Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 47 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
493
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 02:50:37 -
[1021] - Quote
Erich Einstein wrote:baltec1 wrote:NightmareX wrote:
I know how fast that ship is. I fly a Machariel as a daily basis when i'm in PVP ops and so on.
Clearly you don't, there is no way a mach can get up to speed before a freighter can be webbed into warp aside from gross incompetence. Yeah NO, freighter pilots should not be required to run a web alt in highsec to be able to not get ganked. CONTROL the rate of criminal behavior in Highsec by any one person is all that is needed. Obligatory: Why?
<^.^> I'm a cat lol
|
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
493
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 02:52:05 -
[1022] - Quote
Erich Einstein wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote: Faction Police aren't intended to stop gankers from playing the game. They're there to prevent them from doing anything but flying around and ganking.
That's the entirety of their purpose and it's a stupid one. If gankers could reship and attempt to run some missions, for example, then other players would have opportunity to get some revenge for earlier transgressions, causing the ganker potentially substantial loss.
The solution to your issue with ganking isn't to buff the likes of FacPo, but to nerf or even remove them. Instead of trying to make mechanical fixes to a non-issue, create opportunities for gankers' victims to actually get some meaningful revenge.
No ganker is going to stop to go do some mission running in Highsec ... lol, you are a funny guy. Source?
<^.^> I'm a cat lol
|
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
493
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 02:53:00 -
[1023] - Quote
NightmareX wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:Doing any one of those things will massively reduce the odds of failure. Hardly working your ass off. Again, we seem to be talking about frieghters, whose death require somewhere in the region of twenty people working together, scouting, gathering intel and of course, warping in and pressing F1 for the kill.
You're attempting to claim that surviving ganks is the most difficult thing in EVE while perpetuating them is the easiest. Not so, they're pretty similar in the effort/difficulty versus reward ratio. LOL, the fact that you don't know that this system should be there to determine your success rate of doing the actual ganking is the whole point. If you want to have it easy ganking others alot of times, then you should work much more for it. If you don't work for your criminal actions, then you shouldn't expect to get a free pass into high sec easily. Obligatory: Why?
<^.^> I'm a cat lol
|
NightmareX
Coreli Corporation Mercenary Coalition
753
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 02:54:54 -
[1024] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Could but they don't. There is a reason why almost all freighter ganks happen in just a handful of systems. Oh, so it's actually more easy afterall to gank as they don't even have to go after the freighters for some jumps to have a better chance of getting them?
Thanks for confirming it's easy to complete a gank.
baltec1 wrote:So rare it might as well not happen. Its akin to not being able to cloak because that one ship on gate is withing 2km But the fact that this is also possible says something to. And specially as you say that they don't even have to follow freighters for some jumps to get them that way tells us all that it is in fact pretty easy to do the ganks.
Again, you barely have to do any works at all to catch a freighter and gank it. It's wrong when you takes into the massive gains you get for doing that for little to nothing work and no risks what so ever.
NightmareX wrote:baltec1 wrote:I literally just told you how this isn't true. You just said it without provinding evidences on that. [quote=Hiasa Kite]Obligatory: Why? Because....................
Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:
1: Asteroid Madness
2: Clash of the Empires
3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama
|
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
493
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 02:55:24 -
[1025] - Quote
Erich Einstein wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Hisec has an extremely low crime rate, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that on average gankers account for a couple of hundred players online out of a hisec population that numbers in the 10's of thousands at the same time. I don't know, but I don't think I'm far wrong.
That's why the current consequences are enough, they do a good enough job that the vast majority don't want to incur them.
Gankers destroy more isk in Highsec alone than all of Black Rise on a given day where there are no major cap battles down in lowsec. Highsec is supposed to be safer than lowsec, yet it is not. If you need your proof, resort to zkill. Any statistician will tell you your data samples are completely different sizes.
<^.^> I'm a cat lol
|
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
493
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 02:56:37 -
[1026] - Quote
Erich Einstein wrote:report this guy for continually including random copy and paste text in his posts. Admins will eventually remove him. Are you talking about me or yourself?
<^.^> I'm a cat lol
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
27901
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 02:59:22 -
[1027] - Quote
Erich Einstein wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Hisec has an extremely low crime rate, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that on average gankers account for a couple of hundred players online out of a hisec population that numbers in the 10's of thousands at the same time. I don't know, but I don't think I'm far wrong.
That's why the current consequences are enough, they do a good enough job that the vast majority don't want to incur them.
Gankers destroy more isk in Highsec alone than all of Black Rise on a given day where there are no major cap battles down in lowsec. Why is this? Might it be because people keep feeding them multi-billion isk loot pinata's?
Stuff destroyed or looted is not a crime rate by the way. That's normally expressed as per 100,000 general population, and there's a real world calculation for it: Reported crimes/total population x100,000.
For suicide ganking the crime rate would be the total number of ganks that Concord respond to (reported crimes, and they all get reported) in a time period, divided by the population of hisec (for arguments sake 60% of server population at any one time) x100,000.
Quote:Highsec is supposed to be safer than lowsec, yet it is not. It is, the risk of getting suicide ganked is tiny for most, virtually nil for others. Unless you do something daft you're probably more likely to hit by a car crossing the street.
Quote:If you need your proof, resort to zkill. At what data? The amount of freighters killed? or the amount of isk destroyed and looted?
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18722
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 03:04:35 -
[1028] - Quote
NightmareX wrote: Oh, so it's actually more easy afterall to gank as they don't even have to go after the freighters for some jumps to have a better chance of getting them?
Thanks for confirming it's easy to complete a gank.
Seems you have no idea how system security works either.
NightmareX wrote: But the fact that this is also possible says something to. And specially as you say that they don't even have to follow freighters for some jumps to get them that way tells us all that it is in fact pretty easy to do the ganks.
Again, you barely have to do any works at all to catch a freighter and gank it. It's wrong when you takes into the massive gains you get for doing that for little to nothing work and no risks what so ever.
Its also possible to slignshot a phoenix between a Fortizars towers and get it stuck there when you cyno in a gang of dreads. Its just not going to happen.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
493
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 03:04:56 -
[1029] - Quote
NightmareX wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:Obligatory: Why? Because. It's been explained several times already. I'm not gonna spoonfeed you just because you are lazy reading what i have said. Wrong. You have stated your opinion several times already. Here's the basic gist of the conversation so far:
YOU: Gankers should be punished more harshly ME: Why have you come to that conclusion and why do you feel it would benefit the game? YOU: (worded slightly differently) Gankers should be punished more harshly ME: Yes, I got that, but why? YOU: (worded slightly differently) Gankers should be punished more harshly ME: Why? YOU: (worded slightly differently) Gankers should be punished more harshly
So, are we going to move on with this conversation or are you going to endless repeat your opinion, hoping to sway the denizens of F&I with zero substance?
I'll clarify if that helps: A nerf to gankers, be it to force them to pay for sec status repairs or to force them to slow the rate at which thye suicide gank people will impact the overall rate that ganking occurs in HiSec. Some players will take the changes in stride and work harder for their ganks - just as you've proposed. However, there will be many other gankers that aren't willing to do the extra work for the same reward, reducing the overall ganking activity and making HiSec safer to some extent.
The question raised by myself and others is: How does reducing the amount of ganking improve EVE Online? How does it make it more enjoyable for its current players (and as just about every suggestion goes) how does it encourage new players to join?
<^.^> I'm a cat lol
|
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
3791
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 03:07:32 -
[1030] - Quote
Erich Einstein wrote:baltec1 wrote:NightmareX wrote:
I know how fast that ship is. I fly a Machariel as a daily basis when i'm in PVP ops and so on.
Clearly you don't, there is no way a mach can get up to speed before a freighter can be webbed into warp aside from gross incompetence. Yeah NO, freighter pilots should not be required to run a web alt in highsec to be able to not get ganked. CONTROL the rate of criminal behavior in Highsec by any one person is all that is needed.
They arent.
The vast majority of freighters get through gank hot spots without a web escort. Some even get through whilst afk.
Webbing is just something you can do that will make you pretty much ungankable.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
|
NightmareX
Coreli Corporation Mercenary Coalition
753
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 03:08:24 -
[1031] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:NightmareX wrote: Oh, so it's actually more easy afterall to gank as they don't even have to go after the freighters for some jumps to have a better chance of getting them?
Thanks for confirming it's easy to complete a gank.
Seems you have no idea how system security works either. NightmareX wrote: But the fact that this is also possible says something to. And specially as you say that they don't even have to follow freighters for some jumps to get them that way tells us all that it is in fact pretty easy to do the ganks.
Again, you barely have to do any works at all to catch a freighter and gank it. It's wrong when you takes into the massive gains you get for doing that for little to nothing work and no risks what so ever.
Its also possible to slignshot a phoenix between a Fortizars towers and get it stuck there when you cyno in a gang of dreads. Its just not going to happen. If you follow a freighter from Perimeter / Jita to a 0.6 sec system 3 jumps away, you will have a much higher chance of completeing the gank as you are in a system with lower sec status that means lower Concord response time.
So yes, i do know how system security works bro.
And just because it's a low chance of it happening (with the Phoenix example over), shouldn't prevent the game from working better for everyone when it actually happens. Just because there might be a low chance of something happening, shouldn't prevent CCP from improving small bits of EVE here and there.
Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:
1: Asteroid Madness
2: Clash of the Empires
3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama
|
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
3791
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 03:10:30 -
[1032] - Quote
More ganking means the game working better for everyone.
So buff it.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
493
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 03:11:39 -
[1033] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:More ganking means the game working better for everyone.
So buff it. This thread has a winner.
<^.^> I'm a cat lol
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
27901
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 03:14:05 -
[1034] - Quote
NightmareX wrote:So yes, i do know how system security works You keep saying this, that doesn't make it true.
You've yet to demonstrate that you understand the mechanics that you're suggesting CCP change, neither has your side kick,
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
NightmareX
Coreli Corporation Mercenary Coalition
753
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 03:14:08 -
[1035] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:More ganking means the game working better for everyone.
So buff it. Not without more penatlies or consequences the more you do it.
No one is talking about making you do lesser ganks. We are only talking about making you work harder for your ganks the more you do it.
Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:
1: Asteroid Madness
2: Clash of the Empires
3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18722
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 03:14:12 -
[1036] - Quote
NightmareX wrote: No one is talking about making you do lesser ganks.
When you lock people out of highsec that means less ganking.
NightmareX wrote: If you follow a freighter from Perimeter / Jita to a 0.6 sec system 3 jumps away, you will have a much higher chance of completeing the gank as you are in a system with lower sec status that means lower Concord response time.
So yes, i do know how system security works bro.
So you just ignored what I said then, good to know.
NightmareX wrote: And just because it's a low chance of it happening (with the Phoenix example over), shouldn't prevent the game from working better for everyone when it actually happens. Just because there might be a low chance of something happening, shouldn't prevent CCP from improving small bits of EVE here and there.
Why is this change needed? |
NightmareX
Coreli Corporation Mercenary Coalition
753
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 03:18:51 -
[1037] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:When you lock people out of highsec that means less ganking. So you get locked out of high sec for working harder the more ganks you do?
Working harder for your crimes doesn't prevent you from entering any high sec systems at all. Or are you telling me that you are stupid and doesn't understand the difference from making things harder to lock something out?
baltec1 wrote:So you just ignored what I said then, good to know. Says the smartass who are ignoring all of my points about the crime system on how it works and how it should be improved.
baltec1 wrote:Why is this change needed? Because no risk = no reward & alot of risk = alot of reward. That's how EVE is and should be. Ganking has no risk in it's current form for what you do for the amount of reward you get. Thus it needs to be changed / improved for the better.
Is there anything more you want to know?
Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:
1: Asteroid Madness
2: Clash of the Empires
3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama
|
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
493
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 06:20:49 -
[1038] - Quote
NightmareX wrote:Says the smartass who are ignoring all of my points about the crime system on how it works and how it should be improved. You're not stating why it should be improved. We'll start discussing flaws when a need for such a system is established.
Quote:baltec1 wrote:Why is this change needed? Because no risk = no reward & alot of risk = alot of reward. That's how EVE is and should be. Ganking has no risk in it's current form for what you do for the amount of reward you get. Thus it needs to be changed / improved for the better. "And i haven't been talking about making a gank more or lesser profitable."
You're complaining that ganking is too profitable for the risk involved. On one hand you claim you're not interested in profitability, then you're trying to tell people you're trying to limit the profitability.
<^.^> I'm a cat lol
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
47137
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 06:25:15 -
[1039] - Quote
NightmareX wrote:If you follow a freighter from Perimeter / Jita to a 0.6 sec system 3 jumps away, you will have a much higher chance of completeing the gank as you are in a system with lower sec status that means lower Concord response time.
So yes, i do know how system security works bro.
And just because it's a low chance of it happening (with the Phoenix example over), shouldn't prevent the game from working better for everyone when it actually happens. Just because there might be a low chance of something happening, shouldn't prevent CCP from improving small bits of EVE here and there. Serious question here because trolling BS is a waste of time.
If it "shouldn't prevent the game from working better for everyone", surely everyone also includes gankers?
The mechanics should provide opportunities for everyone gankers and carebears alike. Why is it that only the carebear group matters? Doesn't seem much like everyone at all. |
Naye Nathaniel
COBRA INC
55
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 08:16:30 -
[1040] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Security standing hit for every target they kill No insurance payout for their ship loss 15 minute timer where if they undock or enter a new ship in space CONCORD will attack and destroy their ship Cost to improve your security status from -10 using tags currently stands at 308,373,365.59 isk
U made my day - especially the last what i bolded; So much "punishment" for ganking few freighters per day in 1-2 system (of milions gates hahaha) over and over - and u have to pay what... a penny?...
How much u got ISK from ganking a freighters befor you hit a standing which doesn't let u park in a safespot with your ganking fleet? 10 Bilions?
What is 300 mil in compare of your 10B;
I can't get of feeling that Baltec1 is a massive troll out here; |
|
Naye Nathaniel
COBRA INC
55
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 08:18:13 -
[1041] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:NightmareX wrote:And just because it's a low chance of it happening (with the Phoenix example over), shouldn't prevent the game from working better for everyone when it actually happens. Just because there might be a low chance of something happening, shouldn't prevent CCP from improving small bits of EVE here and there. Serious question here because trolling BS is a waste of time. If it "shouldn't prevent the game from working better for everyone", surely everyone also includes gankers? If the risk is already small (which it is), then why should it be made even smaller and therefore harder for gankers? That doesn't seem like improving things for everyone. It seems more like improving things for only 1 group, which isn't a balanced change.
Simple - if one part of game is broken, then it should be ballanced; As other parts working fine or need their own threads (which there are many) for ballancing ideas;
And btw u really think that ganking a freighters etc doesn't hit your gameplay?
I do advice u to watch a butterly effect - there u can find an answer; |
Specia1 K
State War Academy Caldari State
295
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 08:23:02 -
[1042] - Quote
No, don't support this. And ffs, get your facts straight about Concord and FacPo...before you post.
-1 |
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
82
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 08:35:58 -
[1043] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:NightmareX wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:Obligatory: Why? Because. It's been explained several times already. I'm not gonna spoonfeed you just because you are lazy reading what i have said. Wrong. You have stated your opinion several times already. Here's the basic gist of the conversation so far: YOU: Gankers should be punished more harshly ME: Why have you come to that conclusion and why do you feel it would benefit the game? YOU: (worded slightly differently) Gankers should be punished more harshly ME: Yes, I got that, but why? YOU: (worded slightly differently) Gankers should be punished more harshly ME: Why? YOU: (worded slightly differently) Gankers should be punished more harshly So, are we going to move on with this conversation or are you going to endless repeat your opinion, hoping to sway the denizens of F&I with zero substance? I'll clarify if that helps: A nerf to gankers, be it to force them to pay for sec status repairs or to force them to slow the rate at which thye suicide gank people will impact the overall rate that ganking occurs in HiSec. Some players will take the changes in stride and work harder for their ganks - just as you've proposed. However, there will be many other gankers that aren't willing to do the extra work for the same reward, reducing the overall ganking activity and making HiSec safer to some extent. The question raised by myself and others is: How does reducing the amount of ganking improve EVE Online? How does it make it more enjoyable for its current players (and as just about every suggestion goes) how does it encourage new players to join?
Ask the freighter pilots if it's fun losing freighters and especially jump freighters. Sure there is always a risk, but when you know that freighting pays **** and gankers are not ever prevented from endless ganking, it's gets not fun really fast. Now sure, if CCP wants to start handing out free Jump Freighter hulls, then by all means, gank away until your fingers fall off. This will never happen though which is why the rate a which a ganker can gank needs to be controlled. |
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
82
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 08:46:55 -
[1044] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:
If the risk is already small (which it is), then why should it be made even smaller and therefore harder for gankers? That doesn't seem like improving things for everyone. It seems more like improving things for only 1 group, which isn't a balanced change.
Please explain to me how you are claiming the risk is small. (Which it is) is not valid at all. I highly doubt you are going to convince anyone of this. |
Naye Nathaniel
COBRA INC
57
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 09:01:30 -
[1045] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:
If the risk is already small (which it is), then why should it be made even smaller and therefore harder for gankers? That doesn't seem like improving things for everyone. It seems more like improving things for only 1 group, which isn't a balanced change.
Risk is small? Ask my pants how much **** they got every time when I jump even in orca/dst in uedama gates see that flashing reds all around and blue snowflakes just finishing to kill criminals; ... and another jf/f just died; |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
3195
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 09:10:04 -
[1046] - Quote
Erich Einstein wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:
If the risk is already small (which it is), then why should it be made even smaller and therefore harder for gankers? That doesn't seem like improving things for everyone. It seems more like improving things for only 1 group, which isn't a balanced change.
Please explain to me how you are claiming the risk is small. (Which it is) is not valid at all. I highly doubt you are going to convince anyone of this. He doesn't need to convince me. I know risk is objectively small.
1. CCP Quant's January numbers show 3.1T ISK in total destruction (not just ganked freighters; all destruction) in The Forge, while ~1970T ISK was transported in or out. That's means there is a maximum loss of 0.16% to gankers there and it must, in fact just be a fraction of that due to gankers only making up a portion of that destruction.
2. Red Frog Freight failed 0.11% of their contracts last year. That was for all reasons, not just ganking.
I think flying a freighter with greater than 99.9% safety means the risk of losing one is small. In fact, I am surprised you don't agree. How safe do you think flying a freighter should be? 99.99%? 99.999%?
At what point would you call the risk "small"?
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
84
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 09:39:35 -
[1047] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:He doesn't need to convince me. I know risk is objectively small. 1. CCP Quant's January numbers show 3.1T ISK in total destruction (not just ganked freighters; all destruction) in The Forge, while ~1970T ISK was transported in or out. That's means there is a maximum loss of 0.16% to gankers there and it must, in fact just be a fraction of that due to gankers only making up a portion of that destruction. 2. Red Frog Freight failed 0.11% of their contracts last year. That was for all reasons, not just ganking. I think flying a freighter with greater than 99.9% safety means the risk of losing one is small. In fact, I am surprised you don't agree. How safe do you think flying a freighter should be? 99.99%? 99.999%? At what point would you call the risk "small"?
The fact that I just saw you post in another thread saying that you are a career ganker ensures me that you don't need convincing either way. Why would it be in your best interest to say the risk is high. Gankers operate on the choke points from jita to amarr, not every gate in the whole region. Stop trying to inflate your numbers with unrelavant data. And this has no bearing on how much gankers are able to walk away with and destroy every 15min of the day in a never-ending loop without ever having to repair their security status. KARMAFleet has destroyed 5trillion in people's hard-earned isk that took some serious grinding while only losing 12 billion in cheap Gank ships was lost. The OP is attempting to limit this highly unbalanced isk grab that gankers are able to get away with in a never-ending loop. It's essentially cheap mode in terms of earning isk in-game. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
47137
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 09:40:44 -
[1048] - Quote
Naye Nathaniel wrote:Simple - if one part of game is broken, then it should be ballanced; As other parts working fine or need their own threads (which there are many) for ballancing ideas;
And btw u really think that ganking a freighters etc doesn't hit your gameplay?
I do advice u to watch a butterly effect - there u can find an answer; I hope it does affect my gameplay. Where did I ever say it doesn't?
That's what I enjoy about EVE. The challenge of everyone v everyone.
But you didn't answer the question. That reply was just a typical whine about only one side needing change, which wasn't what was asked. |
Naye Nathaniel
COBRA INC
57
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 09:44:36 -
[1049] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Erich Einstein wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:
If the risk is already small (which it is), then why should it be made even smaller and therefore harder for gankers? That doesn't seem like improving things for everyone. It seems more like improving things for only 1 group, which isn't a balanced change.
Please explain to me how you are claiming the risk is small. (Which it is) is not valid at all. I highly doubt you are going to convince anyone of this. He doesn't need to convince me. I know risk is objectively small. 1. CCP Quant's January numbers show 3.1T ISK in total destruction (not just ganked freighters; all destruction) in The Forge, while ~1970T ISK was transported in or out. That's means there is a maximum loss of 0.16% to gankers there and it must, in fact just be a fraction of that due to gankers only making up a portion of that destruction. 2. Red Frog Freight failed 0.11% of their contracts last year. That was for all reasons, not just ganking. I think flying a freighter with greater than 99.9% safety means the risk of losing one is small. In fact, I am surprised you don't agree. How safe do you think flying a freighter should be? 99.99%? 99.999%? At what point would you call the risk "small"?
Oh yeah it's safe right..
BTW ganking is so much efficient that ppl even work at 11 accounts to gank ships: Bowhead down Obelisk down Charon down
All of that in one single day;
3.2B items dropped;
15 ships destroyed in uedama from a single "player"
If you think it's normal ... go for a treatment.
|
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
84
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 09:48:32 -
[1050] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:
In a balanced change, It can't be that only one side needs to be affected. If change is needed, then if you want to take something away from one side, you need to also offer them something else. That's how a balanced change works (and has been stated in similar terms by CCP Fozzie).
If something is unbalanced, it is because one side is "heavier" than the other. This means to take some away form the "heavy" side and move it to the lighter side until there is balance. I habe no idea what you are even trying to claim with this stayement. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 47 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |