|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3196
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 09:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
Gallamoth Sickle wrote:but can someone explain to me how/when eve became a gankers paradise in high sec?
Umm.... Beta?
When EVE was released, there was no CONCORD. Then there was Tankable CONCORD. Then Untankable CONCORD but Insurance payouts for gank ships remained. And now there's No insurance and the fastest responding, untankable, undelayable CONCORD EVE's ever seen.
If you're saying that these changes turned EVE into a ganker's paradise, maybe you want them rolled back?
Gallamoth Sickle wrote:Even aligning to gate, mining in .7 and above, being at the computer, D-scanning constantly you still run a better chance of dieing than not if you find your self chosen by a ganker.
Being aligned means that you will be in warp to the destination you were aligned to the server tick after you press the button. You don't have to be watching d-scan, just the overview to be safe because no matter what method, it takes longer than that to tackle or bump you. 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 |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3199
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 18:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
Corey Fumimasa wrote:Maybe CCP could make an Ore that isn't worth anything on the market, but that makes the miner immune to PVP. So If a barge is mining in a "xero ore" belt then it is invulnerable
This way miners could mine all they wanted with no risk.
Already exists.
Dave Stark wrote:with the mackinaw, yes. with the hulk, i think it was roughly right where it was.
that guy from bat country who posts a lot (and who's name i can never remember how to spell) said a hulk with 16k ehp or more was unprofitable to gank. i could fit a max yield hulk with 16k ehp therefore i felt the hulk was spot on. mackinaw, not so much.
i feel all this change will do is push mining ships in to the situation we were in pre barge change, and back in to the situation the changes were introduced to try and move away from.
Just to mention, because the Mack uses one less expensive Strip Miner, it doesn't need quite as much tank to protect its fittings, because there's a lower value of fittings available to drop. That's part of its tank as well. 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 |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3199
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 18:33:00 -
[3] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:Why does CCP seem to have buffed destroyers creating a situation that favors the ganker and leaves the ganked almost completely defensless? Because destroyers were horribly underpowered and because the ganked are utterly and completely irrelevant when doing that, since none of their multitudinous defensive options were affected.
Also, due to the simultaneous insurance nerf to ganking, it costs more in destroyers to gank a mining barge than it used to in Cruisers. The size of the gank ship is irrelevant, the cost to gank is the relevant part and Crucible increased that cost (same thing with ABCs vs insured BSes for freighters). 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 |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3199
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 21:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Hehe I am not on Mars (yet!), just in the middle of the ocean, (ab)using the ship's satelite comms.
On the Ocean on your way to Mars?
I know EVE's tolerant of latency, but the 30 minute ping might be a little much. 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 |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3200
|
Posted - 2013.04.15 00:40:00 -
[5] - Quote
Gallamoth Sickle wrote:that may be true but still off topic. The fact that i may or may not survive based on wether or not i have top of the line maxed tank on my 50m retriever to die to a 8m catalyst is not fair i dont care what anyone says its just too big a spread for it to be fair
So... you're saying that ships should not die to ships that cost less than them?
Should that be true of all ships, or just yours? All areas of the game, or just the ones you prefer? 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 |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3203
|
Posted - 2013.04.15 03:58:00 -
[6] - Quote
Gallamoth Sickle wrote:im talking about the fact that there is nothing you can do to protect say a retriver from a ganker no matter how much tank you put on it.
The problem is that "Can this be ganked" is not the appropriate question. The appropriate question is "Can this be ganked profitably." And there are plenty of Retriever fits that are unprofitable to gank.
You can also use a Procurer which is unprofitable to gank with virtually any fit.
Or, you can use any number of tactics to stay alive that happen to require being at the keyboard and alert but don't rely on tank.(Bonus: these also protect you from unprofitable ganks)
Saying "This is bad because my AFK ship can be ganked" is ridiculous. Any ship can be ganked, no matter the fitting. That's the inevitable result of illegal agression being possible. The balance issue is what ships with what fittings should be profitable to gank. I happen to think that most fitted, untanked ships should be profitable to gank, and guess what. Most are. 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 |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3204
|
Posted - 2013.04.15 06:11:00 -
[7] - Quote
DelBoy Trades wrote:I couldn't care less about gankers ganking miners in hisec, doesn't bother me, but one must pose the question, if someone is so intent on killing people, why not just move to low/null?
inb4 James315 bullshit.
Why not gank in HS?
Why not go where the targets are?
Why not go where you can reliably make money shooting people if you're careful and they're not?
Why do you have an unspoken assumption that shooting people doesn't belong in HS? 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 |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3204
|
Posted - 2013.04.15 06:39:00 -
[8] - Quote
March rabbit wrote: Why not gank in HS? I dunno. Just few ideas: - it's boring like mission running - it's repetitive like mission running - it doesn't give anything thrilling after 10 first ganks (unless you like to do repetitive tasks but then you better run missions for better reward) - it's doesn't make ganker any more experienced in PvP (because they mostly deal with defenseless targets and invulnerable CONCORD)
So I shouldn't do something in this game because you don't enjoy it? How does that logic work?
Quote:Why not go where you can reliably make money shooting people if you're careful and they're not? - Because Eve Online is a game and not first/second job? Spending time in Eve to make ISK is just pity. Game is for fun and not for grinding stuff.
Right, so you should find a way to make money in EVE that you enjoy doing for its own sake. Gankers tend to enjoy ganking for its own sake.
Quote:Why do you have an unspoken assumption that shooting people doesn't belong in HS? - Because this is what forums say about high-sec "carebears": they evade PvP at all cost! Move lvl4s to low, do whatever to move them to low/0.0!
Yes, the carebears have made that assumption. The problem is that that assumption is objectively wrong. Proof: 1) In a sandbox game, if something is allowed, it will occur. 2) Shooting people in HS is allowed. 3) Therefore, shooting people in HS will occur. 4) A game designer will only allow or continue to allow something to occur if they intend it to occur. 5) The game designers allow and continue to allow shooting people in HS to occur. 6) Therefore, The game designers intend it to occur.
By the way, if they were actually avoiding it "at all costs" they'd be playing on SISI where PvP without specific consent outside of certain areas is not allowed. 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 |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3205
|
Posted - 2013.04.15 08:18:00 -
[9] - Quote
March rabbit wrote: there was not word "me" in this quote. Personally i like to do missions but it's common fact: repetitive tasks tend to lead to boredom. Boredom leads to quit.
And ganking is not boring to the people who do it. So "it's boring" isn't a reason not to do it.
Quote:i'm fine with that. But you haven't mentioned FUN. You only mentioned "reliable making money" which is not fun (well some people say carebears have fun of making money tho)
Where did I claim I was presenting an exhaustive list of the reasons why people gank?
Quote:Quote:Yes, the carebears have made that assumption. only if you speak about goons and other "l33t pvpers". Because carebears never say they need to move to 0.0 or CCP HAVE TO move lvl4s into low- or 0.0.
That doesn't make any sense. How does calling for a reduction in the income that can be earned in the extraordinary safety of HS mean that you subscribe to the (incorrect) assumption that PvP doesn't belong in HS? 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 |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3211
|
Posted - 2013.04.15 16:27:00 -
[10] - Quote
Selene Nask wrote:I'm now a miner that fits for maximum yield when in HS. Why? It's not because I don't know better. It's because getting ganked happens so rarely that even if it does the cost of getting a new barge is outweighed by the amount of ore I regularly bring in. Its a loss easily absorbed. I knowingly increase risk for yield and chosen to take the consequences of doing so. It's the balance between personal risk and reward that makes EVE interesting to me and the game gives a player oodles of choice in deciding where the balance point is for them.
I always get yelled at when I include "accept the risks and move on" on my list of valid ways to deal with ganking.
Why do you get a pass? 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 |
|
|
|
|