EVE Search - Hyperdunking nerf on sisi, to the battlements!

All Channels

Crime and Punishment

Hyperdunking nerf on sisi, to the battlements!

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1177	Posted - 2015.10.17 12:48:29 - [331] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Dracvlad wrote: C++ I always get that mixed up with C# but anyway the logic is written in Python so yes it is Python then, so to reply correctly I am not a stackless Python programmer. Do you still maintain that you could do it in your sleep? The logic yes. Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 25374	Posted - 2015.10.17 12:53:06 - [332] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Dracvlad wrote: C++ I always get that mixed up with C# but anyway the logic is written in Python so yes it is Python then, so to reply correctly I am not a stackless Python programmer. Do you still maintain that you could do it in your sleep? The logic yes. Hubris has been the downfall of many men... Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1805	Posted - 2015.10.17 12:59:09 - [333] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: So with that we create null sec market hubs, especially important with the new structures and to prevent meta gaming hell I would make it so that only people who have blue status can trade in them. CCP is doing this already with citadels. Dracvlad wrote: Once we have that sorted we can now move onto ganking in hisec. Starting from the proviso that there has to be risk in hisec as a base point, it comes to the fact of refining that risk based on what affects the hisec sandbox to try to create a happy level of balance, without destroying what is core to Eve and that is tough. At the moment CODE which is funded by Goons in the main is an inbalance, the mechanics are all to their advantage, because there is no way to be pro-active, people go on about being -10, but people in Catalysts are very difficult to catch if they know what they are doing. I have detailed above a number of different solutions, for example harsher hisec penalties for gankers, including loss of docking rights in NPC stations and a AI CONCORD that hunts the ganker for 15 minutes while in space, which will hang around a victim. With that CODE would have to have a Citadel structure in Uedama for example which creates a choke point, but something that can be attacked. On suggestion is to have a special definition for criminals within the game that makes them suspect based on certain criteria and longer than the normal period, so if Mr Goon with +5.00 security status blaps a freighter he immediately goes into that list and is suspect for 2 hours, add to that a new special medium power target lock breaker module that is special for freighters that forces people to use ships above Catalysts, we now have content that enables the AG players to actually be proactive. Instead of CONCORD it is player driven content and the mechanics now enable active AG content rather than sitting waiting for the brief period to blap what they can, ECM as much as they can once they start firing and rep as much as they can, it will enable active combat that is more like what Eve players expect. Then it will truly be down to the players at that point... EDIT admiral root is now blocked, as he has nothing intelligent to add. So you are suggesting: - Loss of docking rights for criminals - Auto-following CONCORD (isn't this what the faction police already do?) - CONCORD protects victim (I guess of a failed gank?) for some time - Special flag that makes Goons get a 2h suspect flag if they commit a criminal act - mid-slots for freighters that make them immune to destroyers If those were implement, would highsec freighter ganking finally be balanced?
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 253	Posted - 2015.10.17 13:00:03 - [334] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: At the moment CODE which is funded by Goons in the main is an inbalance, the mechanics are all to their advantage, because there is no way to be pro-active You have FacPo to thank for that. Any attempt to remain on grid for more than a few seconds causes them to spawn. Unless you're in a large ship, they'll instagib a criminal. Even if you can tank their damage, you're at a distinct disadvantage should another player jump on you wihle you're dealing with them. The result? Gankers never undock unless they already have a target, denying any would-be antigankers any opportunity to harm them. Remove FacPo, and the anti-gankers will have a much better chance at being pro-active. Quote: people go on about being -10, but people in Catalysts are very difficult to catch if they know what they are doing. As is anyone in any ship just about anywhere. Play smart and you're very, very difficult to kill. Quote: I have detailed above a number of different solutions, for example harsher hisec penalties for gankers, FacPo already makes it impossible to be pro-active and you want to make it even more difficult? You're advocating changes that'll achieve the exact opposite of what you want. Quote: including loss of docking rights in NPC stations and a AI CONCORD that hunts the ganker for 15 minutes while in space, which will hang around a victim. CONCORD already hunts pirates while in space. Quote: With that CODE would have to have a Citadel structure in Uedama for example which creates a choke point, but something that can be attacked. Can, but won't. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Mag's the united 20534	Posted - 2015.10.17 13:27:38 - [335] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Depends if Sherlock listens... You listening, would be a start tbh. Nicely avoided btw. Well played. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 25379	Posted - 2015.10.17 13:37:02 - [336] - Quote Mag's wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Depends if Sherlock listens... You listening, would be a start tbh. Nicely avoided btw. Well played. Not going to happen Dracvlad appears to be incapable of admitting that he might be wrong. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Demerius Xenocratus Rapid Withdrawal 704	Posted - 2015.10.17 13:56:58 - [337] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Demerius Xenocratus wrote: Meh, I can't and have frankly no desire ever to fly a freighter. I just can't help but laugh at the tears that result when a set group of players devotes the majority of their time to finding mechanical loopholes to exploit for easy/funny kills in highsec, then acts like the sky is falling when CCP gets around to sorting it out. You are missing the point. No matter what you think of bumping, freighter ganking is intended gameplay built into the game by CCP. Whether you think a certain tactic is "cheap" or a "loophole", freighters are suppose to vulnerable. If CCP decided to tighten one strategy, they would open another so that these haulers would continue to be attack-able by other way by players in highsec. Just like when the re-balanced the freighters with low slots a few years back. Demerius Xenocratus wrote: Sooner or later CCP is going to grok the absurdity of bumping being used as CONCORD protected perma-tackle and do something about that too. My tear bucket is ready. Autopiloting freighters will still get mugged and that's fine. Sure, next winter. CCP is releasing some T2 destroyers which will allow you to fleet MJD your bumped freighter to safety. It isn't going to change much though. Freighters that take precautions are already 99.9% safe. This will be an honest-to-goodness counter to perma-bumping however, so the whiners and their apologists are going to have to look for something else to blame for their PvP losses than the bumping boogeyman when the same number of ships are still exploded by gankers each week. CCP wants freighters to die in highsec: they think it good game play. As long as that is the case, there will be players who find exploding these haulers fun and will do it. Bumping is here to stay, as is the vulnerability of freighters in highsec to criminals. It's probably best that you accept that and what kind of game this is than to ride this emotional roller-coaster you are on where you think every change is somehow going to magically turn this game into the balanced ship combat simulator, free of gankers and criminals that you clearly want this game to be. That is not Eve, at least not yet. I'm just gonna start calling bumping the CONCORD-approved Warp Disruptor.
admiral root Red Galaxy 3448	Posted - 2015.10.17 14:15:48 - [338] - Quote Ohnoes, I'm blocked for asking a question! Could a spacebro do me a solid and ask Drac to answer the question that Pedro put to him, which Drac dodged with a whole lot of ~words~? Ta. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
Benson en Efnyssen Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 11	Posted - 2015.10.17 15:05:42 - [339] - Quote Ohnoes, I'm blocked for asking a question! Could a spacebro do me a solid and ask Drac to answer the question that Pedro put to him, which Drac dodged with a whole lot of ~words~? Ta. The guy you blocked asked this
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1177	Posted - 2015.10.17 21:14:34 - [340] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: So you are suggesting: - Loss of docking rights for criminals - Auto-following CONCORD (isn't this what the faction police already do?) - CONCORD protects victim (I guess of a failed gank?) for some time - Special flag that makes Goons get a 2h suspect flag if they commit a criminal act - mid-slots for freighters that make them immune to destroyers If those were implement, would highsec freighter ganking finally be balanced? Loss of docking rights during the GCC in NPC stations not citadels or player owned structures CONCORD ships using the same AI as the seekers and drifters, not certain death CONCORD ships No idea what you mean by CONCORD protects victims? What I mean is that after the first attempted gank or successful gank of a freighter then a 2 hour suspect. The reason is to get people to be able to try to proactively prevent ganks rather than wait for them to start shooting. Your being silly with the Goon thing, that was an example of people who go back to rat back their security status so they have free reign until the security status goes to -5, if you want Mr Second-Dawn or whoever. I would make this applicable as stated above to freighters only... I suggested a spectrum lock breaker specific for a freighter, forcing the use of bigger ships that are easier to catch to create more player vs player content. That would make the fight between the AG and gankers a lot more interesting, if that is of course what you want, it would get more balanced without losing PvP. Its easy to knock ideas, its more difficult to actually come up with workable ones, which is why I cut CCP a lot of slack on what they do. I noted that your reply was flippant which is a shame, because if players like me and Rham who feel that PvP should exist in hisec get fed up and stop posting reasonably then CCP might as well just make hisec a themepark and you lot would have brought that on yourselves. Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
admiral root Red Galaxy 3454	Posted - 2015.10.17 22:01:39 - [341] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: The reason is to get people to be able to try to proactively prevent ganks rather than wait for them to start shooting. I suggested a spectrum lock breaker specific for a freighter, forcing the use of bigger ships that are easier to catch to create more player vs player content. That would make the fight between the AG and gankers a lot more interesting, if that is of course what you want, it would get more balanced without losing PvP. If someone is too chicken to shoot a catalyst why on earth would they suddenly have the spine to shoot a talos? No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 255	Posted - 2015.10.17 22:01:58 - [342] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: CONCORD ships using the same AI as the seekers and drifters, not certain death CONCORD ships So, FacPo? Isn't that what we have already? Quote: No idea what you mean by CONCORD protects victims? What I mean is that after the first attempted gank or successful gank of a freighter then a 2 hour suspect. The reason is to get people to be able to try to proactively prevent ganks rather than wait for them to start shooting. A suspect timer wouldn't change anything. Criminals are already free game for any would-be anti-ganker at all times. In addition, the gankers' strategy would remain unchanged: remain in station until the target is ready to be F1'd. Quote: I suggested a spectrum lock breaker specific for a freighter, forcing the use of bigger ships that are easier to catch to create more player vs player content. That would make the fight between the AG and gankers a lot more interesting, if that is of course what you want, it would get more balanced without losing PvP. Less balanced, surely? Considering the options a freighter pilot already has, straight up making them more difficult to kill just seems to make the situation worse, not better. ===== I can see your perspective and why you think the current situation is unbalanced. You're presenting the point of view of an anti-ganker and not that of a target. As a target, you have a plethora or options at your fingertips to prevent your own death. As an anti-ganker however, you simply don't have any meaningful options to take the fight to the gankers. Here's the crux of the issue: As an anti-ganker, you have no place in the current HiSec metagame. If you, as an anti-ganker, wish to have greater freedom to enforce your own rules/code on other players, power must first be taken from the targets and the NPC police forces that protect them. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1177	Posted - 2015.10.18 07:21:46 - [343] - Quote Benson en Efnyssen wrote: Ohnoes, I'm blocked for asking a question! Could a spacebro do me a solid and ask Drac to answer the question that Pedro put to him, which Drac dodged with a whole lot of ~words~? Ta. The guy you blocked asked this I answered the first question with those words, if their attention span is at the level of a gnat that's their problem. Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1810	Posted - 2015.10.18 07:21:49 - [344] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Black Pedro wrote: So you are suggesting: - Loss of docking rights for criminals - Auto-following CONCORD (isn't this what the faction police already do?) - CONCORD protects victim (I guess of a failed gank?) for some time - Special flag that makes Goons get a 2h suspect flag if they commit a criminal act - mid-slots for freighters that make them immune to destroyers If those were implement, would highsec freighter ganking finally be balanced? Loss of docking rights during the GCC in NPC stations not citadels or player owned structures CONCORD ships using the same AI as the seekers and drifters, not certain death CONCORD ships No idea what you mean by CONCORD protects victims? What I mean is that after the first attempted gank or successful gank of a freighter then a 2 hour suspect. The reason is to get people to be able to try to proactively prevent ganks rather than wait for them to start shooting. Your being silly with the Goon thing, that was an example of people who go back to rat back their security status so they have free reign until the security status goes to -5, if you want Mr Second-Dawn or whoever. I would make this applicable as stated above to freighters only... I suggested a spectrum lock breaker specific for a freighter, forcing the use of bigger ships that are easier to catch to create more player vs player content. That would make the fight between the AG and gankers a lot more interesting, if that is of course what you want, it would get more balanced without losing PvP. Its easy to knock ideas, its more difficult to actually come up with workable ones, which is why I cut CCP a lot of slack on what they do. I noted that your reply was flippant which is a shame, because if players like me and Rham who feel that PvP should exist in hisec get fed up and stop posting reasonably then CCP might as well just make hisec a themepark and you lot would have brought that on yourselves. So you are suggesting: - Loss of docking rights for criminals in NPC stations - CONCORD being toned down so that they have smarter AI and follow you but were not instant-death - A new flag where if you get gank something you are suspect for 2h (did I get that right?) - A new flag or status that affects whether people can shoot you in highsec but persists beyond a security status repair to prevent people from repairing their security status easily after ganking - a mid-slot module that makes freighters immune from destroyers so gankers have to use cruisers or larger to gank them I am not trying to be flippant. I am really trying to understand what you think would make freighter ganking balanced in highsec. If those were implemented, you think everything would be balanced? I am sure there is room to make freighter ganking more engaging, and the gameplay of those that oppose it. But from my perspective, ganking is heavily balanced in favour of the defender. You can be 99.9% safe moving a freighter in highsec (and essentially 100% safe moving goods if you are willing to fly something else) if you take simple precautions. I am curious what aspects of the PvP encounter you think are out of balance.
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 256	Posted - 2015.10.18 07:26:09 - [345] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: I am curious what aspects of the PvP encounter you think are out of balance. He thinks the PvP encounter is supposed to be balanced around ganker vs anti-ganker but it's not - it's balanced around ganker vs target. Anti-gankers aren't part of the equation so as an anti-ganker he just sees imbalanced scenarios and not the whole picture. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Demerius Xenocratus Rapid Withdrawal 704	Posted - 2015.10.18 08:42:59 - [346] - Quote admiral root wrote: Dracvlad wrote: The reason is to get people to be able to try to proactively prevent ganks rather than wait for them to start shooting. I suggested a spectrum lock breaker specific for a freighter, forcing the use of bigger ships that are easier to catch to create more player vs player content. That would make the fight between the AG and gankers a lot more interesting, if that is of course what you want, it would get more balanced without losing PvP. If someone is too chicken to shoot a catalyst why on earth would they suddenly have the spine to shoot a talos? Because a 100M ISK kill is worth undocking for whereas a 9M ISK dessie isn't.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1177	Posted - 2015.10.18 09:02:37 - [347] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Black Pedro wrote: So you are suggesting: - Loss of docking rights for criminals - Auto-following CONCORD (isn't this what the faction police already do?) - CONCORD protects victim (I guess of a failed gank?) for some time - Special flag that makes Goons get a 2h suspect flag if they commit a criminal act - mid-slots for freighters that make them immune to destroyers If those were implement, would highsec freighter ganking finally be balanced? Loss of docking rights during the GCC in NPC stations not citadels or player owned structures CONCORD ships using the same AI as the seekers and drifters, not certain death CONCORD ships No idea what you mean by CONCORD protects victims? What I mean is that after the first attempted gank or successful gank of a freighter then a 2 hour suspect. The reason is to get people to be able to try to proactively prevent ganks rather than wait for them to start shooting. Your being silly with the Goon thing, that was an example of people who go back to rat back their security status so they have free reign until the security status goes to -5, if you want Mr Second-Dawn or whoever. I would make this applicable as stated above to freighters only... I suggested a spectrum lock breaker specific for a freighter, forcing the use of bigger ships that are easier to catch to create more player vs player content. That would make the fight between the AG and gankers a lot more interesting, if that is of course what you want, it would get more balanced without losing PvP. Its easy to knock ideas, its more difficult to actually come up with workable ones, which is why I cut CCP a lot of slack on what they do. I noted that your reply was flippant which is a shame, because if players like me and Rham who feel that PvP should exist in hisec get fed up and stop posting reasonably then CCP might as well just make hisec a themepark and you lot would have brought that on yourselves. So you are suggesting: - Loss of docking rights for criminals in NPC stations - CONCORD being toned down so that they have smarter AI and follow you but were not instant-death - A new flag where if you gank something you are suspect for 2h (did I get that right?) - A new flag or status that affects whether people can shoot you in highsec but persists beyond a security status repair to prevent people from repairing their security status easily after ganking - a mid-slot module that makes freighters immune from destroyers so gankers have to use cruisers or larger to gank them I am not trying to be flippant. I am really trying to understand what you think would make freighter ganking balanced in highsec. If those were implemented, you think everything would be balanced? I am sure there is room to make freighter ganking more engaging, and the gameplay of those that oppose it. But from my perspective, ganking is heavily balanced in favour of the defender. You can be 99.9% safe moving a freighter in highsec (and essentially 100% safe moving goods if you are willing to fly something else) if you take simple precautions. I am curious what aspects of the PvP encounter you think are out of balance. Simple, have you tried to do any anti-ganking, I have focussed here on making it so that there mechanics enable actual PvP so that people in the hisec sandbox can actually have an impact on their own sandbox, rather than just take hits with no way to fight back, with my suggestions they can fight back in the Eve way which is blowing up pixels that matter. You keep missing out that I highlighted freighters as being the reason for the 2 hours suspect timer, its important to do that so we can have actual PvP of a proactive nature, rather than what we have now which is defined as CONCORD whoring. When you speak to mercs they want people to pay them to hunt people, not to actually guard them, which would cost a whole lot more, can you really expect people to do the same in terms of AG. At the moment hisec is a themepark for gankers... Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
Siegfried Cohenberg Schlomos Incorporated Shut It Down 115	Posted - 2015.10.18 09:10:03 - [348] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Black Pedro wrote: So you are suggesting: - Loss of docking rights for criminals - Auto-following CONCORD (isn't this what the faction police already do?) - CONCORD protects victim (I guess of a failed gank?) for some time - Special flag that makes Goons get a 2h suspect flag if they commit a criminal act - mid-slots for freighters that make them immune to destroyers If those were implement, would highsec freighter ganking finally be balanced? Loss of docking rights during the GCC in NPC stations not citadels or player owned structures CONCORD ships using the same AI as the seekers and drifters, not certain death CONCORD ships No idea what you mean by CONCORD protects victims? What I mean is that after the first attempted gank or successful gank of a freighter then a 2 hour suspect. The reason is to get people to be able to try to proactively prevent ganks rather than wait for them to start shooting. Your being silly with the Goon thing, that was an example of people who go back to rat back their security status so they have free reign until the security status goes to -5, if you want Mr Second-Dawn or whoever. I would make this applicable as stated above to freighters only... I suggested a spectrum lock breaker specific for a freighter, forcing the use of bigger ships that are easier to catch to create more player vs player content. That would make the fight between the AG and gankers a lot more interesting, if that is of course what you want, it would get more balanced without losing PvP. Its easy to knock ideas, its more difficult to actually come up with workable ones, which is why I cut CCP a lot of slack on what they do. I noted that your reply was flippant which is a shame, because if players like me and Rham who feel that PvP should exist in hisec get fed up and stop posting reasonably then CCP might as well just make hisec a themepark and you lot would have brought that on yourselves. So you are suggesting: - Loss of docking rights for criminals in NPC stations - CONCORD being toned down so that they have smarter AI and follow you but were not instant-death - A new flag where if you gank something you are suspect for 2h (did I get that right?) - A new flag or status that affects whether people can shoot you in highsec but persists beyond a security status repair to prevent people from repairing their security status easily after ganking - a mid-slot module that makes freighters immune from destroyers so gankers have to use cruisers or larger to gank them I am not trying to be flippant. I am really trying to understand what you think would make freighter ganking balanced in highsec. If those were implemented, you think everything would be balanced? I am sure there is room to make freighter ganking more engaging, and the gameplay of those that oppose it. But from my perspective, ganking is heavily balanced in favour of the defender. You can be 99.9% safe moving a freighter in highsec (and essentially 100% safe moving goods if you are willing to fly something else) if you take simple precautions. I am curious what aspects of the PvP encounter you think are out of balance. Simple, have you tried to do any anti-ganking, I have focussed here on making it so that there mechanics enable actual PvP so that people in the hisec sandbox can actually have an impact on their own sandbox, rather than just take hits with no way to fight back, with my suggestions they can fight back in the Eve way which is blowing up pixels that matter. You keep missing out that I highlighted freighters as being the reason for the 2 hours suspect timer, its important to do that so we can have actual PvP of a proactive nature, rather than what we have now which is defined as CONCORD whoring. When you speak to mercs they want people to pay them to hunt people, not to actually guard them, which would cost a whole lot more, can you really expect people to do the same in terms of AG. At the moment hisec is a themepark for gankers... anti-gankers still wouldnt engage a suspect machariel they'll just whine about neutral logi and leave
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 25386	Posted - 2015.10.18 09:22:48 - [349] - Quote Mortlake wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Siegfried Cohenberg wrote: anti-gankers still wouldnt engage a suspect machariel they'll just whine about neutral logi and leave I will and you would be first on my target list... Woah. Indeed Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 257	Posted - 2015.10.18 09:24:17 - [350] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: I have focussed here on making it so that there mechanics enable actual PvP so that people in the hisec sandbox can actually have an impact on their own sandbox He's got me on ignore, hasn't he? <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 25387	Posted - 2015.10.18 09:29:12 - [351] - Quote Hiasa Kite wrote: Dracvlad wrote: I have focussed here on making it so that there mechanics enable actual PvP so that people in the hisec sandbox can actually have an impact on their own sandbox He's got me on ignore, hasn't he? Yarp, seemingly you don't like followers of Judaism. Dracvlad wrote: Hisa Kite you anti-semite scum, you are already blocked. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 257	Posted - 2015.10.18 09:36:12 - [352] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Dracvlad wrote: I have focussed here on making it so that there mechanics enable actual PvP so that people in the hisec sandbox can actually have an impact on their own sandbox He's got me on ignore, hasn't he? Yarp, seemingly you don't like followers of Judaism. Dracvlad wrote: Hisa Kite you anti-semite scum, you are already blocked. Oh, Bob, relieve us of these insufferable fools. Could someone point out the following for me? Hiasa Kite wrote: He thinks the PvP encounter is supposed to be balanced around ganker vs anti-ganker but it's not - it's balanced around ganker vs target. Anti-gankers aren't part of the equation so as an anti-ganker he just sees imbalanced scenarios and not the whole picture. Thanks in advance. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Mortlake Devils Rejects 666 773	Posted - 2015.10.18 09:44:14 - [353] - Quote Indulge me. A cursory glance hasn't located a 'J' bomb. Quoteplz. Unless of course he's referring to 'Kite' and it's a colloquial variant that I'm unaware of.
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 257	Posted - 2015.10.18 09:46:33 - [354] - Quote Oh didn't you hear? I'm literally Hitler. Makes sense. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 25388	Posted - 2015.10.18 09:52:52 - [355] - Quote Hiasa Kite wrote: Oh didn't you hear? I'm literally Hitler. Makes sense. Do you own a VW TDi? Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1177	Posted - 2015.10.18 09:57:54 - [356] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Dracvlad wrote: I have focussed here on making it so that there mechanics enable actual PvP so that people in the hisec sandbox can actually have an impact on their own sandbox He's got me on ignore, hasn't he? Yarp, seemingly you don't like followers of Judaism. Dracvlad wrote: Hisa Kite you anti-semite scum, you are already blocked. Jonah, his name is an anti-semite play on words to say "he is a kike." I know what I see there, I will not debate with scum like that. Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 257	Posted - 2015.10.18 10:20:10 - [357] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Dracvlad wrote: I have focussed here on making it so that there mechanics enable actual PvP so that people in the hisec sandbox can actually have an impact on their own sandbox He's got me on ignore, hasn't he? Yarp, seemingly you don't like followers of Judaism. Dracvlad wrote: Hisa Kite you anti-semite scum, you are already blocked. Jonah, his name is an anti-semite play on words to say "he is a kike." I know what I see there, I will not debate with scum like that. What the heck is a kike? Look at the character's face and say his name out loud. You'll get the reference. I'll give you a hint: "Hi as a" Kite. edit: Google has taught me what a kike is. Kite !=kike <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1810	Posted - 2015.10.18 10:35:19 - [358] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Simple, have you tried to do any anti-ganking, I have focussed here on making it so that there mechanics enable actual PvP so that people in the hisec sandbox can actually have an impact on their own sandbox, rather than just take hits with no way to fight back, with my suggestions they can fight back in the Eve way which is blowing up pixels that matter. You keep missing out that I highlighted freighters as being the reason for the 2 hours suspect timer, its important to do that so we can have actual PvP of a proactive nature, rather than what we have now which is defined as CONCORD whoring. When you speak to mercs they want people to pay them to hunt people, not to actually guard them, which would cost a whole lot more, can you really expect people to do the same in terms of AG. At the moment hisec is a themepark for gankers... So in summary you are suggesting: - Loss of docking rights for criminals in NPC stations - CONCORD being toned down so that they have smarter AI and follow you but were not instant-death - A new flag where if you gank a freighter you are suspect for 2h - A new flag or status that affects whether people can shoot you in highsec but persists beyond a security status repair to prevent people from repairing their security status easily after ganking - a mid-slot module that makes freighters immune from destroyers so gankers have to use cruisers or larger to gank them Do you really think this will balance freighter ganking? Correct me if I am wrong, but aside from special events aren't almost all freighter gankers -10? I know I usually am whenever I gank a freighter. Therefore they are already perma-free-to-shoot so what will more flags do? And does AG have more success stopping Talos or Brutix ganks? Gankers routinely use the Talos these days and while I don't participate enough to have a large sample size, it seems from my experience there is no difference in the success rate of AG whether I am in Catalyst fleets or Talos fleets. And the faction police already force gankers to stay docked up almost all the time and constantly move while in space so why would another NPC doing the same thing change anything? Locking gankers out of NPC stations, or better yet, encouraging them to voluntarily base out of a new structure I can see making a small difference as it would force criminals to field a structure that is vulnerable. But the lockout is a pretty draconian penalty that will impact lowsec PvPers, and new players just starting out much more than highsec gankers who already use alts for their logistics. But I have a feeling that even if that was implemented, you would still be here claiming that highsec ganking was unbalanced because although you might have a target to retaliate against, the mechanics of the gank itself would still be the same. Like much combat in Eve, highsec freighter ganking is pretty much pre-determined by the composition of the forces at hand. If the gankers show up with 20 dudes in destroyers to kill a single ship, I don't see how you can, nor why you should, balance the game so that a couple people can stop them. You are wrong that there is nothing proactive you can do to stop gankers. It is trivial to protect yourself from gankers if you are willing to spend any effort - Red Frog does this everyday and makes over 99.8% of their contracts. I, and every other highsec ganker do it each time we undock our freighters. But that doesn't seem to be enough for you; you seem to want AG to have the ability to stop everyone's fun by protecting every single ship flying through space. Two dudes can already make a single freighter 99%+ safe even from 20 other players. Why should five or ten anti-gankers be able to protect the dozens of AFK freighters passing through Uedama each day? You are getting an anti-bumping counter in these new T2 destroyers. You should be happy you have a new tool to mess with the gankers. I respectfully suggest that you use that to hurt the gankers in-game instead of continuing to beg CCP to make more changes to the game in your favour. It is a little unseemly.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 25388	Posted - 2015.10.18 10:44:43 - [359] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Jonah, his name is an anti-semite play on words to say "he is a kike." I know what I see there, I will not debate with scum like that. Nope. It's a reference to a state of euphoria Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Mag's the united 20539	Posted - 2015.10.18 10:52:27 - [360] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Jonah, his name is an anti-semite play on words to say "he is a kike." I know what I see there, I will not debate with scum like that. You have either lost the plot, or judge others by your own standards. Now pull your head out your arse, take a look at the expression of the character, then say Hi as a kite. Then you can unblock him and apologise. I have my doubts you are man enough to admit being wrong. We'll see. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page