You're not fooling anyone; do you just get a kick out of forcing other people to correct you? Perhaps you're just legitimately bad at the game?

Well... you're off by at least a factor of 5 in this case. Similarly, killboard indicates that even empty freighters aren't a significant deterrent.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18502230
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18499970
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18499236
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18497615
ect.

So.... there's that.

whining about getting ganked, is probably not the guy who needs to be calling someone bad.

I do get a bit of kick seeing how mad I appear to make you.

I don't have any gank losses to whine about. I dare say you're the one whining as you seem to have an invested interest in keeping easy pvp easy.



Sorry to disappoint, but I find you immensely boring; so much so that I have trouble maintaining my naturally thorough and argumentative posting habits.

So please, let us continue.

No thanks; you offer too little return on investment.

Yes, but this is highsec we're talking about: each reset spawns CONCORD at that spot; the whole point of the exercise is to get away from that spot so you can get the additional GÇ£CONCORD is occupied elsewhereGÇ¥ time delay.

So the entire trick relies on getting the target 150km+ away from the place where the aggression took place within 15 minutes GÇö any more and he can log off; any less distance, and CONCORD doesn't have to go through the whole despawn/respawn cycle. If not, you to re-agress him, you now have CONCORD in a new spot and have to move another 150km away, and you're back to square one. So either the gankers were thoroughly incompetent (effectively failing the same gank five times in a row), or he just gave up after his first failed logoffski.

This is why I question the notion that it took 60 minutes without some serious errors made by the victim himself.

Well... you're off by at least a factor of 5 in this case. Similarly, killboard indicates that even empty freighters aren't a significant deterrent.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18502230
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18499970
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18499236
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18497615
ect.

So.... there's that.

You're not fooling anyone; do you just get a kick out of forcing other people to correct you? Perhaps you're just legitimately bad at the game?

All of those were profitable to gank and none of them were empty. We happen to be fighting a little war.

Careful; if you go telling everyone how profitable it is you'll get yourselves nerfed again.

I didn't realize the war was giving you so much financial trouble btw?

Then, by all means, silence.

I didn't realize the war was giving you so much financial trouble btw?

Its not, we are targeting enemy alts.

Its not, we are targeting enemy alts.

You're catching enemy alts (in completely random corps) in the same general area consistently every 20 minutes? Sounds legit.

Incidentally, looks like about 300m/hr per person. I have to admit that's not bad for no-risk hisec income.

ell, that does seem broken. It doesn't matter if it takes a fairly complex set of coordinated actions to pull off, if there is literally nothing one can do once picked for death, and if that death can be caused at almost no cost to the attackers, then there is a problem.

Would even warping to zero not help the freighter pilot here?

Yeah, I see. If you understand the mechanism by how and where concord spawns ships, you can ensure you don't hinder yourself in this way.

and as how the attack costs the attackers a sizeable chunk of cash, there is no problem.

1m per person per tick is on par with ammo cost; not exactly a "sizeable chunk of cash"

Why would it need more logs than the GM's have at their disposal?



I'd wager you could use 30-40 yr old techniques and still get the job done depending on what the data set looks like.



It's OK that you don't get Computer Science, but please stop saying trivial things are impossible.

If you think determining the human intention behind the events that occur in this game are trivial then you are the one who doesn't "get computer science".

1M per person also doesn't generate any kind of income, so yes, you're looking at an ever-growing loss, which quickly ends up being a sizeable chunk of cash.

I said "get the job done"; intent really doesn't matter here.

I said "get the job done"; intent really doesn't matter here.

Catalyst ganking doesn't generate income?

You're right, it doesn't. Because according to the defined dev posts and precedent, bumping someone to gank them is not actionable. In any way, shape, or form. It's within the rules, and totally allowable as a recognized tactic.

So yeah, it doesn't matter here. All of this thread is a non issue.

What happens if you log off while being bumped?

What happens if you log off while being bumped?

I missed the part where he talked about ganking and where he talked about holding someone down for an hour; can you quote those bits and the precedent for me please?

CCP considers the act of bumping a normal game mechanic, and does not class the bumping of another playerGÇÖs ship as an exploit.

We would also like to stress that if a gameplay activity is classified as being GÇ£within the rulesGÇ¥ this does not mean that we endorse, sanction or back player activity. We simply see this as emergent gameplay that has occurred due to the nature of game mechanics.

It does when the job that has to be done is determining intent.

Not at 1M a pop, no.

The precedent? Easily, it's a sticky on C&P.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=199310&find=unread

Highlights:




Bolded emphasis mine.