|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 25 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22514
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 18:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
So what we've learned here is that some people have fundamentally misunderstood what the words GÇ£griefingGÇ¥ and GÇ£problemGÇ¥ mean since they keep applying them to stuff that very obviously does not qualify as either. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22517
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 19:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
Auron Black wrote:See below for the definition of griefing I can't help noting that your link does not lead to anything remotely EVE-related, such as the EVE wiki or the EULA. It therefore isn't a definition that is in any way relevant to this game.
Quote:i would consider docking in high sec to avoid the faction popo as using "the game in unintended ways". Clearly faction popo is there to deter low standings player from enter high sec space by docking to avoid this seems unintended. No. It is entirely intended that you not only can avoid, but actively defeat the faction police. They're very specifically designed to allow for that. They deter low standings to the intended extent.
Quote:As from problem, I can entirely see how a gank could cause a player to leave, which is a problem. If they leave because they were targeted for non-consensual violence in a game that famously and very explicitly allows (and is indeed built around) non-consensual violence, then the only problem is that they picked a game they didn't actually want to play. Their leaving is not a problem. At most, their complaining about the game working as intended is a problem, but again more with the player than with the game. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22526
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 13:23:00 -
[3] - Quote
Miles Winter wrote:In my opinion, the only thing that might be necessary is to make it easier for players to respond to the gankers in some better fashion than they can right now. How on earth would you do that without breaking things? It's already laughably simple. People just choose not to do it, and making it easier won't change that choice. Changing what people can do is pointless if people actively and persistently refuse to do it under any and all circumstances.
Quote:If ganking carried a great deal of risk, would one still gank relatively 'worthless' targets like empty freighters or shuttles for no relative isk-gain? Yes.
Quote:What it tells me is that the cost of replacing a ship is low enough that people can just gank for fun. So what? Why aren't people allowed to have fun? 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22528
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 13:51:00 -
[4] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:The best solution : - All offensive modules against other players disabled in 1.0-0.9 - Instant concord in 0.8-0.7 - No concord ( only NPC milita ships) in 0.6-0.5
Issue solved. 1.Every one is safe in 1.0-0.9 2.Instant death from concord for those who try something bad in 0.8-0.7 3.More fun in 0.6-0.5 By GÇ£bestGÇ¥, you presumably mean GÇ£laughably idioticGÇ¥, right?
If not, there are a few other things that need to be removed from the 1.0GÇô0.9 systems, such asGǪ ohGǪ just about everything related to any kind of gameplay. The first two GÇ£issues solvedGÇ¥ you list are actually GÇ£massive problems createdGÇ¥. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22540
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 16:39:00 -
[5] - Quote
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:Yea I am sure getting banned on a free disposable account really stops them from from biomassing. No, but getting all their other accounts banned alongside it does. Recycled gank alts is a myth. They don't happen because a) they're not worth it, b) they're pretty much useless, and c) they're 100% unnecessary, and would still be even if they had some minute use.
Quote:The price needs to be in line with the target and its not. No. The price must not be in line with anything. If it is, the game is fundamentally and irreparably broken in every way. Price is a product, not a factor. Someone flying a multi-billion ISK freighter that took several months to train should know better than to get ganked by a few toons that have been around for years doing the same thing, and which are trivially found and traced using killboards and in-game alerts.
If they don't, then that's because the freighter pilot in question was an idiot who deserved it. His ship and training are not even relevant at that point. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22541
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 17:09:00 -
[6] - Quote
Auron Black wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:It's 100% intended in his suggestion, by the way. That's the end goal of all carebears. To lock out other people's gameplay, turn the game into Trammel. I love the absolute nonsense you spout in your posts, it is actually quite funny. Carebears couldn't care less about low sec pvp, fw or other. GǪwhich has nothing to do with what he's talking about. So there's a distinct lack of pointing out any nonsense in what he said.
Quote:It is the end goal of "all" gankers to lock out other people's gameplay, turn the game into trammel. No. They have no interest in locking out any gameplay at all. So that absolute nonsense you're talking about is in your post, not in his. That explains why you love it, I suppose. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22556
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 03:58:00 -
[7] - Quote
Nexus Day wrote:EvE is for bullies plain and simple, almost no one wants nor do mechanics support fair fights. CCP supports bullying because it is what makes this game "edgy". Plenty of people want GÇ£fairGÇ¥ fights, and there is nothing in the mechanics that prohibit them. They're as supported as all other kinds of fights.
Also, it's interesting that you'd use the word GÇ£supportGÇ¥ to describe the attitude that it is grounds for immediate bans. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22560
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 15:12:00 -
[8] - Quote
Noragli wrote:Exactly, ganking is part of the problem. When players are ganked relentlessly, in any game, a lot of them quit that game. EVE is no exception. Do you have any evidence to support this hypothesis and show that any of it is actually happening?
Quote:The system needs an update to curb this behaviour. Why?
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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22581
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 01:49:00 -
[9] - Quote
xXFreshnessXx wrote:Nah you seemed to be butthurt about AFK piloting players my friend, maybe they need to wipe yours. Let's stick to the true problem here. What GÇ£true problemGÇ¥ is that?
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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22588
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 18:43:00 -
[10] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Love this thread.
All the sociopaths are saying "ganking is hard and not as frequent". Where has any GÇ£sociopathGÇ¥ said anything like that?
Quote:Serious high sec players post the real facts about ganking. The real fact is that it is ridiculously rare GÇö a fact that serious highsec players like me have been aware of for many many years.
Quote:And the most common target of the griefers, the casual player, the ones that don't read these forums, let alone post on them, well they make their views known in the most eloquent way possible: PCU is down, subs are down after a 10 year run upwards. GǪand you have something to prove all (or any) of this, presumably? 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 2.1. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22590
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 19:44:00 -
[11] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:I'm sure others can provide a far more exhaustive list of demands that have backfired hilariously on those who did the demanding. My favourite is ninja salvaging GÇö a result of mission runners begging on their knees for the ability to salvage without looting first. There's also canflipping GÇö takign the methodology miners came up with to reduce their downtime and instead using it to reduce them to wrecks. Or, hell, incursions GÇö players asking for harder rats and more PvP-like encounters, and something like 50,000 of them blow up on the first day and they get infiltrated by people who understand how CONCORD interacts with fleet mechanicsGǪ 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22597
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 23:36:00 -
[12] - Quote
Organic Lager wrote:PvP is not the "core" purpose of the game. This is a sandbox the core purpose is what ever you want it to be. GǪand being a sandbox means that PvP is at the core of the game GÇö it's the only way for a multiplayer sandbox to actually work. It means that to do what you want to do, you first have to enforce that wish on other players who might (or more likely will) wish for the exact opposite to happen. Pretty much everything you do is done in competition with other players GÇö PvP. The only way for this to not be true is to either instance the game so heavily that it almost disqualifies itself from being multiplayer (and definitely not an MMO) or to so heavily restrict player choices that it no longer qualifies as a proper sandbox.
More than that, though, the game is a war-economy simulator where the broken window fallacy isn't a fallacy but part of the engine that makes the game turn around. PvP Combat is a core purpose because it's what creates the demand that gives the supply-side a purpose, and without those, the real core of the game GÇö the market GÇö in turn loses its purpose.
e: GǪin fact, calling it GÇ£PvPGÇ¥ is thoroughly inaccurate. Combat is a core component in creating demand; the PvP is (once again) everywhere GÇö on the demand side, on the supply side, and on the market side.
Quote:Eve appeals to all sorts of players for all sorts of different reasons, so stop this nonsense about "you're playing wrong". Just one problem with that: there is a very clear way of playing the game wrong, namely to try to ignore (or, worse, try to abolish) the PvP aspects that run through every last bit of the game. Capt Starfox has it exactly right: you don't have to PvP, but you simply have to accept that others will not particularly care about your wishes and PvP you anyway.
Thinking that you can be exempt from the PvP is indeed playing the game wrong for the simple reason that the game does not support that one particular choice. The sandbox concept itself inherently has limits to what it can support, and treating it as a not-sandbox is one of those. It can be GÇ£played wrongGÇ¥ just as much as any other design. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22599
|
Posted - 2014.06.26 00:04:00 -
[13] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:[Skiff, Brick]
[GǪ]
117k EHP. To put that into perspectiveGǪ
[Charon, Charon fit]
Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II
164k EHP.
A ship that, contrary to the core claim of this thread, is very rarely ganked and is only really targeted unless it carries billions worth of cargo (which a mining ship never will) because of the considerable co-ordination and pre-planning required to do so, has just 40% more hitpoints than the brick miner does.
Any claim that there are no tools available for the self-imposed victims is nothing but sheer and wilful ignorance, bordering on outright stupidity. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22599
|
Posted - 2014.06.26 00:14:00 -
[14] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:It also has a little over twice as much tank as my Harpy fleet Megathron. To be fair, I think that says more about your Megathron obsession than about the SkiffGǪ 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22599
|
Posted - 2014.06.26 00:29:00 -
[15] - Quote
Organic Lager wrote:In order to pvp someone has to make the ships, which could depending on how you look at it be an entirely pve activity. The only way to look at it and make it GÇ£an entirely PvE activityGÇ¥ is to completely ignore reality. At no point are you pitted against any part of the environment GÇö everything you do is done in competition with other players. It's PvP through and through.
Quote:If you remove the pvp entirely players could still go out, mine and manufacture, bigger and bigger ships, mind you the game would be shallow and hugely unsuccessful. It also wouldn't be multiplayer, but rather a part of the X series of games.
Quote:Now if you remove the pve, mining and manufacturing, from the game, well the entire system ceases to exist. If you remove the PvE, we have to rely on ship insurance as the only source of ISK, which is probably not enough to grease the market engine, and the economy would have to be barter-based. The system would still work, though GÇö just be a fair bit more cumbersome.
The (PvP) market. And again, no-one is saying that you have to take part in any particular activity. What we're saying that are not in full control of that choice GÇö the activity may very well take part of you, irrespective of your wishes. Ignoring this very simple fact is indeed to play the game wrong. It is treating a multiplayer game as if there were no other players; it is treating the sandbox as if it didn't apply to those other players; and it is treating activities as if they existed in isolation from each other. All of those things are 100% wrong.
Again, it is just as possible to play a multiplayer sandbox wrong as it is any other type of game GÇö in this case by trying to treat it as a single-player non-sandbox GÇö and the whingers are frighteningly often doing exactly that. Their problems exist solely and entirely because they fail to play the game properly. There are really no two ways about it.
Quote:It's honestly a very small portion of the destruction of sand castles and no one (that i've seen) has said remove it, just to make it more cost restrictive to gank empty or unprofitable targets. GǪand there is absolutely no reason to impose such a restriction, especially since the goal is very blatantly to indirectly trying to remove it completely. As baltec1 puts it: GÇ£just one more nerfGÇ¥ is the constant cry no matter how many nerfs are being rolled out, and they have proven beyond any doubt that they will not stop with the inane mewling until it is gone. They're being dishonest, and they're being hypocrites by trying do exactly what they incorrectly accuse the gankers of doing. They keep trotting out lie after lie to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ their fully disproven fantasies about the state of the game. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22661
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 11:48:00 -
[16] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:is this thread STILL going on.
Love the double-standard, ISD. Something about "constructive posting" and "redundant posting"?
Or does that only apply when a non-griefer posts? What double standard? It's a reasonably constructive thread; it makes other threads on the topic redundant since this one covers everything already; and it is the only thread needed at the moment.
And yes, incorrectly crying about GÇ£griefingGÇ¥ in relation to activities that very clearly don't count as griefing is indeed a good way to get your thread locked, which is why the OP stays away from that particular trap. He's just critiquing the (assumed) commonness of ganking, and suggesting an idea to fix this (as it turns out incorrectly) assumed problem. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22745
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 20:22:00 -
[17] - Quote
Gavin Dax wrote:Re ganking specifically - I checked evekill, saw a number of freighters ganked with full bulkheads in 0.5 and <500 mil in cargo. Only 20 catalysts were used for the ganks. This is a joke. How is it a joke that 20 people can kill 1? I suppose the fact that they needed 20 is a bit of a joke GÇö it doesn't seem entirely reasonable that they have to be that numerous.
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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22745
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 21:22:00 -
[18] - Quote
Gavin Dax wrote:The cost is out of balance Tippia. Cost is not a balancing factor. This has been proven time and time again in every game where it has been attempted (even in EVE, where this flawed thinking gave us supercaps, which remain a balancing ballache to this day). Again, if anything is out of balance it is the fact that it takes 20 people to kill 1.
Quote:It should not be possible to gank a +1 billion ISK hull, especially one supposedly design for transport, so cheaply. Why not? Why should the value of the hull make any difference in how easily you can kill it?
Quote: It should *at least* cost the same amount as the hull cost to gank a freighter. No, never. What you're describing is a recipe for an utterly disastrous lack of balance in every regard. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22745
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 21:26:00 -
[19] - Quote
Gavin Dax wrote:What? Cost shouldn't matter? What's the reason for that exactly? Because it has exactly two results: massive imbalance and making almost everything in the game obsolete. Because if cost determines capability, you've reduced the game to a single stat GÇö wallet size.
Quote:Think armored car in RL No, think the armoured can in a game. It should take a single (very cheap, disposable, and near-universally available) rocket launcher to take it out. Or better yet, think a bulk hauler in space game. It should take a single pirate ship to steal the entire load.
Gavin Dax wrote:Tippia wrote:Why should the value of the hull make any difference in how easily you can kill it? [Incomprehensible blubbering noises] Answer the question: Why should the value of the hull make any difference in how easily you can kill it? 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22745
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 22:28:00 -
[20] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:Back Up? Maybe I'm just inexperienced at this but I don't understand what kind of back up you can have in high sec. Low and Null different story but high sec? What am I missing here? You can have the same in high as everywhere else: scouts, logis, links, ewar, and GÇö quite simply GÇö a whole bunch of firepower. 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 2.1. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22745
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 23:07:00 -
[21] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:Links I can see being helpful. The rest of this I just don't see. Gankers are counting on loosing their ships to concord and you can't shoot them until they shoot you first because of that:
-a logi pilot will only get a couple of cycles off so I don't see that being all that helpful
-scouts are useless you already know what the gank systems are and the gates there are perma camped by known gankers. I'm not sure what useful intel you think a scout will give you
-Ewar and firepower both of those again you need to wait for the gankers to shoot first so while they can be helpful in reducing the incoming dps by a small margin I doubt enough to make it worth using.
-The web trick does not work as well as it used to and I doubt well enough to get you warped out before a freighter blows up. A logi will outright nullify the damage output of 1GÇô2 ships, forcing them to bring that many moreGǪ which they must have done beforehand, or the gank outright fails. Scouts will tell you where the gankers are; where stuff has happened in the recent past; where people are currently out of play because they are waiting for their timers to tick down. Ewar and firepower will nullify ships, again forcing them to have brought more than they needed. The web trick has not changed GÇö it works as well as ever, if not better since you can travel-fit your freighters now.
More to the point, if they see you flying alongside these, you have now become a hard target. Or, put another way GÇ£not worth-whileGÇ¥. They'll pick someone else.
Quote:I think the thing you are also neglecting to acknowledge here is that if you brought a logi and an ewar and some dps that's nothing that couldn't be overcome by adding one or two more gank ships which is not a huge expense. No, I'm not neglecting it. I'm counting on it GÇö or, more accurately, I'm accounting for what's needed for them to still be effective. You're neglecting the fact that they can't just conjure up two or more ships out of thin air at will when it turns out that what they brought isn't enough. Any ship you nullify massively increases the chance of the gank failing. Yes, they can try to counter that by bringing more from the get-go, but that means they will not be able to drum up a working gank fleet as often, making your life safer regardless.
That Hurricane I listed should fairly reliably nullify 3GÇô4 ships on its own (but the gankers will have to chime in on the viability of it), and boost the freighter to where 2GÇô3 more ships are needed to begin with. And that's for one of them. Where will they find the 7 extra ships and the people who can be arsed to fly them just to counter your singular presence? 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22745
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 23:33:00 -
[22] - Quote
Oooh! Comedy option: Scimitar or even Basilisk with all those mids filled with ECM, and the lows with SDAs. Or, hell, anything with midslots will do, soGǪ Badger II ECM Tayra GÇö nothing like spanking gankers in an indy. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22746
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 00:00:00 -
[23] - Quote
Gavin Dax wrote:There's no problem with ganking mechanics as they are now if the intention is for EVE to be a game primarily for sadists. If there's supposed to be "space for everyone" though, then there is a problem when it comes to HS ganking whether you like it or not. There is plenty of space for everyone as it is, without having to be a sadist. What you have to be is aware GÇö that is all.
Quote:I don't think HS should be "safe", but right now the issue is that it's simply too safe for pirates - specifically, it's just not risky enough to gank. Gank targets also have almost no way to fight back - kill rights and war decs are supposed to provide some form of this in the game but they fail miserably. How is it not risky? They automatically lose everything; they might not even get to the gank because they get destroyed beforehand; they have to contend with the RNG, the loot fairy, and the local chancers; and they are almost entirely at the mercy at the decisions made by the targets. No viable target GÇö no gank. Above all, if it's that risk-free, how come it is so exceedingly rare? Why aren't ship blowing up all over the place with pirates flocking to the activity?
And there are plenty of ways to fight back, many of them listed in this thread. What you mean to say is that GÇ£gank targets have almost no will to fight backGÇ¥, because that is literally the only thing that is stopping them. They give up, they soak up the loss, maybe whine a bit, and then do nothing. And all of that is after they've made the decision to be hapless victims rather than hard targets, which is another way they can fight back (but refuse to).
The reason it never happens is because a) the persistent but 100% false myth that nothing can be done so people refuse to even try, b) laziness, both intellectual and in terms of actually putting in an utterly minute smidgen of work, so even if they don't refuse for mythical reasons, they refuse because of :effort:
baltec1 wrote:Locking time on a hauler WeeeellGǪ ok then.
ergherhdfgh wrote:When you travel through any of the high 0.5 sec gates on the main pipes you see dozens of gankers sitting there and I know of no ship that can lock up dozens of ships at once so you need wait and see who shoots and wait for them to go red before you can lock and either ECM them or shoot at them in either case they only plan on making it about 15 seconds or so anyway so if you can't even attempt to shoot or jam them for 5 or so seconds you are not taking that ship out of the equation only reducing it's effectiveness. You don't have to lock dozens of them. You just have to lock 2GÇô3 and nullify them. That's all it takes for the gank to fail. More to the point, if you see a dozen ganker hanging around a gate, you don't have to lock any of them to make the gank fail. All you do is pick another route.
Quote:For gankers to add another ship or two just incase you have help which they will do if more people start having escorts is not a huge expense increase but having escorts is. It costs them far more than the escort does. More ISK is lost; the loot has to be split in more portions; and above all, you have to actually find those extra people to sit around for ages doing nothing. Cost comes in more forms than just ISK GÇö good old labour cost is one of them and it is hugely expensive, here as everywhere else. The half a dozen additional gankers needed inherently means far higher labour costs than the single escort pilot. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22746
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 00:11:00 -
[24] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Gavin Dax wrote: I don't think HS should be "safe", but right now the issue is that it's simply too safe for pirates - specifically, it's just not risky enough to gank.
If ganking was as truly riskless as people claim then a lot more people would be doing it. Despite their best efforts gankers only make a small dent in freighter traffic, for every one they gank, many more complete their journeys. If the odds of getting ganked are worse than 1 in 20 in the pipes and 1 in 10 in the chokes I'd be surprised. Even those odds seem insanely high, as in GÇ£off by an order of magnitude or threeGÇ¥. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22747
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 00:19:00 -
[25] - Quote
Gavin Dax wrote:Ok. Punishments for ganking: 1. You get a kill right on you. So what? It's not like you gank with your incursion running character. 2. You lose sec status. So what? What you lose is a minor deterrent right now at best 3. You lose your ship. So what? Your ship was cheap as &*@! 1. So the next time you try, someone will activate it and you'll die prematurely and the gank will fail. 2. So the next time you try, someone will kill you prematurely and the gank will fail. 3. So you have to pick your targets with care, or the gank will be an economic failure.
Quote:1. Tears from someone who lost way more than you did (guaranteed, no way for them to meaningfully fight you back, even in HS) 2. Possible shiny things 1. Far from guaranteed, partly because some simply don't tear up and partly because they have meaningful ways to fight back if they choose to and might be plotting for that kind of revenge instead. 2. In other words, subject to random chance.
Quote:If you want your gameplay in HS though, you should have to risk more in the interest of a balanced game (if people other than you matter). As others have already said, the effort required to protect yourself in HS is simply too great. That's why nobody ever does it. No, the effort is not GÇ£too greatGÇ¥. The effort just isn't non-zero, and that is more than people are willing to put in. That is not a balance problem GÇö that's people willingly and actively choosing to be hapless victims. Plenty of people do it, which is how they manage to never get ganked and why there is an entire (highly profitable) industry built around nothing but hauling.
So why should the gankers have more risk just because some lazy players absolutely, positively refuse to do anything at all to protect themselves? How is it in any way a balance problem that these players are, to put not too fine a point on it, idiots? 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22747
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 00:33:00 -
[26] - Quote
Gavin Dax wrote:lol ur funny
I'm done responding now since GǪyou are incapable of actually provide any kind of rational argument or supporting evidence to back up your point. I understand GÇö that's ok. These are not exactly obscure or esoteric facts we're discussing, but stuff that's very well known so it's hard for you to actually argue against them.
If you've honestly decided to stop perpetuating the silly myths of the untouchable and risk-free gank and instead accept these facts, then that's excellent news. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22752
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 13:36:00 -
[27] - Quote
Lenn Elei wrote:I'm not against the ganking aspect of Eve, however, I think that it's far too easy for the killer to abandon the wreck and let a neutral player loot it without any trouble. EhmGǪ so the impossible is deemed Gǣfar too easyGǥ in matters that relate to ganking and is now grounds for just one more nerf? You people are really going off the deep end here.
You understand that there is no wreck for the killer to abandon, right? So yeah, no. Please provide a rational reason why ganking needs to be nerfed in any way whatsoever. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22771
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 18:10:00 -
[28] - Quote
Conar wrote:Any negative impact on the ganker can be overcome. Loose a ship, buy a new one with the dropped loot. No loot dropped, work for someone who builds freighters. The Sec status goes to crap, rat a little, that will fix it.
Might as well remove any negative impact. Funny how all of the things you listed hold even more true for hauling. I suppose that means that we might as well see ganking as non-existent and in desperate need of a buff.
Quote:To those of you who go on and on about all the extra steps a freighter pilot could do to prevent being blown up.... Lets see a few buffs where the ganker has to stop being lazy instead of just getting a few alt destroyers together. You mean like every change to CONCORD and ganking ever? There have been plenty of those, and the gankers have had to adapt. So let's instead see a few buffs so that haulers have to stop being lazy instead of just going AFK and still have ~0% chance of a loss.
Quote:I have no idea what that would look like but it truly is not a balanced system. Yes you do. It would look exactly like EVE of today because what you're asking for has already happened more than a dozen times. You're entirely correct, though: it's not a balanced system GÇö ganking is far too difficulty, risky, and consequently rare an occurrence since the the whole system is so massively imbalanced in the haulers' favour.
Fabulous Rod wrote:listen to this no-life, forum moron try to act like anyone gives a damn what he thinks.
Still arguing with everyone endlessly I see. Kaadoofus could you be any more ridiculous? So you agree with him fully, then, seeing as how you are incapable of addressing or actually disagreeing with anything of what he said and have to go straight for the ad hominems. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22772
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 18:19:00 -
[29] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:that one's full of insults, but really, insults aren't ad hominem He's very clearly trying failing to dismiss his arguments based on his person GÇö the insults are just a rule-breaking cherry on the top.
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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22777
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 23:07:00 -
[30] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:I have to agree with you on this but for a freighter pilot even one loss in 100 is huge since they loose so much with one loss and make so little on one trip. Last that I checked a freighter it's self cost about a Billion and it's not hard to fill them with another Billion in cargo or deposit fee for a contracted load. Loosing 2+ Billion isk when you only stand to make a few million on a load it takes a **** ton of loads to make up for one loss. The solution to this is to not be greedy. It's 1 in 100 when including the people who massively overload their ships. Remove that anomaly and you'll see the odds shoot up by a few more orders of magnitude.
Quote:The other thing to think about is the gankers are risking nothing. Why should we think about something that is blatantly untrue?
Quote:The freighter pilot on the other hand has everything to loose and very little to gain. GǪand a crapton of tools at his disposal to ensure that he doesn't lose everything and just keep the gains from the trip. If he chooses to ignore these tools, then that's his decision, his error, and his problem GÇö not something the game should fix. He was stupid; the game punishes stupidity; everything is as it should be.
Quote:It's the new pilots that are affected the most by this If by GÇ¥the mostGÇ¥ you mean GÇ£not in the slightestGÇ¥ then yes. You see, new pilots don't have freighters and they certainly don't have billions worth of cargo to lose. They are not targets for ganks. The only people affected by this are the idiots, the lazy ones, and the extreme gamblers who know the risks but just GÇö entirely correctly GÇö think it most likely won't happen to them. None of those need any additional protection. Quite the opposite.
Quote:All that I am saying is that there is nothing even close to risk versus reward balance on this like CCP claims they aim for. It is if you ignore the persistent but thoroughly ignorant and disproven myth that the gankers have little to no risk and instead actually take into account what both they and the target have to do in order for the gank to go off successfully. If anything, the risk very obviously is too low for the hauler when you consider how ridiculously rare it is. 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 2.1. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22777
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 04:14:00 -
[31] - Quote
Missed this oneGǪ
ergherhdfgh wrote:you don't know which 2-3 they are until they start shooting at you. There are choke points in some cases that can not be avoided without going into low sec which I doubt you are advising freighter pilots to do. Yes you do. It's the 2GÇô3 ones camping the gate. Because no, contrary to popular (baseless) belief, there are not scores of different groups on every gate. They're a rare breed to begin with, and bunching up in one spot ruins the profitability, don't'cha know.
And yes, there is always a way around them GÇö the most simple of which just involves going straight through three times rather than one. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22778
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 12:10:00 -
[32] - Quote
Guttripper wrote:Unless you're Han Solo. Originally, Han shot Greedo first without any reaction. But then GM George Lucas patched it so Greedo at point blank range shot a blaster like any good Storm Trooper and missed with Han reacting and shooting second. But most, if not all fans - including a recent picture of Harrison Ford on the set of the new Star Wars movie holding a hand written sign stating "Han shot first." feel Han Solo was wronged with the GM patch. So therefore, in a round-about way, Han did "shoot back first" if everyone momentarily ignores the GM patch. To be fair, it really shouldn't be about Han shooting first, but about Han shooting, period. In the original, that was all that happened GÇö there was no first and second shot, just the single one that blew up Greedo while he was mouthing off, which as mentioned is probably a direct lift from Tuco. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22781
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 14:20:00 -
[33] - Quote
Conar wrote:But lets be honest, NO Freighter is safe no matter what mods you put on or this backup you speak of. If a group wanted to gank a ship that was doing everything right, there is a 100% chance that it would get blown up. Am I right? No. Let's be actually honest rather than perpetuate a thoroughly disproven myth.
If a group wanted to gank a ship that was doing everything right, there is a 0% chance that it would get blown up. It comes inherent with GÇ£doing everything rightGÇ¥ and with the design that there are numerous situations where you simply cannot be targeted or hurt.
If they gankers absolutely, positively want to kill a target, they can increase their chances by throwing more and more firepower at in increasingly obscure and surprising situations, but there is no such thing as a guaranteed kill. Short of having hundreds of people on, 23.5/7, in every system for 5 jumps, there will be gaps, and even that kind of blockade can be overcome fairly trivially. This is not null GÇö there are no bubbles and other mass-AoE weaponry that lets you get your man with a half-miss.
Some times the gankers win, some times they lose, and most of the time they don't even get to compete. The only imbalances are how easy it is for the hauler to shift the whole equation into the latter two categories and how little say the gankers have in the matter. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22781
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 15:16:00 -
[34] - Quote
Conar wrote:I am not asking for change, just an honest answer that there is an imbalance. Yes, there is an imblance: ganking is far too difficult and rare right now and could use a few buffs. Dialling back the CONCORD response would probably be a good first step. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22786
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 17:50:00 -
[35] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:Far too difficult? Oh come on. I sat, and watch Code the other night literally non stop Gank all night long. You are NEVER going to tell me Ganking is far to difficult, after that display. How many others do you see ganking? How much co-ordination goes into the display you saw? How many of the targets were anything other than static objects in space?
If it wasn't difficult, you'd see it lots of it all over the place rather than in exceedingly rare numbers from a very minute community of specialists. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22786
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 18:13:00 -
[36] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:Why should a Ganker not organize and co-ordinate a strike, when everyone else has to, to survive the gank? You got that backwards. Why don't the targets organise when the gankers have to (due to how difficult the game has made it for them)? Simple: because there's little reason for them to do so. The fact that gankers organise and targets do not perfectly illustrate the imbalance.
The fact that an organisation such as CODE only really succeeds at any level against paper-thin and unfitted ships also perfectly illustrates the imbalance. So yes. It is far too difficult GÇö neither the level of organisation nor the very narrow target selection should be necessary. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22791
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 19:25:00 -
[37] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:Since I started EvE Ganking has always been about blowing up Indies, miners in particular. Yes you do get the odd occasion a combat ship gets Ganked, but lets be honest, it's rare. Usually they are tricked into combat.
You talk about paperthin? I seen Code take out 2 Hulks 1 Orca, AND had time to take out a POD. Like everything this game should be. Organisation, should be the only route to success. GǪso, again, why do the gankers have to organise and the targets do not? They can survive just fine without that organisation by actually fitting their ships. The targets you talk about were most likely not tanked at all or anti-tanked to make them easier than ever to blow up. Yes. They are paper thin GÇö the Hulk in particular is designed to be paper thin, and while the Orca can be made to stand a lot of punishment, it is just as easy to make it an easier kill than some barges (and guess which way the miners go on that choiceGǪ).
Gankers that organise and go after ships that are easier than the baseline of an already easy-to-kill ship gets a few kills. If you don't see the massive imbalance in that one-sided requirement, I just don't know what to say.
Quote:Just because they don't have to, does not make it imbalanced. Yes it does, by very definition. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22792
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 20:21:00 -
[38] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:You can Gank quite adequately without much organisation. Just fly to any Roid belt with an AFK miner. I just did it now. Within 5 minutes I had scanned and evaluated a target. They were none the wiser. Retriever with no tank. 0.7 security. What 3 Cata's? (I genuinely do not know). GǪso you spent 60 man-minutes (compared to his 1); you were entirely reliant on what he did; and you madeGǪ how much?
Quote:To survive a Gank you have to be prepared, organised and very lucky. Not really, no. To survive a gank, you have to fit a tank and be very very very very unlucky (or just stupid) to be targeted to begin with.
So, again: why do the gankers have to organise and go after a very tiny selection of targets (entirely reliant on the stupidity of the target), and the targets do not? Oh, and why is it that gankers GÇö even if they take every precaution they can GÇö still have to be lucky many times over to get a positive result, and the targets don't?
If there is any imbalance at all, it is massively in the favour of the target. Any argument based on balance must come in one of two forms: more power to the gankers, or something that could only (with the highest degree of generosity) be described as sheer idiocy without even the slightest hint of connection to any kind of rational thinking or reality. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22797
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 22:08:00 -
[39] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:Way to go in forgetting so much about what is available in game. Way to go in not answering the question and going off on a very odd and disconnected straw-man tangent.
Quote:The Indy is also reliant on what the Gankers do Not really, no. He's reliant on himself GÇö it's his decisions that determine the encounter. The gankers are pretty much entirely reactive in the process.
Quote:This is blatantly untrue. No matter how you tank. A Gank can and will take you out. Can, yes. Will, no. You could conceivably be taken out of you tank, but you won't be because the gankers will go after a target they can readily kill with what they have at hand. And again, that's if you're so very very very very unlucky as to be targeted to begin with. So all you need to survive is a tank and some bad luck.
Quote:Quite simply that is the Gankers prey. They don't want to shoot combat ships. They want to shoot soft easy targets. GǪaaaand? Why do the gankers have to organise and go after a small selection of targets and the targets not organise at all? Just because the gankers pick among the targets that are available to them does not mean that the selection is ridiculously small and that this in and of itself highlights a massive imbalance.
And no, playing that tanking your hull is not organising. Tanking your hull is fitting your ship. Absolutely no organisation is needed. Nice Pathetic try on the false equivocation though. Or waitGǪ no, it is nice, because when people start pulling out the fallacies like that, and like with the entire initial straw man, you already know where it's headed.
Quote:Ganking is not hard pure and simple. GǪand yet it is far too difficult, as proven by its rarity, the minute target selection, the vanishingly small number of people doing it, and that it relies entirely on the litany of mistakes the target has to do in order to enable them. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22799
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 23:01:00 -
[40] - Quote
Nexus Day wrote:Miners should not have to "gear up" to mine in an area that is supposedly protected by law just like I don't go around wearing a bullet proof vest in the middle of the USA. Well, as soon as they implement such an area in EVE, I'm sure they can start thinking about skipping that part.
If they want to do it in highsec, though GÇö an area that doesn't really have any protection, only retribution as a cost disincentive GÇö they most definitely should.
Quote:And why should gankers have to organize to kill a target in hi-sec? Really? Does the question even have to be asked? Since the targets don't have to and since the argument has been made that there is a lack of balance, yes. After all, that's the only real point of imbalance there is: one party have to organise and actually do some planning, and the other does not.
Quote:Punishment does not equal the crime in EvE, please discuss that point. We are. The punishment should be reduced a fair bit. In some cases, it should probably be voided completely since it's more of a service to the community than a crime, but that would require some pretty sophisticated intent- and activity-calculating pseudo-AI so I wouldn't get my hopes up. 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 2.1. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22803
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 23:59:00 -
[41] - Quote
Hasikan Miallok wrote:The reason for the confict is simple. It's all based on false premises and uninformed assumptions? Yeah, sounds about right.
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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22815
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 14:37:00 -
[42] - Quote
Yun Kuai wrote:Tippia you are so mad it's not even funny anymore. Quit trying to troll people so hard because you're starting to derail the thread. I have to start before I can quit, and I think you might have me confused with someone else if you believe that madness or anger (can't tell which you're referring to) is a factor.
Quote:Gankers don't have a small, minute target selection available to them through game-breaking mechanics. Yes they do, because guess what it is that determines what they can kill in the given timeframe and without an obscenely imbalanced amount of manpower thrown at the problem? What do you think it is that determines the cost and pay-out of a gank? And no-one has said that the mechanics in question are game-breaking, only that if there is any kind of imbalance involved, it is heavily in favour of the target.
So I guess you've earned the same answer: nice pathetic try on the straw man and ad hominem. Or waitGǪ no, it is nice, because when people start pulling out the fallacies like that, you already know where it's headed.
Quote:Really gankers complain they can't easily kill someone who's put a lot of ISK into their ship using ships that are cheap and replaceable Are they? And if they are, that sounds about right. Putting a lot of ISK into a ship is not a valid reason for it being difficult to kill with cheap ships. That line of thinking is, in fact, one of the most painfully obvious roads to complete imbalance. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22830
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 20:18:00 -
[43] - Quote
Altessa Post wrote:Sorry to tell you but I do not believe CCP that they really investigate into alt recycling. Have you reported any?
Quote:I just witnessed a freighter gank where around 15 catalysts flew in with nice standing. Considering the current gank rate, the fact that it is always the same Machariel pilot doing the freighter bumping, I have a hard time believing that they recruit a new set of 10-20 pilots for a gank. GǪand the age of these 15 characters were? What do their kill history look like?
Because the ganking rate you point to is very very low; the ability to regain sec status is both universal and fairly quick; and that the cost and time required to build a useful gank alt is fairly high for what you get. So security status alone tells us little to nothing.
Quote:If CCP would enforce their own rules gankers would fly in being cherry red like the baboon derrieres they are. Not really, no. That would only happen if they couldn't be arsed to rebuild their sec staus between ganks, and they have plenty of time and opportunity to do that. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22830
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 20:28:00 -
[44] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:I should imagine it is more a case of Disposable account. It takes what 3 weeks to create a gank char? That leaves a month if subbed that account. to go ganking. When sub runs out. stop using account and sub the next one.
Maybe it is too much tinfoil, but definitely a possibility. The simplest and most obvious argument against alt recycling (or disposable accounts) has always been that it simply doesn't serve any useful purpose. It's a whole lot of time and money to throw away for no real benefit GÇö even more so these days when you can just pay your way to non-red status.
Oh, and disposable accounts will get you just as banned (and eventually your card/steam/amazon details blacklisted), so that's probably an even worse idea than just recycling them. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22831
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 20:58:00 -
[45] - Quote
Altessa Post wrote:The proposal to "report them" is silly. I do not have the data to prove a violation. So don't come here and throw around accusations. Either you have enough to support your suspicion, in which case you have all you need to report them, or you don't, in which case you have nothing to bleat about.
Quote:Until today, I did believe that alt recycling is not a common practice. Yet, after my observation in Niarja I have my doubt. Why? Nothing of what you described shows any particular sign of recycling.
Quote:Can somebody from CCP comment whether you actually do investigate into alt recycling? Yes. Open a support ticket. Or, hell, just report the people you suspect and see what happens.
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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22845
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 05:05:00 -
[46] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:They dedicate an alt to suicide ganking, and never bother fixing the low standings. Thus, the standing hit ceases to be a consequence. Eh, how does that remove the consequence (i.e. having low standings)?
Quote:Will this stop suicide ganking? No, of course not. But it will return us to "actions have consequences". How do you return to a state you're already at? Actions already have consequences.
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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22845
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 05:13:00 -
[47] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:The simple solution is to just have Concord blow up any -10 pods in high sec. Why would they do that?
Quote:There's no good reason for the system we have now. The one where ganking has no consequences of any consequence. GǪexcept, of course, that it has plenty of consequences and that there's no good reason to change it other than to maybe make ganks a bit more common so that flying stupidly has more consequences of consequence. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22846
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 05:33:00 -
[48] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Is there any post that is too small for you to break into multiple quotes? Yes, one that only has a single point to respond to.
Could you please answer the question? 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22847
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 06:00:00 -
[49] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:To do ... what? Whatever it is they're trying to do with the character.
Quote:No they don't, but for their main function in highsec, to gank, then yes they do.
All the important parts of a gank are done with alts and with no consequences at all. (Equipping, Scouting, Scanning, Bumping). The last and final part is elementary. GǪand how do alts keep the character from being blown up before he can do what he's trying to do?
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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22847
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 06:04:00 -
[50] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:... and we need to quit talking like there are meaningful consequences for ganking in highsec. There are none. If that's true, then it's only because you fail in your duty to provide them. At any rate, your claim falls apart as soon as we subject it to the current reality and mechanics of EVE. There are plenty of consequences to ganking in highsec and they are very obviously meaningful or ganks would not be so laughably rare. 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 2.1. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22847
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 06:25:00 -
[51] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:Why would you want to do something stupid like that? You can use alts if you need something, like a shopping trip to Jita for example, and if you want to farm ISK then low/null and w-holes are far superior to highsec in every way. You realise, of course, that this absolute need to use alts only proves that there are consequences GÇö very meaningful ones GÇö to ganking your way all the way to -10. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22851
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 11:44:00 -
[52] - Quote
Heinrich Erquilenne wrote:Then maybe the solution would be high sec stations not accepting to dock players with a dreadfully low sec status. Solution to what? And no, it's not NPCs job to restrict what players have access to.
Quote:Like players who get their overly expensive ships killed have to farm isk to get them back, people who have a -10 sec status should definitely spend some time to grind sec status. Seems fair (which is why this option will likely be unpopular). No, it will be unpopular because it's not fair. Fair would be if those with overly expensive ships had to lose those ships before being allowed to dock up.
If you want to force people to grind back their sec status, then you have to force them. There is absolutely no reason why the game should do it for you.
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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22855
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 18:43:00 -
[53] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:So many future war targets in this thread it is truly a beautiful site.
All I need now is ISK to fund it all. Anybody want their isk doubled? Token donation sent. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22864
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 23:14:00 -
[54] - Quote
Aalysia Valkeiper wrote:Mara Pahrdi wrote: This is what the mining cruisers used to be good at. Done right, you would convey the impression of a soft and easy target (i.e. a newbie with limited tanking skills), that could be handled by one or two gankers. But with less than 12 days training you were able to field a decent T2 tank. Concord did the rest.
but that option's no longer available, is it? Yes it is. The new exhumers and barges do exactly that, and in some mining ships you can pack a bit of bite of your own.
Quote:I will continue to watch people I introduce to EvE give up when their trial accounts expire. What are you teaching them (or not teaching them) that makes them give up? 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22866
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 23:46:00 -
[55] - Quote
Mara Pahrdi wrote:Sort of. The cruisers had the advantage, that you could use mining drones for better deception and still mount a turret or launcher to have a chance of getting on the killmail . My point is more towards the idea of GÇ£conveying the impression of a soft target with limited tanking skillsGÇ¥ GÇö that impression was shattered in the old days by using a scanner, same as it is today. If you could pull of that deception back then, you can do it now GÇö being in a squishy harvesting ship rather enhances the image than being in a combat shipGǪ 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22935
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 16:28:00 -
[56] - Quote
Aischa Montagne wrote:High Sec is claimed to be a secure Area. Enforced by Concord and Faction Security forces. I'm going to stop you there. No. Highsec has never been claimed to be a secure area, and it is not being enforced by anything. Highsec is simply an area where aggression comes at a cost GÇö CONCORD is the entity that creates those costs. Now, I know that you hedged this by calling it a GÇ£theoretic view by some peopleGÇ¥, but that's just it: it's a view people have, and an incorrect one at that. It cannot be the basis for any kind of argument or logic because it is just plain old false.
Quote:Gankers contradict this philosophy and damgeing this in a enormous way. No, they don't for the simple reason that the philosophy in question does not exist. It is, as mentioned, just something some people have invented, with no basis in the realities of the game. Just because people have to make compromises does not mean that anything is damaged. In fact, having to find a compromise between two contradictory goals is one of the core obstacles of the game, and in a sense the only proper obstacle the game can provide. Since you set up your own goals, you and you alone are responsible for picking one that compromises as little as possible, and the game mechanics can't (and shouldn't) be an important factor in this.
Quote:I think the ganking issue is currently a problem that has to be thought on. This problem could be answered by a good bounty market. There is currently no Market. You can bounty hunt, but it is more something of luck. A System that works around Killrights rather then a random bounty. Which is more direct and efficent. How is it a problem? It's exceedingly rare. It's trivially easy to avoid. It can be treated as a standard financial risk with expected outcomes if you're inclined to just live with it. Just because all the available solutions (and there are many of them) have downside does not mean that it is a problem either GÇö that's just the nature of choice. There are no silver bullets.
Now, I'll give you credit for taking the view that it should be a player solution instead of Yet Another NerfGäó, but in doing so, you've stumbled over the actual cause of the problems some people feel they're facing: what you're looking for is pretty much already available, but the ones who are supposed to use these tools choose not to. The problem isn't tools or ability or mechanics. The problem is choice GÇö specifically the adamant refusal to choose to use the tools available for various reasons.
Quote:Another point could to reduce the risk by construction defensive Mining Utlities that in order to cut losses. Remeber not every miner is able to fit tanky hauwlers. I think even a procurer in the hand of a fresh minerpilot is no match for a half competent suicide ganker. These already exist, and yes, even a fresh miner can go all defensive and become a hard target. Again, the only issue is that the miners simply don't choose this option, and that's really where the myth comes from: GÇ£I choose not to use these methods, therefore the methods don't existGÇ¥. 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 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22953
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 14:05:00 -
[57] - Quote
Kal Murmur wrote:So just to summarize.. Yes, that's a pretty accurate summary of the uninformed myths that some highseccers like to perpetuate, even though there's next to nothing in the game to suggest any of it would ever be true. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22954
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 14:45:00 -
[58] - Quote
Kal Murmur wrote:Because you want to change how highsec has been for the last decade in a self entitled crusade to 'create content' and make other people play the way you want them to play, right? Where has he suggested anything of the kind? Oh, and over the last decade, highsec hasn't exactly been the same all alongGǪ
Quote:Highsec always did support a diverse array of playstyles. The current gank epidemic just reduces that diversity by making some professions increasingly boring to the point where people just can't be bothered any more. What gank epidemic? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22954
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 14:57:00 -
[59] - Quote
Kal Murmur wrote:The one that currently has miners all over highsec scared to undock a hulk. Most of the ones I know are now flying covs instead just because the hit wouldn't hurt as much. You mean the one that doesn't seem to produce that many more kills than in other periods of the game and which hasn't made a dent in the profession?
It's hardly an epidemic if it's just created through PR and if it makes no difference to what people do. It certainly isn't an epidemic if it only hits that small a subset of characters. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22957
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 15:45:00 -
[60] - Quote
Kal Murmur wrote:Because you want to change how highsec has been for the last decade in a self entitled crusade to 'create content' and make other people play the way you want them to play, right? Where has he suggested anything of the kind? Oh, and over the last decade, highsec hasn't exactly been the same all along GÇö it changes, just like every other part of the game. If it doesn't, it quickly becomes stale.
Quote:Highsec always did support a diverse array of playstyles. The current gank epidemic just reduces that diversity by making some professions increasingly boring to the point where people just can't be bothered any more. What gank epidemic?
If there was a gank epidemic going on, we'd see tons of mission-runner ganks in popular systems as opposed to maybe half a dozen or so a few years ago, right? OhGǪ. Yeah, no. Or maybe that's just a Caldari thiGǪ ah, no.
If there was a gank epidemic going on, freighters would be dying by the bucket-load, especially in and around Jita or on the Perimeter gate and in the chokepoints. But no. Or maybe everyone has moved to using JFs so that's whyGǪ no, not that either.
But surely, industrials must be exploding all over the place? Not so much in highsec. Transports then? Lol-áno.
Barges, you say? Yes, some of them die, but it's not exactly a highsec problem and they're almost universally crapfit. Exhumers show a similar pattern.
The simple fact is: there is no gank epidemic. It's a myth. A lie. A complete non-issue that only exists because people are stupid and/or don't take precautions.
Quote:The problem now isn't 'OMG people in highsec are DYING!', it's that a load of low skill plebs are popping too many miners and freighters and as a result making carebearing less fun for the considerable number of people who actually enjoy it. No, the problem is that none of this is actually happening but people lie through their teeth to make it seem like it does. All the precautions you scoff at work. They have worked for years and they work now. The reason we know they work is because they don't show up on the killboards in any volume and because ganking is ridiculously low as it becomes harder and harder to gank, requiring the gankers to pick easer and easier targets in order to actually by successful. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22957
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 15:54:00 -
[61] - Quote
Kal Murmur wrote:Please go and check zkillboard as suggested above, and then come back and admit that suicide ganking has absolutely exploded in popularity over the last 2-3 years. Suicide ganking has been absolutely imploded over the last 2GÇô3 years. Some systems that saw multiple specific ganks daily now see as many kills in a month.
Explosions tend to go in the opposite direction. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22958
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 16:03:00 -
[62] - Quote
Kal Murmur wrote:Go zkillboard, search CONCORD, stats tab, monthly history.
Watch in wonder at the numbers that suddenly rocket upwards in the last 2-3 years. Then come back and tell me about the rise in ganking being a myth. The rise in ganking is a myth, and your chosen method demonstrates this with ample clarity.
What you're seeing is people being forced into using more and more small ships as it becomes more and more difficult to get a kill. Oh, and if you think for a second that only 1750 ganks were attempted in 2012, you need to have your head examined, so that shows how much the data is worthGǪ 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22960
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 16:11:00 -
[63] - Quote
Kal Murmur wrote:Ah so we've moved from 'Show me the data!' to 'The data is obviously wrong!'. Ok then.. No. We've moved from Gǣlearn to interpret the dataGǥ to GǣGǪalso, make sure you understand the gaps in the dataGǥ.
Again, if you think that 2012 shows 1,751 losses to CONCORD because (at most) 1,751 ganks happened in that year GÇö i.e. less than 5 in a day GÇö rather than because a) other killboards were in use, b) people didn't post CONCORD losses on their boards, c) ganks required fewer ships, d) all of the above, you still need to have your head examined and need to stay away from any kind of attempted data analysis until you do. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22964
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 16:23:00 -
[64] - Quote
Kal Murmur wrote:Charon kills in High-Sec
Jun-14:70 Jun-13:44 Jun-12:8 Jun-11:11 Jun-10:9
Please explain how this data is also wrong. Please show us the source. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22966
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 16:42:00 -
[65] - Quote
Kal Murmur wrote:Source is zkillboard. You mean the killboard that has no accurate stats for 2012 and earlier and which very obviously includes lots of non-ganks? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22966
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 16:52:00 -
[66] - Quote
Kal Murmur wrote:I was asked to provide data from zkillboard or eve kill, I did so. If you can suggest a more reliable killboard we can use, then feel free to do so. GǪand you asked me to point out the problem(s) with your data. If you want some from 2012 or earlier, you have to ask CCP, reallyGǪ
Quote:Red Frog don't lose many freighters. Given that we were looking at the numbers for only the Charon, it's hardly that surprising that they didn't lose any during the month of June, given how low their total losses are. EhmGǪ are we looking at the same Red Frog? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22967
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 17:00:00 -
[67] - Quote
Kal Murmur wrote:So basically the only proof you'll accept is the proof you know we can't get? No, the proof I'll accept is something that has a unified and verifiable source GÇö if you get a hold of a stast wonk at CCP, they will happily give you the numbers before 2013.
And again, are we looking at the same Red Frog? Because what I'm seeing doesn't match what you're saying. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22975
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 02:42:00 -
[68] - Quote
Gavin Dax wrote:Reducing the cost of freighter hulls is one way to go about it as someone pointed out earlier. If a ship costs significantly more than it costs to gank its hull in HS, I think that's bad for ganking balance. It's not, for the simple reason that cost is never an even remotely workable balancing factor. It has been tried. It has always failed and for laughably obvious reasons: cost as a mechanic is itself trivially overcome and therefore instantly fails to balance anything out. It could potentially be a product of balance, but it is simply impossible to have good balance around cost unless you completely remove all dynamics from the economy.
Trying to balance using cost leads to exactly two things: a GÇ£bigger is betterGÇ¥ design which removes all choice and variety, and grinding so that people can get that one remaining valid choice. Neither of those even remotely resemble any kind of actual balance, be it in the equipment itself, in the gameplay, or in the meta of activities and choice.
Quote:Sorry, I don't understand this comment. I only think the HS mechanics should be changed. There's absolutely no reason why highsec should be different in this regard. The concepts of balance are rather universal GÇö what you're asking for is that highsec be imbalanced for some unfathomable reason. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22976
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 03:18:00 -
[69] - Quote
Gavin Dax wrote:I think we just have to agree to disagree here. I don't accept that there's no way to balance the cost of ganking empty freighter hulls to be more reasonable. You're probably right there are issues with using ISK naively but I don't think it's as bad as you make it seem. I don't know the best way to do it because I don't have the data and I haven't thought about it, but that doesn't change my opinion that the current cost numbers don't seem right in the empty/bulkhead fit freighter case. They seem especially right in that case: the fact that you can kill an expensive ship with ships that cost a tenth as much shows that the game is properly balanced. Beyond that, it's just a matter of to which level the target is willing to subsidise the gank.
Ideally, it should be able to reach a ratio of GêP:0, but the core design of highsec unfortunately puts an end to that GÇö you can't have zero cost in an area that is defined by aggression having a cost. That's really the only reason why the insurance mechanic had to be adjusted. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22985
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 11:41:00 -
[70] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Destruction activities should never be a zero cost net result. They should always reduce the final state.. its entropy. Let it work liek entropy. Good news: it already does. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22990
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 12:15:00 -
[71] - Quote
Kal Murmur wrote:Please be better at the game. Quite impossible. I'm already 100% successful.
Quote:Pick a moderately busy system with ice anomaly, wait for ice to respawn + 10-20 minutes for the flock of Orcas and barges to arrive, wait another 30 minutes for the miners to start nodding off from the sheer tedium of ice mining, enter sys, ship up and farm tears. GǪand yet, there is no surprise since you are trivially identifiable long before you even arrive on grid (or, hell, in-system).
Quote:If people are going to gank carebears at least have the good grace to stop pretending that it's oh so difficult. It is exactly as difficult as the self-selected victims choose to make it. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22994
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 13:40:00 -
[72] - Quote
Ramona McCandless wrote:Has anyone else seen odd things happening with people's names on the forums?
Until the screen refreshed, one of the people on here's name was displayed as Hollyshocker Twointhesink.... They're doing some forum GÇ£upgradesGÇ¥. Part of it is just layout changes, but there are some content alterations as well. It Wouldn't surprise me if various cached db calls might spit all kinds of odd data for a while until they're finished. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22995
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 16:29:00 -
[73] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:You make completely no sense. Eve is about risk and effort vs reward. IT cost more and takes more effort to kill people with wars than with suicide ganks. That is inbalanced. It would be if those were true. As luck would have it, they're not.
Quote:Cost is a balancing factor , no matter how much you want it to not be. It controls how attractive an activity is. No, it really doesn't, as every attempt at using it as a balancing factor has shown. This is not wanting it to be a certain way; this is game designers with decades of experience having proven it time and time again. Cost GÇö indeed any kind of availability GÇö only ever controls the grindiness of getting your hand on something and grind is trivial to overcome. It's because of that triviality and that single effect that it is useless for balance.
Again, what you're seeing is actually the exact opposite: cost as a result of balance. A ship that offers a marginal improvement in one area (and less capability in many others) are given an exponentially higher price because that's the cost of improvement. It is not a 1:1 relationship and the cost is not there to balance the improvement out. It is there to tell you how much people value that marginal improvement. It is also there to give you a range of choices in what you want to employ and for what reasons GÇö choices that are instantly removed if you try to balance using cost. Put another way: cheap crap can be as cheap as you like, it's still crap and therefore useless; and overpowered stuff is still overpowered no matter how ridiculously expensive you make it. The costs don't balance out the design flaws GÇö there is only one choice available and that is the overpowered stuff, which then sets the standard for how much you have to invest to participate.
Quote:You do nto need to work as hard as wardecs, you have an extremely predictable result and the targets do not knwo you are there. This is complete nonsense. The targets know you're there in the same way as during a wardec, and unlike with ganking, decs reduces your cost to a fixed sum for as many targets as you can grab. Your operating costs are zero. You can throw the most absurd levels of overkill at the target and not lose a cent GÇö in fact, that's how you ensure that you don't lose a single cent. Everything you get is pure profit. Ganks have no rebates; definitely no zero costs; no assurances; profit is entirely reliant on finding suitably expensive targets GÇö there is no way to accumulate over time in small drips and drops.
Oh, and as others have mentioned, wardecs means that every standard anti-gank strategy other than complete avoidance becomes useless for defending yourself: EHP doesn't save you, anti-gank makes you lose more, support ships makes you lose more. Hell, you can lose more without even being logged in. You could go on the offensive, but since we're comparing against suicide ganks, where that's also a possibility, you will notice that this option simply isn't an option for the people involved.
Quote:That proves that suicide gankign is too easy compared to waging war. No, blatantly lying about something does not actually prove anything other than that you are either woefully unfamiliar with the mechanics or trying a particularly absurd new avenue to get in Yet Another NerfGäó for an activity that desperately needs to be buffed. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22996
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 17:46:00 -
[74] - Quote
Kal Murmur wrote:This is so utterly and mindnumbingly wrong completely correct, not to mention historically proven that it's hard to even find words.. Fixed. And that is exactly why every attempt at argue cost as a balancing mechanic fails pretty much immediately and why no-one can actually offer any kind of argument against it.
Balancing with cost only works if there is no actual economy; when you're collecting and spending a static amount of build points rather than something that could be considered an proper, dynamic, and mutable currency. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22997
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 18:29:00 -
[75] - Quote
Da Dom wrote:The risk of undocking in high sec is increasing rapidly and the rewards for doing so need to be buffed... Big time Rather than assume that you just said something quite silly, I'm going to read that as if you're talking about the gankers. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
23078
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 04:17:00 -
[76] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Not everyone that is agaisnt suicide gankers are carebears. Most of the real PVPers that I talk around aree agaisnt it, because it banalize the main focus of the game . How does suicide ganking GÇö the act of killing stuff at a cost and under severe time pressure, while still preferably generating a profit GÇö GÇ£banalizeGÇ¥ the main focus of the game (which involves a whole lot of killing stuff and generating profits)? Are you quite sure these are GÇ£real PvPersGÇ¥ and not just people who wilfully impose restrictions on themselves for no particularly useful reason and then get annoyed when others don't do the same?
Kagura Nikon wrote:now.. put 20 plexes inside... and the jita one suddenly gets popped way faster .
Irrelevant situatiosn are not a good argument sorry. So why did you try to use one as an argument? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
23078
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 04:21:00 -
[77] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Its funny how I have total trust with other goons when moving my stuff from deployment to deployment yet you more civilised people have nobody you can trust. It's almost as if there's a reason why one of the seminal books on social trust and community building is named Bowling AloneGǪ 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
23100
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 19:49:00 -
[78] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Good try. But knowing where you do the ganking, in systems (specially some of the most lucrative), where the missioners will nto be tanking against Thermal.. you are facing 50K EHP on most marauders.
I jsut wish battleships would have a tad more EHP so that would not be a problem. They already do. Problem solved.
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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
23164
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 12:02:00 -
[79] - Quote
Kal Murmur wrote:CCP know this, which is why they keep bringing in small nerfs to the various forms of griefing that hurt new players. When was the last time they did that?
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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
23165
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 13:26:00 -
[80] - Quote
Kal Murmur wrote:Ooh let me think, Crimewatch? Remember when can flipping was a thing? Yeah, seeGǪ that wasn't a change aimed at protecting newbies from griefers. That was a change aimed at protecting the servers from a tangled and incomprehensible mess of character dependencies. So no, that was not the last time they did that.
Quote:This stuff is just nonsense. No, it's not. Destruction GÇö on a massive scale GÇö is one of the three cornerstones for the game, without which it would simply cease to work. It's really as simple as that and there is absolutely no question about it. Trying to wave it off means you have fundamentally failed to understand how EVE works. Any attempt at dismissing the critical important of mass destruction, on the other hand, is so thoroughly nonsensical that it immediately invalidates any argument even remotely based on it.
Quote:Despite the damage suicide ganking can do to new players, in terms of ships destroyed it's nothing compared to a decent null war. The damage suicide ganking can do to new players is very close to zero for one simple reason: they're new players. By virtue of being new, no damage dealt to them can be very high.
Quote:The part you guys keep ignoring though is most of us don't want suicide ganking banned, we just want the people doing it to show a little restraint and be the clever bandits they used to be, instead of this ridiculous new(ish) thing of popping any miner they catch in a belt, or any empty freighter that doesn't have a fleet accompanying it. Good news: what you're describing isn't what's happening. Gankers have to be very clever to get at even the utterly minute target selection available to them (which excludes new players by default, again by simple virtue of them being new). If the gankers were allowed to do it without restraint, ganking wouldn't be so laughably rare as it is now. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
23171
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 15:11:00 -
[81] - Quote
Kal Murmur wrote:This is why I find you guys so laughable, absolutely no-one is calling for the removal of 'mass destruction' in Eve. All some people are asking for is that you carry out the majority of your mass destruction in parts of the game where it doesn't drive away new players. Excellent. Then nothing actually needs to change.
Quote:Incidentally, you appear to want it both ways. Either suicide ganking is 'laughably rare' or it constitutes 'mass destruction' on a level that would make Eve 'instantly collapse' were it removed. Well, which is it? No-one said that it constitutes mass destruction.
Quote:You should really slow down, if you make many more comments as utterly ridiculous as this, we're going to end up passing some form of idiot event horizon So you agree then, since you have to jump straight for the personal attack. Goodie.
Quote:So you can't damage new players? GǪwhich, of course, wasn't what I said.
Quote:Ganking isn't laughably rare, which is why CODE keep posting huge lists of all the ganks they're carrying out. Ganking is laughably rare, as demonstrated by the minute number of kills even a supposed mass-murdering entity as CODE can produce. It is also demonstrated by how much attention this one group generates GÇö if ganking was commonplace, they'd be a single player in the vast field of gankers and their activities would just be noise. Instead, their activities are such a shocking departure from the norm of highsec life that people keep coming to the forums to complain about what would otherwise be an every-day event. Your attempt to provide data to show otherwise by wilfully throwing any kind of judgement out of the window just demonstrated how desperate you are to invent a problem that simply does not exist.
Oh, and please, read what I write rather than invent more laughable nonsense: the only one telling everyone I'm clever is you. I suppose I should thank you for that rather than correct you, but I'd prefer that you at least be honest in your argumentation. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
23172
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 15:59:00 -
[82] - Quote
Kal Murmur wrote:Ah so when you started talking about how mass destruction is an essential cornerstone of the game, that was just a completely irrelevant topic you just happened to mention in passing? No, it was a continuation of what was previously said. You should probably take a bit more care in reading the posts you respond to.
Quote:Except that you did. Nope, as the quote you provide amply demonstrates.
Quote:So it's laughably rare yet at the same time such a 'shocking departure from the norm of highsec life' that everyone's up in arms about it? Can you explain how those two statements fit together in any way please? What's strange about it? Something that is commonplace is not a shocking departure from the norm. In fact, it pretty much has to be rare to be a shocking departure. Come on, this isn't rocket surgeryGǪ
And to continue on that particular thread and to provide you with an actual (apparent) contradiction: if ganking was more common-place, it would probably make it even harder for the gankers to find victimsGǪ 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
23172
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 16:02:00 -
[83] - Quote
Kal Murmur wrote:This would certainly explain events like this very 99 page thread where everyone's complaining about how rare suicide ganking is. It definitely would, but not in either of the sarcastic senses you're hoping for. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
23174
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 16:34:00 -
[84] - Quote
Kal Murmur wrote:Well every time we've tried to pull actual data, it's just dismissed out of hand The data was not dismissed. Your interpretation of it was, mainly because it wasn't much of an interpretation at all GÇö just GÇ¥higher = moreGÇ¥.
Quote:Yes you are guys, and we all know what happens when any predator becomes too good at killing.. He becomes happy and content and doesn't have to bluster quite so much to make it seem like his catch is anything spectacular. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24210
|
Posted - 2014.08.29 22:46:00 -
[85] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:What my point is, is that in this context, specifically in between gank attempts from the same gankers waiting out their aggression timers, and where the bumping is exactly equivalent in nature to warp disruption/scrambling (which clearly is an activation of offensive modules, and I think you would agree rightfully carries a CONCORD response), the bumping is not "an agression neutral act," but rather is a positive aggressive act, and should see CONCORD dispatch the bumpers. GǪexcept that there is nothing aggressive or offensive about being bumped and it is shares none of the characteristics of warp disruption. After all, you can just warp off. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24210
|
Posted - 2014.08.29 23:11:00 -
[86] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:The point was that the Orca, despite its best efforts, was unable to warp off. Then it was a very poor effort. An Orca, in particular, should never really find itself in a situation where it's getting bumped since they're so easy to get into warp if fitted properly.
And again, let's just ask for a second how on earth it managed to be stuck for 15 minutes GÇö that means the effort was so far from GÇ£bestGÇ¥ that GÇ£bestGÇ¥ doesn't even speak the same language as the word that would describe the effort.
Quote:In this way it EXACTLY replicates the effect of warp scrambling/disruption GǪagain, aside from the detail that it doesn't actually inhibit warping (or has any effect on MWDs) the way a scram or point does. Bumping is still not a criminal activity, in this context or any other, because nothing offensive is done to your ship. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24231
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 01:56:00 -
[87] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Preventing you from warping GǪisn't what it does. You can warp away just fine. It also doesn't shut down your MWDs or MJDs.
So it actually offers 0% of the capabilities of a scrambler. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24231
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 01:58:00 -
[88] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Not if the bumpers make it IMPOSSIBLE for you to warp. They can't.
Quote:Actually, per CCP Falcon "CONCORD offer a level of deterrent just the same as any law enforcement agency, but as with any police for they're reactive and punitive rather than proactive." So CONCORD is designed to act as a police force, No, it's designed to act as a cost enforcement mechanism. Per CCP Falcon, the only shared characteristic between CONCORD and a law enforcement agency is that it offers a deterrent. CONCORD does this by enforcing cost; police by threatening with judicial processing. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24231
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 02:00:00 -
[89] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Certainly with 3 bumpers optimally bumping a freighter it is absolutely 100% impossible for that freighter to warp off. Nope. As long as you have at least 1 point of warp strength, you can warp off. Bumping removes zero points of warp strength. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24233
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 02:06:00 -
[90] - Quote
Derrick Miles wrote:I'm pretty sure you missed the point there. The point is that Veers Belvar absolutely refuses to accept the very simple fact that bumping is not illegal and never will be. He also refuses to accept the very simple fact that bumping does not make impossible to warp.
I suppose the point could be that he's trolling, but that just makes it more worth-while to use him as a proxy for all the nutters who sincerely believe the same nonsense.
Veers Belvar wrote:The mere fact that you are still able to press the "jump" button doesn't change the fact that your ship isn't jumping. That's because it's not actually lit up at that point GÇö you should probably make sure to be in range with the gate or beacon before trying it.
Quote:The fact that this is due to ships bumping you off your align, as opposed to scramming you, is truly a distinction without a difference. No, the fact is that aligning has nothing to do with jumping. Aligning has to do with warping. Bumping does not prevent warping, and that's the most simple fact of them all. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24233
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 02:13:00 -
[91] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:The fact that you steadfastly refuse to accept that bumping in this context, which is 100% functionally equivalent in every way to warp scrambling GǪaside from not affecting your warp strength and not prohibiting you from warping and not shutting down your MWD and not shutting down your MJD. So that makes it 0% functionally equivalent to warp scrambling.
Quote:and that the treatment of it by CONCORD is directly inconsistent with CCP Falcson's statment that "CONCORD offer a level of deterrent just the same as any law enforcement agency, but as with any police for they're reactive and punitive rather than proactive" is the real troll. How is it inconsistent? It creates a deterrent, and it does so in a reactive manner, just like he said.
How is it GÇ£a real trollGÇ¥ to point out the realities of the situation? Just because you refuse to accept how things actually work does not make it a troll to explain these things to you. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24233
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 02:19:00 -
[92] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Unlawful imprisonment is criminal activity. GǪand bumping qualifies as neither of those.
Quote:The fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE for your ship to warp off is a criminal act That's not a fact, since it's not impossible to warp off. Nor is it a criminal act to keep someone from warping off.
Quote:CONCORD is not responding to that is the problem No, it's not a problem that CONCORD doesn't respond to legal activities.
Quote:the fact that for 15 minutes your ship is unable to leave the system is by definition unlawful imprisonment, and a criminal act. None of those are facts, though. And just like CCP Falcon stated, CONCORD acts as a reactive deterrent, so there's nothing strange or inconsistent about their behaviour. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24235
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 02:26:00 -
[93] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:That, as far as a freighter goes, at the very least, is a factually incorrect statement. Nope. It is 100% accurate.
Quote:The fact that the freighter pilot is for 15 minutes, despite their best efforts, unable to warp off If he can't warp off, it is not his best efforts. That is a fact.
Quote:is by definition false imprisonment. There's no such thing.
Quote:This is a criminal act and should draw CONCORD response. Nope and nope, in that order. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24235
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 02:33:00 -
[94] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I would love for a CCP dev to address this. They already have. Bumping is allowed. It does not trigger CONCORD, even after CrimeWatch 2.0-
Quote:Assuming optimal bumping by 3 bumping machariels, and optimals response from a freighter pilot, will the freighter pilot be able to escape? Yes. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24236
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 02:39:00 -
[95] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Much as I trust my two favorite suicide gankers, who are completely disinterested and independent in answering this query, I would prefer a response from a DEV who is actually familiar with the core game mechanics. So you'll accept my answer then? Good.
The devs have already answered your question. Bumping is allowed. It does not trigger CONCORD, even after CW2.0. And yes, the freighter can get away GÇö after all, he's not warp scrambled or anything like that. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24236
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 02:43:00 -
[96] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:"ankle-biting troll" - very cute. Since the IQ level of the conversation has now dropped below the nursery level Well, maybe if you hadn't started throwing around unfounded accusations, it wouldn't have dropped to that level.
Quote:No, but since you are just trolling, and intentionally failing to grasp the point, I will engage with you no further. Again, explaining to you how things actually work is not trolling, nor is it a failure to grasp your point. Your point is factually incorrect. If you refuse to engage with others because they correct your misunderstandings, then that does not make me a troll either GÇö quite the opposite in fact. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24237
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 02:53:00 -
[97] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:The point is that when bumping is used as a mechanism to make it impossible for ships to warp off between successive gank attempts from the exact same gankers I.e. never.
Quote:the failure of CONCORD to respond to such is inconsistent with the both the purpose of OONCORD and the design of highsec. No, it's not inconsistent that CONCORD does not respond to an impossible event or that they don't respond to legal activity.
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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24247
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 07:16:00 -
[98] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:To Quote CCP Falcon " CONCORD offer a level of deterrent just the same as any law enforcement agency, but as with any police for they're reactive and punitive rather than proactive." This means that in the view of CCP CONCORD IS a police force. No, that is just some incoherent nonsense you've cooked up because you are as familiar with linguistics as you are with everything EVE.
It means that CONCORD shares two characteristics with law enforcement agencies: they offer a deterrent and they are reactive. What you are engaging in is a fallacy of composition: that just because these two details about CONCORD are the same as with a law enforcement, everything is the same as a law enforcement. At no point is such an equivalence stated or even suggested.
CONCORD is not a law enforcement agency GÇö it's a game mechanic that enforces costs for aggression.
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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24286
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 23:45:00 -
[99] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I'm kind of struggling to understand this. The fact that some war criminals were not punished for past war crimes once the war ended (and these people were then no longer committing crimes) has what bearing on how career -10 suicide gankers from CODE should be treated, who literally have no other purpose than to commit crime after crime? There is no hard connection between crime and punishment. The connection is even more tenuous if the criminals are not even subject to the legal system.
Not much to struggle with. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24288
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 23:51:00 -
[100] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I'm not really sure how we went from space pirates to prosecutorial discretion vis-a-vis WWII Germany war criminals. You were wondering why some individuals are not being punished for their crimes. N++rnberg provides one example and explanation, if the EVE lore doesn't explain it well enough for you. vOv 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 skillplan 2.2. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24288
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 23:55:00 -
[101] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:No, I am wondering why some people, who commit the same crime OVER AND OVER AGAIN, and go into police custody each time, face no more than a trifling 15 minute jail sentence. You're asking about something that has nothing to do with EVE then. May I suggest that you find a forum where that question is relevant? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24289
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 00:11:00 -
[102] - Quote
*dope-slap* 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24290
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 00:58:00 -
[103] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:You are confused. The title of this thread is "has suicide ganking become a problem? Empty freighters...." The fact that a bumping exploit What bumping exploit?
Quote:is being used to make it much easier to gank the freighters greatly magnifies the problem. What problem?
Quote:I'm sorry if buffing highsec would impede you and your allies tear collection and spree of destruction, but I am quite familiar with the mechanic So how come your entire argument is based on something that doesn't happen in the game? How come you keep repeating the same incorrect claims and what is going on? How come you have yet to present anything that demonstrates that the game is not working as intended?
If you are familiar with the mechanics, why is everything you say about them wrong? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24290
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 01:03:00 -
[104] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:And wrong again....Three bumping machariels optimally fitted can make it 100% impossible for a freighter to warp off. So when you say that you are familiar with the mechanics, what you actually mean is that you've heard something about the mechanics but have absolutely no idea what it is or how it works.
Because that is literally the only explanation for how you keep being 100% wrong about this in spite of having it explained to you a dozen times by now. Stop lying. it means you have no argument.
Quote:And again....bumping to pin down a gank victim between successive waves of gankers. No, I'm asking about this supposed bump exploit you mentioned. What is it?
Quote:And as discussed, 3 machariels bumping a freighter can make it impossible for the freighters to warp off. And everything I have been saying is right. Nothing you've said has ever been even remotely right. For instance, 3 Machariels bumping a freighter does not make it impossible for the freighter to warp off. You are lying. You need to stop. You need to present some actual facts, not this on-going hallucination you're living in.
So we'll call that strike #2 for real this time. On to attempt #3 GÇö GO! 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24290
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 01:10:00 -
[105] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Actually I sat in Uedama and watched it happen No. You sat in Uedama and saw someone fail at something that isn't particularly hard, probably because they didn't put that much effort into it or because they were doing it wrong.
His (and your) incompetence does not equate to it being 100% impossible GÇö it just means the two of you were pretty bad. In particular, you didn't actually help in trying to warp off, by the sound of it. People with actual experience, on both sides of the fence, have proven that your claim is a lie.
Quote:Thankfully I am 100% right, and will continue to present true and factual arguments You haven't provided a single true or factual statement yet. In fact, your constant lies so far makes this latest claim of yours highly suspect as well. Previously, you claimed that you have no personal experience GÇö now, all of a sudden, you doGǪ 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24290
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 01:26:00 -
[106] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:When and where has CCP said that 3 optimally fitted bumping Machariels cannot prevent a freighter from warping off? Here and here.
But that's in response to the strawman you warped his answer into. What CCP has said is that ganking and bumping GÇö contrary to your protestations GÇö is not in need of a serious nerf. In fact, both are working as intended. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24292
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 01:39:00 -
[107] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Which bears no relevence to to the fact that in this thread (please go back to the first post!) So what you're saying is that your entire line of complaint is off-topic, then. And yet, only a couple of posts ago, you tried to argue that this stuff is relevant to the thread.
Which one is it? Make up your mind.
Quote:it is being pointed out that the frequency of freighter ganking has been markably increasing GǪand each time someone suggests that, it has been pointed out that there is no evidence at all of this actually happening.
What exploit?
Quote:Your posts do nothing to address whether a freighter can escape bumping by 3 optimally fitted Machariels. Yes it does. You are just so fundamentally clueless and incognisant about the mechanics involved that you even fail to spot the very clear connection between your false claim and my proof that you are both 100% wrong and 100% uninformed. If you had even the slightest insight into the topic you're whining about, you would see it it too, but you don't so you haven't.
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:True. No matter how much rabid forum socialites try to deny it, gankers seem to have all the advantages of doing this without repurcussions in the safety of high-sec. Not only is there the potential for tremendous profits but they are able to operate in high sec with essentially zero risk. Its no wonder so many are flocking to suicide ganking as this gross imbalances continues to go unchecked. Do you have any kind of evidence or argument to support this stance and that bucket of claims GÇö a stance that even the game developers themselves say are incorrect, and claims that no-one has ever been able to prove? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24297
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 06:21:00 -
[108] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:Ah, yes, the typical victim-blaming mentality. "Its the homeowners fault the robber broke into his house because they didn't have a good enough security system". No, it's the typical self-selection-blaming mentality: GÇ£if you're going to wander aimlessly across the savannah in a meat suit, don't be surprised if the lions maul you (oh, and next time, try a jeep and a set of khakis instead)GÇ¥.
Quote:All the arguments in support of suicide ganking seem to be pretty ludicrous. And none here seem to want to address the fact that suicide ganking is performed in high sec, victimizes mostly unaware, casual players, and has extremely negligible penalties and risk, totally broken in terms of risk/reward. No. They all address the former (which is why the consistent suggestion is to be aware) and they all correct the latter (since it is based almost entirely on ignorance).
So what's so ludicrous about the argument in support of ganking? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24300
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 06:37:00 -
[109] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:So you expect that every player should know everything about the game to avoid things like suicide ganking. No. I just expect them to know some basic mechanics and to take an active role in their own safety, so they can learn from and incorporate all the suggestions and help given to them.
Quote:And that is how suicide ganking is supposed balanced? No. Suicide ganking is balanced on being fairly difficult to coordinate and expensive to pull off (at least without help from the target), and with significant risks involved, against which you have the multitude of tools and ease of evading them if you play smart.
Quote:Such a ridiculous and unrealistic expectation It's your expectation, not mine. vOv You shouldn't be so hard on yourself.
Quote:especially of the newer players that are most often the victims of such tactics. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24300
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 06:38:00 -
[110] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:The debate is over the appropriate risk reward for such activity, and whether buffs/nerfs are needed to achieve such risk/reward. In my view the consequences for -10 sec status are far too light, and ganking ships is far too easy. That's because you are not familiar with the mechanics involved. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24300
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 06:43:00 -
[111] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:Suicide ganking is not pvp Yes it is, by very definition. WellGǪ unless the victim is a bot, but no-one really complains then.
Quote:Suicide ganking preys on the unaware, casual players who don't bother to read the forums and pay cash for their subs. GǪso the simple solution is to not be unaware. If you look at the bulk of suggestions, tips, and strategies for not being ganked, they all boil down to that single idea.
Quote:High sec provides a false sense of secuity that works to the benefit of suicide gankers who understand that its very easy for their victims to be unfamiliar with concord response times. It is just as easy for the victims not to be unfamiliar with them and to adjust their sense of security to one that matches the (entirely intended) realities of the game. People being wilfully ignorant is not a game design problem.
Veers Belvar wrote:They are an issue, and people do discuss them with new players. CODE has been vastly increasing the number of suicide ganks, and the players are dying by the score. See https://zkillboard.com/alliance/99002775/Obviously the cost of doing business for them is not "too high" because they are making a killing off their ganks. GǪand you know this, how? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24303
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 06:53:00 -
[112] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:So now you are saying that the fact that suicide ganking involves no significant risk or cost and there is no significant penalty for inflicting devastating losses on others within the comfort of high is balanced by the fact that you think its hard? No. That's just some incoherent strawman you made up.
What I'm saying is that suicide ganking is balanced on being fairly difficult to coordinate and expensive to pull off (at least without help from the target), and with significant risks involved, against which you have the multitude of tools and ease of evading them if you play smart. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24303
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 07:15:00 -
[113] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:I've got a direct quite right here. You have changed what you said previously about suicide ganking being balanced because people can be aware of it Where did I say that?
Quote:now you are claiming you think suicide ganking is balanced because you think its hard to do.
This, somehow in your mind, makes up for the fact that suicide ganking involves no significant risk or penalty, while inflicting devasating, game-quitting losses on victims, all within the comfort of high-sec. No. What I'm saying is that suicide ganking is balanced on being fairly difficult to coordinate and expensive to pull off (at least without help from the target), and with significant risks involved, against which you have the multitude of tools and ease of evading them if you play smart.
Quote:Also, being familiar with concord response times and concord delaying tactics are not "basic mechanics". Actually, they are very basic as mechanics go. Being familiar with them is also pretty easy since they've been mapped out extensively and can be found through a simple google search (and since they prove not to be particularly complex to begin with when you look into them). 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24305
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 07:25:00 -
[114] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:Well, im not going to bother wasting any more time with you, Tippia. You don't want to see common sense. Sure I do. I just don't want to see you trying to warp what I say into something else, and then getting all annoyed when your attempt falls flat.
I take it that you can't actually demonstrate the contradiction you were hoping for? I also take it that you realised you had no argument since you had to resort to fallacies in a desperate attempt to fill in the gap. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24312
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 15:51:00 -
[115] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:it is CCPs job to make the game less of a broken, imbalanced joke of a pvp game that it currently is. How is it broken or imbalanced?
Quote:Suicide ganking is completely broken in terms of penalty and risk vs reward. In what way?
Quote:One question I have is, Why do suicide gankers feel entitled sit on a gate in high sec and wait around for a fat juicy noob to come hauling his entire worth? Not pvp, but merely preying upon the unaware in a complex game, abusing game mechanics to victimize people within the comfort of high sec. Why wouldn't they be? And how is it not PvP? Are you saying that they only kill bots, and if so, why are you so upset about it?
Quote:Why should suicide gankers get special treatment when it comes to risk vs reward? They don't.
Quote:And why should these risk-averse players who are afraid of real pvp continue to be allowed to abuse newer players whose only crime is not being familiar with concord response times? Do you have any evidence to support that any of that is actually happening? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24313
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 16:02:00 -
[116] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:The fact that CODE is making an industry out of blowing up empty freighters (at a loss), bumping ships to allow for multiple waves of ganks, and doing it all quite comfortably with -10 sec status, shows that something is seriously broken here. No, it really doesn't. it just shows that enough people enjoy ships blowing up that they're willing to sponsor an effort to that effect.
Quote:But that's not what CODE is doing, they are ganking just to cause tears, and often doing so at a loss. Actually (and shh, because this is secret!), they do it to earn ISK. =ƒÖè I suppose there might be some epeen involved as well, but the mighty ISK sure is powerful.
Quote:They don't care to bring up their suicide status between ganks (as profit/loss oriented gankers do), rather they are happy to be career criminals who do nothing other than ganking. The fact that there is no serious punishment for this is absurd. Except that there is a serious punishment for them. You just refuse to mete it out for some odd reason. By doing that, you lose all rights to complain about their lack of punishment. You willingly gave them carte blanche to keep doing it. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24313
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 16:13:00 -
[117] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Not sure what you are trying to say.....the fact is that CODE is blowing up empty ships. And there is nothing wrong or broken about that, nor does it mean they aren't making ISK from it.
Quote:The reason they do so (as you can ascertain from CODE bios, from hanging out in Uedama, or from reading their blog) is to evoke an emotional reaction from their target (colloquially referred to as "tears.") GǪand earn ISK. Tears just makes the grind a bit funnier.
Quote:abuse the bumping mechanic to pin the target down, undock and instantly warp to the gate and start shooting. This, as opposed to the legitimate suicide gankers, is pure griefing, especially when used to target completely empty ships. Nope. It's just your average mediocre blockade. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24314
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 16:21:00 -
[118] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I consider it a buff because the smart pilots fitted more tank in exchange for less cargo space. The freighters became categorically worse than they were before and there is no way to bring them back to the pre-patch omni-awesome stats. And you consider this a buff?! Yeah, I think I'll stick with GÇ£oddGÇ¥.
Quote:I actually don't haul, mainly because I think that CODE has affected the risk/reward of it to the point where it doesn't seem very profitable. So this is yet another thing that you have no insight into and instead try to comment on based on hearsay rather than any kind of established facts.
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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24315
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 16:33:00 -
[119] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:And again more lies from you. Prove it.
Quote:Freighters can have a lot more ehp post-patch by fitting bulkheads GǪand they become much much worse in a multitude of other areas as an effect. Again, they are categorically worse than before. There is nothing to argue there unless you want to argue against how mathematics works. (and I fully expect you to not be familiar with that either and try it anyway).
There is no way to bring them back to their pre-patch stats, because that's how the nerf was balanced out: every relevant stat got lowered, and then we were given modules to bring one of them back to a good level (or one close to the old level and a second to a mediocre level). If you don't see this, then we have yet another item on the now near-infinite list of things you are not familiar with and don't understand how they work.
Quote:And one need not haul himself to be part of the discussion vis-a-vis hauling. i'm active in the anti gank channels, I try to help gank victims escape, I discuss fitting with haulers, I carefully follow killboard to see where haulers are going down and how they are fitted, I follow gank intel to see who is ganking them, and participate in many other directly relevant activities, giving me GǪno experience in the matter GÇö only a lot of hearsay, and as you have amply proven so far, a lot of that hearsay is just plain old incorrect and/or ignorant of how the game actually works. For instance, you don't even know how to help gank victims escape, as your own story illustrated. You don't understand the mechanics, so you made no useful contribution in the situation.
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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24316
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 16:41:00 -
[120] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:But you can get more total tank than before, and still have a lot of cargo capacity That doesn't make it a buff, you know. Or are you saying that if we, say, decreased CONCORD response time to a universal 1 second, but gave them a damage output of 100 DPS, it would constitute a CONCORD buff?
Just because you stare yourself blind on a single (not particularly important) stat does not mean that an increase in that single stat constitutes a buff GÇö it just means you're staring yourself blind and ignoring the bigger picture.
Quote:which is what the freighter pilots wanted No, it really wasn't, which is why many of us tried to explain the inevitable outcome for years whenever some numbskull brought it up.
Quote:Yet another example of CCP analyzing a situation and responding appropriately). If by that you mean that they saw people whining about freigthers being weak, and responded by making them weaker just out of spite, then yes, they did indeed respond appropriately. It's not the kind of mischievous response most people except from their whines thoughGǪ
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 skillplan 2.2. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24319
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 16:59:00 -
[121] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Thing is, you can tell you're actually getting through to them when they start reaching for the the really lousy arguments, contradicting themselves, or misrepresenting the most obvious facts. At first, they just start out with an established belief. Then when you show them why they're wrong, the denial and cognitive dissonance kicks in, and they panic and just start arguing for its own sake, even though they know they're wrong. That's why I do it, because each post drives the points they don't want to hear home.
And even if their denial is of the kind where they are lying to themselves and unreachable, the least we can do is give those that might peruse the thread in Google searches while they are learning the game something to think about. There's also the added benefit of the GÇ£stop agreeing with meGÇ¥-effect. People who come across the thread and who (initially) may share the view get to see what kind of absurd position it ultimately leads to and how silly they'll end up looking by holding onto it. So they start to distance themselves from the stance and from the person who tries to argue in favour of it.
Jenn aSide wrote:Ultimately, it's fruitless to argue against such people because they are incapable of learning, BUT if you don't argue with them it seems like their self serving and weak minded lies are the truth lol. It's basically Poe's Law in action. For every troll who just says stupid things for the sake of saying stupid things, there are a dozen people who genuinely believe the same thing. Arguing with the troll or with the one incapable of learning means you're arguing with the genuine believers by proxy.
Ultimately, almost every troll is worth responding to as if they were authentic. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24319
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 17:06:00 -
[122] - Quote
Solecist Project wrote:In the end, the troll gets what he wants, no? In the end, what the troll wants is irrelevant GÇö the position they hold is ground into a fine dust and the next time someone tries to bring it up, they insta-fail to provide a convincing argument. The troll also invariably outs himself and gets noted on the GMs' naughty list.
As an added bonus, being irrelevant is pure poison to trolls. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24322
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 17:24:00 -
[123] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:And I'm proud to be someone who helps new players learn how to enjoy the game, and not get griefed into unsubbing by suicide gankers looking for tears. I'm proud to be part of the anti-ganker community, proud to give fitting advice, proud to come rescue gank targets, and proud to advocate for positive change on the forums. You shouldn't be, because based on what you've demonstrated so far, you are actually thoroughly griefing those new players. You are making them less prepared and less able to play the game. At this point, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if your GÇ£adviceGÇ¥ ended with them becoming far easier gank targets than they were before.
You have nothing to be proud of as far as anti-ganknig goes either, since you don't know how to be an anti-ganker. You are not familiar enough with the mechanics to help anyone and you refuse to actually, you know, anti-gank. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24327
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 17:55:00 -
[124] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I also think that CODE is pushing things in a negative direction by, inter alia, ganking empty frreighters. Why is that a negative?
Quote:A lot of people join this game for the cooperative PvE aspects, not to subject themselves to endless suicide ganking by -10 sec status folks looking for tears. So? They joined the game they actually had no interest in and without doing any research. How is that a reason for fundamentally altering the game?
Quote:The same one who said that CONCORD acts "as any law enforcement agency," right? GǪexcept that he didn't say that, and CONCORD is not a law enforcement agency.
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:I think they are really pathetic and add nothing to the game. So why do you keep playing if the game is purposefully designed to work the exact opposite way by devs who fundamentally disagree with you? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24333
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 18:08:00 -
[125] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:And I'm actually older than Solecist....thanks for playing. Newbishness is not a matter of character birth date. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24333
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 18:11:00 -
[126] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:How about a ban for falsely accusing me of being a CODE alt? Or for all the insults and false accusations the troll patrol has been throwing around? That's not banworthy. Your persistent trolling and abuse, on the other handGǪ 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24333
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 18:15:00 -
[127] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:That's rich, coming from you, the master of trolling and abuse. Not really, no, since I don't troll, and any abuse you feel you might get is return-fire for what you threw in the first place.
Quote:Good luck on getting CCP to ban anyone who isn't a big fan of suicide ganking....somehow I don't think they are interested in doing your bidding. They've done it before. vOv
Quote:But hey, your folks could just keep accusing your opponents of being "CODE alts." Well, if you keep acting like one, I'm sure they'll keep doing it. After all, why should they stop? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24333
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 18:24:00 -
[128] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Actually you have been throwing most of the abuse around here Prove it.
Quote:once you were unable to logically contest my arguments So it actually never happened, then, since you have no arguments and no facts, only hearsay, ignorance, and misunderstandings GÇö all of which have been addressed and corrected.
Quote:I have always tried to retain a civil discourse, without name calling. No, that's just another lie on your part. You haven't tried. You started calling people names the instant it was proven that you had no clue what you were talking about and you had no other way of trying (and failing) to stay in the conversation. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24334
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 18:35:00 -
[129] - Quote
And the abuse isGǪ?
And the abuse isGǪ? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24335
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 18:42:00 -
[130] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:False accusations of lying? No. You were lying, remember? You said that you were familiar with the mechanics, and then you proved that you weren't. So you were lying about that. You also kept saying that bumping is equivalent to a warp scrambler, when it isn't and had long since been demonstrated to you that it wasn't. So you were lying about that too.
Quote:Attempting (and failing) to mock linguistics skills? No. Pointing out that you were wilfully misrepresenting (aka lying) about what CCP Falcon had said.
Quote:I also note that you were the #4 contributor to CODE in August, Conflict of interest much? Not really, no.
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 skillplan 2.2. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24335
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 18:46:00 -
[131] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Yawn....if bumping makes you unable to warp off. It doesn't. Nor does it shut down MWDs or MJDs. Therefore, any claim that it is functionally equivalent to a warp scrambler is a lie. Any subsequent claim that you are familiar with the game mechanics is therefore also a lie.
Quote:And quoting CCP Falcon can't really by "lying" about what he said. GǪbut the subsequent misrepresentation (aka lie) about what he said can be and was.
Saying that you lie when you lie and saying that you wilfully twist the language when you wilfully twist the language is not abuse. It is just fact. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24340
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 03:27:00 -
[132] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I can absolutely confirm that it's Fabulous Rod now. He spun that same Darkfall story in the Rattlesnake thread.
Looks like his attitude hasn't improved any, either. Still expecting the game to cater to his maladjusted expectations, instead of adjusting himself to the reality of the game. And lashing out at anyone who cares to correct him, to boot.
I remember Fabulous Rod. He spent a couple weeks spamming me with hilariously abusive mails on his alt after making a fan thread for me on the forums. Because a Forum alt isn't enough, you have to have a mail alt. Oh, it's definitely him. Just look at this gem:
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:You such an obnoxious person that I would not be suprirsed you ask for proof that the sky is blue. Get a life, trash. You are beyond pathetic, finding it worthwhile to argue in such a ridiculous fashion, so nonsensically and irrespective of common sense.
Have fun taking those heavy doses of denial and constantly filling the void that is your social life. The facts are right in front of you.
You probably think you've won something, given that I have taken time out of my day to be one more voice letting you know that you are indeed a pathetic moron who spends all your time arguing (nonsensically) with everyone, endlessly on a video game forum.
Clearly i win at life. You can't even win a forum argument nor admit you are wrong. It must really suck to be you, kid. He fails to present any kind of argument and is deeply troubled that the facts don't agree with him and that proof is demanded of him for his outlandish statements. And since he can't actually win without those facts and arguments, he instantly becomes abusive. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24340
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 03:31:00 -
[133] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:What I would like to see are mechanics that cause more ganking of undertanked haulers with excessive cargo, and less ganking of well tanked/empty haulers that are a net loss to the gankers. I think that would make suicide ganking a much more valuable and logical activity. Why should there be less ganking of empty or tanked haulers? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24342
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 03:49:00 -
[134] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Well I think they are (and have not seen proof to the contrary, just assertion). Yes you have. You just didn't understand what was shown to you because you don't understand or know about the mechanics involved. So, again, what you think is irrelevant GÇö the undeniable fact is that they can't.
Quote:And it's not a question of messing, its a question of what CONCORD should respond to, and how they would react to the victim being pinned down. And the answer is simple: since it's not an aggressive act, they should do nothing.
Quote:And when I'm looking at these recent freighter ganks, a lot of them are empty/have minimal cargo How many and by whom? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24344
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 04:15:00 -
[135] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:1. Experience is not proof. You didn't ask for proof. You asked for a source. I gave you one. Proof for why it works has already been posted.
Anyone with actual experience will be such a source (and no, you have no experience GÇö all you have is outside observation of someone else not succeeding for reasons unknown to you).
Quote:CONCORD punishes wrongful activity No. CONCORD enforces cost on aggression. Period.
Quote:I just posted them. So two and by no-one that you cared to mention. That is not GÇ£a lotGÇ¥.
Quote:Compare the drop and the cost of the ships, and you will see they lost money. And my freighter question always involved 3 optimally bumping machariels, and an optimally responsive freighter. And how do you make money from ganking empty ships? So provide numbers. Don't just ask others to do the work for you.
Actually no, it was not always that. Now you are adding GÇ£optimally responsiveGÇ¥, just as how you added GÇ£without helpGÇ¥. If you keep changing the requirements, your question becomes fallacious. Now, granted, it doesn't actually change anything GÇö the freighter can escape anyway GÇö but it means you are trying to alter the conditions to squeeze out a GÇ£winGÇ¥, which means your argument is invalid.
The same way you make money from making pixels light up on a screen. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24345
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 04:24:00 -
[136] - Quote
IIshira wrote:Ladies and gentlemen... Can someone point out what all three had in common? I can stop something else that's interesting: two were anti-tanked and two did not create any CONCORD losses. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24346
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 04:26:00 -
[137] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:And what I'm saying is that by adjusting the risk/reward mechanics we can make it so that the gankers look for high value kills instead of blowing up empty ships Why should they?
Quote:It's not just some random isk sink there to blow ships up. This is in every way the exact opposite of what they're there for. They are only there to make people lose ISK by blowing up their ships. That is their only purpose. They are also not an ISK sink. The only part you got right was that they are not random.
Quote:I think that CONCORD should react to wrongful activity in highsec as they would be expected to respond - mainly by helping the victim That is GÇö very explicitly and deliberately GÇö not what CONCORD is for. That role has been given to players, and at no point will NPCs ever be created to take a player's job. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24346
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 04:35:00 -
[138] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I think its important to clear this up - let's examine the quote by CCP Falcon-
"CONCORD offer a level of deterrent just the same as any law enforcement agency, but as with any police for they're reactive and punitive rather than proactive." In other words, they share two characteristics with a law enforcement agency: they provide a deterrent and they are reactive. This does not mean that they are one.
The operative word missing is GÇ£otherGÇ¥. Be it GÇ£the same as any other law enforcement agencyGÇ¥ or GÇ£as with any other policeGÇ¥. Without that word, they are not in the same class GÇö they just have shared characteristics with the class.
Quote:Concord is analogized to both a police force and a law enforcement agency - they are not just some arbitrary isk sink. No. CONCORD's response (and the reason for that response) is simply compared with the law. They are an arbitrary cost enforcement mechanism GÇö that's how they offer a deterrent.
Quote:Literally, the sentence only makes sense if CONCORD is both a police force and a law enforcement agency - its literally unreadable otherwise. Incorrect. The sentence makes sense if CONCORD is a cost enforcement mechanism that happens after a gank rather than before it: it creates a deterrent through punitive and reactive measures. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24349
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 04:41:00 -
[139] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:The instawarp only starts once CONCORD shows up...not once you get shot at. GǪand that lets you do exactly what he describes. This is bad thing. Your idea is bad. It also does not solve anything. It is trying to GÇ£fixGÇ¥ a problem that doesn't even exist. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24349
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 04:49:00 -
[140] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:"other" is not a required word in that sentence. It is required to draw the conclusions you're drawing. Since it's missing, those conclusions can't be drawn.
Parking meter attendants can be described the same way, yet they are not a police force. The UN can be described the same way, yet they are not a police force. Hall monitors can be described the same way, yet they are not a police force. I can be described the same way, yet I am not a police force.
Quote:In your view CCP Falcon should have said "CONCORD is not a police force at all. They are not in highsec to protect you. They are merely an isk-sink that destroy ships that commit a criminal act subsequent to such act occurring. Go protect yourselves." GǪand guess what? He has said pretty much exactly that. Do you know why? Because that's how highsec works; that's how CONCORD works; and that's how personal responsibility works.
Quote:The key point is that CONCORD punish for breaking the law- they are not just some "isk sink mechanic." Close but not quite. They punish you for breaking the law (GÇ£the lawGÇ¥ in this question is GÇ£no unsanctioned aggressive actsGÇ¥) by enforcing the cost penalty that comes breaking the law. That single law GÇö aggression comes at a cost GÇö is the key principle of highsec.
Oh, and stop calling them an ISK sink mechanic GÇö it just makes you seem even more ignorant.
Quote:I'm not seeing it...please lay out the scenario. Onoz, WTs incoming. Trigger CONCORD to get a free out if it turns out we can't take them! 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 skillplan 2.2. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24351
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 05:06:00 -
[141] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Not getting your scenario. What is it you don't get about it? You get an instawarp that you can call in if you need it, which means you are in full control of the encounter. Before they can bring anything to bear on you, you have already decided the outcome. This is a bad thing. Your idea is bad. it also solves nothing.
Quote:I would be thrilled of CONCORD would act like hall monitors, the UN, or parking attendants. That is not their role so they never will.
Quote:Ever been to highsec? That doesn't answer his question: why are you even trying to fly a freighter under a wardec?
Quote:using bumping to render a ship unable to warp, which is the functional equivalent, SHOULD be a crime. GǪexcept that there is exactly zero functional overlap, as you know full well by now. So there is zero reason why it should be a crime. That's why it isn't on and why CONCORD (to say nothing of the GMs) doesn't and shouldn't care about it. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24351
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 05:12:00 -
[142] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:You could be aligned and insta warp already? Then you don't control the situation.
Quote:And the fact is that when you try to press that warp button and it doesn't work, you don't care whether its from a scram or from bumping. Yes you do, because on one case, you can't warp whereas in the other, you still can. CONCORD cares because the former requires the use of an aggressive module and the latter does not.
Quote:You don't define crimes by hypertechnical actions like "activating" a module Yes you do. In fact, you have to. Welcome to game design. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24354
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 05:21:00 -
[143] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Except they will protect you from your incompetence in getting scrammed, right? No.
Quote:And why is my idea terrible? This has already been explained in full. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24355
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 05:26:00 -
[144] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:You completely failed to give a scenario where this would be problematic. Incorrect. You just didn't understand it GÇö as always GÇö and said so very clearly. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24355
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 05:30:00 -
[145] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Yes, to stop the from aligning and warping off. But why? (They can still align and warp off, by the way).
Quote:And when CCP comes and blows up people scramming you, isnt that CCP protecting you rather than you protecting yourself? No. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24357
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 05:39:00 -
[146] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:That stupid? In 15 mins of being bumped they couldn't muster the basic competence to click on a nearby celestial and press "warp to." You're finally getting it. Do you understand how why your GÇ£experienceGÇ¥ was disqualified as pretty much worthless and irrelevant to the discussion?
Quote:And anyhow I tried telling an Orca pilot to do it in Uedama, and he said he kept trying but the bumping made it impossible, so I don't think that is foolproof at all. What happened is that you met the proverbial bigger fool. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24358
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 05:45:00 -
[147] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I'm just not seeing it guys Then open your eyes. It's not any more complicated than that.
Quote:it really is a question for CCP. Whether an optimally piloted freighter can always manage to warp off during 15 minutes of bumping by 3 optimally fitted and piloted Machariels. It's not a question for them, because the answer is obvious: yes. The mechanics say so, experience says so, in fact, everything says so. Trying to appeal to a GÇ£higher powerGÇ¥ to change the fact of the matter will not work.
Quote:I really don't think the answer is "yes." I can't fathom that so many freighter pilots would be so stupid as to miss a trivial way of avoiding the bumping and saving their ship. Welcome to highsec. The answer is not any more complicated than that. If you think otherwise, the only solution is for you to stop. Breaking the game certainly won't solve the problem.
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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24358
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 05:50:00 -
[148] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:And again from you...merely asserting that X is true, without proving it, and with significant evidence to the contrary, does not make it true. No, but the ample evidence provided to you proves it. If, after all that, and after having every detailed you got wrong explained to you, you still refuse to think that things work the way they work, then that's not a problem that can be fixed by changing the game.
The only solution to you not believing in reality is for you to start believing in reality. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24359
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 05:55:00 -
[149] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Why should a single pilot be able to escape the efforts of three pilots specifically fit and flown to warp scramble him? He can't.
Quote:EXACTLY. If the bumpers are competent, and bump you away from celestials, like I assume they do in Uedama, you are SOL. No. It's still possible to escape. If the bumpers are competent and co-ordinated, it just takes a bit more effort and co-oridnation.
Quote:Well, settled them, competent bumpers can push you away from celestials, rendering it impossible for you to warp out on your own. Too bad that it's not actually true and that your confirmation bias will not be satisfied. You are still as wrong as you ever were, which is a pity because you were getting so close to finally understanding it. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24359
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 06:05:00 -
[150] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Well to me this is settled. So you've chosen to continue lying, is that it? The facts haven't changed. You have just decided to pick an answer that aligns with your incorrect and ignorant view of how things works because you don't want to accept the simple fact that you were wrong about everything.
Quote:And to tie this back to the OP (always important!), the combination of CODE killing empty freighters, and using bumping to give it multiple shots at better tanked ones, is a broken mechanic What's broken about it?
Quote:I would suggest adopting my bumping change, figuring out how to punish people with -10 sec status, and incentivizing gankers to target ships with lots of loot Your bumping change is a bad idea; -10 people are already punished; and gankers are already incentivised to go after targets with lots of loot. So your suggestion is useless.
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 skillplan 2.2. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24359
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 06:15:00 -
[151] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Blowing up empty pods post-gank is not useful. Pods can't be empty. And no-one said anything about shooting pods to begin with.
Quote:And shooting at them lets them shoot back at you in gank fitted ships, often a swarm of them. No. CrimeWatch does not work that way. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24361
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 06:18:00 -
[152] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:the problem is that it's not deterring them from blowing up empty freighters. Even if that were true (which you'd have to prove), why is that a problem? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24363
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 08:32:00 -
[153] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:You seem to be mistaken. What veers is saying is that you suicide gankers have it far too easy time in EVE and he is correct. How so?
Quote:these broken and imbalance mechanics do get fixed over time but unfortunately with CCP, things don't seem to be a problem untill more people start doing them. How is anything broken or imbalance here?
Quote:There is no reason suicide gankers shouldn't have some checks and balances. They already do, you know.
Quote:You I have resorted to personal attacks out of your my own mental comprehension failures and frustrations
There, fixed it for you. Personal pronouns are hard. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24363
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 08:57:00 -
[154] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:Wow, do you guys just spend all day refreshing the forums? Says the guy who compulsively posts without being able to really discuss the topicGǪ
Quote:None seem capable to refute the fact that suicide ganking is more likely to victimize newer, casual players. How is that a fact? What evidence do you have to support your claim?
Quote:Nor that suicide ganking carries no significant cost or penalties This has been refuted thoroughly by everyone, includnig the devs.
Quote:while reaping potentially incredible profits and devastating losses on victim all within the comfort of high sec. So? That's really the victim's fault and not a problem with the game.
Quote:Try to provide an answer as to why people afraid to real pvp, preying upon noobs and casuals in high sec, should have such an easy time in EVE? Do any such people actually exist in the game, and what makes you say that they have an easy time? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24371
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 14:15:00 -
[155] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:If CONCORD response times were the same, would that alleviate some of this? Then what would be the point? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24371
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 21:05:00 -
[156] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:What does need a tweak is the CODE abuse of various game mechanics (bumping, -10 sec status, etc...) to blow up empty ships, grief new players, and look for tears, not isk. CCP just needs to intelligently incentivize them to act more like rational suicide gankers who do it as a business. Why does it need to be tweaked? There is no abuse going on and all the mechanics in question are working as intended. The incentive to treat ganking as a business is already there GÇö after all, that's how it's done right now.
Quote:Which is irrelevant if you are part of CODE and have -10 sec status. No, it's not. There is nothing special or magical about those that suddenly makes game mechanics not apply to them. They're as relevant to them as to everyone else.
Quote:I already made an argument for action. These guys obviously don't care about isk. They do care about time. Solution - make them grind more to be able to operate in highsec, which will make their ganks more selective. Solution to what? You haven't defined the problem you're trying to solve yet. And why on earth should they have to suffer from more grinding for no good reason? They already care about ISK GÇö this is obvious to anyone who has actually looked at how they operate, and it has already been explained to you why this is the case. Why is it that you are so steadfastly determined to never have any kind of attachment to reality in your arguments?
Quote:My scenario also involved 3 optimally fitted machariels using optimal bumping technique against a freighter. GǪand as proven beyond any doubt, that scenario does not live up to the description of GÇ£100% impossible to escapeGÇ¥. And you have yet to demonstrate that, even if it were true, that is actually presents any kind of problem that needs to be solved. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24371
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 21:12:00 -
[157] - Quote
Anslo wrote:Funny. I don't see gankers and grr carebear types using this argument when speaking against highsec. I see the opposite. So what is it? Rewards for bears and such should be nerfed? Or left alone cause it's 'player determined?' Both. You see, some of their rewards are player-determined and can be left alone just fine. Many others are mechanically determined and could stand to be nerfed due to the minute risks involved in acquiring them.
Quote:...did you just compare a Cata to a BS for ganking? Yes. It's an apt comparison since one was the cheap ganking tool of choice before the nerf, and the other was what replaced it in response to that nerf. How is this comparison odd to you?
Quote:Nice try brah. Stop being absolutist. I never said get rid of gankers. Not once. I said what do they risk? Haulers risk their load and income. Gankers risk...what? Time, ISK, income, future ability to operate. And even if those risks were low (they're not), so what? But it in the balance against the utterly minuscule risk that the haulers face, and it becomes fairly obvious that the risks the gankers face reduces the risk the haulers face to pitifully low levels. The haulers could do with a bit more risk, and a good way of making that happen is to take some of the pressure off of the gankers. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24371
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 21:39:00 -
[158] - Quote
Anslo wrote:I can agree. But real talk, you don't see it argued that fairly around here do you? Sure you do. It appears pretty much every time the topic of balancing highsec income pops up. It's just that this topic has become a bit more rare now that people are so focused about complaining about ganking for reasons they can't articulate.
Quote:The value is still, as I said, uneven to me. A cata and insurance is just a few mil tossed away, versus the kill mail or drops you get.
Time. OK. ISK, see above. Ability to operate? How? They can zoom about highsec as a criminal all day. It happens...every day. This is where we come into the player-determined part. The value is uneven because the victim makes it uneven. And no, this is not blaming the victim GÇö it's looking at where the agency exists. The victim is the only person who has any control whatsoever over that value and over any cost dissonance. They decide how much ISK the ganker has to expend; they decide how much ISK the ganker can get.
This extends to the ability to operate: the gankers can zoom around in highsec all day becauseGǪ (drumroll)GǪ the victims let them. This risk is entirely player-determined. If the players determine that the risk should be zero, then the risk becomes zero. If they determine that, then they no longer have any ground for complaints about how low the risk supposedly is GÇö they actively and willingly chose to make it that way.
But more than that, no, ISK is not really a factor. ISK is not something you can or should balance around. If you do, you end up with ISK-tanking, which is a fundamentally broken concept: just because you bought something expensive does not mean it should be immune to my very cheap thing. Quite the opposite GÇö the fact that you can destroy vast sums while expending very small sums yourself proves there is proper balance.
Quote:Naw brah naw, stop RIGHT there. List to me, right now, how it's minuscule. The chances of it happening is ~0% and the expected loss approaches the same number (since we're multiplying with a probability of ~0).
Quote:This statement...makes no sense to me. Like, I can't even right now with this logic. They risk of death for a ganker is pretty much a sure thing yeah, but it still comes down to that isk worth. A cata to a ganker is nothing (in general). A freighter load is a whoooole lot of something to a hauler. A bit more risk? They have barely any defense. What's your problem with it?
GÇó Haulers have ~0 risk. This is very very low. GÇó Gankers have a much higher risk. This isn't very difficult since the point of comparison is ~0%. GÇó The only real way to increase the former is to reduce the latter. Gê¦ Even if the risk gankers face should happen to be low, it's worth lowering it to bring up the haulers' risk to a more reasonable level.
The beauty of it is that we can alter the ganker's risk without touching the (supposedly low) ISK loss you're fixated on. But again, ISK worth is not what it comes down to. Not only does the risk include far more factors, the ISK risk itself is not unbalanced just because there is more ISK at stake on one side. If anything, the risks are unbalanced in the opposite direction because of the respective expected outcomes. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24373
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 21:50:00 -
[159] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:1. Not working as intended when CODE is repeatedly blowing up ships at a loss just to create tears. CODE is not treating it as a business, just a way of hurting people.
2. The game mechanics do apply to them, but are insufficient to actually deter them from ganking at a loss.
3. They obviously don't care about isk because they operate at a loss. Contra most of the other groups that gank that do it to make isk - lots of it. They carefully select high value targets, and profit from the drops. Check out minerbumping.com where they brag about blowing up empty freighters. You are the one ignoring reality, as per usual.
4. Really, how did you prove it? Just asserting over and over? It seems that if the bumper pushes the freighter away from Celestials (which is apparently the way they do it in Uedama) there is no button clicking by the freighter pilot that will let him escape. And if, as I suspect, that is true, then CODE have managed to replicate warp scrambling without CONCORD intervention. 1. Is incorrect. It is a business. Go look at the cash flow. And you didn't answer the question: why does it need to be tweaked? Just because you can blow up empty ships (especially if, as in this case, you still earn money from it) does not mean that anything is broken.
2. So? Why is that a problem? And how do you know they do it at a loss? Not all earnings come from the wreck, you knowGǪ Either way, it's not irrelevant to them either GÇö it's your tool to make incursion into their earnings scheme. If it is irrelevant, it is because you, personally decided that it should be. If you don't like it, decide differently.
3. They obviously care about ISK since they make fscktons of money from what they're doing. If they stopped making ISK, they would stop ganking. It's that simple. Check out minerbumping.com to get an insight into how they make money. It's there in plain sight, and you are simply ignoring the money-making scheme because its obvious and explicit existence does not fit into your decision to remain uninformed and ignorant about all things you whine about. And again, you didn't answer the question: solution to what? You still haven't defined any kind of problem.
4. I proved it by pointing to the mechanics involved. I proved it by providing actual experience in how it is done. Others proved it by providing actual experience in how it is done. You have nothing to support your assumptions. Your suspicions are not suspicions any more GÇö they are lies. They are wilful ignorance of reality. They are an abject and total refusal to listen or learn or understand the facts of the matter, even after they have been shoved in your face a dozen times. This idiotic claim of yours that it has GÇ£just been asserted over and overGÇ¥ is yet another one of your pathetic and ignorant lies. The only one who asserts the same disproven and mendacious idiocy over and over and over and over is you.
Give it up. Any argument you base on that lie is itself a lie, and every time you lie (i.e. every time you post), it just strengthens my case against you. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24374
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 01:40:00 -
[160] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:You gots your finger on the pulse of it Tippia, when it comes to risk/reward and highsec ganking.
Now, for the fun part. Doesn't matter in the least for CODE ganking. CODE makes isk on empty hauler kills. The ship itself is pretty meaningless, in fact. Remember, CODE monetized the ganking of miners, at first.
CODE makes it's money on stories and attention. Get a gank, get hilarious tearmail, build a funny blog post, get donations. THAT is where the ISK rolls in from. Oh, I know. I'm paying them for it, after all.
Veers Belvar wrote:What we also see is that the suicide gankers are funded by incredibly bored people in nullsec. Short of fixing the sov mechanics and getting null interesting again, it seems fair to say that those folks will keep pouring in isk to CODE for the sake of some highsec mayhem. Funnily enough, that will not cut off their funding since the entertainment they provide is not limited to GÇ£bored people in nullsecGÇ¥. So what you're suggesting will not have the effect you're after.
Quote:That makes me prefer forcing the career gankers to grind for sec status, which would have less effect on the occasional gankers who do it for profit. Why is anything of the kind needed?
Quote:This would incentivize gankers to carefully pick juicy targets, and not just blow up everything that moves. This is already the case. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24376
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 02:00:00 -
[161] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:It's fun.
It's a PvP game, and shooting things is fun.
You do realize that some people are not solely motivated by profit, right? Wait. This seems so familiar all of a sudden. Gevlon alt spotted? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24378
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 03:17:00 -
[162] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:Typical victim blaming. No. Accurate analysis of agency. I take it you agree since you can't provide a single counter-argument.
Quote:You are arguing in absolutes. No. He's presenting unequivocal and undeniable facts delivered from the ultimate authority on the matters: the people who designed the game and the mechanics that go into it.
Veers Belvar wrote:I don't find it enjoyable to have fun by hurting other people, especially highsec players who are looking to avoid PvP. If they are looking to avoid PvP then 1) they should probably not play a PvP game such as EVE, and 2) they should take measures to avoid being PvPed. If they do neither, then the claim that they are looking to avoid PvP rings very hollow.
Quote:No I said that many players don't expect it. That's their problem and one easily fixed by educating themselves about the nature of the game they've chosen to play. It is not a game problem. It's an expectations problem. No game change will fix a problem not related to the game.
Quote:I actually proposed a fix. To what? You haven't defined any kind of problem with the game. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24379
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 03:24:00 -
[163] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:CODE has basically unlimited ISK already. Hopefully this thread has caused CCP to think about curbing the abuse of bumping and imposing grinding requirements on CODE What abuse? Why would CCP curb the use of legitimate game mechanics and impose bad gameplay on people for no apparent reason? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24379
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 03:31:00 -
[164] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:Just because you are incapable of understanding can't read minds and have never been told the problem, does not mean a problem does not exist. So define it. Explicitly. Using actual facts to prove that it is a problem. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24383
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 03:38:00 -
[165] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:People have done that multiple times already. I repeat: GÇ£Using actual facts to prove it is a problemGÇ¥.
No. No-one has been able to define an actual problem.
They have just been able to air unfounded concerns and complained about things that do not GÇö can not GÇö actually exist in the game; things they've heard about from someone who completely misunderstood what was going on to begin with. All of those claims have been proven false or proven unsupported or just outright demolished because the logic behind them was thoroughly fallacious.
You weren't even able to suggest one right now, when told outright to do so. That's how non-existant the problem is: the one person who desperately needs one to exist to validate his constant barrage of abuse and foot-stomping fails completely at even suggesting that there is one. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24383
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 03:42:00 -
[166] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Because its being used to replicate the effect of warp scrambling. No. Stop lying.
Quote:And imposing grinding requirements will curb the ganking of empty ships just to annoy people. Can you prove that anything of the kind is happening? And why is such an imposition of bad gameplay needed? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24388
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 04:02:00 -
[167] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:If it wasnt to replicate a warp scram they would just warp off and what would the point be? Why are you lying when you already know the answer?
Quote:Yes, and the Bumping is done so they CANNOT do that. Why are you lying when you know that what you're saying doesn't work and that it's done for a completely different reason? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24390
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 04:11:00 -
[168] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:and how would that help if the freighter could warp off? It helps because now you have him in a position where you stand a good chance of actually successfully performing the gank.
You are still operating under the assumption that the freighter properly tries to warp off.
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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24392
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 04:19:00 -
[169] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Does warp disrupting shut down the MWD? Warp disruptors are not scrams. I would normally add GÇ£you know this, rightGÇ¥ at this point, but we all know that you don't.
Quote:If you didn't bump him there is basically a 100% chance he would warp off and you would surely not kill him. No. Warping off is not a factor; if you didn't bump him there, half of the gank fleet would just insta-die, the other half would die a little later (and most likely not achieve a kill since the DPS required is no longer there), and the odds of getting any loot is close to zero. If warping off was somthing you wanted to avoid, you'd just put a point on him.
Quote:You can kill a guy who is on the gate You can, but doing so requires far more manpower and massively increases the risks to the point where it's most likely not worth doing.
Quote:So the #1 objective of bumping is to GǪmove him away from the spot where everyone will die, the gank will fail, and/or the loot will be lost. Warping off is not a factor.
Quote:No, MWD still works So why do you keep lying about how it replaces warp scrambling? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24392
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 04:29:00 -
[170] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:And if you don't bump him he will always warp off No.
Quote:The reason the Codebros don't point/scram ships on landing is because that would spawn CONCORD. You know that spawning CONCORD is a very handy tool for the ganker, right?
Quote:They need time to undock all the -10 folks and get them to target. Not really, no.
Quote:And anyhow, my ENTIRE point about bumping concerned its use between gank attempts, with CONCORD already on the scene, when pointing is impossible. Your entire point about bumping is based on a complete ignorance of the mechanics involved and a fundamental misunderstanding of the strategies being employed. Your point is therefore very stupid and has no bearing on the game.
By the way, you didn't answer the question: why do you keep lying about how bumping replicates warp scrambling? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24392
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 04:33:00 -
[171] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Yawn, it replicates warp disrupting, *nice catch* No, not that either.
Tell me a couple of things: 1. How does warping work? What are the requirements and mechanics involved? 2. How does bumping work? What does it do and how? 3. How does warp scrambling work? What does it do and how? 4. How does warp disruption work? What does it do and how?
Quote:As for the rest, evading the truth as always. I really wish you wouldn't. if you instead accepted the truth and stuck to them, you wouldn't have such huge problems right now.
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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24392
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 04:37:00 -
[172] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Once the faction police show up...which for gankers is often GǪbefore the gank even starts.
Quote:And we have had multiple freighter pilots here tell us that they couldn't warp off. Their incompetence is not indicative of how the game mechanics work. Even a single successful attempt would nullify any and all generalisation of their failures and guess what? We have plenty of successful attempts.
Quote:And my observations tell me that with competent bumpers it is hard/impossible to do solo. So I'll take that over the word of same gankers....thanks. Your observations tell you nothing because you have no idea what the pilot was doing or how competent the bumpers were. And you realise that you are not talking to the gankers, but to the freighter pilots here, I hopeGǪ
The number of alive freighters in Uedama suggests that it is trivial to avoid, and the dead ones only suggest that too many rely too much on autopilot for their own good.
Quote:Ya thanks, I'm not here to give class. Yes you are. I'll give you one more chance to demonstrate even a hint of understanding of the mechanics involved. Without that understanding, anything you say on the topic is based on nothing but fantasy and has no relation to the actual game.
So: 1. How does warping work? What are the requirements and mechanics involved? 2. How does bumping work? What does it do and how? 3. How does warp scrambling work? What does it do and how? 4. How does warp disruption work? What does it do and how? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24392
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 04:44:00 -
[173] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:no, because we have no idea how competent the bumpers were. We would need to be assured of maximal competence on both ends. No, we can't assume anything actually. That is yet another reason why you can't draw any conclusions from your outside observation.
Quote:I suspect that the "freighter pilots" here may also have alts that engage in ganking. You should deal with facts rather than suspicions. So far, your suspicions have pretty much universally led you wrong. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24392
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 04:56:00 -
[174] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:You can't possibly know if both the bumping and the response are optimal. GǪtherefore, your observations are worthless.
What we can know (and I mean GÇ£weGÇ¥ as in the rest of us, not you) know is how the mechanics work and they tell a pretty damning story: you can always GÇö always GÇö warp off.
Quote:Only CCP would know. No, they really wouldn't GÇö at least not in any way that isn't known as well, or better, by the actual participants.
Quote:If there are no celestials there, then it can't. You can warp to more things than just celestials. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24392
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 05:04:00 -
[175] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Well that's enough for tonight....just more speculation, and more dead freighters. 6 yesterday, today was quiet. Maybe they were all "bad" at avoiding bumping, but I seriously doubt that you can ALWAYS escape it, in fact done properly, I strongly suspect that you can virtually NEVER escape it. And every single one of your suspicions are instantly disproved by reality, so it's probably about time you stopped listening to them and instead opened your ears for the voice of experience and reasoning.
That way, you don't have to add more speculation every time your previous attempts fail (i.e. every time, period). Meanwhile, the spectacularly low death rate of freighters continue, since so few are doing it these days and since they are so ridiculously easy to avoid. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24397
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 16:01:00 -
[176] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Well CODE is doing it at a loss to make people cry. Do you have any proof of this?
Quote:When people invest a significant amount of time/energy in an activity, they tend to react to someone willfully destroying their, whether in pixel for or in RL. If you would spend weeks putting together a puzzle, or drawing a painting, and someone would come and destroy it, you would obviously be upset. Not if you lived on PieceSnap lane in PuzzleBreak-town, famous across the entire world for its gleefully antagonistic stance against puzzles, where it is considered bad manners to not set fire to your neighbour's puzzle to welcome them into the community.
Of course, anyone who doesn't share this culture was probably a bit silly for choosing to move there. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24397
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 16:05:00 -
[177] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Not seeing the analogy...losing a competition is one thing. And losing a PvP encounter is the exact same thing. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24401
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 16:15:00 -
[178] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Destroyed is the not the same as Dropped. If that much is destroyed, you can bet that a fair portion is dropped as well.
You keep repeating the lie of non-profit; you keep failing to prove it, further demonstrating the fact that you have to lie to even appear as if you had an argument (which turns out to be irrelevant anyway).
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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24404
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 16:19:00 -
[179] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Not enough dropped to cover the losses Prove it.
Quote:close to 400 billion raised, but only 10 billion in the treasury. Where is the profit here? We already know that you don't understand the concept of GÇ£profitGÇ¥. You don't have to demonstrate it again. You just showed where the profit was. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24404
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 16:22:00 -
[180] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Blowing up empty ships is not a profitable activity. Prove it.
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 skillplan 2.2. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24404
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 16:25:00 -
[181] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Compare the cost involved in blowing up an empty freighter (at least 250 mil, usually significantly more than that) to the profit involved ( some % chance of a new freighter sale, at a paper thing margin). Ok. So it's very profitable. You were supposed to prove the opposite.
Was this failure because you still don't understand the concept of profit or something more fundamental? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24408
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 17:42:00 -
[182] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:No, but people who want to make a profit don't intentionally blow up empty ships in an -EV fashion. Sure they do. Because they profit from it. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24410
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 17:47:00 -
[183] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:And, as shown You haven't shown anything. Prove your claim, and stop lying. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24410
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 17:54:00 -
[184] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I support the concept of suicide ganking Just one thing: you're lying. We know this because you have gone on the record saying you don't support it. Since you now go on to make conditions, you still don't support it. So what you meant to say here was GÇ£I don't support suicide ganking, in concept or otherwiseGÇ¥.
Quote:I personally do not do it, because I like to help people, not hurt them This is a lie. We know this because of the newbie griefing you have openly engage in on these forums.
Quote:I oppose the type of suicide ganking that CODE is doing, which is purely to rile people up This is a lie. There is far more to CODE's ganking that purely to rile people up. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24412
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:02:00 -
[185] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Well, there was a threshold question of if CODE is making a profit (I say no, others say yes). GǪand you have no proof for you stance.
Quote:Once that is dealt with, then you would say ok, so its not a business, its just a tear creation program, is that legitimate? Yes. That's why, even if what you said is true (but again, you can't prove it), it is irrelevant.
Quote:The question then becomes though, has CCP set up the game in optimal fashion Yes. They've said so on multiple occasions. You can stop asking because you have been given the answer so many times now that asking it again is itself wilfully ignorant.
Quote:To the extent that CODE is bleeding isk just to make people cry and humiliate them on minerbumping.com, is that the kind of conduct that CCP sees as socially valuable and wants to incentivize? So to zero extent then. And yes, that is a kind of conduct that is being explicitly allowed and marketed by CCP.
Quote:For example, is it reasonable that people with -10 sec status can continue their spree of ganking in highsec, with no other contributions to the game in between to raise their security status? Very obviously yes. Otherwise, they would not have been allowed to to so and CCP would not have put in the effort to make sure that this can happen.
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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24413
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:08:00 -
[186] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:[Lolz....you do so prove entertainment here So you agree then, since you can't actually offer any proof to the contrary.
Quote:I said no such thing. Yes you did. Explicitly and on numerous occasions, here and elsewhere. You have already proven this, and you can't take it back.
No you don't. You grief them by actively ruining their chances to learn EVE. You have already proven this and you can't take it back.
Quote:Check their website, its all about tears. Check their treasury, its all about losing isk. GǪexcept that their treasure prove you wrong and you have no other proof to support your lie. Again, you keep claiming that there is no profit. Prove it.
Quote:Thankfully CCP is constantly decided how to change and improve the game, it isn't static. This part of the game is, because they explicitly have said that it is supposed to work that way. Every time you ask them, they give the same answer. And no-one has ever offered even the remotest hint of anything resembling a reason why it should change. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24413
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:15:00 -
[187] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I think I've made my position on suicide ganking pretty darn clear. No, because you are a liar. Nothing you say can ever be trusted. Nothing you say seems to ever be true, and most of the time, the exact opposite of what you said turns out to be (or just very obviously is) the case.
This is why you need to prove proof. Because without it, every word that comes out of you is 100% worthless and irrelevant. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24415
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:19:00 -
[188] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:To prove proof? Even I can't do that! Because guessing GÇ£provideGÇ¥ before I corrected it is sooooooo hard.
Liar.
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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24415
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:20:00 -
[189] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:No, I've explicitly laid out my position. GǪand then contradicted it. So you were lying. You can't even prove your own stance.
Quote:CCP should adjust incentives so that it occurs more when +EV, and less when -EV. This is already the case, liar, so why should they adjust the incentives? 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24416
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:27:00 -
[190] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Did not contradict my own stance. Yes you did, liar. First you were against ganking, then you were for it, then you were for it with condition (which means you're against it).
Quote:No, CODE is institutionalizing -EV ganks GǪexcept that you can't prove that they're not profiting from them, so that's quite a lie as well. And it doesn't change the fact that the incentives are already what you claim you want them to be (but then again, with your track record, this is probably a lieGǪ). So why should they adjust the incentives?
Quote:How do you prove that there is such a thing as proof? Ask Popper. Or al-Haytham. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24419
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:34:00 -
[191] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I was never opposed to all suicide ganking Your earlier claims prove otherwise.
Quote:And thinking that incentives should be altered to make there more +EV ganking and less -EV ganking does not mean that I am against ganking. Why should there be, and why should the incentives be altered?
Quote:And CODE is bleeding money like a beast, look at their bank account. And you have yet to prove that their ganks are not profitable. In fact, everything you hint at (but don't actually cite) suggests the exact opposite of your claim, making those claims look an awful lot like lies. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24419
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:47:00 -
[192] - Quote
Trixie Lawless wrote:Who cares if he has proof or not. State your piece and be done with it like an adult. The piece has been stated: everything he says is a lie. He has no proof. If he wants anything he says to be believe, he has to provide proof. He can't, so he tries to disprove his lies with more lies.
I'm just calling a spade a spade. 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 skillplan 2.2. |
|
|
|