Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 51 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Aiwha
Infinite Point Northern Army
914
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:00:47 -
[91] - Quote
Thanatos Marathon wrote:FW LP store DCU, did you not make it to the list!?
Now there's a good point.
Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Aiwha for CSM XI
|
Harkin Issier
Negative-Impact Violence of Action.
64
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:01:42 -
[92] - Quote
There is no longer a meta DCU which costs less than 20 CPU. This is excessively harsh in my opinion. I think the "Compact" version should cost 17 CPU, especially considering it's significantly less effective than the current Internal Force Field Array I. |
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
16
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:02:28 -
[93] - Quote
https://zkillboard.com/kills/freighters/ should give you an idea for last 24 hours
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2591
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:02:54 -
[94] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Just flip off the pvp switch already, stop pretending you care.
Masao Kurata wrote:I quit EVE.
Just quit already, stop showing you still care about the game and give em your stuff if possible. |
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
16
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:04:33 -
[95] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:if miniluv and code are feeling the pinch isk wise , then perhaps not targetting empty freighters for lols might help a bit. just sayin... AFK is AFK. If you are careless, you should be punished - severely. It's what makes EvE, EvE. It should be viable and practical to be the agents of enforcing risk. Much of the entire problem with the game now is that almost nothing is risky, or that it takes a herculean amount of effort to supply a little bit of risk. Make EvE scary again, let people create risk, and it becomes exciting again.
i was responding to the poster who claimed that gankers werent rich...
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
292
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:04:55 -
[96] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:I quit EVE. Don't let the door... ...can I have your stuff... etc
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
358
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:05:39 -
[97] - Quote
Already giving away my stuff. Just writing some EVE mails and giving myself a week to liquidate my assets and reconsider.
No you can't have any, the recipients are already determined. |
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
421
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:07:01 -
[98] - Quote
I didn't think you'd go this far with changing damage controls, but I have to say these are some excellent changes. Making DCs passive was something I was always hoping would happen and opens up a lot of interesting new options when fitting transport ships for high sec.
Also increasing the base hull resists and lowering DC resists was a great move. This is a massive change in respect to ship fitting. As a result I am going to have to re-evaluate pretty much every one of my fittings.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Jin Kugu
Scanners Anonymous
28
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:07:22 -
[99] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:https://zkillboard.com/kills/freighters/ should give you an idea for last 24 hours
9 aren't even in high sec
7 aren't ganks
14 ganks 10 of them in uedama, 1 system that can be avoided and should be scouted every time
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2192
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:07:24 -
[100] - Quote
This is too much, it makes things more even, buffs careless pilots, reduce room for piloting mistakes ... and what about neuts? You can't shut down a passive module with neuts!
This is a huge buff to the defense side of the game without proper compensation on the offense (DPS buff).
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
16
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:07:58 -
[101] - Quote
Black Wardog wrote:LOL Freighter ganking is PVP? Since when? Freighter ganking is pve like the starters mission where you need to loose your ship to get it done. Most freighters are ap and so controlled not by players but by an ai (and a bad one indeed)
I dont quite see the hate about the ap. It is fine to earn money with: PI Trade Research Toon growing and selling (and now sp trading) Production Moons
And all AFK, but when a ship flies unattended it's bad? Not saying that they should prevent shooting it. Afterall they are game :)
But the earlier named ways to earn money are all, almost, totally safe. No one interferes when you do production, research or trading or research. So be happy with the ap pilots. They give you the opportunity at least to interact with their making money :) and prevent it. Thats not carebearing compared to PI.
u forgot afktar ratting which is what many of these 'anti afk' people do with alts . there's a word for this that begins with 'h' and ends in 'y' ...
|
Messenger Of Truth
Butlerian Crusade
31
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:09:29 -
[102] - Quote
Freighter hp buff...probably not as important as fixing bump-tackling so that it as risky as module-tackling. I'm sure some freighter pilots will be happy to have more HP, although it will just mean that the costs for the gankers go up slightly but their tactics, and the "ease" of ganking won't significantly change.
Once consequence-free bump-tackling gets fixed we'll see more interaction opportunities. Maybe once bump-tacklers stop being protected by concord we'll see groups of people getting together to hunt bumpers. Perhaps gankers will use cheaper ships to bump, but more bumpers. Perhaps gankers will still risk expensive machariels, but sometimes we'll see machariel kills.
Fixing consequence-free bump-tackling will have a better impact on player interaction than this freighter HP buff. |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
295
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:11:00 -
[103] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:if miniluv and code are feeling the pinch isk wise , then perhaps not targetting empty freighters for lols might help a bit. just sayin... AFK is AFK. If you are careless, you should be punished - severely. It's what makes EvE, EvE. It should be viable and practical to be the agents of enforcing risk. Much of the entire problem with the game now is that almost nothing is risky, or that it takes a herculean amount of effort to supply a little bit of risk. Make EvE scary again, let people create risk, and it becomes exciting again.
Sorry but getting infinitely bumped by a single guy while his buddies log on for the ping ain't really definition of risky or exciting gameplay. |
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
16
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:11:16 -
[104] - Quote
Messenger Of Truth wrote:Freighter hp buff...probably not as important as fixing bump-tackling so that it as risky as module-tackling. I'm sure some freighter pilots will be happy to have more HP, although it will just mean that the costs for the gankers go up slightly but their tactics, and the "ease" of ganking won't significantly change.
Once consequence-free bump-tackling gets fixed we'll see more interaction opportunities. Maybe once bump-tacklers stop being protected by concord we'll see groups of people getting together to hunt bumpers. Perhaps gankers will use cheaper ships to bump, but more bumpers. Perhaps gankers will still risk expensive machariels, but sometimes we'll see machariel kills.
Fixing consequence-free bump-tackling will have a better impact on player interaction than this freighter HP buff.
+1
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17321
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:12:37 -
[105] - Quote
Light Combat Drone wrote:Silver Isu wrote:Ganking is extremely rare and very few freighters die, so called "anti-gankers" have no organization what so ever. Today alone, 30 capital transport ships (JF, freighter, orca) were killed.
Chances of being killed in a freighter by gankers stands as less than 0.1%.
Why exactly do they need to be made even safer? They were buffed in HP around not being able to fit a suitcase not too long ago and in that very thread it was said a damage control would give them too much structure hp and now here you are dumping 33% more into them.
I also have concerns over the mining barges/exhumers, they are already unprofitable to attack in highsec and this change means they are simply pointless for pirates to attack even if they are fitted in the worst possible way.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
421
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:15:35 -
[106] - Quote
By the way, what is going to happen to reactive hardeners? Will they still maintain the same level of resists? If so it will certainly make it an interesting choice now between a DC and a reactive hardener for armour ships now.
I'm thinking RHs are going to become the new DCs for armour fits.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Ylmar
Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:16:39 -
[107] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Chances of being killed in a freighter by gankers stands as less than 0.1%. Blimey, is it time for a round of "phantasy statistics" again? |
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
886
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:16:50 -
[108] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Sorry but getting infinitely bumped by a single guy while his buddies log on for the ping ain't really definition of risky or exciting gameplay.
Where were your people or alts scouting and webbing?
You know you can counter-bump...where is your ping for buddies to counter bump the freighter into warp or bump the enemy Mach? Exciting contested game play right here, but so few people actually do it.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM XI
|
Messenger Of Truth
Butlerian Crusade
31
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:16:54 -
[109] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: I also have concerns over the mining barges/exhumers, they are already unprofitable to attack in highsec and this change means they are simply pointless for pirates to attack even if they are fitted in the worst possible way.
As if tears aren't enough reason to gank!
Even if it cost 1 billion isk to blow up a ship, people would still do it for the lulz. |
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
358
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:17:02 -
[110] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Why exactly do they need to be made even safer? They were buffed in HP around not being able to fit a suitcase not too long ago and in that very thread it was said a damage control would give them too much structure hp and now here you are dumping 33% more into them.
50% more. A 33% resistance increase is a 50% EHP increase in that layer. |
|
Jin Kugu
Scanners Anonymous
28
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:19:07 -
[111] - Quote
This is the same as buffing solo travelling supers by giving them more ehp. Except worse. |
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
16
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:21:12 -
[112] - Quote
new buckets please...
|
Aiwha
Infinite Point Northern Army
914
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:21:51 -
[113] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:By the way, what is going to happen to reactive hardeners? Will they still maintain the same level of resists? If so it will certainly make it an interesting choice now between a DC and a reactive hardener for armour ships now.
I'm thinking RHs are going to become the new DCs for armour fits as long as the ship can handle the capacitor drain.
Adding in variations of RHs would be nice, it is about time we had a T2 version.
ENAM would be better than a reactive hardener. Since the RH adjusts each cycle to damage taken during the previous cycle. Really only works if you're taking constant consistent damage, so pve mainly. ENAM gives you that nice, reliable, flat bonus with the same fitting requirements as a DCII.
Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Aiwha for CSM XI
|
Globby
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
311
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:23:43 -
[114] - Quote
It doesn't matter, ganking is doomed to failure anyway as anti-gankers continue to refuse to learn or adapt. Since 2012, the 'changes' to ganking have heavily favored anti-ganking. The only buffs to ganking was the removal of wreck shooting, which was to be honest a "low investment high damage uncounterable game mechanic" that rightfully was removed.
CCP Fozzie then said that the offset for that is a 15% to 35% increase in freighter EHP across the board. A small QOL change for gankers results in a a significant buff for freighters.
Let me ask you this, where was the buff for ganking when you removed hyperdunking? As you said, "[CCP] likes to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance" but there was no buff to ganking afterwards.
tl;dr I'm glad I no longer have to deal with the player versus developer existence that is ganking. Anti-gankers literally follow the mantra of "complain rather than try" and it works. They just whine and beg for changes until CCP obliges them, and guess what? They still keep crying. This is like the third buff to freighter EHP recently and the whines and cries still haven't stopped. |
Aiwha
Infinite Point Northern Army
914
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:26:57 -
[115] - Quote
Globby wrote:the whines and cries still haven't stopped.
Well, you keep posting.
Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Aiwha for CSM XI
|
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
422
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:29:18 -
[116] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Light Combat Drone wrote:Silver Isu wrote:Ganking is extremely rare and very few freighters die, so called "anti-gankers" have no organization what so ever. Today alone, 30 capital transport ships (JF, freighter, orca) were killed. Chances of being killed in a freighter by gankers stands as less than 0.1%. Why exactly do they need to be made even safer? They were buffed in HP around not being able to fit a suitcase not too long ago and in that very thread it was said a damage control would give them too much structure hp and now here you are dumping 33% more into them. I also have concerns over the mining barges/exhumers, they are already unprofitable to attack in highsec and this change means they are simply pointless for pirates to attack even if they are fitted in the worst possible way. Sorry but I am really struggling to have any sympathy. Go to 0.0/LS/WH space to PvP, or HTFU and bring a few more buddies if you want to gank a HS freighter. I don't mean to pick on your in particular Baltec as I know you are an experienced PvPer yourself, but I do get sick of these hypocritical HS gank whines, they just come across as self entitled rants complaining because they feel they have a god given right to be able to profitably gank a freighter in high sec with a couple of destroyers or battlecruisers.
This change is good for the game as a whole and makes PvP fitting a lot more interesting, that is what really matters.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
358
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:29:27 -
[117] - Quote
There's no point in fighting carebears any more when CCP is fighting for them. The only way to fight CCP is to unsub. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17322
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:30:26 -
[118] - Quote
Ylmar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Chances of being killed in a freighter by gankers stands as less than 0.1%. Blimey, is it time for a round of "phantasy statistics" again?
Its based off red freights record over 221,333 contracts spanning 2,786,739 gate jumps in highsec. That 0.1% is the number of failed contracts.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
422
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:32:10 -
[119] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:Moac Tor wrote:By the way, what is going to happen to reactive hardeners? Will they still maintain the same level of resists? If so it will certainly make it an interesting choice now between a DC and a reactive hardener for armour ships now.
I'm thinking RHs are going to become the new DCs for armour fits as long as the ship can handle the capacitor drain.
Adding in variations of RHs would be nice, it is about time we had a T2 version. ENAM would be better than a reactive hardener. Since the RH adjusts each cycle to damage taken during the previous cycle. Really only works if you're taking constant consistent damage, so pve mainly. ENAM gives you that nice, reliable, flat bonus with the same fitting requirements as a DCII. A RH is superior to an EANM after the second EANM. So it only takes 3 slots now instead of 4 before a RH becomes viable.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Jin Kugu
Scanners Anonymous
28
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:33:08 -
[120] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:Globby wrote:the whines and cries still haven't stopped. Well, you keep posting.
NCdot just ran 50+ invulnerable jumpfreighters between jita and their new staging. Hauling is too easy already. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 51 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |