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:34:19 -
[1730] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
CCP's chart shows that stuff is produced in Highsec and it dies in High and Low
WrongMarket McSelling Alt wrote:
I already told you that zkillboard and your own killboards don't show 41 carriers, so if you have links to your data I would make a correction in my statement. But you now have made this claim over and over but I don't see said data.
CFC is not just goons.
LOL Keep watching past that one point... he explains how much of a moron you are. |
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15088
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:35:22 -
[1731] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No, it would not. The resources of nullsec are finite, and rather small in comparison to the literally limitless missions of highsec.
Actually that's not true. Given that you acknowledged that things like asteroids infinitely respawn, and npcs also exist in null sec space, (as well as missions) then null sec space also has infinite resources.
It doesn't. Missions are infinity scalable, anoms are not.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15088
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:36:11 -
[1732] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
LOL Keep watching past that one point... he explains how much of a moron you are.
He literally says that stuff is built in high and low and dies in null.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
93
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:36:19 -
[1733] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No, it would not. The resources of nullsec are finite, and rather small in comparison to the literally limitless missions of highsec.
Actually that's not true. Given that you acknowledged that things like asteroids infinitely respawn, and npcs also exist in null sec space, (as well as missions) then null sec space also has infinite resources. And yet more lies. Anoms are not infinite, nor infinitely scalable to population size. Missions are. And somehow, you dispute this fact.
Anoms respawn after they are finished, so yes they are infinite... also there are missions in Null as well... also belt rats respawn every tick.
Because you said it doesn't make it fact... |
Valterra Craven
496
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:36:42 -
[1734] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote: When comparing relative safety, the per capita rate is the one that is commonly used; population numbers have a very definite effect on crime and death.
And safety has no meaning without also studying the results of that safety.
Jonah Gravenstein wrote: You mean like Market McSelling Alt does?
I didn't say he doesn't. I said that you are calling him out on it while also doing it.
Jonah Gravenstein wrote: I don't see Kaarous ignoring data because it doesn't fit his arguments.
Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:37:10 -
[1735] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Anoms respawn after they are finished, so yes they are infinite... also there are missions in Null as well... also belt rats respawn every tick.
Because you said it doesn't make it fact...
He really is this committed to the lie, folks.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
496
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:37:35 -
[1736] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
It doesn't. Missions are infinity scalable, anoms are not.
And null sec also has missions. I know because delve is littered with NPC stations with Blood Raider agents.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
93
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:37:42 -
[1737] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
LOL Keep watching past that one point... he explains how much of a moron you are.
He literally says that stuff is built in high and low and dies in null.
Because things that are made in highsec are killed in null... just because he doesn't point out that MOST ships are killed in Low, and second to that Highsec, and then Null with WH shortly behind, doesn't mean that Null is the only place things are killed.
But he also shows how a couple small battles... BATTLES, CONSENSUAL PVP, screwed up his numbers. |
Valterra Craven
496
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:38:21 -
[1738] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And somehow, you dispute this fact.
I don't dispute the fact. The fact that I dispute is that null sec doesn't have missions.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
93
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:38:30 -
[1739] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Anoms respawn after they are finished, so yes they are infinite... also there are missions in Null as well... also belt rats respawn every tick.
Because you said it doesn't make it fact...
He really is this committed to the lie, folks.
You do know how upgraded systems work right? |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15088
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:38:59 -
[1740] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote: the income comes from LP not rat bounties.
And once again, you haven't actually proven that this is the case. The problem with this argument is that it assume everyone in hi-sec is doing all missions optimally and only for LP. Which again you have yet to prove is even a majority, or an average, of even relevant to how most people run missions.
Show me evidence that most are not. All mission guides tell you how to blitz them. All advice given is to blitz them. The most popular fits are geared towards blitzing them.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15088
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:42:06 -
[1741] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
LOL Keep watching past that one point... he explains how much of a moron you are.
He literally says that stuff is built in high and low and dies in null. Because things that are made in highsec are killed in null... just because he doesn't point out that MOST ships are killed in Low, and second to that Highsec, and then Null with WH shortly behind, doesn't mean that Null is the only place things are killed. But he also shows how a couple small battles... BATTLES, CONSENSUAL PVP, screwed up his numbers.
No, he showed a map that covers the entire year that shows that null sees more destruction than highsec. That blig blip you saw was the battle of B-R that saw more destruction that all of highsec combined for an entire month.
So, how exactly can high sec be more dangerous than null when all evidence shows null is the most destructive area?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23069
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:42:35 -
[1742] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:We are of course ignoring that belts have 3-5 rats and missions have 30-50. Wrong on both counts, I can mine for hours without encountering a rat, and there's very few missions outside of the blockade and the extravaganzas with that number of NPCs. Most missions have under 20 NPCs and for the most part killing them all is not required for completion; LP income is better than bounties and mission payments so it makes sense to blitz for LP, which is where Eve Survival comes into play.
Quote:But for the sake of simplicity no one has been able to explain how Null is dangerous when so much PVE is actually happening. I'm not a null dweller but the fact that there's no omnipotent NPC police to kick peoples arses would suggest that people who PvE in nullsec are, by necessity, collectively a damn sight more careful than people who PvE in highsec.
Quote:Also last numbers from Dr Eyjo before he left was 21% population living in Null, 65% in High, but he admitted at fanfest that most null players return to Highsec to log off for extended periods of time so the numbers could be wrong. I was 10% off in my recollection
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15088
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:42:54 -
[1743] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Anoms respawn after they are finished, so yes they are infinite... also there are missions in Null as well... also belt rats respawn every tick.
Because you said it doesn't make it fact...
He really is this committed to the lie, folks. You do know how upgraded systems work right?
Do you?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
93
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:43:02 -
[1744] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote: the income comes from LP not rat bounties.
And once again, you haven't actually proven that this is the case. The problem with this argument is that it assume everyone in hi-sec is doing all missions optimally and only for LP. Which again you have yet to prove is even a majority, or an average, of even relevant to how most people run missions. Show me evidence that most are not. All mission guides tell you how to blitz them. All advice given is to blitz them. The most popular fits are geared towards blitzing them.
Proof is that if everyone was blitzing for LP then no one would run anything but SoE, Fed Navy and Republic Security.
Yet we know that people run missions all over, for all corps.
Also if LP was the only reason to run missions then Mission Accomplished, you get almost 2x as much LP from Hophib as you do from any .7 system and almost 3x as much with higher LP/isk ratio doing them for Guristas or Blood Raiders. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15088
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:43:43 -
[1745] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
It doesn't. Missions are infinity scalable, anoms are not.
And null sec also has missions. I know because delve is littered with NPC stations with Blood Raider agents.
There are zero missions in sov null.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
93
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:43:47 -
[1746] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Anoms respawn after they are finished, so yes they are infinite... also there are missions in Null as well... also belt rats respawn every tick.
Because you said it doesn't make it fact...
He really is this committed to the lie, folks. You do know how upgraded systems work right? Do you?
Yeah I do... do I have to explain to you what happens 10 minutes after you clear a Sanctum?
Quote:There are zero missions in sov null.
Nice qualifier. |
Valterra Craven
496
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:45:05 -
[1747] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Show me evidence that most are not. All mission guides tell you how to blitz them. All advice given is to blitz them. The most popular fits are geared towards blitzing them.
Shall I point to code's kill board showing you all of the stupid fits that you guys like to parade around on these forums? My point is that you can't assume that even a majority of the players read those guides, take wise advice, or even do missions for straight monetary gain. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15088
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:45:20 -
[1748] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Proof is that if everyone was blitzing for LP then no one would run anything but SoE, Fed Navy and Republic Security.
Yet we know that people run missions all over, for all corps.
That doesn't prove most don't run missions for LP. All it shows is that people run a lot of different missions for different factions.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:45:51 -
[1749] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Proof is that if everyone was blitzing for LP then no one would run anything but SoE, Fed Navy and Republic Security.
Yet we know that people run missions all over, for all corps.
You're actually this dumb, aren't you?
People don't run all for one group because it would devalue their LP. Diversity in the market is the natural response.
Missions are blitzed precisely because LP reacts neutrally with inflation, what's more, whereas bounties decidedly react negatively.
Do you even play this game?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15093
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:46:27 -
[1750] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Yeah I do... do I have to explain to you what happens 10 minutes after you clear a Sanctum?
So tell us, how many sanctums do you get in a fully upgraded trusec system at any one time.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
93
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:46:28 -
[1751] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Proof is that if everyone was blitzing for LP then no one would run anything but SoE, Fed Navy and Republic Security.
Yet we know that people run missions all over, for all corps.
That doesn't prove most don't run missions for LP. All it shows is that people run a lot of different missions for different factions.
Explain then why Low and Null aren't full of mission runners then... since the LP payouts are 2-3x as much... |
Valterra Craven
496
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:46:55 -
[1752] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
There are zero missions in sov null.
Hey, if you guys want to settle bad space, what business is it of mine?
But I find it telling that despite the fact that your resources are "finite", and you have one sixth the population of hi-sec, that you are still pretty close to hi-secs carebear numbers. |
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
93
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:47:20 -
[1753] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Yeah I do... do I have to explain to you what happens 10 minutes after you clear a Sanctum?
So tell us, how many sanctums do you get in a fully upgraded trusec system at any one time.
1, how many do you need? They just keep respawning
What is the limit of upgraded systems? |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23070
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:47:22 -
[1754] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Show me evidence that most are not. All mission guides tell you how to blitz them. All advice given is to blitz them. The most popular fits are geared towards blitzing them. TY for the RHML Raven fit btw, works a treat for blitzing.
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15093
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:49:57 -
[1755] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Shall I point to code's kill board showing you all of the stupid fits that you guys like to parade around on these forums? My point is that you can't assume that even a majority of the players read those guides, take wise advice, or even do missions for straight monetary gain.
And I suppose most incursion runners in highsec don't run optimal fits for their activity either. Sorry but, LP is what you aim for when you run missions.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15093
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:51:37 -
[1756] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
There are zero missions in sov null.
Hey, if you guys want to settle bad space, what business is it of mine? But I find it telling that despite the fact that your resources are "finite", and you have one sixth the population of hi-sec, that you are still pretty close to hi-secs carebear numbers.
95% of null space has no missions and anoms are not infinitely scalable.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
93
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:52:26 -
[1757] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Shall I point to code's kill board showing you all of the stupid fits that you guys like to parade around on these forums? My point is that you can't assume that even a majority of the players read those guides, take wise advice, or even do missions for straight monetary gain.
And I suppose most incursion runners in highsec don't run optimal fits for their activity either. Sorry but, LP is what you aim for when you run missions.
Now you are jumping around looking for other points to bring up. Incursion runners don't do it for the LP lol@ .4 to 1 conversion.
They do it for the fleet payout every site, which is a heck of a lot less than the same sites that can be found in Null sec by the way.
So the game already scales to your version of Risk v Reward, you should try incursions in Dek some time. |
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
93
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:53:30 -
[1758] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
There are zero missions in sov null.
Hey, if you guys want to settle bad space, what business is it of mine? But I find it telling that despite the fact that your resources are "finite", and you have one sixth the population of hi-sec, that you are still pretty close to hi-secs carebear numbers. 95% of null space has no missions and anoms are not infinitely scalable.
Numbers brought to you by... his bum |
Valterra Craven
496
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:57:51 -
[1759] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
And I suppose most incursion runners in highsec don't run optimal fits for their activity either. Sorry but, LP is what you aim for when you run missions.
Incursion != missions
Incursion runners != a majority, or even remotely represent an approximation of what actually goes on in hi-sec.
incursions != "infinite". (I've seen far too many "not active" in the SWARM MOTD incursion channels due to people popping them) |
Valterra Craven
496
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 02:58:57 -
[1760] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
There are zero missions in sov null.
Hey, if you guys want to settle bad space, what business is it of mine? But I find it telling that despite the fact that your resources are "finite", and you have one sixth the population of hi-sec, that you are still pretty close to hi-secs carebear numbers. 95% of null space has no missions and anoms are not infinitely scalable.
And? If you want to argue that you guys are at a "disadvantage" that's fine. Its still telling you carebear just as much as people in hi-sec. |
|
|
Valterra Craven
496
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:00:49 -
[1761] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:TY for the RHML Raven fit btw, works a treat for blitzing.
I actually want to try it in a PVE astarte. That ship is beast mode. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15093
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:01:45 -
[1762] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Yeah I do... do I have to explain to you what happens 10 minutes after you clear a Sanctum?
So tell us, how many sanctums do you get in a fully upgraded trusec system at any one time. 1, how many do you need? They just keep respawning What is the limit of upgraded systems?
So thats one guy that can be supported on them.
Best part of the last nerf is that it is impossible to upgrade the worst truesec systems to military V because there isn't enough anoms to rat in and what anoms there are are so poor in quality its just not worth the cost to upgrade the system.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15093
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:03:44 -
[1763] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
And I suppose most incursion runners in highsec don't run optimal fits for their activity either. Sorry but, LP is what you aim for when you run missions.
Incursion != missions Incursion runners != a majority, or even remotely represent an approximation of what actually goes on in hi-sec. incursions != "infinite". (I've seen far too many "not active" in the SWARM MOTD incursion channels due to people popping them)
So why would one group try to max out their earnings while the other wouldn't?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
496
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:04:32 -
[1764] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
So why would one group try to max out their earnings while the other wouldn't?
Because as you guys so often like to point out: people play badly.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15093
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:05:30 -
[1765] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Now you are jumping around looking for other points to bring up. Incursion runners don't do it for the LP lol@ .4 to 1 conversion.
They do it for the fleet payout every site, which is a heck of a lot less than the same sites that can be found in Null sec by the way.
So the game already scales to your version of Risk v Reward, you should try incursions in Dek some time.
Nobody runs incursions in null as any fleet trying to farm them gets blown apart in short order.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15093
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:06:18 -
[1766] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
So why would one group try to max out their earnings while the other wouldn't?
Because as you guys so often like to point out: people play badly.
Some, not the bulk.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15098
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:10:23 -
[1767] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Some, not the bulk.
Given the evidence of what people typically fly in missions systems vs your favored blitz ships would suggest otherwise.
No it wouldnt.
They might not be as specialised but they are built to blitz and have been for years.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
497
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:11:33 -
[1768] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
No it wouldnt.
They might not be as specialised but they are built to blitz and have been for years.
Ok, then prove it.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
94
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:11:46 -
[1769] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Some, not the bulk.
Given the evidence of what people typically fly in missions systems vs your favored blitz ships would suggest otherwise. No it wouldnt. They might not be as specialised but they are built to blitz and have been for years.
If true then the price of rigs would be astronomical, because no one would salvage. Not everyone blitzes and you can't say it with a straight face. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15098
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:13:59 -
[1770] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
But that goes back to a point made earlier... To max out the earnings one would do the incursions in Null sec... the reason why people aren't flocking in droves and waiting on wait lists to run incursions in null sec is they don't feel it is worth the effort for the extra isk.
Its more to do with the fact that anyone that tries will get killed.
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
So you want to nerf highsec, it won't get people to leave, they will find a new way to play or quit... people aren't going to leave one area for another just because you are going to change the game. You need to research the motives behind locality. Part-time players and people wishing to stay single player will never go to WH's or Null or low sec because the environment does not support their game play.
When have I said nerfing highsec is the only answer. The game needs a revamp in risk/reward for sure but it need more than just a slap to highsec earnings.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:16:04 -
[1771] - Quote
[quote=baltec1]
Its more to do with the fact that anyone that tries will get killed.
Its funny how you guys argue that freighters should have to work in teams and be escorted, but you guys can't be bothered to escort your stuff in null. I bet you don't guard your incursion runners for the same reason that a vast majority of freighters in hi-sec aren't accompanied by webbers. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15103
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:16:05 -
[1772] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
If true then the price of rigs would be astronomical, because no one would salvage. Not everyone blitzes and you can't say it with a straight face.
Blitz on the main, dump and MTU and use an alt to salvage.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:17:31 -
[1773] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Blitz on the main, dump and MTU and use an alt to salvage.
Um yeah.. have you actually tried to do that?
I have. Its nearly impossible to blitz and salvage/loot at the same time.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15103
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:18:07 -
[1774] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Its funny how you guys argue that freighters should have to work in teams and be escorted, but you guys can't be bothered to escort your stuff in null. I bet you don't guard your incursion runners for the same reason that a vast majority of freighters in hi-sec aren't accompanied by webbers.
tell me, when was the last time any highsec freighter escort came up against a 200 man ishtar fleet.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
95
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:18:29 -
[1775] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
If true then the price of rigs would be astronomical, because no one would salvage. Not everyone blitzes and you can't say it with a straight face.
Blitz on the main, dump and MTU and use an alt to salvage.
Then half the population numbers in highsec are salvage alts and don't count? |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15103
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:18:52 -
[1776] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Blitz on the main, dump and MTU and use an alt to salvage.
Um yeah.. have you actually tried to do that? I have. Its nearly impossible to blitz and salvage/loot at the same time.
Most people these days have two monitors, its damn easy.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
95
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:19:15 -
[1777] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Its funny how you guys argue that freighters should have to work in teams and be escorted, but you guys can't be bothered to escort your stuff in null. I bet you don't guard your incursion runners for the same reason that a vast majority of freighters in hi-sec aren't accompanied by webbers.
tell me, when was the last time any highsec freighter escort came up against a 200 man ishtar fleet.
So now who doesn't want to put effort into it |
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:20:16 -
[1778] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
tell me, when was the last time any highsec freighter escort came up against a 200 man ishtar fleet.
You guys like to argue ratios so much. Tell me, what is the ratio of gankers to gankees? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:20:42 -
[1779] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
So now who doesn't want to put effort into it
Still you, and the other people crying about how the safest space in the game is too dangerous.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:21:06 -
[1780] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Most people these days have two monitors, its damn easy.
I have two monitors. Its still damn hard. But I ask again, have YOU actually tried to do this? I have.
|
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15103
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:21:48 -
[1781] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
So now who doesn't want to put effort into it
In order to counter that fleet you need at least equal numbers at which point your earnings are so low its just not worth the effort.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15103
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:22:34 -
[1782] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Most people these days have two monitors, its damn easy.
I have two monitors. Its still damn hard. But I ask again, have YOU actually tried to do this? I have.
I fly in stratops while running missions.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:22:39 -
[1783] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Most people these days have two monitors, its damn easy.
I have two monitors. Its still damn hard. But I ask again, have YOU actually tried to do this? I have.
When I still did PvE on a semi regular basis, it was my standard operating procedure. I have one monitor as well.
It's exceedingly easy.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:22:59 -
[1784] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
I fly in stratops while running missions.
So, no. |
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
98
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:23:52 -
[1785] - Quote
flakeys wrote:One has to wonder why we rarely get people from low-sec complaining about risk vs reward , since we are talking about the most utterly **** risk vs reward in that part of space.... Ow sorry nevermind that , sorry i'm actually making sense , let's keep the high-sec vs null-sec income going ...
I do most of my pvp and income in FW lowsec. It just irks me to see "elite pvp'ers" greening their killboards with wardecs and baiting in highsec and then whining when someone suggests that maybe the risk v reward there needs some adjustment.
I would LOVE for these guys to bring their shiny **** to lowsec. We'd probably still never get them off a station undock but it would be an improvement.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15103
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:24:47 -
[1786] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
I fly in stratops while running missions.
So, no.
What I do is harder than scooping loot while you target red crosses.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:26:19 -
[1787] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
When I still did PvE on a semi regular basis, it was my standard operating procedure. I have one monitor as well.
It's exceedingly easy.
Please detail this procedure. I'd like to know how you actually "blitzed" anything while still being able to salvage everything.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
95
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:27:02 -
[1788] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
I fly in stratops while running missions.
So, no. What I do is harder than scooping loot while you target red crosses.
Didn't you just make the argument that you don't kill npcs when you blitz? or at least not that many?
Anyways, irrelevant
Valterra was correct, the answer was no |
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:27:36 -
[1789] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
What I do is harder than scooping loot while you target red crosses.
Oh? waiting on a gate, or shooting at a few targets designated for you is hard?
Also if you still scoop loot these days you aren't playing optimally. Ain't nobody got time for all those clicks. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:28:14 -
[1790] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
When I still did PvE on a semi regular basis, it was my standard operating procedure. I have one monitor as well.
It's exceedingly easy.
Please detail this procedure. I'd like to know how you actually "blitzed" anything while still being able to salvage everything.
See, Windows operating systems have a keyboard function that helps with this. By pressing Alt+Tab, you can swap between game windows very quickly.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15108
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:28:20 -
[1791] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:flakeys wrote:One has to wonder why we rarely get people from low-sec complaining about risk vs reward , since we are talking about the most utterly **** risk vs reward in that part of space.... Ow sorry nevermind that , sorry i'm actually making sense , let's keep the high-sec vs null-sec income going ... I do most of my pvp and income in FW lowsec. It just irks me to see "elite pvp'ers" greening their killboards with wardecs and baiting in highsec and then whining when someone suggests that maybe the risk v reward there needs some adjustment. I would LOVE for these guys to bring their shiny **** to lowsec. We'd probably still never get them off a station undock but it would be an improvement.
Feel free to come play with us
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15108
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:29:23 -
[1792] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Oh? waiting on a gate, or shooting at a few targets designated for you is hard?
Also if you still scoop loot these days you aren't playing optimally. Ain't nobody got time for all those clicks.
So not only have you never been in a stratop but you also dont know how MTU operate.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:29:41 -
[1793] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
See, Windows operating systems have a keyboard function that helps with this. By pressing Alt+Tab, you can swap between game windows very quickly.
So you don't have a procedure then?
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:31:02 -
[1794] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
So not only have you never been in a stratop but you also dont know how MTU operate.
Because all stratops end in amazing battles like HED, or BR?
Apparently you don't know how MTU operate if you still scoop your loot.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:32:32 -
[1795] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
See, Windows operating systems have a keyboard function that helps with this. By pressing Alt+Tab, you can swap between game windows very quickly.
So you don't have a procedure then?
That is the procedure. Well, that and having half a brain. Missioning is exceedingly easy, and salvaging and looting easier still. The two do not somehow magically combine to equal something even remotely hard.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15108
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:33:38 -
[1796] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
So not only have you never been in a stratop but you also dont know how MTU operate.
Because all stratops end in amazing battles like HED, or BR? Apparently you don't know how MTU operate if you still scoop your loot.
All strat ops do require you to do things such as move around from system to system, target enemies and broadcast for things like reps.
MTU dont salvage **** for you and you still have to scoop loot from out of the MTU itself.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:34:34 -
[1797] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
That is the procedure. Well, that and having half a brain. Missioning is exceedingly easy, and salvaging and looting easier still. The two do not somehow magically combine to equal something even remotely hard.
I never said missioning or salvaging was remotely hard. In fact, this how I actually play. What I said was hard was blitzing and salvaging at the same time. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:36:32 -
[1798] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
I never said missioning or salvaging was remotely hard.
Yes, you did.
Valterra Craven wrote:
I have two monitors. Its still damn hard. But I ask again, have YOU actually tried to do this? I have.
Liar.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15111
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:37:10 -
[1799] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
That is the procedure. Well, that and having half a brain. Missioning is exceedingly easy, and salvaging and looting easier still. The two do not somehow magically combine to equal something even remotely hard.
I never said missioning or salvaging was remotely hard. In fact, this how I actually play. What I said was hard was blitzing and salvaging at the same time.
Its not, especially if you have two screens. Most FCs tend to be operating two or three ships at the same time and thats a hell of a lot harder than running missions and salvaging.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:37:32 -
[1800] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
All strat ops do require you to do things such as move around from system to system, target enemies and broadcast for things like reps.
So warping from system to system is hard now?
baltec1 wrote:
MTU dont salvage **** for you and you still have to scoop loot from out of the MTU itself.
So what your saying is that if you do it right you loot once instead of looting every wreck... which is exactly what I implied is how I play. Just because eve doesn't have a loot all button like other games (aka SWOTR) that loots EVERYTHING near you doesn't mean that the MTU doesn't act like one. Also, what exactly does salvaging have to do with looting? |
|
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
95
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:37:56 -
[1801] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
I never said missioning or salvaging was remotely hard.
Yes, you did. Valterra Craven wrote:
I have two monitors. Its still damn hard. But I ask again, have YOU actually tried to do this? I have.
Liar.
No, he didn't
Again with that word... it is like you are waving a white flag without actually waving a white flag every time you use that word.
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:40:02 -
[1802] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
I never said missioning or salvaging was remotely hard.
Yes, you did. Valterra Craven wrote:
I have two monitors. Its still damn hard. But I ask again, have YOU actually tried to do this? I have.
Liar.
Man you really are just as bad at this as Jenna is.
Example A. your honor:
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Blitz on the main, dump and MTU and use an alt to salvage.
Um yeah.. have you actually tried to do that? I have. Its nearly impossible to blitz and salvage/loot at the same time.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15111
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:41:15 -
[1803] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
All strat ops do require you to do things such as move around from system to system, target enemies and broadcast for things like reps.
So warping from system to system is hard now? baltec1 wrote:
MTU dont salvage **** for you and you still have to scoop loot from out of the MTU itself.
So what your saying is that if you do it right you loot once instead of looting every wreck... which is exactly what I implied is how I play. Just because eve doesn't have a loot all button like other games (aka SWOTR) that loots EVERYTHING near you doesn't mean that the MTU doesn't act like one. Also, what exactly does salvaging have to do with looting?
Who the hell doesn't salvage while looting? Once again, you have lost an argument and resort to utterly pointless questions.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:41:32 -
[1804] - Quote
And there we are with the lies again.
It is not impossible to blitz and salvage at the same time. It is, in fact, rather easy.
All you're doing is telling all of us just how bad you are at this game.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:42:25 -
[1805] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Who the hell doesn't salvage while looting? Once again, you have lost an argument and resort to utterly pointless questions.
Because that last question composed my entire argument? You guys cherry pick just as much as you accuse others of doing so. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15111
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:42:42 -
[1806] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Example A. your honor:
Then you are incompetent, one or the other.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:43:08 -
[1807] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Example A. your honor:
Then you are incompetent, one or the other.
Both.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:45:53 -
[1808] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:And there we are with the lies again.
And here we are with the lame/ineffectual no counter tactic again.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
It is not impossible to blitz and salvage at the same time. It is, in fact, rather easy.
Then please, detail your exact procedure down to the minute detail and list your times compared to the times mentioned in the thread that you and baltec always refer back to when arguing about how much can be made from lvl 3 per hour vs null sec anoms. Cuse you know what that thread didn't encompass? Looting And salvage while blitzing. Probably because you can't actually blitz, and also loot/salvage at the same time.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
All you're doing is telling all of us just how bad you are at this game.
And all you're doing is telling us how bad you are at this meta-game.
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:47:42 -
[1809] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Example A. your honor:
Then you are incompetent, one or the other.
Given that you can't even prove that it is possible, especially given that all the threads you've posted about blitzing and fits and times etc explicitly removes looting and salvaging from the equation, there must be a reason. So If I am incompetent then everything you've linked to proves that you and your buddies are equally so. |
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:48:28 -
[1810] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Example A. your honor:
Then you are incompetent, one or the other. Both.
Neither. |
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:49:05 -
[1811] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Then please, detail your exact procedure down to the minute detail
No. And I'm not going to teach you how to tie your shoes, either.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15112
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:49:38 -
[1812] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Then please, detail your exact procedure down to the minute detail and list your times compared to the times mentioned in the thread that you and baltec always refer back to when arguing about how much can be made from lvl 3 per hour vs null sec anoms. Cuse you know what that thread didn't encompass? Looting And salvage while blitzing. Probably because you can't actually blitz, and also loot/salvage at the same time.
I have my mission blitzer on one screen.
I have my salvage alt on the other screen.
I operate both at the same time. Its not hard.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:52:06 -
[1813] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No. And I'm not going to teach you how to tie your shoes, either.
That's fine. Guess education isn't the answer afterall. Either that you can't actually prove that you can.
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:52:51 -
[1814] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
I have my mission blitzer on one screen.
I have my salvage alt on the other screen.
I operate both at the same time. Its not hard.
Then why omit that income in your blitzing spreadsheets? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:54:22 -
[1815] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No. And I'm not going to teach you how to tie your shoes, either.
That's fine. Guess education isn't the answer afterall. Either that you can't actually prove that you can.
No, I'm just more than happy to let you wallow in mediocrity. You deserve nothing less.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15112
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:54:55 -
[1816] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
I have my mission blitzer on one screen.
I have my salvage alt on the other screen.
I operate both at the same time. Its not hard.
Then why omit that income in your blitzing spreadsheets?
It makes zero difference to blitzing times and wasn't relevant to the threads in question.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:55:21 -
[1817] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No, I'm just more than happy to let you wallow in mediocrity. You deserve nothing less.
And I'm more than happy to let you wallow in lying. You deserve a lot less.
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
98
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 03:55:56 -
[1818] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:flakeys wrote:One has to wonder why we rarely get people from low-sec complaining about risk vs reward , since we are talking about the most utterly **** risk vs reward in that part of space.... Ow sorry nevermind that , sorry i'm actually making sense , let's keep the high-sec vs null-sec income going ... I do most of my pvp and income in FW lowsec. It just irks me to see "elite pvp'ers" greening their killboards with wardecs and baiting in highsec and then whining when someone suggests that maybe the risk v reward there needs some adjustment. I would LOVE for these guys to bring their shiny **** to lowsec. We'd probably still never get them off a station undock but it would be an improvement. Feel free to come play with us
I prefer fights, not slideshows. Sitting in tidi all day is decidely unappealing. Which is probably why you're here defending your right to violence everything that moves in highsec.
It's not my fault that goons effectively won EVE, no one will fight you beyond limited engagements and raids, and now you're bored out of your mind. There should be room in the game for casual players. These constant calls to nerf highsec detract from the real problem of risk averse players in low and null making those regions far more stable than they should be. Nerf highsec income and you'll just force out casual players and run smack into the same problem that the current end state of EVE is for the biggest blob to set up shop on top of the best income sources and murder anyone else who comes near. The ONLY thing countering this presently is the existence of income sources that you can't sit on top of. You can farm them on alts, but can't deny other players access.
The best thing for this game would be to find a way to disincentivize large scale cooperation.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15118
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:00:47 -
[1819] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Of course you are, that's why you keep spewing lies onto every thread. Your and your likely sock puppet.
They must be very very good lies since you can't actually counter them.
You said it wasn't possible to multibox a salvager. That was a lie.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:01:23 -
[1820] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: I never said Multiboxing wasn't easy.
You literally did. I even made sure to quote you a while back so you couldn't edit it out.
Stop lying already.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
98
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:01:29 -
[1821] - Quote
And your statements about LP ignore market realities. Actual LP conversion rates and ISK/hour often don't work out nearly as well as they do on paper.
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:01:46 -
[1822] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
But the threads in question were only about getting one ship to blitz, a salvage alt wasn't relevant.
Ok, so, considering you are making the argument now, surely it would be easy to go back through and detail it just like you guys did in the other thread. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15118
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:03:17 -
[1823] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:And your statements about LP ignore market realities. Actual LP conversion rates and ISK/hour often don't work out nearly as well as they do on paper.
Only the LP markets we target have been great isk for the last five years selling the same stuff.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:04:07 -
[1824] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You literally did.
I literally did not.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I even made sure to quote you a while back so you couldn't edit it out.
You mean this quote?
Valterra wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Blitz on the main, dump and MTU and use an alt to salvage.
Um yeah.. have you actually tried to do that? I have. Its nearly impossible to blitz and salvage/loot at the same time.
Where I say no such thing...
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Stop lying already.
That's funny coming from a compulsive liar.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15118
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:04:07 -
[1825] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
But the threads in question were only about getting one ship to blitz, a salvage alt wasn't relevant.
Ok, so, considering you are making the argument now, surely it would be easy to go back through and detail it just like you guys did in the other thread.
Why?
We already matched the target we had.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15118
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:05:07 -
[1826] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
. Its nearly impossible to blitz and salvage/loot at the same time.
That would be the lie. It very easy.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:05:49 -
[1827] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
You said it wasn't possible to multibox a salvager. That was a lie.
No I did't. I said it was nearly impossible to blitz and loot/salvage at the same time. That according to my experience is true. And given that you can't/haven't proven otherwise, still stands.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:06:35 -
[1828] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Where I say no such thing...
You even quoted it, and you still lie about what it says.
No, multiboxing is not hard, not in missions, not in salvaging, not in almost everything.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:06:35 -
[1829] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Why?
We already matched the target we had.
Which is not the current point of the current discussion.
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:07:20 -
[1830] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
. Its nearly impossible to blitz and salvage/loot at the same time.
That would be the lie. It very easy.
Then prove it. |
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:07:35 -
[1831] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: That according to my experience is true.
That's because you're bad at the game. Almost incomparably bad, since I am a complete slouch at PvE and yet I can still do it. baltec makes me look like a novice, in comparison.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:09:11 -
[1832] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You even quoted it, and you still lie about what it says.
Hey, if you are too dumb to understand the meaning, it doesn't mean the meaning is a lie.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No, multiboxing is not hard,
I agree. I multibox three chars at a time.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
not in missions, not in salvaging, not in almost everything.
I agree here too.
What is hard is BLITZING and LOOTING/SALVAGING AT THE SAME TIME.
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:09:58 -
[1833] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
That's because you're bad at the game.
Almost incomparably bad, since I am a complete slouch at PvE and yet I can still do it. baltec makes me look like a novice, in comparison.
Then prove it. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:10:25 -
[1834] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
What is hard is BLITZING and LOOTING/SALVAGING AT THE SAME TIME.
No, it's not.
At all.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:11:20 -
[1835] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
That's because you're bad at the game.
Almost incomparably bad, since I am a complete slouch at PvE and yet I can still do it. baltec makes me look like a novice, in comparison.
Then prove it.
Prove that you're bad at the game? I don't have to, you're the one who said that you can't perform a basic task. That'd be like me saying that I can't undercut a buy order.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:12:10 -
[1836] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
What is hard is BLITZING and LOOTING/SALVAGING AT THE SAME TIME.
No, it's not. At all.
Then prove it. |
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:13:21 -
[1837] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Prove that you're bad at the game?
Yup.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I don't have to.
No you don't have to. However, if you want to prove me a liar, you do. |
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:19:05 -
[1838] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Are you REALLY this bad at EVE that you cannot even figure out how to use duel screens?
Are you REALLY this bad at debate that you cannot even prove something that you claim to do on a regular basis?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:21:25 -
[1839] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Are you REALLY this bad at EVE that you cannot even figure out how to use duel screens?
Of course they are. That's why changed tracks so swiftly away from their bullshit narrative, and into self defense with full steam.
At all costs, no one must know that they aren't a real player.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15121
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:25:46 -
[1840] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Are you REALLY this bad at EVE that you cannot even figure out how to use duel screens?
Are you REALLY this bad at debate that you cannot even prove something that you claim to do on a regular basis? http://youtu.be/HFdYO9h0H3Y
so while you cant even figure out how duel monitors work this guy is multiboxing an entire incursion fleet.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:26:15 -
[1841] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Are you REALLY this bad at debate that you cannot even prove something that you claim to do on a regular basis?
Of course they are. That's why changed tracks so swiftly away from their bullshit narrative, and into self defense with full steam. At all costs, no one must know that they aren't a real player.
Of course you are. That's why you failed to prove a single argument in your bullshit narrative, and go into self grandiosing with full steam.
At all costs, no one must know that you aren't a real player. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:27:29 -
[1842] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
so while you cant even figure out how duel monitors work this guy is multiboxing an entire incursion fleet.
baltec, clearly he isn't really doing that.
Because the bad player told us it was impossible, remember?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15123
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:28:32 -
[1843] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Are you REALLY this bad at debate that you cannot even prove something that you claim to do on a regular basis?
Of course they are. That's why changed tracks so swiftly away from their bullshit narrative, and into self defense with full steam. At all costs, no one must know that they aren't a real player. Of course you are. That's why you failed to prove a single argument in your bullshit narrative, and go into self grandiosing with full steam. At all costs, no one must know that you aren't a real player.
What are you 12?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:36:21 -
[1844] - Quote
This is delightful, they're so incoherent that they can only repeat things back at everyone.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:36:41 -
[1845] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:http://youtu.be/HFdYO9h0H3Y
so while you cant even figure out how duel monitors work this guy is multiboxing an entire incursion fleet.
If this is your proof, then we are ALL bad at eve. |
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:37:28 -
[1846] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
What are you 12?
What are you 11? |
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:38:15 -
[1847] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:This is delightful, they're so incoherent that they can only repeat things back at everyone.
Lol, yeah because repeatedly calling people liars is soooo different *eyeroll* |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:42:05 -
[1848] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:This is delightful, they're so incoherent that they can only repeat things back at everyone. Lol, yeah because repeatedly calling people liars is soooo different *eyeroll*
Categorically, yes.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:44:21 -
[1849] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Categorically, yes.
I disagree.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11871
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:46:18 -
[1850] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Categorically, yes.
I disagree.
You can't, by definition. You also can't tell me that the sky is red, in case that was your next move.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
498
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:48:50 -
[1851] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You can't, by definition.
Funny how fast definitions become important when its important to your argument, and how unimportant they are when they disprove your argument.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
95
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:51:44 -
[1852] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Are you REALLY this bad at EVE that you cannot even figure out how to use duel screens?
Are you REALLY this bad at debate that you cannot even prove something that you claim to do on a regular basis? http://youtu.be/HFdYO9h0H3Y so while you cant even figure out how duel monitors work this guy is multiboxing an entire incursion fleet.
No he isn't, he got banned for using that method. (probably gonna get removed)
http://www.dual-boxing.com/threads/51980-The-Banned-thread |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15124
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 05:01:55 -
[1853] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
The guy you linked posted that on the 28th of january.
The guy in the youtube video posted his latest multiboxing video 3 days ago, the one I linked was posted on the 7th of this month.
Stop ******* lying.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6294
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 05:26:37 -
[1854] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:baltec1 wrote: High sec being more dangerous is nothing but a lie. And that's the crux of the matter, right there. What that you guys are lying to us and yourselves? http://evemaps.dotlan.net/stats/2015-02
You can stop talking out your bums now.
I remembered today the time I was in Osmon setting up a JC before a nullsec trip, and saw two tornados gank an AFK tengue.
Now that's not something I would do. Long before this I had seen my share of mission ships arrive on a station with a broken tank and get ganked.
All about that killboard you see.
Is it possible to do it like that in lowsec? Nullsec? No.. You can try.
It won't be so easy.
I see page after page of arguing with two people who have an agenda. What could it be?
But I look for the point that gets buried. And that is, the people doing the PVP in highsec are doing it in highsec for the same exact reason people are doing PVe.
All this HTFU but in the end, it's about easy ganks because highsec is easier on ganking than any other play "style".
But who can blame them?
A so-called carebear will mine and mission with an eye on the wallet. It's all about ISK ISK and more ISK and anything outside of that they go flat and nothing gets past that "do you make more ISK?" filter in their brain. I get to wondering what game they are playing.
But that's not the only min-maxing scourge.
The killboard and those who need that green are the other side of the coin from the ISKaholics. Same kind of player, same problem. Some number.
They are both in highsec for the same reason: it's easier.
One side cannot claim they are playing the game and the other is not, because, as I have pointed out, go into nullsec past the intel channels and gank pipelines and what do you find? The same players you would find in highsec, one eye on the wallet.
(And now 10 more pages to deflect from this fact).
Because in the end, it appears most of the game is playing the game this way. But they who refuse the ISK want to think that puts them on some higher level of being, but being no different than the other players, simply have another "stat" to bend the knee to.
I can't figure though how such players who think they are superior for declaring themselves predators (while avoiding other predators) would complain so much.
Again, it's all mechanics. But I see one of the antagonists is a goon, and if we address the mechanics that make nullsec nullsec we threaten the power base of the goons. Yeah grr goons and all that.
And for the hyperdunking and the crimewatch changes sometimes I wonder if in the back offices of CCP they wonder "when will the players actually start playing?" And I don't think the highsec mechanics-fu qualifies.
Would interdiction of ganking be a form of grief play at this point? Don't worry - it's not profitable so nobody will do it.
Lots of pages. Business as usual.
The lore is good.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
100
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 06:43:51 -
[1855] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
The best thing for this game would be to find a way to disincentivize large scale cooperation.
And that's not one, but two quotes in the past week from the same guy, showing exactly the kind of attitude that is hurting this game.
You're not looking at the big picture. You are convinced that forcing players out of highsec through income disincentives and making highsec less secure will create more ingame action.
If you structure the game's income sources so that the only way to finance higher level gameplay (caps, supers, deadspace and faction fits) is to do PvE in unsecured space, players will find ways to secure that space to the best of their ability. We see this already in alliance null. No you can't provide all-powerful CONCORD level safety but you can ensure that any intrusions will be brief and that the intruders will take heavy losses if they stick around.
What I'm trying to say is that cooperation is the antithesis of conflict, and conflict is why we play. If you structure income so that the conflict over it is so intense that a secure income can only be achieved through cooperation, you eliminate conflict. The only remaining drivers of conflict are the players who can't or won't cooperate, and if they are locked out of income sources by the cooperating forces to the point that the game isn't worth playing...well, nothing forces them to stay.
If you put all the resources where they can by locked down by the biggest blob, eventually that's what is going to happen. And then the blob will use said resources to murder everyone not part of their blob, and because no one else has the resources to challenge them, they're vulnerable only to internal strife or sabotage. Obligatory grrr goons, but if it wasn't them it would just be someone else. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11873
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 06:53:15 -
[1856] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
What I'm trying to say is that cooperation is the antithesis of conflict, and conflict is why we play. If you structure income so that the conflict over it is so intense that a secure income can only be achieved through cooperation, you eliminate conflict.
The status quo eliminates conflict anyway. It's entirely disingenuous to promote it for the reasons you're listing above.
But then, from looking at your recent posts, it's fairly clear that you think the total elimination of conflict is the way forward, so I really don't see why you think anyone will listen to you.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
619
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 09:52:45 -
[1857] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
Feel free to find where anyone else has lied.
How about the last few days where three posters have said: More people die in highsec than in null. Null is safer than highsec You earn more running anoms than running level 4 missions or incursions in highsec Goons are the only people ratting in Dek only 9 ratting carriers died in dek this month and so forth. All have been shown to be wrong but they continue to insist that the above is true. This is why we are calling them out for lying.
See your lying again, you are taking peoples comments out of context and then saying they are lying, which is ... LYING!
Ella's Snack bar
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
619
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 10:00:28 -
[1858] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
More people do die in Highsec than null... API data proves that
So why does CCPs own charts show that "stuff gets built in highsec and goes to die in nullsec" Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Null has less death, astronomically less death than low as well
One battle last year in null killed more assets than all of highsec combined for the entire month of January.
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
No one said goons are the only ratters in Dek... in fact I even said I wasn't counting the renters. But you only read what you want to read
Yes, they did. We dont have renters in dek.
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Only 9 ratting carriers from Goons died
You are trying to find lies where there isn't any by twisting words and taking things out of context. In fact that makes you the worst kind of liar.
It is a lie when there was 41 killed in our space, not 9.[/quote]
Another example of lying here, I was ignoring TNT as I was focussing on the Goons, of course TNT has space in Deklin, but I was talking about the Goon alliance operating in their systems in Deklin and suddenly I am lying because I ignore TNT who are in fact in the more exposed systems in Deklin. I never said there was renters in Deklin, he is suggesting that I did, I never said that.
And it was 6 carriers found on Zkill yesterday for Feb that were ratting fit and died in DEKLIN, these are Goon alliance carriers that were not in PvP, I took out the 4 that died to BL because that looked like a fleet fight and I said so on my assessment. So people should go back and count on Zkill from yesterday at the time I made that count and see if I was lying.
And he hangs on to 41 killed, rubbish, we are talking Goons not CFC!
Ella's Snack bar
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
619
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 10:08:53 -
[1859] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
The best thing for this game would be to find a way to disincentivize large scale cooperation.
And that's not one, but two quotes in the past week from the same guy, showing exactly the kind of attitude that is hurting this game. You're not looking at the big picture. You are convinced that forcing players out of highsec through income disincentives and making highsec less secure will create more ingame action. If you structure the game's income sources so that the only way to finance higher level gameplay (caps, supers, deadspace and faction fits) is to do PvE in unsecured space, players will find ways to secure that space to the best of their ability. We see this already in alliance null. No you can't provide all-powerful CONCORD level safety but you can ensure that any intrusions will be brief and that the intruders will take heavy losses if they stick around. What I'm trying to say is that cooperation is the antithesis of conflict, and conflict is why we play. If you structure income so that the conflict over it is so intense that a secure income can only be achieved through cooperation, you eliminate conflict. The only remaining drivers of conflict are the players who can't or won't cooperate, and if they are locked out of income sources by the cooperating forces to the point that the game isn't worth playing...well, nothing forces them to stay. If you put all the resources where they can by locked down by the biggest blob, eventually that's what is going to happen. And then the blob will use said resources to murder everyone not part of their blob, and because no one else has the resources to challenge them, they're vulnerable only to internal strife or sabotage. Obligatory grrr goons, but if it wasn't them it would just be someone else.
I think these needs repeating, you get it mate, totally right, I tip my hat to you sir!
Ella's Snack bar
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
104
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 10:51:17 -
[1860] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
What I'm trying to say is that cooperation is the antithesis of conflict, and conflict is why we play. If you structure income so that the conflict over it is so intense that a secure income can only be achieved through cooperation, you eliminate conflict.
The status quo eliminates conflict anyway. It's entirely disingenuous to promote it for the reasons you're listing above. But then, from looking at your recent posts, it's fairly clear that you think the total elimination of conflict is the way forward, so I really don't see why you think anyone will listen to you.
Please direct me to where I call for the elimination of conflict in null, lowsec, or wormhole space. I never even directly called for the elimination of wardecs. They do need to be revamped so they're not such an obvious noob bashing mechanism. I guess that's gonna be social corps.
You do this with a lot of your statements - forgetting that there is space outside highsec where things do happen on a fairly regular basis.
Cooperation is good. Cooperation on such a mass scale that conflict becomes a genie to be unleashed by the blob at their whim for their amusement...not so good. |
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11877
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 10:59:23 -
[1861] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
You do this with a lot of your statements - forgetting that there is space outside highsec where things do happen on a fairly regular basis.
By not derailing the conversation? Your statements were talking about highsec for crying out loud.
Quote: Cooperation on such a mass scale that conflict becomes a genie to be unleashed by the blob at their whim for their amusement...not so good.
You're attacking a strawman. I have not suggested such a thing.
I have merely said that highsec is too safe, and too lucrative. And the ridiculous disparity in population makes that inarguable.
Both of those things need toned down by a fair bit, so that other areas of space are not so unattractive by comparison.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
619
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 11:16:54 -
[1862] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
You do this with a lot of your statements - forgetting that there is space outside highsec where things do happen on a fairly regular basis.
By not derailing the conversation? Your statements were talking about highsec for crying out loud. Quote: Cooperation on such a mass scale that conflict becomes a genie to be unleashed by the blob at their whim for their amusement...not so good. You're attacking a strawman. I have not suggested such a thing. I have merely said that highsec is too safe, and too lucrative. And the ridiculous disparity in population makes that inarguable. Both of those things need toned down by a fair bit, so that other areas of space are not so unattractive by comparison.
I listed out all the changes that have made it easier for the hunters to get kills, CCP Falcon I am laughing at your statement by the way.
The issue is not income or population, it is because CCP have made it easier and easier to catch and kill people, nerfing hisec income will not change anything and in fact will make people more risk averse because they will have less ability to head out and kill stuff in lowsec and null.
I am now in hisec in the main becaue it has been made to easy to catch and kill me as a solo and small group player, reducing income will have no impact on changing my mind on that issue at all.
I repeat
Differing warp speeds
Interceptor bubble immunity
D-scan immunity
For WH's the change of the mechanism so people could not pre-sacn out WH's
Game balance issues
The massive increase in high SP characters who can run BLOPS
Massive use of plex generated accounts for cloaky AFK blanket camping
RESULT
Solo and small gang players head to hisec, where the income is less and the game is more boring, though I have been having fun trying to blap gankers.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11877
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 11:22:11 -
[1863] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
I listed out all the changes that have made it easier for the hunters to get kills
And dishonestly ignored the long, long list of safety buffs that have been made.
Quote:
I am now in hisec in the main becaue it has been made to easy to catch and kill me as a solo and small group player, reducing income will have no impact on changing my mind on that issue at all.
This discussion, this very thread, is not about anything but highsec ganking, most specifically the form of it known as Hyperdunking or Globbing.
Stop with your angry, ranty little tangents about how you got kicked out of nullsec, and how you hate interceptors because they're the (one non cov ops) ship in the game that can catch a ratter thanks to the still hilariously overpowered local channel giving instant intel.
I get it, you're angry that CCP has ever done even the slightest thing to buff people who want to hunt other players.
You need to get over it.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
619
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 11:26:52 -
[1864] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
I listed out all the changes that have made it easier for the hunters to get kills
And dishonestly ignored the long, long list of safety buffs that have been made. Quote:
I am now in hisec in the main becaue it has been made to easy to catch and kill me as a solo and small group player, reducing income will have no impact on changing my mind on that issue at all.
This discussion, this very thread, is not about anything but highsec ganking, most specifically the form of it known as Hyperdunking or Globbing. Stop with your angry, ranty little tangents about how you got kicked out of nullsec, and how you hate interceptors because they're the (one non cov ops) ship in the game that can catch a ratter thanks to the still hilariously overpowered local channel giving instant intel. I get it, you're angry that CCP has ever done even the slightest thing to buff people who want to hunt other players. You need to get over it.
Hahahaha, the fun part is that coming back to hisec I am having fun I am engaging players who are actually playing the game not sitting there AFK cloaky camping.
I like hyperdunking because during my TZ before there was no way they could get enough players to gank freighters and now they can, all good stuff and I am having fun getting in the way of that where I can.
I am having fun in hisec because people are playing the game, get that? Get off the forums and go to space you might enjoy, either do some hyperdunking yourself or try to stop it, have fun and stop being such a misery guts on the forum ranting about hisec, hisec is fun fun fun!!!!!
Ella's Snack bar
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11879
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 11:29:12 -
[1865] - Quote
You don't sound like you're trying to convince me.
You sound like you're trying to convince yourself.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
619
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 11:31:56 -
[1866] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:You don't sound like you're trying to convince me.
You sound like you're trying to convince yourself.
I am trying to convince you, come on go for it hisec is great!
Ella's Snack bar
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15124
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 11:43:57 -
[1867] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
And he hangs on to 41 killed, rubbish, we are talking Goons not CFC!
In that case compare us to one organisation in osmon not the entire population. Oh look at that, we lost more than any organisation there.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
619
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 11:53:39 -
[1868] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
And he hangs on to 41 killed, rubbish, we are talking Goons not CFC!
In that case compare us to one organisation in osmon not the entire population. Oh look at that, we lost more than any organisation there.
I don't really need to reply to that, the absurdity of your argument is obvious to anyone with a brain and the willingness to use it.
Ella's Snack bar
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15128
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 11:55:38 -
[1869] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
And he hangs on to 41 killed, rubbish, we are talking Goons not CFC!
In that case compare us to one organisation in osmon not the entire population. Oh look at that, we lost more than any organisation there. I don't really need to reply to that, the absurdity of your argument is obvious to anyone with a brain and the willingness to use it.
You mean you have no answer to me pointing out you are wrong again despite your attempts to fiddle the numbers in your favour.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11879
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 11:56:20 -
[1870] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
And he hangs on to 41 killed, rubbish, we are talking Goons not CFC!
In that case compare us to one organisation in osmon not the entire population. Oh look at that, we lost more than any organisation there. I don't really need to reply to that, the absurdity of your argument is obvious to anyone with a brain and the willingness to use it.
You might as well just admit that you're tweaking stats to support your pre-conclusion. Because your argument keeps changing on every page, so anyone who's read it already knows.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
619
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 13:34:12 -
[1871] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
And he hangs on to 41 killed, rubbish, we are talking Goons not CFC!
In that case compare us to one organisation in osmon not the entire population. Oh look at that, we lost more than any organisation there. I don't really need to reply to that, the absurdity of your argument is obvious to anyone with a brain and the willingness to use it. You mean you have no answer to me pointing out you are wrong again despite your attempts to fiddle the numbers in your favour.
What to refute something totally absurd, dream on!
Ella's Snack bar
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
619
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 13:37:42 -
[1872] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
And he hangs on to 41 killed, rubbish, we are talking Goons not CFC!
In that case compare us to one organisation in osmon not the entire population. Oh look at that, we lost more than any organisation there. I don't really need to reply to that, the absurdity of your argument is obvious to anyone with a brain and the willingness to use it. You might as well just admit that you're tweaking stats to support your pre-conclusion. Because your argument keeps changing on every page, so anyone who's read it already knows.
My argument has not changed one iota, the stats are what I got from Zkill anyone can do it.
The changes that have enabled the hunters to catch people a lot easier are detailed a number of times and have not changed apart from adding one I missed.
Nothing changed in my argument, just your desperation in trying to counter it which focus more on attacking me or twisting what I have said, which is always signs of people losing the debate.
Ella's Snack bar
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15132
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 14:30:52 -
[1873] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
What to refute something totally absurd, dream on!
What exactly is absurd about comparing one organisation in a null region with one in highsec?
Lets compare goons (one organisation in our space) ratting losses in dek with Perkone mission losses in the forge.
Goonswarm;
Members:11,849
Ratting battleship losses: 9
Perkone;
Members: 91,957
High sec mission battleship losses this month: 0
So, an organisation with over 8 times our number took zero losses. Technically speaking we should be comparing corps as goons are an alliance while Perkone is just a corp.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
619
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 14:57:09 -
[1874] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
What to refute something totally absurd, dream on!
What exactly is absurd about comparing one organisation in a null region with one in highsec? Lets compare goons (one organisation in our space) ratting losses in dek with Perkone mission losses in the forge. Goonswarm; Members:11,849 Ratting battleship losses: 9 Perkone; Members: 91,957 High sec mission battleship losses this month: 0 So, an organisation with over 8 times our number took zero losses. Technically speaking we should be comparing corps as goons are an alliance while Perkone is just a corp. If we do that then.. Karmafleet: Members:577 ratting battleships lost this month: 4 Perkone; Members: 91,957 High sec mission battleship losses this month: 0
I selected based on location, the simple thing was to find the best most highly protected 0.0 and compare to hisec and the most used mission system in game, I selected a region because of the 10 person max per system, which equates to the single system Osmon in terms of activity.
Pretty easy to compare and your comparison is again just bull.
Ella's Snack bar
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15132
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 15:04:02 -
[1875] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
I selected based on location, the simple thing was to find the best most highly protected 0.0 and compare to hisec and the most used mission system in game, I selected a region because of the 10 person max per system, which equates to the single system Osmon in terms of activity.
Pretty easy to compare and your comparison is again just bull.
And I just compared dek to the most populous region in highsec and still came out with more losses in null.
So, the "most highly protected 0.0" is more dangerous than highsecs "most used mission hubs".
You have no argument here, nothing backs you up no matter what numbers you try to use.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
619
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 15:12:34 -
[1876] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
I selected based on location, the simple thing was to find the best most highly protected 0.0 and compare to hisec and the most used mission system in game, I selected a region because of the 10 person max per system, which equates to the single system Osmon in terms of activity.
Pretty easy to compare and your comparison is again just bull.
And I just compared dek to the most populous region in highsec and still came out with more losses in null. So, the "most highly protected 0.0" is more dangerous than highsecs "most used mission hubs". You have no argument here, nothing backs you up no matter what numbers you try to use.
You lost 6 ratting carriers and in the same period 34 ratting BS were lost in Osmon, carriers are the best way to run anoms, BS are the best way to run level 4's.
I could start adding in your Ishtars and add in Tengu's, that would get inetresting because a lot of people run AFK ishtars, but on the flip side Tengu's pimp fitted are a tempting target.
My selection for comparative purposes is totally valid.
Ella's Snack bar
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15132
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 15:17:08 -
[1877] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
You lost 6 ratting carriers and in the same period 34 ratting BS were lost in Osmon, carriers are the best way to run anoms, BS are the best way to run level 4's.
I could start adding in your Ishtars and add in Tengu's, that would get inetresting because a lot of people run AFK ishtars, but on the flip side Tengu's pimp fitted are a tempting target.
My selection for comparative purposes is totally valid.
No its not. NPC corps cannot be wardecked and are thus immune. I compared ship for ship and compared one organisation in null with just one organisation in highsec, not every organisation in highsec. You cannot exclude the rest of the CFC and then compare goons with every organisation in your selected space.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
619
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 15:24:00 -
[1878] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
You lost 6 ratting carriers and in the same period 34 ratting BS were lost in Osmon, carriers are the best way to run anoms, BS are the best way to run level 4's.
I could start adding in your Ishtars and add in Tengu's, that would get inetresting because a lot of people run AFK ishtars, but on the flip side Tengu's pimp fitted are a tempting target.
My selection for comparative purposes is totally valid.
No its not. NPC corps cannot be wardecked and are thus immune. I compared ship for ship and compared one organisation in null with just one organisation in highsec, not every organisation in highsec. You cannot exclude the rest of the CFC and then compare goons with every organisation in your selected space.
The comparison is between part of a 0.0 region highly protcted by military power and remoteness and a Concord protected hisec system which is the best for mission running. I compared the flagship ratting ships for anoms against the flagship ratting ships for level 4's.
6 ratting carrier kills against 34 ratting BS kills.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
619
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 15:30:46 -
[1879] - Quote
So to further emphasise the comparison as being valid, generally there are over 200 people in local in Osmon, I roughly counted 49 systems in Deklin under Goon control, so lets just average 3 anom runners per system, you are talking about 147 people running anoms. Osmon has three ice belts that come up as well as some nice belts and of course a population of gankers etc, so mission runners at the same time looks reasonable.
So its a good comparison.
Ella's Snack bar
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15132
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 15:31:12 -
[1880] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
The comparison is between part of a 0.0 region highly protcted by military power and remoteness and a Concord protected hisec system which is the best for mission running. I compared the flagship ratting ships for anoms against the flagship ratting ships for level 4's.
6 ratting carrier kills against 34 ratting BS kills.
If you are going to include all organisations in your highsec mission hub then its 42 carriers and several hundred subcaps.
You cant bullshit your numbers. Either compare every organisation in you highsec hub with every organisation in dek or just one allaince. Either way, null sec winds up with a lot more losses.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
619
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 15:33:21 -
[1881] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
The comparison is between part of a 0.0 region highly protcted by military power and remoteness and a Concord protected hisec system which is the best for mission running. I compared the flagship ratting ships for anoms against the flagship ratting ships for level 4's.
6 ratting carrier kills against 34 ratting BS kills.
If you are going to include all organisations in your highsec mission hub then its 42 carriers and several hundred subcaps. You cant bullshit your numbers. Either compare every organisation in you highsec hub with every organisation in dek or just one allaince. Either way, null sec winds up with a lot more losses.
The comparison I have selected is valid.
Ella's Snack bar
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15132
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 15:40:07 -
[1882] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
The comparison I have selected is valid.
Its rigged. I have explained this a dozen times to you now. Right now you are simply being dishonest as you have no comeback other than sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "lalala no I'm right."
You have been caught out with your bullshit and you don't like it.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
619
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 15:43:35 -
[1883] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
The comparison I have selected is valid.
Its rigged. I have explained this a dozen times to you now. Right now you are simply being dishonest as you have no comeback other than sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "lalala no I'm right." You have been caught out with your bullshit and you don't like it.
Nope, the comparison is valid as detailed in multiple posts of mine above, you don't like the story it tells which blows apart your carefully constructed narrative.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
619
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 15:56:42 -
[1884] - Quote
RG9-7U -0.98 system, 5833 NPC ships killed in the last 24 hours, not a single ratter killed in 48 hours
Osmon 33863 NPC ships killed in the last 24 hours, 104 ships killed in the last 48 hours.
EDIT: Even more striking is that the last ratter killed was Vlad III Tepes at 20:49 18-2-15 who is now ganking freighters in Niarja and Uedama to make up for his sad loss of an Ishtar.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
652
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 15:59:20 -
[1885] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: ~ snip~ you don't like the story it tells which blows apart your carefully constructed narrative. The same could be said of you, you don't like others pointing out the flaws in your argument because it blows away your carefully constructed narrative.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
619
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 16:01:22 -
[1886] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Dracvlad wrote: ~ snip~ you don't like the story it tells which blows apart your carefully constructed narrative. The same could be said of you, you don't like others pointing out the flaws in your argument because it blows away your carefully constructed narrative.
And now we wheel out the alts who are too scared to post with their main...
Ella's Snack bar
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15133
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 16:04:25 -
[1887] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:RG9-7U -0.98 system, 5833 NPC ships killed in the last 24 hours, not a single ratter killed in 48 hours
Osmon 33863 NPC ships killed in the last 24 hours, 104 ships killed in the last 48 hours.
Why are you now comparing everything killed in a mission hub with a population of all of dek combined with just one null system that sees less than a dozen ratting ships a day?
Your goalposts have moved so often this is just pointless. You need to stop fabricating numbers, comparing incompatible data and lying.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
619
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 16:06:20 -
[1888] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:RG9-7U -0.98 system, 5833 NPC ships killed in the last 24 hours, not a single ratter killed in 48 hours
Osmon 33863 NPC ships killed in the last 24 hours, 104 ships killed in the last 48 hours. Why are you now comparing everything killed in a mission hub with a population of all of dek combined with just one null system that sees less than a dozen ratting ships a day? Your goalposts have moved so often this is just pointless. You need to stop fabricating numbers, comparing incompatible data and lying.
Did you notice the part with 0 kills for player ships, might have slipped past the rose tinted glasses?
Ella's Snack bar
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
652
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 16:11:01 -
[1889] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Dracvlad wrote: ~ snip~ you don't like the story it tells which blows apart your carefully constructed narrative. The same could be said of you, you don't like others pointing out the flaws in your argument because it blows away your carefully constructed narrative. And now we wheel out the alts who are too scared to post with their main... Seriously... is that the best you can up with? My main is currently unsubbed, as such I can't post with it on the forums.
Quote:RG9-7U -0.98 system, 5833 NPC ships killed in the last 24 hours, not a single ratter killed in 48 hours
Osmon 33863 NPC ships killed in the last 24 hours, 104 ships killed in the last 48 hours. Osmon is a major mission hub, RG9-7U is a backwater system, this makes your comparison flawed.
Someone brought up population density a few pages back, you're failing to take that into account. I'd put money on Osmon having a far higher population than RG9-7U.
Quote:Did you notice the part with 0 kills for player ships, might have slipped past the rose tinted glasses? Did you somehow miss that people in nullsec tend to dock up and stop shooting at NPCs when there are reds or neutrals in local? In highsec people just carry on regardless for the most part.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
619
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 16:12:05 -
[1890] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Dracvlad wrote: ~ snip~ you don't like the story it tells which blows apart your carefully constructed narrative. The same could be said of you, you don't like others pointing out the flaws in your argument because it blows away your carefully constructed narrative. And now we wheel out the alts who are too scared to post with their main... Seriously... is that the best you can up with? My main is currently unsubbed, as such I can't post with it on the forums. Quote:RG9-7U -0.98 system, 5833 NPC ships killed in the last 24 hours, not a single ratter killed in 48 hours
Osmon 33863 NPC ships killed in the last 24 hours, 104 ships killed in the last 48 hours. Osmon is a major mission hub, RG9-7U is a backwater system, this makes your comparison flawed. Someone brought up population density a few pages back, you're failing to take that into account. I'd put money on Osmon having a far higher population than RG9-7U.
A -0.98 trusec system what hole did you crawl out of?
Ella's Snack bar
|
|
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
652
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 16:15:09 -
[1891] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
A -0.98 trusec system what hole did you crawl out of?
RG9-7U: Average pilots in space 2, number docked and currently active 8; yep it's a backwater
Numbers taken from the ingame map and stats.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
619
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 16:20:50 -
[1892] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
A -0.98 trusec system what hole did you crawl out of?
RG9-7U: Average pilots in space 2, number docked and currently active 8; yep it's a backwater Numbers taken from the ingame map and stats, and yes those numbers are slightly off due to the way the game collects those statistics.
Well the person who was ratting there Vlad III Tepes in currently in hisec ganking freighters, but its a -0.98 truesec system which is valuable real estate, and over 5k NPC kills is significant usage 13% of the total for Osmon. Its not my fault all of Bat Country is sitting in Kamio as I speak, I said hello but they are boring...
Ella's Snack bar
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15133
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 17:03:11 -
[1893] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:RG9-7U -0.98 system, 5833 NPC ships killed in the last 24 hours, not a single ratter killed in 48 hours
Osmon 33863 NPC ships killed in the last 24 hours, 104 ships killed in the last 48 hours. Why are you now comparing everything killed in a mission hub with a population of all of dek combined with just one null system that sees less than a dozen ratting ships a day? Your goalposts have moved so often this is just pointless. You need to stop fabricating numbers, comparing incompatible data and lying. Did you notice the part with 0 kills for player ships, might have slipped past the rose tinted glasses?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
619
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 17:11:12 -
[1894] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:RG9-7U -0.98 system, 5833 NPC ships killed in the last 24 hours, not a single ratter killed in 48 hours
Osmon 33863 NPC ships killed in the last 24 hours, 104 ships killed in the last 48 hours. Why are you now comparing everything killed in a mission hub with a population of all of dek combined with just one null system that sees less than a dozen ratting ships a day? Your goalposts have moved so often this is just pointless. You need to stop fabricating numbers, comparing incompatible data and lying. Did you notice the part with 0 kills for player ships, might have slipped past the rose tinted glasses? 2-10 active vs several hundred in osmon. Its a stupid comparison to make.
In the context of what I was pointing out it is totally valid
Ella's Snack bar
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15133
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 17:16:25 -
[1895] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
In the context of what I was pointing out it is totally valid
Its not valid in any context. You are just being an idiot at this point.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23070
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 17:21:45 -
[1896] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:RG9-7U -0.98 system, 5833 NPC ships killed in the last 24 hours, not a single ratter killed in 48 hours
Osmon 33863 NPC ships killed in the last 24 hours, 104 ships killed in the last 48 hours. Why are you now comparing everything killed in a mission hub with a population of all of dek combined with just one null system that sees less than a dozen ratting ships a day? Your goalposts have moved so often this is just pointless. You need to stop fabricating numbers, comparing incompatible data and lying. Did you notice the part with 0 kills for player ships, might have slipped past the rose tinted glasses? 2-10 active vs several hundred in osmon. Its a stupid comparison to make. In the context of what I was pointing out it is totally valid If you actually believe that, or managed to type it with a straight face, you should consider a career in politics.
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
619
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 17:27:30 -
[1897] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:If you actually believe that, or managed to type it with a straight face, you should consider a career in politics.
If it makes you feel better, classic attack the messenger and not the message.
Have you read Rules for Radicals, I have
Ella's Snack bar
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23070
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 17:39:53 -
[1898] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:If you actually believe that, or managed to type it with a straight face, you should consider a career in politics. If it makes you feel better, classic attack the messenger and not the message. When the messenger is pushing a laughable message then saying that the messenger should consider a career in pushing laughable messages is reasonable.
I have, unlike you I appear to have actually understood the message contained therein.
How is your comparison valid? Your comparison is the equivalent of comparing deaths in a major city to that of a small village in the middle of nowhere.
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
620
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 18:13:41 -
[1899] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:If you actually believe that, or managed to type it with a straight face, you should consider a career in politics. If it makes you feel better, classic attack the messenger and not the message. When the messenger is pushing a laughable message then saying that the messenger should consider a career in pushing laughable messages is reasonable. I have, unlike you I appear to have actually understood the message contained therein. How is your comparison valid? Your comparison is the equivalent of comparing deaths in a major city to that of a small village in the middle of nowhere.
Not at all, you obviously don't have it in you to understand the point being made, you could be a card carrying member of the Church of HTFU or something else, in either case the message is lost on you so don't worry about it, it will all be fine...
Ella's Snack bar
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23070
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 22:37:37 -
[1900] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:~shirking the question~ Once again, how is your comparison valid?
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
|
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
642
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 07:04:51 -
[1901] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Dracvlad wrote:~shirking the question~ Once again, how is your comparison valid?
I have explained it above, it is pretty evident. However as you are a member of the Church of HTFU I hardly think it matters, you have a closed mind and therefore will apply your own lenses to it. Being able to make the connection between highly protected space under player control and highly protected space under NPC control is obviously too difficult for you.
Also another advantage the Goons have is that their stations are closed to people that will attack them, not so in hisec where even -10 criminals can dock and undock at will.
In other news the Russians decided to have fun ganking freighters in hisec yesterday, something to do with Red Army day or so I was told, was fun for me on a personal level to see them do something other than cloaky AFK camping and they killed a lot of freighters, but like all elite PvP'rs they did not appreciate me telling them that.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6301
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 08:58:20 -
[1902] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Dracvlad wrote:~shirking the question~ Once again, how is your comparison valid? I have explained it above, it is pretty evident. However as you are a member of the Church of HTFU I hardly think it matters, you have a closed mind and therefore will apply your own lenses to it. Being able to make the connection between highly protected space under player control and highly protected space under NPC control is obviously too difficult for you. Also another advantage the Goons have is that their stations are closed to people that will attack them, not so in hisec where even -10 criminals can dock and undock at will. In other news the Russians decided to have fun ganking freighters in hisec yesterday, something to do with Red Army day or so I was told, was fun for me on a personal level to see them do something other than cloaky AFK camping and they killed a lot of freighters, but like all elite PvP'rs they did not appreciate me telling them that.
So in their celebration they didn't do a roam, try to invade some space, or anything really.
They want to highsec where the easy action is.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
643
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 09:00:25 -
[1903] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Dracvlad wrote:~shirking the question~ Once again, how is your comparison valid? I have explained it above, it is pretty evident. However as you are a member of the Church of HTFU I hardly think it matters, you have a closed mind and therefore will apply your own lenses to it. Being able to make the connection between highly protected space under player control and highly protected space under NPC control is obviously too difficult for you. Also another advantage the Goons have is that their stations are closed to people that will attack them, not so in hisec where even -10 criminals can dock and undock at will. In other news the Russians decided to have fun ganking freighters in hisec yesterday, something to do with Red Army day or so I was told, was fun for me on a personal level to see them do something other than cloaky AFK camping and they killed a lot of freighters, but like all elite PvP'rs they did not appreciate me telling them that. So in their celebration they didn't do a roam, try to invade some space, or anything really. They want to highsec where the easy action is.
In a nutshell yes, they are not able to defeat PL or N3 so they went for easy kills, but at least they were playing and not doing their lame AFK cloaky thing.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11895
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 12:44:10 -
[1904] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
I have explained it above, it is pretty evident.
I've been awake for 36 hours (thanks, Army!) and it's evident even to me that you're bullshitting your numbers.
Quote:
However as you are a member of the Church of HTFU I hardly think it matters
Ad hominem, and an obvious one at that.
You have nothing. And everyone here can see it.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
643
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 13:08:49 -
[1905] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
I have explained it above, it is pretty evident.
I've been awake for 36 hours (thanks, Army!) and it's evident even to me that you're bullshitting your numbers. Quote:
However as you are a member of the Church of HTFU I hardly think it matters
Ad hominem, and an obvious one at that. You have nothing. And everyone here can see it.
First of all I hope your RL problems sort out and am sorry to hear that you have problems.
The Church of the HTFU, its a religious order that chants HTFU at every opportunity and is xenophobic towards a very wide group of people defined as carebears, so much so that anger management issues abound with its members. Some of them will just blow up space pixels, others will use the forums to attack them even more. You can tell them by their glazed expression and statements of intense PvP in which they hardly partake as they are too busy sitting in hisec which they hate.
I think I explained it very well, its not my fault that people are blinded by their own prejudices.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11895
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 13:11:23 -
[1906] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
First of all I hope your RL problems sort out and am sorry to hear that you have problems.
It's the job. We might ***** and moan(and we all do), but nobody ever joined the Army to be safe, warm and dry, nor come home at 5 every night.
The rest of your post is just rantingly attacking a strawman that you've made of everyone who gives a damn about non consensual PvP, and I won't bother addressing it.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
643
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 13:50:04 -
[1907] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
First of all I hope your RL problems sort out and am sorry to hear that you have problems.
It's the job. We might ***** and moan(and we all do), but nobody ever joined the Army to be safe, warm and dry, nor come home at 5 every night. The rest of your post is just rantingly attacking a strawman that you've made of everyone who gives a damn about non consensual PvP, and I won't bother addressing it.
I just noticed you joined CODE, goon on you, actually that is funny I meant to type good but typed goon but its sort of apt isn't it.
Looks like we will meet in space soon!
Ella's Snack bar
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23074
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 15:43:54 -
[1908] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:~ snip~ you have a closed mind and therefore will apply your own lenses to it. Pot meet kettle
Quote:Being able to make the connection between highly protected space under player control and highly protected space under NPC control is obviously too difficult for you. Your connection is tenuous at best and ignores several realities.
Quote:The Church of the HTFU, its a religious order that chants HTFU at every opportunity an the prey and does not think it applies to the predators, it is xenophobic towards a very wide group of people defined as carebears While I may indeed believe that "the church of HTFU" has a point, I am in fact counted among their prey, an elusive prey, because I take steps to make sure that I'm a damn sight harder to catch and kill, but prey none the less.
I don't engage in ship to ship PvP, the only ships that I explode are flown by NPCs, I mine, I trade etc.
Quote:so much so that anger management issues abound with its members, and slavishly follows any texts written by CCP Falcon. I believe that you have them confused with some of the people that they prey upon, namely the ones that display disproportionate anger when their space pixels get destroyed.
CCP Falcon is a CCP representative and by the looks of it one that would like to see Eve preserve its "heritage", as such some people are going to agree with him as he represents a validation of the way that they perceive Eve.
Quote:Some of them will just blow up space pixels, others will use the forums to attack them even more. You can tell them by their glazed expression and statements of intense PvP in which they hardly partake as they are too busy sitting in hisec which they hate.
I think I explained it very well, its not my fault that people are blinded by their own prejudices. It's a PvP game with a destruction driven economy and they're fully playing the game within the rules. The fact that "carebears" decide to limit themselves by choosing to impose only a small subset of those rules on themselves and expect others to play by that limited subset is why they get attacked on the forums.
It's like "carebears" are trying to play football, when they can actually be bothered to turn up , by sitting on the goal line and never attacking the other team for possession of the ball or attempting to score. They're going to lose every time.
No you did not explain it well beyond "I'm right and you're wrong", ironically you're one of the people that is blinded by their own prejudices.
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6302
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 16:42:18 -
[1909] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
I have explained it above, it is pretty evident.
I've been awake for 36 hours (thanks, Army!) and it's evident even to me that you're bullshitting your numbers. Quote:
However as you are a member of the Church of HTFU I hardly think it matters
Ad hominem, and an obvious one at that. You have nothing. And everyone here can see it. First of all I hope your RL problems sort out and am sorry to hear that you have problems. The Church of the HTFU, its a religious order that chants HTFU at every opportunity an the prey and does not think it applies to the predators, it is xenophobic towards a very wide group of people defined as carebears, so much so that anger management issues abound with its members and slavishly follows any texts written by CCP Falcon. Some of them will just blow up space pixels, others will use the forums to attack them even more. You can tell them by their glazed expression and statements of intense PvP in which they hardly partake as they are too busy sitting in hisec which they hate. I think I explained it very well, its not my fault that people are blinded by their own prejudices.
That qualifies as a textbook definition. No matter what the topic is, it's always boiling down to HTFU and a parallel doctrine. We could be talking about ship skins and WiS for all that matters.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
649
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 16:54:24 -
[1910] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote: A HTFU rant.
Under CCP Falcon Eve is not a dark difficult place for hunters, its got easier and easier due to the reasons I hae stated before.
In isolation I agree with them, except for the WH one and the D-scan immunity which I still look at as gross stupidity, but the overall impact has been to make it so very easy to catch people, which is why people like me are now in hisec.
You can go on and ignore that as much as you want but its a fact.
The comparison I did was the systems controlled by the Goons in a certain region which is remote and highly protected with a system in high sec protected by Concord. The Goons lost 6 ratting carriers compared to 34 BS.
I then compared a -0.98 truesec system which had 0 losses over 48 hours while Osmon had 124, the rats killed in the -0.98 system were 5338 as compared to about 36,000 in Osmon, therefore 15% of the rats killed, if hisec was safer than we would have seen over 19 dead ships in that system, instead we saw 0. And it was over the weekend.
No matter how you slice and dice it those figures show that the Goon space in Deklin is far far safer than hisec.
Ella's Snack bar
|
|
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
233
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 19:51:34 -
[1911] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Under CCP Falcon Eve is not a dark difficult place for hunters, its got easier and easier due to the reasons I hae stated before.
It's not getting easier. Hell, I wouldn't even say the prey are getting dumber. There's just a crowd of whiners getting louder.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
649
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 19:54:27 -
[1912] - Quote
Another thing, when I was looking to go after the person who scooped the loot I was surprised a couple of times to see the loot disappear from the can and nothing going suspect. Having read another thread in warfare and tactics I now understand how it works, there are a few more nuances I need to check out, but here you go hisec carebears HTFU and accept this type of rubbish, after all its all about PvP and consequences isn't it?
Ella's Snack bar
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6304
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 20:37:35 -
[1913] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Another thing, when I was looking to go after the person who scooped the loot I was surprised a couple of times to see the loot disappear from the can and nothing going suspect. Having read another thread in warfare and tactics I now understand how it works, there are a few more nuances I need to check out, but here you go hisec carebears HTFU and accept this type of thing, after all its all about PvP and consequences isn't it?
I'm been watching your posts and being totally enthralled at the notion that all this PVP was right under our noses this whole time.
All that time wasted trying to set up in nullsec and putting up with cloaky campers and bubble camps.
Those highsec gankbears have some racket going, claiming they are doing it all because "carebears have to too easy" or something like that. They are having the easiest time of all. We've been arguing with a strawman. They have been disguising a party to make it look like a funeral.
You have my sword.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
650
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 20:51:11 -
[1914] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Another thing, when I was looking to go after the person who scooped the loot I was surprised a couple of times to see the loot disappear from the can and nothing going suspect. Having read another thread in warfare and tactics I now understand how it works, there are a few more nuances I need to check out, but here you go hisec carebears HTFU and accept this type of thing, after all its all about PvP and consequences isn't it? I'm been watching your posts and being totally enthralled at the notion that all this PVP was right under our noses this whole time. All that time wasted trying to set up in nullsec and putting up with cloaky campers and bubble camps. Those highsec gankbears have some racket going, claiming they are doing it all because "carebears have to too easy" or something like that. They are having the easiest time of all. We've been arguing with a strawman. They have been disguising a party to make it look like a funeral. You have my sword.
Too damn right they have, disguising a party to look like a funeral indeed the old dogs, with the amount of moaning going on I really thought that hisec was carebear heaven, its so far from the truth its silly, just pile into a thrasher and go to town, people hanging around with suspect flags for fights, just shoot them, people going criminal shoot them, ganking gankers, taking stuff without going suspect, its all here, wonderful stuff indeed, anyone who is seriously moaning about hisec and safety is a fraud, pure and simple...
Ella's Snack bar
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23078
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 22:07:36 -
[1915] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote: A HTFU rant. If you consider that to be a rant then I'll have at least a dozen ounces of whatever you're smoking.
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6304
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 22:29:19 -
[1916] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Another thing, when I was looking to go after the person who scooped the loot I was surprised a couple of times to see the loot disappear from the can and nothing going suspect. Having read another thread in warfare and tactics I now understand how it works, there are a few more nuances I need to check out, but here you go hisec carebears HTFU and accept this type of thing, after all its all about PvP and consequences isn't it? I'm been watching your posts and being totally enthralled at the notion that all this PVP was right under our noses this whole time. All that time wasted trying to set up in nullsec and putting up with cloaky campers and bubble camps. Those highsec gankbears have some racket going, claiming they are doing it all because "carebears have to too easy" or something like that. They are having the easiest time of all. We've been arguing with a strawman. They have been disguising a party to make it look like a funeral. You have my sword. Too damn right they have, disguising a party to look like a funeral indeed the old dogs, with the amount of moaning going on I really thought that hisec was carebear heaven, its so far from the truth its silly, just pile into a thrasher and go to town, people hanging around with suspect flags for fights, just shoot them, people going criminal shoot them, ganking gankers, taking stuff without going suspect, its all here, wonderful stuff indeed, anyone who is seriously moaning about hisec and safety is a fraud, pure and simple...
And now that the clones are free, they will all feel the wrath of my Kestrel.
Sorry. Couldn't help it.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
650
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 06:38:51 -
[1917] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote: A HTFU rant. If you consider that to be a rant then I'll have at least a dozen ounces of whatever you're smoking.
I have never smoked, I will drink good wine however with a meal, getting high for the sake of getting high is a sign of a weak person, getting slighly merry while eating a fine meal is the sign of a civilised person.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Mag's
the united
19094
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 16:59:52 -
[1918] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote: A HTFU rant. If you consider that to be a rant then I'll have at least a dozen ounces of whatever you're smoking. I have never smoked, I will drink good wine however with a meal, getting high for the sake of getting high is a sign of a weak person, getting slighly merry while eating a fine meal is the sign of a civilised person. So I guess you didn't get involved in the early rave days? Which was an absolute blast, I might add. But then I must be a weak person, who enjoyed himself way too much back then.
Edit: Just to add, I don't actually smoke. Never did like that particular high, reminded me too much of being pissed and I hate that. I am tea total, as they say.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23084
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 03:20:55 -
[1919] - Quote
Mag's wrote:So I guess you didn't get involved in the early rave days? Which was an absolute blast, I might add. But then I must be a weak person, who enjoyed himself way too much back then. Fun times, I remember them hazily.
Showing our age there Mag's
Quote:Edit: Just to add, I don't actually smoke. Never did like that particular high, reminded me too much of being pissed and I hate that. I am tea total, as they say. meh I don't like me when I'm drunk because I become an arse , I'm not teetotal, but I might as well be.
I'm just over a year on the vapestick after smoking for 20 years, trying to cut that next.
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
651
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 07:39:25 -
[1920] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote: A HTFU rant. If you consider that to be a rant then I'll have at least a dozen ounces of whatever you're smoking. I have never smoked, I will drink good wine however with a meal, getting high for the sake of getting high is a sign of a weak person, getting slighly merry while eating a fine meal is the sign of a civilised person. So I guess you didn't get involved in the early rave days? Which was an absolute blast, I might add. But then I must be a weak person, who enjoyed himself way too much back then. Edit: Just to add, I don't actually smoke. Never did like that particular high, reminded me too much of being pissed and I hate that. I am tea total, as they say.
A cup of tea can't beat it..
Ella's Snack bar
|
|
|
Koebmand
Silverflames
25
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:14:20 -
[1921] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:
Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage.
Does this mean the Bowheads (Orca etc) that aid in the criminal actions will start become flagged so we can defend ourselves from them? |
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
109
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 23:07:10 -
[1922] - Quote
Koebmand wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:
Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage.
Does this mean the Bowheads (Orca etc) that aid in the criminal actions will start become flagged so we can defend ourselves from them?
No because the Orca Pilot is innocent, all they did was drop a ship. They can't control who takes it.
And no you cant implement something like this because every time you go into a ship at a WH pos your pos would blow your ass up.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
651
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 09:19:25 -
[1923] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Koebmand wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:
Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage.
Does this mean the Bowheads (Orca etc) that aid in the criminal actions will start become flagged so we can defend ourselves from them? No because the Orca Pilot is innocent, all they did was drop a ship. They can't control who takes it. And no you cant implement something like this because every time you go into a ship at a WH pos your pos would blow your ass up.
Here is the rub in the loot scooping exploit the person dragging the stuff and dropping it does go suspect. However if CCP were to set it that the Orca pilot want suspect if a fleet member dropped a suspect package into the ship then this would just create a whole new set of ganks. Mechanics are always going to be exploited. This is the same as making bumping a suspect affect, you can imagine the number of people getting bumped so as to kill stuff.
The key part is "IF they are criminally flagged"
Spoken like a politician that
As I said before the mechanics of catching someone have been adjusted to make it easier to catch people, for me the D-scan immunity was a step too far, I accepted the rest as at least being logical, though the hole mechanism changing was a bad move in my opinion too.
Finally certain Russian players had gone on a freighter killing spree, they have now switched their attention to mission runners around Osmon and yes baltec1 marauders have been destroyed.
One of my contacts lost a Rattlesnake during the week, the previous week he lost his Legion in low sec to the D-scan immunity, so had given up on that way to make ISK. This guy goes into lowsec and null to do solo and small gang PvP which is now an issue for him because you need income to fund the PvP, as he normally gets blobbed and loses the ship, he used to do relic sites in Stain, but that was removed from him too.
Do people want guys like him to do real PvP or not in this game?
Ella's Snack bar
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11946
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 10:48:56 -
[1924] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
Do people want guys like him to do real PvP or not in this game?
There is no "real" PvP in EVE Online, because that implies that there are things that don't fit that category.
Oh, and trying to say that highsec should be safe, just so that your "friend" can carebear there and lose ships elsewhere is a facile argument at best. Loss can and should occur in highsec, not just low and null.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
109
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 11:56:33 -
[1925] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
Do people want guys like him to do real PvP or not in this game?
There is no "real" PvP in EVE Online, because that implies that there are things that don't fit that category. Oh, and trying to say that highsec should be safe, just so that your "friend" can carebear there and lose ships elsewhere is a facile argument at best. Loss can and should occur in highsec, not just low and null.
Technically a POS shoot isn't real PVP even though it is against Player Assets. Unless it is actively defended of course.
But that would be the literal definition of not real PVP... the AI playing the game legally for the player. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
651
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 12:57:30 -
[1926] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
Do people want guys like him to do real PvP or not in this game?
There is no "real" PvP in EVE Online, because that implies that there are things that don't fit that category. Oh, and trying to say that highsec should be safe, just so that your "friend" can carebear there and lose ships elsewhere is a facile argument at best. Loss can and should occur in highsec, not just low and null.
Again putting words into my mouth, what I am pointing out is that with all the buffs to the ability to catch people, activities that people did to support their PvP are becoming more difficult along with the ease of ganking in hisec.
Real PvP, maybe I should say a proper fight then which is where people go out to fight another person that is in a PvP fitted ship, ganking is PvP as we have already agreed.
So the sentence should read:
Do people want guys like him to do real fights or not in this game?
Ella's Snack bar
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23176
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 14:22:23 -
[1927] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Again putting words into my mouth, what I am pointing out is that with all the buffs to the ability to catch people, activities that people did to support their PvP are becoming more difficult along with the ease of ganking in hisec. I disagree, the PvE activities that support PvP are no harder today than they were 5 years ago. I'm a high PvE player for the most part, I've lost exactly one ship while doing PvE to another player in highsec since 2009, and that was because I foolishly engaged a can flipper in my first week of playing.
Ganking is considerably harder to carry out successfully than it was when I started to play. CODE. and MiniLuv have had to become extremely professional in their execution, they've had to essentially industrialise and perfect the art of ganking in order to carry on playing Eve in the way that they wish to.
Not getting ganked has become considerably easier, especially if people pay attention and don't engage in stupidity.
Quote:Real PvP, maybe I should say a proper fight then which is where people go out to fight another person that is in a PvP fitted ship, ganking is PvP as we have already agreed.
So the sentence should read:
Do people want guys like him to do real fights or not in this game?
Real PvP as you define it is extremely limited in scope, everything in Eve is essentially a PvP activity, or designed to fuel PvP activity. The ganking of overloaded afk freighters and afk miners is as much real PvP as shooting an opposing fleet in the face, it's just on a different battleground.
Some gankers engage in what is traditionally known as commerce raiding, others are engaged in straight forward piracy or privateering. Most, if not all, of their activities fall under the label of economic warfare which is a time honoured method of indirectly waging war.
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11952
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 14:36:04 -
[1928] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
Again putting words into my mouth, what I am pointing out is that with all the buffs to the ability to catch people, activities that people did to support their PvP are becoming more difficult along with the ease of ganking in hisec.
And what we're pointing out is that you're being disingenuous, since you're deliberately omitting the many, many buffs to safety that have been made in this game.
Most of what you're complaining about is d-scan immune ships, what's more. And those things barely put a dent into the sheer power of local chat and d-scan, the two most powerful defensive tools in the whole game.
Frankly, some way to get past the otherwise infallible d-scan without resorting to a cloaked ship were long overdue.
Quote:
Do people want guys like him to do real fights or not in this game?
You are posing it as though, without highsec being perfectly safe for your "friend" (personally, I think it's you) to carebear in, it will not happen otherwise.
This is a false dichotomy.
That said, as you posed it, my answer is no. If it comes at the cost of non consensual PvP being allowed in highsec, then your "friend's" tightly restrictive, binary proposition is not acceptable to me.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
651
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 16:51:40 -
[1929] - Quote
Both of you two talk about many buffs to safety but don't detail them? Detail them rather than waffle about the many things you can do to negate or talk about local that has always been in game. I wonder how they would compare to this:
Destroyers damage being increased was the biggest change to benefit ganking, 680 DPS +
Talos can hit for 1250 DPS + so that ship being introduced was a major change
So the numbers required have reduced, now people are ganking mission running BS in destroyers in Inya, and you guys think its got harder, dream on.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
651
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 17:00:43 -
[1930] - Quote
In terms of fights, I adjusted it to say fights not PvP, the ones where you can say GF in local and mean it rather than as an insult, if you don't understand what I mean by that then its fine no problem, you can quote wiki links all you want but its irrelevant to talk about RL warfare in a game where mechanics are what really matters.
Eve is a game where many people talk about the legendary hard to get good fights, I know people who play for that, they get ISK to fund that, if they can't fund that then they drop, the player I referred to has not logged on since that mission gank loss, I think he has given up and this is a player who was doing fights... A loss for Eve that one!
Hisec is not safe, I have stated that again and again, I have proved that the Goon ratting space is demonstratively safer, you guys seem to think hisec is totally safe which is just odd.
Ella's Snack bar
|
|
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23178
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 20:21:58 -
[1931] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Both of you two talk about many buffs to safety but don't detail them? Detail them rather than waffle about the many things you can do to negate or talk about local that has always been in game.
I wonder how they would compare to this:
Destroyers damage being increased was the biggest change to benefit ganking, 680 DPS +
Talos can hit for 1250 DPS + so that ship being introduced was a major change The main buffs to safety have been discussed, in depth, many times over the years. A quick recap for you,
Concord response times have been reduced considerably
A game wide safety catch has been introduced
Removal of mechanics like can flipping that allowed people to be tricked into accidental PvP (see above)
Removal of ship insurance for ships that died to Concord means that gankers rarely use battleships anymore
Crimewatch 2.0 made it far easier for people to shoot at gankers and put a crimp in their operations, most are too damn lazy to do so
Mining barges, which were already capable of being tanked against a gank received a major EHP buff around the same time as Destroyers lost their R.o.F penalty
Changes to T1 and T2 haulers have made some of them nigh damn impossible to kill profitably if people use and fit them correctly, once again most are too damn lazy to do so
Changes to freighters, giving a fitting choice of capacity or tank merely resulted in a few fitting for tank, the rest carried on fitting for capacity. Some continue to stuff them with isk and afk across the universe regardless of their fit.
Tier 3 BCs were never intended to be used to gank, they're used outside of highsec in the role that CCP envisioned for them. The buffs to destroyers were meant to make a ship class that saw little use, outside of newbies, more viable for other things; that both are used for ganking is an accidental result due to the changes in highsec aggression mechanics.
Quote:So the numbers required have reduced, Numbers of what? Ganking requires more players and ships now than it has ever done in the past.
Quote: people are ganking mission running BS in destroyers in Inaya People have been ganking mission BS's in frigates, destroyers and cruisers since at least 2009, mostly because 80%+ of mission runners are wholly ignorant of game mechanics.
Quote: and you guys think its got harder, dream on. The reality is that it has gotten mechanically harder, the people that make it easier than it could be are their victims.
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
655
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 20:56:20 -
[1932] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Both of you two talk about many buffs to safety but don't detail them? Detail them rather than waffle about the many things you can do to negate or talk about local that has always been in game.
I wonder how they would compare to this:
Destroyers damage being increased was the biggest change to benefit ganking, 680 DPS +
Talos can hit for 1250 DPS + so that ship being introduced was a major change The main buffs to safety have been discussed, in depth, many times over the years. A quick recap for you: Concord response times have been reduced considerably. A game wide safety catch has been introduced. Removal of mechanics like can flipping that allowed people to be tricked into accidental PvP (see above). Removal of ship insurance for ships that died to Concord means that gankers rarely use battleships anymore, they rely on numbers instead. Crimewatch 2.0 made it far easier for people to shoot at gankers and put a crimp in their operations, most are too damn lazy to do so. Mining barges, which were already capable of being tanked against a gank received a major EHP buff around the same time as Destroyers lost their R.o.F penalty. Changes to T1 and T2 haulers have made some of them nigh damn impossible to kill profitably if people use and fit them correctly, once again most are too damn lazy to do so. Changes to freighters, giving a fitting choice of capacity or tank merely resulted in a few fitting for tank, the rest carried on fitting for capacity. Some continue to stuff them with isk and afk across the universe regardless of their fit. Tier 3 BCs were never intended to be used to gank, they're used outside of highsec in the role that CCP envisioned for them. The buffs to destroyers were meant to make a ship class that saw little use, outside of newbies, more viable for other things; that both are used for ganking is an accidental result due to the changes in highsec aggression mechanics. Quote:So the numbers required have reduced, Numbers of what? Ganking requires more players and ships now than it has ever done in the past. Quote: people are ganking mission running BS in destroyers in Inaya People have been ganking mission BS's in frigates, destroyers and cruisers since at least 2009, mostly because 80%+ of mission runners are wholly ignorant of game mechanics. Quote: and you guys think its got harder, dream on. The reality is that it has gotten mechanically harder, the people that make it easier than it could be are the victims.
That's a better reply, some meat on the bone at last.
Ganking, this is to come in and blow up ships before Concord can intervene, this is different to tricking people into combat, a lot of people confuse the two, they are not the same.
I remember reading someone saying that Concord reaction was faster, but I recall and may be wrong on this that it was only top security systems, which has limited impact on ganks as most happen in 0.5 0.6 and 0.7 systems.
The game wide safety has no impact on ganking, its designed to stop people getting caught out by the mechanics.
Can flipping was mainly used against noobs, that being said it was one way for new players to blow stuff up and introduced many people to tricking people to get combat. I understand why people did not like it being stopped but this has no real impact on Ganking. But can flipping has been replaced by people going suspect, getting people to shoot them then come out in something to kill them, which I think is actually better than can flipping.
Battleships were used for ganks in the past and yes it is not cost effective, but the use of the battleships ended when these BC's came out and as soon as they did they were used for ganks at half the price. Insurance is irrelevent in terms of this because the BC's and Destroyers have such high DPS, two cats = 1 BS its cheaper now.
Crimewatch 2, actually no, -10 was there before, it was just not reliable as -10 was sometimes rounded up. If you are talking about that, CCP have just corrected a stupid error that caused people to die when shooting what they thought was -10's and after that deciding never to do so again.
Mining barges were never able to withstand ganks since the time I started playing, and when the destroyers got buffed it was left like that for a couple of years. The best tanked Hulk required 2 Catalysts to kill same as now. But miners have real options to use ships that are difficult to gank such as the Skiff and Procurer so yes that has got more difficult where people tank and use the right ship. But there are enough peop-le running around in easy to gank ships, so hardly difficult.
At this point the changes to T1 haulers have made them usable, and people are now running around with too much cargo, a single Vexor can kill every T1 hauler, hardly difficult.
It takes 30 Catalysts to kill a Frieghter, that is very easy for a Coalition that can get 3 fleets of 250 people for CTA's...
The buffs to Destroyers and the introduction of BC's with BS weapons have made ganking so much easier, the result is what you see now.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6328
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 21:17:03 -
[1933] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:In terms of fights, I adjusted it to say fights not PvP, the ones where you can say GF in local and mean it rather than as an insult, if you don't understand what I mean by that then its fine no problem, you can quote wiki links all you want but its irrelevant to talk about RL warfare in a game where mechanics are what really matters.
Eve is a game where many people talk about the legendary hard to get good fights, I know people who play for that, they get ISK to fund that, if they can't fund that then they drop, the player I referred to has not logged on since that mission gank loss, I think he has given up and this is a player who was doing fights... A loss for Eve that one! (EDIT: He logged back on today and is OK, which is good, he is waiting for the NS changes to see what he will do.)
Hisec is not safe, I have stated that again and again, I have proved that the Goon ratting space is demonstratively safer, you guys seem to think hisec is totally safe which is just odd.
EDIT: In terms of the no reply, I can understand that only if you think it is necessary to stop any type of non-consensual combat in hisec, that is of course not on the table and something that I do not agree with amd have never suggested, however the issue is that the balance in hisec is out of kilter. The avoidance is what really matters at the end of the day, so its do missions in less fashionable places or TZ's when people cannot get enough to gank, simple really, no lifers win Eve!!!
You might as well be trying to deprogram cultists. Remember, a lot of investment in self-worth is involved when declaring onself a PVPer and then using that as a vehicle to look down on everybody else. When Karous logs off he goes back to his real life of being an underpaid mercenary for global banksters.
The sad part of the debate, Drac, is that your very argument, if properly looked at, would drive the point home that the uber superior super duper apex of human development PVPers of highsec are there for the same exact reason their prey is in highsec. The problem is not highsec and its rewards. The problem is the rest of the game.
It's almost as if the Church of HTFU (or maybe the doctrines of CODE. were intended this way?) does NOT want "the rest of the game" to be looked over for it's flaws and instead pulls a Goebbels on the matter by repeating the same set of lies enough times to make it seem true.
As for what they mean when highsec ganking was nerfed, I know what they have complained about over the years:
- 'the button'. This was added to the client UI and has several settings whereby you can get a warning against certain actions that cause you to become an aggressed legal target. I think this came about because aggro fu was starting to become the norm of incursions. A lot of highsec PVPers were angry over this because, well, stats.
- crime watch that could turn some PVPers against the others, or create a kind of "white knight PVPer", complicating things for can-flippers. Highsec clan flippers are in highsec for the same reason as they who are in highsec filling cans, so complication is bad.
- Abandoning wrecks was the end of a whole style of game play. That style was to fly into mission rooms, start taking all the loot, and then lock up the pilot and hope the drones were set to aggressive, or line up with the NPC targets. Crime watch complicated that as well but now being able to abandon wrecks shut down that high intelligent game play that even makes your DNA become superior to all the rest of the human race. Oh and part of this was to gaslight the victim over who "owned" the wrecks. I probably gave at least a dozen of them carpal tunnel syndrome simply by making the case (with alts) that the mission runner owns the wrecks. It was also the end of the Schr+¦dinger's cat aspect: if the mission runner didn't do anything, he "was so mad, its tears!!! Ha ha I'm so leet!" or if the mission runner shot the wrecks it was "He's so mad it's tears!!! Ha ha I'm so leet". Abandoning the wrecks denied the "oh look I caused tears!" aspect of ninja salvaging.
- end of insurance payouts. This was a funny one because CCP even said that ganking should not be profitable, and for a time, it was profitable. But back in the day, even suicide gankers would admit that it's rather odd to get an insurance payout for losing a ship during a deliberate criminal action. CCP was not trying to nerf suicide ganking but this was not agreed upon by those affected even though new ships were being introduced to enhance it.
- tank improvements to "prey" ships. This was seen as the late great boost to carebearism but as has been proven, and was argued even then (but that argument was ignored because Church of HTFU does not hear argument) that this does not make the ships immune to a suicide gank. It's still possible to bread-snatch fit (I want's ISK and more ISK risk be damned) an indie in such manner that a catalyst or two can still pop it with ease.
So as you can see, much of the bad blood is about "making things easier" for carebears but what has been proven, even by those who make the same argument over and over, is that it really did not because they still get their ganks. How can ganks be nerfed if they can still get their ganks? What really showed their colors was the argument over the button. Their argument proved that most highsec out-of-wardec and non-suicide gank PVP was nothing more than aggro fu gotcha games. So some of the gotcha game aspects were nerfed and accusations of dumbing down and space bushido flew about. All hail the killboard and all that. And from the people who claim the hardest that they are the only ones taking hard knocks and learning to adapt (HTFU). Hyperdunking is in fact an impressive example of learning to adapt and its existence proof against any argument they make.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11958
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 00:30:39 -
[1934] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Remember, a lot of investment in self-worth is involved when declaring onself a PVPer and then using that as a vehicle to look down on everybody else.
Heh, now that's one I haven't seen in a while. Have you just lost your mind recently, resorting to age old tropes like this?
I hate to break it to you, but I'm a happy, well adjusted individual.
Quote:
When Karous logs off he goes back to his real life of being an underpaid mercenary for global banksters.
Oh, I'm rather well paid for that, thanks. The free college in particular is rather fulfilling, since you can take classes on a whim just for personal enrichment. It's surprising how taking away the overriding goal of "college" makes it so much more fun.
Quote:
It's almost as if the Church of HTFU (or maybe the doctrines of CODE. were intended this way?) does NOT want "the rest of the game" to be looked over for it's flaws and instead pulls a Goebbels on the matter by repeating the same set of lies enough times to make it seem true.
That, or we've played the game long enough to realize that everything is interconnected. Nerfing highsec would be the equivalent of buffing every other area of space. And it wouldn't create runaway inflation either.
See, you ***** and moan a lot lately, but I have yet to see you lay out what you actually want. Merely sling mud at people who are trying to fix the problem.
But I don't see you offering any solutions, just grandstanding about how bad you think we are.
The rest of your post is just sour grapes, so I ignored it. You need to lighten up.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23181
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 03:18:10 -
[1935] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:That's a better reply, some meat on the bone at last.
Ganking, this is to come in and blow up ships before Concord can intervene, this is different to tricking people into combat, a lot of people confuse the two, they are not the same.
I remember reading someone saying that Concord reaction was faster, but I recall and may be wrong on this that it was only top security systems, which has limited impact on ganks as most happen in 0.5 0.6 and 0.7 systems. Regardless of the method used the end result is the same, combat is forced upon someone who thought that they were safe.
I don't know enough about the Concord changes to say otherwise tbh, if that's the case then a 0.5 chokepoint on a major pipe between trade hubs that has huge amounts of traffic being a centre of conflict shouldn't surprise you.
Quote:The game wide safety has no impact on ganking, its designed to stop people getting caught out by the mechanics.
Can flipping was mainly used against noobs, that being said it was one way for new players to blow stuff up and introduced many people to tricking people to get combat. I understand why people did not like it being stopped but this has no real impact on Ganking. But can flipping has been replaced by people going suspect, getting people to shoot them then come out in something to kill them, which I think is actually better than can flipping. And don't forget MTU's... That may have been the original design brief of the safety, but in reality it acts as a filter against sometimes intended PvP
For example I had a newbie in a Thrasher target me a while back as I mined in my Procurer, I was quite willing to let him shoot at me, he wasn't going to even scratch the paint. I'd have let him baptise himself in Concord's fire and then directed him to people that could show him how to do it successfully.
After about a minute he pipes up in local "Why won't my &$%king guns fire??", he didn't know the safety existed.. I gave him a little general help and then directed to people who could show him the ropes.
Quote:Battleships were used for ganks in the past and yes it is not cost effective, but the use of the battleships ended when these BC's came out and as soon as they did they were used for ganks at half the price. Insurance is irrelevent in terms of this because the BC's and Destroyers have such high DPS, two cats = 1 BS its cheaper now. The use of those battleships died out because it was no longer profitable to suicide gank in insured battleships. The insurance change was in Tyrannis, the 2010 summer expansion, the Tier 3 BC's didn't appear until November 2011 with Crucible. I can pretty much guarantee that people using Battleships for suicide ganking were looking into alternatives as soon as the insurance change dev blog was released.
Quote:Crimewatch 2, actually no, -10 was there before, it was just not reliable as -10 was sometimes rounded up. If you are talking about that, CCP have just corrected a stupid error that caused people to die when shooting what they thought was -10's and after that deciding never to do so again. Don't get me wrong, crimewatch 2.0 is a huge improvement over the old system, I just feel that it could be used more effectively by people wanting to engage in combat with gankers, and criminals in general. Despite the fix to the -10 error, people still won't shoot first; I don't know if it's ignorance or laziness but the option to open fire on gankers with guns, ECM, drones whatever, before they even lock their targets is there, especially if the defenders use sebo's and the like.
Quote:Mining barges were never able to withstand ganks since the time I started playing, and when the destroyers got buffed it was left like that for a couple of years. The best tanked Hulk required 2 Catalysts to kill same as now.
But miners have real options to use ships that are difficult to gank such as the Skiff and Procurer so yes that has got more difficult where people tank and use the right ship. But there are enough peop-le running around in easy to gank ships, so hardly difficult. Mining barges were not able to stand smart bombing Battleship ganks, which were fairly commonplace right up until the insurance changes.
ISK tanking is terrible, a hulk doesn't get a better tank because of its cost it gets a better yield; It should be working with a fleet and an Orca using a shield harmonising link anyway.
Ran out of quotes.
At this point the changes to T1 haulers have made them usable, and people are now running around with too much cargo, a single Vexor can kill every T1 hauler, hardly difficult. Yes they're certainly usable, some of them are also extremely durable, my T1 hauler packs 45k+ EHP and aligns like a cruiser. A gank Vexor is going to struggle if I'm on the ball, there's far easier prey out there, that suits me.
It takes 30 Catalysts to kill a Frieghter, that is very easy for a Coalition that can get 3 fleets of 250 people for CTA's... I'm presuming you mean a CTA in nullsec? Highsec is an entirely different kettle of fish. The two largest ganking groups in the game have hooked up, I'd say that CODE. are providing manpower to keep the momentum rolling. I doubt either group could maintain their current tempo of ops alone, and I seriously doubt either group could mobilise numbers of more than 30 at a time.
The buffs to Destroyers and the introduction of BC's with BS weapons have made ganking so much easier, the result is what you see now. As I said, I disagree. Highsec mechanics force that choice, they are quite simply the best tools for the job in the conditions under which gankers work.
They've been developed by gankers into specialist and efficient tools, just they've developed the Machariel as a specialist tool that enables them to achieve their objectives.
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6331
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 06:16:39 -
[1936] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Remember, a lot of investment in self-worth is involved when declaring onself a PVPer and then using that as a vehicle to look down on everybody else.
Heh, now that's one I haven't seen in a while. Have you just lost your mind recently, resorting to age old tropes like this? I hate to break it to you, but I'm a happy, well adjusted individual. Quote:
When Karous logs off he goes back to his real life of being an underpaid mercenary for global banksters.
Oh, I'm rather well paid for that, thanks. The free college in particular is rather fulfilling, since you can take classes on a whim just for personal enrichment. It's surprising how taking away the overriding goal of "college" makes it so much more fun. Quote:
It's almost as if the Church of HTFU (or maybe the doctrines of CODE. were intended this way?) does NOT want "the rest of the game" to be looked over for it's flaws and instead pulls a Goebbels on the matter by repeating the same set of lies enough times to make it seem true.
That, or we've played the game long enough to realize that everything is interconnected. Nerfing highsec would be the equivalent of buffing every other area of space. And it wouldn't create runaway inflation either. See, you ***** and moan a lot lately, but I have yet to see you lay out what you actually want. Merely sling mud at people who are trying to fix the problem. But I don't see you offering any solutions, just grandstanding about how bad you think we are. The rest of your post is just sour grapes, so I ignored it. You need to lighten up.
My code name for you will be "Mirror".
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
655
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 11:00:25 -
[1937] - Quote
I still think you are confused between ganking and other types of combat, Ganking is basically coming in and blowing up ships before Concord reacts and you are detailing things that are not ganking as such.
Ganking
The 0.5 pipeline systems do not surprise me and I am ok with that, I am pretty sure they speeded up Concord on higher security systems so the suggestion about speeded up Concord response if incorrect, it did not affect the systems where ganks occur.
In terms of BS ganking, I still saw them being used to kill bling fitted Tengu's outside mission hubs after insurance was removed, which was the primary use of ganking battleships, sorry you are wrong, I also noted the switch to tier 3 BC's when they came out, their use is more a function of lack of numbers then anything else, it is quite notable the numbers of BC's used by CODE and Goon / CFC members when they do not have enough Cats to do it.
After the changes to destroyers I was on the frums calling for an increase in tank for mining ships, it was quite frankly stupid and lost a lot of players to the game, I think CCP finally did the right thing. In terms of your smart bombing battleship comment I saw one used about 6 months ago, they are still effective against Hulks next to an Orca which is when I normally only see Hulks now. By the way I don't mine much, though some times like a bit of ice.. CODE are still knocking of Covertors, Hulks, Retrievers, Mackinaws and Ventures, they find Procurers and Skiffs too much for them, but I know they make a special effort sometimes, personally I find the balance on mining ships about right at this point, which might surprise you.
The T1 hauler balance is about right too, people have to fit them properly, a well fitted T1 hauler will likely require more than one gank Vexor which is a good base line in a 0.5 system, but there are so many taken out by a single Vexor. People are using them with too much cargo at this point so they get ganked, which I think is a fair point. Again I am ok with the balance now here.
Yes I mean CTA in nullsec, the main attack on hisec is carried out by certain bored nullsec players with their hisec ganking alts, these people are very ISK rich and don't care about insurance or even making a profit, they are doing it for fun and because they are bored with stagnation in null sec. They also have a strategic plan in that they want to switch industry to null sec, as you may be aware CODE was created out of the manipulation of Gallente ice. This means there are very organised groups running around doing this backed up by huge ISK resources and large numbers of people. That being said these groups often do not get the numbers in certain time zones so they adjust to use Talos's or Brutix's.
The changes to the DPS of destroyers and their cheapness, plus the arrival of the tier 3 BS and the un-nerfing of blasters have resulted in the ability to take out freighters cheaply and effectively, the freighters did get a slight improvement in tank, but in my opinion the tank is too small. That being said I rather enjoy the sight of this happening, its fun, but I think it is too easy.
The Macherial is rather fun, I am training up a specific Ganking Talos alt for that bumping Macherial as are a few others, which is what Eve is really about isn't it
The thing is that DPS is the critical factor on this which is what was improved, and there was nothing done in reality to make it harder with the exception of two mining ships, which are too tanky if fitted correctly.
In terms of other non-ganking trick type combat.
You should have offered that Thrasher a duel.
I have been running around Caldari hisec and the number of people doing suspect flashing is quite frankly amusing, seems there is one or two on every gate, I have shot a few for lols and noted them running like mad, when they are up against someone who knows what they are doing they do not engage. In other words I have a ship ready for their RR...
Also MTU's have replaced can flipping.
The crimewatch system is a good thing but has no impact on ganking, just trap like PvP.
That -10 bug was a major issue, I had friends who were caught out by it, so there is an attitude of not trusting CCP on this, that being said I have started shooting -10's as soon as I see them, the issue is of course being able to catch them, most are very good at avoidance and are in fast ships that warp quickly
Final words
The DPS buff is what has made it easier, of course people could play better, but I have seen freighters caught that were being webbed and were not afk in any shape or form. So I still believe that Ganking is easier because of the DPS buff to destroyers and the introduction of the Tier 3 BC's, nothing balances against that in any way shape or form, I do actually think that freighters need a buff in terms of their tank, but how much is a good question but I feel that the balance is wrong at this point, but then again it may be just down to the sheer organisation of the people doing it.
Recently there have been new efforts against mission runners around SOE level 4 hubs, we are now starting to see Marauders dying, this is interesting and improves my point that hisec is not safe, but in terms of this, if I had setup my Vargur with full snakes and had fitted a point, would that really help me against a surprise gank by a massed Destroyer gank, maybe if I was in bastion mode, but the sheer DPS delivered quickly would overwhelm me.
Hyper-dunking is not an issue here because its easy to stop it if you have friends, what tends to happen is if we stop the hyper-dunking they just bring in a gank fleet, all this is of course fun.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
655
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 13:38:31 -
[1938] - Quote
This is what I would do:
1. Increase Structure hit points on freighters and jump freighters by 60%
2. Adjust the security status penalties based on the value of the ship ganked, so the more expensive the ship the faster they get to -10
3. Make it so that -10 characters cannot dock in hisec stations.
This will balance out against the huge increase in DPS from the destroyer buff and the introduction of Tier 3.
Ganking will still be possible, which is what I want to see, but it requires more effort.
At the moment with the tokens from low sec it is too easy in terms of security status, I keep seeing Goon characters that are ganking with -1.6 security status, which is a bit naff if you ask me.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
775
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 14:24:13 -
[1939] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Hyper-dunking is not an issue here
Except for the fact its the Hyperdunking thread. Post your crusade in F&I and politely shut the f*** up. |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3929
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 15:44:12 -
[1940] - Quote
Thread temporarily locked for some cleaning.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
|
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10008
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 16:35:08 -
[1941] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Again putting words into my mouth, what I am pointing out is that with all the buffs to the ability to catch people, activities that people did to support their PvP are becoming more difficult along with the ease of ganking in hisec. I disagree, the PvE activities that support PvP are no harder today than they were 5 years ago. I'm a highsec PvE player for the most part, I've lost exactly one ship while doing PvE to another player in highsec since 2009, and that was because I foolishly engaged a can flipper in my first week of playing.
Exactly so. Things are so much easier and safer now it's not even funny. I pve regularly everywhere except wormhole space (with the exception of a few weeks in Thera just to prove it could be done). It's so silly easy now it's not even funny. If you said you were doing lvl 4 missions with a BC when I started people would have said "but that's so slow". Now this is possible.
If you told someone "I blitz lvl 4 missions in frigate sized ships" you would have been talking about doing then in AFs, now CCP has given Burner Missions and people are using standings to do nothing BUT those.
Pirate Battleships are cheaper than ever.
Marauder exist and they make lvl 4 missions a joke.
Tactical Destroyers exist and are wiping whole regions of high sec clean of anomalies because the escalation chances has been increased. Just look at the deadspace gear market now.
And on top of it all, the game has soooo many more defensive mods and methods and mobil structure and salvage drones etc. PVE is so trivially easy to get into and make isk from it's not even funny. it's only people with a permanent victim mentality that think any thing is harder to do now.
|
Koebmand
Silverflames
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 17:03:31 -
[1942] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
No because the Orca Pilot is innocent, all they did was drop a ship. They can't control who takes it.
Remove the Orca pilots ability to eject ships.
If Orca let suspect or criminal eject or board ship, Orca gets flag.
There, wasn't so hard. |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
612
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 17:34:02 -
[1943] - Quote
Koebmand wrote:Remove the Orca pilots ability to eject ships.
Why do you want to take away a miner's ability to quickly swap to a combat ship when attacked in his barge? It is quite fun to see a hulk that you thought was an easy kill turn into a cruiser that will melt you.
Quote:If Orca let suspect or criminal eject or board ship, Orca gets flag.
The safety system was specifically designed that you cannot get flagged when it is set to green. Your proposal would make the safety switch completely unreliable.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
110
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 22:33:22 -
[1944] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:Koebmand wrote:
[quote]If Orca let suspect or criminal eject or board ship, Orca gets flag.
The safety system was specifically designed that you cannot get flagged when it is set to green. Your proposal would make the safety switch completely unreliable.
No...
Orca Pilot set Green = Suspect or Criminal being denied by game servers access to the hanger.
Simple
I fully support this idea |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3171
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:00:17 -
[1945] - Quote
Would not work. The Orca pilot can eject the ship, without a pilot, into space at an agreed upon safe spot, and warps off. The criminal then just goes there and hops in.
If they made it so the Orca could not drop a ship, then you just need a neutral alt board the ship from the Orca's hold, and eject from it, leaving it free to be boarded by anyone.
Want to change the risk vs reward of ganking? Do this:
1) The insurance payout to the victim of an illegal attack comes from the wallet of the pilot who fires the final blow.
2) If you are a criminal, and your wallet is negative, you may not board any ship other than a shuttle. (Because no crew will work for a broke criminal.)
2) Alternate: You cannot commit a criminal attack unless there is sufficient money in your wallet to cover the payout.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
661
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:31:54 -
[1946] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Again putting words into my mouth, what I am pointing out is that with all the buffs to the ability to catch people, activities that people did to support their PvP are becoming more difficult along with the ease of ganking in hisec. I disagree, the PvE activities that support PvP are no harder today than they were 5 years ago. I'm a highsec PvE player for the most part, I've lost exactly one ship while doing PvE to another player in highsec since 2009, and that was because I foolishly engaged a can flipper in my first week of playing. Exactly so. Things are so much easier and safer now it's not even funny. I pve regularly everywhere except wormhole space (with the exception of a few weeks in Thera just to prove it could be done). It's so silly easy now it's not even funny. If you said you were doing lvl 4 missions with a BC when I started people would have said "but that's so slow". Now this is possible. If you told someone "I blitz lvl 4 missions in frigate sized ships" you would have been talking about doing then in AFs, now CCP has given Burner Missions and people are using standings to do nothing BUT those. Pirate Battleships are cheaper than ever. Marauder exist and they make lvl 4 missions a joke. Tactical Destroyers exist and are wiping whole regions of high sec clean of anomalies because the escalation chances has been increased. Just look at the deadspace gear market now. And on top of it all, the game has soooo many more defensive mods and methods and mobil structure and salvage drones etc. PVE is so trivially easy to get into and make isk from it's not even funny. it's only people with a permanent victim mentality that think any thing is harder to do now.
And like always you feel to read what others said, I was pointing out things that made it easier to catch people which should be here even with the cleaning in other words player killing. Got it, no well not a surprise is it.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6335
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:59:05 -
[1947] - Quote
Hyperdunking is so easy and safe for players to stop no wonder CCP won't do anything about it. It's something the players can easily do.
Still I wonder if some of those autopiloting freighter captains even know that someone tried to bump them and were stopped? It's like someone sleeping through a close call car crash.
There are freighters pilots who never seem to be ganked though... makes me wonder...
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Erasmus Grant
EVE University
Ivy League
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:54:34 -
[1948] - Quote
What kind of world would alot a clone with a consistent criminal record to be reactivated, at least without some kind of imprisonment?
Hyper dunking can work both ways. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
11969
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:42:13 -
[1949] - Quote
Erasmus Grant wrote:What kind of world would alot a clone with a consistent criminal record to be reactivated, at least without some kind of imprisonment?
A world where the people doing it are immortal demigods with wealth that exceeds the gross domestic product of entire star systems.
Or Kennedys.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1943
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 05:59:26 -
[1950] - Quote
Erasmus Grant wrote:What kind of world would alot a clone with a consistent criminal record to be reactivated, at least without some kind of imprisonment?
Hyper dunking can work both ways.
Criminal to whom exactly?
While standing to NPC Factions should be more restrictive in some elements and not as easy to exploit the navies to ignore them, we aren't dealing with a unified justice system.
Concord deals with offenders by blowing up their ship, since.... they have really only committed vandalism and theft (And Baseliner murder but the contracts they sign when joining our ships absolve other capsuleers of that).
It's not like you really died, they damaged some of your assets and maybe stole some.
So Concord 'fines' them.
We can debate if the 'fines' are appropriate, or if Industrials should have PG/CPU & Slots equivilant to a normal ship of their class, or all sorts of other balance things, but lets not get carried away in demanding gankers be put in prison or anything. |
|
|
eliminator2
Moretsu pirates
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 13:32:21 -
[1951] - Quote
probe down bowhead and then just sit in sniper ship waiting for the criminal to come get a fresh ship and insta pop |
Revis Owen
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
120
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 23:58:50 -
[1952] - Quote
eliminator2 wrote:probe down bowhead and then just sit in sniper ship waiting for the criminal to come get a fresh ship and insta pop
How dare you suggest that people use existing game mechanics and tools to deal with their problems? How DARE you?
Agent of the New Order
http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html
If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16163
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 17:50:09 -
[1953] - Quote
Erasmus Grant wrote:What kind of world would alot a clone with a consistent criminal record to be reactivated, at least without some kind of imprisonment?
Hyper dunking can work both ways.
The kind of world that allows private individuals to own more fully armed modern warships than the US and Royal navies ever commissioned.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
1555
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 18:42:35 -
[1954] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Erasmus Grant wrote:What kind of world would alot a clone with a consistent criminal record to be reactivated, at least without some kind of imprisonment?
Hyper dunking can work both ways. The kind of world that allows private individuals to own more fully armed modern warships than the US and Royal navies ever commissioned.
The problem is: neither in RL or in Eve Online we can observe such world.
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
Kuga
Back Door Burglars
Northern Associates.
29
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 19:52:47 -
[1955] - Quote
Frankly this a ridiculous tactic which abuses incomplete game mechanics and this response from the development team disappointingly appears to roughly translate to 'we know about it, but can't really be bothered going about fixing it'.
I've ever fallen victim to it (I don't freight), but its inane nature should certainly warrant a little more attention than the dev. team are currently willing to invest. Bad mechanics are bad for game sales. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16182
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 08:20:24 -
[1956] - Quote
Kuga wrote:Frankly this a ridiculous tactic which abuses incomplete game mechanics and this response from the development team disappointingly appears to roughly translate to 'we know about it, but can't really be bothered going about fixing it'.
I've ever fallen victim to it (I don't freight), but its inane nature should certainly warrant a little more attention than the dev. team are currently willing to invest. Bad mechanics are bad for game sales.
CONCORD is itself a horrible game mechanic.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Mark O'Helm
Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt
41
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 22:39:59 -
[1957] - Quote
Wow, this is a long threat. I didnt read all of it, in fact only a few pages. It took a while for me to figure out, what hyperdunking actually means.
But if a criminal timer (red flash) deactivates the ability to warp a ship, shouldnt it deactivate any ship systems, wich means preventing any module activation?
"Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen. Aber Frauen wollen keine Frauenversteher. Weil Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen."(Zitat eines Singles)
"Wirklich coolen Leuten ist es egal, ob sie cool sind."(Zitat von einem, dem es egal ist)
|
Paranoid Loyd
4398
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 22:48:46 -
[1958] - Quote
Mark O'Helm wrote:
But if a criminal timer (red flash) deactivates the ability to warp a ship, shouldnt it deactivate any ship systems, wich means preventing any module activation?
Maybe you could explain how it would be possible to gank if this were the case?
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Mark O'Helm
Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt
41
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 23:44:30 -
[1959] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Mark O'Helm wrote:
But if a criminal timer (red flash) deactivates the ability to warp a ship, shouldnt it deactivate any ship systems, wich means preventing any module activation?
Maybe you could explain how it would be possible to gank if this were the case?
You are right. Maybe after the attack ship exploded and you reship.
"Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen. Aber Frauen wollen keine Frauenversteher. Weil Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen."(Zitat eines Singles)
"Wirklich coolen Leuten ist es egal, ob sie cool sind."(Zitat von einem, dem es egal ist)
|
Daerrol
Furtherance.
84
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 16:45:18 -
[1960] - Quote
Why not just hyperdunk the hyperdunkers...? If you can solo anyship in the game now, solo their Bowhead. |
|
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23423
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 01:14:09 -
[1961] - Quote
Daerrol wrote:Why not just hyperdunk the hyperdunkers...? If you can solo anyship in the game now, solo their Bowhead. It requires effort and can't be done afk.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6534
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 15:13:31 -
[1962] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Daerrol wrote:Why not just hyperdunk the hyperdunkers...? If you can solo anyship in the game now, solo their Bowhead. It requires effort and can't be done afk.
There's a thread about nerfing AFK cloaking that you need to jump into BTW. I expect to see you there NOT showing double standards.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
902
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 17:18:21 -
[1963] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Daerrol wrote:Why not just hyperdunk the hyperdunkers...? If you can solo anyship in the game now, solo their Bowhead. It requires effort and can't be done afk. There's a thread about nerfing AFK cloaking that you need to jump into BTW. I expect to see you there NOT showing double standards.
You don't actually kill ships when cloacked and/or AFK
the Code ALWAYS wins
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23439
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 00:00:24 -
[1964] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Daerrol wrote:Why not just hyperdunk the hyperdunkers...? If you can solo anyship in the game now, solo their Bowhead. It requires effort and can't be done afk. There's a thread about nerfing AFK cloaking that you need to jump into BTW. I expect to see you there NOT showing double standards. If you look at my post history I rarely if ever post on subjects that aren't highsec related.
AFK cloaking doesn't affect the way I play, or the areas of the game that I spend the most time in. As such I have no need or interest in campaigning one way or the other with regards to it.
That said, the only thing an AFK cloaker is capable of doing, via virtue of game mechanics, is prey on the fear and ignorance of others.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Maxpie
MUSE Buy-n-Large
Metaphysical Utopian Society Enterprises
442
|
Posted - 2015.05.27 22:26:57 -
[1965] - Quote
Counselor Gina wrote:I'm fairly new - not a ganker or a freighter, so I really have no horse in this race - but I've always had a question.
It seems like the vast majority of contested methods of attack all come down to bumping not being considered an act of aggression. Why is it that way? Bumping can almost indefinitely prevent warp (right?), and as long as your locked (another act of non-aggression), you can't log off either? I get bumps happen non-aggressively from time to time - but freighters tell me (I contract them a ton) they get bumped for 10, 20, 30 minutes and more. If this is not an act of aggression, why is my scram or point?
Again, I'm pretty ambivalent to it either way, I'm just wondering the historical roots for this decision?
Nobody seems to have a real answer to this question. I have no issue with ganking freighters, but I don't think someone should essentially have the ability to keep me from being able to log off for an unreasonable amount of time. I have choose between geting ganked while offline, or to stay up all night at the whim of someone else, because someone wants to lock and bump my ship endlessly? That's just poor gameplay. Put a time limit on it, for example, say gank within 20 minutes or let the ship go otherwise you are griefing.
No good deed goes unpunished
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
13164
|
Posted - 2015.05.27 23:49:58 -
[1966] - Quote
Maxpie wrote:
Nobody seems to have a real answer to this question.
What, as to why bumping is not a mechanically hostile act? For starters, because it happens very frequently over the course of normal gameplay, with no hostile intent.
Secondly, as a result of the first point, the game engine is quite literally fully incapable of determining intent of someone who is involved in a bump.
And thirdly, because recoding the game's base physics engine is something that CCP is literally not capable of.
Quote:
I have no issue with ganking freighters, but I don't think someone should essentially have the ability to keep me from being able to log off for an unreasonable amount of time.
Then fly with a web escort. The rules for "harassment" require you to have made an effort to move away from someone bumping you, and no, pushing the "warp to" button a few more times doesn't count.
Quote:
I have choose between geting ganked while offline, or to stay up all night at the whim of someone else, because someone wants to lock and bump my ship endlessly? That's just poor gameplay. Put a time limit on it, for example, say gank within 20 minutes or let the ship go otherwise you are griefing.
Or you can play with more than half of your ass, and never encounter this situation in the first place. As I said above, use a web escort.
Oh, and "griefing" is what CCP says it is, not whatever mealy mouthed carebear definition you're trying to foist. This is, by the only definition that matters, not griefing. Get used to it.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Moonlit Raid
State War Academy
Caldari State
247
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 01:37:43 -
[1967] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Talos Antilles wrote:I was wondering the same thing: "..even if you later return to that grid while still affected by that GCC." The exploit mentioned there was a way to avoid CONCORD retribution by warping around on-grid GÇö breaking the single rule with CONCORD. So two things make it inapplicable in this case: one is that the boomerang tactic was patched out; the other is that it was outlawed because you avoided CONCORD retribution in order to keep your ship and keep killing, whereas the entire point of chain-ganking (I will not use that sophomoric h-word) is that it relies on losing your ship CONCORD retribution in order for the whole thing to actually work. So as Falcon points out, it's an outdated ruling from a mechanical standpoint, and it is an inapplicable ruling from a technical standpoint. Bagrat Skalski wrote:So when can we expect CONCORD podding the criminals? Never. Podding is a 100% player activity and there's no reason for NPCs to ever do it.
Have you fought drifters yet?
If brute force isn't working, you're just not using enough.
|
13kr1d1
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
145
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 06:07:20 -
[1968] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:I obviously don't set policy but there's a big difference between the two and so it's reasonable you'd treat them differently. The boomerang allowed you to get a ****-ton more damage out of a single ship - this just lets you get a lot more damage out of a single pilot in a specific timeframe at a cost of increased ships. With the boomerang (before it was banned) I could clear out most of an ice belt in a single tornado by warping to the top and bottom, alphaing, then warping away before i got blown up - I'd die eventually, but I'd kill way more ships per lost tornado. This doesn't have the same ability to let me get way more out of a single ship before it explodes.
People boomerang all the time when camping enemy militia trade hubs in highsec.
There is currently a billing error with CCP regarding Paypal, which is asking for a credit card and recurring subs, both of which have not been required in the past. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=423499&find=unread
|
13kr1d1
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
145
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 06:12:26 -
[1969] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
The criminal timer is supposed to mean that you are prevented from operating while under it, which is why you can't warp with it running.
If the purpose of the GCC timer was to completely shut you down, then you wouldn't be able to board a ship while under a GCC timer.
[/quote]
I heard that the game was about freedom for players to do stupid things, so long as that stupid thing wasn't gamebreaking for everyone else and only hurt them.
There is currently a billing error with CCP regarding Paypal, which is asking for a credit card and recurring subs, both of which have not been required in the past. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=423499&find=unread
|
Solstice Punk
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
8
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 12:05:29 -
[1970] - Quote
Maxpie wrote:Counselor Gina wrote:I'm fairly new - not a ganker or a freighter, so I really have no horse in this race - but I've always had a question.
It seems like the vast majority of contested methods of attack all come down to bumping not being considered an act of aggression. Why is it that way? Bumping can almost indefinitely prevent warp (right?), and as long as your locked (another act of non-aggression), you can't log off either? I get bumps happen non-aggressively from time to time - but freighters tell me (I contract them a ton) they get bumped for 10, 20, 30 minutes and more. If this is not an act of aggression, why is my scram or point?
Again, I'm pretty ambivalent to it either way, I'm just wondering the historical roots for this decision? Nobody seems to have a real answer to this question. I have no issue with ganking freighters, but I don't think someone should essentially have the ability to keep me from being able to log off for an unreasonable amount of time. I have choose between geting ganked while offline, or to stay up all night at the whim of someone else, because someone wants to lock and bump my ship endlessly? That's just poor gameplay. Put a time limit on it, for example, say gank within 20 minutes or let the ship go otherwise you are griefing.
The forum-griefer here necro'd a thread that was over a month lost in the void already.
|
|
|
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
304
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 15:22:45 -
[1971] - Quote
Welcome to Eve, where everything is a game feature until it gets exploited into oblivion.
"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
|
Mag's
the united
19506
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 21:09:17 -
[1972] - Quote
13kr1d1 wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
If the purpose of the GCC timer was to completely shut you down, then you wouldn't be able to board a ship while under a GCC timer.
I heard that the game was about freedom for players to do stupid things, so long as that stupid thing wasn't gamebreaking for everyone else and only hurt them.
So how does that change this situation in anyway?
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Paranoid Loyd
5412
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 21:22:33 -
[1973] - Quote
13kr1d1 wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:I obviously don't set policy but there's a big difference between the two and so it's reasonable you'd treat them differently. The boomerang allowed you to get a ****-ton more damage out of a single ship - this just lets you get a lot more damage out of a single pilot in a specific timeframe at a cost of increased ships. With the boomerang (before it was banned) I could clear out most of an ice belt in a single tornado by warping to the top and bottom, alphaing, then warping away before i got blown up - I'd die eventually, but I'd kill way more ships per lost tornado. This doesn't have the same ability to let me get way more out of a single ship before it explodes. People boomerang all the time when camping enemy militia trade hubs in highsec.
You do realize there is a difference between Concord and Faction Navies right?
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
13169
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 23:08:07 -
[1974] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
You do realize there is a difference between Concord and Faction Navies right?
They really don't, I believe.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Maxpie
MUSE Buy-n-Large
Metaphysical Utopian Society Enterprises
442
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 20:25:30 -
[1975] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Maxpie wrote:
Nobody seems to have a real answer to this question.
What, as to why bumping is not a mechanically hostile act? For starters, because it happens very frequently over the course of normal gameplay, with no hostile intent. Secondly, as a result of the first point, the game engine is quite literally fully incapable of determining intent of someone who is involved in a bump. And thirdly, because recoding the game's base physics engine is something that CCP is literally not capable of. Quote:
I have no issue with ganking freighters, but I don't think someone should essentially have the ability to keep me from being able to log off for an unreasonable amount of time.
Then fly with a web escort. The rules for "harassment" require you to have made an effort to move away from someone bumping you, and no, pushing the "warp to" button a few more times doesn't count. Quote:
I have choose between geting ganked while offline, or to stay up all night at the whim of someone else, because someone wants to lock and bump my ship endlessly? That's just poor gameplay. Put a time limit on it, for example, say gank within 20 minutes or let the ship go otherwise you are griefing.
Or you can play with more than half of your ass, and never encounter this situation in the first place. As I said above, use a web escort. Oh, and "griefing" is what CCP says it is, not whatever mealy mouthed carebear definition you're trying to foist. This is, by the only definition that matters, not griefing. Get used to it.
Lol, what's your problem dude? I don't play with my ass (I guess you do?).
Yes, if I'm moving a freighter I use a web escort just because it's so slow and boring. Or to quote myself "nothing fun ever happens in a freighter". I actually advise new player not to train freighter for this reason.
I don't think that changes the issue though. Not everyone has a web escort and it shouldn't be required for them to have one if they want to be able to log off and go to bed. You think it's ok to just bump someone until downtime? Really? That's sad. I think you take a computer game much too seriously if this is what's important to you.
No good deed goes unpunished
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
13257
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 20:29:20 -
[1976] - Quote
Maxpie wrote:Not everyone has a web escort and it shouldn't be required for them to have one if they want to be able to log off and go to bed.
They're not "required", but if you choose not to use proven measures for defending yourself, you're rolling the dice.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Headhunter DK
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 20:43:19 -
[1977] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Since the introduction of the Bowhead freighter, weGÇÖve become aware of a tactic that has been introduced which has become known as GÇ£HyperdunkingGÇ¥. This involves leaving a grid where a criminal action occurs to draw away CONCORD and reshipping to continue shooting at a target. ThereGÇÖs been much discussion among members of the community regarding this tactic, and whether or not it is considered legitimate gameplay.
After meeting with members of the game design and customer support teams and discussing this in depth, we have come to the consensus that due to the fact no rules are being broken and any ship that is involved in a criminal act is being destroyed by CONCORD as intended, that this tactic is simply an unintended but legitimate use of new game mechanics, and is not in breach of the rules. Tactics similar to this have been used with previous hulls before the Bowhead was introduced, and have been considered perfectly legitimate in the past.
With this in mind, at this time we do not consider this tactic to be in breach of the game rules, and as such our customer support team will not be offering reimbursements for hulls lost in this manner.
Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage.
What are you going to do about machariels bumping freighters or similar large ships in high sec? as i see it, it in an unfair and abusive use of game mechanics, because you have no method of retribution or escape whatsoever. If a mach bumps u in high sec, he can keep u bumped and unable to get away, sinec he is just bumping he is not being falgged in any way so none of ur alts, corp mates, alliance mates or anyone else for that matter, can attack or stop the bumper from commiting what is clearly a hostile action. The idea itself that a player can keep another player stuck in space for litterally forever if he so wished is just plain stupid. How can that be intended game mechanics, when there is no possible way to stop it. And no, getting 5 friends or so to come to you in their own machs or so to counter bump (if thats even possible lol) is not an option. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
13257
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 20:46:01 -
[1978] - Quote
[quote=Headhunter DK]
What are you going to do about machariels bumping freighters or similar large ships in high sec? as i see it, it in an unfair and abusive use of game mechanics, because you have no method of retribution or escape whatsoever.
Wrong.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Christopher Mabata
The Interstellar Manipulation Consortium
355
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 22:34:52 -
[1979] - Quote
Headhunter DK wrote:
What are you going to do about machariels bumping freighters or similar large ships in high sec? as i see it, it in an unfair and abusive use of game mechanics, because you have no method of retribution or escape whatsoever. If a mach bumps u in high sec, he can keep u bumped and unable to get away, sinec he is just bumping he is not being falgged in any way so none of ur alts, corp mates, alliance mates or anyone else for that matter, can attack or stop the bumper from commiting what is clearly a hostile action. The idea itself that a player can keep another player stuck in space for litterally forever if he so wished is just plain stupid. How can that be intended game mechanics, when there is no possible way to stop it. And no, getting 5 friends or so to come to you in their own machs or so to counter bump (if thats even possible lol) is not an option.
They're not going to do anything about it because its legitimate game play, sometimes called meta-gaming.
Part of being successful in eve is learning how to use every aspect you can to your advantage, this is one of dozens of examples.
If you don't like being bumped, use an escort, use a scout, suicide web/scram the bumper with an alt long enough to get away, counter bump the bumper, counter bump your ship into warp, bring a logi or combat escort for the gank and make sure it fails. What so many people dont realize is its not CCP's job to protect your assets and make you safer, its your job to show that you can take care of your stuff and if you cant then you've got no right to be angry when someone takes it from you, presumably by force.
Theory-Crafter, Free Agent, Immortal Space Pirate. Generally Crazy and difficult to understand at times.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23836
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 23:40:44 -
[1980] - Quote
Headhunter DK wrote:
What are you going to do about machariels bumping freighters or similar large ships in high sec? as i see it, it in an unfair and abusive use of game mechanics, because you have no method of retribution or escape whatsoever. If a mach bumps u in high sec, he can keep u bumped and unable to get away, sinec he is just bumping he is not being falgged in any way so none of ur alts, corp mates, alliance mates or anyone else for that matter, can attack or stop the bumper from commiting what is clearly a hostile action. The idea itself that a player can keep another player stuck in space for litterally forever if he so wished is just plain stupid.
CCP disagree, and there's multiple ways to get around being bumped
Quote:How can that be intended game mechanics, when there is no possible way to stop it. It's not intended gameplay, it's emergent gameplay; something that Eve is renowned for and that CCP actively encourage.
Quote: And no, getting 5 friends or so to come to you in their own machs or so to counter bump (if thats even possible lol) is not an option. Why not? Bumpers and gankers have to bring their friends along to do their thing, what makes you so special that you feel exempt from doing the same?
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
|
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
462
|
Posted - 2015.06.02 12:50:10 -
[1981] - Quote
http://community.eveonline.com/news/patch-notes/patch-notes-for-carnyx/
Quote:Gameplay:
Ships in high-sec space piloted by a character with a Criminal Flag will now be unable to use in-space re-fitting facilities.
Has this been poasted?
Curious.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK. Gÿ+
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
37758
|
Posted - 2015.06.02 13:16:23 -
[1982] - Quote
GankYou wrote:http://community.eveonline.com/news/patch-notes/patch-notes-for-carnyx/ Quote:Gameplay:
Ships in high-sec space piloted by a character with a Criminal Flag will now be unable to use in-space re-fitting facilities.
Has this been poasted? Curious.
There is a thread on it on the front page already and has been for a few days:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=426987&find=unread
Everyone already agreed....Meh, who cares.
Doesn't affect anything and isn't really relevant to this thread.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
16062
|
Posted - 2015.06.02 13:20:28 -
[1983] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:GankYou wrote:http://community.eveonline.com/news/patch-notes/patch-notes-for-carnyx/ Quote:Gameplay:
Ships in high-sec space piloted by a character with a Criminal Flag will now be unable to use in-space re-fitting facilities.
Has this been poasted? Curious. There is a thread on it on the front page already and has been for a few days: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=426987&find=unread
Everyone already agreed....Meh, who cares. Doesn't affect anything and isn't really relevant to this thread.
Its to do with the new amarr shields and stations thingy.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valence Benedetto
South of Heaven Ltd
Nerfed Alliance Go Away
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.02 14:55:34 -
[1984] - Quote
The mechanic of "bumping" is garbage imo.
A tiny ship that rams into a capital at full speed should be destroyed, if anything. So just on the surface it makes no sense to begin with.
Beyond that it just seems to be a crutch that CCP's designers rely upon in order to tell people "see? it is a sandbox! you're not safe anywhere rawr!" It's inelegant and clumsy design at best.
If CCP indeed wants there to be danger in hi-sec, accomplish that by changing Crimewatch rules or making Concord/Navy response slower or less effective. In other words, accomplish "danger" via meaningful gameplay. Force the hisec warlords to win fights rather than allowing them to slink behind broken mechanics.
Instead I get the sense that someone in that office pat himself on the back, filed a flawed system as "emergent gameplay", and never looked back.
p.s. for the record I don't haul, don't live in hi-sec and have never been a victim of this. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
1097
|
Posted - 2015.06.02 15:22:32 -
[1985] - Quote
Valence Benedetto wrote:The mechanic of "bumping" is garbage imo.
A tiny ship that rams into a capital at full speed should be destroyed, if anything. So just on the surface it makes no sense to begin with.
Beyond that it just seems to be a crutch that CCP's designers rely upon in order to tell people "see? it is a sandbox! you're not safe anywhere rawr!" It's inelegant and clumsy design at best.
If CCP indeed wants there to be danger in hi-sec, accomplish that by changing Crimewatch rules or making Concord/Navy response slower or less effective. In other words, accomplish "danger" via meaningful gameplay. Force the hisec warlords to win fights rather than allowing them to slink behind broken mechanics.
Instead I get the sense that someone in that office pat himself on the back, filed a flawed system as "emergent gameplay", and never looked back.
p.s. for the record I don't haul, don't live in hi-sec and have never been a victim of this.
You mean by forcing the hauler alts into player corporation where they can be wardeced and by closing the dec dodge exploit? That kind of meaningful gameplay. I bet the bumper would rather shoot the freighter anyway instead of bumping him and waiting for his 20 friends in Catalysts.
the Code ALWAYS wins
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
155
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 13:57:07 -
[1986] - Quote
Hmmm this thread got resurrected?
I suppose it is fitting, seeing as how the whole hyperdunking thing evolved this weekend.
And right in Jita, the one place freighters are virtually guaranteed to go.
https://zkillboard.com/kill/47764692/
tanking didn't help
https://zkillboard.com/kill/47810430/
apparently webs didn't either
https://zkillboard.com/kill/47789491/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/47812958/
Much of what has been discussed in this thread is now no longer applicable.
-not a pipe system, it's a source/destination
-no catalysts used
-ineffective webbing
Interesting... |
Carrie-Anne Moss
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
293
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 14:20:10 -
[1987] - Quote
"Bad guys" keep evolving and adapting and tweeking techniques
Bears still dying
Same as past 12years and however long eve has left |
Jenshae Chiroptera
1867
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 14:21:55 -
[1988] - Quote
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:tanking didn't help
Interesting... Perhaps it is time for freighters to be able to put on a proper shield or armour tank so they can be escorted by logi ships and others? Colonel Mortis wrote:This proves that people will always find a way to overcome hard coded mechanic. . Modules won't turn on when targetting a player in High Sec, auto-return targetting is default off and ships pass right through each other.
What way around that do you see?
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other spaces, where they can grow
Fozzie SOV is treating a symptom.
|
chmeee kzin
Raging Main
Zero Fux.
21
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 14:24:08 -
[1989] - Quote
Phew, I am so glad that this was clarified. And here I was thinking that "Hyperdunking" was what you did at parties when you grab a fistful of corn chips, then stick hand and all into the dip! |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
16394
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 14:26:54 -
[1990] - Quote
If only there was a ship that could blap an untanked bomber
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
2010
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 14:32:49 -
[1991] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:tanking didn't help
Interesting... Perhaps it is time for freighters to be able to put on a proper shield or armour tank so they can be escorted by logi ships and others? Colonel Mortis wrote:This proves that people will always find a way to overcome hard coded mechanic. . Modules won't turn on when targetting a player in High Sec, auto-return targetting is default off and ships pass right through each other. What way around that do you see?
You can fit an armor tank on 2 freighter and follow it with Logi. Shield is a different ball game. |
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
887
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 14:44:52 -
[1992] - Quote
At some point hyperdunking will get out of hands purely because the "opposition" (heh) can only whine, but not shoot.
TSHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
158
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 07:49:11 -
[1993] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
If only there was a ship that could blap an untanked bomber
I don't have a problem with that, you could still counter this new approach if you had the right escorts with your freighter.
It just looks like some of the counters mentioned in this thread seem ineffective now.
Evolution... |
Kandu Harr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 09:22:44 -
[1994] - Quote
1. combat probes at Jita undock, scan freighters for sigs and cargo
2. let freighter warp to safe bookmark, or gate
3. neutral machariel lands before freighter has come out of warp
4. bump, until 2nd neutral machariel lands to help manage the freighter and keep in range
5. neutral bowhead lands full of stealth bombers
6. ganker lands and begins smashing the freighter
7. throwaway neutral alt draws concord to distant station
8. bowhead drops bomber, ganker boards and continues smashing
9. repeat until freighter dies. ganker never leaves grid.
10. drop mtu and scoop all the loot and (blue) wrecks
Globby doesn't want you to know how easy and profitable this is, so he removed his API from the killboards.
Watch the killboards.
This is not at all the hyperdunking discussion ccp falcon talked about.
CCP Falcon wrote:This involves leaving a grid where a criminal action occurs to draw away CONCORD and reshipping to continue shooting at a target.
not anymore.
player with a criminal timer should not be able to board a ship in space, in high sec then.
all of it is ok, but remove #8. it is now broken. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1179
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 09:25:16 -
[1995] - Quote
Kandu Harr wrote:1. combat probes at Jita undock, scan freighters for sigs and cargo 2. let freighter warp to safe bookmark, or gate 3. neutral machariel lands before freighter has come out of warp 4. bump, until 2nd neutral machariel lands to help manage the freighter and keep in range 5. neutral bowhead lands full of stealth bombers 6. ganker lands and begins smashing the freighter 7. throwaway neutral alt draws concord to distant station 8. bowhead drops bomber, ganker boards and continues smashing 9. repeat until freighter dies. ganker never leaves grid. 10. drop mtu and scoop all the loot and (blue) wrecks Globby doesn't want you to know how easy and profitable this is, so he removed his API from the killboards. Watch the killboards. This is not at all the hyperdunking discussion ccp falcon talked about. CCP Falcon wrote:This involves leaving a grid where a criminal action occurs to draw away CONCORD and reshipping to continue shooting at a target. not anymore. player with a criminal timer should not be able to board a ship in space, in high sec then. all of it is ok, but remove #8. it is now broken.
What are you going on about? This exactly is what hyperdunking was before if you replace "stealth bomber" with "catalyst". Using an "off-grid alt" to draw CONCORD was always an option and moving CONCORD has never been considered an exploit.
CCP Falcon made it clear that this is an acceptable use of game mechanics because the ganker loses his or her ship after each criminal action as intended. Who is moving CONCORD or what ship they are flying doesn't matter - it's all legit emergent gameplay.
Hyperdunking is trivial to avoid. So spend less time crying about it and more time avoiding it. |
Colonel Mortis
Coven Of Witches
Inver Brass
7
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 09:39:24 -
[1996] - Quote
Hyper dunking can be easily removed from the game by introducing guarding concord.
If freighter was a victim of aggression , at least 1 unit of concord don't leave the grid until freighter will not leave it or a 20min timer counts off.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1181
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 10:12:14 -
[1997] - Quote
Colonel Mortis wrote:Hyper dunking can be easily removed from the game by introducing guarding concord.
If freighter was a victim of aggression , at least 1 unit of concord don't leave the grid until freighter will not leave it or a 20min timer counts off.
Your "solution" assumes there is some sort of problem. Freighters are suppose to be vulnerable in highsec. Other players are suppose to be able to explode them. They are not suppose to be perma-guarded at all times by the invincible, unbeatable space police.
Hyperdunking can easily be countered by introducing a guarding fleetmate sometimes known as a friend. If a freighter was a victim of aggression, that friend won't leave the grid and will destroy the ganker's ships as he boards them thus protecting that ship and stopping the hyperdunk.
Problem solved. |
Mag's
the united
19792
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 10:23:50 -
[1998] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Colonel Mortis wrote:Hyper dunking can be easily removed from the game by introducing guarding concord.
If freighter was a victim of aggression , at least 1 unit of concord don't leave the grid until freighter will not leave it or a 20min timer counts off.
Your "solution" assumes there is some sort of problem. Freighters are suppose to be vulnerable in highsec. Other players are suppose to be able to explode them. They are not suppose to be perma-guarded at all times by the invincible, unbeatable space police. Hyperdunking can easily be countered by introducing a guarding fleetmate sometimes known as a friend. If a freighter was a victim of aggression, that friend won't leave the grid and will destroy the ganker's ships as he boards them thus protecting that ship and stopping the hyperdunk. Problem solved.
:EFFORT:
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Colonel Mortis
Coven Of Witches
Inver Brass
7
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 10:33:17 -
[1999] - Quote
My "solution" will only remove single player hyperdunking.
When someone will use multiple chars to hyperdunk - it will be still viable , but at grater cost.
This "solution" will have almost no impact on organized ganks where 10+ players are involved.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1181
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 10:38:07 -
[2000] - Quote
Colonel Mortis wrote:My "solution" will only remove single player hyperdunking.
When someone will use multiple chars to hyperdunk - it will be still viable , but at grater cost.
This "solution" will have almost no impact on organized ganks where 10+ players are involved.
Again, why would you want to do this? It's still not clear to me why should CCP code in some special protection from a niche PvP activity that can easily be countered by the freighter pilot bringing a single friend. |
|
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
1330
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 10:41:10 -
[2001] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Colonel Mortis wrote:My "solution" will only remove single player hyperdunking.
When someone will use multiple chars to hyperdunk - it will be still viable , but at grater cost.
This "solution" will have almost no impact on organized ganks where 10+ players are involved.
Again, why would you want to do this? It's still not clear to me why should CCP code in some special protection from a niche PvP activity that can easily be countered by the freighter pilot bringing a single friend.
Yeah, and why should they implement an idea that will not even achieve what it is intended for? I mean there is a pretty obvious workaround.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Colonel Mortis
Coven Of Witches
Inver Brass
7
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 10:42:05 -
[2002] - Quote
Because of simple logic - nothing more.
Someone 10th time attack the same ship, in the same spot , and police is still warping away.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1182
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 11:02:45 -
[2003] - Quote
Colonel Mortis wrote:Because of simple logic - nothing more.
Someone 10th time attack the same ship, in the same spot , and police is still warping away.
Ah, space logic, the final refuge of the carebear. So willing to accept a bunch of crazy retconned space lore if it benefits them, but as soon as there is something that puts the absolute safety they crave at risk, it is "illogical".
How does it makes sense at all that the omnipotent space police always arrive after every criminal action, are invulnerable to all weapons, can spawn in infinite numbers, and can disable a ship at a glance? If you want to argue logic, shouldn't the criminal be able to avoid the police, even temporarily? Or fight back against the police if they commit enough ships?
None of it makes sense - it is just a game mechanic. CONCORD is not there to protect you, but to get vengeance for you and impose a cost on the ganker. From the New Pilot FAQ:
CCP wrote:
5.2 WHO IS CONCORD AND WHAT ROLE DO THEY PERFORM?
CONCORD can be considered to be the GÇÿspace policeGÇÖ who patrol the higher security areas of New Eden. They take action against those who attack others without justification and will hunt such miscreants down and destroy them without mercy. However, their role is not to prevent an attack but to punish an aggressor. Should you find yourself under fire from another pilot, CONCORD may not arrive in time to help you, so it will be down to your skill and the strength of your ship to prevail.
You are responsible to protect your freighter, not CONCORD. If you cannot manage the simple task of destroying a single flashy red gank destroyer or bomber, then you are not really doing your job now, are you? |
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
980
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 11:06:29 -
[2004] - Quote
Colonel Mortis wrote:Because of simple logic - nothing more.
Someone 10th time attack the same ship, in the same spot , and police is still warping away.
And so what? You think sharing your thoughts matters? It doesn't!
No one cares about your idea, it is not good, you are not special, not even average!
If you don't like hyperdunking, then start doing it and eventually CCP will turn it off!
That's the only proven way to get CCP to change mechanics they deem fine.
Your worthless words achieve nothing.
PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
|
Colonel Mortis
Coven Of Witches
Inver Brass
7
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 11:15:20 -
[2005] - Quote
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Colonel Mortis wrote:Because of simple logic - nothing more.
Someone 10th time attack the same ship, in the same spot , and police is still warping away.
And so what? You think sharing your thoughts matters? It doesn't! No one cares about your idea, it is not good, you are not special, not even average! If you don't like hyperdunking, then start doing it and eventually CCP will turn it off! That's the only proven way to get CCP to change mechanics they deem fine. Your worthless words achieve nothing.
Well you used alt to post this.
There is no excuse for this freighter pilot : https://zkillboard.com/kill/47878667/
Putting so much stuff in a freighter is sick, he deserved to die.
|
Lijah
Central Builders Incorporated
Short Bus Syndicate
2
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 11:21:59 -
[2006] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Tippia wrote:
Never. Podding is a 100% player activity and there's no reason for NPCs to ever do it.
Just keep believing that... I'll keep believing it until there's a reason for NPCs to do it. Until then, it's pointless faff, and even after that, it's still nothing CONCORD has any business doing.
Disagree. At the very Base level of logic: concord currently destroys your ship for aggravating another ship. Thus if you kill a ship you could carry that logic to going one step higher and after the ship is killed for aggravation then the pod is the next target. If you kill a pod that should definitely be poddable by concord, including the clone.
Just saying. Logically speaking. The current punishment at Base level exceeds the damage you inflict, and that should keep happening the more damage you do. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
1331
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 11:41:17 -
[2007] - Quote
Lijah wrote:
Disagree. At the very Base level of logic: concord currently destroys your ship for aggravating another ship. Thus if you kill a ship you could carry that logic to going one step higher and after the ship is killed for aggravation then the pod is the next target. If you kill a pod that should definitely be poddable by concord, including the clone.
Just saying. Logically speaking. The current punishment at Base level exceeds the damage you inflict, and that should keep happening the more damage you do.
A professional ganker would simply switch to cheap implants. The clone costs are already gone. so it would probably add under one mil to the bill and nerf the damage for ~2%. But you know who would really cry about it? The carebears obviously, all the stupid local heroes who will try to gank my scouts bumping Stabber and loose all their expensive implants in the process because they did not expect to lose their pod.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
1967
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 11:42:12 -
[2008] - Quote
If only Concord were actual protection and not just retribution ...
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other spaces, where they can grow
Fozzie SOV is treating a symptom.
|
Anthar Thebess
1229
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 11:47:18 -
[2009] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:If only Concord were actual protection and not just retribution ...
Check what is happening in Elite Dangerous, less and less players are happy there.
- no goals
- nothing to fight for
- no real dangers
- and they have SOLO
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter
Absolute Zero.
926
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 11:59:32 -
[2010] - Quote
I see people coming up with ideas like "CONCORD should do this or that to better protect stuff" etc. Not only most of those means you guys are coming up with are inefficient, they also ignore the fact that as far as CCP concerned so far, CONCORD is not supposed to protect stuff better than it does already. |
|
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
1969
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 12:52:51 -
[2011] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:... Check what is happening in Elite Dangerous, less and less players are happy there. .. Done right, NPC could help balance a fight or buy time but wouldn't tip the scales.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other spaces, where they can grow
Fozzie SOV is treating a symptom.
|
Kandu Harr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 13:02:05 -
[2012] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
Hyperdunking is trivial to avoid. So spend less time crying about it and more time avoiding it.
wrong in the scenario i presented. from the time you leave the 4-4 undock, you cannot escape the trap without ganking the neutral machs ( or getting obscenely lucky). killing the bombers doesn't free your ship, it only can buy you time. webbing doesn't work after you have already been bumped around.
or maybe you could pay a ransom to be released
good luck with that
it is also trivial to fix. |
Kandu Harr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 13:05:16 -
[2013] - Quote
if you live in low/null you should pay attention to this develpment. your supplies are being cut off at the source. look closer at the killboards. |
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
980
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 13:13:16 -
[2014] - Quote
Kandu Harr wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
Hyperdunking is trivial to avoid. So spend less time crying about it and more time avoiding it.
wrong in the scenario i presented. from the time you leave the 4-4 undock, you cannot escape the trap without ganking the neutral machs ( or getting obscenely lucky). killing the bombers doesn't free your ship, it only can buy you time. webbing doesn't work after you have already been bumped around. or maybe you could pay a ransom to be released good luck with that it is also trivial to fix.
Webbing works even after being bumped, you just have to do it right. It also helps if the pilot isn't afk, though if he is then he can just burn down anyway!
PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
980
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 13:17:07 -
[2015] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:If only Concord were actual protection and not just retribution ...
That's not possible to realize. A good thing. Last thing these people need is protection. What they need is balls!
PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
|
Kandu Harr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 13:18:22 -
[2016] - Quote
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Kandu Harr wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
Hyperdunking is trivial to avoid. So spend less time crying about it and more time avoiding it.
wrong in the scenario i presented. from the time you leave the 4-4 undock, you cannot escape the trap without ganking the neutral machs ( or getting obscenely lucky). killing the bombers doesn't free your ship, it only can buy you time. webbing doesn't work after you have already been bumped around. or maybe you could pay a ransom to be released good luck with that it is also trivial to fix. Webbing works even after being bumped, you just have to do it right. It also helps if the pilot isn't afk, though if he is then he can just burn down anyway!
against 2 machs? good luck with that. and with the probes they will land at your destination before you come out of warp. they already have your sig |
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
980
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 13:22:53 -
[2017] - Quote
Timing is everything. Creating bookmarks on the fly in a fast warping/mwding ship helps too. You make them ready for the pilot to pick one that fits his trajectory and where he points at. You quadrupleweb at the right moment when he is above 50% of his maximum speed when he roughly points there.
It's doable, but you need coordination and practise. Both!
But to hell with that freighter, with a webbing alt this would never happen!
PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1186
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 13:24:33 -
[2018] - Quote
Kandu Harr wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
Hyperdunking is trivial to avoid. So spend less time crying about it and more time avoiding it.
wrong in the scenario i presented. from the time you leave the 4-4 undock, you cannot escape the trap without ganking the neutral machs ( or getting obscenely lucky). killing the bombers doesn't free your ship, it only can buy you time. webbing doesn't work after you have already been bumped around. or maybe you could pay a ransom to be released good luck with that it is also trivial to fix. There is no problem to fix.
If you want to avoid losing your freighter than bring friends to protect you ship as CCP intends you to do. Don't have friends? Well then use one of the T2 transports which can be immune to bumping and carry on that way. The game has been designed so that your capital ship is vulnerable to your adversaries, so protect it or use something else for your hauling needs.
As for hyperdunking, it is incredibly fragile. That one allied ship completely counters the hyperdunk. The rest of your post is just the standard whine about bumping. Bump-tackling is a time-honoured technique used by Eve players since the beginning. It is accepted, 100% legal emergent gameplay.
You are not suppose to be 100% safe anywhere in New Eden by design. Deal with it.
Kandu Harr wrote:if you live in low/null you should pay attention to this develpment. your supplies are being cut off at the source. look closer at the killboards.
Who would have thought, people ganking for greater strategic reasons? I never would have guessed such tactics would be employed by large power blocs in a sandbox game like this one. |
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
980
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 13:26:35 -
[2019] - Quote
I still have to make a bumping char for all the mean people who mine where I mine.
PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
|
Kandu Harr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 13:27:50 -
[2020] - Quote
are you guys daft? this isn't gate mechanics, this is the 4-4 undock. a webber-alt isn't going to help, and wherever your freighter manages to escape to is immediately warped to by the bumpers.
the only way to ensure your escape is to gank the machs. |
|
|
Elinarien
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
45
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 13:30:43 -
[2021] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:If only Concord were actual protection and not just retribution ... Check what is happening in Elite Dangerous, less and less players are happy there. - no goals - nothing to fight for - no real dangers - and they have SOLO
But "solo" in E:D consists mainly of either:
- Buying x from station A and going to station B to sell it, or
- Flying around exploring, or
- Getting involved in some faction v faction fights.
That's pretty much it. Eve has tons more for people who prefer to solo. |
Elinarien
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
45
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 13:36:13 -
[2022] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Lijah wrote:
Disagree. At the very Base level of logic: concord currently destroys your ship for aggravating another ship. Thus if you kill a ship you could carry that logic to going one step higher and after the ship is killed for aggravation then the pod is the next target. If you kill a pod that should definitely be poddable by concord, including the clone.
Just saying. Logically speaking. The current punishment at Base level exceeds the damage you inflict, and that should keep happening the more damage you do.
A professional ganker would simply switch to cheap implants. The clone costs are already gone. so it would probably add under one mil to the bill and nerf the damage for ~2%. But you know who would really cry about it? The carebears obviously, all the stupid local heroes who will try to gank my scouts bumping Stabber and loose all their expensive implants in the process because they did not expect to lose their pod.
I do laugh when I read your posts and the other CODE bull. In the neck of the woods where main lives, CODE are almost invisible and when they do show up, the kill mails often show some rookie getting caught out time and time again by concord on a gate or, even funnier, by mining barge that fights back.
Sad thing for you guys is that my main has been in this game since 2010 and I've NEVER been ganked - whether by CODE or otherwise. Sure I get plenty of options to "test out someone's tank" or other rubbish but with the application of some common sense it is easy to stay below the radar. Avoiding jita by a 15 jump radius also helps.
So, carry on with the bragging but I'll measure you and your little friends on their performance. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
CODE.
13711
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 14:29:03 -
[2023] - Quote
Kandu Harr wrote:
Globby doesn't want you to know how easy and profitable this is
Easy? It often takes fifteen or twenty minutes of sitting in open space, for anyone to just pod you if they feel like it. Nevermind that, like everything involving a freighter, getting someone with webs mitigates being caught completely.
Like every PvP interaction, it's only as "easy" or "profitable" as the dumbasses on the other side make it for us. And if you're the one I think you are, you made it very easy indeed with your anti tanked freighter.
Post your lossmail.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
985
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 14:43:24 -
[2024] - Quote
Kandu Harr wrote:are you guys daft? this isn't gate mechanics, this is the 4-4 undock. a webber-alt isn't going to help, and wherever your freighter manages to escape to is immediately warped to by the bumpers.
the only way to ensure your escape is to gank the machs.
Yes, we all have no experience unlike you who knows it all. Obviously!
Or maybe, just MAYBE, you BELIEVE to know better and ignore what others say, because you think way too high of your knowledge of the game and it's mechanics!
CCHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
2040
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 14:59:56 -
[2025] - Quote
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:If only Concord were actual protection and not just retribution ... That's not possible to realize. A good thing. Last thing these people need is protection. What they need is balls!
Pne could say it takes balls to undock a 18 bill freighter...
There is a really thin line between ballsy and stupid... |
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
66
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 15:32:23 -
[2026] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:If only Concord were actual protection and not just retribution ... That's not possible to realize. A good thing. Last thing these people need is protection. What they need is balls! Pne could say it takes balls to undock a 18 bill freighter... There is a really thin line between ballsy and stupid...
let me tell you about afk freighters taking 30 minutes to be killed, but it happens, because people are either afk or botting. |
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
68
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 15:34:55 -
[2027] - Quote
Kandu Harr wrote:are you guys daft? this isn't gate mechanics, this is the 4-4 undock. a webber-alt isn't going to help, and wherever your freighter manages to escape to is immediately warped to by the bumpers.
the only way to ensure your escape is to gank the machs.
Assuming you died yesterday, both of the freighters I killed warped to a bookmark that is pretty common. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
2045
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 17:21:18 -
[2028] - Quote
Globby wrote:Kandu Harr wrote:are you guys daft? this isn't gate mechanics, this is the 4-4 undock. a webber-alt isn't going to help, and wherever your freighter manages to escape to is immediately warped to by the bumpers.
the only way to ensure your escape is to gank the machs. Assuming you died yesterday, both of the freighters I killed warped to a bookmark that is pretty common.
By pretty common you mean there is a lot of people insta warping to the same place in open space?
Like they didn't take the time to make a further one or something? |
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
68
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 17:27:15 -
[2029] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Globby wrote:Kandu Harr wrote:are you guys daft? this isn't gate mechanics, this is the 4-4 undock. a webber-alt isn't going to help, and wherever your freighter manages to escape to is immediately warped to by the bumpers.
the only way to ensure your escape is to gank the machs. Assuming you died yesterday, both of the freighters I killed warped to a bookmark that is pretty common. By pretty common you mean there is a lot of people insta warping to the same place in open space? Like they didn't take the time to make a further one or something?
I think it might be a ping redfrog or pushx makes, if a freighter warps off I warp to it and roughly 25% of the time that's where he lands.
|
Ionsei Kubarick
State War Academy
Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 18:42:06 -
[2030] - Quote
All MMO Lawyering aside, the simple fact is that Concorde is in the game to deter habitual, unlawful aggression in high-sec. It's not. We have habitual criminal aggression in high-sec constantly, simply because it's more lucrative than being a habitual criminal in space that is supposed to be "lawless".
As is very often the case in Eve, inventive players have found ways around old mechanics and rendered them ineffective, and/or are taking advantage of the unintended consequences of changes to those mechanics over time. it's no different from when the introduction of rigs set off the nano-craze. It was fun while it lasted, but then it got fixed, and rightfully so.
"Hyper-Dunking" is the nano-craze of 2015. Have your fun, but then, CCP, do your job, and fix it. |
|
|
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
69
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 19:01:21 -
[2031] - Quote
Ionsei Kubarick wrote:All MMO Lawyering aside, the simple fact is that Concorde is in the game to deter habitual, unlawful aggression in high-sec. It's not doing that. We have habitual criminal aggression in high-sec constantly, simply because it's more lucrative than being a habitual criminal in space that is supposed to be "lawless".
Let's just say that CONCORD is in the game to deter player on player aggression in highsec, and it does so with a huge factor of success. If there was no CONCORD, I'd kill tens of dozens of freighters a day without losing a single ship, until no one hauled any more. That statement of yours is as wrong as wrong could be.
Also the reason it is lucrative is because people AFK and log off in highsec to avoid interaction with other players. If no one logged off and everyone was at their computer while playing then you'd have a fraction of deaths due to gankers, and hyperdunking would be borderline impossible.
"It is only as lucrative as you let it be. If everyone hauled properly there would be no ganking."
Ionsei Kubarick wrote:
As is very often the case in Eve, inventive players have found ways around old mechanics and rendered them ineffective, and/or are taking advantage of the unintended consequences of changes to those mechanics over time.
Right, this is what happens in a game with mechanic changes. This happens in every single game, ever. I'm glad you had this revelation.
Ionsei Kubarick wrote:"Hyper-Dunking" is the nano-craze of 2015. Have your fun, but then, CCP, do your job, and fix it.
Are you saying a tactic that punishes AFK, bad, lazy and arrogant players while rewarding the attentive, smart, proactive and adaptive players is a bad thing for eve online? |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
24285
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 19:22:10 -
[2032] - Quote
Ionsei Kubarick wrote:All MMO Lawyering aside, the simple fact is that Concorde is in the game to deter habitual, unlawful aggression in high-sec. It's not doing that. We have habitual criminal aggression in high-sec constantly, simply because it's more lucrative than being a habitual criminal in space that is supposed to be "lawless". Surprise surprise, some elements of an MMO mimic real life.
Concord are effective at deterring habitual and unlawful activities in highsec, which is why there are only a small percentage of people that take part in such activities. In real life the Police are effective at deterring habitual and unlawful activities, which is why there are only a small percentage of people that take part in such activities.
On a side note Concord has a far higher prosecution rate than any real life Police force.
Quote:As is very often the case in Eve, inventive players have found ways around old mechanics and rendered them ineffective, and/or are taking advantage of the unintended consequences of changes to those mechanics over time. What the inventive players have done is find a way to take advantage of the laziness of others within the realms of the mechanics in place. Crimewatch 2.0 is both a relatively new mechanic and more effective than the previous Crimewatch mechanics at preventing accidental PvP.
CCP could tweak Crimewatch all day long to prevent things like this, and peoples stupidity/laziness would still cause them to explode in amusing ways despite it.
Always bet on stupid.
Quote: it's no different from when the introduction of rigs set off the nano-craze. It was fun while it lasted, but then it got fixed, and rightfully so.
"Hyper-Dunking" is the nano-craze of 2015. Have your fun, but then, CCP, do your job, and fix it. Firstly CCP say it isn't broken, secondly it's trivial to avoid or counter.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1187
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 20:16:56 -
[2033] - Quote
Ionsei Kubarick wrote:All MMO Lawyering aside, the simple fact is that Concorde is in the game to deter habitual, unlawful aggression in high-sec. It's not doing that. We have habitual criminal aggression in high-sec constantly, simply because it's more lucrative than being a habitual criminal in space that is supposed to be "lawless".
CONCORD is doing just that. Highsec is still incredibly safe. Almost every ship makes it to its destination. Red Frog Freight completed 99.89% of its contracts last year.
Criminal game play is suppose to exist. CCP has enabled it on purpose so there is actual real game play in highsec which would otherwise be: fit-max yield and AFK. I think they are quite happy with a few career criminals picking the most egregious of the lazy and greedy players off at the edges and providing some risk to professions in highsec.
If too many freighters are dying, I am sure they will look at rebalancing that ship. But the reality is is that there are already two incredibly strong alternatives that are highly-gank resistant: the deep-space transport and the blockade runner. Both when fit and flown correctly are nearly uncatchable. I would not bet on CCP doing anything to fuel the unengaging game play that seems to have taken hold of always moving everything in an AFK freighter.
Players should be the ones adjusting. Hyperdunking is no threat to a hauler that makes any effort, freighter ganking is nearly perfectly avoidable (see Red Frog above) with a single webbing escort, and the T2s can be used alone. There are plenty of choices to move your goods. With the recent trend to increasing risk, CCP will not be doing something to make AFK freighter hauling even safer any time soon.
|
Kandu Harr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 21:07:50 -
[2034] - Quote
Red Frog rates nearly doubled today.
ganking was indicated as one of the factors, with April May and peaking in June.
apparently we are all 'stupid lazy and greedy' anyway. but i have said my 2-bits, i see no point in continuing to be insulted. ccp will no doubt review the situation and do whatever they feel is best. |
Ionsei Kubarick
State War Academy
Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 21:21:57 -
[2035] - Quote
Globby wrote:Ionsei Kubarick wrote:"Hyper-Dunking" is the nano-craze of 2015. Have your fun, but then, CCP, do your job, and fix it. Are you saying a tactic that punishes AFK, bad, lazy and arrogant players while rewarding the attentive, smart, proactive and adaptive players is a bad thing for eve online?
I'm saying I made the same argument, almost verbatim, about my nano-phoon. It was only a threat to the sick, lame, and lazy, easy to counter, and not an issue. I, the inventive, proactive, and smart player shouldn't be penalized just because those awful players QQ non-stop.
Yeah, but no. It was busted, and even I knew it was busted even while I was making those arguments. Like I was years ago, you are going to become the victim of your own success. Sorry. The nerf-bat cometh for all men eventually.
PS: Damn I miss my nano-phoon. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
24292
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 21:40:17 -
[2036] - Quote
Oh noes the sky is falling because a corporation that provides a service has increased their prices in line with several factors, only one of which is ganking; the ones you fail to mention include various indirect tweaks to the economy that CCP have implemented, which have raised the price of various commodities, and the price of PLEX.
TL;DR they're maintaining their profit margins and enabling their members to still sub via PLEX if they wish to, by raising prices.
Quote:apparently we are all 'stupid lazy and greedy' anyway. Some of us are..
Quote: but i have said my 2-bits, i see no point in continuing to be insulted. Here's a thought; if you didn't post crap about things you are clearly ignorant of, you wouldn't be making yourself look like a fool and getting insulted because of it.
BTW you're still wrong.
Quote:ccp will no doubt review the situation and do whatever they feel is best. They already have, try reading the very first post in this thread.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Kandu Harr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 22:09:07 -
[2037] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:I think it's still a thing we'll be monitoring.
People are completely correct when they mention this is a game where suicide ganking and non-consentual PvP has been given the thumbs up by developers. That being said, we would still like to see a nice balance between effort and intelligence required on both sides of the coin. Making ganking too easy is not our goal, nor is it the other way around. Where that balance lies, and if hyperdunking has crossed some line, we'll have to see.
There are things we can change if needed.
As i said, ccp will do as it sees fit. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
CODE.
13716
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 02:41:13 -
[2038] - Quote
Ionsei Kubarick wrote:the simple fact is that Concorde is in the game to deter habitual, unlawful aggression in high-sec.
Wrong. It exists to punish the same. That may serve as a deterrent to some, but it doesn't to others, and that is working as literally intended.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
74
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 03:07:48 -
[2039] - Quote
When dueling freighters is nearly as effective as hyperdunking, you know it's not the mechanics that are wrong. |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1441
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 05:04:43 -
[2040] - Quote
Well more like 50% unless you are sending stuff on very short one or two system hops.
Ganking is obviously a factor in the increase but presumably other factors like the cost of a PLEX needed to sub a freighter alt has gone up and the 30% drop in players logged in compared to 6 months ago must to some extent have effected the freight business. |
|
|
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter
Absolute Zero.
928
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 05:23:52 -
[2041] - Quote
So RFF starting to charge more than spare change for their services to do what is potentially horribly tedious, mind numbing* and soul crushing activity for most is somehow an indication that hisec is not working as intended?
* - the reason I don't quite blame people for not wanting to invest more effort in that... I mean, it's absolutely necessary these days, I understand, but if I were one of them, I would've said "f*** it" long time ago. So props for persisting, I guess...
Globby wrote:When dueling freighters is nearly as effective as hyperdunking, you know it's not the mechanics that are wrong.
Ew...
Please, stop killing my faith in people. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
CODE.
13718
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 05:44:37 -
[2042] - Quote
Hasikan Miallok wrote:Well more like 50% unless you are sending stuff on very short one or two system hops. Ganking is obviously a factor in the increase but presumably other factors like the cost of a PLEX needed to sub a freighter alt has gone up and the 30% drop in players logged in compared to 6 months ago must to some extent have effected the freight business.
Ding, you got it. Their prices directly reflect the amount of time they want to put in to plex the account doing the hauling. They aren't the only ones doing a rate hike, either.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1441
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 05:57:23 -
[2043] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Hasikan Miallok wrote:Well more like 50% unless you are sending stuff on very short one or two system hops. Ganking is obviously a factor in the increase but presumably other factors like the cost of a PLEX needed to sub a freighter alt has gone up and the 30% drop in players logged in compared to 6 months ago must to some extent have effected the freight business. Ding, you got it. Their prices directly reflect the amount of time they want to put in to plex the account doing the hauling. They aren't the only ones doing a rate hike, either.
It is really neither hear nor there.
In terms of my ops it just means if I want to keep my freight costs the same I will need to stockpile the PI that I haul in from losec until it hits 800 mill instead of just red frogging it off whenever I get a batch of 500 mill. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
1338
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 06:46:36 -
[2044] - Quote
Kandu Harr wrote:Red Frog rates nearly doubled today. ganking was indicated as one of the factors, with April May and peaking in June. apparently we are all 'stupid lazy and greedy' anyway. but i have said my 2-bits, i see no point in continuing to be insulted. ccp will no doubt review the situation and do whatever they feel is best.
Looks like they do a lot of good business because of us. Why should anyone use their expensive service if it was totally safe to haul billions of ISK in an AFK freighter? We should remind them to send loyalanon flowers or a fruit basket or something.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1190
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 07:41:02 -
[2045] - Quote
That is just PR. Freighters are not dying at much greater rate than last year, if at all, and certainly not 50% or 100% more. They just want to leverage their brand to gouge their customers and cover increase costs due to PLEX. Regardless, Red Frog pilots very well know how to move a freighter in highsec with near perfect safety. If you take some reasonable precautions, you are safe from over 99.9% of typical ganks - ganking losses aren't really a major cost for them as I linked before.
Kandu Harr wrote:
apparently we are all 'stupid lazy and greedy' anyway. but i have said my 2-bits, i see no point in continuing to be insulted. ccp will no doubt review the situation and do whatever they feel is best.
I never said you or other gank victims were "stupid". Highsec is so safe now, that if you lose your freighter it is because you did not bother to protect it (lazy), put so much in it that you drew the attention of someone willing to go to much effort to go after you (greedy), or perhaps were just clueless to the risk.
This is what Eve is all about - judging risk vs. reward and effort vs. reward. If you decide to AFK your load while you go out and catch a movie, you have made a choice that increases your risk but decreases your effort. Similarly, if you decide to shove 8B ISK of goods in that freighter and make a single trip over splitting into 4 or 5 batches and moving them separately, you are increasing your reward, but significantly increasing the risk someone will explode you because it is so profitable to do so.
The game is about trade-offs. The lazy and greedy choose not to spend the time to protect their cargo for whatever reason and sometimes another player calls them on it an destroys their ship. The careful pilot spends effort to protect their ships with escorts and avoids making themselves a target by keeping their cargo values low and scouting the route and therefore is nearly 100% safe. That is why ganking is balanced - it is possible to avoid it with near certainty. Therefore the game is to find the correct amount of effort to spend on an activity appropriate to the risk level to succeed at what you are trying to do.
For example, when I am in high (0.8+) highsec, I'll occasionally use the autopilot button (James 315, please forgive me!) to move my empty, bulk-headed freighter a few jumps through some quiet systems. I know that the risk of losing that ship in that situation is near zero so I am comfortable with that behaviour and risk. However undocking in a trade hub or near a choke point I am on full alert, scouting and webbing, taking every precaution to keep my ship safe.
It's time for you to HTFU and get over whatever loss has brought you to the forums on this crusade. Learn what you did wrong and don't do it in the future. If you lost your freighter to a hyperdunk, then just stay logged-in next time and have a friend come by to steal/blap the hyperdunker's ship. If it was just a regular freighter gank, Google around for the easy rules to follow to keep your ship safe or mail me in the game and I will tell you how you can be essentially perfectly safe moving a freighter in highsec, just like Red Frog does every day. It isn't rocket science, but it take a small amount of effort, effort that many freighter pilots feel entitled not to have to spend. |
Dark Reignz
Four-Q
41
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 08:35:46 -
[2046] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:That is just PR. Freighters are not dying at a much greater rate than last year, if at all, and certainly not 50% or 100% more. They just want to leverage their brand to gouge their customers and cover increased costs due to PLEX. Regardless, Red Frog pilots very well know how to move a freighter in highsec with near perfect safety. If you take some reasonable precautions, you are safe from over 99.9% of typical ganks - ganking losses aren't really a major cost for them as I linked before. Kandu Harr wrote:
apparently we are all 'stupid lazy and greedy' anyway. but i have said my 2-bits, i see no point in continuing to be insulted. ccp will no doubt review the situation and do whatever they feel is best.
I never said you or other gank victims were "stupid". Highsec is so safe now, that if you lose your freighter it is because you did not bother to protect it (lazy), put so much in it that you drew the attention of someone willing to go to much effort to go after you (greedy), or perhaps were just clueless to the risk. This is what Eve is all about - judging risk vs. reward and effort vs. reward. If you decide to AFK your load while you go out and catch a movie, you have made a choice that increases your risk but decreases your effort. Similarly, if you decide to shove 8B ISK of goods in that freighter and make a single trip over splitting into 4 or 5 batches and moving them separately, you are increasing your reward, but significantly increasing the risk someone will explode you because it is so profitable to do so. The game is about trade-offs. The lazy and greedy choose not to spend the time to protect their cargo for whatever reason and sometimes another player calls them on it and destroys their ship. The careful pilot spends effort to protect their ships with escorts and avoids making themselves a target by keeping their cargo values low and scouting the route and therefore is nearly 100% safe. That is why ganking is balanced - it is possible to avoid it with near certainty. Therefore the game is to find the correct amount of effort to spend on an activity appropriate to the risk level to succeed at what you are trying to do. For example, when I am in high (0.8+) highsec, I'll occasionally use the autopilot button (James 315, please forgive me!) to move my empty, bulk-headed freighter a few jumps through some quiet systems. I know that the risk of losing that ship in that situation is near zero so I am comfortable with that behaviour and risk. However undocking in a trade hub or near a choke point I am on full alert, scouting and webbing, taking every precaution to keep my ship safe. It's time for you to HTFU and get over whatever loss has brought you to the forums on this crusade. Learn what you did wrong and don't do it in the future. If you lost your freighter to a hyperdunk, then just stay logged-in next time and have a friend come by to steal/blap the hyperdunker's ship. If it was just a regular freighter gank, Google around for the easy rules to follow to keep your ship safe or mail me in the game and I will tell you how you can be essentially perfectly safe moving a freighter in highsec, just like Red Frog does every day. It isn't rocket science, but it takes a small amount of effort, effort that many freighter pilots feel entitled not to have to spend.
Lol I must have been gone a long time if 1trillion a month losses is considered "no major cost" to an alliance/corp. Anyways either CCP need fix this loophole or more high sec cool-bro's need to join Rajhid and his band of anti gankers. Their video's show how easy 1 or 2 people can spoil that ganking ****.
On the other hand... billions and trillions isk worth of ganks is just too profitable for high sec shananigans and needs a massive nerf to be fair.
Troll Mode - ON
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1193
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 09:13:55 -
[2047] - Quote
Dark Reignz wrote:Lol I must have been gone a long time if 1trillion a month losses is considered "no major cost" to an alliance/corp. Eve is a game all about losses. Ships are suppose to explode: it fuels the war economy this game is based on. Yes, that includes in highsec, and yes that includes ships that "can't shoot back". That is how the game has been designed. A trillion is just a fraction of the losses in the overall Eve economy each month.
And besides, no corp lost 1 T ISK in a month. Red Frog "failed" only 245 contracts (of ~248,000) in all of 2014, and they don't even say how many of those failures were due to ganks. But even 20 a month is nowhere near 1T ISK.
Dark Reignz wrote:Anyways either CCP need fix this loophole or more high sec cool-bro's need to join Rajhid and his band of anti gankers. Their video's show how easy 1 or 2 people can spoil that ganking ****. More the second. There is no loophole - criminals are suppose to operate in highsec for exactly your second option, that is to drive conflict and make content in this game. Fight back against those dirty gankers, you really can make a difference and make highsec a more interesting place.
Dark Reignz wrote:On the other hand... billions and trillions isk worth of ganks is just too profitable for high sec shananigans and needs a massive nerf to be fair. I agree. Highsec income should be nerfed into the ground so that there are not billions of ISK being generated and transported around there in near perfect safety. A massive nerf there would make things more fair and help push people into more content-producing space.
|
Anthar Thebess
1231
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 09:16:59 -
[2048] - Quote
Have you ever considered that the problem is also in freighters?
They big , slow, haul much.
Maybe eve should shift to DST based transport and not to a freighter based.
Tanked, fast , cloaky and have 60k dedicated cargo hold.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1005
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 12:07:46 -
[2049] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Dark Reignz wrote:Lol I must have been gone a long time if 1trillion a month losses is considered "no major cost" to an alliance/corp. Eve is a game all about losses. Ships are suppose to explode: it fuels the war economy this game is based on. Yes, that includes in highsec, and yes that includes ships that "can't shoot back". That is how the game has been designed. A trillion is just a fraction of the losses in the overall Eve economy each month. And besides, no corp lost 1 T ISK in a month. Red Frog "failed" only 245 contracts (of ~248,000) in all of 2014, and they don't even say how many of those failures were due to ganks. But even 20 a month is nowhere near 1T ISK. Dark Reignz wrote:Anyways either CCP need fix this loophole or more high sec cool-bro's need to join Rajhid and his band of anti gankers. Their video's show how easy 1 or 2 people can spoil that ganking ****. More the second. There is no loophole - criminals are suppose to operate in highsec for exactly your second option, that is to drive conflict and make content in this game. Fight back against those dirty gankers, you really can make a difference and make highsec a more interesting place. Dark Reignz wrote:On the other hand... billions and trillions isk worth of ganks is just too profitable for high sec shananigans and needs a massive nerf to be fair. I agree. Highsec income should be nerfed into the ground so that there are not billions of ISK being generated and transported around there in near perfect safety. A massive nerf there would make things more fair and help push people into more content-producing space.
At some point this game attracted bottom-feeders who live from boosting their egos. Making it work to achieve anything would bring back the former glory of the past, compared to all the idiots we have now who only care about themselves.
We need less sheep and more creative, actually thinking people. Nerfing the easymode gameplay will lower subs, but increase quality again.
"Even if I am the best battleship pilot ever to have played eve and funded by the richest alliance how long will it take before I can fly one from 0sp? Months? Years?" - Eleygen I'cey, instant gratification addict and proud of not making any sense.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6382
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 12:12:56 -
[2050] - Quote
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:We need less sheep and more creative, actually thinking people. Nerfing the easymode gameplay will lower subs, but increase quality again. Good luck selling "lower subs" to stakeholders. You understand that CCP is a business right?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1006
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 12:20:18 -
[2051] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:We need less sheep and more creative, actually thinking people. Nerfing the easymode gameplay will lower subs, but increase quality again. Good luck selling "lower subs" to stakeholders. You understand that CCP is a business right?
Like MCT?
Removal of bots?
Nerfing caps, leading to unsubbed accounts?
All things they knew would lower subcount, which they also know isn't the center of the universe.
Your superficial, self centered way of thinking is nothing anyone shouldpay attention to. Your posting history exposes you as liar, hypocrite and borderline psychopath. I will not dignify any of your future posts with responses.
"Even if I am the best battleship pilot ever to have played eve and funded by the richest alliance how long will it take before I can fly one from 0sp? Months? Years?" - Eleygen I'cey, instant gratification addict and proud of not making any sense.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6383
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 12:27:39 -
[2052] - Quote
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:We need less sheep and more creative, actually thinking people. Nerfing the easymode gameplay will lower subs, but increase quality again. Good luck selling "lower subs" to stakeholders. You understand that CCP is a business right? Like MCT? Removal of bots? Nerfing caps, leading to unsubbed accounts? All things they knew would lower subcount, which they also know isn't the center of the universe. - MCT was not a removal it's was a conversion of subs from separate accounts to a single account
- Removing bots prevents economic collapse which would lead to a sub exodus
- Nerfing caps is part of a bigger plan and removes a very small number of subs temporarily (most of us have our capital pilots either as mains or on the same accounts).
CCP are unlikely to take steps to make their game less appealing and purposely lose customers. If anything they are likely to do the exact opposite since they've already had to make several cuts and add more revenue sources like skins as their existing playerbase isn't bringing in enough cash. What your post originally boiled down to is that you don't like that people aren't playing the way you want to play and think they should be forced to or kicked out. Well tough, people will play how they want.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
158
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 13:20:54 -
[2053] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Have you ever considered that the problem is also in freighters?
They big , slow, haul much.
Maybe eve should shift to DST based transport and not to a freighter based.
Tanked, fast , cloaky and have 60k dedicated cargo hold.
DSTs are neither cloaky nor particularly fast and have a cargohold of 5k.
They do however have built-in warp stabs and a 50k fleet hanger (+5%/level)
They are not going to replace freighters cuz you just can't carry enough bulk.
But damn gotta love that tank |
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
77
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 14:16:00 -
[2054] - Quote
Lol, more people accepted duel requests from alts than died from hyperdunking yesterday, numerically and in ISK value.
On the eve of Burn Amarr, my friend SIEGFRIED COHENBERG dueled THREE freighters, and killed them all. |
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
77
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 14:24:54 -
[2055] - Quote
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:Have you ever considered that the problem is also in freighters?
They big , slow, haul much.
Maybe eve should shift to DST based transport and not to a freighter based.
Tanked, fast , cloaky and have 60k dedicated cargo hold.
DSTs are neither cloaky nor particularly fast and have a cargohold of 5k. They do however have built-in warp stabs and a 50k fleet hanger (+5%/level) They are not going to replace freighters cuz you just can't carry enough bulk. But damn gotta love that tank
DSTs can consistently pull of the cloak MWD trick which makes them effectively cloaky. They can also fit MJDs and have 80k EHP tanks. A nearly total 70,000 m3 cargo hold at max level is substantial for quite honestly an un-gankable ship.
People are either lazy or oblivious to do what they can do to avoid ganks, such as not putting 10 billion in loot into a fully anti-tanked freighter, and then proceeding to afk in the most populated system in the game. |
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
79
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 15:29:43 -
[2056] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Well tough, people will play how they want.
Agreed. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
24318
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 15:42:33 -
[2057] - Quote
Globby wrote:Lol, more people accepted duel requests from alts than died from hyperdunking yesterday, numerically and in ISK value.
On the eve of Burn Amarr, my friend SIEGFRIED COHENBERG dueled THREE freighters, and killed them all. How can people be that dumb and still breathing?
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
80
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 15:44:07 -
[2058] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Globby wrote:Lol, more people accepted duel requests from alts than died from hyperdunking yesterday, numerically and in ISK value.
On the eve of Burn Amarr, my friend SIEGFRIED COHENBERG dueled THREE freighters, and killed them all. How can people be that dumb and still breathing?
Entitlement and laziness, I think. |
Anthar Thebess
1231
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 15:48:24 -
[2059] - Quote
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:Have you ever considered that the problem is also in freighters?
They big , slow, haul much.
Maybe eve should shift to DST based transport and not to a freighter based.
Tanked, fast , cloaky and have 60k dedicated cargo hold.
DSTs are neither cloaky nor particularly fast and have a cargohold of 5k. They do however have built-in warp stabs and a 50k fleet hanger (+5%/level) They are not going to replace freighters cuz you just can't carry enough bulk. But damn gotta love that tank
You can fit a cloak on DST , you can use DST, stabs .
Shield DST can have full tank, full set od stabs and use MJD - it warps fast enough for a potential tacklers to have big issue.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
965
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 15:49:21 -
[2060] - Quote
Globby wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Globby wrote:Lol, more people accepted duel requests from alts than died from hyperdunking yesterday, numerically and in ISK value.
On the eve of Burn Amarr, my friend SIEGFRIED COHENBERG dueled THREE freighters, and killed them all. How can people be that dumb and still breathing? Entitlement and laziness, I think.
Pressure, fear, inexperience and panic, plus the meta gaming of said person who is bombarding them with ransom demands, and on another toon offers to help with webbing and reps. I have spoken to a few people who fell for this even after I had warned them about the tactic and they all admitted that they were panicking too much to think clearly, they could not even think to check the duelists killboard.
Your comment smacks of entitlement and laziness...
Ella's Snack bar
|
|
|
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
80
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 15:54:35 -
[2061] - Quote
Well, it's a good lesson to learn, especially early on and not when they're carrying 8 billion. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1195
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 15:56:30 -
[2062] - Quote
Globby wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Globby wrote:Lol, more people accepted duel requests from alts than died from hyperdunking yesterday, numerically and in ISK value.
On the eve of Burn Amarr, my friend SIEGFRIED COHENBERG dueled THREE freighters, and killed them all. How can people be that dumb and still breathing? Entitlement and laziness, I think.
Some perhaps. But to be fair CCP's direction to bubble-wrap highsec over the last few years has produced a huge cohort of players that have never been forced to have any interactions with other players, let alone ones that may lie to them or otherwise wish them harm. They play Eve as a single player game and thus are completely out of their element when the get a convo from a "good Samaritan" offering to help warp their freighter to safety.
Highsec is so safe, that even after many years of playing too many of them don't even realize you can be attacked in highsec, like our friend Tase:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=434974&find=unread
http://www.minerbumping.com/2015/06/dont-tase-me-bro.html
https://soundcloud.com/loyalanon/tase-loses-a-providence
Players need to experience loss, or at least learn about experiencing loss early on in their Eve careers or they will just end up another amusing statistic on the killboards a year or two in. They need to understand that this is a competitive game and some other players are actually out to take their stuff, even in highsec. Insulating new players from losses, and thus what Eve is about, is doing no one a favour.
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1024
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 16:00:51 -
[2063] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Globby wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Globby wrote:Lol, more people accepted duel requests from alts than died from hyperdunking yesterday, numerically and in ISK value.
On the eve of Burn Amarr, my friend SIEGFRIED COHENBERG dueled THREE freighters, and killed them all. How can people be that dumb and still breathing? Entitlement and laziness, I think. Some perhaps. But to be fair CCP's direction to bubble-wrap highsec over the last few years has produced a huge cohort of players that have never been forced to have any interactions with other players, let alone ones that may lie to them or otherwise wish them harm. They play Eve as a single player game and thus are completely out of their element when the get a convo from a "good Samaritan" offering to help warp their freighter to safety. Highsec is so safe, that even after many years of playing too many of them don't even realize you can be attacked in highsec, like our friend Tase: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=434974&find=unread
http://www.minerbumping.com/2015/06/dont-tase-me-bro.html
https://soundcloud.com/loyalanon/tase-loses-a-providence
Players need to experience loss, or at least learn about experiencing loss early on in their Eve careers or they will just end up another amusing statistic on the killboards a year or two in. They need to understand that this is a competitive game and some other players are actually out to take their stuff, even in highsec. Insulating new players from losses, and thus what Eve is about, is doing no one a favour.
I'd phrase that differently. Overly protective environments breed people who need protection, because they never learned to protect themselves. They never had to. What we see lately is an influx of new players who could never protect themselves and want easy fun. It's getting worse, really.
"Even if I am the best battleship pilot ever to have played eve and funded by the richest alliance how long will it take before I can fly one from 0sp? Months? Years?" - Eleygen I'cey, instant gratification addict and proud of not making any sense.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
24319
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 16:01:13 -
[2064] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Globby wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Globby wrote:Lol, more people accepted duel requests from alts than died from hyperdunking yesterday, numerically and in ISK value.
On the eve of Burn Amarr, my friend SIEGFRIED COHENBERG dueled THREE freighters, and killed them all. How can people be that dumb and still breathing? Entitlement and laziness, I think. Pressure, fear, inexperience and panic, plus the meta gaming of said person who is bombarding them with ransom demands, and on another toon offers to help with webbing and reps. I have spoken to a few people who fell for this even after I had warned them about the tactic and they all admitted that they were panicking too much to think clearly, they could not even think to check the duelists killboard. Your comment smacks of entitlement and laziness... Speaking of laziness, if a freighter pilot is too damn lazy to enable the auto-reject duel function that's their problem. It's not like the setting is hard to access (1 keypress and 2 mouse-clicks)
Hit the 'ESC' key
Select 'Audio & Chat' tab
Check the box in the bottom right 'Dueling' section for 'Auto Reject Invitations'
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
965
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 16:15:04 -
[2065] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Globby wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Globby wrote:Lol, more people accepted duel requests from alts than died from hyperdunking yesterday, numerically and in ISK value.
On the eve of Burn Amarr, my friend SIEGFRIED COHENBERG dueled THREE freighters, and killed them all. How can people be that dumb and still breathing? Entitlement and laziness, I think. Pressure, fear, inexperience and panic, plus the meta gaming of said person who is bombarding them with ransom demands, and on another toon offers to help with webbing and reps. I have spoken to a few people who fell for this even after I had warned them about the tactic and they all admitted that they were panicking too much to think clearly, they could not even think to check the duelists killboard. Your comment smacks of entitlement and laziness... Speaking of laziness, if a freighter pilot is too damn lazy to enable the auto-reject duel function that's their problem. It's not like the setting is hard to access (1 keypress and 2 mouse-clicks) Hit the 'ESC' key Select 'Audio & Chat' tab Check the box in the bottom right 'Dueling' section for 'Auto Reject Invitations'
You are just being silly, again..., the duel is also a way that the anti-gankers have helped people get away, by webbing them, which has been used very well by certain gankers. It is rather more of an issue in not verifying the person that is offering to help, which is panic related.
In reply to Black Pedro:
Flying a freighter is a very boring thing to do as such, however now its a bit of a challenge in terms of whether they make it or not, doing web duty is actually fun and I am often surprised at the lack of people doing it. I do understand that they have a life and that AP'ing an empty freighter is not exactly stupid, but even those get ganked so yes it is in the current environment.
I keep hoping that people will get together and sort out how they do logistics and the laziness is in not working as a team to protect their logistics people and their ships. With the current success level of CODE I would think that they will learn the lesson, but its very slow in sinking in... I rather believe that people who actually do freighter stuff in the main are just too chilled out and passive...
EDIT: I should point out that I have seen freighters get bumped even when being webbed, I did some timing on the speed of certain bumpers and compared it to my own webbing with a twin faction web Loki and found it a bit tight, and that was getting in and getting close to the gate before the freighter jumped. In effect I have to be perfect when it matters.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Freya Sertan
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
530
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 16:25:06 -
[2066] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Have you ever considered that the problem is also in freighters?
They big , slow, haul much.
Maybe eve should shift to DST based transport and not to a freighter based.
Tanked, fast , cloaky and have 60k dedicated cargo hold.
DST... fast...?
Erm.
New Eden isn't nice. It isn't friendly. It isn't very hospitiable. Good thing there are people here to shoot in the face.
Want to make New Eden a nice place? Try this out.
|
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
83
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 16:41:30 -
[2067] - Quote
Freya Sertan wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:Have you ever considered that the problem is also in freighters?
They big , slow, haul much.
Maybe eve should shift to DST based transport and not to a freighter based.
Tanked, fast , cloaky and have 60k dedicated cargo hold.
DST... fast...? Erm.
Much faster than a freighter.
Dracvlad wrote:
EDIT: I should point out that I have seen freighters get bumped even when being webbed, I did some timing on the speed of certain bumpers and compared it to my own webbing with a twin faction web Loki and found it a bit tight, and that was getting in and getting close to the gate before the freighter jumped. In effect I have to be perfect when it matters.
I should also say that if you're getting webbed it should take three or four ticks for you to catch warp consistently. When I tested it, I could get 3 ticks 50% of the time and 4 ticks the other 50%. That's way too quick for any bumping mach to bump you unless it happens to guess your position and is <4km off of you when you decloak.
Dracvlad wrote:
EDIT 2: Another factor is that industry is done mainly by solo players who have been in the game a long time, they are often in one man corps which is to avoid war decs, so they cannot easily do webbing, that means they use duels which is sub-optimal in my opinion or tie up another toon in that corp and cost them production and make them more evident. In effect they just try to get through and hope they don't get culled.
You know instead of plexing your account, you can get a buddy trial and then apply the plex to him, giving you a free 60 day alt and still plexing your account? It also only takes an hour to get an effective webbing alt. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
24320
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 16:47:40 -
[2068] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Speaking of laziness, if a freighter pilot is too damn lazy to enable the auto-reject duel function that's their problem. It's not like the setting is hard to access (1 keypress and 2 mouse-clicks)
Hit the 'ESC' key
Select 'Audio & Chat' tab
Check the box in the bottom right 'Dueling' section for 'Auto Reject Invitations' You are just being silly, again..., the duel is also a way that the anti-gankers have helped people get away, by webbing them, which has been used very well by certain gankers. It is rather more of an issue in not verifying the person that is offering to help, which is panic related. How is pointing out that there is an option to auto reject duels, and that it is extremely easy to set up being silly? It's not ideal, but it's not silly.
I'm well aware that duelling is also used by anti gankers to aid freighter pilots in distress; lets be honest here, you are as aware as I am that flying a freighter through a choke point without support is the equivalent of sticking your genitalia in a piranha tank and hoping the fish aren't hungry. Gankers are normally flashy red, regardless of confusion and panic, accepting a duel from someone who is obviously a criminal, and shows up as a criminal is just dumb.
Quote:
I keep hoping that people will get together and sort out how they do logistics and the laziness is in not working as a team to protect their logistics people and their ships. With the current success level of CODE I would think that they will learn the lesson, but its very slow in sinking in...
On this we share common ground, I'd love to see haulers getting their act together and working as a team to protect their cargo. I'd hazard a guess that most gankers would probably like to see it as well, it's one of their stated aims afterall, but as you say the lessons taught by gankers seem to be going over most of their heads.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
159
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 17:23:50 -
[2069] - Quote
Globby wrote:
DSTs can consistently pull of the cloak MWD trick which makes them effectively cloaky. They can also fit MJDs and have 80k EHP tanks. A nearly total 70,000 m3 cargo hold at max level is substantial for quite honestly an un-gankable ship.
Bustard is about 135k EHP without boosts. Overheated is about 175k EHP, resists are mid 90s across the board.
What would I need a cloak or MWD in highsec for?
Oh, and active resists so AP is definitely out.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6383
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 18:03:03 -
[2070] - Quote
Globby wrote:You know instead of plexing your account, you can get a buddy trial and then apply the plex to him, giving you a free 60 day alt and still plexing your account? It also only takes an hour to get an effective webbing alt. I'm pretty sure that if you don't intend to keep the account and just do it for a free alt, that's abuse of the buddy system.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
83
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 18:23:56 -
[2071] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Globby wrote:You know instead of plexing your account, you can get a buddy trial and then apply the plex to him, giving you a free 60 day alt and still plexing your account? It also only takes an hour to get an effective webbing alt. I'm pretty sure that if you don't intend to keep the account and just do it for a free alt, that's abuse of the buddy system.
are you talking out of what you normally talk out of, or do you have a source? |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
967
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 18:37:30 -
[2072] - Quote
Globby wrote:Dracvlad wrote:EDIT: I should point out that I have seen freighters get bumped even when being webbed, I did some timing on the speed of certain bumpers and compared it to my own webbing with a twin faction web Loki and found it a bit tight, and that was getting in and getting close to the gate before the freighter jumped. In effect I have to be perfect when it matters. I should also say that if you're getting webbed it should take three or four ticks for you to catch warp consistently. When I tested it, I could get 3 ticks 50% of the time and 4 ticks the other 50%. That's way too quick for any bumping mach to bump you unless it happens to guess your position and is <4km off of you when you decloak.
Mostly the bumper sits at 0, but of course that is a rather wide box, I did find that it got a very close call if I was in a direct line to the Macherial on his side. And that was where I had to do it almost perfect to be certain to get out.
Globby wrote:Dracvlad wrote:EDIT 2: Another factor is that industry is done mainly by solo players who have been in the game a long time, they are often in one man corps which is to avoid war decs, so they cannot easily do webbing, that means they use duels which is sub-optimal in my opinion or tie up another toon in that corp and cost them production and make them more evident. In effect they just try to get through and hope they don't get culled. You know instead of plexing your account, you can get a buddy trial and then apply the plex to him, giving you a free 60 day alt and still plexing your account? It also only takes an hour to get an effective webbing alt.
Think about in context of them having people doing different things in different one man corps which is set up that way to avoid war decs. Lucas Kell did a very good description of the setup of most industrial players and I checked back with one of my mates, it means they are difficult to pin down for war decs but more vulnerable for ganks..
Ella's Snack bar
|
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
84
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 18:40:14 -
[2073] - Quote
You can be a part of a community without being in their corporation. For about 11 months I've been ganking with CODE. and I only recently joined their alliance. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
967
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 18:41:09 -
[2074] - Quote
duplicate
Ella's Snack bar
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
967
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 18:41:55 -
[2075] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Speaking of laziness, if a freighter pilot is too damn lazy to enable the auto-reject duel function that's their problem. It's not like the setting is hard to access (1 keypress and 2 mouse-clicks)
Hit the 'ESC' key
Select 'Audio & Chat' tab
Check the box in the bottom right 'Dueling' section for 'Auto Reject Invitations' You are just being silly, again..., the duel is also a way that the anti-gankers have helped people get away, by webbing them, which has been used very well by certain gankers. It is rather more of an issue in not verifying the person that is offering to help, which is panic related. How is pointing out that there is an option to auto reject duels, and that it is extremely easy to set up being silly? It's not ideal, but it's not silly. I'm well aware that duelling is also used by anti gankers to aid freighter pilots in distress. Let's be honest here, you are as aware as I am that flying a freighter through a choke point without support is the equivalent of dipping your genitalia in blood, then sticking it in a piranha tank and hoping the fish aren't hungry. Gankers are normally flashy red, regardless of confusion and panic, accepting a duel from someone who is obviously a criminal, and shows up as a criminal is just dumb.
The people accept a duel from a specific character for duel ganks who of course is not -10 and who often has AG bio's, they need to check their killboard but in their panic do not. So they are not flashy red and unless they check the KB not obviously a ganker to the mainly unaware.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
CODE.
13720
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 18:47:05 -
[2076] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
You are just being silly, again..., the duel is also a way that the anti-gankers have helped people get away, by webbing them, which has been used very well by certain gankers. It is rather more of an issue in not verifying the person that is offering to help, which is panic related.
Are you guys actually that ******** as to not have the freighter pilot be the one sending requests to the webber? I mean jeez, this is like, a five year old best practice for goodness sakes.
Freighter pilots should be set to auto refuse, that's a no brainer.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
87
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 18:53:54 -
[2077] - Quote
In order to deter the current offtopic trend, I will say the following:
No one should accept duels from strangers, especially when their killboard consists of many freighters kills. The fact that many people do fall for it shows that inexperience is game mechanics is very prevalent in hauling society. This inexperience is probably the reason hyperdunking is also currently successful, because people either don't take the basic proper precautions (webbing, verifying that the person trying to duel you is trusted, or googling their name) or are too lazy or greedy to care, until they die.
It's a problem of the players, not of the mechanics. This has been proven by the multitude of people falling for dueling requests.
I'm just saying, why is it so few people actually hyperdunk if it were so broken? It's because you have to wait for someone ignorant, arrogant, or belligerent enough in order to do it, and it in and of itself is REALLY hard to pull off.
It's also really easy to stop ONCE it gets started. It's hard to start, hard to pull off, easy to stop, and easy to prevent. It punishes incompetence and arrogance, and it rewards skill and proactivity. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
967
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 19:58:21 -
[2078] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
You are just being silly, again..., the duel is also a way that the anti-gankers have helped people get away, by webbing them, which has been used very well by certain gankers. It is rather more of an issue in not verifying the person that is offering to help, which is panic related.
Are you guys actually that ******** as to not have the freighter pilot be the one sending requests to the webber? I mean jeez, this is like, a five year old best practice for goodness sakes. Freighter pilots should be set to auto refuse, that's a no brainer.
As per normal you go off on a completely different tangent, create something warped and then make a fuss out of it, if you go back to the earlier posts you will find we were talking about the tactic of tricking the freighter pilot into a duel. But feel free to go off on something like that, its rather funny watching you get all hot and bothered about something completely different...
Ella's Snack bar
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
CODE.
13720
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 20:00:31 -
[2079] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: all hot and bothered
I know it's a defensive tactic to try and treat derision pointed in your direction as you having upset someone, but you're being too obvious.
Seriously, if you anti gankers have been telling people not to turn off duel requests, you've done us a huge favor.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
967
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 20:04:41 -
[2080] - Quote
Globby wrote:In order to deter the current offtopic trend, I will say the following:
No one should accept duels from strangers, especially when their killboard consists of many freighters kills. The fact that many people do fall for it shows that inexperience is game mechanics is very prevalent in hauling society. This inexperience is probably the reason hyperdunking is also currently successful, because people either don't take the basic proper precautions (webbing, verifying that the person trying to duel you is trusted, or googling their name) or are too lazy or greedy to care, until they die.
It's a problem of the players, not of the mechanics. This has been proven by the multitude of people falling for dueling requests.
I'm just saying, why is it so few people actually hyperdunk if it were so broken? It's because you have to wait for someone ignorant, arrogant, or belligerent enough in order to do it, and it in and of itself is REALLY hard to pull off.
It's also really easy to stop ONCE it gets started. It's hard to start, hard to pull off, easy to stop, and easy to prevent. It punishes incompetence and arrogance, and it rewards skill and proactivity.
I don't think its that hard to do but involves organisation, assets and good skill in bumping, you do require to not be noticed, because once you are noticed its easy to stop, and you either have to switch to ganking or trick someone into a duel or accept a ransom. The people being tricked into duelling are panicking and that is why they often fall for it.
And by the way you went off topic by boasting about the number of death by duels and giving incorrect reasons for why, so I corrected you.
Ella's Snack bar
|
|
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
967
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 20:07:10 -
[2081] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote: all hot and bothered I know it's a defensive tactic to try and treat derision pointed in your direction as you having upset someone, but you're being too obvious. Seriously, if you anti gankers have been telling people not to turn off duel requests, you've done us a huge favor.
You really are rather sad, I really should block you because you are just so bad at this, you don't annoy me, I just find you pathetic and shake my head, another 2 + 2 = 22 by Kaarous.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
89
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 20:31:50 -
[2082] - Quote
the correct reasons are because people are inexperienced/dumb, or don't take the proper precautions related to protecting their freighyter, which is correct.
I iterated that in my next post to point out the fact that these same problems occur in hyperdunking victims, showing it's not a mechanics problem, but a person problem. hope this helps |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
967
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 20:43:14 -
[2083] - Quote
Globby wrote:the correct reasons are because people are inexperienced/dumb, or don't take the proper precautions related to protecting their freighyter, which is correct. I iterated that in my next post to point out the fact that these same problems occur in hyperdunking victims, showing it's not a mechanics problem, but a person problem. hope this helps
I will repeat it then:
Globby wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Globby wrote:Lol, more people accepted duel requests from alts than died from hyperdunking yesterday, numerically and in ISK value.
On the eve of Burn Amarr, my friend SIEGFRIED COHENBERG dueled THREE freighters, and killed them all. How can people be that dumb and still breathing? Entitlement and laziness, I think.
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
24324
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 20:54:29 -
[2084] - Quote
^^ Entitlement and laziness, as in not taking precautions and thinking that they can sail through a chokepoint with impunity because it's hisec are people problems, they are not game mechanics problems.
The people you're trying to save can't be bothered to even make an attempt to save themselves, that must be so frustrating.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Baaldor
Dixon Cox Butte Preservation Society
Black Legion.
416
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 20:57:34 -
[2085] - Quote
So looking at the first post from the DEV and looking at the tail end of this...so are is everyone still talking about the same thing? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
CODE.
13720
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 21:05:01 -
[2086] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:^^ Entitlement and laziness, as in not taking precautions and thinking that they can sail through a chokepoint with impunity because it's hisec are people problems, they are not game mechanics problems.
The people you're trying to save can't be bothered to even make an attempt to save themselves, that must be so frustrating.
Of course it's entitlement and laziness. Stupidity too, if you ask me.
"Ganking shouldn't be so profitable!" Then stop hauling seven billion isk in an anti tanked Fenrir, you morons.
"Ganking shouldn't be so easy!" It's made much easier when you're autopiloting.
They are the source of their own problems, and the refusal to admit that is the source of all of these angsty whines.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
24324
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 21:58:46 -
[2087] - Quote
I actually kinda feel sorry for the anti-gankers, they're trying to do the thankless job of helping people who for the most part aren't even trying; against opponents that are extremely adept at what they do.
Dracvlad, putting forum animosity and meta game to one side; the gankers know the relevant mechanics inside out and back to front, for the most part they also know what it takes to counter them.
Don't take this the wrong way; roll an alt, join up with CODE., run some ganks and hyperdunks with them. Get to know, through taking part, exactly how they work rather than externally observing and drawing your own conclusions. They're using variations of traditional tactics, that have been developed and are used by others, that they've adapted and honed to work in specific circumstances.
I know that you partake of PvP in general but ganking and especially hyperdunking are somewhat niche.
As the old saying goes, knowledge is power. If you know exactly what you're dealing with, you should be able to come up with some counters that work.
I'd wager real money on one of the most effective counters being education though. Eve Uni obviously thought so, they recently got someone from CODE. in as a guest lecturer to educate their members about ganking and ganking avoidance.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Kandu Harr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 23:01:50 -
[2088] - Quote
stupid, arrogant, entitled, greedy, lazy, ignorant...
the adjectives for how you refer to your mega-billions cashcows is just telling.
oh, but it's their own fault. it really isn't bad game mechanics, trust us, we are totally objective on this
the whole risk-vs-reward scale is so skewed out of reality. you now risk 1 security status, and a dozen or so frigates.
for billions in rewards, and a tactical advantage to your overlords.
the balance ccp was talking about no longer exists. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
24324
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 23:10:46 -
[2089] - Quote
Kandu Harr wrote:stupid, arrogant, entitled, greedy, lazy, ignorant... the adjectives for how you refer to your mega-billions cashcows is just telling. oh, but it's their own fault. it really isn't bad game mechanics, trust us, we are totally objective on this the whole risk-vs-reward scale is so skewed out of reality. you now risk 1 security status, and a dozen or so frigates. for billions in rewards, and a tactical advantage to your overlords. the balance ccp was talking about no longer exists. I am one of those potential cash cows. I try not to get caught by making sure that I'm not worth killing because I'm a damn sight harder to catch and kill than the guy in the triple expanded hauler next to me; and a lot less profitable.
I have an isk limit on what I haul, I tank my ships, I never afk unless I'm either docked or in the process of docking, I know if gankers are in system before the gate cloak drops because I've got standings to known corps, alliances and individuals set to terrible and they show up in the overview.
TL;DR The balance is fine if you make sensible choices about what you haul and how you do it, it only becomes skewed when you don't.
BTW it takes a lot more than a dozen frigates to kill the main target of hyperdunking, which is freighters.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Kandu Harr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 23:24:12 -
[2090] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Kandu Harr wrote:stupid, arrogant, entitled, greedy, lazy, ignorant... the adjectives for how you refer to your mega-billions cashcows is just telling. oh, but it's their own fault. it really isn't bad game mechanics, trust us, we are totally objective on this the whole risk-vs-reward scale is so skewed out of reality. you now risk 1 security status, and a dozen or so frigates. for billions in rewards, and a tactical advantage to your overlords. the balance ccp was talking about no longer exists. I am one of those potential cash cows. I try not to get caught by making sure that I'm not worth killing because I'm a damn sight harder to catch and kill than the guy in the triple expanded hauler next to me; and a lot less profitable. I have an isk limit on what I haul, I tank my ships, I never afk unless I'm either docked or in the process of docking, I know if gankers are in system before the gate cloak drops because I've got standings to known corps, alliances and individuals set to terrible and they show up in the overview. TL;DR The balance is fine if you make sensible choices about what you haul and how you do it, it only becomes skewed when you don't.
tanking a freighter is irrelevant, it actually makes you slower. there is no 'anti-tanking' a freighter either, it makes no difference to survival. and a number of recent freighters ganked had a couple million ea in cargo or less. it doesn't matter anymore, Jonah. the balance has been lost.
https://zkillboard.com/kill/47901729/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/47900150/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/47898105/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/47898098/
etc... |
|
|
Kandu Harr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 23:26:03 -
[2091] - Quote
maybe this is ccp allowing hisec to be nerfed into oblivion. tinfoil or not that is what it seems to be |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
24325
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 23:33:00 -
[2092] - Quote
Tanking is only a small part of it, if you're not paying attention no amount of tank is ever going to save you. Empty or not a freighter is a juicy killmail waiting to happen if the pilot isn't paying attention.
I'm pretty sure that the contract success rates of professional haulers such as Red Frog or PushX are mostly down to paying attention and generally knowing what they're doing.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
792
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 23:38:52 -
[2093] - Quote
I have removed an off-topic post and two posts quoting it.
ISD Decoy
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
91
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 23:40:00 -
[2094] - Quote
Kandu Harr wrote:stupid, arrogant, entitled, greedy, lazy, ignorant... the adjectives for how you refer to your mega-billions cashcows is just telling. oh, but it's their own fault. it really isn't bad game mechanics, trust us, we are totally objective on this the whole risk-vs-reward scale is so skewed out of reality. you now risk 1 security status, and a dozen or so frigates. for billions in rewards, and a tactical advantage to your overlords. the balance ccp was talking about no longer exists.
But it's your fault for carrying 10 bil out last night, and not calling for help the 25 minutes it took for you to die. |
Kandu Harr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 23:41:11 -
[2095] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Tanking is only a small part of it, if you're not paying attention no amount of tank is ever going to save you. Empty or not a freighter is a juicy killmail waiting to happen if the pilot isn't paying attention. I'm pretty sure that the contract success rates of professional haulers such as Red Frog or PushX are mostly down to paying attention and generally knowing what they're doing.
agreed. but if you read this thread you would have seen the concerns raised by Red Frog about the mechanics of hyperdunking, and how available counters were not balanced. i would be inclined to believe them |
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
91
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 23:42:11 -
[2096] - Quote
One alt webbing prevents 98% of classical ganks, one alt repping prevents 100% of hyperdunks.
Meanwhile it takes more than a dozen people to cost effectively kill a freighter anyway, and if you're not willing to spend 1 billion a month for nearly absolute safety but are willing to put 10 bil into a freighter and then AFK with it? I think some priorities should be established. |
Kandu Harr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 23:53:12 -
[2097] - Quote
Globby wrote:One alt webbing prevents 98% of classical ganks, one alt repping prevents 100% of hyperdunks. Meanwhile it takes more than a dozen people to cost effectively kill a freighter anyway, and if you're not willing to spend 1 billion a month for nearly absolute safety but are willing to put 10 bil into a freighter and then AFK with it? I think some priorities should be established. Kandu Harr wrote:agreed. but if you read this thread you would have seen the concerns raised by Red Frog about the mechanics of hyperdunking, and how available counters were not balanced. i would be inclined to believe them the counter is bringing an alt with an hour of skill training. done, saved, it's over. one alt with an hour of skill training completely nullifies hyperdunking. period. done.
well at this point i am going to train a bumping alt, grab my buddies and start hyperdunking. i can't argue this unless i see the mechanic from your perspective. cause you know the best way to fight crime is to become a criminal, i guess
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
24325
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 23:57:12 -
[2098] - Quote
Kandu Harr wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Tanking is only a small part of it, if you're not paying attention no amount of tank is ever going to save you. Empty or not a freighter is a juicy killmail waiting to happen if the pilot isn't paying attention.
I'm pretty sure that the contract success rates of professional haulers such as Red Frog or PushX are mostly down to paying attention and generally knowing what they're doing.
agreed. but if you read this thread you would have seen the concerns raised by Red Frog about the mechanics of hyperdunking, and how available counters were not balanced. i would be inclined to believe them I'm aware of this, and although their suggestions for counters have been taken no further I'm certain that they've worked out effective counters using existing mechanics just as they always have.
Red Frog have a good rep for a reason, they're resilient, adaptable and don't take unnecessary risks; all of which means that they rarely lose a load despite the best efforts of the same gankers the rest of you don't seem able to deal with.
Quote:well at this point i am going to train a bumping alt, grab my buddies and start hyperdunking. i can't argue this unless i see the mechanic from your perspective. cause you know the best way to fight crime is to become a criminal, i guess Go for broke, give it a shot, you may well enjoy it. I sincerely hope that you have fun doing so.
Be aware though, if it was easy everybody would be doing it; as it stands only a few people do, Globby is one of them and the main reason for this entire thread.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1034
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 00:18:46 -
[2099] - Quote
Kandu Harr wrote:Globby wrote:One alt webbing prevents 98% of classical ganks, one alt repping prevents 100% of hyperdunks. Meanwhile it takes more than a dozen people to cost effectively kill a freighter anyway, and if you're not willing to spend 1 billion a month for nearly absolute safety but are willing to put 10 bil into a freighter and then AFK with it? I think some priorities should be established. Kandu Harr wrote:agreed. but if you read this thread you would have seen the concerns raised by Red Frog about the mechanics of hyperdunking, and how available counters were not balanced. i would be inclined to believe them the counter is bringing an alt with an hour of skill training. done, saved, it's over. one alt with an hour of skill training completely nullifies hyperdunking. period. done. well at this point i am going to train a bumping alt, grab my buddies and start hyperdunking. i can't argue this unless i see the mechanic from your perspective. cause you know the best way to fight crime is to become a criminal, i guess THAT is exactly what you should do, though I doubt that you actually will do!
"People need to realise that saying "someone else will do it" also mean that other someone else might be thinking the exact same thing..."
-- Frostys Virpio, very attentive person, thoughtful, smart responses. Understands self responsibility.
|
Kandu Harr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 00:44:43 -
[2100] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:If you're serious go for broke, give it a shot, you may well enjoy it. I sincerely hope that you have fun doing so.
Be aware though, if it was easy everybody would be doing it; as it stands only a few people do, Globby is one of them and the main reason for this entire thread.
The best way to fight crime is to know how the crime works, set a thief to catch a thief and all that.
fwiw, i never lost anything to this. i read about it after seeing the c&p thread, and posted what i thought was the best solution to the situation. i went to Jita with a cloaky prober ship and watched for 4 days to see this for myself.
what i didn't expect was the vitreolic responses. but i guess when you threaten someone's multi-billion dollar moneymaker that is to be expected.
i will do this and see what it requires and what the difficulties are. maybe i change my opinions, maybe not.
either way fly safe Jonah. i don't want to see you on the kb's... |
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6384
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 00:46:14 -
[2101] - Quote
Globby wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Globby wrote:You know instead of plexing your account, you can get a buddy trial and then apply the plex to him, giving you a free 60 day alt and still plexing your account? It also only takes an hour to get an effective webbing alt. I'm pretty sure that if you don't intend to keep the account and just do it for a free alt, that's abuse of the buddy system. are you talking out of what you normally talk out of, or do you have a source? I don't have a quote to hand, but I vaguely recall this discussion coming up over the terms of the buddy program, specifically:Quote:The Buddy Program is intended for you to encourage new players to join EVE Online. Violating the purpose of the Buddy Program in any way or form is prohibited. Abusing the Buddy Program is considered an exploit and will not be tolerated. Violations of this rule will be handled by EVE Online Customer Support, and action will be taken against players who violate this rule (including, but not limited to, warnings or bans of the offending accounts and confiscation of ISK and other items).
Edit: Oh, and I rarely talk out of that.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
95
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 00:53:15 -
[2102] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Globby wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Globby wrote:You know instead of plexing your account, you can get a buddy trial and then apply the plex to him, giving you a free 60 day alt and still plexing your account? It also only takes an hour to get an effective webbing alt. I'm pretty sure that if you don't intend to keep the account and just do it for a free alt, that's abuse of the buddy system. are you talking out of what you normally talk out of, or do you have a source? I don't have a quote to hand, but I vaguely recall this discussion coming up over the terms of the buddy program, specifically: Quote:The Buddy Program is intended for you to encourage new players to join EVE Online. Violating the purpose of the Buddy Program in any way or form is prohibited. Abusing the Buddy Program is considered an exploit and will not be tolerated. Violations of this rule will be handled by EVE Online Customer Support, and action will be taken against players who violate this rule (including, but not limited to, warnings or bans of the offending accounts and confiscation of ISK and other items). Edit: Oh, and I rarely talk out of that.
noted, but is there a list of these 'abuses?'
offtopic, but i require information. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6384
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 01:06:57 -
[2103] - Quote
Globby wrote:noted, but is there a list of these 'abuses?'
offtopic, but i require information. Not on that page, but there was a discussion on it one and I think it effectively came down to that it's OK to buddy account to yourself for accounts you intend to use, but not to use it for free temporary alts. I'm literally minutes from bed otherwise I'd have a search around for the thread.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lady Areola Fappington
2611
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 01:13:09 -
[2104] - Quote
Globby wrote:
But it's your fault for carrying 10 bil out last night, and not calling for help the 25 minutes it took for you to die.
This, more than anything, says all that needs to be said about hyperdunking.
25 minutes. Wow. If you are so far out of Eve that a 25 minute long gank can happen, you aren't playing Eve. You deserve anything that happens to you in that time frame.
Seriously, in 25 minutes, I could literally roll an alt from scratch, train one level of prop jamming, slap a web on a newbie ship, and most likely arrive in time to save my freighter.
I'm just as guilty as anyone else is, of having my attention elsewhere when flying a freighter. Thing is, I have my sound effects turned up, and I'm keeping an eye on what happens to my freighter in a tiled window. You can do that in Windows, you know? Make your netflix window nice and big, and park an Eve window off to one side. If you see a bad thing happen, you can pop right over, maximize, and attend to your freighter.
Just....25 minutes. Wows.
7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?
No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided.
--Eve New Player Guide
|
Kandu Harr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 01:19:46 -
[2105] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:Globby wrote:
But it's your fault for carrying 10 bil out last night, and not calling for help the 25 minutes it took for you to die.
This, more than anything, says all that needs to be said about hyperdunking. 25 minutes. Wow. If you are so far out of Eve that a 25 minute long gank can happen, you aren't playing Eve. You deserve anything that happens to you in that time frame. Seriously, in 25 minutes, I could literally roll an alt from scratch, train one level of prop jamming, slap a web on a newbie ship, and most likely arrive in time to save my freighter. I'm just as guilty as anyone else is, of having my attention elsewhere when flying a freighter. Thing is, I have my sound effects turned up, and I'm keeping an eye on what happens to my freighter in a tiled window. You can do that in Windows, you know? Make your netflix window nice and big, and park an Eve window off to one side. If you see a bad thing happen, you can pop right over, maximize, and attend to your freighter. Just....25 minutes. Wows.
I'll have to see if that helps or not...
https://zkillboard.com/kill/47789491/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/47812958/
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
24325
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 01:22:41 -
[2106] - Quote
Kandu Harr wrote:what i didn't expect was the vitreolic responses. but i guess when you threaten someone's multi-billion dollar moneymaker that is to be expected. It's been discussed to death over the last 80+ pages, and in numerous other threads.
It is currently allowed, CCP have looked into it, checked if it's breaking any rules with regards to Concord evasion or aggression mechanics and made their decision.
They're unlikely to change it without good reason just as they haven't changed the related bumping mechanic. I have no doubt that if they think about changing it they will inform the player base through the forums and take feedback on the proposed changes from both sides before making a decision.
It's either that or they fear the ensuing threadnaughts
Quote:i will do this and see what it requires and what the difficulties are. maybe i change my opinions, maybe not. You should, chat to some of the CODE. guys, most of them are quite approachable despite the RP and will point you in the right direction
Quote:either way fly safe Jonah. i don't want to see you on the kb's... lol, so far so good
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
95
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 03:00:57 -
[2107] - Quote
Having an alt do nothing, is different than having an alt do the right thing. |
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 04:43:49 -
[2108] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:against opponents that are extremely adept at what they do.
Thats some BS!
The risks for the gankers is absolute ZERO!
Their ships get blown up by 100% or they would be be banned.
Ganking is nothing more as using the right numbers. If the gankers have enough ships, their victims chances are almost zero.
Adept?
Nope! shooting at harmless ships is NOT elite PvP. it is same PvP like trading or mining with LESS risk!
(their ships get always blown up, thats a FACT not a RISK.) If the gank fails the gankers where incompetent.
Which they might be anyway.
They are NOT adapt, especially NOT extremly...
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Don't take this the wrong way; roll an alt, join up with CODE., run some ganks and hyperdunks with them.
WHAT?
Join the biggest hipocrits in whole EvE for what? To learn how to gank?
Better join some nullsec corps and learn what EvE makes a great PvP game.
Where the big wars and the big fights are.
Or hunt your miners there. There might be no concorde, but alliance standing fleets and intel.
Its like an accountant bragging how tough he cheated some insurances.
Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
|
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 04:50:53 -
[2109] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Globby wrote:You know instead of plexing your account, you can get a buddy trial and then apply the plex to him, giving you a free 60 day alt and still plexing your account? It also only takes an hour to get an effective webbing alt. I'm pretty sure that if you don't intend to keep the account and just do it for a free alt, that's abuse of the buddy system.
Not only that, that shows how easy it is to get ganking chars.
An HOUR!
The game mechanics work in favor of the gankers. Ganking is nothing special. In fact it is quite boring, you are doing always the same, over and over.
Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1199
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 06:09:19 -
[2110] - Quote
La Rynx wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:against opponents that are extremely adept at what they do. Thats some BS!
You can't argue with results, all 16.5T of them as I type this: https://zkillboard.com/alliance/99002775/stats/
Gankers, if not good at what they do, are quite persistent at it.
La Rynx wrote:
The risks for the gankers is absolute ZERO!
Their ships get blown up by 100% or they would be be banned.
Ganking is nothing more as using the right numbers. If the gankers have enough ships, their victims chances are almost zero.
All ship PvP in Eve is just numbers. If one side has enough ships, the other side's chances are near zero. However, at least in highsec (potential) victims have plenty of ways to either escape, or more easily avoid the gankers in the first place. CCP has enabled gankers to operate in highsec and expects you to deal with them as part of the designed gameplay.
La Rynx wrote:Adept? Nope! shooting at harmless ships is NOT elite PvP. it is same PvP like trading or mining with LESS risk! (their ships get always blown up, thats a FACT not a RISK.) If the gank fails the gankers where incompetent. Which they might be anyway. They are NOT adapt, especially NOT extremly... Ganking is elite PvP. It is like regular PvP except you have to deal with a layer of infallible NPC protection. Sure, that NPC protection may be predictable, but it is none-the-less difficult to navigate. The best gankers have figured those systems out, and thread the needle of aggression mechanics to still destroy the target. That alone isn't PvP, but on top of that, the ganker has to react to what the target chooses to do. Despite these claims of "no risk", targets get away all the time as there are many strategies they can use to escape, or slip by the gankers in the first place. That is what makes it elite PvP - defeating these opponents when the deck is so stacked against the ganker.
Sure, many times the victim isn't even at the keyboard which makes it easier for the ganker, but that really isn't the ganker's fault now is it?
La Rynx wrote:WHAT? Join the biggest hipocrits in whole EvE for what? To learn how to gank? Better join some nullsec corps and learn what EvE makes a great PvP game. Where the big wars and the big fights are. Or hunt your miners there. There might be no concorde, but alliance standing fleets and intel. Code-Monkeys are like an accountant bragging how tough he cheated some insurances.
If you want to be a professional portrait painter, you go learn from a master artist, not take classes at the local community college. Elite highsec PvP like ganking is best learned from those who practice it daily, defeating their opponents and taking their stuff.
Relaxing nullsec PvP is all well and good, but not really challenging enough to teach you the skills necessary to navigate the cut-throat world of highsec aggression mechanics. It would be a good place for him to start to get the basics of easy-mode PvP - learn how to be in a fleet, press F1 that kind of thing, but to learn how to hyperdunk or take down a freighter under the nose of CONCORD he will need to practice against CONCORD and the faction police in a free-fire zone, with the training wheels off. That would be best learned by joining or at least talking to CODE. members who are masters of these arts. |
|
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1040
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 06:28:55 -
[2111] - Quote
La Rynx wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Globby wrote:You know instead of plexing your account, you can get a buddy trial and then apply the plex to him, giving you a free 60 day alt and still plexing your account? It also only takes an hour to get an effective webbing alt. I'm pretty sure that if you don't intend to keep the account and just do it for a free alt, that's abuse of the buddy system. Not only that, that shows how easy it is to get ganking chars. An HOUR! The game mechanics work in favor of the gankers. Ganking is nothing special. In fact it is quite boring, you are doing always the same, over and over.
So do you. You talk and talk and talk. Always the same. Hiding behind the same char. Also always the same. Saying the same nonsense everytime. But the best part is that everyone argueing with you does the same as well. People need to learn to shut up, so mentally challenged like you stop doing the same thing all the time.
"People need to realise that saying "someone else will do it" also mean that other someone else might be thinking the exact same thing..."
-- Frostys Virpio, very attentive person, thoughtful, smart responses. Understands self responsibility.
|
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 06:40:23 -
[2112] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
You can't argue with results
You wish!
results easily reached by ganking friendly game mechanics.
No wonder code-monkeys get angry if someone talks about changes in EvE.
Training web alts in an hour, using cheap throwaway alts. (thanks for the details Globby)
Black Pedro wrote:
Gankers, if not good at what they do, are quite persistent at it.
Yepp, easy riskfree business.
But not elite or arts. Just gank friendly environment.
At least without them hisec would be really boring.
Black Pedro wrote:
CCP has enabled gankers to operate in highsec and expects you to deal with them as part of the designed gameplay.
EvE24 reports several titan-kills in one page reports.
Code takes up to 5 pages for Exhumer kills.
Great stuff.
Someone getting how hilarious this is?
Black Pedro wrote:
Ganking is elite PvP. It is like regular PvP except you have to deal with a layer of infallible NPC protection. Sure, that NPC protection may be predictable,
Now you gonna tell, it is really hard to gank?
Really...
Do you even reallise how stupid and measly your arguments are?
My turn:
Black Pedro wrote:
but it is none-the-less difficult to navigate.
SNIP
CODE. members who are masters of these arts.
GOSH!
Are you the J315 Ghostwriter?
DIFFICULT!
ART?
Hidiing in hisec, (ab)using the game mechanics is no art and no elite PvP.
Calling that elite is an offense to all real pvp playing ppl in EvE who have to tackle the real problems.
You just try to glorify (it does not work) the simple mechanics behind hisec ganking. This mechanics works for the gankers. bumbing is no criminal act and if it comes to fights, they do everything to avoid those. Nothing elite there.
Remember AT12?
Where the glorious FC of code could not get code-monkeys to fight and vanished without a word?
To come up later with lame excuses, contradicting themselfes?
Where this "glorious" fc tried to manufacture some poor evidence?
Again nothing elite...
But still you will repeat this lines and code-monkeys will repeat thjem too, until you believe them. That works for you, but is still not true!
clownstroupe.
Like a group of young boys on bycicles that act like they would be "Hells Angels"...
Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
|
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 06:43:13 -
[2113] - Quote
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:
People need to learn to shut up, so mentally challenged like you stop doing the same thing all the time.
You know, all you can do is trolling.
So i reported you for that.
As always you are projecting yourself on others:
all troll talk
and
mentally handicaped.
You should keep you mouth closed if you do not have something relevant to say.
Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
38705
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 06:45:56 -
[2114] - Quote
La Rynx wrote:Training web alts in an hour, using cheap throwaway alts. (thanks for the details Globby)
You realise training a web alt in an hour was a tactic to counter ganking right?
It wasn't what gankers can do. It's what any hauler can do and in one simple process, avoid a large part of the risk they face.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 06:47:19 -
[2115] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:
You realise training a web alt in an hour was a tactic to counter ganking right?
Yes.
Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1040
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 06:48:55 -
[2116] - Quote
La Rynx wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:
People need to learn to shut up, so mentally challenged like you stop doing the same thing all the time.
You know, all you can do is trolling. So i reported you for that. As always you are projecting yourself on others: all troll talk and mentally handicaped. You should keep you mouth closed if you do not have something relevant to say.
I did the same. If you want me to keep my mouth closed, find me in Osmon.
Unlike you, I don't need to hide behind an alt, because I'm not scared of consequences.
"People need to realise that saying "someone else will do it" also mean that other someone else might be thinking the exact same thing..."
-- Frostys Virpio, very attentive person, thoughtful, smart responses. Understands self responsibility.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
968
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 07:01:06 -
[2117] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:I actually kinda feel sorry for the anti-gankers, they're trying to do the thankless job of helping people who for the most part aren't even trying; against opponents that are extremely adept at what they do.
Dracvlad, putting forum animosity and meta game to one side; the gankers know the relevant mechanics inside out and back to front, for the most part they also know what it takes to counter them.
Don't take this the wrong way; roll an alt, join up with CODE., run some ganks and hyperdunks with them. Get to know, through taking part, exactly how they work rather than externally observing and drawing your own conclusions. They're using variations of traditional tactics, that have been developed and are used by others, that they've adapted and honed to work in specific circumstances.
I know that you partake of PvP in general but ganking and especially hyperdunking are somewhat niche.
As the old saying goes, knowledge is power. If you know exactly what you're dealing with, you should be able to come up with some counters that work.
I'd wager real money on one of the most effective counters being education though. Eve Uni obviously thought so, they recently got someone from CODE. in as a guest lecturer to educate their members about ganking and ganking avoidance.
Why feel sorry? People are doing it for fun, to have something to do, and sometimes those we try to save block us ignore us and just don't do what they need to do to be saved, but we just shrug and get on with it. Sometimes we get rewarded by people we have saved. Lets just say we have fun at times and we win some and lose quite a few, well thats because the Gankers are very well organised, very good at what they do and know the mechanics inside out.
I have actually done some low level ganking on another toon, but I have been observing CODE and Goon gankers for some time and know most of the mechanics, their tactical appreciation is very very good.
From what I have seen of the AG attempts to educate they focus on people using webbers and not auto-piloting, there are a few other things but thats not for me to say, I just participate. Globby for example recently convo'd one AG player because he was seriously getting in his way.
Most Anti-Gankers I know accept that CCP have allowed Hyperdunking, they also know how easy it is to stop, you just get the odd one now and then, mostly new to the AG movement who go off on it.
And our earlier exchange on another thread was nothing personal on my part, just doing what Kaarous and others do, in fact as posters go I actually like reading your posts.
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 07:22:01 -
[2118] - Quote
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:
If you want me to keep my mouth closed, find me in Osmon.
Unlike you, I don't need to hide behind an alt, because I'm not scared of consequences.
LOL
wagging your epenis...
Osmon, like Osmon hisec?
Next you will tell, that i am hiding in nullsec?
You admitted, that you have no arguments and now you want to fight over that...
very manly
Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
969
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 07:27:22 -
[2119] - Quote
One of our AG members stopped a hyperdunking yesterday and was given 500m as a reward. AG does pay and Hyperdunking can be stopped in game, so come on people stand up, I have stopped Hyper-dunking in Niarja for a couple of days for being ready to rep anything they bump. So come on people do your bit., hisec industry needs you!!!!
Someone set up a Freighter with male strippers under twin wraps fully insured it and had it ganked in Uedama, cost 10 Talos + 2 Brutix plus Catalysts for nothing, see AG has fun, and all loyalanon could say was AG failed to stop the gank.
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 07:31:25 -
[2120] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
Why feel sorry? People are doing it for fun, to have something to do, and sometimes those we try to save block us ignore us and just don't do what they need to do to be saved, but we just shrug and get on with it. Sometimes we get rewarded by people we have saved. Lets just say we have fun at times and we win some and lose quite a few, well thats because the Gankers are very well organised, very good at what they do and know the mechanics inside out.
Thats the spirit!
No white knighting, just do it for your own fun.
Dwelling in null, i would join AG just to anoy the gankers.
Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
|
|
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
969
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 07:40:23 -
[2121] - Quote
La Rynx wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
Why feel sorry? People are doing it for fun, to have something to do, and sometimes those we try to save block us ignore us and just don't do what they need to do to be saved, but we just shrug and get on with it. Sometimes we get rewarded by people we have saved. Lets just say we have fun at times and we win some and lose quite a few, well thats because the Gankers are very well organised, very good at what they do and know the mechanics inside out.
Thats the spirit! No white knighting, just do it for your own fun. Dwelling in null, i would join AG just to anoy the gankers.
Yes I am not a white knight, my participation is based on doing my bit to try to keep hisec industry alive and have fun, another guy who is very active was a ganker but does AG as he finds it a much bigger challenge.
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1040
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 07:46:57 -
[2122] - Quote
La Rynx wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:
If you want me to keep my mouth closed, find me in Osmon.
Unlike you, I don't need to hide behind an alt, because I'm not scared of consequences.
LOL wagging your epenis... Osmon, like Osmon hisec? Next you will tell, that i am hiding in nullsec? You admitted, that you have no arguments and now you want to fight over that... very manly In case you don't know, you're hiding behind a forum alt. You could sit in a wh, it does not change that you're a forum alt who does nothing but talk. So your reply kind of insults only yourself, but I guess THAT is too much for you to comprehend?
Forum alt.
Post with your main.
Please show us all how brave you are, bigmouth.
"People need to realise that saying "someone else will do it" also mean that other someone else might be thinking the exact same thing..."
-- Frostys Virpio, very attentive person, thoughtful, smart responses. Understands self responsibility.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1199
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 07:51:18 -
[2123] - Quote
La Rynx wrote:At least without them hisec would be really boring.
See now you are getting it. Gankers make the game much better: more engaging, more exciting, more meaningful.
La Rynx wrote:
EvE24 reports several titan-kills in one page reports.
Code takes up to 5 pages for Exhumer kills.
Great stuff.
Someone getting how hilarious this is?
Elite PvP: http://i.imgur.com/w2bnNBV.png
What is hilarious is that your precious "titan-kills" amount to peanuts against the might of the CODE. killboard.
And if you filter out the killboard inflation that people like you partake in (titan kills, sure), CODE. is even more elite: http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-kills-of-2014-overview_14.html
Those my friend, are some serious results.
La Rynx wrote:GOSH!
Are you the J315 Ghostwriter?
DIFFICULT!
ART?
Hidiing in hisec, (ab)using the game mechanics is no art and no elite PvP.
Miner, calm down: your 'caps lock' key seems stuck.
Elite PvP is beating other players. By that metric, CODE. is the most elite PvP organization in all of Eve right now. They routinely destroy and steal the more assets than the biggest nullsec alliances and with just a fraction of the number of pilots.
Saying that you are "elite" doesn't make it so I am afraid. You need to show some results.
CODE. shows results.
La Rynx wrote:Calling that elite is an offense to all real pvp playing ppl in EvE who have to tackle the real problems.
You just try to glorify (it does not work) the simple mechanics behind hisec ganking. This mechanics works for the gankers. bumbing is no criminal act and if it comes to fights, they do everything to avoid those. Nothing elite there.
The mechanics are the mechanics. Don't hate the player, hate the game. If you aren't competent enough to play the game with the agreed upon rules, you probably should stop playing the game instead of about whining how the game isn't "fair". Anything else doesn't really seem like it would be fun.
La Rynx wrote:
Remember AT12?
Where the glorious FC of code could not get code-monkeys to fight and vanished without a word?
To come up later with lame excuses, contradicting themselfes?
Where this "glorious" fc tried to manufacture some poor evidence?
Ah yes, one of CODE.'s greatest PR victories. Not only did they win the tournament without losing a ship (well I guess they lost some catalysts), they made history by being the only alliance ever banned from the tournament - a punishment even confirmed cheaters never received. All anyone was talking about was CODE. this and CODE. that: seems like they got what they wanted.
But you are just dragging this thread off topic. We all already know the Code always wins, so perhaps we can stop discussing how great they are and get back to the topic at hand, which is hyperdunking? |
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1040
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 07:57:13 -
[2124] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:La Rynx wrote:At least without them hisec would be really boring. See now you are getting it. Gankers make the game much better: more engaging, more exciting, more meaningful. Elite PvP: http://i.imgur.com/w2bnNBV.png
What is hilarious is that your precious "titan-kills" amount to peanuts against the might of the CODE. killboard. And if you filter out the killboard inflation that people like you partake in (titan kills, sure), CODE. is even more elite: http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-kills-of-2014-overview_14.html
Those my friend, are some serious results. La Rynx wrote:GOSH!
Are you the J315 Ghostwriter?
DIFFICULT!
ART?
Hidiing in hisec, (ab)using the game mechanics is no art and no elite PvP. Miner, calm down: your 'caps lock' key seems stuck. Elite PvP is beating other players. By that metric, CODE. is the most elite PvP organization in all of Eve right now. They routinely destroy and steal the more assets than the biggest nullsec alliances and with just a fraction of the number of pilots. Saying that you are "elite" doesn't make it so I am afraid. You need to show some results. CODE. shows results. La Rynx wrote:Calling that elite is an offense to all real pvp playing ppl in EvE who have to tackle the real problems.
You just try to glorify (it does not work) the simple mechanics behind hisec ganking. This mechanics works for the gankers. bumbing is no criminal act and if it comes to fights, they do everything to avoid those. Nothing elite there. The mechanics are the mechanics. Don't hate the player, hate the game. If you aren't competent enough to play the game with the agreed upon rules, you probably should stop playing the game instead of about whining how the game isn't "fair". Anything else doesn't really seem like it would be fun. La Rynx wrote:
Remember AT12?
Where the glorious FC of code could not get code-monkeys to fight and vanished without a word?
To come up later with lame excuses, contradicting themselfes?
Where this "glorious" fc tried to manufacture some poor evidence?
Ah yes, one of CODE.'s greatest PR victories. Not only did they win the tournament without losing a ship (well I guess they lost some catalysts), they made history by being the only alliance ever banned from the tournament - a punishment even confirmed cheaters never received. All anyone was talking about was CODE. this and CODE. that: seems like they got what they wanted. But you are just dragging this thread off topic. We all already know the Code always wins, so perhaps we can stop discussing how great they are and get back to the topic at hand, which is hyperdunking?
Please stop embarassing yourself?
"People need to realise that saying "someone else will do it" also mean that other someone else might be thinking the exact same thing..."
-- Frostys Virpio, very attentive person, thoughtful, smart responses. Understands self responsibility.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1199
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 08:01:29 -
[2125] - Quote
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:
Please stop embarassing yourself?
I am just enjoying some light Saturday-morning trolling of La Rynx.
Lighten up and try to have to some fun. Eve is a just game we all play for entertainment after all. |
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1040
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 08:12:38 -
[2126] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:
Please stop embarassing yourself?
I am just enjoying some light Saturday-morning trolling of La Rynx. Lighten up and try to have to some fun. Eve is a just game we all play for entertainment after all.
But you can't say these things and believe them too!!!!!111111oneoneone
Entertainment? I am working my ass off to do my small part in attempting to make people miserable and now you tell me it's ENTERTAINMENT?? I don't want ENTERTAINMENT, people need to be BITTER! I will be SO proud of the first idiot whining about the empty belts and how I suck away all his ice in covetors while he's wasting his time in a ******* tank of a mining ship!
I can even see the headline already!
"GRIEFING MINER STEALS MY ICE UNFAIR CCP DO SOMETHING!"
There. Better?
"People need to realise that saying "someone else will do it" also mean that other someone else might be thinking the exact same thing..."
-- Frostys Virpio, very attentive person, thoughtful, smart responses. Understands self responsibility.
|
Renegade Heart
Carebear Miners R Us
490
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 08:48:22 -
[2127] - Quote
So what is this argument really about? It's elite PvP of course, and at the same time, it's not so elite. It depends on your perspective. You probably aren't to agree on it, so why not go bash your head against a wall instead? It might be more productive |
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
298
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 09:05:03 -
[2128] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:code is elite blah
To get you arguments working you have to redefine reality.
Noone outside of code thinks that code wins.
And if you kill 1 million mice and another one just a tiger with bare hands, doesnt make you elite hunter.
It is like comparing apples with oranges.
This just makes the mice guy pathetic.
As for the time being gankers replace capable ai in hisec.
Ganking per se aint bad either, but code is a measly group of sub par players.
And no AT12 was no PR stunt either, it was a PR catastrophe, where even CCP joked over code. You failed and no spin gets you out of there mr spindoctor.
Hyperdunking as using game mechanics was no intended game mechanic, but is considererd OK until further notice.
Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1041
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 09:19:27 -
[2129] - Quote
Renegade Heart wrote:So what is this argument really about? It's elite PvP of course, and at the same time, it's not so elite. It depends on your perspective. You probably aren't to agree on it, so why not go bash your head against a wall instead? It might be more productive
I do that all the time! Now i have 100 million isk worth of ore!
Coincidence? I don't think so!
#eliteminer
"People need to realise that saying "someone else will do it" also mean that other someone else might be thinking the exact same thing..."
-- Frostys Virpio, very attentive person, thoughtful, smart responses. Understands self responsibility.
|
Renegade Heart
Carebear Miners R Us
491
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 09:26:27 -
[2130] - Quote
La Rynx wrote:To get you arguments working you have to redefine reality.
Noone outside of code thinks that code wins.
Or you could ignore reality maybe? For example, there are players like me, who are not inside of CODE, yet I can see how they win.
But if I don't exist, or am redefined in some manner, then you win? These are serious questions by the way!
|
|
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1041
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 09:29:53 -
[2131] - Quote
Renegade Heart wrote:La Rynx wrote:To get you arguments working you have to redefine reality.
Noone outside of code thinks that code wins. Or you could ignore reality maybe? For example, there are players like me, who are not inside of CODE, yet I can see how they win. But if I don't exist, or am redefined in some manner, then you win? These are serious questions by the way!
Asking the real questions!
#elitequestionasker
"People need to realise that saying "someone else will do it" also mean that other someone else might be thinking the exact same thing..."
-- Frostys Virpio, very attentive person, thoughtful, smart responses. Understands self responsibility.
|
Maenth
The Thirteen Provinces
16
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 10:56:00 -
[2132] - Quote
While I understand that 'hyperdunking' doesn't break the rules - which alone is fine - the fact that it can be done shows that the crimewatch system doesn't exactly do what it should. Police are supposed to be a crime-prevention force and not 100% a crime-reaction force. CONCORD should be at least forceful enough to say "You misused your ship so we're taking it from you by force, and any other ship you bring out in the next little while that might try the same criminal activity" ... kinda like how people get arrested and then put in jail for at least a little while and not just immediately released.
How effective is a police force that responds to drunk driving by just taking the beer you have on you at the time, says "I've got my eye on you" and then leaves you alone until you mess up again ..?
The real issue is risk vs reward. For hisec grankers the risk[cost] is very low while potential rewards are very high. Within the grand scheme of EVE and its philosophy of risk vs reward there is too much favour for the gankers in hisec; it doesn't cost much ISK or Time or even Complexity to significantly multiply their investment.
Drones. Drones are a means to an end. An end to the ruthless Caldari 'progress' machines. An end to the barbaric 'redemption' proposed by the Amarr. What they see as chaos shall be my perfect order, merely beyond their comprehension.
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1047
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 11:03:47 -
[2133] - Quote
Maenth wrote:Police are supposed to be a crime-prevention force and not 100% a crime-reaction force. That's police, but this is CONCORD. What you believe what should be and actual reality doesn't go together. Now instead of being fixated on your silly idea, how about you acknowledge the reality of the game and how it works.
I'll save us both time and ignore the rest of the drivel, because the beginning was already dismissable anyway.
Thank you.
"People need to realise that saying "someone else will do it" also mean that other someone else might be thinking the exact same thing..."
-- Frostys Virpio, very attentive person, thoughtful, smart responses. Understands self responsibility.
|
Maenth
The Thirteen Provinces
16
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 11:10:26 -
[2134] - Quote
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Maenth wrote:Police are supposed to be a crime-prevention force and not 100% a crime-reaction force. That's police, but this is CONCORD. What you believe what should be and actual reality doesn't go together. Now instead of being fixated on your silly idea, how about you acknowledge the reality of the game and how it works. I'll save us both time and ignore the rest of the drivel, because the beginning was already dismissable anyway. Thank you.
I understand and actually appreciate the reality, but EVE is supposed to be all about risk/cost vs reward and criminals should have to really play that harsh game along with the haulers and wormhole corps and sov alliances.
Drones. Drones are a means to an end. An end to the ruthless Caldari 'progress' machines. An end to the barbaric 'redemption' proposed by the Amarr. What they see as chaos shall be my perfect order, merely beyond their comprehension.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1202
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 11:23:13 -
[2135] - Quote
Maenth wrote:While I understand that 'hyperdunking' doesn't break the rules - which alone is fine - the fact that it can be done shows that the crimewatch system doesn't exactly do what it should. Police are supposed to be a crime-prevention force and not 100% a crime-reaction force. CONCORD should be at least forceful enough to say "You misused your ship so we're taking it from you by force, and any other ship you bring out in the next little while that might try the same criminal activity" ... kinda like how people get arrested and then put in jail for at least a little while and not just immediately released.
Didn't I just link CCP's thoughts on this a page or two ago? Well here it is again:
CCP wrote:5.2 WHO IS CONCORD AND WHAT ROLE DO THEY PERFORM?
CONCORD can be considered to be the GÇÿspace policeGÇÖ who patrol the higher security areas of New Eden. They take action against those who attack others without justification and will hunt such miscreants down and destroy them without mercy. However, their role is not to prevent an attack but to punish an aggressor. Should you find yourself under fire from another pilot, CONCORD may not arrive in time to help you, so it will be down to your skill and the strength of your ship to prevail.
CONCORD is not there to prevent crime - that is up to you.
Maenth wrote:The real issue is risk vs reward. For hisec grankers the risk[cost] is very low while potential rewards are very high. Within the grand scheme of EVE and its philosophy of risk vs reward there is too much favour for the gankers in hisec; it doesn't cost much ISK or Time or even Complexity to significantly multiply their investment.
You are missing the point of the game design: gankers are the risk in risk vs. reward. Everyone is subject to this game mechanism and anyone can participate: you can sacrifice your ship for the chance of taking the other player's stuff. At its stripped-down core, ganking is not a profession but a way by which players can enforce the risk vs. reward design of the game against other players.
Ganking does not put resources into the economy - it only destroys them - so it is not necessary for gankers to have any risk at all. That is not to say that they don't have risk as they do and fail all the time, but fundamentally that paradigm which is needed to control resource generation into the greater economy does not apply.
Without ganking, there would be no risk at all left in highsec. CCP recognizes this and has enabled suicide ganking and criminals so there is actually at least some risk there. The mechanics have been tightened so much that suicide ganking has never been harder, and despite what you think it pays less per hour than L4 missioning, sometimes much less, when you factor in all the people and time needed to pull off a successful gank. It is by no means an easy or guaranteed way to get rich or more people would be doing it. |
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1048
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 11:30:45 -
[2136] - Quote
Maenth wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Maenth wrote:Police are supposed to be a crime-prevention force and not 100% a crime-reaction force. That's police, but this is CONCORD. What you believe what should be and actual reality doesn't go together. Now instead of being fixated on your silly idea, how about you acknowledge the reality of the game and how it works. I'll save us both time and ignore the rest of the drivel, because the beginning was already dismissable anyway. Thank you. I understand and actually appreciate the reality, but EVE is supposed to be all about risk/cost vs reward and criminals should have to really play that harsh game along with the haulers and wormhole corps and sov alliances.
Then, as you believe changes are needed, please link at least a week worth of suicide ganking kills to show that you actually have an idea what you are talking about. Thanks!
"People need to realise that saying "someone else will do it" also mean that other someone else might be thinking the exact same thing..."
-- Frostys Virpio, very attentive person, thoughtful, smart responses. Understands self responsibility.
|
Kandu Harr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 11:36:19 -
[2137] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
Without ganking, there would be no risk at all left in highsec.
you should amend that statement, it is false
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
24335
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 11:46:54 -
[2138] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Why feel sorry? People are doing it for fun, to have something to do, and sometimes those we try to save block us ignore us and just don't do what they need to do to be saved, but we just shrug and get on with it. Sometimes we get rewarded by people we have saved. Lets just say we have fun at times and we win some and lose quite a few, well thats because the Gankers are very well organised, very good at what they do and know the mechanics inside out.
I have actually done some low level ganking on another toon, but I have been observing CODE and Goon gankers for some time and know most of the mechanics, their tactical appreciation is very very good. If that's the case then carry on, fun is a great reason to do something. It's great to see that you appreciate the organisation and skills of your opponents too, something that others, including CODE. pilots sometimes fail to do.
Quote:From what I have seen of the AG attempts to educate they focus on people using webbers and not auto-piloting, there are a few other things but thats not for me to say, I just participate. Globby for example recently convo'd one AG player because he was seriously getting in his way. Unfortunately that education often falls on barren ground, some players just don't want to accept that they sometimes have to put effort into what is often a boring activity.
IIt's good to see that you are having an effect on the sandbox by sometimes getting in the way though.
Quote:Most Anti-Gankers I know accept that CCP have allowed Hyperdunking, they also know how easy it is to stop, you just get the odd one now and then, mostly new to the AG movement who go off on it. I retract my earlier sorrow for anti gankers in general and instead reserve it for those few who can't accept that hyperdunking is allowed and kick off about it at every opportunity.
Quote:And our earlier exchange on another thread was nothing personal on my part, just doing what Kaarous and others do, in fact as posters go I actually like reading your posts. Likewise on the nothing personal, I can be rather blunt and unapologetic, which often comes across the wrong way. It's why I phrased the post the way I did with reference to meta game and forum animosities.
@La Rynx, regardless of how you feel about what CODE. do, they are very good at it, adept is a fitting word to use.
adept
adjective
+Ö-êd+¢pt,-êad+¢pt/
1.
very skilled or proficient at something.
synonyms:expert, proficient, accomplished, skilful, talented, gifted, masterly, virtuoso, consummate, peerless; More
noun
-êad+¢pt/
1.
a person who is skilled or proficient at something.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
CODE.
13721
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 11:52:28 -
[2139] - Quote
Maenth wrote:Police are supposed to be a crime-prevention force and not 100% a crime-reaction force.
Wrong. Hell man, that's not even true in real life.
Quote:kinda like how people get arrested and then put in jail for at least a little while and not just immediately released.
Capsuleers are not "people". We are just short of gods. Any analogy to real life is basically invalid from the outset merely by virtue of this fact.
Quote:
The real issue is risk vs reward. For hisec grankers the risk[cost] is very low while potential rewards are very high.
The rewards are entirely based on how stupid the haulers are being on any given day. And, like any PvP interaction, risk is determined almost entirely by how much effort is being put in by the opposition. Put in zero, and yeah, we have an easy time of it, working as intended.
Quote:
On top of that, the legal penalty or cost for a life devoted to crime within civilized society is extremely low.
New Eden is not a civilized society.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
CODE.
13721
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 11:56:19 -
[2140] - Quote
Maenth wrote:
I understand and actually appreciate the reality, but EVE is supposed to be all about risk/cost vs reward and criminals should have to really play that harsh game along with the haulers and wormhole corps and sov alliances.
You want the only playstyle in highsec that actually has consequences built into it to have even more stacked on top... so that you can commensurately reduce your own risk to actual zero.
People like you don't get to talk about risk vs reward, you don't even know what it means.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
|
|
Maenth
The Thirteen Provinces
16
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 12:07:43 -
[2141] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Maenth wrote:
I understand and actually appreciate the reality, but EVE is supposed to be all about risk/cost vs reward and criminals should have to really play that harsh game along with the haulers and wormhole corps and sov alliances.
You want the only playstyle in highsec that actually has consequences built into it to have even more stacked on top... so that you can commensurately reduce your own risk to actual zero. People like you don't get to talk about risk vs reward, you don't even know what it means.
Cool but I have actually lived in nullsec and also currently live in w-space so *dismiss*
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK BLACK PEDRO FOR A THOROUGH AND WELL-SUPPORTED REBUTTAL
Drones. Drones are a means to an end. An end to the ruthless Caldari 'progress' machines. An end to the barbaric 'redemption' proposed by the Amarr. What they see as chaos shall be my perfect order, merely beyond their comprehension.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1207
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 12:12:24 -
[2142] - Quote
Kandu Harr wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
Without ganking, there would be no risk at all left in highsec.
you should amend that statement, it is false
What risk is there left for an NPC corp member then other than a suicide gank? NPCs? Accidentally self-destructing?
At the beginning of 2015 there were three forms of non-consensual PvP in highsec: wardecs, suicide ganking, and highsec awoxing.
Now there are only two. And only one of those affects NPC corp members. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
24335
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 12:14:57 -
[2143] - Quote
Maenth wrote:Police are supposed to be a crime-prevention force and not 100% a crime-reaction force. Context is needed here, the only punishable crime in hisec is unsanctioned aggression, the penalty for committing that crime is enough to deter an extremely large majority of hisec players from committing it. Everything else is a misdemeanor
Quote:On top of that, the legal penalty or cost for a life devoted to crime within civilized society is extremely low Are you sure you meant to write that? Unless my eyes have suddenly gone squiffy and I'm misreading it, you just stated that the legal penalties for a life of crime in a civilised society are low, which is a direct contradiction of the rest of your post.
Quote:The loss of security status is irrelevant when people can just buy those tags to repair their security status. People who want to be good with the forces of law and order have to grind missions, but serial murderers and thieves can just buy their way back in to civilized society where they'll almost certainly commit crimes again? It's just.. all wrong This is as true in real life as it is in Eve, if you have enough money and influence you can get away with pretty much anything.
Also Eve is a dystopia, which is the exact opposite of a civilised society.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
1349
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 12:17:23 -
[2144] - Quote
Maenth wrote:
I understand and actually appreciate the reality, but EVE is supposed to be all about risk/cost vs reward and criminals should have to really play that harsh game along with the haulers and wormhole corps and sov alliances.
The risk vs reward applies for the NPC content and not for player driven stuff. Actually in highsec it is completely backwards, if they ship billions of ISK with ships that can be killed for a few hundred millions, then something else is going on.
The people of highsec have a wrong sense of security if they undock and autopilot their whole stuff without escort. And thats exactly because ganking was nerfed into the ground and only a hand full of people do it, but find a place full of freigters with billions of loot.
By making highsec even more secure you will just make this whole thing worse. The freighters will get even more fat and the few left who can organize a gank will earn even more.
Think about it!
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Omega Capsuleer
Order of Cut-Throats
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 13:24:08 -
[2145] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:
Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage.
But what about the disadvantaged? Those without the resources (isk, SP, equipment, etc.) to seek revenge?
And it does not consider how people feel loss. A new player losing a ship he has put all his earnings into feels the loss more than a bitter vet losing hundreds of millions of isk to Concord.
Sounds like a new generation of punching bags. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16726
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 13:29:16 -
[2146] - Quote
Omega Capsuleer wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:
Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage.
But what about the disadvantaged? Those without the resources (isk, SP, equipment, etc.) to seek revenge? And it does not consider how people feel loss. A new player losing a ship he has put all his earnings into feels the loss more than a bitter vet losing hundreds of millions of isk to Concord. Sounds like a new generation of punching bags.
Here you are referring to people too "disadvantaged" to fit and fly eg: an arty thrasher.
Those people should still be running the tutorial missions, not flying freighters and concern-trolling.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
1352
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 13:30:10 -
[2147] - Quote
Omega Capsuleer wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:
Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage.
But what about the disadvantaged? Those without the resources (isk, SP, equipment, etc.) to seek revenge? And it does not consider how people feel loss. A new player losing a ship he has put all his earnings into feels the loss more than a bitter vet losing hundreds of millions of isk to Concord. Sounds like a new generation of punching bags.
How many new players do you know who lost an Orca or a Freighter in a hyperdunk?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Anne Dieu-le-veut
Natl Assn for the Advancement of Criminal People
189
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 15:38:37 -
[2148] - Quote
Maenth wrote: CONCORD should be at least forceful enough to say "You misused your ship so we're taking it from you by force, and any other ship you bring out in the next little while that might try the same criminal activity" ... kinda like how people get arrested and then put in jail for at least a little while and not just immediately released.
Umm, that's exactly what happens. Any ship they board while under GCC is destroyed, whether they take new criminal actions or not. You really should learn game mechanics better before proposing changes.
Maenth wrote:How effective is a police force that responds to drunk driving by just taking the beer you have on you at the time, says "I've got my eye on you" and then leaves you alone until you mess up again ..?
They confiscate your ship and any other ship you board for the next 15 minutes...not exactly "taking the beer". Taking the beer would be like confiscating only their ammo.
Omega Capsuleer wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:
Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage.
But what about the disadvantaged? Those without the resources (isk, SP, equipment, etc.) to seek revenge? And it does not consider how people feel loss. A new player losing a ship he has put all his earnings into feels the loss more than a bitter vet losing hundreds of millions of isk to Concord. Sounds like a new generation of punching bags.
Ah, yes...the "new player" flying around in freighters with 10B worth of assets. Did I not get the secret password when I created my account as a new player to get a freighter? |
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
1672
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 16:03:16 -
[2149] - Quote
Anne Dieu-le-veut wrote:
Ah, yes...the "new player" flying around in freighters with 10B worth of assets. Did I not get the secret password when I created my account as a new player to get a freighter?
Come now, let's not pretend that isk value under a certain level brings "safety".
You'll die if people are bored enough regardless, even if it is empty.
Which is fine, but let's be clear for people trying to research: lower value = lower risk but far from none.
Don't rock about in capitals unsupported. |
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1055
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 16:31:49 -
[2150] - Quote
Omega Capsuleer wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:
Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage.
But what about the disadvantaged? Those without the resources (isk, SP, equipment, etc.) to seek revenge? And it does not consider how people feel loss. A new player losing a ship he has put all his earnings into feels the loss more than a bitter vet losing hundreds of millions of isk to Concord. Sounds like a new generation of punching bags. There is only one thing that needs to be said to expose all of this as bullshit.
For over a decade, hundreds of thousands of people have played and joined this game.
Whatever you say is simply invalid, because it only happens in your head.
Now to the new generation. Yes, the new generation are punching bags, but that's not our fault. It's theirs. Current and next generation gamers are flat-out losers, unless they really dedicate themselves to championships and whatever. Absolutely most gamers are flat-out idiots who lack any skill whatsoever.
Hand the classic Prince of Persia to a 16 year old kid of today.
There's a 60 Minutes time limit in this game.
Watch him fail.
And fail.
And fail.
And rage.
Whine.
And then give up.
Yes, the new generation is a bunch of punching bags.
Self entitled, worthless punching bags.
But that's not OUR fault!
WE know that people aren't equal. WE know that not everyone deserves a chance. Work for it or get lost, that's how things get done. WE don't need to adapt to self entitled people who lack attention-span and concentration. If people are too dumb to play this game, then they ARE too dumb to play this game. They aren't a target audience for this game, at all, because they want things this game can not offer them.
Your pity for these people is disgusting.
"People need to realise that saying "someone else will do it" also mean that other someone else might be thinking the exact same thing..."
-- Frostys Virpio, very attentive person, thoughtful, smart responses. Understands self responsibility.
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6386
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 16:49:02 -
[2151] - Quote
Hyperdunking makes that part irrelevant.
Black Pedro wrote:You are missing the point of the game design: gankers are the risk in risk vs. reward. Gankng is aplaystyle in itself and should be itself balanced in risk vs reward. Claiming is is the risk and thus shouldn't itself be subject to the same rules is ludicrous. As it stands, ganking is cheap and easy and insanely rewarding. All you're doing here is crying to keep your easy income source, and it's pathetic. You're a carebear.
Black Pedro wrote:Ganking does not put resources into the economy - it only destroys them - so it is not necessary for gankers to have any risk at all. ROFL! Carebear confirmed. You want to get rewarded but want zero risk.
Black Pedro wrote:Without ganking, there would be no risk at all left in highsec. Fundamentally wrong on all levels. There's loads of risk not related to ganking. Form wardecs through duals and suspect flags through to simply losing to NPCs. That said, ganking should still exist going forwards, it should just be balanced so that the better rewards are more difficult (or at least not so predictable and simple) to obtain.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1057
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 17:11:04 -
[2152] - Quote
As usual I will ignore Lucas Kell with my shocking honesty, pointing out that he should talk to a mirror from time to time.
I really like this profile picture. Thanks, CCP Punkturis!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6386
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 17:16:45 -
[2153] - Quote
I accept your concession of defeat.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Mag's
the united
19819
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 17:17:00 -
[2154] - Quote
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:As usual I will ignore Lucas Kell with my shocking honesty, pointing out that he should talk to a mirror from time to time. Well he is fundamentally wrong on all levels, so maybe he can't look into one?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6386
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 17:20:44 -
[2155] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:As usual I will ignore Lucas Kell with my shocking honesty, pointing out that he should talk to a mirror from time to time. Well he is fundamentally wrong on all levels, so maybe he can't look into one? Care to elaborate? Are you suggesting that game developers should be aiming only for a generation of gamers which can only decrease in size ignoring the primary market? Sounds like crazy talk to me.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1058
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 17:23:26 -
[2156] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Mag's wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:As usual I will ignore Lucas Kell with my shocking honesty, pointing out that he should talk to a mirror from time to time. Well he is fundamentally wrong on all levels, so maybe he can't look into one? Care to elaborate? Are you suggesting that game developers should be aiming only for a generation of gamers which can only decrease in size ignoring the primary market? Sounds like crazy talk to me.
No, brainiac. He's talking about you. The way you think. It's not about what you say, but it's about what makes you say it in the first place.
I really like this profile picture. Thanks, CCP Punkturis!
|
Mag's
the united
19819
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 17:24:40 -
[2157] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Mag's wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:As usual I will ignore Lucas Kell with my shocking honesty, pointing out that he should talk to a mirror from time to time. Well he is fundamentally wrong on all levels, so maybe he can't look into one? Care to elaborate? Are you suggesting that game developers should be aiming only for a generation of gamers which can only decrease in size ignoring the primary market? Sounds like crazy talk to me. You do have your opinion, that we know. It's fundamentally wrong and that's my opinion. I see how this works and follow your lead.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6386
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 17:26:38 -
[2158] - Quote
So tl;dr you have no reasoning and it can be safely assumed you are a troll and your posts can be disregarded. Gotcha.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Mag's
the united
19819
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 17:27:11 -
[2159] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:So tl;dr you have no reasoning and it can be safely assumed you are a troll and your posts can be disregarded. Gotcha. So you are looking in a mirror.
Win win.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Paranoid Loyd
6314
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 17:29:16 -
[2160] - Quote
This thread needs some comic relief, enjoy.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!
|
|
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1058
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 17:39:55 -
[2161] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:So tl;dr you have no reasoning and it can be safely assumed you are a troll and your posts can be disregarded. Gotcha. You use the defense of the weak. While you see it as disregarding, actually it's nothing more but ignorance and running away.
Paranoid Loyd wrote:This thread needs some comic relief, enjoy.
This isn't actually funny, you know? Is this the message we want to transport? We're all a bunch of idiots, constantly whining and insulting everyone? Congratulations!
I really like this profile picture. Thanks, CCP Punkturis!
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
1995
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 17:48:29 -
[2162] - Quote
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:This thread needs some comic relief, enjoy. This isn't actually funny, you know? Is this the message we want to transport? We're all a bunch of idiots, constantly whining and insulting everyone? Congratulations! Indeed, that video is spawned by a truly childish sense of humour. Lucas Kell wrote:Hyperdunking makes that part irrelevant. Lucas, how do you not feel punished by losing a cheap ship that you knew was going to be destroyed?
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other spaces, where they can grow
Fozzie SOV is treating a symptom.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6386
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 17:49:05 -
[2163] - Quote
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:So tl;dr you have no reasoning and it can be safely assumed you are a troll and your posts can be disregarded. Gotcha. You use the defense of the weak. While you see it as disregarding, actually it's nothing more but ignorance and running away. That might hold water if it wasn't directly following you choosing to ignore a post with actual content. There is no good way to respond to trolls with nothing to say. I on the other hand pointed out why CCP chooses to embrace the primary gaming market and why previous generation games are irrelevant and you failed to respond to that. Any time you want to jump back on topic, feel free.
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:This thread needs some comic relief, enjoy. This isn't actually funny, you know? Is this the message we want to transport? We're all a bunch of idiots, constantly whining and insulting everyone? Congratulations! This is EVE.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Paranoid Loyd
6316
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 18:00:03 -
[2164] - Quote
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:This thread needs some comic relief, enjoy. This isn't actually funny, you know? Is this the message we want to transport? We're all a bunch of idiots, constantly whining and insulting everyone? Congratulations!
If you really care that much about what uninformed people think about you, then I feel sorry for you.
This video shows EVE is real, and people get really ******* passionate about their internet space pixels to the point they make complete asses of themselves.
It is both comical and beautiful at the same time. It is why we all love EVE. Content.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1058
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 18:06:21 -
[2165] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:This thread needs some comic relief, enjoy. This isn't actually funny, you know? Is this the message we want to transport? We're all a bunch of idiots, constantly whining and insulting everyone? Congratulations! If you really care that much about what uninformed people think about you, then I feel sorry for you. This video shows EVE is real, and people get really ******* passionate about their internet space pixels to the point they make complete asses of themselves. It is both comical and beautiful at the same time. It is why we all love EVE. Content. Uninformed people are the ones we want to get into the game. No?
Everyone who knows it either is already here or doesn't play it. Or do you disagree?
You're all addicts to your own amusement. This video is ****. It's childish. It's immature. If you want more of these idiots around, then please go ahead and make more of them! That's NOT going to decrease the whining though! It won't make EVE a better place! It won't make highsec any less safer! On the contrary!
What this video shows to all the yet uninformed, actually mature and actually intelligent people who might want to play, is that we're all a bunch of whining, insulting, dickwaving idiots!
If YOU prefer THESE kinds of people, then get ready for even more whining from instant gratification shitlords and more whining about gankers, because it's THESE people who will cry out loud for CCP to kill the game for them!
Congratulations to you just as much!
I really like this profile picture. Thanks, CCP Punkturis!
|
Kandu Harr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 18:10:23 -
[2166] - Quote
trolloling in eve - priceless
in a ccp falcon thread? -
topic? its mentioned up at the top, btw. |
Paranoid Loyd
6318
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 18:23:27 -
[2167] - Quote
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:This thread needs some comic relief, enjoy. This isn't actually funny, you know? Is this the message we want to transport? We're all a bunch of idiots, constantly whining and insulting everyone? Congratulations! If you really care that much about what uninformed people think about you, then I feel sorry for you. This video shows EVE is real, and people get really ******* passionate about their internet space pixels to the point they make complete asses of themselves. It is both comical and beautiful at the same time. It is why we all love EVE. Content. Uninformed people are the ones we want to get into the game. No? Everyone who knows it either is already here or doesn't play it. Or do you disagree? You're all addicts to your own amusement. This video is ****. It's childish. It's immature. If you want more of these idiots around, then please go ahead and make more of them! That's NOT going to decrease the whining though! It won't make EVE a better place! It won't make highsec any less safer! On the contrary! What this video shows to all the yet uninformed, actually mature and actually intelligent people who might want to play, is that we're all a bunch of whining, insulting, dickwaving idiots! If YOU prefer THESE kinds of people, then get ready for even more whining from instant gratification shitlords and more whining about gankers, because it's THESE people who will cry out loud for CCP to kill the game for them! Congratulations to you just as much!
If you think this video will have any discernible influence over the type of people that decide to play EVE you are a fool.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
1998
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 19:11:54 -
[2168] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:...Congratulations ... ... you are a fool. Don't they make such a lovely pair?
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other spaces, where they can grow
Fozzie SOV is treating a symptom.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6388
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 19:17:04 -
[2169] - Quote
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:If YOU prefer THESE kinds of people, then get ready for even more whining from instant gratification shitlords and more whining about gankers, because it's THESE people who will cry out loud for CCP to kill the game for them! Personally, if it's a choice between THESE kinds of people and people like yourself, you lose every single time.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1059
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 19:34:11 -
[2170] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:This thread needs some comic relief, enjoy. This isn't actually funny, you know? Is this the message we want to transport? We're all a bunch of idiots, constantly whining and insulting everyone? Congratulations! If you really care that much about what uninformed people think about you, then I feel sorry for you. This video shows EVE is real, and people get really ******* passionate about their internet space pixels to the point they make complete asses of themselves. It is both comical and beautiful at the same time. It is why we all love EVE. Content. Uninformed people are the ones we want to get into the game. No? Everyone who knows it either is already here or doesn't play it. Or do you disagree? You're all addicts to your own amusement. This video is ****. It's childish. It's immature. If you want more of these idiots around, then please go ahead and make more of them! That's NOT going to decrease the whining though! It won't make EVE a better place! It won't make highsec any less safer! On the contrary! What this video shows to all the yet uninformed, actually mature and actually intelligent people who might want to play, is that we're all a bunch of whining, insulting, dickwaving idiots! If YOU prefer THESE kinds of people, then get ready for even more whining from instant gratification shitlords and more whining about gankers, because it's THESE people who will cry out loud for CCP to kill the game for them! Congratulations to you just as much! If you think this video will have any discernible influence over the type of people that decide to play EVE you are a fool. If you think that no one watches this, shakes his head and just drops the idea of joining this game, then fools are you and me both!
Seriously could you just THINK about how awesome this game were if we had actually SMART people around? Not the idiots we have now, plus even more idiots coming from reddit and Wow! No! Smart people, who do not whine and rage, but instead figure out how to fight back!
THIS definitely isn't helping, just like reddit isn't helping and every single one who cheers this stupid video isn't helping either! Please just CONSIDER what outside people must think of us! Not just idiots, but the actually SMART ones!
I really like this profile picture. Thanks, CCP Punkturis!
|
|
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1059
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 19:35:20 -
[2171] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:If YOU prefer THESE kinds of people, then get ready for even more whining from instant gratification shitlords and more whining about gankers, because it's THESE people who will cry out loud for CCP to kill the game for them! Personally, if it's a choice between THESE kinds of people and people like yourself, you lose every single time. *pats your head* Get yourself a mirror.
I really like this profile picture. Thanks, CCP Punkturis!
|
Paranoid Loyd
6324
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 20:07:44 -
[2172] - Quote
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:SMART You keep using this word and I am starting to think you don't know what it means.
A smart person would not take a single video that is clearly a parody and base his decision as to whether or not to play a video game based off the parody.
Nor would a smart person think that a sample of a few idiots in said parody would accurately represent an entire player base.
Nor would a smart person think that smart people don't get passionate and say or do dumb things on occasion.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
1998
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 20:19:18 -
[2173] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:SMART A smart ... a smart ... a smart ... that smart .... Yay smarties!
I am sure you can manage to be more concise.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other spaces, where they can grow
Fozzie SOV is treating a symptom.
|
Dersen Lowery
Scanners Live in Vain
1710
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 20:46:17 -
[2174] - Quote
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:You're all addicts to your own amusement. This video is ****. It's childish. It's immature. If you want more of these idiots around, then please go ahead and make more of them! That's NOT going to decrease the whining though! It won't make EVE a better place! It won't make highsec any less safer! On the contrary!
What this video shows to all the yet uninformed, actually mature and actually intelligent people who might want to play, is that we're all a bunch of whining, insulting, dickwaving idiots!
If YOU prefer THESE kinds of people, then get ready for even more whining from instant gratification shitlords and more whining about gankers, because it's THESE people who will cry out loud for CCP to kill the game for them!
Yes, if there's anyone out to make high sec safer and destroy the game, it's Shadoo, progodlegend, Makalu Zarya, Grath Telkin, and Garmon (and I'm sure I'm missing a couple). Worthless scrubs, all of them. Never did anything for the game. Right?
The raging FC isn't my personal thing either, but you're way, way off base here.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
1999
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 20:57:50 -
[2175] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:... The raging FC isn't my personal thing either, but you're way, way off base here. I think their point is more about the audience that will find this amusing.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other spaces, where they can grow
Fozzie SOV is treating a symptom.
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1061
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 21:42:25 -
[2176] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:SMART A smart ... a smart ... a smart ... that smart .... Yay smarties!I am sure you can manage to be more concise. Okay okay, I could ALSO increase my vocabulary!
And yes, you're right.
I have no idea, Dersen Lowery, why you mention the names of the people who talk. That is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the listener, who does not know them anyway! He will also not look them up, unless he finds this kind of **** amusing!
Hey, we can actually test this!
Could you PLEASE assume the perspective of a complete stranger?
Could you also PLEASE assume that the complete stranger has NO inside or outside knowledge of EVE ONLINE?
What would HE think about this video?
If your response is equal to yours, then I'm sorry, you failed the task!
Try a different one!
I'm just kidding of course.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6388
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 21:54:26 -
[2177] - Quote
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Could you PLEASE assume the perspective of a complete stranger?
Could you also PLEASE assume that the complete stranger has NO inside or outside knowledge of EVE ONLINE?
What would HE think about this video? You're right, he'd get the impression that EVE has a vast number of players hat take the game way too seriously and get super angry with it. That's the right impression, because that's EVE. You're the one harping on about all the "peasants" that dare to come to EVE expecting fun, yet you're complaining that a video is showing all these people taking the game too seriously because they treat EVE like a career choice. If anything this video is more accurate to what being in a fleet in this game is normally like than the original this is eve trailer. It would be more accurate if absolutely nothing was happening while a fleet orbited a gate, a station undock, or in more recent times random control nodes.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
3094
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 22:54:25 -
[2178] - Quote
Erufen Rito wrote:It stands to reason then, to have CONCORD preloaded on grid while mining as a legitimate tactic right? I mean the attacking ship does get killed, as expected, and concord remains on grid, as desired. I paid the price of having concord on my selected grid, and thus I'm not abusing game mechanics. Right?
Was this ever an exploit?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1061
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 23:21:00 -
[2179] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Erufen Rito wrote:It stands to reason then, to have CONCORD preloaded on grid while mining as a legitimate tactic right? I mean the attacking ship does get killed, as expected, and concord remains on grid, as desired. I paid the price of having concord on my selected grid, and thus I'm not abusing game mechanics. Right? Was this ever an exploit? No, never has been. Carebears spawn CONCORD just like gankers remove CONCORD. Or carebears don't spawn CONCORD, because they're carebears and make it even less of a hassle for the gankers.
I'm just kidding of course.
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1061
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 23:41:52 -
[2180] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Could you PLEASE assume the perspective of a complete stranger?
Could you also PLEASE assume that the complete stranger has NO inside or outside knowledge of EVE ONLINE?
What would HE think about this video? You're right, he'd get the impression that EVE has a vast number of players hat take the game way too seriously and get super angry with it. That's the right impression, because that's EVE. You're the one harping on about all the "peasants" that dare to come to EVE expecting fun, yet you're complaining that a video is showing all these people taking the game too seriously because they treat EVE like a career choice. If anything this video is more accurate to what being in a fleet in this game is normally like than the original this is eve trailer. It would be more accurate if absolutely nothing was happening while a fleet orbited a gate, a station undock, or in more recent times random control nodes.
So angry and useless.
I'm just kidding of course.
|
|
|
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
809
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 00:45:54 -
[2181] - Quote
I have removed a couple posts and those quoting them.
Quote:4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.
ISD Decoy
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Andreus Ixiris
Duty.
5413
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 00:49:55 -
[2182] - Quote
ISD Decoy, what happens if I troll with an off-topic personal attack? Does my post get triple-removed?
Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.
Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.
Andreus Ixiris > ...
Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
|
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
667
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 00:59:58 -
[2183] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:ISD Decoy, what happens if I troll with an off-topic personal attack? Does my post get triple-removed?
I think at that point you lose your forum privileges for a while.
Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin
you're welcome
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
6186
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 01:29:48 -
[2184] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:ISD Decoy, what happens if I troll with an off-topic personal attack? Does my post get triple-removed?
Don't try it. It'll probably end poorly.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
2003
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 01:53:16 -
[2185] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:ISD Decoy, what happens if I troll with an off-topic personal attack? Does my post get triple-removed? Sometimes threads are trolled to get them locked.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other spaces, where they can grow
Fozzie SOV is treating a symptom.
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1063
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 09:52:54 -
[2186] - Quote
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:SMART A smart ... a smart ... a smart ... that smart .... Yay smarties!I am sure you can manage to be more concise. Okay okay, I could ALSO increase my vocabulary! And yes, you're right. I have no idea, Dersen Lowery, why you mention the names of the people who talk. That is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the listener, who does not know them anyway! He will also not look them up, unless he finds this kind of **** amusing! Hey, we can actually test this! Could you PLEASE assume the perspective of a complete stranger? Could you also PLEASE assume that the complete stranger has NO inside or outside knowledge of EVE ONLINE? What would HE think about this video? If your response is equal to yours, then I'm sorry, you failed the task! Try a different one! Still waiting for someone who is actually capable of answering the questions truthfully.
I'm just kidding of course.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6393
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 14:52:28 -
[2187] - Quote
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Still waiting for someone who is actually capable of answering the questions truthfully. Hmmm
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kandu Harr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 19:49:23 -
[2188] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Kandu Harr wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
Without ganking, there would be no risk at all left in highsec.
you should amend that statement, it is false What risk is there left for an NPC corp member then other than a suicide gank? NPCs? Accidentally self-destructing? At the beginning of 2015 there were three forms of non-consensual PvP in highsec: wardecs, suicide ganking, and highsec awoxing. Now there are only two. And only one of those affects NPC corp members.
with all due respect, people staying in or dropping to npc corps is abused by almost all entities in high sec. the ship-bumpers are npc, spotters are npc, haulers npc, dec dodgers etc. that is a completely different issue and does not admonish your statement as being false.
back on the topic though.
i am not asking for a nerf to ganking or reduction in risks vs previous levels. the evolution of hyperdunking with the bowhead has allowed a whole new level of ganking that was generally not ever used on freighters or player ships. certainly not in the busiest trade hub in the game. i am okay with what it was before, or being effectively used on obviously afk targets.
but with the new evolution of hyerdunking there has not been an evolution in the counters to it. to the contrary, i have linked kills with web ships that were obviously ineffective (i could link 4 additional kills with webs on the kill that occured in the past 3-4 days). and from what i have witnessed first hand there are freighter pilots who are anything but afk, inexperienced, or without escorts. and they all died to hyperdunking.
the additional ability to perform these high-reward ganks has not come with additional counters, and there needs to be some balance restored imho. it is also fair to mention that unlike traditional freighter ganking, only 1 character now suffers the security loss for the illegal aggression (which has always been one of the risks/results of illegal aggression). the risks for hyperdunking are now reduced for those performing them.
barring a revamp of the npc corp system, a more direct rebalance is required.
i suggested that a criminally flagged character not be allowed to board a ship in high security space, as a way to balance the new hyperdunking. this would not in any way affect 'traditional' ganking mechnics, as would increasing the weapons timer instead. but it does seem a little too severe.
until i have trained my characters to perform my own hyperdunking i cannot think of any other way to balance this better.
|
Mag's
the united
19848
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 20:19:36 -
[2189] - Quote
You've not posted anything that changes this ruling. Whether it be links or bad opinion.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1235
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 20:58:32 -
[2190] - Quote
Kandu Harr wrote:Black Pedro wrote:Kandu Harr wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
Without ganking, there would be no risk at all left in highsec.
you should amend that statement, it is false What risk is there left for an NPC corp member then other than a suicide gank? NPCs? Accidentally self-destructing? At the beginning of 2015 there were three forms of non-consensual PvP in highsec: wardecs, suicide ganking, and highsec awoxing. Now there are only two. And only one of those affects NPC corp members. with all due respect, people staying in or dropping to npc corps is abused by almost all entities in high sec. the ship-bumpers are npc, spotters are npc, haulers npc, dec dodgers etc. that is a completely different issue and does not admonish your statement as being false.
I was not passing judgement on how people use/abuse player corporations. I was merely responding to your assertion that there is risk in highsec other than suicide ganking. This is false. While I listed wardecs as a non-consensual form of PvP, that is only true from the perspective of the corporation, not the player. At anytime, any character can quit a corp thus shedding a wardec making that risk voluntary. Therefore, without ganking, a character would be, or could become with a single click, 100% safe in highsec.
That is just the way of highsec agression mechanics work. It is also why CCP has repeatedly confirmed that suicide ganking is an intended mechanic they have put in the game on purpose. You are suppose to be at risk in highsec, and suicide ganking is the most basic and fundamental form of that risk, and often the only risk, for characters there.
Kandu Harr wrote:back on the topic though.
i am not asking for a nerf to ganking or reduction in risks vs previous levels. the evolution of hyperdunking with the bowhead has allowed a whole new level of ganking that was generally not ever used on freighters or player ships. certainly not in the busiest trade hub in the game. i am okay with what it was before, or being effectively used on obviously afk targets.
but with the new evolution of hyerdunking there has not been an evolution in the counters to it. to the contrary, i have linked kills with web ships that were obviously ineffective (i could link 4 additional kills with webs on the kill that occured in the past 3-4 days). and from what i have witnessed first hand there are freighter pilots who are anything but afk, inexperienced, or without escorts. and they all died to hyperdunking.
the additional ability to perform these high-reward ganks has not come with additional counters, and there needs to be some balance restored imho. it is also fair to mention that unlike traditional freighter ganking, only 1 character now suffers the security loss for the illegal aggression (which has always been one of the risks/results of illegal aggression). the risks for hyperdunking are now reduced for those performing them.
barring a revamp of the npc corp system, a more direct rebalance is required.
i suggested that a criminally flagged character not be allowed to board a ship in high security space, as a way to balance the new hyperdunking. this would not in any way affect 'traditional' ganking mechnics, as would increasing the weapons timer instead. but it does seem a little too severe.
until i have trained my characters to perform my own hyperdunking i cannot think of any other way to balance this better.
Friend, the reality is freighters are suppose to die. I know many players have trouble accepting this, think suicide ganking must be an exploit or something and that their billion ISK should be safe in "highsec" but that isn't the case. CCP explicitly coded the game so criminals can operate there - they are suppose to be there and destroying other players stuff and taking their cargo.
CCP has purposely made nowhere in New Eden (except the rookie systems) safe. That means even experienced pilots with escorts are going to have a bad day sometimes and lose a ship - remember the "don't fly what you cannot afford to lose" motto they drilled into you in capsuleer school? This is all intended.
You seem unable to accept that you cannot ever be 100% safe by design. There are going to be situations where you slip up, are out-played, or are just incredibly unlucky and your ship will explode from under you. Hyperdunkers are one source, albiet a minute one statistically, of this phenomenon of ship loss.
I really hope you go through with your hyperdunking project. Not only you will see how difficult it is to pull off and how easily it is countered, you might get over this risk-aversion that has you forum-warrioring against a mechanic that CCP has ruled as completely kosher. Losing some gank ships will at least get you used to ship loss, even if you have already written them off when you undock, and hopefully help get you over this paralyzing fear you seem to have that your pixel ship has even a chance, no matter how small, of exploding to gankers.
Highsec has never been safer. The chances of you losing your freighter, even if you only ever AFK it everywhere are small. Yet they are non-zero, and there is nothing you can do to guarantee that your freighter will make it from A-to-B safely. Sure, there a plenty of good hauling practices that can increase your chances of arriving safely dramatically, but you can still lose that ship in highsec even if you do everything correctly and by the book.
That is just the game CCP has designed. That is Eve. |
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
CODE.
13725
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 21:05:40 -
[2191] - Quote
Kandu Harr wrote:
but with the new evolution of hyerdunking there has not been an evolution in the counters to it.
Because the counters for it are nigh-perfect to begin with:
- Don't be afk.
- Fly with webs and a scout.
- Don't massively overload your freighter.
The vast, vast majority of ganks are thereby averted.
Quote: it is also fair to mention that unlike traditional freighter ganking, only 1 character now suffers the security loss for the illegal aggression (which has always been one of the risks/results of illegal aggression).
Wrong. At least one other character is required to pull Concord to do this in higher security systems, and they suffer sec status loss as well.
If you don't even know how this works(and you have demonstrated repeatedly that you don't), how do you have the gall to come on here and lecture people about it?
Quote:
i suggested that a criminally flagged character not be allowed to board a ship in high security space, as a way to balance the new hyperdunking.
That's not "balance". That's "delete". Like every carebear you don't want balance, you just want even more safety than the disgusting amount you already have.
Pathetic.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6396
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 21:08:28 -
[2192] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:I was not passing judgement on how people use/abuse player corporations. I was merely responding to your assertion that there is risk in highsec other than suicide ganking. This is false. While I listed wardecs as a non-consensual form of PvP, that is only true from the perspective of the corporation, not the player. At anytime, any character can quit a corp thus shedding a wardec making that risk voluntary. Therefore, without ganking, a character would be, or could become with a single click, 100% safe in highsec. If you ignore all other sources of risk in highsec, then yes, you are right. But in reality there are other risks, so you're wrong.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
CODE.
13725
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 21:18:36 -
[2193] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:If you ignore all other sources of risk in highsec, then yes, you are right. But in reality there are other risks, so you're wrong.
Characters in NPC corps are immune to wars. Without ganking, they have zero risk of non consensual PvP interactions.
That's the facts on the matter, whether your narrative wants to admit it or not.
If you're trying to claim "accidentally pressing the self destruct button" counts as risk, be my guest, but I doubt that even you would take that position.
Quote:I was under the impression
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6396
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 21:26:42 -
[2194] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:If you ignore all other sources of risk in highsec, then yes, you are right. But in reality there are other risks, so you're wrong. Characters in NPC corps are immune to wars. Without ganking, they have zero risk of non consensual PvP interactions. First off, no they don't. They can still be baited into flagging themselves for combat.
Secondly, he stated that there is no other risk in highsec, not that there was no other forms of non-consensual PvP.
Thirdly, removing hyperdunking doesn't remove ganking, so your point is moot.
So once again, a swing and a miss. Good job.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Quote:I was under the impression So are you saying that's not how it works? Or is this your way of working round you misunderstanding the mechanics while accusing someone of misunderstanding the mechanics?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
CODE.
13725
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 21:38:07 -
[2195] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:]First off, no they don't. They can still be baited into flagging themselves for combat.
"flagging themselves"
Consensual PvP, even if it's on accident. They did it themselves.
Quote:So are you saying that's not how it works?
No, I'm mocking the fact that you know so little about this, but choose to pontificate on it nonetheless. It's really rather amusing. But then I never expect intellectual honesty from you anyway.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6396
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 21:44:32 -
[2196] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:]First off, no they don't. They can still be baited into flagging themselves for combat. "flagging themselves" Consensual PvP, even if it's on accident. They did it themselves. LOL. And love how you skipped over the rest.
TBH, aren't you one of these "undock is consent" people? Meaning that there is currently no non-consensual PvP in highsec, so removing ganking would not reduce the amount of non-consensual PvP.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Quote:So are you saying that's not how it works? No, I'm mocking the fact that you know so little about this, but choose to pontificate on it nonetheless. It's really rather amusing. But then I never expect intellectual honesty from you anyway. Lol? It seems I probably know more about how it works than you do. No other character needs to lose sec status.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Ima GoodGirl
Black Ballers
23
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 21:45:45 -
[2197] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Still waiting for someone who is actually capable of answering the questions truthfully. Hmmm
The only thing you did with that response was show your complete lack of knowledge. It might have been your honest opinion, but not the answer as it was so wrong.
Typical Lucas post though. Post stupid stuff and be completely oblivious to how dumb it is. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6397
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 21:49:52 -
[2198] - Quote
Ima GoodGirl wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Still waiting for someone who is actually capable of answering the questions truthfully. Hmmm The only thing you did with that response was show your complete lack of knowledge. It might have been your honest opinion, but not the answer as it was so wrong. Care to elaborate? Are you honestly suggesting that people don't take EVE incredibly seriously, and that people getting wildly upset when things don't go there way is not a daily occurrence in EVE?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
CODE.
13725
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 21:55:31 -
[2199] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:
TBH, aren't you one of these "undock is consent" people?
That's too much of an oversimplification if you ask me.
Undocking is the acknowledgement, whether you know it or not, that PvP is a possibility. Because EVE Online is a PvP game.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Kandu Harr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 22:01:09 -
[2200] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Because the counters for it are nigh-perfect to begin with:
Don't be afk.
like coming out of the jita undock to your ping?
Fly with webs and a scout.
Like these?
https://zkillboard.com/kill/47901622/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/47812958/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/47804626/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/47789491/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/47789491/
Don't massively overload your freighter.
true, but define that. the cost of hyperdunking is not that great.
The vast, vast majority of ganks are thereby averted.
the stats show hyperdunking > than that.
At least one other character is required to pull Concord to do this in higher security systems, and they suffer sec status loss as well.
the throwaway npc alt? i didn't even bring that up, but since you mention it...
If you don't even know how this works(and you have demonstrated repeatedly that you don't), how do you have the gall to come on here and lecture people about it?
I am here discussing this, as I was advised to do by ccp GMs. i can also read, watch, analyze and try things out myself. unlike you i am willing to learn, discuss and decide.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
That's not "balance". That's "delete". Like every carebear you don't want balance, you just want even more safety than the disgusting amount you already have.
Pathetic.
and the inevitable stereotype and ad-hominem. i would expect no less of you. |
|
|
Ima GoodGirl
Black Ballers
23
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 22:05:00 -
[2201] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Ima GoodGirl wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Still waiting for someone who is actually capable of answering the questions truthfully. Hmmm The only thing you did with that response was show your complete lack of knowledge. It might have been your honest opinion, but not the answer as it was so wrong. Care to elaborate? Are you honestly suggesting that people don't take EVE incredibly seriously, and that people getting wildly upset when things don't go there way is not a daily occurrence in EVE?
You clearly have no clue about the true nature of fleet pvp. Rolling out stereotypes is easy, but rarely does it represent the truth and diversity that exists. That's exactly the case here. No amount of my posting will get you to understand though.
Continue to post like an idiot though. You're very good at that. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
CODE.
13725
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 22:12:35 -
[2202] - Quote
Kandu Harr wrote:
the stats show hyperdunking > than that.
You're laughable.
It's basically impossible to get ganked when using those tricks properly, let alone dunked, because that's even easier to avoid.
Hell, I would be hard pressed to even get bumped by somebody while using webs. Before I joined CODE, my frieghter and I went through Uedama five times a week for nearly six months, and I never once got ganked.
So if you're here to provide evidence that carebears can't even manage simple counters and barebones best practices, you have succeeded. Congratulations, I freely admit that you guys suck at this game.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6399
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 22:16:17 -
[2203] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:TBH, aren't you one of these "undock is consent" people? That's too much of an oversimplification if you ask me. Undocking is the acknowledgement, whether you know it or not, that PvP is a possibility. Because EVE Online is a PvP game. Indeed it is, but PvP doesn't have to involves shooting people. That's and important distinction most refuse to acknowledge when screaming about "the carebears".
Ima GoodGirl wrote:You clearly have no clue about the true nature of fleet pvp. Rolling out stereotypes is easy, but rarely does it represent the truth and diversity that exists. That's exactly the case here. No amount of my posting will get you to understand though.
Continue to post like an idiot though. You're very good at that. Yeah, no, I totally have never been in fleet fights ever, what being in a null coalition that's almost constantly at war. I don't fly with spectre fleet or miniluv or anything, and of course I haven't been here since 05.
lol, what are you, new? I know what fleet fights are, at the small end they are waiting around or hunting for targets that aren;t enormous blobs and at the large end they are max tidi, waiting 45 minutes for the server to acknowledge your command with "soul-crushing lag". People do generally take this game far too seriously, and the sad truth of fleet fights is that while there's some absolutely amazing moments, the majority of them are dull as sin. There's a reason CCP are actively trying to change the way fleets need to engage.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
CODE.
13725
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 22:21:19 -
[2204] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Indeed it is, but PvP doesn't have to involves shooting people.
And? It also does involve shooting people.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
815
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 23:14:25 -
[2205] - Quote
I have removed a personal attack and those replies quoting it. I have also removed a rant.
Quote:3. Ranting is prohibited.
A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.
ISD Decoy
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
John E Normus
The Conference Elite
CODE.
604
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 23:54:53 -
[2206] - Quote
*** A message from CODE. alliance ***
3 steps to avoid being hyperdunked, a player alternative.
1) be at the keyboard.
2) be in the anti-ganking channel.
3) if you get bumped start screaming in that channel and people will roll out and try to save you.
There's the player counter to hyperdunking, a channel who's primary goal in Eve is to stop ganks. If you aren't willing to utilize the free service that the 400+ member anti-ganking community provides then maybe you don't really need your ship.
Lay off the nerfs/changes when real people are trying to fight this battle in space everyday. We don't always get along with our AG brethren, for obvious reasons, but getting bears to come out and fight us or spoil our ganks is all part of the New Order's plan for highsec. We will always support and encourage PvP over CCPvP and you should too.
Everything is proceeding as James 315 has foreseen...
*** end message ***
Between Ignorance and Wisdom
|
The Slayer
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
262
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 00:31:22 -
[2207] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:One of our AG members stopped a hyperdunking yesterday and was given 500m as a reward. AG does pay and Hyperdunking can be stopped in game, so come on people stand up, I have stopped Hyper-dunking in Niarja for a couple of days for being ready to rep anything they bump. So come on people do your bit., hisec industry needs you!!!!
Someone set up a Freighter with male strippers under twin wraps fully insured it and had it ganked in Uedama, cost 10 Talos + 2 Brutix plus Catalysts for nothing, see AG has fun, and all loyalanon could say was AG failed to stop the gank.
EDIT: And they all logged in disgust, can't take a joke huh!!!
The problem with this is it requires people to actually pro-actively try to help themselves. They would much rather just ***** and whine on here until CCP change the rules for them. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
3107
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 00:53:24 -
[2208] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Kandu Harr wrote:
but with the new evolution of hyerdunking there has not been an evolution in the counters to it.
Because the counters for it are nigh-perfect to begin with:
- Don't be afk.
- Fly with webs and a scout.
- Don't massively overload your freighter.
The vast, vast majority of ganks are thereby averted. Quote: it is also fair to mention that unlike traditional freighter ganking, only 1 character now suffers the security loss for the illegal aggression (which has always been one of the risks/results of illegal aggression).
Wrong. At least one other character is required to pull Concord to do this in higher security systems, and they suffer sec status loss as well. If you don't even know how this works(and you have demonstrated repeatedly that you don't), how do you have the gall to come on here and lecture people about it? Quote:
i suggested that a criminally flagged character not be allowed to board a ship in high security space, as a way to balance the new hyperdunking.
That's not "balance". That's "delete". Like every carebear you don't want balance, you just want even more safety than the disgusting amount you already have. Pathetic.
Just one more nerf and it will be balanced.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Ludi Burek
Combined Imperial Fleet
Darwinism.
302
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 01:30:33 -
[2209] - Quote
CCP has said their piece. Read over it again and follow their process of thought why this is ok. All you are arguing now is your skewed perspective of what is right. This is addressed to all the cry babies.
Also, pls just admit, "too easy" always means should not be possible at all.
Also, the mean ganker is using at least one alt. It's not one character being overpowered over your one character. It would work the same as different people using one character each. Since the ganker is using multiple characters to pull this off, it is unreasonable in your eyes that you may just need to use an alt to counter? It is more balanced in your eyes that your lone afk machine be artificially protected?
And finally arguing that counters don't work just shows you and the people it failed for are bad. You think only full time clueless bears are freighter owners? Mate pretty much everyone has a freighter alt these days who are not dying to this and they are proof that "hyperdunking" is Darwinism at its best. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1240
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 09:16:25 -
[2210] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:If you ignore all other sources of risk in highsec, then yes, you are right. But in reality there are other risks, so you're wrong. Characters in NPC corps are immune to wars. Without ganking, they have zero risk of non consensual PvP interactions. That's the facts on the matter, whether your narrative wants to admit it or not. If you're trying to claim "accidentally pressing the self destruct button" counts as risk, be my guest, but I doubt that even you would take that position.
You see, this is why I blocked Lucas - he takes pedantry to a whole new level. Technically he is correct - I am sure there is a NPC corp member somewhere who has recently lost a ship in highsec to something other than a suicide gank, but that is beside the whole point - there really is no risk for haulers or miners in NPC corps other than suicide ganking now.
There used to be can flipping and baiting, but campaigning by the make-Eve-a-single-player-game crowd got that made fully consensual with Crimewatch 2.0 (set it green and you can never flag yourself, even by accident). This anti-player interaction camp also got duel-spamming nerfed with a toggle. We briefly had a little loophole where there was risk for mission runners while using an MTU (and who still have some risk of failing to read Eve-Survival correctly), but that got patched out quickly. There is literally no risk left to say a dedicated NPC-corp freighter pilot in highsec other than a suicide gank.
This is all well and good and I do think tricking a player into PvP in highsec needed some attention and clarity. But you cannot now come here and argue with a straight face that there is any risk left for these players in highsec other than a suicide gank. With a green safety and auto-reject duels turned on, you cannot flag yourself even by mistake. You cannot be wardecced. There are no aggressive NPCs on belts or gates that are capable of destroying a tanked mining barge, let alone a freighter.
All we have left is suicide ganking. We are at peak safety, there is no more room for nerfs. In fact, I think CCP and their Drifter friends are are working on plans to increase risk in highsec as we speak.
Lol, I block Lucas and yet here I go still responding to his bait. Well played. |
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6399
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 09:46:33 -
[2211] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:there really is no risk for haulers or miners in NPC corps other than suicide ganking now. And you're still wrong. Even if you ignore the risks that don't come directly from other players, there's still risks. Otherwise nobody would ever lose a ship to anything but ganking, and yet they do.
Black Pedro wrote:There used to be can flipping and baiting, but campaigning by the make-Eve-a-single-player-game crowd got that made fully consensual with Crimewatch 2.0 (set it green and you can never flag yourself, even by accident). Actually, it's the make-Eve-less-focussed-on-griefing crowd. You want people to join and then have people like you who refuse to take risks scoring easy kills against them non-stop so you can harvest their tears for your blog. I simply don't have an issue with there being a part of the game where aggression is heavily restricted, where security is enforced. Let's call it something crazy like "high security space". I'm all for shooting and being shot, I enjoy PvP as much as the next guy, but I don't flip out and go into a sperg rage when I find out that someone just wants to shoot red crosses all day.
Black Pedro wrote:This is all well and good and I do think tricking a player into PvP in highsec needed some attention and clarity. But you cannot now come here and argue with a straight face that there is any risk left for these players in highsec other than a suicide gank. With a green safety and auto-reject duels turned on, you cannot flag yourself even by mistake. Yes you can. If you aggress a suspect for example, like how some people fly into missions and flag suspect hoping a rookie missioner not paying attention will fire on them.
Not to mention that we're STILL not talking about removing ganking. Ganking should always exist. What's being discussed here is a method of ganking that requires 3 characters for an infinite amount of damage where only one takes a security status hit.
It sounds like you want to kill people like you are in nullsec, yet you refuse to leave the safety of highsec, so you want to demand highsec is less and less safe and complain at those who want to retain it's safety, but not too much, you still want to be safe from having to risk anything significant yourself. They aren't the problem here, you are. Grow a pair.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Miner's House of ill repute
1080
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 10:58:39 -
[2212] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:If you ignore all other sources of risk in highsec, then yes, you are right. But in reality there are other risks, so you're wrong. Characters in NPC corps are immune to wars. Without ganking, they have zero risk of non consensual PvP interactions. That's the facts on the matter, whether your narrative wants to admit it or not. If you're trying to claim "accidentally pressing the self destruct button" counts as risk, be my guest, but I doubt that even you would take that position. You see, this is why I blocked Lucas - he takes pedantry to a whole new level. Technically he is correct - I am sure there is a NPC corp member somewhere who has recently lost a ship in highsec to something other than a suicide gank, but that is beside the whole point - there really is no risk for haulers or miners in NPC corps other than suicide ganking now. There used to be can flipping and baiting, but campaigning by the make-Eve-a-single-player-game crowd got that made fully consensual with Crimewatch 2.0 (set it green and you can never flag yourself, even by accident). This anti-player interaction camp also got duel-spamming nerfed with a toggle. We briefly had a little loophole where there was risk for mission runners while using an MTU (and who still have some risk of failing to read Eve-Survival correctly), but that got patched out quickly. There is literally no risk left to say a dedicated NPC-corp freighter pilot in highsec other than a suicide gank. This is all well and good and I do think tricking a player into PvP in highsec needed some attention and clarity. But you cannot now come here and argue with a straight face that there is any risk left for these players in highsec other than a suicide gank. With a green safety and auto-reject duels turned on, you cannot flag yourself even by mistake. You cannot be wardecced. There are no aggressive NPCs on belts or gates that are capable of destroying a tanked mining barge, let alone a freighter. All we have left is suicide ganking. We are at peak safety, there is no more room for nerfs. In fact, I think CCP and their Drifter friends are are working on plans to increase risk in highsec as we speak. Lol, I block Lucas and yet here I go still responding to his bait. Well played.
I bet if you ask him to provide a proper list of dangers a hauling hauler is suffering from, he will post his usual deranged nonsense avoiding the question. Like he always does. And maybe you should block Kaarous too, because he is one of the biggest reasons shitposters like Lucas and La Rynx get so much attention. No offence, Kaarous, but your behaviour is equal to his and needs to be corrected badly.
bingo, his pig not being a goat doesn't make the pig wrong, just him an idiot for shouting at his pig "WHY ARENT YOU A GOAT!" (Source)
-- Ralph King-Griffin, about deranged people playing EVE ONLINE
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
980
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 11:00:51 -
[2213] - Quote
Ludi Burek wrote:CCP has said their piece. Read over it again and follow their process of thought why this is ok. All you are arguing now is your skewed perspective of what is right. This is addressed to all the cry babies.
Also, pls just admit, "too easy" always means should not be possible at all.
Also, the mean ganker is using at least one alt. It's not one character being overpowered over your one character. It would work the same as different people using one character each. Since the ganker is using multiple characters to pull this off, it is unreasonable in your eyes that you may just need to use an alt to counter? It is more balanced in your eyes that your lone afk machine be artificially protected?
And finally arguing that counters don't work just shows you and the people it failed for are bad. You think only full time clueless bears are freighter owners? Mate pretty much everyone has a freighter alt these days who are not dying to this and they are proof that "hyperdunking" is Darwinism at its best.
That was a rant!
Waits for ISD to come in, notes that crickets are chirping..., the reason is that this rant is the accepted wisdom on Eve forums so it will not be exterminated as a rant, because its Eve forums wisdom, notices crickets chirping again.
I wonder when this rant will be removed, I bet my post here will be and yours will be left...
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
1360
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 11:07:41 -
[2214] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Ludi Burek wrote:CCP has said their piece. Read over it again and follow their process of thought why this is ok. All you are arguing now is your skewed perspective of what is right. This is addressed to all the cry babies.
Also, pls just admit, "too easy" always means should not be possible at all.
Also, the mean ganker is using at least one alt. It's not one character being overpowered over your one character. It would work the same as different people using one character each. Since the ganker is using multiple characters to pull this off, it is unreasonable in your eyes that you may just need to use an alt to counter? It is more balanced in your eyes that your lone afk machine be artificially protected?
And finally arguing that counters don't work just shows you and the people it failed for are bad. You think only full time clueless bears are freighter owners? Mate pretty much everyone has a freighter alt these days who are not dying to this and they are proof that "hyperdunking" is Darwinism at its best. That was a rant! Waits for ISD to come in, notes that crickets are chirping..., the reason is that this rant is the accepted wisdom on Eve forums so it will not be exterminated as a rant, because its Eve forums wisdom, notices crickets chirping again. I wonder when this rant will be removed, I bet my post here will be and yours will be left...
Reported because rant
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Ima GoodGirl
Black Ballers
24
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 11:12:02 -
[2215] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:That was a rant!
Waits for ISD to come in, notes that crickets are chirping..., the reason is that this rant is the accepted wisdom on Eve forums so it will not be exterminated as a rant, because its Eve forums wisdom, notices crickets chirping again.
I wonder when this rant will be removed, I bet my post here will be and yours will be left...
That was no rant.
Maybe your in need of this:
http://sarahandthegoonsquad.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/bandaid_big.jpg
But if that isn't big enough to heal the sore on your butt, then maybe this:
http://www.bitrebels.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/tape-butt.jpg |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
980
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 11:26:52 -
[2216] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Ludi Burek wrote:CCP has said their piece. Read over it again and follow their process of thought why this is ok. All you are arguing now is your skewed perspective of what is right. This is addressed to all the cry babies.
Also, pls just admit, "too easy" always means should not be possible at all.
Also, the mean ganker is using at least one alt. It's not one character being overpowered over your one character. It would work the same as different people using one character each. Since the ganker is using multiple characters to pull this off, it is unreasonable in your eyes that you may just need to use an alt to counter? It is more balanced in your eyes that your lone afk machine be artificially protected?
And finally arguing that counters don't work just shows you and the people it failed for are bad. You think only full time clueless bears are freighter owners? Mate pretty much everyone has a freighter alt these days who are not dying to this and they are proof that "hyperdunking" is Darwinism at its best. That was a rant! Waits for ISD to come in, notes that crickets are chirping..., the reason is that this rant is the accepted wisdom on Eve forums so it will not be exterminated as a rant, because its Eve forums wisdom, notices crickets chirping again. I wonder when this rant will be removed, I bet my post here will be and yours will be left... Reported because rant
Ah but I did not report his post as a rant, thanks for confirming something else to me...
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
980
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 11:48:48 -
[2217] - Quote
I am not in the habit of clicking on links supplied by people like you, so whatever drivel you linked to there was wasted on me, totally, have a not nice day...
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Kandu Harr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 13:59:57 -
[2218] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
You seem unable to accept that you cannot ever be 100% safe by design. There are going to be situations where you slip up, are out-played, or are just incredibly unlucky and your ship will explode from under you. Hyperdunkers are one source, albeit a minute one statistically, of this phenomenon of ship loss.
I really hope you go through with your hyperdunking project. Not only you will see how difficult it is to pull off and how easily it is countered, you might get over this risk-aversion that has you forum-warrioring against a mechanic that CCP has ruled as completely kosher. Losing some gank ships will at least get you used to ship loss, even if you have already written them off when you undock, and hopefully help get you over this paralyzing fear you seem to have that your pixel ship has even a chance, no matter how small, of exploding to gankers.
Highsec has never been safer. The chances of you losing your freighter, even if you only ever AFK it everywhere are small. Yet they are non-zero, and there is nothing you can do to guarantee that your freighter will make it from A-to-B safely. Sure, there a plenty of good hauling practices that can increase your chances of arriving safely dramatically, but you can still lose that ship in highsec even if you do everything correctly and by the book.
That is just the game CCP has designed. That is Eve.
i appreciate that you can discuss things without resorting to ad-hominems. a bit condescending, but this is a new character and i can accept that my experience in the game would appear to match that.
but let me make something 100% clear.
the only interest i have in this discussion is hyperdunking. anything else implied in my posts is just a red herring or strawman argument. if it isn't about hyperdunking i am not interested in it.
thanks. |
Daerrol
Krieger Industries Inc.
Phoebe Freeport Republic
188
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 14:13:22 -
[2219] - Quote
Not going to lie I PVP main but often find myself hauling through highsec during wars/with expensive cargo. Am yet to lose a hauler in highsec, it's so blindingly easy too navigate if you know anything about EVE mechanics. No, I have never taken a fully laden Freighter through Niarja, but in the same breathe I've never taken my Bhaalgorn solo to Tama either. When I have to cross niarja with expensive I help my freighter buddy out with webs/scouting. No different than taking a carrier a few gate to gate jumps. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1246
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 15:07:01 -
[2220] - Quote
Kandu Harr wrote:
the only interest i have in this discussion is hyperdunking. anything else implied in my posts is just a red herring or strawman argument. if it isn't about hyperdunking i am not interested in it.
thanks.
I am confused then. You understand that freighters are suppose to be vulnerable in highsec. Hyperdunking is an emergent strategy to attack them that is consistent with the aggression rules of highsec as designed by CCP, and has been confirmed as legitimate by CCP Falcon in the first post of this thread. Yet you seem to be asking for hyperdunking to be removed artificially from the game by changing the game mechanics so that it is impossible.
Why should CCP change the rules of the game to be in the favour of freighter pilots? They aren't dying more. And of the ones that explode, only a fraction of them fall to hyperdunkers so if you made hyperdunking impossible it really wouldn't change much at all. You are asking for a balance change for no reason other than you seem to think freighters should be safe from hyperdunkers - it's a circular argument.
Where do you want to draw the line? Is it ok if 2 people hyperdunk? Or six people? Is it ok if bumpers tackle the ship for 15 minutes and then the gankers attack the half-dead freighter after their flag has expired? Is it ok to use hyperdunking against abandoned POS structures as has been the traditional use? What makes that line you drew better than the line that CCP has already drawn?
You are asking for something that will decrease the number of freighters (albeit by a tiny amount) that will explode in highsec for no other reason than you think it is unfair. Eve Online is suppose to be unfair - the strong get to victimize the weak - it has been designed that way. What is strange to me is that you picked hyperdunking, the most easy to counter and avoid form of ganking to focus your efforts on. Why has such a niche activity ruffled your feathers so much? There are plenty of other "unfair" strategies being use much more in this game to explode people than the unfortunately-named hyperdunk.
Let me finish with two quotes from CCP Falcon as I think his words apropos:
CCP Falcon wrote:Why should CCP provide protection for your haulage in high sec?
CONCORD 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.
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.
:)
CCP Falcon wrote:
There are a multitude of ways to protect yourself from suicide gankers, people just automatically assume they're "safe" in highsec, then get annoyed when they lose a ship because of their own lack of spatial awareness.
It's not CCP's job to protect you from hyperdunkers. That is your job.
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6407
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 15:37:21 -
[2221] - Quote
Surely it's fairly simple? Those that oppose hyperdunking want the 15 minute timer imposed by concord to act as a barrier between criminal acts should actually be 15 minutes and shouldn't be able to be bypassed by boarding ships in space. Hyperdunking removes the downside of having the criminal timer (in fact the criminal timer actually helps), means that only one character needs to lose sec status and allows gankers to leverage what is effectively unlimited damage for a single gank.
I get it though, you want to keep in as many methods of keeping your playstyle easy and low risk because you oppose challenge and risk in EVE. Carebear.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
980
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 15:52:04 -
[2222] - Quote
Quote:CCP Falcon wrote:
Why should CCP provide protection for your haulage in high sec?
CONCORD 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.
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.
:)
Note the comment reactive and punitive, as anyone who understands law enforcement, there has to be an effective deterrence otherwise the police are just wasting their time. The issue is in the punitive comment, there is basically no real punitive in what happens to gankers, they lose a ship that they intend to lose anyway, they have another Concord loss to deal with which is a shuttle or noob ship and then they have a 15 minute timer as a criminal and security status hit that above a certain level allows people to shoot them on sight, but after that second ship loss they can still go and do stuff. None of that is really punitive, so people can pull that quote out like some religious mantra, but it means nothing.
Take the next part of his quote, its amazing to come across a developer who does not understand his own game, bring guns, well what the hell does that do in hisec, start shooting as soon as they go flashy red, too late...
Quote:CCP Falcon wrote:
There are a multitude of ways to protect yourself from suicide gankers, people just automatically assume they're "safe" in highsec, then get annoyed when they lose a ship because of their own lack of spatial awareness.
People do not assume they are safe in hisec, with CODE being the highest killing alliance in the game, all in hisec space based on ISK value, its not safe. Its just safer in terms of open combat, which requires a war dec.
Spatial awareness is knowing what is going on around you, you can be ganked quite easily even with a scout, I have seen people do it, its called an off grid perch, scout jumps in sees nothing on gate warps to next gate incomes twin Vexors and dropT2 Sentries, incomes target hauler pop, recently I have seen people point out that their watch list has got so big that even being aware of gankers and checking for them means nothing because they are all over the place. I pass through the pipe and I see at least 20 who gank, so much for spatial awareness. In some pipe systems there are a mass of ships moving through, do you jump through when the gate is clear and no one on D-scan?
Lets take Osmon as a good example, you cannot get local big enough to see all of the people in local, same for Jita and same for a number of pipe systems.
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
97
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 16:10:01 -
[2223] - Quote
I hope you know, of all the ones I was on the webs weren't there until the bump happened. hope this helps.
basically, they weren't there until the target got bumped, therefore those people technically didn't fly with webs, and didn't have a scout. |
Kandu Harr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 16:27:26 -
[2224] - Quote
Globby wrote:
I hope you know, of all the ones I was on the webs weren't there until the bump happened. hope this helps.
basically, they weren't there until the target got bumped, therefore those people technically didn't fly with webs, and didn't have a scout.
thanks |
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
CODE.
97
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 16:31:06 -
[2225] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Surely it's fairly simple? Those that oppose hyperdunking want the 15 minute timer imposed by concord to act as a barrier between criminal acts should actually be 15 minutes and shouldn't be able to be bypassed by boarding ships in space. Hyperdunking removes the downside of having the criminal timer (in fact the criminal timer actually helps), means that only one character needs to lose sec status and allows gankers to leverage what is effectively unlimited damage for a single gank.
I get it though, you want to keep in as many methods of keeping your playstyle easy and low risk because you oppose challenge and risk in EVE. Carebear.
I've said it before and I'll repeat it,
You want to remove a tactic that:
-can be stopped by all the standard forms of stopping ganking (haul less, have a webber, scout a system)
-takes 20 minutes to accomplish
-is stopped by ONE person or player with an hour of skill training
-a huge community of players actively protects against without charging a fee, and are proactively camping people who do it into stations
-punishes (by a vast majority) AFK, or logged off players, and rewards proactive and attentive piloting
-is really hard to pull off, and takes a minimum of four players against a single freighter
-before the damage even comes in, it takes a considerable amount of time bumping a freighter away from gate guns
Seriously, I haven't seen such an outcry over nothing. I haven't been able to get a single kill in the longest time because there are people camping me 24/7. Ask Dracvlad, he was there with 25 guys a couple days ago, even though it only takes one. If you can't get a guy in a bantam to you in 30 minutes as you slowly get bumped away and die (or ask the anti-ganking community who will be there quickly and do it for free) then I don't know that to tell you.
As for your first points, I will go at them one at a time.
1) It obviously isn't, because CCP has stated otherwise.
2) Security status loss doesn't matter, we're -10.0 already
3) If by unlimited damage, you mean unlimited damage over time, then yes, but so does having a regular fleet gank something every 15 minutes are up. If given infinite time, of course you'd get infinite damage.
4) Hyperdunking is the highest risk activity I do, I'm risking 600 million in bombers and hours of my time looking for a target, which can be ruined by A SINGLE BANTAM; On top of being able to be prevented by following the classic rules of freighter usage, such as scouting, hauling less, webbing, and paying attention. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6835
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 16:47:52 -
[2226] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Ludi Burek wrote:CCP has said their piece. Read over it again and follow their process of thought why this is ok. All you are arguing now is your skewed perspective of what is right. This is addressed to all the cry babies.
Also, pls just admit, "too easy" always means should not be possible at all.
Also, the mean ganker is using at least one alt. It's not one character being overpowered over your one character. It would work the same as different people using one character each. Since the ganker is using multiple characters to pull this off, it is unreasonable in your eyes that you may just need to use an alt to counter? It is more balanced in your eyes that your lone afk machine be artificially protected?
And finally arguing that counters don't work just shows you and the people it failed for are bad. You think only full time clueless bears are freighter owners? Mate pretty much everyone has a freighter alt these days who are not dying to this and they are proof that "hyperdunking" is Darwinism at its best. That was a rant! Waits for ISD to come in, notes that crickets are chirping..., the reason is that this rant is the accepted wisdom on Eve forums so it will not be exterminated as a rant, because its Eve forums wisdom, notices crickets chirping again. I wonder when this rant will be removed, I bet my post here will be and yours will be left... Reported because rant Ah but I did not report his post as a rant, thanks for confirming something else to me...
Yep. Confirmed.
Very "SJW-ish" of CODE. Poor babies.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
6192
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 16:52:42 -
[2227] - Quote
As the topic of hyperdunking has been discussed and the thread is now devolving into off topic posts and discussion of moderation, I'm closing it.
Good talk everyone.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 75 :: [one page] |