Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lex Gabinia
Res Repetundae
46
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 19:59:33 -
[241] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Lex Gabinia wrote:What does any of this have to do with the idea of getting a suspect flag for using scanners?
Nothing of course, but there must be messages pushed. Talk is the only thing AG can do. So messages, even completely rubbish, off topic ones, are on the table to be splurged in any thread. Nothing shall deny the conspiracy.
FYI..I've been flying around for the last hour scanning every ship I could get locked. Nobody seems to notice or care.
I did however find a pod next to a wrecked miner. Asked after them in local, got no answer, scooped loot and salvaged their wreck. I was nice enough to contract their loot back to them - even slightly below lowest sale price - no reason to get greedy. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
672
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 20:00:49 -
[242] - Quote
Galaxy Chicken wrote:Dracvlad wrote: I am quite happy to protect myself against people who might decide to use legal action against me, some of you people take this game way to seriously.... *Thinks we all take EVE too seriously* *Called a lawyer over EVE stuff* ? Yeah, that bit is hilarious. Someone said something on the Internet......to the lawyer.
I'm still laughing at how crazy that is. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5037
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 20:04:47 -
[243] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Lex Gabinia wrote:What does any of this have to do with the idea of getting a suspect flag for using scanners?
Nothing of course, but there must be messages pushed. Talk is the only thing AG can do. So messages, even completely rubbish, off topic ones, are on the table to be splurged in any thread. Nothing shall deny the conspiracy. Yeah but Gankers on the CSM push CCP to change the rules when someone does something in game that starts to work against their easy lifestyle...
So...tell us how the Illuminati are involved, or is it the Reptillians?
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Galaxy Chicken
Free Highsec Industrialists
55
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 21:07:44 -
[244] - Quote
Open your eyes people! The illuminati are in cahoots with the reptilians! (all of whom are Endie) |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
7852
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 21:11:24 -
[245] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
CCP have already said taht Ganking a T2 fit ship is not ment to be profitable, you know that.
CCP said that ganking an unfitted T2 hull should not be profitable. Dracvlad wrote: The wrecks had been like that for ages, but as soon as AG start blowing them up you get it changed.
Boomerang exploit had been in the game for almost a decade before it got fixed. Broken mechanics should be getting fixed no?
Boomerang "exploit" was fixed within a week of Herr Wilkus perfecting it and showing how to do it with a Tornado. "Tornado Trifecta" I think it was called. CCP didn't have a problem with 4-5 guys doing it with cats. But when Wilkus showed you can do it solo..... wait a minute... there's a pattern here...
wonder how many arty thrashers it would take to alpha a freighter wreck...
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Dirty Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
334
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 21:23:23 -
[246] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:wonder how many arty thrashers it would take to alpha a freighter wreck... ~15
You might do it in 10 if you had pilots w/ good gunnery/etc, but 15 would be safer. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
26447
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 22:30:02 -
[247] - Quote
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:wonder how many arty thrashers it would take to alpha a freighter wreck... ~15 You might do it in 10 if you had pilots w/ good gunnery/etc, but 15 would be safer. This really should be measured in Ibises; a long time back someone did the math on how many Ibises it would require to gank the Veldnaught in a 0.5.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Dirty Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
335
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 22:42:29 -
[248] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Dirty Forum Alt wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:wonder how many arty thrashers it would take to alpha a freighter wreck... ~15 You might do it in 10 if you had pilots w/ good gunnery/etc, but 15 would be safer. This really should be measured in Ibises; a long time back someone did the math on how many Ibises it would require to gank the Veldnaught in a 0.5. well that is easy - on a gate w/ concord pre-spawned you get ~2 damage per ibis before they pop. 15k ehp = 7k ibises required.
Veldnaught I'm not sure after the capital rebalances...but total hp divided by 2 and there you go. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1986
|
Posted - 2016.07.29 05:54:16 -
[249] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
CCP have already said taht Ganking a T2 fit ship is not ment to be profitable, you know that.
CCP said that ganking an unfitted T2 hull should not be profitable. Dracvlad wrote: The wrecks had been like that for ages, but as soon as AG start blowing them up you get it changed.
Boomerang exploit had been in the game for almost a decade before it got fixed. Broken mechanics should be getting fixed no? Boomerang "exploit" was fixed within a week of Herr Wilkus perfecting it and showing how to do it with a Tornado. "Tornado Trifecta" I think it was called. CCP didn't have a problem with 4-5 guys doing it with cats. But when Wilkus showed you can do it solo..... wait a minute... there's a pattern here... wonder how many arty thrashers it would take to alpha a freighter wreck...
Note that he avoided the point that as soon as the AG players started blowing the wrecks up they got it changed. Should we expect that anything that allows the AG players to do as ganklers do, shoot something in fast ships cheap that have no consequences will always be changed to have to be more expensive ships that are easily counted and above our pay grade to use, or that we are not multi boxing 10 characters.
It is 15,000 EHP, I would suggest 10 Arty Thrashers or 1 Tornado and one arty thrasher off the top of my head, but it is hard to say..
COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5039
|
Posted - 2016.07.29 07:08:55 -
[250] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Come to think of it, why not at least have a suspect flag for people scanning. After all, if somebody is going around a parking lot looking into cars, would that behavior not be "suspect"?
I know I known "Hurf blurf this is not real life hurf blurf not another nerf".
These days I don't get wrapped up in "don't they want PVP?" They don't. Heck even RvB turned out to be a kill-farming scam. I agree. Anyone who looks into cars in parking lots in New Eden should gain a suspect flag. As for ship scanning though, no. Suspect flag is not needed. But what about HTFU? My, how the tune changes. I bet if scanning ships did result in s suspect flag, you'd call that a nerf to ganking. But but I though you people always win every engagement? I thought you people are the apex feeeders of Eve, the super duper uber leet undefeatable pilots here to break people out of their RL habits of not being paranoid enough about everything? Your type will never change, and it's the presence of people like you in this game, or this game itself (apparently) that is not going to be missed. Why would that change ganking? It's just not a mechanic that's needed. If having an opinion is somehow an affront to the health of this game or something, then we are all screwed. How does having a view that no suspect flag is needed suddenly make me someone that won't be missed. I don't personally think any of us will be missed when we leave. The game will go on regardless. So why is my type, which can only be someone that has an opinion, such a bad thing for the game. Don't you have opinions too? I did some further research on the wreck EHP change which we discussed on a locked thread, it was confirmed to me that Endie did push for it because AG was ganking wrecks. This is actually a case where the Gankers got the rules changed to block an AG strategy. A number of other CSM null sec players also pushed for it, but Endie pushed for it because it benefited ganking and negated the strategy that AG was starting to do more and more. So I totally stand by my statement that the wreck EHP was changed to benefit gankers. EDIT: It gets even more interesting, the EHP buff to freighters was decided after that when CCP realised that the wreck EHP buff was a direct benefit to gankers, CCP Fozzie going as far as saying ,"like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance" Personally I would prefer that they had not changed the wreck EHP and left the freighter tank as was so we could shoot the wrecks and prevent the gankers from gathering the loot. I would state that was one hell of a buff to ganking, or should I say loot scooping EDIT2: Just to make it even more stark, the player you are replying to above was shooting wrecks, just so you know, so what he was doing was directly removed by CCP at the request of a CSM member whose corp was the main beneficiary of ganking in hisec. This stinks big time, it really does stink bad.
It was NOT removed, it was made more difficult. Instead of a freighter wreck having the ehp as a frigate wreck the larger wrecks were given more ehp.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5039
|
Posted - 2016.07.29 07:13:20 -
[251] - Quote
Cory Za wrote:
Why not: just have a pop up message that advises the player.
"Cargo Scanned"
This way it keeps with the danger and fun. Players and concord can scan and you never know who. You have a choice then to get the heart pumping or not.
Why not just pay attention and be prudent? Or next time you want to move your freighter should I log on to hold your hand?
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1986
|
Posted - 2016.07.29 07:53:37 -
[252] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:It was NOT removed, it was made more difficult. Instead of a freighter wreck having the ehp as a frigate wreck the larger wrecks were given more ehp.
It suddenly got pushed through when AG started ganking wrecks, perhaps that was a strange coincidence, but whatever it destroyed what was developing into fun for AG players.
COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17728
|
Posted - 2016.07.29 10:18:15 -
[253] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:It was NOT removed, it was made more difficult. Instead of a freighter wreck having the ehp as a frigate wreck the larger wrecks were given more ehp.
It suddenly got pushed through when AG started ganking wrecks, perhaps that was a strange coincidence, but whatever it destroyed what was developing into fun for AG players.
You can still do it, the only difference is you need to actually make an effort and spend some isk. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1990
|
Posted - 2016.07.29 10:37:57 -
[254] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:It was NOT removed, it was made more difficult. Instead of a freighter wreck having the ehp as a frigate wreck the larger wrecks were given more ehp.
It suddenly got pushed through when AG started ganking wrecks, perhaps that was a strange coincidence, but whatever it destroyed what was developing into fun for AG players. You can still do it, the only difference is you need to actually make an effort and spend some isk.
What like the effort you did not make in shooting small stuff shooting wrecks, you made a different effort.
COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17728
|
Posted - 2016.07.29 13:32:04 -
[255] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
What like the effort you did not make in shooting small stuff shooting wrecks, you made a different effort.
How many time must I point out the mechanics of this game to you? They could not be shot before they have blown up the wreck due to the game mechanics. This is the Fourth time I have had to tell you this.
Simple fact here is the tactic still works, you just refuse to expend any effort aside from bitching on the forums to get play styles you hate removed. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1991
|
Posted - 2016.07.29 13:40:22 -
[256] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
What like the effort you did not make in shooting small stuff shooting wrecks, you made a different effort.
How many time must I point out the mechanics of this game to you? They could not be shot before they have blown up the wreck due to the game mechanics. This is the Fourth time I have had to tell you this. Simple fact here is the tactic still works, you just refuse to expend any effort aside from bitching on the forums to get play styles you hate removed.
You had to stop them, get them at the gate, hit them as they undock, hit them as they land and start to target, that is what we are told right, we are fail, just as you are fail. Now I know that a couple of times Gankers did manage to defend the wreck, I also remember when you gankers tried to sccop the loot and the freeighter went suspect and bang it died, all extra effort and risk, but you did not like that did you. It was too hard wasn't it, diddums...
EDIT: I forgot something important, because they had only just started, the happy anti ganker wreck gankers had not yet reached -10, but once they were there you could have shot them, where have I heard that before? Sadly because you stopped it so quickly with your CSM flanking move we never got to test you did we?
COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17728
|
Posted - 2016.07.29 13:51:58 -
[257] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: You had to stop them, get them at the gate, hit them as they undock, hit them as they land and start to target, that is what we are told right, we are fail, just as you are fail.
Name the last time a freighter was suicde ganked in sub 1 mil frigates.
Dracvlad wrote: Now I know that a couple of times Gankers did manage to defend the wreck
And people die in insta warp interceptors. Bad pilots do not count in balance arguments.
Dracvlad wrote: EDIT: I forgot something important, because they had only just started, the happy anti ganker wreck gankers had not yet reached -10, but once they were there you could have shot them, where have I heard that before? Sadly because you stopped it so quickly with your CSM flanking move we never got to test you did we?
And we get back to the problem of the game mechanics not allowing you to blow them up before they have shot the wreck.
Again, this tactic still works, you just have to put in isk and effort now. |
Dirty Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
341
|
Posted - 2016.07.29 14:00:39 -
[258] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:[quote=Dracvlad]Again, this tactic still works, you just have to put in isk and effort now. To be fair, a wreck is now harder to gank than the average mining ship (non skiff/procurer) - since they have to hit it with concord pre-spawned and on a gate.
It essentially takes the same isk investment as ganking a hauler in a 1.0 system - but with a guarantee of 0 isk as a reward. So the gankers/looters do definitely have a significant advantage in this particular scenario after the wreck buff. |
Dirty Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
341
|
Posted - 2016.07.29 14:06:07 -
[259] - Quote
Ironically I think CCP could rebalance this fairly easily, if they were interested in doing so - and my solution is quite counter-intuitive:
What they need to do to re-balance this equation is to simply alter the CONCORD mechanics so that there is a *fixed* delay in their deployment, based solely on the security status of the system. And make them wait for this predefined period *even if they are already on grid*.
This would give the anti-gankers a fair chance at ganking the wreck - though they would still be at a slight disadvantage due to gate guns, it wouldn't be unreasonable.
It would also have the side-effect of saving mining ship gankers the trouble of pulling concord back out of the belt between ganks - probably saving a few of their pods in the process.
In terms of game lore, they could make CONCORD warp *back out* after enforcing their punishment - which would additionally save server resources not having hundreds of them orbitting random gates anyway.
Honestly I think this would be a win-win for everybody. Am I missing anything? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17728
|
Posted - 2016.07.29 14:09:39 -
[260] - Quote
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:baltec1 wrote:[quote=Dracvlad]Again, this tactic still works, you just have to put in isk and effort now. To be fair, a wreck is now harder to gank than the average mining ship (non skiff/procurer) - since they have to hit it with concord pre-spawned and on a gate. It essentially takes the same isk investment as ganking a hauler in a 1.0 system - but with a guarantee of 0 isk as a reward. So the gankers/looters do definitely have a significant advantage in this particular scenario after the wreck buff.
They never used this tactic on miner wrecks anyway. It was purely freighter wrecks. |
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1991
|
Posted - 2016.07.29 14:10:17 -
[261] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote: You had to stop them, get them at the gate, hit them as they undock, hit them as they land and start to target, that is what we are told right, we are fail, just as you are fail.
Name the last time a freighter was suicde ganked in sub 1 mil frigates. Dracvlad wrote: Now I know that a couple of times Gankers did manage to defend the wreck
And people die in insta warp interceptors. Bad pilots do not count in balance arguments. Dracvlad wrote: EDIT: I forgot something important, because they had only just started, the happy anti ganker wreck gankers had not yet reached -10, but once they were there you could have shot them, where have I heard that before? Sadly because you stopped it so quickly with your CSM flanking move we never got to test you did we?
And we get back to the problem of the game mechanics not allowing you to blow them up before they have shot the wreck. Again, this tactic still works, you just have to put in isk and effort now.
We were not allowed to get to this situation with -10 characters because you made your CSM flanking move so quickly, is it our fault that you stopped it so soon with CSM action and did not allow the same cat and mouse game to develop for both sides, instead our people are back to sitting there and taking it. And you lot can run around feeling all smug and superior because you do not have to defend anything.
And you put it out of the reach of anti-gankers and you know it, your CSM flanking action destroyed the one bit of enjoyable content where anti gankers had the same mechanics as you.
A huge amount of ganks have T1 destroyers in them, and you switched to SB's because we were bumping the Freighters out of the range of the Catalysts.
COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1991
|
Posted - 2016.07.29 14:11:34 -
[262] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dirty Forum Alt wrote:baltec1 wrote:[quote=Dracvlad]Again, this tactic still works, you just have to put in isk and effort now. To be fair, a wreck is now harder to gank than the average mining ship (non skiff/procurer) - since they have to hit it with concord pre-spawned and on a gate. It essentially takes the same isk investment as ganking a hauler in a 1.0 system - but with a guarantee of 0 isk as a reward. So the gankers/looters do definitely have a significant advantage in this particular scenario after the wreck buff. They never used this tactic on miner wrecks anyway. It was purely freighter wrecks.
Back to your typical trolling, do you ever stop. The one thing that this sorry episode has proved to all Eve players is when the going gets tough the gankers get going to the CSM for mechanic change, so much for your skill and ability...
COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17728
|
Posted - 2016.07.29 14:21:05 -
[263] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
Back to your typical trolling, do you ever stop. The one thing that this sorry episode has proved to all Eve players is when the going gets tough the gankers get going to the CSM for mechanic change, so much for your skill and ability...
Said the guy unwilling to risk a fraction of the isk used to gank the freighter. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1991
|
Posted - 2016.07.29 14:24:56 -
[264] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
Back to your typical trolling, do you ever stop. The one thing that this sorry episode has proved to all Eve players is when the going gets tough the gankers get going to the CSM for mechanic change, so much for your skill and ability...
Said the guy unwilling to risk a fraction of the isk used to gank the freighter.
Said the guy who destroyed fun content by whining to CCP via their CSM representative and destroyed pixels getting blown up by a mechanic change.
COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17728
|
Posted - 2016.07.29 14:27:31 -
[265] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
Said the guy who destroyed fun content by whining to CCP via their CSM representative and destroyed pixels getting blown up by a mechanic change.
Content is still there, it just requires more than a sub 1 million isk frigate to pull off on a freighter wreck. And the irony of you calling that on anyone else seems to be completely lost on you. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1991
|
Posted - 2016.07.29 14:37:22 -
[266] - Quote
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:Ironically I think CCP could rebalance this fairly easily, if they were interested in doing so - and my solution is quite counter-intuitive:
What they need to do to re-balance this equation is to simply alter the CONCORD mechanics so that there is a *fixed* delay in their deployment, based solely on the security status of the system. And make them wait for this predefined period *even if they are already on grid*.
This would give the anti-gankers a fair chance at ganking the wreck - though they would still be at a slight disadvantage due to gate guns, it wouldn't be unreasonable.
It would also have the side-effect of saving mining ship gankers the trouble of pulling concord back out of the belt between ganks - probably saving a few of their pods in the process.
In terms of game lore, they could make CONCORD warp *back out* after enforcing their punishment - which would additionally save server resources not having hundreds of them orbitting random gates anyway.
Honestly I think this would be a win-win for everybody. Am I missing anything?
The issue is that we have on one side the Goon and PL supported Gankers, massive wealth, huge number of accounts ability to move about pick their targets, running in fast to warp ships and able to warp in and blap.
Against solo or at most two account players who are mostly not very wealthy who have an alt or two that they were applying to help for no payment at all. The issue is that while the gankers will hit freighters and loot scoop if they win, earning a huge amount of ISK, the AG will earn 0 as you pointed out. Also the numbers of AG is fairly low, there is now way we can get 10 to 15 people in toons that are acceptable to go to -10 to gank a single wreck, nor can they afford the Tornado scenario.
The wreck was placed above their ability to gank in terms of skills and ships and numbers. The Goon here keeps saying unwilling to gank the wreck but he knows full well what the AG is. I have one anti-ganking gank toon and I just do not have the ability to put him in a Tornado and nor do I have the ability to fund that Tornado to the level that the gankers do.
While your suggestion is good, we are talking about structural issues, we have the professional level highly funded hisec alliances in a very organised way making vast amounts of ISK against a small group of militia type people who largely disorganised. CCP just handed total victory to them with this change.
And what gets me is that not a single one of the AG toons doing this got anywhere near -10, they stopped it that quickly..., initially I assumed it was fear over the market collapsing if the stuff was just destroyed, but it turned out to be worse, the lazyness of gankers.
COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1991
|
Posted - 2016.07.29 14:44:09 -
[267] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
Said the guy who destroyed fun content by whining to CCP via their CSM representative and destroyed pixels getting blown up by a mechanic change.
Content is still there, it just requires more than a sub 1 million isk frigate to pull off on a freighter wreck. And the irony of you calling that on anyone else seems to be completely lost on you.
And I replied to that point above, there is no way that the AG can get 15 characters set up to gank a wreck in Thrashers, also as the income is 0 there is no way to fund Tornado's, you of course know that. So you won by crying to CCP via the CSM. You did not like to be in the same situation as hisec players so you went down the easy route, so much for your skill and ability.
COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
|
Dirty Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
341
|
Posted - 2016.07.29 14:54:02 -
[268] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:The issue is that we have on one side the Goon and PL supported Gankers, massive wealth, huge number of accounts ability to move about pick their targets, running in fast to warp ships and able to warp in and blap.
Against solo or at most two account players who are mostly not very wealthy who have an alt or two that they were applying to help for no payment at all. The issue is that while the gankers will hit freighters and loot scoop if they win, earning a huge amount of ISK, the AG will earn 0 as you pointed out. Also the numbers of AG is fairly low, there is now way we can get 10 to 15 people in toons that are acceptable to go to -10 to gank a single wreck, nor can they afford the Tornado scenario.
The wreck was placed above their ability to gank in terms of skills and ships and numbers. The Goon here keeps saying unwilling to gank the wreck but he knows full well what the AG is. I have one anti-ganking gank toon and I just do not have the ability to put him in a Tornado and nor do I have the ability to fund that Tornado to the level that the gankers do.
While your suggestion is good, we are talking about structural issues, we have the professional level highly funded hisec alliances in a very organised way making vast amounts of ISK against a small group of militia type people who largely disorganised. CCP just handed total victory to them with this change.
And what gets me is that not a single one of the AG toons doing this got anywhere near -10, they stopped it that quickly..., initially I assumed it was fear over the market collapsing if the stuff was just destroyed, but it turned out to be worse, the lazyness of gankers. I started my own feature/idea thread if you guys would like to discuss it.
Please leave the flames/trolling here though - on both sides. I'm serious about this idea - I think it would benefit everybody, at least to some extent. Even if it of course won't solve all the problems magically |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1991
|
Posted - 2016.07.29 15:05:13 -
[269] - Quote
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:Dracvlad wrote:The issue is that we have on one side the Goon and PL supported Gankers, massive wealth, huge number of accounts ability to move about pick their targets, running in fast to warp ships and able to warp in and blap.
Against solo or at most two account players who are mostly not very wealthy who have an alt or two that they were applying to help for no payment at all. The issue is that while the gankers will hit freighters and loot scoop if they win, earning a huge amount of ISK, the AG will earn 0 as you pointed out. Also the numbers of AG is fairly low, there is now way we can get 10 to 15 people in toons that are acceptable to go to -10 to gank a single wreck, nor can they afford the Tornado scenario.
The wreck was placed above their ability to gank in terms of skills and ships and numbers. The Goon here keeps saying unwilling to gank the wreck but he knows full well what the AG is. I have one anti-ganking gank toon and I just do not have the ability to put him in a Tornado and nor do I have the ability to fund that Tornado to the level that the gankers do.
While your suggestion is good, we are talking about structural issues, we have the professional level highly funded hisec alliances in a very organised way making vast amounts of ISK against a small group of militia type people who largely disorganised. CCP just handed total victory to them with this change.
And what gets me is that not a single one of the AG toons doing this got anywhere near -10, they stopped it that quickly..., initially I assumed it was fear over the market collapsing if the stuff was just destroyed, but it turned out to be worse, the lazyness of gankers. I started my own feature/idea thread if you guys would like to discuss it. Please leave the flames/trolling here though - on both sides. I'm serious about this idea - I think it would benefit everybody, at least to some extent. Even if it of course won't solve all the problems magically
The issue is that what you saw with baltec1 replying to your comment abot the freighter wreck being harder than a mining ship got a reply that was designed to wind you up, by deliberately misunderstanding your post by talking about miner wrecks, he does it all the time. You just cannot have a debate with him, because his intent is to troll you.
COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
|
Dirty Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
341
|
Posted - 2016.07.29 15:11:21 -
[270] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:The issue is that what you saw with baltec1 replying to your comment abot the freighter wreck being harder than a mining ship got a reply that was designed to wind you up, by deliberately misunderstanding your post by talking about miner wrecks, he does it all the time. You just cannot have a debate with him, because his intent is to troll you. Oh aye, I'm well aware - which is why I didn't bother to reply to his comment |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |