| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Iain Cariaba
699
   |
Posted - 2014.12.07 18:51:49 -
[31] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:I do have one request of you gankers though. Stop hiding your activities behind an wall of fabrications about how it is good for the game and the rest of that crap and just flat out admit that you do it "because you want to".
I ask this because nothing you as a ganker can do will have any real affect on the game or the players you gank or the corp/alliance they are a part of. The only exception to this is the players that rage quit over a ganking and to be honest the only ones in that group that I care even a little bit about are the new players.
You know how crowded ice belts get when they spawn? Now imagine that being done to almost every belt in highsec when there are no longer gankers roaming around making it dangerous to afk mine in highsec. If I could mine in highsec with zero risk, I'd activate a few new accounts and akf mine all day long while actually playing the game elsewhere. A large portion of the game would do the same thing.
You think competition for highsec resources is bad now, imagine what it would be like with tens of thousands more miners. Imagine what your profits will be then, and realize that the gankers help keep mineral prices high because not everyone wants to risk getting ganked for the pittance you earn mining in highsec.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
71
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 23:58:13 -
[32] - Quote
Daichi and Lain please read my whole post.
I clearly stated that I have no trouble with those of you that gank other than this insane idea that what you do is good for the game.
Daichi
While you may be able to increase your own income with the ganks, overall to the entirety of the game of EVE the cumulative affect of gankers is marginal at most and most likely it is insignificant or completely irrelevant. Besides that "because it improves my income" is really just another way of stating "because I want to".
Iain Cariaba wrote:You know how crowded ice belts get when they spawn? Now imagine that being done to almost every belt in highsec when there are no longer gankers roaming around making it dangerous to afk mine in highsec. If I could mine in highsec with zero risk, I'd activate a few new accounts and akf mine all day long while actually playing the game elsewhere. A large portion of the game would do the same thing.
You think competition for highsec resources is bad now, imagine what it would be like with tens of thousands more miners. Imagine what your profits will be then, and realize that the gankers help keep mineral prices high because not everyone wants to risk getting ganked for the pittance you earn mining in highsec.
Come now Lain your attempt to flatter your self and the other gankers is not becoming of a player that has shown your level of knowledge. To even think that the gankers can keep tens of thousands of miners out of the belts is ludicrous.
Besides that if you bothered to read instead of posting a knee jerk reaction to what you think is an anti ganking comment you would find these two things.
I believe it is time for CCP to look at the ganking area of the game again and make any adjustments they feel are needed.
That and I simply asked that you be honest and say "I gank because I want to" instead of tryuing to justify it as being good for the game. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2040
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 04:50:53 -
[33] - Quote
it is clear to anyone, ganking has an infulence upon hisec. whether you like it or not.
its not just a conduit for players to get their kicks. the effect of gankers is more than insignificant. the links to the other posters should have shown you that. you tried to say ganking has no effect on the real world, but it clearly does.
welcome to the real world.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
Catherine Laartii
Dominion Fleet Group
Templis CALSF
435
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 06:42:51 -
[34] - Quote
why not make this a capital sized weapon? I can see this being used in hilarious ways on carriers, and it would solve the 'premature launch' issue on trade hubs. |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion
The Bastion
625
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 09:10:21 -
[35] - Quote
All I see on this module is: "If you miss the bump in your machariel, just pulse this when you're close to gain a bumping effect, L2aim." |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
2847
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 10:18:41 -
[36] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post.
The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Parsimony Kate
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 14:41:58 -
[37] - Quote
At some point don't we need to stop behaving like the girl in the black and white films tied to the railway track "Help me CCP, help me!!"?
No of course it's not practical to hire security - it would cost too much because mining is the second most boring job in EVE, the first most boring job being providing security for miners BUT we can help ourselves in spite of this. We have the option to fit our barges to make the most of their potential EHP, we fleet up with others because a swarm of well directed tech II drones can be very effective against aggressors. We can pay attention to D-Scan and local from time to time. And when someone inevitably kills us then maybe try out whatever your personal equivalent of "Oh bother - you got me! Well done!" in local instead of a long screaming, bitter rant questioning both their parentage and ability to procreate. Or if that is too difficult maybe just say nothing at all - either way it's got to be better than risking an aneurysm over it? Then get out your arse-kicking ship and go and shoot them in the face. Maybe go out with some friends, take a picnic, make an adventure of it? Take a day off from the "Mine & Whine"!
Either way, this module would either be useless if it was easily circumvented by firing beyond its range, or it would be horrendously overpowered and we do NOT need special protection! If something like this were introduced I hope CCP would consider not allowing it in high sec or near of stations.
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
839
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 14:53:04 -
[38] - Quote
Zephris wrote:baltec1 wrote:Its only ever as easy as the victim makes it. Pure nonsense and you know it. freighters have a grand total of modules and zero CPU. It will die to 20 cats regardless how you fit it and how empty it is. That's just what gankers do. They want tears, not a good balanced game, but tears without effort. Ganking, as it is, is a exploit that requires no skill, no forethought and no risks.
Do you know about things like:
1. Insta-undock and insta-dock bookmarks? You can't gank a freighter at a station if it docks or hits warp before it's a valid target.
2. Scouts? You can't gank a freighter that doesn't travel where gankers are active.
3. Webs? You can't gank a freighter at a stargate that gets webbed into warp.
4. Logis? On the off chance that 1-3 fail, a few logi cruisers will make any freighter far harder to gank.
Ample tools already exist for those that use them.
Also, see my sig for CCP Falcon's view on suicide ganking. His official stance is that it is not an exploit, nor does it need "fixing".
-1.
CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking.
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14137
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 15:24:54 -
[39] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:
Because they do not have enough players in their corp/alliance to have an effective escort.
An effective escort requires one other pilot.
Donnachadh wrote:
Because they are not willing to die to Concord to preemptively kill a group of ships in the off chance that they "may" be a gank squad.
The most effective counters to ganking involve concord in no way.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Zephris
The Eldritch Circle
Independent Faction
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 19:05:53 -
[40] - Quote
So much BS.
I am not complaining about getting ganked. I am trying to stop ganks and none of those things mentioned helped in any of the dozens of freighters ganked in Uedama.
Instaundock does not work at stargates.
Machs bumps freighter as soon as they start to align. Unless you are talking about a web alt in a vindicator with multiple webifiers there is still a window to bump them, and once that happened they will never align again.
"escort" and "logi". That's us, actually.  . It's still too easy to gank with AG fleet sitting ON TOP OF THE TARGET as long as gankers can produce more DPS to compensate for the number of AG present.
80% of responses in this thread was crap spewed by gankers to confuse people who doesn't know how many people and how much isk it takes to actually block a gank. That's at least 50% number of gankers, well organized, in expensive ships.
And no the module doesn't effect drones. So there goes your entire "flawed" thing. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2042
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 19:16:50 -
[41] - Quote
Zephris wrote:
80% of responses in this thread was crap spewed by gankers to confuse people who doesn't know how many people and how much isk it takes to actually block a gank. That's at least 50% number of gankers, well organized, in expensive ships.
Zephris wrote:
To stop a gank of 15 catalyst [45 mil ? if that], it takes 5 Falcons (1 billion ). because with anything less the gankers can just go after another target. There are no other activity in EVE that necessitate such disproportional investment in defense.
Zephris wrote:
Unless you are talking about a web alt in a vindicator with multiple webifiers there is still a window to bump them,
I think i know why its costing you so much more than anyone else to avoid ganks
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
845
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 19:18:44 -
[42] - Quote
Zephris wrote:So much BS. I am not complaining about getting ganked. I am trying to stop ganks and none of those things mentioned helped in any of the dozens of freighters ganked in Uedama. Instaundock does not work at stargates. Machs bumps freighter as soon as they start to align. Unless you are talking about a web alt in a vindicator with multiple webifiers there is still a window to bump them, and once that happened they will never align again. "escort" and "logi". That's us, actually. . It's still too easy to gank with AG fleet sitting ON TOP OF THE TARGET as long as gankers can produce more DPS to compensate for the number of AG present. 80% of responses in this thread was crap spewed by gankers to confuse people who doesn't know how many people and how much isk it takes to actually block a gank. That's at least 50% number of gankers, well organized, in expensive ships. And no the module doesn't effect drones. So there goes your entire "flawed" thing.
Drones are handled the exact same way as ships from a physics engine standpoint. As outlined, this module would have the aforementioned effects on drones. (As an aside, It would be wonderfully comic to see drones flying across the battlefield like that. Horrible imbalanced, but still wonderfully comic.)
As someone who has witnessed the efficient carnage of CODE. freighter gank ops first-hand, I can tell you from experience that the freighters that died were flying solo without web support. (I did a brief stint flying anti-gank ops during Burn Aufay. Mainly to collect bounties, but still.)
As someone who has flown a freighter with web support, I can tell you that a properly fit (i.e. not fit for capacity) freighter will be in warp before they get a chance to get bumped. This was largely true even before the change to freighters that allowed them to fit modules.
Stations aren't a common engagement point for suicide gankers against freighters, but alpa-strike based gankers love to linger there for smaller targets. Proper bookmarks keep those smaller ships safe, as well as freighters.
The tools work. Some don't use them, and others don't use them properly. Those who use the tools properly are generally safe.
And none of this changes CCP's official stance that suicide ganking is not a broken mechanic.
Please understand, I'm a suicide ganker, I'm not someone telling you to HTFU while I collect your tears. I'm trying to help you understand that as long as freighter pilots keep failing to use the tools at their disposal, there is little you can do to help them. Most of the ones who do fly safely and happily deliver their cargoes.
You can't help those who won't help themselves.
CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking.
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content.
|
Iain Cariaba
710
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 20:42:38 -
[43] - Quote
Zephris wrote:So much BS.
I am not complaining about getting ganked. I am trying to stop ganks and none of those things mentioned helped in any of the dozens of freighters ganked in Uedama.
That pretty much amounts to the same thing.
Zephris wrote:Instaundock does not work at stargates.
Machs bumps freighter as soon as they start to align. Unless you are talking about a web alt in a vindicator with multiple webifiers there is still a window to bump them, and once that happened they will never align again.
This is because you're doing it wrong. Try a triple webbed cruor with scan res rigs. 20km webs that till pretty much instalock a freighter. Jump cruor in first, burn back towards gate as freighter jumps. Pre-activate webs and click on freighter as it drops gate cloak. Watch freighter warp away sideways, then follow it out. The mach doesn't have time to bump you.
Zephris wrote:"escort" and "logi". That's us, actually. . It's still too easy to gank with AG fleet sitting ON TOP OF THE TARGET as long as gankers can produce more DPS to compensate for the number of AG present.
Because you sitting, as you put it, ON TOP OF THE TARGET, doesn't allow the gankers to see how many of you there are, allowing them to adjust their numbers accordingly?
Zephris wrote:80% of responses in this thread was crap spewed by gankers to confuse people who doesn't know how many people and how much isk it takes to actually block a gank. That's at least 50% number of gankers, well organized, in expensive ships.
Nope, only takes one person to stop a gank. I am one person and have not been ganked once since I learned how to prevent it. The only person it takes to stop a gank is the pilot of the freighter or mining barge. Use some sense, and you're safe.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
71
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 02:45:16 -
[44] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:it is clear to anyone, ganking has an infulence upon hisec. whether you like it or not.
its not just a conduit for players to get their kicks. the effect of gankers is more than insignificant. the links to the other posters should have shown you that. you tried to say ganking has no effect but it clearly does.
Depends entirely on your interpretation of affecting the game.
If you use the "I killed ships" or the "I caused people to rage quit" or something similar as your definition of affecting the game then you are right.
If you use any common sense monetary way of looking at the affect on the game then you essentially have none, save for a little bit of wealth redistribution.
|
Zephris
The Eldritch Circle
Independent Faction
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 05:22:42 -
[45] - Quote
That statement about webifiers reeks of forcing all freighter pilot to get another account just so they could repeatably play the game of tagging their own freighter at every align. You know what ? I bet some of them prefer to watch paint dry, or play star citizen.
And it takes like five minute to code a if statement to see if the target is a drone. Done. Why start unnecessary drama ?
A couple word on CCP's official stance.
They said ganking should be possible
But they made NO comment on the balance of gank vs anti-gank.
Allowing you to spam does not imply in any way there should be no counter to spam.
CCP obviously want players to deal with it, and currently it takes a giant fleet to deal with it because it's broken.
It's typical for gankers to intentionally misinterpret CCP's statements to suit their own purposes. Didn't they also win the last alliance tournament and every one afterwards forever ? |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14138
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 06:02:59 -
[46] - Quote
Zephris wrote:That statement about webifiers reeks of forcing all freighter pilot to get another account just so they could repeatably play the game of tagging their own freighter at every align.
I require 20+ to gank one.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2045
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 07:37:54 -
[47] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:it is clear to anyone, ganking has an infulence upon hisec. whether you like it or not.
its not just a conduit for players to get their kicks. the effect of gankers is more than insignificant. the links to the other posters should have shown you that. you tried to say ganking has no effect but it clearly does. Depends entirely on your interpretation of affecting the game. If you use the "I killed ships" or the "I caused people to rage quit" or something similar as your definition of affecting the game then you are right. If you use any common sense monetary way of looking at the affect on the game then you essentially have none, save for a little bit of wealth redistribution.
Well thats a lie, catalysts sell like hot cakes because of ganking. As do retties.
If they didnt need constant replenishing they would not sell nearly as well. And war decs and AWOXing certainly couldnt make up for it. Hundreds of miners across new eden choose to lower their income for the safety of a skiff. There are in fact at least two players who call others idiots for NOT using a skiff even though they could mine so much more with max yield hulks. Zephris and his friends here claim they spend lots of isk running anti-gank squads.
So its a tad more than 'a little bit of wealth redistribution'.
But its not even just economical influences. There are cultural and social impacts as a result of ganking.
Ganking creates meaningful decisions, it changes player behaviour. Ganking causes players to think outside the box and adapt to survive. Players work together, scouting and webbing, to avoid ganks. Players work together to conduct ganks.
Rhetoric like 'hi-sec is not safe, only relatively safe' and 'null sec is safer than hi-sec' stem from ganking.
The effects of ganking are profound and so embedded in the game that you cant even see them anymore. Hi-sec would be completely different without it.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
Khan Wrenth
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
83
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 08:40:42 -
[48] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Uh hu. Cost to gank 2.5 billion
How does a jump freighter get ganked in Jita? I thought jump freighters undocked and instantly, you know, JUMPED to whatever cyno they have out in lowsec. I mean, that is the entire point of the jump freighter, right? If you don't have a cyno lit, you'd use a regular freighter instead, wouldn't you?
Anyway, people need to stop being dismissive about escorting freighters. Getting a friend to come along and web you into warp is insanely easy. You could even practice having him web you freshly through a gate a few times in higher sec systems before you trip through 0.5 systems, just to make sure you have the system down pat. Practice makes perfect after all.
Can't find a friend/corpmate to help you move 5 billion worth of goods through dangerous territory? You need new friends and a new corp. Your corp should at least be passingly interested in making sure you don't lose your stuff.
Don't want to interact with people to make friends and get your corp to help? Get over it, this is an MMO, interaction is required and imminent.
Your friends/corpmates are hesitant to pull themselves away from their activities to help you? Give them an incentive. Offer up a trivial 1million isk for a successful escort. At least they got something for their trouble. You're flying a ship worth over a billion isk, plus cargo, shell out some isk to make sure that investment is safe.
Hell, let's say your corpmates don't want to spend hours escorting you. Work out a compromise. Have them web you through the most dangerous spots in your trip. You are most likely to get hit in chokepoints/0.5 systems because the gankers have the most time to get you in those parts, so have people meet you there. You might get ganked elsewhere, yes, but if your corp doesn't have all the time in the world to escort you, helping through the most dangerous parts is better than nothing.
Let's say you do have good corpmates willing to escort you, with or without compensation doesn't matter. They're willing to spend the time jump after jump making sure you stay alive (they should anyway, since every person in a corp doing well helps keep the corp healthier anyway, but that's a longer topic). But there's nobody to help you right now? So ship your stuff in a few hours, or do it tomorrow when you have the escort.
TL;DR get your friends to escort you. It's not the monumental obstacle you make it out to be. And if it is, get new friends and a new corp that is willing to take a little time out of their lives to ensure your survival.
If you don't, accept the fact that you're a fat cow worth a lot of money waddling through the valley of the wolves and stop acting surprised at the results.
HTFU.-á Adapt or die.-á Beware the falcon punch.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
237
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 09:40:24 -
[49] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:
I do have one request of you gankers though. Stop hiding your activities behind an wall of fabrications about how it is good for the game and the rest of that crap and just flat out admit that you do it "because you want to".
I ask this because nothing you as a ganker can do will have any real affect on the game or the players you gank or the corp/alliance they are a part of. The only exception to this is the players that rage quit over a ganking and to be honest the only ones in that group that I care even a little bit about are the new players.
Putting aside this is demonstrably false - just looking at the catalyst and mining/hauler losses on zKillboad to see a portion of the economic impact - there is a very real purpose to having risk in highsec. To illustrate this, let's try two experiments:
First, log into the SiSi test server and grab a freighter. Load it up with plenty of expensive things, and take a tour of all the trade hubs, AFK if you want. Next, fit up a max-yield hulk and spend the afternoon mining in the belts around Jita. Now, ask yourself did I find this fun? If yes, you really found these activities fun or "relaxing" then the good news is that you can continue to do so on SiSi with no risk of ever being ganked again. Now, if no, you found them boring, ask yourself why is that? I think if you do this honestly you will find that at least in part, it is the risk that someone will try to stop you that makes these activities at all interesting.
After that, let's try another angle. You claim that ganking is not done because "it is good for the game". But if so, then why does CCP allow it all? Isn't it in CCP's best interest to only develop and implement mechanisms that are "good for the game"? But if you look at the game mechanisms, they are built explicitly to allow ganking in highsec. There is a complex mechanism of security status, CONCORD, Crimewatch all of which are designed to alllow gankers to go after untanked and unprotected targets in highsec. CCP could quite readily lock out all offensive module in highsec, or make CONCORD insta-spawn, or lock -10 players out of highsec altogether, but they don't, because CCP too recognizes that gankers are good for the game.
Highsec ganking creates an interesting predator-prey dynamic in the game and forces game decisions on players. Without the risk of a gank, all highsec industrialists would fit maximum yield/tank, and would AFK the economy into the ground.
But as to the OP:
Zephris wrote:Rationale
CCP wants players to deal with ganking, but tools are lacking. The best way to deal with large number of cheap ships is AOE attack but AOE attack in highsec leads inevitably to Concodoken, if not a ganking scout could simply walk into it intentionally.
Without AOE attacks, anti-ganking operation need to CC individual gankers but Catalysts have two mid spots that can fit cap boosters, ECCM or tracking computers. This means for anti ganking operation to succeed, it would take in average 1 anti-gank for every 2 gankers, and over 10 times the value of ganking fleet in isk.
Which is hardly balanced. This premise is flawed. There are plenty of tools to avoid gankers which a have been repeatedly described in this thread and elsewhere. An escorted, at-the-keyboard hauler is approaching 100% safe even in the most dangerous systems of highsec. There is not need for additional tools, and this one in particular would have profound affects in game play far beyond providing additional protection to highsec industrialists, including some that could be exploited by the gankers themselves.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1756
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 10:01:20 -
[50] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote: An escorted, at-the-keyboard hauler is approaching 100% safe even in the most dangerous systems of highsec.
Quite frankly, Bull.
If the gankers decide they want you dead, you are dead.
The basic game mechanics simply don't allow you to avoid ganks in the high sec chokes without even more suicidal detours through low sec with freighters.
You can make it a bit harder for them, sure, but at the end of the day their killboard still looks amazingly green, your killboard is pure red, and they've gotten their LOLs making your day worse. And that's assuming you weren't carrying anything worth looting and they just wanted LOLs. Otherwise they have that also.
Is ganking a good part of EVE at a basic level, I think so.
Is the second class treatment of Industrial ships by CCP who refuse to give them real PG, CPU & Fitting options a good thing? No, that's a terrible thing. Obviously Industrials shouldn't be able to fit significant guns or missiles, but they should be able to fit the same kind of non gun/missile fits as any other ship of a similar size.
For normal Industrials, that means Cruisers, (DST's actually get semi reasonable fitting options now at least), for Freighters, that means Carriers. They should have the same kind of slot layouts.... including high slots. And the same kind of PG & CPU. Not the current oh look, 3 slots only, 0 PG, 0 CPU options they get.
Yes, this will require some adjustment to EHP levels to make a normal fit with some T2 tank and some utility like warp speed & agility to be at the same EHP levels. And probably some cargo adjustment to make said normal fit with some cargo expanders also similar cargo. (IF Cargo extenders stacking penalised that would solve a lot of the worries about being able to fit 11 counting rigs to a ship for example as it would be silly after 4 or 5). But it would actually reward people a lot more for good fitting skills on industrials. And make for funny fits used for combat as well. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
813
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 10:11:54 -
[51] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:... And make for funny fits used for combat as well.
A Nerues scaled up to freighter size but with equivalent Nereus slot layout could be very funny indeed ... |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
237
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 10:53:17 -
[52] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Black Pedro wrote: An escorted, at-the-keyboard hauler is approaching 100% safe even in the most dangerous systems of highsec.
Quite frankly, Bull. If the gankers decide they want you dead, you are dead. [truncated]
That is quite the defeatist attitude. Even the most skilled and dedicated ganker cannot take your stuff in the station or be in every chokepoint 24 hours a day. You completely control when and what you risk to them.
Now sure, if you accept a 25B scam courier contract, every ganker and their cousin will be out gunning for you and I would give you less than the near 100% chance I quoted even with a webbing escort. But this how it should be.
Freighter ganking is so rare, just tanking and keeping your cargo to a reasonable limit will keep you safe from most ganks and you will have a greater than 99% chance of your freighter arriving safely even AFK. With a webbing escort, and a quick glance at Dotlan to see if gankers are currently active somewhere on your route, that goes to way above 99.9%. Even if you do land in a system full of bumpers/gankers waiting specifically for you, you have to be quite unlucky to have one of them reach you before your webbing escort gets you into warp. Are these simple things too much to ask a player to do to keep their cargo and ship safe? Maybe some players think that it is.
You are not entitled to fly an industrial into a ganking warzone (I hear Hek is currently burning) unprotected and unescorted and expect it to survive. Take responsibility to find when and where those warzones are active (you have all the tools) and tank your ship and don't overload it (you also have all the tools) to make yourself a less attractive target then the next guy.
Like everything in Eve industrial ships are a series of tradeoffs. There are DST for your medium sized high value cargo which can be tanked like a brick to the point they are essentially ungankable in highsec. There are Jump Freighters for the high value/high volume cargo you need to move around as well which are almost invulnerable if flown correctly. Freighters are best for lower value, bulky cargo. Buffing freighters more so that "if a ganker decides they want it dead" they no longer can would obsolete the other ships and reduce the game choices that players have to make.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14140
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 11:09:16 -
[53] - Quote
Bulkhead freighter with an escort of five logi boats is impossible to gank.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
800
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 11:59:51 -
[54] - Quote
Jurico Elemenohpe wrote:Uhh.
If we can have a weapon for kiters so that blaster boats can't get near, can we also have an attraction field so that blaster boats can pull kiters into range?
Nope.
This is obviously for haulers use only and why would anyone care about anything that isn't large volume hauling anyway? |
Zephris
The Eldritch Circle
Independent Faction
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 18:31:03 -
[55] - Quote
Quote:After that, let's try another angle. You claim that ganking is not done because "it is good for the game". But if so, then why does CCP allow it all? Isn't it in CCP's best interest to only develop and implement mechanisms that are "good for the game"? But if you look at the game mechanisms, they are built explicitly to allow ganking in highsec. There is a complex mechanism of security status, CONCORD, Crimewatch all of which are designed to alllow gankers to go after untanked and unprotected targets in highsec. CCP could quite readily lock out all offensive module in highsec, or make CONCORD insta-spawn, or lock -10 players out of highsec altogether, but they don't, because CCP too recognizes that gankers are good for the game.
LOL. You are arguing that CCP want to encourage ganking because it's possible ?
You know missiles used to have no explosion radius and do full damage to frigates ? Raven used to be able to smack them down like nobody's business. Obvious CCP WANTED frigates to be useless because ravens CAN smack them silly.
Oh wait they fixed it. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14148
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 18:45:13 -
[56] - Quote
Zephris wrote:
LOL. You are arguing that CCP want to encourage ganking because it's possible ?
You know missiles used to have no explosion radius and do full damage to frigates ? Raven used to be able to smack them down like nobody's business. Obvious CCP WANTED frigates to be useless because ravens CAN smack them silly.
Oh wait they fixed it.
Key difference here is that there is nothing to fix with ganking as you already have all the tools you need to counter it.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
237
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 18:47:12 -
[57] - Quote
Zephris wrote:LOL. You are arguing that CCP want to encourage ganking because it's possible ?
You know missiles used to have no explosion radius and do full damage to frigates ? Raven used to be able to smack them down like nobody's business. Obvious CCP WANTED frigates to be useless because ravens CAN smack them silly.
Oh wait they fixed it. That is exactly what I am arguing. Do you think that all the mechanisms that allow highsec ganking are some sort of 11-year oversight on the part of CCP?
I will refer you to CCP Falcon's recent comments for further validation that highsec ganking is suppose to be in the game. I will just quote the first one but the links to a few of them from that thread are below:
CCP Falcon wrote:Why should CCP provide protection for your haulage in high sec?
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.
If you want your haulage to be safer, bring the guns. If you don't have any guns, sacrifice some of your profit margin and hire someone who has them to escort you.
Welcome to New Eden, you just learned a very valuable lesson in being prepared and covering your back.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4958992#post4958992
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4964171#post4964171
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4964217#post4964217
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4964192#post4964192
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
123
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 19:21:44 -
[58] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Zephris wrote:LOL. You are arguing that CCP want to encourage ganking because it's possible ?
You know missiles used to have no explosion radius and do full damage to frigates ? Raven used to be able to smack them down like nobody's business. Obvious CCP WANTED frigates to be useless because ravens CAN smack them silly.
Oh wait they fixed it. That is exactly what I am arguing. Do you think that all the mechanisms that allow highsec ganking are some sort of 11-year oversight on the part of CCP? I will refer you to CCP Falcon's recent comments for further validation that highsec ganking is suppose to be in the game. I will just quote the first one but the links to a few of them from that thread are below: CCP Falcon wrote:Why should CCP provide protection for your haulage in high sec?
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.
If you want your haulage to be safer, bring the guns. If you don't have any guns, sacrifice some of your profit margin and hire someone who has them to escort you.
Welcome to New Eden, you just learned a very valuable lesson in being prepared and covering your back. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4958992#post4958992https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4964171#post4964171https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4964217#post4964217https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4964192#post4964192
off topic a little, Concord should be changed to discriminate against certain ship every week. One week its amarr the next it HAC's then it minmatar and so on. Reason not all police forces are reactive.
edit: it would be up to the player to figure it out. |
Zephris
The Eldritch Circle
Independent Faction
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 01:44:28 -
[59] - Quote
Quote:Nope, only takes one person to stop a gank. I am one person and have not been ganked once since I learned how to prevent it. The only person it takes to stop a gank is the pilot of the freighter or mining barge. Use some sense, and you're safe.
Typical example of insane troll logic. How does a freighter pilot stops gankers from going after another freighter ? What you are talking about is forcing EVERYONE in highsec, that's over 70% of EVE population, to get enact anti-gank defenses.
Why don't you come out and say you want to force everyone to live in nullsec. what a load of bull LOL. |
Paranoid Loyd
2950
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 01:54:50 -
[60] - Quote
Zephris wrote: to get enact anti-gank defenses. Eve is not supposed to be safe, this should be SOP if you don't want to lose ships.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |