Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling CODE.
104
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 20:09:50 -
[301] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Globby wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:lol, "I risk time". Seriously? What is that supposed to mean? If I form up a fleet and wait two hours for a kill and nothing happens that's not a risk? I literally wasted 40+ man hours of time and made people less wanting to go on my fleets. Lol if you think time isn't a risk. The risk is effort, we put all this effort in for NOTHING, we could have spent it on doing funcursions and make 4 billion in those same 40 man hours. No, I don't consider time spent on a game to be a risk. Careful, you're bordering on a Gevlonish "but opportunity costs!" viewpoint here.
You're literally the embodiment of 'the minerals I mine are free.' with that mindset, that your time and effort have zero value. |
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling CODE.
104
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 20:12:18 -
[302] - Quote
"Yeah, it only took us three runs and three hours with a 45 man fleet to kill that logged off anshar in jita with four billion in ships, ganking is totally broken." |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6433
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 20:20:54 -
[303] - Quote
Globby wrote:You're literally the embodiment of 'the minerals I mine are free.' with that mindset, that your time and effort have zero value. Not quite, but if you go down the route of opportunity cost, then the riskiest activity is ship spinning, because you could be making so much more isk.
Risk in a given activity isn't defined by what you could be doing instead.
Specifically about MIMAF, it's true, minerals mined are free. The dumb part about that that people are really trying to get at isn't about he minerals being free, it's about the product value vs the material value. Regardless of how much you value your time, if the minerals are worth 50m and the manufactured product is worth 45m, then it's not worth producing. It;s not that they've undervalued their time, it's that they've undervalued their minerals when they produced the product. If it were all about time, then the best form of mining is incursions and anyone that mines is automatically stupid. But it's a game, and we all choose what we do based on whatever metrics of preference we want.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling CODE.
104
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 20:26:46 -
[304] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Globby wrote:You're literally the embodiment of 'the minerals I mine are free.' with that mindset, that your time and effort have zero value. Not quite, but if you go down the route of opportunity cost, then the riskiest activity is ship spinning, because you could be making so much more isk. Risk in a given activity isn't defined by what you could be doing instead. Specifically about MIMAF, it's true, minerals mined are free. The dumb part about that that people are really trying to get at isn't about he minerals being free, it's about the product value vs the material value. Regardless of how much you value your time, if the minerals are worth 50m and the manufactured product is worth 45m, then it's not worth producing. It;s not that they've undervalued their time, it's that they've undervalued their minerals when they produced the product. If it were all about time, then the best form of mining is incursions and anyone that mines is automatically stupid. But it's a game, and we all choose what we do based on whatever metrics of preference we want.
The risk is that all the effort I put into stalking said target is going to be wasted. I could alienate the people in my fleet by consistently providing no content, therefore losing popularity and no longer getting the minimum needed people to run a fleet, then I can never gank again.
It's a pretty big risk, sorry that someone whose never run a freighter fleet before couldn't see it.
Ganking is the risk imposed on people hauling waaaay too much than they should.
I've both antiganked and ganked, ran fleets and provided every role in every situation.
Ganking is the seizing of an opportunity, if haulers played intelligently ganking wouldn't exist. period. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6433
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 20:39:27 -
[305] - Quote
And yet... it's risk/reward balance is out. It either need less reward or more risk. Nothing you say will change my opinion on that, so perhaps we need to agree to disagree.
Edit: Oh and consider the difference in risk/reward vs AGs. AGs get basically nothing and frequently risk more expensive ships. It's why it's so disorganised, because most people with sense are doing something worthwhile.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Mag's
the united
19870
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 21:01:00 -
[306] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:And yet... it's risk/reward balance is out. And yet you're just a grunt and don't really know that. But hey, you have your opinion don't you. That's good enough for you.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6433
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 21:15:31 -
[307] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:And yet... it's risk/reward balance is out. And yet you're just a grunt and don't really know that. But hey, you have your opinion don't you. That's good enough for you. lol, we all have opinions, and your point is? I make mine based on the experience I have. It seems a lot of the CODE crowd base theirs on "WAAAH, I DON'T WANT TO MAKE LESS ISK!". The fact that I opt to be a grunt these days doesn't mean my opinion holds any less value. Regardless, CCP will make the decisions. I'm eagerly awaiting the inevitable wardec changes almost entirely for the some of the other carebear PvPers tears.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Baaldor
Dixon Cox Butte Preservation Society Black Legion.
426
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 21:18:54 -
[308] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Mag's wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:And yet... it's risk/reward balance is out. And yet you're just a grunt and don't really know that. But hey, you have your opinion don't you. That's good enough for you. lol, we all have opinions, and your point is? I make mine based on the experience I have. It seems a lot of the CODE crowd base theirs on "WAAAH, I DON'T WANT TO MAKE LESS ISK!". The fact that I opt to be a grunt these days doesn't mean my opinion holds any less value. Regardless, CCP will make the decisions. I'm eagerly awaiting the inevitable wardec changes almost entirely for the some of the other carebear PvPers tears.
^^^^HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
My sides are in orbit!
|
Mag's
the united
19870
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 21:21:44 -
[309] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Globby wrote:You still do not acknowledge that standard gank fleets haven't been profitable for weeks. I'm just a grunt these days, I don't have anything to do with the profit, You have your opinion and can tell us about risk/reward balance. I'm sure that's great for you, just saying.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling CODE.
105
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 21:41:15 -
[310] - Quote
Friend, I already refuted your point that standard code and miniluv gank fleets operate in losses and have for a while. If you don't know this then you really aren't a ganker. |
|
Bellatrix Invicta
New Order Logistics CODE.
130
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 21:51:30 -
[311] - Quote
244k in wallet because ganking is expensive.
Wait I mean ganking is free.
If you think you've won, think again.
The CODE always wins.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6433
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 22:01:34 -
[312] - Quote
Globby wrote:Friend, I already refuted your point that standard code and miniluv gank fleets operate in losses and have for a while. If you don't know this then you really aren't a ganker.
It's been pretty standard in eve's history that a lot of small, cheap ships should be able to kill single big, fat and expensive ships. Mate, you refuted nothing. I stated an opinion, you stated and opinion, that's all. I understand exactly where you're coming from, carebear.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Renegade Heart
Carebear Miners R Us
510
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 22:12:12 -
[313] - Quote
It doesn't really matter if the standard CODE gank fleets are profitable or not. If it's fun doing it then it's all good. If more fun would be had doing profitable ganks, then do that instead?
Profitable ganking is certainly possible. I don't really understand what you two are arguing about. Are these tears? |
Mag's
the united
19872
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 22:16:02 -
[314] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I see some of the usual troll crowd are waking up. "We can't defeat him with fact so let's just shiptoast until the thread dies". Good show. One thing is true for sure, you're always good for irony.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
13764
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 22:18:22 -
[315] - Quote
ITT: Lucas spends the last three pages proving that he doesn't actually play the game anymore since they banned ISBotter mining fleets.
Turns out, neither the Goons gankers nor the CODE gankers have ever seen you gank a damn thing. And one of those groups has your API, to boot.
"Yeah I totally gank guys, you can believe me, but I want ganking banned even though I totally gank a lot."
I've heard better lies from my four year old.
"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.
|
Globby
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling CODE.
123
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 22:38:31 -
[316] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:ITT: Lucas spends the last three pages proving that he doesn't actually play the game anymore since they banned ISBotter mining fleets.
Turns out, neither the Goons gankers nor the CODE gankers have ever seen you gank a damn thing. And one of those groups has your API, to boot.
"Yeah I totally gank guys, you can believe me, but I want ganking banned even though I totally gank a lot."
I've heard better lies from my four year old.
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
1380
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 01:48:25 -
[317] - Quote
Renegade Heart wrote:It doesn't really matter if the standard CODE gank fleets are profitable or not. If it's fun doing it then it's all good. If more fun would be had doing profitable ganks, then do that instead?
It doesn't matter, they will cry anyway.
If it is profitable: "Ganking is unbalanced and too easy, we should nerf ganking to add more risk and stuff because it's just too much ISK... and new players quit because they lose 10bil ISK Freighters! think of the children!"
If it is not profitable: "They just gank to make people cry! Ganking for profit is ok but if you don't earn ISK it's just harassment! They make new players quit!! Will someone think of the children!!!"
Usually you find both arguments in a nerf-ganking thread side by side. Obviously they just want to remove ganking from highsec. The one last nerf thing is just a lie.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6433
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 06:54:18 -
[318] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:ITT: Lucas spends the last three pages proving that he doesn't actually play the game anymore since they banned ISBotter mining fleets.
Turns out, neither the Goons gankers nor the CODE gankers have ever seen you gank a damn thing. And one of those groups has your API, to boot.
"Yeah I totally gank guys, you can believe me, but I want ganking banned even though I totally gank a lot."
I've heard better lies from my four year old. You guys are just terribad at intel. It's all good.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Seraph IX Basarab
Angry Dragons Black Legion.
684
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 08:00:31 -
[319] - Quote
Sounds to me like you're full of **** Lucas.
House of Black and White
An ingame channel dedicated to more interesting ways to play
|
Jethro Amar
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 08:11:14 -
[320] - Quote
The only change I'd like to see is for concord to "arrest" the pod after action and transport it to nearest lowsec concord station. It doesn't make any real change for the gank itself, but it forces the gankers to play the game and interact with others instead of just "undock, warp, f1". It would force gankers to move through lowsec and hisec to their ganking system and give other players an opportunity to engage. Of course their medical clones would be moved to same lowsec station to avoid podexpress.
what gankers demand from haulers and miners is to scout ahead, be careful and interact. I'm sure they won't mind being held to the same standards as the carebears. |
|
Lan Wang
V I R I I Ineluctable.
1153
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 08:15:24 -
[321] - Quote
Jethro Amar wrote:The only change I'd like to see is for concord to "arrest" the pod after action and transport it to nearest lowsec concord station. It doesn't make any real change for the gank itself, but it forces the gankers to play the game and interact with others instead of just "undock, warp, f1". It would force gankers to move through lowsec and hisec to their ganking system and give other players an opportunity to engage. Of course their medical clones would be moved to same lowsec station to avoid podexpress.
thats a silly idea on a system which does not give you the chance to evade concord, maybe if concord chased you and you could run but not with the current system, "give other players a chance to engage" like you mean engage a pod or a shuttle?
EVEALON Creative - Logo Design & Branding | Digital Design
|
Jethro Amar
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 08:27:18 -
[322] - Quote
Gankers dont mind engaging pods, shuttles or unarmed mining barges when it's them doing the shooting and someone else doing the dying, right? As it is ganking is probably the least demanding job in eve - by design it's 20 seconds action followed by 15 minutes of ship spinning. It's actually more afk than afk mining as you don't even need to change roids. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
1382
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 08:29:25 -
[323] - Quote
Jethro Amar wrote:The only change I'd like to see is for concord to "arrest" the pod after action and transport it to nearest lowsec concord station. It doesn't make any real change for the gank itself, but it forces the gankers to play the game and interact with others instead of just "undock, warp, f1". It would force gankers to move through lowsec and hisec to their ganking system and give other players an opportunity to engage. Of course their medical clones would be moved to same lowsec station to avoid podexpress.
what gankers demand from haulers and miners is to scout ahead, be careful and interact. I'm sure they won't mind being held to the same standards as the carebears. You know that everyone can shoot us at any time even in Highsec because we are -10? What do you think would change if we had to stage in Lowsec? Nothing?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
1378
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 08:37:49 -
[324] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Jethro Amar wrote:The only change I'd like to see is for concord to "arrest" the pod after action and transport it to nearest lowsec concord station. It doesn't make any real change for the gank itself, but it forces the gankers to play the game and interact with others instead of just "undock, warp, f1". It would force gankers to move through lowsec and hisec to their ganking system and give other players an opportunity to engage. Of course their medical clones would be moved to same lowsec station to avoid podexpress.
what gankers demand from haulers and miners is to scout ahead, be careful and interact. I'm sure they won't mind being held to the same standards as the carebears. You know that everyone can shoot us at any time even in Highsec because we are -10? What do you think would change if we had to stage in Lowsec? Nothing? Well you would be a total of 1 jump over I guess after each gank... surely that means lowsec people would stop you... I mean if you had to go to lowsec we could blame somebody else for not stopping you instead of ourselves (the people whining)
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1250
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 08:45:50 -
[325] - Quote
Jethro Amar wrote:Gankers dont mind engaging pods, shuttles or unarmed mining barges when it's them doing the shooting and someone else doing the dying, right? How satisfying do you think it would be to pod an empty clone in lowsec and how much of an effect do you think that would really have on the gankers in the tiny fraction of cases where that happened?
Most gankers are -10 anyways - highsec is lowsec to them already. Worse in fact, as there are NPCs chasing them in addition to players. If you want them to "die" there are no NPC-enforced game mechanics standing in your way. Shoot to kill!
Jethro Amar wrote:As it is ganking is probably the least demanding job in eve - by design it's 20 seconds action followed by 15 minutes of ship spinning. It's actually more afk than afk mining as you don't even need to change roids. Spoken like someone who has never ganked, or perhaps only as a grunt in a fleet. Ganking is just ship combat, and like most of ship combat in Eve it consists of locking a target and pressing F1 for the grunt. Most of the effort is shouldered up the chain of command with the FC and the scouts looking for and tackling targets. It's just like any fleet battle in Eve except there is an ever-vigilant group of NPCs shadowing the fleet.
It's elite PvP through-and-through.
|
Jethro Amar
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 09:52:24 -
[326] - Quote
They are allowed to shoot you but they can't really do it if they only have 20seconds.
for example, if a freighter could undock from jita, enter a "special warp" after 20 seconds and arrive in amarr station after 20 minutes you would scream bloody murder about how "op" hauling is and how they cannot possibly be engaged. Yet that's exactly what gankers do. Undock for 20 seconds in a ship that is already dead - the window of vulnerability is almost nonexistent. By removing you from Uedama after every gank I would give the antigankers a chance to engage you before the gank.
Dont get me wrong, i wholeheartedly approve of ganking and James in particular. However i do believe ganking and awoxing is not at it's best right now. Ganking should be made easier on ehp side of the equation but harder on the mechanics. 1. You dont need to find targets - just sit in uedama and freighters have to come to you. 2. You dont need to be ready for quick engagement and focused, as the bumping machariel will provide enough time to ptepare for gank. Bumping a freighter for an hour while the fleet is logging onto their ganking alts is a rubbish idea. 3. You cannot be attacked. By definition your ships are already lost when you undock and the catalysts would have to be destroyed within seconds of landing on grid - nearly impossible task. The only ship that's actually exposed is the bumper in a fast, brick tanked battleship, itself protected by concord. 4. You can do it with no consequences whatsoever. Throwaway alt with minimal sp. Untraceable to your main account and itself worthless, there is no risk to ganking 5. The existing crime prevention mechanics do not work against gankers. Security status does nothing against characters that only undock for 20seconds at a time. Same with killrights. 15 minutes criminal timer slows you down, but the next target can be held by the bumper long enough for it to be irrelevant. however, if somebody tried to retaliate by attacking the bumper they get a killright themselves. Killrights are huge for anybody who isn't a ganking alt, as they make flying anything larger than a catalyst impossible for a whole freaking month. 6. Any ship that could be used against the gankers effectively is itself even better target for ganks than the freighter. Anything with targeting resolution good enough to make a difference has hp low enough to be easily killable by the catalysts and/or is expensive.
my ideas are to change the mechanics so that gankers must make some meaningful decisions. Mostly: ganking an empty target should mean missing the full freighter that flies past 5 minutes later. 1. Make more hisec connections between empires. Force gankers to scout and seek targets. More radical: allow freighters to jump to gates like jf would jump to cynos so that they can scout and avoid an obvious trap like uedama. This should be balanced towards avoiding ganks and not faster travel. 2. Fix the bumping. If the gankers aren't ready to attack at a moments notice the target escapes. No bumping for hours. 3. Fix the bumper. It's ridiculous that the bumper is protected by concord. I'd add a ticket option that would apply a killright to the bumper if the bumping resulted in a gank. Let's see how eager they will be to undock those machariels without concord protection. 4. Teleport pods out into lowsec so that they have to travel like everyone else. Make them attackable before the gank happens. 5. Criminal flag should last progressively longer the more one ganks. We have space aids, lets add space syphilis for ganking. 6. Add expensive implants that slow concord response. This will create a variable in ganking equation and some level of risk. Losing catalyst does not constitute risk, as it is already accounted for in the gank. This will also make ganking easier. |
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
1380
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 09:58:17 -
[327] - Quote
Jethro Amar wrote:They are allowed to shoot you but they can't really do it if they only have 20seconds.
for example, if a freighter could undock from jita, enter a "special warp" after 20 seconds and arrive in amarr station after 20 minutes you would scream bloody murder about how "op" hauling is and how they cannot possibly be engaged. Yet that's exactly what gankers do. Undock for 20 seconds in a ship that is already dead - the window of vulnerability is almost nonexistent. By removing you from Uedama after every gank I would give the antigankers a chance to engage you before the gank.
the nearest system is 1 jump. good luck catching their shuttles coming back...
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
|
Jethro Amar
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 10:10:13 -
[328] - Quote
What i meant was the nearest lowsec concord "prison" station, not just any lowsec. By the way, that 1 jump to uedama could be very hard to get through if somebody decided to put a few instalocking svipuls there. |
Lan Wang
V I R I I Ineluctable.
1153
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 10:10:26 -
[329] - Quote
Jethro Amar wrote:They are allowed to shoot you but they can't really do it if they only have 20seconds.
thats not the gankers problem, get gud
EVEALON Creative - Logo Design & Branding | Digital Design
|
Lan Wang
V I R I I Ineluctable.
1153
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 10:13:01 -
[330] - Quote
Jethro Amar wrote:What i meant was the nearest lowsec concord "prison" station, not just any lowsec. By the way, that 1 jump to uedama could be very hard to get through if somebody decided to put a few instalocking svipuls there.
so really you just want to camp a gate and kill shuttles and pods
EVEALON Creative - Logo Design & Branding | Digital Design
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |