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
3606
|
Posted - 2015.11.08 23:53:22 -
[121] - Quote
Styx Saken wrote:Black Pedro wrote:I'll accept that a player who is bumped for 8 straight hours without being ganked has a legitimate complaint. This. Bumping for a few minutes in preparation of a gank? Fine. Bumping for hours just to push someone around in space? Not so much. Unfortunately, the current bumping mechanics allow both.
Then logoff. Chances are if they are going to gank you, you wont be bumped for hours on end. So logoff. If it is just one guy being a complete jerk it will end the stand off. If he is getting ready to gank you and it is not taking hours (seriously, how many people have been bumped for hours then ganked?) they'll have a guy in a noob ship to aggress you and keep you from disappearing.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Daret
CFOA Mining and Logistics Division Caldari Fleet and Operations Academy
5
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 00:15:58 -
[122] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:So let me get this straight....
You want to play solo and not spend the time or effort to organize even the most minimal escort.
And at the same time Mommy and Daddy (i.e. CCP) should come hold your hand and pat your poo poo so that the guys who did spend the time and effort to gank you can't.
Have I summed up your entitled and self-righteous position sufficiently?
I considered just ignoring your condescending post but I will say this since your reading comprehension skills need work.
I did not create this thread out of spite or anger at being bumped. This is not something that has ever personally happened to me, I'm simply noticing a problem that exists within the game that should have a solution that doesn't involve logging out, or absolutely demand outside help.
Freighter (and miner) pilots should not be completely helpless from bumpers in highsec. They should have a tool to escape on their own if certain conditions are met.
If you think 30 seconds is too short then that's something that can be changed. If you think it's ok for one pilot to be completely at the mercy of one other solo pilot, then that's why you don't see this is a problem. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1018
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 04:01:30 -
[123] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:That's just it. You don't need a method of tackle free from aggression. If that were the case then there would not be any of those crimewatch rules with concord to enforce the peace.
Bumping used as tackle is aggression, and only the limitations of the AI prevent it from being seen as such.
I am all for ganking and other such gameplay according to the rules set out in each area of space. Even a bump or two to delay things to get your people organized would be reasonable. But repeated bumping is purely and obviously aggression and should be treated as such according to the rules in place in whatever space you are in.
You are right, capital ships do get a big advantage in HP, at the cost of speed, and their cargo capacity makes them very attractive targets. That advantage does not need a special cheeseball counter when you can organize and take it down without it if you put in the time and dedicated effort to do so.
Or, if bumping isn't aggression there is no reason not to take it out or provide a way to circumvent it. After all, if there was no aggression then there is no PvP and there is no holy cow to protect. Mike how do you draw a distinction between purposeful bumping and incidental bumping (the latter being two capitals that land too close to each other and bump)? Seems unreasonable to give the latter pilots any sort of timer as they had no control. Until you can explain such a mechanism I don't see a reasonable and workable solution.
My counterproposal in the thread was to disable bumping, or make it purely cosmetic and not to allow it to affect the alignment of a ship.
Tackle should be intentional. If it's so frelling important that there be a concord free way to tackle, then add a module to do that.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14955
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 05:02:51 -
[124] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote: Tackle should be intentional. If it's so frelling important that there be a concord free way to tackle, then add a module to do that.
Why bother, when there isn't any problem 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.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
3607
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 05:30:50 -
[125] - Quote
Daret wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:So let me get this straight....
You want to play solo and not spend the time or effort to organize even the most minimal escort.
And at the same time Mommy and Daddy (i.e. CCP) should come hold your hand and pat your poo poo so that the guys who did spend the time and effort to gank you can't.
Have I summed up your entitled and self-righteous position sufficiently? I considered just ignoring your condescending post but I will say this since your reading comprehension skills need work. I did not create this thread out of spite or anger at being bumped. This is not something that has ever personally happened to me, I'm simply noticing a problem that exists within the game that should have a solution that doesn't involve logging out, or absolutely demand outside help. Freighter (and miner) pilots should not be completely helpless from bumpers in highsec. They should have a tool to escape on their own if certain conditions are met. If you think 30 seconds is too short then that's something that can be changed. If you think it's ok for one pilot to be completely at the mercy of one other solo pilot, then that's why you don't see this is a problem.
The point is that a lazy solo player, often AFK, should never trump players who have taken the time to be organized and prepared to gank the lazy solo player who is AFK. If you want to lone wolf it...it comes with a cost. Especially if you cannot do things like monitor local, use your watch list and setting standings, etc.
So spare me your faux indignation.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
3607
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 05:32:40 -
[126] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:
My counterproposal in the thread was to disable bumping, or make it purely cosmetic and not to allow it to affect the alignment of a ship.
Tackle should be intentional. If it's so frelling important that there be a concord free way to tackle, then add a module to do that.
Bumping is also valid if you cannot tackle the ship...e.g. a super. Granted it might be a bit of a hail mary, still the idea that we need to buff the play style of those who cannot be arsed to be as organized as CODE. and other gankers strikes me as just bad game design. We should not cater to the lazy, IMO.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1018
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 05:45:56 -
[127] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:
My counterproposal in the thread was to disable bumping, or make it purely cosmetic and not to allow it to affect the alignment of a ship.
Tackle should be intentional. If it's so frelling important that there be a concord free way to tackle, then add a module to do that.
Bumping is also valid if you cannot tackle the ship...e.g. a super. Granted it might be a bit of a hail mary, still the idea that we need to buff the play style of those who cannot be arsed to be as organized as CODE. and other gankers strikes me as just bad game design. We should not cater to the lazy, IMO.
They will be removing the tackle immunity of the other capital ships soon, though it's not an issue for them in any case as they cannot enter highsec. I would still say that if it's important that those ships be tackled this way then a module to do it is in order.
Tackle should be clearly intentional. Tackle is an aggressive action, and it should follow the same rules of any other aggressive action for the area of space you happen to be in. Using bumping as tackle short circuits the intended gameplay of high sec, not only allowing tackle to occur without concord interference but also by actually protecting the aggressor with Concord.
Kaarous, go troll under a bridge somewhere. Adults are talking here. Tackle is aggression. Bumping should not be useable as tackle as it does not trigger the appropriate response when used as tackle. This is most notably a problem in high sec, where there are consequences for unprovoked aggression. Just because it's not a problem for you does not mean it's not a problem.
|
Valkin Mordirc
1615
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 05:50:33 -
[128] - Quote
This just in.
You can only gank ships in Highsec.
You are starting to show your true colors.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14956
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 05:55:40 -
[129] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Tackle is aggression. Bumping should not be useable as tackle
Bumping is not usable as tackle. It does not disable warp engines as tackle does.
Quote: This is most notably a problem in high sec
It's not a problem at all.
Quote: Just because it's not a problem for you does not mean it's not a problem.
It's not a problem that freighters die. It's not a problem that they need escorts. It's not a problem that there are consequences for being afk.
It would only be a problem to the kind of entitled, selfish carebear who thinks they should be able to fly a capital ship solo and afk. And something like that isn't a real problem, because it exists only in the minds of people who don't belong in this game 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.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14956
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 05:56:36 -
[130] - Quote
Repeat your lie all you want Mike.
Bumping is not tackle. That is a fact, a fact that you can right now in the game and see with your own eyes, if your entitlement will let you.
"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.
|
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1018
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 07:42:37 -
[131] - Quote
Valkin Mordirc wrote:This just in. You can only gank ships in Highsec. You are starting to show your true colors.
No. Ganking can happen anywhere, and is not itself a problem.
Using Bumping as tackle is only an issue in high sec, because everywhere else you can just use one of the many other tackle options available.
Kaarous... I know that you have issues with following a conversation and using logic, so I will try and hold your hand through the hard parts, again.
When you use bumping to keep a ship from going into warp, you are doing something that is equivalent to using a scrambler, disruptor, etc... No one is saying that bumping actually applies the warp scramble or warp disruption effect to the ship. What I am saying is that it is intentionally being used to accomplish the same goal, which should make it be considered aggression. However, as Concord is actually a 15 year old AI script and not an actual person, it does not.
I am not even saying that freighters should be safer than they are now. I personally would not complain if they disabled bumping and added a module that either re-enables it, or some sort of tackle mod that does not trigger aggression. Either way, it would be more honest and less confusing for newer players like the OP instead of the way it is now.
Personally I view it as a problem because it is clearly aggression that gets defended by concord in an area where concord is supposed to provide a barrier to entry on unprovoked aggression. If that's supposed to be there is should be made clear that such is the case by requiring it to use an active and visible module, and if not it should be fixed.
Now, please either engage the conversation, or go find a bridge to sleep under like the troll you are. Stop pretending ignorance to derail things. I'm not sure why you feel it necessary to troll on every thread you comment on, but it is pretty tedious. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14958
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 07:46:34 -
[132] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote: When you use bumping to keep a ship from going into warp, you are doing something that is equivalent to using a scrambler, disruptor, etc...
No, you very literally are not. Their warp engines are not being effected at all.
Only their alignment.
They are two very different things, and you're trying to conflate them because your entire nonsense argument depends on it. But the fact of the matter is that they are not the same 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.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
17212
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 08:10:59 -
[133] - Quote
One reliable way to tell the difference is to keep spamming warp whenever you're near alignment to something you can warp to.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
683
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 08:21:09 -
[134] - Quote
@Party 1: Well if it's not tackle, then we can get rid of it and nothing will change right?
Yeah I thought not. Don't be so bloody stupid.
@Party 2: And if we do get rid of it, there'll be a big buff to ganking to compensate, so we're all ok with that right?
Yeah I thought not. Don't be so bloody stupid.
Jesus christ you people are like tantruming childen, honestly. The lot of you need a good slapping. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14959
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 08:25:41 -
[135] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote: Well if it's not tackle, then we can get rid of it and nothing will change right?
You'd need to show there being some kind of problem first, to justify recoding the base physics engine.
Change has to be justified, and this certainly is not.
"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.
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1018
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 08:30:01 -
[136] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote: When you use bumping to keep a ship from going into warp, you are doing something that is equivalent to using a scrambler, disruptor, etc...
No, you very literally are not. Their warp engines are not being effected at all. Only their alignment. They are two very different things, and you're trying to conflate them because your entire nonsense argument depends on it. But the fact of the matter is that they are not the same at all.
Then why bump them intentionally? What is that accomplishing?
Right. Its keeping them from warping. It's being used as tackle. Tackle is aggression. If tackle is what's needed for balance in that situation, then do that and stop being dishonest about it. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1018
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 08:32:50 -
[137] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:@Party 1:
@Party 2: And if we do get rid of it, there'll be a big buff to ganking to compensate, so we're all ok with that right?
Yeah I thought not. Don't be so bloody stupid.
Jesus christ you people are like tantruming childen, honestly. The lot of you need a good slapping.
Actually, for my part I said I was fine with adding a tackle mod that only flags a suspect, rather than outright summoning Concord. That way the freighter team can engage their aggressor if they choose without getting concorded themselves or taking the standings loss for simple self defense.
I don't think it would be necessary, but if that's what has to be, then so be it. It is stupid that bumping can be used like that indefinitely.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14959
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 08:39:29 -
[138] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote: It's being used as tackle. Tackle is aggression.
And this isn't tackle. Tackle disrupts their warp engines.
That's why you keep arguing this even though you know it's obvious to everyone who looks that you're wrong.
Because your whole premise is to try and bring in Concord:
"Tackle = Concord summoned"
"Bumping = Tackle"
So "Bumping should = Concord summoned".
But your second point is flagrantly untrue. Bumping /= Tackle in reality.
Doesn't matter to you though, in your quest to justify a nerf you'll say anything.
"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.
|
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
684
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 08:41:06 -
[139] - Quote
Sounds great, I'll immediately use it to tackle some sap in a mission and watch the rats explode him because he can't warp out and I don't get concorded.
Sold.
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1018
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 08:46:29 -
[140] - Quote
Kaarous, stop trolling.
Tell you what. Point me to the mod called "Tackle".
I know of Warp Disruptors, Warp Scramblers, Interdiction Probes, etc...
I know of Salvage Tackle, which has nothing to do with keeping a ship from warping.
But so far as I know, there is no actual mod called tackle.
As was discussed earlier in the thread, Tackle as used in the Eve community, is the act of keeping a ship from warping. It's not a mod, status effect, or anything else in particular. It is something that prevents your ship from warping in some fashion.
Thus bumping is not itself tackle, but when used intentionally to keep a ship out of alignment, it is being used as tackle.
And for the everloving glory of god, if it's that xaxtdamned important to kill things despite the rules governing aggression in that area, then just put in a mod to do it outright instead of being dishonest about it.
Or are you too afraid someone might actually pop you with a suspect flag on? It hardly ever happens, but I can see where you would want to be sure you were completely out of danger in case there was help nearby. |
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1018
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 08:49:11 -
[141] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Sounds great, I'll immediately use it to tackle some sap in a mission and watch the rats explode him because he can't warp out and I don't get concorded. Sold.
You could try. Just because Concord won't mind does not mean it would draw any less aggression from rats, and most missioners can tank the whole room on their own already. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14959
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 08:50:40 -
[142] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Kaarous, stop trolling.
I'm not.
And tackle is a synonym for warp disruption.
Quote: And for the everloving glory of god, if it's that xaxtdamned important to kill things despite the rules governing aggression in that area, then just put in a mod to do it outright instead of being dishonest about it.
Why would they go to the trouble? There isn't anything wrong with the existing situation.
"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.
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1018
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 09:06:47 -
[143] - Quote
Synonym for warp disruption specifically? Really?
I have also heard it used I reference to infinite points on heavy interdictors, scramblers, and bubbles... all of which have different rules that apply but all of which are used to keep a ship from warping.
No. I am afraid that you are at best mistaken, at worst just lying to try and be obtuse about the point.
Just because it's not a problem for you in particular does not mean it's not a problem. I don't make these threads, but they sure pop up pretty often. It's a problem for somebody, and I'm willing to bet they believe in their own right to exist and have an opinion just as firmly as you believe in your own.
From a balance perspective, it's not right because unprovoked aggression is supposed to have strict consequences in highsec. I am aware that your own belief is that highsec should just be removed all together, though why you don't just move out to low sec where that style of play is normal is beyond me. I suppose it's because the targets our there tend to prepare for that sort of thing, and you'd rather hide behind one sided wardecs and sloppy outdated game mechanics.
It's not a problem that affects me either, though I do tend to have the ability to look beyond my own activities and understand the problems of others. I don't fly freighters, because if I'm going to fly a 1 billion ISK target it will have defenses and guns. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14959
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 09:12:03 -
[144] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Synonym for warp disruption specifically? Really?
Yes. And infinipoints and bubbles also warp disrupt/scram your ship.
Bumping does not.
In fact, I can't seem to find where it inflicts a debuff of any kind for Concord to respond to. It's almost like they exclusively respond to offensive module activation, and bumping doesn't qualify.
Quote: From a balance perspective, it's not right because unprovoked aggression is supposed to have strict consequences in highsec.
And of course, here is what you really want. Your supposed claim of being alright with a module that does the same was just a mask. What you really want is a big, fat nerf, because you don't think highsec is safe enough already.
Quote: I am aware that your own belief is that highsec should just be removed all together
Considering you just made that up, it really wouldn't surprise me if you were aware of anything else imaginary 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.
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1018
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 09:22:53 -
[145] - Quote
Warp Disruption is a specific effect.
Warp Scrambling is also a specific effect, distinct from disruption.
as are infinite points, interdiction probes, and other things that all stop your ship. Each has its own rules that apply.
You are just trying to lump them all together on an arbitrary definition that excludes using bumping to achieve the same goal because you think that's clever.
There is no supposed claim. I said it, I meant it. If you could convince me that a method of aggression that is not just allowed by concord but actively defended by it was balanced, I'd go along with it. It won't be an easy sell however.
You have said many times that concord is an abomination and should be removed from the game. Concord is pretty much the only difference between low sec and high sec, except maybe for some ship restrictions. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14959
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 09:35:35 -
[146] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Warp Disruption is a specific effect.
Warp Scrambling is also a specific effect, distinct from disruption.
Actually, they both fall under the category of warp disruption.
Quote: You are just trying to lump them all together on an arbitrary definition that excludes using bumping
I'm not trying to do anything, they are all in the same category, the warp disruption effect, the one that stops your warp engines from activating.
They all have the same mechanical effect, although to varying degrees.
Quote: There is no supposed claim. I said it, I meant it. If you could convince me that a method of aggression that is not just allowed by concord but actively defended by it was balanced, I'd go along with it. It won't be an easy sell however.
I don't believe you. There is no circumstance in which I would consider you to be arguing in good faith. None whatsoever.
Quote: You have said many times that concord is an abomination and should be removed from the game.
What I've said is the binary, heavy handed, anti sandbox mechanic that Concord presently is should not exist and should never have existed.
That's quite different. But mischaracterizations and outright lies are your M.O., as you've long since proven.
"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.
|
Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
115
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 09:39:44 -
[147] - Quote
Daret wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:
What you are missing is that this is not needed.
I wouldn't expect anyone from goonswarm to understand how something like this is needed.
Totally irrelevant, but still hilarious. Classic EVE forum stuff right there, good job. |
Valkin Mordirc
1617
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 09:49:45 -
[148] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You are just trying to lump them all together on an arbitrary definition that excludes using bumping to achieve the same goal because you think that's clever.
I know I just keep popping in here at random and cherry picking.
But...
Is that what you're doing as well?
Trying to lump them all together on an arbitrary definition that includes bumping as a way to achieve your own definition of tackle?
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1018
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 09:58:17 -
[149] - Quote
Kaarous, I guess that's it then. You really are ust a troll.
Despite that my only 'lies' are simple disagreements with your own unsupported opinions, you won't trust that I argue in good faith under any circumstances, yet you go out of your way to vomit your own dreck all over everything anyone who does not agree with you says.
You don't argue. You make unsupported claims, and then attempt to treat them as if they were the very foundation of reality.
The only thing of worth you have contributed to this thread is the opinion that if it does not apply a status effect to the ship it should not be considered tackle.
On that point we disagree, and that would be Ok if you weren't such a narcissist that everyone has to be exactly like you or be considered a liar.
As you cannot support anything else you have to say with anything other than troll vomit, it's unfortunate you can't seem to stop yourself. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1018
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 09:59:55 -
[150] - Quote
Valkin Mordirc wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:
You are just trying to lump them all together on an arbitrary definition that excludes using bumping to achieve the same goal because you think that's clever.
I know I just keep popping in here at random and cherry picking. But... Is that what you're doing as well? Trying to lump them all together on an arbitrary definition that includes bumping as a way to achieve your own definition of tackle?
Actually no. As was discussed earlier in the thread the act of stopping a ship from warping is considered tackle. I even went to great length to be clear that bumping itself wasn't tackle, unless it was intentionally and specifically being used to stop a ship from warping.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |