EVE Search - wish we had a gank nerf.....

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

wish we had a gank nerf.....

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Commandobob United Black Legion	Posted - 2009.05.25 06:38:00 - [31] Obvious troll is obvious.
Sumelar	Posted - 2009.05.25 06:41:00 - [32] High security does not mean safe. You are not safe anywhere but inside a station.
Mulura	Posted - 2009.05.25 08:04:00 - [33] Originally by: Sumelar High security does not mean safe. You are not safe anywhere unless logged off. Fixed, even in stations people fall for scams :-/ Need a Better Sig.
davcin Caldari davcin Corp	Posted - 2009.05.25 09:26:00 - [34] Edited by: davcin on 25/05/2009 09:28:15 Edited by: davcin on 25/05/2009 09:28:04 Never mind (should start reading the posts better) ____________________________________________ EVEViewer - view your journal, orders, transactions out of the game.
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2009.05.25 09:29:00 - [35] heh, ganking was nerfed. You did something wrong if you where ganked tbh. Flying valuables in T1 indys is never a good idea :). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Some Advisor	Posted - 2009.05.25 09:44:00 - [36] Originally by: CountOtto Black Originally by: big fluf is everyone happy with the game mechanics .? In a word. Yes. na come, there are things that are not nice (like getting ganked in an unfitted hauler) but in general, the mechanics are fine :P mostly... (looks over at the current scanissues mechanics and shivers)
Belmarduk Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2009.05.25 10:01:00 - [37] Originally by: Barkaial Starfinder I'm happy with this, except for Insurance still being paid to suicide gankers. This - but remove the gank-nerf again ! Mainchar:
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.05.25 10:26:00 - [38] 2/10 weak but still got quite a few bites
Infinity Ziona Minmatar I AM BETTER THAN YOU	Posted - 2009.05.25 11:10:00 - [39] Originally by: CountOtto Black Were you flying a tech 1 indy? [ 2009.05.25 08:24:25 ] (combat) <color=0xffbbbb00>Your group of Neutron Blaster Cannon II is well aimed at L DOPA [DMM3](Crane), inflicting 1670.1 damage. [ 2009.05.25 08:24:30 ] (combat) <color=0xffbbbb00>Your group of Neutron Blaster Cannon II is well aimed at L DOPA [DMM3](Crane), inflicting 3266.2 damage. [ 2009.05.25 08:24:31 ] (notify) Stasis Webifier II deactivates as L DOPA's Crane begins to explode. Was testing out my gank hyperion to see if I could pop a passive tanked afk transport. Worked better than expected. Lost my alts crane - expensive mistake but goes to show even t2 indies arent safe from a single gank fit ship.
Rordan D'Kherr Amarr	Posted - 2009.05.25 11:28:00 - [40] Originally by: Dirk Magnum If this is a troll then the forum is working as intended. If this isn't a troll then the game is working as intended. Either way, all's well that ends in lulz. True words.

Zaerlorth Maelkor The Maverick Navy Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.05.25 11:48:00 - [41] Edited by: Zaerlorth Maelkor on 25/05/2009 11:49:18 Too many people failing for this painfully obvious troll. Edit: Changed falling to failing
eddie valvetino Caldari Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.05.25 11:50:00 - [42] what's a "worset" ?
Eli Porter Amarr Broski Enterprises Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.05.25 11:51:00 - [43] Originally by: Infinity Ziona Originally by: CountOtto Black Were you flying a tech 1 indy? [ 2009.05.25 08:24:25 ] (combat) <color=0xffbbbb00>Your group of Neutron Blaster Cannon II is well aimed at L DOPA [DMM3](Crane), inflicting 1670.1 damage. [ 2009.05.25 08:24:30 ] (combat) <color=0xffbbbb00>Your group of Neutron Blaster Cannon II is well aimed at L DOPA [DMM3](Crane), inflicting 3266.2 damage. [ 2009.05.25 08:24:31 ] (notify) Stasis Webifier II deactivates as L DOPA's Crane begins to explode. Was testing out my gank hyperion to see if I could pop a passive tanked afk transport. Worked better than expected. Lost my alts crane - expensive mistake but goes to show even t2 indies arent safe from a single gank fit ship. That really depends on the fit. Looking at the battle logs he was probably missing a shield extender or two. A good highsec crane fit would be: 2 Expanded Cargohold II Large Shield Extender II Medium Shield Extender II 2x Invulnerability Field II
Miss Xerox	Posted - 2009.05.25 11:52:00 - [44] Don't nerf empire ganking (yes, it's almost happened to me a time or two, but I was prepared and survived)... Just remove insurance for CONCORD kills. If the pirate is willing to take the ISK loss then you're still fair game.
MILK Monk Knights of the Silver Dawn Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.05.25 11:56:00 - [45] Originally by: Miss Xerox ... Just remove insurance for CONCORD kills... this is the only change that is imo very needed for high sec ganking... otherwise it is actualy form of insurance fraud... but ganking T1 indies and generally ganking in High sec is completely OK (yes I was also ganked this way ) It actually provides amazing portion of real emotions in fiction universe
Rex Garvin	Posted - 2009.05.25 11:57:00 - [46] If it was up to me no one could attack a player in high sec but thats part of the game. You knew the risks and you got bit.
Infinity Ziona Minmatar I AM BETTER THAN YOU	Posted - 2009.05.25 11:57:00 - [47] Originally by: Eli Porter Originally by: Infinity Ziona Originally by: CountOtto Black Were you flying a tech 1 indy? [ 2009.05.25 08:24:25 ] (combat) <color=0xffbbbb00>Your group of Neutron Blaster Cannon II is well aimed at L DOPA [DMM3](Crane), inflicting 1670.1 damage. [ 2009.05.25 08:24:30 ] (combat) <color=0xffbbbb00>Your group of Neutron Blaster Cannon II is well aimed at L DOPA [DMM3](Crane), inflicting 3266.2 damage. [ 2009.05.25 08:24:31 ] (notify) Stasis Webifier II deactivates as L DOPA's Crane begins to explode. Was testing out my gank hyperion to see if I could pop a passive tanked afk transport. Worked better than expected. Lost my alts crane - expensive mistake but goes to show even t2 indies arent safe from a single gank fit ship. That really depends on the fit. Looking at the battle logs he was probably missing a shield extender or two. A good highsec crane fit would be: 2 Expanded Cargohold II Large Shield Extender II Medium Shield Extender II 2x Invulnerability Field II Invul wont work. Have to be passively tanked for afk travel. Thats what I was testing. Your right though, needed extenders.
Roemy Schneider Vanishing Point.	Posted - 2009.05.25 13:09:00 - [48] Originally by: Pater Peccavi Originally by: Blane Xero Wish we had a tank nerf. Confirming that tank is over-powered, its rendering the alpha of my artillery useless C
Xtreem Gallente Knockaround Guys Inc.	Posted - 2009.05.25 13:12:00 - [49] this thread prob just made the ganker extra happy lol
big fluf	Posted - 2009.05.25 14:13:00 - [50] to all the "this is a troll" people .. congratulation.. your paranoia is progressing as planned ....to the other people asking for more info.... the ship I was flying was a iteron 4 cargo expanders in the bottoms, and 4 shield boosters in the mids. I was "manual" warping, . not AFK AutoPilot. the reason the cargo was so expensive is that it is the product of gas reactions. -the gas is HUGE when it goes in - a full cargo hold is only 6 hours of processing. and very very small when it comes out. - but I need to pick up the next load of gas so I take a big ship with me. I was ganked in kaperteen - a few jumps from jita. the system was .8 - fairly high. the attacking ship was a brutix/ gank fit w blaster. - and at activated my shild boosters after teh first volley (ie immeadatly).

Tippia Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.05.25 14:19:00 - [51] Originally by: big fluf the ship I was flying was a iteron First mistake. T1 = pop. Quote: 4 cargo expanders in the bottoms, Second mistake. Expanders = less tank = more pop. Quote: and 4 shield boosters in the mids. Third mistake. Active tank = highly susceptible to alpha-strikes (which is what you use to kill before concord gets there) = even more pop. Also, no hardeners = boosting/rep counts for nothing = pop pop pop. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
big fluf	Posted - 2009.05.25 14:26:00 - [52] right .. so .. I can't fly t2 ships. expanders , . I guess I could carry them in cargo until I needed them - kinda pain putting them on and off. Hardeners - them might work better. - not sure it would have made any difference - it might have bought a bit of time I needed though.
Infinity Ziona Minmatar I AM BETTER THAN YOU	Posted - 2009.05.25 14:48:00 - [53] Edited by: Infinity Ziona on 25/05/2009 14:49:56 Quote: Originally by: Tippia Originally by: big fluf the ship I was flying was a iteron First mistake. T1 = pop. An entire class of ship, being a required stage to pass through to t2 ships, and requiring significant training time, being made redundant in high sec by a very small segmant of the population is a failure by ccp to balance the game. I am all for high sec non-consensual pvp, in fact thats all I do in EvE, war dec high sec alliances / corps but suicide ganking is the equivalent of spawn-camping EQ zone ins or killing level 1's in newbie zones in WoW. It does nothing to enhance the game. Quote: Quote: 4 cargo expanders in the bottoms, Second mistake. Expanders = less tank = more pop. Its a fugging industrial ship in high sec. That's what goes in the bottom of an industrial ship. And regardless of what you put in the bottom of a t1 industrial it can be ganked if the goods you are carrying are good enough to gank it. Quote: Quote: and 4 shield boosters in the mids. Third mistake. Active tank = highly susceptible to alpha-strikes (which is what you use to kill before concord gets there) = even more pop. Also, no hardeners = boosting/rep counts for nothing = pop pop pop. I agree with this. Shield boosters are not gonna cut it. Extenders, damage control, Hardners but regardless if they want to pop you will pop in a t1. Proving once again, that, I AM BETTER THAN YOU.
Infinity Ziona Minmatar I AM BETTER THAN YOU	Posted - 2009.05.25 14:53:00 - [54] Edited by: Infinity Ziona on 25/05/2009 14:55:43 Originally by: big fluf right .. so .. I can't fly t2 ships. expanders , . I guess I could carry them in cargo until I needed them - kinda pain putting them on and off. Hardeners - them might work better. - not sure it would have made any difference - it might have bought a bit of time I needed though. Your pretty much screwed if you want to trade in T1 indies and someone wants to gank you. The irony is once you put in enough training you can get a freighter and spend the rest of your eve life being afk in high sec trading. Apparently its totally fine to be completely safe in a freighter but your not allowed to expect the same thing in a t1 or even t2 indy. I dont trade or go afk in indies at all and I dont own a frieghter as Im almost always at war in high sec, I still think its bs to be popped like you were though. Proving once again, that, I AM BETTER THAN YOU.
Tippia Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.05.25 14:58:00 - [55] Originally by: Infinity Ziona An entire class of ship, being a required stage to pass through to t2 ships, and requiring significant training time, being made redundant in high sec by a very small segmant of the population is a failure by ccp to balance the game. Not really, no. You just have to be aware of their limitations and fly them accordingly. Their fragility is what give the T2 variants their value, but they still have a value of their own. Quote: I am all for high sec non-consensual pvp, in fact thats all I do in EvE, war dec high sec alliances / corps but suicide ganking is the equivalent of spawn-camping EQ zone ins or killing level 1's in newbie zones in WoW. It does nothing to enhance the game. Yes it does — it (somewhat) mitigates the protection offered by NPC- and alt corps. It is currently essential to the game. Ganking newbies in the newbie systems is more apt comparison, and as it happens, this is a bannable offense. Quote: Its a fugging industrial ship in high sec. That's what goes in the bottom of an industrial ship. It goes in the bottom if you either have another way of tanking the ships or if you're carrying something that's high-volume/low-value or if you believe it's safe (it never is). The fact of the matter is that it lowers your tank, and you need to take this into consideration when you figure what you want to haul with them. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Infinity Ziona Minmatar I AM BETTER THAN YOU	Posted - 2009.05.25 15:26:00 - [56] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Infinity Ziona An entire class of ship, being a required stage to pass through to t2 ships, and requiring significant training time, being made redundant in high sec by a very small segmant of the population is a failure by ccp to balance the game. Not really, no. You just have to be aware of their limitations and fly them accordingly. Their fragility is what give the T2 variants their value, but they still have a value of their own. Quote: I am all for high sec non-consensual pvp, in fact thats all I do in EvE, war dec high sec alliances / corps but suicide ganking is the equivalent of spawn-camping EQ zone ins or killing level 1's in newbie zones in WoW. It does nothing to enhance the game. Yes it does ù it (somewhat) mitigates the protection offered by NPC- and alt corps. It is currently essential to the game. Ganking newbies in the newbie systems is more apt comparison, and as it happens, this is a bannable offense. Quote: Its a fugging industrial ship in high sec. That's what goes in the bottom of an industrial ship. It goes in the bottom if you either have another way of tanking the ships or if you're carrying something that's high-volume/low-value or if you believe it's safe (it never is). The fact of the matter is that it lowers your tank, and you need to take this into consideration when you figure what you want to haul with them. Crap. All I have to do is wait at a station for you to undock. Scan your cargo. And kill you before you align which is easy to do in a single volley on even a tanked t1. Hardly essential. There are tens of thousands of targets in alliances / corps available to be declared on if you want to kill easy t1 targets. The only difference is you do not get to be immune in your BS / BC before attacking and you face some risk of losing your ship before you find a suitable target to gank. As for the 'Never Safe', that is untrue. Its 100% safe for the ganker until he attacks, even then he's 100% insured against his loss, so for the ganker, yes you are safe, protected by concord, and insured by CCP. In a freighter, you are again 100% safe, when is the last time you saw a freighter being suicided in empire? Unbalanced and without risk at all. I'd very much like to see freighters require corp certificate to undock and scooping suicide cargo being met with concord response and or no insurance for suiciding. Proving once again, that, I AM BETTER THAN YOU.
Benzaiten Reverse Caldari Shokei	Posted - 2009.05.25 15:43:00 - [57] Originally by: Dirk Magnum If this is a troll then the forum is working as intended. If this isn't a troll then the game is working as intended. Either way, all's well that ends in lulz. If all working as intended you will see more people in lowsec which is now mostly empty due low risk for gankers, high risk for anyone else, unless you have hunderets pilots at your disposal. Gues why most of lowsec pirated do not ever go to 0.0, they dont want pvp, they want easy kills and curent system is not even making it harder for them as it should be.
XSarah	Posted - 2009.05.25 16:35:00 - [58] I love this thread
Mal Drakken Minmatar House Of Shadows	Posted - 2009.05.26 01:50:00 - [59] Very simple fix to suicide ganking require a war dec for combat in .5 and above, and also to weed out the trailer trash that hide in NPC corps allow them to be war deced to so you can get at the salvage thief, or the can fliper ect. In my opinion suicide ganking is wrong, the people concord kill should not get any insurance pay out back. Since eve is a pvp game lets take out the randomness of the gank and add a nice big fat war dec to the mix, or at least as one poster said remove there insurance pay out. On a slight off topic let us fight over mission/belt salvage as well :)
Lidirt AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.05.26 02:12:00 - [60] Originally by: Miss Xerox Just remove insurance for CONCORD kills. If the pirate is willing to take the ISK loss then you're still fair game. Hey that makes a lot of sense actually. If your car got blown up while you were running an 18 wheeler off the road, I really doubt your insurance would PAY YOU for your jacked up car, lol.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.