Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bhaal
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 16:21:00 -
[91]
Quote: Avon is just part of the ganking choirs with the standard if you get killed it is always your fault regardless of how hosed the game mechanics are.
I so found a new sig :) ------------------------------------------------ "for piece sakes!" |
Nicholai Pestot
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 16:31:00 -
[92]
Just going back a few pages, but any escorts worth their salt are going to be using ECM combined with fastlocking-modded ships and fast expendable ships with smart bombs.
The second that suicider launches their first missiles they get locked down by ecm, and the few missiles they get off will get taken down by suicide smartbombers (suicide becaue of the inherent risks of using smartbombs in high sec).
Just what i would do...if organising a high sec escort.
I have supped the milk of human kindness, and discovered i am lactose intolerant |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 17:02:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Miri Tirzan
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: elFarto It seems a simple fix fox this problem would be if Ebil Pirate A attacks Carebear Hauler B, anyone in Carebear Hauler B's gang can shoot back at Ebil Pirate A without Concord attacking them.
This would only apply to gang members in the immediate area/solar system, to stop people ganging up then going there seperate ways until they get a problem.
You may need to limit this by time aswell, but I don't know enough about attacking people to make a suggestion on how long.
Regards elFarto
Er, assuming concord don't waste A first, anyone at all can shoot him for the next 15 minutes, ganged or not. The game mechanics are already there.
Wow, visions of dumb and dumber reruns. It is called sucide ganking because the ebile pirate gankers scan the ship. They cannot be attacked or CONCORD ganks the defenders. When they find an indy with good enough fittings or cargo, then kill it. CONCORD kills them. A gang member picks up the loot with CONCORD standing by to gank anyone that trys to stop them. They rush home, wait for the criminal timer to run out, get new ships, and rush off to gank some more. Once they got to low a sec stat they go do mission, or chain NPCs to get them up a few points to do it again. The really sorry ones just make alts in NPC corps that do this. When they get to low to use, they recycle and start over.
While this is technically wrong, nothing is done about it.
Avon is just part of the ganking choirs with the standard if you get killed it is always your fault regardless of how hosed the game mechanics are.
I do apologise for answering the point made and not going off on a wild generalisation just to cover the whole topic You show me proof that alt recycling is overlooked and then I'll respond to your post.
Imagining facts does not make them true.
I am fully aware how sucide attacks work. If you want your escorts to defend the hauler they are going to have to bite the bullet and fire first. You don't want to? Tough, you deserve to lose your hauler.
In fact, I tell you what - you get 6 mates in kestrels and I'll grab a hauler. I bet I win. ______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots. They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Frakri Hogsto
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 17:17:00 -
[94]
10 million isk on avon, to win
|
MaiLina KaTar
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 17:18:00 -
[95]
Edited by: MaiLina KaTar on 13/06/2005 17:18:41
Originally by: Miri Tirzan
whatever
These haulers aren't dying to game mechanics, they're dying to their own stupidity. No amount of flaming you put up will change that so stop being so goddamn agressive about it.
Mai's Idealog |
Hulredi
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 17:42:00 -
[96]
I noticed in the post that people a flagged criminally when they do this. Does this also mean they can be podded? If so that would be a good thing to do as long as you dont get a sec hit (even if you do its not hard to work that off most times). more of a question then anything else.
If they can be podded I might hang out in Yulai with my crow and kill a few pods. :D
Cheers, Hulredi Coreli Corporation Core Logistics
My Ore Thief Avoidance thread http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=187332 |
Kuriatai
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 18:02:00 -
[97]
Change the game mechanics so that players cannot activate weapons against other players in .5+ space unless war has been declared. Suicide gankers will be pushed back into low security space where they belong.
let the flames begin.
|
Miri Tirzan
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 18:19:00 -
[98]
Originally by: MaiLina KaTar Edited by: MaiLina KaTar on 13/06/2005 17:18:41
Originally by: Miri Tirzan
whatever
These haulers aren't dying to game mechanics, they're dying to their own stupidity. No amount of flaming you put up will change that so stop being so goddamn agressive about it.
You are right! It is the haulers fault that they are using an indy in high sec space and forcing a ganker to scan them and then use game mechanics which there is currently no defense against to gank them.
Your right, anyone pointing out that there is no way to defend your ships without being killed by CONCORD and taking a sec hit in high sec space is wrong! It is because they are stupid that they cannot find a way to defend against this. Errr what was the defense against this again?
Use those BMs that Oveur is in the process of removing? Dont use an indy with expensive mods? Put cargo in securty containers with passwords? (that dont work if not anchored?) Declair war on the NPC corps? Use a frigate to haul cargo? (Oh yeah, that makes since.) Use a cruiser to haul cargo? (Once again, only if you want to carry really small loads) Use a transport (Only if you want to put 170 million and 45 days training not counting mods into a indy)
I guess some of us just dont see how the game mechanics are not hosed that all of that needs to be done to protect from gankers in high sec space.
svetlana - "whining gets you stuff. that is why humans got to the top of the food chain and all the other animals got nerfed."
|
Bhaal
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 18:25:00 -
[99]
Quote: I guess some of us just dont see how the game mechanics are not hosed that all of that needs to be done to protect from gankers in high sec space.
Take a deep breath, you are right, but they will never see that.
Take my advice (I've been doing this a while now), try not to let it get personal on the boards, it only gets you banned.
Your voice is needed in this fight, and I'd hate to lose ya ------------------------------------------------ "for piece sakes!" |
Corvus Dove
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 18:36:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Miri Tirzan
Originally by: MaiLina KaTar Edited by: MaiLina KaTar on 13/06/2005 17:18:41
Originally by: Miri Tirzan
whatever
These haulers aren't dying to game mechanics, they're dying to their own stupidity. No amount of flaming you put up will change that so stop being so goddamn agressive about it.
You are right! It is the haulers fault that they are using an indy in high sec space and forcing a ganker to scan them and then use game mechanics which there is currently no defense against to gank them.
Your right, anyone pointing out that there is no way to defend your ships without being killed by CONCORD and taking a sec hit in high sec space is wrong! It is because they are stupid that they cannot find a way to defend against this. Errr what was the defense against this again?
Use those BMs that Oveur is in the process of removing? Dont use an indy with expensive mods? Put cargo in securty containers with passwords? (that dont work if not anchored?) Declair war on the NPC corps? Use a frigate to haul cargo? (Oh yeah, that makes since.) Use a cruiser to haul cargo? (Once again, only if you want to carry really small loads) Use a transport (Only if you want to put 170 million and 45 days training not counting mods into a indy)
I guess some of us just dont see how the game mechanics are not hosed that all of that needs to be done to protect from gankers in high sec space.
Actually, an Exequeror with cruiser to level 5 and some decent expanders could haul as much as a small industrial. It's not your ore haulers that you have to worry about, since it's not ISK until it's in a hangar. It's your transports, and you can fit plenty in 1100m3 as far as gear. "You Griefer!!!" = "You Doodyhead!!!" |
|
Tiny Red
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 18:46:00 -
[101]
Edited by: Tiny Red on 13/06/2005 18:48:14 So if I recap some (not all) of the offered solutions here then one should either:
-completely gimp the hauler setup, so the ship is a bit sturdier and they need another alt to make it go pop
-use a squad of alts with which you attack the other alts first so that they don't pop your hauler........
Hmmmm, "war of the alts" anyone?
It really seems rather ridiculous to me creating your own alt army to counter the alts of others to make alts at which point another one creates an alt to do........
What baffles me the most is the really hypocritical point of view of some of the posters here. A lot of them are amongst the biggest advocates of the risk vs reward theory. Can someone explain where the risk is for the ones doing the attacking? They are using disposable characters for which they don't care in the least. Therefore nullifying any means of getting revenge. Because they really couldn't care less..... They are dealing a considerable blow to their victims costing them millions in mods and/or cargo while they are losing only some basic ship and mods hardly worth a penny and a character that they don't even care about and delete when the standings are to low. The loot etc that they pry from the wrecks is then sold or passed on to the main characters which reap the profit.
risk vs reward, the griefer way jaaaaaaaaay
|
Corvus Dove
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 19:33:00 -
[102]
When it comes down to it, there are two issues that lead to these debates:
1. Alts. People should have the testicular fortitude to use their mains for this sort of action. The one alt I have is part of my attempt to get my fiancee to try EVE on her own, and is used for nothing else. I'm all for removal of alts once we get some commerce to low sec and 0.0.
2. The school of thought that goes something like this, "This is how it worked before, WHY CAN'T IT ALWAYS WORK THIS WAY?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!??????"
The first is mechanical. The second is psychological.
Alts we can do nothing about. Only CCP can, and hopefully one day they will. When it comes down to it, once there is commerce all over EVE, there won't be much left for logical argument in favor of alts.
The second reminds me of a book I once read called "Who Moved My Cheese?" This is one of those books that corporations give to management just before they implement a massive change that will give tons more work to the management staff, but it does make some valid points.
In it, the symbolism categorizes people into four types. Sniff, Scurry, Hem, and Haw.
Sniffs detect coming changes early and prepare for them, and adapting somewhat before the change occurs.
Scurries react to change by seeking out ways to take advantage of changes, working hard to locate benefits to the change.
Hems stand there and whine. When "the cheese is moved", in this case a game nerf, they complain that the change happened. When they get advanced warning, they complain that it is going to happen. Once it occurs, they don't try to find benefits to the change, instead staying in one place and complaining, hoping that either the change will be reversed or somehow their complaints will be heard and catored to. When it doesn't happen, they die out (or quit).
Haws also react poorly to change. They grudgingly try to adapt, but periodically revert to old methods, hoping they'll still work. Eventually they adapt, but by the time they have done so, Sniffs and Scurries have already taken advantage of the benefits the changes created and the Haws are stuck just getting by. They complain along the way, trying to get others to take responsibility for their inability to adapt quickly and make things easier for them.
So it really is a matter of deciding which one you want to be. Those who play the game well are usually the first two categories, which is why you hear us saying so much about adaptation and risk/reward; we've already figured out a lot of how we will work with the changes.
"You Griefer!!!" = "You Doodyhead!!!" |
Ronin Woman
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 19:48:00 -
[103]
Perhaps we should just ask CCP to do away with Concord.
It has been said that only 5% of the active players are in 0.0 space [read as bad, scary pirate people]. Leaving the other 95% in Empire space [read as carebears, noobs & idiots] . So with a 9.5 to 1 advantage, lets do away with the "protectors of Empire space" so we can kick pirate butt as soon as they show up in a system since we can't as it stands now:
- defend ourselves - defend corp mates - hire guards - attack known pirate/griefers (whatever term u like)first - peacefully pursue whatever profession we want - live with the idea that NO MATTER WHAT it is Empire space player's fault anyway.
After all only pirates types,long term veterans & some Dev's know how Eve should be enjoyed. They are the only ones that have a clue. Right? Thats what we are being told isn't it? So lets just get rid of Concord and everyone can fight whenever or wherever the mood strikes them. |
Miri Tirzan
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 19:53:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Ronin Woman Perhaps we should just ask CCP to do away with Concord.
It has been said that only 5% of the active players are in 0.0 space [read as bad, scary pirate people]. Leaving the other 95% in Empire space [read as carebears, noobs & idiots] . So with a 9.5 to 1 advantage, lets do away with the "protectors of Empire space" so we can kick pirate butt as soon as they show up in a system since we can't as it stands now:
- defend ourselves - defend corp mates - hire guards - attack known pirate/griefers (whatever term u like)first - peacefully pursue whatever profession we want - live with the idea that NO MATTER WHAT it is Empire space player's fault anyway.
After all only pirates types,long term veterans & some Dev's know how Eve should be enjoyed. They are the only ones that have a clue. Right? Thats what we are being told isn't it? So lets just get rid of Concord and everyone can fight whenever or wherever the mood strikes them.
Yeah, right and every belt and gate would be over run with gankers. What is needed is for players in NPC corp in high sec to not be able to attack players or be attacked. It would also be nice if players in Empire space that fire on a player that does not meet the sec status, is an outlaw, or under a war dec, get an outlaw status. Then they can be shot by any lawful player inside of empire space. That would even out gankers in side of empire space.
svetlana - "whining gets you stuff. that is why humans got to the top of the food chain and all the other animals got nerfed."
|
Ronin Woman
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 19:57:00 -
[105]
Perhaps Miri, perhaps.
But how long do you think Eve would survive if it went that direction?
About as long as most men take to have sex I should think. |
Corvus Dove
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 20:04:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Ronin Woman Perhaps Miri, perhaps.
But how long do you think Eve would survive if it went that direction?
About as long as most men take to have sex I should think.
I think it would sort things a bit, actually.
Have Concord suddenly start charging a fee to protect space. Periodically, a nation does not, thus Concord vanishes for a week or two.
The Hems would all leave, though. "You Griefer!!!" = "You Doodyhead!!!" |
Juniper
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 20:10:00 -
[107]
Haven't read all of this thread, but...
1) 1.0 sec is for noobs.
2) It's wrong to gank noobs, and just as wrong to suggest they defend themselves with equipment or ships costing millions.
3) Ganking noobs just makes them quit. EVE loses. You lose.
4) Happy now?
|
Corvus Dove
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 20:12:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Juniper Haven't read all of this thread, but...
1) 1.0 sec is for noobs.
2) It's wrong to gank noobs, and just as wrong to suggest they defend themselves with equipment or ships costing millions.
3) Ganking noobs just makes them quit. EVE loses. You lose.
4) Happy now?
Noone's ganking noobs. That's just propagandised bullskite from people who hate pirates that gank in high-sec. The targets are barges and indies, not Imicuses. "You Griefer!!!" = "You Doodyhead!!!" |
MaiLina KaTar
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 20:21:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Miri Tirzan
You are right! It is the haulers fault that they are using an indy in high sec space and forcing a ganker to scan them and then use game mechanics which there is currently no defense against to gank them.
I have by now successfully defended myself 7 times against these attacks in highsec.
Quote:
... It is because they are stupid that they cannot find a way to defend against this.
Exactly.
Quote: Errr what was the defense against this again?
Creativity. But since you only seem to show some of that when talking trash around here let me spell it out for you:
1. a shieldtanked indy 2. one or more remote shield boosting cruisers
Quote:
Use those BMs that Oveur is in the process of removing?
Read the blog again please... and this time try to comprehend.
Quote:
I guess some of us just dont see how the game mechanics are not hosed that all of that needs to be done to protect from gankers in high sec space.
I guess some of us are seeing whiners... and now guess who I'm looking at
Mai's Idealog |
Mallagen
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 20:21:00 -
[110]
1.0 should be free and clear of ganking PERIOD! The only thing allowed should be declared and sanctioned empire wars. EVE is not fair, not one one bit. But there should be as always havens for innocents and for business (i.e. defined as economical and not preying on others)
|
|
Bhaal
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 20:26:00 -
[111]
Quote: About as long as most men take to have sex I should think.
Hey now! ------------------------------------------------ "for piece sakes!" |
Lorth
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 20:29:00 -
[112]
Frankly, the mechanics are in place right now to virtually eliminate all risks to haulers in empire. Why should eve be changed for those who choose not to use them?
Its arguments like this that make me wonder what the actuall IQ of these forums are. How in the world can you expect CCP to change things, to further accomodate your lack of willingness to use the tools they have already supplied.
Nothing needs to be changed, because there already exists ways to prevent this from happening. I'm not really sure how people can not see this, or are you simply wanting a god mode?
Quote: CCP gave you all the tools you need to avoid a crime. Your just to stupid or lazy to use them
|
DigitalCommunist
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 20:30:00 -
[113]
Death is possible anywhere. In high security space there is a price to pay by the aggressor: loss of ship and modules.
If this price is less than what they get out of attacking you, then maybe you should evaluate why you're such a juicy target and take steps to prevent it. Because as far as I am aware, taking the sec hit and losing your ship isn't exploiting game mechanics. You're exploiting people's obliviousness. _____________________________________ Perpetually driven, your end is our beginning. "Can I be a consultant for EVE II?" - WhiteDwarf |
Mallagen
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 21:27:00 -
[114]
Ok, so in what part of this so called civilized universe called EVE is it possible flourish economically without the risk of having someone barge in ganking the crap out of your ship and steal your **** from under you. No, thanks. Listen, I am not expecting EVE to be real. But some minute increments of reality must be imposed in the "safe" systems. There is lawabiding and lawlessness. Harsher penalties than sec hits. How about a sliding scale for sec hits depending on if you gank in 1.0 compared to 0.7 or 0.5 and so on....it must hurt. Alt abuse must be put to an end. Cheapest basterds around.
|
babo
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 21:37:00 -
[115]
actually, unless you have some pretty valuable cargo they will probably just leave it and take your expanders as that is usually the 'money' on any industrial ship. Iteron V with 5 named expanders is a rich target for you to sell on escrow and with insurance for the pirates lost ships it is almost nothing to them..
does your ship have a dronebay? If so, sign the petition.. |
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 21:50:00 -
[116]
I've been gone nine months, and we're still arguing about this?
And this thread ran to seven whole pages, and nobody's yet pointed out the obvious?
When you leave "secure" (0.5+) space, you get a message - unless you've chosen to bypass it after seeing it the first time.
That messsage is a warning that once you *leave secure space*, CONCORD will no longer be able to protect you from other players.
That message, as should be blindingly obvious, could only have been put in the game because CONCORD *is* supposed to be able to protect you from other players.
If they don't, it's because CCP either can't figure out a way to make it work, or simply gave up trying.
Anyone trying to argue that ganking in 1.0 is "supposed to be allowed" just needs to read that message, and they know for a certainty that it is NOT supposed to be allowed.
If CCP have given up on this, their original intention, they at least ought to get rid of that now-pointless message.
_______ "Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Lorth
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 22:13:00 -
[117]
Someone did point out the quote from CCP that stated you're never 100% safe no matter where you are, and that concord only exists to punish a crime, and can not always prevent it.
We also pointed out several easy ways that people could prevent this, yet they still fail to listen.
|
Mallagen
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 22:22:00 -
[118]
Ah, but what about the alt situation. Hell time for me to blow **** up I think.
|
Viceroy
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 22:24:00 -
[119]
Edited by: Viceroy on 13/06/2005 22:24:50
Quote: Someone did point out the quote from CCP that stated you're never 100% safe no matter where you are, and that concord only exists to punish a crime, and can not always prevent it.
Quote: Don't expect CONCORD to keep you immune to attacks or ship losses. Like in the real world, law enforcers often arrive too late at the scene of the crime, and even though they able to punish the criminal, they can't always prevent the crime.
-
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 22:35:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Lorth Edited by: Lorth on 13/06/2005 22:28:03 Someone did point out the quote from CCP that stated you're never 100% safe no matter where you are, and that concord only exists to punish a crime, and can not always prevent it.
Yes ... it's a shame that the guys at CCP don't know, or can't remember, what's in their own game
_______ "Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |