Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Avvy
Republic University Minmatar Republic
97
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 18:48:08 -
[151] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Avvy wrote:That I don't believe. Because I can't see how it can identify the difference between someone flying around hunting for targets and someone just flying around. Also it wouldn't be able to tell the difference from someone waiting to pounce on a target and someone afk.
PvE is a lot easier to identify than PvP. It's not surprising to me that PvP didn't do as well as it should in the data as some aspects of PvP were being ignored. That's extremely presumptuous. We don't know how PvP was quantified, thus any notions of an omission or inaccuracy are theoretical at best unless you have actual proof otherwise. The concerns you've voiced could very well have been accounted for in full.
So how would the system collecting the data be able to tell if someone is waiting or afk?
Also how would the system know who is searching for targets and who is out sightseeing?
|
0bama Barack Hussein
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
70
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 18:55:05 -
[152] - Quote
OP, just relax, Drifters will deal with High Sec :) |
Sarrgon
Avalonians United
21
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 19:00:41 -
[153] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Sarrgon wrote:Check out trade hubs, Nairja, Uedema, popular mining systems. GǪall of which show how exceedingly rare ganking is these days. An even more obvious example is to look as such old gank havens as Motsu, Niarja, Aunia, or Penirgman GÇö places where ganks were an hourly occurrence but where days or even weeks can now go by without any aggression at all, much less any ganks. Hell, Jita and Perimeter used to have these huge CONCORD clouds hanging around both the 4-4 station and the connecting gates. I just looked at zkillboard and had to flip through to page 16 to see the first appearance of CONCORD in Jita. In Perimeter, it was only on page 2, but that's apparently because nothing dies in Perimeter any more GÇö that CONCORD kill is 7 days oldGǪ Put another way: anyone who even remotely suggests or hints at ganks being too common these days is, at best, completely ignorant and utterly disqualified from even discussing the topic until they check in with reality; at worst they're a full-blown idiot or a troll. Those are the only three options. Quote:If you want to cause even more people to unsub, then sure make ganking easier. There's almost nothing to suggest this. If anything, the numbers rather correlate the other way around: as the screws have been tightened on ganking, the server activity has gone down. Quote:Yeah Eve is also one big PVP arena, but those that not want to pvp, shouldn't have to Yes they should. Again, that's the core design concept of the game. It's a full-time PvP game. If you don't want to PvP, this isn't the game you want. If you want areas of complete safety, this isn't the game you want. Not PvP:ing is not an sensible option in a PvP game. Quote:though most high sec so called pvp is really one sided All combat is one-sided. It's inherent in how people choose to approach combat GÇö anything else would be stupid. The difference in highsec is that one of the sides refuse to take any actions or precautions to occasionally skew the balance in the other direction. Instead, they just choose to lose, to whine about their choice, and/or then just write it off as a cost of doing business. That alone should tell you what the actual problem is.
So I just looked at Uedema, 898 kills in the past 24 hours, seen a charon that just got ganked by goons. Bowhead that get popped by Code, looks like via a war dec. i see TONS of concord kills on various ships. No clue what systems you are looking at but not the same ones i am it seems. |
admiral root
Red Galaxy
3024
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 19:01:58 -
[154] - Quote
Sarrgon wrote: Check out trade hubs, Nairja, Uedema, popular mining systems.
Past 24 hours jumps / kills / chance of death by ship asplosion Niarja: 23,523 / 213 / 0.91% Jita: 40,024 / 717 / 1.79% Uedama: 24,318 / 898 / 3.70%
There are a number of posts in my history with these same 3 systems and I don't think I've ever seen Jita that high. I know I've never seen any of them hit as high as Uedama.
Some fun facts:
- Everyone's favourite FC, Loyalanon, is in the process of waging unlimited war on the Uedama system to the point of making most days look calm and peaceful. Many of our other glorious FCs and pilots are doing their part separately.
- We (the sub-set of the glorious New Order of High Sec known as CODE. alliance) are currently at war with our space-pals in Marmite, who are also allies to someone else we're at war with.
- Marmite are lurking in Uedama waiting for the chance to station-gank one of our rookie ships with their fearless remote rep NPC alts.
- This also means that other Marmite war targets who would normally be safe in Uedama, so very far from the Jita 4/4 undock are getting a surprise.
- The figures for ship kills include all ship losses, not just ganks.
- My mother doesn't just not play Eve, she's never heard of it. Even she knows that Uedama and Niarja are deathtraps that only a muppet jumps into un-prepared.
- The Code always wins. Always.
Your turn.
PS: Marmite are cool but common decency dictates that they be mocked with propaganda whilst at war. After all, we're civilised.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
Sarrgon
Avalonians United
21
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 19:04:16 -
[155] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Sarrgon wrote:Check out trade hubs, Nairja, Uedema, popular mining systems. If you want to cause even more people to unsub, then sure make ganking easier. Yeah Eve is also one big PVP arena, but those that not want to pvp, shouldn't have to, though most high sec so called pvp is really one sided, how hard is it to blow up a ship that can't even fight back, takes a herioc person to gank a hulk or freighter. Will sing their songs of their bravery for generations to come..... CCP has not intentionally put suicide ganking in this game to live up to your Space Samurai code of ethics. CCP has gone to the effort of coding the ability of criminals to operate in order to provide player-driven risk in highsec. They think it is good for the game that players are always at risk to each other and that it makes the game more interesting. Eve has survived these 12+ years with suicide ganking as one of the key features of the game. Highsec has never been safer, yet you claim that only now, Eve players are going to decide they have had enough and unsubscibe? Forgive me, but that refrain has been heard practically since the servers started accepting connections and yet Eve has outlasted almost all of its contemporary MMOs. Suicide ganking is almost completely avoidable with only a little effort. If anything, ganking has been hit hard in recent years, and one could argue this has made the game more boring which has correlated with the decrease in player counts. I won't make that argument here, but I can confidently say that CCP is not going to be remove or nerf suicide ganking any time soon.
And I am not saying that any space should be 100% safe, but high sec should be safer IMO, you will retain a lot more new players that way, paying accounts will go up and not someone with 20 alts. Paying customers keep this game going, not the OMFG i want to destroy everything, everyone MUST pvp, this is what the game is all about type crap. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1554
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 19:05:09 -
[156] - Quote
Avvy wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Avvy wrote:That I don't believe. Because I can't see how it can identify the difference between someone flying around hunting for targets and someone just flying around. Also it wouldn't be able to tell the difference from someone waiting to pounce on a target and someone afk.
PvE is a lot easier to identify than PvP. It's not surprising to me that PvP didn't do as well as it should in the data as some aspects of PvP were being ignored. That's extremely presumptuous. We don't know how PvP was quantified, thus any notions of an omission or inaccuracy are theoretical at best unless you have actual proof otherwise. The concerns you've voiced could very well have been accounted for in full. So how would the system collecting the data be able to tell if someone is waiting or afk? Also how would the system know who is searching for targets and who is out sightseeing? Why should the 2 be distinguished? If a players aggressive intent doesn't manifest, why is it worth cataloging? Camping a gate probably shouldn't count as PvP until something gets shot, otherwise it is just sitting in space.
And if they do so long enough they will have shot something and will be classed accordingly. |
Avvy
Republic University Minmatar Republic
97
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 19:15:59 -
[157] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Why should the 2 be distinguished? If a players aggressive intent doesn't manifest, why is it worth cataloging? Camping a gate probably shouldn't count as PvP until something gets shot, otherwise it is just sitting in space.
And if they do so long enough they will have shot something and will be classed accordingly.
Those 2 activities are PvP activities regardless if they manage to kill anything.
Plus I thought the whole point of the data was to assess how many players were doing PvE and PvP activities during a certain period.
Although the PvE figures will be fairly good the PvP ones will be below what they should be, could be by quite a lot, but difficult to say by how much as those 2 activities would likely have been disregarded when they shouldn't have been. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1554
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 19:26:31 -
[158] - Quote
Avvy wrote:Those 2 activities are PvP activities regardless if they manage to kill anything.
Plus I thought the whole point of the data was to assess how many players were doing PvE and PvP activities during a certain period.
Although the PvE figures will be fairly good the PvP ones will be below what they should be, could be by quite a lot, but difficult to say by how much as those 2 activities would likely have been disregarded when they shouldn't have been. A camp isn't PvP if it doesn't engage anything. Things that leave the gate without being engaged aren't interfered with, much less things which never show up on that gate. Similarly roaming is a zero sum until some form of confrontation or denial occurs. It's entirely legitimate to say PvP isn't occuring while waiting for prey as there is no one to PvP against.
Also, no, the metric wasn't PvP, but rather being the aggressor, as in actually initiating ship to ship combat as far as player classification goes. That requires a ship be aggressed. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25609
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 19:28:20 -
[159] - Quote
Sarrgon wrote:So I just looked at Uedema, 898 kills in the past 24 hours, seen a charon that just got ganked by goons. Bowhead that get popped by Code, looks like via a war dec. i see TONS of concord kills on various ships. No clue what systems you are looking at but not the same ones i am it seems. I'm looking at the systems that have a long distinguished history of being gank havens. More than that, I'm looking at actual ganks rather than just some information-free number.
Aside from all the warring going on, the reason you're seeing that many kills is exactly because of how hard ganking has become. In total, it's less than one gank and hour GÇö in fact, it seems closer to one every other hour GÇö but each of them results in a dozen or two kills being recorded. They're that many because that's the ludicrous amount of firepower you need to bring in order to execute a gank.
Quote:And I am not saying that any space should be 100% safe, but high sec should be safer IMO It already is safer. If anything, as the numbers you dug up show, it needs to be made a whole lot less safe.
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.
|
Avvy
Republic University Minmatar Republic
97
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 20:09:36 -
[160] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Avvy wrote:Those 2 activities are PvP activities regardless if they manage to kill anything.
Plus I thought the whole point of the data was to assess how many players were doing PvE and PvP activities during a certain period.
Although the PvE figures will be fairly good the PvP ones will be below what they should be, could be by quite a lot, but difficult to say by how much as those 2 activities would likely have been disregarded when they shouldn't have been. A camp isn't PvP if it doesn't engage anything. Things that leave the gate without being engaged aren't interfered with, much less things which never show up on that gate. Similarly roaming is a zero sum until some form of confrontation or denial occurs. It's entirely legitimate to say PvP isn't occuring while waiting for prey as there is no one to PvP against. Also, no, the metric wasn't PvP, but rather being the aggressor, as in actually initiating ship to ship combat as far as player classification goes. That requires a ship be aggressed.
So a fairly pointless exercise then. A bit like comparing a carrot with a banana.
But anyway, if you want to follow the reasoning read posts 121, 123, 125 and 132.
Also ref 151 |
|
Sarrgon
Avalonians United
21
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 20:29:10 -
[161] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Sarrgon wrote:So I just looked at Uedema, 898 kills in the past 24 hours, seen a charon that just got ganked by goons. Bowhead that get popped by Code, looks like via a war dec. i see TONS of concord kills on various ships. No clue what systems you are looking at but not the same ones i am it seems. I'm looking at the systems that have a long distinguished history of being gank havens. More than that, I'm looking at actual ganks rather than just some information-free number. Aside from all the warring going on, the reason you're seeing that many kills is exactly because of how hard ganking has become. In total, it's less than one gank and hour GÇö in fact, it seems closer to one every other hour GÇö but each of them results in a dozen or two kills being recorded. They're that many because that's the ludicrous amount of firepower you need to bring in order to execute a gank. Quote:And I am not saying that any space should be 100% safe, but high sec should be safer IMO It already is safer. If anything, as the numbers you dug up show, it needs to be made a whole lot less safe.
This is like you are trying to convince me the sky should be red and needs to be red and is red but when I look at it all i see if blue. Ganking systems change as people change what they do to be safer, I was in a system out in the middle of no where and seen 24 kills in the past 24 hours with some ganking some miners. Granted most of them kills where cats, but super cheap gank ships for a slap on the wrist and probably gets off on the tears they generate, yeah nothing is wrong with high sec. |
Paranoid Loyd
6640
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 20:35:08 -
[162] - Quote
Sarrgon wrote: This is like you are trying to convince me the sky should be red and needs to be red and is red but when I look at it all i see if blue. No, it's like he did his homework and knows what he is talking about and has an informed opinion and you are using your personal experience and misperception to state uninformed opinions.
"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!
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25609
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 20:41:21 -
[163] - Quote
Sarrgon wrote:This is like you are trying to convince me the sky should be red and needs to be red and is red but when I look at it all i see if blue. No. This is like I'm trying to tell you to look at the sky when trying to figure out what colour it is, and then calling you silly because you picked the inside of a sandstorm as your observation point.
Quote:Ganking systems change as people change what they do to be safer People haven't changed what they do to be safer. Quite the opposite: as they've whined their way into being more mechanically protected (because they're too stupid and incompetent to protect themselves), they've made use of that extra protection to be even more incompetent and do even less to be safe.
The victims have become more and more stupid as the gankers have had to come up with increasingly more elaborate strategies to get a kill in the face of pointless security buffs. It's about time those buffs are rolled back and some sensibility is restored.
Quote:I was in a system out in the middle of no where and seen 24 kills in the past 24 hours with some ganking some miners. Which system is that? Oh, and I hope you realise that ganking has never been as expensive as it is right now. That's why your pick of a sandstorm is such a bad idea.
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.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
16887
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 20:42:09 -
[164] - Quote
Sarrgon wrote:Tippia wrote:Sarrgon wrote:So I just looked at Uedema, 898 kills in the past 24 hours, seen a charon that just got ganked by goons. Bowhead that get popped by Code, looks like via a war dec. i see TONS of concord kills on various ships. No clue what systems you are looking at but not the same ones i am it seems. I'm looking at the systems that have a long distinguished history of being gank havens. More than that, I'm looking at actual ganks rather than just some information-free number. Aside from all the warring going on, the reason you're seeing that many kills is exactly because of how hard ganking has become. In total, it's less than one gank and hour GÇö in fact, it seems closer to one every other hour GÇö but each of them results in a dozen or two kills being recorded. They're that many because that's the ludicrous amount of firepower you need to bring in order to execute a gank. Quote:And I am not saying that any space should be 100% safe, but high sec should be safer IMO It already is safer. If anything, as the numbers you dug up show, it needs to be made a whole lot less safe. This is like you are trying to convince me the sky should be red and needs to be red and is red but when I look at it all i see if blue. Ganking systems change as people change what they do to be safer, I was in a system out in the middle of no where and seen 24 kills in the past 24 hours with some ganking some miners. Granted most of them kills where cats, but super cheap gank ships for a slap on the wrist and probably gets off on the tears they generate, yeah nothing is wrong with high sec.
well it seems like you should run some comparison testing.
Let's compare the fatality rates of 1000 freighters run through the 11 Jumps between Amarr Prime and Jita and the 11 jumps between Doril and G-0
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
16887
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 20:43:28 -
[165] - Quote
BTW I don't have a freighter just now so if you could start making the runs and making notes that would be appreciated. I'm burning my hauler alt as fast as I can and will be right with you
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
59
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 20:45:05 -
[166] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Sarrgon wrote:So I just looked at Uedema, 898 kills in the past 24 hours, seen a charon that just got ganked by goons. Bowhead that get popped by Code, looks like via a war dec. i see TONS of concord kills on various ships. No clue what systems you are looking at but not the same ones i am it seems. I'm looking at the systems that have a long distinguished history of being gank havens. More than that, I'm looking at actual ganks rather than just some information-free number. Aside from all the warring going on, the reason you're seeing that many kills is exactly because of how hard ganking has become. In total, it's less than one gank and hour GÇö in fact, it seems closer to one every other hour GÇö but each of them results in a dozen or two kills being recorded. They're that many because that's the ludicrous amount of firepower you need to bring in order to execute a gank. Quote:And I am not saying that any space should be 100% safe, but high sec should be safer IMO It already is safer. If anything, as the numbers you dug up show, it needs to be made a whole lot less safe. Frankly Uedama was extremely quiet during the time period you looked at it. Ganks in the pipeline areas have an ebb and flow to them with some days being absolutely slow while others seemingly endlessly ganked.
The deltole area is a pale shadow of the activity you see in Uedama so it's not surprising that there's few ganks there too.
I'm not sure if the slow days in the pipelines are because the gankers are busy in real life or if it's because they disperse some to gank random miners.
Ganking pretty much has never been easier or cheaper. You have access to dirt cheap high dps ships and high alpha ships (thanks to the destroyer buffs and the introduction of attack BCs). So regardless of the sec rating of the system or the situation of the gank you have a ship that can do it in an effective manner.
Hypderdunking is legal and allows one person to gank fully tanked freighters with just a little preparation. This is in stark contrast to CCP's stance on prior "tricks" like boomeranging and such.
Personally I"m fine with how things stand for now.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25609
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 20:54:01 -
[167] - Quote
Kinete Jenius wrote:Frankly Uedama was extremely quiet during the time period you looked at it. Ganks in the pipeline areas have an ebb and flow to them with some days being absolutely slow while others seemingly endlessly ganked. Nah. Even on the worst of days, when the gankers are out in force, it's less than one an hour. GÇ£Endless gankingGÇ¥ was what you saw in the olden days when you could just sit on the Jita undock and earn a fortune from stolen gank goods.
Quote:Ganking pretty much has never been easier or cheaper. It used to be free, or even inherently profitable, and it used to be done by a large number of groups because it didn't require much in the way of preparation or manpower. Now it costs a bundle, requires a ton of people, forces you to employ all kinds of strategies to make the gank be GÇ£safeGÇ¥, and as a consequence, is only really done by a small handful of highly specialised groups.
Beyond the actual mechanic al reasons why you're wrong, you also have to look at the absurdity of the logic: if it was so easy and cheap, how come so few are doing it?
Quote:Hypderdunking is legal and allows one person to gank fully tanked freighters with just a little preparation. This is in stark contrast to CCP's stance on prior "tricks" like boomeranging and such. You're confusing contrast for absolute consistency. Boomeranging was an exploit because it avoided CONCORD retribution GÇö something that has always been an exploit. Hyperdunking is legal exactly because it doesn't do that.
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.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1350
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 21:12:28 -
[168] - Quote
Kinete Jenius wrote: Ganking pretty much has never been easier or cheaper. You have access to dirt cheap high dps ships and high alpha ships (thanks to the destroyer buffs and the introduction of attack BCs). So regardless of the sec rating of the system or the situation of the gank you have a ship that can do it in an effective manner.
Hypderdunking is legal and allows one person to gank fully tanked freighters with just a little preparation. This is in stark contrast to CCP's stance on prior "tricks" like boomeranging and such.
Personally I"m fine with how things stand for now.
This is just not true. Before the insurance nerf, people used to gank in battleships, sometimes even making money on the insurance alone. Heck, back In the golden age of ganking you could tank CONCORD.
Ganking is still probably closer to the historic lows than not. In 2012 Dr. Eyjo said Exhumer ganking was at an all time low, and highsec has only gotten safer since then.
Data from zKillboard show little increase in CONCORD response since the end of 2012 when the data became reliably delivered by API. The small increase in the last year or so is probably explained by the preference for freighter ganking which requires many more ships than the miner ganking that was the fashion before.
As for hyperdunking, it is something that has gone on for years, albeit usually against POS modules. It changes nothing about the cost equation of ganking - at best it reduces the number of players needed for a gank. Certainly, it is easily countered by practically any effort by the target - even a single friend in a pod can thwart the hyperdunk by stealing the gank ships. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1554
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 21:18:00 -
[169] - Quote
Avvy wrote: So a fairly pointless exercise then. A bit like comparing a carrot with a banana.
But anyway, if you want to follow the reasoning read posts 121, 123, 125 and 132.
Also ref 151
Edit:
25 PvP players spread around the universe and 25 PvE players also spread around the universe.
The PvP players having to wait or search for targets.
The PvE players chain running security missions.
Who do you think will get the most kills?
Before answering your scenario, why is it relevant? There were never any statistics or comparisons based on number of kills that I am aware of in which there was any expected parity between the 2. For good reason I would imagine.
The issue here seems to be your attempts to present a simple majority of kills as the determining factor CCP used to classify players with no evidence to support that. None of your posts actually give anything resembling proof such a method was used.
I agree that it is a flawed metrc, I just don't see the relevance to the stats CCP provided without proof it was used.
And for the groups CCP was trying to classify players into the metric I described would work fine IMHO. The PvP'er who doesn't PvP, which is the only type "missed" per your objections, is like the PvE'er who doesn't shoot rats or run sites. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
14114
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 21:32:49 -
[170] - Quote
This Sargon guy is so insane, he must be an Infinity Ziona disciple or something. Offense intended.
Ganking was nerfed too hard, so now gankers have to bring way more firepower, which means that way more of them die to Concord.
But! Since way more deaths are being recorded per actual gank, somehow that means that we need to nerf ganking again?!
Hey, Sargon! Lemme know what gameplay you enjoy, so I can ask CCP for mechanical consequences applied to that, because I don't like it. After all, if you're okay with suggesting adding penalties to other people's playstyles(in particular the only one that has any to begin with), you'd be an utterly dishonest hypocrite if you weren't okay with them doing the same.
"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.
|
|
Hal Morsh
Delusions of Granduer Two Drink Minimum
376
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 21:34:49 -
[171] - Quote
I don't know if CCP plans on removing Concord, but adding ways for people to put their risk towards someone else's reward is always welcome. Like tractor units did.
If only they hadn't removed exploration can theft.
Dun'Gal > Hal is simply an imperfect ai, though if drunkeness ever gets programmed into ai's I foresee both a hilarious and tragic end to humanity.
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
3026
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 21:41:45 -
[172] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Ganking was nerfed too hard, so now gankers have to bring way more firepower, which means that way more of them die to Concord.
And then those gankers die again pulling Concord. If a 10-man fleet kills a single freighter there's a minimum of 21 kills on the board as a result.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
14115
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 21:44:26 -
[173] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Ganking was nerfed too hard, so now gankers have to bring way more firepower, which means that way more of them die to Concord. And then those gankers die again pulling Concord. If a 10-man fleet kills a single freighter there's a minimum of 21 kills on the board as a result.
But clearly, all those deaths mean that highsec just isn't safe enough.
"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
3027
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 21:46:37 -
[174] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:admiral root wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Ganking was nerfed too hard, so now gankers have to bring way more firepower, which means that way more of them die to Concord. And then those gankers die again pulling Concord. If a 10-man fleet kills a single freighter there's a minimum of 21 kills on the board as a result. But clearly, all those deaths mean that highsec just isn't safe enough.
Won't somebody think of the children?!
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
14116
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 21:50:31 -
[175] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:admiral root wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Ganking was nerfed too hard, so now gankers have to bring way more firepower, which means that way more of them die to Concord. And then those gankers die again pulling Concord. If a 10-man fleet kills a single freighter there's a minimum of 21 kills on the board as a result. But clearly, all those deaths mean that highsec just isn't safe enough. Won't somebody think of the children?!
Moral panic! False flag for my own gain! Baseless accusations of mental illness! Attempted denigration of any opposition! Loud noises! Cat pics!
"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.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
24662
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 21:53:59 -
[176] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Moral panic! False flag for my own gain! Baseless accusations of mental illness! Attempted denigration of any opposition! Loud noises! Cat pics! Cat pics are a valid response to all things
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25616
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 21:54:11 -
[177] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Won't somebody think of the children?! I'm sure somebody does, but that old perv should probably be locked away for everyone's safety GÇö especially his own.
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
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
14116
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 21:54:43 -
[178] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Moral panic! False flag for my own gain! Baseless accusations of mental illness! Attempted denigration of any opposition! Loud noises! Cat pics! Cat pics are a valid response to all things
Of course you'd say that. You're the king of memes. I still laugh when I think about some of the memes you put in the thread in my sig.
"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.
|
Avvy
Republic University Minmatar Republic
98
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 21:54:54 -
[179] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: Before answering your scenario,
I agree that it is a flawed metrc,
You don't need to answer it as we both know what the answer would be.
That was the point to show that it was flawed. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1554
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 22:02:18 -
[180] - Quote
Avvy wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: Before answering your scenario,
I agree that it is a flawed metrc,
You don't need to answer it as we both know what the answer would be. That was the point to show that it was flawed. Your response doesn't answer the request for proof it was used. We have some stats from CCP, to which you objected to a portion stating PvP was difficult to account for and from the looks of it presented this flawed metric on your own. Hence the question, where was it supposedly used? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |