EVE Search - Countering Bumping ganks in highsec

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Countering Bumping ganks in highsec

» 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 .. 22 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15067	Posted - 2015.11.18 00:09:58 - [331] - Quote admiral root wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Mike Voidstar wrote: The reasoning for likening it to other aggressive acts is sound. No, it's not, it's self serving nonsense. Even if it were true (which it isn't), I've provided him with four options that do not require going suspect or criminal that will save a ship from being bumped, or that will get it out of trouble once it is bumped. Of course, facts are a bit inconvenient when you're trying to whine for one more nerf. Which is of course what this is about. Mike there thinks that people have a right to be afk in a billion isk ship and never worry about dying. Meanwhile, somehow Red Frog, who I use myself(and whom I have failed to infiltrate not once but twice now), are completing the vast, vast majority of their deliveries. It's almost like there isn't a game balance issue here, it's almost like some people are just plain doing it wrong. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 1033	Posted - 2015.11.18 03:41:40 - [332] - Quote Granting a criminal flags isn't a nerf for taking part in a gank. It's an invitation to even more PvP. You should embrace that
Tremain Oldfield Terra Australis. DropBear Sanctuary 1	Posted - 2015.11.18 04:00:59 - [333] - Quote I would much rather see a self-destruct mod which takes out anything with in a 5-10k range made to fit on freighters. SUICIDE TO THE RESCUE
admiral root Red Galaxy 3550	Posted - 2015.11.18 04:05:24 - [334] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: Granting a criminal flags isn't a nerf for taking part in a gank. It's an invitation to even more PvP. You should embrace that You still haven't explained why a criminal flag is necessary in the first place. You have at least four non-aggressive counters to being bumped. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
Paladin Genghis Khanid Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 5	Posted - 2015.11.18 04:13:27 - [335] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Sorry, I truncated the rest of your rant as it progressively got more and more insane and is not really worth responding to. However, I will point out your "solution" would have no effect on bumping. If anything, it would increase the need for bumpers in order to give time for the criminals to make their way to the target from lowsec to attack the target. Bumpers are without exception, neutral pilots and thus would not be affected at all by even the most draconian penalties for gankers like you have proposed. It would be much simpler, and easier for CCP to implement, just to lock out offensive modules in highsec against unflagged targets. I guess this is really what you are trying to propose with your convoluted list of penalties and yes, that would solve bumping by making suicide ganking impossible. But why should CCP do that? They have explicitly coded suicide ganking, Crimewatch, CONCORD and the other systems to allow criminals to operate in highsec. Why would they throw all that work away now? How would that make the game better? Is everything you disagree with a rant? I'm proposing that an area of space that is supposed to be high security not allow those who have repeatedly demonstrated that they are criminals and have -10 security standings not be allowed to carry on in so-call high security space as if they weren't known criminals. The idea that a known criminal can dock and enjoy the privileges afforded to law abiding citizens is an absurdity. I'm also in favor of said criminals not being able to be tracked initially by CONCORD (assuming their ships/clones were made in null via player stations) if they enter via wormhole. And to be able to escape CONCORD's unscathed through wormholes along with other criminal perks which would just be completely off-topic. For me I have no desire to be a pirate because it does not exist in EVE. You can never actual function as a pirate. The mechanics of the game in that regard are silly. I'd rather there was no high sec at all and force player cooperation/policing than this absurd coddling carebear system where actions have no consequence. How anyone can think a person being able to tackle another person in high sec with no serious risk to their own ship is beyond me. It would be like me attacking a flashing yellow player and they being unable to fight back.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15067	Posted - 2015.11.18 04:23:25 - [336] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: Granting a criminal flags isn't a nerf for taking part in a gank. It's an invitation to even more PvP. No it's not. Don't even lie, you're already on record here several times as saying that this isn't even really about bumping, you just want ganking nerfed. A criminal or suspect flag will never be applied to anyone based on what direction their engines are pointed. "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.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 3687	Posted - 2015.11.18 05:12:51 - [337] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: Granting a criminal flags isn't a nerf for taking part in a gank. It's an invitation to even more PvP. You should embrace that Now that is, IMO, a lie. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 16968	Posted - 2015.11.18 05:12:59 - [338] - Quote Paladin Genghis Khanid wrote: For me I have no desire to be a pirate because it does not exist in EVE. You can never actual function as a pirate. Hi Bat Country here. We specialize in attacking shipping in highsec for profit. Remind us again what a pirate does. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Iain Cariaba 1967	Posted - 2015.11.18 05:20:42 - [339] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: Granting a criminal flags isn't a nerf for taking part in a gank. It's an invitation to even more PvP. You should embrace that Yet there is zero reason why you should need an invitation to gank someone bumping a freighter. I've already demonstrated how little doing so impacts sec status, and others have shown that the isk cost of the ships to gank the bumper are also negligible. You only need to step outside your self perceived delusion that ganking makes you a bad person to realize that you don't need further mechanics that will ultimately only serve to make bad game play safer. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15071	Posted - 2015.11.18 05:25:03 - [340] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: You only need to step outside your self perceived delusion that ganking makes you a bad person to realize that you don't need further mechanics that will ultimately only serve to make bad game play safer. He wants to make bad gameplay safer. Anything else he says is a lie and a smokescreen. "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.

Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 1033	Posted - 2015.11.18 05:46:11 - [341] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Mike Voidstar wrote: Granting a criminal flags isn't a nerf for taking part in a gank. It's an invitation to even more PvP. You should embrace that Now that is, IMO, a lie. How? It does not stop it. It's a very mild repercussion that almost none would take advantage of. The people ganking always like to scream "but the non-consensual PvP must flow!"... It just allows more PvP. Surely that's not so much risk it would deter a gank?
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 1033	Posted - 2015.11.18 05:48:15 - [342] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: Mike Voidstar wrote: Granting a criminal flags isn't a nerf for taking part in a gank. It's an invitation to even more PvP. You should embrace that Yet there is zero reason why you should need an invitation to gank someone bumping a freighter. I've already demonstrated how little doing so impacts sec status, and others have shown that the isk cost of the ships to gank the bumper are also negligible. You only need to step outside your self perceived delusion that ganking makes you a bad person to realize that you don't need further mechanics that will ultimately only serve to make bad game play safer. Regardless of how minor the penalty, self defense from unprovoked aggression should not result in penalties.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15075	Posted - 2015.11.18 05:48:59 - [343] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: Regardless of how minor the penalty, self defense from unprovoked aggression should not result in penalties. It doesn't. Bumping is not aggression. Knock off your lying already. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 16974	Posted - 2015.11.18 06:44:29 - [344] - Quote Mike wrote: Regardless of how minor the penalty, self defense from unprovoked aggression should not result in penalties. You have several tactics to counter bumping that have no penalties. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1990	Posted - 2015.11.18 07:46:20 - [345] - Quote Paladin Genghis Khanid wrote: I'm proposing that an area of space that is supposed to be high security not allow those who have repeatedly demonstrated that they are criminals and have -10 security standings not be allowed to carry on in so-call high security space as if they weren't known criminals. Ok, I am am telling you that CCP has designed the game specifically to allow criminals to be active in "high security" space. -10s are outlaws, free to shoot and chased by infalible NPCs. They are literally as vulnerable as they can be. As was said earlier in this thread locking them out of stations will do nothing but hurt new/casual/solo players and lowsec PvPers. Even if you did, these citadels are tailor made ganking platforms which will be a boon to gankers come spring. HIgh security space is not "secure space" nor has it ever been. You have been intentionally put at risk to other players there by the game developer so deal with it. Paladin Genghis Khanid wrote: For me I have no desire to be a pirate because it does not exist in EVE. You can never actual function as a pirate. The mechanics of the game in that regard are silly. Of course you can. I play this game primiarly as a criminal and pirate where I do my best to explode other players and take their stuff. I have destroyed hundreds of billions of ships and taken billions, or maybe even tens of billions in booty from those ships. That seems pretty piratical to me. I play the game as CCP clearly intended when they built the criminal/CrimeWatch/CONCORD mechanics. Why do some players have so much trouble accpeting that this is how the game was designed to work? Paladin Genghis Khanid wrote: I'd rather there was no high sec at all and force player cooperation/policing than this absurd coddling carebear system where actions have no consequence. How anyone can think a person being able to tackle another person in high sec with no serious risk to their own ship is beyond me. You can fight back. Even is an open world game and all the tools available to the pirates are available to their prey. The reality is bumping went away, carebears would just find something else to complain about. Gankers would adapt, freighters would be much safer, but yet still explode, and then people would be on these formus the next month clamouring for yet another "one more nerf" because they lost an even more expensive freigher to pirates. Quote: It would be like me attacking a flashing yellow player and they being unable to fight back. Lol, that is exactly what the current highsec mechanics are for outlaws in highsec. You can attack them, but they cannot fight back as the faction police will show up and prevent a fight. I guess you are against the faction police as a mechanic then?
Iain Cariaba 1969	Posted - 2015.11.18 08:28:57 - [346] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: Iain Cariaba wrote: Mike Voidstar wrote: Granting a criminal flags isn't a nerf for taking part in a gank. It's an invitation to even more PvP. You should embrace that Yet there is zero reason why you should need an invitation to gank someone bumping a freighter. I've already demonstrated how little doing so impacts sec status, and others have shown that the isk cost of the ships to gank the bumper are also negligible. You only need to step outside your self perceived delusion that ganking makes you a bad person to realize that you don't need further mechanics that will ultimately only serve to make bad game play safer. Regardless of how minor the penalty, self defense from unprovoked aggression should not result in penalties. But it is not self defense. Ganking the bumping ship is the last resort after you've done absolutely everything else wrong, not the first option you take. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 1034	Posted - 2015.11.18 08:36:23 - [347] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: Mike Voidstar wrote: Iain Cariaba wrote: Mike Voidstar wrote: Granting a criminal flags isn't a nerf for taking part in a gank. It's an invitation to even more PvP. You should embrace that Yet there is zero reason why you should need an invitation to gank someone bumping a freighter. I've already demonstrated how little doing so impacts sec status, and others have shown that the isk cost of the ships to gank the bumper are also negligible. You only need to step outside your self perceived delusion that ganking makes you a bad person to realize that you don't need further mechanics that will ultimately only serve to make bad game play safer. Regardless of how minor the penalty, self defense from unprovoked aggression should not result in penalties. But it is not self defense. Ganking the bumping ship is the last resort after you've done absolutely everything else wrong, not the first option you take. Regardless if it hey play your way or not, they are still trying to escape unprovoked aggression. That should never result in penalties, an aggressor never protected by Concord.
Iain Cariaba 1969	Posted - 2015.11.18 08:39:26 - [348] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: Iain Cariaba wrote: Mike Voidstar wrote: Iain Cariaba wrote: Mike Voidstar wrote: Granting a criminal flags isn't a nerf for taking part in a gank. It's an invitation to even more PvP. You should embrace that Yet there is zero reason why you should need an invitation to gank someone bumping a freighter. I've already demonstrated how little doing so impacts sec status, and others have shown that the isk cost of the ships to gank the bumper are also negligible. You only need to step outside your self perceived delusion that ganking makes you a bad person to realize that you don't need further mechanics that will ultimately only serve to make bad game play safer. Regardless of how minor the penalty, self defense from unprovoked aggression should not result in penalties. But it is not self defense. Ganking the bumping ship is the last resort after you've done absolutely everything else wrong, not the first option you take. Regardless if it hey play your way or not, they are still trying to escape unprovoked aggression. That should never result in penalties, an aggressor never protected by Concord. Bumping, in and of itself, is not an aggressive action. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 1034	Posted - 2015.11.18 09:14:13 - [349] - Quote Assuming you bothered to read the thread, that's just being intentionally obtuse to try to get in a zinger. If you didn't read the thread, go do that. I am not typing out the entire thing yet again because you don't agree with the reasoning or can't be bothered to read. So Zing! I guess. You got me there.
admiral root Red Galaxy 3555	Posted - 2015.11.18 09:18:14 - [350] - Quote Bumping is not an aggressve action and you have at least 4 non-aggressive counters to it. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)

Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 1034	Posted - 2015.11.18 09:20:21 - [351] - Quote Dear me. Zinger again. Or you should go read. Either way, well done.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15080	Posted - 2015.11.18 09:34:24 - [352] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: that's just being intentionally obtuse Carebears always project. It's not being obtuse at all, it's literally the reality of the game. But because reality intrudes on your entitlement, you think that if you wish hard enough it will stop being the truth. You're the one being obtuse. "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.
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 325	Posted - 2015.11.18 11:07:31 - [353] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: How? It does not stop it. It's a very mild repercussion that almost none would take advantage of. The people ganking always like to scream "but the non-consensual PvP must flow!"... It just allows more PvP. Surely that's not so much risk it would deter a gank? On one hand, you're right. It would encourage some more PvP. I for one would be interested in taking down some bump Machs. On the other, it's still a nerf. The Mach is traditionally an armour tanked ship, but a bump Mach's lows are used for a generous helping of nanos and istabs. Now, either the Mach pilot forces a square block through a round hole and fits a shield tank or he sacrifices agility for a agility-crippling armour tank. Either way this is a nerf to bumping. Add to the fact that the bumper is putting ~450M ISK on the line in his suspect ship and we have a tempting target that not only care bears and fail freighter pilots want dead. Also, a single ship with a short point can end bump tackle, even if he doesn't destroy the Mach, meaning missed opportunities. So yes, your proposal may encourage PvP, but at a significant cost to bumpers to the point I have a strong doubt that Machs will continue to be used as bump ships. Once again, seeing as a nerf still hasn't been justified in the first place, it's not reasonable such a change be implemented. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 325	Posted - 2015.11.18 11:10:02 - [354] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: Regardless of how minor the penalty, self defense from unprovoked aggression should not result in penalties. And the defences that incur no penalty whatsoever? What of them? <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 1596	Posted - 2015.11.18 12:18:28 - [355] - Quote I think deep down, the hard spot with bumping is this: You can use a mach to bump a freighter which basically holds it in space unable to warp which literally (that means for real) means you have tackled a freighter in HS w/out concord intervention. The point of this concordless tackle is to allow the gank squad to log in, assemble and do their thing. That's the rub, you can tackle a guy w/out breaking any concord rules. Here's where I think folks that have a reasonable understanding of the game get their panties all bunched up: The gank squad isn't even online when the tackle goes down. They are off carrier ratting, DOTA or whatever nerdy persuits they prefer to do full time. The mach bumping bypasses all the concord response timers allowing the gankers somewhat unlimited time to log in and assemble. If you look at it from the perspective of the catalist pilot - mach bumping promotes and allows AFK game play by the ganking CHARACTERS. They don't have to be logged in, coiled and ready to pounce. They just need to be pingable. (Which is kind of funny as the CODE anti afk crowd use this to do exactly what they claim to be playing against). The gank crew only needs a neutral scout (which is fine) and a bumper (which is also fine), but they don't need the actual gank pilots to be online or even near a computer (which is NOT fine). So, looking beyond 'ganking is ebil' (because it's a reasonable play style) and looking beyond 'concord should protect me in all situations' (because they are consequences, not prevention) and all the other poorly framed or felt arguments that have been swirling around this for years, the actual reason mach bumping sux is because it allows AFK gameplay by freighter gankers. They can do an infinite number of other things while the bumping is in progress, take their time to assemble and then gank at their leisure. Nerfing freighter bumping wouldn't nerf HS (just one more time) it would nerf the ability of freighter gankers to play by ping in lieu of being logged in and ready to go. Sure there are counters to bumping (that range from reasonable to rediculously unworkable). The point isn't that there are available counters, the point is that the mach bumping the freighter for 20 minutes until the gank arrives is promoting AFK and/or play by ping ganking. I don't want ganking nerfed - I want the afk / play by ping garbage that freighter bumping promotes/allows to be removed as an option.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15087	Posted - 2015.11.18 12:39:34 - [356] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Nerfing freighter bumping wouldn't nerf HS (just one more time) it would nerf the ability of freighter gankers to play by ping in lieu of being logged in and ready to go. Yeah, why should the people you don't like have a reason to login at all? This is so hypocritical I almost can't believe it, save that it comes from you. I mean, seriously, this is what carebears want. They literally don't want you to have any fun with this game. Everybody should just be forced to grind until they quit from boredom, not be able to get some real content once in a while. Quote: The point isn't that there are available counters That's actually the only point. So long as you can web a freighter into warp in less than 2 seconds, bumping should never be touched. You do not get to give freighters a huge safety buff. And you especially don't get to be a disingenuous, dishonest shill who tries to argue against "ping" gameplay as being afk(which it's not, I'm surprised you didn't sprain yourself from reaching that hard), then suggesting something that dramatically buffs the ability of every freighter to be afk. As always, you are the biggest hypocrite in the thread. Quote: I don't want ganking nerfed You lie. Your post history of full of requests to nerf ganking and emergent gameplay. You post little else, in fact. Quote: - I want the afk / play by ping garbage that freighter bumping promotes/allows to be removed as an option. And what the truth behind this smokescreen actually is is that you want afk play for freighers to be made completely without consequence. Goddamned pathetic. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15087	Posted - 2015.11.18 12:42:44 - [357] - Quote I mean, seriously, that is the single stupidest thing I have ever read on these forums, and that includes the tripe that Infinity Ziona or Dinsdale used to post. "Gankers should not be able to just log in and kill somebody, but freighters totally have the right to be afk without consequence." Nevermind that the heavy handed criminal flag penalties are exactly why gankers behave like that. Nope, it can't possibly be yet another repercussion of the overbearing nerfs to real gameplay, we must just need to dramatically buff the safety of afk people in highsec yet again. I honestly can't believe you actually copped to that level of hypocrisy. Nothing you say will ever be taken seriously again, although it's not like you had much credibility to begin with. "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.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 1596	Posted - 2015.11.18 12:50:57 - [358] - Quote You're so cute. I don't hate folks that suicide gank. I just don't like mechanics that promote play by ping. You are correct, I don't want you to have a reason to log in and gank someone. I want the game to support you being logged in on your ganking character and being engaged in ganking (the waiting part until a viable target is located). I don't want you ratting guristas for 3 hours and then logging ratter pilot off, logging ganker pilot on while another character in a mach 'holds' the freighter until your crew is assembled. Here's my question: If the mach bumping isn't for holding a freighter while guys are pinged - why is it done? You're a pro ganker - tell me what the purpose of a mach bumping a freighter is. I already know it's to allow play by ping. Please amuse us all with some contrived other reason that doesn't involve allowing folks not actively at the ready to log in their ganking character. Teach me!
Lan Wang Knights of the Posing Meat FETID 1846	Posted - 2015.11.18 12:54:10 - [359] - Quote to get it away from the gate so it cant crash it? get it out of range of sentry guns? sorta like a murderer dragging a victim up a dark alley Drinking rum before 10am makes you a pirate, not an alcoholic \| Angel Cartel \| Serpentis \|
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15088	Posted - 2015.11.18 12:54:57 - [360] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: I don't hate folks that suicide gank. Again, you lie. Your post history tells a very different story. Pretty sure you lie awake at night trying to think of ways to justify nerfing PvP in highsec. Quote: I just don't like mechanics that promote play by ping. That'd be Crimewatch itself. Unless you're willing to just give up Concord, that's not going away. Quote: Here's my question: If the mach bumping isn't for holding a freighter while guys are pinged - why is it done? You've (falsely) claimed several times about being a prolific ganker, so why don't you answer that question yourself? I already know you don't know the correct answer anyway, so you might as well just admit it. Quote: I already know it's to allow play by ping. What you don't know could fill a Charon. "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.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.