You quoted me answering someone else...

As for people not flying freighters, their sales have not changed for the past year so it would seem they are not being impacted at all by a handful getting killed a month. So again, we see more evidence showing this to not be an issue at all.

Its the perfect response to someone who just said that it is going to start to drive off players and will hurt sub numbers because quite clearly it hasn't and won't.

You should reread your own quotes. I did not edit them in anyway, shape or form.

You ******* said that ****. VERBATIM.

Those are your own godamn words.

Making what up?

Feel free to go check my answer 9 pages back... and 8 pages back.... and 7 pages back, ect.

Who was the someone else?

It really shouldn't be too hard to ask that if you're going to claim something, atleast be honest.

GǪwhich is nice, since it shows that I at no point said freighters were the reason the fixed the timers.

I said that there were ways of abusing the timers, and that these abuses were removed because they were stupid. Just because freighters were among the many types of ships that abused them doesn't mean that freighters were the only reason the timers were fixed. There were far bigger fish to fry.

The reason freighters keep coming up in the quotes is because that's the topic at hand and because it's being suggested that they GÇö specifically GÇö should be allowed to get their timer-abuse ability back for no particular reason.

GǪand they don't include GÇ£freighters abusing the timers was the basis for the changeGÇ¥. Everyone abusing the timers GÇö in any ship that could (i.e. pretty much all of them) GÇö was the basis for changing them. The abuse was the reason for the change; not freighters. Freighters were just not given special pardon (because why they hell should they), and thus, when people say that freighters should be given special pardon from this change, I ask GÇ£why the hell should they?GÇ¥

Get it? Or are you a complete imbecile?

The things I supposedly said, but which are all a figment of your imagination (or, to be a bit more kind: a figment of you reading far too much into thingsGǪ which is much the same thing).

PeHD0M, page 40.

Regardless of which, baltec has claimed that ganking is at an all time LOW.

Look, it's simple.

In the scenario this thread has generated, the gank would not have been accomplished had it not been for the manipulation of 2 mechanics.

Both sides were stupid.

"mistakes were made" and all that.

Trying to argue about who said what for this reason is just doing nothing.

The facts still remain; the gank shouldn't have been successful. But it was.

The mechanics should still be looked at, for reasons other than the fact a freighter died.

A pilot, of a ship unable to perform combat, was stuck in place with mechanics that when applied, created a situation that should be a concern for the dev staff to take a look at and decide if it is in fact working as intended, or would need further research and/or tweaking.

As much as we all have our own opinions, it will not be a right or wrong aspect since we obviously will drive this thread into the ground and none of us are admitting to being a dev, so therefore the point is moot.

44 Pages of bad players insisting that freighters should be able to log off to avoid dying when people shoot at them.

lol

Look, it's simple.

In the scenario this thread has generated, the gank would not have been accomplished had it not been for the manipulation of 2 mechanics.

Both sides were stupid.

"mistakes were made" and all that.

Trying to argue about who said what for this reason is just doing nothing.

The facts still remain; the gank shouldn't have been successful. But it was.

The mechanics should still be looked at, for reasons other than the fact a freighter died.

A pilot, of a ship unable to perform combat, was stuck in place with mechanics that when applied, created a situation that should be a concern for the dev staff to take a look at and decide if it is in fact working as intended, or would need further research and/or tweaking.

As much as we all have our own opinions, it will not be a right or wrong aspect since we obviously will drive this thread into the ground and none of us are admitting to being a dev, so therefore the point is moot.

Actually, the mechanics were not abused and the gank should have succeeded specifically because those mechanics were put in place in order to allow a gank like this to succeed. CCP do not want you to be able to win a fight by just unplugging the god damn thing.

Hope this helps.

CCP have said that bumping to stop a target from warping is a valid tactic.

CCP put the agession mechanic in with the very goal of stopping people from logging off to escape losing their ship.

Nothing needs looking at because everything is working as intended.

Using your words, freighters are just like every other ship in the game. One specific ship using a logoff mechanic is your own special blend of asshattery.

Logoff tactic, regardless of what ship can use it, is what we are discussing concerning a freighter in this thread.

Because the aggression timer, used in conjunction with concord timers, apply to this scenario as it was executed in highsec.

Therefore, it is relevant. You are claiming it is not.

You are saying the logoff timer is why the mechanic is there. The other goon said it was to probe safe ships.

If that mechanic was put in place to halt the logging off of freighters (such as you claimed)

Whereas the mechanic, ALSO said by you (way in the beginning of the thread), was because of capitals logging off in pvp combat. You'll have to forgive me if I'm wrong, I am not going to be bothered linking that post, but it was inferred that freighters were capitals so therefore it applied to them (again was weak).

So they haven't actually said that wardecs are in any way GÇ£the best wayGÇ¥ to PvP someone in highsec.

Ok. We'll reduce it to 14 minutes 58 seconds instead. Happy? Or, hell, let's just round it off to 15 minutes to make it easy to remember.

They also said continuous following and bumping is considered harassment. Since bumping is KEEPING you from leaving, the fact of having to span multiple systems does not have to be met as criteria since both are "working as intended" as you put it.

They've said it a lot more directly than any of your nonsense about intent.

Nah, scanning takes about half as long as it used to so let's say 7:30 - nice and round.

Make no mistake, let me be clear. It's not the dying part that gives me cause for discussing the mechanic. It's the amount of time it took to get that ship even to a point of dying that should have allowed him to logoff.

Hell, I'd have petitioned it and let a GM intervene (had I cared about dying in a game) if it took some jackasses an hour from keeping me to my destination.

GǪexcept that it does not keep you from leaving. It keeps you from aligning your ship to warp out (if done correctly). You are free to leave at any time, and if they pursue you to keep bump you, then you can start building a case.

They also said continuous following and bumping is considered harassment. Since bumping is KEEPING you from leaving, the fact of having to span multiple systems does not have to be met as criteria since both are "working as intended" as you put it.

So... you have 2 omnipotent sources... which is stronger?

Here's the quick answer- we don't decide.

Nope. You are wrong.

Bumping miners is one case. Bumping for hours is another. The player tried to move to another location, but he is UNABLE do it because of said actions. Therefore:

Why do you have an issue with the amount of time it took to kill the ship? Do you believe that if people can't kill a ship in some arbitrary time limit than the other ship should instantly win?

That's dumb, mate

Some of the posters in this thread are using arguments so circular that PI is now getting involved.

An hour of being stopped from warping and then ganked is not harassment. We hold down capitals in null and low sec for much longer spans of time. This is simply a case of a gank gone bad. You can ask CCP Punkturis when she gets back and she will provide the same answer as me because that's what we were told back when crimewatch was announced.

Most people would love for their freighter to take this long to gank as that would give them a lot of time to form a defence fleet to save it.

Pursue doesn't fit when the act is "block".

That's just silly.

I agree, this isn't null or lowsec.

As to Punkturis deciding, that's kind of my point. I think this scenario warrants a petition. I don't think the combination of CrimeWatch and Concord mechanics in this scenario were why each one were designed.

Which is why I guess we end up being alpha testers /shrug.

**** your suck and **** pi. you lot are just bad. give up ffs.

Pursue fits perfectly when it's very easy to stop being blocked.

You keep getting bumped in your freighter, and you keep fighting back. This drags on for hours GÇö no harassment.
You say GÇ£screw thisGÇ¥, and leave, letting the other side do whatever they want with what remains GÇö no harassment.
They ignore your abandoned freighter and warp after youGǪ GÇö odd, but no harassment yet.
You dock up, pick up a new ship and undockGǪ

GǪand immediately gets bumped by the same people, even though you're now in a mining Moa. GÇö OooohGǪ now it has taken the first step down the road towards it being a genuine case of harassment.