Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
3659
|
Posted - 2015.11.16 17:54:47 -
[271] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I don't use a mach when I gank. It's a convenience, not a requirement. Taking the mach away will generate (pehaps) a double eye roll form the gankers. The adjustment to 'no more mach bumping' would be made in less time than it would take to download the patch implementing it.
420 mil for a mach hull is all but inconsequential. I'll Grr goons it for you - How many machs do you think they have piled up waiting to be used? 3 is probably a bit low. You can't mow down machs as fast as they can be replaced. TBH if you started popping machs - you'd just create a new mini game to rep them. Goons are all about mastering new features. You'd be feeding them a sweet tasty challenge that they would promptly devour.
If you are trying to get rid of freighter ganking by taking out the bumping mach.... even if you win the battle, it will have no effect on the war. I don't think a lot of you folks really understand what's at play. It's clear you don't like freighter ganking, but curing symptoms isn't going to get you anywhere.
You donGÇÖt have to use a mach true, and IGÇÖm sure after awhile theyGÇÖd switch, but they need something that is fast and will move a freighter out of alignment. They may switch to another cheaper hull, but still you can deny them their kill by ganking the bumping ship.
Also, people keep assuming the following situation: You are being bumped andGǪ.
IGÇÖm sorry, but in that situation if you are being bumped you are doing it wrong. Best way to defeat a bumping ship of any kind at all: a scoutGÇöi.e. avoid being bumped in the first place. He sees the bumping ship on gate and he warns you before you get in system. If he is clever and fits a cloak, then fit webs on your scout.
As for freighter ganking, I have no issue with it at all. In fact, I think it is something that makes this game interesting. Giving players a way out when they have done everything wrong to get into the situation where they are being bumped, is just bad. Trying to fine tune gankingGǪwell how has that been working out? According to those being ganked, not too well. How about sitting down and figuring out what needs to be done to avoid being bumped in the first placeGǪoh wait, the people doing the ganking have already pointed out what needs to be done for them. But here they are steadfastly refusing to use it and stomping their feet demanding more action from CCP.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Feyrin
Star Frontiers Brotherhood of Spacers
51
|
Posted - 2015.11.16 18:04:27 -
[272] - Quote
For exhumers CCP did add a rig to the game which makes you harder to bump, its called a Higgs anchor, it allows you to mine while aligned and greatly increases your mass.
Another option would be to maybe mine in an area where you are allowed to shoot back. Concord is a double edged sword after all. |
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra Gallente Federation
345
|
Posted - 2015.11.16 18:13:52 -
[273] - Quote
Dang Teckos, that was good read. Bookmarked the specific post in case I have " just leave this here " when the topic arises next.
Being disturbing is better than being boring.
|
Varyah
I am Forever of the Stars
12
|
Posted - 2015.11.16 20:52:58 -
[274] - Quote
Bumping should be rewarded with getting webbed by the gate guns for a few seconds but it should also disable autopilot for the bumped.
Imagine ramming other cars at a cross road to prevent them from getting away (and like ramming ships it doesn't do damage for some reason).
The self-driving car that was rammed goes off road and won't find its way back on the road; and the ramming offender will - even in Italy - at least get pulled over by the cops for disrupting the traffic. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15035
|
Posted - 2015.11.16 22:32:36 -
[275] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:If you cannot warp because someone is intentionally bumping you repeatedly so that they can form up a gank squad, then you are under attack
No, you are not "under attack" in any way. And you can still warp, you just can't align.
Quote: All your point about freighters being made worse by changes means is that our current devs were hired from the portion of the community that worships the more toxic gameplay and their changes were not in the best interest of the target audience.
"Dev statements and actions only matter when they agree with me, or else they're toxic."
You are such a goddamned hypocrite. I almost can't believe 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.
|
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
700
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 00:22:02 -
[276] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:If you donGÇÖt like that analogy, think of an evolutionary process.
Oh posh.
Evolution isn't nearly as unpredictable as you frame it here; mayhaps how the optimum is found has an air of serendipity to it, but the optimums are honestly well defined. The same challenges are more often than not met with the same adaptations - take a look at how land reptiles and land mammals both made the journey back into the sea as Ichthyosaurs and dolphins respectively, with largely the same set of adaptations - long snout, streamlined form, and filippers from the same homologous structures. Likewise, some of the long term experiments in bacteria have demonstrated remarkable convergent evolution of the same novel traits from entirely isolated populations. Mutation is random, selection is not.
Same thing applies here. When insurance was nerfed, the optimum adaptation here was switching to the max dps/isk ship; there was no plasticity or uncertainty here, that is the optimum response. Anyone could have predicted that some people would fit their freighters better than others when they gave them low slots. The problem really is that it doesn't make a difference - if you max tank a freighter, it will still die provided you can keep it bumped. There isn't an optimum fitting response.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM XI
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15035
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 00:35:08 -
[277] - Quote
Vic, that's why giving freighters fittings was a silly idea and a pipe dream to begin with.
The carebears wanted to be immune to ganking. Since ganking still happens, they declare the fittings a failure. But they were irrelevant to begin with.
There is no optimum fitting because fitting just doesn't belong on freighters, even now. The primary successful defense mechanism for freighters, which are by definition prey animals, is to just not be where the predators are.
"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.
|
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
701
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 00:48:55 -
[278] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Vic, that's why giving freighters fittings was a silly idea and a pipe dream to begin with.
The carebears wanted to be immune to ganking. Since ganking still happens, they declare the fittings a failure. But they were irrelevant to begin with.
There is no optimum fitting because fitting just doesn't belong on freighters, even now. The primary successful defense mechanism for freighters, which are by definition prey animals, is to just not be where the predators are.
Oh don't get me wrong. I agree with you 100%. it is good that reckless capitals and unprepared players are penalized.
I just wish this would be true outside of Hi Sec.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM XI
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15035
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 00:53:16 -
[279] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Vic, that's why giving freighters fittings was a silly idea and a pipe dream to begin with.
The carebears wanted to be immune to ganking. Since ganking still happens, they declare the fittings a failure. But they were irrelevant to begin with.
There is no optimum fitting because fitting just doesn't belong on freighters, even now. The primary successful defense mechanism for freighters, which are by definition prey animals, is to just not be where the predators are. Oh don't get me wrong. I agree with you 100%. it is good that reckless capitals and unprepared players are penalized. I just wish this would be true outside of Hi Sec.
Well, the root of that problem is local chat, and that's for another thread if you ask me.
"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.
|
Paladin Genghis Khanid
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 02:31:42 -
[280] - Quote
Yes. If you are being bumped for over 10 minutes it's just harassment. As the person doing the bumping is not engaging in piracy, technically the supposed legality of it is absurd. If said person was committing an act of PVP piracy, they would be at the least flagged or dealt with by CONCORD. As they do not receive a security status hit, a negative flag and don't invoke a CONCORD response they aren't part of any piracy attempt. They are just some individual harassing another. How is this any different than if I just decided to hold a player in place for no reason than to impede their enjoyment of the game. CCP can think of no way to stop this type of harassment bumping so they resign to defeat. It's just too much trouble to correct. To save face, of course, they officially allow it. They don't want to look like weak and unable to police their own game world, right?
The only real solution I see is to not allow people with severely low security status into the place that is supposed to be high security. The two should not mix so well. What I mean by "not allow" is that they cannot dock within any high security station that isn't player owned. They should not be able to acquire clones in high security space from any NPC stations. Anything they possess becomes tainted. Any player, while in high/low security space, who exchanges any items with them loses a large amount of security status and becomes suspect. Any player owned high sec station that allows them to dock or use their cloning facilities is fined for a substantial amount or becomes legal target for anyone for 1 week and/or loses their permit to exist in empire space. The exception being that if the items are "unpossesed", and "untainted", via ship destruction. So you'd have the 50% odds of losing items making "suicide trading" inefficient. No trial account would even be allowed to trade in tainted goods unless their security status was equally bad already. No using alts to get around it as their security status would quickly be ruined making them outlaws as well. Pirate players should be able to join or have their corporation fall under a pirate organization like the Guristas or Angels and NOT be attacked by their aligned pirate corp. Give them a wide variety of agents just like law abiding players have.
They need to be outlaws. Currently, you have a system in which the leader of ISIS is free to come and go as he pleases. Law officials give him a warning whenever he enters a country and exists the airport, but all he has to do is make it to any building and they cease their pursuit. As long as he keeps moving from building to building he is allowed to own have a house, a car, buy groceries, and do everything a normal person can while being a known terrorist. I find it ridiculous. |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15037
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 02:36:01 -
[281] - Quote
Paladin Genghis Khanid wrote:Yes. If you are being bumped for over 10 minutes it's just harassment.
Wrong in literally every way.
Quote: The only real solution I see is to not allow people with severely low security status into the place that is supposed to be high security.
It comes as no surprise that someone like you wants to correct this not-problem by functionally banning PvP in highsec.
The rest of your post is a wildly off topic rant, and was reported as such. Have a nice day. Never post again.
"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.
|
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra Gallente Federation
346
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 03:02:53 -
[282] - Quote
But I have to say that even at this late date it is the best sperg post I've seen this year. I can almost hear the heavy asthmatic breathing and the groaning of the triple wide ergo-blimp chair as the final period is mashed into the keyboard.
Ed* so good I had to copypasta that **** to pals, they're loving it.
Being disturbing is better than being boring.
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
1881
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 05:58:01 -
[283] - Quote
Paladin Genghis Khanid wrote:Currently, you have a system in which the leader of ISIS is free to come and go as he pleases. Wow, you even had to compare us to a rl terror organization who actually slaughters civilians. You are disgusting.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1021
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 08:02:55 -
[284] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Paladin Genghis Khanid wrote:Currently, you have a system in which the leader of ISIS is free to come and go as he pleases. Wow, you even had to compare us to a rl terror organization who actually slaughters civilians. You are disgusting.
So nothing against his argument, just don't like his brand of hyperbole? Fair enough. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
1881
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 08:31:33 -
[285] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Paladin Genghis Khanid wrote:Currently, you have a system in which the leader of ISIS is free to come and go as he pleases. Wow, you even had to compare us to a rl terror organization who actually slaughters civilians. You are disgusting. So nothing against his argument, just don't like his brand of hyperbole? Fair enough. Sorry, but his post had nothing to do with arguments. It was a rant about how ganking should be nerfed into the ground because he wants a perfectly safe highsec.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1021
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 08:58:57 -
[286] - Quote
If you say so. I suppose it's easier than giving reasons why aggression in high sec should not be criminally flagged, or for their not to be actual downsides to being a hardened criminal in high sec space.
I will grant he didn't word his arguments well, but you didn't even make one at all.
The whole reason this thread even exists is because some folks believe ganking to be out of hand, and that bumping should not be regarded as harmless when used intentionally and repeatedly in order to effectively keep a ship tackled. That may or may not be a problem, but taking offense at hyperbole isn't really contributing to the conversation. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15044
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 09:46:02 -
[287] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:I suppose it's easier than giving reasons why aggression in high sec should not be criminally flagged
It should and it is. But bumping is not aggression in any way.
Quote: The whole reason this thread even exists is because some folks believe ganking to be out of hand
"Some folks" are wrong. And you're wrong whether or not you make distasteful and inappropriate references trying to equate video game actions to real life tragedies(or whether you try to make apologies for such despicable things). If you do, you are a total piece of dog ****, however. But you're all equally 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.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1976
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 10:26:47 -
[288] - Quote
Paladin Genghis Khanid wrote:Yes. If you are being bumped for over 10 minutes it's just harassment. As the person doing the bumping is not engaging in piracy, technically the supposed legality of it is absurd. If said person was committing an act of PVP piracy, they would be at the least flagged or dealt with by CONCORD. As they do not receive a security status hit, a negative flag and don't invoke a CONCORD response they aren't part of any piracy attempt. They are just some individual harassing another. How is this any different than if I just decided to hold a player in place for no reason than to impede their enjoyment of the game. CCP can think of no way to stop this type of harassment bumping so they resign to defeat. It's just too much trouble to correct. To save face, of course, they officially allow it. They don't want to look like weak and unable to police their own game world, right? Bumping on its own not harassment. Bumping is an emergent property of this PvP game, used by players since time immemorial to tackle capital ships. If you think you are being harassed by another player through bumping or any other method, please file a ticket and raise the issue with CCP.
But Eve is a game where other players are explicitly allowed to affect your gameplay. Other players are allowed to interfere with your navigation and relieve you of your ship even in highsec. It is not harassment to have your goals in game thwarted, or your in-game assets exploded or taken by pirates.
CONCORD is not there to protect your stuff - that is up to you. How many times does this need to be said in this thread?
Paladin Genghis Khanid wrote:The only real solution I see is to not allow people with severely low security status into the place that is supposed to be high security. The two should not mix so well. What I mean by "not allow" is that they cannot dock within any high security station that isn't player owned. They should not be able to acquire clones in high security space from any NPC stations. Anything they possess becomes tainted. Any player, while in high/low security space, who exchanges any items with them loses a large amount of security status and becomes suspect... Sorry, I truncated the rest of your rant as it progressively got more and more insane and is not really worth responding to. However, I will point out your "solution" would have no effect on bumping. If anything, it would increase the need for bumpers in order to give time for the criminals to make their way to the target from lowsec to attack the target. Bumpers are without exception, neutral pilots and thus would not be affected at all by even the most draconian penalties for gankers like you have proposed.
It would be much simpler, and easier for CCP to implement, just to lock out offensive modules in highsec against unflagged targets. I guess this is really what you are trying to propose with your convoluted list of penalties and yes, that would solve bumping by making suicide ganking impossible. But why should CCP do that? They have explicitly coded suicide ganking, Crimewatch, CONCORD and the other systems to allow criminals to operate in highsec. Why would they throw all that work away now? How would that make the game better? |
Lan Wang
V I R I I Ineluctable.
1824
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 10:59:53 -
[289] - Quote
just remember if you try and fix bumping because people get bumped in highsec then you are affecting a legitimate tactic used in every space, stop being selfish.
Lets just make everything really safe so nobody can die then watch the tears because nobody is buying any supplies
Recruiting V I R I I Small Gang Nullsec PVP
Drinking rum before 10am makes you a pirate, not an alcoholic | Angel Cartel | Serpentis |
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1021
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 14:04:48 -
[290] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:just remember if you try and fix bumping because people get bumped in highsec then you are affecting a legitimate tactic used in every space, stop being selfish. Lets just make everything really safe so nobody can die then watch the tears because nobody is buying any supplies
Which is why my counter proposal was to make it require an active module to return the capability, which could then be easily flagged as criminal or outright aggression for crimewatch and concordokken.
However, even that much may soon be a non-issue if capitals lose their ewar immunity. |
|
Lan Wang
V I R I I Ineluctable.
1832
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 14:56:48 -
[291] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Lan Wang wrote:just remember if you try and fix bumping because people get bumped in highsec then you are affecting a legitimate tactic used in every space, stop being selfish. Lets just make everything really safe so nobody can die then watch the tears because nobody is buying any supplies Which is why my counter proposal was to make it require an active module to return the capability, which could then be easily flagged as criminal or outright aggression for crimewatch and concordokken. However, even that much may soon be a non-issue if capitals lose their ewar immunity.
why should you have an active module for crashing into someone, freighters can already fit rigs to stop this, stop trying to ruin someone else gameplay because you are to lazy to take any action against it
Recruiting V I R I I Small Gang Nullsec PVP
Drinking rum before 10am makes you a pirate, not an alcoholic | Angel Cartel | Serpentis |
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
641
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 15:12:41 -
[292] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:But that is just it, it is not CCPGÇÖs call to make, in the end. You are so wrong on this, everything we can and cannot do in this game is CCP's call to make since they provide the sandbox that you love to talk about. When / If CCP decides that ganking may need another nerf you can bet it will happen. IF CCP thinks that repeatedly bump[ing a ship should become a criminal offense then you can bet that will happen as well.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:No, you are not "under attack" in any way. And you can still warp, you just can't align. Ah yet another of your comments induced by your hatred of or completely ignoring the facts. If you cannot align then you cannot warp, like it or not this is a simple fact of warp travel in EvE. To be aligned in EvE requires you to attain roughly 70% of your ships current non-warp maximum speed as affected by modules, rigs, skills, and of course webs. Since bumping can and often does prevent a ship from attaining the required speed bumping can and often does prevent a ship from warping because they prevent it from aligning. I still have no problems with the place ganking is at in this game but please try to use a modicum of logic and rational thought in your arguments. |
Lan Wang
V I R I I Ineluctable.
1832
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 15:14:32 -
[293] - Quote
protip: align the same way you are being bumped trolololol
Recruiting V I R I I Small Gang Nullsec PVP
Drinking rum before 10am makes you a pirate, not an alcoholic | Angel Cartel | Serpentis |
|
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
316
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 15:50:57 -
[294] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Ah yet another of your comments induced by your hatred of or completely ignoring the facts. Ad hominem.
Quote:If you cannot align then you cannot warp, like it or not this is a simple fact of warp travel in EvE. Correct. However, bumping does not prevent alignment, it prevents alignment with a specific coordinate. This is an important distinction you're missing.
Quote:To be aligned in EvE requires you to attain roughly 70% of your ships current non-warp maximum speed as affected by modules, rigs, skills, and of course webs. Exactly 75%, actually.
Quote:Since bumping can and often does prevent a ship from attaining the required speed bumping can and often does prevent a ship from warping because they prevent it from aligning. Speed and vector are two different things. You very much have the requisite speed for warp while bumped, just not the vector. That is unless the bumper happens to bump you toward a warpable object such as a celestial, bookmark or fleetmate.
<^.^> I'm a cat lol
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1021
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 16:28:19 -
[295] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Lan Wang wrote:just remember if you try and fix bumping because people get bumped in highsec then you are affecting a legitimate tactic used in every space, stop being selfish. Lets just make everything really safe so nobody can die then watch the tears because nobody is buying any supplies Which is why my counter proposal was to make it require an active module to return the capability, which could then be easily flagged as criminal or outright aggression for crimewatch and concordokken. However, even that much may soon be a non-issue if capitals lose their ewar immunity. why should you have an active module for crashing into someone, freighters can already fit rigs to stop this, stop trying to ruin someone else gameplay because you are to lazy to take any action against it
The goal there being to prevent the ridiculous argument that bumping can't be made criminal or officially hostile because the AI script can't differentiate between an accidental bump such as occurs when leaving busy stations and the repeated, intentional bumping being used as defacto tackle.
Of course, I have no doubt you are aware of that since it was brought up a whole slew of times, and you are just another of the many, many trolls taking up residence under this particular bridge. |
Lan Wang
V I R I I Ineluctable.
1832
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 16:33:09 -
[296] - Quote
yes i am a troll and feed off ideas to fix things that are not broken
Recruiting V I R I I Small Gang Nullsec PVP
Drinking rum before 10am makes you a pirate, not an alcoholic | Angel Cartel | Serpentis |
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1021
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 16:45:55 -
[297] - Quote
I tend to agree the OP isn't necessary. The conversation moved on.
There is an issue with the intended style of gameplay in high sec being violated by people essentially tackling ships for extended periods of time while being protected by Concord. That style of play is fully supported in the other 3 major areas of the game, and those that enjoy it can do so in those areas, but many choose not to because those areas also have residents with the option of aggressively defending themselves. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16958
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 17:09:50 -
[298] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:
There is an issue with the intended style of gameplay in high sec being violated by people essentially tackling ships for extended periods of time while being protected by Concord.
There is no issue here as there are tactics and mods that will stop this from happening both before and after someone starts to bump you.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
3667
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 17:19:20 -
[299] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:If you donGÇÖt like that analogy, think of an evolutionary process. Oh posh. Evolution isn't nearly as unpredictable as you frame it here; mayhaps how the optimum is found has an air of serendipity to it, but the optimums are honestly well defined. The same challenges are more often than not met with the same adaptations - take a look at how land reptiles and land mammals both made the journey back into the sea as Ichthyosaurs and dolphins respectively, with largely the same set of adaptations - long snout, streamlined form, and filippers from the same homologous structures. Likewise, some of the long term experiments in bacteria have demonstrated remarkable convergent evolution of the same novel traits from entirely isolated populations. Mutation is random, selection is not. Same thing applies here. When insurance was nerfed, the optimum adaptation here was switching to the max dps/isk ship; there was no plasticity or uncertainty here, that is the optimum response. Anyone could have predicted that some people would fit their freighters better than others when they gave them low slots. The problem really is that it doesn't make a difference - if you max tank a freighter, it will still die provided you can keep it bumped. There isn't an optimum fitting response.
First evolution is not about optimization*. Think of it this way, if a two guys are out walking and encounter a bear, to survive you donGÇÖt have to be the fastest guy in the world (the optimum) you merely have to be faster than the other guy.
And I think you are suffering from a bit of 20/20 hindsight. Yeah, things like MRSA seem obvious nowGǪbut, they werenGÇÖt so obvious 50-60 years ago. In fact, doctors/scientists did not learn their lesson when Staphylococcus aureus became resistant to penicillin and they switched the methicillin essentially creating MRSA (good job guys, missing something soooo obvious ). Much like what we see here with ganking and the various attempts to nerf it. Eventually the devs can win by simple making it impossible to gank freightersGǪbut then again, theyGÇÖll be violating the fundamental nature of this gameGÇöi.e. their previous advertisements will retroactively become blatant and outright lies.
And you are also looking at the problem too narrowly. There is no solution in the form of fitting in terms of preventing ship destruction. That is, there is no fit for any ship that will prevent destruction in all cases. However, that is not the entire solution set (tanking). Avoidance is a perfectly valid strategy.
*Yes, I know genetic algorithms are used as optimization algorithms.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1026
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 17:38:57 -
[300] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:
There is an issue with the intended style of gameplay in high sec being violated by people essentially tackling ships for extended periods of time while being protected by Concord.
There is no issue here as there are tactics and mods that will stop this from happening both before and after someone starts to bump you.
Yet they are still tackling, and still protected by Concord. The intention of high sec gameplay is that the freighter would need to be wardecced, criminal, or suspect before being a legitimate target of hostile action. You can still tank the freighter, but you should not be able to do so without at least flagging, and really by getting the job done before concord shows up. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |