In every patch note and briefing from CCP i Always see the are balancing stuff .
In the past the nerfed Caldari missile launchers zo mutch that the are completly broken now .
Any way CCP is balancing the frek out of this game right ?.


Why not balance the ganking system that is accepted greatly in this game ?

Shooting down a 22 bil marouder ship (That is not alloaght to fight back until it is attakt ) With 5 dystroyers ships that cost 1 mil a peace within in 5 secconds needs to be nerft .

You have to admit there is an balancing problem here or not ?
Since we all have accepted ganking and since this ganking is part of this game since then it should be watch on too and being nerfed like everything else too .

I dont know what exaktly needs to be nerfed but i take any sugestions in this topic .

So a 5 mil gang shooting down a 22 bil defencles ship in 5 secs shoold be nerfed becouse its not balanced like everyting else is in this game :)

What Boobies said.

. Hell, a pure-T2 tank fit Paladin can get several hundred EHP omni-tank, a large repper, and still have enough raw damage from a full rack of 4 Tachyon's to nuke any lvl 4 ship short of a BS in 1 shot, and most battleships in only a couple shots, from 80km away.

Heh. Hehe

So a 5 mil gang shooting down a 22 bil defencles ship in 5 secs ...

If it's only taking 5 destroyers to kill a Marauder, someone is doing something very wrong on the Marauder end...

And since when are Marauders defenceless? This is the first I've heard of it...

Ok it was 6 desytroyers i checked the kill mail . There was nothing wrong wit the marauder or de player behind it . It just went so fast that even 18 of the 22 gankers dit not get on the kill mail it went so fast there was no time to enable any mod on the ship to defend it self Thats what i mean with Defencless marauder :)

KILL Link

I'd like to see that fit. I don't know much about marauders specifically, but that sounds a little OP.

Ok it was 6 desytroyers i checked the kill mail . There was nothing wrong wit the marauder or de player behind it . It just went so fast that even 18 of the 22 gankers dit not get on the kill mail it went so fast there was no time to enable any mod on the ship to defend it self Thats what i mean with Defencless marauder :)

KILL Link

Ok it was 6 desytroyers i checked the kill mail . There was nothing wrong wit the marauder or de player behind it . It just went so fast that even 18 of the 22 gankers dit not get on the kill mail it went so fast there was no time to enable any mod on the ship to defend it self Thats what i mean with Defencless marauder :)

KILL Link

Those are Tornados - not destroyers!

(If boobies could speak...men would likely be out of a job.)

Agreed, it's not a balance problem. I've always said ganking is a repercussion problem. It just doesn't cost enough situation-ally to effectively commit cold-blooded murder on the ones the sovereign factions rely upon to be the engines of their economies. No state has EVER just let pirates slide. NONE EVER. IT's far too costly on every level and directly confronts the very basis of being civilized - ergo, the basis of sovereignty itself.

If there was ever international, governmental, and popular agreement on anything in history it has always been to give pirates NO QUARTER, unless we hired them, and to summarily execute ON SIGHT. The idea of committing an act of piracy in a sovereign system and living to station up...wait out a timer...only the developmentally challenged, sufferers of personality disorder, and those afflicted with serious inability to emerge from daddy's garage would disagree.

No. The bullets work just fine. The rope would, too, if it were ever EMPLOYED.

Ok i rememberd it wrong but its stal not balanced :)

If it's only taking 5 destroyers to kill a Marauder, someone is doing something very wrong on the Marauder end...

And since when are Marauders defenceless? This is the first I've heard of it...

Ok i rememberd it wrong but its stal not balanced :)

yes that's true you're absolutely right that's a lot of power but i should have bin able to activate some mods ad least the tank mods then i am even not talking about getting a chance to shoot back :)

...

yes that's true you're absolutely right that's a lot of power but i should have bin able to activate some mods ad least the tank mods then i am even not talking about getting a chance to shoot back :)

No. No you didn't even deserve a chance to turn on your tank.

If you're putting around hisec in that blingfit without bothering to run your tank constantly (and have more of a tank than you had, but that's another story) because you don't realize that you have "Gank Me" painted on both your ass and your forehead, then no...you didn't deserve a chance.

Your effectively untanked 22 billion ISK shiny target got lit up like a christmas tree and ate the alphas from 6 tornados...with predictable results.

They killed me with something, nerf it!!

Sorry Beers, that's not how balancing works.

Actually - they nearly killed my well fitted ships with some gank ships, and I pointed out that that doesn't seem like a good mechanic. And yes, that is how balancing works.

Signed,

"Beers"

I don't have any reason to believe that you're capable of fitting well, and even if you did, no, that's still not how balancing works.

I don't have any reason to believe that you're capable of fitting well, and even if you did, no, that's still not how balancing works.

Well, truth be told I could care less what you think of my fits or skill level. I can't think of a single reason why impressing you would make my list of things I'd like to accomplish. And astutely pointing out how cheap gank ships can destroy a much more expensive and well tanked battleship, which seems odd, is part of a balancing discussion.

Balancing in this game is as such that smaller ships can be capable of taking on the larger ones, and visa-versa. This is why we tell newbs that bigger =/= better, because it's not. I killed a Raven in a Wolf the other day. You out to nerf the Wolf too because a 40mil fit killed a 170mil one? You probably are because you don't understand how balancing works, but I'll give you a hint - it has zero to do with the value of the ganker ship vs the value of the target.

No. No you didn't even deserve a chance to turn on your tank.

If you're putting around hisec in that blingfit without bothering to run your tank constantly (and have more of a tank than you had, but that's another story) because you don't realize that you have "Gank Me" painted on both your ass and your forehead, then no...you didn't deserve a chance.

Your effectively untanked 22 billion ISK shiny target got lit up like a christmas tree and ate the alphas from 6 tornados...with predictable results.

If there was a balance issue, you'd see the underpowered ship in question would never be used. Players simply wouldn't want to pay for the ship above manufature cost, which means no one would build it. CCP can easily see these problems and they rebalance ships based on those observations. They don't need to rely on anecdotal evidence or "ten people ganged up on me and my solo ship almost died" whines.

Any way al this **** dossend mather . The point is that suecide ganking needs a balance and a nerf :)

It's not just what I think, and it's not about impressing anyone. You have failed to define 'well tanked' in order to establish a premise for your argument. As such, I have no reason to believe that you are capable of understanding what 'well tanked' means.

On the other hand, you can be as 'well tanked' as you like, if you have a hundred Velators with civ electron blasters on 'em, you're bound to feel some hurt.

Balancing in this game is as such that smaller ships can be capable of taking on the larger ones, and visa-versa. This is why we tell newbs that bigger =/= better, because it's not. I killed a Raven in a Wolf the other day. You out to nerf the Wolf too because a 40mil fit killed a 170mil one? You probably are because you don't understand how balancing works, but I'll give you a hint - it has zero to do with the value of the ganker ship vs the value of the target.

A. This is not true - just because a ship is too easy to gank in highsec does not mean it would cease to exist in the game. It does mean that it would be used less than otherwise.

B. Battleships are the ugly duckling of Eve. They are used by mission runners who generally are not worried about getting ganked since it is a pain to scan them down and gank them. They are not seen as much in low/null because of their relatively high cost, and the easy of ganking them with frigs, cruisers, bombers, etc.. etc...

My battleship had 127k ehp,

Good luck trying to get people to believe that with no argument behind it whatsoever.

Any way al this **** dossend mather . The point is that suecide ganking needs a balance and a nerf :)

Battleships are the ugly duckling of Eve. They are used by mission runners who generally are not worried about getting ganked since it is a pain to scan them down and gank them. They are not seen as much in low/null because of their relatively high cost, and the easy of ganking them with frigs, cruisers, bombers, etc.. etc...

My battleship had 127k ehp, a DC, and two pith A invuls that I overheated. There were 27 catas, all controlled by 1 person of course, in a 0.5 system. Your example is inapposite since the battleship chose to engage you, not realizing that his guns couldn't track you. My point relates specifically to suicide ganking, mainly comparing the dps of the cheap gank ships to the ehp of my expensive battleship, and seeing how much buffer they will burn through before my CONCORD allies arrive. And my conclusion is that the dps of the cheap gank ships is too high relative to the ehp of my well tank battleship. End of story.

argument :

After jumping an gate you warp to the next gate but before that happens you get ganked by 22 destroyers the insta kill your 1.3 bil golem you get no time to enable your mods or do anyting in your defence . Concord is miles away and you die .

Looks to me this fight is not balanced ad all that was the argument :)

What evidence have you supplied that supports this claim?


Which is why, when they are flown outside HiSec, they're accompanied with smaller, supporting ships. Battleships are damn strong, but only when the enemy isn't granted a free pass to dictate how and when their engagements against them occur.


ISK tank == worst tank.

Even if we assume those catalsyst cost a mere 2m each, that's a 54m investment versus a what, 250m investment? Your ship was unescorted and was targeted by a fleet of 27 ships, not counting scout. You're looking at a fair deal of logistics and coordination to bring down one ship.

As an aside, what makes you think they were multiboxed? Not that I don't believe you, I rarely see huge fleets operated by one person.

argument :

After jumping an gate you warp to the next gate but before that happens you get ganked by 22 destroyers the insta kill your 1.3 bil golem you get no time to enable your mods or do anyting in your defence . Concord is miles away and you die .

Looks to me this fight is not balanced ad all that was the argument :)

My battleship had 127k ehp, a DC, and two pith A invuls that I overheated. There were 27 catas, all controlled by 1 person of course, in a 0.5 system. Your example is inapposite since the battleship chose to engage you, not realizing that his guns couldn't track you. My point relates specifically to suicide ganking, mainly comparing the dps of the cheap gank ships to the ehp of my expensive battleship, and seeing how much buffer they will burn through before my CONCORD allies arrive. And my conclusion is that the dps of the cheap gank ships is too high relative to the ehp of my well tank battleship. End of story.

[Rattlesnake, Massive Buffer 3]

Drone Link Augmentor II
5x Cruise Missile Launcher II (Inferno Fury Cruise Missile)

2x Large Shield Extender II
Pith B-Type EM Ward Field
Thermic Dissipation Field II
2x Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
10MN Microwarpdrive II

2x Drone Damage Amplifier II
2x Ballistic Control System II
2x Shield Power Relay II

3x Large Core Defense Field Extender II

5x Warrior I
5x Warrior I
2x Republic Fleet Bouncer

Actually my ship was a reasonably expensive incursion fit Machariel, and the multiboxer was just sitting outside the incursion site on the acc gate waiting for any warping to join the fleet inside. The multiboxing was obvious - all characters created on the same day, all in NPC corp, uniform movement and reaction time, similar name structure, etc.... But yes, I was unimpressed that 54 mil of gank ships could reasonably endanger an expensive Machariel.

432 dps passive tank, 1196 dps @ 80km, 216,000 EHP


Not that I would use this, because you can just use a proper mission ship and actually scout the gates properly instead.

Pay attention Beers. The value is irrelevant. Value of ships are determined by the player-driven economy. Out there, somewhere, a player is deciding how much you'll pay for his Catalysts. Not CCP. CCP isn't going to 'balance' based on what something is worth or they'd be rebalancing the entire game every five minutes.

I have nothing to say so I'm going to completely skip the part where it's incredibly easy for a good battleship tank to do way more than 127ehp and expatiate a strawman just for the sake of being argumentative.

Agreed.

Game Mechanics have been heavily skewed to favor Suicide Ganking which has become the top play option available in this game.



DMC

ERMERGERD ERBERTRERY!!!!

You must have learned from WLC.

The goal is not to maximize tank. The goal is to balance gank and tank, and for a Machariel, also to utilize low sig radius. In my view 27 cheap T1 fit gank catas should not be able to knock a 127k ehp out pirate faction battleship before CONCORD shows up.

The goal is not to maximize tank. The goal is to balance gank and tank, and for a Machariel, also to utilize low sig radius. In my view 27 cheap T1 fit gank catas should not be able to knock a 127k ehp out pirate faction battleship before CONCORD shows up.

The goal is not to maximize tank. The goal is to balance gank and tank, and for a Machariel, also to utilize low sig radius. In my view 27 cheap T1 fit gank catas should not be able to knock a 127k ehp out pirate faction battleship before CONCORD shows up.

You left out some very important facts here, OP. Seems you were awoxed, not ganked, unless it's some huge coincidence that you joined the corp that "ganked" you that day. Bullshit story is bullshit.

You left out some very important facts here, OP. Seems you were awoxed, not ganked, unless it's some huge coincidence that you joined the corp that "ganked" you that day. Bullshit story is bullshit.

the multiboxer was just sitting outside the incursion site on the acc gate

Oops. Busted.

No-one seems to have highlighted the oddity of warping to an acceleration gate with 27 catalysts on d-scan.

Actually, he joined that corp two hours AFTER he was ganked.

There's a story there I wou'd quite like to hear.

I believe he joined after the gank, and then quit upon realizing them allowing him to join was just a scheme to kill more of his ships. There is a TMC artcile about the episode, I think.

They were probably bouncing from site to site hoping to catch someone landing.

a few notes for people not familiar with the guy talking about an incursion fit ship.
Incursion ships are put together with the least practical buffer for the application. they use shiny mods to free up space. that he has 2 A types and a DCU on there makes it overtanked as far as mods go by incursion standards. most people run less. that he only had 127K ehp still suggests he had damage rigs.
I agree with the people on the side of the catalysts here. 27 toons. either a hell of a computer, or a couple of them, if it really was a boxer. and he still didn't manage to kill you. you're complaining that a guy with enough time to run 27 accounts, for a godawful plex total didn't manage to kill your mach? FFS man, deal with it.

Welcome to new eden sir. anything expensive, people will want to take away from you. especially as an incursion runner. the only reasons the guy likely didn't do you in was overheating, and perhaps not accounting for boosts.

and to the other people: Incursions aren't missions. the meta is towards pirate battleships, with logi support. missiles are fairly strictly not allowed. about 2 groups allow them. just because you have a random fit which manages a better EHP number doesn't mean it's useful. and the guy with the rattle fit, you're talking about EHP numbers on one of the three battleship hulls in the game with a resist bonus per BS skill level, which is designed, like the rest of the scorpion hull based ships, around a stupid number of mid slots. also, passive tank in incursions is useless, as is local tank. the incoming DPS is intended to require a fleet to deal with, at least in HQs, which is about the only place you'll see a double A type mach. you use remote reps. he was warping to a beacon with an acceleration gate, rather than a normal gate or a mission gate you need to scan down. so A), he couldn't take gate as soon as he landed, he needed to get up to speed, and B), anyone else could easily warp to it.

for that matter, many communities will tell people with thick tanks to reduce it, as it isn't needed. although, if you can't replace it, don't fly it.

And yes, it is rather scatter brained. sorry.

Well written incursion fitting explanation.

Bad luck I guess then that they happened to warp from outside d-scan range within a window that let them get there before you?

And that no-one saw them at any of the other gates.

And that none of the intel channels picked it up.

That sure is some mighty bad... luck.

My complaint is specifically about the relative dps of cheap gank ships to the ehp of expensive battleships. Personally I don't think that cheap 2 mil catas, even 27 of them, should have enough dps to take down a 700 mil battleship before CONCORD arrives. The dps and ehp are completely arbitrarily determined by CCP, and in my view they chose to make suicide ganking too easy. If people want to use nados, I could handle that - I just don't think that ultra cheap catas should be effective gank ships.

Here is the TMC article for those interested. http://themittani.com/news/alod-big-game-hunters

Edit - and Yes, this gank did involved poor fitting choices by the Golem. No DCU, only 1 invul, no LSE, and a focus on active tank which is pretty useless against nados. Obviously I would never feel comfortable flying this expensive of a ship in highsec because it is a true gank magnet.

Those are not destroyers.

In every patch note and briefing from CCP i Always see the are balancing stuff .
In the past the nerfed Caldari missile launchers zo mutch that the are completly broken now .
Any way CCP is balancing the frek out of this game right ?.


Why not balance the ganking system that is accepted greatly in this game ?

Shooting down a 22 bil marouder ship (That is not alloaght to fight back until it is attakt ) With 5 dystroyers ships that cost 1 mil a peace within in 5 secconds needs to be nerft .

You have to admit there is an balancing problem here or not ?
Since we all have accepted ganking and since this ganking is part of this game since then it should be watch on too and being nerfed like everything else too .

I dont know what exaktly needs to be nerfed but i take any sugestions in this topic .

So a 5 mil gang shooting down a 22 bil defencles ship in 5 secs shoold be nerfed becouse its not balanced like everyting else is in this game :)

The Op has the greatest name in the game, belongs to best named corp and has the best corp history.

https://zkillboard.com/kill/40384034/

I'm assuming this is what you are referencing. Ganking ships like yours isn't easy, our members did a lot of work to find you, and we spent like 4-5 hours sitting around waiting for you to move in a way that would allow us to put a bunch of Nado's in front of you without you being aware of what was going on. That Gank cost us 600,000,000 ISK and would have been much more expensive if we would have been required to use all of the Nado's we brought based on what we assumed your fit to be.

Also : https://zkillboard.com/kill/41201390/

This loss was entirely preventable, there is no way to lose a pod in high sec unless you are not paying attention.

Once you guys execute though, there is no way to stop it. 18 Nados can tear through just about any ship in highsec.

Once you guys execute though, there is no way to stop it. 18 Nados can tear through just about any ship in highsec.

Well of course not, if we spend the time researching him as a target, and then form a fleet to go after him we're not going to bring a dozen pots and pans frigs and hope the DPS is enough, we had intel on his fit and brought more than enough alpha to kill him. Lacco put a lot of work into this gank. And our guys sat around for a long time waiting for our opportunity. It's not like Gaming God was some random scrub we threw 1.8 Billion ISK in Tornadoes at on a whim. He was pretty much invulnerable to us due to game mechanics most of the time we spent hunting him. He was only vulnerable to a gank for a very small amount of time, and we brought the resources to ensure he wasn't going to get away in that small timeframe.

Once you guys execute, your success rate for these ops is pretty close to 100%, right? It's all pretty terrifying for people in highsec :)

Once you guys execute though, there is no way to stop it. 18 Nados can tear through just about any ship in highsec.

"If you bring the right tool for the job, you can get the job done. That's imbalanced."

These posts of yours are reaching the point of self-parody.

Yawn...the important questions of course is how much it SHOULD cost to get the job done, with the optimal tools. That would determine if a rebalance is warranted.

Yawn...the important questions of course is how much it SHOULD cost to get the job done, with the optimal tools. That would determine if a rebalance is warranted.

However much is needed. If you are doing a poor job with your battleship then it won't take much.

Typical carebear, literally yawning past the part where the game actually gets played, to get to the ISK bottom line.

Neither what is required for a gank, nor what is required to be able to avoid one, can be bought or sold on the market. This is why no matter how much and how often suicide ganking is 'nerfed' by making the relevant ship losses more expensive, it still happens.

Not sure what this means.

Obviously.

Yawn...the important questions of course is how much it SHOULD cost to get the job done, with the optimal tools. That would determine if a rebalance is warranted.

Once you guys execute, your success rate for these ops is pretty close to 100%, right? It's all pretty terrifying for people in highsec :)

Yawn...the important questions of course is how much it SHOULD cost to get the job done, with the optimal tools. That would determine if a rebalance is warranted.

Not sure what this means. For a given number of gankers, and a given ehp of the target, and given the security status of the system - there is a minimum isk price to gank before CONCORD shows up. It's literally just a math problem.

And thanks to carebears like you, who argued for infallible, 100% reliable CONCORD, it is a math problem.

Except for the part where you can't tell if he has links, so you have to take that into account. Or what implants he's got.

But anyway, that's what you people get for crying for more safety for the last decade, the real players find a way to turn it around on you. And of course, since your end goal is for PvP to not exist in any way, any time that there is ANY ganking going on at all, you rush to the forums to claim how it's "too much" and there needs to be "just one more" nerf to PvP.

Not any more. You have too damned much safety as it is, since it's damn near impossible to gank someone who actually has a clue how to play this game.

But just because the thumbless monkeys who afk in open space are getting blown up, that does not mean there is a problem. In fact, that's working as intended.

Why not balance the ganking system that is accepted greatly in this game ?

Shooting down a 22 bil marouder ship (That is not alloaght to fight back until it is attakt ) With 5 dystroyers ships that cost 1 mil a peace within in 5 secconds needs to be nerft .

You have to admit there is an balancing problem here or not ?

I do happen to believe that it should be more difficult and expensive to gank top of the line combat ships.

Calm down buddy. I wasn't even playing when the last nerfs were made. And you obviously haven't being paying attention to my views on highsec. I think mining barges and freighters and all other non-combat ships should have a major tank nef and be blowing up more (I happen to think mining should be removed from the game entirely, in fact). I think there aren't enough failfit and undertanked ships getting blown up. I do happen to believe that it should be more difficult and expensive to gank top of the line combat ships. Not sure if that makes me a "carebear" or not. Feel free to examine my killboard for further details.

If there aren't enough failfit ships getting ganked, surely that is due to most players not failfitting their ships?

Uhm...no....it's because the main gankers, CODE, don't care and are blowing up empty ships. And the other gankers, miniluv, etc... seem to have disappeared. The number of failfit ships in highsec is...well.....astonishing.

So they're ganking ships that aren't failfit? What's the problem then? You can't force people to do something they don't want to, this isn't a job, it's a game. We're here to have fun.

I think my point was that it's not lucrative enough right now to gank failfit ships, and is too lucrative (or not costly enough) to gank well fit ships. So I'd like to see more failfits dying, and fewer well fit ships.

I think my point was that it's not lucrative enough right now to gank failfit ships, and is too lucrative (or not costly enough) to gank well fit ships. So I'd like to see more failfits dying, and fewer well fit ships.

And you obviously haven't being paying attention to my views on highsec.

This is completely not true btw. Anti-ganking enourages the use of robust tank, monitoring intel channels, and using smart gameplay to prevent ganking. They also have a good record at spoiling CODE suicide ganking. If you want to spend your time helping people, not hurting them, then anti-ganking is for you.

After using bumping to trap a freighter, and the pilot choosing to self destruct rather than pay a ransom, the pilot came on the Eve forums to complain about the bumping mechanic and state that he was quitting the game. Instead of the ganker just being happy with the loot and moving, he came to the forum to rub it in with the comment "Can i haz ur stuffs?. The sole purpose is to further antagonize an already upset person for "tear harvesting" purposes.

Totally agree with you. The failure to stop the abuse of bumping is ridiculous, and is being utilized by the CODE folks to imprison freighters on a daily basis. This is just screaming out for a fix.

People live in highsec because they don't want to be forced into PvP without CONCORD intervention. If they wanted regular PvP they would live in low/null.

I think my point was that it's not lucrative enough right now to gank failfit ships, and is too lucrative (or not costly enough) to gank well fit ships. So I'd like to see more failfits dying, and fewer well fit ships.

There is no need to disguise your views. Feel free to let loose. We know there are many things about the current mechanics which are frustrating for you, that you would radically change in order to make EVE a warm, welcoming environment for the casual and blissfully unaware player.

What do you mean by lucrative? If you mean dropped module costs, badly fit ships can drop as much as well fit ones. If you mean robbing freighters, you can always gather people around you and start ganking the juicier targets yourself. Be the change you want, and be happy that your competition has chosen to be less competetive.

By lucrative I mean the EV of the gank.

But there's a plenty of +EV badly fit ships, you just got to find them.

1. Yes, anti-ganking is great for advice on avoiding ganks.

2. Using bumping to trap a ship for 50 minutes, causing the owner to quit the game...and the rubbing it in with "can I haz your stuff" is exactly the kind of garbage I would like to see less of. Enjoy your kill and shut up. Don't look to elicit emotional reactions.

3. Yes, I think bumping is being used in an abusive way. I would like to see more freighters pop, but from dps, not from trapping due to bumping.

4. Yes, I think wardeccs should not be used to force people into PvP without CONCORD. Go suicide gank them if you want to kill them.

I'm still trying to figure out what any of your posts "prove." Do try and do a better job in the future.

Correct. What I've been saying is that the current mechanics don't provide sufficient incentive to find and kill them, and don't provide sufficient disincentive for finding and killing well fit ships.

Correct. What I've been saying is that the current mechanics don't provide sufficient incentive to find and kill them, and don't provide sufficient disincentive for finding and killing well fit ships.

So what you're saying is that people don't want to put too much effort into a game they play for fun. What's the problem with that?

What I'm saying is that the current mechanics don't make it necessary or useful to put in the effort. An appropriate rebalance would steer people in that direction.

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say...

1. Yes, anti-ganking is great for advice on avoiding ganks.

2. Using bumping to trap a ship for 50 minutes, causing the owner to quit the game...and the rubbing it in with "can I haz your stuff" is exactly the kind of garbage I would like to see less of. Enjoy your kill and shut up. Don't look to elicit emotional reactions.

3. Yes, I think bumping is being used in an abusive way. I would like to see more freighters pop, but from dps, not from trapping due to bumping.

4. Yes, I think wardeccs should not be used to force people into PvP without CONCORD. Go suicide gank them if you want to kill them.

I'm still trying to figure out what any of your posts "prove." Do try and do a better job in the future.

What I'm saying is that the current mechanics don't make it necessary or useful to put in the effort. An appropriate rebalance would steer people in that direction.

1. And yet here you are, having lost an expensive ship to a horde of Catalysts which can't cloak and can't hide in Local. Your solution to this loss is to change the game mechanics so that you can continue to operate blind to your own immediate surroundings. Was this the sort of "great" advice you're advocating?


2. I disagree, CCP disagrees, your topic is locked and long gone. Use F&I if you'd like.. the forum is there for this exact purpose.


3. Freighters pop largely because pilots are lazy. I like laziness as the primary cause of freighter death in hisec. I don't know what 'dps' means as a cause. Did the freighter just magically place itself within shooting distance of a bunch of guns? I think you should step back a little and take a look at the set of circumstances that bring a gank together, not just how many DPS or EHP one ship or another has. Your DPS/EHP diatribe also demonstrates a lack of understanding for the complex balancing work CCP does.


4. I disagree, CCP disagrees, see my point number two.

Ok, its late and this conversation is kind of stale. I don't think we are communicating here. Last post on this tonight.

You're right. Never imagined I'd say that to you, but you are right.

You're doing lots of talking, but very little listening.

Congratulations on being right about something. There may be hope for you yet.

Don't worry, it took me about 5 minutes to realize that I wasn't getting anything useful from your comments and it was time to stop listening. I remain very happy with the way I play the game. Thanks.

What I'm saying is that the current mechanics don't make it necessary or useful to put in the effort. An appropriate rebalance would steer people in that direction.

Don't worry, it took me about 5 minutes to realize that I wasn't getting anything useful from your comments and it was time to stop listening. I remain very happy with the way I play the game. Thanks.

Ok, its late and this conversation is kind of stale. I don't think we are communicating here. Last post on this tonight.

I don't see any of us complaining about game mechanics. Does it occur to you to examine how to play the game to see whether it is at fault (in any way) for the events that have sparked your string of comments in this thread?


Could you at least explain how you missed the multiboxer on Dscan? I apologize if you've provided an answer, but I seem to have missed it.

Fine, maybe it was unfair of me to start attacking other posts of yours out of context. I think you can agree that your fundamental views on hisec are quite antithetical to the views some others in thread support?

Actually if you look through other threads you can see most of the posters here complaining about various game mechanics and calling for significant nerfs to safety in highsec. Some want to abolish / massively nerf NPC Corps, etc...

I was warping to an incursion site. These sites are on the system overview for everyone. The multiboxer was probably bouncing from site to site among the 5 sites, hence I never had a chance to use Dscan.

I was warping to an incursion site. These sites are on the system overview for everyone. The multiboxer was probably bouncing from site to site among the 5 sites, hence I never had a chance to use Dscan.

You know that you can narrow dscan down to 15 degrees and that dscan range is centred on camera angle and has nothing to do with where you are heading. In a 20 sec warp a well practised pilot can dscan 5 incursion sites.

Actually if you look through other threads you can see most of the posters here complaining about various game mechanics and calling for significant nerfs to safety in highsec. Some want to abolish / massively nerf NPC Corps, etc...

I was warping to an incursion site. These sites are on the system overview for everyone. The multiboxer was probably bouncing from site to site among the 5 sites, hence I never had a chance to use Dscan.

thankfully I survived.

Well, that's fair enough. I definitely have deep disagreements with Remiel, Kauuros, Baltec1, etc....

I was warping to an incursion site 60 au from the dockup. How would dscan help find the catas that were bouncing around? I had no idea they were in sys....and even if i found them on scan it would be too late to do anything about it. They happened to meet me at the gate by sheer luck. There was nothing to do about it, thankfully I survived.

Agreed.

Game Mechanics have been heavily skewed to favor Suicide Ganking which has become the top play option available in this game.



DMC

Agreed.

Game Mechanics have been heavily skewed to favor Suicide Ganking which has become the top play option available in this game.



DMC

B. Battleships are the ugly duckling of Eve. They are used by mission runners who generally are not worried about getting ganked since it is a pain to scan them down and gank them. They are not seen as much in low/null because of their relatively high cost, and the easy of ganking them with frigs, cruisers, bombers, etc.. etc...

i read that article this morning and thought to myself " i know im going to have to kill someone over this".

i get here and yup, heresy all over my morning read....

that aside

wrong, they are the easiest things in highsec to find with probes, and always worth scanning down, frequently no ganking required.

if thers more than one of us in system we have to call out the sig so we dont all land on grid at the same instant

im not adressing the rest of the thread as its just veers continuing to be wrong for 8 pages.

Yah, all I have to say about that is,

Raven.

stacking penalties much!?
250mm Railgun I
lol, good kill.

on a similar note...tengu

My complaint is specifically about the relative dps of cheap gank ships to the ehp of expensive battleships. Personally I don't think that cheap 2 mil catas, even 27 of them, should have enough dps to take down a 700 mil battleship before CONCORD arrives. The dps and ehp are completely arbitrarily determined by CCP, and in my view they chose to make suicide ganking too easy. If people want to use nados, I could handle that - I just don't think that ultra cheap catas should be effective gank ships.

About what in relation of battleships do you disagree with me about?

i read that article this morning and thought to myself " i know im going to have to kill someone over this".

i get here and yup, heresy all over my morning read....

that aside

wrong, they are the easiest things in highsec to find with probes, and always worth scanning down, frequently no ganking required.

if thers more than one of us in system we have to call out the sig so we dont all land on grid at the same instant

im not adressing the rest of the thread as its just veers continuing to be wrong for 8 pages.

Stop right there. What you are saying is that even if 700 cheap gank ships doing 25dps each should not bring down a Battle ship?

And you are screaming "Balance"

My complaint is specifically about the relative dps of cheap gank ships to the ehp of expensive battleships. Personally I don't think that cheap 2 mil catas, even 27 of them, should have enough dps to take down a 700 mil battleship before CONCORD arrives. The dps and ehp are completely arbitrarily determined by CCP, and in my view they chose to make suicide ganking too easy. If people want to use nados, I could handle that - I just don't think that ultra cheap catas should be effective gank ships.

At the heart of the ideological battle between the carebears and the rest of us, is a conflict of visions. There are two completely different visions about the way EVE should be. There is no room for compromise. Maybe you believe there is a middle ground. Through an endless series of nerfs, those favoring PvP (or "grief") have indeed been forced to compromise. But if the carebears were interested in compromise, they would have stopped bleating for nerfs long ago, as they already received more than their fair share of favors. The carebears continue in their efforts--accelerating them, actually--because they are not interested in compromise or middle ground. They, too, understand that you can only have one vision or the other: Either a ship in highsec can be killed, or it can't. As long as the mining ships aren't invincible while AFK, the carebear is not satisfied. Thus, you either have a PvP game, or a pure PvE game.

Some carebears still claim to be moderates, expressing a wish for "more limited" or "balanced" PvP in highsec. That argument may have flown years ago, but since the demand for nerfs has never ended, it's fair to say that they can only have one aim in mind.

Those aren't destroyers, they are battlecruisers, and they cost substantially more than 1 mil a piece. I suggest learning more about the game before asserting it needs better balance.

And that Marauder fit is terrible. I could make a list, or call Bingo right now, but I need only mention stacking penalties on Ballistic Controls. You have too many, and no DCU.

And yet barely anyone seems to go gank them. In running thousands of missions I've had 3 people show up - all of them the flashy yellow "space trash collectors" who I troll by threatening to shoot, getting them all excited, and then never actually shoot, making them sad. I've never had any real suicide gankers show up, and I think the incidence of such is extremely low.

And yet barely anyone seems to go gank them. In running thousands of missions I've had 3 people show up - all of them the flashy yellow "space trash collectors" who I troll by threatening to shoot, getting them all excited, and then never actually shoot, making them sad. I've never had any real suicide gankers show up, and I think the incidence of such is extremely low.

Translation: it never happens to me so it must never happen.

A population sample of one in a game of thousands does not a good conclusion make, Beers.

Mission running is nowhere near as dangerous as it should be...

And here I was thinking you wanted a nerf to ganking

As should already be clear - I'm not able to be boxed in as pro or anti ganking. What I do want are changes to make it so the gankers are more active where there is profit to be made, and less active when the ganking is at a loss. I think I've already made that pretty clear, and have consistently maintained that position.

Was there a reason you weren't dscanning or paying attention to Local?


Do you think more mitigation mechanics should be introduced if you don't bother using existing ones?

Local should D-scan itself. And D-scan should give you warnings when bad people are close to you. There should be a setting that automatically warps you to safe spot when anything bad might happen to you.


And actually, I think my idea of having fun is to just watch bots mine. So leave my bots alone, okay?

As should already be clear - I'm not able to be boxed in as pro or anti ganking. What I do want are changes to make it so the gankers are more active where there is profit to be made, and less active when the ganking is at a loss. I think I've already made that pretty clear, and have consistently maintained that position.

Yes you very much can be, you consistently push for Nerfs to highsec PvP only to double back upon yourself when you realize you will be made a fool of should you continue with the line of conversation which, ironically enough, makes you look much worse than actually losing the argument.
You consistently take this stance only to undermine it thi instant it's obvious you are wrong.
Further Argument with you is pointless as

1) you do a care what actually is the case

2) you do a better job of discrediting yourself than I ever could so I'll leave you to it.

I'll be back when I have some innocent bears wreck to hand you but till then , o7

You haven't been consistent at all, and aside from that, you've ignored all the incentives for ganking at a 'loss' that we've explained to you numerous times.

As should already be clear - I'm not able to be boxed in as pro or anti ganking. What I do want are changes to make it so the gankers are more active where there is profit to be made, and less active when the ganking is at a loss. I think I've already made that pretty clear, and have consistently maintained that position.

So let me get this right.

Gankers should only be allowed to gank if making a profit.......

.....but Dessie gank ships should never be able to ever kill a battleships, no matter how many are fielded. Yet it is potentially the most profitable method.


Consistent for sure

Uhmmm...no....Simply that game incentives should steer people towards +EV ganks, and discourage them from -EV ganks, which means we would not see -10 sec status gankers shooting at everything that moves. Which has precisely nothing to do with the ability of cheap gank ships to take down expensive battleships. One is about the use of incentives by CCP, the other has to do with the ability of small guns to inflict damage on large combat ships.

eh??

What you on about?

You STATED incentive to make profit ganking more common. Yet want to remove the potially biggest profit margin mechanic.

Sounds like a nerf scream to me.....

No, I want to remove an unrealistic and unwarranted ability for cheap gank ships to kill large combat ships. That has nothing to do with adjusting the risk/reward for ganking ships with a lot of loot to drop v. with little to no loot to drop

Oh dear.....

So not only do you want gankers to lose their profit margins, But also put restricions on every single Capsualeer to being not able to gank because there'd be no profit in it.

Trammil anyone?

I want to remove an unrealistic and unwarranted ability for cheap gank ships to kill large combat ships.

Unrealistic?

One word, kamikaze

Seriously? Your evidence consists of the wildly unsuccessful kamikaze attacks which didn't involve shooting at the ships, but rather crashing in to them?

How about this hypo - how many people with revolvers would it take to sink an aircraft carrier?

Seriously? Your evidence consists of the wildly unsuccessful kamikaze attacks which didn't involve shooting at the ships, but rather crashing in to them?

How about this hypo - how many people with revolvers would it take to sink an aircraft carrier?

Completely false. All that means is that the incentives are not strong enough. If CCP restricted the activity of -10 characters and fixed bumping, CODE would be out of business. That and appropriate incentives to gank high value targets, would go a long way towards fixing highsec. But whatever, further conversation with you is useless. You obviously seem to know what I think better than I do *eyeroll.*

Unrealistic? Ignoring the fact that we are talking about space pixels.

One word, kamikaze

when the 'moderate' carebear saw people in highsec setting and following their own goals in the sandbox game famed for its player-driven metagame, he said to himself 'this is obviously something that needs to be removed'

when he saw players making creative use of game mechanics to achieve their aims within common acceptability, methods endorsed by the game management, in a game and among a playerbase known for its and their tolerance and encouragement of emergent gameplay, he said 'i will campaign that this be nerfed'

truly for the 'moderate' carebear, it's just one more nerf until carebears can't be shot at all

Huh? The OP is a perfect example of how an elite group of gankers can make a massive profit through careful target selection and excellent execution. How would my ideas stop them exactly? I'm really not sure what you are trying to say.

Except that I think mining barges should have much less tank and should be exploding right and left, and even better I'd like for mining to be tossed entirely from the game. Sound like a "moderate carebear" to you?

Asking as a miner (I do love my rocks..).. is there a reason you believe this?

Because mining is a mindless unchallenging activity that encourages AFK and botting, because mining is solely responsible for the generalized deflation in Eve, and because miners have no social engagement with the game, and turn Eve into a boring and static place. It's just an absolute disaster in every possible way, and I'd like to see a whole lot more miners blowing up, as opposed to giving them brick tanked skiffs so now they can really go AFK safely.

And?

You are a mission runner / incursion does that not encourage AFK and botting?

What I find fun has **** all to do with you. Just because you don't like it does not mean others follow........