Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sibyyl
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
25206
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 15:39:24 -
[1] - Quote
From patch notes for Carnyx:
Quote:Ships in high-sec space piloted by a character with a Criminal Flag will now be unable to use in-space re-fitting facilities.
This should not affect Hyperdunking in any way. The only mention of the refitting tactic that I could find was in a Failhelp post from 2012 discussing CCP closing the boomerang exploit, so it seems like this tactic had been around for a while:
smagd wrote:Combat refitting is probably an intended feature, since I'm fairly sure CCP is aware of the Rooks & Kings video that demonstrated refitting sieged dread back and forth between more tank and more gank and that's far more of an abuse if you ask me. ("Oh look I'm primary, switching out faction gyros for T2 hardeners").
This tactic is described in a RnK Lord Maldoror, referencing their Clarion Call 4 video, in a Mittani article.
Why is this even an issue? Doesn't a criminal's warp-incapable ship get popped after CONCORD lands on grid?
All our times have come
Here but now they're gone
|
Sibyyl
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
25206
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 15:41:06 -
[2] - Quote
Edit: double post
All our times have come
Here but now they're gone
|
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
8685
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 15:43:51 -
[3] - Quote
Woot \o/
Two potential threadnaughts started in the same day. I'm so glad I have the day off today.
Mr Epeen
There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1144
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 15:49:04 -
[4] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:Why is this even an issue? Doesn't a criminal's warp-incapable ship get popped after CONCORD lands on grid?
Only possible thing I can imagine is stripping and dumping mods before the ship gets nuked, but I know I'm not fast-fingered enough to do that, and I haven't heard of it being a "thing", so, who knows *shrug* |
Alundil
Isogen 5
964
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 15:51:33 -
[5] - Quote
I have no idea what issue this particular addition is supposed to address.
Can CCP provide some input on this?
I'm right behind you
|
SamuraiJack
Tritanium Industries and Technology Backseat Promises
70
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 15:52:03 -
[6] - Quote
I've got much better idea.
If you GCC. Concord Pods you. End of hyperdunking.
You are a criminal in highsec. They shouldnt just pop you. They should kill you. You broke the law. Have some ****ing concequences. Hows that for realism.
SJ's Chronicles - http://www.fanfiction.net/u/2103579/CLS-SamuraiJack
|
Solstice Punk
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
17
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 15:54:20 -
[7] - Quote
Wow this thread was needed so badly ... |
Shederov Blood
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
1610
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 15:54:32 -
[8] - Quote
Last I heard of this was also during the boomerang days, and even then it was so much of hassle that most didn't bother doing it.
Who put the goat in there?
|
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
8686
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 15:54:46 -
[9] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:I've got much better idea.
If you GCC. Concord Pods you. End of hyperdunking.
You are a criminal in highsec. They shouldnt just pop you. They should kill you. You broke the law. Have some ****ing concequences. Hows that for realism.
Has anyone ever mentioned how well you'd fit in on a Breaking Bad poster?
Mr Epeen
There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
|
SamuraiJack
Tritanium Industries and Technology Backseat Promises
70
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 15:55:59 -
[10] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:SamuraiJack wrote:I've got much better idea.
If you GCC. Concord Pods you. End of hyperdunking.
You are a criminal in highsec. They shouldnt just pop you. They should kill you. You broke the law. Have some ****ing concequences. Hows that for realism. Has anyone ever mentioned how well you'd fit in on a Breaking Bad poster? Mr Epeen
Yep. Have the shirt for it too. And when i have shaved head i look like him IRL :P
SJ's Chronicles - http://www.fanfiction.net/u/2103579/CLS-SamuraiJack
|
|
Paranoid Loyd
5424
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 16:02:59 -
[11] - Quote
Meh, if someone can give me a viable use for this tactic I will get out my pitchfork. Anchoring location restrictions and time to anchor make it too much of a pain to be useful while criminal.
"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
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Sibyyl
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
25207
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 16:06:57 -
[12] - Quote
Yes you're right Loyd. No pitchfork content here.
I tried!
All our times have come
Here but now they're gone
|
Shederov Blood
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
1611
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 16:07:11 -
[13] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Meh, if someone can give me a viable use for this tactic I will get out my pitchfork. Anchoring location restrictions and time to anchor make it too much of a pain to be useful while criminal. They used to use an Orca to save the modules of their gank-ship before exploding. It enabled them to use more expensive stuff like faction damage mods, but it hasn't been a thing since the boomerang days since it's no longer possible to warp to your Orca after a gank.
Who put the goat in there?
|
Kashadin
Big Johnson's
87
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 16:07:58 -
[14] - Quote
You don't get a GCC when shooting someone in NS or WHs, so at least this won't effect those areas tho I am curious how this will effect any cap fights in LS.
Only thing I can think of is that they did it because they found a thing where people were stripping off mods and tossing them into a container before being concorded, possibly being considered a exploit they wouldn't say anything about it till it was patched out.
**edit** They might have been using a Nestor for the refit, can park that on a gate and brick tank it to make sure it doesn't get ganked while you, well gank. And I read that the Bowhead has the ability for Refit, although I'm not sure if the gankers would risk that thing sitting there, tho it can get a ridiculous tank. |
Paranoid Loyd
5426
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 16:09:47 -
[15] - Quote
Shederov Blood wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:Meh, if someone can give me a viable use for this tactic I will get out my pitchfork. Anchoring location restrictions and time to anchor make it too much of a pain to be useful while criminal. They used to use an Orca to save the modules of their gank-ship before exploding. It enabled them to use more expensive stuff like faction damage mods, but it hasn't been a thing since the boomerang days since it's no longer possible to warp to your Orca after a gank. I guess I'm just lazy, that is entirely too much effort for something that is unnecessary 99% of the time.
Kashadin wrote:You don't get a GCC when shooting someone in NS or WHs, so at least this won't effect those areas tho I am curious how this will effect any cap fights in LS.
It pretty specifically says highsec space.
"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
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Kashadin
Big Johnson's
87
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 16:14:28 -
[16] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Shederov Blood wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:Meh, if someone can give me a viable use for this tactic I will get out my pitchfork. Anchoring location restrictions and time to anchor make it too much of a pain to be useful while criminal. They used to use an Orca to save the modules of their gank-ship before exploding. It enabled them to use more expensive stuff like faction damage mods, but it hasn't been a thing since the boomerang days since it's no longer possible to warp to your Orca after a gank. I guess I'm just lazy, that is entirely too much effort for something that is unnecessary 99% of the time. Kashadin wrote:You don't get a GCC when shooting someone in NS or WHs, so at least this won't effect those areas tho I am curious how this will effect any cap fights in LS.
It pretty specifically says highsec space.
Derp. >.<
The rest of my post stands tho. :p
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1841
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 17:44:56 -
[17] - Quote
Kashadin wrote:
Only thing I can think of is that they did it because they found a thing where people were stripping off mods and tossing them into a container before being concorded, possibly being considered a exploit they wouldn't say anything about it till it was patched out.
If they say anything about an exploit, it should indeed be AFTER it's patched out to be sure people don't start milking the newfound* cow for all it's worth.
Newfound for those player indeed, not those who triggered the change. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25191
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 18:03:25 -
[18] - Quote
Yeah, this is fairly obviously a change to enforce the costs of aggression, and little else.
SamuraiJack wrote:I've got much better idea.
If you GCC. Concord Pods you. End of hyperdunking. There's no reason to end that strategy though, and even less reason for NPCs to do the job assigned to players. If you want someone to lose their pod, it is your job to make that happen GÇö stop trying to flog off your personal responsibilities on unrelated game mechanics, and your problem will go away. So you're confusing the word GÇ£betterGÇ¥ with GÇ£nonsensical and pointlessGÇ¥.
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.
|
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
21534
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 18:12:41 -
[19] - Quote
I expected better from you Sibs.
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
|
SamuraiJack
Tritanium Industries and Technology Backseat Promises
70
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 18:21:57 -
[20] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Yeah, this is fairly obviously a change to enforce the costs of aggression, and little else. SamuraiJack wrote:I've got much better idea.
If you GCC. Concord Pods you. End of hyperdunking. There's no reason to end that strategy though, and even less reason for NPCs to do the job assigned to players. If you want someone to lose their pod, it is your job to make that happen GÇö stop trying to flog off your personal responsibilities on unrelated game mechanics, and your problem will go away. So you're confusing the word GÇ£betterGÇ¥ with GÇ£nonsensical and pointlessGÇ¥.
Or you're confusing exploitive abuse of "mechanics" as "gameplay"
But TLDR ppl want to be dicks in space. No change there... (but they keep their alts in NPC corps so you cant wardec them)
SJ's Chronicles - http://www.fanfiction.net/u/2103579/CLS-SamuraiJack
|
|
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces
304
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 18:48:00 -
[21] - Quote
it doesn't even fix the "impossible" fleet of -10's sitting on a gate bumping ships 300kms before the ganking.
the only thing it fixes is after you pop someone you cant go to an orca or pos and reship until your 15 mins is up
put more thought into it CCP
"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
|
Sibyyl
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
25209
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 18:53:47 -
[22] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:Or you're confusing exploitive abuse of "mechanics" as "gameplay"
But TLDR ppl want to be dicks in space. No change there... (but they keep their alts in NPC corps so you cant wardec them)
But it's not "exploitive". Official ruling.
All our times have come
Here but now they're gone
|
SamuraiJack
Tritanium Industries and Technology Backseat Promises
72
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 19:01:02 -
[23] - Quote
Just because you CAN be a **** in a game doesnt mean you have to. It does however show you're a **** IRL.
SJ's Chronicles - http://www.fanfiction.net/u/2103579/CLS-SamuraiJack
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6672
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 19:08:46 -
[24] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Woot \o/ Two potential threadnaughts started in the same day. I'm so glad I have the day off. Mr Epeen
I'm getting some popcorn.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
11134
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 19:11:13 -
[25] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:Just because you CAN be a **** in a game doesnt mean you have to. It does however show you're a **** IRL.
Explain to us how playing a game within that games legitimate ruleset makes somone a ****?
Because if so, EVERY athlete and game player in real life is a ****. Because how dare they try to beat the other guy/team by playing within the rules? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13184
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 19:15:45 -
[26] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:Just because you CAN be a **** in a game doesnt mean you have to. It does however show you're a **** IRL.
If you can't figure out the difference between a video game and real life, you have serious problems.
To put it another way: "Settle down, Beavis."
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
SamuraiJack
Tritanium Industries and Technology Backseat Promises
74
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 19:20:29 -
[27] - Quote
Ah yes. CODE the uber "Pvpers" of eve. Cos shooting **** that cant shoot back is pro?
Add to that recycling of alts etc... Rules dont apply right?
whatever.
SJ's Chronicles - http://www.fanfiction.net/u/2103579/CLS-SamuraiJack
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13191
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 19:35:49 -
[28] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:Ah yes. CODE the uber "Pvpers" of eve. Cos shooting **** that cant shoot back is pro?
Add to that recycling of alts etc... Rules dont apply right?
whatever.
And now we bring you back to your regularly scheduled carebear programming.
"And now it's time for 'Street Corner Rants!', with SamuraiJack!"
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
2764
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 19:44:46 -
[29] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:Ah yes. CODE the uber "Pvpers" of eve. Cos shooting **** that cant shoot back is pro?
The only ships I can think of that can't shoot back are freighters, jump freighters and shuttles. We shoot more than those 3 types.
SamuraiJack wrote:Add to that recycling of alts etc... Rules dont apply right?
This is a myth.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff | No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that.
A recent survey of applicants to CODE. corporations showed that 100% accepted James 315 as their saviour. You can't argue with facts.
|
Paranoid Loyd
5434
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 19:50:55 -
[30] - Quote
This guy is too bingoish to not be a troll, I halfway think he is an Epeen alt, as he is bored now cause neither thread went naught.
"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
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
|
SamuraiJack
Tritanium Industries and Technology Backseat Promises
75
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 19:57:29 -
[31] - Quote
You could show your PVP prowess in the AT... oh wait you're banned cos you all rage logged after your team was unable to compete in anything but thorax/catas.
Hows that working out for you?
SJ's Chronicles - http://www.fanfiction.net/u/2103579/CLS-SamuraiJack
|
Paranoid Loyd
5436
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 19:59:57 -
[32] - Quote
I rest my case
"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
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Mag's
the united
19514
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 20:18:11 -
[33] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:Ah yes. CODE the uber "Pvpers" of eve. Cos shooting **** that cant shoot back is pro?
Add to that recycling of alts etc... Rules dont apply right?
whatever. Is this the 'I cannot defend my stance, therefore resort to insults and claim a win anyway' retort?
As far as your stance is concerned. Using your logic, should I refrain from using my queen in chess, because it moves better than other pieces and you may lose a few? Or that I should not use the castle move? Because even though I know I can, I really shouldn't.
It's a very odd stance to take, considering it's a game. Don't shoot ships, in a game designed around shooting ships.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Solstice Punk
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
18
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 20:19:52 -
[34] - Quote
Please don't give the griefer the attention he does not deserve. Don't let his hate dictate the progress of this thread.
It's a Sibyyl-thread ! We don't do these things in her threads ... right?
Right.
Thanks !
- All incoming connection attempts are being blocked. If you want to speak to me you will find me either in Hek local, you can create a contract or make a thread about it in General Discussions. I will call you back. -
|
Ashlar Maidstone
Moonfyre Science and Research Inc.
185
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 21:56:48 -
[35] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:From patch notes for Carnyx: Quote:Ships in high-sec space piloted by a character with a Criminal Flag will now be unable to use in-space re-fitting facilities. This should not affect Hyperdunking in any way. The only mention of the refitting tactic that I could find was in a Failhelp post from 2012 discussing CCP closing the boomerang exploit, so it seems like this tactic had been around for a while: smagd wrote:Combat refitting is probably an intended feature, since I'm fairly sure CCP is aware of the Rooks & Kings video that demonstrated refitting sieged dread back and forth between more tank and more gank and that's far more of an abuse if you ask me. ("Oh look I'm primary, switching out faction gyros for T2 hardeners"). This tactic is described by RnK Lord Maldoror, referencing their Clarion Call 4 video, in a Mittani article. Why is this even an issue? Doesn't a criminal's warp-incapable ship get popped after CONCORD lands on grid? Edit: posting from a phone is hard
The tactic used by RnK is a valid tactic used everywhere else other than hisec as I have watched that particular clip a number of times, and as a result does NOT result in a GCC.
Editing from a phone is a pain btw LOL!.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25194
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 22:32:23 -
[36] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:Or you're confusing exploitive abuse of "mechanics" as "gameplay" No. That would be you again. You think that something that has been designed as part of your gameplay should be turned into a passive game mechanic for no sane or sensible reason.
Quote:Add to that recycling of alts etc... Rules dont apply right? What does that rule have to do with anything? It applies to everyone equally and is of pretty much zero relevance to this change.
Agondray wrote:it doesn't even fix the "impossible" fleet of -10's sitting on a gate bumping ships 300kms before the ganking. Of course not, largely because there is nothing to fix. Also, there's nothing impossible about them, with or without quotation marks.
Quote:the only thing it fixes is after you pop someone you cant go to an orca or pos and reship until your 15 mins is up No, it doesn't GÇ£fixGÇ¥ that GÇö in fact, it doesn't even touch that ability. This is a good thing since there's nothing to fix there either.
Again, all this fix does is enforce the costs of unlawful aggression. Nothing more, nothing less.
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.
|
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
516
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 23:43:59 -
[37] - Quote
I have cleaned this thread, and don't want to do it again. Please follow our simple rules on trolling, staying on topic, being constructive, and not making personal attacks.
Quote:2. Be respectful toward others at all times.
The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.
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 conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
23. Post constructively.
Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.
ISD Decoy
Commander
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Solstice Punk
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
20
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 23:58:29 -
[38] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:I've got much better idea.
If you GCC. Concord Pods you. End of hyperdunking.
You are a criminal in highsec. They shouldnt just pop you. They should kill you. You broke the law. Have some ****ing concequences. Hows that for realism.
He's definitely not a roleplayer either.
- All incoming connection attempts are being blocked. If you want to speak to me you will find me either in Hek local, you can create a contract or make a thread about it in General Discussions. I will call you back. -
|
stoicfaux
5679
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 01:03:02 -
[39] - Quote
Maybe to prevent you from refitting and/or abusing the invulnerability link at a citadel?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5739809#post5739824 "Refitting will most likely drain capacitor (like on ships) so while you could do it in combat, this would not be advisable."
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5739809#post5739836 "Yeah it's going to be a new docked state, like a cross between docking in a station and sitting inside a POS shield."
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5739873#post5739973 "The invulnerability link (we need a new name for this, taking suggestions) provides security while you are undocked and mobile around the structure."
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Sibyyl
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
25237
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 01:12:06 -
[40] - Quote
Yes that makes a lot of sense stoicfaux. I remember there were a few suggestions for naming the Invulnerability Link, like Skylight.. combining this with GCC could be problematic.
I think your explanation, combined with Shed's historical explanation in post #7 explains this mystery..
All our times have come
Here but now they're gone
|
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
235
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 02:36:06 -
[41] - Quote
Talos. Polarized neutron blaster cannons. Orca.
As far as I know nobody was actually doing it though, I did explain it to a few people and meant to myself but never got a good excuse to use it to its full potential with polarized guns. I did petition it (likely resulting in this nerf), and it was not an exploit at the time and presumably won't be one so feel free to do it this weekend. You won't have another chance.
it seems a bit silly that CCP decided to nerf a tactic which few gankers have even employed (I've used it a few times, just to save costs when the target's completely afk for the minute it takes to deploy a depot), but it won't affect the meta much. |
Solstice Punk
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
34
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 08:52:41 -
[42] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Talos. Polarized neutron blaster cannons. Orca.
As far as I know nobody was actually doing it though, I did explain it to a few people and meant to myself but never got a good excuse to use it to its full potential with polarized guns. I did petition it (likely resulting in this nerf), and it was not an exploit at the time and presumably won't be one so feel free to do it this weekend. You won't have another chance.
it seems a bit silly that CCP decided to nerf a tactic which few gankers have even employed (I've used it a few times, just to save costs when the target's completely afk for the minute it takes to deploy a depot), but it won't affect the meta much. Leaving it in would open a huge can of issues with the weak and defenseless. CCP's right in removing it early, before it spreads.
LET'S ALL USE POLARIZED WEAPONS FOR MAXIMUM GANK BECAUSE WE DON'T NEED THE RESISTANCES ANYWAY K BOIS???
Yeah that's totally not going to cause an uproar.
- All incoming connection attempts are being blocked. If you want to speak to me you will find me either in Hek local, you can create a contract or make a thread about it in General Discussions. I will call you back. -
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15994
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 10:57:21 -
[43] - Quote
Solstice Punk wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Talos. Polarized neutron blaster cannons. Orca.
As far as I know nobody was actually doing it though, I did explain it to a few people and meant to myself but never got a good excuse to use it to its full potential with polarized guns. I did petition it (likely resulting in this nerf), and it was not an exploit at the time and presumably won't be one so feel free to do it this weekend. You won't have another chance.
it seems a bit silly that CCP decided to nerf a tactic which few gankers have even employed (I've used it a few times, just to save costs when the target's completely afk for the minute it takes to deploy a depot), but it won't affect the meta much. Leaving it in would open a huge can of issues with the weak and defenseless. CCP's right in removing it early, before it spreads. LET'S ALL USE POLARIZED WEAPONS FOR MAXIMUM GANK BECAUSE WE DON'T NEED THE RESISTANCES ANYWAY K BOIS??? Yeah that's totally not going to cause an uproar.
Also not going to happen. The gank ship would become very worthy of ganking iteself
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15994
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 10:58:15 -
[44] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:
But TLDR ppl want to be dicks in space. No change there... (but they keep their alts in NPC corps so you cant wardec them)
Do I hear a call to nerf NPC corps here?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Solstice Punk
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
37
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 11:02:30 -
[45] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:SamuraiJack wrote:
But TLDR ppl want to be dicks in space. No change there... (but they keep their alts in NPC corps so you cant wardec them)
Do I hear a call to nerf NPC corps here? Nah that's one of those guys who can't seperate reality from a game. I feel pity for him. I bet in every other game he's a big hero. Must be quite the shock to see he's actually not.
Looking for friends ? Want to boost your Likes ? Ever wanted to chat with the hottest Lady in New Eden ??
Join LAGL ! Post "Sol said Hi !" and receive ten Million ISK!
They have IRC too!
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
5129
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 13:06:18 -
[46] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Talos. Polarized neutron blaster cannons. Orca.
As far as I know nobody was actually doing it though, I did explain it to a few people and meant to myself but never got a good excuse to use it to its full potential with polarized guns. I did petition it (likely resulting in this nerf), and it was not an exploit at the time and presumably won't be one so feel free to do it this weekend. You won't have another chance.
it seems a bit silly that CCP decided to nerf a tactic which few gankers have even employed (I've used it a few times, just to save costs when the target's completely afk for the minute it takes to deploy a depot), but it won't affect the meta much.
Thought of it; considered it too much effort for not enough performance increase.
Shoot everyone. Let the Saviour sort it out.
I enforce the New Haliama Code of Conduct via wardec ops. Ignorance of the law is no excuse - read about requirements for highsec miners at www.minerbumping.com
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13216
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 13:10:41 -
[47] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Talos. Polarized neutron blaster cannons. Orca.
As far as I know nobody was actually doing it though, I did explain it to a few people and meant to myself but never got a good excuse to use it to its full potential with polarized guns. I did petition it (likely resulting in this nerf), and it was not an exploit at the time and presumably won't be one so feel free to do it this weekend. You won't have another chance.
it seems a bit silly that CCP decided to nerf a tactic which few gankers have even employed (I've used it a few times, just to save costs when the target's completely afk for the minute it takes to deploy a depot), but it won't affect the meta much. Thought of it; considered it too much effort for not enough performance increase.
Instead of the Orca, you would just bring a second Talos...
Too much tinfoil in this thread.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Magnus Roden
5
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 13:24:17 -
[48] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Yeah, this is fairly obviously a change to enforce the costs of aggression, and little else. SamuraiJack wrote:I've got much better idea.
If you GCC. Concord Pods you. End of hyperdunking. There's no reason to end that strategy though, and even less reason for NPCs to do the job assigned to players. If you want someone to lose their pod, it is your job to make that happen GÇö stop trying to flog off your personal responsibilities on unrelated game mechanics, and your problem will go away. So you're confusing the word GÇ£betterGÇ¥ with GÇ£nonsensical and pointlessGÇ¥.
Using that logic you might as well remove Concord and state that it's the player's responsibility to kill people who are flashy, that not being the case and this being a game of consequences I see no reason why NPC in general, and Concord in particular, shouldn't also pod. Other than "that's not how it has been so far" I see no compelling reasons to not change it and I see quite a few (apart from the obvious "HTFU") reasons FOR that change.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
236
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 13:40:59 -
[49] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Talos. Polarized neutron blaster cannons. Orca.. Instead of the Orca, you would just bring a second Talos...
Quite, hence why I hadn't actually employed it yet. Some people use an Orca as a scout anyway, but those people are crazy. The most reasonable application is freighter ganks where the Orca's fleet bay is desirable for looting purposes purposes anyway and you could use multiple polarized Taloses (Taloi?), otherwise a gank which normally wouldn't justify losing two Taloses but can't quite be done with one.
There are multiple possible counters to this if it became common for freighter ganks and it would furthermore be profitable to employ them because of the value of polarized weapons but apparently that won't come to pass. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25217
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 14:30:59 -
[50] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Using that logic you might as well remove Concord and state that it's the player's responsibility to kill people who are flashy No, that does not follow. CONORD serves a purpose that has nothing to do with players' responsibilities. Making CONCORD do something some players are too incompetent or lazy to do is not the same thing as redefining half of New Eden.
Using the actual logic, CONCORD is there to enforce the single defining characteristic of highsec: that aggression costs. This is not something that should or even can be transferred to players because players cannot be relied upon to effect the required outcome GÇö they are not an automatic and unavoidable game mechanic. As a bonus, CONCORD does this in a way that also ensures that hostile activities end, giving the victim an avenue of escape. Poddings are wholly unnecessary for either one, and as such, the podding of enemies has been left the sole domain of players GÇö an additional punishment for the clumsy.
Quote:I see no reason why NPC in general, and Concord in particular, shouldn't also pod. Simple: because there is no need to increase the costs involved and because it leaves something for players to do above and beyond what NPCs do. It makes players the threat you should worry about, not the environment, which is a cornerstone for how the entire game is designed.
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.
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16000
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 15:30:42 -
[51] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Tippia wrote:Yeah, this is fairly obviously a change to enforce the costs of aggression, and little else. SamuraiJack wrote:I've got much better idea.
If you GCC. Concord Pods you. End of hyperdunking. There's no reason to end that strategy though, and even less reason for NPCs to do the job assigned to players. If you want someone to lose their pod, it is your job to make that happen GÇö stop trying to flog off your personal responsibilities on unrelated game mechanics, and your problem will go away. So you're confusing the word GÇ£betterGÇ¥ with GÇ£nonsensical and pointlessGÇ¥. Using that logic you might as well remove Concord and state that it's the player's responsibility to kill people who are flashy, that not being the case and this being a game of consequences I see no reason why NPC in general, and Concord in particular, shouldn't also pod. Other than "that's not how it has been so far" I see no compelling reasons to not change it and I see quite a few (apart from the obvious "HTFU") reasons FOR that change.
The only activity it would impact is hyperdunking and that is already easily avoided. It an unnecessary nerf to an already over nerfed activity.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
5573
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 15:57:55 -
[52] - Quote
Removed some more off topic posts.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
1081
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 22:05:52 -
[53] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Talos. Polarized neutron blaster cannons. Orca.
As far as I know nobody was actually doing it though, I did explain it to a few people and meant to myself but never got a good excuse to use it to its full potential with polarized guns. I did petition it (likely resulting in this nerf), and it was not an exploit at the time and presumably won't be one so feel free to do it this weekend. You won't have another chance.
it seems a bit silly that CCP decided to nerf a tactic which few gankers have even employed (I've used it a few times, just to save costs when the target's completely afk for the minute it takes to deploy a depot), but it won't affect the meta much. Thought of it; considered it too much effort for not enough performance increase. Instead of the Orca, you would just bring a second Talos... Too much tinfoil in this thread. Yeah, or simply two Catalyst with t2 guns which is still a lot cheaper than the Talos hull and has more damage.
the Code ALWAYS wins
|
Steppa Musana
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 23:06:10 -
[54] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:Using that logic you might as well remove Concord and state that it's the player's responsibility to kill people who are flashy No, that does not follow. CONORD serves a purpose that has nothing to do with players' responsibilities. Making CONCORD do something some players are too incompetent or lazy to do is not on par with GÇö or even on the same consequence chain as GÇö redefining half of New Eden. Using the actual logic, CONCORD is there to enforce the single defining characteristic of highsec: that aggression costs. This is not something that should or even can be transferred to players because players cannot be relied upon to effect the required outcome GÇö they are not an automatic and unavoidable game mechanic. As a bonus, CONCORD does this in a way that also ensures that hostile activities end, giving the victim an avenue of escape. Poddings are wholly unnecessary for either one, and as such, the podding of enemies has been left the sole domain of players GÇö an additional punishment for the clumsy. Quote:I see no reason why NPC in general, and Concord in particular, shouldn't also pod. Simple: because there is no need to increase the costs involved and because it leaves something for players to do above and beyond what NPCs do. It makes players the threat you should worry about, not the environment, which is a cornerstone for how the entire game is designed. Okay, the argument is not that CONCORD should pod players because of consequences, its that CONCORD podding players could be a solution to the exploit that is Hyperdunking. And yes, it is an exploit, CCP always say "not an exploit" until they find a way to actually fix it. And no, just because you can counter an exploit doesnt mean its not still an exploit. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16003
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 23:09:40 -
[55] - Quote
Steppa Musana wrote: Okay, the argument is not that CONCORD should pod players because of consequences, its that CONCORD podding players could be a solution to the exploit that is Hyperdunking. And yes, it is an exploit, CCP always say "not an exploit" until they find a way to actually fix it. And no, just because you can counter an exploit doesnt mean its not still an exploit.
CCP saying its not an exploit makes it not an exploit and they will not be changing their mind over this. There is nothing that needs to be fixed.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25226
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 23:29:29 -
[56] - Quote
Steppa Musana wrote:Okay, the argument is not that CONCORD should pod players because of consequences, its that CONCORD podding players could be a solution to the exploit that is Hyperdunking. In other words, there is no argument for CONCORD podding players, since there is no exploit and nothing to solve.
Quote:And yes, it is an exploit CCP says no. That's the end of it. So you're just flat out wrong on that one.
Quote:CCP always say "not an exploit" until they find a way to actually fix it. No. They say it is an exploit when they determine it is an exploit. Then they start looking for ways to program the exploit out of the game. So you're flat out wrong on that one too.
Beyond that, it's trivially easy to see why they determined that hyperdunking is not an exploit: because at no point is any of the key indicators for a CONCORD or aggression-game exploit present. At no point are any game mechanics bypassed. At no point is the obligatory loss avoided. At no point is any punishment deferred, nullified, or otherwise adjusted. At no point is CONCORD made to do something it is not supposed to do. If you think it is an exploit, not only are you objectively wrong, you immediately disqualify yourself from discussing the matter since you have no idea what the word even means.
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.
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
236
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 01:31:30 -
[57] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Talos. Polarized neutron blaster cannons. Orca.
As far as I know nobody was actually doing it though, I did explain it to a few people and meant to myself but never got a good excuse to use it to its full potential with polarized guns. I did petition it (likely resulting in this nerf), and it was not an exploit at the time and presumably won't be one so feel free to do it this weekend. You won't have another chance.
it seems a bit silly that CCP decided to nerf a tactic which few gankers have even employed (I've used it a few times, just to save costs when the target's completely afk for the minute it takes to deploy a depot), but it won't affect the meta much. Thought of it; considered it too much effort for not enough performance increase. Instead of the Orca, you would just bring a second Talos... Too much tinfoil in this thread. Yeah, or simply two Catalyst with t2 guns which is still a lot cheaper than the Talos hull and has more damage.
Actually, no, two Catalysts are not better than a Talos, not remotely. And certainly not better than a polarized Talos. |
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
332
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 06:18:00 -
[58] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:I've got much better idea.
If you GCC. Concord Pods you. End of hyperdunking.
You are a criminal in highsec. They shouldnt just pop you. They should kill you. You broke the law. Have some ****ing concequences. Hows that for realism.
That would also keep more people from quitting EVE after their first time being ganked. |
Magnus Roden
5
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 10:20:37 -
[59] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:Using that logic you might as well remove Concord and state that it's the player's responsibility to kill people who are flashy No, that does not follow. CONORD serves a purpose that has nothing to do with players' responsibilities. Making CONCORD do something some players are too incompetent or lazy to do is not on par with GÇö or even on the same consequence chain as GÇö redefining half of New Eden. Using the actual logic, CONCORD is there to enforce the single defining characteristic of highsec: that aggression costs. This is not something that should or even can be transferred to players because players cannot be relied upon to effect the required outcome GÇö they are not an automatic and unavoidable game mechanic. As a bonus, CONCORD does this in a way that also ensures that hostile activities end, giving the victim an avenue of escape. Poddings are wholly unnecessary for either one, and as such, the podding of enemies has been left the sole domain of players GÇö an additional punishment for the clumsy. Quote:I see no reason why NPC in general, and Concord in particular, shouldn't also pod. Simple: because there is no need to increase the costs involved and because it leaves something for players to do above and beyond what NPCs do. It makes players the threat you should worry about, not the environment, which is a cornerstone for how the entire game is designed.
Concord's purpose is to provide a, somewhat, meaningful layer of defence and security through repercussion. There is no logical reasoning to have that stop at podding, there's also not one to NOT have that stop ad podding as it's just an arbitrary choice. There's no other logical reasoning against NPC/concord podding than "I don't like it".
How is increasing risk/cost a bad thing? It's not as if ganking is somehow a dwindling profession, it's quite obvious that it's very widespread and overly used even against lol targets. Personally I have nothing against ganking at all, it's a tax on the lazy, but at the same time it just doesn't feel "right" that folks get to gank "whatever" for the heck of it. Ganking in high sec should come at such a cost that it's a conscious choice with massive repercussions, each and every time and it, obviously, just isn't.
There is no valid argument against NPC/Concord podding players, other than "that's not how it's been so far and it would increase cost" which as arguments go is a slim one.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Magnus Roden
5
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 10:23:45 -
[60] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:The only activity it would impact is hyperdunking and that is already easily avoided. It an unnecessary nerf to an already over nerfed activity.
Given the amount of ganking that goes on and taking into account the cost for the ganker vs gankee I'm sure you'll agree it's in no way a dying profession or nerfed to a point where it's balanced. It isn't balanced, at all.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
|
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
3992
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 10:29:41 -
[61] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:There is no valid argument against NPC/Concord podding players, other than "that's not how it's been so far and it would increase cost" which as arguments go is a slim one. You don't understand.
If CONCORD podded criminals, they could be offended.
If offended, they could go on strike and not gank anymore.
No more ganks --> nothing to do for CONCORD --> massive downsizing of CONCORD --> many Police Captains would lose their jobs.
Nobody wants to lose their job, mate, how could you not consider this?
Think before you post, please.
Make space glamorous!
Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25230
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 10:45:04 -
[62] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Concord's purpose is to GǪenforce the defining characteristic of highsec: that non-consentual aggression comes at a cost. That is all. It is not meant to provide defence or security or protection or anything other than cost.
Quote:There is no logical reasoning to have that stop at podding Sure there is: it is not necessary for the purpose of CONCORD and there is no reason to increase the cost. One of the very prohibiting reasons (SP loss) has been removed, sure, but that still doesn't mean that the cost needs to increase any more than it already has through the myriad of security buffs that the system has seen over the years. More than that, if cost actually needed to be increased for some strange reason, there are far better ways of doing it than to remove player activity.
Quote:Ganking in high sec should come at such a cost that it's a conscious choice with massive repercussions each and every time and it, obviously, just isn't. It obviously is since it's such a rare event that people get upset every time it happens and since it has now been relegated to a select few groups rather than being so wide-spread that it generated a secondary looters' market. Gank scavenging used to be a workable, if slightly low-paying, profession back in the day. These days, where you'd be lucky to see a single profitable gank in a day, it's right out because of how lucky you have to be to even get the chance.
Quote:On top of that the cost for the ganker is completely out of whack when compared to the cost for the target, it's hilariously silly. It's a hilariously silly argument to think that the target's costs is in any way even remotely relevant to how much it should cost the attacker. ISK-tanking is such a fundamentally erroneous and illogical concept that it beggars belief. It would completely ruin any sense of balancing; it makes no sense from a mechanical standpoint; it makes no sense from a logical standpoint; it makes no sense from a lore standpoint. Every time it has been attempted, it has failed. Every time it has been suggested, its inherent flaws and the massive exploitation potential it forcibly creates have all been blown wide open and made readily apparent. In short: it makes no sense. Ever.
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.
|
Magnus Roden
5
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 10:49:08 -
[63] - Quote
So what you're saying that ganking at the moment is quite balanced, that gankers don't just target randoms for the lulz and cost for ganking vs cost for the target isn't at all skewed?
Quote:It's a hilariously silly argument to think that the target's costs is in any way even remotely relevant to how much it should cost the attacker. ISK-tanking is such a fundamentally erroneous and illogical concept that it beggars belief. It would completely ruin any sense of balancing; it makes no sense from a mechanical standpoint; it makes no sense from a logical standpoint; it makes no sense from a lore standpoint. Every time it has been attempted, it has failed. Every time it has been suggested, its inherent flaws and the massive exploitation potential it forcibly creates have all been blown wide open and made readily apparent. In short: it makes no sense. Ever.
Nice try but no, cost difference being so out of whack is the main issue as to why it's rampant. Easy solutions would be to decrease concord response times increasing required dps or number of gankers, perhaps adapt Concord tactics to actually follow/guard the gank target for a bit and things like... podding.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25230
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 10:57:49 -
[64] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:So what you're saying that ganking at the moment is quite balanced, that gankers don't just target randoms for the lulz and cost for ganking vs cost for the target isn't at all skewed? No. What I'm saying is that ganking costs need to go down drastically and ganking be made a whole lot easier so the massive support structure required to make it work isGǪ wellGǪ if not completely unnecessary, then at least drastically reduced in scope. The easiest way of doing so is to increase CONCORD response times, because the rest would require fiddling with CrimeWatch flagging again, and that part is in a reasonably good state.
That way, gakning can be done by randoms, rather than a select few easily trackable ganking outfits, and the victims learn to balance their cost against the risks involved and not be so shocked when it turns out that not doing anything to even remotely protect themselves turns out to not offer much in the way of protection.
As for the relation between the respective costs of the parties involved, it is completely irrelevant.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16008
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 11:12:18 -
[65] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:So what you're saying that ganking at the moment is quite balanced, that gankers don't just target randoms for the lulz and cost for ganking vs cost for the target isn't at all skewed? Quote:It's a hilariously silly argument to think that the target's costs is in any way even remotely relevant to how much it should cost the attacker. ISK-tanking is such a fundamentally erroneous and illogical concept that it beggars belief. It would completely ruin any sense of balancing; it makes no sense from a mechanical standpoint; it makes no sense from a logical standpoint; it makes no sense from a lore standpoint. Every time it has been attempted, it has failed. Every time it has been suggested, its inherent flaws and the massive exploitation potential it forcibly creates have all been blown wide open and made readily apparent. In short: it makes no sense. Ever. Nice try but no, cost difference being so out of whack is the main issue as to why it's rampant. Easy solutions would be to decrease concord response times increasing required dps or number of gankers, perhaps adapt Concord tactics to actually follow/guard the gank target for a bit and things like... podding.
How about, oh I dunno, fitting a tank?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Magnus Roden
5
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 11:18:16 -
[66] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:So what you're saying that ganking at the moment is quite balanced, that gankers don't just target randoms for the lulz and cost for ganking vs cost for the target isn't at all skewed? No. What I'm saying is that ganking costs need to go down drastically and ganking be made a whole lot easier so the massive support structure required to make it work isGǪ wellGǪ if not completely unnecessary, then at least drastically reduced in scope. The easiest way of doing so is to increase CONCORD response times, because the rest would require fiddling with CrimeWatch flagging again, and that part is in a reasonably good state. That way, gakning can be done by randoms, rather than a select few easily trackable ganking outfits, and the victims learn to balance their cost against the risks involved and not be so shocked when it turns out that not doing anything to even remotely protect themselves turns out to not offer much in the way of protection. As for the relation between the respective costs of the parties involved, it is completely irrelevant.
So you're saying ganking isn't easy enough and you want MORE ganking. Thank you for voicing your agenda, especially so when it's a silly one. You've also not given any valid argument why cost is somehow irrelevant other than you frantically trying to cling to the current situation, using :words: to try and cover it up.
Lets just state the obvious here. A call for ganking has nothing to do with "the greater good", "better for the game" or "increase awareness of the victims teaching them risk vs reward". It's a simple result of being so scared to actually fight someone that a ganker's main joins a 40k coalition to hide behind and then whines about how there's, obviously, no one to fight. Thus gets bored and makes a faceless alt to shoot someone who he knows won't shoot back, that's all there is to it. And of course the very few people who profit from barge/exhumer production.
There's nothing wrong with ganking as a concept but it should be so restricted that it's normally not doable unless it's either personal or financially worthwhile (Iteron with 200m in cargo, officer or full DS fit CNR idiot). As it is it's silly and completely out of whack.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Magnus Roden
5
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 11:21:01 -
[67] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:How about, oh I dunno, fitting a tank?
I'll fully agree that people have the responsibility to fit a tank to lower the risk but a tanked Hulk is still a target and a tanked freighter is still a target even with low value cargo on board. It's obviously not the solution.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
3992
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 11:25:35 -
[68] - Quote
Magnus, it appears you have never ganked, never been a gank victim, never had a single PVP encounter.
You are free to express your opinion, but it will obviously be irrelevant.
Make space glamorous!
Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16008
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 11:34:10 -
[69] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:baltec1 wrote:How about, oh I dunno, fitting a tank? I'll fully agree that people have the responsibility to fit a tank to lower the risk but a tanked Hulk is still a target and a tanked freighter is still a target even with low value cargo on board. It's obviously not the solution.
Only tanked freighters with low cargo value are not valid targets. Out of the million trips made by these ships every month only a few dozen at worst die to ganks. It is an insanely rare event.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Magnus Roden
5
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 11:51:29 -
[70] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:baltec1 wrote:How about, oh I dunno, fitting a tank? I'll fully agree that people have the responsibility to fit a tank to lower the risk but a tanked Hulk is still a target and a tanked freighter is still a target even with low value cargo on board. It's obviously not the solution. Only tanked freighters with low cargo value are not valid targets. Out of the million trips made by these ships every month only a few dozen at worst die to ganks. It is an insanely rare event.
Empty non-tanked freighters are targets, tanked Freighters with 2-3 bil onboard are targets and it's not like 2 bil is a massive amount.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25231
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 11:54:14 -
[71] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Nice try but no, cost difference being so out of whack is the main issue as to why it's rampant. Just one problem: it is not rampant, and the logic is the exact opposite of what you're thinking.
It is not rampant exactly because of all the mechanisms put into place make it difficult and costly to pull off, which is why there has been a trend towards using cheaper ships. They offer slightly better bang for the buck, but at the cost of coordination and lower loot shares.
The cost difference is also a direct result of the fact that the game is well-balanced. Balance does not mean that you have to spend big to kill big GÇö quite the opposite. Balance means that even a small and cheap ship can be used to kill a large and costly one. Anything else would be idiotic. In spite of it having been a well-known fact for a looooong time, CCP attempted to use cost for balancing once, and that gave us supercaps, which have been nothing but a balancing headache ever since (for a very obvious reason: cost balancing simply doesn't work).
If people don't want to be ganked, there is a already a very simple solution to this: fit a tank. Fly intelligently. Don't make yourself a target.
Quote:So you're saying ganking isn't easy enough and you want MORE ganking. Yes. Ganking is on so rare that it would appear on an endangered species list.
Just for fun, I looked at how much murdering went on last Sunday (Sundays generally being the most populated and active day in the week). During an entire day, in the two bottleneck systems that are generally considered gank central, a total ofGǪ
GǪdrumrollGǪ
2 freighters and 5 industrials were ganked. 1 additional freighter and 5 additional industrials were killed in war actviity. 0 of these were hyperdunked In all, 129 industrials were lost in all of highsec, at least half of which were due to war activity; that means ~3 indy ganks per hour spread across 1200 systems (as opposed to the good old days, when you'd see that many in Jita alone during prime time). In addition to the freighters lost in the bottleneck systems, 3 more were lost in the rest of highsec, one of which was a war target.
If you think ganking is rampant, there are only three options: you are an idiot with no conception of the meaning of those two words; you are immensely uninformed; you are lying. Pick which one applies to you.
Quote:You've also not given any valid argument why cost is somehow irrelevant other than you frantically trying to cling to the current situation, using :words: to try and cover it up. You are confusing me with you. You are frantically trying to cling to the thoroughly disproven myth that ganking is currently rampant, and youGÇÖre trying (and failing) to use :words: to cover up the indisputable fact that ganks are ridiculously rare.
Just because you canGÇÖt come up with a cogent or coherent argument against the points being made about cost doesnGÇÖt mean that they donGÇÖt exist.
Quote:Lets just state the obvious here. Ok. The call for increased ganking costs, and ultimately an end to ganking, has nothing to do with GÇ£the greater goodGÇ¥, GÇ£better for the gameGÇ¥, GÇ£balanceGÇ¥, or GÇ£increasing cost for gankersGÇ¥. It has to do with the victims being too incompetent, lazy, stupid, and ignorant to actually fix their own problems and instead clamouring for CCP to save them by outlawing legitimate gameplay.
Quote:There's nothing wrong with ganking as a concept but it should be so restricted that it's normally not doable GǪand this is where you out yourself and your agenda. It must always be doable. Cost cannot change how easily you can kill a ship. Ganks are already immensely rare and almost always done for profit.
The situation youGÇÖre describing is already where we are. If you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself or lying. The fact that you think it should somehow be made even rarer, even more costly, proves that your agenda is something completely different from what you say. That skews the answer more towards GÇ£lyingGÇ¥.
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.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16008
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 11:55:08 -
[72] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:
Empty non-tanked freighters are targets, tanked Freighters with 2-3 bil onboard are targets and it's not like 2 bil is a massive amount.
So where are the kills?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
1039
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 12:07:59 -
[73] - Quote
I missed Tippia. This thread makes me feel like it's the good old days again.
Since this thread is already completely off topic, I want to ask a question.
Concord doesn't pod. But drifters do.
What do we make of that? Is something being enforced here? If so, what?
I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25231
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 12:08:51 -
[74] - Quote
Just looking a the first page of indy kills on zkillboard (50 kills total), 10 happened in highsec, 3 were war tagets, 1 was suicide-by-cop(!), 5 were actual ganks of the GÇ£several hundred millions in a T1 haulerGÇ¥ kind, and 1 is conceivably a low-value gank but with no corresponding CONCORD activity to confirm it.
Glathull wrote:Concord doesn't pod. But drifters do.
What do we make of that? Is something being enforced here? If so, what? Drifters are: 1) A new addition from after the meaning of pod losses was adjusted. 2) An extension of GÇ£dangerous NPCs to huntGÇ¥ GÇö the same class as sleepers or sansha, but with added danger. 3) Free-roaming in a way that neither sleepers or sansha are. 4) Not related to PvP and its balancing, nor a characteristics-defining game mechanic for anything in particular.
Your question is more answered by the second and third point: nothing is being enforced GÇö the podding is just a threat escalation for those who want a more dynamic experience in their ratting than what was previously available. You're playing for keeps, as it were (but only after GÇ£the keepsGÇ¥ in question have been suitably reduced).
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.
|
Hengle Teron
Give Righteous Isolationists Excessive Force
52731
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 12:23:34 -
[75] - Quote
Glathull wrote:I missed Tippia. This thread makes me feel like it's the good old days again.
Since this thread is already completely off topic, I want to ask a question.
Concord doesn't pod. But drifters do.
What do we make of that? Is something being enforced here? If so, what? Sure, but drifters don't make you unable to warp with their sole presence in the system. |
Yang Aurilen
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
673
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 12:28:26 -
[76] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:
Empty non-tanked freighters are targets, tanked Freighters with 2-3 bil onboard are targets and it's not like 2 bil is a massive amount.
So where are the kills?
Every time someone says ganking is at an all time high just check their/their alts killboard.
Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!
|
Magnus Roden
5
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 13:19:55 -
[77] - Quote
[quote=Tippia]Just for fun, I looked at how much murdering went on last Sunday (Sundays generally being the most populated and active day in the week). During an entire day, in the two bottleneck systems that are generally considered gank central, a total ofGǪ
GǪdrumrollGǪ
2 freighters and 5 industrials were ganked. 1 additional freighter and 5 additional industrials were killed in war actviity. 0 of these were hyperdunked In all, 129 industrials were lost in all of highsec/quote]
Ships lost due to ganking on May 30th in Uedama only:
T1 haulers: 11 barge: 3 Orca: 1
Ships lost due to ganking on May 29th in Uedama only:
T1 haulers: 1 barge: 1 Orca: 1 Freighter: 5
Of all those a large portion of the haulers were viable targets in that they could have made a profit. Only 2 of the freighters had cargo onboard exceeding 100 mil. The remaining haulers, barges, orca and other freighters were kills for the lulz.
Is that a lot compared to the volume of ships flying through, no. Is it silly that orcas, freighters, barges and some T1 haulers apparently get killed for no reason meaning there isn't enough repercussion for doing so for both the act itself as the accumulated downsides to making kills like that, yes.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
SamuraiJack
Tritanium Industries and Technology Backseat Promises
105
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 13:40:14 -
[78] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote: Aha, so it IS a "the current system suits me just fine so lets not change that". Given that new types of NPC pod and the removal of SP loss on podkill I see no reason as to why other NPC, including Concord, also shouldn't pod.
^This. Give that man a cookie.
Eve has consequences. You want to be a nasty -10 criminal. You will be shot and killed. As it is the punishments for being a ganker are loss of ship. Hardly a major inconvenience when you have your alt deliver you new ones.
http://miniluv.apoff.com/?a=home < Ganker killboard.
SJ's Chronicles - http://www.fanfiction.net/u/2103579/CLS-SamuraiJack
|
Carrie-Anne Moss
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
169
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 14:10:01 -
[79] - Quote
Do you 2 idiots realise if concorded podded, the gankers would just wake up in the station they just ganked from cuz they set it as their home system?
Lol wtf is that gonna solve dudes??
Also takes more than just a f"ew catalysts" to do those ganks.
You 2 are ignorant |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25234
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 14:13:32 -
[80] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Ships lost due to ganking on May 30th in Uedama only:
T1 haulers: 11 barge: 3 Orca: 1
Ships lost due to ganking on May 29th in Uedama only:
T1 haulers: 1 barge: 1 Orca: 1 Freighter: 5 So you agree, then. Pathetically low numbers, trivially easy to avoid, and pretty much universally done for profit.
Quote:Of all those a large portion of the haulers were viable targets in that they could have made a profit. Only 2 of the freighters had cargo onboard exceeding 100 mil. The remaining haulers, barges, orca and other freighters were kills for the lulz. Yeah, see, if you're going to try to use killboards as evidence, make sure the evidence (available to all) actually fits what you're saying, or you will be GÇö entirely accurately GÇö be called a liar.
Liar.
The vast majority of the kills of the on both days were done for profit (CODE enfocing their protection racket) or at a profit (T1 haulers carrying cargo in the 100M range and above). The There are two low-value indy kill on the 30th that would fit your delusional complaintGǪ except that both are war targets, so they don't. On the 29th, there is one gank that might be questionable GÇö a freighter that only carries 180M worth of pyro GÇö the remaining freighters carry something in the 1b order; the indies carries 100M+.
You also seem to have failed to spot the failed ganks GÇö the instances where there is lots of CONCORD activity without a kill to trigger it all.
Quote:Is that a lot compared to the volume of ships flying through, no. So you agree, then, ganking is not even close to rampant. See what happens when you start looking at the facts rather than make stuff up because you so dearly wish they were true?
Quote:Is it silly that orcas, freighters, barges and some T1 haulers apparently get killed for no reason Good news: that doesn't happen. The orcas and barges are killed for a reason: profit (or, in one case, as part of a war). Specifically, to enforce CODE's protection scheme. The freighters and haulers are killed for a reason: profit (or in five cases, as part of a war). Specifically, because they contain enough valuables to be worth a gank. Universally, the ones that do not contain enough valuables (and even a few that do) are killed because they are legitimate war targets and the pilot is being particularly stupid.
Of course, even if they were killed for no reason, it still wouldn't be particularly silly GÇö the number is simply far far far too low, and ships getting shot in a ship-shooting game would have to include some pretty odd circumstances to be considered silly to begin with.
Quote:Aha, so it IS a "the current system suits me just fine so lets not change that". No. It is GÇ£this was an adjustment that allowed for a new type of danger to be introduced without making it ridiculously overbearingGÇ¥. It has no connection to CONCORD and the far too high costs it already incurs. Since there is no reason for CONCORD to pod to serve their purpose, they shouldn't pod. It's that simple.
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.
|
|
Carrie-Anne Moss
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
169
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 14:14:13 -
[81] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:Magnus Roden wrote: Aha, so it IS a "the current system suits me just fine so lets not change that". Given that new types of NPC pod and the removal of SP loss on podkill I see no reason as to why other NPC, including Concord, also shouldn't pod.
^This. Give that man a cookie. Eve has consequences. You want to be a nasty -10 criminal. You will be shot and killed. As it is the punishments for being a ganker are loss of ship. Hardly a major inconvenience when you have your alt deliver you new ones. http://miniluv.apoff.com/?a=home < Ganker killboard.
Everone of those ganks has sips lost for them just not showing on that killboard. Also gategun kills dont show up on zkill. The gankers are losing more sips tgan the gankees.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25234
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 14:14:47 -
[82] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:Eve has consequences. You want to be a nasty -10 criminal. You will be shot and killed. GǪby players. That's what the -10 does. If players choose not to do that, then it is not the role of NPCs to step in and do what the lazy idiots refuse to do.
Quote:As it is the punishments for being a ganker are loss of ship. This is incorrect and exposes a fundamental and complete ignorance of how the game works.
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.
|
Magnus Roden
6
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 14:28:03 -
[83] - Quote
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:Do you 2 idiots realise if concorded podded, the gankers would just wake up in the station they just ganked from cuz they set it as their home system?
Lol wtf is that gonna solve dudes??
Also takes more than just a f"ew catalysts" to do those ganks.
You 2 are ignorant
So given that it's so trivial as you put it you won't mind if it gets changed?
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25234
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 14:28:38 -
[84] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:So given that it's so trivial as you put it you won't mind if it gets changed? Since it's so trivial, there is even less reason to change it: it wouldn't solve any kind of problem even if one existed.
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.
|
Magnus Roden
6
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 14:45:52 -
[85] - Quote
Orca kill 29th in Uedama: Total value 728,841,031.56 ISK. l Charon kill 29th in Uedama: Total value 1,560,529,869.47 ISK. Charon kill 29th in Uedama: Total value 2,630,136,876.97 ISK. Charon kill 29th in Uedama: Total value 2,039,910,230.92 ISK. Fenrir kill 29th in Uedama: Total value 2,252,996,224.26 ISK.
Given the people and effort required only one of those really was worth it and at least two of those were full lulz kills. None of them were war related yet they happened anyway. And that's just one system.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Magnus Roden
6
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 14:48:46 -
[86] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:So given that it's so trivial as you put it you won't mind if it gets changed? Since it's so trivial, there is even less reason to change it: it wouldn't solve any kind of problem even if one existed.
I'm not saying it's trivial, he was. I'm simply stating that it would make sense and be in line with the new NPC. I mean, with all the HTFU and all that why stop at podding? Your reasoning is no different from people somehow stamping their foot for being podded in low sec and as always the answer is "it's part of the kill, why would you expect to not get podded".
Same here, given the changes to SP loss and the newly introduced NPC that do pod it makes full sense for normal NPC to also pod, it's just part of the kill.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Carrie-Anne Moss
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
171
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 14:50:19 -
[87] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Orca kill 29th in Uedama: Total value 728,841,031.56 ISK. l Charon kill 29th in Uedama: Total value 1,560,529,869.47 ISK. Charon kill 29th in Uedama: Total value 2,630,136,876.97 ISK. Charon kill 29th in Uedama: Total value 2,039,910,230.92 ISK. Fenrir kill 29th in Uedama: Total value 2,252,996,224.26 ISK. Given the people and effort required only one of those really was worth it and at least two of those were full lulz kills. None of them were war related yet they happened anyway. And that's just one system. Hate to break it to you but um aint video games about lulz?? Like wtf are you playimg a MMORPG about internet spaceships and crying cuz someone else gets lulz blowing ships up in that game?
Its a freaking video game! It is exactly for lulz! |
Carrie-Anne Moss
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
171
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 14:52:27 -
[88] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Tippia wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:So given that it's so trivial as you put it you won't mind if it gets changed? Since it's so trivial, there is even less reason to change it: it wouldn't solve any kind of problem even if one existed. I'm not saying it's trivial, he was. I'm simply stating that it would make sense and be in line with the new NPC. I mean, with all the HTFU and all that why stop at podding? Your reasoning is no different from people somehow stamping their foot for being podded in low sec and as always the answer is "it's part of the kill, why would you expect to not get podded". Same here, given the changes to SP loss and the newly introduced NPC that do pod it makes full sense for normal NPC to also pod, it's just part of the kill. Drifters can only pod afk idiots which not suprisingly there are vast amounts of in this game. Not really sure what you hope to change by making the ganker wake up in the exact station he was just about to warp and dock at? |
SamuraiJack
Tritanium Industries and Technology Backseat Promises
105
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 14:53:00 -
[89] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:So given that it's so trivial as you put it you won't mind if it gets changed? Since it's so trivial, there is even less reason to change it: it wouldn't solve any kind of problem even if one existed.
Except the hyperdunkers like to use implants when they've bumped a target off grid and sat there ganking happily...
SJ's Chronicles - http://www.fanfiction.net/u/2103579/CLS-SamuraiJack
|
Carrie-Anne Moss
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
171
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 14:55:34 -
[90] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:Tippia wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:So given that it's so trivial as you put it you won't mind if it gets changed? Since it's so trivial, there is even less reason to change it: it wouldn't solve any kind of problem even if one existed. Except the hyperdunkers like to use implants when they've bumped a target off grid and sat there ganking happily... You think they need those implants??
I assure you, ASSURE YOU if they didnt have implant the ganks would still happen with the same effort, maybe one more ship.
You two are so ignorant. Go learn and stop crying, then come back and try some new arguments with your new knowledge |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25234
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 14:59:20 -
[91] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Orca kill 29th in Uedama: Total value 728,841,031.56 ISK. GåÉ CODE, protection racket Charon kill 29th in Uedama: Total value 1,560,529,869.47 ISK. Charon kill 29th in Uedama: Total value 2,630,136,876.97 ISK. GåÉ 1.3bn cargo Charon kill 29th in Uedama: Total value 2,039,910,230.92 ISK. GåÉ 0.7bn cargo Fenrir kill 29th in Uedama: Total value 2,252,996,224.26 ISK. GåÉ 0.9bn cargo The one that remains could have been profitable with maximum luck, so GÇ£lulzGÇ¥ doesn't seem particularly applicable.
So yeah. Liar.
Quote:I'm not saying it's trivial, he was. GǪand you failed once again to realise that the point you're trying to push would go against the overall argument you're trying to make. If it is so trivial, then it is pointless to change even if there was a reason to do so (which there isn't, as you continue to prove).
Quote:Your reasoning is no different from people somehow stamping their foot for being podded in low sec and as always the answer is "it's part of the kill, why would you expect to not get podded". No. The answer is always GÇ£lol, you got podkilled in low, where it is almost impossible to not get away!? n00b!GÇ¥ GÇö an answer, by the way, which would not be applicable to CONCORD (but is curiously applicable to victims of hypergankingGǪ that would explain the foot-stomping on their part too, I suppose).
You still fail on the most basic level: to demonstrate even the slightest shred of a need to increase any of the costs related to ganks. Before you manage that, there is no reason for CONCOR to do anything other than what they're currently doing, and even once you do, podding is so far down the list that it's almost silly since (as you accidentally managed to argue) it wouldn't change anything.
SamuraiJack wrote:Except the hyperdunkers So you're basically just arguing that CONCORD should remove legitimate gameplay for no cogent reason. No. Think up something else.
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.
|
SamuraiJack
Tritanium Industries and Technology Backseat Promises
105
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 15:13:05 -
[92] - Quote
I dont consider bumping a ship that has no defenses off grid into an alley and then pewing the crap out of it "gameplay"
Bumping IS an exploit and CCP have banned for it. Any cap ship with lateral movement CANNOT warp. You dont need to tackle it or scram it. The machariels they use to do this are invunerable as you will be concorded for attempting to stop it. Even with a webbing ship helping you move you are at risk as you now have a 15min timer if you log to avoid bumping. (They also use nub alts to suicide "tag" you if you log.)
Given most gankers like to use NPC haulers/bowheads/bumpers the only recourse you have is to suicide gank them in return. Its evasion of the highest order. Little Risk, No way to be Wardecced, "total lulz".
People with balls would put them in a corp and then deal with the wardecs... says alot really...
SJ's Chronicles - http://www.fanfiction.net/u/2103579/CLS-SamuraiJack
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25234
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 15:16:38 -
[93] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:I dont consider bumping a ship that has no defenses off grid into an alley and then pewing the crap out of it "gameplay"
Bumping IS an exploit Incorrect. Bumping is legal gameplay as CCP has very explicitly made clear over and over and over again. What you consider something as is superbly irrelevant.
Quote:CCP have banned for it. Incorrect. They have banned people for harassment and for POS bowling. It is the end result that is not allowed, not the act itself.
Quote:Any cap ship with lateral movement CANNOT warp. Incorrect. They can warp just fine, just not in the original direction of travel.
Quote:Given most gankers like to use NPC haulers/bowheads/bumpers the only recourse you have is to suicide gank them in return. Incorrect. There is plenty of other recourse and it too has been explicitly made clear over and over and over again. People just choose to not defend themselves and instead whine about how their decision has left them defenceless.
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.
|
SamuraiJack
Tritanium Industries and Technology Backseat Promises
105
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 15:17:38 -
[94] - Quote
I also really wonder about the "pulling" of concord. Seems highly dubious. If the cops are "Chasing" criminals, maybe more should spawn. But of course then you couldnt do your hyperdunks for 15mins thus making it even longer to "gank"
SJ's Chronicles - http://www.fanfiction.net/u/2103579/CLS-SamuraiJack
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25235
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 15:18:43 -
[95] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:I also really wonder about the "pulling" of concord. Wonder no more: it is legal and purposefully built into the system. It is there (and has been cleared) for both sides to use.
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.
|
SamuraiJack
Tritanium Industries and Technology Backseat Promises
105
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 15:22:09 -
[96] - Quote
Bit hard to align when you purposely BUMP a ship UP or DOWN (where there are NO gates/objects in space to align to.) And no you are incorrect. ANY lateral movement HAS to stop before a ship can warp. Its why "bumping" works to stop warping.
(Its also why torpedos are no longer AOE as that was a side effect from that too. Also Podding)
SJ's Chronicles - http://www.fanfiction.net/u/2103579/CLS-SamuraiJack
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25235
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 15:26:24 -
[97] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:Bit hard to align when you purposely BUMP a ship UP or DOWN Not really. All you do is change what it is you're aligned to.
Quote:ANY lateral movement HAS to stop before a ship can warp. Incorrect. All it has to do is warp off in the current direction. There is no such thing as GÇ£lateral movementGÇ¥ GÇö there is only a vector of travel (which is independent of the direction your ship is pointing) GÇö and if your'e at speed, you can just warp off along that vector.
Quote:(Its also why torpedos are no longer AOE as that was a side effect from that too. Also Podding) Conclusion: not just painfully ignorant, but a troll. Glad you cleared that one up.
Yeah, no. The only thing those have in common with warping is that you don't understand how any of them work.
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.
|
Magnus Roden
6
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 15:26:46 -
[98] - Quote
It's not a trivial change, that's why many people in this thread try so hard to cover it in bullshit. It's a logical change given what EVE is, how pod killing is part of the total kill and the mentioned NPC changes.
Also, you're both wrong on bumping. It WILL get you in trouble if you do it "for no reason" but if you state a reason (ransom is an easy one) then it's allowed.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Sibyyl
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
25278
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 15:27:34 -
[99] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:Given most gankers like to use NPC haulers/bowheads/bumpers the only recourse you have is to suicide gank them in return. Its evasion of the highest order. Little Risk, No way to be Wardecced, "total lulz".
PVP is not consensual in this game, no matter what system you might be located in. Lowsec is not an arena, and hisec is not a park. Bumping, hyperdunking, suicide ganking, wardecs.. all of these are not just tactics that are "tolerated" by CCP, they are explicitly called out as not being exploits.
This clarification has been made in writing because folks like yourself simply aren't getting the message.
PVP means people will use any legal means necessary to destroy your ship. PVP is war. It's not war in some real life scenario, it's war in a video game. This means that there are no rules, and everything that is within the EULA is fair game.
All your unarmed hauler is, is a target. If you can't make the trip without getting blown up, then use services like Red Frog who happen to love gankers. The pro space truckers love gankers. The ones that get blown up don't. Have you considered that the haulers complaining about gankers aren't particularly good at their profession?
If you aren't good at something, and complaining is your solution, I think it is time to find a new EVE profession or a new game.
All our times have come
Here but now they're gone
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25235
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 15:34:47 -
[100] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:It's not a trivial change Which change are you talking about?
Quote:It's a logical change given what EVE is, how pod killing is part of the total kill and the mentioned NPC changes. What's the logic in increasing the cost of ganks? What's the logical connection between a environment-defining game mechanic and the difficulty setting of a rat?
Quote:Also, you're both wrong on bumping. Not really, no (wellGǪ unless you're including someone else in GǣbothGǥ, but I can't see who else that would be since there's only two of us talking about it).
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
|
Magnus Roden
6
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 15:50:26 -
[101] - Quote
The change of making npc/concord pod kill.
I'd not call "5 freighters and an orca in just one system on one day" rare, especially not given how most of them aren't exactly worthwhile and it, as you put it, doesn't tend to be the busiest day of the week.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
SamuraiJack
Tritanium Industries and Technology Backseat Promises
107
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 15:55:14 -
[102] - Quote
How about another lovely change...
Allowing a GCC char to board a ship from your bowhead/orca? Makes you suspect. You aided and abetted a criminal. Just like remote repping via neutral alts.
/me sits back and waits for the whining from the gankers/griefers.
SJ's Chronicles - http://www.fanfiction.net/u/2103579/CLS-SamuraiJack
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25236
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 16:01:11 -
[103] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:The change of making npc/concord pod kill. It's a trivial change to implement. There just has to be a reason to do so, which there isn't.
Quote:I'd not call "5 freighters and an orca in just one system on one day" rare It's laughably rare, especially in that system and especially given how all but one carried enough cargo to be worth-while or flew a GÇ£prohibitedGÇ¥ ship into a blockaded area. Had you seen that many every hour of every day, you might approach actually having a case. Total, over a whole day? Lolno.
Again, this is gank central we're talking about. Back when ganking was actually slightly commonplace, you'd see that many in the far more secure systems of Jita, Sobaseki, and Perimeter, never mind what happened in the less secure sections of the large trade routes.
Not only does the number itself demonstrate the near-extinction status of ganking, the number of outfits doing it demonstrates what a highly specialised, professionalised, and non-casual activity it has become. The level of effort and investment needed has simply been pushed far above what a regular player could conceivably put in, which helps explain the rarity.
SamuraiJack wrote:How about another lovely change...
To go with the fitting ban...
Allowing a GCC char to board a ship from your bowhead/orca? Makes you suspect. You aided and abetted a criminal. Just like remote repping via neutral alts. Why should any of that happen? Oh, and I see we can add CrimeWatch to the things you have no clue aboutGǪ
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.
|
Magnus Roden
6
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 16:28:19 -
[104] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:The change of making npc/concord pod kill. It's a trivial change to implement. There just has to be a reason to do so, which there isn't.
There is, you just don't want it.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25236
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 16:36:25 -
[105] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:There is Do tell.
What reason is there to increase the costs of ganks, especially seeing as how you've already demonstrated their rarity and how they are pretty much universally done for profit by a very small selection of outfits? What problem does it solve?
Quote:you just don't want it. GǪbecause you haven't provided a cogent or coherent reason why I should.
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.
|
Magnus Roden
7
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 16:54:49 -
[106] - Quote
There's ganks going on that make no sense and should not happen (hyperdunking being one) because the cost of ganking is in no way related to the ship cost of the target. A few catalysts killing a freighter is silly, a bulky freighter should be able to move more than 2 bil in cargo before it's deemed a target and It makes no sense other than "that's how it's been up till now" and "please don't change it, I'm having too much fun".
Apart from that there's the little thing that has been stated before: New NPC pod, pod is a normal part of the kill. I'd say the time is exactly right to make NPC/Concord pod kill if only to make it . HTFU and all that.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Valkin Mordirc
1076
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:03:25 -
[107] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:There's ganks going on that make no sense and should not happen (hyperdunking being one) because the cost of ganking is in no way related to the ship cost of the target. A few catalysts killing a freighter is silly, a bulky freighter should be able to move more than 2 bil in cargo before it's deemed a target and It makes no sense other than "that's how it's been up till now" and "please don't change it, I'm having too much fun".
Apart from that there's the little thing that has been stated before: New NPC pod, pod is a normal part of the kill. I'd say the time is exactly right to make NPC/Concord pod kill if only to make it . HTFU and all that.
Calling people biased, but only wanted this change to GCC and Concord so YOU can move things without worry is biased.
And hypocritical.
Brah.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25237
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:16:10 -
[108] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:There's ganks going on that make no sense and should not happen (hyperdunking being one) Can you give any examples? Why shouldn't they happen? Why shouldn't something as inoffensive as huperdunking, of all things, not happen? Why should legitimate gameplay be removed?
Quote:because the cost of ganking is in no way related to the ship cost of the target. That's called balance. It is a good thing. Why should balance be removed?
Quote:A few catalysts killing a freighter is silly, a bulky freighter should be able to move more than 2 bil in cargo before it's deemed a target and It makes no sense other than "that's how it's been up till now" and "please don't change it, I'm having too much fun". How is it silly that a dozen combat ships can kill a single bulk transporter? Why is it a problem that it is deemed a target at that cargo value?
Quote:Apart from that there's the little thing that has been stated before: New NPC pod, pod is a normal part of the kill. I'd say the time is exactly right to make NPC/Concord pod kill if only for equality. So basically, you want to turn CONCORD (which is a gameplay-defining mechanic) into a mere NPCs. I can only assume that by this you mean that CONCORD can be beaten, and fairly trivially, with the right amount of preparation; that killed CONCORD will not respawn for a couple of hours; that CONCORD will drop valuable loot; and that CONCORD will not have any easily exploitable trigger conditions such as C-flags.
If that's the case, why should that happen? Why should CONCORD be reduced to an NPC? Why should highsec be removed? Why should people like me not be allowed to travel safely anywhere in space?
If that's not the case, then we're back to the original question that you still are utterly and completely incapable of answering: why should the price of aggression go up, seeing as how you have proven that ganks are ridiculously rare and really only done for profit?
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.
|
Magnus Roden
8
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:16:16 -
[109] - Quote
Valkin Mordirc wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:There's ganks going on that make no sense and should not happen (hyperdunking being one) because the cost of ganking is in no way related to the ship cost of the target. A few catalysts killing a freighter is silly, a bulky freighter should be able to move more than 2 bil in cargo before it's deemed a target and It makes no sense other than "that's how it's been up till now" and "please don't change it, I'm having too much fun".
Apart from that there's the little thing that has been stated before: New NPC pod, pod is a normal part of the kill. I'd say the time is exactly right to make NPC/Concord pod kill if only to make it . HTFU and all that. Calling people biased, but only wanted this change to GCC and Concord so YOU can move things without worry is biased. And hypocritical. Brah.
I don't mine or haul for profit or anything related so no idea where you got that from. If I use a hauler they will be tanked or cloaky and I'll use a webber alt when I DO use a freighter (which is almost never). That doesn't change the fact that in its current state ganking still is silly, yes it's been nerfed hard over time but the actual problem was never really addressed: cost to gank.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Magnus Roden
8
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:18:15 -
[110] - Quote
Explain to us how a massive inequality in regards to gank ship cost vs gank target ship hull cost (Catalysts vs Freighter, for instance) is somehow balanced.
Quote:So basically, you want to turn CONCORD (which is a gameplay-defining mechanic) into a mere NPCs. I can only assume that by this you mean that CONCORD can be beaten, and fairly trivially, with the right amount of preparation; that killed CONCORD will not respawn for a couple of hours; that CONCORD will drop valuable loot; and that CONCORD will not have any easily exploitable trigger conditions such as C-flags.
It's funny to see you try so hard to change the subject and lure me, and others, into semantics and nonsense. as you always do :)
Nothing what you stated there makes sense or is logical in anyway nor could anything from that be implied from what I stated.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25237
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:19:22 -
[111] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:That doesn't change the fact that in its current state ganking still is silly, yes it's been nerfed hard over time but the actual problem was never really addressed: cost to gank. Incorrect. The cost of ganking has been adjusted time and time again GÇö in fact, every time ganking has changed, cost has been addressed.
That is why ganking is now so ridiculously rare: the cost is too high. That is why ganking is relegated to cheap ships: because that's the only way to reduce the cost.
Magnus Roden wrote:Explain to us how a massive inequality in regards to gank ship cost vs gank target ship hull cost (Catalysts vs Freighter, for instance) is somehow balanced. Because if only an expensive ship can kill an expensive ship, then you have no balance GÇö only an ever-increasing climb towards having the most expensive thing out there.
Cost is not, never has been, and never can be, a factor in balance. As long as you refuse to accept this simple fact GÇö proven in this game and in every other competitive game out there GÇö everything you say about ganking balance will be flat out, undeniably, objectively wrong.
Not only is ISK-tanking a fundamentally flawed concept from a game-mechanics perspective, it is also completely nonsensical from a logical perspective: again, why should your single bulk hauler not be able to be destroyed by a two dozen combat ships?
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.
|
Magnus Roden
8
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:29:01 -
[112] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:That doesn't change the fact that in its current state ganking still is silly, yes it's been nerfed hard over time but the actual problem was never really addressed: cost to gank. Incorrect. The cost of ganking has been adjusted time and time again GÇö in fact, every time ganking has changed, cost has been addressed. That is why ganking is now so ridiculously rare: the cost is too high. That is why ganking is relegated to cheap ships: because that's the only way to reduce the cost. Magnus Roden wrote:Explain to us how a massive inequality in regards to gank ship cost vs gank target ship hull cost (Catalysts vs Freighter, for instance) is somehow balanced. Because if only an expensive ship can kill an expensive ship, then you have no balance GÇö only an ever-increasing climb towards having the most expensive thing out there. Cost is not, never has been, and never can be, a factor in balance.
Don't lie, of course cost is used in balance. It's done all the time, just because CCP fails at it at times (like with so many things) that doesn't somehow mean it's not accounted for. It's done by altering the amount/type of components/minerals required and by regulating the scarcity of those items. Stating cost is not factored in balancing is a hilariously terrible, and mistaken, meme. Especially so with T1 hulls.
It's just that you use a different "form" of balance atm, because it suits you, on purpose :)
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13223
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:32:29 -
[113] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Explain to us how a massive inequality in regards to gank ship cost vs gank target ship hull cost (Catalysts vs Freighter, for instance) is somehow balanced.
Because the game is not balanced on pricetag. It is a total non factor.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25240
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:38:26 -
[114] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Don't lie, of course cost is used in balance. Cost is a product of balance GÇö it is not something that you can use to balance other factors out. It is not a factor in balance.
If something is better because it is expensive, then the expense is irrelevant because everyone will just go for it because it is better. This is not the same thing as being expensive because it is better, because then you have to ask GÇ£what is it that warrants the increased expenseGÇ¥.
EVE uses the latter logic: you buy increasingly marginal improvements for exponential costs (in time, material, SP, bonuses, and everything else). A freighter is more expensive because it does its thing GÇö hauling GÇö better than the cheaper version. Being better at hauling does not make it better at combat. A battlecruiser is more expensive because it does its thing GÇö killing stuff GÇö better than the cheaper version. Being better at killing things does not make it better at moving around.
A destroyer is much much much worse hauler than a freighter and a much worse killer than a BC, so it is also much much cheaper than both. That does not preclude it from being much better in combat than a freighter. The improvements it buys comes in an area where the freighter has bought next to none.
Quote:just because CCP fails at it at times (like with so many things) that doesn't somehow mean it's not accounted for. Actually, CCP does it far better than most, with the exception of supercaps (which were balanced on a na+»ve idea about costing too much to be useful). That's why supercaps have been a balancing headache for close to a decade now.
Cost can work as a balance measure under one very specific circumstance: when there is a strict upper limit to time and resources and you have to budget your expenditures with those maximums in mind. In an infinitely renewable economy, cost cannot balance anything because as a limitation it is always trivial to overcome. That is why RTSes and MOBAs have vastly different designs than persistent MMOs.
GǪand guess what? Zerg rush.
Quote:Stating cost is not factored in balancing is Truth. Simple truth. Accept it or live in a state of delusion where your arguments will never ever work.
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.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16011
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:41:32 -
[115] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Explain to us how a massive inequality in regards to gank ship cost vs gank target ship hull cost (Catalysts vs Freighter, for instance) is somehow balanced.
I know of a megathron that is worth over 10 trillion. Using your logic it would have a tank greater than a combined titan fleet.
Tank based upon cost is a moronic mechanic.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valkin Mordirc
1077
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:45:07 -
[116] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:Explain to us how a massive inequality in regards to gank ship cost vs gank target ship hull cost (Catalysts vs Freighter, for instance) is somehow balanced.
I know of a megathron that is worth over 10 trillion. Using your logic it would have a tank greater than a combined titan fleet. Tank based upon cost is a moronic mechanic.
QFT
Officer fit Ibis' would wreck 20man cruiser fleets. Pay To Win, FTW.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:48:08 -
[117] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:Explain to us how a massive inequality in regards to gank ship cost vs gank target ship hull cost (Catalysts vs Freighter, for instance) is somehow balanced.
I know of a megathron that is worth over 10 trillion. Using your logic it would have a tank greater than a combined titan fleet. Tank based upon cost is a moronic mechanic.
I like how you're avoiding the actual issue. I'm talking hull cost, you know I do, I know that you know I do :)
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:51:53 -
[118] - Quote
Tippia wrote:[ Quote:Stating cost is not factored in balancing is Truth. Simple truth. Accept it or live in a state of delusion where your arguments will never ever work.
"bigger/more expensive isn't necessarily better" is not the same as "there is zero relation between cost and effectiveness". If that were the case then T2/T3 and faction ships could/should cost the same as basic T1 hulls. It's in fact the increased cost (through required materials or scarcity) that makes it more balanced, otherwise no one would ever fly T1 hulls.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Carrie-Anne Moss
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
172
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:52:46 -
[119] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:Explain to us how a massive inequality in regards to gank ship cost vs gank target ship hull cost (Catalysts vs Freighter, for instance) is somehow balanced.
I know of a megathron that is worth over 10 trillion. Using your logic it would have a tank greater than a combined titan fleet. Tank based upon cost is a moronic mechanic. I like how you're avoiding the actual issue. I'm talking hull cost, you know I do, I know that you know I do :) Thanks for clarification i get it now. A Raven should NEVER BE ABLE TO DIE to an incursus, an ishkur, a drake, an arbitrator, a vexor, a navy vexor, a caracal.....
I dont feel like typung every ship in the game thats hull cost is less than a raven hull yet more than capable of killing the raven..
God you are either trolling, ignorant or just stupid |
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:55:36 -
[120] - Quote
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:Explain to us how a massive inequality in regards to gank ship cost vs gank target ship hull cost (Catalysts vs Freighter, for instance) is somehow balanced.
I know of a megathron that is worth over 10 trillion. Using your logic it would have a tank greater than a combined titan fleet. Tank based upon cost is a moronic mechanic. I like how you're avoiding the actual issue. I'm talking hull cost, you know I do, I know that you know I do :) Thanks for clarification i get it now. A Raven should NEVER BE ABLE TO DIE to an incursus, an ishkur, a drake, an arbitrator, a vexor, a navy vexor, a caracal..... I dont feel like typung every ship in the game thats hull cost is less than a raven hull yet more than capable of killing the raven.. God you are either trolling, ignorant or just stupid
Ok, you go GCC in one of those ships you mentioned vs a Raven in high sec. See where that gets you.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25242
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:02:37 -
[121] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:I like how you're avoiding the actual issue. I'm talking hull cost, you know I do, I know that you know I do :) Doesn't matter. Either cost is a factor or it isn't. Ok, so you have a 1bn ISK hull and he has a 1M ISK one. He has a 2bn ISK weapon and you have a 0 ISK tank. So he should win, right? After all, he payed infinitely more for his weapon than you did for your tankGǪ
Quote:"bigger/more expensive isn't necessarily better" is not the same as "there is zero relation between cost and effectiveness". It means that you can't use cost as an argument for saying that ship A shouldn't be able to kill ship B, which is what you're trying to do.
You have to look at what improvements you're buying with your money. If none of them are in the area of combat survivability, then arguing that you should survive better in combat is pretty nonsensical.
In the mean-time, the fact, no matter how expensive your ship, a vastly cheaper one can kill it means that there is proper balance and that you haven't arrived in a degenerate apex-ship/P2W design state.
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.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13224
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:03:12 -
[122] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote: I like how you're avoiding the actual issue.
There is no issue.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16015
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:06:51 -
[123] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:Explain to us how a massive inequality in regards to gank ship cost vs gank target ship hull cost (Catalysts vs Freighter, for instance) is somehow balanced.
I know of a megathron that is worth over 10 trillion. Using your logic it would have a tank greater than a combined titan fleet. Tank based upon cost is a moronic mechanic. I like how you're avoiding the actual issue. I'm talking hull cost, you know I do, I know that you know I do :)
That is the hull cost.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:16:11 -
[124] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:I like how you're avoiding the actual issue. I'm talking hull cost, you know I do, I know that you know I do :) Doesn't matter. Either cost is a factor or it isn't. Ok, so you have a 1bn ISK hull and he has a 1M ISK one. He has a 2bn ISK weapon and you have a 0 ISK tank. So he should win, right? After all, he payed infinitely more for his weapon than you did for your tankGǪ Quote:"bigger/more expensive isn't necessarily better" is not the same as "there is zero relation between cost and effectiveness". It means that you can't use cost as an argument for saying that ship A shouldn't be able to kill ship B, which is what you're trying to do. You have to look at what improvements you're buying with your money. If none of them are in the area of combat survivability, then arguing that you should survive better in combat is pretty nonsensical. In the mean-time, the fact that, no matter how expensive your ship, a vastly cheaper one can kill it means that there is proper balance and that you haven't arrived in a degenerate apex-ship/P2W design state. You have yet to demonstrate that this in any way presents a problem that needs to be fixed.
Trying to lure into semantics, away from the subject again, are we :)
We are talking about high sec ganks and how the cost of a Catalyst (and other high dps cheap hulls) is in no way balanced compared to what it can do, especially so when in groups dealing with high EHP high hull cost targets. It's too good, it's out of whack. Which is demonstrated by how a gaggle of Catalysts lulz kills (nearly) empty freighters.
One could argue that rebalancing the ships involved would solve the issue but that would create other issues. It's far easier to change it so that ganking has more repercussions (ACTUAL repercussions, not the "we're CCP and we don't really know what we're doing" ones) to a point where lulz ganks become a moot point. Where a tanked Hulk is somewhat safe because unless you REALLY want it dead it's just not worth it, where a freighter can have 4-5 bil onboard and not be an automatic kill.
Increase cost of ganking and increase repercussions of ganking through pod killing, introduce automatic pod killing of, say, -8 upon entering high sec and lowering concord response times. If you want to fight people then either find some folks in null/low who actually fit guns, don't be scared now, or start a wardec (and yes, I realise that wardecs being broken is one of the reasons why ganking was on the up).
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13225
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:18:49 -
[125] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote: We are talking about high sec ganks and how the cost of a Catalyst (and other high dps cheap hulls) is in no way balanced compared to what it can do, especially so when in groups dealing with high EHP high hull cost targets.
No, "we" are not talking about that. You're making that claim, and it's a lie.
Quote: If you want to fight people then either find some folks in null/low who actually fit guns ,don't be scared now, or start a wardec (and yes, I realise that wardecs being broken is one of the reasons why ganking was on the up).
No. EVE Online is a PvP game, and PvP belongs everywhere, that includes highsec.
If you don't like it, feel free to quit.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25247
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:19:10 -
[126] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:baltec1 wrote:I know of a megathron that is worth over 10 trillion. Using your logic it would have a tank greater than a combined titan fleet.
Tank based upon cost is a moronic mechanic. I like how you're avoiding the actual issue. I'm talking hull cost, you know I do, I know that you know I do :) That is the hull cost. Not to mention that, if hull cost was all that mattered, then suddenly all that talk about how ganks below a certain cargo value shouldn't happen proves to be nothing but pointless noise. It would mean an empty hauler is as reasonable a target as one filled with EVE's total yearly supply of PLEX GÇö if one happens, the other must also happen because the balance certainly hasn't changed.
Magnus Roden wrote:Ok, you go GCC in one of those ships you mentioned vs a Raven in high sec. See where that gets you. The Raven dies, and much faster than a freighter wouldGǪ
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.
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:20:49 -
[127] - Quote
You of course know that he/she/it meant a single ship, and I replied in similar manner :)
But nice try.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Mashie Saldana
Gallente Rebels Inc. Villore Accords
1614
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:21:08 -
[128] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:I've got much better idea.
If you GCC. Concord Pods you. End of hyperdunking.
You are a criminal in highsec. They shouldnt just pop you. They should kill you. You broke the law. Have some ****ing concequences. Hows that for realism.
This man is right.
How to win EVE
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:21:34 -
[129] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Magnus Roden wrote: We are talking about high sec ganks and how the cost of a Catalyst (and other high dps cheap hulls) is in no way balanced compared to what it can do, especially so when in groups dealing with high EHP high hull cost targets.
No, "we" are not talking about that. You're making that claim, and it's a lie. Quote: If you want to fight people then either find some folks in null/low who actually fit guns ,don't be scared now, or start a wardec (and yes, I realise that wardecs being broken is one of the reasons why ganking was on the up).
No. EVE Online is a PvP game, and PvP belongs everywhere, that includes highsec. If you don't like it, feel free to quit.
Yes, so start wardecs. I do it all the time.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25247
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:21:51 -
[130] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Trying to lure into semantics, away from the subject again, are we :) No. Not we. You are. The rest of us are ripping your pathetic excuse for a non-argument into its tiny illogical shreds.
Quote:We are talking about high sec ganks and how the cost of a Catalyst (and other high dps cheap hulls) is in no way balanced compared to what it can do, especially so when in groups dealing with high EHP high hull cost targets. No. that's just something you've made up because you have no idea how balancing works. You have yet to prove that there is a problem related to this, and the rest of us keep trying to make you come up with any such proof aboutGǪ wellGǪ any of the nonsensical claims you've made so far.
Quote:It's far easier to change it so that ganking has more repercussions (ACTUAL repercussions, not the "we're CCP and we don't really know what we're doing" ones) Yes. It's so easy that it has already happened. You have yet to demonstrate any need why it needs to happen again.
Quote:Increase cost of ganking and increase repercussions of ganking through pod killing, introduce automatic pod killing of, say, -8 upon entering high sec and lowering concord response times. Why should any of that happen?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25247
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:23:13 -
[131] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:You of course know that he/she/it meant a single ship And you understand that you poisoned the well by introducing the irrelevant GCC limitation to the mix GÇö one that is countered by adding more pilots and therefore irrelevant to the balance discusssion.
Nice try. Do you have an actual argument yet?
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.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13225
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:24:19 -
[132] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote: Yes, so start wardecs. I do it all the time.
I do. But ganking is an equally viable and reasonable method of engaging enemy targets. Which is as intended.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:24:41 -
[133] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:You of course know that he/she/it meant a single ship And you understand that you poisoned the well by introducing the irrelevant GCC limitation to the mix GÇö one that is countered by adding more pilots and therefore irrelevant to the balance discusssion. Nice try. Do you have an actual argument yet?
You mean like the GCC that happens with ganking?
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:25:28 -
[134] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Magnus Roden wrote: Yes, so start wardecs. I do it all the time.
I do. But ganking is an equally viable and reasonable method of engaging enemy targets. Which is as intended.
Show me where CCP states it to be as intended.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25248
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:26:38 -
[135] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:You mean like the GCC that happens with ganking? I mean the GCCs that are of no consequence or relevance to ganking.
Do you have an actual argument yet?
Quote:Show me where CCP states it to be as intended. CONCORD exists. That is all the proof you need.
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.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13225
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:28:21 -
[136] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Magnus Roden wrote: Yes, so start wardecs. I do it all the time.
I do. But ganking is an equally viable and reasonable method of engaging enemy targets. Which is as intended. Show me where CCP states it to be as intended.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4964171#post4964192
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:30:12 -
[137] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:You mean like the GCC that happens with ganking? I mean the GCCs that are of no consequence or relevance to ganking. Do you have an actual argument yet? Quote:Show me where CCP states it to be as intended. CONCORD exists. That is all the proof you need.
Aha, so according to that logic everything as it is in EVE is exactly as CCP intends it to be. No problems, imbalances, issues, exploits exist. JUST because Concord exists and slaps you on the wrist (Catalyst losses are really expensive and the 15 minute bathroom break isn't handy at all) doesn't mean it's enough or in any way logical.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:31:32 -
[138] - Quote
Now should me where he states that CCP is 100% happy with the current balancing of ganking, concord and everything related.
You just want to keep the current situation, because it suits you.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25248
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:35:22 -
[139] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Aha, so according to that logic Non sequitur. You didn't get the logic.
Try this on:
Which of the two is more simple to implement and maintain?
a) valid_target ? keep_firing() : dont_fire();
or
b) All of CONCORD, all of CrimeWatch, faction navies, sec standings etc etc etc.
CONCORD is all the proof you need that ganking is intended to exist.
Quote:Now should me where he states that CCP is 100% happy with the current balancing of ganking, concord and everything related. You lost. Moving the goalposts will not change this.
You still have no argument and still have failed at every conceivable point in every conceivable way to demonstrate any need whatsoever for things to change the way you want them to.
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.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13227
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:37:35 -
[140] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote: Now should me where he states that CCP is 100% happy with the current balancing of ganking, concord and everything related.
Keep pressing the dev button below his portrait.
Quote: You just want to keep the current situation, because it suits you.
And you selfishly want to change it to suit you.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:42:19 -
[141] - Quote
My arguments have been there all the time:
- Concord should pod on GCC because it simply makes sense given the changes in regards to NPCs and SP loss, and because of HTFU
- apparently it's still to easy to gank high EHP ships in high sec as people still gank empty freighters. Risk/reward for freighters is completely whack, it should be possible for one to have a decent amount of value onboard (while tanked) and be decently safe, atm it isn't
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13227
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:45:32 -
[142] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote: - Concord should pod on GCC because it simply makes sense given the changes in regards to NPCs and SP loss, and because of HTFU
No. If you want that to happen, inflict those consequences yourself.
And using HTFU to argue for more safety is just obscene, by the way. Apply it to yourself before you try to cry about other people, most especially the only profession in highsec that actually has mechanical consequences.
Quote: - apparently it's still to easy to gank high EHP ships in high sec as people still gank empty freighters.
As before, working as intended. In fact, I would argue that they have made it entirely too hard, since very few people do it these days.
Quote: Risk/reward for freighters is completely whack, it should be possible for one to have a decent amount of value onboard (while tanked) and be decently safe, atm it isn't
That should not be possible, in any way.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25250
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:47:25 -
[143] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:- Concord should pod on GCC because it simply makes sense given the changes in regards to NPCs and SP loss, and because of HTFU That is not an argument. That is a statement with no grounding in logic, gameplay, balance, or indeed anything other than your fevered dreams.
Quote:apparently it's still to easy to gank high EHP ships in high sec as people still gank empty freighters. Why is this a problem?
Quote:it should be possible for one to have a decent amount of value onboard (while tanked) and be decently safe It is, as you have amply demonstrated by showing the insane rarity of ganks and how they are pretty much univesally done for profit. As Kaarous points out, this is actually a problem rather than a state to be desired since being ganked for your cargo is a risk that should always be present but, as you have proven, is almost completely absent at the moment.
Neither of those two are arguments, but rather a deeply confused expression of a wish to see things be the way they are now.
You have yet to present a cogent and coherent argument why ganking needs to cost more.
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.
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:52:10 -
[144] - Quote
Quote:No. If you want that to happen, inflict those consequences yourself.
Why? Should Concord be removed and have players inflict consequences on gankers? Concord is doing the killing part already, why stop at just the ship? Pod kill is just part of the kill dontyouknow.
Quote:As before, working as intended How many thing in EVE are actually working as intended? Scaps? Drones? High sec income? Low sec?
Quote:That should not be possible, in any way. You should never be safe in a billion isk ship, no matter where you are. Quite correct, but then I never disputed this. The repercussions should be severe enough so that it's only viable vs economically worthwhile targets (with a different balance as it is right now) or when it's a gank for personal reasons. Random ganks for the lulz vs high EHP targets and being able to get away with it (cost/repercussion wise) makes no sense.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25250
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:55:35 -
[145] - Quote
Because there is no reason for CONCORD to do your job for you.
Quote:Should Concord be removed and have players inflict consequences on gankers? That is indeed what you're arguing. It's probably part of why your idea is not getting much traction. It does not follow from anything anyone else has said, though.
Quote:How many thing in EVE are actually working as intended? Irrelevant. This one thing is working as intended, and the state of other things does not change this.
Quote:Quite correct, but then I never disputed this. Yes you did. That is what your whole GÇ£balance by hull EHPGÇ¥ amounts to.
Quote:Random ganks for the lulz vs high EHP targets and being able to get away with it (cost/repercussion wise) makes no sense.
Yes they do. You even explain why they do. Just because you don't like the sene they make does not mean they do not make sense. It just means you need to either learn to play the game or leave, since you don't like the game.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:56:11 -
[146] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:- Concord should pod on GCC because it simply makes sense given the changes in regards to NPCs and SP loss, and because of HTFU That is not an argument. That is a statement with no grounding in logic, gameplay, balance, or indeed anything other than your fevered dreams. Quote:apparently it's still to easy to gank high EHP ships in high sec as people still gank empty freighters. Why is this a problem? Quote:it should be possible for one to have a decent amount of value onboard (while tanked) and be decently safe It is, as you have amply demonstrated by showing the insane rarity of ganks and how they are pretty much univesally done for profit. As Kaarous points out, this is actually a problem rather than a state to be desired since being ganked for your cargo is a risk that should always be present but, as you have proven, is almost completely absent at the moment. Neither of those two are arguments, but rather a deeply confused expression of a wish to see things be the way they are now. You have yet to present a cogent and coherent argument why ganking needs to cost more.
There you go again, trying to push the conversation away form the actual subject.
I have, you just don't like what I have to say.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13230
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:57:43 -
[147] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote: Why? Should Concord be removed and have players inflict consequences on gankers?
Honestly, yes. They are an outdated, binary, heavy handed mechanic that began to show it's age years ago.
Quote: How many thing in EVE are actually working as intended?
Not many where a developer has come onto the forums and outright said so. Like ganking.
Quote:The repercussions should be severe enough so that it's only viable vs economically worthwhile targets
No. Putting an "if" in front of actions is just a dishonest way of saying you want player freedom handcuffed.
And that is unacceptable, too much of that has been done already in highsec, for the sake of people who can't be asked to play the game correctly.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25252
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:59:03 -
[148] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:There you go again, trying to push the conversation away form the actual subject. No. I'm trying to push you towards actually presenting an argument for the change you want to se.
As it happens, your nonsensical and baseless quest to remove ganking (which is what it is, your ineffectual and blatantly false assurances to the contrary aside) is off-topic. So if that's the line of reasoning you want to pursue, you should probably stop posting entirely.
Quote:I have, you just don't like what I have to say. No. You just keep repeating a wish to see the change, not a reason why it should happen. In fact, the only arguments you've provided have been evidence against the false preconceptions your wish is based on.
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.
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 19:03:16 -
[149] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Because there is no reason for CONCORD to do your job for you. Quote:Should Concord be removed and have players inflict consequences on gankers? That is indeed what you're arguing. It's probably part of why your idea is not getting much traction. It does not follow from anything anyone else has said, though.
That's weird, given my idea for increasing concord's capabilities I'd say that I'd argue the other way. You on the other hand are trying to use it as you stated :)
Quote:How many thing in EVE are actually working as intended? Irrelevant. This one thing is working as intended, and the state of other things does not change this[/quote] Ah yes, of course. Prove it.
Quote:Yes you did. That is what your whole GÇ£balance by hull EHPGÇ¥ amounts to. No, it doesn't. There's a distinct difference between "make it impossible" and "less easy than it is atm".
Ganking cost and repercussions are not on par with the cost and repercussions for their targets. Stick to the discussion :)
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13230
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 19:10:11 -
[150] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote: Ganking cost and repercussions are not on par with the cost and repercussions for their targets
False.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 19:11:54 -
[151] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Magnus Roden wrote: Ganking cost and repercussions are not on par with the cost and repercussions for their targets
False.
~ 20 catalysts vs 1 Freighter
Show me how this is "on par" cost/repercussion wise, I'll make it easy on you and assume the freighter has no cargo onboard.
Go.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25254
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 19:14:42 -
[152] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:That's weird No, it really isn't. You just haven't been paying attention and you have not thought through what you're actually suggesting.
You are arguing that CONCORD should be transformed from being a core game mechanic that defines an entire section of space into being a regular rat.
Quote:Ah yes, of course. Prove it. This has already been done. Multiple times. Your absolute refusal to accept facts has also been proven multiple times.
Sure it does. Either those cheap ships can kill the target or they can't. You're saying that they shouldn't be able to because of how much more the expensive one costs. This is something that you claim should be inherent in the hull, and not reliant on such ephemera as fittings or piloting or numbers or anything else. The consequence of your wish is that an expensive ship will be safe: because nothing available will sensibly be able to kill it.
Quote:Ganking cost and repercussions are not on par with the cost and repercussions for their targets Good. That means ganking for profit is possible, as intended.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25255
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 19:19:49 -
[153] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:~ 20 catalysts vs 1 Freighter
Show me how this is "on par" cost/repercussion wise You said it yourself: 20 catalysts vs 1 freighter. Not to mention the scouts, bumpers, haulers, and other parties involved.
The (almost always AFK) freighter spends no time and effort to protect itself, and it stands a minute chance of being lost. The two dozen gankers spend a considerable amount of time and effort, and stands a pretty poor chance of finding a viable target, a so-so chance of making a decent buck, and
Quote:I'll make it easy on you poison the well and make it an outlier case and assume the freighter has no cargo onboard. Then the gank is made for fun and should always happen.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 19:40:26 -
[154] - Quote
LOL, wow...
1) Concord provides repercussions in case a GCC happens, it kills the ship of the attacker but does not touch the pod. That's how it has always been
2) recently pod loss without a sufficient clone stopped costing SP, as such pod losses are a lot les painful now (which is great for high SP characters who want to clown around).
3) recently we got a type of NPC that DOES pod, this combined with #2 allows for a discussion on whether or not NPC in general should pod kill or not. Pros and cons can be made for both sides
4) however, it REALLY allows for a rethink on whether Concord should also pod (given #2 and #3). This is an arbitrary thing and one can argue both ways but as Concord is very much about repercussion It's fairly logical to state that it makes more sense for Concord to pod than not to
5) pod killing upon GCC would also increase repercussions for ganking which, given silly ganks, seems to still need some rebalancing
6) On top of all that it would cancel out certain options which will make it less easy to gank, specific styles of ganking but also things like pod travel
7) It makes no sense to have outlaws fly around in high sec as they are atm. Shoot on sight, pod kill on sight. Since the police doesn't really leave the gates and stations it's up to concord to take care of outlaws and GCC in a way that fits: destroy their ship, pod kill
I thought we all liked "actions have consequences", "deal with it" and "HTFU lol"? Or is that just what you tell your target?
Ganking should be a last resort option where the cost and repercussions are so high that it's only logical do to in personal or really worthwhile situations. For anything else you can log on your main, leave the cocoon of your hilariously huge coalition and shoot stuff on your own or with a few friends. That or start a war (which would require wars to be unfcked).
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 19:45:21 -
[155] - Quote
Tippia wrote:How about instead, you demonstrate that it is not on par, since you keep claiming that without anything resembling supporting evidence or argumentation?
cost of 20 Cats vs cost of 1 Freighter, apparently it's not costly enough so ppl even use them on an empty one.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13231
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 19:48:01 -
[156] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote: ~ 20 catalysts vs 1 Freighter
Show me how this is "on par" cost/repercussion wise, I'll make it easy on you and assume the freighter has no cargo onboard.
Go.
It's not supposed to be on par with cost, and the freighter can easily avoid them, regardless of cargo status.
Your entire premise is false.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 19:49:06 -
[157] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Magnus Roden wrote: ~ 20 catalysts vs 1 Freighter
Show me how this is "on par" cost/repercussion wise, I'll make it easy on you and assume the freighter has no cargo onboard.
Go.
It's not supposed to be on par with cost, and the freighter can easily avoid them, regardless of cargo status. Your entire premise is false.
oh? Not supposed to? says who, you?
And how can a freighter easily avoid it?
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13231
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 19:50:37 -
[158] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Tippia wrote:How about instead, you demonstrate that it is not on par, since you keep claiming that without anything resembling supporting evidence or argumentation? cost of 20 Cats vs cost of 1 Freighter, apparently it's not costly enough so ppl even use them on an empty one.
20 people vs 1 person.
If the 1 person could survive that once combat has started, it would be evidence of a pretty huge imbalance in game mechanics. Fortunately, that is not the case.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13231
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 19:51:26 -
[159] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote: And how can a freighter easily avoid it?
If you don't even know that, you are singularly unqualified to participate in this discussion.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 19:52:06 -
[160] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Magnus Roden wrote: And how can a freighter easily avoid it?
If you don't even know that, you are singularly unqualified to participate in this discussion.
Nono, just spell it out so we can slice 'n dice it.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25261
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 19:52:30 -
[161] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:4) however, it REALLY allows for a rethink on whether Concord should also pod (given #2 and #3). This is an arbitrary thing and one can argue both ways but as Concord is very much about repercussion It's fairly logical to state that it makes more sense for Concord to pod than not to No, it really isn't. CONCORD has no inherent need to pod, and their only purpose is to enforce the cost of aggression. They are not an NPC and do not follow any NPC rules in any way. They are a game mechanic, not a rat.
For CONCORD to pod, that act would have to be in line with their purpose: to enforce costs.
So: why should the costs of ganks increase, seeing as how they are already made ridiculously rare and the costs are already so high that it has become a specialist, high-effort activity for a select few outfits (as you have proven)?
Quote:5) pod killing upon GCC would also increase repercussions for ganking which, given silly ganks, seems to still need some rebalancing Why? What is the problem and how does podding in any way solve that problem?
Quote:6) On top of all that it would cancel out certain options which will make it less easy to gank, specific styles of ganking but also things like pod travel Why should legitimate gameplay be removed?
Quote:7) It makes no sense to have outlaws fly around in high sec as they are atm. Shoot on sight, pod kill on sight. It makes all the sense in the world to let players police players in what is supposed to be a player-driven universe. Outlaws are already shoot-on-sight/pod-on-sight. Beyond that, CONCORD does not care about outlaws, nor is there any reason why they should since they are completely unrelated to CONCORD's purpose.
Quote:I thought we all liked "actions have consequences", "deal with it" and "HTFU lol"? Or is that just what you tell your target?
Ganking should be a last resort option where the cost and repercussions are so high that it's only logical do to in personal or really worthwhile situations. For anything else you can log on your main, leave the cocoon of your hilariously huge coalition and shoot stuff on your own or with a few friends. That or start a war (which would require wars to be unfcked). Gankers already deal with the consequences and have HTFU. The targets refuse to do the same, which is why you are here whining about changes you cannot justify.
Ganking has long since gone past the point you describe: it only happens in really worth-while situations, as you have proven by demonstrating the rarity and the low number of groups engaging in it. If anything, the costs and repercussions need to be dialled back so that more of them can happen. With the amount of traffic going through down the main routes, there must be far more worth-while situations than what currently shows up on the killboards.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25261
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 19:54:50 -
[162] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:cost of 20 Cats vs cost of 1 Freighter, apparently it's not costly enough so ppl even use them on an empty one. So you're saying that things should be dialled back to the point where only, say, 5GÇô10 cats are required to kill a single freighter. That way, the investments for each side might be a bit more sensibly balanced.
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.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13235
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 19:58:43 -
[163] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote: Ganking should be a last resort option where the cost and repercussions are so high that it's only logical do to in personal or really worthwhile situations.
That's your opinion, and your opinion is wrong.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Carrie-Anne Moss
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
174
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 20:03:32 -
[164] - Quote
Magnus please tell us who your mean is so we can see where the bad goons or code touched your indy.
Also i wish you were around in 2010 when gankers would fit a platinum insuranced apocalypse with t2 artillery and alpha billion isk tengus on the undock.
The Falcon punch post clearly states ccps opinion of this. He says you have ways around it, bring friends use your options or HTFU
Also dude wtf is podding gonna help? The ganker will just get teleported back to his gank station.
You are ignorant |
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 20:10:13 -
[165] - Quote
Quote:No, it really isn't. CONCORD has no inherent need to pod, and their only purpose is to enforce the cost of aggression. Why don't they need to pod, because it suits you? I'd say that it would increase the cost of aggression and as a plocing force I'd hope they'd want to rule out criminality as much as they can
Quote:They are not an NPC and do not follow any NPC rules in any way. They are a game mechanic, not a rat. The are an NPC, you're just trying to get into semantic details by adding "rat" :)
Quote:Why? What is the problem and how does podding in any way solve that problem?
Why should legitimate gameplay be removed?
Clearly cost is still too low, podding helps a bit with that
Just because it's not deemed an exploit doesn't mean it's desired gameplay, lots of things are/were still officially allowed but resulted in adaptation of rules or game mechanics.
Quote:It makes all the sense in the world to let players police players in what is supposed to be a player-driven universe. Nice try again, given that logic Concord itself should be removed and as it clearly won't be your reasoning doesn't hold.
Quote:Outlaws are already shoot-on-sight/pod-on-sight. Beyond that, CONCORD does not care about outlaws, nor is there any reason why they should since they are completely unrelated to CONCORD's purpose. Hence me stating differentiating between police and Concord, you missed that it seems or did you just want to dazzle me with :words:?
~~ Ganking has long since gone past the point you describe: it only happens in really worth-while situations, as you have proven by demonstrating the rarity and the low number of groups engaging in it. If anything, the costs and repercussions need to be dialled back so that more of them can happen. With the amount of traffic going through down the main routes, there must be far more worth-while situations than what currently shows up on the killboards. ~~
So you're saying Venture, Retriever and Mackinaw ganks don't happen, (nearly) empty freighter ganks also don't happen? Given that they do, easily proven just not through kb links on this forum, your statement is false.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 20:11:52 -
[166] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Magnus Roden wrote: Ganking should be a last resort option where the cost and repercussions are so high that it's only logical do to in personal or really worthwhile situations.
That's your opinion, and your opinion is wrong.
Yes it's an opinion and as opinions go it can't really be wrong in this regard, it's not to your liking obviously but "wrong"? No.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 20:14:21 -
[167] - Quote
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:Magnus please tell us who your mean is so we can see where the bad goons or code touched your indy.
Also i wish you were around in 2010 when gankers would fit a platinum insuranced apocalypse with t2 artillery and alpha billion isk tengus on the undock.
The Falcon punch post clearly states ccps opinion of this. He says you have ways around it, bring friends use your options or HTFU
Also dude wtf is podding gonna help? The ganker will just get teleported back to his gank station.
You are ignorant
I've been around since 2004, have done ganking and other "nefarious" stuff. Only ship I ever lost to a gank was a gang link Tengu in a mission system which I used to help me do some mission busting. I contacted the ganker and we had a good laugh.
If you don't know how podding will affect it all then uhm, yeah. And by your own words, if it's not really that important why just not change it right?
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16016
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 20:15:30 -
[168] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Magnus Roden wrote: Ganking should be a last resort option where the cost and repercussions are so high that it's only logical do to in personal or really worthwhile situations.
That's your opinion, and your opinion is wrong. Yes it's an opinion and as opinions go it can't really be wrong in this regard, it's not to your liking obviously but "wrong"? No.
Your opinion is wrong, ganking is the only way you get piracy in highsec so no, it is not a last resort. Its the only option people have.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13235
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 20:19:09 -
[169] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote: So you're saying Venture, Retriever and Mackinaw ganks don't happen, (nearly) empty freighter ganks also don't happen? Given that they do, easily proven just not through kb links on this forum, your statement is false.
So, your claim is that ganking is broken because it still happens at all?
I feel fairly confident in telling you that you're not only playing the game wrong, you're playing the wrong game.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 20:30:09 -
[170] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Magnus Roden wrote: Ganking should be a last resort option where the cost and repercussions are so high that it's only logical do to in personal or really worthwhile situations.
That's your opinion, and your opinion is wrong. Yes it's an opinion and as opinions go it can't really be wrong in this regard, it's not to your liking obviously but "wrong"? No. Your opinion is wrong, ganking is the only way you get piracy in highsec so no, it is not a last resort. Its the only option people have.
Really? Mission busting works fine can flipping still works (yes, there's till idiots with cans out) wardecs also work and you can make money with it if you do it right
What you're saying is that ganking is EASIER than those other, existing, options. Which is, indirectly, pretty much my point: it's too easy still. And, of course the big thing is that ganking like that is "many vs few" which is what the hilarious clown coalitions really like because otherwise it would just be scary.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13236
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 20:37:24 -
[171] - Quote
If you hadn't already disqualified yourself from this subject when you admitted that you don't know how to defend freighters, talking about can flipping like it's still a thing would have.
You're digging yourself deeper, and you're going to need a shovel fairly soon.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 20:40:44 -
[172] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:If you hadn't already disqualified yourself from this subject when you admitted that you don't know how to defend freighters, talking about can flipping like it's still a thing would have.
You're digging yourself deeper, and you're going to need a shovel fairly soon.
Why would that be, because you ran out of arguments or because you actually have a case?
People still jetcan, moreso than most folks realise and you can still do it fine. It's just that it's less restricted as it was before the crimewatch changes (I'm not a fan at all of most of those changes) but it still works fine, you just need to be a bit more careful. There's now more risk involved, this may scare you.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16019
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 20:42:11 -
[173] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Magnus Roden wrote: Ganking should be a last resort option where the cost and repercussions are so high that it's only logical do to in personal or really worthwhile situations.
That's your opinion, and your opinion is wrong. Yes it's an opinion and as opinions go it can't really be wrong in this regard, it's not to your liking obviously but "wrong"? No. Your opinion is wrong, ganking is the only way you get piracy in highsec so no, it is not a last resort. Its the only option people have. Really? Mission busting works fine can flipping still works (yes, there's till idiots with cans out) wardecs also work and you can make money with it if you do it right What you're saying is that ganking is EASIER than those other, existing, options. Which is, indirectly, pretty much my point: it's too easy still. And, of course the big thing is that ganking like that is "many vs few" which is what the hilarious clown coalitions really like because otherwise it would just be scary.
Mission running has nothing to do with piracy. can flipping has nothing to do with piracy war decs are not instant nor will people continue to haul while they are active. They are also useless vs npc corps.
The only way to pirate shipping is to gank them.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 20:44:15 -
[174] - Quote
Piracy is about making profit with your pvp, mission busting, can flipping and wardeccing can make good cash. I've been running 5-7 accounts since 2007 (since I started doing this) all plexed up and paid for with piracy and some combat exploration on the side.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13236
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 20:44:20 -
[175] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote: Why would that be, because you ran out of arguments or because you actually have a case?
Because you are arguing from a position of total ignorance, willing ignorance at that.
Magnus Roden wrote:Piracy is about making profit with your pvp, mission busting, can flipping and wardeccing can make good cash. I've been running 5-7 accounts since 2007 (since I started doing this) all plexed up and paid for with piracy and some combat exploration on the side.
You lie.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16019
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 20:45:40 -
[176] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Piracy is about making profit with your pvp, mission busting, can flipping and wardeccing can make good cash. I've been running 5-7 accounts since 2007 (since I started doing this) all plexed up and paid for with piracy and some combat exploration on the side.
None of those activities are piracy.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 20:50:49 -
[177] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:Piracy is about making profit with your pvp, mission busting, can flipping and wardeccing can make good cash. I've been running 5-7 accounts since 2007 (since I started doing this) all plexed up and paid for with piracy and some combat exploration on the side.
None of those activities are piracy.
Really now, what's your idea of piracy. Being -10?
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
1081
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 20:52:35 -
[178] - Quote
Why is everyone talking to that forum alt? Does not look like he has something new to say. It's basically the same stuff he said with his last forum alt when he derailed the last thread which was not about ISK tanking.
the Code ALWAYS wins
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13238
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 20:56:23 -
[179] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Why is everyone talking to that forum alt? Does not look like he has something new to say. It's basically the same stuff he said with his last forum alt when he derailed the last thread which was not about ISK tanking.
Curious, which one do you think it is? It's not Basil, he hasn't ranted about "grief decs" or how docking in an exploit, so I'm not sure which one of the usual carebear trolls it might be.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Sykaotic
Renegade Armada.
53
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 20:56:37 -
[180] - Quote
I am neutral on this
but anyways I say...
|
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
1083
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 20:58:09 -
[181] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Why is everyone talking to that forum alt? Does not look like he has something new to say. It's basically the same stuff he said with his last forum alt when he derailed the last thread which was not about ISK tanking. Curious, which one do you think it is? It's not Basil, he hasn't ranted about "grief decs" or how docking in an exploit, so I'm not sure which one of the usual carebear trolls it might be. How am I supposed to remember his name? This carebears look all the same
the Code ALWAYS wins
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13238
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 21:00:42 -
[182] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Why is everyone talking to that forum alt? Does not look like he has something new to say. It's basically the same stuff he said with his last forum alt when he derailed the last thread which was not about ISK tanking. Curious, which one do you think it is? It's not Basil, he hasn't ranted about "grief decs" or how docking in an exploit, so I'm not sure which one of the usual carebear trolls it might be. How am I supposed to remember his name? This carebears look all the same
You have a point. They all end up saying the same thing anyway(talk about your broken records), so eventually they do kind of blend together.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 21:06:48 -
[183] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Magnus Roden wrote: Why would that be, because you ran out of arguments or because you actually have a case?
Because you are arguing from a position of total ignorance, willing ignorance at that. Magnus Roden wrote:Piracy is about making profit with your pvp, mission busting, can flipping and wardeccing can make good cash. I've been running 5-7 accounts since 2007 (since I started doing this) all plexed up and paid for with piracy and some combat exploration on the side.
You lie.
No, I don't. You just have to be good at it. Which, given how most ppl rely on numbers and friends to hide behind, is not for everyone.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Carrie-Anne Moss
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
177
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 21:07:58 -
[184] - Quote
I like how Magnus is now saying he has been playing since 2004 and been a badass pirate since 2007.
LOL |
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 21:12:40 -
[185] - Quote
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:I like how Magnus is now saying he has been playing since 2004 and been a badass pirate since 2007.
LOL
Yes, clearly it's not possible to change your play style after a few years of playing.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Carrie-Anne Moss
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
177
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 21:19:17 -
[186] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:I like how Magnus is now saying he has been playing since 2004 and been a badass pirate since 2007.
LOL Yes, clearly it's not possible to change your play style after a few years of playing. So are you currently still a badass pirate? Or now you are a freighter industrial victim then i guess since you said you changed play styles? |
Cancel Align NOW
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
498
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 21:26:11 -
[187] - Quote
The same arguments that High Security space is not enough are still being trotted out by those too ignorant to know otherwise. It is nice to see Tippia back schooling the ignorant.
Magnus Roden: High Security Space is the safest it has been since the servers went online. The amount of time and player coordination it takes to gank a freighter is what provides the balance in the game mechanics. Grabbing one of your Uedema kils on May 29th, there were 14 alts on the km. I would suspect to set up the gank involved another 4/5 alts. The timeframe involved maybe 40 minutes.
Balance is more than isk. |
Magnus Roden
10
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 21:26:37 -
[188] - Quote
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:I like how Magnus is now saying he has been playing since 2004 and been a badass pirate since 2007.
LOL Yes, clearly it's not possible to change your play style after a few years of playing. So are you currently still a badass pirate? Or now you are a freighter industrial victim then i guess since you said you changed play styles?
Why would I have to be a victim of something to ask for changes to it?
Anyway, back on topic.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Magnus Roden
10
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 21:35:00 -
[189] - Quote
Cancel Align NOW wrote:The same arguments that High Security space is not enough are still being trotted out by those too ignorant to know otherwise. It is nice to see Tippia back schooling the ignorant.
Magnus Roden: High Security Space is the safest it has been since the servers went online. The amount of time and player coordination it takes to gank a freighter is what provides the balance in the game mechanics. Grabbing one of your Uedema kils on May 29th, there were 14 alts on the km. I would suspect to set up the gank involved another 4/5 alts. The timeframe involved maybe 40 minutes.
Balance is more than isk.
You are correct on that, I'm not in any way calling against ganking as such. But if people put in all that effort and time, as you put it, and add the cost of the ships involved and THEN are willing to blow it on an empty target, with the ability to do it again real quick, then something is not right. It IS too lop sided.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Cancel Align NOW
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
499
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 21:35:53 -
[190] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:I like how Magnus is now saying he has been playing since 2004 and been a badass pirate since 2007.
LOL Yes, clearly it's not possible to change your play style after a few years of playing. So are you currently still a badass pirate? Or now you are a freighter industrial victim then i guess since you said you changed play styles? Why would I have to be a victim of something to ask for changes to it? Anyway, back on topic.
Here is a quick summary of your posting in this thread: ganking bad ganking bad ganking bad ganking bad ganking bad you bad cause you disagree ganking bad you bad cause you disagree you bad cause you disagree you bad cause you disagree ganking bad ganking bad you bad cause you disagree i am a elite space pirate you bad because you don't believe me |
|
Cancel Align NOW
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
499
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 21:38:10 -
[191] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Cancel Align NOW wrote:The same arguments that High Security space is not enough are still being trotted out by those too ignorant to know otherwise. It is nice to see Tippia back schooling the ignorant.
Magnus Roden: High Security Space is the safest it has been since the servers went online. The amount of time and player coordination it takes to gank a freighter is what provides the balance in the game mechanics. Grabbing one of your Uedema kils on May 29th, there were 14 alts on the km. I would suspect to set up the gank involved another 4/5 alts. The timeframe involved maybe 40 minutes.
Balance is more than isk. You are correct on that, I'm not in any way calling against ganking as such. But if people put in all that effort and time, as you put it, and add the cost of the ships involved and THEN are willing to blow it on an empty target, with the ability to do it again real quick, then something is not right. It IS too lop sided.
People put effort into mining their own minerals to build their own ships even though it is easier and cheaper to buy complete ships off of market. Something is not right. We should nerf their ability to mine so easily.
Your logic. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16024
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 21:46:22 -
[192] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:Piracy is about making profit with your pvp, mission busting, can flipping and wardeccing can make good cash. I've been running 5-7 accounts since 2007 (since I started doing this) all plexed up and paid for with piracy and some combat exploration on the side.
None of those activities are piracy. Really now, what's your idea of piracy. Being -10?
Attacking shipping and taking their ****. You know, like what pirates do?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Magnus Roden
10
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 21:57:36 -
[193] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:Piracy is about making profit with your pvp, mission busting, can flipping and wardeccing can make good cash. I've been running 5-7 accounts since 2007 (since I started doing this) all plexed up and paid for with piracy and some combat exploration on the side.
None of those activities are piracy. Really now, what's your idea of piracy. Being -10? Attacking shipping and taking their ****. You know, like what pirates do?
Ransoms at gunpoint and phat lewt if they refuse. Yes that is was I, and others who do this, do.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Magnus Roden
10
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 21:58:45 -
[194] - Quote
Cancel Align NOW wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:I like how Magnus is now saying he has been playing since 2004 and been a badass pirate since 2007.
LOL Yes, clearly it's not possible to change your play style after a few years of playing. So are you currently still a badass pirate? Or now you are a freighter industrial victim then i guess since you said you changed play styles? Why would I have to be a victim of something to ask for changes to it? Anyway, back on topic. Here is a quick summary of your posting in this thread: ganking bad ganking bad ganking bad ganking bad ganking bad you bad cause you disagree ganking bad you bad cause you disagree you bad cause you disagree you bad cause you disagree ganking bad ganking bad you bad cause you disagree i am a elite space pirate you bad because you don't believe me
I'll agree it looks that way, because "the others" keep regurgitating the same :reasons: and :logic: and try to pummel their adversary into submission by words, semantics and changing of the subject. Ganking is not bad as such, but it is broken.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16024
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 21:58:59 -
[195] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:
Ransoms at gunpoint and phat lewt if they refuse. Yes that is was I, and others who do this, do.
Ransoms stopped being a thing in 2006.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Magnus Roden
10
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 22:02:17 -
[196] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:
Ransoms at gunpoint and phat lewt if they refuse. Yes that is was I, and others who do this, do.
Ransoms stopped being a thing in 2006.
That's weird, I still do it. If you bring it right CN fitted CNRs will happily pay a decent fee to not blow up, not all of them of obviously but many of them do. It doesn't help of course if you're part of a group known to "not to be trusted".
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16024
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 22:03:07 -
[197] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:
I'll agree it looks that way, because "the others" keep regurgitating dumb :reasons: and :logic:. Ganking is not bad as such, but it is broken.
You say its a problem, we point out that out of over a million trips made only a few dozen die to ganks.
You demand tank based upon isk price of the hull I point out this would lead to ships with literally more HP than outposts.
You go on about making lots of isk from activities such as can flipping. An activity that is all but extinct for a few years now as nobody jetcans now.
The only one being dumb here is you. You have yet to say anything that isn't wrong.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16024
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 22:11:52 -
[198] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:
That's weird, I still do it
No you don't, you never have. Even when it did work you needed a silver tongue and you simply do not have that. Ransoms ended being a thing back in 2006 when an influx of idiots took up the activity and the groups with a reputation for honouring them broke up/quit.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Magnus Roden
10
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 22:15:10 -
[199] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:
That's weird, I still do it
No you don't, you never have. Even when it did work you needed a silver tongue and you simply do not have that. Ransoms ended being a thing back in 2006 when an influx of idiots took up the activity and the groups with a reputation for honouring them broke up/quit.
ok
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25261
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 23:01:13 -
[200] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:I'll agree it looks that way, because "the others" keep regurgitating the same :reasons: and :logic: and try to pummel their adversary into submission by words, semantics and changing of the subject. Ganking is not bad as such, but it is broken. Prove it.
For bonus points, try proving it without GÇö as you've done on every occasion so far GÇö accidentally point to facts that completely disprove your stance.
That is the whole thing you've failed miserably at so far by consistently managing to prove that you have no idea about how ganking works; about how CONCORD works; about how highsec works; about how much ganking happens; about the targets of gankingGǪ or, indeed about anything you ever attempt to say anything about.
We have reason and logic. You have nothing but nonsense, lies, feverish dreams, baseless assumptions, and complete ignorance.
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.
11140
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 23:47:57 -
[201] - Quote
Tippia wrote:
For bonus points, try proving it without GÇö as you've done on every occasion so far GÇö accidentally pointing to facts that completely disprove your stance.
That's the funny part, when you get some emotional thinker who doesn't understand that "I dislike this" does not equal "broken", they grasp at straws and end up disproving themselves to everyone except themselves.
Quote: We have reason and logic and facts and explicit dev statements. You have nothing but nonsense, lies, feverish dreams, baseless assumptions, and complete ignorance.
No amount of evidence or reason can put a dint in the underlying hatred that fuels false belief. It's just how humans are. |
Marsha Mallow
2180
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 23:50:11 -
[202] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:That's weird, I still do it No you don't, you never have. Even when it did work you needed a silver tongue and you simply do not have that. Ransoms ended being a thing back in 2006 when an influx of idiots took up the activity and the groups with a reputation for honouring them broke up/quit. Ransoming is still a thing, both in highsec and low. I had 30+ wardecs on my highsec alt alliance, and a lot of them offered to drop the dec for a fee. Pretty sure that counts as ransoming. I didn't pay, but on doing a bit of digging it looked like the established groups who tried it were careful about maintaining a rep for honouring agreements.
A lot of the established lowsec groups I've checked have policies in place for ransoming/honouring 1v1s. Some corps and alliances still state it on their info (even newish ones). The slowdown in reports on people breaking these on C&P looks to be more to do with disengagement from the forums. We ransomed someone a couple of weeks ago for a joke :) But it's technically tricky to do if people are trigger happy, and if you try ransom a pod a lot of people tear out their implants in the meantime.
Haven't read Magnus's earlier remarks, so he may well be talking bollocks. But on this point you appear to be as well.
Solecist Project wrote: See, the issue isn't the rubbing
ISD Ezwal wrote: Nope, no one will get banned for 'rubbing'
Benny Ohu wrote: fire up the argument calibrators set phasers to outraged overheat keyboards reinforce the thread
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16031
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 03:54:19 -
[203] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:That's weird, I still do it No you don't, you never have. Even when it did work you needed a silver tongue and you simply do not have that. Ransoms ended being a thing back in 2006 when an influx of idiots took up the activity and the groups with a reputation for honouring them broke up/quit. Ransoming is still a thing, both in highsec and low. I had 30+ wardecs on my highsec alt alliance, and a lot of them offered to drop the dec for a fee. Pretty sure that counts as ransoming. I didn't pay, but on doing a bit of digging it looked like the established groups who tried it were careful about maintaining a rep for honouring agreements. A lot of the established lowsec groups I've checked have policies in place for ransoming/honouring 1v1s. Some corps and alliances still state it on their info (even newish ones). The slowdown in reports on people breaking these on C&P looks to be more to do with disengagement from the forums. We ransomed someone a couple of weeks ago for a joke :) But it's technically tricky to do if people are trigger happy, and if you try ransom a pod a lot of people tear out their implants in the meantime. Haven't read Magnus's earlier remarks, so he may well be talking bollocks. But on this point you appear to be as well.
The money isnt there anymore because people tend to say no like you did. Rental scams, recruitment scams and jita shenanigans are where the isk is these days. It also doesn't help that CCP more or less removed jetcan baiting miners who were the main prey hence the move to the protection racket code uses these days.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Magnus Roden
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 06:45:32 -
[204] - Quote
All that happened is that solo miners, for the most part, stopped jetcanning and just fly back and forth with their increased oreholds. Mining OPs still use cans in many cases as they tend to feel safe these days (can flipping is "dead", remember) and increase their distance from the Orca. Warp in, position yourself between the Orca and Exhumer, watch the Orca frantically pulling in the ore, switch it as it passes you. Done. It's not very difficult if you know what you're doing.
The real reason people stopped can flipping is that the engagement is now less controlled (not just corp only) and this scares a lot of people but they won't say that of course, instead they'll mutter some other excuses. Personally I'm not a fan of those crimewatch changes but that is because there's even less need for miners to be in a corp but it doesn't really stop can flipping. Have a few more scouts, be a bit more careful about which systems you use and simply accept the increased risk.
And that, of course, is the main issue: increased risk. For all the huffing and puffing fierce pvpers and gankers do they are no less risk averse than the truest carebear, that's why you hide in hilariously huge coalitions and that is why you create alts to shoot people who don't shoot back. Any other explanation, excuse or "for the betterment of the game" is just smoke and mirrors, perhaps even to yourself.
Can flipping still works fine, it's just less easy than it was before but on the other hand you also have less competition and less miners being used to it. So, you're wrong on that. AND you're wrong on ransoming as well, it still works if you do it right and pick the right targets.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Magnus Roden
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 07:59:37 -
[205] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:I'll agree it looks that way, because "the others" keep regurgitating the same :reasons: and :logic: and try to pummel their adversary into submission by words, semantics and changing of the subject. Ganking is not bad as such, but it is broken. Prove it. For bonus points, try proving it without GÇö as you've done on every occasion so far GÇö accidentally pointing to facts that completely disprove your stance.
Correction, that you feverishly WANT to disprove my stance.
Anyway, proof:
Look at the Code killboard, top killers. Apparently the repercussions to ganking are so inconsequential that they can easily do 10+ ganks on a single day, just about every day. This indicates that there really are no restrictions or consequences of note and that makes the concept of ganking a silly one. You will now of course react with "but this is how it works and has been working" but that doesn't mean it makes sense or shouldn't be up for debate.
Look at, for instance, Charon kills. Many of these get ganked while just having some 1-2 bil onboard, if even that, which completely removes the use for the ship. Not all cargo has to be expensive but when you start using its cargo capacity you're probably going to become a target. In that regard it makes no sense (from a gameplay pov) for the whole viability calculation to work in a ganker's favour, it should not be viable with such low cargo value.
The majority of those aren't tanked but that doesn't change anything, would the majority finally wake up and start tanking their Charons then you'd simply add a few more Catalysts creating a new equilibrium. You don't target tanked ones because they're not viable targets but because the majority doesn't tank and thus you calculated your dps numbers for those.
It's silly.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
195
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 08:47:25 -
[206] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Steppa Musana wrote:Okay, the argument is not that CONCORD should pod players because of consequences, its that CONCORD podding players could be a solution to the exploit that is Hyperdunking. In other words, there is no argument for CONCORD podding players, since there is no exploit and nothing to solve. Quote:And yes, it is an exploit CCP says no. That's the end of it. So you're just flat out wrong on that one. Quote:CCP always say "not an exploit" until they find a way to actually fix it. No. They say it is an exploit when they determine it is an exploit. Then they start looking for ways to program the exploit out of the game. So you're flat out wrong on that one too. Beyond that, it's trivially easy to see why they determined that hyperdunking is not an exploit: because at no point are any of the key indicators for a CONCORD or aggression-game exploit present. At no point are any game mechanics bypassed. At no point is the obligatory loss avoided. At no point is any punishment deferred, nullified, or otherwise adjusted. At no point is CONCORD made to do something it is not supposed to do. If you think it is an exploit, not only are you objectively wrong, you immediately disqualify yourself from discussing the matter since you have no idea what the word even means.
Before I pose a question regarding your end statement I will state for the record that I believe the 'bumping' mechanic is working as intended and I would not see that changed. I also do not condone those who overfill their freighters or smaller hauling vessels with billiions of ISK in cargo. In addition I do not support hauling while 'AFK', on autopilot, fitting for maximum cargo, or not taking adequate preventative measures to protect your own ship.
You say that 'at no point are any game mechanics bypassed' but I would debate that this is not the case. Would you not agree that the 15 minute combat timer is bypassed by deploying the 'hyperdunking' tactic I will admit a while back I discussed this in-game in 'local' channel at a certain location where things were getting extremely heated and CCP had noticed this happening. I and I think others explained the situation to, I think it was CCP Mimic, and she decided at the time as you suggest that it was not an exploit.
To my mind the use of 'hyperdunking' has got out of hand especially in the 'Jita corridor' area. I do not seek to disrupt the freedoms of capsuleers to do as they wish but I do still feel this is an exploit that subverts CONCORD rules in high sec. If the OP is correct about the patch notes for Tuesday then it seems CCP have come around to this and are indirectly curtailing the further use of the 'hyperdunking' tactic.
|
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
195
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 09:13:07 -
[207] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:Piracy is about making profit with your pvp, mission busting, can flipping and wardeccing can make good cash. I've been running 5-7 accounts since 2007 (since I started doing this) all plexed up and paid for with piracy and some combat exploration on the side.
None of those activities are piracy.
Collins English Dictionary:
pirate n. 1. sea robber. 2. person who illegally publishes or sells work owned by someone else. 3. person or company that broadcasts illegally. - v. 4. sell or reproduce (artistic work etc.) illegally. piracy n. piratical adj.
I don't follow nor am I connected in any way whatsoever with Magnus Roden but if you take the term 'sea robber' that probably covers 'mission busting', can flipping and possibly use of the wardec mechanic as well. So certainly the first two actions are piratical in nature. We can go back to the OP now please. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16032
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 10:48:49 -
[208] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:Piracy is about making profit with your pvp, mission busting, can flipping and wardeccing can make good cash. I've been running 5-7 accounts since 2007 (since I started doing this) all plexed up and paid for with piracy and some combat exploration on the side.
None of those activities are piracy. Collins English Dictionary: pirate n. 1. sea robber. 2. person who illegally publishes or sells work owned by someone else. 3. person or company that broadcasts illegally. - v. 4. sell or reproduce (artistic work etc.) illegally. piracy n. piratical adj. I don't follow nor am I connected in any way whatsoever with Magnus Roden but if you take the term 'sea robber' that probably covers 'mission busting', can flipping and possibly use of the wardec mechanic as well. So certainly the first two actions are piratical in nature. We can go back to the OP now please.
'mission busting' and can flipping are baiting a fight and have nothing to do with attacking shipping.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16032
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 10:59:31 -
[209] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:
Look at the Code killboard, top killers. Apparently the repercussions to ganking are so inconsequential that they can easily do 10+ ganks on a single day, just about every day.
Yet again you show just how rare ganking is as an activity if thats all the very best manage.
Magnus Roden wrote:Look at, for instance, Charon kills. Many of these get ganked while just having some 1-2 bil onboard, if even that, which completely removes the use for the ship. [/qoute] And almost all of those kills are charons that have chosen to go with anti-tank setups. Magnus Roden wrote: The majority of those aren't tanked but that doesn't mean anything
It means that they are profitable to gank with less isk in the hold. So not fitting a tank is a very big deal.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
148
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 11:05:05 -
[210] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:I dont consider bumping a ship that has no defenses off grid into an alley and then pewing the crap out of it "gameplay"
Bumping IS an exploit and CCP have banned for it. Any cap ship with lateral movement CANNOT warp. You dont need to tackle it or scram it. The machariels they use to do this are invunerable as you will be concorded for attempting to stop it. Even with a webbing ship helping you move you are at risk as you now have a 15min timer if you log to avoid bumping. (They also use nub alts to suicide "tag" you if you log.)
Given most gankers like to use NPC haulers/bowheads/bumpers the only recourse you have is to suicide gank them in return. Its evasion of the highest order. Little Risk, No way to be Wardecced, "total lulz".
People with balls would put them in a corp and then deal with the wardecs... says alot really...
dude, your ignorance astounds me. learn the game 1st please.
Just Add Water
|
|
Magnus Roden
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 11:24:57 -
[211] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:It means that they are profitable to gank with less isk in the hold. So not fitting a tank is a very big deal.
No, it just means they get chosen first. Would the majority fit tank then they'd be targeted, just with a few added Catalysts, and still be viable targets.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Magnus Roden
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 11:28:03 -
[212] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: 'mission busting' and can flipping are baiting a fight and have nothing to do with attacking shipping.
That's weird. I do a lot of that, attacking ships, and I do it for profit. It's not like there's rules set in stone or something that there's just one type of piracy, it's more of a guideline really.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16032
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 11:45:46 -
[213] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:
No, it just means they get chosen first. Would the majority fit tank then they'd be targeted, just with a few added Catalysts, and still be viable targets.
And wind up bankrupt because you are paying more than you are making. Not fitting a tank means you are profitable to gank with less in the hold. Its as simple as that.
Magnus Roden wrote:baltec1 wrote: 'mission busting' and can flipping are baiting a fight and have nothing to do with attacking shipping. That's weird. I do a lot of that, attacking ships, and I do it for profit. It's not like there's rules set in stone or something that there's just one type of piracy, it's more of a guideline really.
Your kill record: No Character/Corp/Alliance by that name could be found!
Given you utter lack of knowledge I simply don't believe you.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
The Slayer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
187
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 11:50:36 -
[214] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:I've got much better idea.
If you GCC. Concord Pods you. End of hyperdunking.
You are a criminal in highsec. They shouldnt just pop you. They should kill you. You broke the law. Have some ****ing concequences. Hows that for realism.
Just because thats how the American police operate doesn't mean it should be standard operating procedure for all police forces. |
Magnus Roden
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 12:19:16 -
[215] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:And wind up bankrupt because you are paying more than you are making. Not fitting a tank means you are profitable to gank with less in the hold. Its as simple as that.
Apparently it's worthwhile to gank empty freighters or ones with just some 100 mil isk onboard, or at least it's not a big enough cost or nuisance to NOT do it meaning that with a few more catalysts it's worth it to gank a 2 bil cargo tanked one.
Quote: Your kill record: No Character/Corp/Alliance by that name could be found!
Given you utter lack of knowledge I simply don't believe you.
Just as you hide behind 40k "friends", whom you then won't have to fight, I hide behind posting alts. Nice try though.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16033
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 12:41:31 -
[216] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:
Apparently it's worthwhile to gank empty freighters or ones with just some 100 mil isk onboard, or at least it's not a big enough cost or nuisance to NOT do it meaning that with a few more catalysts it's worth it to gank a 2 bil cargo tanked one.
As has been pointed out to you many times already these ganks are rare, not the norm and happen for other reasons such as us hitting enemy hauler alts.
Magnus Roden wrote: Just as you hide behind 40k "friends", whom you then won't have to fight, I hide behind posting alts. Nice try though.
Until you provide the proof you are just telling lies. The very fact you have zero idea what you are talking about is enough to show that. You are nothing but a highsec bear whining to remove the only threat haulers will ever face.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Amanda Chan
Error 404 Pod Not Found
8
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 12:47:01 -
[217] - Quote
The Slayer wrote:SamuraiJack wrote:I've got much better idea.
If you GCC. Concord Pods you. End of hyperdunking.
You are a criminal in highsec. They shouldnt just pop you. They should kill you. You broke the law. Have some ****ing concequences. Hows that for realism. Just because thats how the American police operate doesn't mean it should be standard operating procedure for all police forces.
Hoooooooo shots fired, also it's not just the American police that operate that way.
That said, I'm all for Concord podding....along with deadspace rats, belt rats, every kind of rat. Since CCP is testing this new AI who knows, it may very well update these fuctions/classes to all rats. Imagine warping out of a mission. whew, what? Rats have followed me back to my station?! oh noes! Wait..now they're camping me in said station.....hurrr. *priceless*
Back to the topic at hand. Should people under GCC be allowed to refit? No, Concord is there to punish you. You removing modules to is a midigation/circumventing that punishment. It doesn't matter how large or small of an impact. Game mechanics need to be fixed or can lead to loop holes.
Off to the tangents:
Should high-sec ganking exist? Yes. EVE is built on the foundation of risk/reward. What shouldn't exist? Bumping. There is no risk and only reward for bumping, be it tears, setting up a gank, etc. Personally I think it's very silly that ships slam into one another at 1k+ m/s and just bounce off each other and get sent flying with no damage taken. If I wanna kamikaze a machariel screaming in at 2k+ m/s a second and slam into a freighter. You better believe that freighter should be get rek'd but at the same time should the machariel.
But wait?! How will we gank if we can't bump people while we form up/warp there. Be prepared? When advising people on how to avoid getting bumped and then ganked. You tell them scout ahead, don't travel alone, etc etc. But the same rules don't apply to the ganker who bumps somebody for 30+ minutes while batphoning in a posse.(p.s yes there are ways to save a freighter after getting bumped. although it is much harder without alts/friends)
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1844
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 12:54:21 -
[218] - Quote
So beside the already too common rambling about ganking being good/bad/broken/fine/..., did anything come up as reasons for this change beside canning expensive items before you go pop? |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16033
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 13:02:50 -
[219] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:So beside the already too common rambling about ganking being good/bad/broken/fine/..., did anything come up as reasons for this change beside canning expensive items before you go pop?
Even the canning of the mods before you explode is grasping at straws.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Magnus Roden
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 13:04:22 -
[220] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:
Apparently it's worthwhile to gank empty freighters or ones with just some 100 mil isk onboard, or at least it's not a big enough cost or nuisance to NOT do it meaning that with a few more catalysts it's worth it to gank a 2 bil cargo tanked one.
As has been pointed out to you many times already these ganks are rare, not the norm and happen for other reasons such as us hitting enemy hauler alts. Magnus Roden wrote: Just as you hide behind 40k "friends", whom you then won't have to fight, I hide behind posting alts. Nice try though.
Until you provide the proof you are just telling lies. The very fact you have zero idea what you are talking about is enough to show that. You are nothing but a highsec bear whining to remove the only threat haulers will ever face.
Yeah, they rarely happe.. oh wait, no.
And again, nice try. Btw, why are you so concerned with high sec, don't you have things to fight in 0.0?
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16034
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 13:06:50 -
[221] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:
And again, nice try. Btw, why are you so concerned with high sec, don't you have things to fight in 0.0?
Unlike you I play in all areas of space.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Magnus Roden
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 13:17:50 -
[222] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:
And again, nice try. Btw, why are you so concerned with high sec, don't you have things to fight in 0.0?
Unlike you I play in all areas of space.
Ah yes, so you friend everyone in 0.0 meaning you don't have to fight anyone of consequence and then you go to high sec to shoot people who don't shoot back.
Duly noted.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Carrie-Anne Moss
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
181
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 14:02:28 -
[223] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:All that happened is that solo miners, for the most part, stopped jetcanning and just fly back and forth with their increased oreholds. Mining OPs still use cans in many cases as they tend to feel safe these days (can flipping is "dead", remember) and increase their distance from the Orca. Warp in, position yourself between the Orca and Exhumer, watch the Orca frantically pulling in the ore, switch it as it passes you. Done. It's not very difficult if you know what you're doing. Increased defences on the mining ships don't help when it comes to combat but for a well prepared flipper this really isn't a problem.
People stopped can flipping because the engagement is now less controlled (not just corp only) and this scares a lot of people but they won't say that of course, instead they'll mutter some other excuses. Personally I'm not a fan of those crimewatch changes because there's even less need for miners to be in a corp but it doesn't really stop can flipping. Have more scouts, be a bit more careful about which systems you use and simply accept the increased risk.
And that, of course, is the main issue: increased risk. For all the huffing and puffing fierce pvpers and gankers (myself not excluded of course, although in a different manner) do they are no less risk averse than the truest carebear, that's why you hide in hilariously huge coalitions and that is why you create alts to shoot people who don't shoot back. Any other explanation, excuse or "for the betterment of the game" is just smoke and mirrors, perhaps even to yourself.
Can flipping still works fine, it's just less easy than it was before but on the other hand you also have less competition and less miners being used to it. So, you're wrong on that. AND you're wrong on ransoming as well, it still works if you do it right and pick the right targets. Yet again you are ignorant of game mechanics.
If you "flip a can" you go suspect and the can turns blue. Its free for anyone to take from at that point. So yes can flipping was killed.
Dude seriously learn the game mechanics |
Sibyyl
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
25298
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 14:34:29 -
[224] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:So beside the already too common rambling about ganking being good/bad/broken/fine/..., did anything come up as reasons for this change beside canning expensive items before you go pop?
stoicfaux explained to us that the change is likely meant to address a situation where a character on GCC uses a Citadel's invulnerability link/refitting services.
All our times have come
Here but now they're gone
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16047
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 15:04:37 -
[225] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:
Ah yes, so you friend everyone in 0.0 meaning you don't have to fight anyone of consequence and then you go to high sec to shoot people who don't shoot back.
Duly noted.
Tell me more about how the 95% of EVEs population we have as shoot on sight are "friends".
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
236
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 15:17:01 -
[226] - Quote
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:If you "flip a can" you go suspect and the can turns blue. Its free for anyone to take from at that point. So yes can flipping was killed.
Not to defend an idiotic argument, but it's still possible with two people. If capsuleer A jets say 1 trit and capsuleer B moves the contents of the miner's can to this new can, the can remains the property of capsuleer A and does not turn blue, while capsuleer B gets the suspect flag. |
Magnus Roden
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 15:39:28 -
[227] - Quote
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:If you "flip a can" you go suspect and the can turns blue. Its free for anyone to take from at that point. So yes can flipping was killed.
Dude seriously learn the game mechanics
There's various ways to make that work.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Carrie-Anne Moss
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
181
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 15:50:43 -
[228] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:If you "flip a can" you go suspect and the can turns blue. Its free for anyone to take from at that point. So yes can flipping was killed.
Dude seriously learn the game mechanics There's various ways to make that work. You are so full of it and obviously have not flipped cans for years.
Please tell me how you take one alt and flip the exumer can MID TRACTOR PULL then have an alt take the blue can and put it in his own. If there is a mobile tractor unit itll take in the blue can immediately.
Please describe your "various ways"
Oh you cant cuz you dont know what you are talking about.
You understamd how fast a tractor pulls in a can?? Freaking fast dude
Its okay for you to have your opinion that gankers are bad but dont try to say you know what you are talking about from your experience.
Please describe "various ways" |
Carrie-Anne Moss
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
181
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 15:53:46 -
[229] - Quote
Hell i have found just flipping the can and turninf it blue then just lol-popping it tends to make the bears angry enough to agress you mpre often then some double alt can hotswap in under 2seconds.
Just steal ore and lolpop the can and talk trash.
Yes there are ways, but yes theu have been severely restricted after crimewatch to save the bares |
Carrie-Anne Moss
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
181
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 16:01:37 -
[230] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:If you "flip a can" you go suspect and the can turns blue. Its free for anyone to take from at that point. So yes can flipping was killed. Not to defend an idiotic argument, but it's still possible with two people. If capsuleer A jets say 1 trit and capsuleer B moves the contents of the miner's can to this new can, the can remains the property of capsuleer A and does not turn blue, while capsuleer B gets the suspect flag. Bears cry to get game mechanics changed and nerfed. "Bad guys" just well damn, and then figure out new ways to make the nerfed mechanics work for them again.
Why can the bears just fogure out how to protect themselves and use mechanics for themselves like the "bad guys" always do?
Every time there is a nerf cuz bears cried, the bad guys adapt and overcome and still blow up the bears.
Guess the "bad guys" are just harder working and smarter |
|
Magnus Roden
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 16:09:41 -
[231] - Quote
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:You understamd how fast a tractor pulls in a can?? Freaking fast dude
approach Orca from there approach to Exhumer(s) with cans out so that you move 3-4km away form orca drop Can open can window wait for the tractored can to get into grab range open it swipe to other window If not full and there's more cans on the way, repeat if full or no cans left, destroy your can
Nothing pisses a miner off more than a can of ore you destroyed. It's really not difficult.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
1083
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 16:41:25 -
[232] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:You understamd how fast a tractor pulls in a can?? Freaking fast dude approach Orca from there approach to Exhumer(s) with cans out so that you move 3-4km away form orca drop Can open can window wait for the tractored can to get into grab range open it swipe to other window If not full and there's more cans on the way, repeat if full or no cans left, destroy your can Nothing pisses a miner off more than a can of ore you destroyed. It's really not difficult. Except if you then tell him to pay you 10mil for a mining permit and praise James, that really ticks them off.
the Code ALWAYS wins
|
Magnus Roden
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 16:50:07 -
[233] - Quote
Touch+¬
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
236
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 16:56:51 -
[234] - Quote
I can only think at this point that you deliberately derailed this thread in order to get it locked by ISD. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6244
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 16:58:58 -
[235] - Quote
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:Please tell me how you take one alt and flip the exumer can MID TRACTOR PULL then have an alt take the blue can and put it in his own. If there is a mobile tractor unit itll take in the blue can immediately. 1. Drop your own tractor 2. Flip all but 1 unit to your own can 3. Watch as your tractor pulls in the blue can while his pulls in the 1 last unit from his can.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
11153
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 18:20:43 -
[236] - Quote
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:If you "flip a can" you go suspect and the can turns blue. Its free for anyone to take from at that point. So yes can flipping was killed. Not to defend an idiotic argument, but it's still possible with two people. If capsuleer A jets say 1 trit and capsuleer B moves the contents of the miner's can to this new can, the can remains the property of capsuleer A and does not turn blue, while capsuleer B gets the suspect flag. Bears cry to get game mechanics changed and nerfed. "Bad guys" just well damn, and then figure out new ways to make the nerfed mechanics work for them again. Why can the bears just fogure out how to protect themselves and use mechanics for themselves like the "bad guys" always do? Every time there is a nerf cuz bears cried, the bad guys adapt and overcome and still blow up the bears. Guess the "bad guys" are just harder working and smarter
It's a matter of human natures clashing.
The "carebear" is the type of person who , when confronted with a situation, runs to someone else for a solution. You can see this behavior in kids when confronted by a bully, the ones who fight back don't get bullied anymore, the ones who run to a teacher to get the bully "in trouble" ends up getting it worse down the line (because he just signaled to everyone that he's not only a good bully target, he's a snitch as well, making himself even more enemies) than if he's just fought back and risked an ass whopping (for then at least he'd have gained the respect of a few people instead of making a bunch of enemies.
"Bad Guys" are people who look for an advantage, ANY advantage they can exploit, so it doesn't matter what rules or mechanics you change in game (or laws you change or prisons you build in real life), someone is always going to be trying to figure out the best way to get past that to get what they want. Carebears don't understand this because they don't think this way, so they keep thinking they are winning when CCP adds things like safeties and buffed exhumers and anchor rigs when in fact none of that stuff even helps, because the problem wasn't game mechanics, it was the basic natu8re of carebears than 'bad guys' love to exploit.
The 'cure' for bad guys isn't ccp intervention (that just makes it worse) is what 10s of thousands of us do every day and night in this game: understanding the bad guys and flying/acting in a way that discourages them from even trying us. in 8 years of playing EVE I've lost exactly 2 shuttles and 100 million isk to "bad guys" (the 2 shuttles were empty and I was afking, the 100 mil I lost to a scam where I bought a t1 hauler for the wrong price because of how I had my market window set, chalk it up to me being in a hurry and stupid).
Mix those two types (bad guys and carebears) together and you get...EVE Online lol. |
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
1660
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 18:35:14 -
[237] - Quote
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:If you "flip a can" you go suspect and the can turns blue. Its free for anyone to take from at that point. So yes can flipping was killed. Not to defend an idiotic argument, but it's still possible with two people. If capsuleer A jets say 1 trit and capsuleer B moves the contents of the miner's can to this new can, the can remains the property of capsuleer A and does not turn blue, while capsuleer B gets the suspect flag. Bears cry to get game mechanics changed and nerfed. "Bad guys" just well damn, and then figure out new ways to make the nerfed mechanics work for them again. Why can the bears just fogure out how to protect themselves and use mechanics for themselves like the "bad guys" always do? Every time there is a nerf cuz bears cried, the bad guys adapt and overcome and still blow up the bears. Guess the "bad guys" are just harder working and smarter Don't Feyd and Kaarous hate you already? Why you offending them again?
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page] |