| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 75 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
   |
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:36:50 -
[91] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:I'm saying what I always say. The other guys 'effort' level has nothing to do with my reality. My reality is that I can choose to be a victim (in a video game) or I can choose to fight (with my mind parts) and not be a victim while watching gankers break against my tank like waves hitting a beach. How many buttons they click has crap-all to do with this reality.
The above is why i succeed and have no need to whine about gankers where as others....not so much.
The problem isn't EVE, its your mindset. You are too concerned with what others are doing and with ideas of 'fairness' that have no place in this video game we're playing for fun. Oh OK, then what you are saying is that you don't care about balance in the game. So why involve yourself in the discussion? Go off and not be a victim somewhere else. As it stand the game is considerably unbalanced in favour of gankers and CODE are continuously pushing for it to tilt even more in their favour.
And I have no "need" to "whine" about gankers. I don't undock in highsec. That doesn't mean I can't get involved in discussions about the direction the game is heading.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Argent Rotineque
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:39:55 -
[92] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
Friend, let me let you in on a secret: CCP put suicide ganking into the game on purpose! Yes, it's true!
CCP has spent a lot of work implementing the Crimewatch, security status, standings and CONCORD systems to allow highsec criminals engaging in piracy and general mayhem to make the game play more interesting. They are not going to start banning accounts for people engaging in intended game play.
This is a competitive sandbox set in a dystopian, war-plagued universe, not a peaceful, happy future where we all hold hands and get along. But don't worry, CCP has given you plenty of tools to protect yourself, so use them and actually play the game.
I don't think any of those concerned about "hyperdunking" take issue with suicide ganking, rather it's the difficulty of forcefully stopping a neutral bump tackle and relatively small number of player accounts required to gank any ship that cause the concern. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:40:24 -
[93] - Quote
Crumplecorn wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:If catalysts were the only threat to freighters perhaps you'd have a point. Even just to get away you need at least enough firepower to gank the bumper, otherwise that freighter isn't likely to be going anywhere. Not if you're piloting it anyway. Meanwhile, everyone else (who is at the keyboard) sails merrily past not being bumped in the first place. Except now that it legally only takes one ganker, there's a whole bunch of extra character to bump even more people. A group of 12 who used to bump and gank a freighter for example can now bump and gank 4 without worry of being banned. With the amount of gankers usually in the Amarr -> Jita pipe they can pretty much camp all the gates.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Archeras Umangiar
Delian Legion
Legion's.
3
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:41:16 -
[94] - Quote
i love you falcon <3 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24775
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:41:40 -
[95] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Oh OK, then what you are saying is that you don't care about balance in the game. So why involve yourself in the discussion? No, that's what you're saying and it raises the question of why you're involved here.
Why are you so hell-bent on making the game more and more unbalanced? Why are you so adamantly against one side having to put in any kind of effort or strategy? Why do you seem to want to utterly eradicate a play style, all because that one side is determined to remain a perma-victim?
Quote:And I have no "need" to "whine" about gankers. So why are you?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
710
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:43:00 -
[96] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:afkalt wrote:Tippia wrote:afkalt wrote:Tell me again how a buffer can help this. I know that this may be shocking news, but a tank will help you survive for longer. Longer is all you need. Apparently not any more. Go look at the Alex BlackDevil loss. Two bulkheads and one inertia stab. Killed by two people. Took over 250k damage. You're telling me a third bulkhead would have somehow stopped this? Maybe if they hit downtime  Maybe not, but friends (even alt friends) might have.
Of course friends would have, they ALWAYS will. The point I'm making is this is a game changer. Buffer doesnt mean jack any more, the standing advice of fit a tank is all but dead. Bring long webs and bring reps. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24775
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:44:05 -
[97] - Quote
Argent Rotineque wrote:I don't think any of those concerned about "hyperdunking" take issue with suicide ganking, rather it's the difficulty of forcefully stopping a neutral bump tackle and relatively small number of player accounts required to gank any ship that cause the concern.
They all take issue with suicide ganking. Scrape away the thin veneer of GÇ£think of the childrenGÇ¥-style reasoning, and it comes down to the same thing: they want it gone because they refuse to do anything about it themselves.
Stopping a chain-gank is easy exactly because the number of accounts is so small.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:44:11 -
[98] - Quote
Tippia wrote:This explains a lot. The warp changes sped up freighter runs by a fair margin. The introduction of slots increased it to the point where it can't really be called a margin any more. You're talking long system distances. Multi-jump short system runs take considerably longer. To use slots to reduce that you have to sacrifice tank. Tank is irrelevant now anyway, so I suppose that can be done.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9524
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:45:03 -
[99] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:
Oh OK, then what you are saying is that you don't care about balance in the game.
And typing that sentence means you are incapable of honesty, even in something as trivial as video game. That's a shame.
Quote:
So why involve yourself in the discussion? Go off and not be a victim somewhere else.
Lol, you're the one with the eternal victim mentality. Your posts reek of it.
Quote:
As it stand the game is considerably unbalanced in favour of gankers and CODE are continuously pushing for it to tilt even more in their favour.
This is exactly what is wrong with a lot of the community that makes suggestions about 'balance'. I'm sorry, but Emotion (such as hate and jealousy of a freaking imaginary in game terrorist group) is no reason to alter a video game's mechancs in favor of people who can't lift a single finger in their own defense.
---
This last part if pure Lucas Kell Gold.
Quote:
And I have no "need" to "whine" about gankers. I don't undock in highsec. That doesn't mean I can't get involved in discussions about the direction the game is heading.
This, after saying Quote:
So why involve yourself in the discussion?
I ACTUALLY PLAY in high sec lol. I'm not afraid to undock. And the real truth of the matter is that you are afraid that, after YEARS of CCP dragging the game down the disastrous 'think of the children' road you favor, it looks like the tide is turning and CCP might actually again start treating it's players like adults who should be figuring stuff out rather than kids who need protecting. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24778
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:46:10 -
[100] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:You're talking long system distances. Multi-jump short system runs take considerably longer. To use slots to reduce that you have to sacrifice tank. Tank is irrelevant now anyway, so I suppose that can be done.
I'm talking about your standard freighter run, which will be a mix of systems, but most of them offering double-digit AU distances between gates. If all you're doing is moving between stations in the same system, or between two neighbouring systems, then maybeGǪ but at that point, a freighter is hardly required anyway.
Like Jenn, and unlike you, I actually do this in highsec. Take it from someone who knows: travel is downright snappy these days.
WellGǪ unless you're using some stupid approach, but that's really your choice and your problem. Funny how that parallels being a target for ganks.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
|
|
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
1931
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:46:53 -
[101] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Except now that it legally only takes one ganker, there's a whole bunch of extra character to bump even more people. A group of 12 who used to bump and gank a freighter for example can now bump and gank 4 without worry of being banned. With the amount of gankers usually in the Amarr -> Jita pipe they can pretty much camp all the gates. Because characters are in such short supply in EVE....?
Everyone in a normal gank fleet could dual client a bumping mach, if they were so inclined. Or dual client a scout, which was more my thing.
Witty Image - Stream
Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
355
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:47:29 -
[102] - Quote
>is in corp named "Internet Terrorists"
>>floodgates break under the pressure of his tear flow about an easily countered highsec ganking tactic
SpaceMonkey's Alliance |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:48:18 -
[103] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Why are you so hell-bent on making the game more and more unbalanced? Why are you so adamantly against one side having to put in any kind of effort or strategy? Why do you seem to want to utterly eradicate a play style, all because that one side is determined to remain a perma-victim? How is it making the game more unbalanced? You know what, don't even bother answering. You're a troll, you've always been a troll and you'll always be a troll. You only care about making the game as tilted towards your playstyle regardless of the effect on other players. This announcement makes tanking irrelevant and means almost any ship can be solo ganked. If you can't see why that's unbalanced then you never will, it's as simple as that. I'm really not interested in debating with people like you, so any further response from yourself will be ignored as a troll post.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
439
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:48:34 -
[104] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:This is exactly what is wrong with a lot of the community that makes suggestions about 'balance'. I'm sorry, but Emotion (such as hate and jealousy of a freaking imaginary in game terrorist group) is no reason to alter a video game's mechancs in favor of people who can't won't lift a single finger in their own defense. FTFY Jenn, there's no can't about it, they simply won't, because they can't be arsed and want CCP to do it for them.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Bronopoly Crushingit
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:49:25 -
[105] - Quote
Tippia, what's your highest thread post percentage? Think you can account for 90% of the posts in this thread?
I BET YOU WON'T |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4970
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:49:47 -
[106] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:>is in corp named "Internet Terrorists" >>floodgates break under the pressure of his tear flow about an easily countered highsec ganking tactic SpaceMonkey's Alliance Indeed, this is the floodgates breaking because I believe in maintaining balance within EVE, and think that a decisions which makes almost any ship able to be solo ganked is against that.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9529
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:51:38 -
[107] - Quote
Bronopoly Crushingit wrote:Tippia, what's your highest thread post percentage? Think you can account for 90% of the posts in this thread?
I BET YOU WON'T
15%. That is soooo close to 90 it's not even funny dude!
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24778
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:53:28 -
[108] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:How is it making the game more unbalanced? This change isn't. That's the good news. You are arguing to ban yet another ganking strategy, thereby making the game more unbalanced.
Was that really so hard to understand?
Quote:You only care about making the game as tilted towards your playstyle regardless of the effect on other players. No. I care about the game being welcoming to all kinds of playstyles, including the ones that directly oppose mine (e.g. ganking). In fact, as mentioned, I'd rather like it if my opposition got a few boosts since they've been hammered over and over and over for ages. It's about time ganking got a whole bunch of buffs to counter-balance all of that GÇö that would be bring some much-needed balance to highsecGǪ
GǪand again, let me stress this: such a change would tilt the game against my playstyle.
Quote:This announcement makes tanking irrelevant and means almost any ship can be solo ganked. By very definition, this announcement has nothing to do with solo ganks. Maybe you should actually understand the topic before commenting, hmmGǪ?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9529
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:54:06 -
[109] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:>is in corp named "Internet Terrorists" >>floodgates break under the pressure of his tear flow about an easily countered highsec ganking tactic SpaceMonkey's Alliance Indeed, this is the floodgates breaking because I believe in maintaining balance within EVE, and think that a decisions which makes almost any ship able to be solo ganked is against that.
No, this is simply your standard prejudice (against ganking, and CODE and the like, it's nothing more than 'grr goons' wrapped up in words) rearing it's head again, as it does most of the time when you post. You can try to hide it behind some fake altruistic 'balance' idea, but everyone here has your number on these kinds of discussions. And you know it.
|
Siegfried Cohenberg
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:54:11 -
[110] - Quote
My reign of terror has been given the ok. |
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24778
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:54:52 -
[111] - Quote
Bronopoly Crushingit wrote:Tippia, what's your highest thread post percentage? Think you can account for 90% of the posts in this thread?
I BET YOU WON'T
I think the best I've seen is 100%, but that's because no-one else bothered to post. 
Besides that anomaly, I think I've peaked at ~30% in a proper thread once.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
27
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:55:17 -
[112] - Quote
Crumplecorn wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Except now that it legally only takes one ganker, there's a whole bunch of extra character to bump even more people. A group of 12 who used to bump and gank a freighter for example can now bump and gank 4 without worry of being banned. With the amount of gankers usually in the Amarr -> Jita pipe they can pretty much camp all the gates. Because characters are in such short supply in EVE....? Everyone in a normal gank fleet could dual client a bumping mach, if they were so inclined. Or dual client a scout, which was more my thing.
So what you are saying is Freighter pilots should have friends to help... but gankers shouldn't?
What a double standard |
Mag's
the united
18879
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 19:57:58 -
[113] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Crumplecorn wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Except now that it legally only takes one ganker, there's a whole bunch of extra character to bump even more people. A group of 12 who used to bump and gank a freighter for example can now bump and gank 4 without worry of being banned. With the amount of gankers usually in the Amarr -> Jita pipe they can pretty much camp all the gates. Because characters are in such short supply in EVE....? Everyone in a normal gank fleet could dual client a bumping mach, if they were so inclined. Or dual client a scout, which was more my thing. So what you are saying is Freighter pilots should have friends to help... but gankers shouldn't? What a double standard Two Darwin award posts in one thread. I think that's a record. 
Well played sir, well played.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
356
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:01:31 -
[114] - Quote
Stop picking on Lucas, guys, he clearly has no idea how this gank works.
If you're actually paying attention and this gank works on you, you deserve to lose everything. |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
441
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:01:50 -
[115] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:You're a troll, you've always been a troll and you'll always be a troll. Have you just looked in a mirror, because you just described yourself perfectly?
Quote:You only care about making the game as tilted towards your playstyle regardless of the effect on other players. You do realise that Tippia is about as far from being a ganker as you can get without being a carebear? His/her playstyle is one that is affected by things like ganking.
Quote:This announcement makes tanking irrelevant and means almost any ship can be solo ganked. No it doesn't make tanking irrelevant, especially if you choose to not load your freighter to the gunnels with isk, as for the rest of your statement, so what? A hyperdunker is still using the same amount of resources as a gank fleet, just in a different way.
Quote:If you can't see why that's unbalanced then you never will, it's as simple as that. You're talking about yourself again, are you sure you're not Veers?
Quote:I'm really not interested in debating with people like you, so any further response from yourself will be ignored as a troll post. You're not interesting in anything that challenges the way you view Eve, no change there. Speaking of trolls, maybe you should stop posting....
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
w1ndstrike
White Talon Holdings
15
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:03:11 -
[116] - Quote
while I agree the ruling is sound, and the tactic does not violate any rulings or evade game mechanics; as a trader this concerns me because of the implications if restraint isn't shown when using the tactic.
highsec ganking does actually contribute to the health of the game by increasing the difference in value of items in different locations, however something like this if done without restraint can have large negative impacts on the costs of doing business for traders.
so please gankers, don't overuse this, pick your targets.
the bad game design in this case looks more to be the ability to keep a freighter out of warp by bumping it continuously than it is any of the mechanics in use by the pilots actually applying damage in the gank. since there is nothing that can be done on the freighter pilot's end to combat the tactic (usually counter-bumping is next to impossible, and requires an alt) |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
356
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:04:03 -
[117] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:You're a troll, you've always been a troll and you'll always be a troll. Have you just looked in a mirror, because you just described yourself perfectly?
Wow, no wonder CCP doesn't actually read through past the first two pages.
|
TheInternet TweepsOnline TheInternet
The Scope
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:05:50 -
[118] - Quote
It's very nice that CCP Falcon cleared this up for all the confused carebears out there. I think it is safe to say that #Hyperdunking will continue for at least 1000 years.
Also, thanks for using the correct term for the tactic. I've seen other less helpful terms like Jollyjabbing being thrown around. At least now we can point to an official CCP post when people begin using the incorrect term. |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy
Caldari State
443
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:07:47 -
[119] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:You're a troll, you've always been a troll and you'll always be a troll. Have you just looked in a mirror, because you just described yourself perfectly? Wow, no wonder CCP doesn't actually read through past the first two pages. Hah, I'm not sure if that's a condemnation of my posting, or Lucas's
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24780
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:08:06 -
[120] - Quote
w1ndstrike wrote:while I agree the ruling is sound, and the tactic does not violate any rulings or evade game mechanics; as a trader this concerns me because of the implications if restraint isn't shown when using the tactic.
highsec ganking does actually contribute to the health of the game by increasing the difference in value of items in different locations, however something like this if done without restraint can have large negative impacts on the costs of doing business for traders.
so please gankers, don't overuse this, pick your targets.
They are picking their targets: they go for the easy ones. That's all you need to know to be 100% safe from non-meta ganks in highsec (meta ganks being ones that play towards something outside of the game, be it pure KB epeen or personal vengeance).
TheInternet TweepsOnline TheInternet wrote:Also, thanks for using the correct term for the tactic. I've seen other less helpful terms like Jollyjabbing being thrown around. At least now we can point to an official CCP post when people begin using the incorrect term. Jollyjabbing, huh? I honestly haven't heard that one but it sounds a lot better than *cough*spew*gag* GÇ£hyperdunkingGÇ¥. I think I'll start using that one instead.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 75 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |