Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Runeme Shilter
New Order Logistics CODE.
73
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 17:00:00 -
[181] - Quote
Otto3d wrote:Given the cost of the war from the other corps, will this be consider as an exploit? Since James 315 has provided no way for other players to "get him" other than a suicidal gank?
Initially, dropping and reforming the same corp was considered an exploit. But carebears everywhere whined to CCP about wardecs and no way out and CCP changed the rules so that it no longer is an exploit. Thank the carebears! ;-) |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1196
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 15:00:00 -
[182] - Quote
Otto3d wrote:James 315, the leader of this "New Order", runs a one-man corp and has been war dec several times. However, he just quits and creates a new one with the same name and everything so the war never really happens and he goes about bumping miners and as such. Given the cost of the war from the other corps, will this be consider as an exploit? Since James 315 has provided no way for other players to "get him" other than a suicidal gank?
Which is exactly what the carebears do: They sit in npc corps or drop corp upon a dec, making it impossible for us to legally explode their stupid mining barges, which is why we suicide gank.
Using their own tactics against them and causing tears is just another aspect of our Saviours perfection. |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3156
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 15:34:00 -
[183] - Quote
Runeme Shilter wrote:Otto3d wrote:Given the cost of the war from the other corps, will this be consider as an exploit? Since James 315 has provided no way for other players to "get him" other than a suicidal gank? Initially, dropping and reforming the same corp was considered an exploit. But carebears everywhere whined to CCP about wardecs and no way out and CCP changed the rules so that it no longer is an exploit. Thank the carebears! ;-)
And now they're whining that someone else is using that rule to bother them.
Surprise! This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Capt Starfox
New Order Logistics CODE.
418
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 02:33:00 -
[184] - Quote
Just wanted to stop by and say hello in my favorite thread. Hello! Psychotic Monk for CSM 8 |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.23 12:24:00 -
[185] - Quote
RISK FREE PVP ALERT
Out of corp bumping constitutes risk free PvP as such it needs to be looked at.
Undisputed Facts.
1) Bumping a ship can make the difference between a ship being sploded and it escaping into warp. 2) ooc Bumping ships can not be fired upon without concordonkken in high sec.
Bumping a ship on purpose* that is not a legitimate target to you should result in a suspect flag on the bumping vessel.
Bumping on purpose should mean putting on approach or clicking within 10degs of ship on screen and activating a speed mod.
|
Phoenix Bibbs
Red Galaxy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
33
|
Posted - 2013.04.25 18:38:00 -
[186] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:RISK FREE PVP ALERT
Out of corp bumping constitutes risk free PvP as such it needs to be looked at.
Undisputed Facts.
1) Bumping a ship can make the difference between a ship being sploded and it escaping into warp. 2) ooc Bumping ships can not be fired upon without concordonkken in high sec.
Bumping a ship on purpose* that is not a legitimate target to you should result in a suspect flag on the bumping vessel.
Bumping on purpose should mean putting on approach or clicking within 10degs of ship on screen and activating a speed mod.
Remind me again why we care what you think? |
iPod Nubz
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2013.04.26 05:41:00 -
[187] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:RISK FREE PVP ALERT
Out of corp bumping constitutes risk free PvP as such it needs to be looked at.
Undisputed Facts.
1) Bumping a ship can make the difference between a ship being sploded and it escaping into warp. 2) ooc Bumping ships can not be fired upon without concordonkken in high sec.
Bumping a ship on purpose* that is not a legitimate target to you should result in a suspect flag on the bumping vessel.
Bumping on purpose should mean putting on approach or clicking within 10degs of ship on screen and activating a speed mod.
LOL ... All activities other than /wave shall eb banned from hisec, and ships should fly through each other (as in other MMOs characters do) in hisec because hisec is not intended for kills.
High Security space is that : HIGH Security. It is not a "no kill zone". The sooner people get that false feeling of security out of their minds, the better. |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
24
|
Posted - 2013.04.26 11:19:00 -
[188] - Quote
iPod Nubz wrote:Dav Varan wrote:RISK FREE PVP ALERT
Out of corp bumping constitutes risk free PvP as such it needs to be looked at.
Undisputed Facts.
1) Bumping a ship can make the difference between a ship being sploded and it escaping into warp. 2) ooc Bumping ships can not be fired upon without concordonkken in high sec.
Bumping a ship on purpose* that is not a legitimate target to you should result in a suspect flag on the bumping vessel.
Bumping on purpose should mean putting on approach or clicking within 10degs of ship on screen and activating a speed mod.
LOL ... All activities other than /wave shall eb banned from hisec, and ships should fly through each other (as in other MMOs characters do) in hisec because hisec is not intended for kills. High Security space is that : HIGH Security. It is not a "no kill zone". The sooner people get that false feeling of security out of their minds, the better.
I'm suggesting we make High sec more dangerous not less. Of course I'm only suggesting we make it more dangerous for those who currently hiding behind the skirts of concord.
You bump into someone at high speed you can be shot in the face , how is this making HS safer ?
|
Agent Trask
New Order Logistics CODE.
153
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 00:32:00 -
[189] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:
I'm suggesting we make High sec more dangerous not less. Of course I'm only suggesting we make it more dangerous for those who currently hiding behind the skirts of concord.
You bump into someone at high speed you can be shot in the face , how is this making HS safer ?
So I can force non-consensual PvP on freighters by parking my ship in front of the Jita undock and wait for an undocking freighter to strike me? And not get CONCORDed?
I approve of this proposed change! Join the New Order, buy your permit today, and follow the code.
www.minerbumping.com |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
24
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 14:49:00 -
[190] - Quote
Agent Trask wrote:Dav Varan wrote:
I'm suggesting we make High sec more dangerous not less. Of course I'm only suggesting we make it more dangerous for those who currently hiding behind the skirts of concord.
You bump into someone at high speed you can be shot in the face , how is this making HS safer ?
So I can force non-consensual PvP on freighters by parking my ship in front of the Jita undock and wait for an undocking freighter to strike me? And not get CONCORDed? I approve of this proposed change!
How do you activate an AB on a Freighter ? it has no slots!
Proposal was if you "activate a speed mod" and bump into someone at high speed.
AB/MWD would need yellow safeties of course.
Activate an AB/MWD at you own risk , same priciple as Smarty with less sever consequences of course. |
|
Lady Areola Fappington
New Order Logistics CODE.
110
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 19:48:00 -
[191] - Quote
Got a distance you want to set this idea at, or we just going to do it gridwide? Also, how about passive speed mods?
Don't forget, bumping is about mass as well as speed....
Don't worry miners, I'm here to help!
|
Liltha
Lost My Way Enterprises
5
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 07:53:00 -
[192] - Quote
Pap Uhotih wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
Put a dang Tank on your Orca if it has that little EHP.
Yes. You have to make a trade off between survivibility and yield/cargo. Why in the world shouldn't you have to make that tradeoff?
IGÇÖll give up with the car insurance. IGÇÖll concede it and simply look for a higher quote next time I want a pay rise :p My Orca is miles away getting really dusty, I havenGÇÖt the faintest idea what its EHP actually is. off hand I think a Skiff can go above 100k, so I assumed you could get to about 70k ish in a Procurer which seemed in the right region. I think our discussion does come down to yield/tank if we want to save on the multi quoting. I can only go on the evidence I have which is that the frequency that an individual gets ganked in high sec means that going with yield more than covers the cost of losses. It isnGÇÖt about surviving it is about making a profit. It isnGÇÖt really a trade off at all, yield is win win GÇô you just win a little less if/when you get ganked. For tank/cargo in industrials it is a far more open question as to where you should go. I have four Mammoths covering a range of options because there are tradeoffs and you have to make a decision before you set off. In the case of Industrial though it can only be loss loss if I get it wrong, I donGÇÖt really get more reward if I take a greater risk or get less reward with less risk. Maybe it takes a little more time but IGÇÖm not flying them that far in the first place. For longer hauls I take a Freighter and I always have the perfect fit for that.
You are off by a bit with the orca tank. An untanked orca is something like 90k EHP, just tossing a DC2 on there will bump it up to 180k. Add some more tank modules and you can easily get to 250k ehp.
|
Ahvram
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
60
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 17:43:00 -
[193] - Quote
Sulzer Wartzilla wrote:Kimo Khan wrote:You are missing my point. I know bumping is not a flaggable action in itself, but the scenario I mentioned is that it is combined with a flaggable action, just like Remote Repping is flagable only when you use it on a flagged person. So why would bumping when used with a criminal gank not be flaggable?
It is not a question to players, it is a question to CCP to consider. Bumping to prevent warp is a circumvention to the warp scram mechanic which flags a person. An easy solution to this issue is to prevent bumping to a person trying to warp, just turn off the mechanic when a person initiates warp. Its not like you can get bumped when you are in warp, so why not turn it off when you initiate warp. Bumping ships to prevent warping (but mostly crashing back to stargates) has long been an integral and known part of PVP. It takes skill to actually bump someone trying to escape. It's been around for years. Of course, once this tactic found its way to the asteroid belts of hisec, the calls for nerfing it or utterly removing it from the game did not wait long to rear their ugly face. Predictable.
To say bumping takes skills is just like saying going to the bathroom takes skill. Turn on MWD and press approach... That's all its requires to bump. Don't make it seem like its more than it is. |
Agent Trask
New Order Logistics CODE.
160
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 18:36:00 -
[194] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:
How do you activate an AB on a Freighter ? it has no slots!
Proposal was if you "activate a speed mod" and bump into someone at high speed.
AB/MWD would need yellow safeties of course.
Activate an AB/MWD at you own risk , same priciple as Smarty with less sever consequences of course.
Got it.
So if anyone activates an AB, they become a CONCORDOKEN victim if someone else manages to bump them.
And if I fit an Armageddon with nanos, I can get any miner who is using an AB or MWD CONCORDed by bumping him.
I'm still cool with this.
Although the instant you said "put a safety on ABs", I'm pretty sure any CCP devs reading this started howling with laughter.
Join the New Order, buy your permit today, and follow the code.
www.minerbumping.com |
Tarsas Phage
Freight Club
171
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 22:15:00 -
[195] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:
Bumping a ship on purpose* that is not a legitimate target to you should result in a suspect flag on the bumping vessel.
Bumping on purpose should mean putting on approach or clicking within 10degs of ship on screen and activating a speed mod.
So if you were a piece of software, how would you determine (and quickly) the intent of a bump when deciding whether to apply a suspect flag or not?
You make it sound rather simple, but your focus narrowly covers a specific case. What if I undock from jita 4-4, and want to stay on station but quickly clear myself of all the ships with are typically parked right outside? Are you saying that burning away and trying to find a hole to put my ship through the morass of other ships is now a illegal move?
How about if I'm fighting a legitimate target around a crowded gate, and during the fight I activate my speed mod and happen to click within 10 degrees of a non-target ship while doing so?
Your thinking accounts for nothing beyond a specific scenario. |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
27
|
Posted - 2013.05.07 08:42:00 -
[196] - Quote
Agent Trask wrote:Dav Varan wrote:
How do you activate an AB on a Freighter ? it has no slots!
Proposal was if you "activate a speed mod" and bump into someone at high speed.
AB/MWD would need yellow safeties of course.
Activate an AB/MWD at you own risk , same priciple as Smarty with less sever consequences of course.
Got it. So if anyone activates an AB, they become a CONCORDOKEN victim if someone else manages to bump them. And if I fit an Armageddon with nanos, I can get any miner who is using an AB or MWD CONCORDed by bumping him. I'm still cool with this. Although the instant you said "put a safety on ABs", I'm pretty sure any CCP devs reading this started howling with laughter.
Your theory crafting is week. If you want to hang around in belts for hours on end waiting on the off chance a miner is gonna press his ab button. Up to you.
and no concord. Concord does not respond to suspect flag. Learn game mechanics BEFORE posting.
|
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
27
|
Posted - 2013.05.07 08:46:00 -
[197] - Quote
Tarsas Phage wrote:Dav Varan wrote:
Bumping a ship on purpose* that is not a legitimate target to you should result in a suspect flag on the bumping vessel.
Bumping on purpose should mean putting on approach or clicking within 10degs of ship on screen and activating a speed mod.
So if you were a piece of software, how would you determine (and quickly) the intent of a bump when deciding whether to apply a suspect flag or not? You make it sound rather simple, but your focus narrowly covers a specific case. What if I undock from jita 4-4, and want to stay on station but quickly clear myself of all the ships with are typically parked right outside? Are you saying that burning away and trying to find a hole to put my ship through the morass of other ships is now a illegal move? How about if I'm fighting a legitimate target around a crowded gate, and during the fight I activate my speed mod and happen to click within 10 degrees of a non-target ship while doing so? Your thinking accounts for nothing beyond a specific scenario.
No intent calculations. Changed my mind on that really, its not needed with a safety system. If you activate mods which can mess up the aligns of other players you take the responsibility.
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
517
|
Posted - 2013.05.07 13:23:00 -
[198] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:RISK FREE PVP ALERT
Out of corp bumping constitutes risk free PvP as such it needs to be looked at.
Undisputed Facts.
1) Some people get so incensed by being bumped that they retaliate with weapons fire, even against unarmed bump ships.
FYP. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff |
|
ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
59
|
Posted - 2013.05.07 17:03:00 -
[199] - Quote
A post has been deleted since it contained a modified quote that, if removed, would have left a reply with no content.
ISD Tyrozan Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
518
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 13:03:00 -
[200] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:RISK FREE PVP ALERT
Out of corp bumping constitutes risk free PvP as such it needs to be looked at.
Undisputed Facts.
1) People get so upset over being bumped that they've been known to shoot at the unarmed bumping ship.
Someone tripped on the power again. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff |
|
Nagnor
The Happy Shooters
16
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 23:31:00 -
[201] - Quote
Tarsas Phage wrote:Dav Varan wrote:
Bumping a ship on purpose* that is not a legitimate target to you should result in a suspect flag on the bumping vessel.
Bumping on purpose should mean putting on approach or clicking within 10degs of ship on screen and activating a speed mod.
So if you were a piece of software, how would you determine (and quickly) the intent of a bump when deciding whether to apply a suspect flag or not? You make it sound rather simple, but your focus narrowly covers a specific case. What if I undock from jita 4-4, and want to stay on station but quickly clear myself of all the ships with are typically parked right outside? Are you saying that burning away and trying to find a hole to put my ship through the morass of other ships is now a illegal move? How about if I'm fighting a legitimate target around a crowded gate, and during the fight I activate my speed mod and happen to click within 10 degrees of a non-target ship while doing so? Your thinking accounts for nothing beyond a specific scenario. The detection of the intent of a bump is indeed a problem which I think can not easily be computerized/code. EVE is not RL. There are no human police officers present capable of evaluating the situation, advanced reasoning (doesn't apply to all ;) and make the decision (with escalation process in place if one or more of parties disagrees) .
Nevertheless bumping in combination with Crimewatch is broken. This statement has in most of the previous posts not been disputed, most of the objections are about how to resolve it.
Maybe weird, but how about "fixing" it by breaking something else? Kind of in a similar way that untouchable cloaking and free, perfect intell in local are both broken, but in balance. Let's put aside the attempt to emulate this particular piece of real life physics in EVE and disable the player to player collision detection in High sec (only highsec: low, null & wh remain as it is) |
Beachura
Scott Webb Corp
69
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 12:24:00 -
[202] - Quote
. |
Beachura
Scott Webb Corp
69
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 12:25:00 -
[203] - Quote
Bing Bangboom wrote:Bantara wrote: Dang, does that mean you'll have to use good judgement, common sense, and a sense of what might cross the line into harassment?? Yikes....
So the answer is sometimes bumping is harassment and sometimes its not... I guess we have SOME guidelines now. I can bump someone morning, noon and night, as long as its in the same system or within a couple jumps. And if I feel like I'm getting too close to the edge on the harassment I can just call in a Knights fleet to gank their 200 million ISK Mack and pod them without being petitionable. I can work within those boundaries. I know CCP had a tough time trying to find the right balance on this. The final decision is pretty generous to us bumpers. I just know from months now of working with the miners that any sliver of doubt will be 100% proof to them and the complaints and petitions and forum threads will continue. I would have preferred them to stop at "CCP considers the act of bumping a normal game mechanic, and does not class the bumping of another playerGÇÖs ship as an exploit." and not put the "However" and opened it all back up again. BBB
Unfortunately bing stopping at 'normal game mechanic' would leave the field wide open, a 'loop hole' if you will.
My case in point:
I am roaming border low security systems in gallente sovereignty and I spot an individual who I see as easy pickings. I engage that individual and destroy him, which is perfectly within eve online game mechanics, just like bumping I am perfectly permitted to do this.
However, I continue to follow this individual through several jumps spanning regions locating him with a locator agent following him for an extended period of time specifically targeting him and attempting to disrupt his ability to function within eve. This then becomes petitionable and I am liable to action for harrassment, I am clearly following this individual with the intent of causing him distress and ruining his game experience.
Miner bumping is also now confirmed legitimate, but without stating the harrasment rule you would perfectly okay to follow an individual around spanning regions bumping them until they unsubscribed and left eve. Why should I be punished for following an individual around eve irritating them in lawless space while it's okay to bump an individual following them through regions of space that are high security?
It seems to me that you are looking for an excuse to harrass and troll players ruining their game experience with little or no risk to you.
This appears to be quite clear cut to me, and sits as follows:
If it is clear that you are simply pushing miners around because they happen to be there, in the same place as you are located then that is emergent gameplay and perfectly legal.
However, if it becomes apparent that you are following an individual or set of individuals because due to the fact they responded to your troll mail badly you know you can upset them and ruin their game experience, the Game Masters have left themselves room so that you can't claim "Oh but it's a legal game mechanic" if it is clear your intent is to ruin an individuals game experience by following them around day and night.
If game masters can identify any in manner that you are abusing this legal mechanic in order to follow a set of specific individuals around trolling them for extended periods, regardless of how many jumps you have done or where you've been before then it appears to be the case that you will be punished.
If you are simply bumping miners because they are in the same belt as you or constellation, you will be fine. The selection of tools available to game masters I'm sure makes the task of identifying whether you are following specific individual fairly straight forward.
The Game Masters have already made it clear that if you want to harrass a corporation or individual you declare war on them so that they can 'taste blood' as it was put. It is nobodies interest for high security carebears to leave the game because you're being a smart arse when you know deep down you are following them for the tears.
|
EnilToor
Caldari Scouting and Intel Group
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.11 22:37:00 -
[204] - Quote
Bottom line, get over it. Its a sandbox.
Pap Uhotih wrote:DirtySnowBunny wrote: If you made this MMO as a "sandbox" let it stand as one. I think the Spartans put it best, GÇ£If.GÇ¥. Whilst in general terms the gameplay could be described as sandbox in style the reality is that the implementation has always gone beyond that of a sandbox and it has always had to. DirtySnowBunny wrote: 2) Will ganking the same person or group over and over be considered harassment as well? a) This is typical practice to gain a leverage of an area or system. The art of bumping actually has become a good business of making additional isk. We have our mercenaries, bounty hunters, other miners WANT and PAY people to gank, bump or otherwise so they can make a profit. 3) Bumping is a good mechanic for detouring AFK assisted mining via one of the many BOT programs out there or custom variations there of. It is not that hard to change from one space to another, most bumpers (or gankers) will not move their operations around one person. So in conclusion the argument about "omg make bumping an exploit" is just ridiculous.
I think it has long been accepted that financially speaking the only winner is James 315, it is a good business for him. For everyone else the only new thing seems to be the slightly misguided belief that some new market has been created when in reality all that has happened is that a certain set of player behaviour has been grouped together under a single term. The business of disruption has a long history and simply reflects the reality that industrial game play is not necessarily as passive as it may appear to be on the surface. A lot of irritation is actually rooted in the use of NPC or tiny player corps. Effectively there is an alliance with none of the cost or risk. The structure used by the bumper alliance in fact makes it cheaper and more practical to declare war on Goonswarm. This structure prevents industrialists from paying mercenary organisations to provide a more militaristic response than a Retriever will ever manage. Mercenaries are therefore not really a part of this food chain, certainly they are not able to make the amounts of isk that they would be able to on a level playing field. Making considered observations of a suspected bot and then using the in game reporting system is the only effective way to take action against a botter. That is the only in game mechanic that deters botting. I had always assumed that there was meant to be humour in the statement GÇ£Bot-aspirant behavior is not permittedGÇ¥ but there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding as to what a bot is aspiring to be. Why would the bot sit still while a gank capable ship approached it. The issue is not so much if something should happen when two ships collide it is how that should fit into the rock/paper/scissor model that is typical of Eve. IGÇÖll refer you to page 1 for a fairly clear statement about what is and is not considered harassment.
|
EnilToor
Caldari Scouting and Intel Group
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.11 22:45:00 -
[205] - Quote
Once again, welcome to the sandbox. After nearly drooling on myself reading your self-righteous, long winded post. We once again come to the bottom line: Sandbox. bumping or insults are part of the game long as its not racial in content.
I think Bunny said it well, If you don't like it move to another system. The only people the truly cried about it are the one that are running semi-assisted to full assisted AFK mining. I would even say its in the 90% range. I gank. I generally don't bump and gank legitimate miners. We have fantastic intel on who is botting and who is not. The subject matter is not rocket science. (or long winded flabber-gastro-unintelligent writing strong alluding to your posting abilities).
Bumping is a via mechanic for income and an endless source of entertainment we we met fellows like yourself.
Pap Uhotih wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote: Complains that the Agents of the New Order are in NPC corps (pro tip the majority actually arent)
No, I complained that they were in NPC or tiny player corps. As your caveat eludes to, it would be easy for me to demonstrate that some are in NPC corps. Just to be clear though, I have never claimed where the majority are and for the purposes of my point it would have been more beneficial if they were not located in NPC corps. Kainotomiu has provided evidence that I need to expand what I said to include hiding in larger corporations which I am happy to do. The source he has quoted (in ball park maths) suggests that to war dec the twenty or so bumpers listed you would have to go to war with somewhere in the region of 13,000 chars, the actual targets being less than 0.2% of the people you would be at war with. That passes any test for being impractical to do. Doing so would certainly exceed the war dec price cap, something that puts TEST, Goons etc. at a disadvantage comparatively. That is why I proposed that it created an imbalance. I must confess that my original point was largely inspired by a post made by the bumper messiah himself; I wasnGÇÖt expecting the theology department to have such a differing view on a tactic that has more traditionally been bundled as a part of emergent game play. I have demonstrated that the majority are not in a single corporation/alliance as was claimed by admiral root. I have never said that the remainder were all in NPC corporations, the truth is that some of them are, some of them are in tiny player corporations, some are a part of larger unrelated player organisations and a minority of them are in CODE.. TheGunslinger42 wrote: Is in an NPC corp himself, as are many other disgusting miners.
Personally I try to pay most attention to the column in the middle rather than the one on the left; the content is much more relevant. This posting alt is in an NPC corporation, I am of the opinion that in certain matters you should be able to post as an account holder rather than an in game character, certainly where game rules are called into question. The best effort I can make toward that is to remove any indication of my in game affiliations in order that they do not bias the interpretation of any comments I make. The point is to be able to have a reasonable discussion without having to resort to insulting groups of players.
|
EnilToor
Caldari Scouting and Intel Group
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.11 22:53:00 -
[206] - Quote
Most blame everyone but themselves when they could have protected their investment - exhumer in this case - with a small amount of fitted defense.
Thankfully EvE does this: Play stupid, suffer a significant hit on your wallet. Do stupid things, repeat effect. One thing this game offers that I love is ----- Your "stuff" is never safe. Its a great dynamic that most other games don't offer, having a completely safe-zone is just.... so WoW. :) I degrade.
Pap Uhotih is small minority that thinks the tear-stained wheel will get the grease. In his case, the overly-bloated, mostly non-sense tears. You have to sort the overly drawn out 25 dollar words covering the 1 dollar sentence.
RubyPorto wrote:Pap Uhotih wrote:I think our discussion does come down to yield/tank if we want to save on the multi quoting. I can only go on the evidence I have which is that the frequency that an individual gets ganked in high sec means that going with yield more than covers the cost of losses. It isnGÇÖt about surviving it is about making a profit. It isnGÇÖt really a trade off at all, yield is win win GÇô you just win a little less if/when you get ganked. For tank/cargo in industrials it is a far more open question as to where you should go. I have four Mammoths covering a range of options because there are tradeoffs and you have to make a decision before you set off. In the case of Industrial though it can only be loss loss if I get it wrong, I donGÇÖt really get more reward if I take a greater risk or get less reward with less risk. Maybe it takes a little more time but IGÇÖm not flying them that far in the first place. For longer hauls I take a Freighter and I always have the perfect fit for that. And I've said that if your analysis comes out that yield is better for your level of risk tolerance, that's fine. You are more than welcome to not tank your 200m ISK investment. But you don't get to whine when you get ganked or claim that you cannot protect yourself because you chose not to. Sure you do. You move more cargo in less trips if you risk more in each trip. 10 Freighter runs @1b each is safe, but slow. 1 Freighter run @10b is fast (well... you know what I mean), but unsafe. Up to you to decide on the balance. |
Blue Absinthe
Wardec U
2
|
Posted - 2013.05.25 21:16:00 -
[207] - Quote
CCP officially endorses the New Order of Highsec. Hats off to CCP. It was the right decision to let James clean highsec up. |
Sabriz Adoudel
AWOXalypse
395
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 07:46:00 -
[208] - Quote
Otto3d wrote:James 315, the leader of this "New Order", runs a one-man corp and has been war dec several times. However, he just quits and creates a new one with the same name and everything so the war never really happens and he goes about bumping miners and as such. Given the cost of the war from the other corps, will this be consider as an exploit? Since James 315 has provided no way for other players to "get him" other than a suicidal gank?
Oh, I long for the day this is declared an exploit. And I'm sure James would be happy with that too. AWOXalypse is coming! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2898431 Buy shares: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=226618 An enemy is a friend you stab in the front. |
ZaBob
Twilight Labs Unsung Voices
288
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 01:28:00 -
[209] - Quote
Moving to a different system to avoid a bumper is going to be pretty annoying if you have to move your equipment, fleet, arrange to haul ore to the refinery, etc.
It becomes even more of a pain, when it's ice that you're mining. The amount of wasted time just to avoid someone who's persistently acting like a 7th grade bully is even more annoying. Ice mining is time-consuming as it is (and CCP just made it more annoying IMO).
There's an imbalance here. The bumper gets to do what he wants, with no consequences. The ice miner has to pick up and move a long way away -- a harsh penalty (relative to the effort required to impose it) to which he has no realistic recourse.
A wardec against the bumper is not generally a realistic option. You drag entire corporations into it, multiplying the cost. I suppose an alt corp for the purpose might be an option, but even so, that's a lot of hassle just to deal with someone being a jerk.
Bottom line -- to me, it seems like griefing once it gets to the point I'd have to spend all that time just to be allowed to play the game. Or give us a reasonable mechanic to counter it. |
D35
Trianguli Australis
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 12:12:00 -
[210] - Quote
ZaBob wrote:Moving to a different system to avoid a bumper is going to be pretty annoying if you have to move your equipment, fleet, arrange to haul ore to the refinery, etc.
It becomes even more of a pain, when it's ice that you're mining. The amount of wasted time just to avoid someone who's persistently acting like a 7th grade bully is even more annoying. Ice mining is time-consuming as it is (and CCP just made it more annoying IMO).
There's an imbalance here. The bumper gets to do what he wants, with no consequences. The ice miner has to pick up and move a long way away -- a harsh penalty (relative to the effort required to impose it) to which he has no realistic recourse.
A wardec against the bumper is not generally a realistic option. You drag entire corporations into it, multiplying the cost. I suppose an alt corp for the purpose might be an option, but even so, that's a lot of hassle just to deal with someone being a jerk.
Bottom line -- to me, it seems like griefing once it gets to the point I'd have to spend all that time just to be allowed to play the game. Or give us a reasonable mechanic to counter it. I don't see any imbalance here since there is one mechanic that completely protects you from bumping: Moving out of the way. No bumper will waste their time trying to bump something which they can't.
I've seen some miners refusing to do this, deliberately making themselves "victims", because of their principles. But seriously, it's not hard to double click the space. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |