Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 157 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 25 post(s) |
Remiel Pollard
The Vigilance Institute
3716
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 07:24:00 -
[1861] - Quote
Purity by Fire wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Oh oh...You are going to get into trouble. It is clearly against posting policies to display discussions with GM's.
Prepare for a forum ban.
Nothing going on here just a GM bending the rules. Move along
And there's a reason he's a GM, and you two aren't. You don't scare me. I've been to Jita.
|
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
899
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 07:26:00 -
[1862] - Quote
You would need a stupidly valuable cargo to bother spawning Concorde using alts on all the gates between Jita and Dodi or Amarr.
Though it might be an interesting thing for a large freight corp to do. |
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
933
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 07:42:00 -
[1863] - Quote
Hasikan Miallok wrote:You would need a stupidly valuable cargo to bother spawning Concorde using alts on all the gates between Jita and Dodi or Amarr.
Though it might be an interesting thing for a large freight corp to do. Just Niarja and Madirmilire would suffice, I guess. |
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Unleashed Pestilence
785
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 08:09:00 -
[1864] - Quote
GM Lelouch wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:baltec1 wrote:When we ran our caldari ice interdiction we killed about 600 macks in two weeks. Despite having a month of warning not a single one fitted a tank.
that reminds me, earlier in the thread there was talk about 'defensive' concord spawning being an exploit. i said to another poster i'd ask the gamemasters what the policy was, and ask permission to post the answer in the thread Hello all, In order to clear up our current stance concerning this mechanic, I'm going to attach the ticket response I sent to Benny Ohu:
We do not consider intentionally spawning CONCORD using disposable ships an exploit at this time. This is, like all policies, subject to change in the future if deemed necessary for some reason, but we have no current plans to make any changes to this stance. To put our stance quite clearly, we currently make no distinction between these two scenarios: a. Suicide gank. CONCORD is spawned because Player A attacks Player B without the rights to do so. b. Defensive spawning. CONCORD is spawned because Player A's alt character attacks Player A without the rights to do so. My best guess would be that the confusion stems from different rules having been broken. There are two exploits of sorts which I can think of which could have led to warnings being placed in a scenario similar to "b" above. 1. Alt character recycling. It is considered a violation to recycle alt characters and/or trial accounts to bypass negative consequences. In this case, the consequences being escaped would be the standing hit for performing an unlawful attack in CONCORD protected space. 2. Escaping CONCORD retribution. If a player somehow manages to prevent destruction at the hand of CONCORD after performing an unlawful attack, then it is an exploit. We are currently not aware of any such exploits, but there have been ways to do this in the past which have since been fixed. Thanks for the clarification. There has definitely been some confusion over this issue. New player resources: http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Main_Page - General information http://www.evealtruist.com/p/know-your-enemy.html - Learn to PvP http://belligerentundesirables.com/ - Safaris, Awoxes, Ganking and Griefing-á |
karma balancer
The Conference Elite CODE.
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 08:17:00 -
[1865] - Quote
And like i have never witnessed a miner spawning concord in the belt they are mining in to try to stop me killing them.
By the way ...EPIC FAILURE
http://i.imgur.com/UFeJSd7.jpg?1
|
Skydell
Bad Girl Posse Somethin Awfull Forums
576
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 08:21:00 -
[1866] - Quote
I tried to remote rep a freighter once as it was being ganked. It was fruitless.
If I see it rise again, I will try and suicide web one. Junk frigate, 3 Webs, I will lose the frigate but the freighter should go in to warp if I time it right. |
Varathius
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
75
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 09:23:00 -
[1867] - Quote
haha, people that think high sec is a ticket to safety always amuse me. |
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
1279
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 09:58:00 -
[1868] - Quote
Skydell wrote:I tried to remote rep a freighter once as it was being ganked. It was fruitless.
If I see it rise again, I will try and suicide web one. Junk frigate, 3 Webs, I will lose the frigate but the freighter should go in to warp if I time it right.
Has a hard time working when the freighter has been bumped, because it puts it above its speed cap. Might as well have a HIC infinite-pointing it. There in lays the problem with highsec. You can't shoot back first. |
admiral root
Red Galaxy
1361
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 10:21:00 -
[1869] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:There in lays the problem with highsec. You can't shoot back first.
It's grammatically impossible to shoot back first in any type of space. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10572
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 11:25:00 -
[1870] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:And there's a reason he's a GM, and you two aren't. Because he placed a job application? No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
|
Guttripper
State War Academy Caldari State
476
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 11:30:00 -
[1871] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Sentient Blade wrote:There in lays the problem with highsec. You can't shoot back first. It's grammatically impossible to shoot back first in any type of space. 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.
|
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
940
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 11:45:00 -
[1872] - Quote
Guttripper wrote:admiral root wrote:Sentient Blade wrote:There in lays the problem with highsec. You can't shoot back first. It's grammatically impossible to shoot back first in any type of space. 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. Or Tuco: When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22778
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 12:10:00 -
[1873] - 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. |
Black Canary Jnr
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance
115
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 12:22:00 -
[1874] - Quote
Noragli wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:Noragli wrote:When you let one group of players mercilessly grief another set, you lose players. like the carebears who refuse to protect themselves continually demanding that other players' playstyles are nerfed? Quote:Simple and obvious fix to a serious problem. what problem? you haven't established the existence of any 'problem'. The problem is that -10 characters or other low sec status characters can operate ships and attack people in high security space. When a character who has aggressed concord undocks or boards a ship, his ship is barred from warping. If concord can do that, then there is no reason the same can't be applied to an outlaw who undocks or boards a ship in high security space. He should be barred from warping or activating weapons. Ganking will still be possible, but it won't be so ridiculously easy as it is now.
Now you have just trapped a bunch of -10 people in high sec with your carefully thought out 'protect the idiots' suggestion. |
Conar
My Wormhole Hurts
20
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 12:48:00 -
[1875] - Quote
The 'negative impacts' you describe are there for one reason only: to reduce ganks. From their 'natural' frequency of ALWAYS.
:punishment: has absolutely nothing to do with it!
Repeat the experiment with a competent freighter pilot and some backup. Highsec losses: zero. Lowsec losses: I predict at least 5, depending on the backup. That's what the current highsec mechanics do. Still think it's 'nothing'?
I do agree that the current "punnishment" reduces the number of people who choose this profession or choose to do it to manipulate the supply and demand for freighters.
I personally don't think gankers should be "punished" anymore then what happens currently. They know the risks and rewards of their actions. They see the reward, knowing that there is a 100% chance of ship death and sec status hit. Gankers are smart, they do the math.
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?
100% of the time, gankers will win. That does not sound balanced to me.
|
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
942
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 13:09:00 -
[1876] - Quote
Conar wrote:I do agree that the current "punnishment" reduces the number of people who choose this profession or choose to do it to manipulate the supply and demand for freighters.
I personally don't think gankers should be "punished" anymore then what happens currently. They know the risks and rewards of their actions. They see the reward, knowing that there is a 100% chance of ship death and sec status hit. Gankers are smart, they do the math.
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?
100% of the time, gankers will win. That does not sound balanced to me. Except that's simply not true.
CONCORD gives a big help to the freighter. 99.9% of the time, it's enough for a freighter to survive in highsec just by paying attention.
In the unlikely event a group of people with significant resources wants to pop your freighter no matter what, CONCORD still helps a lot. If you want to save that freighter no matter what, you need much less people and resources to prevail on the gankers.
If you're alone and AFK, yes you die to a sufficient number of catalysts. And you deserve it! |
Lady Areola Fappington
1954
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 13:32:00 -
[1877] - Quote
Conar wrote: The 'negative impacts' you describe are there for one reason only: to reduce ganks. From their 'natural' frequency of ALWAYS.
:punishment: has absolutely nothing to do with it!
Repeat the experiment with a competent freighter pilot and some backup. Highsec losses: zero. Lowsec losses: I predict at least 5, depending on the backup. That's what the current highsec mechanics do. Still think it's 'nothing'?
I do agree that the current "punnishment" reduces the number of people who choose this profession or choose to do it to manipulate the supply and demand for freighters.
I personally don't think gankers should be "punished" anymore then what happens currently. They know the risks and rewards of their actions. They see the reward, knowing that there is a 100% chance of ship death and sec status hit. Gankers are smart, they do the math.
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?
100% of the time, gankers will win. That does not sound balanced to me.
It's balanced. You need to think in group terms, not as an individual. If there was a 100% chance of death no matter what to a freighter, then 100% of freighters would be getting ganked all day erry day. Smart freighter pilots know how to play the (massively stacked in their favor) CONCORD odds, and evade ganks.
The best gank evasion doesn't happen at the gate, in hails of bumping and blaster fire. In fact, I'd say if you're in that situation, you're facing your last ditch hail-mary to save yourself with tank and all. It's the WORST way to avoid getting popped.
The best gank evasion is not being where the gankers are. Learn how to avoid and outmaneuver them, THEN you defeat the gank.
In fact, lets do an animal metaphor. Out on the african savannah, what do the antelope do when they see a lion? They run. Sure, antelope hooves and horns can do some damage to a lion. Sure, in a last ditch effort, the antelope will lash out at the lion. Sometimes, they even manage to scare the lion off. That's not how they avoid becoming a meal, though.
Freighters are (really big, fat, and slow) antelopes. The first response when the "lion" ganker appears, should be to evade. If all else fails, THEN you can fall back on the tank, and hope and pray.
This thread officially has 25% more pssssssshhh than leading competitors. Scientology was not founded by I Ron Man. Bangladesh is not an 80s metal band. Peeking at ladiesGÇÖ butts is not a background check. Pot pie is legal in every state. |
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
1280
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 13:48:00 -
[1878] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Sentient Blade wrote:There in lays the problem with highsec. You can't shoot back first. It's grammatically impossible to shoot back first in any type of space.
I'll give you that. I noticed at the time but thought... meh.
What I meant was, if a person is taking a clearly hostile action, you cannot shoot back. |
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
944
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 13:50:00 -
[1879] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:admiral root wrote:Sentient Blade wrote:There in lays the problem with highsec. You can't shoot back first. It's grammatically impossible to shoot back first in any type of space. I'll give you that. I noticed at the time but thought... meh. What I meant was, if a person is taking a clearly hostile action, you cannot shoot back. According to CONCORD's definition of hostile action, you actually can!
Or do you want to shoot first? You ganker, you!
|
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
3523
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 13:52:00 -
[1880] - Quote
I think of it like this. If we could quantify units of effort, player skill and the value of the assets being used by players, then ideally whichever side was 'spending' more units would win a pvp encounter.
In the case of freighter ganking, the pvp encounter begins when a freighter pilot undocks and intends to fly to another system, where one possible route may have another player on it that may decide to do suicide ganking today. |
|
|
GM Lelouch
Game Masters C C P Alliance
89
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 14:17:00 -
[1881] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Oh oh...You are going to get into trouble. It is clearly against posting policies to display discussions with GM's.
Prepare for a forum ban.
I make the rules, I can do that Best regards, Lead GM Lelouch CCP Customer Support | EVE Online | DUST 514 |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22781
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 14:20:00 -
[1882] - 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. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
7036
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 14:21:00 -
[1883] - Quote
GM Lelouch wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Oh oh...You are going to get into trouble. It is clearly against posting policies to display discussions with GM's.
Prepare for a forum ban.
I make the rules, I can do that
Well I, for one, welcome of Britannian Anime Overlords. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
2441
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 14:26:00 -
[1884] - Quote
GM Lelouch wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Oh oh...You are going to get into trouble. It is clearly against posting policies to display discussions with GM's.
Prepare for a forum ban.
I make the rules, I can do that love it "Confirming EVE is hot, batshit crazy, and puts out." -Omar Alharazaad "CAKE CANNOT HOLD UP TO BEING A CHARACTER DAMNIT." --áUnsuccessful At Everything |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
7036
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 14:30:00 -
[1885] - 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?
Anything will die if you throw enough stuff at it and disregard cost.
But this statement you made points to an awful 'thought trap' that many 'carebears' fall into: "There is no 100% solution, so my solution will be to do nothing at all".
It happens like that in real life. some people think "well, I'm going to die eventually, nothing i do will prevent that, not even staying at home all the time would work because an asteroid could hit my house, so I won't even care at all". People like that tend walk around in public in an oblivious stupor, taking no precautions at all and in supremely ironic fashion get hit by trains and buses that would have been easy to avoid had they been paying even a little attention.
Sure, in game you can probably "get got" by a determined enough ganker group, but for the most part if you fly smart, fit smart and take precautions, you chances of survival and success are greatly enhanced. |
Conar
My Wormhole Hurts
20
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 15:09:00 -
[1886] - Quote
Where are my chest beater, leet gankers? For the thrill of the kill, ignoring the "Punishment", if you had the resources... you could kill more then 50% of the time? 70%? 80%? I know you guys do the math so you know what it takes.
I am not asking for change, just an honest answer that there is an imbalance. I guess if you ignore the math then everything can be overcome by throwing more "stuff" at it. I guess I answered my own question in that player choice creates the imbalance. Hence, its not broken or imbalanced. Working as intended.
|
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
15003
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 15:13:00 -
[1887] - Quote
GM Lelouch wrote:I make the rules, I can do that
I cant see any scenario at all where this quote would ever come back to haunt CCP. Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22781
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 15:16:00 -
[1888] - 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. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
19476
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 15:44:00 -
[1889] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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. Tippia, posting the above
Nil mortifi sine lucre |
malcovas Henderson
THoF
190
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 17:45:00 -
[1890] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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.
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. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 157 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |