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) |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
123
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 12:57:50 -
[691] - Quote
See I knew there was a reason why I had you blocked. Always avoiding responses and diverting any legitimate question into some narrative that makes it look like you're looking after the health of the game while you only look at your petty little interests. Focusing on enabling what you want to do instead of trying to think outside your little niche and improve everyone's experience.
Let me rephrase it for understanding - saying that hisec freighter bumping is equal in its nature to lowsec/nullsec combat is laughable if not sad. Furthermore, as experience has shown so many times before, the fact that a mechanic is legal does not make it a good mechanic. Obviously, you can't get these two things into your head, which is ok, some people are like that.
I used to gank, will likely do it again in the future, but still I can see beyond what made my activity profitable and fun and try to suggest improvements that would make other people's gameplay better THUS increasing player retention. Trying to do that would require you to show some empathy and understand that different people want different experiences from this game, something you seem to be unable to do. Instead of thinking how to keep your easy mode ganks in place (and regardless of what you say, they are easy mode with their execution as scripted as any lvl4 mission), if you're so worried about retention, you should try thinking how to identify and remove bad in-game mechanics, make mining and/or missions more engaging, how to integrate better social tools into the core game, how to better train and inform players about the game its mechanics and all the opportunities it offers.
As for that famous presentation, it really only proves that interaction based gameplay will retain more folks then the one where interaction is absent, with unexpected interaction being more engaging. This is small wonder, considering the abysmal state of EvE's PvE gameplay, especially in the newbie category. How that information makes the idea of preventing trial accounts from going criminal a bad thing, I don't know. Then again, you're all about keeping your status quo.
I don't have a feeling that ganking in general is a big issue in terms of player retention, but if CCP really wanted to be fair to the topic, they should have done something else - checked ALL the ganks and player retention after them, preferably with links to organisations who performed them. That would be something you could use in your arguments about the impact of the ganks on the overall ecosystem, and personally I'd bet that code on average causes more unsubs then any other ganking group/individual does. However, I don't see any of your guys asking for that, since what Rise said was so nice and convenient to you.
As for the hyperdunking and the likely nerf, no idea why you came up with it but it might be an indicator of what's coming. |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
123
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 13:01:48 -
[692] - Quote
Faylee Freir wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:b) CCP does not really enforce deleting the ganker chars rule, at least as far as I can see. Several folks in AG have identified and reported known ganker alts who have been recycled while having negative sec status and not much change in active gankers has happened (which would be logical since those recycled chars were their alts). Just one example: https://zkillboard.com/character/95727954/. Yeah that was an alt I used for pulling concord. Yeah I deleted her. What's the big deal? I deleted the character to make room for a character I was buying from the Bazaar. So are you suggesting that I shouldn't be allowed to delete that character? You have no evidence that I recycled that character for another one to go criminal with.
No, I'm suggesting that this char was recycled (as it obviously was), that its a ganker alt (which it is) and that it is not the only one which has been recycled, and I'm suggesting that CCP should have checks in place to prevent abuse of alt recycling. Maybe you did it, maybe you did not, I'm not in a position to make any final conclusions about it. |
Faylee Freir
Defining Harassment Slaver's Union
230
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 13:07:04 -
[693] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Faylee Freir wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:b) CCP does not really enforce deleting the ganker chars rule, at least as far as I can see. Several folks in AG have identified and reported known ganker alts who have been recycled while having negative sec status and not much change in active gankers has happened (which would be logical since those recycled chars were their alts). Just one example: https://zkillboard.com/character/95727954/. Yeah that was an alt I used for pulling concord. Yeah I deleted her. What's the big deal? I deleted the character to make room for a character I was buying from the Bazaar. So are you suggesting that I shouldn't be allowed to delete that character? You have no evidence that I recycled that character for another one to go criminal with. No, I'm suggesting that this char was recycled (as it obviously was), that its a ganker alt (which it is) and that it is not the only one which has been recycled, and I'm suggesting that CCP should have checks in place to prevent abuse of alt recycling. Maybe you did it, maybe you did not, I'm not in a position to make any final conclusions about it. keep on chasing ghosts.
HTFU
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
123
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 13:09:20 -
[694] - Quote
Faylee Freir wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Faylee Freir wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:b) CCP does not really enforce deleting the ganker chars rule, at least as far as I can see. Several folks in AG have identified and reported known ganker alts who have been recycled while having negative sec status and not much change in active gankers has happened (which would be logical since those recycled chars were their alts). Just one example: https://zkillboard.com/character/95727954/. Yeah that was an alt I used for pulling concord. Yeah I deleted her. What's the big deal? I deleted the character to make room for a character I was buying from the Bazaar. So are you suggesting that I shouldn't be allowed to delete that character? You have no evidence that I recycled that character for another one to go criminal with. No, I'm suggesting that this char was recycled (as it obviously was), that its a ganker alt (which it is) and that it is not the only one which has been recycled, and I'm suggesting that CCP should have checks in place to prevent abuse of alt recycling. Maybe you did it, maybe you did not, I'm not in a position to make any final conclusions about it. keep on chasing ghosts. I won't, other might, CCP should. |
Faylee Freir
Defining Harassment Slaver's Union
230
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 13:13:31 -
[695] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Faylee Freir wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Faylee Freir wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:b) CCP does not really enforce deleting the ganker chars rule, at least as far as I can see. Several folks in AG have identified and reported known ganker alts who have been recycled while having negative sec status and not much change in active gankers has happened (which would be logical since those recycled chars were their alts). Just one example: https://zkillboard.com/character/95727954/. Yeah that was an alt I used for pulling concord. Yeah I deleted her. What's the big deal? I deleted the character to make room for a character I was buying from the Bazaar. So are you suggesting that I shouldn't be allowed to delete that character? You have no evidence that I recycled that character for another one to go criminal with. No, I'm suggesting that this char was recycled (as it obviously was), that its a ganker alt (which it is) and that it is not the only one which has been recycled, and I'm suggesting that CCP should have checks in place to prevent abuse of alt recycling. Maybe you did it, maybe you did not, I'm not in a position to make any final conclusions about it. keep on chasing ghosts. I won't, other might, CCP should. This isn't the first time I've seen you cry about about your hunches.
HTFU
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
123
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 13:19:09 -
[696] - Quote
Faylee Freir wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Faylee Freir wrote: keep on chasing ghosts.
I won't, other might, CCP should. This isn't the first time I've seen you cry about about your hunches. I was expressing my opinion based on what was easy to observe. It is really kind of sweet how you call any discussion not suiting you 'crying'. Maybe you're emotional like that and you start crying whenever someone is in disagreement with you, and I hate to disappoint, but I'm not like that. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1864
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 13:58:08 -
[697] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Let me rephrase it for understanding - saying that hisec freighter bumping is equal in its nature to lowsec/nullsec combat is laughable if not sad. Furthermore, as experience has shown so many times before, the fact that a mechanic is legal does not make it a good mechanic. Obviously, you can't get these two things into your head, which is ok, some people are like that.
See, this is where you are wrong. There is nothing magical about lowsec or nullsec in terms of combat or PvP. They are just different sectors in this game about spaceship fighting. Highsec is not suppose to be free of PvP or be a safe space for capital ships. PvP happens everywhere in this game, and the angst you continually demonstrate over the way this game works flows from your inability accept this simple fact. CCP wants ships to blow up in highsec. CCP intends for freighters to be vulnerable to bump-tackling. They could "fix" these things with a few lines of code but they don't.
You need to accept that gankers are just playing the game like everyone else. Tackling a ship in lowsec, is like tackling a ship in a wormhole, is like tackling a ship in highsec. There are different methods and considerations for each sector, but there is nothing special or "broken" about a ship being able to be tackled in highsec. There are ways to avoid bumping, escape from bumping or to make yourself immune from bumping. You need to accept that and just play the game instead of continually arguing that since you think something isn't a "good" mechanic it must be changed.
Well you don't need to, nor is it my place to tell you how to think, but I bet you would have a more fun gaming experience if you did.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:I used to gank, will likely do it again in the future, but still I can see beyond what made my activity profitable and fun and try to suggest improvements that would make other people's gameplay better THUS increasing player retention. Trying to do that would require you to show some empathy and understand that different people want different experiences from this game, something you seem to be unable to do. Make players able to haul things completely AFK is not going to increase player retention. It just reinforces the emptiness of space and encourages people to watch Netflix or do something else. Eve is a competitive PvP sandbox, CCP has said so many times. People should not come play the game wanting a "different experience" than that, say the ability to AFK haul or mine free of player interference and expect to get it. For that there are plenty of other MMOs out there.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Instead of thinking how to keep your easy mode ganks in place (and regardless of what you say, they are easy mode with their execution as scripted as any lvl4 mission), if you're so worried about retention, you should try thinking how to identify and remove bad in-game mechanics, make mining and/or missions more engaging, how to integrate better social tools into the core game, how to better train and inform players about the game its mechanics and all the opportunities it offers. Those are all good ideas. PvE should be improved, more social tool released, and players should be aware of all the opportunities and play styles the game offers. That of course includes hunting and killing other players in highsec as CCP has confirmed many times. I guess we do agree on something.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:As for that famous presentation, it really only proves that interaction based gameplay will retain more folks then the one where interaction is absent, with unexpected interaction being more engaging. This is small wonder, considering the abysmal state of EvE's PvE gameplay, especially in the newbie category. How that information makes the idea of preventing trial accounts from going criminal a bad thing, I don't know. Then again, you're all about keeping your status quo. You can't say "come play Eve where you can be the villain" and then when they start the trial say "but we won't actually let you try out criminal game play until you subscribe - just go run some missions or something." That is a serious mixed message and prevents new players from getting a taste for blood. If anything, new players should be given an Opportunity that has them gank another player, steal from a jetcan and the like. That is how to get players more engaged with the game.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:I don't have a feeling that ganking in general is a big issue in terms of player retention, but if CCP really wanted to be fair to the topic, they should have done something else - checked ALL the ganks and player retention after them, preferably with links to organisations who performed them. That would be something you could use in your arguments about the impact of the ganks on the overall ecosystem, and personally I'd bet that code on average causes more unsubs then any other ganking group/individual does. However, I don't see any of your guys asking for that, since what Rise said was so nice and convenient to you. CCP has all this data. They will analyze and release the data as they see fit. If highsec ganking is really a problem, I am sure CCP would do something about it. Retention is their concern and their call. You can allude to these statistics you just made up all you want, but until CCP says something to the contrary, I am willing to take CCP Rise at face value.
But if it makes you feel better: CCP Rise or anyone else at CCP who is reading this, please release more statistics on which ganking groups are best at increasing player retention. Inquiring minds want to know.
|
Sarah Flynt
129
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 15:02:27 -
[698] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:b) CCP does not really enforce deleting the ganker chars rule, at least as far as I can see. Several folks in AG have identified and reported known ganker alts who have been recycled while having negative sec status and not much change in active gankers has happened (which would be logical since those recycled chars were their alts). Just one example: https://zkillboard.com/character/95727954/. You did the right thing. But CCP is the only one who can look at the logs and make a decision that someone has broken the rules. It is quite plausible that the character in question was tagged-up to zero security status before being deleted. That's how people should do it but It wasn't in this and many other cases: http://i.imgur.com/XszQYSD.png It appears to be common practice with chars that are used to aggro a freighter once its pilot logs off, especially among hyperdunkers.
Black Pedro wrote:With the well-known prohibition on recycling alts, I would be surprised if any ganker knowingly broke such regulations. ikr? But at some point you wonder where all these fresh aggro chars come from and what happened with the old ones and you start taking notes. Just because people know the rules doesn't mean they won't break them, especially if they know they're not being enforced.
Black Pedro wrote:But even if they did, they still could have received a warning or a short first-offense ban you would have no knowledge of. If you have to explain GM's their own rules, I find that hard to believe.
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Faylee Freir
Defining Harassment Slaver's Union
230
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 15:34:09 -
[699] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:Black Pedro wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:b) CCP does not really enforce deleting the ganker chars rule, at least as far as I can see. Several folks in AG have identified and reported known ganker alts who have been recycled while having negative sec status and not much change in active gankers has happened (which would be logical since those recycled chars were their alts). Just one example: https://zkillboard.com/character/95727954/. You did the right thing. But CCP is the only one who can look at the logs and make a decision that someone has broken the rules. It is quite plausible that the character in question was tagged-up to zero security status before being deleted. That's how people should do it but It wasn't in this and many other cases: http://i.imgur.com/XszQYSD.png It appears to be common practice with chars that are used to aggro a freighter once its pilot logs off, especially among hyperdunkers. Yeah so like I said I had a character that I used for pulling concord off grid. I didn't have any free character slots and deleted the character to make room for one that I was purchasing. What exactly is the issue here? Do you think I ought to have to tag up that character before I delete it so I can make room for my purchase?
Please spell these rules out for me so that I can more clearly break them for you.
HTFU
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
3509
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 15:58:31 -
[700] - Quote
If you're going to clutch at straws please do so calmly, whiners. Thank-you.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6921
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 17:45:15 -
[701] - Quote
Faylee Freir wrote:Yeah so like I said I had a character that I used for pulling concord off grid. I didn't have any free character slots and deleted the character to make room for one that I was purchasing. What exactly is the issue here? Do you think I ought to have to tag up that character before I delete it so I can make room for my purchase?
Please spell these rules out for me so that I can more clearly break them for you. To be fair it does seem fairly suspect that he was deleted shortly after getting past the -5 mark. I find it hard to believe that it just so happened to coincide with your need for for a new character, and undoubtedly you've found the space to roll a new aggro puller since then.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Toxic Yaken
Amarr Squad
25
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 18:14:59 -
[702] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Faylee Freir wrote:Yeah so like I said I had a character that I used for pulling concord off grid. I didn't have any free character slots and deleted the character to make room for one that I was purchasing. What exactly is the issue here? Do you think I ought to have to tag up that character before I delete it so I can make room for my purchase?
Please spell these rules out for me so that I can more clearly break them for you. To be fair it does seem fairly suspect that he was deleted shortly after getting past the -5 mark. I find it hard to believe that it just so happened to coincide with your need for for a new character, and undoubtedly you've found the space to roll a new aggro puller since then.
Faylee can I have your stuff?
Highsec Spaceboat Pirate
Overly Neglected Blog: http://shiniestneckonsafari.blogspot.ca
|
Faylee Freir
Defining Harassment Slaver's Union
234
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 21:37:32 -
[703] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Faylee Freir wrote:Yeah so like I said I had a character that I used for pulling concord off grid. I didn't have any free character slots and deleted the character to make room for one that I was purchasing. What exactly is the issue here? Do you think I ought to have to tag up that character before I delete it so I can make room for my purchase?
Please spell these rules out for me so that I can more clearly break them for you. To be fair it does seem fairly suspect that he was deleted shortly after getting past the -5 mark. I find it hard to believe that it just so happened to coincide with your need for for a new character, and undoubtedly you've found the space to roll a new aggro puller since then. You are most certainly free to have your own theory on this situation, but I find it funny that there are cries of ganker recycling when there's really no hard evidence or proof as to why that character was deleted.
HTFU
|
Faylee Freir
Defining Harassment Slaver's Union
234
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 21:39:09 -
[704] - Quote
Toxic Yaken wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Faylee Freir wrote:Yeah so like I said I had a character that I used for pulling concord off grid. I didn't have any free character slots and deleted the character to make room for one that I was purchasing. What exactly is the issue here? Do you think I ought to have to tag up that character before I delete it so I can make room for my purchase?
Please spell these rules out for me so that I can more clearly break them for you. To be fair it does seem fairly suspect that he was deleted shortly after getting past the -5 mark. I find it hard to believe that it just so happened to coincide with your need for for a new character, and undoubtedly you've found the space to roll a new aggro puller since then. Faylee can I have your stuff? I can let you hold on to maybe 30b
HTFU
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
3511
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 21:54:22 -
[705] - Quote
Faylee Freir wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Faylee Freir wrote:Yeah so like I said I had a character that I used for pulling concord off grid. I didn't have any free character slots and deleted the character to make room for one that I was purchasing. What exactly is the issue here? Do you think I ought to have to tag up that character before I delete it so I can make room for my purchase?
Please spell these rules out for me so that I can more clearly break them for you. To be fair it does seem fairly suspect that he was deleted shortly after getting past the -5 mark. I find it hard to believe that it just so happened to coincide with your need for for a new character, and undoubtedly you've found the space to roll a new aggro puller since then. You are most certainly free to have your own theory on this situation, but I find it funny that there are cries of ganker recycling when there's really no hard evidence or proof as to why that character was deleted.
Of course there's hard evidence - I read about it on the internets.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
Faylee Freir
Defining Harassment Slaver's Union
235
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 22:02:49 -
[706] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Faylee Freir wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Faylee Freir wrote:Yeah so like I said I had a character that I used for pulling concord off grid. I didn't have any free character slots and deleted the character to make room for one that I was purchasing. What exactly is the issue here? Do you think I ought to have to tag up that character before I delete it so I can make room for my purchase?
Please spell these rules out for me so that I can more clearly break them for you. To be fair it does seem fairly suspect that he was deleted shortly after getting past the -5 mark. I find it hard to believe that it just so happened to coincide with your need for for a new character, and undoubtedly you've found the space to roll a new aggro puller since then. You are most certainly free to have your own theory on this situation, but I find it funny that there are cries of ganker recycling when there's really no hard evidence or proof as to why that character was deleted. Of course there's hard evidence - I read about it on the internets. I mean... if bears are allowed to dodge decs by dropping corp and hopping in another without any penalties, then we certainly should be allowed to recycle characters for any reason we see fit.
HTFU
|
Austneal
Nero Fazione End of Life
94
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 22:10:13 -
[707] - Quote
Faylee Freir wrote:I mean... if bears are allowed to dodge decs by dropping corp and hopping in another without any penalties, then we certainly should be allowed to recycle characters for any reason we see fit. I'm pretty sure dec dodging isn't explicitly against the rules, as it is with gank alt recycling (correct me if I'm wrong here) |
admiral root
Red Galaxy
3511
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 22:39:26 -
[708] - Quote
Austneal wrote:Faylee Freir wrote:I mean... if bears are allowed to dodge decs by dropping corp and hopping in another without any penalties, then we certainly should be allowed to recycle characters for any reason we see fit. I'm pretty sure dec dodging isn't explicitly against the rules, as it is with gank alt recycling (correct me if I'm wrong here)
Dodging was an exploit, now it isn't. It should be, if for no other reason than it was (though there are other reasons), just like the whole MTU thing wasn't an exploit to start with and that shouldn't have been reversed. Level of use has no bearing on whether or not something is right or wrong, but sadly CCP have a history of caving to whinebears who want Eve to be not-Eve.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6921
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 22:44:12 -
[709] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Dodging was an exploit, now it isn't. It should be, if for no other reason than it was (though there are other reasons), just like the whole MTU thing wasn't an exploit to start with and that shouldn't have been reversed. Level of use has no bearing on whether or not something is right or wrong, but sadly CCP have a history of caving to whinebears who want Eve to be not-Eve. No it wasn't. It was never an exploit. Feel free to find the dev blog or post confirming otherwise. This is another one of these times that you guys have made stuff up to make you seem hard done by.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Toxic Yaken
Amarr Squad
25
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 23:06:12 -
[710] - Quote
Faylee Freir wrote:Toxic Yaken wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Faylee Freir wrote:Yeah so like I said I had a character that I used for pulling concord off grid. I didn't have any free character slots and deleted the character to make room for one that I was purchasing. What exactly is the issue here? Do you think I ought to have to tag up that character before I delete it so I can make room for my purchase?
Please spell these rules out for me so that I can more clearly break them for you. To be fair it does seem fairly suspect that he was deleted shortly after getting past the -5 mark. I find it hard to believe that it just so happened to coincide with your need for for a new character, and undoubtedly you've found the space to roll a new aggro puller since then. Faylee can I have your stuff? I can let you hold on to maybe 30b
That's a lot of gank thrashers...
Highsec Spaceboat Pirate
Overly Neglected Blog: http://shiniestneckonsafari.blogspot.ca
|
|
Faylee Freir
Defining Harassment Slaver's Union
236
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 12:59:33 -
[711] - Quote
You heard it here first folks, dodging wardecs is now an exploit and is a bannable offense.
Source
HTFU
|
Sarah Flynt
129
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 19:12:00 -
[712] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:admiral root wrote:Dodging was an exploit, now it isn't. It should be, if for no other reason than it was (though there are other reasons), just like the whole MTU thing wasn't an exploit to start with and that shouldn't have been reversed. Level of use has no bearing on whether or not something is right or wrong, but sadly CCP have a history of caving to whinebears who want Eve to be not-Eve. No it wasn't. It was never an exploit. Feel free to find the dev blog or post confirming otherwise. This is another one of these times that you guys have made stuff up to make you seem hard done by. Out of interest I did some research and it turns out that itGÇÖs the same urban legend as when they claimed that spawning CONCORD for defensive purposes was supposedly an exploit (as opposed to when gankers do it of course, lol) which was quickly debunked by posting earlier rulings which in turn were officially reaffirmed by Lead GM Lelouch shortly after.
The earliest threads I could find on eve-search.com date back to 2004. Result:
There isnGÇÖt a single shred of evidence that dropping corp or reforming a corp during a wardec in order to permanently avoid it have ever been considered to be exploits, quite the contrary actually.
I couldnGÇÖt find a single post from a dev or GM that touches this in one way or another. What I found however were two types of posts:
1. Wardeccers finding out that it was in fact NOT an exploit (see http://eve-search.com/thread/481519-0/#1 and http://eve-search.com/thread/481519-0/page/1#20 e.g.)
2. Wardeccers using the same cheap scare tactics as they do now: telling people that this or that is an exploit. When being asked for any proof they either mysteriously vanish from the thread or itGÇÖs the same crap as it is today: "oh, I canGÇÖt be arsed to look it up right now, but but but trust me, itGÇÖs an exploit. And if this isnGÇÖt an exploit, then that other special case there is an exploit. promise! double-swear!" (see http://eve-search.com/thread/498579-0/page/2#49 and http://eve-search.com/thread/498579-0/page/3#75 the whole thread is very entertaining in that regard, also http://eve-search.com/thread/350276-0/page/1 ).
I found one edge case regarding evading a wardec that apparently was an exploit at the time (which is impossible nowadays and as such a fix for the wardeccers): drop corp, run away from the enemy a few systems, rejoin same corp again: http://eve-search.com/thread/102160-0/page/1#8 e.g.
Otherwise a lot of whining that people dodge wars, basically the same as today. ItGÇÖs actually quite interesting to read in these old threads as you could copy&paste many of them into todayGÇÖs forum and you wouldnGÇÖt even notice the difference.
While IGÇÖm at it: a shout-out to Chribba for making this archive available!
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Estella Osoka
Perkone Caldari State
849
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 19:25:44 -
[713] - Quote
The only exploit I have ever heard about in reference to dropping corp during a wardec was when you could drop corp while in space. Basically, if you have no roles or titles you can drop corp immediately. It used to be that you did not need to be docked to drop corp. So what would happen is one of your opponents would drop corp while you were pursuing them, and when you went to shoot them, CONCORD would kill you; because they were no longer a valid target. Because you know in the heat of battle, you don't really bother to check if they are still in the same corp they were in a minute ago. |
Tyyler DURden
Mordechai and Sons Distribution Co.
135
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 19:31:59 -
[714] - Quote
[/quote] Yeah so like I said I had a character that I used for pulling concord off grid. [/quote] A small point here, perhaps you could clarify a bit further. My ganking experience is limited, but in my understanding the act of pulling Concord must be done by every character that participates in the gank and then again after the completion of the gank to prepare for the next attempt. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that point.
So.. Based on my assumption's above being accurate, if you were using that character to pull Concord off grid then that was in preparation of that character participating in another gank attempt.
This is the first time I've heard of a character used for the sole purpose of Concord manipulation and even if what you say is the truth I don't think it matters how the sec status of the character got into the negative.
Perhaps someone could come along and clarify this.
Tyyler DURden says "use soap"
|
Paranoid Loyd
7343
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 19:35:27 -
[715] - Quote
Having another puller saves the time of warping off grid and back with the DPS character.
It's not a gamebreaker if it goes below -5, it just means it gets considerably more difficult to time things properly.
"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!
|
Leto Thule
Everywhere and Terrible
4051
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 20:35:34 -
[716] - Quote
Yeah so like I said I had a character that I used for pulling concord off grid. [/quote] A small point here, perhaps you could clarify a bit further. My ganking experience is limited, but in my understanding the act of pulling Concord must be done by every character that participates in the gank and then again after the completion of the gank to prepare for the next attempt. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that point.
So.. Based on my assumption's above being accurate, if you were using that character to pull Concord off grid then that was in preparation of that character participating in another gank attempt.
This is the first time I've heard of a character used for the sole purpose of Concord manipulation and even if what you say is the truth I don't think it matters how the sec status of the character got into the negative.
Perhaps someone could come along and clarify this.[/quote]
I'd also like to know this...
Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1871
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 21:06:04 -
[717] - Quote
Tyyler DURden wrote:Quote: Yeah so like I said I had a character that I used for pulling concord off grid. A small point here, perhaps you could clarify a bit further. My ganking experience is limited, but in my understanding the act of pulling Concord must be done by every character that participates in the gank and then again after the completion of the gank to prepare for the next attempt. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that point. So.. Based on my assumption's above being accurate, if you were using that character to pull Concord off grid then that was in preparation of that character participating in another gank attempt. This is the first time I've heard of a character used for the sole purpose of Concord manipulation and even if what you say is the truth I don't think it matters how the sec status of the character got into the negative. Perhaps someone could come along and clarify this. No. You just need to pull CONCORD with an equal number of players for the number of CONCORD instances that have spawned, not the exact same characters.
Let's try to explain this way: Right after downtime there are zero CONCORD spawns in every system. If you commit a criminal act by yourself, one CONCORD will spawn and destroy you. From then on, if another single person commits a criminal act in that system, that original CONCORD spawn will warp to the new location. If two people simultaneously commit a criminal act, the first CONCORD spawn will warp to them, and a second new CONCORD will spawn and together they will kill the offenders. Now, if later a single ganker commits a criminal act, only one of these two CONCORD spawns will warp to the site of the offense, and the original will stay in the same place.
It is not important who originally spawned CONCORD - any criminal can move them. But it is important that at least the same number of criminals undock/go criminal at the same time in order that all the CONCORD spawns are moved. This is why gankers pull together after each gank to make each and every spawn is off the gate. However, if you are just a single ganker and you know there is only one CONCORD spawned in system (or if there is multiple you can move the closest), you can move them around with another character. |
Philipa
Natural Selection II Phylogenesis
28
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 21:06:45 -
[718] - Quote
Manipulating CONCORD is based on the number of criminal ships.
If you use 1 gank ship, you pull once in pod, can be same character or different. If you use X gank ships, you pull once all in pods, simultaneously. If you pull while your gank ship is still alive, you spawn another CONCORD or pull another CONCORD from different part of the system, and you have to get rid of it.
As for security status - If your ganker is dedicated it does not matter. For the puller it never matters. What matters is to have the criminal flag. |
Faylee Freir
Defining Harassment Slaver's Union
237
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 21:17:38 -
[719] - Quote
Yeah so like I said I had a character that I used for pulling concord off grid. [/quote] A small point here, perhaps you could clarify a bit further. My ganking experience is limited, but in my understanding the act of pulling Concord must be done by every character that participates in the gank and then again after the completion of the gank to prepare for the next attempt. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that point.
So.. Based on my assumption's above being accurate, if you were using that character to pull Concord off grid then that was in preparation of that character participating in another gank attempt.
This is the first time I've heard of a character used for the sole purpose of Concord manipulation and even if what you say is the truth I don't think it matters how the sec status of the character got into the negative.
Perhaps someone could come along and clarify this.[/quote] This is why it's laughable that someone would think that I recycled my "ganking alt" that was literally only used to pull concord. All I needed to do to pull concord was undock and shoot the station, dock up, board noobship, undock and let concord kill me... Poof! Concord is pulled. So how does going -5 make that harder in any way?
You can also pull while in space... Lets assume the freighter is in his ewarp safe and logged off. Warp an Orca / Bowhead to a safe around 250km from the freighter and either jettison shuttles there or leave the orca / bowhead there from the puller to pull directly from the bay. You go GCC by shooting a station / player / however you want, then you warp your pod to the orca / bowhead and board a shuttle. Once you board a shuttle and concord has killed you, you can board a bomber with your ganker and start shooting. Once your ganker has been killed by concord and is sitting in his pod, you can board another shuttle with your puller.
So being -5 literally has no effect on how easy it is to do this. Try again space-nerds.
HTFU
|
Faylee Freir
Defining Harassment Slaver's Union
237
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 21:21:26 -
[720] - Quote
Philipa wrote:Manipulating CONCORD is based on the number of criminal ships.
If you use 1 gank ship, you pull once in pod, can be same character or different. If you use X gank ships, you pull once all in pods, simultaneously. If you pull while your gank ship is still alive, you spawn another CONCORD or pull another CONCORD from different part of the system, and you have to get rid of it.
As for security status - If your ganker is dedicated it does not matter. For the puller it never matters. What matters is to have the criminal flag. Alternatively you and I know ways to "fix" concord if we accidently pull or board a bomber too quickly, resulting in an extra spawn of concord. Those uninformed would love to know how, but I'll leave your poor imagination running in circles... All you have to do is DESPAWN concord. Woah, mind blown!
This too is actually a mechanic that can make gate ganking and even freighter ganking potentially harder and unprofitable. I'll leave you guys to figure that one out though.
HTFU
|
|
|
|
|
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 |