|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17277
|
Posted - 2013.11.06 04:58:00 -
[1] - Quote
I agree. Something needs to be done about the idiots in highsec.
I say CCP should relax some of the many many CONCORD buffs that have happened through the years, or tone down the consequences of killing people, and make ganks a much more commonplace and worth-while practice. That should weed them out in short order.
As it is, the chances of being ganked are pretty much zero, so the idiots are allowed to maintain their idiotic ways and have no reason or incentive to adapt or adopt more clever practices. Bring back some proper risk to highsec and get rid of this silly notion that have grown that it is somehow a GÇ£safeGÇ¥ part of space. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17277
|
Posted - 2013.11.06 05:09:00 -
[2] - Quote
Clyde Belvar wrote:We are playing same game its sandbox,thats why i love eve,but lets make it same for everyone. It already is the same for everyone.
Quote:We are playing the same game,what tools do i have to not being ganked,i see killmails where faction fitted hulks getting ganked by catalyst gang,i see killmails where freighters getting ganked,what tools did eve gave me to defend against that?Indies are completely useless now too since they can be one shotted by tornados.So give me tools gainst that lol EVE gives you modules, maps, local and other in-game chat channels, support ships, market windows and cost estimates, and other players GÇö the exact same tools the gankers use. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17279
|
Posted - 2013.11.06 06:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:No it used to punish laziness and reward intelligence. Now it simply allows GǪpeople to not learn how highsec works and pretty much get away with it. No-one takes any precautions or learns how to deal with adverse sitautions because, by and large, there's just no need for it.
So on the extremely rare occasions when something does happen, it comes as a shock and they incorrectly diagnose it as a fault with the system rather than with their own behaviour.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17280
|
Posted - 2013.11.06 09:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
Daisai wrote:I agree with most of this post with regards to that ganking in high sec lately is getting a bit out of control. The interesting part is that, while many like to claim this, none can really offer any evidence to support itGǪ
GǪmuch less quantify what Gǣin controlGǥ or Gǣout of controlGǥ actually entails. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17282
|
Posted - 2013.11.06 12:29:00 -
[5] - Quote
Skeln Thargensen wrote:I've yet to hear an adequate critique of AP warp to 0. Fast travel is the reward you get for being at the keyboard. Going autopilot means it takes longer but also means you don't have to be around to personally witness the slower progress.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17282
|
Posted - 2013.11.06 12:38:00 -
[6] - Quote
Skeln Thargensen wrote:that just says eve rewards tedium. No-one is forcing you to make it tedious. The UI doesn't lock up just because your ship is travelling through space.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17282
|
Posted - 2013.11.06 12:53:00 -
[7] - Quote
Skeln Thargensen wrote:well yeah i read web sites, and this is rewarding play you say? No, I'm suggesting that you play the game instead.
Quote:and of course CCP already made it easy mode by making warp to 0 on gates available but they had to leave a crude nerf to AP in because GǪit rewards being active GÇö not that it's a nerf to AP to begin with.
Good Posting wrote:Good luck locking a tornado with a Badger before you get alpha'ed. Luck is not really a factor, since you pretty much achieve that by default. Badgers can't be alpha:d by a Tornado unless you've fitted them horribly wrong. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17282
|
Posted - 2013.11.06 13:04:00 -
[8] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Sure, but should it also be more dangerous? Yes. It comes inherent with the increased exposure.
Quote:That's what the game boils down to for many people: Either do this/that boring thing for hours or run the risk of getting into trouble... why is that? Because getting into trouble is a good thing.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17282
|
Posted - 2013.11.06 13:08:00 -
[9] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:According to whom? The fundamental design of the game: an engine fed by destruction and conflict, without which everything else would be utterly pointless.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17282
|
Posted - 2013.11.06 13:54:00 -
[10] - Quote
Skeln Thargensen wrote:semantics No. Just facts.
Quote:they made a choice not to change AP regardless. GǪand things remaining the same as always is not a nerf.
Quote:the point is that being active is entirely robotic behaviour as the aspect of gameplay is entirely uninvolving Actually, the point is that in being active, you can beGǪ you knowGǪ an active participant in the process, which solves the vast majority of problems. If you decide to single-task, then that's a problem with your working process, not with the game design.
Shalua Rui wrote:Just, it's not totally true, though... EVE is as much fueled by destruction and conflict as it is fueled by creation and harmony (ie. teamwork). At least it should be, if it want's to be a true sandbox one day... right now, the destruction and conflict part weights much heavier, that's why contrived systems like CONCORD exist. Fair enough. Of course, the ones who are complaining about he destruction and conflict are also the ones who break out in hives at the thought of creation and teamwork, so they're out in the cold regardless.
Lucas Kell wrote:I'm not opposed to ganking, I've done it myself on several occasions, but it is too easy to do and with no realistic downsides. The reason it's too easy and with no realistic downsides is because that's exactly the kind of environment the players have chosen. If they're unhappy with that choice, they can make a different one. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17295
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 07:14:00 -
[11] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:If you had been able to comprehend the first sentence you would have seen that I said "IF". And "5 T1 cats only cost 10 million (doing 1000+ dps). The number 1 in that sentence corresponds to ONE (CAT) while the number 5 corresponds to FIVE (CAT, CAT, CAT, CAT, CAT). Clearly the sentence "Since 5 T1 cats only cost 10 million (doing 1000+ dps)" refers to the cumalative of 5 (FIVE) (CINCO) (CAT, CAT, CAT, CAT, CAT) dps... Jesus H Obama. Not that it matters. 5 cats delivering 1000 DPS is still not enough to kill a Procurer. Now if they did do 1k DPS each, they'd stand a chance (the cut-off is ~700), but since that's not really possible nor what you're talking about, you're way off no matter how anyone chooses to read your claim.
Really, your sentence should read GÇ£since 5 T1 cats only do 1000+ dps, and a tanked Procurer survives 3 times that, the Procurer winsGÇ¥. Even if we mix in the irrelevant measure of cost, the Procurer wins: a 25M loss (minus insurance) against 30M (no insurance coverage) for the 15 catalysts. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17295
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 07:21:00 -
[12] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:A fully tanked mac with all slots to tank gets around 40k ehp, 5 t2 cats do 30k ehp in 10 seconds. How many seconds do you have in a .7? 10. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17295
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 07:38:00 -
[13] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Tippia wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:A fully tanked mac with all slots to tank gets around 40k ehp, 5 t2 cats do 30k ehp in 10 seconds. How many seconds do you have in a .7? 10. Confirmed. Both that you only get 10 seconds, and that IZ has no clue what he/she is talking about, per usual. I didn't want to mention it, but now that you didGǪ
GǪyeah, it looks like a Mac with all slots dedicated to tank gets around 54k EHP. This means 90 catalyst-seconds is required to take one down. So with a bit of luck it could actually survive that same group of five in 0.5. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17295
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 07:47:00 -
[14] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:No you bring 7 Mack dies. No, you bring a logi, ecm, shield-boosting command ship GÇö Mack wins.
Oh, and 7+ù600 DPS for 10s = 42k EHP, which is less than the Mack can tank anyway so the Mack doesn't die regardless. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17295
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 07:56:00 -
[15] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Hey, I just thought of a new business...
Selling shield command boosts in ganker areas. It's not exactly new GÇö I've seen plenty of offers of that kind in local. Or, wellGǪ they were offers for Orca boosts, but the idea is much the same and just requires a different (or another) ship.
Also, I don't know if enough people are at their keyboards to notice the offer, but other than that, it's a great idea. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17306
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 12:59:00 -
[16] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote: My point was that people don't tank their barges because its relatively pointless. If they all tanked them they'd still get ganked. Its cheap and easy to do. Now a solo miner ganker like you might be out of business but the New Orders and Bat Country corps don't do it for the isk, they do it for the notoriety and kill mails. They're funded quite well so the isk is no issue. Bat Country has kills on empty freighters....
Bat Country are most certainly in it for the ISK. Just because they have been gambled on courier wraps and lost or had a bad scouting call doesn't mean that profit isn't what drives the target selection. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17309
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 14:58:00 -
[17] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Gankers fly ships that are ironically profitable to gank Now that you mention itGǪ
GǪhow much does it cost to gank a one of those 10M T2-gank destroyers? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17309
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 15:13:00 -
[18] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:We here at Bat Country have a t1 frigate for such a thing. So long as we salvage the victim and scoop at least 3 t2 things then we are in profit. Why am I not surprised.
GǪand with high-dps destroyers sporting 8 T2 guns just for starters, the odds of getting 3+ seem pretty good. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17311
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 16:10:00 -
[19] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:I see the regular trolls have gone into fantasy land mode You're describing the OP, presumably?
Quote:Unfortunately we play the game in realistic land. Indeed we do, which is why we keep offering realistic numbers, tactics, and assumptions to counter your fantasies.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17311
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 16:45:00 -
[20] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:I'm playing the right game, when I started there were consequences, very bad ones GǪand those consequences are still around today. What has changed over time is people's willingness to let the gankers get off scot-free.
Quote:the game has been modified and expansion creep has gotten us to the point that EvE should not be at - No consequence killing. EvE needs to be harsh the way it was intended imo. So you're arguing for the reinstatement of insurance even when CONCORD gets involved; increased CONCORD spawn times (if not the outright removal of death-ray-style CONCORD); reduced sec status penalties for unlawful attacks; reverting to personal killrights; rolling back the HP buffs that barges and industrials have receivedGǪ you know, the changes that have made EVE a far less harsh place than it used to be?
When I was new, ganks were common-place. Now they're not. So while you're right that the game has become less harsh, the reason for this is pretty much the exact opposite of what you're claiming: killing people has been saddled with far too many consequences for it to happen with any real frequency. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17323
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 17:31:00 -
[21] - Quote
Skeln Thargensen wrote:you can't get 90K EHP out of a mack, that's what a tanky skiff can do.
best i can get out of a mack is 45K, both omnitank, even shield resists as much as possible, damage control and plate in teh lows. that's quite a difference. It gets sufficient tank, making the additional tank the Skiff offers redundant. The same with the yield: it provides sufficient yield, which makes the additional yield of the Hulk not worth the effort.
The differences are too small or just meaningless. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17324
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 18:17:00 -
[22] - Quote
Jim Era wrote:does the mack even have any decent yield? It mines pretty slow if I'm not mistaken, None of them have bad yield any more. There's just one ship for each tech level that has more (Hulk & Covetor). The others simply sit on the same baseline. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17328
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 22:06:00 -
[23] - Quote
Odethia wrote:Baaldor wrote:Teyla Amidale wrote: Couldn't say it better. Been playing eve since 2007 and its getting worse.
You are wrong and completely clueless. He is right, back then this was quite a curiosity to see people get ganked, now it happen everywhere. No, he's not. Back then, you could make a decent living from sitting on the Jita undock stealing gank loot. Now you can't. Back then, you could see CONCORD clouds on pretty much every gate along the major pipelines. Now you don't. Back then, mission hubs would be lit up on the map from fools being ganked for their faction fits. Now they're dim and even officer-fit ship fly around unmolested.
The notion that ganks were somehow rarer back then is only born out of misremembering how much business as usual they were GÇö no-one took notice because that was just the way of things. These days, they are so rare that every gank is a major event that gets a lot of attention. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17368
|
Posted - 2013.11.12 23:34:00 -
[24] - Quote
Anarkia Evangel wrote:Okay you missed the point I was making, but anyway, Empire is a busy place, blockade runners need space to cloak and run, and who wants to manually move there empty transports around empire space anyway? Anyone who wants to travel in safety. Also, since you noticed it being locked a lot while travelling, you're obviously sitting in front of the computer already, so cloaking to avoid those locks isn't asking much.
Quote:And do you expect me to make an instawarp out of every station I visit on the off chance I need to instawarp out of it? Yes. Chances are that they aren't all that many to begin with. Any station you visit with any regularity is worth the (minute) effort it takes to set up an insta GÇö doubly so if it's in a recently well-populated system. Sure, if it's a particularly empty system, you probably won't since no-one is around to go after you, but even then, if you come there often enoughGǪ
Quote:You are being unrealistic. He's being solution-oriented and pragmatic. None of what he said is particularly unrealistic GÇö it just require the tiniest amount of planning and effort. So maybe that's your complaint? He's not actually lazy? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17373
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 10:31:00 -
[25] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:While you can spin it that way to give an unrealistic view of the past, cost and sec loss were costly enough to keep it under control, one suicide pod was instant -5. GǪexcept, of course, that security costs have gone up, as have ship costs, so the unrealistic view of the past around here is yours.
That said, since costs are in every sense higher now than they were in the past, it does explain why things are under control now and why ganks were far more common back then.
Quote:It goes to the heart of the thread. If its okay to be blapping away at someone in high because they're AFK why is not okay in null? GǪbut it is okay in null, so your question doesn't make any sense. What kind of glue have you been sniffing to ever get the impression that shooting AFK people in null was not okay? It's a national sport out there, for crying out loud. The timers you're talking about have nothing to do with null or with being AFK. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
|
|