Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 30 40 .. 46 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2156
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 10:18:57 -
[481] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:Concord response should not happen against criminals.....if in-game consequences should be imposed by other players. I was taking that to the extreme. The CONCORD response isn't a real long-term consequence but rather just a cost. CCP spells this out in the New Pilot FAQ which states how the mechanic is completely reactionary and is not there to protect you. In itself, CONCORD doesn't even care what your security status is - if you engage in illegal aggression they destroy you, full stop, whether you are have -10 or 5 security status. This cost protects small group and solo players by providing a financial deterrent to wholesale space violence from aggressors and larger groups.
In fact all this whining in this thread stems from having NPCs try to ascribe morality to complex player actions in this sandbox game. If you decide to suicide gank a former director of your corp who is moving the goods he blatantly stole from your corporation before dropping to the NPC corp, no space court in the land would hold you accountable for trying to get your stuff back. If you are in a bitter (and legal) war with a rival and decide to suicide gank their out-of-corp hauler, why would CONCORD get involved if you had irrefutable evidence they were supplying your enemy? And yes, if someone is bumping your freighter and working with criminals, why would CONCORD want to step in to protect them?
But the game cannot know these nuances. So basically any NPC-enforced safety you give to some players to protect them, other players can use to their advantage when attacking them which is why in highsec it is often the players the know the arcane engagement rules best who win rather than the more simple contests of pure might that occur in other sectors of space. This is why it is desirable to limit the influence of NPCs on the universe as much as possible if you are trying to make a competitive sandbox game where players determine the narrative. Let the players determine who are the good guys and who are the bad guys and you will have much less complaining over game mechanics getting in the way of player interaction which is the primary whine of this thread.
But make no mistake: this is just complaining. There is indeed nothing preventing you from engaging that bumper or that looter (or that former director who stole your stuff, or that neutral hauler). There is just a cost you have to pay if you want to impose your will on the sandbox. If you are not willing to pay that cost, then you will remain un-empowered, whining impotently on the forums while players who are willing to take the hit in pursuit of their greater goals gain advantage in the sandbox.
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
isd community communications liaisons
6897
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 10:50:51 -
[482] - Quote
Removed some off topic posts.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17235
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 13:08:01 -
[483] - Quote
Khergit Deserters wrote:If a solution relies on a player having to use an alt (i.e. a second account), that's no solution. Players should not have to play the game with a main and an alt to avoid a certain built-in game mechanic. If you need two chars to play the game, then CCP would have to give every new subscriber two simultaneously playable chars.
The other way is the alt doing the (scouting, webbing, whatever) function has to be another player. If that's the case, then safe hauling can only be done by teams of players. Not solo. Which might be OK, game design-wise. But it would make hauling one other thing that a solo player can viably do in EVE.
I require between 20 and 32 people to attack a freighter in highsec. Your argument is invalid.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16094
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 13:39:35 -
[484] - Quote
This just in.
Looks like CCP says "nope!" to the claim that it's too easy to loot a freighter. Freighters are having their wreck hitpoints increased to fifteen thousand.
"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.
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
407
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 13:55:52 -
[485] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:This just in.
Looks like CCP says "nope!" to the claim that it's too easy to loot a freighter. Freighters are having their wreck hitpoints increased to fifteen thousand. Just checked that thread after seeing your post. I'm glad to see it. The changes make sense, have been supported by the playerbase with next to no opposition for a while now, and it shows CCP was listening. I'm very happy with that development, and a shout-out to Anthar who got the ball rolling on it.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17238
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 13:57:08 -
[486] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:This just in.
Looks like CCP says "nope!" to the claim that it's too easy to loot a freighter. Freighters are having their wreck hitpoints increased to fifteen thousand.
Bat country strike again, Endie is a swell guy.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
201
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 14:20:32 -
[487] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:This just in.
Looks like CCP says "nope!" to the claim that it's too easy to loot a freighter. Freighters are having their wreck hitpoints increased to fifteen thousand. Bat country strike again, Endie is a swell guy. I know, right. Don't want all that risk of getting your little wreck popped or having to think about a way to avoid that from happening, let CCP and CSM solve your problems instead. Sound familiar ? |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44118
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 14:49:13 -
[488] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:This just in.
Looks like CCP says "nope!" to the claim that it's too easy to loot a freighter. Freighters are having their wreck hitpoints increased to fifteen thousand. Bat country strike again, Endie is a swell guy. I know, right. Don't want all that risk of getting your little wreck popped or having to think about a way to avoid that from happening, let CCP and CSM solve your problems instead. Sound familiar ? Well, if you read the thread by Anthar, his main issue in proposing it was in relation to warpins in lowsec and nullsec combat.
In both cases, it's common to pop the wrecks after looting (and sometimes before) because wrecks can be warped to on grid.
By popping the wreck, you make yourself/fleet safer as the enemy can no longer warp to the wreck.
So this change will still make it possible to pop wrecks, but with a bit more effort depending on the type of ship originally destroyed.
So it will increase risk on grid and that's a good thing.
The freighter wreck aspect of it is noted as well, but not his main reason for requesting the change. It makes logical sense as well.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
1140
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 14:57:50 -
[489] - Quote
@Scipio Artelius: So what you're saying is, it is win/win |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
203
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:05:05 -
[490] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote: So this change will still make it possible to pop wrecks, but with a bit more effort depending on the type of ship originally destroyed.
So it will increase risk on grid and that's a good thing.
The freighter wreck aspect of it is noted as well, but not his main reason for requesting the change. It makes logical sense as well.
I saw the original thread and made the same comments about impact of this change on hisec freighter ganking. Considering the numbers, I'd say that change to combat scenarios will be marginal (popping 500 or 3500 ehp w/o resis ain't really a problem in any kind of fight where fleets are involved) while it practically negates one of the options anti-gankers (ready to risk thier sec status) had.
The fact that this change was 'championed' by Bat Country's CSM leaves no place for doubt in my mind that it was pushed (certainly to a degree) by the gankers as well. I guess there's no need contemplating the irony of situation in which gankers tell us all to accept the game as it is, adapt our gameplay to current rules while at the same time they're pushing their agenda using CSM. At least it is nice to see things for what they are every now and then. |
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21108
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:05:35 -
[491] - Quote
I'll just leave this here, for the OP and crew.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16103
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:07:34 -
[492] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:I guess there's no need contemplating the irony of situation
The irony of the situation is that you lot wouldn't know game balance if it snuck up and bit you in the ass.
"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.
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
203
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:09:13 -
[493] - Quote
Meh, no tears will be shed about this by me. I'll find comfort in the fact that I've popped enough wrecks to make them cry (while likely using those tissues of yours) so much that CCP agreed to change it. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16103
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:09:37 -
[494] - Quote
Oh, and let's not forget the part where you think activism should only go one way. That's "irony" too, although it's actually naked hypocrisy, but I disgress.
"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.
|
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
1143
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:10:43 -
[495] - Quote
It is as well this keyboard is on the way out, with a new replacement en route sir! |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44126
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:11:09 -
[496] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote: So this change will still make it possible to pop wrecks, but with a bit more effort depending on the type of ship originally destroyed.
So it will increase risk on grid and that's a good thing.
The freighter wreck aspect of it is noted as well, but not his main reason for requesting the change. It makes logical sense as well.
I saw the original thread and made the same comments about impact of this change on hisec freighter ganking. Considering the numbers, I'd say that change to combat scenarios will be marginal (popping 500 or 3500 ehp w/resis ain't really a problem in any kind of fight where fleets are involved) while it practically negates one of the options anti-gankers (ready to risk thier sec status) had. Didn't you say a couple of pages ago that removing bumping would have no impact on ganking?
If removing bumping will have no impact, then surely changing the HP of a wreck is no different. That's a much smaller change.
This doesn't stop the wreck from being shot, just the same way that removing bumping wouldn't stop ganking. Same, same and consistent with the position argued earlier, surely.
As for the change being marginal in combat situations, come to null and see. You're welcome anytime. This will have an impact and the greater risk is good.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21112
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:16:53 -
[497] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote: So this change will still make it possible to pop wrecks, but with a bit more effort depending on the type of ship originally destroyed.
So it will increase risk on grid and that's a good thing.
The freighter wreck aspect of it is noted as well, but not his main reason for requesting the change. It makes logical sense as well.
I saw the original thread and made the same comments about impact of this change on hisec freighter ganking. Considering the numbers, I'd say that change to combat scenarios will be marginal (popping 500 or 3500 ehp w/o resis ain't really a problem in any kind of fight where fleets are involved) while it practically negates one of the options anti-gankers (ready to risk thier sec status) had. The fact that this change was 'championed' by Bat Country's CSM leaves no place for doubt in my mind that it was pushed (certainly to a degree) by the gankers as well. I guess there's no need contemplating the irony of situation in which gankers tell us all to accept the game as it is, adapt our gameplay to current rules while at the same time they're pushing their agenda using CSM. At least it is nice to see things for what they are every now and then. If you can show me the weekly whine threads about wrecks and their HP, I'll gladly agree that gankers are hypocrites and the irony would indeed be hilarious.
Oh and to use your stance. This won't stop people shooting wrecks.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
203
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:18:54 -
[498] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Oh, and let's not forget the part where you think activism should only go one way. That's "irony" too, although it's actually naked hypocrisy, but I disgress. So you admit that they cried as well. Well, thank you good sir, you made my day. |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
203
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:23:14 -
[499] - Quote
Mag's wrote:If you can show me the weekly whine threads about wrecks and their HP, I'll gladly agree that ganker are hypocrites and the irony would indeed be hilarious.
Oh and to use your stance. This won't stop people shooting wrecks. I doubt you need weekly whine threads when your corpie is a CSM member. You whine directly to him. As for the popping, of course it will stop it. 15k EHP requires two tornados worth of alpha. |
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:24:14 -
[500] - Quote
[/quote
Guess your out of valid ideas and arguments.
.[/quote]
so far all i've heard in response to my suggestion is ' bumpers can fit mjds too' , and a load of personal attacks . yes bumpers can make the choice of fitting a mjd, sacrificing some tank, that's a choice he can make, which makes him slightly more vulnerable to a gank attempt. (they do happen occasionally you know) .
if a freighter gets bumped in uedama f.i. , the pilot is, under current bumping mechanics, pretty much at the mercy of the bumper for as long as it takes , sometimes for hours . my suggestion gives the freighter pilot something to do to help himself other than self destruct, wait for death in the queue or pay a ransom then wait for death in the queue.
please bear in mind that not all eve players have multiple friends/corp members/alts to call upon when needed.
it would be useful to know the success rate of code gank attempts on bumped freighters in uedama, according to code they never fail, despite the efforts of ag crowd, so what's the big deal bout giving em a slightly bigger challenge ?
bumping would stay exactly as it is but with a (limited use) emergency mjd on freighters , bumpers would have to take into account the target may use the mjd at any time , if he didn't use it b4 the gank squad appear, then a rookie ship equipped with scram would be all that's required to pin target down for ganking. this would require good timing, but you guys are so awesome (allegedly) that this shouldn't be a problem. |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16110
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:27:14 -
[501] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Oh, and let's not forget the part where you think activism should only go one way. That's "irony" too, although it's actually naked hypocrisy, but I disgress. So you admit that they cried as well. Well, thank you good sir, you made my day.
I didn't say that, liar.
If you actually bother to read it, the change was made for very different reasons.
Despite that, however, you immediately begin pouring out tears when you even think your own tactics are being used by the other side.
And it's delicious.
"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.
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21114
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:29:57 -
[502] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Mag's wrote:If you can show me the weekly whine threads about wrecks and their HP, I'll gladly agree that ganker are hypocrites and the irony would indeed be hilarious.
Oh and to use your stance. This won't stop people shooting wrecks. I doubt you need weekly whine threads when your corpie is a CSM member. You whine directly to him. As for the popping, of course it will stop it. 15k EHP requires two tornados worth of alpha. So you don't have any links to threads for week after week, year after year? We're just meant to take your word on it that all the whining was done directly and it was more than the week after week and year after year whining done by AG and freighter pilots?
Really?
Oh and yes, people will still shoot wrecks. But it will take what you all seem opposed to right now. :EFFORT:
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16110
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:30:58 -
[503] - Quote
I'll give you a hint since I'm such a generous person, and I know anti gankers are too bad at the game to figure it out for themselves.
The change had to do with capital ships, in fleet combat in particular. Freighter wrecks followed suit because they too are capital ships, for the sake of verisimilitude.
That said, if CCP had thought your points in this thread had any merit, they would have exempted freighters. They did not, ergo they discounted your claims.
"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.
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
206
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:31:06 -
[504] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Oh, and let's not forget the part where you think activism should only go one way. That's "irony" too, although it's actually naked hypocrisy, but I disgress. So you admit that they cried as well. Well, thank you good sir, you made my day. I didn't say that, liar. If you actually bother to read it, the change was made for very different reasons. Despite that, however, you immediately begin pouring out tears when you even think your own tactics are being used by the other side. And it's delicious. So what was the point of your reply - to suggest that crowd from minluv could have lobbied for this change? But you also know that they would never do that because lobbying is beneath them? Lol. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44128
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:32:04 -
[505] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote: please bear in mind that not all eve players have multiple friends/corp members/alts to call upon when needed.
Given that 2/3rds of the player base have only one account, the lack of alts to assist things probably isn't that uncommon; and is totally reasonable.
Players they don't have friends to help them move a freighter however, possibly shouldn't fly blindly through Uedama, Niarja and surrounding systems.
In terms of all of highsec, it's only a half dozen systems they need to avoid if they have no help. Not really difficult.
Quote:it would be useful to know the success rate of code gank attempts on bumped freighters in uedama, according to code they never fail, despite the efforts of ag crowd, so what's the big deal bout giving em a slightly bigger challenge ? You can get that information if you want. Access the stats through zkillboard or download the CREST data and analyse it. Wouldn't be all that difficult to do if you want the information.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16110
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:32:26 -
[506] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:So what was the point of your reply
Mostly to laugh at your hypocrisy and all those tears.
"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.
16110
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:35:28 -
[507] - Quote
To borrow a page from your own book...
"It doesn't nerf anti ganking, it just nerfs shooting the wreck after the gank."
And of course, if you thought we should be happy with the same crap you pointed at us, if you have any intellectual honesty whatsoever you'll be completely happy with this change.
"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.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44128
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 16:01:27 -
[508] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Aside from that, why do people that fail to protect themselves, deserve special treatment, and particularly why does a capital ship deserve special treatment just because it's in highsec? They get no special treatment anywhere else. I just went and looked at the Anshar losses for the last 3 months.
From 1 November 2015 - 31 January 2016
Nullsec: 6 losses Lowsec: 23 losses Highsec: 37 losses
The Highsec losses divide to:
Legal Target (eg. wardec, killright activation): 25 losses Gank: 12 losses
So for 12 pilots, who could have totally avoided their loss by simply having a cyno ready to light in lowsec, they should be given special protection, but none of the others should?
What's so special about highsec that those 12 ships deserve special treatment over any of the others, to compensate for mistakes they made?
Surely if they were dumb enough not to have an exit cyno, then they should suffer the consequence of that poor decision; just like all the others that died?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
207
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 16:04:34 -
[509] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: The change had to do with capital ships, in fleet combat in particular. Freighter wrecks followed suit because they too are capital ships, for the sake of verisimilitude.
Capital wrecks in fleet combat? People had problems probing and warping to capitals in this game? Did CCP release a slippery pete version of phoenix or something? Slippery Nag? While on the topic, I would love to have Nidhoggur shaped slippers.
Also, in the original post Anthar said the following: "- more dead freighters : after ganking a freighter , common thing is to kill the wreck. If this wreck could be left alive , someone will try to pick this stuff up in another freighter , gaining suspect timer"
So his stated aim for this change is exactly what I'm advocating too - yes, give EHP but make looting risky. No objections from me there.
Quote:That said, if CCP had thought your points in this thread had any merit, they would have exempted freighters. They did not, ergo they discounted your claims.
Well let me then say this (to use the logic of you and your buddies) - this change is bad because, while it may be legitimate for a certain scenario, spillovers to another have major consequences. Again, sound familiar? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16112
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 16:07:40 -
[510] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Capital wrecks in fleet combat? People had problems probing and warping to capitals in this game?
Are you an idiot?
You can warp to wrecks on grid, so people blew them up to deny the warp in point.
Jesus Christ, this is not as hard as you are making it.
"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 30 40 .. 46 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |