|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1697
   |
Posted - 2016.01.26 02:33:34 -
[1] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
I am not against the mechanic of ganking, it is part of the charm and danger of Eve. It just needs to be balanced so that the gankers who are all -10 to start with, (and flying cheap ships) risk very little, for a large reward.
It's already balanced. What you mean is, "It just has to be made so even the mouth-breathing imbeciles who typically get ganked in freighters won't be victims of their own laughable incompetence anymore."
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1699
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 05:40:21 -
[2] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
That was for Iain Cariaba... seems to roll with big corps such as Goonswarm Federation, so I can see why in Highsec he might not get ganked.
You think Goonswarm, which typically has at least half a dozen wardecs against them, is given some sort of leeway in high sec? 
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1699
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 06:41:19 -
[3] - Quote
Thorian Baalnorn wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:
That was for Iain Cariaba... seems to roll with big corps such as Goonswarm Federation, so I can see why in Highsec he might not get ganked.
You think Goonswarm, which typically has at least half a dozen wardecs against them, is given some sort of leeway in high sec? There KB says they do quite well on freighter ganking.
One of the more tedious parts about these arguments is the endless non sequiturs. The assertion had nothing to do with their efficacy in executing ganks.
The assertion was that Goonswarm would not BE ganked. Goonswarm has several lost JFs in high sec in the past 7 days, making the assertion demonstrably false.
Quote:
When you got 20 plus DPS heavy talos roaming for freighters most ( probably all) wardeccers are going to run for the docks. Wardeccers dont like to fight pvpers, they want to gank miners, indy and trader alts, etc. You know characters with high isk value and low to no dps and likely no pvp skills. Fighting 20 plus DPS heavy Talos is scary stuff to a wardeccer.
That's a really cool story that completely ignores that, on average, GS does, in fact, get completely **** on in HS wars.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1704
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 17:08:08 -
[4] - Quote
TBH, I wish people would stop constantly asking for nerfs to freighter manufacturers. Have you looked at the margins on those ******* things?
They could stand to explode 2-4x as often as they do.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1709
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 19:53:19 -
[5] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:
On the other hand, Eve is supposed to have some element of repercussion for your actions but the repercussions are negligible for the players doing the ganking and non-existent for players doing the bumping and carrying stolen property.
The repercussion for the gankers would be, "Wasting hours sitting at a gate failing to ever actually kill anything worthwhile."
Fortunately, there is a nigh endless supply of valiant freighter pilots ready and willing to jump on that grenade. 
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1709
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 21:48:27 -
[6] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:
I like ganking as a part of the game but really it's laughable how easy it is to setup a 30 day gank alt and log it in on request.
Which, again, is true only because there is a contingent of Lemming-like players who will cheerfully feed themselves to gankers.
If they made even a token effort to defend themselves, this wouldn't be the case. Why don't you take this up with the imbeciles who make ganking so proftable instead of trying to subsidize them?
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1711
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 01:35:19 -
[7] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:If bumping is flawed purely on the basis that it is emergent gameplay, then so is ganking. When CCP coded CONCORD response times they did not intend players to try and kill eachother before CONCORD arrived.
As is scamming, corp theft, rolling and collapsing WH's, using stabs in FW plexes, the MWD cloak trick, armour tanking a black bird, pipe bombing etc etc.
By your thinking this is all flawed gameplay?
What I really want to know is why folks think this is a "Gankers Vs. Gankees" matter.
In the abstract, this is really, "Competent and cautious players" Vs. "Improvident lackwits".
I do a lot of industry. Consequently, I move a lot of freight.
My freight does not get ganked. Other people's freight gets ganked, but not mine, because I take precautions to ensure that my freight does not get ganked. This gives me a competitive advantage over the improvident lackwits whose freight does get ganked.
Any idea suggesting it should be any easier to avoid ganks - and it's already quite trivial - is essentially suggesting that the gameplay value of effort and skill should be reduced in favor of making life easier for people who refuse to do anything for themselves.
Why should the scale be tipped a single degree in favor of the perpetual fuckups who refuse to address their own problems through the myriad means available to them?
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1722
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 17:28:20 -
[8] - Quote
Lyma Sarum wrote:There is 0 (zero) balance when it comes to a new player coming in and like me wants to haul. Even if I am not afk what stops a multigank and bumper from getting me? And I am not asking for blah blah if this and that info. I am asking about MY options as a solo new hauler when while traveling I start getting bumped and a gank is soon incoming.
I like the arbitrary, "What can I possibly do AFTER I've already catastrophically ****** up??" constraints people put on these stupid gotcha questions.
The answer is, "You can probably do nothing and you're going to explode because you have catastrophically ****** up."
You should, instead, focus on not catastrophically ******* up in the first place. You should also view the occasional explosion as a business expense.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1765
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 20:57:33 -
[9] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:This post has grown with people adding more evidence. What evidence? None has been posted showing that an issue exists at all. You my friend need to start trolling somewhere else with a comment at this point of the discussion. This problem exists and have been perceived by many people. Again CCP can validate our claims. Or just swing by Uedama and watch, it really would not be hard to see it happen.
I am pretty sure that freighters being bumped and then subsequently exploding is less accurately described as a "problem" and more accurately as "******* awesome".
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1770
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 21:38:08 -
[10] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Your examples.. are great! like you said.. Bubbled in Null, or trapped in a WH. Both of those environments are very hostile. If you want to go extort people, head there. There, you should have a fleet of people to escort a Freighter. Makes 100%. In HS, neither of those things apply. So the mechanics of being held hostage by someone in highsec should not happen.
Where does it say it shouldn't apply in hisec?
Look, that's not really important, and frankly, making an F&I post that isn't predominantly supported by wholly made up assertions is an onerous chore and you can't really expect anyone to do that.
Facts are nice when they're available, and in agreement with the person complaining, but when that's not the case, they have to be ignored in favor of the OP's feelings.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
|
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1771
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 22:19:48 -
[11] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
You never disagreed that it happens up to now, but now all of a sudden you want it.
He didn't ask for evidence that something happens. He asked for evidence of a problem.
Not actually the same thing, generally speaking. As previously stated, that it happens is, in fact, ******* awesome, and not a problem.
Now, you could suggest that that's just my opinion, and I'll wholeheartedly agree! But that is a little bit problematic when your entire position is contingent on your opinions being accepted as if they were facts.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1775
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 04:09:59 -
[12] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
I don't have to admit anything. This is a problem, and it is something that evidence does not come easily.
Quoted for hilarity. If it is such a problem, collecting the evidence should be quite trivial.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1777
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 04:29:55 -
[13] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:
I don't have to admit anything. This is a problem, and it is something that evidence does not come easily.
Quoted for hilarity. If it is such a problem, collecting the evidence should be quite trivial. Wrong. But thanks for playing.... a lovely Chia-Pet parting gift for you.
So you're pretty much the internet space equivalent of an anti-vaxxer, eh?
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1786
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 17:35:37 -
[14] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Dear anti-gankers
Maybe you should learn to play with the current rules of the game before you ask for more changes that will backfire in your face anyway.
They tried that. Now that they've figured out that glomming onto Concord killmails doesn't actually accomplish anything, all they have left is, "Whaaa, change the rules because we keep losing!"
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1796
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:58:18 -
[15] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Enabran' Tain wrote:Solution: Create a game mechanic that works like this: If one player bumps another a certain number of times within a certain amount of time, the aggressor gets a suspect timer for just the aggressed and everyone in his fleet, to attack.
Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot.
Conclusion: There is no instance or reason someone could bump into someone, outside their fleet, 5 times in 30 minutes unless it was on purpose. Yep totally agree. The sooner CCP do this, the better off we will all be, so I'm totally behind this suggestion.
That really would be a thing of beauty, wouldn't it?
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1798
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 20:57:57 -
[16] - Quote
Mazzara wrote:bumping is a cheap risk free way of holding someone in place, and just because ccp is ok with it doesn't make is any less cheap or any less of a mechanic that needs to be fixed.
It's not risk free, though. There's the risk that a group of valiant white knights might suicide gank you, for instance.
There's also the risk that nobody stupid enough to allow themselves to be bumped will come along and you'll just sit about wasting your time.
Of course, both of these risks are significantly mitigated by the unwillingness of people to actually do something other than whine and cry like a toddler with a scraped knee.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
|
|
| |
|