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) |
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
5
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 02:21:05 -
[1] - Quote
CCP has done a wonders trying to keep this complex ever changing game mechanics in balance over the years. There are two items that I (and others) see as out of balanced and are being abused by some.
1st - I know the act of bumping is not a reason an exploit, however the people who do the bumping can and often do (in High sec) bump someone for 30-60 minutes or more!! Holding them hostage with the police in clear site with no repercussion. Even having a webber does not mean they will be able to get away prior, once the bumping has started, there is very little anyone can do to help. This can be done at many neighboring system gates all at the same time. Waiting indefinitely for a gank fleet, or just holding hostage and harassing a user.
Solutions... there have been a number in posts in the forums and Redit that have solutions to this problem. This includes an "emergency macro jump drive" concept, or after so much shield to shield contact to a freighter at a gate/asteroid belt/station, it would cause concord to give a temporary "strong inertia damping shield" around the 2 ships preventing them from having any effects of bumping for a time. I just recently thought of this solution. Or perhaps there is a low slot for an Inertia damping module, that when activated, will reduce the effects of a bump. Again, there can be a activation timer to delay the start of the damping field (to give a limited time window for gankers). These are just some options, a bigger conversation needs to happen to bring a BALANCE (Important word).
2nd - Looting. When the gankers did get a target they would have to have a freighter loot it if it was of value. They timed things down to get away before people could lock them. This was fair. Now, when they gank, when the target pops, the criminal catalysts start to loot and eject the loot before Concord can pop them. Their hauler comes in scoops the ejected loot and flys away not Flashy Yellow.
Solution - A Criminal can't loot a ship Or Solution2 - Then if they eject the loot, since they were under a suspect timer, it is yellow loot to everyone as well (while unable to access another ships cargohold).
If they want it... they have to risk it, Risk the same thing they did to the freighter before. Can one ship survive the attack of many? Is it worth it? How much loot dropped. Etc..
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.
Speaking of -10, One last question to ponder: How is a -10 any different then say a -7? Really they are not any different. Can measures be put into place that makes things harder for the "hardened criminal"? Aggressive Concord? Random Special Anti-Criminal patrols that can respond quicker then concord? Unable to dock at all?
I am not saying my ideas are the ones to go with (though the inertia shield / module is a good concept I think! :) ) I just think this needs a hard look from both sides of the field here along with CCP to really make the game balanced.
Thanks!
KT
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1697
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 02:33:34 -
[2] - 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/
|
Shallanna Yassavi
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
75
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 02:36:01 -
[3] - Quote
Safe logoff gets you away from the bumper if nobody's taking a shot at you, because there's no combat timer. That said, you're not allowed to just bump someone without taking a shot at them, or a ransom demand.
A signature :o
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
5
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 02:43:54 -
[4] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote: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."
No, they are also gankable, if there is a fleet ready... It will force those that gank to select their targets more selectively. Not just harass 3 or 4 freighters trying to ransom them (then still potentially gank them) on different gates in limbo for 30-60 minutes. |
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
5
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 02:46:45 -
[5] - Quote
Shallanna Yassavi wrote:Safe logoff gets you away from the bumper if nobody's taking a shot at you, because there's no combat timer. That said, you're not allowed to just bump someone without taking a shot at them, or a ransom demand.
RIght, but the gankers do shoot them... they send in a sacrifice ship to agress. Then the freighter warps, and then they scan them down.... then they gank.
Logging off is not any help now days. |
Iain Cariaba
2436
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 03:09:45 -
[6] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Shallanna Yassavi wrote:Safe logoff gets you away from the bumper if nobody's taking a shot at you, because there's no combat timer. That said, you're not allowed to just bump someone without taking a shot at them, or a ransom demand. RIght, but the gankers do shoot them... they send in a sacrifice ship to agress. Then the freighter warps, and then they scan them down.... then they gank. Logging off is not any help now days. Apparently you're unaware of a simple little fact. Freighter pilots who have scouts, webbing escorts, and avoid autopiloting don't get bumped and ganked. Unless they're really unlucky, a freighter isn't going to get bumped in the less than 5s it takes a webbing escort to lock and apply webs.
As a person who's had the same Charon for years now, I say there's nothing wrong with bumping. You just have to stop expecting to pilot a capital ship without an escort.
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?
|
Thorian Baalnorn
Bad Influence I N G L O R I O U S
37
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 03:15:58 -
[7] - Quote
Maybe an extra low slot on freighters and give them a module that negates the bump effect up to anything smaller than a carrier. . You know most of them are going to use that slot for more expanders. So its a fair trade off. You can either make your ship less vulnerable to ganking and bumping or you can makes yourself a bigger target. Maximum profits/ lower overhead comes at a higher risk. Everyone wins. Those bothered by bumping can remove the issue and those trying to get maximum amount of goodies just became bigger targets.
If you lose your freighter because you got ganked then should of used bulkheads instead of expanders
Shooting Structures = PVP Mining
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
8
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 03:53:26 -
[8] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Shallanna Yassavi wrote:Safe logoff gets you away from the bumper if nobody's taking a shot at you, because there's no combat timer. That said, you're not allowed to just bump someone without taking a shot at them, or a ransom demand. RIght, but the gankers do shoot them... they send in a sacrifice ship to agress. Then the freighter warps, and then they scan them down.... then they gank. Logging off is not any help now days. Apparently you're unaware of a simple little fact. Freighter pilots who have scouts, webbing escorts, and avoid autopiloting don't get bumped and ganked. Unless they're really unlucky, a freighter isn't going to get bumped in the less than 5s it takes a webbing escort to lock and apply webs. As a person who's had the same Charon for years now, I say there's nothing wrong with bumping. You just have to stop expecting to pilot a capital ship without an escort.
As a person who has seen countless Charons being bumped by a Mach that can go 2000k/s, unless you get a good warp in placement, once you are starting to be bumped, it is really difficult to get away. Especially with bulkheads, which decreases your agility, but giving you that much needed HP. Then even enter the 2nd bumper that comes in. I have seen that for high value cargo. Or they must just be bored. Once you get bumped, chances of getting away is reduced.
BTW, they have scouts also to watch and then the Mach show up on gate and jump though with you.
Im glad you have good luck with things! But that is more the exception then the rule.
|
Thorian Baalnorn
Bad Influence I N G L O R I O U S
37
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 04:47:19 -
[9] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Shallanna Yassavi wrote:Safe logoff gets you away from the bumper if nobody's taking a shot at you, because there's no combat timer. That said, you're not allowed to just bump someone without taking a shot at them, or a ransom demand. RIght, but the gankers do shoot them... they send in a sacrifice ship to agress. Then the freighter warps, and then they scan them down.... then they gank. Logging off is not any help now days. Apparently you're unaware of a simple little fact. Freighter pilots who have scouts, webbing escorts, and avoid autopiloting don't get bumped and ganked. Unless they're really unlucky, a freighter isn't going to get bumped in the less than 5s it takes a webbing escort to lock and apply webs. As a person who's had the same Charon for years now, I say there's nothing wrong with bumping. You just have to stop expecting to pilot a capital ship without an escort. As a person who has seen countless Charons being bumped by a Mach that can go 2000k/s, unless you get a good warp in placement, once you are starting to be bumped, it is really difficult to get away. Especially with bulkheads, which decreases your agility, but giving you that much needed HP. Then even enter the 2nd bumper that comes in. I have seen that for high value cargo. Or they must just be bored. Once you get bumped, chances of getting away is reduced. BTW, they have scouts also to watch and then the Mach show up on gate and jump though with you. Im glad you have good luck with things! But that is more the exception then the rule. Though you would probably not be targeted by the gankers in highsec based on your Alliance. So that helps you. :)
The bulkheads are suppose to make it harder to be ganked...IE: need more gankers to kill the target in the same amount of time. But honestly ganking highsec freighters should not be a profitable job.
And why would i not be targeted in highsec based on my alliance?
Shooting Structures = PVP Mining
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
8
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 05:02:43 -
[10] - Quote
Thorian Baalnorn wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Shallanna Yassavi wrote:Safe logoff gets you away from the bumper if nobody's taking a shot at you, because there's no combat timer. That said, you're not allowed to just bump someone without taking a shot at them, or a ransom demand. RIght, but the gankers do shoot them... they send in a sacrifice ship to agress. Then the freighter warps, and then they scan them down.... then they gank. Logging off is not any help now days. Apparently you're unaware of a simple little fact. Freighter pilots who have scouts, webbing escorts, and avoid autopiloting don't get bumped and ganked. Unless they're really unlucky, a freighter isn't going to get bumped in the less than 5s it takes a webbing escort to lock and apply webs. As a person who's had the same Charon for years now, I say there's nothing wrong with bumping. You just have to stop expecting to pilot a capital ship without an escort. As a person who has seen countless Charons being bumped by a Mach that can go 2000k/s, unless you get a good warp in placement, once you are starting to be bumped, it is really difficult to get away. Especially with bulkheads, which decreases your agility, but giving you that much needed HP. Then even enter the 2nd bumper that comes in. I have seen that for high value cargo. Or they must just be bored. Once you get bumped, chances of getting away is reduced. BTW, they have scouts also to watch and then the Mach show up on gate and jump though with you. Im glad you have good luck with things! But that is more the exception then the rule. Though you would probably not be targeted by the gankers in highsec based on your Alliance. So that helps you. :) The bulkheads are suppose to make it harder to be ganked...IE: need more gankers to kill the target in the same amount of time. But honestly ganking highsec freighters should not be a profitable job. And why would i not be targeted in highsec based on my alliance?
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. |
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1699
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 05:40:21 -
[11] - 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/
|
Thorian Baalnorn
Bad Influence I N G L O R I O U S
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 06:18:53 -
[12] - Quote
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. 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.
Shooting Structures = PVP Mining
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1699
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 06:41:19 -
[13] - 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/
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2116
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 08:31:44 -
[14] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Solutions... there have been a number in posts in the forums and Redit that have solutions to this problem. This includes an "emergency macro jump drive" concept, or after so much shield to shield contact to a freighter at a gate/asteroid belt/station, it would cause concord to give a temporary "strong inertia damping shield" around the 2 ships preventing them from having any effects of bumping for a time. I just recently thought of this solution. Or perhaps there is a low slot for an Inertia damping module, that when activated, will reduce the effects of a bump. Again, there can be a activation timer to delay the start of the damping field (to give a limited time window for gankers). These are just some options, a bigger conversation needs to happen to bring a BALANCE (Important word). Why do these proposals never have anything to do with balance even when they are claimed to? These proposals are almost always just ways to isolate players from hostile interactions, more specifically ways to allow a pilot to solo pilot a capital ship with no fear for interdiction. How does giving freighters a button to escape PvP with no help and no effort make anything better?
If you want to replace bumping you need start from the ground up. Design a system where capital ships in highsec can be tackled without CONCORD insta-blapping the aggressor. Then add in ways for the friends of the freighter pilot to rescue the ship, which in turn can be countered by the other side. Then you have a proper game mechanic which still maintains the intended trade-offs for flying the best-in-class hauler, while allowing for more interesting game play to develop than the current status quo.
So -1 on the unoriginal "make freighters immune to bumping" suggestion.
KickAss Tivianne wrote:2nd - Looting. When the gankers did get a target they would have to have a freighter loot it if it was of value. They timed things down to get away before people could lock them. This was fair. Now, when they gank, when the target pops, the criminal catalysts start to loot and eject the loot before Concord can pop them. Their hauler comes in scoops the ejected loot and flys away not Flashy Yellow.
Solution - A Criminal can't loot a ship Or Solution2 - Then if they eject the loot, since they were under a suspect timer, it is yellow loot to everyone as well (while unable to access another ships cargohold).
If they want it... they have to risk it, Risk the same thing they did to the freighter before. Can one ship survive the attack of many? Is it worth it? How much loot dropped. Etc.. I fail to see the problem here. If the Catalysts are already criminal you can just shoot them. If they eject them loot into another jetcan, you can just take the loot if you want it, just like you can take the loot from the original wreck if you want it. If you want that loot you are intended by the game mechanics to have to take a suspect flag for doing so just like the gankers do. Why should the game be changed so you can hide behind the protection of CONCORD while interfering with intended piratical game play?
If you want the loot you have "to risk it" as you say. HTFU and just take it and suffer the consequences of a suspect flag like the gankers do every day.
So -1.
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Speaking of -10, One last question to ponder: How is a -10 any different then say a -7? Really they are not any different. Can measures be put into place that makes things harder for the "hardened criminal"? Aggressive Concord? Random Special Anti-Criminal patrols that can respond quicker then concord? Unable to dock at all? Yup, that's exactly what we need: more NPC enforced consequences on intended game play. Look, if you don't like gankers then shoot them. Ganking has been nerfed so hard that it is trivial to protect yourself from almost all risk to them in today's highsec. We do not need more penalties or consequences that are enforced only by NPCs so other players can pay less attention to the game and spend their time in highsec watching Netflix.
Perhaps there are some changes that can make the granularity of security status have more meaning, but piling on more NPC-enforced consequences does nothing other than make an intended profession more tedious. Any ideas should involve other players. So, -1.
Total score: -3. Suicide ganking is intended game play. If you have new ideas on how to stimulate conflict between criminals and law enforcements, or make the conflict more interesting many people would like to here it. If you are just going to come to the forums as ask that the game be tilted in your favour and that the NPCs do all the work for you in defeating the criminals, you can keep that whining for the Anti-Ganking channel and stop wasting everyone's time.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
43881
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 09:02:12 -
[15] - Quote
Shallanna Yassavi wrote:Safe logoff gets you away from the bumper if nobody's taking a shot at you, because there's no combat timer. That said, you're not allowed to just bump someone without taking a shot at them, or a ransom demand. You can't safe log if you are being targetted, so the bumping ship only needs to yellow box to prevent a safe log. No shooting necessary.
However shooting from a sacrifice ship achieves a 15min aggression timer which keeps the freighter in space even if the pilot just logs off.
Kickass Tivianne wrote: know the act of bumping is not a reason an exploit, however the people who do the bumping can and often do (in High sec) bump someone for 30-60 minutes or more!! I see the 30-60 min figure used a lot, but from watching the gank intel channel when my alt is hauling in highsec, I never see it going for that long.
It always seems to be much shorter then that, but that's only my experience.
How often does the 30-60 minutes really happen?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Anthar Thebess
1407
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 09:19:29 -
[16] - Quote
I don't like bumping. Not because it is used in higsec to bump freighters, but because ships don't get any damage from it.
Excluding this fact, bumping mechanic is very interesting thing to use at the same time all across to eve. People not only bump freighters in higsec, but also supers out of towers that had password leaked. People bump capped out supers and capitals blocking them from warping off, as they lost tackle. How many times i bumped or someone bumped my ship out of undock in nullsec station. Some people even fly without scram or point and have enough skill to keep cruiser sized ship on field using this mechanic.
You probably lost a freighter on one of your alts. This is fine, ships in EVE needs to be destroyed, as this is a thing that keeps whole eve industry running.
Have you heard about DST? - 60.000 m3 of cargo. - Can mount cloak - Can mount MJD - Can fit tank, and get up to 1mil EHP , and very easily around 300k of EHP - Align fast
Eve is about good and bad choices. You need to prepare yourself for all stuff that can happen, and fly ships you can afford to lose.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
13750
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 10:47:47 -
[17] - Quote
Shallanna Yassavi wrote:That said, you're not allowed to just bump someone without taking a shot at them, or a ransom demand. yes you are.
where did you read this?
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
Iain Cariaba
2437
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 10:49:20 -
[18] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Shallanna Yassavi wrote:Safe logoff gets you away from the bumper if nobody's taking a shot at you, because there's no combat timer. That said, you're not allowed to just bump someone without taking a shot at them, or a ransom demand. RIght, but the gankers do shoot them... they send in a sacrifice ship to agress. Then the freighter warps, and then they scan them down.... then they gank. Logging off is not any help now days. Apparently you're unaware of a simple little fact. Freighter pilots who have scouts, webbing escorts, and avoid autopiloting don't get bumped and ganked. Unless they're really unlucky, a freighter isn't going to get bumped in the less than 5s it takes a webbing escort to lock and apply webs. As a person who's had the same Charon for years now, I say there's nothing wrong with bumping. You just have to stop expecting to pilot a capital ship without an escort. As a person who has seen countless Charons being bumped by a Mach that can go 2000k/s, unless you get a good warp in placement, once you are starting to be bumped, it is really difficult to get away. Especially with bulkheads, which decreases your agility, but giving you that much needed HP. Then even enter the 2nd bumper that comes in. I have seen that for high value cargo. Or they must just be bored. Once you get bumped, chances of getting away is reduced. BTW, they have scouts also to watch and then the Mach show up on gate and jump though with you. Im glad you have good luck with things! But that is more the exception then the rule. I underlined the key point in your statement.
Yes, once you start getting bumped you're pretty much hosed. However, the fact your totally overlooking in the attempt to justify this terribad idea is that the 2000m/s Machariel cannot get up to speed and get to the Charon to bump it in the less than 5s it takes a webbing frigate to apply webs to a freighter. How long you can get bumped is totally irrelevant to the fact that, if you're flying smart, it's nearly impossible to start getting bumped.
According to EveHQ's ship fitter, a Hyena with 3 t2 webs in the mids, which will insta-warp any freighter, can lock a freighter in just over a second, then apply the webs out to 26km with Electronic Attack Ships skill trained to 4. For most gates, that's enough range to apply webs to your freighter if it arrives in system on the opposite side of the gate from the hyena. For the regional gates that have the jump in point further away, the freighter holds gate cloak while the hyena burns back to gate. That 2000m/s Mach you're so afraid of simply cannot get up to speed and get to you before the freighter is gone.
This is why bumping is balanced. Yes, once the bump starts you can't really get out of it, but if you bring escorts for your highsec capital ship, it's nearly impossible for the bump to start.
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?
|
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
875
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 10:49:25 -
[19] - Quote
Fly a jump freighter and just jump out if you get bumped.
Bumping is balanced and perfectly counter-able.
Also please use search function next time, this thread is redundant repost.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17143
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 10:49:28 -
[20] - Quote
In response to that Talos comment, all gank ships are profitable to gank. In fact the Talos is more profitable to gank than the hulk used to be.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
398
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 11:21:19 -
[21] - Quote
Actually that reminds me, I've had a question I've been wanting to ask the nullsec groups....
I understand you can only jump a freighter into lowsec at the outskirts of highsec, then you have to "slowboat"/gate it to highsec. Once you undock from your station (say, Jita), you can jump back out again. But, why not have some of your alts ship goods to the edge of highsec so your freighter only has to go through one gate? Like, get a bunch of DST's to ship stuff to the highsec system bordering low, then freighter it from there? Seems like a safer venture than going all the way to Jita with the freighter.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2518
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 14:50:09 -
[22] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:Actually that reminds me, I've had a question I've been wanting to ask the nullsec groups....
I understand you can only jump a freighter into lowsec at the outskirts of highsec, then you have to "slowboat"/gate it to highsec. Once you undock from your station (say, Jita), you can jump back out again. But, why not have some of your alts ship goods to the edge of highsec so your freighter only has to go through one gate? Like, get a bunch of DST's to ship stuff to the highsec system bordering low, then freighter it from there? Seems like a safer venture than going all the way to Jita with the freighter.
I don't really deal with logistics but I would guess size matter in that case. Even after bulkhead, you can put a few DST worth of cargo in a freighter. |
Jennifer en Marland
Shiny Violent Killing Toys
41
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 15:46:26 -
[23] - Quote
It seems silly and nonsensical that almost every method of tackling a neutral ship in highsec will get you concorded...but bumping allows you to indefinitely stop a freighter warping with no penalty.
Even if this contradiction were resolved, freighter ganking is far from in trouble. Gankers just need to buy tags to get their sec status above -5, and then either camp a gate, waiting for freighters to come through (I've seen this done before), or just warp to the gate as a target is about to jump through. Given how rich Code and Goons are, buying tags shouldn't be any problem for them...and other groups can still make a big profit from successfully ganking a well-chosen target.
Army of dolls stole all your perfect imperfections.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2119
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 16:25:28 -
[24] - Quote
Jennifer en Marland wrote:It seems silly and nonsensical that almost every method of tackling a neutral ship in highsec will get you concorded...but bumping allows you to indefinitely stop a freighter warping with no penalty.
Even if this contradiction were resolved, freighter ganking is far from in trouble. Gankers just need to buy tags to get their sec status above -5, and then either camp a gate, waiting for freighters to come through (I've seen this done before), or just warp to the gate as a target is about to jump through. Given how rich Code and Goons are, buying tags shouldn't be any problem for them...and other groups can still make a big profit from successfully ganking a well-chosen target. Capital ships are incredibly powerful, yet this is balanced by their weakness of being vulnerable to smaller ships and thus they require a support fleet. In highsec, that "fleet" basically amounts to a single webbing ship, but the premise is still the same. If you want the benefits of flying the most powerful hauler in the game you must accept the downsides that come along with that.
Besides, a bunch of neutral Catalysts sitting on gates blapping freighters is significantly less engaging game play than we have now. At least the bump-tackling allows a freighter pilot some time to call for backup from their friends or various white knights and a chance for the "good guys" to get the -10s in transit or gank the bumpers. I don't think (ab)using the tag system to obsolete the security status part of the Crimewatch system that CPP spent much time making would be good game design.
If CCP makes any changes to bumping (which I think they probably should long-term), it won't be to just make freighters immune. More likely they will add a new interdiction method for tackling capital ships in highsec, perhaps as part of their desire to allow other capital ships back into highsec. But until then, freighters will continue to be vulnerable to bumping just like every other capital ship in every other sector of space in the game. This isn't a problem though; there are several alternative haulers that do not have this weakness, and those in the know can move even freighters with almost perfect (98.8%) safety.
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
11
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 16:43:50 -
[25] - Quote
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?
His KB shows he hangs with them.... he is not part of the corp. Due to the reason you mentioned. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15908
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 16:45:20 -
[26] - Quote
Absolutely nothing need be done about a so called "broken" mechanic that can be avoided with a T1 frigates with a couple of webs.
If bumping is "broken", then webbing to warp and MWD+cloak is moreso.
"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.
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1704
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 17:08:08 -
[27] - 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/
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
11
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 17:15:27 -
[28] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Shallanna Yassavi wrote:Safe logoff gets you away from the bumper if nobody's taking a shot at you, because there's no combat timer. That said, you're not allowed to just bump someone without taking a shot at them, or a ransom demand. RIght, but the gankers do shoot them... they send in a sacrifice ship to agress. Then the freighter warps, and then they scan them down.... then they gank. Logging off is not any help now days. Apparently you're unaware of a simple little fact. Freighter pilots who have scouts, webbing escorts, and avoid autopiloting don't get bumped and ganked. Unless they're really unlucky, a freighter isn't going to get bumped in the less than 5s it takes a webbing escort to lock and apply webs. As a person who's had the same Charon for years now, I say there's nothing wrong with bumping. You just have to stop expecting to pilot a capital ship without an escort. As a person who has seen countless Charons being bumped by a Mach that can go 2000k/s, unless you get a good warp in placement, once you are starting to be bumped, it is really difficult to get away. Especially with bulkheads, which decreases your agility, but giving you that much needed HP. Then even enter the 2nd bumper that comes in. I have seen that for high value cargo. Or they must just be bored. Once you get bumped, chances of getting away is reduced. BTW, they have scouts also to watch and then the Mach show up on gate and jump though with you. Im glad you have good luck with things! But that is more the exception then the rule. I underlined the key point in your statement. Yes, once you start getting bumped you're pretty much hosed. However, the fact your totally overlooking in the attempt to justify this terribad idea is that the 2000m/s Machariel cannot get up to speed and get to the Charon to bump it in the less than 5s it takes a webbing frigate to apply webs to a freighter. How long you can get bumped is totally irrelevant to the fact that, if you're flying smart, it's nearly impossible to start getting bumped. According to EveHQ's ship fitter, a Hyena with 3 t2 webs in the mids, which will insta-warp any freighter, can lock a freighter in just over a second, then apply the webs out to 26km with Electronic Attack Ships skill trained to 4. For most gates, that's enough range to apply webs to your freighter if it arrives in system on the opposite side of the gate from the hyena. For the regional gates that have the jump in point further away, the freighter holds gate cloak while the hyena burns back to gate. That 2000m/s Mach you're so afraid of simply cannot get up to speed and get to you before the freighter is gone. This is why bumping is balanced. Yes, once the bump starts you can't really get out of it, but if you bring escorts for your highsec capital ship, it's nearly impossible for the bump to start.
That is a good setup, but I wonder how a freighter with Bulkheads adding additional mass which reduces the ability to align. If that web ship could get you out in time. The bumper fit Mach with Inertia stabs, and nanofiber modules do move quickly. OR I have see smaller but yet faster Stabber fleet Issues tricked out for speed, even faster then a Mach, to get that initial bump in till the Machs show up. (This happens often now when they have large numbers out bumping, perhaps they are adapting to the webber).
Look bumps happen when you don't have a webber. Ok... Shame on them. However they should not be allowed to bump infinitely till they get a ransom, (which may or may not actually save them) or ganked. To the person who asked about the numbers.. Yes I've seen it.. many Anti-Gankers have seen it. Then you get reports of other bumps on other gates, they can hold them till they got around to them.
I was there When one of the CSM members was ganked in the Uedama area. They ganked another freighter they were holding, keeping the CSM member bumped longer. I don't set a timer from each bump, but i've seen some borderline harassment times.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15908
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 17:21:45 -
[29] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote: That is a good setup, but I wonder how a freighter with Bulkheads adding additional mass which reduces the ability to align. If that web ship could get you out in time.
I don't wonder, because I've actually done it.
Done correctly, if the Machariel pilot even has time to lock you then he has the reflexes of a hummingbird. Even with bulkheads.
Web to warp is only barely not perfect. Lag alone keeps it from an unbeatable trick.
Quote: However they should not be allowed to bump infinitely till they get a ransom, (which may or may not actually save them) or ganked.
Why not? If you fail to defend yourself, you should suffer the consequences of being at the mercy of the other player. What you're saying is like telling me that I shouldn't be able to scram and web a pod until the guy self destructs or sings me a few bars of Old Man River.
Too bad. I can, and it's absolutely permitted gameplay. And what's more, it's your own fault for being caught. You can either bite the bullet and self destruct, or you get to sit there until I'm done playing with you.
Deal with 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.
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2989
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 17:36:45 -
[30] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote: As a person who has seen countless Charons being bumped...
For every freighter you've seen bumped, you have seen hundreds more pass through unscathed. Its only a relatively small amount of freighters that get ganked and only in a few systems. So if anything, ganking should be made easier. This would actually reward good piloting and making friends.
The amount of organisation and resources it takes to gank a freighter is no small feat where as all the freighter pilot has to do to avoid the gank is:
Not be AFK. Bring one friend. Take another route. Go to another market. Take several trips.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
11
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 17:40:08 -
[31] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote: Why do these proposals never have anything to do with balance even when they are claimed to? These proposals are almost always just ways to isolate players from hostile interactions, more specifically ways to allow a player to solo pilot a capital ship with no fear for interdiction. How does giving freighters a button to escape PvP with no help and no effort make anything better?
If you want to replace bumping you need start from the ground up. Design a system where capital ships in highsec can be tackled without CONCORD insta-blapping the aggressor. Then add in ways for the friends of the freighter pilot to rescue the ship, which in turn can be countered by the other side. Then you have a proper game mechanic which still maintains the intended trade-offs for flying the best-in-class hauler, while allowing for more interesting game play to develop than the current status quo.
So -1 on the unoriginal "make freighters immune to bumping" suggestion.
I fail to see the problem here. If the Catalysts are already criminal you can just shoot them. If they eject the loot into another jetcan, you can just take the loot if you want it, just like you can take the loot from the original wreck if you want it. If you want that loot you are intended by the game mechanics to have to take a suspect flag for doing so just like the gankers do. Why should the game be changed so you can hide behind the protection of CONCORD while interfering with intended piratical game play?
If you want the loot you have "to risk it" as you say. HTFU and just take it and suffer the consequences of a suspect flag like the gankers do every day.
So -1.
Yup, that's exactly what we need: more NPC enforced consequences on intended game play. Look, if you don't like gankers then shoot them. Ganking has been nerfed so hard that it is trivial to protect yourself from almost all risk to them in today's highsec. We do not need more penalties or consequences that are enforced only by NPCs so other players can pay less attention to the game and spend their time in highsec watching Netflix.
Perhaps there are some changes that can make the granularity of security status have more meaning, but piling on more NPC-enforced consequences does nothing other than make an intended profession more tedious. Any ideas should involve other players. So, -1.
Total score: -3. Suicide ganking is intended game play. If you have new ideas on how to stimulate conflict between criminals and law enforcement, or make the conflict more interesting many people would like to hear it. If you are just going to come to the forums as ask that the game be tilted in your favour and that the NPCs do all the work for you in defeating the criminals, you can keep that whining for the Anti-Ganking channel and stop wasting everyone's time.
So for your first comment... I am not saying make freighters immune to bumping... Where Did I say that? They can be bumped for a while, but there comes a point when its just harassment and maybe they don't even have a gank fleet out. Just trying to take money from a captive audance. Right there at the gate with Concord there. Seems stilly that if someone repeatedly started hitting you your car with their car at a police check point, that might flag a response. I know Eve is not Real life (I know... crazy), so I don't expect the same responce, but If loot a can, regardless of what is in it, I become suspect, but I bump a Billion ISK frighter for 15-60 minutes, nothing happens????
I give your comment a -1 as well.
2. If a criminal cat scoops loot from a freighter it ganks. and then throws it out in a can. it should be yellow, and who ever picks it up is yellow. Since all the cats that are ganking will be FR, who ever ends up scooping the STOLEN loot, should go yellow also. It should not be "free and clear" just cause they ejected it.
- 1 for you again sir.
Lastly, Ganking is alive and well. What has been removed are the exploits that people have found around the system. Please don't mistake a bug as a nerf. Yes, NPC enforcement in a already NPC enforced area. I know thats crazy also. If you don't like it go back to Null or low, and you'll do fine there. I am not saying protect from all risk, it is a balance, people seem to be missing that part. What is the Risk that a ganker in a Cata, has..? Risks a -10 security status? No, Risks a 2 million dollar ship. Slight Risk. Reward HIGH. Even if you add up a whole 30 person gank fleet 30 cats. 60 Million for a freighter that is worth 1 billion. Sometimes the freighter has nothing in it, which means they did it for the laughs, nothing else to loose. 60 million... make it back on the next freighter having 1 Billion. of loot. So yes, there must be a lower level or additional penalty for harden criminals.
Another -1 for you.
But I thank you for your responses. I hope we can find some middle ground!
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
11
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 17:45:05 -
[32] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote: As a person who has seen countless Charons being bumped...
For every freighter you've seen bumped, you have seen hundreds more pass through unscathed. Its only a relatively small amount of freighters that get ganked and only in a few systems. So if anything, ganking should be made easier. This would actually reward good piloting and making friends. The amount of organisation and resources it takes to gank a freighter is no small feat where as all the freighter pilot has to do to avoid the gank is: Not be AFK. Bring one friend. Take another route. Go to another market. Take several trips.
Those are all great points! I agree! However the bumping mechanic, if you happen to fall into the trap should not keep you in limbo for a long time. Either they have a gank fleet ready in 5-10 min.. and go for it... or let ya go. And if they do kill it... make the punishments for criminals get harder and harder and more expensive to recover from with tags etc...
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15909
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 17:45:21 -
[33] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:They can be bumped for a while, but there comes a point when its just harassment
No, there isn't.
Because the freighter pilot always has a way out of that, he's just unwilling to take it for whatever reason.
Quote: Lastly, Ganking is alive and well.
Not really. It's mostly just solo ganks of untanked barges or autopiloting pods. The only two groups who can do it with any real effect anymore are huge, and they do it will frankly enormous SRPs. Hell, CODE operates at a loss, for crying out loud.
Quote: I hope we can find some middle ground!
There is no middle ground, because what you want is not balance, it's a selfish desire for more safety where none is deserved.
You get nothing. Hell, if anything, the pendulum is about to swing against you, because you've had things your way for entirely too long now, and at the expense of the rest of the game.
"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.
15909
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 17:47:27 -
[34] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:However the bumping mechanic, if you happen to fall into the trap should not keep you in limbo for a long time.
Says who?
Quote: Either they have a gank fleet ready in 5-10 min.. and go for it... or let ya go.
Nope. You do not get to dictate what they do with their player freedom. Either free yourself with a game mechanic, or accept that your death is deserved and just self destruct already.
Quote: And if they do kill it... make the punishments for criminals get harder and harder and more expensive to recover from with tags etc...
No.
Theirs is the ONLY playstyle in highsec that has any consequences to begin with. They don't need anymore because you can't be asked to defend yourself halfway correctly.
Stop trying to have bad, lazy, sloppy play subsidized by the mechanics. People who play the game wrong are supposed to die.
"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 Pandemic Legion
17146
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 18:49:45 -
[35] - Quote
"Just one more nerf."
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2119
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 18:50:22 -
[36] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote: I am not saying make freighters immune to bumping... Where Did I say that? They can be bumped for a while, but there comes a point when its just harassment and maybe they don't even have a gank fleet out. You called for the introduction of a button for freighter pilots that allows them to auto-escape a bumper by pushing it. That is the very definition of "immunity".
There are already rules against harassment. If you feel "harassed", file a petition and ask CCP to step in.
But for the record, having your ship bumped or exploded in this PvP game is intended game play. You are not entitled to fly everywhere safely or unimpeded. Use the tools at your disposal to fly your freighter safely, or just fly something else.
KickAss Tivianne wrote:2. If a criminal cat scoops loot from a freighter it ganks. and then throws it out in a can. it should be yellow, and who ever picks it up is yellow. Since all the cats that are ganking will be FR, who ever ends up scooping the STOLEN loot, should go yellow also. It should not be "free and clear" just cause they ejected it. Just steal it. The loot is not safe until it is back in a station. This is the exact same situation the gankers face after exploding someone. If you want the loot, go take it. Otherwise, why should you be able to affect that loot without CONCORD intervening? More importantly, why should CCP exempt you from a mechanic that is designed to promote conflict and explosions?
I repeat, if you want that loot so bad, just go take it. There is nothing forbidding you from doing so.
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Lastly, Ganking is alive and well. Miner ganking is a former shadow of itself and near an all time low in the history of this game. Professional freighter pilots make almost 99% of their trips safely. Highsec has never been mechanically more safe than it is today.
There is no pressing need to add yet more safety to highsec.
KickAss Tivianne wrote:What has been removed are the exploits that people have found around the system. Please don't mistake a bug as a nerf. These are not exploits. They are what as known as "emergent game play" something that CCP likes to see take place in their PvP sandbox game. If they thought they were exploits, or unbalanced, they would fix them like they did with Hyperdunking. If CCP didn't want freighters to be vulnerable in highsec they would change some stats or even lock out all aggressive modules.
I guess I don't blame you for asking to have the rules re-written in your favour. It is a strategy that has worked before and will likely work again. I just don't see how you can do so with no sense of shame or recognition of what you are doing. I am very open to new suggestions that make the game better, but these suggestions of yours do nothing but dramatically increase safety for targets, and make more work for highsec aggressors without even a pretense to make a better game for all.
Go back to the drawing board and try to come up with something that's sole purpose isn't to stifle conflict and benefit you if you want to have any chance of it being implemented.
|
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
10424
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 19:05:18 -
[37] - Quote
I was right, this *is* National Bad Ideas Day :(
Got a HoleySheet1 corpse? I'll buy it for 200m!
Bumble's Space Log
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
13758
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 19:08:35 -
[38] - Quote
Bumblefck wrote:I was right, this *is* National Bad Ideas Day :( I see you are new here in Bad Idea Land , where every day is Bad Idea Day.
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2990
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 19:21:04 -
[39] - Quote
I'd actually be fine with cans jettisoned by criminals being blue just like their wrecks.
KickAss Tivianne wrote: Those are all great points! I agree! However the bumping mechanic, if you happen to fall into the trap should not keep you in limbo for a long time. Either they have a gank fleet ready in 5-10 min.. and go for it... or let ya go.
Why not? Ships being held indefinitely for ransom or so others can get on the kill mail is not exclusive to freighters. Did it ever occur to you that the gankers are not the only thing keeping you in 'limbo'. Your attachment to your ship and its cargo is.
Do what the rest of us do. Call for back up, eject or self destruct.
KickAss Tivianne wrote: And if they do kill it... make the punishments for criminals get harder and harder and more expensive to recover from with tags etc...
So your perception of balance is to nerf ganking until no one does it anymore?
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
504
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 19:35:20 -
[40] - Quote
As someone that feels quite impartial when it comes to the whole ganking thing:
Almost every hauler I see that gets ganked has not taken the necessary precautions to avoid it: - overstuffed with valuables - missing a webbing alt - not scouting - undertanking their ship - not using instadock and undock BMs
When I see these people die, I think: "Good, they've just reduced the competition for competent haulers."
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.
However I don't think OPs suggestions are workable (nor do I have suggestions of my own)
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1709
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 19:53:19 -
[41] - 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/
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15915
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 19:58:00 -
[42] - 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.
Gankers don't have many repercussions?
Because the so called victims refuse to do anything about it. Like any PvP interaction, "consequences" are for the other player to inflict. It doesn't take many Talos to gank a Machariel, especially since the bumping one are absolutely not combat fit. Meanwhile, if anyone pops the freighter's wreck, they have basically ruined the gank post facto.
The repercussions are there. But no one bothers to inflict them.
"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
43915
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 20:14:09 -
[43] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:For every freighter you've seen bumped, you have seen hundreds more pass through unscathed. Its only a relatively small amount of freighters that get ganked and only in a few systems. So if anything, ganking should be made easier. This would actually reward good piloting and making friends...
Those are all great points! I agree! However the bumping mechanic, if you happen to fall into the trap should not keep you in limbo for a long time. Either they have a gank fleet ready in 5-10 min.. and go for it... or let ya go. And if they do kill it... make the punishments for criminals get harder and harder and more expensive to recover from with tags etc... So you agree that freighter ganking is not really a problem, but needs to be made safer anyway?
Just to put some figures on it, the Red Frog Freight annual report shows how safe moving a freighter really is in highsec:
http://red-frog.org/annual-report-2014.php
In 2014 (2015 Annual Report not published yet), red frog:
- Completed 221,333 contracts in highsec - Failed 245 contracts in highsec - Made 2,786,739 jumps in highsec
So only 0.11% of contracts to RFF failed in the whole year and they made near 3 million jumps in highsec. RFF is by far the largest hauling Corp in the game, so those stats are pretty representative overall of the level of risk that Freighters face; and RFF also pass through the choke point systems of Uedama and Niarja.
There is no issue that needs to be resolved. The risk of being bumped and ganked is proportional to the stupidity/laziness of the freighter pilot and they get what they deserve if they don't take precautions.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
504
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 21:29:07 -
[44] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Gankers don't have many repercussions?
Because the so called victims refuse to do anything about it. Like any PvP interaction, "consequences" are for the other player to inflict. It doesn't take many Talos to gank a Machariel, especially since the bumping one are absolutely not combat fit.
The repercussions are there. But no one bothers to inflict them. Your point suggests that people have to become gankers themselves to force repercussions upon the bumpers? And that they'd actually have to become more skilled than the gankers themselves at ganking in hunting a more agile, faster, smaller target that can't be endlessly bumped for an hour.
I don't feel this fits in with any kind of white knight roleplay. Besides which, if enough vigilantes DID decide to act in this way and the machariel losses became high enough then the bumpers would just stop using 'expensive' machs and simply downscale to insurable T1 hulls at which point there really would be no meaningful repercussion for them under the current game rules.
Outside of bumpers, gank alts can freely travel around highsec in pods and shuttles, freely dockup, freely undock (provided they have an instaundock BM and keep moving around the system) and at most put an 80m (already replaced) battlecruiser on the line at a point where they've already factored in it's loss to the activity they're partaking in...and of course, they can just swap to a non criminal alt for the duration of their 15 minute timer.
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.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1709
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 21:48:27 -
[45] - 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/
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 21:51:11 -
[46] - Quote
Bumping deserves it's place but maybe some suggestions...
1. Active Tactical Ramming Shield Module for bumpers ? 1 per ship. High Slot-Requires Charges......1 Charge per bump.....10 Charges Max depending on the skill level? Can only be reloaded from Depot and Stations. Bumping can be allowed without this but add in a 25 sec Bumper TImer/Buffer.....1st Bump.....Bumper TImer starts... buffer drops to 75%....another bump within 25 secs, timer resets, buffer to 50% and so on. If Ramming shield NOT active on the final bump...the bumper takes shield damage and becomes suspect. Bump buffer resets, once depleted again its now upgraded to criminal. Maybe a bonus that once suspect level has been reached, the bumping has dice roll to damage and disable frieghter defenses.
2. Emergency Expanded Defense Shield for freighter Now this should very limited. And take up a decent amount of cargo space. More than 50 km from, gate station etc. Maybe fit 8 charges but only 4 can be used per system. As each charge is used. ship shield in expanded 1 km for 3-5 secs, blocking other ships from further bumps but depletes shield a certain percentage. If timed correctly, incoming ships within 1 km, with Ramming mod active, the Bump charge surges and mod takes heat damage and dice roll the surge causes 100% damage to mod. Some limitation that the shield has to be 100% to use each charge? Enter some friendly Anti-Gankers for shield reps. If two or more bumpers join in, bumping timer is already active for another pilot....any further bumpers, start a normal 25 sec timer but buffer starts at 50%. 3rd bumper start 25%. Rare but 4th becomes suspect on the spot. Add a blinking beacon to identify how many timers are active.
If freighter pilot is experienced enough they may be able to time each charge to get themselves free, but will require communication with others and some luck.
These are not perfect, but gankers can get organized and gank well within those 14 bumps.
As far as Looting tactics With the gank, loot & eject before ship lose tactic. The looted items themselves should be the Suspect trigger, atleast while the original looter is still Suspect for/or Criminal while obtaining them. If loot is tranferred to a Fleet Hangar...the pilot needs "These items were recently illegally obtained, do you accept the items and consequences that follow, for allowing this transfer to your ship?" IF they accept they go Suspect. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2520
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 21:52:52 -
[47] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote: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?
This will be tongue in cheek but the gankers are bringning the issue to the gankee in the form of antimater on a daily basis and we have yet to see any improvement...
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15916
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 21:56:16 -
[48] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: Your point suggests that people have to become gankers themselves to force repercussions upon the bumpers?
"become gankers" nothing, the sec status loss is completely negligible if they don't pod the guy.
And yes, I am suggesting that if they want to kill a ship that isn't flagged, that they have to do exactly what everybody else does and suicide gank it.
Same thing I have to do if I want to kill a freighter, since they're basically never in player corps.
Quote: And that they'd actually have to become more skilled than the gankers themselves at ganking in hunting a more agile, faster, smaller target that can't be endlessly bumped for an hour.
If by that you mean get within 20km for about twelve seconds, on a target that you know is going to be hanging around within 10km of a gate anyway. Not that high of a bar to jump, if they hate the ebil gankerz as much as they say they do.
Quote: I don't feel this fits in with any kind of white knight roleplay.
I don't feel like that matters. They're players, same as everyone else, have access to the same mechanics and are subject to the same restrictions.
The only valid complaint they have is that facpo does their job better than they ever could.
Quote: Besides which, if enough vigilantes DID decide to act in this way and the machariel losses became high enough then the bumpers would just stop using 'expensive' machs and simply downscale to insurable T1 hulls at which point there really would be no meaningful repercussion for them under the current game rules.
Which means you would have had an effect, since due to their MUCH lower mass they have a lot less effect on a freighter.
You can't say that it's broken just because other people are allowed to react to your actions.
Quote: Outside of bumpers, gank alts can freely travel around highsec in pods and shuttles, freely dockup, freely undock
Just like everybody else who pays a sub, yeah. What's your point?
"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.
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
504
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 22:02:22 -
[49] - Quote
Ah yeah, as I said in my first post, I laugh everytime I see the lemmings dying to a gank and bumping *is* pre-emptively avoidable...
That said, imo the types of ganks where the gankers are already milling about in system seem so much more in-keeping with immersion and lore than the current situation where someone in a mach bumps as long as necessary whilst sending out a ping for catalysts and waiting for the calvary to log in - even waiting to see how many pilots they can muster before doing their napkin math, calculating how many should be in battlecruisers and how many in destroyers.
It's this refinement of bumping and ganking combined so that only one active player is needed to make a system 'risky' that seems crass.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
504
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 22:17:54 -
[50] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:"become gankers" nothing, the sec status loss is completely negligible if they don't pod the guy. It's still a loss of security status and giving up kill rights to people who'd be happy to use them. Basically you have to burn an alt to do this in perpetuity or at least stop doing anything in expensive ships until the KR expires. You suffer more repercussions than the people that use disposable alts to do this with.
Quote:Same thing I have to do if I want to kill a freighter, since they're basically never in player corps. And I'm perfectly in agreement that people shouldn't be able to hide behind npc corps, that doesn't validate how the current mechanics work or don't work.
Quote:If by that you mean get within 20km for about twelve seconds, on a target that you know is going to be hanging around within 10km of a gate anyway. Not that high of a bar to jump, if they hate the ebil gankerz as much as they say they do.
Whereas a freighter will be the same distance away from the gate and not as agile...so yes I think you just confirmed that it's easier to get an accurate warp in on and gank a freighter before it aligns away, unlike a machariel with an MWD fitted. I don't consider gankers 'ebil' - just a little lazy and scared of losing the ability to continue with their minimum effort, well oiled routine.
Quote:I don't feel like that matters. They're players, same as everyone else, have access to the same mechanics and are subject to the same restrictions. Which says nothing about whether those mechanics are actually any good or not. In features and ideas, generally people are pointing out flaws with current mechanics and suggesting changes. In this thread I disagree with the proposed changes but agree with some of the flaws that have been pointed out.
I'd love to see suicide ganking given a whole rework, including removing some of the ability of webbing freighters directly into warp to increase losses and risk across the board - but I'd also like to see bumping without aggression removed as a pretty lame mechanic.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
43921
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 22:27:48 -
[51] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:1. Active Tactical Ramming Shield Module for bumpers ? 1 per ship. High Slot-Requires Charges......1 Charge per bump.....10 Charges Max depending on the skill level? Can only be reloaded from Depot and Stations. Bumping can be allowed without this but add in a 25 sec Bumper TImer/Buffer.....1st Bump.....Bumper TImer starts... buffer drops to 75%....another bump within 25 secs, timer resets, buffer to 50% and so on. If Ramming shield NOT active on the final bump...the bumper takes shield damage and becomes suspect. Bump buffer resets, once depleted again its now upgraded to criminal. Maybe a bonus that once suspect level has been reached, the bumping has dice roll to damage and disable frieghter defenses. Any system that involves damage or a suspect timer for bumping won't work.
There is a lot of other accidental bumping going on in the game and it would be easy to exploit.
A gank squad could just line themselves up in front of a Freighter that is aligning to the next gate and the Freighter would bump them while aligning out. The Freighter would become the bumper and would go suspect for doing nothing more than aligning.
Then it could be killed with no consequence at all.
Suggestion 2. would never happen, since Freighters would be suspect well before ever getting 50km off gate.
The net result would be that this suggestion would almost totally shutdown the use of Freighters.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15916
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 22:37:20 -
[52] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:It's still a loss of security status and giving up kill rights to people who'd be happy to use them.
Ah, so you're unwilling to deal with the exact same mechanical consequences as the gankers do?
If they scare you off, they must be fine then.
Quote:And I'm perfectly in agreement that people shouldn't be able to hide behind npc corps, that doesn't validate how the current mechanics work or don't work.
Nah, the fact that it's fair and equitable totally does, though. The only reason you see unequal outcomes is because one group of players is bad at the game, and the other is not.
If people wouldn't autopilot, ganking would drop by half overnight. Not one thing needs to be nerfed about a playstyle that basically only exists because haulers are stupid.
Quote:I don't consider gankers 'ebil' - just a little lazy and scared of losing the ability to continue with their minimum effort, well oiled routine.
Yeah, so we should be nerfed because we're good at the game and have our procedures down.
And as for "effort", you don't get to say a word about that as long as mining and missioning still exist. Ganking is harder, more thoughtful and requires more effort than almost every PvE playstyle in highsec combined.
And hell, that's why ganking exists to begin with. It is 100% avoidable, so the players who fail to put in any effort to defend themselves die. That could not be more working as intended, and I honestly don't care if you think it's "stale" or "boring" or whatever code word you want to use for "it should change because I don't like it", which by the way isn't a reason to change one damned thing about this game.
"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
43921
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 22:51:26 -
[53] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote:It's still a loss of security status and giving up kill rights to people who'd be happy to use them.
Ah, so you're unwilling to deal with the exact same mechanical consequences as the gankers do? If they scare you off, they must be fine then. This is a thing that always makes me laugh.
People who complain about ganking often complain that there are no consequences or that the consequences aren't tough enough.
As soon as its suggested that they do the same thing to the gankers, they complain that they don't want the consequences.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15919
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 22:58:43 -
[54] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote:It's still a loss of security status and giving up kill rights to people who'd be happy to use them.
Ah, so you're unwilling to deal with the exact same mechanical consequences as the gankers do? If they scare you off, they must be fine then. This is a thing that always makes me laugh. People who complain about ganking often complain that there are no consequences or that the consequences aren't tough enough. As soon as its suggested that they do the same thing to the gankers, they complain that they don't want the consequences.
"More effort for thee but not for me"
~Every carebear
"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.
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
504
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 23:01:51 -
[55] - Quote
As I already stated...I dont see why you have to become criminal to fight against other people that are assisting criminals themselves.
For Scip and Kaar:
I understand your very blinkered views and attempts to polarise opinion with regards to current ganking mechanics but I'm sorry, I don't subscribe to them (or their opposite):
Ganking is great and part of what makes Eve, Eve, I am still not anti-ganking inspite of your attempts to pigeon hole me as such.
BUT I believe the mechanics need a revamp because:
a) Nothing should be able to transfer so much value across the universe as safely as webbed freighters currently can [when flown properly] - likewise for JFs and other caps being able to land directly in docking range of stations. Capitals should encourage/necessitate group play and not be able to travel with such little risk - conversely, if someone wants to autopilot their empty freighter, it should have enough repercussions that unprofitable ganking isn't so attractive. b) Escorting a freighter should be more interesting and meaningful gameplay than a second account in a frigate sending a duel request and webbing it into warp every jump (a form of gameplay that is actually easier with an alt rather than a second player). c) One player shouldn't be able to 'disrupt' a players attempt to warp endlessly without being flagged as a suspect or criminal. d) A risky, dangerous system to haul through should have a more interesting permanent population than a single player with a machariel sporadically joined by his mates logging in for an actual kill.
Sadly, the game is maybe too old, the code too obfuscated for anything to be changed easily.
Anyways...as I say, you both seem unable to view it as shades of grey and only consider people to be either pro or con ganking when it comes to discussion of the mechanics. That's your loss, not mine.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15919
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 23:06:54 -
[56] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:As I already stated...I dont see why you have to become criminal to fight against other people that are assisting criminals themselves.
Because they're not flagged. Their actions is explicitly not hostile.
Quote: c) One player shouldn't be able to 'disrupt' a players attempt to warp endlessly without being flagged as a suspect or criminal.
It doesn't disrupt anything. Their warp engines are still online, and they are not scrammed.
It does change their alignment, but that's it.
Quote: d) A risky, dangerous system to haul through should have a more interesting permanent population than a single player with a machariel sporadically joined by his mates logging in for an actual kill.
Yeah, never happening. That currently occurs because of two things.
Facpo being the first, and the 15 min Concord "time out" being the second.
Unless you're willing to part with both of those, you'll never see such gatecamps as you claim you want. It's absolutely not in the cards.
"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.
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
504
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 23:16:20 -
[57] - Quote
Quote:Because they're not flagged. Their actions is explicitly not hostile. Because they're not flagged...under the current mechanics you know, those current mechanics that I'm saying need a revamp?
/facepalm
Quote:Quote:'disrupt' a players attempt to warp It doesn't disrupt anything. Their warp engines are still online, and they are not scrammed. It does change their alignment, but that's it. Changing their alignment disrupts a player's ATTEMPT TO WARP, it prevents them warping, therefore their attempt to warp has been disrupted. Read the actual words, not what you choose the words to say. I know the engines are fine, there's a reason I used quotation marks around 'disrupt'
Quote:Quote:d) A risky, dangerous system to haul through should have a more interesting permanent population than a single player with a machariel sporadically joined by his mates logging in for an actual kill.
Yeah, never happening. That currently occurs because of two things. Facpo being the first, and the 15 min Concord "time out" being the second. Unless you're willing to part with both of those, you'll never see such gatecamps as you claim you want. It's absolutely not in the cards. I never said I wasn't against changing those mechanics - it's why I said it needs a complete revamp, not just little tweaks and fixes.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15919
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 23:20:24 -
[58] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Because they're not flagged...under the current mechanics you know, those current mechanics that I'm saying need a revamp?
/facepalm
And the ones I'm saying don't. Bumping into somebody else is a very specifically not hostile act. Not only has CCP said that it's beyond them to change that, since it's the base physics engine of the game, but it also does not fit ANY of Concord's definitions of one either, which require the activation of a module that has a deleterious effect on another player.
Quote:Changing their alignment disrupts a player's ATTEMPT TO WARP, it prevents them warping, therefore their attempt to warp has been disrupted.
Incorrect. Their attempt to warp is still there, their ship is unable to complete it because they aren't aligned.
Hence webs.
Quote:I never said I wasn't against changing those mechanics - it's why I said it needs a complete revamp, not just little tweaks and fixes.
And like I said, you really aren't going to get it for technical reasons at the very least. They might as well just make a new game as change things that fundamental to the base game.
Hell, it took them the better part of a decade to fix POSes, and they didn't actually fix it, it's still in the game because they can't fix it, they just made a replacement for 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.
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
504
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 23:29:04 -
[59] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Because they're not flagged...under the current mechanics you know, those current mechanics that I'm saying need a revamp?
/facepalm
And the ones I'm saying don't. Bumping into somebody else is a very specifically not hostile act. Not only has CCP said that it's beyond them to change that, since it's the base physics engine of the game, but it also does not fit ANY of Concord's definitions of one either, which require the activation of a module that has a deleterious effect on another player. Again, pointing out a flaw in a mechanic doesn't equate with me suggesting a way to fix it and having it said that a faulty mechanic is unfixable doesn't make me change my mind about it being a faulty mechanic.
Quote:Quote:Changing their alignment disrupts a player's ATTEMPT TO WARP, it prevents them warping, therefore their attempt to warp has been disrupted.
Incorrect. Their attempt to warp is still there, their ship is unable to complete it because they aren't aligned. Hence webs. Please learn to English. You are interfering with their attempt to warp, you are disrupting their efforts, you are impeding their desire to achieve something. Disrupt is not limited in the English lexicon to a module in an internet spaceships game. You are disrupting their attempt to warp. Fact.
Quote:And like I said, you really aren't going to get it for technical reasons at the very least. They might as well just make a new game as change things that fundamental to the base game.
Hell, it took them the better part of a decade to fix POSes, and they didn't actually fix it, it's still in the game because they can't fix it, they just made a replacement for it. Yeap and that's why I (and many others) haven't thought of suitable suggestions for fixes, this doesn't mean that I can't point out perceived flaws in the current mechanics though.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
43927
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 23:30:01 -
[60] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:For Scip and Kaar:
I understand your very blinkered views and attempts to polarise opinion with regards to current ganking mechanics but I'm sorry, I don't subscribe to them (or their opposite):
...
Anyways...as I say, you both seem unable to view it as shades of grey and only consider people to be either pro or con ganking when it comes to discussion of the mechanics. That's your loss, not mine. Blinkered views?
What are my views?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15919
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 23:34:11 -
[61] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:]Again, pointing out a flaw in a mechanic
A flaw in your opinion. And I'm stating that it's irrelevant, because it basically cannot be feasibly changed.
Quote: Disrupt is not limited in the English lexicon to a module in an internet spaceships game.
It does, however, have a very specific meaning in this context. And it is not applicable to bumping.
Quote: You are disrupting their attempt to warp. Fact.
False. No warp disruption effect is present on their ship. You don't get to dance around it, "disrupt" has a meaning in EVE, and that meaning does not apply to bumping.
"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
137
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 23:40:38 -
[62] - Quote
Nice try Tivianne but unfortunately trying to discuss this on forums with folks like Kaarous, Pablo and similar is fairly pointless as they are absolutely unable to move away from their black/white view of the game.
However, I have a feeling that some of the people in charge of the game development see how certain uses of bumping mechanics are broken, in particular relating to freighter ganking and that changes are incoming, sooner then some might think. |
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
504
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 23:42:35 -
[63] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Nice try Tivianne but unfortunately trying to discuss this on forums with folks like Kaarous, Pablo and similar is fairly pointless as they are absolutely unable to move away from their black/white view of the game.
However, I have a feeling that some of the people in charge of the game development see how some uses of bumping mechanics are broken, in particular relating to freighter ganking and that changes are incoming, sooner then some might think. I too had heard that bumping is under investigation in these respects as well but have nothing concrete :(
Until then 'it is how it is because it is how it is' seems to be the extent of the counter argument.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
875
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 23:44:27 -
[64] - Quote
All the people bitching about how machs are fast and hard to gank, put your talos on top of freighter and it will have to COME TO YOU if it wants to keep bumping.
Nobody is preventing you from bumping freighter back to gate so that it can jump and get away on other side.
There are tons of ways you can save a freighter but you people use none of them and keep crying about a mechanic that has been perfectly fine for over 10 years.
And if you complain about losing sec and gank ships to delete an enemy mach bumper...
Why should it take only one guy to kill a mach when it takes 20+ to kill any tanked freighter. This really just boils down to "Just one more nerf".
Highsec is safer than ever and it's getting pretty boring, this is why people are ganking in bigger numbers, that and the fact that you just can't do it without at least 11 or more anymore.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
504
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 23:44:43 -
[65] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote:]Again, pointing out a flaw in a mechanic
A flaw in your opinion. And I'm stating that it's irrelevant, because it basically cannot be feasibly changed. And yet rather than discuss possible fixes, you try to shut down any debate and deny it's even a problem. Try opening your mind a little about things and seeing if it gets somewhere more productive.
You misinterpreted the sentence I wrote, apologies for your misunderstanding.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15919
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 23:45:27 -
[66] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Nice try Tivianne but unfortunately trying to discuss this on forums with folks like Kaarous, Pablo and similar is fairly pointless as they are absolutely unable to move away from their black/white view of the game.
This coming from the tinfoil hatter who has accused dozens and dozens of people of perma ban offenses without any proof at all... is beyond hilarious.
I mean really, how you have the gall to say this with some of the heinous **** in your post record, I cannot imagine.
"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.
15920
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 23:46:16 -
[67] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:And yet rather than discuss possible fixes, you try to shut down any debate and deny it's even a problem.
Why would I possibly discuss "fixes" for something that is working fully as intended?
"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.
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
504
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 23:49:32 -
[68] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote:And yet rather than discuss possible fixes, you try to shut down any debate and deny it's even a problem.
Why would I possibly discuss "fixes" for something that is working fully as intended?
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:CCP said that it's beyond them to change that, since it's the base physics engine of the game
So it's working as intended...yet CCP were looking at ways to change it?
That... seems... logical?
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15920
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 23:51:33 -
[69] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: So it's working as intended...yet CCP were looking at ways to change it?
Be more obtuse. Those are two different things.
They have said that they cannot change bumping. And they have also said that ganking as it is right now is working fully as intended. They've also derided people who think the NPCs should defend their haulers.
"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.
|
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
878
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 23:53:04 -
[70] - Quote
Quote:So it's working as intended...yet CCP were looking at ways to change it?
That... seems... logical?
You guys cry so much about it even we have to pretend to care...
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
137
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 23:56:26 -
[71] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Nice try Tivianne but unfortunately trying to discuss this on forums with folks like Kaarous, Pablo and similar is fairly pointless as they are absolutely unable to move away from their black/white view of the game.
This coming from the tinfoil hatter who has accused dozens and dozens of people of perma ban offenses without any proof at all... is beyond hilarious. I mean really, how you have the gall to say this with some of the heinous **** in your post record, I cannot imagine.
Wow, you are upset. Calm down a bit. As for your nonsenical claims - 'dozens and dozens' would mean something like at least 24 players (dozen is 12, right?), if not more. I only remember expressing my suspicion that two, maximum three guys were guilty of input broadcasting via isboxing (in terms of bannable offenses). Also, I've clearly identified some recycled alts but that has been reported directly to CCP. If someone was been banned due to my reports, good riddance to them.
As for the 'heinous ***' in my post history, do show which posts of mine were like that. |
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
504
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 00:01:27 -
[72] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote: So it's working as intended...yet CCP were looking at ways to change it?
Be more obtuse. Those are two different things. They have said that they cannot change bumping. And they have also said that ganking as it is right now is working fully as intended. They've also derided people who think the NPCs should defend their haulers.
I was discussing the lack of aggression mechanics around bumping and saying it was fault y- and you said it was working as intended.
And yet you previously said that CCP have invested time and resources into investigating whether or not bumping mechanics could be changed.
So which is it?
Is investigating the possibility of changing the coding behind highsec bumping worthy of spending time and resources on?
or
Is highsec bumping working as intended and in need of no time and resources to investigate?
I already am aware of CCP's position on the actual ganking and mechanics around suiciding a ship to concord to apply DPS to a target in protected space but I'd love to hear the answer to this contradiction.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15920
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 00:02:56 -
[73] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: I was discussing the lack of aggression mechanics around bumping
No you were not. You were talking about how ganking needs a complete overhaul.
"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.
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
504
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 00:04:26 -
[74] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote: I was discussing the lack of aggression mechanics around bumping
No you were not. You were talking about how ganking needs a complete overhaul. Please answer the question, is bumping working as intended in highsec?
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15920
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 00:08:04 -
[75] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote: I was discussing the lack of aggression mechanics around bumping
No you were not. You were talking about how ganking needs a complete overhaul. Please answer the question, is bumping working as intended in highsec?
It is and it isn't. Emergent gameplay itself is an intended part of EVE.
[edit: Oh, and it's not just highsec. Bumping is used everywhere.
"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.
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
505
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 00:10:33 -
[76] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote: I was discussing the lack of aggression mechanics around bumping
No you were not. You were talking about how ganking needs a complete overhaul. Please answer the question, is bumping working as intended in highsec? It is and it isn't. Emergent gameplay itself is an intended part of EVE. [edit: Oh, and it's not just highsec. Bumping is used everywhere. It is and it isn't
So you agree it's not working as intended.
You might even say it's a flawed mechanic that doesn't work correctly?
I rest my case yer'onner.
Please clean the blood up when you stop wriggling on those points you skewered yourself on.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15920
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 00:14:19 -
[77] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: You might even say it's a flawed mechanic that doesn't work correctly?
The game's physics collision mechanics are working precisely as intended. They are intended to bump ships and objects off of one another, and it would be completely dishonest to say otherwise. Players just found an extra use for it, one that CCP themselves has approved of many times in the past.
Fluff yourself harder, but there is no getting around 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.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
43929
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 00:16:23 -
[78] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:So it's working as intended...yet CCP were looking at ways to change it? Put yourself into a developers seat for a second.
At the end of the day, the only thing that decides how the game behaves are blocks of code.
How are you going to write the logic to deal with a very limited subset of what bumping is?
Two ships have a vector and the code detects a collision between them. How is the code supposed to work so that it can determine the intent of the players involved in that collision?
Changing bumping becomes a much more difficult issue when you try to think of it as a series of conditional statements that a computer has to make.
To me, that's always barking up the wrong tree.
The best options seem to be:
1. Freighters being able to fit an MJD - so at least they can get 100km off and then try to warp before a bump ship reaches them
2. Rita Jita's recent suggestion to give Freighters a capability to counter ship scanning
The first provides some action that a bumped freighter can perform, while the second increases the cost to gank a target since the gankers wouldn't know whether a freighter is fit with bulkheads or cargo expanders, and would have to bring more gank ships to be certain.
Personally, if any change was adopted, I'd just make ship scanning a suspect level offence under crime watch.
I can't personally think of a reason to scan a ship without an idea of being prepared to shoot it or apply cap warfare, so it seems that ship scanning while not directly criminal, is an associated act.
I think that's a slightly better suggestion than Rita Jita's because it still provides choice, whereas countering ship scanning all together just leads to one outcome - more gank ships.
A suspect flag would mean sentry guns for the scanning ship, so they would need to warp off immediately afterwards and remain engageable for the next 15 minutes; while the attentive freighter pilot would have some warning that he may be targeted if they just continue on their trip.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
505
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 00:16:36 -
[79] - Quote
You just contradicted your own argument, I have nothing further to prove...
Keep wriggling little worm.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2993
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 00:17:58 -
[80] - Quote
lol what?
Because CCP didnt intend the use of bumping ships for ganking when they coded collision mechanics it means the mechanic is flawed? I suppose that applies to all emergent gameplay then?
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
43931
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 00:18:46 -
[81] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:You just contradicted your own argument, I have nothing further to prove...
Keep wriggling little worm. What argument?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15921
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 00:20:28 -
[82] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:You just contradicted your own argument
No, I did not. And no amount of your deliberately being obtuse changes that.
Like I said, the game's collision detection mechanics are working precisely as they were intended to. When ships and objects collide, they are bumped apart from one another, precisely as intended.
Or are you suggesting otherwise?
"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.
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
505
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 00:29:52 -
[83] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote:You just contradicted your own argument No, I did not. And no amount of your deliberately being obtuse changes that. Like I said, the game's collision detection mechanics are working precisely as they were intended to. When ships and objects collide, they are bumped apart from one another, precisely as intended. Or are you suggesting otherwise? To summarise for those with short memories:
Quote:Bumping into somebody else is a very specifically not hostile act... ...CCP said that it's beyond them to change that [bumping], since it's the base physics engine of the game... Why would I possibly discuss "fixes" for something that is working fully as intended? it isn't [working fully as intended]
So are we going to discuss fixes now?
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15921
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 00:30:59 -
[84] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: So are we going to discuss fixes now?
We don't discuss fixes for a non problem.
Now answer the question, carebear.
Are you saying that the game's physics engine for collision detection is working any way other than intended? Because if so, you might want to submit a bug report.
"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.
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
505
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 00:33:41 -
[85] - Quote
Haha the carebear ad hominem. Classy but incorrect I'm afraid :)
No, I'm saying the behaviour of bumping as a method of preventing a player from warping to a different place without suffering an aggression penalty for this 'disruption' is not working as intended. Indeed this is probably why CCP investigated whether it would be possible to change this facet of the bumping mechanic (as you pointed out earlier, remember?).
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15921
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 00:36:10 -
[86] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Haha the carebear ad hominem. Classy but incorrect I'm afraid :)
How's that exactly? You claimed that you were in favor of ganking, but that didn't even last two pages before your real intent came out.
Quote: No, I'm saying the behaviour of bumping as a method of preventing a player from warping to a different place without suffering an aggression penalty for this 'disruption' is not working as intended.
So... you think ship collisions leading to movement was not intended to have been part of the game's physics engine literally each and every day since launch?
Whew.
Might want to put a ticket in on that one.
"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
43932
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 00:38:55 -
[87] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:No, I'm saying the behaviour of bumping as a method of preventing a player from warping to a different place without suffering an aggression penalty for this 'disruption' is not working as intended. It's not, not intended, if that makes sense.
CCP are very in favour of emergent gameplay and the use of mechanics that they never thought of. Bumping in a Mach was only emergent the first time and after that it became regular gameplay.
That doesn't mean CCP disagree with it. If they did, they would have ruled it an exploit until they could patch it out.
So just because CCP didn't specifically intend it, doesn't mean they see it as a problem.
But, if you wanted to change the mechanics, how would you write the logic of it? What decisions would you write into the game engine?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15922
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 00:41:20 -
[88] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote: But, if you wanted to change the mechanics, how would you write the logic of it? What decisions would you write into the game engine?
"If carebear + tears, then highsec - PvP"
"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.
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
505
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 00:45:01 -
[89] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Haha the carebear ad hominem. Classy but incorrect I'm afraid :)
How's that exactly? You claimed that you were in favor of ganking, but that didn't even last two pages before your real intent came out. My real intent is still to have more ganking....but you're again unable to consider that I think bumping is bad yet am still in favour of more ganking occuring. The idea that these two points are not mutually exclusive is completely alien to you which I'm finding hilarious. I'll draw you a venn diagram to assist your comprehension: http://imgur.com/PnbNrcq
It is very confusing I will admit to have someone that thinks a part of ganking is bad but agrees with ganking as a whole - it must be shattering your worldview but just try and pull through and realise this is a possible stance for me to hold, then realise I've succesfully argued for my stance whilst you've scuppered your own point of view from within.
Yes ganking is (still) good and I (still) want more of it.
But bumping is (still) a ****** flawed mechanic.
Eventually you'll get there son.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15922
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 00:47:53 -
[90] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: My real intent is still to have more ganking
I honestly don't believe you.
But I will say that you should be proud of yourself for having found what appears to be a long standing bug, one as old as the game itself. You can have the honors of putting a ticket in for it though, since you're the one who determined that the game's physics engine hasn't been working as intended for the last decade.
"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.
|
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
505
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 01:01:00 -
[91] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote: My real intent is still to have more ganking
I honestly don't believe you. I honestly don't care. I've backed my points up whilst your own points have looked like a pokemon collector who's moved on to collecting fallacies.
Your latest is a simple strawman, trying to propose I think that the physics is broken rather than my point that the use of bumping without aggression in highsec ganks is broken. Basically trying to misrepresent what I've said so that you can prove me wrong...
Before that, we had a black and white fallacy, assuming that two points are mutually exclusive when they're quite clearly not....
We've had some kind of ad hominem/no true scotsman fallacy in calling me a carebear.
"No true eve player is a carebear!"
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/pdf/FallaciesPoster16x24.pdf
Take your pick on the next one, I'm all ears.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2994
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 01:11:42 -
[92] - Quote
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?
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1711
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 01:35:19 -
[93] - 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/
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
505
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 01:36:33 -
[94] - 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?
Not at all, many emergent behaviours are great and definitively a part of Eve and it's a sign of respect from the devs that they leave us open ended mechanics to play with and adapt without involving themselves too heavily.
That said, there have been prior instances where emergent behaviours have been fixed/tempered once they've got out of hand (POS bowling and hyperdunking to name two off-hand) and so just because something is emergent, does not mean it's necessarily worth keeping in its current state.
Bumping is a great emergent technique in terms of preventing a burn into a POS bubble or back to a gate but in terms of using it as a form of tackling to avoid the aggression flag of using a tackle module it seems like a cheap and gamey exploit to me. The fact CCP have previously looked at changing this in highsec seems to suggest they agree it's a little bit flawed.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15922
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 01:51:40 -
[95] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: I've backed my points up
No you have not. You've danced around like you were on fire, while ignoring the majority of what anyone says to you.
Quote: Your latest is a simple strawman, trying to propose I think that the physics is broken
You said as much. You claimed that bumping is unintended, when I'm telling you that the way collision detection works in this game is not only intentional but it's not something they can change anyway.
You don't have a leg to stand on, carebear.
"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.
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
505
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 02:04:37 -
[96] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:zzzz Whatever mate, it's all here in black and white for people to read themselves.
Oh and I missed out the 'personal incredulity' fallacy from my last post - "I don't believe you" indeed, that matters not a jot as to my argument.
o/
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2995
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 02:06:54 -
[97] - Quote
Then you havent defended your argument or backed up your points at all. The sole argument you have given to want to change bumping is that it was not intended gameplay (and that you just dont like it).
If bumping is cheap and gamey, then how isnt the mwd cloak trick? How isnt having a friend web you into warp to avoid a gank cheap and gamey?
Both those mechanics are just as unintended as bumping for tackle, except they take much less effort, much less investment and have a much higher rate of success.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
505
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 02:26:40 -
[98] - Quote
I've pointed out WHY I think it's cheap and gamey:
- The primary counter to DEFEND someone that's (e:already) being bumped is to become criminal yourself and gank them, a complete reversal of how criminality would sensibly work. It also requires arguably more luck/skill to actually gank a fast moving, rapidly aligning machariel..so not only do you have to become a ganker, you have to exceed them in skill at their own game. - It's a way to evade the aggression flags that would ensue if you tackled someone with one of the provided tackling modules...nuff said? They made a way to tackle people with repercussions for it, then people found a way to evade the repercussions.
Sure it's an opinion, one I've backed up. I don't think I ever said it was unintended and that's why it should be gone, I stated why it doesn't really make sense in the gamespace.
Also I already stated I disagree with webbing being as safe as it currently is and the way that it encourages alt play by being more effective than having two separate players (as you can roughly move your webbing alt closer to the freighter before the freighter drops cloak using the freighter screen as a guideline). I also think that a single frigate acting as an escort for a freighter/capital is pretty crap and would prefer to see more meaningful mechanics involved in this kind of escort/defensive gameplay without making it into incredibly boring nullsec freighter escort ops.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15922
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 02:39:45 -
[99] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: - The primary counter to DEFEND someone that's (e:already) being bumped is to become criminal yourself and gank them
Wrong.
That's how you inflict "repercussions" on the ganker.
There are plenty of ways to defend someone who is being bumped and/or ganked. But more importantly, there are numerous strong and effective ways to avoid being bumped or ganked in the first place.
"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.
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
12
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 02:40:06 -
[100] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: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.
Gankers don't have many repercussions? Because the so called victims refuse to do anything about it. Like any PvP interaction, "consequences" are for the other player to inflict. It doesn't take many Talos to gank a Machariel, especially since the bumping one are absolutely not combat fit. Meanwhile, if anyone pops the freighter's wreck, they have basically ruined the gank post facto. The repercussions are there. But no one bothers to inflict them.
No gankers really don't have any Risk... loose a 2 million Isk ship. and not have any additional security status drop, or penalty for being a criminal. Same old same old. No Risk. |
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
505
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 02:43:49 -
[101] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote: - The primary counter to DEFEND someone that's (e:already) being bumped is to become criminal yourself and gank them
Wrong. That's how you inflict "repercussions" on the ganker. There are plenty of ways to defend someone who is being bumped and/or ganked. But more importantly, there are numerous strong and effective ways to avoid being bumped or ganked in the first place. It also provides some player enforced repercussions on the bumper (at the expense of losing status and providing killrights to DEFEND someone)...again though, it seems you're getting confused with these ideas of one activity being exclusive to another.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15922
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 02:45:32 -
[102] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote: No gankers really don't have any Risk... loose a 2 million Isk ship. and not have any additional security status drop, or penalty for being a criminal. Same old same old. No Risk.
How dishonest.
It's basically never just one ship, for starters. Secondly, if you can find me a T2 catalyst fit that only costs 2 million isk, then I'd be surprised.
Another thing is that we do have risk, you numbskulls just aren't real players so you don't try and inflict them. Blow up the wreck. Then everything they did is wasted and all they have to show for it is criminal timers.
And even without that, we have to deal with the loot fairy, which is more risk than any PvE activity by itself. Carebears don't have to flip a coin to see if they get any mission rewards. Gankers have that 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.
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
505
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 02:48:17 -
[103] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:And even without that, we have to deal with the loot fairy, which is more risk than any PvE activity by itself. Carebears don't have to flip a coin to see if they get any mission rewards. Gankers have that to begin with. PvE'rs aren't aware of RNG based loot drop mechanics?
I think that'll be news to almost everyone that does exploration
And multiplying something by 50% to find out the average loot drop, does not constitute risk.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15922
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 02:50:32 -
[104] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: PvE'rs aren't aware of RNG based loot drop mechanics?
It's absolutely discounted, especially since CCP has nerfed gun mining so much.
The primary rewards for missions are isk and LP, while mining is absolutely consistent.
And your point about exploration does not help your case, since random loot for exploration sites in highsec is one of the things that makes them a wholly unviable income source.
"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.
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
505
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 02:57:09 -
[105] - Quote
I never said anything about highsec exploration (although it's more profitable than you seem to think)...I know you like to throw around this term 'carebear' but it seems you have a limited knowledge of what being a 'carebear' pertains to and perhaps this is why you're using it incorrectly:
I know people that 'carebear' in wormholes. Almost everyone in Deklein is 'carebearing' 24/7 in their carriers.
And yet when you say 'carebear' you assume that the term only refers to highsec players? It's like you never get to meet the other kinds.
How cute.
And you think I'm one, even cuter.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
43935
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 03:02:21 -
[106] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:No gankers really don't have any Risk... loose a 2 million Isk ship. and not have any additional security status drop, or penalty for being a criminal. Same old same old. No Risk. Then why not just go and gank them first?
No need to even gank them all. Just enough to make the total damage less than the total HP of the freighter.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
12
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 05:07:47 -
[107] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:No gankers really don't have any Risk... loose a 2 million Isk ship. and not have any additional security status drop, or penalty for being a criminal. Same old same old. No Risk. Then why not just go and gank them first? No need to even gank them all. Just enough to make the total damage less than the total HP of the freighter.
Hey hide at safe spots, however sometimes when they do jump though a gate a 1 gets picked off. From undock they go to an insta-undock spot... then jump around, and then they warp to the bumper, or another neutral warp in ship. So the only time is if they do happen to jump though a gate, you migh tbe able to get 1 out of the 25-30 ships. Not really a game changer. And because you don't know their final destination, you would have to watch all the gates. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17150
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 05:21:26 -
[108] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:No gankers really don't have any Risk... loose a 2 million Isk ship. and not have any additional security status drop, or penalty for being a criminal. Same old same old. No Risk. Then why not just go and gank them first? No need to even gank them all. Just enough to make the total damage less than the total HP of the freighter. Hey hide at safe spots, however sometimes when they do jump though a gate a 1 gets picked off. From undock they go to an insta-undock spot... then jump around, and then they warp to the bumper, or another neutral warp in ship. So the only time is if they do happen to jump though a gate, you migh tbe able to get 1 out of the 25-30 ships. Not really a game changer. And because you don't know their final destination, you would have to watch all the gates.
Logic dictates they are going for the bumped ship.
There are so many ways to protect your cargo from gankers to almost make it one sided. Piracy in highsec has been nerfed so hard over the years that it has almost become extinct. Jet can thief's are gone, profitable mining barge ganking is gone, endless nerfs to ganking have resulted in a much less vibrant and exciting highsec. If anything ganking needs to be buffed not nerfed yet more.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
12
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 05:29:09 -
[109] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote: No gankers really don't have any Risk... loose a 2 million Isk ship. and not have any additional security status drop, or penalty for being a criminal. Same old same old. No Risk.
How dishonest. It's basically never just one ship, for starters. Secondly, if you can find me a T2 catalyst fit that only costs 2 million isk, then I'd be surprised. Another thing is that we do have risk, you numbskulls just aren't real players so you don't try and inflict them. Blow up the wreck. Then everything they did is wasted and all they have to show for it is criminal timers. And even without that, we have to deal with the loot fairy, which is more risk than any PvE activity by itself. Carebears don't have to flip a coin to see if they get any mission rewards. Gankers have that to begin with.
Correct, I was talking about A ganker. 25-30 ships I've seen approximately in a fleet. RIght now a Cat in Jita is 1.3 Mill Isk. WIth a T1 fit.... about 2.5 Mill? With a T2 fit 5 ish? About? Even throw in a Talos also... Code with the resources of Goons, I doubt they buy them at Jita, they are probably made which lowers the price.
So a ship has to Drop about 150 Million to break even with 30 T2
Im not sure that is really risk. They scan down the ship, they know what it has. They make the choice to gank. Its not really that difficult to do. ANd yes we do loot pop as well. However if your saw my 2nd point on the post, they are looting just after the gank with their criminal cats. then their neutral Mach or if it was a big cargo hold their own hauler picks it up and gets away with no FY because it was "ejected" from the ganker's ship before he blew up from concord. That's why I proposed that who ever picks up the loot from the wreck from the cats also go FY.
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
12
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 05:36:51 -
[110] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:No gankers really don't have any Risk... loose a 2 million Isk ship. and not have any additional security status drop, or penalty for being a criminal. Same old same old. No Risk. Then why not just go and gank them first? No need to even gank them all. Just enough to make the total damage less than the total HP of the freighter. Hey hide at safe spots, however sometimes when they do jump though a gate a 1 gets picked off. From undock they go to an insta-undock spot... then jump around, and then they warp to the bumper, or another neutral warp in ship. So the only time is if they do happen to jump though a gate, you migh tbe able to get 1 out of the 25-30 ships. Not really a game changer. And because you don't know their final destination, you would have to watch all the gates. Logic dictates they are going for the bumped ship. There are so many ways to protect your cargo from gankers to almost make it one sided. Piracy in highsec has been nerfed so hard over the years that it has almost become extinct. Jet can thief's are gone, profitable mining barge ganking is gone, endless nerfs to ganking have resulted in a much less vibrant and exciting highsec. If anything ganking needs to be buffed not nerfed yet more.
Okkkkk.... Logic... Well, Which bumped ship? THey have on in Uedama, One in Madirmilire, and one in Niarja. And maybe the other one you had no idea about because you are spread thin. with the existing potential targets. This is another reason why Gankers get the upper hand as with any attacking force, you get to decide when and which target to attack, everyone else has to scramble to respond.
If they have the resources to bump that many people... more power to them... but don't think they should be able to hold their targets there indefinitely, or with out some additional penalty for the -7 to -10 person once they do gank. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17152
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 05:51:23 -
[111] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:baltec1 wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:No gankers really don't have any Risk... loose a 2 million Isk ship. and not have any additional security status drop, or penalty for being a criminal. Same old same old. No Risk. Then why not just go and gank them first? No need to even gank them all. Just enough to make the total damage less than the total HP of the freighter. Hey hide at safe spots, however sometimes when they do jump though a gate a 1 gets picked off. From undock they go to an insta-undock spot... then jump around, and then they warp to the bumper, or another neutral warp in ship. So the only time is if they do happen to jump though a gate, you migh tbe able to get 1 out of the 25-30 ships. Not really a game changer. And because you don't know their final destination, you would have to watch all the gates. Logic dictates they are going for the bumped ship. There are so many ways to protect your cargo from gankers to almost make it one sided. Piracy in highsec has been nerfed so hard over the years that it has almost become extinct. Jet can thief's are gone, profitable mining barge ganking is gone, endless nerfs to ganking have resulted in a much less vibrant and exciting highsec. If anything ganking needs to be buffed not nerfed yet more. Okkkkk.... Logic... Well, Which bumped ship? THey have on in Uedama, One in Madirmilire, and one in Niarja. And maybe the other one you had no idea about because you are spread thin. with the existing potential targets. This is another reason why Gankers get the upper hand as with any attacking force, you get to decide when and which target to attack, everyone else has to scramble to respond. If they have the resources to bump that many people... more power to them... but don't think they should be able to hold their targets there indefinitely, or with out some additional penalty for the -7 to -10 person once they do gank.
They can only hold them indefinitely if the target let's them.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
43941
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 05:57:56 -
[112] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:baltec1 wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:No gankers really don't have any Risk... loose a 2 million Isk ship. and not have any additional security status drop, or penalty for being a criminal. Same old same old. No Risk. Then why not just go and gank them first? No need to even gank them all. Just enough to make the total damage less than the total HP of the freighter. Hey hide at safe spots, however sometimes when they do jump though a gate a 1 gets picked off. From undock they go to an insta-undock spot... then jump around, and then they warp to the bumper, or another neutral warp in ship. So the only time is if they do happen to jump though a gate, you migh tbe able to get 1 out of the 25-30 ships. Not really a game changer. And because you don't know their final destination, you would have to watch all the gates. Logic dictates they are going for the bumped ship. There are so many ways to protect your cargo from gankers to almost make it one sided. Piracy in highsec has been nerfed so hard over the years that it has almost become extinct. Jet can thief's are gone, profitable mining barge ganking is gone, endless nerfs to ganking have resulted in a much less vibrant and exciting highsec. If anything ganking needs to be buffed not nerfed yet more. Okkkkk.... Logic... Well, Which bumped ship? THey have on in Uedama, One in Madirmilire, and one in Niarja. And maybe the other one you had no idea about because you are spread thin. with the existing potential targets. This is another reason why Gankers get the upper hand as with any attacking force, you get to decide when and which target to attack, everyone else has to scramble to respond. If they have the resources to bump that many people... more power to them... but don't think they should be able to hold their targets there indefinitely, or with out some additional penalty for the -7 to -10 person once they do gank. 0.11% of movements by RFF fail and their freighter pilots are making 7500 jumps in highsec per day.
Where are you getting the idea that multiple freighters are being held by bumping at the same time? I'm sure it's happened, but I've never seen anything in gank Intel where multiple freighters are being bumped at the same time, so that doesn't seem like a common occurrence.
Have you actually validated that your views are correct and not just an assumption that makes ganking seem worse than it is.
RFF have 60-80 different freighter pilots active every day and 100-150 different pilots active each week. It's not like they only have a couple of guys who are really good. They have large numbers of freighter pilots making frequent jumps in highsec and yet only 1 in 1000 contracts get failed (1 in every 12000 jumps on average).
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
399
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 06:35:40 -
[113] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote: 0.11% of movements by RFF fail and their freighter pilots are making 7500 jumps in highsec per day.
Where are you getting the idea that multiple freighters are being held by bumping at the same time? I'm sure it's happened, but I've never seen anything in gank Intel where multiple freighters are being bumped at the same time, so that doesn't seem like a common occurrence.
Have you actually validated that your views are correct and not just an assumption that makes ganking seem worse than it is.
RFF have 60-80 different freighter pilots active every day and 100-150 different pilots active each week. It's not like they only have a couple of guys who are really good. They have large numbers of freighter pilots making frequent jumps in highsec and yet only 1 in 1000 contracts get failed (1 in every 12000 jumps on average).
Sounds like RFF has pilots who are actively keeping themselves safe. If CCP were to nerf Concord in some fashion, that could weed out more incompetent independent pilots and RFF could charge more. Just sayin'.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4447
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 06:37:35 -
[114] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote: No gankers really don't have any Risk... loose a 2 million Isk ship. and not have any additional security status drop, or penalty for being a criminal. Same old same old. No Risk.
You are just flat out wrong, a gank fit catalyst these days costs about 8 million ISK, and you need many of them to make a gank work. So either you are ignorant or are being deliberately obtuse to push and agenda....and to be quite honest we all know it is the latter.
Bumping is totally fine as you can avoid it quite simple with even as something as lowly as a noob ship...a single scout can prevent bumping. Webs and other ideas are great, but just a single scout looking through local to spot the bumper is good enough.
Funny how people who always want to "fix bumping" are never in favor of things that might take some work or time such as starting channels in game, maintaining a list of known bumpers. Nope, it always boils down to "CCP please fix as I'm too lazy."
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17154
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 07:13:28 -
[115] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote: Sounds like RFF has pilots who are actively keeping themselves safe. If CCP were to nerf Concord in some fashion, that could weed out more incompetent independent pilots and RFF could charge more. Just sayin'.
Same with miners. Make barges profitable to gank again and you reward the good ones with higher returns for their efforts, not to mention that the activity itself would be a lot less boring. Make the hulk a viable option and we would likely see a return of jet can mining and all the content that brings with it.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
43943
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 07:53:10 -
[116] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:Sounds like RFF has pilots who are actively keeping themselves safe. If CCP were to nerf Concord in some fashion, that could weed out more incompetent independent pilots and RFF could charge more. Just sayin'. Let my alt haul it all.
There are a lot of safe haulers around, whether highsec, lowsec or nullsec. RFF are just the biggest, have a great reputation and luckily publish lots of annual figures on their activity, which is very safe and consistent with a lot of non-RFF haulers too.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Sitting Bull Lakota
Careless Bears LLC
60
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 09:11:39 -
[117] - Quote
The history of freighter ganking as I see it: Freighters started carrying upwards of 5b in a single load. Some players would run a multiboxed "interdiction" operation. CCP removed multiboxing (a good move, frankly). No more single player gank fleets. Freighters started carrying upwards of 10b in a single load. Somebody came up hyperdunking. CCP removes hyperdunking. Freighters start carrying upwards of 15b in a single load. CODE. bumps and kills freighters. Freighter pilots complain that ganking a freighter in highsec shouldn't be cost effective. Freighter pilot gets ready to jump into Niarja 20b in cargo.
Here's an analogy: Joe Blow has been banging his head against a wall. Joe Blow says "My head hurts." Joe Blow puts on a helmet and keeps going. Joe Blow realizes he can bang his head against the wall even harder now. Joe Blow does. Joe Blow says "My head hurts." Joe Blow takes some painkillers and keeps going.
It's election season here in Los Estados Unidos, so here is a relevant analogy! The USA says "I wish I could grow corn for less than Mexico can." The USA subsidizes US grown corn and undercuts Mexico's corn price. Mexico's corn production (and by extension most of it's ag) goes under. Mexico is facing severe unemployment. Unemployed workers turn to drug trade for money. The USA buys Mexico's drugs. Mexico is functionally a failed state. Mexican citizens flee north to gain employment and escape the narcoterrorism. The USA says "Boy, this cheap corn sure is good." The USA says "Boy, there sure are a lot of illegal Mexicans here." The USA says "Boy, Mexico's looking pretty bad right about now." The USA thinks for awhile. The USA says "I know! I'll double down on the corn subsidy and close the border!" Mexico becomes a drug state. The USA says "Mmmm! This corn tastes even better dipped in meth!"
Here's to the players who complain about a situation while actively making it worse for themselves. Say no to greed.
Sidenote: I really liked that part in the op that proposed making jetcans dropped by suspects give suspect flags. That used to be how it worked, but then enough miners and missioners complained about losing ships to shenanigans based on that mechanic that it was changed to the model we have now.
We've come full circle, and it makes me happy. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2124
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 09:24:23 -
[118] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote: 1. Freighters being able to fit an MJD - so at least they can get 100km off and then try to warp before a bump ship reaches them
2. Rita Jita's recent suggestion to give Freighters a capability to counter ship scanning
The first provides some action that a bumped freighter can perform, while the second increases the cost to gank a target since the gankers wouldn't know whether a freighter is fit with bulkheads or cargo expanders, and would have to bring more gank ships to be certain.
Personally, if any change was adopted, I'd just make ship scanning a suspect level offence under crime watch.
I can't personally think of a reason to scan a ship without an idea of being prepared to shoot it or apply cap warfare, so it seems that ship scanning while not directly criminal, is an associated act.
I think that's a slightly better suggestion than Rita Jita's because it still provides choice, whereas countering ship scanning all together just leads to one outcome - more gank ships.
A suspect flag would mean sentry guns for the scanning ship, so they would need to warp off immediately afterwards and remain engageable for the next 15 minutes; while the attentive freighter pilot would have some warning that he may be targeted if they just continue on their trip.
I don't see your first idea doing much as Macheriels have no problem fitting a MJD of their own and could easily follow a freighter. It might raise the skill bar on bumpers a little, but if you had anything of value you would just be suicide-scrammed by a noobship when you start your spool-up leaving nothing to chance.
As for your second idea, I think it is actually a terrible one. If you mean cargo scanning (which I think is what Rita Jita was proposing), preventing pirates from prioritizing their targets removes any incentive to haul responsibly. Flying a freighter with 500M ISK of ore should be safer than one containing 15B ISK of PI materials. If the pirates can't efficiently assess the targets, they would be forced to randomly exploding any target that comes by meaning as a hauler, how much cargo you load has no effect on your chances of successfully making the trip.
As for scanning fits, that would seem to remove a large amount of other intended game play. I mean Passive Targeters were a module specifically added by CCP presumably so the prudent can stealthily scan the fits of their opponents and gain a tactical advantage. I am not sure why freighters are so special that they deserve to be excluded from this part of the game, and I am even less sure the ability to surreptitiously scan a potential opponent's fit should be tossed out to make freighters safer.
If your goal is to increase the costs of ganking, just raise freighter's EHP. If your goal is to create uncertainty for gankers, then vary the CONCORD response times. Simple, and done.
But more generally (and this is not directed to you Scipio), any "fix" to bumping that CCP comes up with is going to still going leave freighters vulnerable. CCP only a few years ago rebalanced freighters and though it not appropriate to give them a MJD or a MWD or enough agility to avoid bumping even though they trivially could. They are not going to wake up tomorrow and rejig everything or release a new module that makes freighters suddenly immune to interdiction in highsec. Any change will specifically allow freighters to be stopped and killed in highsec and the few remaining gankers will keep on dunking them left and right as long as the lazy, careless and clueless keep flying them unsupported and AFK. And the next week, another thread will pop up on this forum claiming that the new mechanic is "not balanced" because someone somewhere was able to lose a capital-class industrial to an organized group of dozens of criminals in highsec.
Such is inevitable in a PvP sandbox game when so many players do not even seem to realize they are playing in a competitive game with other players, some of who are actively looking for ways to take their stuff. They also don't seem to understand this is a video game where of course criminals are going to be allowed to continue to do criminals acts in perpetuity, because the conflict of those crimes is the game. Having "consequences" where if you commit a crime you cannot ever enter highsec again or something equally inane would quickly stop the very game play that CCP is trying to foster with Crimewatch and the other mechanics of highsec. Eve is not a real-life simulation - it is a PvP sandbox game. Just like the fact that criminals cannot ever really kill you or take most of your stuff (which is 100% safe in station), you cannot ever really kill or permanently stop the criminals and this is by design.
This is a game, one part of which is "cops and robbers" in space. Deal with that, or choose another game where such game play is not a feature, but please don't whine to the game developer to remove chunks of the game that that you don't like, especially for reasons as silly as it "lacks realism".
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
43944
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 10:11:31 -
[119] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:I don't see your first idea doing much as Macheriels have no problem fitting a MJD of their own and could easily follow a freighter. Yeah that's a good counter point. MJD on a freighter would be pointless.
Quote:As for your second idea, I think it is actually a terrible one. If you mean cargo scanning (which I think is what Rita Jita was proposing), preventing pirates from prioritizing their targets removes any incentive to haul responsibly. Flying a freighter with 500M ISK of ore should be safer than one containing 15B ISK of PI materials. If the pirates can't efficiently assess the targets, they would be forced to randomly exploding any target that comes by meaning as a hauler, how much cargo you load has no effect on your chances of successfully making the trip. Yeah, that's also a good counter. My counter to Rita Jita's suggestion was more along the lines that it reduces choice, since gankers would always just plan for the max tanked situation, so there's no real engagement in the gameplay and a reduction on what currently exists.
Quote:I am not sure why freighters are so special that they deserve to be excluded from this part of the game, and I am even less sure the ability to surreptitiously scan a potential opponent's fit should be tossed out to make freighters safer. I'm with you on that. I don't think any change is necessary, just that if any change is made, changing bumping is not the place to do it. It's almost an impossible task.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
137
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 10:19:54 -
[120] - Quote
Yes, yes its a competitive and consequence laiden game in which:
- Someone can indefinitely (or until downtime) prevent a freighter from warping using just a bumping ship (doesn't even have to be a mach, ONI or SFI with large MWD will suffice) and a disposable aggro alt in a noob ship (!). No consequences for the bumper whatsoever.
- Having negative sec status has very limited practical consequences for a dedicated ganker char and does not limit the ability to perform ganks in hisec in any way, making sec status loss irrelevant (and consequence free)
- Killrights against ganker chars are practically useless
- Looting stuff from a ganked hauler can be made perfectly safe by using a DST or Orca and a disposable alt
Try arguing for removal/change of any of the above mechanics and you get shouted at for being a risk-averse-carebear-emergent-gameplay-hater. Oh, the irony. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17155
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 10:28:21 -
[121] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Yes, yes its a competitive and consequence laiden game in which:
- Someone can indefinetely (or until downtime) prevent a freighter from warping using just a bumping ship
only if the victim let's that happen
Quote: - Having negative sec status has very limited practical consequences for a dedicated ganker char and does not limit the ability to perform ganks in hisec in any way, making sec status loss irrelevant (and consequence free)
Not only will faction police spawn to kill them but they are also open to attack to anyone.
Quote: - Looting stuff from a ganked hauler can be made perfectly safe by using a DST or Orca and a disposable alt
If you are looting a freighter you need to use a freighter, the very ship you cant seem to protect.
Quote:Try arguing for removal/change of any of the above mechanics and you get shouted at for being a risk-averse-carebear-emergent-gameplay-hater. Oh, the irony.
No irony here, you really are a spineless risk adverse carebear with zero understanding of the game.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
881
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 10:33:05 -
[122] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
No gankers really don't have any Risk... loose a 2 million Isk ship. and not have any additional security status drop, or penalty for being a criminal. Same old same old. No Risk.
So throwing 8 taloses and failing a gank is not risking 1 billion and getting not even a killmail in return? The only reason why 30-40 people can get away with throwing t2 cats at things and kill it at a low risk of 300m is because thats 30-40 people, maybe just 25 and a few have extra characters but were talking about a cumulative time spent with GCC timer of 9+ hours, how much isk can you make in 9 hours?
Time is money, stop acting like 1 freighters time is worth an equal amount as that of 30 gankers.
Thing is even when the kill happens we still have to roll a dice on drops and even if it drops they don't always get everything.
You also run the risk of getting tackled before the gank even happens, you can get podded after it happens and you "can't highsec because you have killrights".
"But they use empty pods!" Yeah and because of that characters train 15% slower, there are consequences to everything. You try to discuss things but you can only see your side of the argument.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
43945
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 10:51:18 -
[123] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Try arguing for removal/change of any of the above mechanics and you get shouted at for being a risk-averse-carebear-emergent-gameplay-hater. Oh, the irony. Not at all.
Replace them with something of equal risk and I'm sure a lot of people would be open to suggestions.
But proposals made here are always about increasing safety for haulers, when it's already immensely safe and the greatest risk is for those that fail to take precautions themselves.
A lot of us don't want Eve to be a game that wraps people in cotton wool and protects them, so when the tools are already available to avoid being bumped and ganked (and a lot of us use those mechanics daily), then there is little sympathy for calls to make the game safer when people don't use the tools that are already available to them.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
137
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 10:53:13 -
[124] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: only if the victim let's that happen
Nope. The only guaranteed way to get out of that situation is ganking the bumper. Also, it's lets, not let's.
Quote: Not only will faction police spawn to kill them but they are also open to attack to anyone. Facpo will spawn with a delay which is long enough even for battlecruisers piloted by -10 chars to move through highest true-sec systems, so - no consequence. As for being open for attack, true but that risk is minimised/removed by use of insta undocks and tacticals.
Quote: If you are looting a freighter you need to use a freighter, the very ship you cant seem to protect. Heh, if you only knew what you are talking about. You only need a freighter to loot stuff larger then 50k m3 (so, large contracts and cans). If the cargo is not in a package, DST's are regularly used w/o any risk for them.
Quote:No irony here, you really are a spineless risk adverse carebear with zero understanding of the game. Well it seems that this risk adverse carebear understands at least one aspect of the game mechanics (looting) a bit better than you do. But please, sling some more insults, that's what you guys excel at. |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
137
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 11:05:46 -
[125] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Try arguing for removal/change of any of the above mechanics and you get shouted at for being a risk-averse-carebear-emergent-gameplay-hater. Oh, the irony. Not at all. Replace them with something of equal risk and I'm sure a lot of people would be open to suggestions. But proposals made here are always about increasing safety for haulers, when it's already immensely safe and the greatest risk is for those that fail to take precautions themselves. A lot of us don't want Eve to be a game that wraps us in cotton wool and protects us, so when the tools are already available to avoid being bumped and ganked (and a lot of us use those mechanics daily), then there is little sympathy for calls to make the game safer when people don't use the tools that are already available.
I understand what you mean and I'm far from advocating complete safety. However, every time I've tried arguing (based on facts, examples from the real gameplay) that some of the mechanics are... well, quite counter-intuitive to say at least and that they could use some improvements (which would make ganking more consequence laden, true) all I get back is kind of replies our lovely friend from bat country just provided - spineless, ignorant, this, that. No constructive discussion can be held in such an environment, so I don't really try discussing as much as I used to. The fun part is, I have a feeling we'll be seeing changes to bumping in the near future and then it will be fun trolling these guys back as much as they tend to troll anyone opposing their views. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2125
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 11:07:29 -
[126] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Yes, yes its a competitive and consequence laiden game in which:
- Someone can indefinitely (or until downtime) prevent a freighter from warping using just a bumping ship (doesn't even have to be a mach, ONI or SFI with large MWD will suffice) and a disposable aggro alt in a noob ship (!). No consequences for the bumper whatsoever. Just like a carrier can be held-down with a T1 frigate. Both are at risk if another player chooses to do something about it, and both are safe if no-one bothers to attack them. In highsec, you can attack anyone, anywhere (except rookie systems) by design. The only "safety" a bumper has is in your head.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: - Having negative sec status has very limited practical consequences for a dedicated ganker char and does not limit the ability to perform ganks in hisec in any way, making sec status loss irrelevant (and consequence free)
As I explained above, negative security status is not, and never was suppose to have so many "consequences" that criminals are unable to operate. This is a game, and criminals are very much intended to exist and for that they have to be able to function. Now that said, running a -10 has a huge number of consequences, all of which have resulted in criminals flying only cheap, disposable ships for the minimum amount of time exactly because of the impact of these consequences. They were never intended to prevent criminals from operating - there would be many easier ways for CCP to do that if they wanted.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:- Killrights against ganker chars are practically useless Of course, because of the above consequences. You can only make a character so vulnerable to others before adding more "consequences" has little impact. This in and of itself shows you how consequential the Crimewatch system punishes -10s if a killright which makes you free to attack adds little more risk to criminals.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:- Looting stuff from a ganked hauler can be made perfectly safe by using a DST or Orca and a disposable alt This is the only point where I agree there could be more game play added. Laundering the goods in space stymies the potential for a cascade of conflict resulting from a fight over the loot. But honestly, this is a minor point, and one that isn't without counter as you can use the exact same mechanics to grab the loot for yourself. Plus there has to be some balance and a chance for the pirate to get away with the loot, or they wouldn't bother in the first place.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Try arguing for removal/change of any of the above mechanics and you get shouted at for being a risk-averse-carebear-emergent-gameplay-hater. Oh, the irony. You are a risk-averse carebear or at least an enabler of them. Conflict and criminals in highsec is not even emergent gameplay - it has been specifically enabled by the Crimewatch mechanics. Freighters are suppose to be vulnerable. Criminals are suppose to be able to exist. Even when the carebear-apologists were celebrating the day after CCP patched out hyperdunking, criminals where still popping freighters as much as they had before, and exactly as the game designers intend. The same thing will happen if bumping is ever iterated on, and the daily destruction of industrials will carry on as it has for the last 13 years in New Eden.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17155
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 11:14:12 -
[127] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Nope. The only guaranteed way to get out of that situation is ganking the bumper.
Web escorts to get you into warp near instantly, logistics escorts, instablap cruisers, ECM, smartbomb BS. You also have the fast frigate you can position in front of a bumped freighter for it to warp to.
Quote: Facpo will spawn with a delay which is long enough even for battlecruisers piloted by -10 chars to move through highest true-sec systems, so - no consequence. As for being open for attack, true but that risk is minimised/removed by use of insta undocks and tacticals.
If it's risk free then why don't you use suicide gankers against the gankers? Their ships are in fact profitable to gank. He'll if it's risk free then let's have the same penalties happen to all ships that shoot npcs in highsec.
Quote: Heh, if you only knew what you are talking about. You only need a freighter to loot stuff larger then 50k m3 (so, large contracts and cans). If the cargo is not in a package, DST's are regularly used w/o any risk for them.
The current ganking tactics were invented by my corp. If you are ganking a freighter you bring a freighter.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Iain Cariaba
2442
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 11:48:59 -
[128] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Quote:Facpo will spawn with a delay which is long enough even for battlecruisers piloted by -10 chars to move through highest true-sec systems, so - no consequence. As for being open for attack, true but that risk is minimised/removed by use of insta undocks and tacticals. If it's risk free then why don't you use suicide gankers against the gankers? Their ships are in fact profitable to gank. Hell if it's risk free then let's have the same penalties happen to all ships that shoot npcs in highsec, after all these penalties are in place to stop the use of offensive weaponry. This. In fact, in one of the many identical threads to this one, I went through the math and figured out that a 5.0 sec status character can gank something like 24 bumping machs and still not reach the -2.0 threshold for penalties in highsec. Even then, it only takes 120mil isk in tags/fees to bring your sec status back up to zero, at which point you can gank 8 more machs without hitting -2.0.
The only thing stopping the white knigits from going on their own ganker gankfest is their own fear.
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?
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
401
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 13:10:42 -
[129] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:This. In fact, in one of the many identical threads to this one, I went through the math and figured out that a 5.0 sec status character can gank something like 24 bumping machs and still not reach the -2.0 threshold for penalties in highsec. Even then, it only takes 120mil isk in tags/fees to bring your sec status back up to zero, at which point you can gank 8 more machs without hitting -2.0.
The only thing stopping the white knigits from going on their own ganker gankfest is their own fear.
A good thing to know! But that also assumes said carebear never missions or rats between those kills. Which, if it was a 5.0 character, he/she probably will. I can tell you from experience that lowsec rats give good sec status, especially those clone soldiers.
In effect, that means by your math alone, someone can counter-gank to protect themselves dozens of times with no risk to themselves since they never reach any sort of security threshold for it to matter. So I want to requote something you said because it won't be empty quoting.
Quote:The only thing stopping the white knigits from going on their own ganker gankfest is their own fear.
Heck, I must ask, why even wait for someone to be in danger? Why wait for a white-knight excuse? Machs are pirate BS's, that mostly have to be on grid for long periods of time waiting for something to bump. A juicy target is just sitting there waiting for you, do a pre-emptive strike with some buddies! You'll get a decent killmail and some laughs. Who knows, you might actually enjoy the game for a fleeting moment.
Get it? Fleeting, because you know, with buddies, it's a fleet, and for a split second...whatever nevermind...
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15930
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 13:55:44 -
[130] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote: Im not sure that is really risk.
Especially since you outright lied about pricing for the second time.
"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.
15930
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 13:57:02 -
[131] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Nope. The only guaranteed way to get out of that situation is ganking the bumper.
You lie. I've noticed you do that a lot.
"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
137
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 14:32:00 -
[132] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Nope. The only guaranteed way to get out of that situation is ganking the bumper.
You lie. I've noticed you do that a lot. Oh look, it's you again. Pretty please, prove me wrong instead of slinging crap around. Also, for some reason you always sound really agitated. You should relax a bit. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15930
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 14:34:43 -
[133] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Pretty please, prove me wrong
I did.
You claimed the only way to get out of that situation is ganking the bumper.
That statement is wildly, flagrantly false. I really don't know what you hope to accomplish by trying to lie like that, but it probably doesn't matter anyway.
"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
137
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 14:40:59 -
[134] - Quote
Quote:The only thing stopping the white knigits from going on their own ganker gankfest is their own fear.
Not really true - if I'm a 'white knight' I don't want to engage in criminal activities in order to prevent crime, I want to do it legally. Now, if we were talking about dark knights, that would be another story. They might be willing to cross the honorabu line and engage in illicit activities under the "end justifies the means" credo in order to bring order to Hisec.
The story about medieval heroes in internet pixel spaceship world would make some sense if it was about principles, courage, intelligence or what not. However it is not. This is a story about game mechanics, simple cost/benefit calculus and their application which allows for some fairly unfortunate application scenarios. Anyway, looking forward to changes . |
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
505
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 14:44:18 -
[135] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:A good thing to know! But that also assumes said carebear never missions or rats between those kills. Which, if it was a 5.0 character, he/she probably will. So you're going to go off and carebear in your mission running ship having just given a killright to someone that associates with gankers?
Legit.
Basically people have to roll their own gank alts so they can avoid the same repercussions that gankers avoid by rolling their own gank alts.
Yes it's doable, but instead of the interesting rock-paper-scissors dynamic gameplay we get in the rest of eve, we've devolved into a single staid winning strategy: Everyone roll a gank alt to avoid the repercussions of the crimewatch system the same way gankers currently do.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15930
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 14:44:58 -
[136] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:I don't want to engage in criminal activities in order to prevent crime
If you're going to deliberately restrict your own options for the sake of roleplay, you have handicapped yourself.
Nothing to do with the mechanics, you just want to have your cake and eat it too, and that's not going to happen.
"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.
15931
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 14:47:06 -
[137] - Quote
"Ganking doesn't have enough consequences!"
"I refuse to gank the bumper because I don't want the consequences of ganking!"
"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
137
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 14:49:20 -
[138] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Pretty please, prove me wrong I did. You claimed the only way to get out of that situation is ganking the bumper. That statement is wildly, flagrantly false. I really don't know what you hope to accomplish by trying to lie like that, but it probably doesn't matter anyway.
No you did not. I said that the only guaranteed way of getting out is ganking the bumper. Again, please do enlighten us all on viable alternative.
Also, even if there was one, you could only say that I was lying had I knowingly decided not to disclose the alternative way of getting out in my post, which (with my s****y knowledge of game mechanics) I certainly did not do. Since you do not know what I do or don't know about bumping, you are lying about me lying. How cool is that. Also, as I said, you should chill a bit, it's just a game buddy. |
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
505
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 14:50:26 -
[139] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:"Ganking doesn't have enough consequences!" "I refuse to gank the bumper because I don't want the consequences of ganking!" Ganking =/= bumping....remember we had this discussion yesterday about things being different from each other sometimes.
Bumping = no consequences Ganking = not enough consequences for players that have rolled a disposable gank alt.
It's not so hard to understand: please review the fallacy link from yesterday and stop bloody straw-manning everything.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15931
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 14:51:29 -
[140] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: I said that the only guaranteed way of getting out is ganking the bumper.
And that is a lie.
Quote: Again, please do enlighten us all on viable alternative.
Hell, they were posted on the same page as you posted your lie. Why do you need me to do your reading for you? How about you actually read the thread in the first place?
"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
137
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 14:52:49 -
[141] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:"Ganking doesn't have enough consequences!"
For someone who dedicates a char to ganking, no it really doesn't.
Quote: "I refuse to gank the bumper because I don't want the consequences of ganking!"
For someone who doesn't want to live the life of a criminal, yes it really does. I know, it's poorly designed. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15931
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 14:52:52 -
[142] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: Bumping = no consequences
Yeah, most things that are explicitly non hostile acts don't have consequences for them.
In fact, I'm pretty sure that the direction your engines are pointed doesn't have consequences in any part of the game.
"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.
15931
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 14:54:07 -
[143] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: For someone who doesn't want to live the life of a criminal, yes it really does. I know, it's poorly designed.
It's not poorly designed at all.
You refuse to avail yourself of all of the possible options, then your effectiveness is limited. Seems like perfect design to me. People like you who would cut off your nose to spite your face should be less effective than a real player.
"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.
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
505
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 14:54:48 -
[144] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote: Bumping = no consequences
Yeah, most things that are explicitly non hostile acts don't have consequences for them. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the direction your engines are pointed doesn't have consequences in any part of the game. Explicitly non hostile acts 'under the current mechanics which we're discussing whether or not work as intended and might need improvement"
Jesus, we had this argument yesterday, you lost.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15931
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 14:56:31 -
[145] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: Explicitly non hostile acts 'under the current mechanics which we're discussing whether or not work as intended and might need improvement"
We aren't discussing that. You've already claimed that the way the game has worked for the last ten years is somehow unintended, and I told you to file a bug report.
Until they get back to you on that bug report, however, the game's collision detection mechanics sure seem like they're working precisely as intended.
"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
137
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 15:08:41 -
[146] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: I said that the only guaranteed way of getting out is ganking the bumper.
And that is a lie. Quote: Again, please do enlighten us all on viable alternative.
Hell, they were posted on the same page as you posted your lie. Why do you need me to do your reading for you? How about you actually read the thread in the first place?
Nothing baltec listed applies to getting out of bump with any degree of certainty (warping to a fast frigate is the closest thing to a legal way out, however it is anything but reliable, certainly not as reliable as bumping is). Do you even read what I post or are your replies just a knee-jerk reaction?
Anything that can be used to avoid bumping can be fairly easily countered - webber is countered by a cruiser suicide tackling the freighter while first bump lands. From there, it's usually gg for the freighter.
Best part of it all is - ganking would still be 100% viable without bumping, however it would require more skill and coordination (then current fleet warping), would likely reduce ability of individuals with 10+ accounts to perform ganks and force all members of a ganking fleet to actually be logged into game and attentive. I know, all the things that you're fighting against. Logon for a ping, take fleet warps, hit F1, that's the skillful gameplay you want to protect. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15931
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 15:10:11 -
[147] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Nothing baltec listed applies to getting out of bump with any degree of certainty
Wrong.
Have you just not done this before, or what?
"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.
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
506
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 15:11:16 -
[148] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:You've already claimed that the way the game has worked for the last ten years is somehow unintended, and I told you to file a bug report.
And this was one of your many fallacious arguments in attempting to strawman one of my points as something it wasn't.
We get it, as someone that flies with gankers and seems incapable of taking part in PvP outside of highsec you have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and trying to drown out discussion by shouting 'THIS IS HOW IT IS SO THIS IS HOW IT ALWAYS MUST BE!'
Unlike you, I have no vested interest in bumping either way; I don't fly haulers, I don't gank haulers, I generally don't even notice gankers in my game on a day to day basis since I'm not often flying through or near niarja/uedama/etc. However it is *still* my opinion that it's a flawed mechanic, and if you recall, you conceded that point yesterday because you tried to suggest that it was working as intended and yet also conceded that CCP had investigated trying to fix it.
And yet today, you seem to have woken up and imagined our whole discourse last night as some kind of forum nightmare that vanished in your pillow and are back to your same, old, tired points which have already been dealt with.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15931
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 15:15:54 -
[149] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: And this was one of your many fallacious arguments in attempting to strawman one of my points as something it wasn't.
Except that it's exactly what you said. You said that it's not working as intended.
Except it very much is. Just like emergent gameplay itself is very much intended.
The rest of your post is a big old ad hominem and personal attack, which carebears always resort to once they have their facile arguments dashed. I dunno why I ever expect better from you lot.
Quote: I don't fly haulers, I don't gank haulers
Oh, it shows.
Quote: However it is *still* my opinion that it's a flawed mechanic
And your opinion isn't a reason to change a single thing about this game.
Don't you have anything better than "I don't like it so it should go away"?
"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.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2521
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 15:16:12 -
[150] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Anything that can be used to avoid bumping can be fairly easily countered - webber is countered by a cruiser suicide tackling the freighter while first bump lands. From there, it's usually gg for the freighter.
Essentially, what you are saying is that if the gankers "team" put more effort in it than the gankee's team, then they have better odds of winning. I'm pretty sure that's EVE working as intended.
I never really liked how bumping works but every single "solution" the the "problem" ever proposed usually involve a **** load of problems down the line so I just decided to accept how it is. |
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
506
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 15:26:05 -
[151] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Don't you have anything better than "I don't like it so it should go away"? Don't you have anything better than "It's working as intended...no wait...it's not working as intended...well it kinda works...well let's keep it anyway instead of exploring other options?...CAREBEAR...HE'S A CAREBEAR"
I'm not egotistical enough to think my opinion on a forum *will* change the game but having a discussion about mechanics is vastly more interesting for me than namecalling, misrepresenting points and basically acting in denial that there might be some other workable solution to the current flawed method.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15931
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 15:28:52 -
[152] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: Don't you have anything better than *the stuff I blatantly made up*
You cut two words out of a sentence then claimed that I "admitted" that bumping isn't working as intended.
You know full well what I meant, you dishonest shill, and you've been lying about it the whole time since. Like you said before though, it's all there in black and white, although that does you no good at all, since it exposes you as wholly dishonest.
"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.
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
506
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 15:34:39 -
[153] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote:is bumping working as intended in highsec? It is and it isn't. link
Also a shill tends to be someone standing to gain by fraudulently misrepresenting something. Not two posts ago we established I don't have anything to gain from changing or maintaining this mechanic because it doesn't affect me directly...you, on the other hand, would be affected by it.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2523
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 15:38:23 -
[154] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Don't you have anything better than "I don't like it so it should go away"? Don't you have anything better than "It's working as intended...no wait...it's not working as intended...well it kinda works...well let's keep it anyway instead of exploring other options?...CAREBEAR...HE'S A CAREBEAR" I'm not egotistical enough to think my opinion on a forum *will* change the game but having a discussion about mechanics is vastly more interesting for me than namecalling, misrepresenting points and basically acting in denial that there might be some other workable solution to the current flawed method.
Bumping has been discussed to hell and back then back again to hell and back. The poor dead horse had a monument erected for it but we also beat that into the groud. The only reason we still remember where that poor horse "is" is because we keep coming back even tho there is nothing left there and even the "replacement" is now long gone. May God have mercy for the soul of that poor horse.
Bumping discussion always end up with nothing because every solution ends worse than what we have currently working. |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
138
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 15:40:41 -
[155] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Anything that can be used to avoid bumping can be fairly easily countered - webber is countered by a cruiser suicide tackling the freighter while first bump lands. From there, it's usually gg for the freighter.
Essentially, what you are saying is that if the gankers "team" put more effort in it than the gankee's team, then they have better odds of winning. I'm pretty sure that's EVE working as intended. I never really liked how bumping works but every single "solution" the the "problem" ever proposed usually involve a **** load of problems down the line so I just decided to accept how it is.
No, what I'm saying is that once the first bump lands, you're pretty much f****d and you can do very little if nothing to change that, particularly if you want to get out of it in a way which will not result with criminal flags / killrights for non-ganker side. Being able to essentially perma-bump a freighter while using just two chars without any consequences whatsoever for the bumping character is not 'putting more effort', it is simply wrong. The fact that (quite often) you can extract loot safely is also wrong. The fact that some guys are so bitter about any discussion related to changing such mechanics is moderately amusing. |
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
506
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 15:47:59 -
[156] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Bumping discussion always end up with nothing because every solution ends worse than what we have currently working. idd.
I haven't seen a good solution put forwards either. What I've been arguing against though is the simple minded idea of saying:
'It's not broken, it doesn't need fixing therefore all solutions are wrong'
Instead of admitting:
'it is broken and needs fixing but this solution isn't the right one'
One thought process enables a discussion to get off the ground and perhaps some form of progress, the other is fingers in the ears and screaming to maintain the current status quo because of fear of a change being disfavourable to the parties involved.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2524
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 15:48:09 -
[157] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Anything that can be used to avoid bumping can be fairly easily countered - webber is countered by a cruiser suicide tackling the freighter while first bump lands. From there, it's usually gg for the freighter.
Essentially, what you are saying is that if the gankers "team" put more effort in it than the gankee's team, then they have better odds of winning. I'm pretty sure that's EVE working as intended. I never really liked how bumping works but every single "solution" the the "problem" ever proposed usually involve a **** load of problems down the line so I just decided to accept how it is. No, what I'm saying is that once the first bump lands, you're pretty much f****d and you can do very little if nothing to change that, particularly if you want to get out of it in a way which will not result with criminal flags / killrights for non-ganker side. Being able to essentially perma-bump a freighter while using just two chars without any consequences whatsoever for the bumping character is not 'putting more effort', it is simply wrong. The fact that (quite often) you can extract loot safely is also wrong. The fact that some guys are so bitter about any discussion related to changing such mechanics is moderately amusing.
Using 2 guys for them bumping sure as hell is more effort than using just one for the freighter...
You are also telling me that your ship is worth less than criminal flags/kill rights on some alts/friend character for killing the bumper?
You are just not willing to do anything about it and also not willing to accept the consequence of not doing anything about it. |
Takari
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
507
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 15:49:42 -
[158] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:[quote=Kaarous Aldurald] and if you recall, you conceded that point yesterday because you tried to suggest that it was working as intended and yet also conceded that CCP had investigated trying to fix it.
I just read through all 8 pages of this thread, and this didn't happen.
He said that the original intent did not have this in mind but that CCP investigated and found that this was acceptable "Emergent Gameplay" which is not the same as what you have said in this quote.
Still though, to be constructive:
I don't see how this is a problem here. There are tools to avoid this. An open PVP game always has solutions.
I get that no one likes endless bumping. I'm almost certain that even the gank parties doing the bumping aren't terribly fond of having to do it.
Perhaps there are concessions that can be made but the only suggestions I see in this thread are to
1. Remove collision detection for High Sec or Haulers which gives no concessions as it would make high sec gate camping virtually impossible (which is not a good thing) or 2. Give flags for bumping which has such staggering cascading consequences across the entire game as everyone involved with the bump would have to be flagged as intent can't be programmatically determined.
I'm all for modules that make it more difficult to bump at the cost of something else.
Possible bad idea incoming:
Stabilizing Jets. Your ship cannot be moved unless bumped by a combined mass greater than a percentage of your ships mass (increasing percentage for meta or tech II variants?), but in exchange it increases your align time by 20% (Or Decreases cargo capacity by 10% two possible modules? )
This way if you're caught by the entire gank fleet, you're still not going anywhere but if one guy catches you, he's about to be brick walled?
"Roll the dice, don't think twice. This is the way of things.
Welcome to EVE." ~ CCP Falcon
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15933
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 15:53:04 -
[159] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: No, what I'm saying is that once the first bump lands, you're pretty much f****d and you can do very little if nothing to change that
And that is wrong.
Yes, avoiding it in the first place is much easier, but it is not impossible to get out by any means. You've been told this repeatedly, so I really don't know why you keep repeating this lie.
Quote: The fact that some guys are so bitter about any discussion related to changing such mechanics is moderately amusing.
Heh, carebears always project.
"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.
15933
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 15:54:38 -
[160] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: 'It's not broken, it doesn't need fixing therefore all solutions are wrong'
Which is absolutely the truth. Not only that, even if it were broken, CCP can't do anything about it anyway.
You're sitting here expecting us to entertain your dishonest premise as though it were true. I will not. Ganking and bumping are not broken, period. There is no "discussion" to be had based on a lie.
"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 Pandemic Legion
17161
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 15:57:49 -
[161] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Anything that can be used to avoid bumping can be fairly easily countered - webber is countered by a cruiser suicide tackling the freighter while first bump lands. From there, it's usually gg for the freighter.
Essentially, what you are saying is that if the gankers "team" put more effort in it than the gankee's team, then they have better odds of winning. I'm pretty sure that's EVE working as intended. I never really liked how bumping works but every single "solution" the the "problem" ever proposed usually involve a **** load of problems down the line so I just decided to accept how it is. No, what I'm saying is that once the first bump lands, you're pretty much f****d and you can do very little if nothing to change that, particularly if you want to get out of it in a way which will not result with criminal flags / killrights for non-ganker side. Being able to essentially perma-bump a freighter while using just two chars without any consequences whatsoever for the bumping character is not 'putting more effort', it is simply wrong. The fact that (quite often) you can extract loot safely is also wrong. The fact that some guys are so bitter about any discussion related to changing such mechanics is moderately amusing.
Fly a battleship into their bumper. Congrats you just stopped the bumping, Web that freighter to freedom.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2525
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 16:00:10 -
[162] - Quote
Takari wrote:
Possible bad idea incoming:
Stabilizing Jets. Your ship cannot be moved unless bumped by a combined mass greater than a percentage of your ships mass (increasing percentage for meta or tech II variants?), but in exchange it increases your align time by 20% (Or Decreases cargo capacity by 10% two possible modules? )
This way if you're caught by the entire gank fleet, you're still not going anywhere but if one guy catches you, he's about to be brick walled?
If they are good enough to prevent a MWD mach from bumping a freighter (battleship mass * MWD mass bonus) then they will prevent any capital ship from ever being meaningfully bumped unless you cyno/jump something "inside" of it. This could generate some issue. Binary effect of modules are also rarely really liked like how stabs are just a pass/fail mechanic for being pointed. |
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
506
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 16:07:04 -
[163] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote: 'It's not broken, it doesn't need fixing therefore all solutions are wrong'
Which is absolutely the truth. Not only that, even if it were broken, CCP can't do anything about it anyway. You're sitting here expecting us to entertain your dishonest premise as though it were true. I will not. Ganking and bumping are not broken, period. There is no "discussion" to be had based on a lie. We know CCP can't do anythign about it...because they investigated changing it. And why would they have investigated changing it? because it's working perfectly?
Riiiiight.
Keep on telling everyone that I'm the dishonest one, that I'm the carebear, that I'm the shill and keep ignoring the obvious logical step that they investigated changing it because they themselves perceived it to be broken.
I mean that's all your rhetoric consists of: "He's a liar, he's a carebear, he's no true eve player, he's a shill, I don't believe him, he's saying the whole physics system is broken"
It's like being in playschool.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2999
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 16:16:58 -
[164] - Quote
Like wise if my bowhead lands in a bubble camp with 30 hostiles im also ****** and I can also be held there indefinitely or until I self destruct. The fact that there was plenty I could have done before I landed in the bubble camp is the issue here.
You say people are bitter about discussing it, but its been discussed for years and no viable alternative has been put forward. In fact, considering how easy the mechanic is to avoid, the need for an alternative is highly questionable. The motives of everyone who proposes a change is also highly questionable. They make up facts. They misrepresent. And the best reason they give for wanting a change is: I dont like it. Its obvious to everyone that they are asking CCP to let them be greedier and dumber.
Plenty of argument has been put forward in this thread, and every other, that freighters really do NOT need the help. The vast VAST majority of hauling is wholly uneventful. Even afk freighters make it through the most dangerous systems more often than not. The smart thing to do is make hauling more dangerous before, or at least at the same time as, any 'fixes' for tackling with bumping is done.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Lyma Sarum
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 16:18:07 -
[165] - Quote
Interesting post, but it seems that instead of offering some positive criticism, there are people that prefer to yell "please don't touch my cookie". I get it. If I was making a profit out of ganking I guess I would say the same.
So my main concern is this: I started EVE very recently (about 1month) and I was interested in going the haulers way until I got enough ISK to start an industry/research/hauling corp. I quickly found out that in order to haul effectively I need 1 or 2 extra accounts (scouts,webbers) or some people I will always drag around depriving them off their fun and all of this just to have a slim chance of avoiding a group of multi accounts that are having their fun. Yes it really seems they take advantage of game mechanics because they are kind of broken/obsolete (?) but still the fact remains.
I for no reason can or will blame the annoying bullying attitude any player chooses. It may be boring from my perspective but it is a matter of choice. They need to have their fun and I need to have mine. I will however ask this and I am guessing only CCP can answer. Can I play this game with one account without paying for other people to play? Because from where I am looking at it, it seems I cannot. 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.
And another matter I spotted on the killboards. Many ganks seem to be executed by one guy having multiple accounts (yes they are easy to spot). I know that EVE allows multiple accounts running, but solo coordinating 10+ accounts(yes that is how many I last saw) requires some software that executes input automation or some macro scripting. Is this even allowed? And don't point me in the CCP thread about multiboxing because it specifies it is not. Unless someone is an alien or an octopus they is no way you can run 10 accounts that execute the same command at the exact same time.
Sorry for the long text but I recently joined EVE because I love the setting and wanted to join a friend already playing it. However I am very concerned. The game is challenging and beautiful but it seems so uninviting for someone who just started. What am I to do versus a guy who can pay or someway afford 10 accounts and multiboxes them? There is no way I will be dragged into paying for more accounts just to play an mmo. Also yes this is an alt. I was told that griefers will target me if I post with my main. |
Lyma Sarum
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 16:24:08 -
[166] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Takari wrote:
Possible bad idea incoming:
Stabilizing Jets. Your ship cannot be moved unless bumped by a combined mass greater than a percentage of your ships mass (increasing percentage for meta or tech II variants?), but in exchange it increases your align time by 20% (Or Decreases cargo capacity by 10% two possible modules? )
This way if you're caught by the entire gank fleet, you're still not going anywhere but if one guy catches you, he's about to be brick walled?
If they are good enough to prevent a MWD mach from bumping a freighter (battleship mass * MWD mass bonus) then they will prevent any capital ship from ever being meaningfully bumped unless you cyno/jump something "inside" of it. This could generate some issue. Binary effect of modules are also rarely really liked like how stabs are just a pass/fail mechanic for being pointed. I guess the easy solution, if ever applied this way, is : "Stabilizing Jets - Can only be fitted in Freighters and Industrials." |
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
507
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 16:31:06 -
[167] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Like wise if my bowhead lands in a bubble camp with 30 hostiles im also ****** and I can also be held there indefinitely or until I self destruct. The fact that there was plenty I could have done before I landed in the bubble camp is the issue here.
You say people are bitter about discussing it, but its been discussed for years and no viable alternative has been put forward. In fact, considering how easy the mechanic is to avoid, the need for an alternative is highly questionable. The motives of everyone who proposes a change is also highly questionable. They make up facts. They misrepresent. And the best reason they give for wanting a change is: I dont like it. Its obvious to everyone that they are asking CCP to let them be greedier and dumber.
Plenty of argument has been put forward in this thread, and every other, that freighters really do NOT need the help. The vast VAST majority of hauling is wholly uneventful. Even afk freighters make it through the most dangerous systems more often than not. The smart thing to do is make hauling more dangerous before, or at least at the same time as, any 'fixes' for tackling with bumping is done.
The difference between a nullsec bubble camp and aggression free tackling in highsec is that one's a nullsec bubble camp and the other is aggression free tackling in highsec .oO
As for questioning motives to undermine an argument, it doesn't do anything to the argument but I'll nibble anyways: I'm *still* pro ganking in spite of others stating the opposite. I *still* believe that the safety of freighter hauling with a web alt is too much and there should still be more risk for freighters even when using this technique (or the technique should be abolished entirely with alternative, more interesting, defensive options in it's place). I *still* think that aggression free tackling in highsec is a faulty mechanic.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2127
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 16:38:16 -
[168] - Quote
Lyma Sarum wrote: So my main concern is this: I started EVE very recently (about 1month) and I was interested in going the haulers way until I got enough ISK to start an industry/research/hauling corp. I quickly found out that in order to haul effectively I need 1 or 2 extra accounts (scouts,webbers) or some people I will always drag around depriving them off their fun and all of this just to have a slim chance of avoiding a group of multi accounts that are having their fun. Yes it really seems they take advantage of game mechanics because they are kind of broken/obsolete (?) but still the fact remains.
Who told you that? The Deep Space Transport is incredibly tanky and easily piloted by one person. A freighter is a capital ship that intentionally requires multiple people or characters to support it properly to offset its significant strength (cargo hold size). It is not intended to be used solo so no, it is not "broken".
Lyma Sarum wrote:And another matter I spotted on the killboards. Many ganks seem to be executed by one guy having multiple accounts (yes they are easy to spot). I know that EVE allows multiple accounts running, but solo coordinating 10+ accounts(yes that is how many I last saw) requires some software that executes input automation or some macro scripting. Is this even allowed? And don't point me in the CCP thread about multiboxing because it specifies it is not. Unless someone is an alien or an octopus they is no way you can run 10 accounts that execute the same command at the exact same time. It is possible and legal. You can check out his twitch channel to watch him do it.
Lyma Sarum wrote:Sorry for the long text but I recently joined EVE because I love the setting and wanted to join a friend already playing it. However I am very concerned. The game is challenging and beautiful but it seems so uninviting for someone who just started. What am I to do versus a guy who can pay or someway afford 10 accounts and multiboxes them? There is no way I will be dragged into paying for more accounts just to play an mmo. Also yes this is an alt. I was told that griefers will target me if I post with my main. You don't need more accounts, just more friends. For better or worse, Eve is designed such that having more people almost always gives you an advantage. Multiboxers are not who you need to worry about as hyper-multiboxing gankers are an anomaly, but rather the usual crowd of freighter gankers who are a dozen or three real people working together for a common goal. You will have no chance against them by yourself and you should never expect to in this game (although to be fair a single webbing alt pretty much makes you immune to all 30+ of them even in a freighter as RFF proves every day).
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17162
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 16:48:55 -
[169] - Quote
Lyma Sarum wrote:Interesting post, but it seems that instead of offering some positive criticism, there are people that prefer to yell "please don't touch my cookie". I get it. If I was making a profit out of ganking I guess I would say the same.
So my main concern is this: I started EVE very recently (about 1month) and I was interested in going the haulers way until I got enough ISK to start an industry/research/hauling corp. I quickly found out that in order to haul effectively I need 1 or 2 extra accounts (scouts,webbers) or some people I will always drag around depriving them off their fun and all of this just to have a slim chance of avoiding a group of multi accounts that are having their fun. Yes it really seems they take advantage of game mechanics because they are kind of broken/obsolete (?) but still the fact remains.
I for no reason can or will blame the annoying bullying attitude any player chooses. It may be boring from my perspective but it is a matter of choice. They need to have their fun and I need to have mine. I will however ask this and I am guessing only CCP can answer. Can I play this game with one account without paying for other people to play? Because from where I am looking at it, it seems I cannot. 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.
And another matter I spotted on the killboards. Many ganks seem to be executed by one guy having multiple accounts (yes they are easy to spot). I know that EVE allows multiple accounts running, but solo coordinating 10+ accounts(yes that is how many I last saw) requires some software that executes input automation or some macro scripting. Is this even allowed? And don't point me in the CCP thread about multiboxing because it specifies it is not. Unless someone is an alien or an octopus they is no way you can run 10 accounts that execute the same command at the exact same time.
Sorry for the long text but I recently joined EVE because I love the setting and wanted to join a friend already playing it. However I am very concerned. The game is challenging and beautiful but it seems so uninviting for someone who just started. What am I to do versus a guy who can pay or someway afford 10 accounts and multiboxes them? There is no way I will be dragged into paying for more accounts just to play an mmo. Also yes this is an alt. I was told that griefers will target me if I post with my main.
Several options. First is use one of the other cargo ships such as the DST and the neigh impossible to catch blockade runners. Another option is to join a player organisation/corp who can help you.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1722
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 17:28:20 -
[170] - 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/
|
|
Iain Cariaba
2444
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 17:58:00 -
[171] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote: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. Except that makes sense, therefore carebears are incapable of doing it.
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.
15937
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 18:25:47 -
[172] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: We know CCP can't do anythign about it...because they investigated changing it.
Actually, we know they can't do anything about it because they told us as much. This was in the same vein as the billboard story, I believe.
Turns out, they look into messing with all kinds of things more or less all the time, because that's part of game development. It wasn't bumping specifically(in fact if I recall they said on reddit that it was about bastion modules), it was "hey, turns out this thing is so deep in the base code that we can't change anything because it breaks the entire game", just like billboards.
Did you know about that one, by the way? If they remove billboards, then undocking doesn't work anymore. Legacy code, and all that.
Quote: and keep ignoring the obvious logical step that they investigated changing it because they themselves perceived it to be broken.
And keep on making that illogical leap while ignoring pretty much everything ever written down about game development, just because you want it to be true.
And definitely keep on making arguments about game balance from a position of total ignorance.
"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.
15937
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 18:27:26 -
[173] - Quote
Lyma Sarum wrote:There is 0 (zero) balance when it comes to a new player coming in and like me wants to haul.
Yeah, and you can't fly a Titan in your first week either.
Some things just aren't for new players. Simple as that.
"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.
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3000
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 18:53:34 -
[174] - Quote
@lyna If you have no friends to help then manage your business accordingly. Capital ships are deliberately vulnerable such that they are best flown with escorts. Its the same everywhere. You can accept this risk when flying solo and factor it into your profits, or you can down size to a DST and use the mwd-cloak trick for near gank invulnerability.
@Eli My post doesn't necessarily apply to you because you haven't posted any solutions to any mechanics you dont like. I will say that you are inconsistent with your arguments however. Where one mechanic is flawed because it was unintended but other emergent gameplay is just fine. And where you've called gankers lazy when the people they punish are literally AFK.
Hi-sec, null sec. What does it matter? You can be held against your will in this game. Learn to self destruct.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2529
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 20:07:58 -
[175] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Lyma Sarum wrote:There is 0 (zero) balance when it comes to a new player coming in and like me wants to haul. Yeah, and you can't fly a Titan in your first week either. Some things just aren't for new players. Simple as that.
Not an argument for or against but could a decent pilot perma bump something like a badger? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4454
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 20:31:44 -
[176] - Quote
In the last thread on this (no locked, IIRC) I pointed out that bumping ships have minimal tank as they are typically fit for speed. And that there is nothing stopping people from ganking them. 2-3 talos or tornados would get the job done and the Mach is a pretty pricey hull not to mention the modules that have been fit.
Go impose a consequence on them for their actions. Yes, CONCORD will come along and blow up your ships too, but in terms of the "ISK war" you'll win. Spend some of your ISK and sec status to make bumping costly.
But noooo. Instead we get the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over: CCP please come stop the bad man from making it hard on me for being lazy and foolish.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4455
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 20:36:55 -
[177] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Several options. First is use one of the other cargo ships such as the DST and the neigh impossible to catch blockade runners. Another option is to join a player organisation/corp who can help you.
This, whenever possible use a blockade runner. I use one extensively and haul high value low volume cargo and laugh as I zip through Uedama and see some poor fool getting bumped.... a poor fool who probably overloaded freighter, didn't use a scout and maybe even committed the worst sin: went AFK after turning on autopilot. Maybe that fool didn't "ask for it" but he sure as Hell put a huge freaking target on his back...any shock somebody decides to shoot him? If you are shocked or upset, please consider shutting down the game and uninstalling the client.
Edit: Also a JF is a good work around as well. It has two advantages:
1. The jump drive will almost surely let you "jump over" the choke points. 2. Even if you get bumped in a 0.7 system or higher...if you have an emergency cyno ready to go, jump out and dock up.
Granted it is a much more expensive option, but if you need to move high value high volume cargo it is an option.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15939
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 20:39:55 -
[178] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Lyma Sarum wrote:There is 0 (zero) balance when it comes to a new player coming in and like me wants to haul. Yeah, and you can't fly a Titan in your first week either. Some things just aren't for new players. Simple as that. Not an argument for or against but could a decent pilot perma bump something like a badger?
Never tried to bump a T1, to be honest. I doubt their align time is bad enough for that, however.
"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
4455
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 20:42:51 -
[179] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Lyma Sarum wrote:There is 0 (zero) balance when it comes to a new player coming in and like me wants to haul. Yeah, and you can't fly a Titan in your first week either. Some things just aren't for new players. Simple as that. Not an argument for or against but could a decent pilot perma bump something like a badger? Never tried to bump a T1, to be honest. I doubt their align time is bad enough for that, however.
You could use the MWD/Cloak trick on any industrial to get off the field much faster.
Hell, using a MWD just while aligning will likely make bumping that much more difficult even if it extends your align time...hitting a fast moving target is harder than a slow lumbering target.
Seriously, time to lock this redundant thread as the anti-bumping side has once again started grasping for any all straws to try and save their benighted view point that: I should be allowed to be foolish and reckless and have CCP protect me from any bad consequences...but I get to keep all the potential benefits.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15939
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 20:44:40 -
[180] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote: Hell, using a MWD just while aligning will likely make bumping that much more difficult even if it extends your align time...hitting a fast moving target is harder than a slow lumbering target.
While I absolutely agree with the rest, I'll point out that a good enough bumper makes this untrue. I've seen people knock MWD'ing Skiffs halfway across a grid pretty consistently.
"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
4456
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 20:52:58 -
[181] - Quote
Lyma Sarum wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Takari wrote:
Possible bad idea incoming:
Stabilizing Jets. Your ship cannot be moved unless bumped by a combined mass greater than a percentage of your ships mass (increasing percentage for meta or tech II variants?), but in exchange it increases your align time by 20% (Or Decreases cargo capacity by 10% two possible modules? )
This way if you're caught by the entire gank fleet, you're still not going anywhere but if one guy catches you, he's about to be brick walled?
If they are good enough to prevent a MWD mach from bumping a freighter (battleship mass * MWD mass bonus) then they will prevent any capital ship from ever being meaningfully bumped unless you cyno/jump something "inside" of it. This could generate some issue. Binary effect of modules are also rarely really liked like how stabs are just a pass/fail mechanic for being pointed. I guess the easy solution, if ever applied this way, is : "Stabilizing Jets - Can only be fitted in Freighters and Industrials."
The special: I really, really made some bad decisions/actions and now I need a get out of fail free card then?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4456
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 20:54:23 -
[182] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Teckos Pech wrote: Hell, using a MWD just while aligning will likely make bumping that much more difficult even if it extends your align time...hitting a fast moving target is harder than a slow lumbering target.
While I absolutely agree with the rest, I'll point out that a good enough bumper makes this untrue. I've seen people knock MWD'ing Skiffs halfway across a grid pretty consistently.
So if you want to be a pro-bumper...practice on MWDing skiffs.
Good to know.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4458
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 21:01:37 -
[183] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote: 1st - I know the act of bumping is not a reason an exploit, however the people who do the bumping can and often do (in High sec) bump someone for 30-60 minutes or more!!
[snip]
2nd - Looting. When the gankers did get a target they would have to have a freighter loot it if it was of value. They timed things down to get away before people could lock them. This was fair.
You know the juxtaposition of these two is simply astonishing to me as the second part negates the first part.
Apparently it did not dawn on the OP that the gankers have somehow figured out a magical way of avoiding bumping.
Seems to me we are left with two conclusions:
1.People getting bumped in freighters are inept at playing the game. 2.People getting bumped were foolish and reckless and being bumped then ganked is the result of being foolish and reckless.
Funny how the supporters never show up and defend people being foolish and reckless in other areas. I think jumping my JF around should come with a 5 minute immunity timer so that way I can be protected for being a dumb. Ratting in a carrier should come with a 400km protection zone so that any ship warping to the anomaly I am in should have to burn the remaining 400km. And I demand that all my ships in NS get a warp bubble immunity. In fact, we should just remove bubbles entirely. And I want the a button in game so that when ratting if I need to go AFK I can press the button and my ship becomes completely invulnerable except to the ratsGǪwhich of course IGÇÖve thoroughly tanked my ship against.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
43977
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 21:33:28 -
[184] - Quote
Lyma Sarum wrote:Interesting post, but it seems that instead of offering some positive criticism, there are people that prefer to yell "please don't touch my cookie". I get it. If I was making a profit out of ganking I guess I would say the same.
So my main concern is this: I started EVE very recently (about 1month) and I was interested in going the haulers way until I got enough ISK to start an industry/research/hauling corp. I quickly found out that in order to haul effectively I need 1 or 2 extra accounts (scouts,webbers) or some people I will always drag around depriving them off their fun and all of this just to have a slim chance of avoiding a group of multi accounts that are having their fun. Yes it really seems they take advantage of game mechanics because they are kind of broken/obsolete (?) but still the fact remains. First, welcome to the game. It's probably worth reading back through the million other threads on this issue before concluding that people prefer to yell "please don't touch my cookie".
The same people that are frustrated that this same thing is coming up yet again have offered constructive criticism in the past, provided good advice to help haulers and pointed out all the flaws and exploits of suggestions, only to be ignored and told they are lying. There's only so many times you can discuss something reasonably while being accused of being a bully, sociopath or equivalent to a RL rapist, before you get frustrated and begin to treat others the same way you are treated.
So, don't be too harsh on the critics here. The hard line has developed because they've been continually attacked over the years.
In relation to your point about needing multiple accounts to counter multiple accounts, CCP banned input multiplexing late last year, making coordinated multiboxing attacks more difficult, however Eve has always been a game where players can have multiple characters logged in at the same time.
A couple of years ago there was a tournament where 1 guy ran a full team of 8 characters by multiboxing (New Eden Open II). He lost every match and was eliminated at the first stage. He struggled because multiboxing, no matter how good you are, is no match for multiple players working together.
So it's not necessary to have multiple accounts if you don't want. It's more enjoyable (for most people) and much more effective to make friends and all work together. That could even be a shared purpose that would help get your Corp aspirations off the ground.
Lyma Sarum wrote:Can I play this game with one account without paying for other people to play? Because from where I am looking at it, it seems I cannot. Absolutely you can and the figures from CCP suggest that many people do.
From figures published by CCP Quant last year, two-thirds of all players have only 1 account, which by definition means they can only have 1 character online at a time:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xRb5GQzAaoA/VejxJFChpBI/AAAAAAAAANE/YS4DBbWqJ2M/s1600/250%2B%25233.png
86% of all players have 2 or less accounts, 94% have 3 or less and by the time you get to 97% of the player base, it's 4 or less accounts. The idea of large multiboxing gank fleets isn't the normal situation. They are the outlying cases. The total average accounts per player is only 1.5 across the player base and that has been stable for more than a decade:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bPYAEHB9LeY/VemKSoWiXSI/AAAAAAAAANc/N03vaX3zzMo/s1600/250%2B%25231.png
So absolutely you can play the game with one account. Most players do and the idea of an army of alts is one of those things we all assume is true, but when you look at the actual data, it turns out to be a false belief.
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. As a new player, the best thing you can do is find an experienced player and learn from them.
Hauling doesn't have to be less safe for you just because you are new. It will be less safe because you don't yet have an in depth knowledge of the game. There's the gap you need to fill. Knowledge, not safety. Once you have the knowledge, you can be as safe as any veteran.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
138
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 21:59:25 -
[185] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote: rabble rabble
Funny how you tend to equate bumping with ganking. Take away bumping and freighter ganking is still 100% viable, just not so easy mode as it is right now. |
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21025
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 22:25:36 -
[186] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Teckos Pech wrote: rabble rabble Funny how you tend to equate bumping with ganking. Take away bumping and freighter ganking is still 100% viable, just not so easy mode as it is right now. I have used the same freighter and full T2 cargo fit BR since both were introduced into the game. Used through systems including lowsec. In other words. It's never been easy mode to catch me.
If you think some freighter kills are to easy mode right now, then may I suggest you help those players play the game correctly and stop being easy kills.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3004
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 23:26:36 -
[187] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Teckos Pech wrote: rabble rabble Funny how you tend to equate bumping with ganking. Take away bumping and freighter ganking is still 100% viable, just not so easy mode as it is right now.
And whos fault is that? When it's the haulers that determine how easy and profitable they themselves are to gank.
Call it easy mode as much as you want, but it's still more effort than haulers put into their playstyle and its defense.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4459
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 23:39:51 -
[188] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote: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. As a new player, the best thing you can do is find an experienced player and learn from them. Hauling doesn't have to be less safe for you just because you are new. It will be less safe because you don't yet have an in depth knowledge of the game. There's the gap you need to fill. Knowledge, not safety. Once you have the knowledge, you can be as safe as any veteran.
What Scipio said. You are going to die in this game. Just accept it and more importantly learn from it. After you get killed ask yourself, GÇ£What could I have done differently to have avoided dying?GÇ¥ If you canGÇÖt answer the question, ask other players in the game you associate with and see if they know. OrGǪand while this may sound weird, e-mail one or some of the guys who killed you. If you are decent/polite about it they might actually give you some advice, but donGÇÖt be surprised if they donGÇÖt.
You have a steep learning curve ahead of you, but it can be a fun one at the same time. Just keep looking at each death as a learning experience.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4460
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 23:50:03 -
[189] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Teckos Pech wrote: rabble rabble Funny how you tend to equate bumping with ganking. Take away bumping and freighter ganking is still 100% viable, just not so easy mode as it is right now.
You know that thing is a two way street....right?
AFK, autopiloting overloaded freighter going through a heavily traversed choke point system...talk about easy mode.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15954
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 23:53:10 -
[190] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Teckos Pech wrote: rabble rabble Funny how you tend to equate bumping with ganking. Take away bumping and freighter ganking is still 100% viable, just not so easy mode as it is right now. You know that thing is a two way street....right? AFK, autopiloting overloaded freighter going through a heavily traversed choke point system...talk about easy mode.
Especially from a self professed "white knight" (and by the way, why would anyone ever admit to being such a thing?) who spends all their time defending the two lowest common denominators in the entire MMO industry. Mining, and hauling.
You know, two playstyles with about ten clicks per hour of activity.
"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
4460
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 00:00:58 -
[191] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Teckos Pech wrote: rabble rabble Funny how you tend to equate bumping with ganking. Take away bumping and freighter ganking is still 100% viable, just not so easy mode as it is right now. You know that thing is a two way street....right? AFK, autopiloting overloaded freighter going through a heavily traversed choke point system...talk about easy mode. Especially from a self professed "white knight" (and by the way, why would anyone ever admit to being such a thing?) who spends all their time defending the two lowest common denominators in the entire MMO industry. Mining, and hauling. You know, two playstyles with about ten clicks per hour of activity.
Hey now, IGÇÖve been known to mine on occasionGǪin a skiff with as heavy a tank as I can put on it. I go with the model of how to not be eaten by a bearGǪI donGÇÖt have to run faster than the bear, just faster than the other guy. I figure if I sacrifice mining yield in favor of tankGǪit will be other guy who didnGÇÖt that will get GÇ£eatenGÇ¥ and IGÇÖll scoot on off the station in the mean time.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15955
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 00:05:26 -
[192] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote: Hey now, IGÇÖve been known to mine on occasionGǪin a skiff with as heavy a tank as I can put on it. I go with the model of how to not be eaten by a bearGǪI donGÇÖt have to run faster than the bear, just faster than the other guy. I figure if I sacrifice mining yield in favor of tankGǪit will be other guy who didnGÇÖt that will get GÇ£eatenGÇ¥ and IGÇÖll scoot on off the station in the mean time.
Yeah, and I'm actually an expert hauler, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize the gameplay for what it is.
Without the threat of other players to drive more action on my part, it would be the easiest gameplay out there.
"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
138
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 00:30:01 -
[193] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: ... self professed "white knight"... defending ... Mining, and hauling. Buddy, give me some of that stuff you're having.
Teckos Pech wrote:AFK, autopiloting overloaded freighter going through a heavily traversed choke point system...talk about easy mode. Roll Again, take away bumping, ganking such freighters is still as viable as ever. Where's the problem?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21028
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 02:05:10 -
[194] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:AFK, autopiloting overloaded freighter going through a heavily traversed choke point system...talk about easy mode. Roll Again, take away bumping, ganking such freighters is still as viable as ever. Where's the problem? Again, use a scout and get webbed and end up almost guaranteed to haul without getting killed. If you can't use a scout or no friends are available, then use a BR. Where's the problem?
But let me guess, just one more nerf and it will be balanced?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3008
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 02:13:08 -
[195] - Quote
The problems are:
- Ganking is rare enough as it is. If anything we should be turning back some nerfs to breathe some life back into the hauling profession. This would reward good pilots over bad.
- The only reason you want bumping to go is to allow yourself to be lazy or because you have a hatred for the ganking playstyle. No good argument has been made. Ever.
- There has been no proposal made to end bumping for ganks that does not ruin the game in other areas.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
John E Normus
New Order Logistics CODE.
707
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 02:50:11 -
[196] - Quote
Buy a 10 million isk permit from your nearest New Order agent, obey the Code and enjoy one year of bump and gank free game play!
I strongly recommend you put a message of support for James 315, the Supreme Protector and Saviour of Highsec, in your bio.
Good talk, fly safe!
Between Ignorance and Wisdom
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
13
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 03:40:08 -
[197] - Quote
John E Normus wrote:Buy a 10 million isk permit from your nearest New Order agent, obey the Code and enjoy one year of bump and gank free game play!
I strongly recommend you put a message of support for James 315, the Supreme Protector and Saviour of Highsec, in your bio.
Good talk, fly safe!
Thanks for highlighting the problem! :) |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4463
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 03:46:51 -
[198] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: ... self professed "white knight"... defending ... Mining, and hauling. Buddy, give me some of that stuff you're having. Teckos Pech wrote:AFK, autopiloting overloaded freighter going through a heavily traversed choke point system...talk about easy mode. Roll Again, take away bumping, ganking such freighters is still as viable as ever. Where's the problem?
Dammit Mag's beat me too it.
Just because ganking freighters is made easy by players who can't take even the most basic precautions (a scout in a noob ship), doesn't mean we should make it even easier to be bad and avoid the potential repercussions.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4463
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 03:48:18 -
[199] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:The problems are:
- Ganking is rare enough as it is. If anything we should be turning back some nerfs to breathe some life back into the hauling profession. This would reward good pilots over bad.
- The only reason you want bumping to go is to allow yourself to be lazy or because you have a hatred for the ganking playstyle. No good argument has been made. Ever.
- There has been no proposal made to end bumping for ganks that does not ruin the game in other areas.
Agreed. There are in game mechanics to avoid ganking the biggest issue with these mechanics is that they require team work...but oh look...the gankers use team work.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4463
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 03:49:21 -
[200] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:John E Normus wrote:Buy a 10 million isk permit from your nearest New Order agent, obey the Code and enjoy one year of bump and gank free game play!
I strongly recommend you put a message of support for James 315, the Supreme Protector and Saviour of Highsec, in your bio.
Good talk, fly safe!
Thanks for highlighting another problem! But that's another thread. :)
He is not the problem. You are. You are your own problem. Might want to look to that.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
Top Guac
Mexican Avacado Syndicate
114
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 06:55:57 -
[201] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:John E Normus wrote:Buy a 10 million isk permit from your nearest New Order agent, ... Thanks for highlighting another problem! But that's another thread. :) Lack of inflation? |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2129
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 07:42:17 -
[202] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:- The only reason you want bumping to go is to allow yourself to be lazy or because you have a hatred for the ganking playstyle. No good argument has been made. Ever.
- There has been no proposal made to end bumping for ganks that does not ruin the game in other areas. This is the strange thing with these proposals. Posters, like our friend here and the OP, are so fixated on bumping they are oblivious to the effects a change to bumping would have on the rest of the game. It's like their anger of specific groups, or gankers in general, blinds them to rational thought and, like a dog that won't let go of a bone, refuse to give up the notion that something must be wrong with the mechanic. The thing is, capital ships are very much intended to be slow, lumbering and vulnerable to smaller ships and more technically, it is likely impossible to change the core of the game physics that enable bumping.
Now I am sure CCP can come up with some change that would specifically help freighters in highsec by changing some stats and/or adding a new module/ship/deployable, but even if CCP did move on this front, the end result would be the same. It's like these posters are angry citizens, protesting in front of the local government office to close a road to their village because they don't like all the tourists and want to be left alone. But the government is not going to close the road because it is important for everyone, and even if they do decide there is something wrong with that specific road and close it, they are going to build a brand-new highway to that village that perhaps will bring even more tourists. Same with bumping, if CCP makes a change it will be to replace it with another method to efficiently attack freighters in highsec, not just remove the mechanic wholesale.
Now I am pontificating, but I think it is this palpable anger that gives many in the anti-ganking community an off-putting stench which repels most players from sticking with them long term. When your game play is solely motivated by spite and the desire to hurt players you don't like for some reason, it is hard to find much fun in playing this game. Don't get me wrong, I think one of the great things about Eve is the ability to induce these emotions, but everyone should remember this is still just a video game you are suppose to be playing for fun.
But now I am all off-topic. Bumping, or an equivalent mechanic, is needed to make hauling a worthwhile profession and to balance the immense cargo capacity of freighters. Freighters are already piloted with near safety by professional haulers. There is no need for a change. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15962
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 14:23:32 -
[203] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote: Now I am pontificating, but I think it is this palpable anger that gives many in the anti-ganking community an off-putting stench which repels most players from sticking with them long term. When your game play is solely motivated by spite and the desire to hurt players you don't like for some reason, it is hard to find much fun in playing this game.
It's a theory I've had for some time. Any philosophy or movement that defines itself solely in opposition to something else, without any standing merits of it's own, is an inherently toxic one.
"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.
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
13
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 16:19:50 -
[204] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:John E Normus wrote:Buy a 10 million isk permit from your nearest New Order agent, obey the Code and enjoy one year of bump and gank free game play!
I strongly recommend you put a message of support for James 315, the Supreme Protector and Saviour of Highsec, in your bio.
Good talk, fly safe!
Thanks for highlighting another problem! But that's another thread. :) He is not the problem. You are. You are your own problem. Might want to look to that.
Ganker calm down. |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
138
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 18:58:01 -
[205] - Quote
Gotta love the quasi-philosophical lamentations from some of these guys, however this is a gem I've decided to fix for the poster.
Black Pedro wrote: Now I am pontificating, but I think it is this palpable anger that gives many in the ganking community an off-putting stench which repels most players from sticking with them long term. When your game play is solely motivated by spite and the desire to hurt players you don't like for some reason, it is hard to find much fun in playing this game. Don't get me wrong, I think one of the great things about Eve is the ability to induce these emotions, but everyone should remember this is still just a video game you are suppose to be playing for fun.
Now it actually makes sense :)
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2134
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 19:19:01 -
[206] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Gotta love the quasi-philosophical lamentations from some of these guys, however this is a gem I've decided to fix for the poster. Black Pedro wrote: Now I am pontificating, but I think it is this palpable anger that gives many in the ganking community an off-putting stench which repels most players from sticking with them long term. When your game play is solely motivated by spite and the desire to hurt players you don't like for some reason, it is hard to find much fun in playing this game. Don't get me wrong, I think one of the great things about Eve is the ability to induce these emotions, but everyone should remember this is still just a video game you are suppose to be playing for fun. Now it actually makes sense :) "I know you are but what I am?" Cute.
You can call gankers many things but they always seem to be having fun. Not sure you can say the same about anti-ganking - in fact that channel is often full of... angst. But whatever, this is all off topic. OP, please forgive my musings. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15966
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 19:21:23 -
[207] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote: "I know you are but what I am?" Cute.
You can call gankers many things but they always seem to be having fun. Not sure you can say the same about anti-ganking - in fact that channel is often full of... angst. But whatever, this is all off topic. OP, please forgive my musings.
It's an excellent example of what I was talking about in my earlier post.
"Anti gankers" define themselves entirely by their opposition to something, by how they hate that other people have fun in a way they don't approve of.
It's petty fascism and intellectual tyranny, played out in a videogame.
"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
138
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 20:07:09 -
[208] - Quote
In terms of fun, games and maturity of discussion, you have two types of folks in this particular thread:
- one which tries to discuss some game mechanics, trying to provide their arguments in a civilized manner, without discussing philosophical or moral implications of ganking as a playstyle. You'll find most of the folks you'd classify as anti-gankers in this thread falling into this category with some of the gankers (usually those not related to code or goons) being reasonable or at least civilised as well.
- the other which bitterly refuses to consider anything the opposing side is saying without providing any better argument aside from "it is working as intended", "emergent gameplay" etc, while - at the same time, throwing basically personal-level insults at those opposing their views. Quasi-intellectualism aside (and I see some of you have a fetish for that), your insults are on elementary-school level. I mean, anti-gankers stink? Seriously?? I do hope you're like 13 years old, otherwise that is really sad.
As for those arguments stating that this is intended way of the game, let me remind you that this game is a work in progress and that it has only been a year or so that CCP finally started looking at and fixing some of the old and basically broken aspects of the game. Skynetting, garage cynoing, bumping inside force fields, boomerang ganks... all of those things used to be the 'norm' but are gone nowadays. Perhaps you think that bumping in general and bumping freighters in particular should stay the way it is forever but my money is on you getting a nasty surprise sooner then you hope.
What I personally find amusing is the amount of toxicitiy and bitterness that comes from you two in particular (Kaarous and Pedro). It is as if you've defined YOUR gameplay on hating a specific section of this game's population and if the tools for your hate were to be changed you'd lose your purpose. I'm not saying it is like that but you certainly come across 'feeling' like that. Also, the "spite and desire to hurt players you don't like for some reason" are defining characteristics of code/goonies. Y'know, 'since my divorce'... |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15966
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 20:14:53 -
[209] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:It is as if you've defined YOUR gameplay on hating a specific section of this game's population and if the tools for your hate were to be changed you'd lose your purpose.
Note several things in this sentence.
First and most obvious, the projection. The sheer hubris of a self professed anti ganker trying to claim that anyone else's gameplay is based on hating someone else is simply staggering.
Secondly, the barely hidden snide insinuation that their intent is in fact to nerf the other side out of existence. The carebear here very much does want us to have no "purpose", such are the depths of their hatred of real players.
And last but not least, trying to claim that such a simple thing as bumping and the existence of non consensual PvP itself equate to "tools for your hate". This is a very common carebear tactic, trying to denigrate and degrade opposition to make nerfs seem more palatable. They do this because they know that if they actually expressed what they want, the removal of non consensual PvP and complete safety in highsec so they can mindlessly farm without end, then they would be rejected by all reasonable people. Thus they take a roundabout route, attacking anything that stands against their unjust desires.
"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
138
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 20:26:27 -
[210] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:It is as if you've defined YOUR gameplay on hating a specific section of this game's population and if the tools for your hate were to be changed you'd lose your purpose. Note several things in this sentence. First and most obvious, the projection. The sheer hubris of a self professed anti ganker trying to claim that anyone else's gameplay is based on hating someone else is simply staggering. Secondly, the barely hidden snide insinuation that their intent is in fact to nerf the other side out of existence. The carebear here very much does want us to have no "purpose", such are the depths of their hatred of real players. And last but not least, trying to claim that such a simple thing as bumping and the existence of non consensual PvP itself equate to "tools for your hate". This is a very common carebear tactic, trying to denigrate and degrade opposition to make nerfs seem more palatable. They do this because they know that if they actually expressed what they want, the removal of non consensual PvP and complete safety in highsec so they can mindlessly farm without end, then they would be rejected by all reasonable people. Thus they take a roundabout route, attacking anything that stands against their unjust desires.
I thought that trolling is prohibited by forum rules. Or are you taking yourself seriously? |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15967
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 20:33:50 -
[211] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: I thought that trolling is prohibited by forum rules.
It is, which is why I've been wondering why your posts are still here.
"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
138
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 20:35:48 -
[212] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: I thought that trolling is prohibited by forum rules.
It is, which is why I've been wondering why your posts are still here. So you are taking yourself seriously. Gosh... |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3015
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 20:53:42 -
[213] - Quote
Speak for yourself Rha.
Its people speaking against the mechanic of bumping that are most guilty of lying to get their own way, hyperbole and using terms like 'bully'. You more than most are only concerned with spiting gankers than presenting a case against bumping.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
138
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 21:14:32 -
[214] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Speak for yourself Rha.
Its people speaking against the mechanic of bumping that are most guilty of lying to get their own way, hyperbole and using terms like 'bully'. You more than most are only concerned with spiting gankers than presenting a case against bumping.
Honestly, talking to a brick wall is more productive then trying to prove a point to you guys. Also, please do prove me wrong and show that you're not making stuff up by finding one instance of me using bumping and bullying in a serious sentence (i.e. me saying that bumping is bullying). |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3015
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 21:24:05 -
[215] - Quote
You've misread my post.
But when I get home tomorrow I can link several posts where people advocating for the removal of bumping have used such terms and I can link posts from this thread that suggest you are more pre occupied with spiting gankers than balance.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17172
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 21:41:21 -
[216] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: - the other which bitterly refuses to consider anything the opposing side is saying without providing any better argument aside from "it is working as intended", "emergent gameplay" etc, while - at the same time, throwing basically personal-level insults at those opposing their views.
This is all I get aimed at me every time. Even in this very thread I have listed a number of ways of countering these gankers only to have the anti gank brigade ignore them and continue to rant and spout very easy to expose lies all while tossing insults towards anyone who points out they are wrong.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15967
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 21:47:49 -
[217] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Honestly, talking to a brick wall is more productive then trying to prove a point to you guys.
That's just it, you don't have a point 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.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2134
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 21:51:29 -
[218] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:As for those arguments stating that this is intended way of the game, let me remind you that this game is a work in progress and that it has only been a year or so that CCP finally started looking at and fixing some of the old and basically broken aspects of the game. Skynetting, garage cynoing, bumping inside force fields, boomerang ganks... all of those things used to be the 'norm' but are gone nowadays. Perhaps you think that bumping in general and bumping freighters in particular should stay the way it is forever but my money is on you getting a nasty surprise sooner then you hope. Bumping may change, but I think it might be you that is in for a surprise if that happens just like when the freighters were rebalanced. Actually, it shouldn't be a surprise since I pointed this out several times now in this thread that bumping is not going to be removed without an equivalent mechanic put in place to make these capital ships vulnerable. If and when they do that, and the same gankers start using this new, hypothetical system and are exploding freighters at the same rate, what part of ganking are you going to latch on to next as "broken" or unbalanced? Or is that the one final change we need to put things back into balance?
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:What I personally find amusing is the amount of toxicitiy and bitterness that comes from you two in particular (Kaarous and Pedro). It is as if you've defined YOUR gameplay on hating a specific section of this game's population and if the tools for your hate were to be changed you'd lose your purpose. I'm not saying it is like that but you certainly come across 'feeling' like that. Also, the "spite and desire to hurt players you don't like for some reason" are defining characteristics of code/goonies. Y'know, 'since my divorce'... Heh, where do you get this stuff? Why would I "hate" any another person for playing a video game for fun, let alone a specific part of this player base that has a one of many made-up space professions? This is a virtual universe where I get to play a villain, preying on the unwary and taking their stuff. CCP sold this game to me on that premise, and more-or-less continues to deliver that PvP sandbox game where no one is safe and I get to be part of that risk.
I may be a little direct with people who constantly come to these forums asking CCP to eliminate my game play (yet again) for their own selfish, or sometimes just ignorant reasons, but I am not bitter, hateful, or insulting towards these misguided souls. And certainly that does not translate into the game where if I am baited or beaten by someone while I am ganking (or otherwise), I give them a 'gf' and get on with playing this video game about space ship violence.
In fact, I have had plenty of pleasant and interesting interactions with many people in this game, including people I have ganked, people who have gotten the drop on me, and otherwise. You are one of the few people I seem to dislike on a personal level largely since you have publicly taken the radical position that I deserve the death threats me and my family have received for playing this video game as a villain. That I do find personally offensive, but that also has nothing to do with the issue at hand which is bumping for which you have not given a single logical reason why it needs to be changed in the face of many valid reasons why no problem exists. I am not even sure what you are trying to accomplish now as all you seem to be doing is accusing people of "bitterness" and making vague ominous statements.
I think we should turn the discussion back to the topic at hand, or this thread is not long for this world. Let me try, how specifically, would the game be made better if freighter pilots did not have to bring a webbing escort along for their safety? How would that be better for hauling game play, and how would that be better for the game play of those that hunt those haulers?
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
138
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 22:52:14 -
[219] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:You are one of the few people I seem to dislike on a personal level largely since you have publicly taken the radical position that I deserve the death threats me and my family have received for playing this video game as a villain.
Where the hell are you pulling this crap from and what exactly is wrong with you?? I have NEVER condoned ANYTHING even close to the disgusting crap you are making up right there, I find anything even close to this to be a sick behavior which is likely indicative of a RL sociopathic disorder/issues and you are making this crap up about me? I haven't said this to many people playing computer games, but you need to step away from that computer screen and get some serious help in RL. |
Lesovyk Mara
Funtime Factory
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 23:45:54 -
[220] - Quote
Meanwhile, I'll just keep webbing my Freighter pilot into warp and not worry about bumping at all.
I pass through Uedama, Niarja and Madirmilire daily and even when there are Mach's on gate, it's never a problem. The webs are too quick. |
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
138
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 23:46:53 -
[221] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: - the other which bitterly refuses to consider anything the opposing side is saying without providing any better argument aside from "it is working as intended", "emergent gameplay" etc, while - at the same time, throwing basically personal-level insults at those opposing their views.
This is all I get aimed at me every time. Even in this very thread I have listed a number of ways of countering these gankers only to have the anti gank brigade ignore them and continue to rant and spout very easy to expose lies all while tossing insults towards anyone who points out they are wrong.
Well tbh tossing insults is what you did with my post to start with, unless you think that calling someone a "spineless carebear without any understanding of the game" when you're clearly wrong and proven so one post later is not insulting. Maybe I should have responded by calling you a spineless liar, but I think that would be insulting, unless you think that's just stating of the facts like your spineless carebear? Anyway.
The thing is - it seems that these discussions always end up in generalizations and mud slinging with very few people willing to try and step away from their entrenched position and looking at the greater picture. Now, believe it or not, in my posting history on these forums I've really tried to provide very detailed arguments why I think bumping (and some other things about ganking, in particular freighter ganking) is broken but there was very little civil discussion from the other side. I have participated in all imaginable mechanics for getting bumped ffreighters out of a bumping situation and know exactly what it takes in terms of effort to manage to get it out. One thing I've learnd and it is a fact anyone who participated in fleets aimed at saving freighters can tell you - it takes much more effort, skill and luck to get out of the bump LEGALY than it takes to bump. With a good bumper it is extremely hard, with two good bumpers it is impossible. Now, if that is not a broken mechanic, then I really don't know how to define one.
What is more important, this whole time the issue is not whether there are some ways of getting out of the bump, the issue is whether its current use in terms of freighter bumping was intended and if it wasn't, if its acceptable/good for the game. Any comparisons with situations in 'standard' pvp environoments are silly. Noone keeps a capital 'tackled' in lowsec or nullsec by means of bumping for any considerable amount of time, so how can you compare those situations to hisec bumping with a straight face?
One thing that ticks me off is - supporters of bumping quite often talk about risk-consequence nature of eve, lazy gameplay of carebear/miners etc. Well with bumping and fleet hanger looting gankers get minimal risk, minimal consequences, lazy gameplay and all the rewards (in form of loot and/or easy kills). And please don't tell me that the actual bumping and killing is not easy. Yes, it tkes time and organisation to setup gank ship stashes, you need to have enough folks ready to respond to your pings (not an issue with largest coalition in game in reality) but the act of ganking is extremely undemanding in terms of skill.
Finally, I don't mind ganking in any shape or form, but right now some aspects of it - in particular fregihter ganking - are clearly in need of changing/fixing. Furthermore, people have proven that it is possible to gank without bumping (see Russians) so I don't understand why all the hype about the potential changes/removal of it. |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
138
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 23:49:03 -
[222] - Quote
Lesovyk Mara wrote:Meanwhile, I'll just keep webbing my Freighter pilot into warp and not worry about bumping at all.
I pass through Uedama, Niarja and Madirmilire daily and even when there are Mach's on gate, it's never a problem. The webs are too quick. It's not raining in my backyard, that must mean it's not raining anywhere on planet Earth. Right? |
Lesovyk Mara
Funtime Factory
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 23:55:54 -
[223] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:The thing is - it seems that these discussions always end up in generalizations and mud slinging with very few people willing to try and step away from their entrenched position and looking at the greater picture. The greater picture shows it not to be a problem, so why bother with a change for something that is not a problem.
It takes 1 additional character to reduce the risk of being bumped to an extremely low level.
That's just a reality, backed by objective data from the largest freight service in the game.
So it seems to me, it's both sides that can't step away from their entrenched position and look at the greater picture. Avoiding being bumped in the first place is extremely easy. Objectively proven to be so. The issue is so small, that it isn't worth all this argument. |
Lesovyk Mara
Funtime Factory
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 23:56:59 -
[224] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Lesovyk Mara wrote:Meanwhile, I'll just keep webbing my Freighter pilot into warp and not worry about bumping at all.
I pass through Uedama, Niarja and Madirmilire daily and even when there are Mach's on gate, it's never a problem. The webs are too quick. It's not raining in my backyard, that must mean it's not raining anywhere on planet Earth. Right? It's not raining for anyone that uses web support.
Not just my backyard. Any freighter pilot can utilise webbing support. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17173
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 00:00:23 -
[225] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Well tbh tossing insults is what you did with my post to start with
I copied what you called yourself. If you didn't want that to happen you shouldn't have brought the attitude.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: when you're clearly wrong and proven so one post later
Good luck looting a freighter full with a DST.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3017
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 00:10:17 -
[226] - Quote
You're missing the greater picture in several places.
You are willfully ignoring that it is very VERY easy to avoid a gank. You are ignoring that ganking is very VERY low frequency relative to the amount of freighter journeys. You are ignoring that a freighter being bumped is far from the only mechanic that is impossible to escape once its too late. You are ignoring that the gankers put far more effort into their playstyle than haulers do their defense.
THAT is the bigger picture. It is you that is trying to tunnel this discussion into bumping alone. Like someone who doesnt like afk cloaking trying to make the discussion about cloaks alone.
You've already asked us what the problems were and ive given them to you, but it is instead you that is the brick wall.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
138
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 00:10:46 -
[227] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Well tbh tossing insults is what you did with my post to start with
I copied what you called yourself. If you didn't want that to happen you shouldn't have brought the attitude. I just said what is the usual reaction of the pro-bumping crowd. You kind of jumped onto that wagon with your reaction.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: when you're clearly wrong and proven so one post later
Good luck looting a freighter full with a DST. [/quote] It is very rarely a 'full' drop as you (likely) well know. Even if it is (and not in packages) you will either use multiple DST runs or get a freighter next to dst to 'clear' the loot. Either way my point stands - no risk for the looter. |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
138
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 00:20:35 -
[228] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:You're missing the greater picture in several places.
You are willfully ignoring that it is very VERY easy to avoid a gank. You are ignoring that ganking is very VERY low frequency relative to the amount of freighter journeys. You are ignoring that a freighter being bumped is far from the only mechanic that is impossible to escape once its too late. You are ignoring that the gankers put far more effort into their playstyle than haulers do their defense.
THAT is the bigger picture. It is you that is trying to tunnel this discussion into bumping alone. Like someone who doesnt like afk cloaking trying to make the discussion about cloaks alone.
You've already asked us what the problems were and ive given them to you, but it is instead you that is the brick wall.
So now it is not about the mechanic being good or bad but it is about the effort and frequencies of things occurring? Also, in terms of effort, I've said it already - only effort is involved in prepping the staging systems. I don't see how sitting in a mach and cargo scanning freighters is so much more of a high involvment gameplay then a fregihter actively jumping gate to gate (oh, and I've done scanning myself for quite a while, so I'd know). |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17173
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 00:21:11 -
[229] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: It is very rarely a 'full' drop as you (likely) well know.
You have to be ready for it when it does happen, doesn't matter how rare it is. a good bulk of feighter drops are too large for any other ship even with a chunk of the cargo evaporating.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Even if it is (and not in packages) you will either use multiple DST runs or get a freighter next to dst to 'clear' the loot. Either way my point stands - no risk for the looter.
Aside from the fact that they have a limited window to act before both the faction police and concord kill them, they are open to attack by everyone, the looting ship used can be attacked, the gank ships themselves are profitable to gank, the freighter can be webbed into warp near instantly, the freighter can escape via warping to a ship 150km in front of where its getting bumped, logisics can save the freighter, wartargets, ecm, blap escorts, counter bumping, pre spawning concord, shooting the target wreck.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44003
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 00:28:01 -
[230] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Either way my point stands - no risk for the looter. What looter anywhere in highsec faces high risk?
I thought this thread was about bumping, not looting.
Bumping is trivially easy to avoid and webbing alts/assistance make moving a freighter extremely safe in highsec.
Edit: I see from the title that looting is supposed to be somehow rebalanced too. I'll have to go back and see why looting one wreck should be more risk than any other. That seems to have been lost in the last few pages.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
138
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 00:34:20 -
[231] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Aside from the fact that they have a limited window to act before both the faction police and concord kill them, they are open to attack by everyone, the looting ship used can be attacked, the gank ships themselves are profitable to gank, the freighter can be webbed into warp near instantly, the freighter can escape via warping to a ship 150km in front of where its getting bumped, logisics can save the freighter, wartargets, ecm, blap escorts, counter bumping, pre spawning concord, shooting the target wreck.
Instawarps and tacticals, suicide tackles on the gates, pre-spawned concord (drawn away from the gates) making response times longer, using multiple bumpers, using eccm, changing vector of the bump every now and then. Shooting the target wreck is one of the few reliable counters which got people quite wound up, true. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17174
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 00:40:02 -
[232] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote:Aside from the fact that they have a limited window to act before both the faction police and concord kill them, they are open to attack by everyone, the looting ship used can be attacked, the gank ships themselves are profitable to gank, the freighter can be webbed into warp near instantly, the freighter can escape via warping to a ship 150km in front of where its getting bumped, logisics can save the freighter, wartargets, ecm, blap escorts, counter bumping, pre spawning concord, shooting the target wreck. Instawarps and tacticals, suicide tackles on the gates, pre-spawned concord (drawn away from the gates) making response times longer, using multiple bumpers, using eccm, changing vector of the bump every now and then. Shooting the target wreck is one of the few reliable counters which got people quite wound up, true.
Not so easy all of a sudden is it?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
138
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 00:46:34 -
[233] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote:Aside from the fact that they have a limited window to act before both the faction police and concord kill them, they are open to attack by everyone, the looting ship used can be attacked, the gank ships themselves are profitable to gank, the freighter can be webbed into warp near instantly, the freighter can escape via warping to a ship 150km in front of where its getting bumped, logisics can save the freighter, wartargets, ecm, blap escorts, counter bumping, pre spawning concord, shooting the target wreck. Instawarps and tacticals, suicide tackles on the gates, pre-spawned concord (drawn away from the gates) making response times longer, using multiple bumpers, using eccm, changing vector of the bump every now and then. Shooting the target wreck is one of the few reliable counters which got people quite wound up, true. Not so easy all of a sudden is it? Those things are hard? Oh well... |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44003
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 00:55:54 -
[234] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote:Aside from the fact that they have a limited window to act before both the faction police and concord kill them, they are open to attack by everyone, the looting ship used can be attacked, the gank ships themselves are profitable to gank, the freighter can be webbed into warp near instantly, the freighter can escape via warping to a ship 150km in front of where its getting bumped, logisics can save the freighter, wartargets, ecm, blap escorts, counter bumping, pre spawning concord, shooting the target wreck. Instawarps and tacticals, suicide tackles on the gates, pre-spawned concord (drawn away from the gates) making response times longer, using multiple bumpers, using eccm, changing vector of the bump every now and then. Shooting the target wreck is one of the few reliable counters which got people quite wound up, true. Not so easy all of a sudden is it? Those things are hard? Oh well... As a non-ganker, looking at this from a 3rd party view, while those things aren't individually difficult, it seems gankers are the only ones that need to do them to operate constantly in highsec.
As a low sec status player because of lowsec pvp, highsec is a PITA.
So they might not be difficult, but they are barriers that gankers already have to deal with that no one else does. These calls are always just one more nerf, but never any suggestion of balance the other way.
Bumping is so trivially easy to avoid to begin with as well.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3017
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 01:00:09 -
[235] - Quote
Orchestrating, managing and supplying groups of that size is no small feat. You were complaining about how its ganking on 'easy mode', but what does that make piloting a freighter? 'Even easier mode'? And then you still want to turn hauling into 'even easier than easier mode'?
Yes this is about more than a mechanic being good or bad, because balance trumps that. As does the fact that there has been no solution presented that doesn't break the game else where.
Not every mechanic in the game is perfect. Look at ecm or afk cloaking. But you cant rip the mechanic out without any thought for balance or gameplay implications.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15971
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 01:00:19 -
[236] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote: I thought this thread was about bumping, not looting.
Well, that's where you're wrong. This is the "find any possible excuse to nerf ganking" thread.
"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 Pandemic Legion
17175
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 01:02:37 -
[237] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Those things are hard? Oh well...
Your arguments fall apart like this every time yet you continue with rubbish such as ganking has no risk/consequences despite the fact anyone with an IQ over 60 can clearly see its the single most punished and risky activity in highsec. You have been given plenty of ways to beat the gankers, as well as statistics that show you are more likely to be involved in a traffic accident than be ganked in EVE. Your own laziness, greed and stupidity is no excuse to further remove content from an already content starved area of space.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44005
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 01:05:55 -
[238] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote: I thought this thread was about bumping, not looting.
Well, that's where you're wrong. This is the "find any possible excuse to nerf ganking" thread. Yeah I see.
Apparently from the OP, catalysts loot the freighter wreck before dying to CONCORD and eject the loot to be scooped.
What's the cargo capacity of a catalyst to begin with? Seems pretty inefficient and ineffective if several DSTs or another Freight is required anyway.
Does this really occur frequently in freighter ganks that the catalysts loot and eject before dying?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Paranoid Loyd
8289
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 01:07:54 -
[239] - Quote
No, that is straight up ignorance.
"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!
|
Paranoid Loyd
8289
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 01:10:05 -
[240] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote:Aside from the fact that they have a limited window to act before both the faction police and concord kill them, they are open to attack by everyone, the looting ship used can be attacked, the gank ships themselves are profitable to gank, the freighter can be webbed into warp near instantly, the freighter can escape via warping to a ship 150km in front of where its getting bumped, logisics can save the freighter, wartargets, ecm, blap escorts, counter bumping, pre spawning concord, shooting the target wreck. Instawarps and tacticals, suicide tackles on the gates, pre-spawned concord (drawn away from the gates) making response times longer, using multiple bumpers, using eccm, changing vector of the bump every now and then. Shooting the target wreck is one of the few reliable counters which got people quite wound up, true. Not so easy all of a sudden is it? Those things are hard? Oh well... Certainly harder than making sure you don't put your freighter in a position to be ganked in the first place.
"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!
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15973
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 01:43:20 -
[241] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote: Does this really occur frequently in freighter ganks that the catalysts loot and eject before dying?
Nope, that is a lie and an oft repeated falsehood of the anti ganking "community".
Pretty sure it was invented by the same guy who devised the "open fifty instances of the in game browser to crash your client when you get tackled" trick. That one was funny, because I'm pretty sure it actually got one of them banned for trying it.
Every gank I've ever been on, they just straight up looted the freighter afterward.
Quote: With a freighter carrying 1 million m^3 approximately, why are we even talking about this as an issue at all?
Because the anti gankers hope that if they tell enough lies eventually one of them will stick.
"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
138
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 02:13:30 -
[242] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Those things are hard? Oh well...
Your arguments fall apart like this every time yet you continue with rubbish such as ganking has no risk/consequences despite the fact anyone with an IQ over 60 can clearly see its the single most punished and risky activity in highsec. You have been given plenty of ways to beat the gankers, as well as statistics that show you are more likely to be involved in a traffic accident than be ganked in EVE. Your own laziness, greed and stupidity is no excuse to further remove content from an already content starved area of space.
Dunno where you get the idea that I want ganking removed from hisec, I'm trying to focus on bumping and safe looting here. Try and stay focused too. |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
138
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 02:14:55 -
[243] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Those things are hard? Oh well...
Your arguments fall apart like this every time yet you continue with rubbish such as ganking has no risk/consequences despite the fact anyone with an IQ over 60 can clearly see its the single most punished and risky activity in highsec. You have been given plenty of ways to beat the gankers, as well as statistics that show you are more likely to be involved in a traffic accident than be ganked in EVE. Your own laziness, greed and stupidity is no excuse to further remove content from an already content starved area of space. Dunno where you get the idea that I want content removed from hisec, I'm trying to focus on bumping and safe looting here. Ganking is fine. Try and stay focused too.
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3018
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 02:15:11 -
[244] - Quote
Looting a freighter with catalysts would take a while. They have to loot the wreck, jettision and then loot from the wreck into their can. They can only jettison one can per minute, bearing in mind you've had 20 seconds to shoot these guys as well, and even if each catalyst fills its can, its gonna take a while for whatever comes for those cans to scoop them all. During which it is vulnerableto being bumped and shot (or shoot or scoop the cans. Maybe they should be blue).
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3022
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 02:18:21 -
[245] - Quote
You were just telling people to look at the bigger picture...
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15973
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 02:19:28 -
[246] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Dunno where you get the idea that I want content removed from hisec
Because you want to remove content from highsec.
"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
44008
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 02:22:03 -
[247] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: I'm trying to provide additional by focusing on bumping and safe looting here. Try and stay focused too. What safe looting?
How do they do this? As per the OP's explanation?
Maybe you can post different figures to what I posted on the previous page then that shows that this is an issue?
In addition, why is the looting in a gank, any safer or otherwise from any other looter in highsec?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21037
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 02:59:33 -
[248] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Lesovyk Mara wrote:Meanwhile, I'll just keep webbing my Freighter pilot into warp and not worry about bumping at all.
I pass through Uedama, Niarja and Madirmilire daily and even when there are Mach's on gate, it's never a problem. The webs are too quick. It's not raining in my backyard, that must mean it's not raining anywhere on planet Earth. Right? Wrong analogy. A proper analogy would be as follows.
Gankers and safest haulers: "There is always a chance of rain, so I shall don my rain coat and use an umbrella."
Anti gankers and not so safe haulers: "There may be rain, but I shall chance it anyway in my shorts and T -shirt. But later I will pray to god and ask him to abolish rain completely, there is simply no reason why I should get wet."
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4470
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 03:29:21 -
[249] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:John E Normus wrote:Buy a 10 million isk permit from your nearest New Order agent, obey the Code and enjoy one year of bump and gank free game play!
I strongly recommend you put a message of support for James 315, the Supreme Protector and Saviour of Highsec, in your bio.
Good talk, fly safe!
Thanks for highlighting another problem! But that's another thread. :) He is not the problem. You are. You are your own problem. Might want to look to that. Ganker calm down.
I don't gank freighters...well except for various Burn XXXXX events. As I said, you are the problem. Figure out what you are doing wrong and fix it.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4470
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 03:36:18 -
[250] - Quote
ISD WTF... you guys off on a bender and drunk?
Locked indefinitely
Hello, ISD you guys on vacation?
Derp de derp, I am ISD letting a locked thread be re-opened
This is me reporting by own post because ISD is drunk and asleep at the wheel.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
Iain Cariaba
2447
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 06:44:02 -
[251] - Quote
Honestly, why lock it? There will be a new thread whining about the exact same thing an hour later.
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?
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
3639
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 09:13:12 -
[252] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Honestly, why lock it? There will be a new thread whining about the exact same thing an hour later.
We wouldn't need all those threads if high sec was perfectly safe like it was intended to be, despite what many devs have said. How could they possibly know better than me when I'm bump hurt.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
138
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 09:14:39 -
[253] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: I'm trying to provide additional by focusing on bumping and safe looting here. Try and stay focused too. What safe looting? How do they do this? As per the OP's explanation? Maybe you can post different figures to what I posted on the previous page then that shows that this is an issue? In addition, why is the looting in a gank, any safer or otherwise from any other looter in highsec?
TBH, I don't think I've seen what OP describes in practice. Admittedly, I have not been so active in anti-ganking fleets recently so something might have changed.
Safe looting I was refering to involves use of a ship with fleet hanger (DST or Orca, 50k m3) and a disposable alt. You get them into fleet, open fleet hanger for fleet members, land them next to a wreck (they usually come along with the ganking crew) and use disposable alt to transfer loot to dst. The disposable alt gets tagged as a suspect but DST (ship holding the actual loot) is flag-free and warps off. It is easy and extremely safe for the looter/ganker. Now, fixing this mechanic would open MORE (not less) content as looters would have to time their moves better, HICs would become a truly useful anti-ganking/anti-looting tool and there would be some actual risk involved in the act of looting. See, content for all involved, and that's what we all want more of - risk and content, right? Right!? |
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21039
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 10:22:57 -
[254] - Quote
Ahh so it has to be a disposable alt? Not just an alt, but a disposable alt? (I posted the word twice, was that enough?)
I also find it funny that that the AG crowd complain about easy hauler kills, but apparently a DST sat waiting to be filled is too safe. Ironic.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17185
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 10:47:36 -
[255] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Ahh so it has to be a disposable alt? Not just an alt, but a disposable alt? (I posted the word twice, was that enough?)
I also find it funny that that the AG crowd complain about easy hauler kills, but apparently a DST sat waiting to be filled is too safe. Ironic.
Not to mention the fact that this supposedly easier than AFK flying a freighter activity suddenly just gained yet another step (a step that wont work as no matter how hard you try 165k-1.2 million m3 will not fit into a ship with 40k easily or quickly, especially if its a package or of its lumbering around with freight containers) to being successful and require yet another person. So now we have upwards of 31 working on the gankers side vs 1 semi AFK hauler.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2138
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 10:53:17 -
[256] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Ahh so it has to be a disposable alt? Not just an alt, but a disposable alt? (I posted the word twice, was that enough?)
I also find it funny that that the AG crowd complain about easy hauler kills, but apparently a DST sat waiting to be filled is too safe. Ironic. I too always find this funny. They go on and on about "easy kills" and "no risk" and then beg CCP to make bumpers and looters to be made suspect so they can shoot them like fish in a barrel from behind the protection of CONCORD. It brings a smile to my face each time.
Don't get me wrong, looting stolen goods should be a conflict driver and I wouldn't mind it if something was changed so it could lead to more fights, but the lack of awareness of the irony of asking CCP to make it easier to shoot defenseless industrial ships is delicious.
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
138
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 11:25:19 -
[257] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Mag's wrote:Ahh so it has to be a disposable alt? Not just an alt, but a disposable alt? (I posted the word twice, was that enough?)
I also find it funny that that the AG crowd complain about easy hauler kills, but apparently a DST sat waiting to be filled is too safe. Ironic. Not to mention the fact that this supposedly easier than AFK flying a freighter activity suddenly just gained yet another step (a step that wont work as no matter how hard you try 165k-1.2 million m3 will not fit into a ship with 40k easily or quickly, especially if its a package or of its lumbering around with freight containers) to being successful and require yet another person. So now we have upwards of 31 working on the gankers side vs 1 semi AFK hauler.
Actually, the numbers are quite often about 12-15ish (judging by ts numbers on teamspeak :P).
For startes DST fleet hanger has 50k m3 (at max skill even more but for some reason 50k is maximum allowed for transfer). DST is not waiting, it lands with gankers and yes - it is quite safe since those ganking ships will also engage anything else within their range once freighter is down. You should seriously brush up on current ganking practices.
Even if it was not the case, one question remains - why should one be forced into becoming a criminal to fight criminals in hisec? You guys are arguing this constantly as if it is something natural and logical and even consider the fact that a situation in which becoming the criminal is the only guaranteed way of stopping a bump is completely acceptable and normal while in fact it is imbalanced against people who do not want to engage in a criminal lifestyle in the game. No one's preventing you to do what you want and bear the consequences, but forgive me (and others) for not seeing how fighting you should have the same set of consequences in what is supposed to be high security space. Your despise towards the carebears, pvp awerse folks in this game and even those who simply disagree with you is palpable, but I truly don't understand it.
Also, try focusing on the subject instead of constantly going off topic - remember, it is not ganking we're discussing, it is bumping and safe looting (and yes, it is safe if the hauler has no repercussions from taking stolen goods). If you want number comparisons - to be able to bump indefinitely you need two accounts which will negate anything freighter (with two accounts) can dish out (webbing alts included). This is a fact which has been proven time and time again by your kind.
Finally, removal of both things discussed in this thread (fleet hanger looting and bumping) would in no way remove freighter ganking from the game, it would only make it more consequence laden and active in terms of gameplay - exactly the things you are constantly asking from the other side. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17186
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 11:43:13 -
[258] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
For startes DST fleet hanger has 50k m3 (at max skill even more but for some reason 50k is maximum allowed for transfer). DST is not waiting, it lands with gankers and yes - it is quite safe since those ganking ships will also engage anything else within their range once freighter is down. You should seriously brush up on current ganking practices.
You have a few second cover before concord have killed all of it.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Even if it was not the case, one question remains - why should one be forced into becoming a criminal to fight criminals in hisec?
You don't, you just ignore all of the other options.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Also, try focusing on the subject instead of constantly going off topic - remember, it is not ganking we're discussing
Of course its ganking being talked about, you want to nerf tactics used by gankers to make yourself even safer despite the fact that its super easy to avoid in the first place.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Finally, removal of both things discussed in this thread (fleet hanger looting and bumping) would in no way remove freighter ganking from the game, it would only make it more consequence laden and active in terms of gameplay - exactly the things you are constantly asking from the other side.
It is yet another nerf to an already over nerfed activity and falls into the "just one more nerf" argument that has been so destructive to highsec content over the years. Its always the same, you damand nerf and nerf anfer nerf untill the activity become impossible and vanishes alltogether. This is what has happened to profitable barge ganking and jecan theifs, both of which no longer exist.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15983
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 11:54:10 -
[259] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Even if it was not the case, one question remains - why should one be forced into becoming a criminal to fight criminals in hisec?
You aren't forced to.
What you want is to kill the non criminals, the bumper especially, without having to gank them.
You want to have your cake and eat it too, which will never happen. If you refuse to use all the options available to you, your gameplay should be limited, simple as that.
Don't like it? Then man up and become a real player.
"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.
|
ISD Max Trix
isd community communications liaisons
147
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 13:04:12 -
[260] - Quote
Quote: 2. Be respectful toward others at all times.
The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.
3. Ranting is prohibited.
A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.
8. Use of profanity is prohibited.
The use of profanity is prohibited on the EVE Online forums. This includes the partial masking of letters using numbers or alternate symbols, and any attempts at bypassing the profanity filter.
12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.
The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category.
31. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.
CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, GÇ£outingGÇ¥ of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties.
Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts.
I have removed a post and those quoting it for the above reasons. If you have an issue with the moderation of the forums, the correct procedure is to file a support ticket, not spam the forums.
ISD Max Trix
Lieutenant
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
I do not respond to Evemails.
|
|
Lyma Sarum
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 15:38:52 -
[261] - Quote
For those taking some time to answer to me politely thank you. But many people in here seem to have a great difficulty separating the pilot/capsuleer from the actual player. I noticed enough posts and answers (not concerning just me) holding a "Well if you can't handle it its your problem, uninstall, carebear" etc etc. I don't get it. This is supposed to be an "ideas discussion". There seems to be more forum warrior-ing going on rather than discussion. It's worse than the kids raging about their mobas in reddit.
It is very sad to see a community holding such a toxic attitude but its a free world and a sandbox game so I will not ***** more about it. You have kinda convinced me however that this game is probably not for me. I also like to kick my friends or anyone's face in any pvp environment but when talking as a player I can leave the nerd rage in the game. This is very irregular here. And I also thank you for that. I know what to expect if I manage to stay in EVE.
Maybe this was the wrong forum to post as a newb and so I got what was coming? I don't know. Maybe I am too old for this and should've stopped in UO. I hope you get something positive out of all this discussion in the end. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2142
|
Posted - 2016.01.29 16:27:00 -
[262] - Quote
Lyma Sarum wrote:For those taking some time to answer to me politely thank you. But many people in here seem to have a great difficulty separating the pilot/capsuleer from the actual player. I noticed enough posts and answers (not concerning just me) holding a "Well if you can't handle it its your problem, uninstall, carebear" etc etc. I don't get it. This is supposed to be an "ideas discussion". There seems to be more forum warrior-ing going on rather than discussion. It's worse than the kids raging about their mobas in reddit. Perhaps some of the context you are missing is that Eve is an ancient game - almost 13 years old - which is really old by almost anyone's standards which means this discussion, which is essentially should the game be made safer, has be hashed, re-hashed, and then hashed again many, many times. Since Eve is a competitive sandbox game, almost any change made has a direct and profound influence on the balance of the game and of the players in it. That is not to say changes should never be made, but it is extremely common for players to come to these forums and suggest an "idea" which primarily benefits them at the expense of other players, rather than a change that is truly beneficial for everyone and is consistent with the type of game CCP is trying to develop. Haulers have been coming to these forum for over a decade suggesting that things be made safer for them, which of course is a direct detriment to the players who hunt them in the game (an activity the developers explicitly intend to exist).
Therefore you end up with yet another incarnation of this thread which has people on one side arguing that their game should be tilted in their favour and the other guy's game made harder because they have it too easy, and the other side saying that no, their game is actually hard enough, and the other side is just whining. Sometimes one side is correct, sometimes the truth is somewhere in the middle, but often things get heated as both sides see the other side is being unreasonable.
In this case, bumping has been here since the dawn of the game and debated endlessly and the developer has even ruled that it is a legal mechanic in the game. With those facts, you can see why those that frequent the forums get tired of hearing the same complaint over bumping raised each month (granted, usually by different or new people) and when no actual "idea" is presented other than some module that eliminates the mechanic entirely like the OP in this thread, accuse the poster of whining. In the end that is the game, and if you don't like it, your only option is not play. By all means, if you have a novel idea on how to make the game better you can present it, but if you are just going to complain about a legal and established mechanic then expect to catch some heat and accusations of trying to change the game in your favour.
Lyma Sarum wrote:It is very sad to see a community holding such a toxic attitude but its a free world and a sandbox game so I will not ***** more about it. You have kinda convinced me however that this game is probably not for me. I also like to kick my friends or anyone's face in any pvp environment but when talking as a player I can leave the nerd rage in the game. This is very irregular here. And I also thank you for that. I know what to expect if I manage to stay in EVE.
Maybe this was the wrong forum to post as a newb and so I got what was coming? I don't know. Maybe I am too old for this and should've stopped in UO. I hope you get something positive out of all this discussion in the end. There are plenty of other games out there, most of which are less competitive and cut-throat than Eve. For many of us that is what drew us to this game and why we are so passionate about protecting it, but Eve isn't for everyone, so I am sure you will have no problem finding another game to play. You will be much happier finding that game which suits you better instead of spending your life futilely arguing on these forums in an attempt to lobby the developers to change Eve to what you want it to be like so many players here do.
Like a bad relationship, it is much better to break away cleanly and find someone who suits you better and you enjoy spending your time with, than to spend all your energies trying to change them into your ideal mate.
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 02:16:38 -
[263] - Quote
Balancing Looting... 1. Looted items themselves being tagged for trigger for suspect....if the original looter is still on suspect/criminal timer.
2. The items that drop from criminals fits and original cargo should allowed to be taken freely without going Suspect.....except the looted items they may have taken as Concord finishes them off.
3. Fleet Hanger owners must accept looted items before they are dropped into ship and take a Suspect Timer for it
Avoid having to manually allow it, by having safety yellow....but still go Suspect once its dropped in.
4. Can't loot after attempting to start Warp To/Dock.....Or atleast no looting after speed to get to warp is above 25%.
This gives risk to all looters. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44024
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 03:42:02 -
[264] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:3. Fleet Hanger owners must accept looted items before they are dropped into ship and take a Suspect Timer for it
Avoid having to manually allow it, by having safety yellow....but still go Suspect once its dropped in.
This gives risk to all looters. How will this work out for an Orca pilot being used in a belt or ice field by miners to transfer ore and loot from rats to?
If a fleet hangar owner has to take a suspect timer to accept items being dropped into the fleet hangar, that's going to kill the use of an Orca for a mining fleet.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44024
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 03:51:16 -
[265] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Safe looting I was refering to involves use of a ship with fleet hanger (DST or Orca, 50k m3) and a disposable alt. You get them into fleet, open fleet hanger for fleet members, land them next to a wreck (they usually come along with the ganking crew) and use disposable alt to transfer loot to dst. The disposable alt gets tagged as a suspect but DST (ship holding the actual loot) is flag-free and warps off. It is easy and extremely safe for the looter/ganker. Now, fixing this mechanic would open MORE (not less) content as looters would have to time their moves better, HICs would become a truly useful anti-ganking/anti-looting tool and there would be some actual risk involved in the act of looting. See, content for all involved, and that's what we all want more of - risk and content, right? Right!? That makes a lot more sense than the explanation in the OP.
How would it be fixed?
Before the alt that loots does any looting, they are not suspect at all, so indistinguishable from anyone else in highsec. The orca/DST pilot is not doing anything wrong just by making their fleet hangar available to fleet members. It's something my boosting alt does regularly (I mine ice in highsec for POS fuel, Strontium Clathrates and liquid ozone for cynos).
The only thing the Orca/DST pilot is doing is sitting, accepting material into their fleet hangar.
So if the act of accepting material into a fleet hangar is going to somehow trigger a suspect flag (since sitting in space wouldn't be logical), then that is going to have a massive negative impact on other highsec activities, particularly that of miners.
Personally, I'd have no problem. I'd adapt my operations around it, but if the idea is to bring content for all, then the tears that would be generated from a change would be enormous, because surely this would be an across the board change?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 04:06:29 -
[266] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:3. Fleet Hanger owners must accept looted items before they are dropped into ship and take a Suspect Timer for it
Avoid having to manually allow it, by having safety yellow....but still go Suspect once its dropped in.
This gives risk to all looters. How will this work out for an Orca pilot being used in a belt or ice field by miners to transfer ore and loot from rats to? If a fleet hangar owner has to take a suspect timer to accept items being dropped into the fleet hangar, that's going to kill the use of an Orca as increased storage for a mining fleet.
Well....That's not the same. It's fine as his fleet members didn't loot somebodies wreck illegally. And if by chance they did the Orca pilot gets a pop up asking if he accepts, as long as he the orca pilot has his safety green...he will always get the pop up asking before illegal goods are taken on board. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44025
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 05:28:16 -
[267] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:Well....That's not the same. It's fine as his fleet members didn't loot somebodies wreck illegally. And if by chance they did the Orca pilot gets a pop up asking if he accepts, as long as he the orca pilot has his safety green...he will always get the pop up asking before illegal goods are taken on board. If all items legal....no pop up. This would be hilarious.
In the ice belts in Ignebaener (?sp) where I mine ice, there is a large mining fleet there that runs a dozen (sometimes more) mining barges, all feeding ice into the orca. They also salvage and loot wrecks that are created from NPC rats.
I can't imagine anyone wanting to be continuously clicking "yes accept" over and over and over. As creatures of habit, it won't take long before players set their orca to yellow safety, because waiting for someone to click accept before you can transfer something to them will eat into efficiency. Alternatively of course, the forum will be filled with F&I requests to make accepting items automatic.
What you are proposing will be the new way to awox and it will be extremely funny when awoxers are able to deliberately loot yellow wrecks and then transfer to an Orca to make the Orca pilot suspect, having done nothing wrong himself. That will be the only mechanic in the game where it will be possible for 1 player to make another one suspect without that other player doing anything. Awesome outcome.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2147
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 06:47:29 -
[268] - Quote
See what I mean about this all being discussed to death?
Yes, with looting you quickly come to the problem either you open ships up to being made suspect without clicking a button, which really would be one of those mechanics people would use to trick others into going suspect for AWOXing purposes, or you significantly reduce the utility of the shared hanger by demanding constant clicks. And even if you do solve it somehow, that still leaves the launder-through-a-jetcan method (or a Mobile Depot even) as an almost equivalent method to avoid flagging a hauler.
The only way to do it properly is to flag the item itself as 'stolen' and make the hauler actively click a button to accept anything with that flag but then you hit the database problem where many items cannot carry such a flag. The only way I can see around this (without a major rewrite of the item database) is to make illegally acquired loot spawn in a special container in the wreck that would carry a 'stolen' flag. Anyone who had this container would get a suspect flag and the game would not allow it to be looted or transferred to a shared hanger wthout spawning a specific dialog box. The container could only be opened and the items removed in a station.
That is a bit of an ugly hack, and I am not sure if it as well is technically feasible (what about items that are already in a container when the ship is destroyed?) and would have the obvious problems of not allowing players to loot only specific items and making recovery of large volume loot potentially impossible for some players. That would impact lowsec PvPers significantly, who don't usually fly with a hauler for loot so on balance. I don't see this as a viable solution even if it were possible.
I just don't see an easy fix without some change to the way flags are assigned and tracked. Maybe if there is a Smuggler Expansion and the way illegal items are tracked by the game is updated, CCP will look at some way of giving all items flags to determine illegality. But it isn't a trivial fix so don't expect a change to looting mechanic anytime soon even if I agree one would be desirable. |
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 06:54:41 -
[269] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:Well....That's not the same. It's fine as his fleet members didn't loot somebodies wreck illegally. And if by chance they did the Orca pilot gets a pop up asking if he accepts, as long as he the orca pilot has his safety green...he will always get the pop up asking before illegal goods are taken on board. If all items legal....no pop up. This would be hilarious. In the ice belts in Ignebaener (?sp) where my alt mines ice, there is a large mining fleet there that runs a dozen (sometimes more) mining barges, all feeding ice into the orca. They also salvage and loot wrecks that are created from NPC rats. I can't imagine anyone wanting to be continuously clicking "yes accept" over and over and over. As creatures of habit, it won't take long before players set their orca to yellow safety, because waiting for someone to click accept before you can transfer something to them will eat into efficiency. Alternatively of course, the forum will be filled with F&I requests to make accepting items automatic. What you are proposing will be the new way to awox and it will be extremely funny when awoxers are able to deliberately loot yellow wrecks and then transfer to an Orca to make the Orca pilot suspect, having done nothing wrong himself. That will be the only mechanic in the game where it will be possible for 1 player to make another one suspect without that other player doing anything. Awesome outcome.
If all items transferring were obtained legally....there will not be a popup needing "yes accept" constantly. Now IF somebody tries to transfer items they just stole in the past 15 minutes(Suspect Timer)... that's when "yes accept" is needed from the Orca pilot or Block option there as well. He is afterall accepting stolen goods onto his ship, no? That should be Suspect for the Orca pilot. If the originally owners decide they wanted back what was stolen from them....they are out of luck unless they gank the Orca that now has those items and in that case Concord kill them for even attempting LOL.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44027
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 07:13:53 -
[270] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:If all items transferring were obtained legally....there will not be a popup needing "yes accept" constantly. Now IF somebody tries to transfer items they just stole in the past 15 minutes(Suspect Timer)... that's when "yes accept" is needed from the Orca pilot or Block option there as well. He is afterall accepting stolen goods onto his ship, no? That should be Suspect for the Orca pilot. If the originally owners decide they wanted back what was stolen from them....they are out of luck unless they gank the Orca that now has those items and in that case Concord kill them for even attempting LOL. Now this is becoming confusing.
Is it something taken within the last 15 minutes, so attached to the player's state (since an item has no idea of time within crimewatch), or something that was stolen, so attached to the item?
If it is attached to the player, then the item can be anything whether taken legally or not.
If it's attached to the item, then I could loot something illegally and be suspect for 15 minutes. Even put it in a hangar somewhere if I want and then take it out after that, when I'm no longer suspect and transfer it. I could even trade it to someone in station and set it up so they transfer it innocently.
For example, I could go shoot an alt of mine that is carrying mining crystals. Loot them illegally and then later on, put them in a mining barge. Something that looks totally normal in the context of a mining fleet. Then transfer them to the Orca hold.
Additionally, I think you are thinking that items have more stats attached to them then they do. Anything that is packaged is just a reference to a TypeID. It isn't an object while it is packaged, so can't know it's state as being stolen or not. It's not the items that make someone suspect, but the act of looting from a wreck or container that doesn't belong to them.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 07:28:35 -
[271] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:See what I mean about this all being discussed to death?
Yes, with looting you quickly come to the problem either you open ships up to being made suspect without clicking a button, which really would be one of those mechanics people would use to trick others into going suspect for AWOXing purposes, or you significantly reduce the utility of the shared hanger by demanding constant clicks. And even if you do solve it somehow, that still leaves the launder-through-a-jetcan method (or a Mobile Depot even) as an almost equivalent method to avoid flagging a hauler.
The only way to do it properly is to flag the item itself as 'stolen' and make the hauler actively click a button to accept anything with that flag but then you hit the database problem where many items cannot carry such a flag. The only way I can see around this (without a major rewrite of the item database) is to make illegally acquired loot spawn in a special container in the wreck that would carry a 'stolen' flag. Anyone who had this container would get a suspect flag and the game would not allow it to be looted or transferred to a shared hanger wthout spawning a specific dialog box. The container could only be opened and the items removed in a station.
That is a bit of an ugly hack, and I am not sure if it as well is technically feasible (what about items that are already in a container when the ship is destroyed?) and would have the obvious problems of not allowing players to loot only specific items and making recovery of large volume loot potentially impossible for some players. That would impact lowsec PvPers significantly, who don't usually fly with a hauler for loot so on balance. I don't see this as a viable solution even if it were possible.
I just don't see an easy fix without some change to the way flags are assigned and tracked. Maybe if there is a Smuggler Expansion and the way illegal items are tracked by the game is updated, CCP will look at some way of giving all items flags to determine illegality. But it isn't a trivial fix so don't expect a change to looting mechanic anytime soon even if I agree one would be desirable.
When items are "Loot All" illegally.. maybe creates a kind of Plastic Wrap on the spot? If ship destroyed....Plastic Wrap jettisons 1st in a container or dice roll destroyed, then ship explodes. Plastic Wrap still Yellow unless somebody is brave enough to take the risk of looting it again. |
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 07:44:50 -
[272] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:If all items transferring were obtained legally....there will not be a popup needing "yes accept" constantly. Now IF somebody tries to transfer items they just stole in the past 15 minutes(Suspect Timer)... that's when "yes accept" is needed from the Orca pilot or Block option there as well. He is afterall accepting stolen goods onto his ship, no? That should be Suspect for the Orca pilot. If the originally owners decide they wanted back what was stolen from them....they are out of luck unless they gank the Orca that now has those items and in that case Concord kill them for even attempting LOL. Now this is becoming confusing. Is it something taken within the last 15 minutes, so attached to the player's state (since an item has no idea of time within crimewatch), or something that was stolen, so attached to the item? If it is attached to the player, then the item can be anything whether taken legally or not. If it's attached to the item, then I could loot something illegally and be suspect for 15 minutes. Even put it in a hangar somewhere if I want and then take it out after that, when I'm no longer suspect and transfer it. I could even trade it to someone in station and set it up so they transfer it innocently. For example, I could go shoot an alt of mine that is carrying mining crystals. Loot them illegally and then later on, put them in a mining barge. Something that looks totally normal in the context of a mining fleet. Then transfer them to the Orca hold. Additionally, I think you are thinking that items have more stats attached to them then they do. Anything that is packaged is just a reference to a TypeID. It isn't an object while it is packaged, so can't know it's state as being stolen or not. It's not the items that make someone suspect, but the act of looting from a wreck or container that doesn't belong to them. On top of that, even in the instance where the individual item could contain it's stolen state, if a callback is attached to that item to call a Crimewatch check when it is moved, that's thousands of additional checks every tick of the server, right across the game, just to deal with one issue of an alt looting so that an anti-ganker could shoot because they don't want to do something illegal. Nullsec, J-Space, and Lowsec would all result in a heap of extra calculations on the server everytime an item is moved, plus all the totally legal movements that occur every tick of the server. Good luck with that proposal. If I was an anti-ganker and wasn't able to stop the gank, why wouldn't I just shoot the looting alt as soon as he goes suspect? That seems like a totally viable way to stop the looting and force the freighter/orca/dst pilot to finish it and go suspect himself.
You have good points, and I'm only throwing suggestions out there, if the server doesnt allow for more stats for items in server allows, then hey my suggestion sucks :)... But maybe create a Plastic Wrap of sort for illegally looted items. That can only be broken open, or transfered in station. Orca can take on items, any Plastic Wraps is ignored.
And yes AGers do shoot loot.....so much so that CODE./Goon are complaining about hitpoint of wreckage. Yes that's a rumor and possible wrong....forgive me :) |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44029
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 07:45:33 -
[273] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:When items are "Loot All" illegally.. maybe creates a kind of Plastic Wrap on the spot? If ship destroyed....Plastic Wrap jettisons 1st in a container or dice roll destroyed, then ship explodes. Plastic Wrap still Yellow unless somebody is brave enough to take the risk of looting it again. Edit: I reread it, so edited my post to just the last sentence.
Surely it's much easier just to shoot the suspect looting alt and none of this extra special case stuff is needed?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44030
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 07:58:45 -
[274] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:And yes AGers do shoot loot.....so much so that CODE./Goon are complaining about hitpoint of wreckage. Yes that's a rumor and possible wrong....forgive me :) Shooting the loot is a perfectly fine option and if gankers are complaining that the HP of wrecks is too low, well that's part of the risk they take on when they gank - risk of no payday from the gank.
This is the thing that gets me with a lot of suggestions. Here's a perfectly good option that can really impact ganking operations and 100% a player action, whiich is great.
Why call for changes in mechanics to nerf gankers, when as a player you can already do it?
Get the mechanics out of the way. They don't need to do more than they already do.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 08:08:07 -
[275] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:When items are "Loot All" illegally.. maybe creates a kind of Plastic Wrap on the spot? If ship destroyed....Plastic Wrap jettisons 1st in a container or dice roll destroyed, then ship explodes. Plastic Wrap still Yellow unless somebody is brave enough to take the risk of looting it again. Hang on. If I understand that correctly, you are saying looting something now has a chance that your ship explodes on the spot? Also, that if a ship carrying "Illegal loot" dies, that loot is jettisoned into a container rather than staying in the wreck. Surely you're kidding? One of the great things about Eve is the whole 'Eve is Real' aspect. That while it's a game, in many ways it's possible to see it as an alternative timeline of our existing Universe as it is under the Lore. I hate to try to apply real universe physics to the game (as there are many examples that are not realistic, such as space flight), but that seems totally against common sense to have stuff automatically eject into a container just because it was previously looted illegally, and really crazy for a ship to blow up because it transferred a totally inert item into it's hold. Surely it's much easier just to shoot the suspect looting alt and none of this extra special case stuff is needed?
No no no and no...If your are caught and killed. When you ship explodes, any created Plastic Wrap or "illegal loot" Wrap is, by a dice roll, either destroyed or jettisoned within a container beside normal wreckage. The wreckage is White/Blue.....the Illegal Loot Wrap, now in a container is still a Suspect trigger if not picked up by the original owners of those items. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44030
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 08:15:18 -
[276] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:No no no and no...If your are caught and killed. When you ship explodes, any created Plastic Wrap or "illegal loot" Wrap is, by a dice roll, either destroyed or jettisoned within a container beside normal wreckage. The wreckage is White/Blue.....the Illegal Loot Wrap, now in a container is still a Suspect trigger if not picked up by the original owners of those items. You replied way after my edit.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 08:18:40 -
[277] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:No no no and no...If your are caught and killed. When you ship explodes, any created Plastic Wrap or "illegal loot" Wrap is, by a dice roll, either destroyed or jettisoned within a container beside normal wreckage. The wreckage is White/Blue.....the Illegal Loot Wrap, now in a container is still a Suspect trigger if not picked up by the original owners of those items. You replied way after my edit.
I realized that...oops |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17190
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 10:49:50 -
[278] - Quote
All of this assumes that someone is going to take the time to filter 165k-1.2 million m3 through a DST in the first place. Again even if it did happen you have a bottleneck that is going to cause everything to at best slow down which means people can either vulture on the wreck or just pop it and destroy the goods. Not to mention that things in a freight container will never fir nor will plastic wraps past a point. You are asking for nerfs on a myth that will have a greater impact on other activities not related with ganking.
This is another freighter style nerf in the making.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15991
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 12:58:43 -
[279] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: This is another freighter style nerf in the making.
Exactly this.
I really can't figure out why they didn't learn their lesson from the freighter thread. The morons who cried for ten years to get fitting slots on freighters somehow convinced themselves that it would be nothing but a net buff.
Unfortunately for them, CCP hasn't completely forgotten what game balance is just yet.
"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.
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
13
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 16:17:59 -
[280] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:However the bumping mechanic, if you happen to fall into the trap should not keep you in limbo for a long time.
Says who? Quote: Either they have a gank fleet ready in 5-10 min.. and go for it... or let ya go.
Nope. You do not get to dictate what they do with their player freedom. Either free yourself with a game mechanic, or accept that your death is deserved and just self destruct already. Quote: And if they do kill it... make the punishments for criminals get harder and harder and more expensive to recover from with tags etc...
No. Theirs is the ONLY playstyle in highsec that has any consequences to begin with. They don't need anymore because you can't be asked to defend yourself halfway correctly. Stop trying to have bad, lazy, sloppy play subsidized by the mechanics. People who play the game wrong are supposed to die.
First point... Ohhh so I don't get to dictate... But you get to dictate what they do with their "player freedom". Ego??
2nd point - Deserved by who? You dictate that? Yet another Ego comment.
3rd - This is High sec... I understand it is not cute and fuzzy land. Like I said. Freighter pilots do take a risk to fly though solo. THey can be ganked. I don't want to remove that risk. But you as a ganker need to assume more risk for repeated ganks. There is no risk (FacPolice is not a risk) to attack a freighter that is assuming risk by flying solo.
Please don't tell me about your poor operating lost. You know how to stop that? Let me help: stop ganking freighters. Stop ganking empty freighters. Choose targets wisely. If you are doing this to make a statement... accept the loss.
But lets look at the actual TRUTH to how Code is doing... http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-kills-of-2015-code.html
Awwww seems it seems like Code is alive and well from those stats your arguments just don't stand up. Even if you don't agree with GreedyGoblin with all his view points, the numbers he runs is math.
So I should feel sorry and want to make things easier for Code and others to gank? I don't think so. This is why we need Crimewatch 2.0!
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15991
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 16:28:58 -
[281] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote: First point... Ohhh so I don't get to dictate... But you get to dictate what they do with their "player freedom". Ego??
Yep. You don't get to dictate jack **** to anybody else what they do with their player freedom. Certainly not because you aren't smart enough to bring a web escort.
Quote: 2nd point - Deserved by who?
You. Defend yourself, or die. But don't cry about the obvious consequences of the choices you made.
Quote: I don't want to remove that risk.
Yes you do. That's pretty obvious from your posting.
Quote: But you as a ganker need to assume more risk for repeated ganks.
Not from the NPCs, I don't. If you want something done, do it yourself. Quit asking to have your hand held. If you think gankers should have more risk, then be a real player and bring risk to them. That's what the gankers are doing, after all. They think hauling should have more risk, so they bring risk to the haulers.
That's how the game is supposed to work.
Oh, and there is no more sure way to look like an imbecile than by quoting Gevlon Goblin. Just so you know.
"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.
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
13
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 16:30:45 -
[282] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote: I am not saying make freighters immune to bumping... Where Did I say that? They can be bumped for a while, but there comes a point when its just harassment and maybe they don't even have a gank fleet out. You called for the introduction of a button for freighter pilots that allows them to auto-escape a bumper by pushing it. That is the very definition of "immunity". There are already rules against harassment. If you feel "harassed", file a petition and ask CCP to step in. But for the record, having your ship bumped or exploded in this PvP game is intended game play. You are not entitled to fly everywhere safely or unimpeded. Use the tools at your disposal to fly your freighter safely, or just fly something else. KickAss Tivianne wrote:2. If a criminal cat scoops loot from a freighter it ganks. and then throws it out in a can. it should be yellow, and who ever picks it up is yellow. Since all the cats that are ganking will be FR, who ever ends up scooping the STOLEN loot, should go yellow also. It should not be "free and clear" just cause they ejected it. Just steal it. The loot is not safe until it is back in a station. This is the exact same situation the gankers face after exploding someone. If you want the loot, go take it. Otherwise, why should you be able to affect that loot without CONCORD intervening? More importantly, why should CCP exempt you from a mechanic that is designed to promote conflict and explosions? I repeat, if you want that loot so bad, just go take it. There is nothing forbidding you from doing so. KickAss Tivianne wrote:Lastly, Ganking is alive and well. Miner ganking is a former shadow of itself and near an all time low in the history of this game. Professional freighter pilots make almost 99% of their trips safely. Highsec has never been mechanically more safe than it is today. There is no pressing need to add yet more safety to highsec. KickAss Tivianne wrote:What has been removed are the exploits that people have found around the system. Please don't mistake a bug as a nerf. These are not exploits. They are what as known as "emergent game play" something that CCP likes to see take place in their PvP sandbox game. If they thought they were exploits, or unbalanced, they would fix them like they did with Hyperdunking. If CCP didn't want freighters to be vulnerable in highsec they would change some stats or even lock out all aggressive modules. I guess I don't blame you for asking to have the rules re-written in your favour. It is a strategy that has worked before and will likely work again. I just don't see how you can do so with no sense of shame or recognition of what you are doing. I am very open to new suggestions that make the game better, but these suggestions of yours do nothing but dramatically increase safety for targets, and make more work for highsec aggressors without even a pretense to make a better game for all. Go back to the drawing board and try to come up with something that's sole purpose isn't to stifle conflict and benefit you if you want to have any chance of it being implemented.
I did say there could be a a role bonus for that, maybe a module.. (Which first they would have to fit... maybe have some negative effect).. Either way It would have a spool up timer to activate. We could say 5-10 minutes.. maybe 15?? That would give a gank fleet time to gank if they were ready... if this was their target. Not just keep ther freighter in limbo for soooooooooo long. Those are details to the issue.
Its not the matter of wanting loot... I don't want it. Its the mechanics of how the loot is transferred. The ganking criminal ships are right there. They should not be able to loot if they have a Criminal timer. A neutral will need to do such things.
I am not wanting to make the rules in my favor. It is currently way on your favor, and I know you want nothing to change because you are reaping the rewards of these flaws. So you want to hold on as long as you can. But I sense times are changing. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17192
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 16:49:09 -
[283] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
I am not wanting to make the rules in my favor.
Of course you are, you want to defeat the action of an entire fleet solo with just the click of a button or just get rid of it altogether. You have a large number of ways to counter ganking already and hauler ganking is the LAST option for pirates in highsec these days for turning a profit. You people have already wiped out a great bulk of piracy in highsec and ganking these days is by far the single most punished and risky activity in the game. Yet again you peddle the lie that is ganking has no risk, a lie that has zero basis in fact.
All you need to beat a fleet of 50 gankers is a single low cost escort ship with webs, how is this very simple task too much to ask of you?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2092
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 16:52:50 -
[284] - Quote
So basically the anti-gankers are so bad at EVE and fail constantly daily all the time non stop that they created another whine thread to get a buff in their favour. Because we didn't have that already and they are still failing non stop daily without a break.
I guess if you are that bad at EVE and can't stop a gank even if all the mechanics in Highsec are already extremely in your favour you may as well write a whine forum post while loyal dunks some freighter right on top of your face and you are watching from the sideline.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
13
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 16:58:01 -
[285] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:
I am not wanting to make the rules in my favor.
Of course you are, you want to defeat the action of an entire fleet solo with just the click of a button or just get rid of it altogether. You have a large number of ways to counter ganking already and hauler ganking is the LAST option for pirates in highsec these days for turning a profit. You people have already wiped out a great bulk of piracy in highsec and ganking these days is by far the single most punished and risky activity in the game. Yet again you peddle the lie that is ganking has no risk, a lie that has zero basis in fact. All you need to beat a fleet of 50 gankers is a single low cost escort ship with webs, how is this very simple task too much to ask of you?
I am not!! I am stopping the prolonged harassment with a spool up timer. The module works only in highsec... due to some thing with the Gates (come up with your own reason) . If you have a gank fleet.. gank away!! Go for it. If you looking to extort a ransom by harassing, that will go away because they have a way out eventually. I do agree, If they have a webber, that would be best. But even then, it is a crap shoot.
Then please tell me what Risk you have to gank? Please be detailed and tell me about it. I really want to know. |
Iain Cariaba
2454
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 17:04:19 -
[286] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Oh, and there is no more sure way to look like an imbecile than by quoting Gevlon Goblin. Just so you know. Not empty quoting.
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?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17192
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 17:05:38 -
[287] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote: Then please tell me what Risk you have to gank? Please be detailed and tell me about it. I really want to know.
Concord, faction police, open to attack from everyone, wartargets, web escorts, logi escorts, blap excorts, people warping to a frigate 150km out in front of the freighter, the loot drop system, other gankers targeting gank ships, counter ganking the hauling ship used for looting, vultures, people shooting the wreck, gate guns, ECM excorts, counter bumping, smartbombs, poor warp ins, pre spawned concord.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
13
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 17:07:47 -
[288] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:So basically the anti-gankers are so bad at EVE and fail constantly daily all the time non stop that they created another whine thread to get a buff in their favour. Because we didn't have that already and they are still failing non stop daily without a break.
I guess if you are that bad at EVE and can't stop a gank even if all the mechanics in Highsec are already extremely in your favour you may as well write a whine forum post while loyal dunks some freighter right on top of your face and you are watching from the sideline.
Thanks again really adding nothing to the conversation, go keep taking fleet warps and push F1 like a good minion.
I'm not about removing the gank ability. If Code brings 25-30 ships to gank a freighter, with out a fleet of support for that freighter, it will probably die. I am not suggesting that change at all. That is Eve. It is other things related to the gank that need to change. |
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
13
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 17:24:48 -
[289] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote: Then please tell me what Risk you have to gank? Please be detailed and tell me about it. I really want to know.
Concord, faction police, open to attack from everyone, wartargets, web escorts, logi escorts, blap excorts, people warping to a frigate 150km out in front of the freighter, the loot drop system, other gankers targeting gank ships, counter ganking the hauling ship used for looting, vultures, people shooting the wreck, gate guns, ECM excorts, counter bumping, smartbombs, poor warp ins, pre spawned concord.
Concord... How so? Blowing up your ship after you ganked - Invalid. Your a Criminal. Faction Police - Low - small chance of being picked off. attacked from war targets - just like everyone else who has a war dec - Invalid web escort - Not a Risk to you - Pick another target. Logi Escorts - Not a Risk to you - Pick another target. Blap - Escorts - Low - Seldom happens Gankers are not on grid long. Warping to 150Km - Not Risk to you. Other gankers - Low Gate guns - Low Shooting wreck - Low - it happens, but most of the time of the time wrecks are not popped. ECM escorts - Not a Risk to you - Pick another target. Counter Bumping - Not a Risk to you - Pick another target. (bumping the bumper is pretty rare, seems not an effective tactic) Smart bombs - Low - can happen but then its a risk for everyone cause they are smart bombs. Poor Warp ins - Welcome to Eve PreSpawned Concord - Concord is pulled away as part of the process of the previous gank. If it is not, Pick another target.
So basically Low risk. For a high reward if you get the freighter. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15992
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 17:29:02 -
[290] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Remember before Crime watch came out? I bet you were making the same arguments back then also.
Yeah, and I was right, Crimewatch is abominable.
Quote: No I don't want to remove risk from Highsec.
Yes, you do.
Quote: I want it fair, No escort.. higher risk, NO HARASSMENT
Bumping is not harassment, period. You don't get to unilaterally and arbitrarily define something as harassment in order to get rid of it.
Quote: Gankers = low risk... NEED more to obtain the higher reward.
Risk vs reward applies exclusively to PvE activity, specifically, only to things that generate assets into the game world.
Ganking is a PvP activity, and that means that the risk AND the reward are 100% in the hands of the opposing players. You do not get to nerf ganking or bumping just because haulers make bad choices.
We are taking advantage of their mistakes. That is fully intended gameplay, and you don't get to cut it off at the knees because you think that failing to defend yourself should have less consequences.
Quote: So I make a reference to his stats... and I am the "imbecile".
Yep. He's basically world renowned for twisting math and stats to say whatever he wants them to say. His agenda overrides every other concern.
"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 Pandemic Legion
17193
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 17:52:08 -
[291] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Concord... How so? Blowing up your ship after you ganked - Invalid. Your a Criminal. Faction Police - Low - small chance of being picked off. attacked from war targets - just like everyone else who has a war dec - Invalid web escort - Not a Risk to you - Pick another target. Logi Escorts - Not a Risk to you - Pick another target. Blap - Escorts - Low - Seldom happens Gankers are not on grid long. Warping to 150Km - Not Risk to you. Other gankers - Low Gate guns - Low Shooting wreck - Low - it happens, but most of the time of the time wrecks are not popped. ECM escorts - Not a Risk to you - Pick another target. Counter Bumping - Not a Risk to you - Pick another target. (bumping the bumper is pretty rare, seems not an effective tactic) Smart bombs - Low - can happen but then its a risk for everyone cause they are smart bombs. Poor Warp ins - Welcome to Eve PreSpawned Concord - Concord is pulled away as part of the process of the previous gank. If it is not, Pick another target.
So basically Low risk. For a high reward if you get the freighter.
Concord: will kill you in a matter of seconds no matter what you do, to say thats no risk is moronic.
Faction police: garenteed to pick you off, they will kill any gank ship in seconds if you hang around and again, they react in seconds.
Wardec: so getting blown up by wardecers isnt a risk? they will not kill you? Again, a moronic argument they are a risk you must face.
web escort: gets the target into warp before you can catch it. How exactly is losing your target not a risk?
Logi escort: Keep the freighter alive while your fleet dies under concord and faction police guns. How exactly is that not a risk to a successful gank?
Blap escort: Just because people such as yourself are cowardly does not mean its not effective. Kill enough gankboats and they cant kill the target and a fleet of 5 instalocking cruisers can kill a lot of gankers in short order.
Warping to 150k: the target just got away, how is that not a risk?
Other gankers: it might be low but that doesn't stop it being a risk.
Gate guns: they will 100% shoot you if in range and they have a very large range and will slice though gankships like butter. thats not exactly low risk.
shooting the wreck: Again, its not the gankers fault people chose not to take this option, that risk is always there.
ECM: jam out enough gank ships and you fail the gank. How exactly is that not a risk?
Counter bumping: The freighter escapes, again, how is that not a risk? (It is infact a very effective tactic, people such as yourself just chose not to use it)
Poor warp ins: still a risk and a surprisingly common one
pre spawned concord: Again, its highly effective you people just chose to not use it. Christ even miners managed to adopt this tactic.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Iain Cariaba
2455
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 18:06:50 -
[292] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:baltec1 wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote: Then please tell me what Risk you have to gank? Please be detailed and tell me about it. I really want to know.
Concord, faction police, open to attack from everyone, wartargets, web escorts, logi escorts, blap excorts, people warping to a frigate 150km out in front of the freighter, the loot drop system, other gankers targeting gank ships, counter ganking the hauling ship used for looting, vultures, people shooting the wreck, gate guns, ECM excorts, counter bumping, smartbombs, poor warp ins, pre spawned concord. Concord... How so? Blowing up your ship after you ganked - Invalid. Your a Criminal. Faction Police - Low - small chance of being picked off. attacked from war targets - just like everyone else who has a war dec - Invalid web escort - Not a Risk to you - Pick another target. Logi Escorts - Not a Risk to you - Pick another target. Blap - Escorts - Low - Seldom happens Gankers are not on grid long. Warping to 150Km - Not Risk to you. Other gankers - Low Gate guns - Low Shooting wreck - Low - it happens, but most of the time of the time wrecks are not popped. ECM escorts - Not a Risk to you - Pick another target. Counter Bumping - Not a Risk to you - Pick another target. (bumping the bumper is pretty rare, seems not an effective tactic) Smart bombs - Low - can happen but then its a risk for everyone cause they are smart bombs. Poor Warp ins - Welcome to Eve PreSpawned Concord - Concord is pulled away as part of the process of the previous gank. If it is not, Pick another target. So basically Low risk. For a high reward if you get the freighter. Individually they are low risk. However, gankers deal with most of them all at once, therefore they have a cumulative effect.
Oh, and see that phrase you used repeatedly there, "Pick another target." That's pretty much the point everyone's been trying to make to you. You don't need to add more penalties to ganking. Just make yourself less of a target, and you're safe while they go after the other schmuck who thought he could afk autopilot his freighter.
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?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17195
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 18:23:34 -
[293] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote: Individually they are low risk. However, gankers deal with most of them all at once, therefore they have a cumulative effect.
Oh, and see that phrase you used repeatedly there, "Pick another target." That's pretty much the point everyone's been trying to make to you. You don't need to add more penalties to ganking. Just make yourself less of a target, and you're safe while they go after the other schmuck who thought he could afk autopilot his freighter.
It also begs the question if all of these things are not risks and ganking is indeed risk free why wont these white knights gank the gankers back? Gankships are profitable to gank so its not like they would be out of pocket.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
13
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 18:34:39 -
[294] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:baltec1 wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote: Then please tell me what Risk you have to gank? Please be detailed and tell me about it. I really want to know.
Concord, faction police, open to attack from everyone, wartargets, web escorts, logi escorts, blap excorts, people warping to a frigate 150km out in front of the freighter, the loot drop system, other gankers targeting gank ships, counter ganking the hauling ship used for looting, vultures, people shooting the wreck, gate guns, ECM excorts, counter bumping, smartbombs, poor warp ins, pre spawned concord. Concord... How so? Blowing up your ship after you ganked - Invalid. Your a Criminal. Faction Police - Low - small chance of being picked off. attacked from war targets - just like everyone else who has a war dec - Invalid web escort - Not a Risk to you - Pick another target. Logi Escorts - Not a Risk to you - Pick another target. Blap - Escorts - Low - Seldom happens Gankers are not on grid long. Warping to 150Km - Not Risk to you. Other gankers - Low Gate guns - Low Shooting wreck - Low - it happens, but most of the time of the time wrecks are not popped. ECM escorts - Not a Risk to you - Pick another target. Counter Bumping - Not a Risk to you - Pick another target. (bumping the bumper is pretty rare, seems not an effective tactic) Smart bombs - Low - can happen but then its a risk for everyone cause they are smart bombs. Poor Warp ins - Welcome to Eve PreSpawned Concord - Concord is pulled away as part of the process of the previous gank. If it is not, Pick another target. So basically Low risk. For a high reward if you get the freighter. Individually they are low risk. However, gankers deal with most of them all at once, therefore they have a cumulative effect. Oh, and see that phrase you used repeatedly there, "Pick another target." That's pretty much the point everyone's been trying to make to you. You don't need to add more penalties to ganking. Just make yourself less of a target, and you're safe while they go after the other schmuck who thought he could afk autopilot his freighter.
I am saying Risk wise, it is not a risk. You are risking very little going after a freighter with more logi support. you throw more ships at the freighter (as is often done). You have no penalty for becoming criminal yet again. YOu loose your ship.. ehhh.. not a risk.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17197
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 18:42:54 -
[295] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
I am saying Risk wise, it is not a risk. You are risking very little going after a freighter with more logi support. you throw more ships at the freighter (as is often done). You have no penalty for becoming criminal yet again. YOu loose your ship.. ehhh.. not a risk.
So go gank them if you feel that way, they are profitable to kill.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
13
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 18:47:21 -
[296] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Oh, and there is no more sure way to look like an imbecile than by quoting Gevlon Goblin. Just so you know. Not empty quoting.
I did not think I had to spell it out. I gave you a summary that Code is doing fine with cash, that was merely my reference for my statement. Which is more then was stated saying Ohhh Code is net negative... and nothing to back it up.
How about another reference, if you look at minerbumping, the war treasure chest seems to be doing just fine.
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
13
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 18:55:52 -
[297] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:
I am saying Risk wise, it is not a risk. You are risking very little going after a freighter with more logi support. you throw more ships at the freighter (as is often done). You have no penalty for becoming criminal yet again. YOu loose your ship.. ehhh.. not a risk.
So go gank them if you feel that way, they are profitable to kill.
Sounds like you never have tried to. They undock (protected), and then insta-fleet-warp to safe, then fleet warp around. and warp to target. and push F1.
If they cross a gate, then perhaps one will get picked off. Not enough to make a large impact. But you have to know where they are going, and they could have a number of bumpers across different systems. If they have 25/30 ships they are already fit with enough overkill SO that is why they don't ganking them does not work.
Unless you have ideas....? So please share if you have a tactic. :)
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17197
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 19:12:50 -
[298] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Sounds like you never have tried to. They undock (protected), and then insta-fleet-warp to safe, then fleet warp around. and warp to target. and push F1.
If they cross a gate, then perhaps one will get picked off. Not enough to make a large impact. But you have to know where they are going, and they could have a number of bumpers across different systems. If they have 25/30 ships they are already fit with enough overkill SO that is why they don't ganking them does not work.
Unless you have ideas....? So please share if you have a tactic. :)
So what you are saying is they are taking steps to avoid this very thing from happening.
So why dont you emply those very tactics?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Iain Cariaba
2457
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 19:38:47 -
[299] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:baltec1 wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:
I am saying Risk wise, it is not a risk. You are risking very little going after a freighter with more logi support. you throw more ships at the freighter (as is often done). You have no penalty for becoming criminal yet again. YOu loose your ship.. ehhh.. not a risk.
So go gank them if you feel that way, they are profitable to kill. Sounds like you never have tried to. They undock (protected), and then insta-fleet-warp to safe, then fleet warp around. and warp to target. and push F1. If they cross a gate, then perhaps one will get picked off. Not enough to make a large impact. But you have to know where they are going, and they could have a number of bumpers across different systems. If they have 25/30 ships they are already fit with enough overkill SO that is why they don't ganking them does not work. Unless you have ideas....? So please share if you have a tactic. :) Gank the bumping mach. If there's no risk or penalty for gankers taking out a freighter, then there's equally no risk or penalty for you to gank the bumping ship. Doesn't matter how many catalysts they undock when the freighter isn't being bumped anymore and warps away before they arrive.
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.
15995
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 20:01:31 -
[300] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote: Sounds like you never have tried to.
One of us hasn't.
The rest of us have sat on gates in a sebo Thrasher and popped a few of them before Concord finishes them off, then laughed as they missed the gank because they lost too many volleys.
Oh, and then the wreck, of course. Hey, I just cost them hundreds of millions of isk (not to mention wasted the criminal cooldowns for a twenty man fleet) for a net investment of eight million on my part. And the sec status loss for shooting a wreck is pretty pathetic to boot, so you can't even say that I lost anything.
"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
21045
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 22:10:06 -
[301] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:I am saying Risk wise, it is not a risk. You are risking very little going after a freighter with more logi support. you throw more ships at the freighter (as is often done). You have no penalty for becoming criminal yet again. YOu loose your ship.. ehhh.. not a risk.
I love your bias view point, no matter how illogical it is.
So you wish to concentrate on risk. So how many freighter runs are there in a day? There has to be quite a lot right?
So before we start down this line of thought, how about you provide me with your idea of what that number may be? I'm thinking it's in the thousands, but please tell us your thoughts.
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
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 22:23:08 -
[302] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Gank the bumping mach. If there's no risk or penalty for gankers taking out a freighter, then there's equally no risk or penalty for you to gank the bumping ship. Doesn't matter how many catalysts they undock when the freighter isn't being bumped anymore and warps away before they arrive.
There is no risk or penalty for the BUMPER. Penalties for gankers are such that none of them prevents them from being functional in hisec while keeping -10 sec status, hence, for all practical purposes irrelevant. Again, stop turning this topic into a discussion of freighter ganking and keep on the topic of freighter bumping in hisec. In terms of potential ideas - I'd be all for some form of anti-bumping stat change for freighters (increase their mass?) or a module which would allow for active players to get out of bumping situation without requiring webber alt. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16004
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 22:50:10 -
[303] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: There is no risk or penalty for the BUMPER.
Why would there be? It's an explicitly non hostile act.
"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 Pandemic Legion
17209
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 23:07:13 -
[304] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: There is no risk or penalty for the BUMPER. Penalties for gankers are such that none of them prevents them from being functional in hisec while keeping -10 sec status, hence, for all practical purposes irrelevant.
So gank the bumping ship.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 23:18:44 -
[305] - Quote
And again, no way to discuss it with you lot. Let's just play the semantics game all the time, right.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17211
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 23:30:03 -
[306] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:And again, no way to discuss it with you lot. Let's just play the semantics game all the time, right.
Whats to discuss? You refuse to listen to anyone and continually contradict yourself. We have the tools to deal with your issues already, many of them, if you refuse to use them its nobodies fault but your own.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16004
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 23:33:24 -
[307] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:And again, no way to discuss it with you lot.
What discussion is there to be had?
You want us to entertain your dishonest premise as though it were true. You want us to talk as though bumping were somehow "harassment" or "broken" or whatever other flimsy justification you care to use.
And since that is not true, I for one will not entertain that. There is no discussion to be had from a lie.
"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.
|
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
887
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 23:43:45 -
[308] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:And again, no way to discuss it with you lot. Let's just play the semantics game all the time, right.
Whats to discuss? You refuse to listen to anyone and continually contradict yourself. We have the tools to deal with your issues already, many of them, if you refuse to use them its nobodies fault but your own. /thread
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44047
|
Posted - 2016.01.30 23:56:55 -
[309] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:In terms of potential ideas - I'd be all for some form of anti-bumping stat change for freighters (increase their mass? althought that would screw up wh-s so probably no) or a module which would allow for active players to get out of bumping situation without requiring webber alt. Why do freighters deserve special protection that no other ship has?
If someone is going to invest from 1.2B (Freighter) to 7B (Jump Freighter) into just the ship, shouldn't they be prepared to be responsible for its safety?
Why should they have their risk reduced freely, when it can already be reduced easily, but at the same time the risk of bumpers (and gankers) should be increased?
If risk is going to be required for one side, then surely in a balanced system it should be required for the other side also; and all of us should be responsible to manage our own risks?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 00:01:32 -
[310] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:And again, no way to discuss it with you lot. Let's just play the semantics game all the time, right.
Whats to discuss? You refuse to listen to anyone and continually contradict yourself. We have the tools to deal with your issues already, many of them, if you refuse to use them its nobodies fault but your own.
Actually it is you refusing to accept that, for some, going down the criminal route to prevent getting criminally killed in hisec makes no sense the same way that keeping from warping away just by magic of spaceship submarine collisions makes no sense. If you can't step away from your position, you can never understand what I'm talking about but that's fine. The future will tell which of us was right. |
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 00:08:39 -
[311] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:In terms of potential ideas - I'd be all for some form of anti-bumping stat change for freighters (increase their mass? althought that would screw up wh-s so probably no) or a module which would allow for active players to get out of bumping situation without requiring webber alt. Why do freighters deserve special protection that no other ship has? If someone is going to invest from 1.2B (Freighter) to 7B (Jump Freighter) into just the ship, shouldn't they be prepared to be responsible for its safety? Why should they have their risk reduced freely, when it can already be reduced easily, but at the same time the risk of bumpers (and gankers) should be increased? If risk is going to be required for one side, then surely in a balanced system it should be required for the other side also; and all of us should be responsible to manage our own risks?
Because removal of bumping, get ready for this revelation, would not remove the ability to gank those ships in any shape or form. I know, that's a hard concept to grasp.
Other reason is in the fact that bumping (w/o ganking the bumper) contains no risk or penalty for the bumper whatsoever and the only consequence is on a char which is (in vast majority of cases) a disposable alt in a noob ship which (quite often and that has been reported) gets recycled after a while. Hell you don't even need to use a paying account for that, just put eve on a VM or a laptop and use trial accounts. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44047
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 00:15:36 -
[312] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Because removal of bumping, get ready for this revelation, would not remove the ability to gank those ships in any shape or form. I know, that's a hard concept to grasp. So if it will have no effect, why bother to remove it?
The reason is because you know it will have an effect and that is what this really wants. To think I don't grasp this is pretty insulting and not needed in this conversation.
The act of bumping a Freighter >150km off gate is used by gankers because sentry guns @167DPS each (and 4-6 guns per gate) will immediately engage, so the freighter is bumped away from the gate in order to eliminate the sentry guns from the equation.
That seems a perfectly reasonable action on the side of the gankers. It's the same thing any of us would do in that situation; and it is a consideration in lowsec pvp all the time; so gankers aren't unique in that regard.
As a Freighter and Jump Freighter pilot, I don't deserve special treatment to not be bumped. If I can't take care of my own safety, then I deserve to die and if gankers are able to manage their risks, just as anyone does, then good luck to them.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16006
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 00:19:27 -
[313] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Because removal of bumping, get ready for this revelation, would not remove the ability to gank those ships in any shape or form.
Then why change anything?
Oh, because you're intending it as a nerf to ganking despite your claims otherwise. That's why.
Quote: Other reason is in the fact that bumping (w/o ganking the bumper) contains no risk or penalty for the bumper whatsoever
Of course, because it's not hostile. Just like I have to do if I want a non hostile dead, you have to gank him if you want to bring risk into his gameplay.
Speaking of which, I think NPCs should camp gates and make it functionally impossible for unescorted freighters to get through, because otherwise freighters have no risk or penalty whatsoever.
If your argument is good for the goose, then it's good for the gander too, huh?
Quote: and the only consequence is on a char which is (in vast majority of cases) a disposable alt in a noob ship which (quite often and that has been reported) gets recycled after a while.
Remember when you got all butthurt when I pointed you that you frequently accuse lots of people of perma ban offenses without proof?
So now you're not only doubly a liar, you're also a hypocrite.
"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
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 00:26:50 -
[314] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Because removal of bumping, get ready for this revelation, would not remove the ability to gank those ships in any shape or form. I know, that's a hard concept to grasp. So if it will have no effect, why bother to remove it? The reason is because you know it will have an effect and that is what this really wants. To think I don't grasp this is pretty insulting and not needed in this conversation. The act of bumping a Freighter >150km off gate is used by gankers because sentry guns @167DPS each will immediately engage, so the freighter is bumped away from the gate in order to eliminate the sentry guns from the equation. That seems a perfectly reasonable action on the side of the gankers. It's the same thing any of us would do in that situation; and it is a consideration in lowsec pvp all the time; so gankers aren't unique in that regard. As a Freighter and Jump Freighter pilot, I don't deserve special treatment to not be bumped. If I can't take care of my own safety, then I deserve to die and if gankers are able to manage their risks, just as anyone does, then good luck to them.
Where did I say that it would have no effect. I said that it would not remove the ability to gank. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16006
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 00:29:55 -
[315] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Where did I say that it would have no effect. I said that it would not remove the ability to gank.
Just like increasing Concord response times did not remove the ability to gank. Or making them invincible, or making them jam, or any of the other endless parade of nerfs to content in highsec for the last decade.
"just one more nerf"
"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
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 00:32:51 -
[316] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: and the only consequence is on a char which is (in vast majority of cases) a disposable alt in a noob ship which (quite often and that has been reported) gets recycled after a while.
Remember when you got all butthurt when I pointed you that you frequently accuse lots of people of perma ban offenses without proof? So now you're not only doubly a liar, you're also a hypocrite.
As said previously, some of the people in AG have identified recycled ganker alts and reported them to CCP. Whose alts they were exactly, I have no idea nor do I claim to know, but ganker aggro alts they were because we saw them used in freighter ganks (and they were on km's). I think there even was a thread somewhere on forums where some of the names of chars were linked. What is a lie in my sentence, I don't know. What I do know is that you like calling people liers while you do lie for a fact (e.g. about me saying that death threats are ok). Also, I know I had you blocked back in the day for a reason, and you've reminded me to turn the hide posts option back on. Cheers. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16008
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 00:36:59 -
[317] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: As said previously, some of the people in AG have identified recycled ganker alts and reported them to CCP.
Yeah, if you people told me the sun would come up tomorrow, I would wake up at five thirty just to double check. I don't believe a thing you angsty, hateful carebears say.
Oh, and hiding my posts just makes it look like I hit the mark.
Bullseye.
"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
44049
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 00:37:10 -
[318] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Where did I say that it would have no effect. I said that it would not remove the ability to gank. Ok, sure.
Then why provide that as a response to the actual question I asked, which was:
Why do freighters deserve special protection that no other ship has? (and a couple of others, related to same that question)
So I take it your answer is that they deserve special treatment because ganking will still be possible (which makes no sense as a response); even though the post I asked the question about was about bumping, not ganking (since earlier it was claimed that this is not about ganking, so left that out of the issue).
So why do I as a Freighter pilot deserve special treatment to escape bumping, when I already have all the tools I need to prevent it from occuring in the first place. Why shouldn't I be responsible to manage the risks I face?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4484
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 00:46:51 -
[319] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:In terms of potential ideas - I'd be all for some form of anti-bumping stat change for freighters (increase their mass? althought that would screw up wh-s so probably no) or a module which would allow for active players to get out of bumping situation without requiring webber alt. Why do freighters deserve special protection that no other ship has? If someone is going to invest from 1.2B (Freighter) to 7B (Jump Freighter) into just the ship, shouldn't they be prepared to be responsible for its safety? Why should they have their risk reduced freely, when it can already be reduced easily, but at the same time the risk of bumpers (and gankers) should be increased? If risk is going to be required for one side, then surely in a balanced system it should be required for the other side also; and all of us should be responsible to manage our own risks? Because removal of bumping, get ready for this revelation, would not remove the ability to gank those ships in any shape or form. I know, that's a hard concept to grasp.
Sure it would. People are not always online. So you get a juicy target and you start bumping and pinging for people to log on. You get a scan of the ship to see what the tank is, etc. and depending on the result you might have to keep pinging to get people in place.
Removing bumping would allow ships that are overloaded and not using all methods to reduce their risk would be less likely to be ganked.
Further, we all know that people who get ganked while autopiloting with 12 billion ISK worth of cargo would almost surely whine and complain on the forums about how unfair it is to gank a ship autopiloting with 12 billion worth of ISK.
In short, I consider you to be less than honest and a completely incompetent player who wants to enable other incompetent players.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4485
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 00:49:43 -
[320] - Quote
In my opinion....
I think CONCORD response times should be increased for 0.5 and 0.6 systems. For 0.5 make it 25 seconds and for 0.6 make it 20 seconds.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 00:56:52 -
[321] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: As said previously, some of the people in AG have identified recycled ganker alts and reported them to CCP.
Yeah, if you people told me the sun would come up tomorrow, I would wake up at five thirty just to double check. I don't believe a thing you angsty, hateful carebears say. Oh, and hiding my posts just makes it look like I hit the mark. Bullseye.
Whoops, I didn't block your posts. So, just to prove you, once again, wrong - one example which has been reported: https://zkillboard.com/character/95727954/ (-5.2 according to Eve Who). So, by now you've been proven to be:
a) liar b) denying facts (link above) c) prejudiced towards folks who don't subscribe to your worldview d) who knows what else
In a perfect world right about now you'd stop spewing your angsty and hateful retoric, but I doubt that will happen. Do carry on. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16010
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:01:50 -
[322] - Quote
Ah yes, because linking a random guy in Doomheim is proof of anything. (well, besides that anti ganking has admitted to mass reporting to try and get people banned)
Blow this more off topic, please. Oh, and please project some more accusations at me while you do it. In particular, the one about being prejudiced against anything you don't agree with gave me a good laugh.
"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
44052
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:01:51 -
[323] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: As said previously, some of the people in AG have identified recycled ganker alts and reported them to CCP.
Yeah, if you people told me the sun would come up tomorrow, I would wake up at five thirty just to double check. I don't believe a thing you angsty, hateful carebears say. Oh, and hiding my posts just makes it look like I hit the mark. Bullseye. Whoops, I didn't block your posts. So, just to prove you, once again, wrong - one example which has been reported: https://zkillboard.com/character/95727954/ (-5.2 according to Eve Who). So, by now you've been proven to be: a) liar b) denying facts (link above) c) prejudiced towards folks who don't subscribe to your worldview d) who knows what else In a perfect world right about now you'd stop spewing your angsty and hateful retoric, but I doubt that will happen. Do carry on. An Ibis is a gank ship?
The Providence whore kill seems to have been a war target of Faylee at the time as she was not CONCORDed..
What ganks did that alt do exactly?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17218
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:03:59 -
[324] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Actually it is you refusing to accept that, for some, going down the criminal route to prevent getting criminally killed in hisec makes no sense the same way that keeping from warping away just by magic of spaceship submarine collisions makes no sense. If you can't step away from your position, you can never understand what I'm talking about but that's fine. The future will tell which of us was right.
So don't gank and use one of the other ways to avoid or fight your way out of this situation.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4486
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:04:22 -
[325] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: As said previously, some of the people in AG have identified recycled ganker alts and reported them to CCP.
Yeah, if you people told me the sun would come up tomorrow, I would wake up at five thirty just to double check. I don't believe a thing you angsty, hateful carebears say. Oh, and hiding my posts just makes it look like I hit the mark. Bullseye. Whoops, I didn't block your posts.
Do you routinely block those who disagree with you? If so that speaks volumes to your intellectual honesty...which IMO, is so low right now anybody considers you even remotely believable...well except maybe the incompetent and foolish.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:06:40 -
[326] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Ah yes, because linking a random guy in Doomheim is proof of anything. (well, besides that anti ganking has admitted to mass reporting to try and get people banned)
Blow this more off topic, please. Oh, and please project some more accusations at me while you do it. In particular, the one about being prejudiced against anything you don't agree with gave me a good laugh.
Maybe you don't know how to use killboards, so I'll help you with it - that random guy has a freighter kill on board and was clearly used as an aggro alt (y'know as in 'disposable aggro alt') and then recycled. Just as I said.
As for prejudices, let me quote you:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:If you people told me the sun would come up tomorrow, I would wake up at five thirty just to double check. I don't believe a thing you angsty, hateful carebears say |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16012
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:08:46 -
[327] - Quote
So, our anti ganker friend there has just proven themselves to:
Be a liar.
Make up things when they have no facts.
Knowingly and deliberately abuse the petition system and encourage others to do the same.
Prejudiced towards anything that goes against the skewed, wrong, carebear vision of this game.
And who knows what else. Did I miss anything, guys?
"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
4490
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:17:04 -
[328] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Ah yes, because linking a random guy in Doomheim is proof of anything. (well, besides that anti ganking has admitted to mass reporting to try and get people banned)
Blow this more off topic, please. Oh, and please project some more accusations at me while you do it. In particular, the one about being prejudiced against anything you don't agree with gave me a good laugh. Maybe you don't know how to use killboards, so I'll help you with it - that random guy has a freighter kill on board and was clearly used as an aggro alt (y'know as in 'disposable aggro alt') and then recycled. Just as I said. As for prejudices, let me quote you: Kaarous Aldurald wrote:If you people told me the sun would come up tomorrow, I would wake up at five thirty just to double check. I don't believe a thing you angsty, hateful carebears say And yes, If I see someone trying to game the system by using mechanics which have been ruled as exploits, I report them. Every responsible citizen of New Eden should do the same.
That linked kill is not a gank. It looks like somebody did a suicide agro to keep the target scannable and vulnerable long enough for somebody who could kill the freighter legitimately (i.e. a war target) to arrive and kill said freighter.
Looks to me like a case of working as intended.
So Rhamnousia Nosferatu it looks like you are indeed intellectually bankrupt.
Go ahead and block me and anyone else, IDC your opinion is literally worthless.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16018
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:20:30 -
[329] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: As for prejudices, let me quote you:
And I'll say it again.
The anti ganking community are the most hateful, angsty, miserable bunch of miscreants I have ever laid eyes on. I have known at least a dozen of you to make repeated death threats against people I personally know, I have seen you spew the most hateful **** I've ever heard in local at people who aren't even gankers because they have negative sec status (it was a PL blops pilot going for a skillbook), I have seen you encourage people to use exploits that don't even work to get out of being ganked, and I have seen you encourage people to abuse the petition system to get losses reimbursed that don't qualify.
In short, you are all slime, and I don't believe a word that any of you say. If you people told me the sun was coming up tomorrow, I would wake up at five thirty to double check.
And as for bumping, there are a number of reasons why you will never get your way. Any one of them would work to stifle your thinly veiled attempt to kill more emergent gameplay, but all of them stand against you nonetheless.
"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
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:20:50 -
[330] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: As said previously, some of the people in AG have identified recycled ganker alts and reported them to CCP.
Yeah, if you people told me the sun would come up tomorrow, I would wake up at five thirty just to double check. I don't believe a thing you angsty, hateful carebears say. Oh, and hiding my posts just makes it look like I hit the mark. Bullseye. Whoops, I didn't block your posts. Do you routinely block those who disagree with you? If so that speaks volumes to your intellectual honesty...which IMO, is so low right now anybody considers you even remotely believable...well except maybe the incompetent and foolish.
In game I used to block those who spammed local. Lately I just stopped checking the local and removed the blocks. Not sure what intellectual honesty has to do with not wanting to have to sift through rubbish to get to occasional useful piece of information. If someone continually calls you a liar, hateful person, makes up stuff you never said, while continually derailing the discussion, I'd say that removing his posts can only make whole thread easier to read. |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16018
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:22:42 -
[331] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:If someone continually calls you a liar, hateful person, makes up stuff you never said, while continually derailing the discussion
They might just be an anti ganker.
"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
4490
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:22:42 -
[332] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: As said previously, some of the people in AG have identified recycled ganker alts and reported them to CCP.
Yeah, if you people told me the sun would come up tomorrow, I would wake up at five thirty just to double check. I don't believe a thing you angsty, hateful carebears say. Oh, and hiding my posts just makes it look like I hit the mark. Bullseye. Whoops, I didn't block your posts. Do you routinely block those who disagree with you? If so that speaks volumes to your intellectual honesty...which IMO, is so low right now anybody considers you even remotely believable...well except maybe the incompetent and foolish. In game I used to block those who spammed local. Lately I just stopped checking the local and removed the blocks. Not sure what intellectual honesty has to do with not wanting to have to sift through rubbish to get to occasional useful piece of information. If someone continually calls you a liar, hateful person, makes up stuff you never said, while continually derailing the discussion, I'd say that removing his posts can only make whole thread easier to read.
Blah, blah, blah...I block those who disagree with me because they cause me cognitive dissonance and I can't handle that.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21051
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:27:57 -
[333] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Whoops, I didn't block your posts. So, just to prove you, once again, wrong - one example which has been reported: https://zkillboard.com/character/95727954/ (-5.2 according to Eve Who). So, by now you've been proven to be: a) liar b) denying facts (link above) c) prejudiced towards folks who don't subscribe to your worldview d) who knows what else In a perfect world right about now you'd stop spewing your angsty and hateful retoric, but I doubt that will happen. Do carry on. Sorry, but what was this post meant to prove?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4500
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:29:12 -
[334] - Quote
You know my OOC alt was targeted by a CODE bumper and I have thought about going after bumping ships, problem is doing it solo is not easy and 2 people ganking the bumping ship would make is so much easier, but the people who get ganked are such sh**lers I cannot count them to help me...so I gave up and moved over to using a BR and JF.
Now when I see these same sh**lers whining on the forums...I despise them far, far more than CODE who are at least adding content.
To those who have had their freighters ganked, F-you and die in a fire.
Edit:
Long live CODE and any entity that ganks a freighter.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4500
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:32:44 -
[335] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Whoops, I didn't block your posts. So, just to prove you, once again, wrong - one example which has been reported: https://zkillboard.com/character/95727954/ (-5.2 according to Eve Who). So, by now you've been proven to be: a) liar b) denying facts (link above) c) prejudiced towards folks who don't subscribe to your worldview d) who knows what else In a perfect world right about now you'd stop spewing your angsty and hateful retoric, but I doubt that will happen. Do carry on. Sorry, but what was this post meant to prove?
Nothing?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:34:25 -
[336] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: As for prejudices, let me quote you:
And I'll say it again. The anti ganking community are the most hateful, angsty, miserable bunch of miscreants I have ever laid eyes on. I have known at least a dozen of you to make repeated death threats against people I personally know, I have seen you spew the most hateful **** I've ever heard in local at people who aren't even gankers because they have negative sec status (it was a PL blops pilot going for a skillbook), I have seen you encourage people to use exploits that don't even work to get out of being ganked, and I have seen you encourage people to abuse the petition system to get losses reimbursed that don't qualify. In short, you are all slime, and I don't believe a word that any of you say. If you people told me the sun was coming up tomorrow, I would wake up at five thirty to double check. And as for bumping, there are a number of reasons why you will never get your way. Any one of them would work to stifle your thinly veiled attempt to kill more emergent gameplay, but all of them stand against you nonetheless.
I have no idea whom you are talking about regarding all these behaviors, but it certainly wasn't me or people I hang with in AG. I have never threatened someone in RL, advised using exploits, or encouraged use of petition system for losses which I knew did not qualify for reimbursement. If you run into such behavior - report it. I know I do once it goes beyond reasonable in-game smack (which, btw, your post has certainly gone beyond). Furthermore it is me you have been continually attacking in this thread, not some general 'anti-ganking community'. You seem to have issues telling individual people and discussion of real-life software defined mechanics of a computer game apart from those imaginary in-game groups, and in-game animosity. |
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21051
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:35:16 -
[337] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Mag's wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Whoops, I didn't block your posts. So, just to prove you, once again, wrong - one example which has been reported: https://zkillboard.com/character/95727954/ (-5.2 according to Eve Who). So, by now you've been proven to be: a) liar b) denying facts (link above) c) prejudiced towards folks who don't subscribe to your worldview d) who knows what else In a perfect world right about now you'd stop spewing your angsty and hateful retoric, but I doubt that will happen. Do carry on. Sorry, but what was this post meant to prove? Nothing? Kinda what I thought, but it's late and I thought I'd ask.
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
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:37:33 -
[338] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Mag's wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Whoops, I didn't block your posts. So, just to prove you, once again, wrong - one example which has been reported: https://zkillboard.com/character/95727954/ (-5.2 according to Eve Who). So, by now you've been proven to be: a) liar b) denying facts (link above) c) prejudiced towards folks who don't subscribe to your worldview d) who knows what else In a perfect world right about now you'd stop spewing your angsty and hateful retoric, but I doubt that will happen. Do carry on. Sorry, but what was this post meant to prove? Nothing? Kinda what I thought, but it's late and I thought I'd ask. Well, hopefully that Kaarous tends to make stuff up and deny facts while also basing his behaviour on fact that I'm not in his 'team' (apparently I'm a hateful angsty carebear). |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16026
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:38:45 -
[339] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: I have no idea whom you are talking about regarding all these behaviors
Did you miss the part where I said I don't believe what you say? You can deny until you're blue in the face, and I still won't care. You people crossed the line a long freaking time ago, and you all know how and why, and to whom.
"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
21055
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:39:08 -
[340] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Mag's wrote:Kinda what I thought, but it's late and I thought I'd ask. Well, hopefully that Kaarous tends to make stuff up and deny facts while also basing his behaviour on fact that I'm not in his 'team' (apparently I'm a hateful angsty carebear). I don't care about all that tbh, I just wondered what that post was meant to prove.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44059
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:40:11 -
[341] - Quote
Seems there's still no clear reason why my Freighter pilot deserves special treatment via protection from bumping.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16026
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:40:58 -
[342] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Seems there's still no clear reason why my Freighter pilot deserves special treatment via protection from bumping.
It should be obvious.
So that there can be less PvP in highsec. That's the whole point, after all.
"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
21058
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:44:12 -
[343] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Seems there's still no clear reason why my Freighter pilot deserves special treatment via protection from bumping. Seeing as my freighter pilot has been in far less risk than Mag's ever has, I tend to agree. Many trips, never a loss.
So going by the risk table used by the AG crowd, shouldn't webbing and hauling get nerfed?
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
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:44:42 -
[344] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Mag's wrote:Kinda what I thought, but it's late and I thought I'd ask. Well, hopefully that Kaarous tends to make stuff up and deny facts while also basing his behaviour on fact that I'm not in his 'team' (apparently I'm a hateful angsty carebear). I don't care about all that tbh, I just wondered what that post was meant to prove. Well, basically that at least a part of his arguments were invalid due to things which have nothing to do with actual gameplay mechanics. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16029
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:45:34 -
[345] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Seems there's still no clear reason why my Freighter pilot deserves special treatment via protection from bumping. Seeing as my freighter pilot has been in far less risk than Mag's ever has, I tend to agree. Many trips, never a loss. So going by the risk table used by the AG crowd, shouldn't webbing and hauling get nerfed?
Don't forget mining and exploration.
And yeah, my freighter alt has never lost her ship, nor come in any danger of it. But then I use webs and scout my gates, and I also bought her a handy dandy permit from an approved agent of the New Order of Highsec. The best tank that isk can buy.
"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
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:46:32 -
[346] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Seems there's still no clear reason why my Freighter pilot deserves special treatment via protection from bumping. Seeing as my freighter pilot has been in far less risk than Mag's ever has, I tend to agree. Many trips, never a loss. So going by the risk table used by the AG crowd, shouldn't webbing and hauling get nerfed? Wasn't hauling nerfed when freighters got low slots (choice - tank vs capacity)? As for webbing, since it is not a 100% counter to bumping in reality I'd have nothing against its removal (just do make a viable proposal for that). |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4506
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:46:33 -
[347] - Quote
You know, I'm fine with somebody who wants to be a "white knight" and is willing to put together a gang to gank a bumping ship. In fact, I'd say, "Awesome look at the beauty of emergence and players who are willing to do things that people wouldn't normally expect." Instead we get these whiny puss buckets who think they should be lauded for their behavior instead of deriving satisfaction from simply having fun and making the game more competitive.
Want to be a white knight? All you have to do is get a gang together that can gank the bumping ship. HS carebears should have the sec status and the skills to get into a T2 gank catalyst and make this totally viable...but HS carebears are, in the end, sh**lers who cannot abide the notion of doing something where CONCORD might destroy their ships.
It is not unreasonable for some players to regard these HS players as contemptible as they are not willing to do what their opponents are wiling to do, even in a limited sense.
Hell even if you are not willing to gank other players at least have the balls and the willingness to get into repping fleets...but no, you are too damn greedy to give up your own personal ISK harvesting to help a fellow HS player.
So we look at CODE. and other ganking groups and we see a high degree of cooperation, coordination an teamwork. We look to the HS victims of ganking and we get whining, crying, and complaints about how unfair things are...when there clearly exist in game solutions to their problems.
My only conclusion is: **** the HS victims of ganking groups.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4506
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:47:42 -
[348] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Mag's wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Seems there's still no clear reason why my Freighter pilot deserves special treatment via protection from bumping. Seeing as my freighter pilot has been in far less risk than Mag's ever has, I tend to agree. Many trips, never a loss. So going by the risk table used by the AG crowd, shouldn't webbing and hauling get nerfed? Wasn't hauling nerfed when freighters got low slots (choice - tank vs capacity)? As for webbing, since it is not a 100% counter to bumping in reality I'd have nothing against its removal (just do make a viable proposal for that).
Seriously....you are asking for the removal of webbing freighters?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16029
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:48:18 -
[349] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Wasn't hauling nerfed when freighters got low slots (choice - tank vs capacity)?
Does their gameplay have any risk in it that doesn't come from other players?
"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
4506
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:49:29 -
[350] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Mag's wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Mag's wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Whoops, I didn't block your posts. So, just to prove you, once again, wrong - one example which has been reported: https://zkillboard.com/character/95727954/ (-5.2 according to Eve Who). So, by now you've been proven to be: a) liar b) denying facts (link above) c) prejudiced towards folks who don't subscribe to your worldview d) who knows what else In a perfect world right about now you'd stop spewing your angsty and hateful retoric, but I doubt that will happen. Do carry on. Sorry, but what was this post meant to prove? Nothing? Kinda what I thought, but it's late and I thought I'd ask. Well, hopefully that Kaarous tends to make stuff up and deny facts while also basing his behaviour on fact that I'm not in his 'team' (apparently I'm a hateful angsty carebear).
What exactly has Kaarous made up?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21058
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:49:35 -
[351] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Mag's wrote:I don't care about all that tbh, I just wondered what that post was meant to prove. Well, basically that at least a part of his arguments were invalid due to things which have nothing to do with actual gameplay mechanics. Well I must saying going on past personal experience, the most vitriolic communications tends to come from those claiming to play the 'Good Guy'. But I digress.
I would still like to know about that post. You've not really answered the question tbh.
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
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:49:36 -
[352] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:You know, I'm fine with somebody who wants to be a "white knight" and is willing to put together a gang to gank a bumping ship. In fact, I'd say, "Awesome look at the beauty of emergence and players who are willing to do things that people wouldn't normally expect." Instead we get these whiny puss buckets who think they should be lauded for their behavior instead of deriving satisfaction from simply having fun and making the game more competitive.
Want to be a white knight? All you have to do is get a gang together that can gank the bumping ship. HS carebears should have the sec status and the skills to get into a T2 gank catalyst and make this totally viable...but HS carebears are, in the end, sh**lers who cannot abide the notion of doing something where CONCORD might destroy their ships.
It is not unreasonable for some players to regard these HS players as contemptible as they are not willing to do what their opponents are wiling to do, even in a limited sense.
Hell even if you are not willing to gank other players at least have the balls and the willingness to get into repping fleets...but no, you are too damn greedy to give up your own personal ISK harvesting to help a fellow HS player.
All I can respond to this post of yours is: LOL. Can't be bothered explaining why, sorry buddy.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16029
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:49:46 -
[353] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote: Seriously....you are asking for the removal of webbing freighters?
It's a fairly typical carebear fallacy, this time of totalitarianism.
In this, they accidentally reveal their true goals, because they view any safety that isn't 100% as worthless. So long as there is any risk whatsoever, they will never be satisfied.
"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
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:52:26 -
[354] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote: What exactly has Kaarous made up?
He made up that I publicly supported RL threats. He claimed that I made up recycled alts thingy. He stated quite clearly that he doesn't believe anything someone from other groups claims. What else you need drawn? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4506
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:53:02 -
[355] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:You know, I'm fine with somebody who wants to be a "white knight" and is willing to put together a gang to gank a bumping ship. In fact, I'd say, "Awesome look at the beauty of emergence and players who are willing to do things that people wouldn't normally expect." Instead we get these whiny puss buckets who think they should be lauded for their behavior instead of deriving satisfaction from simply having fun and making the game more competitive.
Want to be a white knight? All you have to do is get a gang together that can gank the bumping ship. HS carebears should have the sec status and the skills to get into a T2 gank catalyst and make this totally viable...but HS carebears are, in the end, sh**lers who cannot abide the notion of doing something where CONCORD might destroy their ships.
It is not unreasonable for some players to regard these HS players as contemptible as they are not willing to do what their opponents are wiling to do, even in a limited sense.
Hell even if you are not willing to gank other players at least have the balls and the willingness to get into repping fleets...but no, you are too damn greedy to give up your own personal ISK harvesting to help a fellow HS player.
All I can respond to this post of yours is: LOL. Can't be bothered explaining why, sorry buddy.
That is it? You can't do anything better than "LOL"....how completely pathetic.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4506
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:54:14 -
[356] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Teckos Pech wrote: What exactly has Kaarous made up?
He made up that I publicly supported RL threats. He claimed that I made up recycled alts thingy. He stated quite clearly that he doesn't believe anything someone from other groups claims. What else you need drawn?
Wut? LInks por favor?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 01:54:46 -
[357] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Mag's wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Seems there's still no clear reason why my Freighter pilot deserves special treatment via protection from bumping. Seeing as my freighter pilot has been in far less risk than Mag's ever has, I tend to agree. Many trips, never a loss. So going by the risk table used by the AG crowd, shouldn't webbing and hauling get nerfed? Wasn't hauling nerfed when freighters got low slots (choice - tank vs capacity)? As for webbing, since it is not a 100% counter to bumping in reality I'd have nothing against its removal (just do make a viable proposal for that). Seriously....you are asking for the removal of webbing freighters? No I'm not. Mag suggested it, I have nothing against it, but I'm not asking for it. Clearer now? |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 02:00:37 -
[358] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Teckos Pech wrote: What exactly has Kaarous made up?
He made up that I publicly supported RL threats. He claimed that I made up recycled alts thingy. He stated quite clearly that he doesn't believe anything someone from other groups claims. What else you need drawn? Wut? LInks por favor?
Here's the death threats part https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6306176#post6306176. The rest is in past two-three pages (and not as serious as this crap is) so find it yourself. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16032
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 02:01:14 -
[359] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:He claimed that I made up recycled alts thingy.
You did. You claimed it was alts used for ganking with negative sec status.
All you proved was one character in Doomheim, which means nothing.
Quote: He stated quite clearly that he doesn't believe anything someone from other groups claims.
Nope. Not "other groups", I get along well with a lot of people, actually.
YOUR group, on the other hand...
"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
21059
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 02:02:00 -
[360] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Mag's wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Seems there's still no clear reason why my Freighter pilot deserves special treatment via protection from bumping. Seeing as my freighter pilot has been in far less risk than Mag's ever has, I tend to agree. Many trips, never a loss. So going by the risk table used by the AG crowd, shouldn't webbing and hauling get nerfed? Wasn't hauling nerfed when freighters got low slots (choice - tank vs capacity)? As for webbing, since it is not a 100% counter to bumping in reality I'd have nothing against its removal (just do make a viable proposal for that). That nerf was requested by your side and it was in fact the gankers that warned pilots that it would result in a nerf. Hardly something that can be laid at our feet now is it? What they wanted was fittings to be safer, plus the same ship. What they got was a ship that didn't perform as well as before.
Since nothing should be 100%, I don't see your point. But webbing does remove the chance of being bumped to almost as near to that, as not worth arguing over.
Plus I'm not the one wanting change here. I'm merely pointing out the irony, of using the risk argument. Just as it's use regarding bumping. If it's so risk free, then create risk or use that so called risk free mechanic yourself.
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.
16032
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 02:03:08 -
[361] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
So now you're a liar again.
"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
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 02:04:34 -
[362] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Mag's wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Seems there's still no clear reason why my Freighter pilot deserves special treatment via protection from bumping. Seeing as my freighter pilot has been in far less risk than Mag's ever has, I tend to agree. Many trips, never a loss. So going by the risk table used by the AG crowd, shouldn't webbing and hauling get nerfed? Wasn't hauling nerfed when freighters got low slots (choice - tank vs capacity)? As for webbing, since it is not a 100% counter to bumping in reality I'd have nothing against its removal (just do make a viable proposal for that). That nerf was requested by your side and it was in fact the gankers that warned pilots that it would result in a nerf. Hardly something that can be laid at our feet now is it? What they wanted was fittings to be safer, plus the same ship. What they got was a ship that didn't perform as well as before. Since nothing should be 100%, I don't see your point. But webbing does remove the chance of being bumped to almost as near to that, as not worth arguing over. Plus I'm not the one wanting change here. I'm merely pointing out the irony, of using the risk argument. Just as it's use regarding bumping. If it's so risk free, then create risk or use that so called risk free mechanic yourself.
And all I'm trying to discuss is how silly bumping as an aggression free warp disruption can be in hisec + the rather un-intuitive nature of DST looting. Nothing more, nothing less. |
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21061
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 02:05:58 -
[363] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Teckos Pech wrote: What exactly has Kaarous made up?
He made up that I publicly supported RL threats. He claimed that I made up recycled alts thingy. He stated quite clearly that he doesn't believe anything someone from other groups claims. What else you need drawn? Wut? LInks por favor? Here's the death threats part https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6306176#post6306176 (EDIT: link doesn't work properly, go to the end of the page and you'll see the post). The rest is in past two-three pages (and not as serious as this crap is) so find it yourself. You need to fix your link. That's one of a quote from Black Pedro.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44062
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 02:07:34 -
[364] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Wasn't hauling nerfed when freighters got low slots (choice - tank vs capacity)? How is choice a nerf?
The base EHP was increased and with full cargo expanders the cargo capacity greater than before (21-25% larger for freighters and 1-2% for Jump Freighters)?
How is more EHP and ability to fit tank or gain greater cargo in anyway a nerf?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=345280&_ga=1.16959609.1743750090.1442478155
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21061
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 02:10:08 -
[365] - Quote
Well because many wanted the same original stats, but with fittings. They were quite amazed and upset when this didn't happen, therefore think of it as a nerf. But anyone with Eve knowledge will know that's not how it works.
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
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 02:12:18 -
[366] - Quote
And indeed I've confused Kaarous and Black Pedro in terms of rl threat thing quote, my aplogize for that part (the rest stands). It's quite late here |
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21061
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 02:12:31 -
[367] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:And all I'm trying to discuss is how silly bumping as an aggression free warp disruption can be in hisec + the rather un-intuitive nature of DST looting. Nothing more, nothing less. And if there were no options to avoid and counter it, I would agree. But seeing as it's been shown in this thread and in game options do exist, I don't see your point.
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.
16034
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 02:18:50 -
[368] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:And indeed I've confused Kaarous and Black Pedro in terms of rl threat thing quote, my aplogize for that part (the rest stands). It's quite late here
"the rest stands"?
What rest?
The part where you claimed that alts were being recycled for ganking, then abjectly failed to prove anything of the sort?
Or the part where you claim that I'm some kind of xenophobe, when in fact I've already repeatedly told you that I specifically have a problem with you and your little group?
So please, tell me. What "rest" are you referring to? Or are you too tired to think that one through either?
"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
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 02:19:36 -
[369] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:And all I'm trying to discuss is how silly bumping as an aggression free warp disruption can be in hisec + the rather un-intuitive nature of DST looting. Nothing more, nothing less. And if there were no options to avoid and counter it, I would agree. But seeing as it's been shown in this thread and in game options do exist, I don't see your point.
Well, it's not just my point. In terms of options - there really are few and some of them are problematic to say at least (ganking the bumper for example), however I think and I bet you'd find quite a few people agreeing that while bumping an afk pilot might be ok in a cosmic-justice sense, ability to permabump an active freighter pilot is a bit too much. Providing an option for the freighter pilot to (through active game-play by that player) get away would make sense. The problem is the fact that once first bump lands (and, as we've established so far - that can happen regardless of having a webber alt) when faced with a good bumper you can't get out legally and the bumper has no consequences. I don't understand how that fact is so logical or acceptable. |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 02:28:11 -
[370] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:And indeed I've confused Kaarous and Black Pedro in terms of rl threat thing quote, my aplogize for that part (the rest stands). It's quite late here "the rest stands"? What rest? The part where you claimed that alts were being recycled for ganking, then abjectly failed to prove anything of the sort? Or the part where you claim that I'm some kind of xenophobe, when in fact I've already repeatedly told you that I specifically have a problem with you and your little group? So please, tell me. What "rest" are you referring to? Or are you too tired to think that one through either?
Look, I mixed you up with Pedro on threats thing and apologized for it.
In order to illustrate my point, I've linked you one example of a char being used for freighter ganks which has been recycled. There have been more, I will certainly not look for them now and if you chose not to believe, that's fine by me.
If you automatically reject any argument by individuals solely due to them belonging to a certain group (even if it is anti-gankers) then yes, you are biased (don't think what you do qualifies as xenophobia though). |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17222
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 02:32:11 -
[371] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Mag's wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:And all I'm trying to discuss is how silly bumping as an aggression free warp disruption can be in hisec + the rather un-intuitive nature of DST looting. Nothing more, nothing less. And if there were no options to avoid and counter it, I would agree. But seeing as it's been shown in this thread and in game options do exist, I don't see your point. Well, it's not just my point. In terms of options - there really are few and some of them are problematic to say at least (ganking the bumper for example), however I think and I bet you'd find quite a few people agreeing that while bumping an afk pilot might be ok in a cosmic-justice sense, ability to permabump an active freighter pilot is a bit too much. Providing an option for the freighter pilot to (through active game-play by that player) get away would make sense. The problem is the fact that once first bump lands (and, as we've established so far - that can happen regardless of having a webber alt) when faced with a good bumper you can't get out legally and the bumper has no consequences. I don't understand how that fact is so logical or acceptable.
Because even when bumped you can get out of it very easily either by warping to a fast ship out in front of the bumped freighter or by counter bumping the bumpers.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16034
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 02:35:49 -
[372] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Look, I mixed you up with Pedro on threats thing and apologized for it.
From my perspective, you lied, got caught on it, and are backpedaling.
Anyone else care to weigh in?
"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
21066
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 02:36:11 -
[373] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Mag's wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:And all I'm trying to discuss is how silly bumping as an aggression free warp disruption can be in hisec + the rather un-intuitive nature of DST looting. Nothing more, nothing less. And if there were no options to avoid and counter it, I would agree. But seeing as it's been shown in this thread and in game options do exist, I don't see your point. Well, it's not just my point. In terms of options - there really are few and some of them are problematic to say at least (ganking the bumper for example), however I think and I bet you'd find quite a few people agreeing that while bumping an afk pilot might be ok in a cosmic-justice sense, ability to permabump an active freighter pilot is a bit too much. Providing an option for the freighter pilot to (through active game-play by that player) get away would make sense. The problem is the fact that once first bump lands (and, as we've established so far - that can happen regardless of having a webber alt) when faced with a good bumper you can't get out legally and the bumper has no consequences. I don't understand how that fact is so logical or acceptable. I still don't see your point. Not because I'm being awkward, but because it relies upon such a narrow set of circumstances. All in an attempt to justify a change.
Let me explain. You say we've established one can still be bumped, even when webbed. I say so what? Nothing should be 100%, nothing. But just how often does this happen? Truthfully now, I would say extremely rarely. So avoidance with webbs is an rather good option to have. Whether it's too good, is by the by.
So then we arrive at someone being bumped. So seeing how webbing is very good at avoiding this, when a pilots ends up being bumped, just how easy should it be to escape? You see we've already had the easy part, now it's the hard part. But they can escape, as bumping is again not 100%. You can bump the bumper, kill the bumper, always use a jump freighter, or have a friend in a fast small ship try and position himself in the direction of the bump. Easy? No, it requires effort. Doable? Yes, with effort.
I would also say balanced. Whether you like it or not, to change something that's easily avoidable and also escapable after, (even if that escape takes some effort and isn't guaranteed) isn't justifiable. Especially when those changes may impact the game, in so many other negative ways.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44064
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 02:41:23 -
[374] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:The problem is the fact that once first bump lands (and, as we've established so far - that can happen regardless of having a webber alt) when faced with a good bumper you can't get out legally and the bumper has no consequences. I don't understand how that fact is so logical or acceptable. It's difficult to accept for the simple reason that no where has this been shown to be a problem.
Freighter and even more JF pilots have options to avoid being bumped in the first place. That alone reduces the risk of being bumped to a level much lower than other risks in the game.
So if someone is bumped, either because they failed to protect themselves (their fault), or had something occour out of their control (eg. disconnect), then bad luck to them in both cases.
Disconnects and lag happen to everyone, so it's just an unfortunate and no different for a freighter than anyone else. Just bad luck that doesn't favour one over the other (since a bumping Mach could also disconnect).
Failure to protect your own assets is no one's fault except for the Freighter/JF pilot and why should they gain special treatment for being dumb?
Why, if someone takes the right precautions is any change necessary at all. The risk of loss is extremely low that the idea it is a problem seems strange.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 02:52:28 -
[375] - Quote
Because even when bumped you can get out of it very easily either by warping to a fast ship out in front of the bumped freighter or by counter bumping the bumpers.[/quote]
Well, I've actually done these things so:
- warping to a fast ship only works if the bumper pays no attention to what's going on and does not change his bump vector. We've had fleets with 3-4 people in fast ships trying to provide warpins and more often then not it would not work. - bumping the bumper is very hard and unreliable. you might land one hit but he recovers from it quickly and then gets another bump on freighter.
Other things I've participated in: - suicide webbing the bumper in order to provide window for the freighter - repper fleets - bumping the freighter into warp (using machariel) - bumping the freighter as the gank fleet lands - alphaing gankers using arty loki, cane and/or tornado - haven't participated in the gank but have assisted with ganking a bumper - popping the loot - ganking the scanner alts - stealing loot
maybe some other stuff I can't think of right now.
After all I can tell that atm the game is skewed towards gankers by a large margin precisely thanks to bumping which provides choice of timing, ability for lazy ping-based reactions and the ability to avoid any opposition. I can see why big ganking groups are opposing the potential chages of bumping but in reality it would not make ganking impossible just more pro-active for both sides. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16035
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 02:55:59 -
[376] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: After all I can tell that atm the game is skewed towards gankers by a large margin precisely thanks to bumping which provides choice of timing, ability for lazy ping-based reactions and the ability to avoid any opposition. I can see why big ganking groups are opposing the potential chages of bumping but in reality it would not make ganking impossible just more pro-active for both sides.
Nevermind the "if anti ganking failed, then it must be broken" fallacy.
Contrast this little rant to the "It would not nerf ganking" emphatic that he's been peddling in the thread for page after page.
Carebears always lie.
"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
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 03:02:02 -
[377] - Quote
Mag's wrote:I would also say balanced. Whether you like it or not, to change something that's easily avoidable and also escapable after, (even if that escape takes some effort and isn't guaranteed) isn't justifiable. Especially when those changes may impact the game, in so many other negative ways. Well, I would have said that it was balanced before I joined AG and participated in their efforts to prevent ganks. Then you see the other side and the fact that it really is far from it (I've tried providing short explanation why above, long ones can be found in other threads where we discussed this topic). I don't think that bumping should be removed from the game or radically changed (due to the potential impact you mention yourself) but providing some options for active gameplay counter to bumping by the freighter pilot would make sense imho. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44065
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 03:09:16 -
[378] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Well, I've actually done these things so:
- warping to a fast ship only works if the bumper pays no attention to what's going on and does not change his bump vector. We've had fleets with 3-4 people in fast ships trying to provide warpins and more often then not it would not work. - bumping the bumper is very hard and unreliable. you might land one hit but he recovers from it quickly and then gets another bump on freighter.
Other things I've participated in: - suicide webbing the bumper in order to provide window for the freighter - repper fleets - bumping the freighter into warp (using machariel) - bumping the freighter as the gank fleet lands - alphaing gankers using arty loki, cane and/or tornado - haven't participated in the gank but have assisted with ganking a bumper - popping the loot - ganking the scanner alts - stealing loot
maybe some other stuff I can't think of right now.
After all I can tell that atm the game is skewed towards gankers by a large margin precisely thanks to bumping which provides choice of timing, ability for lazy ping-based reactions and the ability to avoid any opposition. I can see why big ganking groups are opposing the potential chages of bumping but in reality it would not make ganking impossible just more pro-active for both sides. On my Freighter/JF/other hauling alt, I've never had to do any of them.
Even with my crappy ping from Australia, I've never been bumped, despite jumping into systems with Machs sitting on gate. That's all due to the simple use of one webbing alt.
So having made thousands of jumps in highsec in a Freighter and JF (plus other hauling ships), the risk of being bumped in the first place seems extremely low if you are paying attention.
Of course, my experience is only the experience of one person, so it could be argued that my experience is not the normal. So as always, I've looked for evidence to validate the claims and the best data comes from RFF that I posted earlier in the thread.
60-80 pilots on continuously, 100-150 different pilots online during a week, 7500 jumps in highsec every single day on average (2014 figures) for a total of 2.8 million jumps in highsec in the year. For 233,221 completed contracts at an average of 12 jumps in highsec per contract, there was only 245 failed contracts (taking in not only ganks, but also time failures where the customer then failed the contract and kept the collateral as well as thefts).
Evidence that bumping is a problem when people actually manage their risk just seems totally missing.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16036
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 03:13:33 -
[379] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Well, I would have said that it was balanced before I joined AG and participated in their efforts to prevent ganks.
I dunno if you've noticed this yet, but considering you still willingly call yourself one of them I'm imagining you haven't...
But they suck. Really, really hard. Few suck harder. Using them as your example only proves that "mad cause bad" is in full effect here.
"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
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 03:14:14 -
[380] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Contrast this little rant to the "It would not nerf ganking" emphatic that he's been peddling in the thread for page after page.
It would not nerf ganking.
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17224
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 03:16:47 -
[381] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Well, I've actually done these things so:
- warping to a fast ship only works if the bumper pays no attention to what's going on and does not change his bump vector. We've had fleets with 3-4 people in fast ships trying to provide warpins and more often then not it would not work. - bumping the bumper is very hard and unreliable. you might land one hit but he recovers from it quickly and then gets another bump on freighter.
You have done none of these things. How can I tell?
Because as a battleship pilot I know full well how easy it is for a single cruiser to utterly mess up bumping. Toss 5 cruisers at a battleship and it will never get anywhere near the freighter. Equally you have never tried to get a frigate out in front of a bumped ship, you likely never even knew of this tactic until it was pointed out to you in this thread. You simply won't notice a ship pulling this move on a very busy gate such as Uedama before its done.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16036
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 03:18:05 -
[382] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Contrast this little rant to the "It would not nerf ganking" emphatic that he's been peddling in the thread for page after page.
It would not nerf ganking.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:After all I can tell that atm the game is skewed towards gankers by a large margin precisely thanks to bumping
Lie again, I mean try again.
Your intent is crystal clear, no matter how much you try to 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.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44066
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 03:19:53 -
[383] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Contrast this little rant to the "It would not nerf ganking" emphatic that he's been peddling in the thread for page after page.
It would not nerf ganking. Really?
Would ganking be easier, harder or no effect afterwards?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 03:24:29 -
[384] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: You have done none of these things. How can I tell?
... you have never tried to get a frigate out in front of a bumped ship, you likely never even knew of this tactic until it was pointed out to you in this thread...
You simply won't notice a ship pulling this move on a very busy gate such as Uedama before its done.
Ok, I give up. |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
141
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 03:26:53 -
[385] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Contrast this little rant to the "It would not nerf ganking" emphatic that he's been peddling in the thread for page after page.
It would not nerf ganking. Really? Would ganking be easier, harder or no effect afterwards?
Depends on your definition of a gank. I'd say that keeping target in place would be harder but ganking it would pretty much stay the same. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16036
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 03:28:36 -
[386] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Depends on your definition of a gank.
It's like we're talking to ******* Bill Clinton here.
"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
44068
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 03:31:45 -
[387] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Depends on your definition of a gank. I'd say that keeping target in place would be harder but ganking it would pretty much stay the same. So the addition of sentry guns into the equation of how many gank ships are required doesn't mean a change in the requirements to achieve a gank?
More ships to achieve a gank wouldn't be a nerf, but freighters were nerfed when they were given more base EHP and the ability to choose even more tank or up to 25% more capacity?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17225
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 03:33:07 -
[388] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote: You have done none of these things. How can I tell?
... you have never tried to get a frigate out in front of a bumped ship, you likely never even knew of this tactic until it was pointed out to you in this thread...
You simply won't notice a ship pulling this move on a very busy gate such as Uedama before its done.
Ok, I give up.
A raptor will cover that distance in 21 seconds, In order to stop it you have to first notice a frigate is working with the freighter turn around the MWDing battleships, manover them into a new position and then have them pull off a run. You cannot reposition MWDing Battleships in 21 seconds.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4514
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 03:37:34 -
[389] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Teckos Pech wrote: What exactly has Kaarous made up?
He made up that I publicly supported RL threats. He claimed that I made up recycled alts thingy. He stated quite clearly that he doesn't believe anything someone from other groups claims. What else you need drawn? Wut? LInks por favor? Here's the death threats part https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6306176#post6306176 (EDIT2: Ok, link works now) The rest is in past two-three pages (and not as serious as this crap is) so find it yourself.
Sooo...you link a post by you quoting Black Pedro, who is usually a careful and temperate poster....and that is your evidence.
How about you STFU, STFD and failing that GTFO?
I know you'll come back with something snarky because that is just the type of POS poster you are. Whatever. Block whomever you want, I wont block you as I like seeing how the completely intellectually bankrupt post.
BTW, WTF is the death threat there? I mean a death threat! That is some serious ****, and you point to a post by you quoting Black Pedro...were you making a death threat? Should we report you and petition you? Or what?
Please clarify? Were you drunk when you posted that?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4514
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 03:42:39 -
[390] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Depends on your definition of a gank.
It's like we're talking to ******* Bill Clinton here.
Yes, but what exactly is 'is' in this context. Is ganking, 'is' gankimg or 'is' ganking? There is a world of difference you know?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4515
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 03:50:23 -
[391] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu,
I would advise you simply stop posting. I have watched these forums enough to know that Kaarous Alderald would not condone death threats against anyone, let alone Black Pedro. Kaarous and Black Pedro may not see eye-to-eye on every issue but the latter is a careful and temperate poster who, at the very least, should deserve the respect of those he disagrees with. And while Kaarous Alderald can be a bit heated, he is not, by any means, a hot head who would condone let alone resort to death threats.
I do not know what you are playing at, but slinking off to some quiet part of of New Eden would be advised.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
1Lt Aldo Raine
The Inglourious Bastards
6
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 03:53:24 -
[392] - Quote
As my friends have stated we are in no way saying that ganking should be nerfed. It's a tactic, one employed by my team to hunt bumpers and scouts on a daily basis.
We are just asking that bumping and looting be revisited for balance.
Perhaps the loot that was ill gained can remain yellow indefinitely, no matter how many times it is dropped. Like a hot potato.
As a wreck shooter I believe that I add to the risk the gankers take when they kill a freighter. Having a looting freighter ready to go, grab the loot, and warp out without being pointed, and before the wreck gets destroyed by the likes of me takes real skill. Hats off to the pilot that can do it. Looting in a criminal ship that is about to get concorded is an exploit in my opinion: there is no skill involved.
Bumping will probably not get nerfed... But if this was IRL, and given this situation, I would design a ship with stronger web abilities (not just improved webifier range). A naval faction frigate that would actually have been used by a navy faction: as a freighter escort.
Food for thought.
Anyway, long live the militia! Death to Code! |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3035
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 04:10:37 -
[393] - Quote
1Lt Aldo Raine wrote:As my friends have stated we are in no way saying that ganking should be nerfed. It's a tactic, one employed by my team to hunt bumpers and scouts on a daily basis.
Is like saying we are nerfing lasers, but in no way nerfing amarr ships...
Taking away a tactic is still nerfing a playstyle.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44070
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 04:10:39 -
[394] - Quote
1Lt Aldo Raine wrote:Looting in a criminal ship that is about to get concorded is an exploit in my opinion: there is no skill involved. Overall, good post.
On this bit though, can you explain how that aspect is a problem.
The OP claims that the catalysts loot the wreck before dying, which seems to be the same thing you are referring to here given the quote. Back a few pages ago I posted some figures, having looked at it; and it just doesn't seem even remotely plausible.
Initially, I based my figures on 30 catalysts to gank a Freighter, but then looked at zkill and it's 25 catalysts based on several kills in the last few days.
So 1 Providence can carry upwards of 1 million m^3 in it's cargo and each catalyst has 450 m^3 cargo capacity.
Assuming the cargo of the catalysts is completely empty then:
25 x 450 = 11,250 m^3 total capacity.
Any package larger than 450 obviously can't be looted in the initial looting.
So the catalysts need to as a minimum:
1. Kill the freighter 2. Wreck appears in local 3. Open the wreck 4. Loot the first time 5. Jettison their cargo 6. Open the cargo container that is now in space 7. transfer additional loot from the Freighter wreck to the cargo container that has a maximum capacity of 27,500 m^3
Any package larger than 27,500 obviously can't be moved at all out of the wreck by the criminal catalysts; and with 25 containers having a maximum of 687,500 m^3, they can't loot a full freighter anyway.
Each of those steps takes time, especially as the action of the player needs to be sent to the server, queued for the next update cycle, processed and the result sent to all players. Each of those actions is an absolute minimum of 1 second, but more realistically at least 2 seconds.
On top of that, when looting more than can fit into the ship cargo or container, there is an additional step of the pop-up window asking how much to move, adding a further cycle of send, process, receive into the mix.
I have no doubt that players have tried it and maybe even some have achieved it. That alone doesn't make it a problem though. It seems in the absence of data to show how significant a problem it is, that it's a total outlying case if someone manages it successfully.
Why is it a problem that needs to be changed, especially as it seems far from no skill involved to get the timing absolutely perfect?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Iain Cariaba
2465
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 04:25:04 -
[395] - Quote
1Lt Aldo Raine wrote:As my friends have stated we are in no way saying that ganking should be nerfed. It's a tactic, one employed by my team to hunt bumpers and scouts on a daily basis. We are just asking that bumping and looting be revisited for balance. And as it has been explained ad nauseum, it is already balanced. Your unwillingness to use a portion of the tools available doesn't factor into it.
1Lt Aldo Raine wrote:As a wreck shooter I believe that I add to the risk the gankers take when they kill a freighter. Yes, you do, and hats off to you for doing so.
1Lt Aldo Raine wrote:I would design a ship with stronger web abilities (not just improved webifier range). Just fit 2 webs, that's pretty much overkill to get any ship into warp instantly, or to kill a battleship's ability to bump anything.
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?
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
41
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 04:39:24 -
[396] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Well, I would have said that it was balanced before I joined AG and participated in their efforts to prevent ganks.
I dunno if you've noticed this yet, but considering you still willingly call yourself one of them I'm imagining you haven't... But they suck. Really, really hard. Few suck harder. Using them as your example only proves that "mad cause bad" is in full effect here.
Wow... So that's what it comes down to. Next thing you are going to do is insult mothers. I should not be surprised.
You gankers are pretty set in your ways, when when things are leaning your way, and they are. As Rhamnousia said, its many things on the other side which AG can't control. I would not expect you to understand that. However please, if you have nothing constructive to say to this topic, please refrain from posting.
Thank you. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4515
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 04:54:10 -
[397] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Well, I would have said that it was balanced before I joined AG and participated in their efforts to prevent ganks.
I dunno if you've noticed this yet, but considering you still willingly call yourself one of them I'm imagining you haven't... But they suck. Really, really hard. Few suck harder. Using them as your example only proves that "mad cause bad" is in full effect here. Wow... So that's what it comes down to. Next thing you are going to do is insult mothers. I should not be surprised. You gankers are pretty set in your ways, when when things are leaning your way, and they are. As Rhamnousia said, its many things on the other side which AG can't control. I would not expect you to understand that. However please, if you have nothing constructive to say to this topic, please refrain from posting. Thank you.
AG would be much for effective if they did one thing, get over AG and gank the bumping ship. 3 guys in tornadoes should do it. It is relatively cheap on a per person basis relative to the loss for the bumper and will save lots of ships.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
41
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 05:20:10 -
[398] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote: AG would be much for effective if they did one thing, get over AG and gank the bumping ship. 3 guys in tornadoes should do it. It is relatively cheap on a per person basis relative to the loss for the bumper and will save lots of ships.
I agree, ganking a Mach is a good way to do it, However with the amount of Machs they have ready to go, and other pilots ready to bump, it is not always a guarantied stop to gank. It is tougher then you think to gank a Mach that is constantly moving and bumping. A few things need to come together for that to happen.
This however is what I love about the game, gankers are not completely safe, AG is not completely safe, we have been ganked while protecting the freighter. It happens sometimes. I would not want to take that away from Eve.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44070
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 05:27:51 -
[399] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:I agree, ganking a Mach is a good way to do it, However with the amount of Machs they have ready to go, and other pilots ready to bump, it is not always a guarantied stop to gank. It is tougher then you think to gank a Mach that is constantly moving and bumping. A few things need to come together for that to happen.
Everytime I jump through a gate and see a Mach at the gate, it's stationary, waiting for a freighter to jump in so it can bump it.
Why not gank it while it's stationary?
It's not like the bumping characters aren't known and you'd accidently gank an innocent Machariel hanging around a gate in a common ganking system.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 05:50:38 -
[400] - Quote
My final suggestion in between this pillow fight of a thread :)......
If any ship is unable to reach warp within 20-30 minutes of starting the WarpTo/Dock process, collision detection is dropped for that ship. Most bumps last 15 minutes before gank anyway....so still fair? Most AGer have no problem with bumping itself....its just length of time those bumps can last. Ransomers still have to time bluff they have a fleet to kill if they choose too. If the bumped ship attempts to change is WarpTo location, timers start over. If they are smart its to a station or a safe spot to log off... if its a empty system. They can be followed to next system and the whole process starts over. |
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44070
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 05:54:54 -
[401] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:My final suggestion in between this pillow fight of a thread :)......
If any ship is unable to reach warp within 20-30 minutes of starting the WarpTo/Dock process, collision detection is dropped for that ship. Most bumps last 15 minutes before gank anyway....so still fair? Most AGer have no problem with bumping itself....its just length of time those bumps can last. Ransomers still have to time bluff they have a fleet to kill if they choose too. If the bumped ship attempts to change is WarpTo location, timers start over. If they are smart its to a station or a safe spot to log off... if its a empty system. They can be followed to next system and the whole process starts over. What affect will that have on trying to hold a super/titan in null or lowsec while waiting for a hictor or dictor?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 07:15:24 -
[402] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:My final suggestion in between this pillow fight of a thread :)......
If any ship is unable to reach warp within 20-30 minutes of starting the WarpTo/Dock process, collision detection is dropped for that ship. Most bumps last 15 minutes before gank anyway....so still fair? Most AGer have no problem with bumping itself....its just length of time those bumps can last. Ransomers still have to time bluff they have a fleet to kill if they choose too. If the bumped ship attempts to change is WarpTo location, timers start over. If they are smart its to a station or a safe spot to log off... if its a empty system. They can be followed to next system and the whole process starts over. What affect will that have on trying to hold a super/titan in null or lowsec while waiting for a hictor or dictor? Additionally, 20-30 minutes from when? If the bumping ship is changed to someone else, does the time reset, or is it from the first collision that happens? If it's from the time of the first collision, then surely my best option as a freighter pilot would be to consider bumping myself if I think I might be bumped, so that the timer starts? If it's not from the first collision, but is ship specific, then as per the OP several times in the thread, there are numerous bumping ships ready to go all the time, so it would be easy to swap them out and the change would have 0 effect on freighter bumping.
So to avoid the lowsec/null issue.... if you any scrams/disruptors are activated against the bump target, collision detection stays intact during that time.
A 20-30 timer starts automatically(even if system is empty) as soon as right click, warp to/dock is attempted or Autopilot attempting to start the process. Bumps/Collisions have no bearing on when that timer starts. The timer can restart, IF they stop their ship and attempt warp again to another location, given bumping ships another advantage. Bumpers are only attempting to bump until its ganked or timer expires, at which any thing around the freighter just passes thru it. If freighter reaches successful warp....timer off, collision detection restored before that warp ends.
It doesn't even have to a ship causing the issue.....could be a asteroid or gate keeping you bouncing around while trying to warp. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44076
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 07:29:51 -
[403] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:So to avoid the lowsec/null issue.... if you any scrams/disruptors are activated against the bump target, collision detection stays intact during that time. What?
Normal scrams and points don't work against supers and titans.
Quote:A 20-30 timer starts automatically(even if system is empty) as soon as right click, warp to/dock is attempted or Autopilot attempting to start the process. Bumps/Collisions have no bearing on when that timer starts. The timer can restart, IF they stop their ship and attempt warp again to another location, given bumping ships another advantage. Bumpers are only attempting to bump until its ganked or timer expires, at which any thing around the freighter just passes thru it. If freighter reaches successful warp....timer off, collision detection restored before that warp ends.
It doesn't even have to a ship causing the issue.....could be a asteroid or gate keeping you bouncing around while trying to warp. Awesome for supers and titans then.
Anything passes through it? As though it isn't there at all? I certainly hope that is never a change CCP consider seriously.
Bimping is specifically not an exploit in this game: https://support.eveonline.com/hc/en-us/articles/204873262-Known-Declared-Exploits
As a result, I still don't understand where the idea is coming from that bumping is a problem than needs mechanics to be changed for. Not a single person has shown that it is an issue that should be dealt with and everything I have been able to find shows how little risk there is if someone takes responsibility for their own safety as we all should.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 08:25:27 -
[404] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:So to avoid the lowsec/null issue.... if you any scrams/disruptors are activated against the bump target, collision detection stays intact during that time. What? Normal scrams and points don't work against supers and titans. Quote:A 20-30 timer starts automatically(even if system is empty) as soon as right click, warp to/dock is attempted or Autopilot attempting to start the process. Bumps/Collisions have no bearing on when that timer starts. The timer can restart, IF they stop their ship and attempt warp again to another location, given bumping ships another advantage. Bumpers are only attempting to bump until its ganked or timer expires, at which any thing around the freighter just passes thru it. If freighter reaches successful warp....timer off, collision detection restored before that warp ends.
It doesn't even have to a ship causing the issue.....could be a asteroid or gate keeping you bouncing around while trying to warp. Awesome for supers and titans then. Anything passes through it? As though it isn't there at all? I certainly hope that is never a change CCP consider seriously. Bimping is specifically not an exploit in this game: https://support.eveonline.com/hc/en-us/articles/204873262-Known-Declared-Exploits As a result, I still don't understand where the idea is coming from that bumping is a problem than needs mechanics to be changed for. Not a single person has shown that it is an issue that should be dealt with and everything I have been able to find shows how little risk there is if someone takes responsibility for their own safety as we all should.
OK, by security then....0.5 below collision never disabled. Yes, bumping is NOT an exploit....but just tonight I seen a orca bumped for an hour and finally let go. Atleast set a time limit, no? So not an exploit, just bumper being a douche for an hour because he can be. Either gank, convince them to pay ransom or let them go.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44076
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 08:39:29 -
[405] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:OK, by security then....0.5 below collision never disabled. Yes, bumping is NOT an exploit....but just tonight I seen a orca bumped for an hour and finally let go. Atleast set a time limit, no? So not an exploit, just bumper being a douche for an hour because he can be. Either gank, convince them to pay ransom or let them go. Did the Orca pilot have a webbing alt? Or was he caught in a belt with no protection?
Did you really sit there for an hour and just watch, doing nothing?
Additionally, this game allows all sorts of things to occur and no one is a douche for using the mechanics as they can be used.
That's no different from saying you were a douche for just watching the Orca be bumped for an hour. That would of course be a totally unreasonable thing to say, just as it is for you to call another player a douche just for playing the game.
So, no there should be no time limit. If I am stupid enough not to protect my Freighter with a webbing alt (or my Orca for that matter), then more fool me. In the unfortunate situation where I lag and get caught, or disconnect; then that's just bad luck the same as everyone can have.
There is no need for special mechanics to protect people that fail to protect themselves.
If it can be shown that bumping is a huge risk for people (even when they take steps to look after their safety), then I'll be all for it. Fairs, fair after all and if something is unreasonable, then no problem to change it.
But so far no one has shown that the scale of the issue is a problem, so it seems there is no real problem other than a belief that where it does happen, the "douche" players shouldn't be allowed to play their game. Only every one else is entitled to that.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4521
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 08:55:57 -
[406] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Teckos Pech wrote: AG would be much for effective if they did one thing, get over AG and gank the bumping ship. 3 guys in tornadoes should do it. It is relatively cheap on a per person basis relative to the loss for the bumper and will save lots of ships.
I agree, ganking a Mach is a good way to do it, However with the amount of Machs they have ready to go, and other pilots ready to bump, it is not always a guarantied stop to gank. It is tougher then you think to gank a Mach that is constantly moving and bumping. A few things need to come together for that to happen. This however is what I love about the game, gankers are not completely safe, AG is not completely safe, we have been ganked while protecting the freighter. It happens sometimes. I would not want to take that away from Eve.
I have rarely seen more than 1 mach on a gate in Uedama, they might have one on each gate, but not more than that. Besides, reship and just gank again.
Hell get 10-15 guys in catalysts and it is an ISK war most HS industrial/mission runners can win hands down.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4521
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 10:13:22 -
[407] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:
OK, by security then....0.5 below collision never disabled. Yes, bumping is NOT an exploit....but just tonight I seen a orca bumped for an hour and finally let go. Atleast set a time limit, no? So not an exploit, just bumper being a douche for an hour because he can be. Either gank, convince them to pay ransom or let them go.
So you watched him get bumped for an hour and did....nothing.
Wow, glad I am not your friend as you are next to useless.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2152
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 10:49:09 -
[408] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:I know you'll come back with something snarky because that is just the type of POS poster you are. Whatever. Block whomever you want, I wont block you as I like seeing how the completely intellectually bankrupt post.
BTW, WTF is the death threat there? I mean a death threat! That is some serious ****, and you point to a post by you quoting Black Pedro...were you making a death threat? Should we report you and petition you? Or what?
Please clarify? Were you drunk when you posted that? The death threat discussion I was referring to was in this thread where our friend said that if I was "seriously complaining" about receiving death threats there was "something really wrong" with me. When I called him on it he responded with a snarky non-answer leading me to conclusion that he condones such EULA-breaking behaviour. I only raised this off-topic issue in response to him accusing me of "hating a specific section" of the player-base which is, of course, nonsense. Any "bitterness" he may feel from me towards him is personal, and I have no issues with miners, haulers, anti-gankers or pretty much anyone else who plays this game aside from our friend and the few like them that accept such treatment of another human being as OK.
Now in this thread he has made it explicitly clear that he does actually does not condone such behaviour and I am willing to accept that statement at face value and let it go, and really my personal feelings towards anyone have no bearing on this discussion anyway. Bumping and looting are the issues at hand, and I have made clear my views on them and my thoughts on the proposed "ideas" to fix a problem which has not been established to exist. Freighters are suppose to die and pirates are suppose to be rewarded with loot for their actions. Ideas that have the primary outcome of significantly reducing or eliminating them are just not going to be implemented, and honestly freighter ganking is such a niche while intended activity, CCP is not likely to divert many resources to changes things even if we came up with an amazing idea here unless it was extremely simple to code.
It's a little ironic (and reassuring) that with each nerf the carebears lobby for and manage to get implemented, they decrease the number of ganks and thus their ability to present a valid case for more nerfs. At some point, which we are already probably well past, ganking becomes so rare that CCP will be unwilling to spend any more resources "fixing" something that barely any players engage in any more. It's hard to make a case to start a large development effort rebalance ganking gameplay more in favour of haulers when only a handful of freighters explode everyday, and when there a much more pressing issues for the game that affect many more players. |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
197
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 10:58:32 -
[409] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Sooo...you link a post by you quoting Black Pedro, who is usually a careful and temperate poster....and that is your evidence.
How about you STFU, STFD and failing that GTFO?
I know you'll come back with something snarky because that is just the type of POS poster you are. Whatever. Block whomever you want, I wont block you as I like seeing how the completely intellectually bankrupt post.
BTW, WTF is the death threat there? I mean a death threat! That is some serious ****, and you point to a post by you quoting Black Pedro...were you making a death threat? Should we report you and petition you? Or what?
Please clarify? Were you drunk when you posted that?
The guy (Pedro) claimed I have publicly taken the position that he deserves the death threats he gets. I misattributed that to Kaarous, saw my mistake and apologized in this thread. Still, what Pedro said is a blatant lie. Need anything else explained? Anyway, let's stick to the topic. |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
197
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 11:14:28 -
[410] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:The death threat discussion I was referring to was in this thread where our friend said that if I was "seriously complaining" about receiving death threats there was "something really wrong" with me.
And once again - masters of spin work their magic. Plase do try and don't take my words out of context giving them whatever meaning you want to give them.
The whole paragraph was: " So folks known for pushing people's buttons to get them raging are complaining about people raging. Well, unless they are once again collectively trolling (which is most likely), this is bloody amusing. Not justifying folks who fall into trap that CODErs so like to set with their 'calm down miner' narrative, but there's a much simpler solution to all the homophobic, racist and other TOS breaking speech - simply report the guy and don't make much of it. However, as we all know, CODE in fact thrives on getting people to rage and then laughing about it. So - once again, if you are seriously complaining about that happening, there is something really wrong with you guys. "
So the talk was not about you, it was about CODE, and the point of what I wrote, as you hopefully can understand, is that pushing people into rage (which quite a few codies aim to do... perhaps you do too... are you in code even?) and then complaining about the results makes no sense whatsoever. Nowhere did I explicitly say - what you claim, that RL death threats are acceptable, that I support them or that you deserve them. And if you're wondering, no I don't. Now, back to subject. |
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2152
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 11:45:49 -
[411] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Nowhere did I explicitly say - what you claim, that RL death threats are acceptable, that I support them or that you deserve them. And if you're wondering, no I don't. Now, back to subject.
That's what I said - nowhere did you explicitly say you support death threats and now you have put on the record that my interpretation of your non-response response was wrong. I am very glad you don't condone that vile behaviour.
Now back to the subject.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16046
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 15:04:00 -
[412] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote: Wow... So that's what it comes down to.
Yep. Mad cause bad.
You refuse to use all the tools available, and claim that somehow justifies adding more nerfs.
You're wrong, you're spouting complete non logic, and you are what's wrong with this game.
"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
21084
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 15:19:08 -
[413] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Mag's wrote:I would also say balanced. Whether you like it or not, to change something that's easily avoidable and also escapable after, (even if that escape takes some effort and isn't guaranteed) isn't justifiable. Especially when those changes may impact the game, in so many other negative ways. Well, I would have said that it was balanced before I joined AG and participated in their efforts to prevent ganks. Then you see the other side and the fact that it really is far from it (I've tried providing short explanation why above, long ones can be found in other threads where we discussed this topic). I don't think that bumping should be removed from the game or radically changed (due to the potential impact you mention yourself) but providing some options for active gameplay counter to bumping by the freighter pilot would make sense imho. I don't mind people simply quoting parts of a post, but it's a little bit much when they then talk about the very thing that was edited out.
You may have seen a different side when you joined AG. But that's as I said before, you are at the not as easy and needs effort stage. What you fail to take into account and include here, is the many who have simple sailed by. With webs and or other means.
The easy part doesn't even affect you, so you don't see it. Someone learning that webs are so efficient and removing risk, will use it and will unlikely be seen by you again.
So I ask when there are already options available and you are almost guaranteed to avoid a gank using a web, why does bumping need a change? And when looting can also be interrupted so easily, why does this also need a change? You have to justify changes that may negatively affect the game. Using specific circumstances that already are avoidable, isn't a justifiable reason.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:It would not nerf ganking. It quite obviously would, it's disingenuous to say otherwise.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2096
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 16:33:02 -
[414] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:So basically the anti-gankers are so bad at EVE and fail constantly daily all the time non stop that they created another whine thread to get a buff in their favour. Because we didn't have that already and they are still failing non stop daily without a break.
I guess if you are that bad at EVE and can't stop a gank even if all the mechanics in Highsec are already extremely in your favour you may as well write a whine forum post while loyal dunks some freighter right on top of your face and you are watching from the sideline. Thanks again really adding nothing to the conversation, go keep taking fleet warps and push F1 like a good minion. I'm not about removing the gank ability. If Code brings 25-30 ships to gank a freighter, with out a fleet of support for that freighter, it will probably die. I am not suggesting that change at all. That is Eve. It is other things related to the gank that need to change. The problem here is not bumping, it is an anti-ganker community full of toxic and bad players who somehow think because they play on the side of the "good guys" they are entitled to special treatment by CCP and should be able to constantly get the game changed in their favor.
There is really nothing to discuss here at all. If you want to change things step up your game and do it yourself. Otherwise accept to get ridiculed for those whine threads which are nothing other than solid prove about your incompetence at playing this game.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 17:11:39 -
[415] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Brad Neece wrote:
OK, by security then....0.5 below collision never disabled. Yes, bumping is NOT an exploit....but just tonight I seen a orca bumped for an hour and finally let go. Atleast set a time limit, no? So not an exploit, just bumper being a douche for an hour because he can be. Either gank, convince them to pay ransom or let them go.
So you watched him get bumped for an hour and did....nothing. Wow, glad I am not your friend as you are next to useless.
Well attention was on elsewhere on other targets, they were actually getting ganked. He was bumped for an hour, while a fleet was ganking freely in system, with little regard to this Orca 2000 km off gate before it was let go :)
|
Nitshe Razvedka
State War Academy Caldari State
387
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 17:18:03 -
[416] - Quote
Whiney Gankers, esp CODE cultists, feel they can use exploits because a few years game play gives them entitlement to do so.
Ganking Freighters is MACRO style now (an they curse bots).
Bump with NPC alts an send in 29 gankers from a bookmark. Its a formulae now with very little risk for reward.
How much of CODEs 800bill is from this exploit/scam, countless risk free billions.
Does not matter your sec status, if you book mark well with your ganking bot team you can avoid most interdiction.
Even moving concord around like a dance partner is a joke. Manoeuvre them to 150 klicks from intended tgt and you have cut into the response time effectively.
CCP in the interests of player retention knows the figures and needs to adjust the mechanics. James315 is not buying any plex this month. Ignore the Anti-Gank population and see your business model die. Time we flex our muscle above the whiney white noise of the entitled generation of ganker. Force these habitual gankers to experience more of the game; real pvp, incursions, null sec etc.
CCP can't continue to cater to the special needs of a minority, gankers with an obsessive compulsive disorder, no matter how loud their temper tantrums or tear rages. Enough is enough.
Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.
Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44095
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 17:22:14 -
[417] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Brad Neece wrote:
OK, by security then....0.5 below collision never disabled. Yes, bumping is NOT an exploit....but just tonight I seen a orca bumped for an hour and finally let go. Atleast set a time limit, no? So not an exploit, just bumper being a douche for an hour because he can be. Either gank, convince them to pay ransom or let them go.
So you watched him get bumped for an hour and did....nothing. Wow, glad I am not your friend as you are next to useless. Well attention was on elsewhere on other targets, they were actually getting ganked. He was bumped for an hour, while a fleet was ganking freely in system, with little regard to this Orca 2000 km off gate before it was let go :) A fleet was ganking freely?
With a 15 minute criminal timer every gank, the maximum number of ganks possible was 4 for a fleet and the total time active in space would have been no more than 5 minutes in ganking.
So for 55 minutes there was no ganking going on.
Who were the two pilots involved? Bumper and Orca pilot?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 17:24:51 -
[418] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:OK, by security then....0.5 below collision never disabled. Yes, bumping is NOT an exploit....but just tonight I seen a orca bumped for an hour and finally let go. Atleast set a time limit, no? So not an exploit, just bumper being a douche for an hour because he can be. Either gank, convince them to pay ransom or let them go. Did the Orca pilot have a webbing alt? Or was he caught in a belt with no protection? Did you really sit there for an hour and just watch, doing nothing? Additionally, this game allows all sorts of things to occur and no one is a douche for using the mechanics as they can be used. That's no different from saying you were a douche for just watching the Orca be bumped for an hour. That would of course be a totally unreasonable thing to say, just as it is for you to call another player a douche just for playing the game. So, no there should be no time limit. If I am stupid enough not to protect my Freighter with a webbing alt (or my Orca for that matter), then more fool me. In the unfortunate situation where I lag and get caught, or disconnect; then that's just bad luck the same as everyone can have. There is no need for special mechanics to protect me if I fail to protect myself. If it can be shown that bumping is a huge risk for people (even when they take steps to look after their safety), then I'll be all for it. Fairs, fair after all and if something is unreasonable, then no problem to change it. But so far no one has shown that the scale of the issue is a problem, so it seems there is no real problem other than a belief that where it does happen, the "douche" players shouldn't be allowed to play their game. Only every one else is entitled to that.
You make fair points and I bow out gracefully from further suggestions :)......so basically your view, is that as long numbers aren't excessive, there needs to be no changes. As 98% make their trip freely? I addressed the Orca in somebody elses reply I wont bother rehashing it o7
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16054
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 17:29:29 -
[419] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:As 98% make their trip freely?
More than that. There were Red Frog numbers posted earlier, and they fail maybe 1% of their deliveries. And you can't very well chalk ALL of those up to ganking.
There is no problem here. The only "problem" here is that some people think there shouldn't be any consequences for playing the game wrong. When there barely are to begin with. Just sit by in Perimeter and watch freighters come in for an hour, watch and see how many of them are completely overloaded, completely afk, and still they don't get ganked. You will see dozens in only an hour.
That's how obscenely safe this damn game is. That only two groups with a nullsec sized SRP can afford to gank. Everyone else got nerfed to death.
"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
44096
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 17:31:34 -
[420] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote: You make fair points and I bow out gracefully from further suggestions :)......so basically your view, is that as long numbers aren't excessive, there needs to be no changes. As 98% make their trip freely?
Actually, as the RFF stats objectively show, 99.9% make it when we use the tools already available to us.
So yes, not just this change, but any proposed change, there needs to be justification for why the change is needed and since 99.9% of hauling makes it when people use the tools already available to them, there doesn't appear to be any justification for providing more. It's already safer than many other activities in the game.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 17:34:46 -
[421] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Brad Neece wrote:
OK, by security then....0.5 below collision never disabled. Yes, bumping is NOT an exploit....but just tonight I seen a orca bumped for an hour and finally let go. Atleast set a time limit, no? So not an exploit, just bumper being a douche for an hour because he can be. Either gank, convince them to pay ransom or let them go.
So you watched him get bumped for an hour and did....nothing. Wow, glad I am not your friend as you are next to useless. Well attention was on elsewhere on other targets, they were actually getting ganked. He was bumped for an hour, while a fleet was ganking freely in system, with little regard to this Orca 2000 km off gate before it was let go :) A fleet was ganking freely? With a 15 minute criminal timer every gank, the maximum number of ganks possible was 4 for a fleet and the total time active in space would have been no more than 5 minutes in ganking. So for 55 minutes there was no ganking going on. Who were the two pilots involved? Bumper and Orca pilot?
Fine..."freely" was bad choice of wording. Forgive me for that noobish response. It was clear there was no intention of ganking the Orca, maybe it was only serving as a distraction. But I'll post bumper and Orca pilots...once I rewatch a Twitch stream to get that information. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2097
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 17:35:30 -
[422] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Brad Neece wrote:As 98% make their trip freely?
More than that. There were Red Frog numbers posted earlier, and they fail maybe 1% of their deliveries. And you can't very well chalk ALL of those up to ganking. I think part of the problem here is the anti-ganker's anti-logic. Maybe they will be ok if we gank 100% of the Freighters. You see, according to anti-logic a ganker has no risk, because he loses his ship in 100% of the time. If we get to the point where we kill 100% of the Freighters there will be no risk left for them as well, so everything will be fine.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 17:41:48 -
[423] - Quote
Just to stick my tuppence worth in, i've always thought that an inbuilt slow cycle ( say 15 mins - 10 mins depending on mjd skill lvl) mjd on freighters would provide an easy fix for the problem of unlimited bumping.
It would be easy to implement , give an ak freighter pilot some small chance of escape when bumped if used intelligently , and wouldn't be too op.
Freighter gets bumped as he jumps into system, he can choose to use the mjd to try and escape if he thinks he's closely aligned enough to a station or stargate, or wait till he sees the gank squad on dscan to try not being there when they land.
Obvious counter for the gankers would have to land a point on the target if the target hadnt used his mjd, which would take a bit of skill and judgment , which if u listen to how awesome they say they are shouldn't cause any issues :) .
Most of the time the freighter would probably still die, but it at least gives the ak pilot some slim chance of escape, rewards not being afk , and requires a wee bit of vigilance on the part of the bumper .
I've been present on many occasions when freighters have been bumped , sometimes for hours ( if i recall correctly i was part of a fleet that spent 4-5 hrs one night b4 successfully rescuing one ) . saving freighters is a lot harder than popping them, esp if they're strangers and won't accept fleet or web duels off ag fleets , which is understandable cos u know, this is eve .
the plus side from my point of view is the content that would be provided when the gank squad warp in jus as the target warps off , and land in the loving embrace of the ag fleets guns . :)
whats not to like? o7 bb
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44097
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 17:43:51 -
[424] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:Fine..."freely" was bad choice of wording. Forgive me for that noobish response. It was clear there was no intention of ganking the Orca, maybe it was only serving as a distraction. But I'll post bumper and Orca pilots...once I rewatch a Twitch stream to get that information. Just post the twitch stream if that's easier. I'm happy to watch it myself.
Im not trying to be a pain here or anything. I'm neither a ganker, nor antiganker and the only thing we have to go by in these discussions are the words that we all write. I've tried in the past to interpret what people write as something different and been told I've been wrong, so now I just go by what people actually write.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16055
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 17:45:11 -
[425] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:give an ak freighter pilot some small chance of escape when bumped
Why? Why should they get anything more than they already have?
Just use webs, and don't get bumped to begin with. Asking for a get out of jail free card for when you've drastically failed is unacceptable.
"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
44098
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 17:48:56 -
[426] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Just to stick my tuppence worth in, i've always thought that an inbuilt slow cycle ( say 15 mins - 10 mins depending on mjd skill lvl) mjd on freighters would provide an easy fix for the problem of unlimited bumping.
It would be easy to implement , give an ak freighter pilot some small chance of escape when bumped if used intelligently , and wouldn't be too op.
Freighter gets bumped as he jumps into system, he can choose to use the mjd to try and escape if he thinks he's closely aligned enough to a station or stargate, or wait till he sees the gank squad on dscan to try not being there when they land.
Obvious counter for the gankers would have to land a point on the target if the target hadnt used his mjd, which would take a bit of skill and judgment , which if u listen to how awesome they say they are shouldn't cause any issues :) .
Most of the time the freighter would probably still die, but it at least gives the ak pilot some slim chance of escape, rewards not being afk , and requires a wee bit of vigilance on the part of the bumper .
I've been present on many occasions when freighters have been bumped , sometimes for hours ( if i recall correctly i was part of a fleet that spent 4-5 hrs one night b4 successfully rescuing one ) . saving freighters is a lot harder than popping them, esp if they're strangers and won't accept fleet or web duels off ag fleets , which is understandable cos u know, this is eve .
the plus side from my point of view is the content that would be provided when the gank squad warp in jus as the target warps off , and land in the loving embrace of the ag fleets guns . :)
whats not to like? o7 bb
It was already pointed out earlier in the thread when I raised the same suggestion, that the easy counter is that bumping Machariels will also fit an MJD and just jump to the freighter after it MJDs.
So it would actually make things worse for freighters because they'll have freely given the bumper 100km of range off the gate that won't need to be bumped.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4530
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 18:05:41 -
[427] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:My final suggestion in between this pillow fight of a thread :)......
If any ship is unable to reach warp within 20-30 minutes of starting the WarpTo/Dock process, collision detection is dropped for that ship. Most bumps last 15 minutes before gank anyway....so still fair? Most AGer have no problem with bumping itself....its just length of time those bumps can last. Ransomers still have to time bluff they have a fleet to kill if they choose too. If the bumped ship attempts to change is WarpTo location, timers start over. If they are smart its to a station or a safe spot to log off... if its a empty system. They can be followed to next system and the whole process starts over. What affect will that have on trying to hold a super/titan in null or lowsec while waiting for a hictor or dictor? Additionally, 20-30 minutes from when? If the bumping ship is changed to someone else, does the time reset, or is it from the first collision that happens? If it's from the time of the first collision, then surely my best option as a freighter pilot would be to consider bumping myself if I think I might be bumped, so that the timer starts? If it's not from the first collision, but is ship specific, then as per the OP several times in the thread, there are numerous bumping ships ready to go all the time, so it would be easy to swap them out and the change would have 0 effect on freighter bumping. So to avoid the lowsec/null issue.... if you any scrams/disruptors are activated against the bump target, collision detection stays intact during that time.
You can't use a scram, disruptor or any other type of ewar against a super. Tackle has to be either a hictor or dictor, until then bumping is your only hope.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 18:06:53 -
[428] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:Fine..."freely" was bad choice of wording. Forgive me for that noobish response. It was clear there was no intention of ganking the Orca, maybe it was only serving as a distraction. But I'll post bumper and Orca pilots...once I rewatch a Twitch stream to get that information. Just post the twitch stream if that's easier. I'm happy to watch it myself. Im not trying to be a pain here or anything. I'm neither a ganker, nor antiganker and the only thing we have to go by in these discussions are the words that we all write. I've tried in the past to interpret what people write as something different and been told I've been wrong, so now I just go by what people actually write.
http://www.twitch.tv/ktivianne/v/38776975 |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4530
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 18:12:00 -
[429] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:
OK, by security then....0.5 below collision never disabled. Yes, bumping is NOT an exploit....but just tonight I seen a orca bumped for an hour and finally let go. Atleast set a time limit, no? So not an exploit, just bumper being a douche for an hour because he can be. Either gank, convince them to pay ransom or let them go.
No. How about they avoid the bumping or have friends come and bail them out....much like with the super example. A super gets in trouble the pings go out and as soon as possible response fleets roll.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4531
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 18:21:43 -
[430] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Just to stick my tuppence worth in, i've always thought that an inbuilt slow cycle ( say 15 mins - 10 mins depending on mjd skill lvl) mjd on freighters would provide an easy fix for the problem of unlimited bumping.
Yeah, because a bumping ship can't fit an MJD either.
Quote:I've been present on many occasions when freighters have been bumped , sometimes for hours ( if i recall correctly i was part of a fleet that spent 4-5 hrs one night b4 successfully rescuing one ) . saving freighters is a lot harder than popping them, esp if they're strangers and won't accept fleet or web duels off ag fleets , which is understandable cos u know, this is eve .
4-5 hours....trying to rescue a freighter? You didn't think to just gank the bumping ship? For chrissake why make your life harder than it has to be?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
2
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 18:22:34 -
[431] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:Just to stick my tuppence worth in, i've always thought that an inbuilt slow cycle ( say 15 mins - 10 mins depending on mjd skill lvl) mjd on freighters would provide an easy fix for the problem of unlimited bumping.
It would be easy to implement , give an ak freighter pilot some small chance of escape when bumped if used intelligently , and wouldn't be too op.
Freighter gets bumped as he jumps into system, he can choose to use the mjd to try and escape if he thinks he's closely aligned enough to a station or stargate, or wait till he sees the gank squad on dscan to try not being there when they land.
Obvious counter for the gankers would have to land a point on the target if the target hadnt used his mjd, which would take a bit of skill and judgment , which if u listen to how awesome they say they are shouldn't cause any issues :) .
...
whats not to like? o7 bb It was already pointed out earlier in the thread when I raised the same suggestion, that the easy counter is that bumping Machariels will also fit an MJD and just jump to the freighter after it MJDs. So it would actually make things worse for freighters because they'll have freely given the bumper 100km of range off the gate that won't need to be bumped. Also, a point doesn't stop an MJD.
a scram does i believe, tho correct me if i'm wrong. and having to fit a mjd on a mach means less tank . i also said intelligent use of the mjd, if the target feels he's nearly aligned to an escape , then the small amount of time he gets from using mjd might just get him out of the situation. also whats 100 km but a cupla minutes bumping anyway ?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4531
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 18:25:35 -
[432] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote: Also, a point doesn't stop an MJD.
Kinda like they don't understand basic mechanics.....
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
2
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 18:29:15 -
[433] - Quote
this is my main , ganking a mach means i give a kr to the very people i make my isk from . not all of us have multiple accounts and unlimited srp .
4-5 hrs bumping, your question should perhaps be why didn't they kill it .... |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44101
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 18:34:33 -
[434] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:Just to stick my tuppence worth in, i've always thought that an inbuilt slow cycle ( say 15 mins - 10 mins depending on mjd skill lvl) mjd on freighters would provide an easy fix for the problem of unlimited bumping.
It would be easy to implement , give an ak freighter pilot some small chance of escape when bumped if used intelligently , and wouldn't be too op.
Freighter gets bumped as he jumps into system, he can choose to use the mjd to try and escape if he thinks he's closely aligned enough to a station or stargate, or wait till he sees the gank squad on dscan to try not being there when they land.
Obvious counter for the gankers would have to land a point on the target if the target hadnt used his mjd, which would take a bit of skill and judgment , which if u listen to how awesome they say they are shouldn't cause any issues :) .
...
whats not to like? o7 bb It was already pointed out earlier in the thread when I raised the same suggestion, that the easy counter is that bumping Machariels will also fit an MJD and just jump to the freighter after it MJDs. So it would actually make things worse for freighters because they'll have freely given the bumper 100km of range off the gate that won't need to be bumped. Also, a point doesn't stop an MJD. a scram does i believe, tho correct me if i'm wrong. and having to fit a mjd on a mach means less tank . i also said intelligent use of the mjd, if the target feels he's nearly aligned to an escape , then the small amount of time he gets from using mjd might just get him out of the situation. also whats 100 km but a cupla minutes bumping anyway ? Yes a scram does. A scram is not a point.
How many Bumpng Machs get ganked? From my understanding, not many. Speed, not tank, is their bigger consideration, so if they had to fit an MJD, they just would.
If they also had to avoid bumping a freighter in the direction of a station or gate, they'd just do that too. It's not like it's hard to bump a ship out towards nothing.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4531
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 18:42:30 -
[435] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
a scram does i believe, tho correct me if i'm wrong. and having to fit a mjd on a mach means less tank . i also said intelligent use of the mjd, if the target feels he's nearly aligned to an escape , then the small amount of time he gets from using mjd might just get him out of the situation. also whats 100 km but a cupla minutes bumping anyway ?
Yeah, a disruptor or a bubble won't though. And a Mach can also fit a MJD and jump right along with with the freighter.
And if you don't want to generate kill rights against gankers, then you and your buddies can shoot each other and spawn CONCORD. CONCORD response times are lower if they are on grid already.
C'mon guys, learn the mechanics and use them.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Nitshe Razvedka
State War Academy Caldari State
393
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 18:59:49 -
[436] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Brad Neece wrote:As 98% make their trip freely?
More than that. There were Red Frog numbers posted earlier, and they fail maybe 1% of their deliveries. And you can't very well chalk ALL of those up to ganking. I think part of the problem here is the anti-ganker's anti-logic. Maybe they will be ok if we gank 100% of the Freighters. You see, according to anti-logic a ganker has no risk, because he loses his ship in 100% of the time. If we get to the point where we kill 100% of the Freighters there will be no risk left for them as well, so everything will be fine.
In Ima, here you have the 'entitled' ganker. Some one who needs to experience more of the game. Rather than macro farming freighters all day.
CCP can't continue to cater to the special needs of a minority, gankers with an obsessive compulsive disorder, no matter how loud their temper tantrums or tear rages. Enough is enough.
Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.
Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21085
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 19:05:44 -
[437] - Quote
Nitshe Razvedka wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Brad Neece wrote:As 98% make their trip freely?
More than that. There were Red Frog numbers posted earlier, and they fail maybe 1% of their deliveries. And you can't very well chalk ALL of those up to ganking. I think part of the problem here is the anti-ganker's anti-logic. Maybe they will be ok if we gank 100% of the Freighters. You see, according to anti-logic a ganker has no risk, because he loses his ship in 100% of the time. If we get to the point where we kill 100% of the Freighters there will be no risk left for them as well, so everything will be fine. In Ima, here you have the 'entitled' ganker. Some one who needs to experience more of the game. Rather than macro farming freighters all day. CCP can't continue to cater to the special needs of a minority, gankers with an obsessive compulsive disorder, no matter how loud their temper tantrums or tear rages. Enough is enough. No one took the bait and reacted to your first attempt at a troll. This one is even worse than that tbh. So 0/10.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Nitshe Razvedka
State War Academy Caldari State
393
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 19:16:42 -
[438] - Quote
Mags said something forgettable: "?"
Says the guy with his member in his hand. Want me to get your CEO to hold your other one. You are a delicate petal.
Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.
Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21088
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 19:25:04 -
[439] - Quote
Nitshe Razvedka wrote:Mags said something forgettable: "?"
Says the guy with his member in his hand. Want me to get your CEO to hold your other one. You are a delicate petal. Wait what? I have two members?
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.
16061
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 19:25:58 -
[440] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Nitshe Razvedka wrote:Mags said something forgettable: "?"
Says the guy with his member in his hand. Want me to get your CEO to hold your other one. You are a delicate petal. Wait what? I have two members?
Watch as Mags awards himself the "Wins at Bar Bets" medal.
"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 Pandemic Legion
17234
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 19:27:28 -
[441] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:this is my main , ganking a mach means i give a kr to the very people i make my isk from . not all of us have multiple accounts and unlimited srp .
4-5 hrs bumping, your question should perhaps be why didn't they kill it ....
You get 3 characters per account.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4534
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 19:28:55 -
[442] - Quote
Nitshe Razvedka wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Brad Neece wrote:As 98% make their trip freely?
More than that. There were Red Frog numbers posted earlier, and they fail maybe 1% of their deliveries. And you can't very well chalk ALL of those up to ganking. I think part of the problem here is the anti-ganker's anti-logic. Maybe they will be ok if we gank 100% of the Freighters. You see, according to anti-logic a ganker has no risk, because he loses his ship in 100% of the time. If we get to the point where we kill 100% of the Freighters there will be no risk left for them as well, so everything will be fine. In Ima, here you have the 'entitled' ganker. Some one who needs to experience more of the game. Rather than macro farming freighters all day. CCP can't continue to cater to the special needs of a minority, gankers with an obsessive compulsive disorder, no matter how loud their temper tantrums or tear rages. Enough is enough.
The Irony is strong with this one.
Complaining about people wanting special treatment while also demanding special treatment.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4534
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 19:29:47 -
[443] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Nitshe Razvedka wrote:Mags said something forgettable: "?"
Says the guy with his member in his hand. Want me to get your CEO to hold your other one. You are a delicate petal. Wait what? I have two members?
Makes you the life of the party.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17234
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 19:30:41 -
[444] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Nitshe Razvedka wrote:Mags said something forgettable: "?"
Says the guy with his member in his hand. Want me to get your CEO to hold your other one. You are a delicate petal. Wait what? I have two members?
Mag's the street shark.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16066
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 19:32:56 -
[445] - Quote
Dang it, I should have said "Bar Bets Trump Card" medal.
"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
21094
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 19:36:59 -
[446] - Quote
Does it mean I win Eve though?
On another note, the Wife has just informed me, that there is a guy out there with two. So now I know what she Googles.
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.
16067
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 19:38:37 -
[447] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Does it mean I win Eve though? On another note, the Wife has just informed me, that there is a guy out there with two. So now I know what she Googles.
Wonder how long she had that little piece of trivia in the holster.
"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
21094
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 19:43:14 -
[448] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Mag's wrote:Does it mean I win Eve though? On another note, the Wife has just informed me, that there is a guy out there with two. So now I know what she Googles. Wonder how long she had that little piece of trivia in the holster. Seems she's been chatting with our eldest daughters. Now I'm not sure what to think.
Well I suppose I should be used to this stuff, after all these years.
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.
16067
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 19:45:10 -
[449] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Mag's wrote:Does it mean I win Eve though? On another note, the Wife has just informed me, that there is a guy out there with two. So now I know what she Googles. Wonder how long she had that little piece of trivia in the holster. Seems she's been chatting with our eldest daughters. Now I'm not sure what to think. Well I suppose I should be used to this stuff, after all these years.
So glad my kids are both under 6.
"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.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
2
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 19:47:22 -
[450] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:give an ak freighter pilot some small chance of escape when bumped
Why? Why should they get anything more than they already have? Just use webs, and don't get bumped to begin with. Asking for a get out of jail free card for when you've drastically failed is unacceptable. Why should you be rewarded for failure?
i understand your consternation that any adjustment to the current bumping mechanics may have a detrimental effect on your style of gameplay /isk flow, but having a minute chance of escaping unlimited bumping is hardly a 'get out of jail free card'.
9 times out of 10 the most probable negative outcome for the gankers is losing a few ships and having to redock /reship b4 making another attempt . |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16069
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 19:49:43 -
[451] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:but having a minute chance of escaping unlimited bumping is hardly a 'get out of jail free card'.
Except you have ways out of that already.
They just involve other people. Why should you get any more? Because you don't use what already exists?
This is not a game mechanics problem. It's an attitude problem.
"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
21094
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 19:53:09 -
[452] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Mag's wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Mag's wrote:Does it mean I win Eve though? On another note, the Wife has just informed me, that there is a guy out there with two. So now I know what she Googles. Wonder how long she had that little piece of trivia in the holster. Seems she's been chatting with our eldest daughters. Now I'm not sure what to think. Well I suppose I should be used to this stuff, after all these years. So glad my kids are both under 6. As are mine..... Boom boom tish...
Joking aside, you should hear them giggling sometimes. I have 3 girls 22, 18 and 14. I have to say they are all pretty awesome kids. Although I do miss those under 6 years. Treasure them while you can bud, it passes all too quickly.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
2
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 20:01:24 -
[453] - Quote
This is not a game mechanics problem. It's an attitude problem.[/quote]
yes, the attitude of entitlement that gankers seem to have regarding the botlike nature of farming freighters with the current broken unlimited bumping mechanic...
my suggested solution is simple, rewards ak piloting , creates a few variables for the gankers, bumpers + target and is no way a nerf to ganking . what's the problem?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16074
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 20:03:49 -
[454] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote: yes, the attitude of entitlement that gankers seem to have
Ah, and the projection starts.
Like the people who are asking for freighters to be even more disgustingly safe than they already are aren't the entitled ones.
Bring escort webs or get used to the idea of dying, carebear.
"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
21096
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 20:04:51 -
[455] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:yes, the attitude of entitlement that gankers seem to have regarding the botlike nature of farming freighters with the current broken unlimited bumping mechanic... my suggested solution is simple, rewards ak piloting , creates a few variables for the gankers, bumpers + target and is no way a nerf to ganking . what's the problem? Our suggestion is even simpler. Use the tools and options currently available and be almost guaranteed safe passage. What's the problem?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4534
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 20:05:17 -
[456] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:give an ak freighter pilot some small chance of escape when bumped
Why? Why should they get anything more than they already have? Just use webs, and don't get bumped to begin with. Asking for a get out of jail free card for when you've drastically failed is unacceptable. Why should you be rewarded for failure? i understand your consternation that any adjustment to the current bumping mechanics may have a detrimental effect on your style of gameplay /isk flow, but having a minute chance of escaping unlimited bumping is hardly a 'get out of jail free card'. 9 times out of 10 the most probable negative outcome for the gankers is losing a few ships and having to redock /reship b4 making another attempt .
The problem is you want this "chance" to handed to you on a silver platter via CCP. You have a small chance now...get people to gank the bumping ship. Do that and you can get away.
Problem is, that for you and players like you....you just wont do that.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4536
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 20:07:21 -
[457] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Mag's wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Mag's wrote:Does it mean I win Eve though? On another note, the Wife has just informed me, that there is a guy out there with two. So now I know what she Googles. Wonder how long she had that little piece of trivia in the holster. Seems she's been chatting with our eldest daughters. Now I'm not sure what to think. Well I suppose I should be used to this stuff, after all these years. So glad my kids are both under 6. As are mine..... Boom boom tish... Joking aside, you should hear them giggling sometimes. I have 3 girls 22, 18 and 14. I have to say they are all pretty awesome kids. Although I do miss those under 6 years. Treasure them while you can bud, it passes all too quickly.
I'd say 4-12 are the best years. Old enough to long past potty training and accidents, but still young and full of wonder.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44103
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 20:12:12 -
[458] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:my suggested solution is simple, rewards ak piloting , creates a few variables for the gankers, bumpers + target and is no way a nerf to ganking . what's the problem? I'm not a ganker and I also can't see any reason currently to change the mechanics in this way.
Not only because it wouldn't actually work, but because the risk of bumping is extremely small if freighter pilots use what's already available and those that don't, don't deserve more tools to compensate for their choice not to use the current ones.
It still hasn't been established anywhere by anyone that bumping represents a significant problem that requires mechanics changes. The available evidence in this thread suggests the opposite. So why change something that isn't a problem?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4536
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 20:20:53 -
[459] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Quote:This is not a game mechanics problem. It's an attitude problem. yes, the attitude of entitlement that gankers seem to have regarding the botlike nature of farming freighters with the current broken unlimited bumping mechanic... my suggested solution is simple, rewards ak piloting , creates a few variables for the gankers, bumpers + target and is no way a nerf to ganking . what's the problem?
Sorry, that is just nonsense. Ganking is clearly an example of emergent game play...which is entirely the point of this game. CCP set up a game with very few rules, some mechanics and sit backs and sees what happens. Sometimes bad stuff, but usually very interesting stuff. For example, that we have people like Chribba who have built of a reputation of extreme honesty to allow players to do things there are no mechanics for...is for me amazing. It supports quite a bit of work on this in game theory and economics: reputation effects.
So to sit there and lump ganking in its current form as botlike is incredibly dishonest. Ganking in it's current form is absolutely an outgrowth of attempts to nerf ganking in the past. Changes to insurance, changes to CONCORD response times, and so forth. Ganking now is much more organized and sophisticated than it was in the past....and ironically more common.
You and players like you whined and whined, CCP responded and it blew up in your face. The gankers became even more organized and effective.
And talk about botlike. Even though events like Burn Jita and Amarr are talked about weeks before hand and there are fixed dates....freighter pilots still come to those systems and die in droves. Talk about being not just unaware of one's surroundings, but almost willfully ignorant of the fact that they are stepping into the bear's den.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3038
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 20:21:56 -
[460] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:my suggested solution is simple, rewards ak piloting , creates a few variables for the gankers, bumpers + target and is no way a nerf to ganking . what's the problem?
The problems are:
And do you know what rewards not only haulers at their keyboard, but smarter and more organised haulers as well?
Keeping bumping.
And whats with all these alts saying 'in no way...'
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
2
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 21:20:41 -
[461] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:Quote:This is not a game mechanics problem. It's an attitude problem. yes, the attitude of entitlement that gankers seem to have regarding the botlike nature of farming freighters with the current broken unlimited bumping mechanic... my suggested solution is simple, rewards ak piloting , creates a few variables for the gankers, bumpers + target and is no way a nerf to ganking . what's the problem? You and players like you whined and whined, CCP responded and it blew up in your face. The gankers became even more organized and effective. .
the title of this thread is 'balancing bumping and looting mechanics' , anyone who thinks that unlimited bumping with absolutely no consequence for the bumper isn't a broken mechanic is imho a few knives short of a cutlery set.
Eve is supposedly all about consequences for your actions , where's the consequences for a bumper in a npc corp who can just carry on bumping a target indefinitely if it takes his fancy, a target who probably hasn't decided to play Eve on 'easy mode' by kissing uncle jimmy or mittens ring with all the resultant welfare and mollycoddling ?
please link to anything i've posted anywhere where i've 'whined' about any mechanic on these forums to ccp. if you can't then please stop your trolling /ad hominem attacks and stay on topic or kindly shut up .
o7 bb
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16078
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 21:24:25 -
[462] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:the title of this thread is 'balancing bumping and looting mechanics' , anyone who thinks that unlimited bumping with absolutely no consequence for the bumper isn't a broken mechanic is imho a few knives short of a cutlery set.
Of course bumping has no mechanical consequences.
It is not a hostile act. Where your engines happen to be pointed will never be anything that has "consequences", because otherwise you basically break the whole game.
Quote: Eve is supposedly all about consequences for your actions
Yeah, between players.
If you want bumping to have "consequences", then come inflict them yourself, coward. It's what the gankers are doing after all. They decided that they don't want hauling to be completely free of risk, so they are doing something about it and bringing risk to the haulers.
And that's the difference between carebears and real players. Real players get something done themselves, carebears want the game to play itself for them.
Oh, and it gets funnier every time when you people talk about "easy mode" while defending hauling and mining. There is nothing in the MMO industry more lowest common denominator than hauling and mining. But apparently you think they need to be easier.
Get over yourself.
"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.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
2
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 21:27:38 -
[463] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:my suggested solution is simple, rewards ak piloting , creates a few variables for the gankers, bumpers + target and is no way a nerf to ganking . what's the problem? ... And whats with all these alts saying 'in no way...'
sheesh, dontcha know there's only one bigbud skunkafella ? |
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
2
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 21:42:42 -
[464] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote: yes, the attitude of entitlement that gankers seem to have
Ah, and the projection starts. Like the people who are asking for freighters to be even more disgustingly safe than they already are aren't the entitled ones. Bring escort webs or get used to the idea of dying, carebear.
fyi i've never flown a freighter , can't remember the last time i missioned in hisec or mined. + most of my time on eve has been spent in my own corp . my main income for several years has been from hunting crims in hisec , i either build my own ships or buy em from proceeds of hunting crims , no srp or freebies . if that makes me a carebear in your eyes then fair enuf.
don't suppose you've got a deklein ratting alt or the taste of mittens ring on your lips perchance?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4538
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 23:22:33 -
[465] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:the title of this thread is 'balancing bumping and looting mechanics' , anyone who thinks that unlimited bumping with absolutely no consequence for the bumper isn't a broken mechanic is imho a few knives short of a cutlery set. Eve is supposedly all about consequences for your actions , where's the consequences for a bumper in a npc corp who can just carry on bumping a target indefinitely if it takes his fancy, a target who probably hasn't decided to play Eve on 'easy mode' by kissing uncle jimmy or mittens ring with all the resultant welfare and mollycoddling ? please link to anything i've posted anywhere where i've 'whined' about any mechanic on these forums to ccp. if you can't then please stop your trolling /ad hominem attacks and stay on topic or kindly shut up . o7 bb
You just don't get it. The consequences are not supposed to imposed by CCP. You the player have to impose them. If you decline that is not the problem of the guy doing the bumping....that is your problem. Running to CCP saying, "It's not fair! Fix it!" is antithetical to the very idea you just articulated: that there should be consequences to one's actions in game. If I blind jump to a cyno beacon and get my carrier burnt down...is it my fault? Or should I blame the people who burnt down my carrier and CCP?
To be getting bumped means you have catastrophically failed. You did NOT have a scout. You did NOT have a scout with webs. And you jumped into a system known for ganking...which relies on bumping.
Don't want to be bumped for 4-5 hours? Okay, logoff. Problem solved. Go do something else.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Khergit Deserters
Crom's Angels
4367
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 23:46:28 -
[466] - Quote
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.
Neil Young and Crazy Horse - Harsher and tougher than punk
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3038
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 00:09:36 -
[467] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:my suggested solution is simple, rewards ak piloting , creates a few variables for the gankers, bumpers + target and is no way a nerf to ganking . what's the problem? ... And whats with all these alts saying 'in no way...' sheesh, dontcha know there's only one bigbud skunkafella ?
Its so hard to tell your posts apart from the other people who have no experience on the matter but want to nerf ganking anyways because they just dont like it.
@ khergit
Problem with your post.
- Why do you feel entitled to haul with a capital ship without friends or alts? Other caps are vulnerable to bumping and because of that are best used in teams. Why does the freighter need to be special?
Solo players are not meant to be as powerful as group's of players. You could instead fly a DST (something that is harder to bump and can even use the mwd trick).
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16081
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 00:25:20 -
[468] - 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.
Wrong.
Capital ships are not solo vessels. If the idea of having a second account is so distasteful, nothing prevents you from having a second player do it.
Quote: Players should not have to play the game with a main and an alt to avoid a certain built-in game mechanic.
If you really believe that, then you might as well just quit right now, because that's true of a hell of a lot of things in EVE.
"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.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
2
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 00:55:20 -
[469] - Quote
[/quote]
You just don't get it. The consequences are not supposed to imposed by CCP. You the player have to impose them. If you decline that is not the problem of the guy doing the bumping....that is your problem. Running to CCP saying, "It's not fair! Fix it!" is antithetical to the very idea you just articulated: that there should be consequences to one's actions in game.[/quote]
thats kinda rich coming from a member of the cfc ....
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44110
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 01:00:46 -
[470] - 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. You don't need an alt. It's just convenient.
One friend is enough to reduce the risk to an extremely low level.
Even alone, the risk of being bumped and ganked is small, so totally doable solo if you are smart about where you haul.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 01:50:43 -
[471] - Quote
[/quote]
You just don't get it. The consequences are not supposed to imposed by CCP. You the player have to impose them. If you decline that is not the problem of the guy doing the bumping....that is your problem. Running to CCP saying, "It's not fair! Fix it!" is antithetical to the very idea you just articulated: that there should be consequences to one's actions in game. If I blind jump to a cyno beacon and get my carrier burnt down...is it my fault? Or should I blame the people who burnt down my carrier and CCP?
To be getting bumped means you have catastrophically failed. You did NOT have a scout. You did NOT have a scout with webs. And you jumped into a system known for ganking...which relies on bumping.
Don't want to be bumped for 4-5 hours? Okay, logoff. Problem solved. Go do something else.[/quote]
Wait, just to be clear.....Consequences are not supposed to imposed by CCP? So the whole Criminal Timer is a broken mechanic by that implication, no? Gankers should keep their ships if others players aren't killing them off after ganks. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3038
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 02:04:12 -
[472] - Quote
So what is your point? (to use a similarly exaggerated and non-sensical argument)
That all consequences should be handed out by CCP? If I shoot a POS in low sec I should be banned from the game?
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44112
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 02:31:30 -
[473] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:Wait, just to be clear.....Consequences are not supposed to imposed by CCP? So the whole Criminal Timer is a broken mechanic by that implication, no? Gankers should keep their ships if others players aren't killing them off after ganks. This thread is supposed to be about bumping and looting.
When it comes to bumping and looting, the aim in asking for consequences is to get the bumping ship and looting ship set to suspect so they can be killed (they are the most common requests in these threads).
So anti-gankers want to inflict consequences on those ships, but not if it means consequences for them; and hence they don't gank the bumping Machs.
From everything in this thread, anti-gankers want consequence free options to kill the Machariel be requesting CCP to inflict consequences on bumpers that the anti-gankers aren't prepared to take on themselves.
At the end of the day. if your desire is to shoot the Machariel or the looting Freighter/DSTs, then do it; but don't request CCP to maintain safety for some at the expense of others.
If you want the bumping Mach to have more risk, go make it more risky to bump.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 02:32:08 -
[474] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:So what is your point? (to use a similarly exaggerated and non-sensical argument)
That all consequences should be handed out by CCP? If I shoot a POS in low sec I should be banned from the game?
Concord response should not happen against criminals.....if in-game consequences should be imposed by other players. I was taking that to the extreme.
But on a serious note, maybe if CCP fixes the lame bounty system. Ganking bumpers might be a worthwhile EVE activity. But only if there is a way to confirm the bumping lead to a gank. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4540
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 02:37:39 -
[475] - 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.
Get a buddy to provide the scouting/webbing. I do this when I need to jump to a cyno beacon and can't get a scout there quickly. I ask in corp chat, alliance chat, etc. If I need a cyno same thing. Imagine that in a game where there are thousands of other players online you learn to help each other.
And yeah...you are going to fly a big expensive ship...shock!!! You need help doing so. I do not move my carrier alone, nor my JF. In both cases I have the help of people in my corp.
Your complaint here is just simply an issue of the incorrect view of the game and how it works.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4540
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 02:39:17 -
[476] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Quote:
You just don't get it. The consequences are not supposed to imposed by CCP. You the player have to impose them. If you decline that is not the problem of the guy doing the bumping....that is your problem. Running to CCP saying, "It's not fair! Fix it!" is antithetical to the very idea you just articulated: that there should be consequences to one's actions in game.
thats kinda rich coming from a member of the cfc ....
What is that supposed to mean? That CCP does my beck and call? That is all you got left is Grrrr Goons.
Guess your out of valid ideas and arguments.
Just the other day while chatting with CCP Fozzie I thought it would be good if he implemented....GMAFB.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3038
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 02:59:25 -
[477] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:So what is your point? (to use a similarly exaggerated and non-sensical argument)
That all consequences should be handed out by CCP? If I shoot a POS in low sec I should be banned from the game? Concord response should not happen against criminals.....if in-game consequences should be imposed by other players. I was taking that to the extreme. But on a serious note, maybe if CCP fixes the lame bounty system. Ganking bumpers might be a worthwhile EVE activity. But only if there is a way to confirm the bumping lead to a gank.
Because there is no perma-death, any bounty system that pays well will be exploited. But at least you get paid for sitting in a Naga and whoring on ganker losses.
The game was indeed designed with the notion that players take responsibility for their own protection and vengeance. Read the oft referenced 'falcon punch' post by CCP falcon. Players exacting revenge is exactly what kill rights are for. CONCORD were not intended to replace player revenge. They are a deterrent.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
405
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 07:16:56 -
[478] - Quote
Rhetorical question-
I know freighters have a lot of room in their holds...but do they have enough space to carry a packaged shuttle in there? I know shuttles take up a lot of room and take months and months to train into flying, plus their expense has skyrocketed in recent years...but if you could get past all that, it occurs to me that even solo freighter pilots could carry a shuttle and periodically land at stations, scout ahead a few jumps, then continue. Especially just before gank hubs.
But, I realize with the time and expense training into a shuttle, that not all freighter pilots would be willing to do this. I was just thinking, maybe some of them could do so in the event they don't have a friend handy. It wouldn't be a perfect solution, and god knows those shuttles might take up so much room in the cargo as to make the trip not worth it, but for some people, the hassle would be worth it to avoid the loss of their billion-isk ship with 3-billion-isk cargo.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4543
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 08:00:23 -
[479] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:Rhetorical question-
I know freighters have a lot of room in their holds...but do they have enough space to carry a packaged shuttle in there? I know shuttles take up a lot of room and take months and months to train into flying, plus their expense has skyrocketed in recent years...but if you could get past all that, it occurs to me that even solo freighter pilots could carry a shuttle and periodically land at stations, scout ahead a few jumps, then continue. Especially just before gank hubs.
But, I realize with the time and expense training into a shuttle, that not all freighter pilots would be willing to do this. I was just thinking, maybe some of them could do so in the event they don't have a friend handy. It wouldn't be a perfect solution, and god knows those shuttles might take up so much room in the cargo as to make the trip not worth it, but for some people, the hassle would be worth it to avoid the loss of their billion-isk ship with 3-billion-isk cargo.
You sir, are a man of subtlety and perspicacious insights. Naturally you are a bad, bad man.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
1139
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 08:23:08 -
[480] - Quote
Before I started multiboxing, back in the stone age, that was very similar how I used to scout gates that looked shifty: Logged in an untrained alt to jump first with my main in the system behind. |
|
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.
|
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3045
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 16:08:38 -
[511] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote: 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.
This is a game where you can be held against your will indefinitely or until you self destruct. Ships that are pointed or bubbled are also at the mercy of their attackers. If you jump into a WH you can be trapped indefinitely or until you self destruct. Situations where there is no way out after you have repeatedly screwed yourself over is not unique to freighters.
Giving freighters an emergency MJD doesnt just make them more difficult to gank, it also makes them more difficult to point or bubble. As if you even need to be told that.
Still waiting for one good reason why something that is already 99.9% successful, needs to be even more successful.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21114
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 16:22:02 -
[512] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Still waiting for one good reason why something that is already 99.9% successful, needs to be even more successful. I would like to know this myself. When you can have almost guaranteed safe passage, why does bumping or looting need a nerf?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 16:27:15 -
[513] - Quote
@ Scipio Artelius jump freighters do have an emergeny 'out' option , freighters who are bumped do not , and i'm guessing it's not a very enjoyable experience for the pilot involved to have to sit helplessly for sometimes hours till the gank squad arrives. dare i say that it's prob cost the game a few players
someone mentioned the mjd idea affecting tackling freighters in lo/null, considering there's no penalty in null for aggression it's not imo a big deal. the bumping won't have changed a bit .
the arguments put forward stating that a mjd would be ineffective against bumping in hisec somehow don't apply in lo/null? im confused somewhat...
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44131
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 16:34:28 -
[514] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:@ Scipio Artelius jump freighters do have an emergeny 'out' option , freighters who are bumped do not , and i'm guessing it's not a very enjoyable experience for the pilot involved to have to sit helplessly for sometimes hours till the gank squad arrives. dare i say that it's prob cost the game a few players someone mentioned the mjd idea affecting tackling freighters in lo/null, considering there's no penalty in null for aggression it's not imo a big deal. the bumping won't have changed a bit . the arguments put forward stating that a mjd would be ineffective against bumping in hisec somehow don't apply in lo/null? im confused somewhat... I chose jump freighters because I expect the numbers are lower overall, so it was an easier task to look at quickly (and yes, despite having an easy out, still players fail to protect themselves).
I'm sure the freighter losses would be similar in terms of a spread between legal targets and non-legal targets. Freighters also have an out - use webs.
So the same question still applies. Why do those that fail to protect themselves with the outs they have deserve special treatment compared to any others and compared to other classes of ships?
Whether any of us guess that it might not be an enjoyable experience isn't necessarily a valid reason to make a change in the game. Eve isn't about always feeling safe and happy. If we want to feel safe and happy, that's up to us. Same for the assumption that has cost the game players.
How have you validated your assumption that bumping costs the game players? Do you know this is true, or it's just a hunch?
What if your hunch is wrong?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3048
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 16:51:47 -
[515] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote: the arguments put forward stating that a mjd would be ineffective against bumping in hisec somehow don't apply in lo/null? im confused somewhat...
Because tackling in low/null is only done with battleships Confused is right.
Still not addressing how something that is 99.9% safe needs to be even more safe.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
43
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 17:27:11 -
[516] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: There is no risk or penalty for the BUMPER.
Why would there be? It's an explicitly non hostile act.
Correct, this is the problem. Thank you for seeing it. It should be a hostile act. Smashing into someone's ship continuously for 30 minutes to an hour is hostile. I just saw it happen Saturday night. I had to log off at 1 hour of bumping (With a Webber also! ), so It might have been longer. I have a video clip of it that picks up at 1500Km from the gate (already 40 minutes). THe clip is another 20 minutes.
I don't think bumping should be a criminal act, that would be too much. If the penalty is tied to the bumper, it would be invalidated when they bring in the 2nd bumper, it the bumping starts over. It must focus on the freighter, On the same grid as the gates/stations. Im sure Concord's or the station's sensors could pick up continuous shield impacts on one repeated target. Dispatch ships to investigate, web the bumping ship(s) and the freighter for 30 seconds while the Freighter could align and warp.
As someone mentioned also about the looting. Yes, if a ship was ganked. Who ever picks up the loot or ejects it, or puts it into a cargo hold of another neutral, that ship goes FY. Its the source of the loot that makes it suspect, then once it makes it to station the loot is clear of the suspect status.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16116
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 17:34:05 -
[517] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote: Correct, this is the problem. Thank you for seeing it. It should be a hostile act.
No, it should not.
Nevermind that it is neither inflicting any damage to the other player nor inflicting a negative status effect on it, but there is absolutely no way the game's engine can actually tell what is or isn't intended as hostile based on where the person's engines are pointed.
Activating a prop mod isn't a hostile act either, in case you were going there next.
Quote: Smashing into someone's ship continuously for 30 minutes to an hour is hostile.
One wonders what the hauler was doing the whole time. His nails, presumably.
"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.
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
43
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 17:34:30 -
[518] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote: 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.
This is a game where you can be held against your will indefinitely or until you self destruct. Ships that are pointed or bubbled are also at the mercy of their attackers. If you jump into a WH you can be trapped indefinitely or until you self destruct. Situations where there is no way out after you have repeatedly screwed yourself over is not unique to freighters. Giving freighters an emergency MJD doesnt just make them more difficult to gank, it also makes them more difficult to point or bubble. As if you even need to be told that. Still waiting for one good reason why something that is already 99.9% successful, needs to be even more successful.
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. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44132
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 17:37:27 -
[519] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: There is no risk or penalty for the BUMPER.
Why would there be? It's an explicitly non hostile act. Correct, this is the problem. Thank you for seeing it. It should be a hostile act. Smashing into someone's ship continuously for 30 minutes to an hour is hostile. I just saw it happen Saturday night. I had to log off at 1 hour of bumping (With a Webber also! ), so It might have been longer. I have a video clip of it that picks up at 1500Km from the gate (already 40 minutes). THe clip is another 20 minutes. I don't think bumping should be a criminal act, that would be too much. If the penalty is tied to the bumper, it would be invalidated when they bring in the 2nd bumper, it the bumping starts over. It must focus on the freighter, On the same grid as the gates/stations. Im sure Concord's or the station's sensors could pick up continuous shield impacts on one repeated target. Dispatch ships to investigate, web the bumping ship(s) and the freighter for 30 seconds while the Freighter could align and warp. As someone mentioned also about the looting. Yes, if a ship was ganked. Who ever picks up the loot or ejects it, or puts it into a cargo hold of another neutral, that ship goes FY. Its the source of the loot that makes it suspect, then once it makes it to station the loot is clear of the suspect status. I'm a freighter pilot (on my hauling alt, not Scip) and I would hate this.
There is no need to protect me. That's my responsibility. Not CONCORD's.
Leave them out of it until someone does something criminal and then punish them immediately and let me punish them later as it currently is.
Why screw over my game just because you don't like the way someone else plays?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
43
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 17:38:46 -
[520] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote: Correct, this is the problem. Thank you for seeing it. It should be a hostile act.
No, it should not. Nevermind that it is neither inflicting any damage to the other player nor inflicting a negative status effect on it, but there is absolutely no way the game's engine can actually tell what is or isn't intended as hostile based on where the person's engines are pointed. Activating a prop mod isn't a hostile act either, in case you were going there next. Quote: Smashing into someone's ship continuously for 30 minutes to an hour is hostile.
One wonders what the hauler was doing the whole time. His nails, presumably.
lol! I did laugh at that one!
What were they doing, not much. They can't do much. That is the problem. If they were AFK i am less sympathetic. But many were not, I conv'ed most of them and they were there. |
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
43
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 17:41:35 -
[521] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote: Correct, this is the problem. Thank you for seeing it. It should be a hostile act.
No, it should not. Nevermind that it is neither inflicting any damage to the other player nor inflicting a negative status effect on it, but there is absolutely no way the game's engine can actually tell what is or isn't intended as hostile based on where the person's engines are pointed. Activating a prop mod isn't a hostile act either, in case you were going there next.
Again, you are limited in the NOW and not to what it SHOULD be.
You are just being silly now with the prop mod. That alone does not cause a problem. Its what you do with it, is the problem. |
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
43
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 17:45:11 -
[522] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: There is no risk or penalty for the BUMPER.
Why would there be? It's an explicitly non hostile act. Correct, this is the problem. Thank you for seeing it. It should be a hostile act. Smashing into someone's ship continuously for 30 minutes to an hour is hostile. I just saw it happen Saturday night. I had to log off at 1 hour of bumping (With a Webber also! ), so It might have been longer. I have a video clip of it that picks up at 1500Km from the gate (already 40 minutes). THe clip is another 20 minutes. I don't think bumping should be a criminal act, that would be too much. If the penalty is tied to the bumper, it would be invalidated when they bring in the 2nd bumper, it the bumping starts over. It must focus on the freighter, On the same grid as the gates/stations. Im sure Concord's or the station's sensors could pick up continuous shield impacts on one repeated target. Dispatch ships to investigate, web the bumping ship(s) and the freighter for 30 seconds while the Freighter could align and warp. As someone mentioned also about the looting. Yes, if a ship was ganked. Who ever picks up the loot or ejects it, or puts it into a cargo hold of another neutral, that ship goes FY. Its the source of the loot that makes it suspect, then once it makes it to station the loot is clear of the suspect status. I'm a freighter pilot (on my hauling alt, not Scip) and I would hate this. There is no need to protect me. That's my responsibility. Not CONCORD's. Leave them out of it until someone does something criminal and then punish them immediately and let me punish them later as it currently is. Why screw over my game just because you don't like the way someone else plays?
Punish them immediately... so remove the concord delay?
Then how would you punsh them later? they are all -10.. flying Catalysts. Not really a punishment if you pop them later. They only undock on the way to a gank. You going to hang out and Anti-Gank them then? If so that would be great!
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4558
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 17:48:56 -
[523] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Guess your out of valid ideas and arguments.. 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) .
The problem with the MJD suggestion is it fixes nothing, even skipping past the issue of there being something that actually needs fixing. So when we get to the next paragraph,
bigbud skunkafella wrote: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.
For the sake of argument, lets skip over the fact that the player has, at this point, made a catastrophically bad decision. He has put himself into danger, set himself up for failure. We shall, for now, ignore this point.
Would the MJD solve this problem? I argue no, because the bumping pilot would simply fit an MJD and jump right after the freighter and keep him bumpedGǪeven for hours. This is not a Gǣway outGǥ or whatever anyone wants to call it.
So yes, I do not advocate a change that will, in the end, not prevent the GǣproblemGǥ you are pointing too which is essentially a waste of Dev time. Further, once it becomes apparent it is not a solution we will be back here with yet another thread asking for Gǣone more nerfGǥ. Hence the meme Gǣjust one more nerfGǥ that inevitably shows up in these threads because people have not sat down and thought about how their most treasured solution is in factGǪnot a solution.
bigbud skunkafella wrote:please bear in mind that not all eve players have multiple friends/corp members/alts to call upon when needed.
Well I suggest they look to solving that problem. If one wants to play this game totally solo, then one is making a choice and will have to deal with the ramifications of that choice. Further, nerfing the play of a group of players to benefit a solo player is horrible, horrible game design philosophy. Nerfing the play of the many to benefit the few?
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 ?
This already exists in game. Fly smart and you wonGÇÖt be ganked (or you might be ganked, but only in rare instances where you just had **** luck, kind of like getting ganked in a blockade runnerGǪit happens, but only if you are badGǪor have really bad luck).
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16116
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 17:50:56 -
[524] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote: What were they doing, not much. They can't do much. That is the problem.
But they can. There has been a wealth of useful things listed in this thread that a freighter pilot can do both to avoid that situation, and to get out of it.
And if he really both has no friends and did not bring an escort, then he deserves what he gets. Self destruct.
There is always a way out.
"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
44133
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 17:55:38 -
[525] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote: I'm a freighter pilot (on my hauling alt, not Scip) and I would hate this.
There is no need to protect me. That's my responsibility. Not CONCORD's.
Leave them out of it until someone does something criminal and then punish them immediately and let me punish them later as it currently is.
Why screw over my game just because you don't like the way someone else plays?
Punish them immediately... so remove the concord delay? Then how would you punsh them later? they are all -10.. flying Catalysts. Not really a punishment if you pop them later. They only undock on the way to a gank. You going to hang out and Anti-Gank them then? If so that would be great! Let's not go into the area of stupidity here.
If you want everything spelled out in exact detail then the thread will big down into minutia. Immediate punishment is as it currently is (which is what I wrote).
As for punishing them later, I would kill them myself.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4559
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:07:37 -
[526] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote: 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.
This is a game where you can be held against your will indefinitely or until you self destruct. Ships that are pointed or bubbled are also at the mercy of their attackers. If you jump into a WH you can be trapped indefinitely or until you self destruct. Situations where there is no way out after you have repeatedly screwed yourself over is not unique to freighters. Giving freighters an emergency MJD doesnt just make them more difficult to gank, it also makes them more difficult to point or bubble. As if you even need to be told that. Still waiting for one good reason why something that is already 99.9% successful, needs to be even more successful. 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.
All of space is supposed to carry some degree of risk in the game. There are only two risk GÇ£freeGÇ¥ locations in the game:
1.Docked in station 2.Sitting cloaked at a secret safe spot.
Everything else carries with it risk. I had a friend in game get podded in HS once. He convoGÇÖd the guy and asked why he did it. The response was, I was bored and thought what the heck. My friend was pissed. He had to start his journey over and he lost some expensive (for him) implants. I asked him what he was going to do about it, he said, GÇ£Always use at least shuttle or noob ship when travellingGÇ¥. He learned a painful yet valuable lesson.
In regards to being bumped for a long time. The first mistake is to not log off if you get into that situation. If the gankers are so ill-prepared as to not have a fleet to get you within 15-20 minutes there is also a damn good chance they donGÇÖt have a noob ship on standby to aggress the freighter. So, log off right away. It may not work, but the longer you wait the greater the likelihood theyGÇÖll get their act together.
Given that there are mechanics to GÇ£solveGÇ¥ this problem already in game, I see no reason to make HS any safer than it already is, especially 0.5 systems. So there it is, a philosophical difference. You donGÇÖt see the game the same as your opponents. You want a theme park, we donGÇÖt. Which what Kaarous and others has been saying all along, the issue is really one of attitude.
And spare me the, GÇ£I donGÇÖt want a theme park,GÇ¥ response because this part of your responseGǪGÇ£If you want to go extort people, head there.GÇ¥ Screams THEME PARK for HS.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
216
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:12:18 -
[527] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote: So back to my question, why screw my game over with no ability to demonstrate a problem, because of your feelings about how someone else plays?
OK, so with this attitude, what is your opinion on the fact that a CSM from one of the most prominent ganking corps in the game manages to push a change favouring the playstyle of his buddies? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4561
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:14:04 -
[528] - Quote
You know what would be awesomeGǪis if the anti-ganking GǣcommunityGǥ actually got serious and stopped screwing around, especially in the cases of the long period bumping instances. Do they have a corporation or alliance? No. Do they pre-position assets? No. Do they have a comms system so they can communicate more quickly? Do they use some sort of IRC style method of keeping people informed? No. Have they thought about doing something really effective, like getting into CODE with an alt spy and try to learn who is moving ships and stuff for ganking? Maybe go gank that guy.
Instead they come here and complain hoping GÇ£mom and dadGÇ¥ will do something to help people instead of people helping themselves.
And the ironic thing isGǪto gank a bumping ship it would take far, far fewer peopleGÇöi.e. the herding cats problem is a lot less of a problem.
Maybe CCP can create a new in game itemGǪ.cheese, and we can start contracting cheese to these anti-gankers to go with their whine.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44135
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:17:34 -
[529] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote: So back to my question, why screw my game over with no ability to demonstrate a problem, because of your feelings about how someone else plays?
OK, so with this attitude, what is your opinion on the fact that a CSM from one of the most prominent ganking corps in the game manages to push a change favouring the playstyle of his buddies? I thought I already addressed that above.
Ansher's thread was primarily about lowsec and nullsec pvp situations and everything that increases risk and personal responsibility is fine by me.
The change doesn't prevent wrecks from being popped, just makes it more difficult and I'm fine with that. That will increase risk on grid and that's a good outcome.
You yourself said that removing bumping wouldn't change ganking. So if that's the case, then by the same standard, increasing the HP of wrecks doesn't change anti ganking.
So maybe, since I've answered your question, you can answer mine? Why screw over my game because of your feelings about someone else's play, when there's no evidence of a problem that needs fixing?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2546
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:20:54 -
[530] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote: Correct, this is the problem. Thank you for seeing it. It should be a hostile act.
No, it should not. Nevermind that it is neither inflicting any damage to the other player nor inflicting a negative status effect on it,
That's the whole core of the mechanic here. You can "point" a ship if it's agility is too low and the game does not and probably never will have a way to "see" this. Even if a game rule was made to combat it, the engine would not be able to enforce it without breaking many more things in the game. There are probably thousands of un-intended collision in the game for every intended bump.
Still, I usually laugh when I try to picture the same things IRL where a bunch of tug boats would mess around with a freighter moving him away from his intended heading. |
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
43
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:22:48 -
[531] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote: I'm a freighter pilot (on my hauling alt, not Scip) and I would hate this.
There is no need to protect me. That's my responsibility. Not CONCORD's.
Leave them out of it until someone does something criminal and then punish them immediately and let me punish them later as it currently is.
Why screw over my game just because you don't like the way someone else plays?
Punish them immediately... so remove the concord delay? Then how would you punsh them later? they are all -10.. flying Catalysts. Not really a punishment if you pop them later. They only undock on the way to a gank. You going to hang out and Anti-Gank them then? If so that would be great! Let's not go into the area of stupidity here. If you want everything spelled out in exact detail then the thread will bog down into minutia. Immediate punishment is as it currently is (which is what I wrote). I didn't say anything about changing the current mechanics. As for punishing them later, I would kill them myself. And no, I wouldn't anti-gank them. I would just kill them. It's what the game allows, irrespective of their sec status. So back to my question, why screw my game over with no ability to demonstrate a problem, because of your feelings about how someone else plays?
Sorry, could not help it. :) Had to lighten it up some.
What I wanted to say, is if you want to help yourself, you can. These mechanics won't effect you. You will be gone before these kick in. Even less of a chance to be ganked for you. Good! See This is what I am getting at. You are taking additional precautions. You are unlikely to be ganked. Someone who does not do as you, will fall back on mechanic. This is HS, there are safety mechanics that have been put in to help assist over the years, I.E. the safety button. We need a mechanic that acts as a safety net. They are on a roof top and it's 50 floors down. Maybe they won't be able to reach it?? But it is there.
Again, you said you will kill them. Like I said, the actual gankers will only undock to go to a gank. Then pod back to station. Thats it. They are disposable alts, so good luck killing them and making them pay...
Your question? I did not know this was YOUR game. Its a community game, and community games can change. If you mean "Your game" as far is how you play it.... Like I said.... you can continue to do what you do for less risk then others. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16116
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:23:24 -
[532] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote: Correct, this is the problem. Thank you for seeing it. It should be a hostile act.
No, it should not. Nevermind that it is neither inflicting any damage to the other player nor inflicting a negative status effect on it, That's the whole core of the mechanic here. You can "point" a ship if it's agility is too low and the game does not and probably never will have a way to "see" this. Even if a game rule was made to combat it, the engine would not be able to enforce it without breaking many more things in the game. There are probably thousands of un-intended collision in the game for every intended bump. Still, I usually laugh when I try to picture the same things IRL where a bunch of tug boats would mess around with a freighter moving him away from his intended heading.
Oh it's absolutely doable too. I've seen tugs push much bigger ships out of ice floes, when I used to live in Alaska.
And we all know, or at least those of us who aren't ignorant anti gankers, that this game uses a fluidic physics model. I laugh every time I see someone say that it's not "realistic", because they don't have a clue.
"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.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2546
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:25:03 -
[533] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:You know what would be awesomeGǪis if the anti-ganking GǣcommunityGǥ actually got serious and stopped screwing around, especially in the cases of the long period bumping instances. Do they have a corporation or alliance? No. Do they pre-position assets? No. Do they have a comms system so they can communicate more quickly? Do they use some sort of IRC style method of keeping people informed? No. Have they thought about doing something really effective, like getting into CODE with an alt spy and try to learn who is moving ships and stuff for ganking? Maybe go gank that guy.
Instead they come here and complain hoping GÇ£mom and dadGÇ¥ will do something to help people instead of people helping themselves.
And the ironic thing isGǪto gank a bumping ship it would take far, far fewer peopleGÇöi.e. the herding cats problem is a lot less of a problem.
Maybe CCP can create a new in game itemGǪ.cheese, and we can start contracting cheese to these anti-gankers to go with their whine.
Even if you fail to gank the bumper, the gankers need even more time now because CONCORD is spawned and need to be cleaned up or require much more DPS. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2547
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:26:34 -
[534] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote: Correct, this is the problem. Thank you for seeing it. It should be a hostile act.
No, it should not. Nevermind that it is neither inflicting any damage to the other player nor inflicting a negative status effect on it, That's the whole core of the mechanic here. You can "point" a ship if it's agility is too low and the game does not and probably never will have a way to "see" this. Even if a game rule was made to combat it, the engine would not be able to enforce it without breaking many more things in the game. There are probably thousands of un-intended collision in the game for every intended bump. Still, I usually laugh when I try to picture the same things IRL where a bunch of tug boats would mess around with a freighter moving him away from his intended heading. Oh it's absolutely doable too. I've seen tugs push much bigger ships out of ice floes, when I used to live in Alaska. And we all know, or at least those of us who aren't ignorant anti gankers, that this game uses a fluidic physics model. I laugh every time I see someone say that it's not "realistic", because they don't have a clue.
I meant more along the line of a ship wanting to enter harbor and a buch of tugs just going "**** you!!!" and spinning it back toward high sea. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16118
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:29:25 -
[535] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: I meant more along the line of a ship wanting to enter harbor and a buch of tugs just going "**** you!!!" and spinning it back toward high sea.
Oh I know, what I'm saying is that's absolutely feasible.
"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
44135
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:32:18 -
[536] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote: I'm a freighter pilot (on my hauling alt, not Scip) and I would hate this.
There is no need to protect me. That's my responsibility. Not CONCORD's.
Leave them out of it until someone does something criminal and then punish them immediately and let me punish them later as it currently is.
Why screw over my game just because you don't like the way someone else plays?
Punish them immediately... so remove the concord delay? Then how would you punsh them later? they are all -10.. flying Catalysts. Not really a punishment if you pop them later. They only undock on the way to a gank. You going to hang out and Anti-Gank them then? If so that would be great! Let's not go into the area of stupidity here. If you want everything spelled out in exact detail then the thread will bog down into minutia. Immediate punishment is as it currently is (which is what I wrote). I didn't say anything about changing the current mechanics. As for punishing them later, I would kill them myself. And no, I wouldn't anti-gank them. I would just kill them. It's what the game allows, irrespective of their sec status. So back to my question, why screw my game over with no ability to demonstrate a problem, because of your feelings about how someone else plays? Sorry, could not help it. :) Had to lighten it up some. What I wanted to say, is if you want to help yourself, you can. These mechanics won't effect you. You will be gone before these kick in. Even less of a chance to be ganked for you. Good! See This is what I am getting at. You are taking additional precautions. You are unlikely to be ganked. Someone who does not do as you, will fall back on mechanic. This is HS, there are safety mechanics that have been put in to help assist over the years, I.E. the safety button. We need a mechanic that acts as a safety net. They are on a roof top and it's 50 floors down. Maybe they won't be able to reach it?? But it is there. Again, you said you will kill them. Like I said, the actual gankers will only undock to go to a gank. Then pod back to station. Thats it. They are disposable alts, so good luck killing them and making them pay... Your question? I did not know this was YOUR game. Its a community game, and community games can change. If you mean "Your game" as far is how you play it.... Like I said.... you can continue to do what you do for less risk then others. Your proposal makes the game safer for haulers and provides antigankers with risk free pvp.
Whether I individually benefit from the mechanic or not, the proposal reduces risk for people that don't deserve it. If a freighter pilot can't be bothered to take basic safety measures, then they don't deserve the game to save them. That applies to me too.
I don't play the game because it is easy and can be played lazily.
I'm all for change where there is a problem, but I'm not for making the game easier if no problem exists.
So far, no one anywhere has demonstrated that a problem exists and it all boils down to wanting to shoot but have no risk in doing so with the effect of protecting the stupid.
Show me the evidence of a problem and I'll support the change. Until then, I'll continue to look for evidence myself and so far, all the evidence says the opposite. There is no reason to change the game in terms of bumping or looting.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17242
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:36:42 -
[537] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote: So back to my question, why screw my game over with no ability to demonstrate a problem, because of your feelings about how someone else plays?
OK, so with this attitude, what is your opinion on the fact that a CSM from one of the most prominent ganking corps in the game manages to push a change favouring the playstyle of his buddies?
You only need two nados to kill it. Again, you are have a less than 0.11% chance of being successfully ganked in highsec, frankly if anything needs risk added its highsec. Its become far too safe over the years not to mention the loss of all the content we used to have.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
43
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:38:35 -
[538] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote: Correct, this is the problem. Thank you for seeing it. It should be a hostile act.
No, it should not. Nevermind that it is neither inflicting any damage to the other player nor inflicting a negative status effect on it, That's the whole core of the mechanic here. You can "point" a ship if it's agility is too low and the game does not and probably never will have a way to "see" this. Even if a game rule was made to combat it, the engine would not be able to enforce it without breaking many more things in the game. There are probably thousands of un-intended collision in the game for every intended bump. Still, I usually laugh when I try to picture the same things IRL where a bunch of tug boats would mess around with a freighter moving him away from his intended heading. Oh it's absolutely doable too. I've seen tugs push much bigger ships out of ice floes, when I used to live in Alaska. And we all know, or at least those of us who aren't ignorant anti gankers, that this game uses a fluidic physics model. I laugh every time I see someone say that it's not "realistic", because they don't have a clue.
Are you comparing RL with Eve... Tist tist, but ok.. lets play, then the Freighter calls in the coast guard and says I am being bumped by Hostels. And then they respond with a few Cutters, will they get there in time!? WHo knows... maybe a Helicopter is sent.. We can do that if you like. Call Concord?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16118
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:44:23 -
[539] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote: Are you comparing RL with Eve
Actually, I'm mocking those who do so incorrectly. The rest of your little rant only makes your position weaker, since Concord magically comes without being called, something that really shouldn't be the case.
"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
44135
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:54:56 -
[540] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Are you comparing RL with Eve... Tist tist, but ok.. lets play,...
Must admit, I really can't see the benefit in this sort of thing when suggesting change.
At the end of all the discussion, the only people that can implement mechanics changes are CCP and in order to do it, they'll need to be pursuaded by the quality of the arguments.
What's going to be more convincing:
A well structured argument, supported by evidence, where the suggestions are supported by the data?
Or
A thread full of mud slinging and personal attacks?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
43
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 19:12:18 -
[541] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote: Are you comparing RL with Eve
Actually, I'm mocking those who do so incorrectly. The rest of your little rant only makes your position weaker, since Concord magically comes without being called, something that really shouldn't be the case.
It was not a rant. You Specify a "real world" example, and then now that I expand on YOUR real world example in a light that you don't like, so you start to back track.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16119
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 19:13:50 -
[542] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote: It was not a rant.
It very much was, and you made yourself look foolish.
"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.
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
43
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 19:21:31 -
[543] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Are you comparing RL with Eve... Tist tist, but ok.. lets play,...
Must admit, I really can't see the benefit in this sort of thing when suggesting change. At the end of all the discussion, the only people that can implement mechanics changes are CCP and in order to do it, they'll need to be pursuaded by the quality of the arguments. What's going to be more convincing: A well structured argument, supported by evidence, where the suggestions are supported by the data? Or A thread full of mud slinging and personal attacks?
the problem is that this is very heavy with opinions. This post has grown with people adding more evidence. CCP has access to logs that can confirm or deny what is being said. I don't have access to those logs.
As far as personal attacks, I'm not sure what you mean. I saw one person's post removed because of it. Mug slinging, it apparently is heated topic, with differences of opinion. Which is ok. you don't need to buy a permit to state your opinion. ;).
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44135
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 19:59:37 -
[544] - Quote
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.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2548
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 20:42:59 -
[545] - Quote
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.
The "issue" is that albeit the horse is long gone, we still made a 27 pages thread about it... |
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
44
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 20:44:12 -
[546] - Quote
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. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16120
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 20:52:40 -
[547] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:This problem exists and have been perceived by many people.
The only problem here is with your perception.
"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.
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1765
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 20:57:33 -
[548] - 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/
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44139
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 21:05:49 -
[549] - 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'm not a troll and have posted evidence in this thread and asked for evidence many times over, only for those requests to be ignored.
If you somehow had an emotional response to a request for evidence, then sorry for that. Not my intent.
I just want to see the evidence. Where is it? You've claimed its been posted, yet I haven't seen any. Can you link it as I must have missed it, which is my bad if so?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21115
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 21:15:29 -
[550] - Quote
I have also asked questions left unanswered. I have even asked Kick a question, in order to gain information. But it was seemingly ignored.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
44
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 21:25:58 -
[551] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:This problem exists and have been perceived by many people.
The only problem here is with your perception.
Wrong my friend. I do have a long boring video that I will be happy to share with CCP. But nice try.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16127
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 21:27:39 -
[552] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:This problem exists and have been perceived by many people.
The only problem here is with your perception. Wrong my friend. I do have a long boring video that I will be happy to share with CCP. But nice try.
Go right ahead. If you aren't ignored or laughed at, I suspect their answer will be something along the lines of:
"What was he doing the whole time, his nails? Why didn't he try to get away?"
"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
4565
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 21:28:38 -
[553] - Quote
Seems to me there is a simple solution to being bumped for hours and hours. If you have screwed up and you are getting bumped (and if you are getting bumped, spare meGǪyou really screwed up) the solution has been in the game all along. Log off. The logic here should be obvious:
Prob(Getting Agressed by a Noob Ship|Going to be bumped for hours) << 1.
Or more intuitively, if the gankers are so ill prepared as to be bumping a freighter for hours on end, then it is highly unlikely they have a noob ship on standby to aggress the hapless freighter. Even if they did, and they are going to bump for 5 hours, theyGÇÖd better have 20 or so noob ships ready to go and probably more than one character to do it given the 15 minute criminal timer which is as long as the PvP timer.
Oh, and just out of curiosityGǪhas anyone ever seen a Red Frog pilot in one of these threads? Of course, maybe Red Frog likes ganking as it gives them more of a viable market.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
44
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 21:28:40 -
[554] - Quote
Mag's wrote:I have also asked questions that are left unanswered. I have even asked Kick a question, in order to gain information. But it was seemingly ignored.
I apologize if I missed your comment. There are many here. I'll take a look more fully later tonight. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3050
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 21:33:15 -
[555] - Quote
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? Where does it say you shouldn't have a fleet escort you in hi sec? Hi sec is safer, but not completely safe. And thats why its more difficult, but not impossible to do it in hi-sec. This is eve 101 ffs.
And I can still hold someone hostage with a point with a wardec or in a duel.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21116
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 21:34:24 -
[556] - Quote
I seem to recall a thread in GD, that was about a bumping that took place over quite some time. Wasn't the result 'working as intended'?
Wasn't there also a video involved?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21118
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 21:36:22 -
[557] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Mag's wrote:I have also asked questions that are left unanswered. I have even asked Kick a question, in order to gain information. But it was seemingly ignored. I apologize if I missed your comment. There are many here. I'll take a look more fully later tonight. No worries.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1770
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 21:38:08 -
[558] - 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/
|
Iain Cariaba
2477
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 21:46:55 -
[559] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:...it gives them more of a viable market. As a freighter pilot who uses every single tool available to keep myself from getting ganked, that's one of the reasons I like ganking.
When I was mining in highsec, many years ago, I enjoyed warping out of a belt when gankers showed up and finding free ore in the wreck of the AFKers when the gankers left.
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?
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
45
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 21:48:48 -
[560] - 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? Where does it say you shouldn't have a fleet escort you in hi sec? Hi sec is safer, but not completely safe. And thats why its more difficult, but not impossible to do it in hi-sec. This is eve 101 ffs. And I can still hold someone hostage with a point with a wardec or in a duel.
Yes you can with a war dec., that is a war, that's ok.
Like I said before, it should not be 100% safe. I completely agree. Someone that has a Webber that does not get bumped should have less risk then someone flying solo. The solo pilot if bumped, could be ganked but should not be held in limbo. Gank him in 10-15 minutes, or move on. Maybe the person who gets "saved" By the safety net of bumping has to pay a fee, go through a freighter hauling guide tutorial. And every day the safety net is used the cost keeps going up. Till it no longer in place??? Maybe it is used as a temporary safety net?
|
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
45
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 21:54:58 -
[561] - Quote
Mag's wrote:I seem to recall a thread in GD, that was about a bumping that took place over quite some time. Wasn't the result 'working as intended'?
Wasn't there also a video involved?
I am not sure, if you find it post it here. I would like to see it. |
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
45
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 22:12:44 -
[562] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote: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'm not a troll and have posted evidence in this thread and asked for evidence many times over, only for those requests to be ignored. If you somehow had an emotional response to a request for evidence, then sorry for that. Not my intent. I just want to see the evidence. Where is it? You've claimed its been posted, yet I haven't seen any. Can you link it as I must have missed it, which is my bad if so?
First. Not emotional. It was just funny that at page 30ish, you then want to see evidence. You never disagreed that it happens up to now, but now all of a sudden you want it. If you saw the posts, you would have seen other people mentioned similar aspects. As for direct proof. I again do have a video that I will be happy to share with CCP. I bet CCP could come up with more direct stats. I have not recorded the mass bumps before because certain mechanics were not as abused as of more lately, but might have to record more. That is a great idea! |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1771
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 22:19:48 -
[563] - 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/
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3052
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 23:40:00 -
[564] - Quote
The point of my post was not that I expect him to dig up what we all know doesn't exist but actually realise that, outside of noob systems, there is no behaviour that is ok in one area of space but not others. There are a specific list of modules, ships etc but not player behaviour/tactics.
@kickass Why is holding someone indefinitely with a point in a wardec ok, but bumping them is bad? They both do the same thing in the same area of space, with similar options for the one being held.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16128
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 23:46:25 -
[565] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote: Why is holding someone indefinitely with a point in a wardec ok, but bumping them is bad? They both do the same thing in the same area of space, with similar options for the one being held.
Oh, oh! I know the answer!
It's because both are fine, and in both situations if you ask the GMs about it, they will tell you to just self destruct and get on with your life.
"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
21119
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 23:57:42 -
[566] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Mag's wrote:I seem to recall a thread in GD, that was about a bumping that took place over quite some time. Wasn't the result 'working as intended'?
Wasn't there also a video involved? I am not sure, if you find it post it here. I would like to see it. Here The eve-search.com version will fill in the gaps. On my phone atm so it's a bit of a mare.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44150
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 00:21:27 -
[567] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote: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'm not a troll and have posted evidence in this thread and asked for evidence many times over, only for those requests to be ignored. If you somehow had an emotional response to a request for evidence, then sorry for that. Not my intent. I just want to see the evidence. Where is it? You've claimed its been posted, yet I haven't seen any. Can you link it as I must have missed it, which is my bad if so? First. Not emotional. It was just funny that at page 30ish, you then want to see evidence. You never disagreed that it happens up to now, but now all of a sudden you want it. If you saw the posts, you would have seen other people mentioned similar aspects. As for direct proof. I again do have a video that I will be happy to share with CCP. I bet CCP could come up with more direct stats. I have not recorded the mass bumps before because certain mechanics were not as abused as of more lately, but might have to record more. That is a great idea! What?
I've asked for evidence that it's an issue all through this thread.
If you weren't emotional, then how was my post a troll? Just asking for the evidence that this is an issue that needs to be changed.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44153
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 01:04:55 -
[568] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Or just swing by Uedama and watch, it really would not be hard to see it happen. Ok, so since evidence that this problem exists to the extent that it needs bumping mechanics changed and looting mechanics changed as a result, I swang by Uedama (with my hauling alt) as you suggested.
This is just the start of a study and I'll continue it to collect as much data as needed to determine one way or the other whether bumping is a problem. The only evidence I have been able to find (which is posted in this thread) suggests it isn't a problem.
I'll upload the raw screen capture video and post a link, but in the meantime here's a screenshot to support the following data (but anyone will be able to verify it by watching the video back if they want):
http://puu.sh/mSumM/1e5bbf1d66.jpg
So I sat on the Sivala gate in Uedama for 2 hours and simply recorded the movement of hauling ships (including industrials, freighters, jump freighters, Orca and Bowhead) through the gate.
Total hauler movement: 221 jumps No. of bumps: 0
Total ships AFK on the gate for between 1 min - 12 min: 3 Total ships on autopilot: 16 Total number of times webs were used to web into warp: 0
Breakdown by ship:
Charon: 10 (1 AFK for 12 minutes on the gate, 1 autopiloting0 Bowhead: 4 Obelisk: 6 (I autopiloting) Orca: 6 Providence: 3 (1 autopiloting) Fenrir: 4
T2 and T1 industrials: the remainer
In the video, I'll include the full breakdown at the end.
A very limited set of data and I'll increase the dataset significantly before making any conclusions.
I'll do another 2 hours later today.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
45
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 01:12:54 -
[569] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Or just swing by Uedama and watch, it really would not be hard to see it happen. Ok, so since evidence that this problem exists to the extent that it needs bumping mechanics changed and looting mechanics changed as a result, I swang by Uedama (with my hauling alt) as you suggested. This is just the start of a study and I'll continue it to collect as much data as needed to determine one way or the other whether bumping is a problem. The only evidence I have been able to find (which is posted in this thread) suggests it isn't a problem. I'll upload the raw screen capture video and post a link, but in the meantime here's a screenshot to support the following data (but anyone will be able to verify it by watching the video back if they want): http://puu.sh/mSumM/1e5bbf1d66.jpg So I sat on the Sivala gate in Uedama for 2 hours and simply recorded the movement of hauling ships (including industrials, freighters, jump freighters, Orca and Bowhead) through the gate. Total movement: 221 jumps No. of bumps: 0 Total ships AFK on the gate for between 1 min - 12 min: 3 Total ships on autopilot: 16 Total number of times webs were used to web into warp: 0 Breakdown by ship: Charon: 10 (1 AFK for 12 minutes on the gate, 1 autopiloting0 Bowhead: 4 Obelisk: 6 (I autopiloting) Orca: 6 Providence: 3 (1 autopiloting) Fenrir: 4 T2 and T1 industrials: the remainer In the video, I'll include the full breakdown at the end. A very limited set of data and I'll increase the dataset significantly before making any conclusions. I'll do another 2 hours later today.
I appreciate the attempt. This is what makes it a Ganker's game. They control the speed of the game.. target, and when to do it. You can spend a day there, and unless you are fed intel you might not see anything. Even if you are fed intel it could be a slow day, or week. People who have been doing this for a year or so know. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16130
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 01:22:44 -
[570] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote: I appreciate the attempt. This is what makes it a Ganker's game. They control the speed of the game.. target, and when to do it. You can spend a day there, and unless you are fed intel you might not see anything. Even if you are fed intel it could be a slow day, or week. People who have been doing this for a year or so know.
So now you basically just hate player freedom.
Because you're crying that the people who decide to take the initiative... get the initiative.
"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
44153
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 01:25:50 -
[571] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:I appreciate the attempt. This is what makes it a Ganker's game. They control the speed of the game.. target, and when to do it. You can spend a day there, and unless you are fed intel you might not see anything. Even if you are fed intel it could be a slow day, or week. People who have been doing this for a year or so know. Sure. That's why a larger dataset is required.
In my personal view, the RFF data is already sufficient to suggest there is no significant problem that needs a change: 0.11% rate of failed contracts with 2.8 million jumps in highsec annually.
The risk of being bumped to start with is extremely small.
However, since the suggestion was to swing by Uedama and it would be easy to see, then I'll collect the objective data and see, because unfortunately despite several questions about evidence to show it's a problem significant enough to require mechanics changes, none has been provided. So I'll keep looking for the evidence myself and let it determine in a completely objective way whether this is an issue I should support or not.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21121
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 01:26:06 -
[572] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:I appreciate the attempt. This is what makes it a Ganker's game. They control the speed of the game.. target, and when to do it. You can spend a day there, and unless you are fed intel you might not see anything. Even if you are fed intel it could be a slow day, or week. People who have been doing this for a year or so know. No, it makes it a PvP centric game. If you don't want others to take control, then you have to be proactive and take it yourself. That's not to say it's guaranteed. But to complain after no effort was made, doesn't indicate a problem or that a nerf is required.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3055
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 01:29:42 -
[573] - Quote
Its also worth mentioning sivala, by a significant margin, is the most kill active gate in uedama.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
45
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 01:42:46 -
[574] - Quote
Mag's wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:I appreciate the attempt. This is what makes it a Ganker's game. They control the speed of the game.. target, and when to do it. You can spend a day there, and unless you are fed intel you might not see anything. Even if you are fed intel it could be a slow day, or week. People who have been doing this for a year or so know. No, it makes it a PvP centric game. If you don't want others to take control, then you have to be proactive and take it yourself. That's not to say it's guaranteed. But to complain after no effort was made, doesn't indicate a problem or that a nerf is required.
First I am not complaining about that mechanic. I was merely saying, hanging out in Uedama for an hour or 2 is nothing. |
Paranoid Loyd
8340
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 01:50:13 -
[575] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:hanging out in Uedama for an hour or 2 is nothing. It's not a valid sample set, however, not only is that acknowledged in the post, it's more evidence than you have supplied.
"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!
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
45
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 01:52:45 -
[576] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:I appreciate the attempt. This is what makes it a Ganker's game. They control the speed of the game.. target, and when to do it. You can spend a day there, and unless you are fed intel you might not see anything. Even if you are fed intel it could be a slow day, or week. People who have been doing this for a year or so know. Sure. That's why a larger dataset is required. In my personal view, the RFF data is already sufficient to suggest there is no significant problem that needs a change: 0.11% rate of failed contracts with 2.8 million jumps in highsec annually. The risk of being bumped to start with is extremely small. However, since the suggestion was to swing by Uedama and it would be easy to see, then I'll collect the objective data and see, because unfortunately despite several questions about evidence to show it's a problem significant enough to require mechanics changes, none has been provided. So I'll keep looking for the evidence myself and let it determine in a completely objective way whether this is an issue I should support or not. Individual opinions of "I think this is a problem and mechanics should be changed" versus "I don't think it's a problem and it shouldn't be changed" don't matter. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But objective data can't be argued with. It shows one way or the other whether something is really a problem, or if the assumptions we all make are not valid. As to speed of the game being controlled by gankers. Random sampling and a large enough dataset will eliminate that as a variable. I will collect data across many days and many times. That will remove variation around their activity and produce an overall picture.
Random samplings mean nothing if you come by when Code or Batt Country operation is in effect. You have not been there so I don't expect you to understand. WHy do you think code mentioned earlier in the post about 10million will make it not an issue.
Look.. I don't have to convince you personally to do this. I even tried to compromise some, and nothing. You disagree.. I think its well noted in the posts here. TIme to let others that might have ideas speak. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44155
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 02:09:08 -
[577] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Random samplings mean nothing if you come by when Code or Batt Country operation is in effect. You have not been there so I don't expect you to understand. WHy do you think code mentioned earlier in the post about 10million will make it not an issue.
Look.. I don't have to convince you personally to do this. I even tried to compromise some, and nothing. You disagree.. I think its well noted in the posts here. TIme to let others that might have ideas speak. You aren't convincing me to do this. I've asked for evidence that it's a problem signficant enough to warrant changes in the mechanics and all I've been told is that it's in the thread, but no links provided to where it is; and when I look, it isn't there.
So I'm doing it because using objective data is the best way to determine whether this is a real issue, or an invalid assumption.
I'm happy to do it. Research is part of what I do daily. so it isn't a problem to collect data and see what conclusions it supports.
On random sampling, it will eliminate a lot of variables that would otherwise affect the results. A big enough dataset over a large number of days and several times zones on different "high risk" gates will really show if this is an issue on those gates, which are supposed to the be ones that are the worst for it.
All the results will be available to everyone to verify themselves, because I'll post them all and the videos. I'm, just not going to bother asking for the evidence anymore only the be ignored. If it can't be provided, I'll go collect it myself.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Iain Cariaba
2480
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 02:14:54 -
[578] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:I appreciate the attempt. This is what makes it a Ganker's game. They control the speed of the game.. target, and when to do it. You can spend a day there, and unless you are fed intel you might not see anything. Even if you are fed intel it could be a slow day, or week. People who have been doing this for a year or so know. Sure. That's why a larger dataset is required. In my personal view, the RFF data is already sufficient to suggest there is no significant problem that needs a change: 0.11% rate of failed contracts with 2.8 million jumps in highsec annually. The risk of being bumped to start with is extremely small. However, since the suggestion was to swing by Uedama and it would be easy to see, then I'll collect the objective data and see, because unfortunately despite several questions about evidence to show it's a problem significant enough to require mechanics changes, none has been provided. So I'll keep looking for the evidence myself and let it determine in a completely objective way whether this is an issue I should support or not. Individual opinions of "I think this is a problem and mechanics should be changed" versus "I don't think it's a problem and it shouldn't be changed" don't matter. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But objective data can't be argued with. It shows one way or the other whether something is really a problem, or if the assumptions we all make are not valid. As to speed of the game being controlled by gankers. Random sampling and a large enough dataset will eliminate that as a variable. I will collect data across many days and many times. That will remove variation around their activity and produce an overall picture. Random samplings mean nothing if you come by when Code or Batt Country operation is in effect. You have not been there so I don't expect you to understand. WHy do you think code mentioned earlier in the post about 10million will make it not an issue. Look.. I don't have to convince you personally to do this. I even tried to compromise some, and nothing. You disagree.. I think its well noted in the posts here. TIme to let others that might have ideas speak. Or, it may be time to admit you're wrong. You are seriously grasping at straws here trying to justify this. You have no evidence to back up your claim that there is a ptoblem that needs fixed here. In fact, the evidence provided in this thread actually points to the fact that there is no problem with the game, but with the player.
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?
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
45
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 02:33:26 -
[579] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:I appreciate the attempt. This is what makes it a Ganker's game. They control the speed of the game.. target, and when to do it. You can spend a day there, and unless you are fed intel you might not see anything. Even if you are fed intel it could be a slow day, or week. People who have been doing this for a year or so know. Sure. That's why a larger dataset is required. In my personal view, the RFF data is already sufficient to suggest there is no significant problem that needs a change: 0.11% rate of failed contracts with 2.8 million jumps in highsec annually. The risk of being bumped to start with is extremely small. However, since the suggestion was to swing by Uedama and it would be easy to see, then I'll collect the objective data and see, because unfortunately despite several questions about evidence to show it's a problem significant enough to require mechanics changes, none has been provided. So I'll keep looking for the evidence myself and let it determine in a completely objective way whether this is an issue I should support or not. Individual opinions of "I think this is a problem and mechanics should be changed" versus "I don't think it's a problem and it shouldn't be changed" don't matter. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But objective data can't be argued with. It shows one way or the other whether something is really a problem, or if the assumptions we all make are not valid. As to speed of the game being controlled by gankers. Random sampling and a large enough dataset will eliminate that as a variable. I will collect data across many days and many times. That will remove variation around their activity and produce an overall picture. Random samplings mean nothing if you come by when Code or Batt Country operation is in effect. You have not been there so I don't expect you to understand. WHy do you think code mentioned earlier in the post about 10million will make it not an issue. Look.. I don't have to convince you personally to do this. I even tried to compromise some, and nothing. You disagree.. I think its well noted in the posts here. TIme to let others that might have ideas speak. Or, it may be time to admit you're wrong. You are seriously grasping at straws here trying to justify this. You have no evidence to back up your claim that there is a ptoblem that needs fixed here. In fact, the evidence provided in this thread actually points to the fact that there is no problem with the game, but with the player.
I don't have to admit anything. This is a problem, and it is something that evidence does not come easly. It is not like I have a KM for this. THis is what I, and other people have seen. The fact that everyone is so defensive about this, means that this mechanic means a lot to you. This is not just me. Read the comments again. Your point is also made. I thank you for your insight (Which I actually do mean that). But this is not over. |
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21121
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 02:50:15 -
[580] - 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. It is not like I have a KM for this. THis is what I, and other people have seen. The fact that everyone is so defensive about this, means that this mechanic means a lot to you. This is not just me. Read the comments again. Your point is also made. I thank you for your insight (Which I actually do mean that). But this is not over. We know you're not the only one complaining about bumping. Or looting for that matter. But as we keep saying, complaining something is happening, doesn't mean that it's a problem. After all these years, I would have thought at least one of you would have produced evidence, that backs up your claims. Not evidence that it's happening, but that it's a problem.
What you feel or think from what you may or may not have seen, isn't evidence. We've produced evidence, so far you have not. One of the questions I asked you back in this thread, was an attempt to gather some idea of what you base this so called problem on.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44157
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 03:07:41 -
[581] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Oh and for the record, I've never been involved in a gank or bump in high sec. I have no axe to grind in that respect. It would be nice if you stopped trying to imply that of us all. Just because I argue against your stance, doesn't mean I have a vested interest in bumping per se. It means I disagree with you as you offer no facts or logical arguments, to back up your stance. Same for me. I'm neither a bumper nor a ganker.
I live in nullsec and pvp in both null and lowsec.
I have an industry alt whose activities fund my pvp and as a result, she does a lot of hauling work for deliveries in highsec, lowsec and nullsec.
I have no axe to grind beyond a belief that we should validate our claims rather than arguing blindly that something needs to be changed.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1775
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 04:09:59 -
[582] - 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/
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
45
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 04:15:55 -
[583] - Quote
Mag's 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. It is not like I have a KM for this. THis is what I, and other people have seen. The fact that everyone is so defensive about this, means that this mechanic means a lot to you. This is not just me. Read the comments again. Your point is also made. I thank you for your insight (Which I actually do mean that). But this is not over. We know you're not the only one complaining about bumping. Or looting for that matter. But as we keep saying, complaining something is happening, doesn't mean that it's a problem. After all these years, I would have thought at least one of you would have produced evidence, that backs up your claims. Not evidence that it's happening, but that it's a problem. What you feel or think from what you may or may not have seen, isn't evidence. We've produced evidence, so far you have not. One of the questions I asked you back in this thread, was an attempt to gather some idea of what you base this so called problem on. Oh and for the record, I've never been involved in a gank or bump in high sec. I have no axe to grind in that respect. It would be nice if you stopped trying to imply that of us all. Just because I argue against your stance, doesn't mean I have a vested interest in bumping per se. It means I disagree with you, as you offer no facts or logical arguments to back up your stance.
I understand that you disagree with me, And that is your Eve given right.
Evidence... I present to you whiteness who also have see such acts. I have that video I will share with CCP. as far as evidence to satisfy you.... Well, I could probably come up with evidence as much that was needed to change the amount of HP on a wreck. How many really get popped? Why is that a problem? Could they come up with data for that?? Its not like wreck pops are on a Killboard. So how did they give specific evidence was mentioned that sometimes a wreck gets popped. Maybe CCP could, but a complaint or a suspicion of a problem had to be submitted with imperfect evidence and then investigated. Since I am not CCP and I do not sit on the CSM, I can not give you exact evidence, which does not mean its not a problem. Then please CCP look into this. Then look at that, its in a patch!
The point of the above EXAMPLE is I don't need to come up with perfect evidence. I need people to verify my claim, give additional information, clarify my statement and give other solutions. All of which are happening. So now I hope CCP will take some of the suggestions and they will be able to validate them tweak them if need be or come up with other solutions. I don't have an ego and I don't care if its my idea that gets put into play, I just hope for a detailed discussion with hard data. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4566
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 04:17:48 -
[584] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Or just swing by Uedama and watch, it really would not be hard to see it happen. Ok, so since evidence that this problem exists to the extent that it needs bumping mechanics changed and looting mechanics changed as a result, I swang by Uedama (with my hauling alt) as you suggested. This is just the start of a study and I'll continue it to collect as much data as needed to determine one way or the other whether bumping is a problem. The only evidence I have been able to find (which is posted in this thread) suggests it isn't a problem. I'll upload the raw screen capture video and post a link, but in the meantime here's a screenshot to support the following data (but anyone will be able to verify it by watching the video back if they want): http://puu.sh/mSumM/1e5bbf1d66.jpg So I sat on the Sivala gate in Uedama for 2 hours and simply recorded the movement of hauling ships (including industrials, freighters, jump freighters, Orca and Bowhead) through the gate. Total movement: 221 jumps No. of bumps: 0 Total ships AFK on the gate for between 1 min - 12 min: 3 Total ships on autopilot: 16 Total number of times webs were used to web into warp: 0 Breakdown by ship: Charon: 10 (1 AFK for 12 minutes on the gate, 1 autopiloting0 Bowhead: 4 Obelisk: 6 (I autopiloting) Orca: 6 Providence: 3 (1 autopiloting) Fenrir: 4 T2 and T1 industrials: the remainer In the video, I'll include the full breakdown at the end. A very limited set of data and I'll increase the dataset significantly before making any conclusions. I'll do another 2 hours later today. I appreciate the attempt. This is what makes it a Ganker's game. They control the speed of the game.. target, and when to do it. You can spend a day there, and unless you are fed intel you might not see anything. Even if you are fed intel it could be a slow day, or week. People who have been doing this for a year or so know.
OMG....even the lack of evidence is turned into evidence.
I'm sorry but that is just complete Bravo Sierra. You are a person with an agenda and are simply...well...bad. Somebody makes an good faith effort to collect data on bumping and you poo-poo it.
Seriously, STFU and go sit on the gate as well to collect data in a different time period than Scipio.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
45
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 04:18:49 -
[585] - Quote
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. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4566
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 04:19:37 -
[586] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote: I appreciate the attempt. This is what makes it a Ganker's game. They control the speed of the game.. target, and when to do it. You can spend a day there, and unless you are fed intel you might not see anything. Even if you are fed intel it could be a slow day, or week. People who have been doing this for a year or so know.
So now you basically just hate player freedom. Because you're crying that the people who decide to take the initiative... get the initiative.
No it is even worse than that. KickedAss is trying to turn the lack of data in favor of her hypothesis into data in favor of her hypothesis. It is an intellectually bankrupt position she is working from. Her position is so right, so unassailable, that when the facts do not fit her narrative they must be twisted to fit that narrative.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4566
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 04:23:03 -
[587] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Mag's wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:I appreciate the attempt. This is what makes it a Ganker's game. They control the speed of the game.. target, and when to do it. You can spend a day there, and unless you are fed intel you might not see anything. Even if you are fed intel it could be a slow day, or week. People who have been doing this for a year or so know. No, it makes it a PvP centric game. If you don't want others to take control, then you have to be proactive and take it yourself. That's not to say it's guaranteed. But to complain after no effort was made, doesn't indicate a problem or that a nerf is required. First I am not complaining about that mechanic. I was merely saying, hanging out in Uedama for an hour or 2 is nothing.
1. It is better than nothing...and better than anything you got. 2. Scipio said it is just the start of something he plans on doing. 3. You blatantly tried to turn his data into something that supports your position.
You are, literally, intellectually bankrupt. You should have not posted anything in reply to Scipio, or just said thanks for the effort keep it up for as long as you can. But nope, you had to try and twist the data to suit your agenda. You have just proven Kaarous correct when he calls you honesty into question. Good job.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
45
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 04:24:35 -
[588] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Or just swing by Uedama and watch, it really would not be hard to see it happen. Ok, so since evidence that this problem exists to the extent that it needs bumping mechanics changed and looting mechanics changed as a result, I swang by Uedama (with my hauling alt) as you suggested. This is just the start of a study and I'll continue it to collect as much data as needed to determine one way or the other whether bumping is a problem. The only evidence I have been able to find (which is posted in this thread) suggests it isn't a problem. I'll upload the raw screen capture video and post a link, but in the meantime here's a screenshot to support the following data (but anyone will be able to verify it by watching the video back if they want): http://puu.sh/mSumM/1e5bbf1d66.jpg So I sat on the Sivala gate in Uedama for 2 hours and simply recorded the movement of hauling ships (including industrials, freighters, jump freighters, Orca and Bowhead) through the gate. Total movement: 221 jumps No. of bumps: 0 Total ships AFK on the gate for between 1 min - 12 min: 3 Total ships on autopilot: 16 Total number of times webs were used to web into warp: 0 Breakdown by ship: Charon: 10 (1 AFK for 12 minutes on the gate, 1 autopiloting0 Bowhead: 4 Obelisk: 6 (I autopiloting) Orca: 6 Providence: 3 (1 autopiloting) Fenrir: 4 T2 and T1 industrials: the remainer In the video, I'll include the full breakdown at the end. A very limited set of data and I'll increase the dataset significantly before making any conclusions. I'll do another 2 hours later today. I appreciate the attempt. This is what makes it a Ganker's game. They control the speed of the game.. target, and when to do it. You can spend a day there, and unless you are fed intel you might not see anything. Even if you are fed intel it could be a slow day, or week. People who have been doing this for a year or so know. OMG....even the lack of evidence is turned into evidence. I'm sorry but that is just complete Bravo Sierra. You are a person with an agenda and are simply...well...bad. Somebody makes an good faith effort to collect data on bumping and you poo-poo it. Seriously, STFU and go sit on the gate as well to collect data in a different time period than Scipio.
Again... how many wrecks popped? none... Well.. why change HP for Wrecks?? nothing popped at that brief moment in Eve time. So useless right? |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1777
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 04:29:55 -
[589] - 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/
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4566
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 04:30:45 -
[590] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote: Again... how many wrecks popped? none... Well.. why change HP for Wrecks?? nothing popped at that brief moment in Eve time. So useless right?
Look, I'm not the one trying to turn data that right now does not favor my hypothesis into data that does favor my hypothesis. You just shot yourself in the ass, and unfortunately your head was up there too, so don't blame me.
Scipio reported some initial data from sitting in Uedama and you just had to try and spin it. That is just total Bravo Sierra.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4566
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 04:31:35 -
[591] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote: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?
Ouch...but I have to agree. Go on and spin, spin, spin KickAss.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
45
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 04:34:03 -
[592] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Mag's wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:I appreciate the attempt. This is what makes it a Ganker's game. They control the speed of the game.. target, and when to do it. You can spend a day there, and unless you are fed intel you might not see anything. Even if you are fed intel it could be a slow day, or week. People who have been doing this for a year or so know. No, it makes it a PvP centric game. If you don't want others to take control, then you have to be proactive and take it yourself. That's not to say it's guaranteed. But to complain after no effort was made, doesn't indicate a problem or that a nerf is required. First I am not complaining about that mechanic. I was merely saying, hanging out in Uedama for an hour or 2 is nothing. 1. It is better than nothing...and better than anything you got. 2. Scipio said it is just the start of something he plans on doing. 3. You blatantly tried to turn his data into something that supports your position. You are, literally, intellectually bankrupt. You should have not posted anything in reply to Scipio, or just said thanks for the effort keep it up for as long as you can. But nope, you had to try and twist the data to suit your agenda. You have just proven Kaarous correct when he calls you honesty into question. Good job.
1. Wrong, it is nothing... 2. He is free to do what he wants. 3. I don't have to turn anything. I don't know when the Gankers goin'a gank gank gank. So I am saying that data is incomplete. People in the post have mentioned seeing the same thing. So when he comes back in 1 year and says.. Yep, it seems to happen when certain people are online..... Ok... well thats nice and all....
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21124
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 04:34:58 -
[593] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Again... how many wrecks popped? none... Well.. why change HP for Wrecks?? nothing popped at that brief moment in Eve time. So useless right? The problem with your premise, is it's built on the idea that change was done solely because organising are certain gates. It wasn't. Although the ganking of freighters was mentioned, it wasn't the reason CCP decide to boost wreck HP.
This is what we mean by evidence. The exclusion of the main reason for this new change, isn't helping your argument.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4566
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 04:36:17 -
[594] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Mag's wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:I appreciate the attempt. This is what makes it a Ganker's game. They control the speed of the game.. target, and when to do it. You can spend a day there, and unless you are fed intel you might not see anything. Even if you are fed intel it could be a slow day, or week. People who have been doing this for a year or so know. No, it makes it a PvP centric game. If you don't want others to take control, then you have to be proactive and take it yourself. That's not to say it's guaranteed. But to complain after no effort was made, doesn't indicate a problem or that a nerf is required. First I am not complaining about that mechanic. I was merely saying, hanging out in Uedama for an hour or 2 is nothing. 1. It is better than nothing...and better than anything you got. 2. Scipio said it is just the start of something he plans on doing. 3. You blatantly tried to turn his data into something that supports your position. You are, literally, intellectually bankrupt. You should have not posted anything in reply to Scipio, or just said thanks for the effort keep it up for as long as you can. But nope, you had to try and twist the data to suit your agenda. You have just proven Kaarous correct when he calls you honesty into question. Good job. 1. Wrong, it is nothing... 2. He is free to do what he wants. 3. I don't have to turn anything. I don't know when the Gankers goin'a gank gank gank. So I am saying that data is incomplete. People in the post have mentioned seeing the same thing. So when he comes back in 1 year and says.. Yep, it seems to happen when certain people are online..... Ok... well thats nice and all....
So now we can add denial and delusion to intellectual dishonesty.
Okay. Thanks for sharing.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
45
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 04:47:52 -
[595] - Quote
Mag's wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Again... how many wrecks popped? none... Well.. why change HP for Wrecks?? nothing popped at that brief moment in Eve time. So useless right? The problem with your premise, is it's built on the idea that change was done solely because organising are certain gates. It wasn't. Although the ganking of freighters was mentioned, it wasn't the reason CCP decide to boost wreck HP. This is what we mean by evidence. The exclusion of the main reason for this new change, isn't helping your argument.
Looking though that post, there was no mention of any Evidence. What is even more funny, is seeing so many of the people who don't like this idea, over there loving that one. SO odd...... not odd.
I am done with these petty arguments. I am not responding to them any more. Especially after that slanderous personal comment.
I will try to respond to other actual real comments.
Thank you. |
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21125
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 04:56:40 -
[596] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Mag's wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Again... how many wrecks popped? none... Well.. why change HP for Wrecks?? nothing popped at that brief moment in Eve time. So useless right? The problem with your premise, is it's built on the idea that change was done solely because organising are certain gates. It wasn't. Although the ganking of freighters was mentioned, it wasn't the reason CCP decide to boost wreck HP. This is what we mean by evidence. The exclusion of the main reason for this new change, isn't helping your argument. Looking though that post, there was no mention of any Evidence. What is even more funny, is seeing so many of the people who don't like this idea, over there loving that one. SO odd...... not odd. I am done with these petty arguments. I am not responding to them any more. Especially after slanderous personal comments. I will try to respond to other actual real comments. Thank you. Sorry but you brought up the wreck change and mentioned it in a way that tried to make it look as though it was done because of popping wrecks of ganking. It wasn't. I'm not sure what you mean regarding evidence, but the actual request thread as well as the dev thread, explains the reasons and supplies the evidence.
Also when did I slander you? I do find it yelling you now do not wish to discuss a topic you raised, after being shown it didn't help your stance.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44162
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 05:15:20 -
[597] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:So I am saying that data is incomplete. I said in the first post where the data is laid down that no conclusion can yet be made from it.
It is incomplete data and a very small dataset. it doesn't yet contain sufficient information one way or the other that this is an issue.
But it will, because the dataset will continue to grow to a point where is it useful to support statements one way or the other.
That's a while off yet, but it will happen because I was told that the evidence has been posted in this thread, when it hasn't. So lets all see, verifiably where it's a problem or not, but we can't say that yet from the small dataset.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
45
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 05:26:53 -
[598] - Quote
Mag's wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Mag's wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Again... how many wrecks popped? none... Well.. why change HP for Wrecks?? nothing popped at that brief moment in Eve time. So useless right? The problem with your premise, is it's built on the idea that change was done solely because organising are certain gates. It wasn't. Although the ganking of freighters was mentioned, it wasn't the reason CCP decide to boost wreck HP. This is what we mean by evidence. The exclusion of the main reason for this new change, isn't helping your argument. Looking though that post, there was no mention of any Evidence. What is even more funny, is seeing so many of the people who don't like this idea, over there loving that one. SO odd...... not odd. I am done with these petty arguments. I am not responding to them any more. Especially after slanderous personal comments. I will try to respond to other actual real comments. Thank you. Sorry but you brought up the wreck change and mentioned it in a way that tried to make it look as though it was done because of popping wrecks of ganking. It wasn't. I'm not sure what you mean regarding evidence, but the actual request thread as well as the dev thread, explains the reasons and supplies the evidence. Also when did I slander you? I do find it odd, or rather should I say telling, you now do not wish to discuss a topic you raised, after being shown it didn't help your stance. Edit auto correct
Sorry, you did not slander me. It was just making a statement of previous comments. I am sorry if you felt it was directed to you.
I did bring that up,as just an example, im sure there are other reasons why they did it., but it sounds like from reddit, there could have been more other fun stuff done as apposed to just increasing HP.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/43oikc/dev_post_wreck_hitpoint_rebalance/
I did not happen to see the evidence in any post that states why make the change (im being sincere). If you have it, please link it.
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
45
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 05:30:40 -
[599] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:So I am saying that data is incomplete. I said in the first post where the data is laid down that no conclusion can yet be made from it. It is incomplete data and a very small dataset. it doesn't yet contain sufficient information one way or the other that this is an issue. But it will, because the dataset will continue to grow to a point where is it useful to support statements one way or the other. That's a while off yet, but it will happen because I was told that the evidence has been posted in this thread, when it hasn't. So lets all see, verifiably where it's a problem or not, but we can't say that yet from the small dataset.
If thats what will make everyone happy... wonderful. Ill PM you in game when I see such acts take place.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44162
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 05:39:39 -
[600] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:So I am saying that data is incomplete. I said in the first post where the data is laid down that no conclusion can yet be made from it. It is incomplete data and a very small dataset. it doesn't yet contain sufficient information one way or the other that this is an issue. But it will, because the dataset will continue to grow to a point where is it useful to support statements one way or the other. That's a while off yet, but it will happen because I was told that the evidence has been posted in this thread, when it hasn't. So lets all see, verifiably where it's a problem or not, but we can't say that yet from the small dataset. If thats what will make everyone happy... wonderful. Ill PM you in game when I see such acts take place. No need yet.
When I get onto stage 2 looking at the issue of looting as outlined in the OP, then that will be useful, but at this initial stage to establish whether bumping is a problem or not, there's no need to go to specific cases, just to look at the overall risk.
So I'll let you know when I move into testing the looting claims.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21125
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 07:21:17 -
[601] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Mag's wrote:Sorry but you brought up the wreck change and mentioned it in a way that tried to make it look as though it was done because of popping wrecks of ganking. It wasn't. I'm not sure what you mean regarding evidence, but the actual request thread as well as the dev thread, explains the reasons and supplies the evidence.
Also when did I slander you? I do find it odd, or rather should I say telling, you now do not wish to discuss a topic you raised, after being shown it didn't help your stance.
Edit auto correct Sorry, you did not slander me. It was just making a statement of previous comments. I am sorry if you felt it was directed to you. I did bring that up,as just an example, im sure there are other reasons why they did it., but it sounds like from reddit, there could have been more other fun stuff done as apposed to just increasing HP. https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/43oikc/dev_post_wreck_hitpoint_rebalance/ I did not happen to see the evidence in any post that states why make the change (im being sincere). If you have it, please link it. OK no worries about the slander, let's forget it.
Yes you brought it up as an example. But in doing so, you failed to mention that ganking was a side issue in regards to this change. You used it in conjunction with Scipio's attempt at data gathering and implied it was all due to ganking wrecks. Also that his data didn't support that change, as no wrecks were popped. The trouble is the evidence for that change was offered in the original request thread and then stated by CCP in the dev one.
Anthar Thebess wrote:Currently almost any frigate can instantly kill any wreck. This have good and bad application in game, but usually it is abused to prevent someone from warp , salvage or loot something. This is from the original request thread. So what evidence does it provide? Well for a start yes, almost any frigate can instantly kill any wreck. That is a fact. It is also a fact it's done to prevent warp ins, salvage or loot.
He then offers up what he thinks the change should be, why and how it could affect the game. Someone even asks him in the first page about gank wrecks. He replies:
Anthar Thebess wrote:Yes , like you see this is one of the issues. Most important for me are the warpins, after the fleet warp changes those will be very important things on battlefield. "We need to kill one of the leading ships to provide warpin to bombers!"
Now you just ungroup your guns and instantly clear those.
Remember that when people see ISK they tend to do stupid things , and provide tons of content.
If you want to troll the gankers , have a bomber with scrams sitting near the dead freighter. No targeting delay after decloack. So we can see he's thought about it, but it's not his main concern.
Now to the Dev thread. Fozzie laid out the premise in his OP and asks for feedback to the planned change. He specifically states that atm, a shuttle wreck is the same size as a Titan one and they wish to change it. A CSM member has championed this change, but it isn't the first time this has happened and it will not be the last. Not only that, but it seems the whole CSM feedback so far has been positive.
Even the reddit thread talks of Titans and warp ins. Try not to let your focus on ganking, blind you to the overall view of why this change happened. CCP decided that having a shuttle wreck the same size as a Titan wreck, needed to change.
CCP Fozzie wrote:Up until now, wrecks (other than those belonging to Ship Maintenance Array and X-Large Ship Maintenance Array starbase structures) have all had a uniform 500 hull hitpoints. This makes them very easy to destroy, with no difference between destroying a shuttle wreck and a titan wreck.
We've seen a few requests here and there to tweak this mechanic from players, and recently Endie from the CSM has brought the issue up with us and championed it. We've got a set of changes ready for the February release that should help bring wreck hitpoints into a better state. In other words, they agree the evidence shows that wrecks should emulate their ships in what size it should be. The evidence is there.
Wrecks are being changed because of their ease of being shot, size inconsistency and stopping warp ins. There is no dispute on this and the reasons why some may want this change as opposed to others, is irrelevant.
So what about bumping. Well you talk of being bumped for 30 to 60 minutes without repercussions. I've already linked a thread on just that and it was deemed working as intended. What you fail to mention in this regard, is the other pilots who traveled the same lane and were not bumped. Figures shown in this thread from Redfrog, indicate a 0.1% failure rate.
Now I could understand there being a problem, if: A. It was a far higher figure. B. It wasn't so easily avoidable. C. Couldn't be escaped once started.
Seeing as none of this are the case, just why is it a problem that needs a fix? What do you base your 'problem' on?
Putting this aside for a moment. If I told you that the inclusion of one more pilot, could improve your odds to 99.9%. What would you say? If it was the chance of ganking someone, you'd be up in arms I'm sure. I mean two pilots and those odds, it's rather high. As it's the chance of being caught currently in a freighter with a webber, I seems it's fine. Gankers accept it and even suggest it's use.
So just what are you basing your problem on? Just why is this easily avoidable situation, in need of a balance pass? This is the evidence we would like to see.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 08:01:09 -
[602] - Quote
One looting issue I brought up....that seem to have been ignored in those posts. The fact that you can loot after you've started to warp startup(Right click, Warpto or Dock).....your able to Loot All, pretty much up to point of insta warp the moment you go suspect. I'm linking 2 videos that confirm this is an issue. The pilot in this video, has me locked and is SPAMMING point. I seem to go invulnerable the moment of suspect.
We've witnessed freighters do this....and that a sloooowwww painful thing to watch. Multiple potential looters on grid, who do you bump? and who do prelock? all that good stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2aCCgJYKaI&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBvTXOAYhSg&feature=youtu.be
And yes, this aren't properly trimmed down.....deal with it :) |
Iain Cariaba
2482
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 08:04:17 -
[603] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:The fact that everyone is so defensive about this, means that this mechanic means a lot to you. Actually, the mechanic means absolutely nothing to me. I tried my hand at ganking, found it wasn't something I enjoyed. But, just because I don't enjoy ganking doesn't mean I should support yet another nerf to the play style. I realize that my freighter is a capital ship, and that capital ships aren't something for solo game play. I can also fly dreads and carriers, but wouldn't dream of flying them solo either.
KickAss Tivianne wrote:This is not just me. Yeah, it pretty much is. You've got a little support, but for the most part the players seem to be against you.
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Read the comments again. Why? You've said nothing that hasn't already been said in any of the 17,132,843 or so prior threads to nerf ganking. You've produced no evidence tonsupport your claim that there's a problem here. In fact, even when evidence is provided that shows you to be in error, you retort that any evidence to support your claim is missing because it "does not come easily." Have you stopped to consider that the lack of evidence to support you is because there is no actual problem, only that you imagine there is?
KickAss Tivianne wrote:But this is not over. This should've been over 29 pages ago. I can only surmise that the lack of lock for redundancy on this thread is because it gives people like you somewhere to whine about the 0.11% chance of having a freighter ganked without starting a new thread.
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?
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 08:28:58 -
[604] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:So I am saying that data is incomplete. I said in the first post where the data is laid down that no conclusion can yet be made from it. It is incomplete data and a very small dataset. it doesn't yet contain sufficient information one way or the other that this is an issue. But it will, because the dataset will continue to grow to a point where is it useful to support statements one way or the other. That's a while off yet, but it will happen because I was told that the evidence has been posted in this thread, when it hasn't. So lets all see, verifiably where it's a problem or not, but we can't say that yet from the small dataset. If thats what will make everyone happy... wonderful. Ill PM you in game when I see such acts take place. No need yet. When I get onto stage 2 looking at the issue of looting as outlined in the OP, then that will be useful, but at this initial stage to establish whether bumping is a problem or not, there's no need to go to specific cases, just to look at the overall risk. So I'll let you know when I move into testing the looting claims.
If need help determine the days and hours of ganking to collect bumping data, this helps.
https://gankerlookout.com/#victim%3A%20Providence%3B%20victim%3A%20Charon%3B%20victim%3A%20Obelisk%3B%20victim%3A%20Fenrir%3B%20victim%3A%20Ark%3B%20victim%3A%20Rhea%3B%20victim%3A%20Anshar%3B%20victim%3A%20Nomad%3B%20victim%3A%20Orca%3B%20victim%3A%20Bowhead
That covers that past 5.5 months.....If you click Activity Card.....it'll give a day and hour breakdown.
|
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
1147
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 08:35:20 -
[605] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Or just swing by Uedama and watch, it really would not be hard to see it happen.
KickAss Tivianne wrote:This is a problem, and it is something that evidence does not come easily.
You wanna pick a position and stick with it any time soon mate? |
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 09:46:56 -
[606] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:[quote=bigbud skunkafella]@
[quote
It is a proposal that would only work for illegal targets in highsec (and then not even because of the reasons outlined). It wouldn't even work for legal targets in highsec, since they can also be scrammed for as long as needed.
that is the whole point of my suggestion, to assist an illegal target in hisec against unlimited bumping, giving the bumped pilot an opportunity to escape rather than the current options of log off and die, self destruct , pay ransom and die, or just die...
as for null/lo freighters, lore wise it could be that due to the extremely large mass of freighters , the emergency mjd only works in hisec due to needing f some sort of boosting from a network of sophisticated boosting structures only cost viable in concord protected hisec .
so , having an opportunity to emergency jump away from a squad of incoming catas won't possibly work because....?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17244
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 09:53:44 -
[607] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:One looting issue I brought up....that seem to have been ignored in those posts. The fact that you can loot after you've started to warp startup(Right click, Warpto or Dock).....your able to Loot All, pretty much up to point of insta warp the moment you go suspect. I'm linking 2 videos that confirm this is an issue. The pilot in this video, has me locked and is SPAMMING point. I seem to go invulnerable the moment of suspect. We've witnessed freighters do this....and that a sloooowwww painful thing to watch. Multiple potential looters on grid, who do you bump? and who do prelock? all that good stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2aCCgJYKaI&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBvTXOAYhSg&feature=youtu.be And yes, this aren't properly trimmed down.....deal with it :)
How about bumping the freighter so it cant do this?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44164
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 10:19:17 -
[608] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:so , having an opportunity to emergency jump away from a squad of incoming catas won't possibly work because....? For the simple reason that has already been outlined.
The bumping Machariel would also fit an MJD and just jump straight to the freighter, which is now on the long cooldown you proposed and can't use the MJD again.
So even if the gank pilots get caught by antigankers and need to go refit, the outcome is exactly the same, the freighter will die and the MJD is pointless.
If anything, it would give inexperienced freighter pilots a belief they can escape and make them even less likely to use the already available tools that actually work, but that's just a bit of speculation. It certainly wouldn't make them more likely to use what is already known to work.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
231
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 10:50:00 -
[609] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:If anything, it would give inexperienced freighter pilots a belief they can escape and make them even less likely to use the already available tools that actually work, but that's just a bit of speculation. It certainly wouldn't make them more likely to use what is already known to work.
It would also give experienced and active pilots an opportunity to get webbed into warp (after bumping started). How would that be bad? |
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 13:52:02 -
[610] - Quote
also, from my observations from assisting hundreds of freighters , webbing only works if the freighter has no lateral movement, meaning it can be aligned correctly to a warp in/out, but all the bumper has to do to prevent warp is side swipe the freighter. so to say bring a webber and all will be well once the freighter is being bumped isnt quite true ....
Guide: Providence and Ark A freighers is bumpable. Which means that if anyone wants to kill it, it dies. The gankers can keep it on grid indefinitely and can attempt to kill it as many times as they please. There is nothing you can do about it.
http://greedygoblin.blogspot.hu/2015/11/guide-providence-and-ark.html
i have limited time in rl to be a forum warrior, let alone play eve. i suggest if you have any queries as to why the above is true then you contact gevlon goblin, who i am sure will have all the data you require...
re the guy who asked to supply proof that being bumped for x amount of hours, while helpless in a giant space pinball costs subscribers, let's just call it an educated guess. i can't see the day that ccp will release a promo video extolling the virtues of the above to attract new players....
whether or not there is a need to do something about bumping is for ccp to decide, they have all the evidence required to make a decision, including petitions, complaints, subscriber figures etc. i think it's telling that on numerous occasions even bumpers have admitted that bumping mechanics are way op....
|
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1792
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 14:10:11 -
[611] - Quote
So my wh invasion orca was getting bumped in Niarja last night. We saved it. I'll give you the rundown of what it took.
3 webbing ships with a total of 5 webs AND a white knight kronos to counter bump the mach. Now that I've pulled it off for real I'd like to put some things to bed.
You can't 'simply' web a capital ship once it's being bumped. The slow down and align times of a bumped capital DO NOT allow enough time for 5 unbonussed webs to get it into warp before the mach makes another run and sends it flying. It wasn't even close. I will say that a rapier or huginn may have a chance to web a cap into warp up until the first bump occurs. Once the first mach bump occurs - webbing alone is pointless. The speed of the bounced ship in the bounced direction can't be reduced enough between bumps.
The only actual way to 'simply' save a capital once bumping is in progress is to bump and disrupt the mach AND apply webs to the capital.
Simply webbing with one additional corpmate once bumping is in progress is now disproven. It takes a team to extract the capital ship. Bumping the mach is the key.
The webbers involved were all experienced webbers that have been webbing caps into warp for years. The Orca pilot was also experienced and has the right skill points in the right places. He has max align skills for caps AND knows when and when not to ask for web application. We're not unskilled unexperienced noobs (as far as cap webbing goes).
'Simply webbing' a cap once the bumping process has begun isn't a thing. Counter bumping the mach to get your guy free and into warp is a thing (bring webs too!) |
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
1148
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 14:15:48 -
[612] - Quote
You'd have been quicker and easier scramming and webbing the bumping machariel with T1 frigates. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3061
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 14:18:15 -
[613] - Quote
Waiting until the freighter is bumped before you start webbing is the problem there. If you web the freighter after it decloaks, you need about three seconds to web it into warp, even less time with a daredevil. Bumpers arent going to get you within that time frame. Webbing is a sure way to get past bumpers.
Again with the terrible 'limbo' argument. Theres nothing you can do about a lot in this game, especially if you negligently compromised your own position. Being held in limbo can even be done numerous ways. Whats telling is you guys are fine with people being held in limbo in every way except when gankers do it.
The link you posted is gevlon goblin giving advice on how to tank and then says that most people that lose their freighters deserve it. He also says ganking is 'widespread' because people are stupid with their freighters. Well at least hes right about the stupid part.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1792
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 14:43:09 -
[614] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Waiting until the freighter is bumped before you start webbing is the problem there. If you web the freighter after it decloaks, you need about three seconds to web it into warp, even less time with a daredevil. Bumpers arent going to get you within that time frame. Webbing is a sure way to get past bumpers.
Again with the terrible 'limbo' argument. Theres nothing you can do about a lot in this game, especially if you negligently compromised your own position. Being held in limbo can even be done numerous ways. Whats telling is you guys are fine with people being held in limbo in every way except when gankers do it.
The link you posted is gevlon goblin giving advice on how to tank and then says that most people that lose their freighters deserve it. He also says ganking is 'widespread' because people are stupid with their freighters. Well at least hes right about the stupid part.
Don't be such a tool. I'm not arguing for or against any changes. I'm just stating the facts of the matter. I also stated that webbing w/ a rapier/huginn before bumping is a good idea. Daredevil is also an OK idea, but I'd go w/ a recon over the daredevil because of the time to run to the cap to get in web range AND the possibility of bumping the cap w/ the daredevil. Recons have neither of these mentioned possible down sides. Recons are probably better at webbing before that first bump lands.
My point is that even w/ experienced webbers, once that first bump lands - webbing no longer matters.
My second point is that bumping the mach is the way to go.
If you review my corps kb you can see we've spent the last 5 days in Apanake ganking mission boats, well teaching folks what are and what are not good targets. I'm not a part of the anti ganking crowd.
I do dislike stupid arguments. Many pro bumping arguments are stupid (not yours in this post, so don't get your panties all bunched up and think I'm getting personal on you) (well I did call you a tool, but not based on your arguments, just your attitude )
I also think the current bumping mechanics are kind of dumb and it's just too easy to hold a guy w/out the aggression timer that would allow so many wonderful explosive counters. I also think that 'suiciding the mach' isn't a valid counter for a bad mechanic. I do think the best option to avoid getting cargo ganked is using a JF to avoid Niarja and the other obvious gates. I also think that preventing a capital from getting ganked is really really easy in the avoidance phase of the operation.
PRO HINT: Most ganks occur in a very small number of systems - don't go into these few systems unprepared. Niarja for example, come into it from a side gate and don't rule out getting ganked 1j out.
TL/DR Ganking is fine and working as intended. I personally think the bumping mechanics are stupid. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1792
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 14:47:59 -
[615] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:You'd have been quicker and easier scramming and webbing the bumping machariel with T1 frigates.
We had just declared our week of HS R&R over and we in the process of moving to invade a wh. We had just spent a lot of isk clearing a bunch of kill rights from other shinanigans. Based on timing we didn't want to put kill rights back on the ledger literally 15 minutes after we finished clearing the books. We went w/ webs once the white knight in the kronos started going for the mach. It all worked out.
I do agree with you though - you have to stop the mach if you want to extract once the bumping is in progress. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3062
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 15:04:18 -
[616] - Quote
My post was directed at bigbud. Id didnt see yours serendipity before i hit post.
I wouldnt mind bumping becoming an aggressive act, but there is no way for the server to know when its accidental or malicious. And id like to see some nerfs to hauling before i see more nerfs to ganking.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1793
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 15:09:54 -
[617] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:My post was directed at bigbud. Id didnt see yours serendipity before i hit post.
I wouldnt mind bumping becoming an aggressive act, but there is no way for the server to know when its accidental or malicious. And id like to see some nerfs to hauling before i see more nerfs to ganking.
Well aren't I just the thin skinned whiney biatch then?
Oops and sorries! |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25751
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 15:34:44 -
[618] - Quote
The only problems with ganking/bumping are that the victims are, for the most part, too greedy in terms of how much they carry and too lazy to take active steps to protect their load; in some cases they're so damn lazy they aren't even at the keyboard.
Webs work, I use them for my Orca all the time, I've seen miners spiderweb each other in order to be aligned and able to warp in an instant, I've seen webbed freighters successfully evade bumpers and their cohorts; unfortunately, for some, they require effort and somebody who is paying attention to be effective.
I haul through Uedama regularly, I have a (r)isk limit and do so in a well tanked industrial that aligns like a cruiser. You don't have to fight gankers, you just have to make sure that somebody else is a far more succulent meal.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3062
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 15:36:23 -
[619] - Quote
Precisely. Once the players find out how the server recognises malicious vs accident, they will exploit it.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1793
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 16:02:31 -
[620] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:The only problems with ganking/bumping are that the victims are, for the most part, too greedy in terms of how much they carry and too lazy to take active steps to protect their load; in some cases they're so damn lazy they aren't even at the keyboard.
Webs work, I use them for my Orca all the time, I've seen miners spiderweb each other in order to be aligned and able to warp in an instant, I've seen webbed freighters successfully evade bumpers and their cohorts; unfortunately, for some, they require effort and somebody who is paying attention to be effective.
I haul through Uedama regularly, I have a (r)isk limit and do so in a well tanked industrial that aligns like a cruiser. You don't have to fight gankers, you just have to make sure that somebody else is a far more succulent meal.
Webs only work before the first bump occurs. |
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1793
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 16:06:10 -
[621] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Precisely. Once the players find out how the server recognises malicious vs accident, they will exploit it.
Maybe CCP should just make me the supreme judge of malicious intent. For a fee folks could live feed me their case and I could evaluate it and with a click make the malicious evil doers flashy yellow for all to enjoy.
I've already proven I'm infallible, so I'm the likely choice for this task. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25751
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 16:15:49 -
[622] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:The only problems with ganking/bumping are that the victims are, for the most part, too greedy in terms of how much they carry and too lazy to take active steps to protect their load; in some cases they're so damn lazy they aren't even at the keyboard.
Webs work, I use them for my Orca all the time, I've seen miners spiderweb each other in order to be aligned and able to warp in an instant, I've seen webbed freighters successfully evade bumpers and their cohorts; unfortunately, for some, they require effort and somebody who is paying attention to be effective.
I haul through Uedama regularly, I have a (r)isk limit and do so in a well tanked industrial that aligns like a cruiser. You don't have to fight gankers, you just have to make sure that somebody else is a far more succulent meal. Webs only work before the first bump occurs. Agreed, once you're bumped you're pretty much screwed unless you're able to pull off some of the more esoteric tricks, or have friends to confound the dastardly bounders doing the bumping.
The trick is to not put yourself in a situation where the webs are ineffective, do it right and you can be in warp quicker than a would-be bumper can react and land a hit.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
234
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 16:40:01 -
[623] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:The trick is to not put yourself in a situation where the webs are ineffective, do it right and you can be in warp quicker than a would-be bumper can react and land a hit. As it has been pointed out so many times before, having a webber guarantees nothing as seen in this case. That BB died suicide tackling the bowhead, which died too after 43 minutes. The thing is - all of the counters that have been discussed might work now and then. Add another bumper and there is absolutely no way out, well except for ganking the bumpers. Ganking two bumping machariels would take significant numbers, coordination and some actual skill (unlike freighter ganking), and all of that just to get rid of aggression free warp disruption. Now, that's awesome. Also, I have seen situations with more then two bumper on the scene, so do your math.
Yes, this bowhead risked way too much and could have planned better, be smart and haul modules in a BR etc. However, how is having 43 minutes to get your pings out and your fleet ready without any reasonable way of reacting (in low or null you always have an option to shoot at the other guy w/o Concord protecting him) or avoiding what's gonna happen acceptable, logical and good in terms of game design I really can't see. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1793
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 16:52:04 -
[624] - Quote
We saved our orca after it was being bumped last night. It took 5 guys. If you don't have 5 guys to pull you out of the well, don't fall in it.
If it takes you more than 43 minutes to get your corp to come to your defense - get better corpies. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25752
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 17:05:46 -
[625] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:The trick is to not put yourself in a situation where the webs are ineffective, do it right and you can be in warp quicker than a would-be bumper can react and land a hit. As it has been pointed out so many times before, having a webber guarantees nothing as seen in this case (if you look at that char's kb, you'll find more similar cases). That BB died suicide tackling the bowhead, which died too after 43 minutes. So webs mean nothing really. Nothing is guaranteed, except that Concord will destroy any ship involved in unsanctioned hisec aggression. You can however, tip the odds in your favor by using many of the tactics and mechanics that have been discussed. The gankers and bumpers do, why don't the majority of haulers?
Quote:Furthermore - all of the counters that have been discussed might work now and then. Add another bumper and there is absolutely no way out, well except for ganking the bumper. The tactics and mechanics being discussed work more often than they don't in the hands of someone who understands them; if the hauler involved is any kind of competent they can, and often do escape bumpers. Which part of not putting yourself in a situation where webs are ineffective did you fail to understand? You use the webs before you get bumped
Quote:Ganking two bumping machariels would take significant numbers, coordination and some actual skill (unlike freighter ganking), and all of that just to get rid of aggression free warp disruption. Now, that's awesome. Also, I have seen situations with more then two bumper on the scene, so do your math. Bollocks, bump fit Machs often have little or no tank, tanking damage isn't in the parameters of what they are being used for; and it take no more coordination and skill that that which gankers and bumpers employ.
It's not aggression free warp disruption either, warp disruption requires the use of a module that disables the warp drive, bumping doesn't do that, it interferes with alignment, as do webs; it in no way interferes with the warp drive.
The counters to bumping are out there, and they generally work if you put a little forethought into what and how you fly.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2105
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 17:32:46 -
[626] - Quote
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.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1786
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 17:35:37 -
[627] - 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/
|
Giaus Felix
Hedion University Amarr Empire
109
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 17:37:40 -
[628] - 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.
:effort:
I am Ralph's junk DNA.
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1795
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 18:35:32 -
[629] - Quote
Giaus Felix wrote: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.
:effort:
So the white knight in the kronos on the Niarja gate that was pretty much THE factor in saving our orca (we had a bumping ship coming, but was pretty far out) said he's saved over 50 freighters. If you're looking to white knight I think a marauder to perform mach bumping is ideal. Fit it for max speed and max tank and go for it. I would imagine if you really dislike freighter ganking that every single mach bump would feel pretty good.
I would think a saved freighter would be gracious w/ a donation. I could even see if you advertised your service you could possibly be hired in advance to post up on a gate and engage (err.... bump) any machs before they could get the freighter into a bad spot.
The kronos pilot seemed to be having a good time and he was very effective. To be fair though, bring a webber and don't just totally depend on a random to save your bacon. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2105
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 18:42:35 -
[630] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Giaus Felix wrote: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.
:effort: So the white knight in the kronos on the Niarja gate that was pretty much THE factor in saving our orca (we had a bumping ship coming, but was pretty far out) said he's saved over 50 freighters. If you're looking to white knight I think a marauder to perform mach bumping is ideal. Fit it for max speed and max tank and go for it. I would imagine if you really dislike freighter ganking that every single mach bump would feel pretty good. I would think a saved freighter would be gracious w/ a donation. I could even see if you advertised your service you could possibly be hired in advance to post up on a gate and engage (err.... bump) any machs before they could get the freighter into a bad spot. The kronos pilot seemed to be having a good time and he was very effective. To be fair though, bring a webber and don't just totally depend on a random to save your bacon. Perfect! He can show OP and his friends how to actually play the game so they can stop crying on the forums and we can close the thread.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4569
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 19:07:26 -
[631] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote: I will say that a rapier or huginn may have a chance to web a cap into warp up until the first bump occurs.
Your rapier or huginn should go sit on the gate at zero. Their range and the distance the freighter will be from the in gate will ensure you can indeed web them unless you are really unlucky and the bumping ship was already moving in your direction and close when you drop gate cloak.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
234
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 19:09:50 -
[632] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote: So the white knight in the kronos on the Niarja gate that was pretty much THE factor in saving our orca (we had a bumping ship coming, but was pretty far out) said he's saved over 50 freighters. If you're looking to white knight I think a marauder to perform mach bumping is ideal. Fit it for max speed and max tank and go for it. I would imagine if you really dislike freighter ganking that every single mach bump would feel pretty good.
I would think a saved freighter would be gracious w/ a donation. I could even see if you advertised your service you could possibly be hired in advance to post up on a gate and engage (err.... bump) any machs before they could get the freighter into a bad spot.
The kronos pilot seemed to be having a good time and he was very effective. To be fair though, bring a webber and don't just totally depend on a random to save your bacon.
Tbh, if a Mach fit for speed got bumped by a kronos, the bumper must have either halfe arsed it, or was really bad. Sometimes they tip, most of the times they don't Gÿ¦ |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4569
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 19:13:28 -
[633] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:You'd have been quicker and easier scramming and webbing the bumping machariel with T1 frigates. We had just declared our week of HS R&R over and we in the process of moving to invade a wh. We had just spent a lot of isk clearing a bunch of kill rights from other shinanigans. Based on timing we didn't want to put kill rights back on the ledger literally 15 minutes after we finished clearing the books. We went w/ webs once the white knight in the kronos started going for the mach. It all worked out. I do agree with you though - you have to stop the mach if you want to extract once the bumping is in progress.
Doesn't really negate the point though.
Ganking the bumping ship can indeed save a freighter. Webbing and scraming the bumping ship might be a good strategy too as you'll drop his speed alot and "hold" him there for about 18 seconds. One person incurring kill rights to save your Orca...sounds like a reasonable trade off to me, but it was your call.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44167
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 19:15:43 -
[634] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:If anything, it would give inexperienced freighter pilots a belief they can escape and make them even less likely to use the already available tools that actually work, but that's just a bit of speculation. It certainly wouldn't make them more likely to use what is already known to work. It would also give experienced and active pilots an opportunity to get webbed into warp (after bumping started). How would that be bad? Also, regardless of having MJD capable freighters, I don't think that inexperienced pilots know anything about the tools that actually might or might not work in the odd case of bumper being really bad. Experienced and active pilots are already being webbed, so they don't need an MJD because they aren't being bumped.
If they get lazy in a haul and don't use webs, wel that's the chance they take and they deserve the consequences if they get caught.
However, even with an MJD fit, after they use the MJD, how are the webs getting to them before the Mach?
As to thinking inexperienced pilots don't know about the tools available to them, more fool them if you're right. Dumb move yo be flying a slow, expensive ship and not fi ding out how to fly it. That doesn't deserve and assistance from an extra ship capability that won't achieve anything for them anyway.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44167
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 19:25:22 -
[635] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:also, from my observations from assisting hundreds of freighters , webbing only works if the freighter has no lateral movement, meaning it can be aligned correctly to a warp in/out, but all the bumper has to do to prevent warp is side swipe the freighter. so to say bring a webber and all will be well once the freighter is being bumped isnt quite true ....
Web's work if a Freighter is either stationary, or only moving very slowly (very close to stationary).
Also, you can't be aligned correctly and then be bumped. If you are aligned correctly (>= 75% of speed in the direction of intended warp), then you warp. Anything else means you aren't aligned correctly; so yes bumps will stop an intended warp if your direction is moved away from your desired warp direction while you are aligning.
Any yes, webs after you have been bumped are pointless. You use them before and not get bumped in the first place. Prevention is better than a cure and all that.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44167
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 19:34:24 -
[636] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:re the guy who asked to supply proof that being bumped for x amount of hours, while helpless in a giant space pinball costs subscribers, let's just call it an educated guess. i can't see the day that ccp will release a promo video extolling the virtues of the above to attract new players.... Educated by what exactly?
Because your guess isn't supported by any data that CCP have released over the last couple of years, so what's the basis for guessing that is the case? That it meets bias about things but isn't at all validated?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Mandar Amelana
Black Flag Enterprises Galactic Conundrum Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 19:44:56 -
[637] - Quote
My .02 ISK
The frustration here is that bumping with the intention of aiding in a gank is an obvious aggressive act and done so right in front of CONCORD forces. It would be like a cop watching as a person holds another person down with the intent of doing so until his buddy shows up to murder him and doing nothing to stop it. Is there a way to avoid it? Yes. But it is rather inconsistent with in the universe itself that this is allowed.
The difficulty is in somehow enacting a mechanic that won't result in CONCORD going bananas on anyone who accidentally bumps someone trying to leave Jita.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44167
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 19:49:05 -
[638] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:The slow down and align times of a bumped capital DO NOT allow enough time for 5 unbonussed webs to get it into warp before the mach makes another run and sends it flying. It wasn't even close. I will say that a rapier or huginn may have a chance to web a cap into warp up until the first bump occurs. Once the first mach bump occurs - webbing alone is pointless. The speed of the bounced ship in the bounced direction can't be reduced enough between bumps. Nice post and totally correct.
Loki works well too. I originally used a crucifier when I first created my webbing alt, but trained her into a Loki as soon as I could.
While the Huggin/Rapier works well, I prefer the ability of the Loki to also fit links. My fit and stats:
http://puu.sh/mTpBM/1e20011a25.jpg
51.8km overheated webs, 78K EHP, lock time under 2 seconds.
In all the time I have used that fit, my Freighter has only been outside the overheated range once on initial jump through a regional gate, requiring the webbing alt to position before the freighter decloaks. The rest of the time, the web decloaks and pre-activates modules and then locks and webs as soon as the Freighter appears on screen.
2 ticks to lock and 1 more to get the Freighter into warp. The freighter enters warp 3 seconds after decloaking.
If my hauling alt is in a Jump Freighter, then the Loki provides a backup cyno option if my exit cyno gets killed while waiting on a station to light. So if the JF gets bumped and the exit cyno is dead, the Loki will go to the nearest lowsec system and light the cyno instead.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 20:02:46 -
[639] - Quote
Since the webbing is effective.....how about allowing it within Fleets, forgot the dueling option? |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44167
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 20:04:37 -
[640] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:Since the webbing is effective.....how about allowing it within Fleets, forgot the dueling option? 2 things in terms of mine:
1. It is in fleet (which as no effect on whether a target is legal or not) in order to use the links 2. is in the same Corp as my Freighter pilot and friendly fire is set legal, so no dual is required at all**
** My Freighter pilot is in a player Corp, not an NPC Corp. The hauling alt and webs drop to an NPC Corp only under a wardec
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4569
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 20:05:46 -
[641] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:re the guy who asked to supply proof that being bumped for x amount of hours, while helpless in a giant space pinball costs subscribers, let's just call it an educated guess. i can't see the day that ccp will release a promo video extolling the virtues of the above to attract new players.... Educated by what exactly? Because your guess isn't supported by any data that CCP have released over the last couple of years, so what's the basis for guessing that is the case? That it meets bias about things but isn't at all validated?
Also, how frequently is this happening? How common is 5-6 hours of bumping happening?
Another question is would people leave the game if bumping was deemed an exploit or heavily nerfed?
Funny how we never see that question in these threads?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44167
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 20:08:24 -
[642] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Also, how frequently is this happening? How common is 5-6 hours of bumping happening? That's part of what I'm collecting data for at the moment.
It'll be a couple of weeks before I have sufficient data, but aiming for 95 +/- 1% confidence in the results.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44167
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 20:23:27 -
[643] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:As it has been pointed out so many times before, having a webber guarantees nothing as seen in this case (if you look at that char's kb, you'll find more similar cases). That BB died suicide tackling the bowhead, which died too after 43 minutes. So webs mean nothing really. The use of a BB is reasonably common based on zkill.
There are 2 advantages that you can have though.
1. A webbing alt that is just as quick to lock the target (ie. under 2 seconds) 2. You get to pick the time you decloak
So if the BB is cloaked on gate and decloaks, then immediately decloak and web. The BB will have a 5 second locking delay.
If the BB is already decloaked, then be immediately ready to lock the Freighter with the webber so that you get to lock first. As long as you are 1 second faster than the BB pilot, the Freighter will be in warp before he achieves lock.
Nothing is guaranteed and that's part of what makes this game so great.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 20:24:07 -
[644] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:re the guy who asked to supply proof that being bumped for x amount of hours, while helpless in a giant space pinball costs subscribers, let's just call it an educated guess. i can't see the day that ccp will release a promo video extolling the virtues of the above to attract new players.... Educated by what exactly? Because your guess isn't supported by any data that CCP have released over the last couple of years, so what's the basis for guessing that is the case? That it meets bias about things but isn't at all validated? Also, how frequently is this happening? How common is 5-6 hours of bumping happening? Another question is would people leave the game if bumping was deemed an exploit or heavily nerfed? Funny how we never see that question in these threads?
if u re-read carefully what i posted, i said x amount of hours, hours being the operative word here. during my time in hsm, i and my fleet members observed the 'stacking ' of bumped freighters on many occasions, with multiple bumpers (6 or more) holding targets till the gank squad could get round to them, at slightly less than 4 ganks max per hour , taking down targets in order of value or vulnerabilty (ie no protective fleet near) , you do the maths . these gank sessions frequently went on for 6 hrs or more .
i am not asking for bumping to be deemed an exploit in my suggestion , or any kind of nerf .
i personally have observed 4-6 hour bumping sagas on at least 3 occasions. multiple hour bumps? too many to count .
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 20:25:40 -
[645] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Also, how frequently is this happening? How common is 5-6 hours of bumping happening? That's part of what I'm collecting data for at the moment. It'll be a couple of weeks before I have sufficient data, but aiming for 95 +/- 1% confidence in the results.
And I do want to point out....bumping/ganking quite seasonal. Summer it sky rockets as more people have time to play. And may well give quite a tell to the age range of bumper/gankers in general :) The Uedama CODE. fleet ganks have slowed as the best FC, Loyalanon has not quite had the time. And when in full swing its quite hectic, a 5 hour mass gank feast days do happen...and multiple bumpers are sending in "pings"... the bumpee does have alot time to kill before there demise. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44167
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 20:25:44 -
[646] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:re the guy who asked to supply proof that being bumped for x amount of hours, while helpless in a giant space pinball costs subscribers, let's just call it an educated guess. i can't see the day that ccp will release a promo video extolling the virtues of the above to attract new players.... Educated by what exactly? Because your guess isn't supported by any data that CCP have released over the last couple of years, so what's the basis for guessing that is the case? That it meets bias about things but isn't at all validated? Also, how frequently is this happening? How common is 5-6 hours of bumping happening? Another question is would people leave the game if bumping was deemed an exploit or heavily nerfed? Funny how we never see that question in these threads? if u re-read carefully what i posted, i said x amount of hours, hours being the operative word here. during my time in hsm, i and my fleet members observed the 'stacking ' of bumped freighters on many occasions, with multiple bumpers (6 or more) holding targets till the gank squad could get round to them, at slightly less than 4 ganks max per hour , taking down targets in order of value or vulnerabilty (ie no protective fleet near) , you do the maths . these gank sessions frequently went on for 6 hrs or more . i am not asking for bumping to be deemed an exploit in my suggestion , or any kind of nerf . i personally have observed 4-6 hour bumping sagas on at least 3 occasions. multiple hour bumps? too many to count . How does that cost subscribers though?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44167
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 20:35:00 -
[647] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:And I do want to point out....bumping/ganking quite seasonal. Summer it sky rockets as more people have time to play. And may well give quite a tell to the age range of bumper/gankers in general :) The Uedama CODE. fleet ganks have slowed as the best FC, Loyalanon has not quite had the time. And when in full swing its quite hectic, a 5 hour mass gank feast days do happen...and multiple bumpers are sending in "pings"... the bumpee does have alot time to kill before there demise. So bumping is not a problem right now?
The online numbers peak is February each year: http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility so now is the time of year when the highest number of players are normally expected to be online.
If there is seasonal variability that means bumping is worse when the server numbers are at their lowest, then the study will need more data. That's no problem. Seasonal variability will be an obvious limitation of the current data collection, but it can continue later on too.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 20:48:31 -
[648] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:also, from my observations from assisting hundreds of freighters , webbing only works if the freighter has no lateral movement, meaning it can be aligned correctly to a warp in/out, but all the bumper has to do to prevent warp is side swipe the freighter. so to say bring a webber and all will be well once the freighter is being bumped isnt quite true ....
Any yes, webs after you have been bumped are pointless. You use them before and not get bumped in the first place. Prevention is better than a cure and all that.
so, lets say for example a freighter pilot does the right thing, sets off with a corpy in a webber, as he's jumping thru after the webber , the webber d/c s,( a not uncommon occurence) a cloaky bumper decloaks and has at the freighter pilot . webber pilot logs back in, but it's now too late to do anything cos the bumpers bumping. freighter pilot now has the options that i listed earlier, logoff and die, self destruct, pay ransom and (v likely ) die, or wait for catas and die . if he's fortunate he won't have to wait too long, if he's not fortunate ...
now i find this a little on the harsh side , the guy did all the right things, but cos of bad luck he's just got to sit helplessly and be a giant 1 bil isk + space pinball till the gankers decide it's his turn to die, which potentially could be several hours .
mjd would at least give the pilot an option to try save himself . he manages to mjd to the webber pilot f.i who's positioned himself 100 km away ready to web him in the vital seconds he's gained before the bumper reacts . if he's got a 3 rd friend along in an inty , positioned well ahead of the freighter, then he's now got a chance to get a warp to him ...
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 20:54:12 -
[649] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:As it has been pointed out so many times before, having a webber guarantees nothing as seen in this case (if you look at that char's kb, you'll find more similar cases). That BB died suicide tackling the bowhead, which died too after 43 minutes. So webs mean nothing really. Nothing is guaranteed and that's part of what makes this game so great.
as was said earlier, once you're bumped you're pretty much guaranteed to die....
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44167
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 20:56:07 -
[650] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:as was said earlier, once you're bumped you're pretty much guaranteed to die.... Maybe you didn't read Serendipity's posts in the last couple of pages.
There is no guarantee of anything, for anyone.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4571
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 21:01:41 -
[651] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Also, how frequently is this happening? How common is 5-6 hours of bumping happening? That's part of what I'm collecting data for at the moment. It'll be a couple of weeks before I have sufficient data, but aiming for 95 +/- 1% confidence in the results.
Oh I know, but the fact that you have to do is suggestive that people are quite possibly pointing to what is basically and outlier and saying OMG this is horrible.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44168
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 21:03:22 -
[652] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:so, lets say for example a freighter pilot does the right thing, sets off with a corpy in a webber, as he's jumping thru after the webber , the webber d/c s,( a not uncommon occurence) a cloaky bumper decloaks and has at the freighter pilot . What if the bumper disconnects? What if the catalysts all disconnect?
Disconnects are a totally random and unfortunate part of the game we all face equally. Whole incursion fleets have died to sansha rats after disconnecting. People die regularly due to disconnects, both to rats and in pvp situations. No one gets special treatment because they disconnected.
I could post several lossmails I've had that resulted from disconnects if it was allowed here. It happens to everyone at some point.
The best the freighter pilot can hope for if he dies (just the same as anyone else in that position) is that it was a server issue and they can petition for a reimbursement.
However, in the absence of a server problem, that's just bad luck and part of the game.
There is no amount of mechanics changes that can plan around the possibility of a disconnect.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16140
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 21:03:27 -
[653] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:As it has been pointed out so many times before, having a webber guarantees nothing as seen in this case (if you look at that char's kb, you'll find more similar cases). That BB died suicide tackling the bowhead, which died too after 43 minutes. So webs mean nothing really. Nothing is guaranteed and that's part of what makes this game so great. as was said earlier, once you're bumped you're pretty much guaranteed to die....
And the people who said that, you included, are 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.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4571
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 21:11:50 -
[654] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:As it has been pointed out so many times before, having a webber guarantees nothing as seen in this case (if you look at that char's kb, you'll find more similar cases). That BB died suicide tackling the bowhead, which died too after 43 minutes. So webs mean nothing really. Nothing is guaranteed and that's part of what makes this game so great. as was said earlier, once you're bumped you're pretty much guaranteed to die.... And the people who said that, you included, are wrong.
No kidding. Shoot the bumper, gank him. Yes you'll take sec hit and lose your ship(s) but it is feasible. As was suggested earlier a scram and webs on a T1 frigate could work too. You could slow him down until CONCORD arrives which could be long enough for the freighter to get away.
Oh and you'll be spawning CONCORD right there so either the gank fleet will need more DPS.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 21:22:10 -
[655] - Quote
I'm sorry, i must have been imagining all those nights in uedama where codes bumpers just stacked up bumped freighters for the slaughter for hours at a time i guess.
i've got another proposal, seeing how ganking just got a HUGE buff with the wreck hp boost, how about making shooting wrecks a suspect level offence rather than a criminal offence in hi-sec...
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4571
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 21:30:49 -
[656] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:re the guy who asked to supply proof that being bumped for x amount of hours, while helpless in a giant space pinball costs subscribers, let's just call it an educated guess. i can't see the day that ccp will release a promo video extolling the virtues of the above to attract new players.... Educated by what exactly? Because your guess isn't supported by any data that CCP have released over the last couple of years, so what's the basis for guessing that is the case? That it meets bias about things but isn't at all validated? Also, how frequently is this happening? How common is 5-6 hours of bumping happening? Another question is would people leave the game if bumping was deemed an exploit or heavily nerfed? Funny how we never see that question in these threads? if u re-read carefully what i posted, i said x amount of hours, hours being the operative word here. during my time in hsm, i and my fleet members observed the 'stacking ' of bumped freighters on many occasions, with multiple bumpers (6 or more) holding targets till the gank squad could get round to them, at slightly less than 4 ganks max per hour , taking down targets in order of value or vulnerabilty (ie no protective fleet near) , you do the maths . these gank sessions frequently went on for 6 hrs or more . i am not asking for bumping to be deemed an exploit in my suggestion , or any kind of nerf . i personally have observed 4-6 hour bumping sagas on at least 3 occasions. multiple hour bumps? too many to count .
So 4-6 is an outlier. We can conclude that it happens, but very, very rarely.
Now the next question is how many freighters pass through systems like Uedama on a daily basis. Getting an idea of traffic through ganking systems will give us an idea of the overall frequency of this problem.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16142
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 21:32:12 -
[657] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:I'm sorry, i must have been imagining all those nights in uedama where codes bumpers just stacked up bumped freighters for the slaughter for hours at a time i guess.
Just because no one bothered to do anything about it, doesn't mean nothing could have been done.
"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
44170
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 21:39:50 -
[658] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:I'm sorry, i must have been imagining all those nights in uedama where codes bumpers just stacked up bumped freighters for the slaughter for hours at a time i guess. No one is saying you've imagined anything.
If you are part of the antiganking community, then you immerse yourself in play around those things, so I'd be surprised if you didn't see those things.
That doesn't make it a problem that requires any change though. If you see something all the time, you are bound to be influenced by that. However a few pages back there was a recommendation to step back and look at the bigger picture.
That is a good recommendation for all of us. Take the blinkers off and look to see if this is really a problem, or if it's an isolated issue caused largely by the failing of freighter pilots as much as it is by bumpers.
Quote:i've got another proposal, seeing how ganking just got a HUGE buff with the wreck hp boost, how about making shooting wrecks a suspect level offence rather than a criminal offence in hi-sec. Hahaha.
So it's unfair that gankers can steal someone else's possessions, but it should be ok for antigankers to pop it with relative safety so the gank victim can never recover any of it under any circumstances?
Classic.
On the one hand, gankers/looters should be easy to shoot so they can't steal it, but you should be able to shoot it easily.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4574
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 21:41:47 -
[659] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:I'm sorry, i must have been imagining all those nights in uedama where codes bumpers just stacked up bumped freighters for the slaughter for hours at a time i guess.
i've got another proposal, seeing how ganking just got a HUGE buff with the wreck hp boost, how about making shooting wrecks a suspect level offence rather than a criminal offence in hi-sec...
Actually, what you witnessed is one of the characteristics about HS. Many players in HS are basically self-absorbed. That is HS players tend to work in smaller groups, or even alone. And they are more inclined to not help others. When IGÇÖm online and at my PC when somebody in my corp/alliance/coalition screams for help I go help (within reason, if a guy screams for help way down in the ass end of Pure Blind and IGÇÖm way up at the top of Branch, I canGÇÖt do much). But in HS? NoGǪnot really. People will fly by a guy getting bumped and go merrily on their way. To be sure this isnGÇÖt true of everyone, but largely that is the case.
Further, those who might help will only do so up to a point. Their willingness to incur a cost to help out some guy getting bumped is quite limited. Logistics? Okay, sure. Try to bump the bumper? Alright. But gank the bumper? What? No way! CONCORD will blow up my ship. Somebody will have a kill right against me. That is, apparently asking way to much.
However for those who gank, no big deal. Fine, CONCORD blows up my ship. Sure IGÇÖll have kill rights, I am still going to gank that freighter though. Ganking groups are quite willing to go to greater lengths to accomplish their goals than most other players in HS.
So yeah, I bet you did see freighterGÇÖs getting bumped. But part of the problem is that the typical resident of HS not only wonGÇÖt go as far as a member of a ganking groupGǪmost of the time he wonGÇÖt even give a ****.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4574
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 21:45:24 -
[660] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:I'm sorry, i must have been imagining all those nights in uedama where codes bumpers just stacked up bumped freighters for the slaughter for hours at a time i guess.
Just because no one bothered to do anything about it, doesn't mean nothing could have been done.
An accurate statement would be:
"I've seen freighters getting bumped for hours, I could have done something, but I didn't."
Some white knight.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 21:49:06 -
[661] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:I'm sorry, i must have been imagining all those nights in uedama where codes bumpers just stacked up bumped freighters for the slaughter for hours at a time i guess. No one is saying you've imagined anything. Quote:i've got another proposal, seeing how ganking just got a HUGE buff with the wreck hp boost, how about making shooting wrecks a suspect level offence rather than a criminal offence in hi-sec. Hahaha. So you think it is unfair that gankers can steal someone else's possessions, but it should be ok for antigankers to pop it so the gank victim can never recover any of it under any circumstances? Classic. On the one hand, gankers/looters should be easy to shoot so they can't steal it, but you should be able to shoot it easily.
with a 15000 hp wreck which i believe is the proposed number i don't see how popping it will be easy ..
please, where have i stated that it's unfair that gankers can steal loot? popping wrecks was an effective tool for ag to deprive crims of their ill gotten gains, taking that away is a HUGE buff for gankers, whatever way you try to spin it. wrecks now are pretty much guaranteed (hmm , that word again ) to survive for looting in hisec , unless you're going to suggest that ag pull concord + waste 2 nados b4 wreck gets looted....
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 21:52:42 -
[662] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:I'm sorry, i must have been imagining all those nights in uedama where codes bumpers just stacked up bumped freighters for the slaughter for hours at a time i guess.
Just because no one bothered to do anything about it, doesn't mean nothing could have been done. An accurate statement would be: "I've seen freighters getting bumped for hours, I could have done something, but I didn't." Some white knight.
you're ASSuming that all the hsm and ag fleets do is sit and observe freighters getting bumped here aren't you?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44170
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 21:55:19 -
[663] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:please, where have i stated that it's unfair that gankers can steal loot? Go and look at the posts in this thread about the problem of looting.
Not necessarily you specifically. Using you in the collective sense of antigankers in general.
That the wreck can be looted with an alt and the DST/Freighter remains unflagged, or that the catalysts loot the wreck before being CONCORDed is part of what this whole thread is about.
Wanting to have no consequence for shooting the gankers/bumpers/looters, but wanting them to have additional consequences above what the mechanics currently involve.
Just bite the bullet and shoot the wreck if that is the desired course of action.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4575
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 21:56:54 -
[664] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:I'm sorry, i must have been imagining all those nights in uedama where codes bumpers just stacked up bumped freighters for the slaughter for hours at a time i guess.
Just because no one bothered to do anything about it, doesn't mean nothing could have been done. An accurate statement would be: "I've seen freighters getting bumped for hours, I could have done something, but I didn't." Some white knight. you're ASSuming that all the hsm and ag fleets do is sit and observe freighters getting bumped here aren't you?
No, I'm assuming you simply won't gank the bumping ship. And in that assumption I feel pretty confident.
In fact, you guys might actually be prolonging the freighter pilots time spent being bumped.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 21:58:32 -
[665] - Quote
btw, has anyone here got a link to a thread discussing the pros and cons off increasing wreck hps ? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4575
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 21:58:41 -
[666] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:I'm sorry, i must have been imagining all those nights in uedama where codes bumpers just stacked up bumped freighters for the slaughter for hours at a time i guess. No one is saying you've imagined anything. Quote:i've got another proposal, seeing how ganking just got a HUGE buff with the wreck hp boost, how about making shooting wrecks a suspect level offence rather than a criminal offence in hi-sec. Hahaha. So you think it is unfair that gankers can steal someone else's possessions, but it should be ok for antigankers to pop it so the gank victim can never recover any of it under any circumstances? Classic. On the one hand, gankers/looters should be easy to shoot so they can't steal it, but you should be able to shoot it easily. with a 15000 hp wreck which i believe is the proposed number i don't see how popping it will be easy .. please, where have i stated that it's unfair that gankers can steal loot? popping wrecks was an effective tool for ag to deprive crims of their ill gotten gains, taking that away is a HUGE buff for gankers, whatever way you try to spin it. wrecks now are pretty much guaranteed (hmm , that word again ) to survive for looting in hisec , unless you're going to suggest that ag pull concord + waste 2 nados b4 wreck gets looted....
If only you'd wasted those tornadoes on the bumping ship there would be no wreck.
Edit:
Translation of that second paragraph:
I never said it was unfair to increase a wreck's HP, but let me tell you why it is unfair.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44170
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 22:00:44 -
[667] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:btw, has anyone here got a link to a thread discussing the pros and cons off increasing wreck hps ? The original F&I thread is here on the front page of this forum:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=431120&find=unread
The Upcoming Features thread is stickied in the CCP forum:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=467351&find=unread
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 22:01:41 -
[668] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:please, where have i stated that it's unfair that gankers can steal loot? Go and look at the posts in this thread about the problem of looting. Not necessarily you specifically. Using you in the collective sense of antigankers in general. My poor wording there. It could have been clearer what I meant with different phrasing. That the wreck can be looted with an alt and the DST/Freighter remains unflagged, or that the catalysts loot the wreck before being CONCORDed is part of what this whole thread is about. Wanting to have no consequence for shooting the gankers/bumpers/looters, but wanting them to have additional consequences above what the mechanics currently involve. 15K HP with 0 resists is not that difficult to chew through. The gankers kill ships with 500K HP and resists in 7-15 seconds odd. Just bite the bullet and shoot the wreck if that is the desired course of action.
with concord on site and limited time to shoot the wreck, i'd like to see u pop one successfully . perhaps you'd be prepared to give me a demonstration one day.
i'm not what you call typical ag. i and my corp have made 10s if not 100s of billions of isk from hunting and stealing from gankers over the years. the more hisec ganking that goes on, the more contect/isk /fun i get .
i personally would hate to see ganking getting nerfed to oblivion , but imo bumping mechanics in their current form are in need of adjustment, whether it's by giving a freighter limited use mjd or some other way. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44172
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 22:08:22 -
[669] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:No, I'm assuming you simply won't gank the bumping ship. And in that assumption I feel pretty confident It's a pretty safe assumption.
Not a single bumping Machariel has been ganked by antigankers in the first 20 pages of the zkill lossmails:
https://zkillboard.com/ship/17738/losses/
So in the last 1000 Machariel deaths, not one bumping Mach from what I can see has been ganked to save a ship from being bumped.
The highsec Mach losses have been mostly legal targets (wardecs and killright activation) and there are a couple of ganks of shiny Machs, but no bumping Machs.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 22:11:24 -
[670] - Quote
i've been away from eve for several months, before that i was in fw for several months so haven't had the opportunity to gank machs unfortunately, tho others in hsm have been doing a reasonable job on occasion. |
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44172
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 22:11:38 -
[671] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:with concord on site and limited time to shoot the wreck, i'd like to see u pop one successfully . perhaps you'd be prepared to give me a demonstration one day. I don't play in highsec on Scip and I'm not interested in popping wrecks in highsec.
So, no I don't personally have any particular desire to demonstrate popping a wreck in highsec. I'd rather take care of doing the things I do in the game and not ask CCP to make the game easier for me.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16147
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 22:11:55 -
[672] - Quote
By the way, it's not much of an assumption to say that anti ganking just sits by and wrings their hands instead of doing anything.
That's a safe enough bet that they wouldn't take it in Vegas, because they don't like certain losses.
"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.
|
Paranoid Loyd
8348
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 22:27:34 -
[673] - Quote
You can throw the "/highsec" parameter on there to narrow it down more. January 2nd is the first one I saw.
"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!
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44172
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 23:08:22 -
[674] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:You can throw the "/highsec" parameter on there to narrow it down more. January 2nd is the first one I saw. Thanks. I didn't know you can add the sec status.
Tuitian Bogel in Uedama at 22:28 hrs, yep I clearly missed that one.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4575
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 23:22:29 -
[675] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:You can throw the "/highsec" parameter on there to narrow it down more. January 2nd is the first one I saw. Thanks. I didn't know you can add the sec status. Tuitian Bogel in Uedama at 22:28 hrs, yep I clearly missed that one.
I counted 3 dead bumping machs since Nov 22, 2015. So 1 dead bumping mach every 25-30 days.
Heroic efforts indeed.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25758
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 23:31:42 -
[676] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:You can throw the "/highsec" parameter on there to narrow it down more. January 2nd is the first one I saw. Thanks. I didn't know you can add the sec status. Tuitian Bogel in Uedama at 22:28 hrs, yep I clearly missed that one. I counted 3 dead bumping machs since Nov 22, 2015. So 1 dead bumping mach every 25-30 days. Heroic efforts indeed. It's the scissors technique, it's infallible.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17246
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 00:02:53 -
[677] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
with concord on site and limited time to shoot the wreck, i'd like to see u pop one successfully . perhaps you'd be prepared to give me a demonstration one day.
You use alpha boats.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3065
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 01:14:08 -
[678] - Quote
-If there is a blackbird AND a mach sitting ominously at a gate, your scout should be able to identify it and notify the freighter. The more tools you use, the better your chance of survival.
-Pulling at all straws with the DC comment as if it only happens to the AG crowd. Be sensible.
-Two nados will pop a wreck or something like 5-8 thrashers. Thats not much compared to what gankers have to put together to carry out the gank itself.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 04:20:33 -
[679] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:-If there is a blackbird AND a mach sitting ominously at a gate, your scout should be able to identify it and notify the freighter. The more tools you use, the better your chance of survival.
-Pulling at all straws with the DC comment as if it only happens to the AG crowd. Be sensible.
-Two nados will pop a wreck or something like 5-8 thrashers. Thats not much compared to what gankers have to put together to carry out the gank itself.
So a 5-8 fleet, just to kill a wreck, Nados on grid is a dead giveaway, especially if those flying them are known. So a large fleet by AG standards is now needed to stop looters, when a simple tweak in the transfer mechanic, by not allowing anybody to make a tranfers that results in Suspect TImer(loot is already gone at that point).....Or Even allowing any transfers while Criminal/Suspect is active....If you want to loot in a freighter, you better have friends to protect the decision as you go Suspect. And if friends just happen to be gankers...that's a risk you take.
HPs on wrecks make sense it though....
But should it not be sensible for amount a ship can transfer at any one time be based on its current cargo limit?.....how can you transfer more than you can take in yourself.
|
Iain Cariaba
2489
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 05:56:39 -
[680] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:-If there is a blackbird AND a mach sitting ominously at a gate, your scout should be able to identify it and notify the freighter. The more tools you use, the better your chance of survival.
-Pulling at all straws with the DC comment as if it only happens to the AG crowd. Be sensible.
-Two nados will pop a wreck or something like 5-8 thrashers. Thats not much compared to what gankers have to put together to carry out the gank itself.
So a 5-8 fleet, just to kill a wreck, Nados on grid is a dead giveaway, especially if those flying them are known. So a large fleet by AG standards is now needed to stop looters, when a simple tweak in the transfer mechanic, by not allowing anybody to make a tranfers that results in Suspect TImer(loot is already gone at that point).....Or Even allowing any transfers while Criminal/Suspect is active....If you want to loot in a freighter, you better have friends to protect the decision as you go Suspect. And if friends just happen to be gankers...that's a risk you take. HPs on wrecks make sense it though.... But should it not be sensible for amount a ship can transfer at any one time be based on its current cargo limit?.....how can you transfer more than you can take in yourself. 5-8 is a large fleet? No wonder AG sucks as bad as it does. If you field less than half your opponent's numbers, why should you expect to prevail?
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?
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4579
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 06:39:23 -
[681] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Brad Neece wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:-If there is a blackbird AND a mach sitting ominously at a gate, your scout should be able to identify it and notify the freighter. The more tools you use, the better your chance of survival.
-Pulling at all straws with the DC comment as if it only happens to the AG crowd. Be sensible.
-Two nados will pop a wreck or something like 5-8 thrashers. Thats not much compared to what gankers have to put together to carry out the gank itself.
So a 5-8 fleet, just to kill a wreck, Nados on grid is a dead giveaway, especially if those flying them are known. So a large fleet by AG standards is now needed to stop looters, when a simple tweak in the transfer mechanic, by not allowing anybody to make a tranfers that results in Suspect TImer(loot is already gone at that point).....Or Even allowing any transfers while Criminal/Suspect is active....If you want to loot in a freighter, you better have friends to protect the decision as you go Suspect. And if friends just happen to be gankers...that's a risk you take. HPs on wrecks make sense it though.... But should it not be sensible for amount a ship can transfer at any one time be based on its current cargo limit?.....how can you transfer more than you can take in yourself. 5-8 is a large fleet? No wonder AG sucks as bad as it does. If you field less than half your opponent's numbers, why should you expect to prevail?
Because...?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3066
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 07:32:12 -
[682] - Quote
So nados sitting in wait are obvious, but the bumping mach isnt?
I also wouldn't mind the transfer to fleet hangar be a suspect offense or not possible for criminals to do. But id like to see a nerf to hauling first.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17248
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 09:06:38 -
[683] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:So nados sitting in wait are obvious, but the bumping mach isnt?
I also wouldn't mind the transfer to fleet hangar be a suspect offense or not possible for criminals to do. But id like to see a nerf to hauling first.
If the freighters use the huge/enormous freight containers and/or package the cargo it becomes impossible to pull it through a DST.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
246
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 09:43:27 -
[684] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:5-8 is a large fleet? No wonder AG sucks as bad as it does. If you field less than half your opponent's numbers, why should you expect to prevail? Let's use this logic in the case of bumping, pretty please. Unless you field at least three machariels you should not be able to reliably bump a freighter with a webber alt or two. We cool?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17249
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 09:46:25 -
[685] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Let's use this logic in the case of bumping, pretty please. Unless you field at least three machariels you should not be able to reliably bump a freighter with a webber alt or two. We cool?
We need three times more to gank it. You complaining about getting 5 together is laughable.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
246
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 09:55:47 -
[686] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:I counted 3 dead bumping machs since Nov 22, 2015. So 1 dead bumping mach every 25-30 days. Heroic efforts indeed.
Well at least we can see that bumping machs are not really paper thin as some of you guys claimed. Having to throw 3-4 taloses on a mach ain't really trivial.
As for the efforts let's do the math - bumping mach: - no consequences for bumping whatsoever - potential for decent income through loot (calculated risk as well)
Anti-ganker ganking the bumper: - sec status hit - killright to bumper - loss of ship / no insurance - loss of ability to make isk in hisec on the ganker character - fairly low probability of making any isk (IF bumper has faction mwd fit and if it drops)
So, while a few people in AG don't care about sec hits and killrights, your average hisec dweller will not use his main (usually the char capable of flying a properly fit talos) to gank a bumper. Naturally, your reaction will be for him to grow balls and what not, but I just think that claiming that ganking the bumper to be a valid response to bumping is stupid argument v0v. |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
246
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 09:56:43 -
[687] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Let's use this logic in the case of bumping, pretty please. Unless you field at least three machariels you should not be able to reliably bump a freighter with a webber alt or two. We cool?
We need three times more to gank it. You complaining about getting 5 together is laughable. I'm talking about bumping, not ganking. This whole topic is about bumping and looting, don't digress please |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25763
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 10:04:07 -
[688] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Let's use this logic in the case of bumping, pretty please. Unless you field at least three machariels you should not be able to reliably bump a freighter with a webber alt or two. We cool?
We need three times more to gank it. You complaining about getting 5 together is laughable. I'm talking about bumping, not ganking. This whole topic is about bumping and looting, don't digress please He's not digressing, we can't talk about bumping and looting without involving that which links them together, ganking.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
246
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 10:08:28 -
[689] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Let's use this logic in the case of bumping, pretty please. Unless you field at least three machariels you should not be able to reliably bump a freighter with a webber alt or two. We cool?
We need three times more to gank it. You complaining about getting 5 together is laughable. I'm talking about bumping, not ganking. This whole topic is about bumping and looting, don't digress please He's not digressing, we can't talk about bumping and looting without involving that which links them together, ganking.
So what, now we should discuss bumping and safe looting in the light of fact that gankers have to field 15+ characters in catalysts (and characters is there for a reason)? What about ganks when they use Taloses and it takes 7-8 guys to gank a cargo expanded freighter? Are we gonna base our calculations on t1 or t2 fit ships? What about skills? I mean, so many variables come to mind...
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17249
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 10:33:24 -
[690] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
So what, now we should discuss bumping and safe looting in the light of fact that gankers have to field 15+ characters in catalysts (and characters is there for a reason)? What about ganks when they use Taloses and it takes 7-8 guys to gank a cargo expanded freighter? Are we gonna base our calculations on t1 or t2 fit ships? What about skills? I mean, so many variables come to mind...
Lets look at the latest Miniluv kill.
24 pilots on the gank, 2 in bumping ships, 1 hauler, 2 scouts.
29 pilots in that fleet to get a successful kill.
You are complaining of getting 5 together.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25763
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 10:39:24 -
[691] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Let's use this logic in the case of bumping, pretty please. Unless you field at least three machariels you should not be able to reliably bump a freighter with a webber alt or two. We cool? Good news, it's almost impossible to bump a hauler that gets webbed before the first bump lands; primarily because it's generally in warp by the time the bumper is in a position to bump it.
Quote:So what, now we should discuss bumping and safe looting in the light of fact that gankers have to field 15+ characters in catalysts (and characters is there for a reason)? What about ganks when they use Taloses and it takes 7-8 guys to gank a cargo expanded freighter? Are we gonna base our calculations on t1 or t2 fit ships? What about skills? I mean, so many variables come to mind... Looting is only as safe as you allow it to be, the number of gankers on field is irrelevant to that particular aspect as it only takes one player in a freighter to loot another freighters wreck. As for calculations, you base it on T2 fit ships, T1 fits are used by budding gankers and generally against miners or shitfit T1 haulers.
So far in this thread you have been given multiple ways for haulers to avoid being bumped, and hence ganked and looted. You've poo-pooed every one of them as either unworkable, which they're not, or too much effort, which they're also not; as evidenced by the success of those haulers among us that do make the time and effort to employ those methods and don't get bumped, ganked and looted, I know of at least 3 such haulers that have posted in this very thread.
You appear to want the bumping and looting mechanics balanced around the stupidity and laziness of the people who fall victim to those that use the mechanics to their full extent; the thing is that CCP can't fix stupid or lazy, nor should they try to do so. Eve is hard, it's even harder if you're dumb.
TL;DR your desperation is showing and it's not pretty, put it away.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
246
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 10:51:58 -
[692] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:[ Lets look at the latest Miniluv kill.
24 pilots on the gank, 2 in bumping ships, 1 hauler, 2 scouts.
You are complaining of getting 5 together.
And again, I'm not complaining about ganking, I don't care for numbers or anyhting in that respect, your guys are the ones using random references to fleet sizes and efforts when talking about something which has nothing to do with performing the gank.
Also, If anything, coming from the largest coalition in game those numbers are a bit on the low side, I mean - having to wait so long for 15ish actual people to form up from a pool of (likely) thousands of players belonging to the same coalition and using same oog communication tools is a bit disappointing. Compared to that, 5 randoms from hisec forming up is fairly impressive.
Anyway, let us not digress anymore and let's stick to the point - problem is (and this thread is about that) with bumping and looting w/o going suspect. Nothing more, nothing less. |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
246
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 10:57:24 -
[693] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote: You appear to want the bumping and looting mechanics balanced around the stupidity and laziness of the people who fall victim to those that use the mechanics to their full extent; the thing is that CCP can't fix stupid or lazy, nor should they try to do so. Eve is hard, it's even harder if you're dumb.
Well it seems that eve is actually easy if you understand how to min/max its mechanics, which freighter ganking groups have done throughout the years. There's nothing smart about it, its just the result on focusing on one activity and learning about all the ways how to use every loophole included. Quite like some incursion groups figured out how to max out their playstyle, for example. While that is commendable, it does not remove the fact that a) bumping freighters in hisec in its current form is stupid for all the reasons which have been already laid down and b) looting which circumvents suspect mechanics is also stupid.
I know that people want to protect their minmaxing game play, that's understandable, but it doesn't mean that we'll stop pointing out just how broken it is. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17249
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 11:03:57 -
[694] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
And again, I'm not complaining about ganking, I don't care for numbers or anyhting in that respect, your guys are the ones using random references to fleet sizes and efforts when talking about something which has nothing to do with performing the gank.
You are whining about the second and last stages of ganking a freighter.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Also, If anything, coming from the largest coalition in game those numbers are a bit on the low side, I mean - having to wait so long for 15ish actual people to form up from a pool of (likely) thousands of players belonging to the same coalition and using same oog communication tools is a bit disappointing. Compared to that, 5 randoms from hisec forming up is fairly impressive.
Miniluv is a profit making organisation, why would they use any more than is needed?
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Anyway, let us not digress anymore and let's stick to the point - problem is (and this thread is about that) with bumping and looting w/o going suspect. Nothing more, nothing less.
Its about ganking, hence why you have never mentioned bumping of capitals away from stations and pos towers or the looting anywhere else other than right after a freighter gank.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25763
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 11:24:51 -
[695] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Also, If anything, coming from the largest coalition in game those numbers are a bit on the low side, I mean - having to wait so long for 15ish actual people to form up from a pool of (likely) thousands of players belonging to the same coalition and using same oog communication tools is a bit disappointing. Compared to that, 5 randoms from hisec forming up is fairly impressive. CODE. would like a word, they're essentially a bunch of randoms from hisec and they manage to field similar numbers to MiniLuv on a regular basis.
Quote:Anyway, let us not digress anymore and let's stick to the point - problem is (and this thread is about that) with bumping and looting w/o going suspect. Nothing more, nothing less. Those things inherently include ganking, once again you can't exclude ganking when discussing hisec bumping and looting.
Quote:Well it seems that eve is actually easy if you understand how to min/max its mechanics, which freighter ganking groups have done throughout the years. There's nothing smart about it, its just the result on focusing on one activity and learning about all the ways how to use every loophole included. Quite like some incursion groups figured out how to max out their playstyle, for example. What's not smart about it? Knowing every little nuance of your chosen trade makes Eve easier, not easy.
Quote:While that is commendable, it does not remove the fact that a) bumping freighters in hisec in its current form is stupid for all the reasons which have been already laid down and b) looting which circumvents suspect mechanics is also stupid. Understanding how to min/max mechanics and tools automatically disqualifies those that do so from falling into the stupid bracket. I haul, among other things, my survival as a hauler in space depends on me min/maxing the mechanics and tools available to me, it also depends on understanding the mechanics and tools available to those that would like to steal my cargo and dress up my corpse*.
Quote:I know that people want to protect their minmaxing game play, that's understandable, but it doesn't mean that we'll stop pointing out just how broken it is. What's broken is your unwillingness to do as they have done, learn how a profession works, and then honing that into something between industrialisation and art.
Your concerns boil down to "Why do we (AG) keep getting our collective arse handed to us by people that are prepared to put in more effort than we are"
*sly potential bump for an epic thread.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21129
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 12:13:33 -
[696] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:5-8 is a large fleet? No wonder AG sucks as bad as it does. If you field less than half your opponent's numbers, why should you expect to prevail? Let's use this logic in the case of bumping, pretty please. Unless you field at least three machariels you should not be able to reliably bump a freighter with a webber alt or two. We cool? I've already asked a similar question of the AG crowd and got no response.
Here I'll repeat it. If I told you that the inclusion of one more pilot, could improve your odds to 99.9%. What would you say?
So you have 2 pilots, against a fleet and you have those odds in your favour and it's not enough? Really?
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
246
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 12:43:37 -
[697] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:CODE. would like a word, they're essentially a bunch of randoms from hisec and they manage to field similar numbers to MiniLuv on a regular basis. Code is a group specifically dedicated to ganking, with quite a few of their chars being alts of various nullsec duders and with tight connections with CFC. There is nothing random about them.
Quote:What's broken is your unwillingness to do as they have done, learn how a profession works, and then honing that into something between industrialisation and art. Sorry, but what profession exactly. Do note that you can be a ganker exclusively and live off of that in this game, but you can't be an anti-ganker exclusively and claim the same. For people who have been in the game for long enough, income is not a major concern, but for quite a few people that is not the case. Yes, helping people is nice but it doesn't buy you a new ship. Isk aside, the fact that gankers have perfected their ways means that they absolutely dictate the engagement. You can have all the logi, dps, ecm and whatever else you want to have in this world but if you can't know where they're going to hit - it is pretty useless and it's all because of bumping. It skews the game into their favour by a large margin, which is probably why they are so vocal and full of vitriol when someone asks for changes regarding that mechanic.
Quote:Your concerns boil down to "Why do we (AG) keep getting our collective arse handed to us by people that are prepared to put in more effort than we are?" I don't understand what handling of the arse you refer to, but ok. I'm trying to point out some things which relate to ganking which are broken and which, if taken away, would not make ganking any less possible than it is right now. It would make it more consequence laden but that is (supposingly) the founding idea of the game. |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
246
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 12:46:47 -
[698] - Quote
Mag's wrote: Here I'll repeat it. If I told you that the inclusion of one more pilot, could improve your odds to 99.9%. What would you say? So you have 2 pilots, against a fleet and you have those odds in your favour and it's not enough? Really?
It is not 2 pilots against a fleet, it is two pilots which - if faced with 2 other pilots (Mach and a suicide tackle ship) have 0% of escaping. Also, you could have 10 webbing alts, you'd still get bumped and f****d over. So, stop discussing the act of ganking in a topic about bumping, please. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1806
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 12:53:00 -
[699] - Quote
A couple of general comments on this thread.
All you guys are awesome! Some much love and hate all rolled into a thread that has pretty much been around in one form or another for several years. It's in epic accomplishment.
If your freighter (whatever) is stacked up and being bumped for hours - your corp pretty much sucksdonkeyballs. Seriously. I'm in a small (<10 real people) corp. We were scattered all over HS (getting ready to invade a wh to set up a home) here's how the conversation went:
A "I'm getting bumped by a mach in Niarja" Me "You noob, are you screwed?" A "yes" Me "everyone drop everything, get a webber and get to Niarja" B "I'm bringing a scimmi, it's in route" Me "how far out is everyone" Fleet channel scrolls w/ 9J up 26J Me "make best speed"
5 minutes later the first webber was on scene. He started coordinating trying to web the orca out. This is where we realized that 1 webber wouldn't do it. 2 minutes after that we had 3 webbers on scene and the scimmi there also. 10 minutes into it we were amazed to discover that 6 webs (any number) were useless. 12 minutes into it the white knight Kronos starts messing w/ the bumping mach and I call for 2 guys to bring cruisers w/ mwd to bump the mach. Before they arrive the Kronos scores big and we get the orca out.
So, if your freighter is bounced for hours - blame your corp. They should have been there. If you're hauling solo or as a member of an npc corp - you're taking a calculated risk. It's that simple. This freighter bumping and ganking thing is a known part of eve. If you're in the game long enough to be able to pilot a freighter - you've been in the game long enough to do the research on how to keep it safe.
Tips to prevent being ganked: 1. Scout the gate (use a ship that gets a webbing range bonus) - if there is a mach (or 2 or 3) there, think about your next move carefully 2. Be ready to web that thing as soon as it starts to align (immediate webbing isn't good, play around w/ when webbing is most effective for getting a freighter into warp in a slow system so everyone UNDERSTANDS the mechanics involved before you jump into Niarja) 3. If a bumper gets into you - don't panic. Do call for everyone to get there to get you out of your jam. 4. Things that help: A couple of webs. A couple of repping ships. MOST IMPORTANTLY - ships to bump the mach. 5. Your last resort is to web/scram the mach (bring a cheap ship that can catch it and complete the task).
PRO TIP: You don't have to jump into Niarja via the normal Amarr-Jita pipe route. Add 3 jumps and come in from a side gate. PRO TIP: Patience and timing are big in preventing the bump (wait until they are busy w/ other prey - for example) PRO TIP: If there is no one you can call in to help you - "yer sclewed laddybuck"
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21129
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 12:53:27 -
[700] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Mag's wrote: Here I'll repeat it. If I told you that the inclusion of one more pilot, could improve your odds to 99.9%. What would you say? So you have 2 pilots, against a fleet and you have those odds in your favour and it's not enough? Really?
It is not 2 pilots against a fleet, it is two pilots which - if faced with 2 other pilots (Mach and a suicide tackle ship) have 0% of escaping. Also, you could have 10 webbing alts, you'd still get bumped and f****d over. So, stop discussing the act of ganking in a topic about bumping, please. Sorry are you suggesting that a freighter pilot and a webber has 0% chance of not being bumped?
It would be nice if you answered the question, instead of altering it to suit. The question also stood alone, you included a separate sentence with your edit. One that point out 2 pilots are facing a fleet, which is a fact.
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
246
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 13:04:45 -
[701] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:A couple of general comments on this thread.
All you guys are awesome! Some much love and hate all rolled into a thread that has pretty much been around in one form or another for several years. It's in epic accomplishment.
I know, right. Even though it's silly to do it, somehow I love it
Quote:Tips to prevent being ganked: ...
Re your tips you forgot: - never accept webbing offers from folks you don't know, even when they claim to be anti-gankers. More often then not, you'll just get killed. - join in-game chanels Gank-Intel and Anti-ganking. Quite often people will report active ganking groups there and every now and then random good Samaritans will from up to try and save you. Althought not often, there have been freighters saved from bumping/ganking. Might not work, but it's better then nothing.
aaaaand signing off o7 |
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21130
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 13:18:20 -
[702] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:aaaaand signing off o7 aaaaand you failed to answer.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25765
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 13:18:33 -
[703] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Code is a group specifically dedicated to ganking, with quite a few of their chars being alts of various nullsec duders and with tight connections with CFC. There is nothing random about them. While CODE. itself is biased towards ganking and the public face of the New Order, they do have a lot of participants that aren't members of the alliance but that are randoms from hisec; they're pretty inclusive tbh when it comes to who they fly with, there's more than a few miners and industrialists that fly with them for example.
Quote:Sorry, but what profession exactly. Do note that you can be a ganker exclusively and live off of that in this game, but you can't be an anti-ganker exclusively and claim the same. Have you considered you can't do this because AG as a collective sucks in terms of organisation, coordination and judging by yourself may be ignorant of the mechanics in play?
It's not true of all who oppose ganking by any means, but it's certainly true of the most vocal; including yourself.
Quote: For people who have been in the game for long enough, income is not a major concern, but for quite a few people that is not the case. Yes, helping people is nice but it doesn't buy you a new ship. That's your problem, not mine. Do as the gankers do, have diverse and alternative sources of income, btw gank ships are profitable to kill and loot.
Quote:Isk aside, the fact that gankers have perfected their ways means that they absolutely dictate the engagement. You can have all the logi, dps, ecm and whatever else you want to have in this world but if you can't know where they're going to hit - it is pretty useless and it's all because of bumping. It skews the game into their favour by a large margin, which is probably why they are so vocal and full of vitriol when someone asks for changes regarding that mechanic. So you're butthurt that gankers have managed to do something you have not, master the task at hand in order to be able to do it in the most efficient manner. Knowing where they're going to hit is a fairly simple piece of deduction, trade route chokepoints are a firm favourite every time.
Hell they advertise the really big ones months in advance and people still flock to the slaughter in their loot pi+¦atas like moths to the flame.
Quote:I don't understand what handling of the arse you refer to, but ok. I'm trying to point out some things which relate to ganking which are broken and which, if taken away, would not make ganking any less possible than it is right now. It would make it more consequence laden but that is (supposingly) the founding idea of the game. Your collective arse is referring to the fact that you're not successful by any stretch of the imagination; gankers beat you every time a freighter explodes. If you want to see more consequences for ganking then it is up to you to provide them, the fact that you don't like the penalties involved in being a vigilante is what holds you back; FYI vigilantism in the real world also has penalties.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17252
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 13:30:33 -
[704] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:aaaaand signing off o7 aaaaand you failed to answer.
They also just happened to ignore the 100% way to counter their looting issue.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16151
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 13:45:06 -
[705] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: I'm trying to point out some things which relate to ganking which are broken and which, if taken away, would not make ganking any less possible than it is right now.
This lie again huh. Never have anything new in the carebear playbook, so they're bound to repeat themselves I suppose.
"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
1807
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 13:46:41 -
[706] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Mag's wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:aaaaand signing off o7 aaaaand you failed to answer. They also just happened to ignore the 100% way to counter their looting issue.
You can only do so much for the community. Some things they have to do for themselves. I was actually commenting that your post was pretty much glossed over. I think that if you had put something with a bit of hate or controversy with it, then it would have been noticed more.
I'm not blaming you per say, but you could have done more. Try embedding some flare in the community service type posts. Is there a blinky sentence option? |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2164
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 14:14:20 -
[707] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: I'm trying to point out some things which relate to ganking which are broken and which, if taken away, would not make ganking any less possible than it is right now. This lie again huh. Never have anything new in the carebear playbook, so they're bound to repeat themselves I suppose. It's a strange argument indeed. I mean I could argue that freighter EHP should be increased ten-fold and claim that it would not make ganking "any less possible" as it would still, in fact, be possible to explode a freighter. But it would be completely disingenuous to claim that that buff to EHP wouldn't have a major effect on the ease, profitability and thus number of freighter kills that would occur after such a change.
If you want to make an argument that there is a problem with too much ganking, or even that you don't like it in the game, at least have the self-respect to make an intellectually honest argument to the reason why you are advocating for changes to looting or bumping. Weaseling around the obvious effects such a nerf would have on the profession of ganking by trying to claim that since it is still possible to gank something it is not a nerf is not going to convince anyone, let alone CCP.
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
246
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 14:22:15 -
[708] - Quote
@Jonah Gravenstein - if I told you that by adding one more ship to bumper, you were 99.9% certain that you'll succeed in bumping, what would you say? The thing is - we can play such word-games whole day and night and there will always be a formulation which will suit your viewpoint, or mine. Such discussion is thus pointless.
@baltec - Your 100% way to counter it has already been discussed, several pages ago. Yes, having stuff in contractrs (or containers) larger then 50k m3 negates the ability to launder the loot, but if that was the norm then we would not be having this discussion now, would we. Because there would be no possibility to launder the loot and looting would have consequences. Which would mean that the exact thing I'm arguing for would happen. And there would be no reason for us to discuss. See?
Anyway, I get it (got it a while ago but every now and then I like to remind myself), you guys simply refuse to stand aside and say - ok, here's these mechanics which - if you look at them w/o any prejudice, are a bit dodgy. That is obviously not your style, these mechanics benefit your approach to game and you'll use whatever argument you can to dismiss counterarguments as invalid. So we get talk about lack of skill, knowledge, intelligence, effort, alts, friends or whatever fits your verbal style while diverting discussion into talk about organisation, size of ganking fleets, hisec content deprivation and whatever else you came up at that moment, not to discuss the mechanics but to personally attack people opposing you and/or divert attention from the topic being discussed. I guess that's fine, such is the nature of the Internet, however I find such attitude disheartening in the forums which are supposed to be the place where we move away from our in-game personas and become real-life adults trying to improve (or at least discuss) the game we spend our time with. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17257
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 14:25:28 -
[709] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
@baltec - Your 100% way to counter it has already been discussed, several pages ago. Yes, having stuff in contractrs (or containers) larger then 50k m3 negates the ability to launder the loot, but if that was the norm then we would not be having this discussion now, would we. Because there would be no possibility to launder the loot and looting would have consequences. Which would mean that the exact thing I'm arguing for would happen. And there would be no reason for us to discuss. See?
So you have a way in game already, no need for a change.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21133
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 14:31:15 -
[710] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:@Jonah Gravenstein - if I told you that by adding one more ship to bumper, you were 99.9% certain that you'll succeed in bumping, what would you say? The thing is - we can play such word-games whole day and night and there will always be a formulation which will suit your viewpoint, or mine. Such discussion is thus pointless. Well it would be nice if you answered the question, from the person who actually asked it and didn't avoid it.
As far as your question is concerned. I'm fine with those odds if you are. So how about you now answer the question?
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
246
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 14:38:58 -
[711] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:@Jonah Gravenstein - if I told you that by adding one more ship to bumper, you were 99.9% certain that you'll succeed in bumping, what would you say? The thing is - we can play such word-games whole day and night and there will always be a formulation which will suit your viewpoint, or mine. Such discussion is thus pointless. Well it would be nice if you answered the question, from the person who actually asked it and didn't avoid it. As far as your question is concerned. I'm fine with those odds if you are. So how about you now answer the question?
What do you want me to say, that bumping is avoidable if you bring an alt who will web you and the bumper has no suicide ship ready? Of course it is, I'm not an idiot to deny that. However, much like the looting discussion, the point of this whole thread is to discuss the mechanics as such, not various ways to get around them (which undoubtedly exist). |
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21133
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 14:41:58 -
[712] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Mag's wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:@Jonah Gravenstein - if I told you that by adding one more ship to bumper, you were 99.9% certain that you'll succeed in bumping, what would you say? The thing is - we can play such word-games whole day and night and there will always be a formulation which will suit your viewpoint, or mine. Such discussion is thus pointless. Well it would be nice if you answered the question, from the person who actually asked it and didn't avoid it. As far as your question is concerned. I'm fine with those odds if you are. So how about you now answer the question? What do you want me to say, that bumping is avoidable if you bring an alt who will web you and the bumper has no suicide ship ready? Of course it is, I'm not an idiot to deny that. However, much like the looting discussion, the point of this whole thread is to discuss the mechanics as such, not various ways to get around them (which undoubtedly exist). So what you are against are the odds of getting out of it, once being bumped?
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
248
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 14:55:51 -
[713] - Quote
Mag's wrote:So what you are against are the odds of getting out of it, once being bumped?
I'm not against any odds. Odds don't interest me. I'm against this special set of circumstances which makes bumping a freighter in hisec into what it is - an aggression free warp disruption mechanic. We can (and some of your friends will) play word games around this fact, but it is in fact a form of disrupting ship from entering warp without actually agressing it.
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2113
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 15:00:31 -
[714] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Mag's wrote:So what you are against are the odds of getting out of it, once being bumped? I'm not against any odds. Odds don't interest me. I'm against this special set of circumstances which makes bumping a freighter in hisec into what it is - an aggression free warp disruption mechanic. We can (and some of your friends will) play word games around this fact, but it is in fact a form of disrupting ship from entering warp without actually agressing it. You can always haul it trough lowsec where you can kill the bumper, I don't see the issue. Carebears cried for a strong CONCORD, everyone got them, now deal with it.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21133
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 15:01:57 -
[715] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Mag's wrote:So what you are against are the odds of getting out of it, once being bumped? I'm not against any odds. Odds don't interest me. I'm against this special set of circumstances which makes bumping a freighter in hisec into what it is - an aggression free warp disruption mechanic. We can (and some of your friends will) play word games around this fact, but it is in fact a form of disrupting ship from entering warp without actually agressing it. Well it's stopping alignment, but that isn't the question.
Look I know you have an agenda but in order to decide balance we need factual evidence. I'm trying to establish why this needs a change. Simply focusing on a special set of circumstances and not the whole picture, isn't how balance is achieved.
So are you fine with those odds?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
4
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 15:02:06 -
[716] - Quote
so the opponents of any change to bumping mechanics are saying that its absolutely fine for a hauler going about his lawful business in hisec plying his trade to be prevented from doing this by the illegal act of deliberately preventing said hauler from entering warp for an infinite amount of time with no consequences for the aforementioned 'criminal' bumper?
or have i missed something? |
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21133
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 15:05:06 -
[717] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:or have i missed something? The thread, apparently.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25771
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 15:12:07 -
[718] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:@Jonah Gravenstein - if I told you that by adding one more ship to bumper, you were 99.9% certain that you'll succeed in bumping, what would you say? The thing is - we can play such word-games whole day and night and there will always be a formulation which will suit your viewpoint, or mine. Such discussion is thus pointless. Not only do you fail at anti-ganking, you also fail at addressing the relevant party in a forum discussion. I didn't post that at all, that would be Mags.
Are you going to answer the man or are you going to prevaricate in your usual fashion?
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17258
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 15:21:51 -
[719] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:so the opponents of any change to bumping mechanics are saying that its absolutely fine for a hauler going about his lawful business in hisec plying his trade to be prevented from doing this by the illegal act of deliberately preventing said hauler from entering warp for an infinite amount of time with no consequences for the aforementioned 'criminal' bumper? or have i missed something?
You missed the fact that a simple web ship will let you avoid getting bumped at all.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44176
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 15:39:36 -
[720] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:so the opponents of any change to bumping mechanics are saying that its absolutely fine for a hauler going about his lawful business in hisec plying his trade to be prevented from doing this by the illegal act of deliberately preventing said hauler from entering warp for an infinite amount of time with no consequences for the aforementioned 'criminal' bumper?
What illegal act?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
4
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 15:48:47 -
[721] - Quote
...unless there's a suicide scrammer assisting the bumper then it's goodbye vienna for freighter, but again we're just going round in circles .
if you don't like the idea of mine about the emergency mjd for freighters which fits in with the Eve ethos of helping yourself, would create content for all involved , including more exploding ships,and also encourage more casual bystanders to get involved , then as an alternative surely it wouldn't be too difficult to code a mechanic for collisions that if you hit another ship outside a docking ring of a station above a certain speed for a certain amount of times while it is trying to enter warp you get a warning that you are committing an offense, and say 10 seconds to desist before getting a 2nd + final warning that you will acquire a suspect flag if you continue. once the suspect timer is active , you get 3 more similar warnings before criminal flag ?
how bout it ccp?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
4
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 15:51:17 -
[722] - Quote
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25771
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 15:59:06 -
[723] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
if you don't like the idea of mine about the emergency mjd for freighters which fits in with the Eve ethos of helping yourself, would create content for all involved , including more exploding ships,and also encourage more casual bystanders to get involved
It's a crap idea, all that is required to counter ir is for the bumping mach to fit one and align behind the freighter, given the Machs superior warp speed it'll probably arrive 100km from the point of origin before the freighter does, all you've done is move the area of engagement out of the range of gateguns, which lowers the chance of surviving a gank even further.
[quote then as an alternative surely it wouldn't be too difficult to code a mechanic for collisions that if you hit another ship outside a docking ring of a station above a certain speed for a certain amount of times while it is trying to enter warp you get a warning that you are committing an offense, and say 10 seconds to desist before getting a 2nd + final warning that you will acquire a suspect flag if you continue. once the suspect timer is active , you get 3 more similar warnings before criminal flag ?
how bout it ccp?[/quote]Nothing new here then, that particular idea has been discussed in the past, it's also a crap one that is open to abuse.
Like Jon Snow, you apparently know nothing
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4579
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 17:02:54 -
[724] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:5-8 is a large fleet? No wonder AG sucks as bad as it does. If you field less than half your opponent's numbers, why should you expect to prevail? Let's use this logic in the case of bumping, pretty please. Unless you field at least three machariels you should not be able to reliably bump a freighter with a webber alt or two. We cool?
Considering that the gank fleet, which includes the bumper, is 4 to 5 times larger already, no.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
257
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 17:22:42 -
[725] - Quote
Mag's wrote: Look I know you have an agenda, but in order to decide balance we need factual evidence. I'm trying to establish why this needs a change. Simply focusing on a special set of circumstances and not the whole picture, isn't how balance is achieved. So are you fine with those odds, or not?
I'm not fine with the odds because, as I said already, each of us can setup a scenario which will be beneficial to his case and yes I am focusing on a special case scenario because that scenario is the root cause of this thread. If you want odds then let me put it like this - I want a counterplay to bumping which is as reliable and efficient as the bumping itself with same set of consequences. Let's level the playfield. |
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21140
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 17:36:05 -
[726] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Mag's wrote: Look I know you have an agenda, but in order to decide balance we need factual evidence. I'm trying to establish why this needs a change. Simply focusing on a special set of circumstances and not the whole picture, isn't how balance is achieved. So are you fine with those odds, or not?
I'm not fine with the odds because, as I said already, each of us can setup a scenario which will be beneficial to his case and yes I am focusing on a special case scenario because that scenario is the root cause of this thread. If you want odds then let me put it like this - I want a counterplay to bumping which is as reliable and efficient as the bumping itself with same set of consequences. Let's level the playfield. I'm not setting up a special scenario though. I'm asking about an already known hauler advantage, that can be gained from the addition of one pilot. You then asked a similar question, with the addition of another bumper. Why do you get to talk about an advantage, but not me?
You seem fine with one of those odds, but not the other.
As I said before, to look at balance you cannot focus on a special circumstance. You need to look at the whole. Seeing as the bumping is a part of the .1% odds, it is indeed a special circumstance when viewed as a whole.
I'm fine with talking about bumping, but it needs to be viewed as a whole. When it's so easy to avoid and you seem fine with that, why are you not fine with the odds reversed within the bump? It quite obviously is already a level playing field, you just don't want to acknowledge the whole field.
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
257
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 18:03:27 -
[727] - Quote
Mag's wrote: I'm fine with talking about bumping, but it needs to be viewed as a whole. When it's so easy to avoid and you seem fine with that, why are you not fine with the odds reversed within the bump? It quite obviously is already a level playing field, you just don't want to acknowledge the whole field.
Well the odds are only about being able or not being able to avoid the first bump. After that, they stack up to the gankers/bumpers favor without anything resembling what you could call "balance" (although I'm aware that absolute balance is impossible). Regardless of trolls and insults, I understand the tactical importance bumping has in the wider game, that's why you won't see me proposing anyhting related to its change or removal (although apparently, changes are coming). I'm just talking about this 0.1% special case which, I feel, can be argued as poorly designed. Would I trade webbing freighters into warp for a change resulting in removal or ability to avoid bumping through active gameplay by freighter pilot? Yes. To prevent freighter pilots from raging, ccp could slightly increase their warp speeds to compensate for slower alignment. For example.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4579
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 18:05:12 -
[728] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:I counted 3 dead bumping machs since Nov 22, 2015. So 1 dead bumping mach every 25-30 days. Heroic efforts indeed. Well at least we can see that bumping machs are not really paper thin as some of you guys claimed. Having to throw 3-4 taloses on a mach ain't really trivial. As for the efforts let's do the math - bumping mach: - no consequences for bumping whatsoever - potential for decent income through loot (calculated risk as well) Anti-ganker ganking the bumper: - sec status hit - killright to bumper - loss of ship / no insurance - loss of ability to make isk in hisec on the ganker character - fairly low probability of making any isk (IF bumper has faction mwd fit and if it drops) - multiply by the number of ships required to perform a gank So, while a few people in AG don't care about sec hits and killrights, your average hisec dweller will not use his main (usually the char capable of flying a properly fit talos) to gank a bumper. Naturally, your reaction will be for him to grow balls and what not, but I just think that claiming that ganking the bumper to be a valid response to bumping is stupid argument v0v.
They are paper thin....relative to the tank they could fit. And I already noted that it would take about 3 tornadoes to kill it in a 0.5 system. And 3 gank tornadoes will probably cost about 250 million ISK in total. A bumping Mach costs around 750 million. Yeah, you'll lose in this game, but your opponent will lose even more. I have never indicated otherwise.
Why would you lose the ability to make ISK in HS? That is just completely untrue. Your risk might go up to having an active killright, but you can still make ISK>
And you have just proven my earlier post was correct. The denizens of HS are not willing to as far as the gankers to prevent ganking. As such we should expect anti-ganking to largely fail and be ineffectualGǪ.by deliberate choice. Whining to CCP or anyone else about a choice you are making isGǪwell rather silly.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4579
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 18:13:57 -
[729] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote: You appear to want the bumping and looting mechanics balanced around the stupidity and laziness of the people who fall victim to those that use the mechanics to their full extent; the thing is that CCP can't fix stupid or lazy, nor should they try to do so. Eve is hard, it's even harder if you're dumb.
Well it seems that eve is actually easy if you understand how to min/max its mechanics, which freighter ganking groups have done throughout the years. There's nothing smart about it, its just the result on focusing on one activity and learning about all the ways how to use every loophole included. Quite like some incursion groups figured out how to max out their playstyle, for example. While that is commendable, it does not remove the fact that a) bumping freighters in hisec in its current form is stupid for all the reasons which have been already laid down and b) looting which circumvents suspect mechanics is also stupid. I know that people want to protect their minmaxing game play, that's understandable, but it doesn't mean that we'll stop pointing out just how broken it is.
It is called specialization and in a broader context it is has given us vast wealth (setting aside distribution issues) and even this thing we call the internet. So your scorn strikes me as misplaced.
Further, you are assuming that people who participate in ganking do not do other things in game. You have assumed this is all they do and all they know and therefore are stupid.
Bumping is not stupid because it has given us a type of game play that players themselves came up with and was not spoon fed to us by the developers. Like real world innovations it has been copied and is used extensively by others, but the first people to come up with it and use in gankingGǪthey were in a word, innovative.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21146
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 18:25:04 -
[730] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Mag's wrote: I'm fine with talking about bumping, but it needs to be viewed as a whole. When it's so easy to avoid and you seem fine with that, why are you not fine with the odds reversed within the bump? It quite obviously is already a level playing field, you just don't want to acknowledge the whole field.
Well the odds are only about being able or not being able to avoid the first bump. After that, they stack up to the gankers/bumpers favor without anything resembling what you could call "balance" (although I'm aware that absolute balance is impossible). Regardless of trolls and insults, I understand the tactical importance bumping has in the wider game, that's why you won't see me proposing anyhting related to its change or removal (although apparently, changes are coming). I'm just talking about this 0.1% special case which, I feel, can be argued as poorly designed. Would I trade webbing freighters into warp for a change resulting in removal or ability to avoid bumping through active gameplay by freighter pilot? Yes. To prevent freighter pilots from raging, ccp could slightly increase their warp speeds to compensate for slower alignment. For example. You see this is where we disagree. You still view the bump separately from the odds of avoiding it. The balance comes from being so easy to avoid, followed by not being so easy to get out of.
I also don't ever recall you asking for webs to be nerfed as they are OP. You may have, but now we reach a point that you're asking that there should be more far reaching changes. due to a special circumstance. Nerfing webs and bumping. The OP sure doesn't mention nerfing webs.
I'd still like to see evidence of a problem, that needs such radical game changes.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
|
Iain Cariaba
2494
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 18:37:37 -
[731] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Well at least we can see that bumping machs are not really paper thin as some of you guys claimed. Having to throw 3-4 taloses on a mach ain't really trivial. Yeah, they really are when you considee it's a battleship with only 80k ehp and a pretty large em resist hole.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:As for the efforts let's do the math - bumping mach: - no consequences for bumping whatsoever - potential for decent income through loot (calculated risk as well) This is the risk side? - There's only no consequences because you AG types are too scared to create consequences for doing so. - Only potential for decent income because freighter pilots like to over stuff freighters with multiple billions of isk.
On the other side of that equals side is not the risk for anti-gankers, but the risk for freighter pilots. - no consequences for afk hauling whatsoever, outside of consequences created by other players - potential for decent isk
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Anti-ganker ganking the bumper: - sec status hit - killright to bumper - loss of ship / no insurance - loss of ability to make isk in hisec on the ganker character - fairly low probability of making any isk (IF bumper has faction mwd fit and if it drops) - multiply by the number of ships required to perform a gank - I've demonstrated before how inconsequential the sec status hit really is. - Either they make the killright cheap enough so anyone will activate it or super expensive and people think it's a kr scam. If it's cheap, just have a friend activate it and wait the 15 minutes out. If it's expensive, you don't really need to worry. - This is why you fly cheap, like the real gankers do. - See point 2. The only thing stopping you is your own fear. - Your concern for profit above all else is part of your problem. - Your inability to organize a force to counter an organized force is irrelevant.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:So, while a few people in AG don't care about sec hits and killrights, your average hisec dweller will not use his main (usually the char capable of flying a properly fit talos) to gank a bumper. Naturally, your reaction will be for him to grow balls and what not, but I just think that claiming that ganking the bumper to be a valid response to bumping is stupid argument v0v. Just as I think your wanting mommy and daddy CCP to hold your hand because you're too scared of getting a skinned knee is a stupid argument.
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?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4584
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 19:14:47 -
[732] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:So, while a few people in AG don't care about sec hits and killrights, your average hisec dweller will not use his main (usually the char capable of flying a properly fit talos) to gank a bumper. Naturally, your reaction will be for him to grow balls and what not, but I just think that claiming that ganking the bumper to be a valid response to bumping is stupid argument v0v.
You are quite simply wrong here. You are pointing to reasons people have for not ganking the bumper. That is a choice. It is fine that they have made that choice, but then they have to deal with the consequences of that choice. The consequence is that it makes the bumping ship safer and makes bumping easier, more common, and the same is true for ganking.
Here, let us try this. Setting aside the costs, could the anti-ganking community cause a significant reduction in ganking, at least for a period of time, by ganking the bumping ship(s)? The answer is yes. So why arenGÇÖt they doing it? Maybe it is that part we set aside, and which you have listed in your post: the costs. The costs are too high to you, and part of those costs in your view are forgone ISK. In essence, your choice to be less effectual is due to your greed.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4584
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 19:19:51 -
[733] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Mag's wrote: I'm fine with talking about bumping, but it needs to be viewed as a whole. When it's so easy to avoid and you seem fine with that, why are you not fine with the odds reversed within the bump? It quite obviously is already a level playing field, you just don't want to acknowledge the whole field.
Well the odds are only about being able or not being able to avoid the first bump. After that, they stack up to the gankers/bumpers favor without anything resembling what you could call "balance" (although I'm aware that absolute balance is impossible). Regardless of trolls and insults, I understand the tactical importance bumping has in the wider game, that's why you won't see me proposing anyhting related to its change or removal (although apparently, changes are coming). I'm just talking about this 0.1% special case which, I feel, can be argued as poorly designed. Would I trade webbing freighters into warp for a change resulting in removal or ability to avoid bumping through active gameplay by freighter pilot? Yes. To prevent freighter pilots from raging, ccp could slightly increase their warp speeds to compensate for slower alignment. For example.
You still missed the point Mag's is making. The point is:
1. Probability of avoiding the bump with webs: X 2. Probability bumper keeping the bumps going: X
In other words, it is symmetrical and thus balanced.
So if you want to change 2, then to maintain balance we have to change 1. Make webs less effective, while coming up with a way for the bumped to get away.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21150
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 19:40:05 -
[734] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Mag's wrote: I'm fine with talking about bumping, but it needs to be viewed as a whole. When it's so easy to avoid and you seem fine with that, why are you not fine with the odds reversed within the bump? It quite obviously is already a level playing field, you just don't want to acknowledge the whole field.
Well the odds are only about being able or not being able to avoid the first bump. After that, they stack up to the gankers/bumpers favor without anything resembling what you could call "balance" (although I'm aware that absolute balance is impossible). Regardless of trolls and insults, I understand the tactical importance bumping has in the wider game, that's why you won't see me proposing anyhting related to its change or removal (although apparently, changes are coming). I'm just talking about this 0.1% special case which, I feel, can be argued as poorly designed. Would I trade webbing freighters into warp for a change resulting in removal or ability to avoid bumping through active gameplay by freighter pilot? Yes. To prevent freighter pilots from raging, ccp could slightly increase their warp speeds to compensate for slower alignment. For example. You still missed the point Mag's is making. The point is: 1. Probability of avoiding the bump with webs: X 2. Probability bumper keeping the bumps going: X In other words, it is symmetrical and thus balanced. So if you want to change 2, then to maintain balance we have to change 1. Make webs less effective, while coming up with a way for the bumped to get away. Indeed. But let's not forget we are using percentages here. If we were to use actual numbers, it would look to favour haulers far more. But I'm actually ignoring that fact and trying to show compromise in my argument.
Not that I'll be credited for it from them of course. I'll be accused of word games, or some such.
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
257
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 20:23:46 -
[735] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote: Further, you are assuming that people who participate in ganking do not do other things in game. You have assumed this is all they do and all they know and therefore are stupid.
Not sure where you pull this from. First of all, where did I say that people participating in ganking do nothing else in game?? I've even said that I know for a fact that some chars from code are nullsec alts. Furthermore, I never said that anyone is stupid for being a ganker, only that it has nothing to do with some special skill or intelligence and everything with experience and focus. Finally, you seem to think that you know or understand other peoples' motives much better then you actually do. |
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 20:57:15 -
[736] - Quote
HPs increased because it make Logical sense or just people being pissed wreck warp-in were being popped? Logically thinking why are wrecks something that you can warp to in the 1st place.
And back to logical......Why are those pilots"transferring" loot to a DST hangar becoming Suspect at all if they are never really in possession of those items. Shouldn't the 1st ship that has the items physically in cargo hold go Suspect in that case. Its not nerf to ganking to fix this simple thing, is it? After all the ganking is already over by the time the looting starts. Plus gankers like CODE. claim the loot doesnt matter to them anyway :) |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4588
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 21:35:52 -
[737] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Teckos Pech wrote: Further, you are assuming that people who participate in ganking do not do other things in game. You have assumed this is all they do and all they know and therefore are stupid.
Not sure where you pull this from. First of all, where did I say that people participating in ganking do nothing else in game?? I've even said that I know for a fact that some chars from code are nullsec alts. Furthermore, I never said that anyone is stupid for being a ganker, only that it has nothing to do with some special skill or intelligence and everything with experience and focus. Finally, you seem to think that you know or understand other peoples' motives much better then you actually do.
Where did you say the donGÇÖt do anything else in game? GÇ£There's nothing smart about it, its just the result on focusing on one activity and learning about all the ways how to use every loophole included.GÇ¥
Did you call them stupid? Not directly, but by noting it is not smart could be definitely read as implying they are stupid.
As for peopleGÇÖs motivations, there was nothing in that post about motivations.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4588
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 21:42:01 -
[738] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote: HPs increased because it make Logical sense or just people being pissed wreck warp-in were being popped? Logically thinking why are wrecks something that you can warp to in the 1st place.
And back to logical......Why are those pilots"transferring" loot to a DST hangar becoming Suspect at all if they are never really in possession of those items. Shouldn't the 1st ship that has the items physically in cargo hold go Suspect in that case. Its not nerf to ganking to fix this simple thing, is it? After all the ganking is already over by the time the looting starts. Plus gankers like CODE. claim the loot doesnt matter to them anyway :)
The loot is a factor in why at least some people gank....the ganking community is not just CODE.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 23:16:55 -
[739] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Brad Neece wrote: HPs increased because it make Logical sense or just people being pissed wreck warp-in were being popped? Logically thinking why are wrecks something that you can warp to in the 1st place.
And back to logical......Why are those pilots"transferring" loot to a DST hangar becoming Suspect at all if they are never really in possession of those items. Shouldn't the 1st ship that has the items physically in cargo hold go Suspect in that case. Its not nerf to ganking to fix this simple thing, is it? After all the ganking is already over by the time the looting starts. Plus gankers like CODE. claim the loot doesnt matter to them anyway :)
The loot is a factor in why at least some people gank....the ganking community is not just CODE.
True but they are seperate actions.....If you have the loot into your cargo, less than a few ms after it was looted. You should be Suspect. Just fixing that, doesn't seem unfair. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25776
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 23:45:35 -
[740] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Brad Neece wrote: HPs increased because it make Logical sense or just people being pissed wreck warp-in were being popped? Logically thinking why are wrecks something that you can warp to in the 1st place.
And back to logical......Why are those pilots"transferring" loot to a DST hangar becoming Suspect at all if they are never really in possession of those items. Shouldn't the 1st ship that has the items physically in cargo hold go Suspect in that case. Its not nerf to ganking to fix this simple thing, is it? After all the ganking is already over by the time the looting starts. Plus gankers like CODE. claim the loot doesnt matter to them anyway :)
The loot is a factor in why at least some people gank....the ganking community is not just CODE. True but they are seperate actions.....If you have the loot into your cargo, less than a few ms after it was looted. You should be Suspect. Just fixing that, doesn't seem unfair. As far as I know the suspect flag is tied to the initial act, the items themselves have no variable to indicate that they are looted and thus it isn't possible to pass the suspect flag onto whomever takes the cargo from the the looter. What you're asking for is a change in the database which adds an extra variable to each and every in the game item to track whether it is loot or not, CCP are unlikely to implement such a change because it's just "makework" that serves no real purpose.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
257
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 00:17:07 -
[741] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Where did you say the donGÇÖt do anything else in game? GÇ£There's nothing smart about it, its just the result on focusing on one activity and learning about all the ways how to use every loophole included.GÇ¥
Did you call them stupid? Not directly, but by noting it is not smart could be definitely read as implying they are stupid.
As for peopleGÇÖs motivations, there was nothing in that post about motivations.
Meh, don't look for devil everywhere. As for the motivations, you didn't say anything in that post, but you said plenty before and were mostly wrong with all your guesses. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4589
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 00:33:14 -
[742] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Where did you say the donGÇÖt do anything else in game? GÇ£There's nothing smart about it, its just the result on focusing on one activity and learning about all the ways how to use every loophole included.GÇ¥
Did you call them stupid? Not directly, but by noting it is not smart could be definitely read as implying they are stupid.
As for peopleGÇÖs motivations, there was nothing in that post about motivations.
Meh, don't look for devil everywhere. As for the motivations, you didn't say anything in that post, but you said plenty before and were mostly wrong with all your guesses.
They weren't guesses they were statements based on your statements. Things like "not being able to earn ISK in HS." You didn't want to risk that, so you weren't willing to gank. You said so yourself.
No guessing, just reading what you wrote and pointing out the implications.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
65
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 00:44:17 -
[743] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:So I am saying that data is incomplete. I said in the first post where the data is laid down that no conclusion can yet be made from it. It is incomplete data and a very small dataset. it doesn't yet contain sufficient information one way or the other that this is an issue. But it will, because the dataset will continue to grow to a point where is it useful to support statements one way or the other. That's a while off yet, but it will happen because I was told that the evidence has been posted in this thread, when it hasn't. So lets all see, verifiably where it's a problem or not, but we can't say that yet from the small dataset. If thats what will make everyone happy... wonderful. Ill PM you in game when I see such acts take place. No need yet. When I get onto stage 2 looking at the issue of looting as outlined in the OP, then that will be useful, but at this initial stage to establish whether bumping is a problem or not, there's no need to go to specific cases, just to look at the overall risk. So I'll let you know when I move into testing the looting claims.
Well... You can do what you want to trend it out, please go for it! I give you huge props for that. Because the nature of major ganking outfits, is unless your online 24/7 andin a range of systems when ganks happen, your data will be incomplete. I hope you get lucky to see it! I know I hope to be online when they do decide to do such things. However we should not loose faith, I made an inquire about Bumping with CCP. I do know, that the bumping is logged with CCP. They have quite EXTENSIVE data on this. While I was unable to obtain any specifics, it is logged! So with the observations of others, and myself, it should be easily verifiable to CCP that we are indeed telling the truth, that this is indeed happening. Looting the same way. Follow the loot trail. .
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44179
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 01:01:51 -
[744] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne wrote:So I am saying that data is incomplete. I said in the first post where the data is laid down that no conclusion can yet be made from it. It is incomplete data and a very small dataset. it doesn't yet contain sufficient information one way or the other that this is an issue. But it will, because the dataset will continue to grow to a point where is it useful to support statements one way or the other. That's a while off yet, but it will happen because I was told that the evidence has been posted in this thread, when it hasn't. So lets all see, verifiably where it's a problem or not, but we can't say that yet from the small dataset. If thats what will make everyone happy... wonderful. Ill PM you in game when I see such acts take place. No need yet. When I get onto stage 2 looking at the issue of looting as outlined in the OP, then that will be useful, but at this initial stage to establish whether bumping is a problem or not, there's no need to go to specific cases, just to look at the overall risk. So I'll let you know when I move into testing the looting claims. Well... You can do what you want to trend it out, please go for it! I give you huge props for that. Because the nature of major ganking outfits, is unless your online 24/7 andin a range of systems when ganks happen, your data will be incomplete. I hope you get lucky to see it! I know I hope to be online when they do decide to do such things. However we should not loose faith, I made an inquire about Bumping with CCP. I do know, that the bumping is logged with CCP. They have quite EXTENSIVE data on this. While I was unable to obtain any specifics, it is logged! So with the observations of others, and myself, it should be easily verifiable to CCP that we are indeed telling the truth, that this is indeed happening. Looting the same way. Follow the loot trail. . If you thread my earlier posts, I have already stated I will be covering different timezones and different days.
Luckily, as research is part of my daily work, designing studies is something I do all the time. The data won't be incomplete and limitations will be openly stated.
What I'm doing is exactly what anyone who actually comes to propose changes to the game could do, rather than claiming that changes are needed but evidence is hard to come by. It isn't hard at all. It just takes some effort.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
65
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 01:02:41 -
[745] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote:[ Lets look at the latest Miniluv kill.
24 pilots on the gank, 2 in bumping ships, 1 hauler, 2 scouts.
You are complaining of getting 5 together. And again, I'm not complaining about ganking, I don't care for numbers or anyhting in that respect, your guys are the ones using random references to fleet sizes and efforts when talking about something which has nothing to do with performing the gank. Also, If anything, coming from the largest coalition in game those numbers are a bit on the low side, I mean - having to wait so long for 15ish actual people to form up from a pool of (likely) thousands of players belonging to the same coalition and using same oog communication tools is a bit disappointing. Compared to that, 5 randoms from hisec forming up is fairly impressive. Anyway, let us not digress anymore and let's stick to the point - problem is (and this thread is about that) with bumping and looting w/o going suspect. Nothing more, nothing less.
Exactly! The ganking mechanic was never in question. I've had to state that a number of times. If gankers bring 20-30 ships. Its a good chance the freighter is going down.
Everything in this thread should have to do with before the gank, and after the gank. |
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
65
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 01:06:13 -
[746] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote: If you thread my earlier posts, I have already stated I will be covering different timezones and different days.
Luckily, as research is part of my daily work, designing studies is something I do all the time. The data won't be incomplete.
Ahh I did not see that in the thread of comment. But should not be needed I think at this point as official proof to CCP that this happens. They have the data already. They can verify claims and then we can move to the actual fix.
But feel free, if you want a science experiment, go for it! :) |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
263
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 01:11:18 -
[747] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote: They weren't guesses they were statements based on your statements. Things like "not being able to earn ISK in HS." You didn't want to risk that, so you weren't willing to gank. You said so yourself.
No guessing, just reading what you wrote and pointing out the implications.
You strech your implications way too far, and - as I said, are not too good at that guessing game. Guess what, I don't make my isk in HS, mostly am not even there unless doing some AG stuff. You're presuming that when talking about inability to make isk in HS I'm talking about myself, and you are wrong. This game is not only about you or me and trying to look at stuff form other's perspective might benefit you.
As for me, I mind killrights on Rham not because of isk making but because that prevents me from trying to effectively fight gankers - can't counter bump, can't fly anything expensive, etc. |
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 01:37:19 -
[748] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Brad Neece wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Brad Neece wrote: HPs increased because it make Logical sense or just people being pissed wreck warp-in were being popped? Logically thinking why are wrecks something that you can warp to in the 1st place.
And back to logical......Why are those pilots"transferring" loot to a DST hangar becoming Suspect at all if they are never really in possession of those items. Shouldn't the 1st ship that has the items physically in cargo hold go Suspect in that case. Its not nerf to ganking to fix this simple thing, is it? After all the ganking is already over by the time the looting starts. Plus gankers like CODE. claim the loot doesnt matter to them anyway :)
The loot is a factor in why at least some people gank....the ganking community is not just CODE. True but they are seperate actions.....If you have the loot into your cargo, less than a few ms after it was looted. You should be Suspect. Just fixing that, doesn't seem unfair. As far as I know the suspect flag is tied to the initial act, the items themselves have no variable to indicate that they are looted and thus it isn't possible to pass the suspect flag onto whomever takes the cargo from the the looter. What you're asking for is a change in the database which adds an extra variable to each and every in the game item to track whether it is loot or not, CCP are unlikely to implement such a change because it's just "makework" that serves no real purpose.
Simple disabling transfers from anybody on TImers......no database needed. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44180
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 01:39:39 -
[749] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:Simple disabling transfers from anybody on TImers......no database needed. And an alt that is not on any timer?
Isn't that the problem with looting? That an alt comes on grid and transfers from the wreck to the DST/Orca?
So how would switching off transfers based on timers change anything in relation to the issue? It would just nerf other looting in the game and have no effect on the thing being complained about, leading to another round of requests for changes.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44180
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 01:42:40 -
[750] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:But should not be needed I think at this point as official proof to CCP that this happens. They have the data already. They can verify claims and then we can move to the actual fix. Really?
What data exactly does CCP have on bumping in the logs?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 01:50:19 -
[751] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:Simple disabling transfers from anybody on TImers......no database needed. And an alt that is not on any timer? Isn't that the problem with looting? That an alt comes on grid and transfers from the wreck to the DST/Orca? So how would switching off transfers based on timers change anything in relation to the issue? It would just nerf other looting in the game and have no effect on the thing being complained about, leading to another round of requests for changes.
Yeah, bad wording on my part, good catch... but basically this, If action is going to create a Suspect timer on the one transferring.....no transfer. If you want to loot, you must be the one to physical move it to your ship. |
Iain Cariaba
2502
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 01:51:15 -
[752] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: can't counter bump, can't fly anything expensive, etc. More like won't than can't. Besides, you don't need anything expensive to counter bump. A t1 cruiser with a mwd can do it.
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?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44180
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 01:53:53 -
[753] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:Yeah, bad wording on my part, good catch... but basically this, If action is going to create a Suspect timer on the one transferring.....no transfer. So all ninja looting in highsec and lowsec would be removed from the game?
Well, I'm fairly confident CCP would never do something like that, thankfully.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25776
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 01:57:44 -
[754] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:Simple disabling transfers from anybody on TImers......no database needed. Yeah, great idea; to fix a problem, that if it exists at all only exists in hisec, change a fundamental mechanic and stop everybody with a suspect or criminal timer from transferring loot.
Before you start with "restrict the change to hisec", you can't. The initial flag is acquired under the crimewatch mechanic, which applies throughout empire space regardless of whether it's high or low sec; the only difference being that in hisec the reaction to a criminal flag is escalated beyond gate and station guns.
Before suggesting changes to mechanics you would do well to understand the current ones and how they work.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21154
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 02:04:22 -
[755] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote: If you thread my earlier posts, I have already stated I will be covering different timezones and different days.
Luckily, as research is part of my daily work, designing studies is something I do all the time. The data won't be incomplete.
Ahh I did not see that in the thread of comment. But should not be needed I think at this point as official proof to CCP that this happens. They have the data already. They can verify claims and then we can move to the actual fix. But feel free, if you want a science experiment, go for it! :) That this happens? Verify claims? We've constantly asked for evidence of a problem and so far all we have from you is that bumping occurs and looting into DST's happen.
I've even tried to open a dialog with you and you shut me down. Reasonable questions go unanswered and now all of a sudden you're here telling us CCP has all the data and we'll soon be seeing a fix. A fix to what I'm unsure about, but a fix nevertheless.
That's great. I look forward to hearing what the problem actually is.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 02:08:16 -
[756] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:Yeah, bad wording on my part, good catch... but basically this, If action is going to create a Suspect timer on the one transferring.....no transfer. So all ninja looting in highsec and lowsec would be removed from the game? Well, I'm fairly confident CCP would never do something like that, thankfully.
Thats not ninja looting......if the act of TRANSFERING directly from a wreck to another ships hangar would result in a Suspect timer for any party, no transfer allowed. |
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 02:14:05 -
[757] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Brad Neece wrote:Simple disabling transfers from anybody on TImers......no database needed. Yeah, great idea; to fix a problem, that if it exists at all only exists in hisec, change a fundamental mechanic and stop everybody with a suspect or criminal timer from transferring loot. Before you start with "restrict the change to hisec", you can't. The initial flag is acquired under the crimewatch mechanic, which applies throughout empire space regardless of whether it's high or low sec; the only difference being that in hisec the reaction to a criminal flag is escalated beyond gate and station guns. Before suggesting changes to mechanics you would do well to understand the current ones and how they work.
Yeah, it was bad wording on my part....If a transfer would result in one party going FY....there should be no transfer at all. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44185
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 02:16:30 -
[758] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:Yeah, bad wording on my part, good catch... but basically this, If action is going to create a Suspect timer on the one transferring.....no transfer. So all ninja looting in highsec and lowsec would be removed from the game? Well, I'm fairly confident CCP would never do something like that, thankfully. Thats not ninja looting......if the act of TRANSFERING directly from a wreck to another ships hangar would result in a Suspect timer for any party, no transfer allowed. It would be great if the story can be kept consistent.
Nowhere did you mention hangar before just this now.
I'm not sure how the game deals with cargo holds vs fleet hangars, so it might be possible to ban one and not affect the other, but that isn't what you originally wrote.
You wrote disable transfers by anyone on a timer, then if the transfer would result in a suspect flag, no transfer allowed. That would very much affect ninja looting (since taking it from a wreck into your own cargo hold is also a transfer).
So now, since the proposal is to ban transferring to a hanger, a DST pilot can't even loot the wreck themselves.
Luckily, I'm still confident CCP would never make a change like that anyway. They've already provided a safety system so that people can choose whether they go criminal or suspect, or avoid those situations. I can't see them preventing it all together. That's removing player choice and not something they seem interested in doing.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25779
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 02:22:32 -
[759] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:Yeah, bad wording on my part, good catch... but basically this, If action is going to create a Suspect timer on the one transferring.....no transfer. So all ninja looting in highsec and lowsec would be removed from the game? Well, I'm fairly confident CCP would never do something like that, thankfully. Thats not ninja looting......if the act of TRANSFERING directly from a wreck to another ships hangar would result in a Suspect timer for any party, no transfer allowed. Ninja looting doesn't just apply to stealing from other peoples wrecks, it also applies to the practice of looting the scene of a fight with multiple ships and transferring the goodies to a hauler of some description. What you suggest also affects miners, I've gone suspect many times while mining, normally as a result of emptying another miners unattended can, I usually transfer the contents to to an Orca while I keep mining; a suspect Procurer or Skiff is often bait and nobody really bothers suspects anyway, your naive suggestion would prevent myself and other unscrupulous miners from stealing from the ones that can't be bothered to be at the keyboard and are dumb enough to mine into a freight container.
BTW it wasn't that you worded your suggestion, it's that your idea is bad and has consequences that go far beyond the scope of the thread.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44185
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 02:45:15 -
[760] - Quote
Mag's wrote:That this happens? Verify claims? We've constantly asked for evidence of a problem and so far all we have from you is that bumping occurs and looting into DST's happen. For me, it's not only this, but also the other things that have been written in the thread:
You, I and others have asked for the evidence throughout the thread, only to have these comments made:
KickAss Tivianne: This post has grown with people adding more evidence.(1)
to then be addressed like this when I've asked for the evidence:
KickAss Tivianne: You my friend need to start trolling somewhere else with a comment at this point of the discussion.(2)
When challenged on that, I was told:
KickAss Tivianne: ... just swing by Uedama and watch, it really would not be hard to see it happen.(3)
Only for it ultimately to change to:
KickAss Tivianne: This is a problem, and it is something that evidence does not come easily.(4)
Well, the story just keeps changing, from the very person who started this thread claiming a problem exists that needs the mechanics to be changed.
So if the person claiming there is a problem won't make the effort to collect the data, but will continually stick to an unverfied view that there is a problem, then I'll go get the evidence myself, one way or the other.
Whinging about something only goes so far. Ultimately there needs to be evidence to use as the basis of sound judgement.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4592
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 03:40:58 -
[761] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Teckos Pech wrote: They weren't guesses they were statements based on your statements. Things like "not being able to earn ISK in HS." You didn't want to risk that, so you weren't willing to gank. You said so yourself.
No guessing, just reading what you wrote and pointing out the implications.
You strech your implications way too far, and - as I said, are not too good at that guessing game. Guess what, I don't make my isk in HS, mostly am not even there unless doing some AG stuff. You're presuming that when talking about inability to make isk in HS I'm talking about myself, and you are wrong. This game is not only about you or me and trying to look at stuff form other's perspective might benefit you. As for me, I mind killrights on Rham not because of isk making but because that prevents me from trying to effectively fight gankers - can't counter bump, can't fly anything expensive, etc.
What a load of Bravo Sierra...funny how gankers manage this just fine.
With insta undocks, and reasonable precautions ganking a bumping ship is indeed quite feasible, but go ahead and grasp at straws.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4592
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 03:45:05 -
[762] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:Simple disabling transfers from anybody on TImers......no database needed. And an alt that is not on any timer? Isn't that the problem with looting? That an alt comes on grid and transfers from the wreck to the DST/Orca? So how would switching off transfers based on timers change anything in relation to the issue? It would just nerf other looting in the game and have no effect on the thing being complained about, leading to another round of requests for changes. Yeah, bad wording on my part, good catch... but basically this, If action is going to create a Suspect timer on the one transferring.....no transfer. If you want to loot, you must be the one to physical move it to your ship.
Just no, as it means locking the loot down to whomever ganked the wreck or the person ganked. Talk about being completely antithetical to a sandbox PvP game. Sheesh.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4592
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 03:50:08 -
[763] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne: This post has grown with people adding more evidence.(1)[snip] KickAss Tivianne: This is a problem, and it is something that evidence does not come easily.(4)[snip
Really don't want to mangle that post, but I thought it would be worth while to put those two comments right next to each other to show the intellectual bankruptcy of a thread participant.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 05:11:07 -
[764] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Brad Neece wrote:Yeah, bad wording on my part, good catch... but basically this, If action is going to create a Suspect timer on the one transferring.....no transfer. So all ninja looting in highsec and lowsec would be removed from the game? Well, I'm fairly confident CCP would never do something like that, thankfully. Thats not ninja looting......if the act of TRANSFERING directly from a wreck to another ships hangar would result in a Suspect timer for any party, no transfer allowed. It would be great if the story can be kept consistent. Nowhere did you mention hangar before just this now. I'm not sure how the game deals with cargo holds vs fleet hangars, so it might be possible to ban one and not affect the other, but that isn't what you originally wrote. You wrote disable transfers by anyone on a timer, then if the transfer would result in a suspect flag, no transfer allowed. That would very much affect ninja looting (since taking it from a wreck into your own cargo hold is also a transfer). So now, since the proposal is to ban transferring to a hanger, a DST or Orca pilot in highsec can't even loot the wreck themselves (nor Carriers in lowsec if they needed to). Luckily, I'm still confident CCP would never make a change like that anyway. They've already provided a safety system so that people can choose whether they go criminal or suspect, or avoid those situations. I can't see them preventing it all together. That's removing player choice and not something they seem interested in doing.
Well this is a ideas discussion forum..... i'm giving examples and getting feedback based on topic, no story really needed.... its making me think of the repercussions elsewhere :) But I've brought up transferring to another ship a few time.....I may have made the mistake of not stating that implied a fleet hanger transfer though. |
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
65
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 05:27:34 -
[765] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne: This post has grown with people adding more evidence.(1)[snip] KickAss Tivianne: This is a problem, and it is something that evidence does not come easily.(4)[snip Really don't want to mangle that post, but I thought it would be worth while to put those two comments right next to each other to show the intellectual bankruptcy of a thread participant.
And so..... what is your point? There has been other people who have viewed this.. A witness aka evidence. However getting actual physical evidence does not come easy, all for the reasons I mentioned in the thread. CCP has the evidence. I don't have to prove anything to you.
I appreciate your comments, you point is noted. But if this is going to be the caliber of comment you have from now on, please move along.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4595
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 05:40:41 -
[766] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:KickAss Tivianne: This post has grown with people adding more evidence.(1)[snip] KickAss Tivianne: This is a problem, and it is something that evidence does not come easily.(4)[snip Really don't want to mangle that post, but I thought it would be worth while to put those two comments right next to each other to show the intellectual bankruptcy of a thread participant. And so..... what is your point? There has been other people who have viewed this.. A witness aka evidence. However getting actual physical evidence does not come easy, all for the reasons I mentioned in the thread. CCP has the evidence. I don't have to prove anything to you. I appreciate your comments, you point is noted. But if this is going to be the caliber of comment you have from now on, please move along.
Let me see, you claim you'll update as "more evidence" is posted...and when Scipio posts some evidence you...try your damnedest to dismiss it and spin in your favor. And claim evidence does not come easily on top of it when Scipio is clearly going to be sacrificing his time to try and get some decent data.
I'm sorry, if anyone should move on, it is you. And you don't have anything to prove because you can't prove anything.
BTW, I have flown through Uedama quite a bit. I do invention on a number of alts to supplement my income and you know what...other than the time I was bumped in a freighter I have yet to see a freighter getting bumped. Maybe it is just because of the TZ in which I play, but the claim, "Just swing by Uedama and see the bumping" or whatever is nonsense.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21155
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 07:09:01 -
[767] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:And so..... what is your point? There has been other people who have viewed this.. A witness aka evidence. However getting actual physical evidence does not come easy, all for the reasons I mentioned in the thread. CCP has the evidence. I don't have to prove anything to you. Viewed this? Viewed what exactly? Oh and a witness isn't evidence unless they can show what they viewed or prove it through actual data.
Let me break down your complaint.
Bumping. You have issues with it going on for an hour. I've provided a link from this forum and the unedited version from eve-search.com. Those link show someone complaining of a bump that went on for an hour or so. The facts we can readily see from those links is, working as intended. You've chosen to ignore my actual evidence and gone with your 'i and others have viewed this and CCP have the data'. You've ignored reasonable questions and requests at discourse. When topics you yourself raise work against you, you decide you won't be discussing them anymore and then refuse further discussion of that subject.
Why did you ignore those links?
Looting. I've yet to see any evidence of pilots transferring loot after they gank whilst waiting from concord to kill them. The timing of such a move is quite frankly, unbelievable. Now we are in a situation where posters are recommending changes that affect far more, simply due to some special situation that I personally have yet to see any proof of.
But now we're meant to just take your word for it and accept CCP have all the data, and a fix will be along soon. Sorry, but I tend not to believe someone who's been using a crystal ball when they say "Trust me, I'm a doctor."
No doubt you'll say something along the lines of not talking to me anymore, so be it. But as I've been quite decent through this thread, that type of response only goes to show what little faith you have in your argument.
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
264
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 09:12:11 -
[768] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: can't counter bump, can't fly anything expensive, etc. More like won't than can't. Besides, you don't need anything expensive to counter bump. A t1 cruiser with a mwd can do it. Sure. Reliability of counter bumping is ****** even with a properly fit mach, let alone a t1 cruiser with half of mach's agility.
Teckos Pech wrote:What a load of Bravo Sierra...funny how gankers manage this just fine. With insta undocks, and reasonable precautions ganking a bumping ship is indeed quite feasible, but go ahead and grasp at straws. Roll What the heck are you talking about? Insta undocks, precautions? I'm not talking about ganking the bumper, I'm talking about doing anything in hisec with a kill right on your head if the person holding that kill right has any idea about what can be done with it (judging from your posts, you obviously don't). Gankers (or their ganking chars) don't care about killrights, hell they don't care about sec status to start with since current crimewatch mechanics allow them to be completely functional regardless of concord and facpo. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2119
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 09:48:48 -
[769] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:What the heck are you talking about? Insta undocks, precautions? I'm not talking about ganking the bumper, I'm talking about doing anything in hisec with a kill right on your head if the person holding that kill right has any idea about what can be done with it (judging from your posts, you obviously don't). Gankers (or their ganking chars) don't care about killrights, hell they don't care about sec status to start with since current crimewatch mechanics allow them to be completely functional regardless of concord and facpo. So the killrights and your sec status are of really great concern to you but they are completely without consequence for other players like the gankers?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Iain Cariaba
2508
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 09:50:47 -
[770] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: can't counter bump, can't fly anything expensive, etc. More like won't than can't. Besides, you don't need anything expensive to counter bump. A t1 cruiser with a mwd can do it. Sure. Reliability of counter bumping is ****** even with a properly fit mach, let alone a t1 cruiser with half of mach's agility. Not really. You do know there's more to proper bumping than just clicking approach, right? If you know what you're doing it's not really that difficult.
Oh, wait, I forgot, :effort:.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:What a load of Bravo Sierra...funny how gankers manage this just fine. With insta undocks, and reasonable precautions ganking a bumping ship is indeed quite feasible, but go ahead and grasp at straws. Roll What the heck are you talking about? Insta undocks, precautions? I'm not talking about ganking the bumper, I'm talking about doing anything in hisec with a kill right on your head if the person holding that kill right has any idea about what can be done with it (judging from your posts, you obviously don't). Gankers (or their ganking chars) don't care about killrights, hell they don't care about sec status to start with since current crimewatch mechanics allow them to be completely functional regardless of concord and facpo. Oh no!!! You might get a killright that you can have a friend buy off cheaply!!!!!!
Look, you can either learn how to bump effectively and bump the mach risk free, or you can accept the consequences of ganking the mach. You have the same choices the gankers do, you just refuse to realize this.
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?
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17265
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 10:08:08 -
[771] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Sure. Reliability of counter bumping is ****** even with a properly fit mach, let alone a t1 cruiser with half of mach's agility. .
MWDing mach = 13 seconds align time, 8.03 seconds align time with nothing but nanofibers in the lows.
MWDing stabber = 7.67 seconds align time, 4.58 seconds align time with nothing but naofibers in the lows.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 10:47:40 -
[772] - Quote
I want to play in HIGHSEC and be SAFE. What is wrong with that?
I want to play the game in MY way; not have someone force their game on me.
I don't mind ganking; if someone wants to suicide themselves, that's cool. Happens in RL.
But people are cleverly exploiting rules and game mechanics to grief other players in HIGHSEC.
If you use BUMPING in an aggressive way in HIGHSEC, you should be tagged as a criminal.
If you are hiding in a NPC corp while coordinating a gank fleet, you should be tagged as a criminal.
Eve takes place in a very technically advanced future universe and we are talking about the most protected areas in that universe GÇô HIGHSEC.
In any real, modern society, criminals are not allowed to continue their criminal acts in areas with heavy surveillance & police presence. Random violence can always happen; but it would not be allowed to continue indefinitely.
Career criminals should `permanently' lose their access rights to gates leading to HIGHSEC. There are certainly other areas where they can pursue criminal activities freely.
I want an area where I can pursue my peaceful activities in relative peace. What's wrong with that?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17265
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 10:56:37 -
[773] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:
I want an area where I can pursue my peaceful activities in relative peace. What's wrong with that?
That's not EVE, go play STO if you want to be safe.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 11:00:00 -
[774] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:
I want an area where I can pursue my peaceful activities in relative peace. What's wrong with that?
That's not EVE, go play STO if you want to be safe.
Don't tell me what to do.. You don't own this game.
You didn't develop this game and it's not up to you to define it.
I want to play THIS game and I want it to be more REALISTIC. That's all.
Realism should trump douchery..
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17265
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 11:03:13 -
[775] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:
I want to play the game in MY way; not have someone force their game on me.
Bella Jennie wrote: Career criminals should `permanently' lose their access rights to gates leading to HIGHSEC. There are certainly other areas where they can pursue criminal activities freely.
I want an area where I can pursue my peaceful activities in relative peace. What's wrong with that?
bit of a contradiction
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25781
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 11:09:24 -
[776] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:I want to play in HIGHSEC and be SAFE. What is wrong with that? You're playing the wrong game, CCP define it as a PvP game at the core. Hisec is not safe, merely safer than the other places in the game, even then it's only as safe as you make it.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 11:23:25 -
[777] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:
I want to play the game in MY way; not have someone force their game on me.
Bella Jennie wrote: Career criminals should `permanently' lose their access rights to gates leading to HIGHSEC. There are certainly other areas where they can pursue criminal activities freely.
I want an area where I can pursue my peaceful activities in relative peace. What's wrong with that?
bit of a contradiction
Sorry, can't see it; what is the contradiction in my statements?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25781
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 11:32:51 -
[778] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:baltec1 wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:
I want to play the game in MY way; not have someone force their game on me.
Bella Jennie wrote: Career criminals should `permanently' lose their access rights to gates leading to HIGHSEC. There are certainly other areas where they can pursue criminal activities freely.
I want an area where I can pursue my peaceful activities in relative peace. What's wrong with that?
bit of a contradiction Sorry, can't see it; what is the contradiction in my statements? You wish to pursue your own path in Eve while asking CCP to deny others the opportunity to do the same; how is that not a contradiction?
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 11:35:12 -
[779] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:You're playing the wrong game, CCP define it as a PvP game at the core. Hisec is not safe, merely safer than the other places in the game, even then it's only as safe as you make it.
With all due respect, I don't need to be advised what to play by you.
I purposely used the word "RELATIVELY" along with safe. I'm aware of Falcon's post.
I said suicide ganking is fine. Just looking for Logical Realism in rules & game mechanics.
Jonah Gravenstein wrote: It's a little hypocritical to say that you should be be able to play as you want to but that others shouldn't be able to do the same. The good news is that you can play as you want to. The bad news, for you anyway, is that there is no guarantee that you'll succeed because everybody else can do the same; if you don't like that idea, there's plenty of other games out there that will cater to your wants.
Again, you can play as you want to according to the rules.
I'm pointing out that the rules (and gameplay mechanics) are not logical; not realistic and not in line with CCP's concept of "RISK vs REWARD".
Currently the griefers can bother other players in HIGHSEC without any risk.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 11:39:13 -
[780] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:You wish to pursue your own path in Eve while asking CCP to deny others the opportunity to do the same; how is that not a contradiction?
see my post above
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25783
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 11:47:09 -
[781] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:With all due respect, I don't need to be advised what to play by you.
I purposely used the word "RELATIVELY" along with safe. I'm aware of Falcon's post.
I said suicide ganking is fine. Just looking for Logical Realism in rules & game mechanics. You're playing a game where you're an immortal Demi-god that flies a spaceship in a universe whose physics make space appear to be made of liquid, yet you want rules to be realistic and logical?
Quote:Again, you can play as you want to according to the rules. Gankers do exactly that, the difference is that they're far more familiar with the rules than the majority of players.
Quote:I'm pointing out that the rules (and gameplay mechanics) are not logical; not realistic and not in line with CCP's concept of "RISK vs REWARD".
Currently the griefers can bother other players in HIGHSEC without any risk.
It's perfectly in line with CCPs risk/reward concept, the system is intentionally designed to enable other players to provide the majority of the risk. That other players are unwilling to provide that risk for gankers is irrelevant, the tools and mechanics are there for them to do so.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
264
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 11:48:05 -
[782] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: MWDing mach = 13 seconds align time, 8.03 seconds align time with nothing but nanofibers in the lows.
MWDing stabber = 7.67 seconds align time, 4.58 seconds align time with nothing but naofibers in the lows.
Well, dunno about your numbers but my mach fit (4xISTABII, 2xOverdrivesII, DCII + T1/2 500mn MWD, no rigs) has 7 sec align time and 10.6 sec MWD align before skills (EFT 2.33). Add some rigs and implants, it can go lower. 50mn mwd stabber ain't gonna do much in terms of counter bumping, 500mwd t1 cruisers are crap in terms of agility. |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
264
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 11:51:56 -
[783] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Oh no!!! You might get a killright that you can have a friend buy off cheaply!!!!!! If the owner of the killright is stupid or lazy enough to make it publicly available for pennies, sure.
Quote:Look, you can either learn how to bump effectively and bump the mach risk free, or you can accept the consequences of ganking the mach. You have the same choices the gankers do, you just refuse to realize this. Do tell me more about counter bumping's effectiveness. Ganking as the best choice for getting out of bumping situation is broken, stupid, call it what you will. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44197
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 11:54:47 -
[784] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:In any real, modern society, criminals are not allowed to continue their criminal acts in areas with heavy surveillance & police presence. Random violence can always happen; but it would not be allowed to continue indefinitely. While I have some suspicions about this posting, I'll play along.
New Eden isn't a real, modern society. It's a game and doesn't play by the moral or ethical rules that many of us enjoy in our RL societies (and not all societies in RL are the same. There are some pretty twisted ones, so if reality is the desired outcome, there's some pretty oppressive ones to pick from).
So, as a totally fictional society, with totally unique ethics:
One major Empire has subjected the citizens of another to legal slavery with toxic chemical dependency Dogs are used to keep people working, or they kill them The wealthy can order a new face, and to give it to you, it is cut off someone else so it's unique to your order etc. etc. etc.
and we are a small group of immortal god like beings in comparison to everyone else, who may as well do whatever we want to each other because none of us can ever die.
Fun place, not like any reality in the Milky Way.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2124
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 12:09:29 -
[785] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Don't tell me what to do.. You don't own this game. Not the game, but James 315 owns Highsec, so he obviously has the right to tell you what to do.
If you are not ok with our established system and are more "rebel" type who enjoys anarchy and is not "cool" about how we govern modern Highsec feel free to go to nullsec where you can play the game how you want.
The people elected James 315 for a reason and he established the Code for a reason. But what you can't do is eat from the sweat fruits democracy brings you but at the same time not share the values it needs to function. We just don't want people like you in our Highsec, so you better change your ways or move on.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Iain Cariaba
2514
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 12:37:48 -
[786] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:I want to play in HIGHSEC and be SAFE. What is wrong with that?
I want to play the game in MY way; not have someone force their game on me.
But people are cleverly exploiting rules and game mechanics to grief other players in HIGHSEC.
If you use BUMPING in an aggressive way in HIGHSEC, you should be tagged as a criminal.
If you are hiding in a NPC corp while coordinating a gank fleet, you should be tagged as a criminal.
Eve takes place in a very technically advanced future universe and we are talking about the most protected areas in that universe GÇô HIGHSEC.
I want an area where I can pursue my peaceful activities in relative peace. What's wrong with that?
I cut out some of the lines that were either straight whine or already covered sufficiently. Good job with that one there, Scipio.
1. Absolutely nothing. I play in highsec and am almost completely safe. Then again, I treat ganker and wardeccers as actual humans, so they're nice enough to tell me how to avoid a vast majority of the dangers in this game. 2. You wanting to play the game your way is fine. However, one of the core tenets of this game is that it is a cold, harsh, cruel world where Darwinism rules. If you want to play the game your way, you have to make others allow you to do so using the established rules. You don't get to simply change the rules simply because you don't like them, they apply equally across the board. 3. Bumping has been officially declared to NOT be an exploit. Unintended use of the mechanics, yes, but not an exploit. There's a lot in EvE based on unintended use of mechanics. 4. There is absolutely no way for the server to determine the intent of a bump, therefore it is impossible for this to be applied. 5. And if someone said that if you're hiding in a NPC corp while slaughtering millions of helpless NPCs or stealing the ore from the belts/anoms in regions controlled by the NPC empires, you should be tagged as a criminal, then that would be fair. You can't apply rules unequally. They either apply to all or they apply to none. 6. EvE takes place in a dystopian future. You should probably google that so you can learn what it means. 7. If you want an area where you can be in relative peace, go join one of the big null coalitions. The problem here is that you don't want this. What you want is to farm your isk in total safety. By taking the proper precautions, you can already perform all those activities with 99.9% safety.
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?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 12:42:34 -
[787] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Don't tell me what to do.. You don't own this game. Not the game, but James 315 owns Highsec, so he obviously has the right to tell you what to do. If you are not ok with our established system and are more "rebel" type who enjoys anarchy and is not "cool" about how we govern modern Highsec feel free to go to nullsec where you can play the game how you want. The people elected James 315 for a reason and he established the Code for a reason. But what you can't do is eat from the sweat fruits democracy brings you but at the same time not share the values it needs to function. We just don't want people like you in our Highsec, so you better change your ways or move on.
James 315 is an inventive player with very good writing skills..
I'll give him credit as far as creating "player made content"..
The fact that his content - his fun - is based on harassing other players while not risking anything makes him and those who would follow, douchebags; IMHO.
Remember, you cannot spell DOUCHE without CODE!
Again, with all due respect, don't tell me where to go Don't tell me how to play.
I want HIGHSEC to be RELATIVELY safe. I want criminal actions in HIGHSEC to have consequences.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17270
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 12:44:15 -
[788] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote: MWDing mach = 13 seconds align time, 8.03 seconds align time with nothing but nanofibers in the lows.
MWDing stabber = 7.67 seconds align time, 4.58 seconds align time with nothing but naofibers in the lows.
Well, dunno about your numbers but my mach fit (4xISTABII, 2xOverdrivesII, DCII + T1/2 500mn MWD, no rigs) has 7 sec align time and 10.6 sec MWD align before skills (EFT 2.33). Add some rigs and implants, it can go lower. 50mn mwd stabber ain't gonna do much in terms of counter bumping, 500mwd t1 cruisers are crap in terms of agility.
Cruisers bump battleships just fine. There is no possible way for a mach to have twice the agility of a cruiser.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 12:55:47 -
[789] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:I want to play in HIGHSEC and be SAFE. What is wrong with that?
I want to play the game in MY way; not have someone force their game on me.
But people are cleverly exploiting rules and game mechanics to grief other players in HIGHSEC.
If you use BUMPING in an aggressive way in HIGHSEC, you should be tagged as a criminal.
If you are hiding in a NPC corp while coordinating a gank fleet, you should be tagged as a criminal.
Eve takes place in a very technically advanced future universe and we are talking about the most protected areas in that universe GÇô HIGHSEC.
I want an area where I can pursue my peaceful activities in relative peace. What's wrong with that?
I cut out some of the lines that were either straight whine or already covered sufficiently. Good job with that one there, Scipio. 1. Absolutely nothing. I play in highsec and am almost completely safe. Then again, I treat ganker and wardeccers as actual humans, so they're nice enough to tell me how to avoid a vast majority of the dangers in this game. 2. You wanting to play the game your way is fine. However, one of the core tenets of this game is that it is a cold, harsh, cruel world where Darwinism rules. If you want to play the game your way, you have to make others allow you to do so using the established rules. You don't get to simply change the rules simply because you don't like them, they apply equally across the board. 3. Bumping has been officially declared to NOT be an exploit. Unintended use of the mechanics, yes, but not an exploit. There's a lot in EvE based on unintended use of mechanics. 4. There is absolutely no way for the server to determine the intent of a bump, therefore it is impossible for this to be applied. 5. And if someone said that if you're hiding in a NPC corp while slaughtering millions of helpless NPCs or stealing the ore from the belts/anoms in regions controlled by the NPC empires, you should be tagged as a criminal, then that would be fair. You can't apply rules unequally. They either apply to all or they apply to none. 6. EvE takes place in a dystopian future. You should probably google that so you can learn what it means. 7. If you want an area where you can be in relative peace, go join one of the big null coalitions. The problem here is that you don't want this. What you want is to farm your isk in total safety. By taking the proper precautions, you can already perform all those activities with 99.9% safety.
bla bla, bla bla, bla bla bla..
Everyone can have their own interpretation of this game.. I am sharing mine.
In REAL LIFE we live in a cold, harsh, cruel world where Darwinism rules. - So I get that. Suicide gank all you want. It takes quite some effort to do it in HIGHSEC and gankers have my respect.
However Unintended use of the game mechanics is an EXPLOIT - especially if it allows reward without risk. - just that CCP has not yet or is currently unable to address it.
My posts are intended to petition CCP to look into this seriously and expeditiously.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44202
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 13:05:39 -
[790] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:However Unintended use of the game mechanics is an EXPLOIT - especially if it allows reward without risk. - just that CCP has not yet or is currently unable to address it. Actually CCP have addressed it and it isn't an exploit:
https://support.eveonline.com/hc/en-us/articles/204873262-Known-Declared-Exploits
Quote:My posts are intended to petition CCP to look into this seriously and expeditiously
Good luck with that
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
|
KickAss Tivianne
Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity
65
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 13:15:48 -
[791] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:However Unintended use of the game mechanics is an EXPLOIT - especially if it allows reward without risk. - just that CCP has not yet or is currently unable to address it. Actually CCP have addressed it and it specifically isn't an exploit: https://support.eveonline.com/hc/en-us/articles/204873262-Known-Declared-Exploits Common Misconceptions about Exploits This passage contains common tactics and other player conduct that is often mistakenly reported as exploits but are in fact not.
...
Bumping: Ram the ship of another player with your own in order to prevent them from warping.Quote:My posts are intended to petition CCP to look into this seriously and expeditiously
Good luck with that
Just because it was is the past, does not mean it won't be in the future. Games change. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44202
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 13:18:12 -
[792] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:However Unintended use of the game mechanics is an EXPLOIT - especially if it allows reward without risk. - just that CCP has not yet or is currently unable to address it. Actually CCP have addressed it and it specifically isn't an exploit: https://support.eveonline.com/hc/en-us/articles/204873262-Known-Declared-Exploits Common Misconceptions about Exploits This passage contains common tactics and other player conduct that is often mistakenly reported as exploits but are in fact not.
...
Bumping: Ram the ship of another player with your own in order to prevent them from warping.Quote:My posts are intended to petition CCP to look into this seriously and expeditiously
Good luck with that Just because it was is the past, does not mean it won't be in the future. Games change. Nothing to do with the past or the future, only the now.
The claim was, it is an exploit. Present tense.
It is specifically not an exploit as stated by CCP and the evidence is there for anyone to also read.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25783
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 13:20:19 -
[793] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:I want to play in HIGHSEC and be SAFE. What is wrong with that?
I want to play the game in MY way; not have someone force their game on me.
But people are cleverly exploiting rules and game mechanics to grief other players in HIGHSEC.
If you use BUMPING in an aggressive way in HIGHSEC, you should be tagged as a criminal.
If you are hiding in a NPC corp while coordinating a gank fleet, you should be tagged as a criminal.
Eve takes place in a very technically advanced future universe and we are talking about the most protected areas in that universe GÇô HIGHSEC.
I want an area where I can pursue my peaceful activities in relative peace. What's wrong with that?
I cut out some of the lines that were either straight whine or already covered sufficiently. Good job with that one there, Scipio. 1. Absolutely nothing. I play in highsec and am almost completely safe. Then again, I treat ganker and wardeccers as actual humans, so they're nice enough to tell me how to avoid a vast majority of the dangers in this game. 2. You wanting to play the game your way is fine. However, one of the core tenets of this game is that it is a cold, harsh, cruel world where Darwinism rules. If you want to play the game your way, you have to make others allow you to do so using the established rules. You don't get to simply change the rules simply because you don't like them, they apply equally across the board. 3. Bumping has been officially declared to NOT be an exploit. Unintended use of the mechanics, yes, but not an exploit. There's a lot in EvE based on unintended use of mechanics. 4. There is absolutely no way for the server to determine the intent of a bump, therefore it is impossible for this to be applied. 5. And if someone said that if you're hiding in a NPC corp while slaughtering millions of helpless NPCs or stealing the ore from the belts/anoms in regions controlled by the NPC empires, you should be tagged as a criminal, then that would be fair. You can't apply rules unequally. They either apply to all or they apply to none. 6. EvE takes place in a dystopian future. You should probably google that so you can learn what it means. 7. If you want an area where you can be in relative peace, go join one of the big null coalitions. The problem here is that you don't want this. What you want is to farm your isk in total safety. By taking the proper precautions, you can already perform all those activities with 99.9% safety. bla bla, bla bla, bla bla bla.. Everyone can have their own interpretation of this game.. I am sharing mine. In REAL LIFE we live in a cold, harsh, cruel world where Darwinism rules. - So I get that. Suicide gank all you want. It takes quite some effort to do it in HIGHSEC and gankers have my respect. However Unintended use of the game mechanics is an EXPLOIT - especially if it allows reward without risk. - just that CCP has not yet or is currently unable to address it. My posts are intended to petition CCP to look into this seriously and expeditiously. Veers.. is that you?
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 13:23:38 -
[794] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Actually CCP have addressed it and it specifically isn't an exploit: https://support.eveonline.com/hc/en-us/articles/204873262-Known-Declared-Exploits Common Misconceptions about Exploits This passage contains common tactics and other player conduct that is often mistakenly reported as exploits but are in fact not.
...
Bumping: Ram the ship of another player with your own in order to prevent them from warping.[quote]My posts are intended to petition CCP to look into this seriously and expeditiously
Rules and gameplay are constantly evolving and never static.. otherwise I wouldn't bother to petition.
I can see where those who enjoy being douchebags prefer the status quo.
Scipio Artelius wrote:Good luck with that
Thank you!
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44202
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 13:24:56 -
[795] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Actually CCP have addressed it and it specifically isn't an exploit: https://support.eveonline.com/hc/en-us/articles/204873262-Known-Declared-Exploits Common Misconceptions about Exploits This passage contains common tactics and other player conduct that is often mistakenly reported as exploits but are in fact not.
...
Bumping: Ram the ship of another player with your own in order to prevent them from warping.[quote]My posts are intended to petition CCP to look into this seriously and expeditiously Rules and gameplay are constantly evolving and never static.. otherwise I wouldn't bother to petition. I can see that those who enjoy being douchebags prefer the status quo. Scipio Artelius wrote:Good luck with that Thank you! Sure. Petition all you like.
But, if you claim it is an exploit, you are wrong in CCP's own words and rulings.
It is not.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 13:30:58 -
[796] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote: Nothing to do with the past or the future, only the now.
The claim was, it is an exploit. Present tense.
It is specifically not an exploit as stated by CCP and the evidence is there for anyone to also read.
I was not meaning EXPLOIT in reference to CCP's current rulings..
I meant EXPLOIT in terms of general on line gameplay across all games (the bunnyhop for example was an EXPLOIT)
I want CCP to CHANGE the rules
And again, the way I see it, only those who enjoy douchery would prefer a status quo
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44202
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 13:33:56 -
[797] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote: Nothing to do with the past or the future, only the now.
The claim was, it is an exploit. Present tense.
It is specifically not an exploit as stated by CCP and the evidence is there for anyone to also read.
I was not meaning EXPLOIT in reference to CCP's current rulings.. I meant EXPLOIT in terms of general on line gameplay across all games (the bunnyhop for example was an EXPLOIT) I want CCP to CHANGE the rules And again, the way I see it, only those who enjoy douchery would prefer a status quo You can attempt to reinterpret exploit all you like.
It is not an exploit as ruled and stated by CCP.
Full stop.
Good luck getting that changed, but frankly your definition of exploit or mine, or anyone else other than CCP's means exactly nothing.
Only CCP's definition and ruling matters.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1816
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 13:57:21 -
[798] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote: HPs increased because it make Logical sense or just people being pissed wreck warp-in were being popped? Logically thinking why are wrecks something that you can warp to in the 1st place.
And back to logical......Why are those pilots"transferring" loot to a DST hangar becoming Suspect at all if they are never really in possession of those items. Shouldn't the 1st ship that has the items physically in cargo hold go Suspect in that case. Its not nerf to ganking to fix this simple thing, is it? After all the ganking is already over by the time the looting starts. Plus gankers like CODE. claim the loot doesnt matter to them anyway :)
The suspect timer is based on trying to move goods. For a practical example, fill a megathron's cargo w/ stuff. Undock and try to move loot from a can/wreck of your choice into cargo. It will fail due to no room in the destination container. You'll still be suspect.
So the person moving the stuff takes the heat. It's an old mechanic that predates fleet hangers. It should probably be updated to account for the addition of fleet hangers to all sorts of ships.
As others have pointed out, this movement to fleet hangers is innovative. Someone applied brains to game mechanics and found the 'best way' to complete the task. It's admirable. And let's be honest about this specific process - anyone can have a 300 SP alt dish that loot into any fleet hanger. It's not like only a select few folks are allowed to do it. You wanna go all white knight - here's your tactic. Ibis that loot into a DST before the ebil gankers do and then contract it to the original owner for free. THEN taunt the gankers in local by showing the contract and rubbing your success in their noses. It will hurt them. They can say and pretend that it doesn't, but you will be getting them where they live. Perhaps you could even thank them in local for providing you with the opportunity to help others. See where I'm going with this?
Work on updating the mechanic if you don't think it's where it should be, but don't play the unfair (or worse immoral) card on this. It's fair, because anyone can recover the assets and do with them what they please. Sure, you can't legally shoot the hauler once it has the goods, but you have an equal opportunity to transfer them at the onset.
Trust me on this - the loot matters, and it matters even more if you claim it and give it back to the owners. You just have to take some actions to make it matter the way you want it to. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1816
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 14:06:23 -
[799] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:baltec1 wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:
I want an area where I can pursue my peaceful activities in relative peace. What's wrong with that?
That's not EVE, go play STO if you want to be safe. Don't tell me what to do.. You don't own this game. You didn't develop this game and it's not up to you to define it. I want to play THIS game and I want it to be more REALISTIC. That's all. Realism should trump douchery..
See my opinion is that the game has been realistic since day 1. It's also my opinion that the douchery going on here is you showing up and trying to change a unique and beautiful MMO into just another cookie cutter piece of garbage where everything is safe and snuggly.
I'll reword Baltec into more understandable terms so folks will small self centered cognitive functions can see it more plainly.
MMOs like Eve - 0 MMOs where everything is safe and fluffy - dime a dozen and in many many flavors (including space pilot flavor)
Don't come take a dump on Eve and try to conform it to what you think is right. Please pick an MMO that suits your play style and needs. Showing up here and trying to convert a beautiful sandbox to fit your own personal whims is the actuall DOUCHERY that's going on. |
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 14:24:26 -
[800] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:baltec1 wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:
I want an area where I can pursue my peaceful activities in relative peace. What's wrong with that?
That's not EVE, go play STO if you want to be safe. Don't tell me what to do.. You don't own this game. You didn't develop this game and it's not up to you to define it. I want to play THIS game and I want it to be more REALISTIC. That's all. Realism should trump douchery.. See my opinion is that the game has been realistic since day 1. It's also my opinion that the douchery going on here is you showing up and trying to change a unique and beautiful MMO into just another cookie cutter piece of garbage where everything is safe and snuggly. I'll reword Baltec into more understandable terms so folks will small self centered cognitive functions can see it more plainly. MMOs like Eve - 0 MMOs where everything is safe and fluffy - dime a dozen and in many many flavors (including space pilot flavor) Don't come take a dump on Eve and try to conform it to what you think is right. Please pick an MMO that suits your play style and needs. Showing up here and trying to convert a beautiful sandbox to fit your own personal whims is the actuall DOUCHERY that's going on.
everyone is entitled to their opinions; ours differ.
I define douchery as taking pleasure in inflicting pain onto others. - especially when it is inflicted without any consequence - especially when it is inflicted on new, weaker players.
Why should the rules and game mechanics favor the douchbags?
to restate: games are constantly evolving. Eve has certainly evolved (and for the better!) in the case of the dynamics being discussed on this thread, only those who enjoy douchery want a status quo..
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16157
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 14:58:13 -
[801] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:I want to play in HIGHSEC and be SAFE. What is wrong with that?
Everything about that is wrong.
Quote: I want to play the game in MY way; not have someone force their game on me.
Then you are playing the wrong game. EVE Online was founded on non consensual PvP. Which by the way is not "griefing", either, no matter your petty attempts at mischaracterization.
Quote: I want an area where I can pursue my peaceful activities in relative peace. What's wrong with that?
Everything. You have no right whatsoever to be able to pretend like this PvP sandbox MMO is a single player game.
Uninstall.
"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.
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2128
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 14:58:54 -
[802] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: Again, with all due respect, don't tell me where to go Don't tell me how to play.
I know, you think you are your own women and want do to stuff your own way. But in Highsec we are a community and we have to live together. The freedom of one person ends where the freedom of the other person starts. There is no longer anarchy in Highsec were everyone can do what he/she wants, there is now order and democracy and all that good stuff.
So yes, we do tell you how you should play and what you should do because we are the guardians of this New Order of Highsec and we have to make sure you follow the law of the people, the Code. We don't do it for profit or for our amusement, but for a better Highsec for everyone.
Bella Jennie wrote: I want HIGHSEC to be RELATIVELY safe. I want criminal actions in HIGHSEC to have consequences.
We all want a safe Highsec and healthy citizens. That is indeed why we enforce the Code and make sure people follow the rules and don't mine and haul in an illegal way. We are the consequences.
We all have to do our part to make Highsec the place we all dream of. Don't ask what Highsec can do for you. Ask what you can do for Highsec!
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16157
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:02:12 -
[803] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: I define douchery as taking pleasure in inflicting pain onto others.
No one cares what you define.
You don't matter. Oh, and if you feel "pain" just because you are allowed to lose in a PvP game, you have a mental problem and should seek psychological help.
"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.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:14:58 -
[804] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:I want to play in HIGHSEC and be SAFE. What is wrong with that?
Everything about that is wrong. Quote: I want to play the game in MY way; not have someone force their game on me.
Then you are playing the wrong game. EVE Online was founded on non consensual PvP. Which by the way is not "griefing", either, no matter your petty attempts at mischaracterization. Quote: I want an area where I can pursue my peaceful activities in relative peace. What's wrong with that?
Everything. You have no right whatsoever to be able to pretend like this PvP sandbox MMO is a single player game. Uninstall.
It is just amazing how people want to become my personal "on-line gaming consultants"..
Also how many cling to the notions that CCP made this game specifically so that people could harass, annoy and grief other players without any risk or consequences..
Anyway, everyone entitled to their opinion..
Once again, I'm talking about HIGHSEC, I'm talking about assigning CONSEQUENCES to criminal behavior in HIGHSEC
I have already stated that suicide ganking in HIGHSEC is fine with me.. - I respect the high degree of effort, coordination & cost required to pull it off.
BUMPING on purpose without consequences in HIGHSEC is unbalanced gameplay favoring those (I call them douchebags) who would harass & annoy other players in HIGHSEC.
I want CCP to change that.. I'm fairly certain that eventually, they will.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Iain Cariaba
2520
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:15:33 -
[805] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:... in terms of general on line gameplay across all games News flash: Eve Online is not like any other game. This is intentional. It was designed that way. Stop trying to make EvE not EvE.
Bella Jennie wrote:And again, the way I see it, only those who enjoy douchery would prefer a status quo You see it wrong. I am a perfect example of how wrong you are. I tried ganking, or douchery as you call it. I didn't enjoy it. But, just because I didn't enjoy it doesn't mean it should be removed from the game, as is your obvious intention. I pointed this out, but you blatantly ignored it because the ideals of EvE, which I strive to live up to, don't fit into your narrow minded vision of what this game should be.
You've been here for 10 days, and apparently rather than trying to adapt yourself into the game, you've decided the game must adapt to fit you. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If you don't like the fact that ganking is permitted and encouraged in EvE, then GTFO. Contract me all your stuff, send me all your isk, biomass your characters, and unsubscribe. The day CCP makes highsec 100% safe is the day the final countdown to server shutoff begins.
And yes, despite all your bleating to the contrary, highsec is already 99.9% safe. You have every tool you need to make this happen, if you simply use them.
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?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:21:49 -
[806] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: Again, with all due respect, don't tell me where to go Don't tell me how to play.
I know, you think you are your own women and want do to stuff your own way. But in Highsec we are a community and we have to live together. The freedom of one person ends where the freedom of the other person starts. There is no longer anarchy in Highsec were everyone can do what he/she wants, there is now order and democracy and all that good stuff. So yes, we do tell you how you should play and what you should do because we are the guardians of this New Order of Highsec and we have to make sure you follow the law of the people, the Code. We don't do it for profit or for our amusement, but for a better Highsec for everyone. Bella Jennie wrote: I want HIGHSEC to be RELATIVELY safe. I want criminal actions in HIGHSEC to have consequences.
We all want a safe Highsec and healthy citizens. That is indeed why we enforce the Code and make sure people follow the rules and don't mine and haul in an illegal way. We are the consequences. We all have to do our part to make Highsec the place we all dream of. Don't ask what Highsec can do for you. Ask what you can do for Highsec!
Spouting CODE propaganda in order to defend downright douchery speaks volumes..
But then again, so does your character name.
HIGHSEC is not relatively safe to my satisfaction as long as the unbalanced BUMPING rules/game mechanics remain unfixed.
I have full confidence that CCP will eventually adress this for the better. - it may take time; it must not be wasy to fix.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
10587
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:22:13 -
[807] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: Once again, I'm talking about HIGHSEC, I'm talking about assigning CONSEQUENCES to criminal behavior in HIGHSEC
Are you on crazy pills? There already are consequences to criminal behaviour in highsec - liquidation by CONCORD. That is a consequence, and a pretty final one.
Got a HoleySheet1 corpse? I'll buy it for 200m!
Bumble's Space Log
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:27:49 -
[808] - Quote
Bumblefck wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: Once again, I'm talking about HIGHSEC, I'm talking about assigning CONSEQUENCES to criminal behavior in HIGHSEC
Are you on crazy pills? There already are consequences to criminal behaviour in highsec - liquidation by CONCORD. That is a consequence, and a pretty final one.
I'm sorry, but are you so caught up on defending douchery that you're UNAWARE of this thread's major premise?
Dude, we're talking about BUMPING being used as a weapon in HIGHSEC without any consequences for the bumper.. - while there is almost guaranteed destruction and loss for the bumpee.
And just to be sure you fully understand, we are talking about this happening in HIGHSEC.
Why have a game where the advantage is held by douchebag players.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21157
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:29:21 -
[809] - Quote
Is this now the Twilight Zone thread?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:30:26 -
[810] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: I define douchery as taking pleasure in inflicting pain onto others.
No one cares what you define. You don't matter. Oh, and if you feel "pain" just because you are allowed to lose in a PvP game, you have a mental problem and should seek psychological help.
do you have a mental problem if you get "pleasure" from other people's sorrow?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21157
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:32:48 -
[811] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: I define douchery as taking pleasure in inflicting pain onto others.
No one cares what you define. You don't matter. Oh, and if you feel "pain" just because you are allowed to lose in a PvP game, you have a mental problem and should seek psychological help. do you have a mental problem if you get "pleasure" from other people's sorrow? So you're suggesting playing a game that allows for you to be a pirate, means you have a mental problem if you play as a pirate?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
4
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:33:51 -
[812] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:What the heck are you talking about? Insta undocks, precautions? I'm not talking about ganking the bumper, I'm talking about doing anything in hisec with a kill right on your head if the person holding that kill right has any idea about what can be done with it (judging from your posts, you obviously don't). Gankers (or their ganking chars) don't care about killrights, hell they don't care about sec status to start with since current crimewatch mechanics allow them to be completely functional regardless of concord and facpo. So the killrights and your sec status are of really great concern to you but they are completely without consequence for other players like the gankers?
of course killrights are inconsequential for a -10 ganking alt , as evidenced by the frequent bragging in local, minerbumping etc by such as yourselves , who only have to undock, insta warp to safe then warp to target , lock , hit f1.
just to clarify for those who don't 'get it' about krs - a 'white knight ' who uses his main to gank a mach has to take into account that any ship he flies for the next month is at the mercy of the very people he is trying to fight . so the kr is set at say 100 mil , that stops the 'white knight' from getting a friend to clear it, but the moment he shows up in a decent ship, the bumper/gankers will activate the kr at no cost .
re looting- looting directly into a fleet hangar of a dst or other ship should cause a suspect timer on the receiving ship. if you want to loot with a dst or similar then you should have to transfer into a can then scoop it as per all ninja looting, which is counterable with mtus and others being able to loot the receiving can . dsts have + 2 warp stab strength , with all wc stabs fitted you get up to + 6 or 7 warp strength, how much more safety do u want ffs?
another idea to bring some balance to unlimited bumping with no consequences, how about when a freighter is hit repeatedly by a ship or ships , above a certain speed and preventing it entering warp over a period of 2- 3 mins say , a timer is set warning the bumper(s) he/they have 20 mins before he goes suspect for illegally obstructing a pilot from going about his business? alternatively, after a set amopunt of hi speed hits over a period of time, the freighter pilot gets a right to clear his way of the criminals impeding his progress in the form of a limited engagement type timer , where, upon activation , anyone in his fleet can legally engage the bumper , the downside being that upon activation, he can also be engaged by the bumper(s) .just think of the fun to be had...
|
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
10588
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:33:57 -
[813] - Quote
I am fully cognisant of the nature of this thread - however, insofar as CCP's rules outline, bumping is not a criminal activity and cannot be punished.
Stealing from others and shooting MTUs? I guess that these are petty crimes, which is why CCP allows for suspect status, so that the aggrieved capsuleer can take matters into their own hands and deal with the interloper.
Unprovoked destruction? Well, that's more serious and that's why we have a police force to enforce the consequences of the attacker's actions.
Bumping? Not a crime at all (not a punishable action, nor an exploit), so no intervention by game mechanics required.
Imagine you got your way, though, and CCP succumbed to the sheer weight of carebearism and made bumping a crime - where would you draw the line? What if I playfully bumped your mission battleship in my interceptor on the station undock? Would that action warrant CONCORD coming in full force and blasting me to smithereens?
Got a HoleySheet1 corpse? I'll buy it for 200m!
Bumble's Space Log
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21157
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:37:08 -
[814] - Quote
Bumblefck wrote:What if I playfully bumped your mission battleship in my interceptor on the station undock? Would that action warrant CONCORD coming in full force and blasting me to smithereens? You would be a douchbag with mental issues. Didn't you know?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:37:20 -
[815] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:... in terms of general on line gameplay across all games News flash: Eve Online is not like any other game. This is intentional. It was designed that way. Stop trying to make EvE not EvE. Bella Jennie wrote:And again, the way I see it, only those who enjoy douchery would prefer a status quo You see it wrong. I am a perfect example of how wrong you are. I tried ganking, or douchery as you call it. I didn't enjoy it. But, just because I didn't enjoy it doesn't mean it should be removed from the game, as is your obvious intention. I pointed this out, but you blatantly ignored it because the ideals of EvE, which I strive to live up to, don't fit into your narrow minded vision of what this game should be. You've been here for 10 days, and apparently rather than trying to adapt yourself into the game, you've decided the game must adapt to fit you. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If you don't like the fact that ganking is permitted and encouraged in EvE, then GTFO. Contract me all your stuff, send me all your isk, biomass your characters, and unsubscribe. The day CCP makes highsec 100% safe is the day the final countdown to server shutoff begins. And yes, despite all your bleating to the contrary, highsec is already 99.9% safe. You have every tool you need to make this happen, if you simply use them.
If I'm here 10 days, how much stuff could I have?
You are merely another in a long line, it seems, that want to tell me what to play; how to play; and even not to play.
Sorry, this is not your personal game.
Don't liker my ideas? YOU GTFO.
Mark my words: when they are ABLE TO, CCP will correct the unbalanced BUMPING paradigm. - anyone with reasonable logic and intelligence (and not a douchebag) could see that.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Iain Cariaba
2521
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:38:21 -
[816] - Quote
Original post here deleted by poster.
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?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21157
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:40:40 -
[817] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Mark my words: when they are ABLE TO, CCP will correct the unbalanced BUMPING paradigm. - anyone with reasonable logic and intelligence (and not a douchebag) could see that. Do you have evidence or facts to back that up. Or should we just accept your word on it?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:42:45 -
[818] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Bumblefck wrote:What if I playfully bumped your mission battleship in my interceptor on the station undock? Would that action warrant CONCORD coming in full force and blasting me to smithereens? You would be a douchbag with mental issues. Didn't you know?
Honestly, that's a strawman argument..
When CCP ultimately fixes the unbalanced BUMPING in HIGHSEC rules/mechanic, they will surely address ALL potential circumstances.. (if they miss one, THAT may become an EXPLOIT opportunity.. that's how things work)
I believe you posted this just so you could write: "You would be a douchbag with mental issues. Didn't you know?"
How clever..
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
270
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:43:44 -
[819] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote: MWDing mach = 13 seconds align time, 8.03 seconds align time with nothing but nanofibers in the lows.
MWDing stabber = 7.67 seconds align time, 4.58 seconds align time with nothing but naofibers in the lows.
Well, dunno about your numbers but my mach fit (4xISTABII, 2xOverdrivesII, DCII + T1/2 500mn MWD, no rigs) has 7 sec align time and 10.6 sec MWD align before skills (EFT 2.33). Add some rigs and implants, it can go lower. 50mn mwd stabber ain't gonna do much in terms of counter bumping, 500mwd t1 cruisers are crap in terms of agility. Cruisers bump battleships just fine. There is no possible way for a mach to have twice the agility of a cruiser. GL bumping the mach fit I listed above with any kind of reliability. As for agility, yes there is - fit an oversize mwd to cruiser (fit for bumping the freighter). |
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
10588
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:44:16 -
[820] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Bumblefck wrote:What if I playfully bumped your mission battleship in my interceptor on the station undock? Would that action warrant CONCORD coming in full force and blasting me to smithereens? You would be a douchbag with mental issues. Didn't you know?
But of course, how silly of me
Got a HoleySheet1 corpse? I'll buy it for 200m!
Bumble's Space Log
|
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:44:19 -
[821] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Mark my words: when they are ABLE TO, CCP will correct the unbalanced BUMPING paradigm. - anyone with reasonable logic and intelligence (and not a douchebag) could see that. Do you have evidence or facts to back that up. Or should we just accept your word on it?
I prefer you just accept my word..
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3069
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:47:19 -
[822] - Quote
Bella, perhaps you should have read up on the game before investing in it.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21157
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:48:09 -
[823] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Honestly, that's a strawman argument.. When CCP ultimately fixes the unbalanced BUMPING in HIGHSEC rules/mechanic, they will surely address ALL potential circumstances.. (if they miss one, THAT may become an EXPLOIT opportunity.. that's how things work) I believe you posted this just so you could write: "You would be a douchbag with mental issues. Didn't you know?" How clever.. Strawman? Hardly. I'm using your logic. Prey tell how does the server know what the intentions are, behind an action?
Maybe it's time to drop the emotional baggage? As funny as your trolling is, we've seen it all before. It's not original.
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
270
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:48:15 -
[824] - Quote
Bumblefck wrote:Imagine you got your way, though, and CCP succumbed to the sheer weight of carebearism and made bumping a crime - where would you draw the line? They will never make bumping a crime, but they are certainly looking into bumping (in general).
|
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
10589
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:48:43 -
[825] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Mag's wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Mark my words: when they are ABLE TO, CCP will correct the unbalanced BUMPING paradigm. - anyone with reasonable logic and intelligence (and not a douchebag) could see that. Do you have evidence or facts to back that up. Or should we just accept your word on it? I prefer you just accept my word..
So no facts whatsoever, then.
Who is your main? It seems, given that you are such a fan of them, some consequences should perhaps come home to roost.
Got a HoleySheet1 corpse? I'll buy it for 200m!
Bumble's Space Log
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:50:19 -
[826] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: I define douchery as taking pleasure in inflicting pain onto others.
No one cares what you define. You don't matter. Oh, and if you feel "pain" just because you are allowed to lose in a PvP game, you have a mental problem and should seek psychological help. do you have a mental problem if you get "pleasure" from other people's sorrow? So you're suggesting playing a game that allows for you to be a pirate, means you have a mental problem if you play as a pirate?
but you are allowed to post: "Oh, and if you feel "pain" just because you are allowed to lose in a PvP game, you have a mental problem and should seek psychological help"
You seem like just another one caught up in the defense of douchery.. - not very noble
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21157
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:50:30 -
[827] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Bumblefck wrote:Imagine you got your way, though, and CCP succumbed to the sheer weight of carebearism and made bumping a crime - where would you draw the line? They will never make bumping a crime, but they are certainly looking into bumping (in general). They have always look into bumping in general. It's changed fairly often. So your point is?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:53:04 -
[828] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Bumblefck wrote:Imagine you got your way, though, and CCP succumbed to the sheer weight of carebearism and made bumping a crime - where would you draw the line? They will never make bumping a crime, but they are certainly looking into bumping (in general).
IF by some chance the do NOT make it a crime, I'll be very happy if they simply nerf the BUMPING mechanic altogether. - maybe that's easier for them..
They must address this; it is so obviously UNBALANCED..
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
10589
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:54:16 -
[829] - Quote
Bumblefck wrote:
Who is your main (Bella Jennie)? It seems, given that you are such a fan of them, some consequences should perhaps come home to roost.
Got a HoleySheet1 corpse? I'll buy it for 200m!
Bumble's Space Log
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:54:42 -
[830] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Bella, perhaps you should have read up on the game before investing in it.
assume much?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21157
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:55:17 -
[831] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Mag's wrote:]So you're suggesting playing a game that allows for you to be a pirate, means you have a mental problem if you play as a pirate? but you are allowed to post: "Oh, and if you feel "pain" just because you are allowed to lose in a PvP game, you have a mental problem and should seek psychological help" You seem like just another one caught up in the defense of douchery.. - not very noble I didn't post that.
Oh and factually backing game mechanics with evidence, isn't a defence of douchery. It's showing that game is meant to be that way. On the other hand shouting and name calling without evidence, seems to fill the definition quite nicely.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
10591
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 15:58:12 -
[832] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Bella, perhaps you should have read up on the game before investing in it. assume much?
As you also seem to do.
Got a HoleySheet1 corpse? I'll buy it for 200m!
Bumble's Space Log
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25792
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:00:07 -
[833] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:It is just amazing how people want to become my personal "on-line gaming consultants"..
Also how many cling to the notions that CCP made this game specifically so that people could harass, annoy and grief other players without any risk or consequences..
Anyway, everyone entitled to their opinion.. You do realise that the original CCP devs were Trammel refugees looking to build a game similar to Ultima Online before people like you destroyed it?
Quote:Once again, I'm talking about HIGHSEC, I'm talking about assigning CONSEQUENCES to criminal behavior in HIGHSEC We're telling you that if you want consequences beyond those programmed into the game, then it is up to you to use the myriad of tools and mechanics that are universally available to all to achieve that.; on a side note, bumping isn't criminal behaviour if the system doesn't flag it as such.
Quote:BUMPING on purpose without consequences in HIGHSEC is unbalanced gameplay favoring those (I call them douchebags) who would harass & annoy other players in HIGHSEC. How is it unbalanced, there are plenty of things you can do to avoid being bumped in the first place.
Quote:I want CCP to change that.. I'm fairly certain that eventually, they will.
I'm fairly sure that you're a troll alt, one of us is likely to be correct, probability says that it won't be you.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:01:06 -
[834] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Honestly, that's a strawman argument.. When CCP ultimately fixes the unbalanced BUMPING in HIGHSEC rules/mechanic, they will surely address ALL potential circumstances.. (if they miss one, THAT may become an EXPLOIT opportunity.. that's how things work) I believe you posted this just so you could write: "You would be a douchbag with mental issues. Didn't you know?" How clever.. Strawman? Hardly. I'm using your logic. Prey tell how does the server know what the intentions are, behind an action? Maybe it's time to drop the emotional baggage? As funny as your trolling is, we've seen it all before. It's not original.
thing is dude, that you seem butthurt because someone is trying to improve the game.. - to be more realistic - to be more "fair" in that douchery would have consequences..
You wouldn't be a proponent of wanton douchery, would you?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:04:21 -
[835] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:It is just amazing how people want to become my personal "on-line gaming consultants"..
Also how many cling to the notions that CCP made this game specifically so that people could harass, annoy and grief other players without any risk or consequences..
Anyway, everyone entitled to their opinion.. You do realise that the original CCP devs were Trammel refugees looking to build a game similar to Ultima Online before people like you destroyed it? Quote:Once again, I'm talking about HIGHSEC, I'm talking about assigning CONSEQUENCES to criminal behavior in HIGHSEC We're telling you that if you want consequences beyond those programmed into the game, then it is up to you to use the myriad of tools and mechanics that are universally available to all to achieve that.; on a side note, bumping isn't criminal behaviour if the system doesn't flag it as such. Quote:BUMPING on purpose without consequences in HIGHSEC is unbalanced gameplay favoring those (I call them douchebags) who would harass & annoy other players in HIGHSEC. How is it unbalanced, there are plenty of things you can do to avoid being bumped in the first place. Quote:I want CCP to change that.. I'm fairly certain that eventually, they will.
I'm fairly sure that you're a troll alt, one of us is likely to be correct, probability says that it won't be you.
wow, you seem like yet another butthurt proponent of douchery...
I state my opinion based on valid observation and your head explodes? Sheesh!
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3069
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:05:04 -
[836] - Quote
They likely 'look into' AFK cloaking just as much. And war decs. And ganking. And ship performance.
Monitoring things and keeping up with discussion doesnt automatically mean there is a problem. You can investigate a concern amongst part of the player base without agreeing with them.
CCP Rise wrote: "We have tried and tried to validate the myth that griefing has a pronounced affect on new players - we have failed... Isolating players away from the actual sandbox seems very contrary to what we would like to accomplish."
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3073
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:07:10 -
[837] - Quote
Yeah its pretty clear Bell,a that you've missed alot.
The FAQ, EVE's wiki, EVE's playerbase, CCP themselves (repeatedly) will tell you this is the game you cannot play alone and others can interfer with your game. Its one of the fundamental principals of the game. If you had read up before joining, you'd have caught at least some of this...
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16161
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:07:30 -
[838] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: Also how many cling to the notions that CCP made this game specifically so that people could harass, annoy and grief other players without any risk or consequences..
Your blatant hyperbole aside, that is exactly what CCP made this game for.
Quote: Once again, I'm talking about HIGHSEC, I'm talking about assigning CONSEQUENCES to criminal behavior in HIGHSEC
You're talking about putting more mechanical penalties on the only playstyle that has any to begin with, because like all carebears you are a selfish hypocrite.
And like all carebears, you are playing the wrong game, and your narcissism won't allow you to admit it, so you demand that the entire structure of the game be broken completely to make up for your bad decisions.
And the answer is no. In fact, I suspect in the near future that highsec will be rendered much, much less safe. And it will be a benefit to this game, because conflict is the beating heart of EVE Online.
"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.
16161
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:09:01 -
[839] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: but you are allowed to post: "Oh, and if you feel "pain" just because you are allowed to lose in a PvP game, you have a mental problem and should seek psychological help"
I posted that, dumbass, not him.
And it's 100% true. No normal, well adjusted adult feels "pain" when they lose at a PvP video game.
If you do, then something is direly wrong with you, and you need to uninstall this game and seek professional help. You are broken, maladjusted and abberant, and you need to be fixed.
"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
21159
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:10:02 -
[840] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Mag's wrote:Strawman? Hardly. I'm using your logic. Prey tell how does the server know what the intentions are, behind an action? Maybe it's time to drop the emotional baggage? As funny as your trolling is, we've seen it all before. It's not original. thing is dude, that you seem butthurt because someone is trying to improve the game.. - to be more realistic - to be more "fair" in that douchery would have consequences.. You wouldn't be a proponent of wanton douchery, would you? I'm a proponent of Eve remaining a sandbox. The fact you label someone's play style as 'wanton douchery ' is irrelevant.
You see in Eve you're able to do whatever you want, within in walls and rules. But others can also do the same. It's down to you to try and stop them if they interfere with your game. Eve is PvP centric, time to learn how to play.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3073
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:10:18 -
[841] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: Also how many cling to the notions that CCP made this game specifically so that people could harass, annoy and grief other players without any risk or consequences..
Your blatant hyperbole aside, that is exactly what CCP made this game for.
This ^^
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25794
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:13:06 -
[842] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:wow, you seem like yet another butthurt proponent of douchery... I state my opinion based on valid observation and your head explodes? Sheesh! Whatever gave you that impression? I have no dog in this fight as I am neither a ganker, a looter nor a bumper.
Your observation consists of telling people that they're douchebags because they choose to take advantage of the freedoms available to them in a virtual world with few rules; that's hardly objective, nor is it valid.
As I previously stated, you are free to express your opinion, and we're free to disagree with it. Your childish attitude and name calling waeken any case for change that you may have had.
If you continue with your childish attitude and name calling, then we will continue to treat you as a small child. Post like a rational adult and we'll treat you as one.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:16:15 -
[843] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: Also how many cling to the notions that CCP made this game specifically so that people could harass, annoy and grief other players without any risk or consequences..
Your blatant hyperbole aside, that is exactly what CCP made this game for. Quote: Once again, I'm talking about HIGHSEC, I'm talking about assigning CONSEQUENCES to criminal behavior in HIGHSEC
You're talking about putting more mechanical penalties on the only playstyle that has any to begin with, because like all carebears you are a selfish hypocrite. And like all carebears, you are playing the wrong game, and your narcissism won't allow you to admit it, so you demand that the entire structure of the game be broken completely to make up for your bad decisions. And the answer is no. In fact, I suspect in the near future that highsec will be rendered much, much less safe. And it will be a benefit to this game, because conflict is the beating heart of EVE Online.
Thanks for YOUR opinion.. so many, many defenders of the status quo have ALREADY said exactly what you now posted; ho hum and yawn...
Actual trends in Eve development of HIGHSEC gameplay tell quite a different story.
Using BUMPING as a weapon in HIGHSEC without consequence = unbalanced gameplay. - CCP will undoubtedly address it.
Stop acting so butthurt
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Enabran' Tain
Viziam Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:19:25 -
[844] - Quote
Quote:1st - I know the act of bumping is not a reason an exploit, however the people who do the bumping can and often do (in High sec) bump someone for 30-60 minutes or more!! Holding them hostage with the police in clear site with no repercussion. Even having a webber does not mean they will be able to get away prior, once the bumping has started, there is very little anyone can do to help. This can be done at many neighboring system gates all at the same time. Waiting indefinitely for a gank fleet, or just holding hostage and harassing a user.
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. |
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:21:30 -
[845] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:wow, you seem like yet another butthurt proponent of douchery... I state my opinion based on valid observation and your head explodes? Sheesh! Whatever gave you that impression? I have no dog in this fight as I am neither a ganker, a looter nor a bumper. Your observation consists of telling people that they're douchebags because they choose to take advantage of the freedoms available to them in a virtual world with few rules; that's hardly objective, nor is it valid. As I previously stated, you are free to express your opinion, and we're free to disagree with it. Your childish attitude and name calling waeken any case for change that you may have had. If you continue with your childish attitude and name calling, then we will continue to treat you as a small child. Post like a rational adult and we'll treat you as one.
except I'm pointing out UNBALANCED gameplay
making use BALANCED game dynamics to your advantage is GREAT gameplay. - I repeat once more that I totally respect the efforts of SUICIDE Gankers in Highsec.
Griefing players because you discovered how to do so without risk (using game mechanics not as INTENDED by developers) is indeed douchery.. What do you call it when someone preys upon the weak?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16163
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:21:41 -
[846] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: Thanks for YOUR opinion.
That's not my opinion.
See the CCP quote above. As far as this game is concerned, God himself just walked down out of the clouds, pointed an enormous, glowing finger at you and said "You are completely wrong about everything you say" in a booming voice.
Quote: Actual trends in Eve development of HIGHSEC gameplay tell quite a different story.
Yeah, and just watch that PCU plummet every time they've done it.
Meanwhile, their own stats from last year's Fanfest have set an unquestionable mandate. PvP in highsec improves retention of new players.
There's only one way to go from there. And it's not your way.
Quote: Stop acting so butthurt
Such blatant projection. I'm not the one crying in all caps for several pages about how I hate the way the game works right now.
That's you, and only you.
"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.
16163
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:23:15 -
[847] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:
except I'm pointing out UNBALANCED gameplay
It's not unbalanced, you're just bad at the game.
Quote:What do you call it when someone preys upon the weak?
EVE Online.
"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
21160
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:23:55 -
[848] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: Using BUMPING as a weapon in HIGHSEC without consequence = unbalanced gameplay. - CCP will undoubtedly address it.
Stop acting so butthurt
Many in this thread have asked for evidence of a problem. So far none has been forthcoming, we should just take people's word on it.
Oh and a heads up. We're not the ones asking for a change without proof it's needed. That hardly makes us the 'butthurt' ones here.
You seem out of your depth right now, in so many ways.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25796
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:27:33 -
[849] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Using BUMPING as a weapon in HIGHSEC without consequence = unbalanced gameplay. - CCP will undoubtedly address it. If CCP do ever decide to address bumping, the first thing that'll happen will be change to the tactics used to cull the stupid among us, the next thing that'll happen is that those new doctrines will be used to make hisec burn on a massive scale.
Hisec is currently mechanically safer than it has ever been, the more unscrupulous hisec players have seen their playstyle slowly eroded due to carebear creep. As a consequence of this, they are now highly organised and on good terms with the major players in null; you can only push them so far before they turn, and when they turn they won't be alone.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:28:11 -
[850] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: Also how many cling to the notions that CCP made this game specifically so that people could harass, annoy and grief other players without any risk or consequences..
Your blatant hyperbole aside, that is exactly what CCP made this game for. This ^^ "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Being ganked in HISEC ruins days - but I'm down with that.. - Gankers in HISEC must make great efforts and spend considerable ISK to make it happen..
Another "cornerstone" of Eve is "RISK vs REWARD" - that's out of whack if you can BUMP in HISEC without any consequence..
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16164
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:29:31 -
[851] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: Another "cornerstone of Eve is "RISK vs REWARD"
It's really funny when carebears talk about things they've heard of, but don't really know anything about.
Risk vs reward applies exclusively to activities that generate assets into the game world.
"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.
|
Iain Cariaba
2523
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:30:26 -
[852] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Using BUMPING as a weapon in HIGHSEC without consequence = unbalanced gameplay. - CCP will undoubtedly address it. If CCP do ever decide to address bumping, the first thing that'll happen will be change to the tactics used to cull the stupid among us, the next thing that'll happen is that those new doctrines will be used to make hisec burn on a massive scale. Hisec is currently mechanically safer than it has ever been, the more unscrupulous hisec players have seen their playstyle slowly eroded due to carebear creep. As a consequence of this, they are now highly organised and on good terms with the major players in null; you can only push them so far before they turn, and when they turn they won't be alone. Why wait? I vote for next Wednesday.
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?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:33:26 -
[853] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Using BUMPING as a weapon in HIGHSEC without consequence = unbalanced gameplay. - CCP will undoubtedly address it. If CCP do ever decide to address bumping, the first thing that'll happen will be change to the tactics used to cull the stupid among us, the next thing that'll happen is that those new doctrines will be used to make hisec burn on a massive scale. Hisec is currently mechanically safer than it has ever been, the more unscrupulous hisec players have seen their playstyle slowly eroded due to carebear creep. As a consequence of this, they are now highly organised and on good terms with the major players in null; you can only push them so far before they turn, and when they turn they won't be alone.
What the heck is wrong with "carebear creep" in HISEC??
So what if they "turn"? Isn't that the gameplay you want?
Why is the need to cull the "stupid"? - What makes them "stupid"? - Why do you have to call them "stupid"? --- Why? Because they want to play differently than YOU?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Iain Cariaba
2523
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:34:46 -
[854] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: Another "cornerstone of Eve is "RISK vs REWARD"
It's really funny when carebears talk about things they've heard of, but don't really know anything about. Risk vs reward applies exclusively to activities that generate assets into the game world. Kaarous, Mags, Jonah, guys, stop responding to anything Bella posts. Troll bait is so obvious I stopped posted several pages ago. Nothing you say is going to break though his little delusion that CCP wants to kill EvE, so we're all better off just ignoring him.
I've never once advocated hiding anyone's posts, even Veers, Dryson, and Gevlon, but this one...
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?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21160
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:36:24 -
[855] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: Another "cornerstone of Eve is "RISK vs REWARD"
It's really funny when carebears talk about things they've heard of, but don't really know anything about. Risk vs reward applies exclusively to activities that generate assets into the game world. The funny thing is bud, what sort of risk is 99.9% chance of safe passage?
So yes I'm totally OK with them only getting 0.1% in rewards.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:37:29 -
[856] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: Another "cornerstone of Eve is "RISK vs REWARD"
It's really funny when carebears talk about things they've heard of, but don't really know anything about. Risk vs reward applies exclusively to activities that generate assets into the game world.
please verify that I read you correctly:
So you say "RISK vs REWARD" applies to miners manufacturers and NOT to gankers? - so gankers should be able to harass with impunity?
Seems like more butthurt talk..
I have equal say as you do, sorry.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21161
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:38:36 -
[857] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: Another "cornerstone of Eve is "RISK vs REWARD"
It's really funny when carebears talk about things they've heard of, but don't really know anything about. Risk vs reward applies exclusively to activities that generate assets into the game world. Kaarous, Mags, Jonah, guys, stop responding to anything Bella posts. Troll bait is so obvious I stopped posted several pages ago. Nothing you say is going to break though his little delusion that CCP wants to kill EvE, so we're all better off just ignoring him. I've never once advocated hiding anyone's posts, even Veers, Dryson, and Gevlon, but this one... Mate don't believe they have anyone fooled. But they are so bad at it, I'm actually having fun laughing at their expense.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Giaus Felix
Hedion University Amarr Empire
115
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:40:13 -
[858] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:I have equal say as you do, sorry. When you post from a position of ignorance, you don't, and your ignorance is plain to see.
I'll echo Jonah here, grow up or shut up.
I am Ralph's junk DNA.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:42:07 -
[859] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: Another "cornerstone of Eve is "RISK vs REWARD"
It's really funny when carebears talk about things they've heard of, but don't really know anything about. Risk vs reward applies exclusively to activities that generate assets into the game world. The funny thing is bud, what sort of risk is 99.9% chance of safe passage? So yes I'm totally OK with them only getting 0.1% in rewards.
again I remind you that I'm talking HISEC.
Trucks do get hijacked in New York State, but they do not run with escorts & such.. In Afganistan, it's another story.
When I'm in HISEC, I want CONCORD to do their job. - I don't want the BUMPER sharing in loot acquired without risk. That's BS gameplay.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21164
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:46:40 -
[860] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Mag's wrote:The funny thing is bud, what sort of risk is 99.9% chance of safe passage? So yes I'm totally OK with them only getting 0.1% in rewards. again I remind you that I'm talking HISEC. Trucks do get hijacked in New York State, but they do not run with escorts & such.. In Afganistan, it's another story. When I'm in HISEC, I want CONCORD to do their job. - I don't want the BUMPER sharing in loot acquired without risk. That's BS gameplay. I'm also talking about highsec. Why should I need reminding? Those figures are from highsec. So are you fine with 0.1% in rewards? Seeing as you wish to use the risk vs reward rule.
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.
16167
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:47:31 -
[861] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: So you say "RISK vs REWARD" applies to miners manufacturers and NOT to gankers?
Yes.
A PvP activity, like all meta activities, has it's risk and reward driven entirely by the actions of the opposing player.
Risk vs reward is not in play if a hauler decides to fill his hold full of plex. In that instance, if I gank him I get a much, much greater reward for exactly the same risk as if I gank a guy with a hold full of exotic dancers.
But that was the choice that he made.
Risk vs reward does not apply to any PvP activity, solely to PvE.
Quote:I have equal say as you do, sorry.
No you don't. Opinions are not equal nor of equal merit.
"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.
|
Iain Cariaba
2528
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:50:00 -
[862] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Trucks do get hijacked in New York State, but they do not run with escorts & such.. In Afganistan, it's another story. Yeah, I know I suggested not doing this, but if you're going to provide the perfect opportunity, I can't pass it up.
If those hijacked truck ran with escorts, they wouldn't have been hijacked. You may be unaware of this, but there is a portion of the freight that is shipped in the US that is considered of a sensitive nature. These shipments have escorts. I'm not talking military convoys or police escorts, but a few guys in unmarked vehicles leading and tailing the truck. I can pretty much guarantee you that these escorted shipments never get hijacked in New York State. Now, this isn't because New York State is such a beacon of law enforcement, but because those shipments have escorts.
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?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
5
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:50:16 -
[863] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Using BUMPING as a weapon in HIGHSEC without consequence = unbalanced gameplay. - CCP will undoubtedly address it. If CCP do ever decide to address bumping, the first thing that'll happen will be change to the tactics used to cull the stupid among us, the next thing that'll happen is that those new doctrines will be used to make hisec burn on a massive scale. Hisec is currently mechanically safer than it has ever been, the more unscrupulous hisec players have seen their playstyle slowly eroded due to carebear creep. As a consequence of this, they are now highly organised and on good terms with the major players in null; you can only push them so far before they turn, and when they turn they won't be alone.
hey , did i just fill a square or 2 on my ganker bingo card?
also, to paraphrase a little ''eve is a cold ,unforgiving place , full of dire consequences for your actions , which is as it should be and what makes the game great etc etc ad nauseum'' , (unless you're a bumping mach pilot for some reason ... ) double standards much?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:51:09 -
[864] - Quote
Giaus Felix wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:I have equal say as you do, sorry. When you post from a position of ignorance, you don't, and your ignorance is plain to see. I'll echo Jonah here, grow up or shut up.
yet another seemingly butthurt defender of douchery..
I'd say you post from a position of stubborn obstinance.. - clinging to paradigms that support doucherious (is that a word? ) behavior
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25796
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:51:27 -
[865] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Mag's wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: Another "cornerstone of Eve is "RISK vs REWARD"
It's really funny when carebears talk about things they've heard of, but don't really know anything about. Risk vs reward applies exclusively to activities that generate assets into the game world. The funny thing is bud, what sort of risk is 99.9% chance of safe passage? So yes I'm totally OK with them only getting 0.1% in rewards. again I remind you that I'm talking HISEC. Trucks do get hijacked in New York State, but they do not run with escorts & such.. In Afganistan, it's another story. When I'm in HISEC, I want CONCORD to do their job. - I don't want the BUMPER sharing in loot acquired without risk. That's BS gameplay. Hisec is far closer to Afghanistan than it is NYC, Eve is set in a dystopia, a society characterized by human misery and oppression. The security level of a system isn't about law enforcement, but lack of it.
IIRC the direction of development is that the Empires are losing their grip on power, which implies a state of lesser law enforcement is on the cards.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:52:36 -
[866] - Quote
Mag's wrote:You seem out of your depth right now, in so many ways.
just typing that don't make it so
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
5
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:53:51 -
[867] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Trucks do get hijacked in New York State, but they do not run with escorts & such.. In Afganistan, it's another story. Yeah, I know I suggested not doing this, but if you're going to provide the perfect opportunity, I can't pass it up. If those hijacked truck ran with escorts, they wouldn't have been hijacked. You may be unaware of this, but there is a portion of the freight that is shipped in the US that is considered of a sensitive nature. These shipments have escorts. I'm not talking military convoys or police escorts, but a few guys in unmarked vehicles leading and tailing the truck. I can pretty much guarantee you that these escorted shipments never get hijacked in New York State. Now, this isn't because New York State is such a beacon of law enforcement, but because those shipments have escorts.
i also can pretty much guarantee that if the hijacking of said hijacked truck was preceded by several hours of being rammed off the road by a faster truck that those police/authorities would have responded in some manner before the actual hi jack /robbery took place, or am i missing something here? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16168
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:54:41 -
[868] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:unless you're a bumping mach pilot for some reason
It's not for some reason, I'll tell you what the exact reason is.
It's because carebears are gutless worms who lack the wherewithal to inflict consequences on them. Of course they go untouched for the most part, because their only real potential opposition aren't real players anyway.
"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
21165
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:55:26 -
[869] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Mag's wrote:You seem out of your depth right now, in so many ways. just typing that don't make it so I'll put that next to all the other evidence you've provided. I on the other hand, show you your posting as proof.
Bless.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Iain Cariaba
2529
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:55:36 -
[870] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:hey , did i just fill a square or 2 on my ganker bingo card? Four squares actually. The 5th is up for debate. Does repeated use of the phrase douchebag and it's various forms count as "KID" or "F***"?
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?
|
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:57:20 -
[871] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Mag's wrote:Strawman? Hardly. I'm using your logic. Prey tell how does the server know what the intentions are, behind an action? Maybe it's time to drop the emotional baggage? As funny as your trolling is, we've seen it all before. It's not original. thing is dude, that you seem butthurt because someone is trying to improve the game.. - to be more realistic - to be more "fair" in that douchery would have consequences.. You wouldn't be a proponent of wanton douchery, would you? I'm a proponent of Eve remaining a sandbox. The fact you label someone's play style as 'wanton douchery ' is irrelevant. You see in Eve you're able to do whatever you want, within in walls and rules. But others can also do the same. It's down to you to try and stop them if they interfere with your game. Eve is PvP centric, time to learn how to play.
I personally don't want to STOP anyone..
I just want UNBALANCED gameplay mechanics/rules to be fixed. - I agree to being able to do anything you want within a logically, BALANCED environment..
Did you know you can really do all kinds of evil things in LOWSEC & NULSEC?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Giaus Felix
Hedion University Amarr Empire
115
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 16:57:58 -
[872] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Giaus Felix wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:I have equal say as you do, sorry. When you post from a position of ignorance, you don't, and your ignorance is plain to see. I'll echo Jonah here, grow up or shut up. yet another seemingly butthurt defender of douchery.. I'd say you post from a position of stubborn obstinance.. - clinging to paradigms that support doucherious (is that a word? ) behavior This post epitomises why nobody takes you seriously, and why the general consensus of opinion is that you're an alt being used to avoid the consequences of your forum griefing.
Ironic eh?
I am Ralph's junk DNA.
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21165
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:00:00 -
[873] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Trucks do get hijacked in New York State, but they do not run with escorts & such.. In Afganistan, it's another story. Yeah, I know I suggested not doing this, but if you're going to provide the perfect opportunity, I can't pass it up. If those hijacked truck ran with escorts, they wouldn't have been hijacked. You may be unaware of this, but there is a portion of the freight that is shipped in the US that is considered of a sensitive nature. These shipments have escorts. I'm not talking military convoys or police escorts, but a few guys in unmarked vehicles leading and tailing the truck. I can pretty much guarantee you that these escorted shipments never get hijacked in New York State. Now, this isn't because New York State is such a beacon of law enforcement, but because those shipments have escorts. i also can pretty much guarantee that if the hijacking of said hijacked truck was preceded by several hours of being rammed off the road by a faster truck that those police/authorities would have responded in some manner before the actual hi jack /robbery took place, or am i missing something here? Actually the escorts would have dealt with them. Just as in Eve. They then would need to deal with whatever consequences came from it. If they simply bumped the bumper, I don't see what those consequences would be tbh.
Oh and he was trying to point out how dumb RL comparisons are. Especially when poorly used.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:01:43 -
[874] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:unless you're a bumping mach pilot for some reason
It's not for some reason, I'll tell you what the exact reason is. It's because carebears are gutless worms who lack the wherewithal to inflict consequences on them. Of course they go untouched for the most part, because their only real potential opposition aren't real players anyway.
ahhh YOU get to define "real" players.. I see.
the way I see it, ANYONE who pays for an account is a real player.
I have equal rights to yours.
You play YOUR game; I'll play mine.
All I want is that what is obviously UNBALANCED be fixed.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21165
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:03:11 -
[875] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Mag's wrote:I'm a proponent of Eve remaining a sandbox. The fact you label someone's play style as 'wanton douchery ' is irrelevant. You see in Eve you're able to do whatever you want, within in walls and rules. But others can also do the same. It's down to you to try and stop them if they interfere with your game. Eve is PvP centric, time to learn how to play. I personally don't want to STOP anyone.. I just want UNBALANCED gameplay mechanics/rules to be fixed. - I agree to being able to do anything you want within a logically, BALANCED environment.. Did you know you can really do all kinds of evil things in LOWSEC & NULSEC? Apart from wanting to stop bumping you mean?
Oh and I just got a bingo line filled with that last sentence. Cheers bud.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
10592
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:05:04 -
[876] - Quote
Bumblefck wrote:
Who is your main (Bella Jennie)? It seems, given that you are such a fan of them, some consequences should perhaps come home to roost.
Third time I've posted this, but not really expecting a serious response beyond "WTF DOES THAT HAVE TO WITH ANYTHING?"
Got a HoleySheet1 corpse? I'll buy it for 200m!
Bumble's Space Log
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1819
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:05:44 -
[877] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Bella, perhaps you should have read up on the game before investing in it. assume much?
I'm assuming 'for comprehension' was implied in his comment.
It appears you researched eve and decided it would be a great idea to start playing it and then over time attempt to inflict some form of your own personal moral code on the game and all its players, because you're a douchebag... err I mean, because what you feel is right - obviously is, so let's fix all this immoral stuff and all in the name of what??? For the children - sure you said 'for the new players', but you're basically holding a baby up as a shield and calling others immoral. The whole image makes me sick.
You're the poison trying to infect a decade plus of engaging free form game play. This isn't HTFU, it's sincere advise. If you don't like the sandbox foundation that Eve is played on, go find a game that has a moral code you're happy with and enjoy it. In the end, Eve has been collecting folks that don't agree with your moral high ground (in the game) for over a decade and you will lose this crusade. Many many times I've watched players try to inflict / infect the sandbox with moral codes and dreams of safe and fare play.
Eve Safe - you have enough dps, tank or logistics to complete a desired task. Eve Fare - if you can do it to them, they are able to do it right back to you.
This is seriously not a HTFU recommendation for you. You're not going to enforce any moral codes on this game, so if that sort of thing is important to you, you'll never be happy here. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25796
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:06:29 -
[878] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:I personally don't want to STOP anyone.. Except bumpers ...
Quote:I just want UNBALANCED gameplay mechanics/rules to be fixed. It is your, apparently uninformed, opinion that it is unbalanced, your opinion is not fact.
Quote:- I agree to being able to do anything you want within a logically, BALANCED environment.. What wopuld you consider to be a balanced environment, bearing in mind that it is already ridiculously easy to not get bumped if you're halfway competent, not afk, or of a social nature/ member of a social group.
Quote:Did you know you can really do all kinds of evil things in LOWSEC & NULSEC? Your ignorance is showing again, of course he does, Mags is a lowsec player, he rarely, if ever comes to hisec.
Like myself he has no dog in this fight, but doesn't want to see detrimental changes to the game which are purported to solve a problem that exists only as a matter of opinion.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:07:20 -
[879] - Quote
Giaus Felix wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Giaus Felix wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:I have equal say as you do, sorry. When you post from a position of ignorance, you don't, and your ignorance is plain to see. I'll echo Jonah here, grow up or shut up. yet another seemingly butthurt defender of douchery.. I'd say you post from a position of stubborn obstinance.. - clinging to paradigms that support doucherious (is that a word? ) behavior This post epitomises why nobody takes you seriously, and why the general consensus of opinion is that you're an alt being used to avoid the consequences of your forum griefing. Ironic eh?
butt is really hurt, hey?
just because my opinions differ.
so you like to play at beating up on the weak.. I get it. - nevertheless, we gotta do something about fixing UNBALANCED gameplay.
And by the way, I got some "likes" there are people who agree with me.
All I want is for CCP to take notice and fix it once they are able.. - I don't think they will side with the douchebags
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2131
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:10:02 -
[880] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote: So the killrights and your sec status are of really great concern to you but they are completely without consequence for other players like the gankers?
of course killrights are inconsequential for a -10 ganking alt , as evidenced by the frequent bragging in local, minerbumping etc by such as yourselves , who only have to undock, insta warp to safe then warp to target , lock , hit f1. just to clarify for those who don't 'get it' about krs - a 'white knight ' who uses his main to gank a mach has to take into account that any ship he flies for the next month is at the mercy of the very people he is trying to fight . so the kr is set at say 100 mil , that stops the 'white knight' from getting a friend to clear it, but the moment he shows up in a decent ship, the bumper/gankers will activate the kr at no cost . You don't have to gank with your main. An EVE account has 3 character slots and ganking chars are trained fast this days. So this is absolutely no excuse. I think the real problem with you white-knights is that you are as usual just really bad at the game and maybe you tried already and failed really hard all the time, everyday, constantly.
bigbud skunkafella wrote: re looting- looting directly into a fleet hangar of a dst or other ship should cause a suspect timer on the receiving ship. if you want to loot with a dst or similar then you should have to transfer into a can then scoop it as per all ninja looting, which is counterable with mtus and others being able to loot the receiving can . dsts have + 2 warp stab strength , with all wc stabs fitted you get up to + 6 or 7 warp strength, how much more safety do u want ffs?
You are just mad they fixed the wreck HP. I would be very cautious to wish for more ways to become suspect, since we will probably the first to use the new mechanic in a way you did not intended, which is honestly really easy especially with your silly ideas. It seams you only focus on that one single problem and never consider any other implications this could have.
bigbud skunkafella wrote:another idea to bring some balance to unlimited bumping with no consequences, how about when a freighter is hit repeatedly by a ship or ships , above a certain speed and preventing it entering warp over a period of 2- 3 mins say , a timer is set warning the bumper(s) he/they have 20 mins before he goes suspect for illegally obstructing a pilot from going about his business? alternatively, after a set amopunt of hi speed hits over a period of time, the freighter pilot gets a right to clear his way of the criminals impeding his progress in the form of a limited engagement type timer , where, upon activation , anyone in his fleet can legally engage the bumper , the downside being that upon activation, he can also be engaged by the bumper(s) .just think of the fun to be had... Yes, confusing mechanics like this is exactly what we need. This will make everyone safer. Are you running for CSM by any chance? I would probably vote you. The broken stuff you produce would entertain us for moths.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16171
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:10:39 -
[881] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: the way I see it, ANYONE who pays for an account is a real player.
Nope.
Quote: You play YOUR game; I'll play mine.
No you won't. Your game involves breaking the sandbox and not letting other people interact with you. Your game involves being perfectly safe in a PvP sandbox game.
You will never play "your game", not as long as you are playing EVE Online.
Quote: All I want is that what is obviously UNBALANCED be fixed.
It's not unbalanced, you're just bad at this game.
"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.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:14:34 -
[882] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Bella, perhaps you should have read up on the game before investing in it. assume much? I'm assuming 'for comprehension' was implied in his comment. It appears you researched eve and decided it would be a great idea to start playing it and then over time attempt to inflict some form of your own personal moral code on the game and all its players, because you're a douchebag... err I mean, because what you feel is right - obviously is, so let's fix all this immoral stuff and all in the name of what??? For the children - sure you said 'for the new players', but you're basically holding a baby up as a shield and calling others immoral. The whole image makes me sick. You're the poison trying to infect a decade plus of engaging free form game play. This isn't HTFU, it's sincere advise. If you don't like the sandbox foundation that Eve is played on, go find a game that has a moral code you're happy with and enjoy it. In the end, Eve has been collecting folks that don't agree with your moral high ground (in the game) for over a decade and you will lose this crusade. Many many times I've watched players try to inflict / infect the sandbox with moral codes and dreams of safe and fare play. Eve Safe - you have enough dps, tank or logistics to complete a desired task. Eve Fare - if you can do it to them, they are able to do it right back to you. This is seriously not a HTFU recommendation for you. You're not going to enforce any moral codes on this game, so if that sort of thing is important to you, you'll never be happy here.
can you just tell me what HTFU is? Thanks in advance.
I'll bring up the point that Games evolve again.. - Eve is not static; it has evolved greatly..
I can petition for whatever I see fit.
I'll be very happy once CCP is able to address and CORRECT this issue of UNBALANCED gameplay in HISEC space resulting from there being no consequences for WEAPONIZED BUMPING.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Giaus Felix
Hedion University Amarr Empire
115
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:14:48 -
[883] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:butt is really hurt, hey?
just because my opinions differ.
so you like to play at beating up on the weak.. I get it. - nevertheless, we gotta do something about fixing UNBALANCED gameplay.
And by the way, I got some "likes" there are people who agree with me.
All I want is for CCP to take notice and fix it once they are able.. - I don't think they will side with the douchebags
Heh, you couldn't be more wrong; I prey on asteroids, they generally have more life in them than some of the players I see engaged in the same practice.
You're bringing nothing of value to the discussion except an opportunity for us to ridicule you for being either
- Incredibly naive
- A poorly disguised alt of someone trying to avoid the consequences of their shitposting
- Truly delusional about the nature of the game you've decided to play
I am Ralph's junk DNA.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
5
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:15:09 -
[884] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:another idea to bring some balance to unlimited bumping with no consequences, how about when a freighter is hit repeatedly by a ship or ships , above a certain speed and preventing it entering warp over a period of 2- 3 mins say , a timer is set warning the bumper(s) he/they have 20 mins before he goes suspect for illegally obstructing a pilot from going about his business? alternatively, after a set amopunt of hi speed hits over a period of time, the freighter pilot gets a right to clear his way of the criminals impeding his progress in the form of a limited engagement type timer , where, upon activation , anyone in his fleet can legally engage the bumper , the downside being that upon activation, he can also be engaged by the bumper(s) .just think of the fun to be had...
re-posting this cos nobody seems to have noticed what with being so busy going off topic . easy to code, 2nd option all player driven consequences which will bring loads of content opportunities , whats not to like?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4602
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:20:02 -
[885] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:What a load of Bravo Sierra...funny how gankers manage this just fine. With insta undocks, and reasonable precautions ganking a bumping ship is indeed quite feasible, but go ahead and grasp at straws. Roll What the heck are you talking about? Insta undocks, precautions? I'm not talking about ganking the bumper, I'm talking about doing anything in hisec with a kill right on your head if the person holding that kill right has any idea about what can be done with it (judging from your posts, you obviously don't). Gankers (or their ganking chars) don't care about killrights, hell they don't care about sec status to start with since current crimewatch mechanics allow them to be completely functional regardless of concord and facpo.
Seriously? Gankers can operate just fine with kill rights...but you can't?
You have the ability to gank the bumper but you choose not too because :effort:.
Whatever.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2132
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:21:10 -
[886] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:another idea to bring some balance to unlimited bumping with no consequences, how about when a freighter is hit repeatedly by a ship or ships , above a certain speed and preventing it entering warp over a period of 2- 3 mins say , a timer is set warning the bumper(s) he/they have 20 mins before he goes suspect for illegally obstructing a pilot from going about his business? alternatively, after a set amopunt of hi speed hits over a period of time, the freighter pilot gets a right to clear his way of the criminals impeding his progress in the form of a limited engagement type timer , where, upon activation , anyone in his fleet can legally engage the bumper , the downside being that upon activation, he can also be engaged by the bumper(s) .just think of the fun to be had... re-posting this cos nobody seems to have noticed what with being so busy going off topic . easy to code, 2nd option all player driven consequences which will bring loads of content opportunities , whats not to like? You forgot easy to exploit, 2 days after implementation MiniLuv and the New Order guys will be using it to get legal kills on all sorts of stuff. schhhh, he really thinks it's a good idea
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Enabran' Tain
Viziam Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:23:56 -
[887] - Quote
Quote:1st - I know the act of bumping is not a reason an exploit, however the people who do the bumping can and often do (in High sec) bump someone for 30-60 minutes or more!! Holding them hostage with the police in clear site with no repercussion. Even having a webber does not mean they will be able to get away prior, once the bumping has started, there is very little anyone can do to help. This can be done at many neighboring system gates all at the same time. Waiting indefinitely for a gank fleet, or just holding hostage and harassing a user.
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. |
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21169
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:27:27 -
[888] - Quote
Enabran' Tain wrote: 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.
Funny. Oh wait, you were serious.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Iain Cariaba
2534
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:28:14 -
[889] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: Another "cornerstone of Eve is "RISK vs REWARD"
It's really funny when carebears talk about things they've heard of, but don't really know anything about. Risk vs reward applies exclusively to activities that generate assets into the game world. please verify that I read you correctly: So you say "RISK vs REWARD" applies to miners manufacturers and NOT to gankers? - so gankers should be able to harass with impunity? Seems like more butthurt talk.. I have equal say as you do, sorry. There were some discussion about this in earlier posts in this thread, a number of claims were stated of all the "risks" a ganker takes. The y think they have to dodge the faction police.... etc.. THey all were pretty low risk. One such risk was "War Targets"... Anyone war dec'ed would have that risk so its global not specific to gankers. All of the other risks would go away if they were not a criminal. However buying tags for everyone all the time might drain that war chest and eat into profit. Or they would have to gank targets that have a decent return vs empty freighter just because they can. And as I pointed out then, individually each risk is low, but you have to consider the cumulative effect of having to deal with all of them at the same time.
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?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:28:20 -
[890] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:I personally don't want to STOP anyone.. Except bumpers ... Quote:I just want UNBALANCED gameplay mechanics/rules to be fixed. It is your, apparently uninformed, opinion that it is unbalanced, your opinion is not fact. Quote:- I agree to being able to do anything you want within a logically, BALANCED environment.. What would you consider to be a balanced environment, bearing in mind that it is already ridiculously easy to not get bumped if you're halfway competent, not afk, or of a social nature/ member of a social group? Quote:Did you know you can really do all kinds of evil things in LOWSEC & NULSEC? Your ignorance is showing again, of course he does, Mags is a lowsec player, he rarely, if ever comes to hisec. Like myself he has no dog in this fight, but doesn't want to see detrimental changes to the game which are purported to solve a problem that exists only as a matter of opinion.
The RIGHT opinions do matter..
Some people were of the opinion that the WATER in FLINT, MI was not a problem.
Oh and you are also allowing your emotions to color my post's meaning: - I sure DO NOT want to stop BUMPERS; I just want them tagged as CRIMINALS when they do it in HISEC..
Think about that a minute.. maybe you'll catch some light.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4604
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:28:55 -
[891] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:I want to play in HIGHSEC and be SAFE. What is wrong with that?
Nothing...but you have to ensure your safety. You have to play prudently. If you want to play imprudently then you'll deal with the results if the risks you are taking blow up in your face.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25801
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:29:36 -
[892] - Quote
Enabran' Tain wrote:Quote:1st - I know the act of bumping is not a reason an exploit, however the people who do the bumping can and often do (in High sec) bump someone for 30-60 minutes or more!! Holding them hostage with the police in clear site with no repercussion. Even having a webber does not mean they will be able to get away prior, once the bumping has started, there is very little anyone can do to help. This can be done at many neighboring system gates all at the same time. Waiting indefinitely for a gank fleet, or just holding hostage and harassing a user. 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. Pilot places himself in such a position that he can be bumped repeatedly by the same ship, the ship that has inadvertently gone suspect because of your marvellous new mechanic explodes...
That's straight off of the top of my head, others would find much more entertaining and devious things to do with it.
TL;DR Nope
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Iain Cariaba
2534
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:29:44 -
[893] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:- I said REASONABLY safe.. Ok, not trying to troll with this, but asking you seriously.
How much higher than 99.9% safe do you want before it meets your qualification as reasonable?
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?
|
Enabran' Tain
Viziam Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:30:44 -
[894] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Enabran' Tain wrote: 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.
Funny. Oh wait, you were serious.
Yes.
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. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16175
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:31:44 -
[895] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: BUT it is a totally UNBALACED game mechanic when you can BUMP aggressively in HISEC without risk.
No, it is not. You're just bad at the game.
And you can't try to lie and say that you don't want safety in highsec, when you very clearly want precisely that.
"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.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
8
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:32:35 -
[896] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote: So the killrights and your sec status are of really great concern to you but they are completely without consequence for other players like the gankers?
of course killrights are inconsequential for a -10 ganking alt , as evidenced by the frequent bragging in local, minerbumping etc by such as yourselves , who only have to undock, insta warp to safe then warp to target , lock , hit f1. just to clarify for those who don't 'get it' about krs - a 'white knight ' who uses his main to gank a mach has to take into account that any ship he flies for the next month is at the mercy of the very people he is trying to fight . so the kr is set at say 100 mil , that stops the 'white knight' from getting a friend to clear it, but the moment he shows up in a decent ship, the bumper/gankers will activate the kr at no cost . You don't have to gank with your main. An EVE account has 3 character slots and ganking chars are trained fast this days. So this is absolutely no excuse. I think the real problem with you white-knights is that you are as usual just really bad at the game and maybe you tried already and failed really hard all the time, everyday, constantly. bigbud skunkafella wrote: re looting- looting directly into a fleet hangar of a dst or other ship should cause a suspect timer on the receiving ship. if you want to loot with a dst or similar then you should have to transfer into a can then scoop it as per all ninja looting, which is counterable with mtus and others being able to loot the receiving can . dsts have + 2 warp stab strength , with all wc stabs fitted you get up to + 6 or 7 warp strength, how much more safety do u want ffs?
You are just mad they fixed the wreck HP. I would be very cautious to wish for more ways to become suspect, since we will probably the first to use the new mechanic in a way you did not intended, which is honestly really easy especially with your silly ideas. It seams you only focus on that one single problem and never consider any other implications this could have. bigbud skunkafella wrote:another idea to bring some balance to unlimited bumping with no consequences, how about when a freighter is hit repeatedly by a ship or ships , above a certain speed and preventing it entering warp over a period of 2- 3 mins say , a timer is set warning the bumper(s) he/they have 20 mins before he goes suspect for illegally obstructing a pilot from going about his business? alternatively, after a set amopunt of hi speed hits over a period of time, the freighter pilot gets a right to clear his way of the criminals impeding his progress in the form of a limited engagement type timer , where, upon activation , anyone in his fleet can legally engage the bumper , the downside being that upon activation, he can also be engaged by the bumper(s) .just think of the fun to be had... Yes, confusing mechanics like this is exactly what we need. This will make everyone safer. Are you running for CSM by any chance? I would probably vote you. The broken stuff you produce would entertain us for moths.
1st/ as i only have one account, the day ccp lets us log in 2 alts from the same account is the day i'll have an alt ready for ganking alongside my main, which has 90% of my sp invested in it.
2nd/ in what way is making transferring yellow loot into a dst fleet hangar a suspect timer on the dst unreasonable? it won't prevent you looting wrecks, but will bring back an element of risk which is sadly lacking at the moment . mostly this will only affect gankers who currently not only have ccp holding their hands with unlimited bumping with no consequences, but also safely looting their victims wrecks with no consequences.
3/ whats so confusing about my suggestions? u batter another ship at hi speed , repeatedly over a period of several minutes,preventing it entering warp , u get a flag which 'gasp' , might have some negative consequences for the bumper , especially if the target has some friends along with him.
not too tricky to code, and pretty easy to understand to the of average intelligence eve player i'd imagine, and the hi speed ramming over a period of minutes requirement would pretty much eliminate any accidental collisions from creating a flag .
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2139
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:32:51 -
[897] - Quote
The ideas of some AG and their friends about how to "fix" bumping are so bad, I'm almost in favor of it myself now.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Iain Cariaba
2534
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:33:35 -
[898] - Quote
Enabran' Tain wrote:Mag's wrote:Enabran' Tain wrote: 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.
Funny. Oh wait, you were serious. Yes. 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. Oh, I'm not even that good at manual piloting and I could get you to bump me 5 time in 30 minutes, which will then allow me to kill you using your idea. The people far better than me would consider this child's play.
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?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21169
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:36:03 -
[899] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:The ideas of some AG and their friends about how to "fix" bumping are so bad, I'm almost in favor of it myself now. Me too. I'm starting to love the idea around being bumped 5 times in 30 minutes. It's so bad, it's good.
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.
16175
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:36:08 -
[900] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:The ideas of some AG and their friends about how to "fix" bumping are so bad, I'm almost in favor of it myself now.
"make it a criminal/suspect act to bump a freighter even once!"
Okay, so I can sit in front of the Jita undock with my alt in a Charon, and me in a Kronos, and rack up free kills.
But you have to admit, it's not that much of a surprise that their ideas would kill the game. They very obviously hate the game, and they want to kill it. Hidden in the vitriolic masochism of their spiteful ideas is their true intent, to destroy this game like the locusts they are.
"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.
|
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25802
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:36:40 -
[901] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:The RIGHT opinions do matter.. Informed opinions matter, yours is uninformed.
Quote:Some people were of the opinion that the WATER in FLINT, MI was not a problem. What has that got to do with the subject at hand?
Quote:Oh and you are also allowing your emotions to color my post's meaning: - I sure DO NOT want to stop BUMPERS; I just want them tagged as CRIMINALS when they do it in HISEC.. Why would they be tagged with a criminal flag? They haven't activated an offensive module on another player, ergo they haven't committed a crime.
Quote:Think about that a minute.. maybe you'll catch some light. It is you that is in the dark, not I.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
8
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:37:50 -
[902] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:another idea to bring some balance to unlimited bumping with no consequences, how about when a freighter is hit repeatedly by a ship or ships , above a certain speed and preventing it entering warp over a period of 2- 3 mins say , a timer is set warning the bumper(s) he/they have 20 mins before he goes suspect for illegally obstructing a pilot from going about his business? alternatively, after a set amopunt of hi speed hits over a period of time, the freighter pilot gets a right to clear his way of the criminals impeding his progress in the form of a limited engagement type timer , where, upon activation , anyone in his fleet can legally engage the bumper , the downside being that upon activation, he can also be engaged by the bumper(s) .just think of the fun to be had... re-posting this cos nobody seems to have noticed what with being so busy going off topic . easy to code, 2nd option all player driven consequences which will bring loads of content opportunities , whats not to like? You forgot easy to exploit, 2 days after implementation MiniLuv and the New Order guys will be using it to get legal kills on all sorts of stuff. schhhh, he really thinks it's a good idea
soz, there was a response as i was reposting this earlier. i think it's a brilliant idea, cos dontcha know i'm awesome?
they can do what they want, if it means bumpers have to face consequences for their actions by their victims + fleet mates, fuggin awesome content . |
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:42:22 -
[903] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:- I said REASONABLY safe.. Ok, not trying to troll with this, but asking you seriously. How much higher than 99.9% safe do you want before it meets your qualification as reasonable?
I don't like the idea that the BUMPER has nothing to lose when he does so in HISEC..
Now PLEASE, don't tell me all the things I can do. - find friends; join an alliance; bump back; hire mercenaries; whatever.
That would be playing THEIR game, not mine.
That's why I stay in HISEC and play SOLO. That's how I want to play.
And please don't tell me all the BS that "that's not Eve"..
I'm happy when this UNBALANCED element of gameplay in HISEC is addredded and FIXED, - it makes no sense to act like a criminal and yet avoid being marked as one..
Anf again, I'm talking HISEC.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
10595
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:42:34 -
[904] - Quote
Bumblefck wrote: Who is your main (Bella Jennie)? It seems, given that you are such a fan of them, some consequences should perhaps come home to roost.
Fourth time's a charm?
Come on. You have nothing to fear from me - I'm a terrible PVPer. I just want to know in the interests of integrity and, you know, those consequences you keep on going on about.
Got a HoleySheet1 corpse? I'll buy it for 200m!
Bumble's Space Log
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16180
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:46:08 -
[905] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: I don't like the idea that the BUMPER has nothing to lose when he does so in HISEC..
What you like or don't like does not matter. You aren't a real player anyway, and your opinion is worthless.
Quote: That would be playing THEIR game, not mine.
I like how you openly admit that "your game" is not playing the game at all and still having perfect safety anyway.
You are entitled to nothing. Certainly not your selfish, broken idea of what you think the game should be.
"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.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:48:38 -
[906] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: BUT it is a totally UNBALACED game mechanic when you can BUMP aggressively in HISEC without risk.
No, it is not. You're just bad at the game. And you can't try to lie and say that you don't want safety in highsec, when you very clearly want precisely that. Wow.. you know I'm lying.
Who are you, Karnac?
Actually, I believe I'm pretty good at the game - the way I play it.
All you are actually doing is TROLLING me.
You add nothing of substance other than contrary comments & wild speculation as to my gameplay.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
CAPTA1N OBVIOUS
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:52:37 -
[907] - Quote
Quote:You add nothing of substance other than contrary comments & wild speculation as to my gameplay.
But that's what you've obviously been doing. Rank hypocrite.
Obviously, you are a terrible shiptoaster and this thread is terrible and should be burnt to the ground.
Obviously.
I am on this page - It should be obvious who I am
|
Arden Elenduil
Unlimited Ripoff Works
401
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:52:45 -
[908] - Quote
Right, reported this thread for locking because there is exactly zero proper discussion going on here. Nothing but trolling and insults being slung all over the place. Sorry lads, but I just can't watch this any longer. |
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:53:30 -
[909] - Quote
Bumblefck wrote:Bumblefck wrote: Who is your main (Bella Jennie)? It seems, given that you are such a fan of them, some consequences should perhaps come home to roost.
Fourth time's a charm? Come on. You have nothing to fear from me - I'm a terrible PVPer. I just want to know in the interests of integrity and, you know, those consequences you keep on going on about.
I reported your post for STALKING, SPAMMING, TROLLING..
Grow up
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
8
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:54:28 -
[910] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:alternatively, after a set amopunt of hi speed hits over a period of time, the freighter pilot gets a right to clear his way of the criminals impeding his progress in the form of a limited engagement type timer , where, upon activation , anyone in his fleet can legally engage the bumper , the downside being that upon activation, he can also be engaged by the bumper(s) .just think of the fun to be had... re-posting this cos nobody seems to have noticed what with being so busy going off topic . easy to code, 2nd option all player driven consequences which will bring loads of content opportunities , whats not to like? You forgot easy to exploit, 2 days after implementation MiniLuv and the New Order guys will be using it to get legal kills on all sorts of stuff. schhhh, he really thinks it's a good idea soz, there was a response as i was reposting this earlier. i think it's a brilliant idea, cos dontcha know i'm awesome? they can do what they want, if it means bumpers have to face consequences for their actions by their victims + fleet mates, fuggin awesome content .
example, 2 bumpers get a flag in uedama from bumping freighter pilot a at hi speed for several minutes, a large ag fleet is in system, freighter pilot accepts fleet invo from ag fleet, then activates his limited engagement timer on machs, who immediately engage freighter as code logi warp in to rep machs and ag fleet engage machs , while loging freighter , mayhem ensues when the catas warp in....
|
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25804
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:54:35 -
[911] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:I don't like the idea that the BUMPER has nothing to lose when he does so in HISEC.. The bumper has everything to lose, it's up to you and your ilk to grow some balls and take it from him.
Quote:Now PLEASE, don't tell me all the things I can do. - find friends; join an alliance; bump back; hire mercenaries; whatever.
That would be playing THEIR game, not mine. Nope, that's not their game, nor is it yours; it's THE game.
Quote:That's why I stay in HISEC and play SOLO. That's how I want to play.
And please don't tell me all the BS that "that's not Eve".. It isn't, playing Eve solo is a path to boredom and isolation. It's also a path that leads you to miss much of what Eve has to offer.
Quote:I'm happy when this UNBALANCED element of gameplay in HISEC is addredded and FIXED, - it makes no sense to act like a criminal and yet avoid being marked as one..
Anf again, I'm talking HISEC. Concord are not in hisec to protect you; they are there to punish one crime, and one crime only; the use of an offensive module on another player without sanction. Your safety is your own responsibility, not ours, not Concords, not the Empires and not CCP's; it is yours and yours alone.
Deal with it, or not; we don't care.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
8
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:57:36 -
[912] - Quote
Arden Elenduil wrote:Right, reported this thread for locking because there is exactly zero proper discussion going on here. Nothing but trolling and insults being slung all over the place. Sorry lads, but I just can't watch this any longer.
excuse me, i'm trying to have a proper discussion here while throwing some ideas into the pot. please mods, keep the thread open while clearing the troll posts. thanks o7 bb
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:57:43 -
[913] - Quote
CAPTA1N OBVIOUS wrote:Quote:You add nothing of substance other than contrary comments & wild speculation as to my gameplay. But that's what you've obviously been doing. Rank hypocrite. Obviously, you are a terrible shiptoaster and this thread is terrible and should be burnt to the ground. Obviously.
must I be a "shiptoaster"?
why must my gameplay match YOUR criteria?
Do you even realize how INTOLERANT you make yourself seem?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
10598
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:58:13 -
[914] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: I reported your post for STALKING, SPAMMING, TROLLING..
Grow up
Are you serious?
I'm asking a pertinent question (which you are deliberately avoiding, even expressly declining to answer would still be an answer) - it's pertinent because, as your whole argument focuses on the primacy of CONSEQUENCES, I think that it is important that the CONSEQUENCES you face from your POSTS should be ADDRESSED.
Also, how am I stalking you? Is this thread your private property? Do you have some exemption that stops people form commenting on what you've written? How ARROGANT and CHILDISH are YOU?
If you don't like what I write, please feel free to block me - otherwise, LIKE it or LUMP it!
Got a HoleySheet1 corpse? I'll buy it for 200m!
Bumble's Space Log
|
Iain Cariaba
2542
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:58:23 -
[915] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Anf again, I'm talking HISEC. So am I. Click that link, hit ctrl-F, and search "failed contracts". What you're looking at is the annual report for the largest highsec hauling group in EvE. In an entire year that organization failed to deliver 0.11% of their courier contracts, for whatever reason, be it loss to gank, theft, contract expiration, whatever. We can probably safely assume that an amount greater that 0.01% of their 235,505 total contracts was for a reason other than ganking.
This is the kind of information people want when they ask for proof of there being a problem. This data reliably demonstrates that hauling in highsec is already at least 99.9% safe. This data reliably demonstrates that there is no actual problem here.
Using the tools CCP provided to keep yourself safe isn't playing the ganker's game. It is playing CCP's game. CCP has had 13 years to do something if bumping was an actual problem. The simple fact that they have not done so tells me they are fine with it.
Now, since you blatantly avoided actually answering the question, I will ask again. How much higher than 99.9% safe do you want before it meets your qualification as reasonable?
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.
16184
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 17:59:36 -
[916] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote: excuse me, i'm trying to have a proper discussion here while throwing some ideas into the pot.
Oh come on dude. You're like, one or two steps above Straightjacket over there flagellating in the corner.
"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.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:00:02 -
[917] - Quote
Bumblefck wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: I reported your post for STALKING, SPAMMING, TROLLING..
Grow up
Are you serious? I'm asking a pertinent question (which you are deliberately avoiding, even expressly declining to answer would still be an answer) - it's pertinent because, as your whole argument focuses on the primacy of CONSEQUENCES, I think that it is important that the CONSEQUENCES you face from your POSTS should be ADDRESSED. Also, how am I stalking you? Is this thread your private property? Do you have some exemption that stops people form commenting on what you've written? How ARROGANT and CHILDISH are YOU? If you don't like what I write, please feel free to block me - otherwise, LIKE it or LUMP it!
great idea!
BLOCKED
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16184
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:01:35 -
[918] - Quote
Space Justice Warrior, not even once.
"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.
|
CAPTA1N OBVIOUS
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:01:59 -
[919] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:
must I be a "shiptoaster"?
why must my gameplay match YOUR criteria?
Do you even realize how INTOLERANT you make yourself seem?
Well, you are obviously ignoring the input of others towards a semblance of a civilized discussion in order to tar everyone with the same brush, if their opinions differ from yours. It's obvious that you're trying to make others' gameplay match yours!
Obviously, if you throw out hyperbole in ALL CAPS, it just screams childishness. Why not save capital letters for their obvious intended purpose - to capitalize sentences and for acronyms?
I am on this page - It should be obvious who I am
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25811
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:02:13 -
[920] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:must I be a "shiptoaster"? Every post you make confirms that you are indeed a shitposter.
Your chilish attitude and name calling certainly do you no favours in that regard.
Quote:why must my gameplay match YOUR criteria? Why must theirs meet yours?
Quote:Do you even realize how INTOLERANT you make yourself seem? How ironic...
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1827
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:04:07 -
[921] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:CAPTA1N OBVIOUS wrote:Quote:You add nothing of substance other than contrary comments & wild speculation as to my gameplay. But that's what you've obviously been doing. Rank hypocrite. Obviously, you are a terrible shiptoaster and this thread is terrible and should be burnt to the ground. Obviously. must I be a "shiptoaster"? why must my gameplay match YOUR criteria? Do you even realize how INTOLERANT you make yourself seem?
In the context of this thread - hypocrisy GOLD
|
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
10598
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:04:15 -
[922] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:great idea! BLOCKED
Brilliant!
Now, I will give some spacebux to whoever quotes this and any subsequent post so that the OP may see my 'stalking'!
Until CCP deems bumping criminal behaviour, OP, you don't have a leg to stand on - and all of your drivel is so much farting in the wind.
Got a HoleySheet1 corpse? I'll buy it for 200m!
Bumble's Space Log
|
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
10598
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:05:04 -
[923] - Quote
Also, this thread is so much better than the Likes and Get Likes Thread for like whoring.
Gold!
Got a HoleySheet1 corpse? I'll buy it for 200m!
Bumble's Space Log
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21177
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:07:41 -
[924] - Quote
Bumblefck wrote:Also, this thread is so much better than the Likes and Get Likes Thread for like whoring.
Gold! Have a space like sir.
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.
16187
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:10:52 -
[925] - Quote
Bumblefck wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:great idea! BLOCKED Brilliant! Now, I will give some spacebux to whoever quotes this and any subsequent post so that the OP may see my 'stalking'! Until CCP deems bumping criminal behaviour, OP, you don't have a leg to stand on - and all of your drivel is so much farting in the wind.
Absolutely correct. I would also that bumping neither consists of inflicting damage nor using a negative status effect on another player, which are expressly required components of criminal behavior.
"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.
|
Iain Cariaba
2544
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:12:08 -
[926] - Quote
Bumblefck wrote:Also, this thread is so much better than the Likes and Get Likes Thread for like whoring.
Gold! 5,511 likes placed in this thread as of this post. Anyone feeling adventurous to dig through 47 pages and find how many went to the anti-bumping crowd?
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?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
8
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:13:29 -
[927] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Enabran' Tain wrote: 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.
Funny. Oh wait, you were serious.
the qualification for receiving any sort of penalty should involve the repeated bumping at high speed over a period of several minutes , preventing a player from entering warp . this would totally eliminate random, accidental collisions from creating a flag ( or other penalty) . if the penalty is a 'limited engagement 'type timer then it is totally within the bumped players control whether he chooses to activate the timer to engage the bumper or not.
this would reward players who have more friends nearby to assist them in taking down the bumper(s). would encourage more people to take up the fight against crims in hisec and create shedloads of content .
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:14:22 -
[928] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Anf again, I'm talking HISEC. So am I. Click that link, hit ctrl-F, and search "failed contracts". What you're looking at is the annual report for the largest highsec hauling group in EvE. In an entire year that organization failed to deliver 0.11% of their courier contracts, for whatever reason, be it loss to gank, theft, contract expiration, whatever. We can probably safely assume that an amount greater that 0.01% of their 235,505 total contracts was for a reason other than ganking. This is the kind of information people want when they ask for proof of there being a problem. This data reliably demonstrates that hauling in highsec is already at least 99.9% safe. This data reliably demonstrates that there is no actual problem here. Using the tools CCP provided to keep yourself safe isn't playing the ganker's game. It is playing CCP's game. CCP has had 13 years to do something if bumping was an actual problem. The simple fact that they have not done so tells me they are fine with it. Now, since you blatantly avoided actually answering the question, I will ask again. How much higher than 99.9% safe do you want before it meets your qualification as reasonable? Here's the thing..
Guy in a NPC Corp flying a Battleship BUMPS and cannot be touched when he is actually using BUMPING as if it were a Warp Scrambler.. - if he used the Warp Scrambler, CONCORD would kill him.. - I'm happy if he's just tagged as a CRIMINAL.
When you use a WEAPON in HISEC, it's a criminal offense. BUMPING to prevent warping is like using a WEAPON.
This is UNBALANCED.
It's not the degree of safety; it's the EXPLOIT of UNBALANCED gameplay..
Can you dig it?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Iain Cariaba
2547
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:17:05 -
[929] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:if the penalty is a 'limited engagement 'type timer then it is totally within the bumped players control whether he chooses to activate the timer to engage the bumper or not. Limited engagement timers don't work like that.
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?
|
Mazzara
Big Diggers Get Off My Lawn
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:17:32 -
[930] - Quote
its funny watching all the bumpers come out crying that, their tactic is balanced and counterable, but yet whine in the AFK cloaky forum about how scared they are in null sec when someone is afk cloaked, come afk cloaking is just as counterable as bumping.
No matter how much you scrub, how hot of water you use,-áyou can't wash shame!
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16191
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:18:23 -
[931] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: Guy in a NPC Corp flying a Battleship BUMPS and cannot be touched when he is actually using BUMPING as if it were a Warp Scrambler..
No he's not. No debuff is being applied to the hauler.
Quote: This is UNBALANCED.
No it's not. You're just bad at this game.
Quote: It's not the degree of safety
Considering your opening posts in this thread, it very obviously is. You're outraged that highsec is any less than 100% safe.
"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.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
8
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:18:39 -
[932] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Bumblefck wrote:Also, this thread is so much better than the Likes and Get Likes Thread for like whoring.
Gold! 5,511 likes placed in this thread as of this post. Anyone feeling adventurous to dig through 47 pages and find how many went to the anti-bumping crowd?
hmm , and mass upvoting by certain elements has never been a thing....?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16191
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:20:05 -
[933] - Quote
Mazzara wrote:its funny watching all the bumpers come out crying that, their tactic is balanced and counterable, but yet whine in the AFK cloaky forum about how scared they are in null sec when someone is afk cloaked, come afk cloaking is just as counterable as bumping.
You're pretty well confused.
It's the same people crying in both threads(most notably Mike Voidstar, who once spent twenty pages of a previous "Waah bumping!" thread crying about it). Not only is bumping fine, but so is afk cloaking.
So you very literally have it backwards.
"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.
|
Mazzara
Big Diggers Get Off My Lawn
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:20:22 -
[934] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Anf again, I'm talking HISEC. So am I. Click that link, hit ctrl-F, and search "failed contracts". What you're looking at is the annual report for the largest highsec hauling group in EvE. In an entire year that organization failed to deliver 0.11% of their courier contracts, for whatever reason, be it loss to gank, theft, contract expiration, whatever. We can probably safely assume that an amount greater that 0.01% of their 235,505 total contracts was for a reason other than ganking. This is the kind of information people want when they ask for proof of there being a problem. This data reliably demonstrates that hauling in highsec is already at least 99.9% safe. This data reliably demonstrates that there is no actual problem here. Using the tools CCP provided to keep yourself safe isn't playing the ganker's game. It is playing CCP's game. CCP has had 13 years to do something if bumping was an actual problem. The simple fact that they have not done so tells me they are fine with it. Now, since you blatantly avoided actually answering the question, I will ask again. How much higher than 99.9% safe do you want before it meets your qualification as reasonable? Here's the thing.. Guy in a NPC Corp flying a Battleship BUMPS and cannot be touched when he is actually using BUMPING as if it were a Warp Scrambler.. - if he used the Warp Scrambler, CONCORD would kill him.. - I'm happy if he's just tagged as a CRIMINAL. When you use a WEAPON in HISEC, it's a criminal offense. BUMPING to prevent warping is like using a WEAPON. This is UNBALANCED. It's not the degree of safety; it's the EXPLOIT of UNBALANCED gameplay.. Can you dig it?
your right, but bumpers will always cry the second anyone suggest changing their crappy tactic.
No matter how much you scrub, how hot of water you use,-áyou can't wash shame!
|
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
10606
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:20:24 -
[935] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Bumblefck wrote:Also, this thread is so much better than the Likes and Get Likes Thread for like whoring.
Gold! Have a space like sir.
...and have one right back atcha!
I hope you don't feel that I'm 'bumping' you with all of the attention, though!
Got a HoleySheet1 corpse? I'll buy it for 200m!
Bumble's Space Log
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21177
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:20:42 -
[936] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Mag's wrote:Enabran' Tain wrote: 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.
Funny. Oh wait, you were serious. the qualification for receiving any sort of penalty should involve the repeated bumping at high speed over a period of several minutes , preventing a player from entering warp
. this would totally eliminate random, accidental collisions from creating a flag ( or other penalty) . if the penalty is a 'limited engagement 'type timer then it is totally within the bumped players control whether he chooses to activate the timer to engage the bumper or not. this would reward players who have more friends nearby to assist them in taking down the bumper(s). would encourage more people to take up the fight against crims in hisec and create shedloads of content . As I already pointed out. How does the server determine intent? I know you're focused on this, but for that reason I think you're failing the bigger picture.
Oh and as this question seems to be constantly ignored by others, maybe you can answer. When the safety of hauling can already reach 99.9%, what problem are you trying to solve? Why does this need 'fixing'?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Iain Cariaba
2547
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:21:01 -
[937] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Anf again, I'm talking HISEC. So am I. Click that link, hit ctrl-F, and search "failed contracts". What you're looking at is the annual report for the largest highsec hauling group in EvE. In an entire year that organization failed to deliver 0.11% of their courier contracts, for whatever reason, be it loss to gank, theft, contract expiration, whatever. We can probably safely assume that an amount greater that 0.01% of their 235,505 total contracts was for a reason other than ganking. This is the kind of information people want when they ask for proof of there being a problem. This data reliably demonstrates that hauling in highsec is already at least 99.9% safe. This data reliably demonstrates that there is no actual problem here. Using the tools CCP provided to keep yourself safe isn't playing the ganker's game. It is playing CCP's game. CCP has had 13 years to do something if bumping was an actual problem. The simple fact that they have not done so tells me they are fine with it. Now, since you blatantly avoided actually answering the question, I will ask again. How much higher than 99.9% safe do you want before it meets your qualification as reasonable? Here's the thing.. Guy in a NPC Corp flying a Battleship BUMPS and cannot be touched when he is actually using BUMPING as if it were a Warp Scrambler.. - if he used the Warp Scrambler, CONCORD would kill him.. - I'm happy if he's just tagged as a CRIMINAL. When you use a WEAPON in HISEC, it's a criminal offense. BUMPING to prevent warping is like using a WEAPON. This is UNBALANCED. It's not the degree of safety; it's the EXPLOIT of UNBALANCED gameplay.. Can you dig it? Someone started a near identical thread that ISD promptly locked. In it was this nice little line:
Arden Elenduil wrote:Point in fact, bumping is a perfectly viable, legal AND counterable mechanic. Learn to counter it. All the tools you need are already there, provided by CCP, to avoid bumps in the first place. The data from Red Frog shows that if you use it, you're virtually assured to be safe in highsec.
And again, you're avoiding answering the question. How much higher than 99.9% safe do you want before it meets your qualification as reasonable?
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?
|
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
10606
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:22:12 -
[938] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: Can you dig it?
He can
We can
I can
You, unfortunately, cannot
You are wrong, your premises are faulty, and the more you type, the deeper the mendacious hole you dig.
That is all (for now)
Got a HoleySheet1 corpse? I'll buy it for 200m!
Bumble's Space Log
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2144
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:23:02 -
[939] - Quote
Mazzara wrote:its funny watching all the bumpers come out crying that, their tactic is balanced and counterable, but yet whine in the AFK cloaky forum about how scared they are in null sec when someone is afk cloaked, come afk cloaking is just as counterable as bumping. And right when you thought the thread was done and could no longer surprise you... BAMM, thinfoil express in ya face
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25813
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:23:06 -
[940] - Quote
TL;DR of the whole thread.
AG: "this is broken it needs fixing and has no consequences" most of us: "it's not broken, there are plenty of ways to avoid it" AG "I don't want to use those ways because they have consequences" Apparant newbie/troll alt: "You're all butthurt douchebags and my opinion is the only one that matters" most of us :"That's nice dear, we'll explain it to you" :pats head: Apparant newbie/troll alt: " You're all intolerant douchebags, I'm right and you're wrong" :stamps foot and flounces off
and so it goes on.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
|
Iain Cariaba
2547
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:24:05 -
[941] - Quote
Mazzara wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Anf again, I'm talking HISEC. So am I. Click that link, hit ctrl-F, and search "failed contracts". What you're looking at is the annual report for the largest highsec hauling group in EvE. In an entire year that organization failed to deliver 0.11% of their courier contracts, for whatever reason, be it loss to gank, theft, contract expiration, whatever. We can probably safely assume that an amount greater that 0.01% of their 235,505 total contracts was for a reason other than ganking. This is the kind of information people want when they ask for proof of there being a problem. This data reliably demonstrates that hauling in highsec is already at least 99.9% safe. This data reliably demonstrates that there is no actual problem here. Using the tools CCP provided to keep yourself safe isn't playing the ganker's game. It is playing CCP's game. CCP has had 13 years to do something if bumping was an actual problem. The simple fact that they have not done so tells me they are fine with it. Now, since you blatantly avoided actually answering the question, I will ask again. How much higher than 99.9% safe do you want before it meets your qualification as reasonable? Here's the thing.. Guy in a NPC Corp flying a Battleship BUMPS and cannot be touched when he is actually using BUMPING as if it were a Warp Scrambler.. - if he used the Warp Scrambler, CONCORD would kill him.. - I'm happy if he's just tagged as a CRIMINAL. When you use a WEAPON in HISEC, it's a criminal offense. BUMPING to prevent warping is like using a WEAPON. This is UNBALANCED. It's not the degree of safety; it's the EXPLOIT of UNBALANCED gameplay.. Can you dig it? your right, but bumpers will always cry the second anyone suggest changing their crappy tactic. If this is true, then why am I, an established PvEer living in highsec, and potential target of gankers, not supporting you? Could it possibly be because I respect player freedom in a game all about player freedom?
The tools are provided. If you don't use them and get bumped, that's not CCP's nor the ganker's fault.
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?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21177
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:24:13 -
[942] - Quote
Mazzara wrote:its funny watching all the bumpers come out crying that, their tactic is balanced and counterable, but yet whine in the AFK cloaky forum about how scared they are in null sec when someone is afk cloaked, come afk cloaking is just as counterable as bumping. You must be new here. Welcome to the forum.
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.
16191
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:24:57 -
[943] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote: AG: "this is broken it needs fixing and has no consequences" most of us: "it's not broken, there are plenty of ways to avoid it" AG "I don't want to use those ways because they have consequences"
The thread nothing, I think that's the TL;DR of anti ganking as a whole.
"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.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
8
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:25:23 -
[944] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:if the penalty is a 'limited engagement 'type timer then it is totally within the bumped players control whether he chooses to activate the timer to engage the bumper or not. Limited engagement timers don't work like that.
i know they don't , thats why i said 'type', meaning the victim would have the option of activating a limited engagement type timer so his fleet could engage the bumper. but you knew that already i suspect...
so what are your objections to the idea ? its all player driven consequences , and would lead to some awesome content in hisec ? |
Enabran' Tain
Viziam Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:25:55 -
[945] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Enabran' Tain wrote:Mag's wrote:Enabran' Tain wrote: 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.
Funny. Oh wait, you were serious. Yes. 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. Oh, I'm not even that good at manual piloting and I could get you to bump me 5 time in 30 minutes, which will then allow me to kill you using your idea. The people far better than me would consider this child's play.
That's not true. |
Iain Cariaba
2552
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:26:53 -
[946] - Quote
Mazzara wrote:its funny watching all the bumpers come out crying that, their tactic is balanced and counterable, but yet whine in the AFK cloaky forum about how scared they are in null sec when someone is afk cloaked, come afk cloaking is just as counterable as bumping. Actually, if you go read those AFK cloaky threads, I, the established PvEer, was supporting the AFK cloakers, even when I lived in nullsec as a lowly renter. Just as now, when I'm living in highsec as a PvEer, I support those who actually use the tools given to them to effect the game.
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?
|
Iain Cariaba
2552
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:28:06 -
[947] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Bumblefck wrote:Also, this thread is so much better than the Likes and Get Likes Thread for like whoring.
Gold! 5,511 likes placed in this thread as of this post. Anyone feeling adventurous to dig through 47 pages and find how many went to the anti-bumping crowd? hmm , and mass upvoting by certain elements has never been a thing....? Definitely not by me. If I disagree with any of a post, I won't like it.
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?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:28:14 -
[948] - Quote
Mazzara wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Anf again, I'm talking HISEC. So am I. Click that link, hit ctrl-F, and search "failed contracts". What you're looking at is the annual report for the largest highsec hauling group in EvE. In an entire year that organization failed to deliver 0.11% of their courier contracts, for whatever reason, be it loss to gank, theft, contract expiration, whatever. We can probably safely assume that an amount greater that 0.01% of their 235,505 total contracts was for a reason other than ganking. This is the kind of information people want when they ask for proof of there being a problem. This data reliably demonstrates that hauling in highsec is already at least 99.9% safe. This data reliably demonstrates that there is no actual problem here. Using the tools CCP provided to keep yourself safe isn't playing the ganker's game. It is playing CCP's game. CCP has had 13 years to do something if bumping was an actual problem. The simple fact that they have not done so tells me they are fine with it. Now, since you blatantly avoided actually answering the question, I will ask again. How much higher than 99.9% safe do you want before it meets your qualification as reasonable? Here's the thing.. Guy in a NPC Corp flying a Battleship BUMPS and cannot be touched when he is actually using BUMPING as if it were a Warp Scrambler.. - if he used the Warp Scrambler, CONCORD would kill him.. - I'm happy if he's just tagged as a CRIMINAL. When you use a WEAPON in HISEC, it's a criminal offense. BUMPING to prevent warping is like using a WEAPON. This is UNBALANCED. It's not the degree of safety; it's the EXPLOIT of UNBALANCED gameplay.. Can you dig it? your right, but bumpers will always cry the second anyone suggest changing their crappy tactic.
As I see..
OMG these "uber players" badmouth "carebear's Whining" yet I have never seen such a huge procession of the badly butthurt!
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2146
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:29:22 -
[949] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Mag's wrote:Enabran' Tain wrote: 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.
Funny. Oh wait, you were serious. the qualification for receiving any sort of penalty should involve the repeated bumping at high speed over a period of several minutes , preventing a player from entering warp
. this would totally eliminate random, accidental collisions from creating a flag ( or other penalty) . if the penalty is a 'limited engagement 'type timer then it is totally within the bumped players control whether he chooses to activate the timer to engage the bumper or not. this would reward players who have more friends nearby to assist them in taking down the bumper(s). would encourage more people to take up the fight against crims in hisec and create shedloads of content . You are right, I was wrong, you are a brilliant mastermind. This should never be implemented, it will totally destroy our business.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21177
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:30:35 -
[950] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Mazzara wrote:its funny watching all the bumpers come out crying that, their tactic is balanced and counterable, but yet whine in the AFK cloaky forum about how scared they are in null sec when someone is afk cloaked, come afk cloaking is just as counterable as bumping. Actually, if you go read those AFK cloaky threads, I, the established PvEer, was supporting the AFK cloakers, even when I lived in nullsec as a lowly renter. Just as now, when I'm living in highsec as a PvEer, I support those who actually use the tools given to them to effect the game. Well I think he's simply new here and not yet fully upto speed. Hence why he got that so wrong.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
|
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
10609
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:30:58 -
[951] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:OMG these "uber players" badmouth "carebear's Whining" yet I have never seen such a huge procession of the badly butthurt!
Are you looking in the mirror again? You are, aren't you?
Got a HoleySheet1 corpse? I'll buy it for 200m!
Bumble's Space Log
|
Iain Cariaba
2552
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:32:18 -
[952] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Mazzara wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Anf again, I'm talking HISEC. So am I. Click that link, hit ctrl-F, and search "failed contracts". What you're looking at is the annual report for the largest highsec hauling group in EvE. In an entire year that organization failed to deliver 0.11% of their courier contracts, for whatever reason, be it loss to gank, theft, contract expiration, whatever. We can probably safely assume that an amount greater that 0.01% of their 235,505 total contracts was for a reason other than ganking. This is the kind of information people want when they ask for proof of there being a problem. This data reliably demonstrates that hauling in highsec is already at least 99.9% safe. This data reliably demonstrates that there is no actual problem here. Using the tools CCP provided to keep yourself safe isn't playing the ganker's game. It is playing CCP's game. CCP has had 13 years to do something if bumping was an actual problem. The simple fact that they have not done so tells me they are fine with it. Now, since you blatantly avoided actually answering the question, I will ask again. How much higher than 99.9% safe do you want before it meets your qualification as reasonable? Here's the thing.. Guy in a NPC Corp flying a Battleship BUMPS and cannot be touched when he is actually using BUMPING as if it were a Warp Scrambler.. - if he used the Warp Scrambler, CONCORD would kill him.. - I'm happy if he's just tagged as a CRIMINAL. When you use a WEAPON in HISEC, it's a criminal offense. BUMPING to prevent warping is like using a WEAPON. This is UNBALANCED. It's not the degree of safety; it's the EXPLOIT of UNBALANCED gameplay.. Can you dig it? your right, but bumpers will always cry the second anyone suggest changing their crappy tactic. As I see.. OMG these "uber players" badmouth "carebear's Whining" yet I have never seen such a huge procession of the badly butthurt! Then explain how I could be butthurt when I have nothing to gain or lose from this discussion. I am not a ganker. In fact, seeing as I have an alt with a nice Charon, I'm quite likely to be on of their targets. Yet I still support their freedom to use the tools provided, whether intentionally or not, to gank me, just as I use the tools provided, whether intentionally or not, to keep them from doing so.
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.
16198
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:33:14 -
[953] - Quote
Bumblefck wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:OMG these "uber players" badmouth "carebear's Whining" yet I have never seen such a huge procession of the badly butthurt! Are you looking in the mirror again? You are, aren't you?
Not only that, but in more ways than one. Sure seems to me like they're having their main agree with them in the thread, so this is a mirror match.
"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.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25817
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:33:44 -
[954] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Then explain how I could be butthurt when I have nothing to gain or lose from this discussion. I am not a ganker. In fact, seeing as I have an alt with a nice Charon, I'm quite likely to be on of their targets. Yet I still support their freedom to use the tools provided, whether intentionally or not, to gank me, just as I use the tools provided, whether intentionally or not, to keep them from doing so. Boom headshot, nailed it one.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
8
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:34:11 -
[955] - Quote
Mag's wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:Mag's wrote:Enabran' Tain wrote: 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.
Funny. Oh wait, you were serious. the qualification for receiving any sort of penalty should involve the repeated bumping at high speed over a period of several minutes , preventing a player from entering warp
. this would totally eliminate random, accidental collisions from creating a flag ( or other penalty) . if the penalty is a 'limited engagement 'type timer then it is totally within the bumped players control whether he chooses to activate the timer to engage the bumper or not. this would reward players who have more friends nearby to assist them in taking down the bumper(s). would encourage more people to take up the fight against crims in hisec and create shedloads of content . As I already pointed out. How does the server determine intent? I know you're focused on this, but for that reason I think you're failing the bigger picture. Oh and as this question seems to be constantly ignored by others, maybe you can answer. When the safety of hauling can already reach 99.9%, what problem are you trying to solve? Why does this need 'fixing'?
the server doesnt have to determine intent, the conditions of receiving said timer would prevent any accidental collisions from acquiring a flag . if a flag was accidentally acquired , then you must have 'accidentally rammed at hi speed repeatedly over a period of several minutes someone who was trying to enter warp' .
now what sort of moron would do that? also its the person travelling at hi speed who gets the penalty , not the recipient of bump.
|
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
10609
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:34:28 -
[956] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bumblefck wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:OMG these "uber players" badmouth "carebear's Whining" yet I have never seen such a huge procession of the badly butthurt! Are you looking in the mirror again? You are, aren't you? Not only that, but in more ways than one. Sure seems to me like they're having their main agree with them in the thread, so this is a mirror match.
Got a HoleySheet1 corpse? I'll buy it for 200m!
Bumble's Space Log
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21177
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:38:43 -
[957] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Mag's wrote:As I already pointed out. How does the server determine intent? I know you're focused on this, but for that reason I think you're failing the bigger picture.
Oh and as this question seems to be constantly ignored by others, maybe you can answer. When the safety of hauling can already reach 99.9%, what problem are you trying to solve? Why does this need 'fixing'? the server doesnt have to determine intent, the conditions of receiving said timer would prevent any accidental collisions from acquiring a flag . if a flag was accidentally acquired , then you must have 'accidentally rammed at hi speed repeatedly over a period of several minutes someone who was trying to enter warp' . now what sort of moron would do that? also its the person travelling at hi speed who gets the penalty , not the recipient of bump. I disagree. You're changing a fundamental game mechanic, because of a specific special circumstance. It's very important all issue are covered. Intent is one.
I see you also ignored or avoided the questions. Isn't it odd none of you wish to answer that?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:41:01 -
[958] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Then explain how I could be butthurt when I have nothing to gain or lose from this discussion. I am not a ganker. In fact, seeing as I have an alt with a nice Charon, I'm quite likely to be on of their targets. Yet I still support their freedom to use the tools provided, whether intentionally or not, to gank me, just as I use the tools provided, whether intentionally or not, to keep them from doing so.
So now I have two questions for you to answer. How much higher than 99.9% safe do you want before it meets your qualification as reasonable and Why are you unable to use the provided tools to try and ensure your own safety?
You were not the target of my "butthurt" comment..
But OK, I'll bite:
Please define the tools provided which YOU use (or can use) to "tkeep them from doing so".
Please educate me
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
8
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:42:15 -
[959] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:Mag's wrote:[quote=Enabran' Tain] 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. Funny. Oh wait, you were serious. the qualification for receiving any sort of penalty should involve the repeated bumping at high speed over a period of several minutes , preventing a player from entering warp
. this would totally eliminate random, accidental collisions from creating a flag ( or other penalty) . if the penalty is a 'limited engagement 'type timer then it is totally within the bumped players control whether he chooses to activate the timer to engage the bumper or not. this would reward players who have more friends nearby to assist them in taking down the bumper(s). would encourage more people to take up the fight against crims in hisec and create shedloads of content . You are right, I was wrong, you are a brilliant mastermind. This should never be implemented, it will totally destroy our business. [
why thank you.
destroying your business is not what i'm about if you'd bother reading my posts , but nvm , u can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be leadmate.
so, my suggestion does nothing to prevent bumping, adds some player driven consequences to those who choose to bump, including the opportunity for bumpers to kill freighters on occasion, creates lots of content . u disapprove why?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4609
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:42:59 -
[960] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:CAPTA1N OBVIOUS wrote:Quote:You add nothing of substance other than contrary comments & wild speculation as to my gameplay. But that's what you've obviously been doing. Rank hypocrite. Obviously, you are a terrible shiptoaster and this thread is terrible and should be burnt to the ground. Obviously. must I be a "shiptoaster"? why must my gameplay match YOUR criteria? Do you even realize how INTOLERANT you make yourself seem?
Play the way you want.
I'll play the way I want. However, the rules of the game do not preclude me from doing things that bring us into interaction...even things you may not like. There is literally noting in the rules to say I cannot shoot you anywhere in the game or that I cannot bump your ship. Nothing. You may not like, but that is the way the game is, and always has been.
Here is CCP in their own words,
Quote:EVE is a game. Accept the fact that youGÇÖll lose your ship and the cargo in it. YouGÇÖll be set back a minor amount. DonGÇÖt worry GÇô youGÇÖll be back up and running in no time! But be cautious, if you put all your eggs into one basket. One often cited rule is: "Don't fly what you cannot afford to lose."[ 1] 5.3 SOME PLAYER JUST SHOT ME; IS THAT ALLOWED?In EVE Online, any player may attack any other player if they choose to, no matter where they happen to be. This is because EVE Online is essentially a PvP (Player versus Player) game at its core. If the other pilot had no right to attack you then CONCORD will track him down and punish him for his crimes, so long as the attack took place in high security space. If the attack took place in low or null security space, then it would have been down to you to protect yourself since you may be attacked freely and CONCORD cannot intervene in those areas of space. You will also need to bear in mind that if you commit an act of aggression or other illegal act against another pilot (such as stealing from them or attacking without cause), any pilot can then attack you with impunity, anywhere at all, for a short period of time thereafter.[ 2]
The fact is you are quite simply wrong here.
Play however you like. I'll play however I like and if that means I do something to you in game you don't like...well too bad.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25819
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:43:41 -
[961] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Then explain how I could be butthurt when I have nothing to gain or lose from this discussion. I am not a ganker. In fact, seeing as I have an alt with a nice Charon, I'm quite likely to be on of their targets. Yet I still support their freedom to use the tools provided, whether intentionally or not, to gank me, just as I use the tools provided, whether intentionally or not, to keep them from doing so.
So now I have two questions for you to answer. How much higher than 99.9% safe do you want before it meets your qualification as reasonable and Why are you unable to use the provided tools to try and ensure your own safety? You were not the target of my "butthurt" comment.. But OK, I'll bite: Please define the tools provided which YOU use (or can use) to "tkeep them from doing so". Please educate me Read the thread, they've been listed multiple times.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21177
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:44:18 -
[962] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: Please define the tools provided which YOU use (or can use) to "tkeep them from doing so".
Please educate me
I think there is a thread on this subject in PF&I. It has all the information you need. Just a heads up.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4610
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:48:48 -
[963] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:Mag's wrote:[quote=Enabran' Tain] 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. Funny. Oh wait, you were serious. the qualification for receiving any sort of penalty should involve the repeated bumping at high speed over a period of several minutes , preventing a player from entering warp
. this would totally eliminate random, accidental collisions from creating a flag ( or other penalty) . if the penalty is a 'limited engagement 'type timer then it is totally within the bumped players control whether he chooses to activate the timer to engage the bumper or not. this would reward players who have more friends nearby to assist them in taking down the bumper(s). would encourage more people to take up the fight against crims in hisec and create shedloads of content . You are right, I was wrong, you are a brilliant mastermind. This should never be implemented, it will totally destroy our business. [ why thank you. destroying your business is not what i'm about if you'd bother reading my posts , but nvm , u can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be leadmate. so, my suggestion does nothing to prevent bumping, adds some player driven consequences to those who choose to bump, including the opportunity for bumpers to kill freighters on occasion, creates lots of content . u disapprove why?
I think you got the quotes wrong.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:48:55 -
[964] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:CAPTA1N OBVIOUS wrote:Quote:You add nothing of substance other than contrary comments & wild speculation as to my gameplay. But that's what you've obviously been doing. Rank hypocrite. Obviously, you are a terrible shiptoaster and this thread is terrible and should be burnt to the ground. Obviously. must I be a "shiptoaster"? why must my gameplay match YOUR criteria? Do you even realize how INTOLERANT you make yourself seem? Play the way you want. I'll play the way I want. However, the rules of the game do not preclude me from doing things that bring us into interaction...even things you may not like. There is literally noting in the rules to say I cannot shoot you anywhere in the game or that I cannot bump your ship. Nothing. You may not like, but that is the way the game is, and always has been. Here is CCP in their own words, Quote:EVE is a game. Accept the fact that youGÇÖll lose your ship and the cargo in it. YouGÇÖll be set back a minor amount. DonGÇÖt worry GÇô youGÇÖll be back up and running in no time! But be cautious, if you put all your eggs into one basket. One often cited rule is: "Don't fly what you cannot afford to lose."[ 1] 5.3 SOME PLAYER JUST SHOT ME; IS THAT ALLOWED?In EVE Online, any player may attack any other player if they choose to, no matter where they happen to be. This is because EVE Online is essentially a PvP (Player versus Player) game at its core. If the other pilot had no right to attack you then CONCORD will track him down and punish him for his crimes, so long as the attack took place in high security space. If the attack took place in low or null security space, then it would have been down to you to protect yourself since you may be attacked freely and CONCORD cannot intervene in those areas of space. You will also need to bear in mind that if you commit an act of aggression or other illegal act against another pilot (such as stealing from them or attacking without cause), any pilot can then attack you with impunity, anywhere at all, for a short period of time thereafter.[ 2] The fact is you are quite simply wrong here. Play however you like. I'll play however I like and if that means I do something to you in game you don't like...well too bad.
Not so fast...
Shoot me in HISEC and you're toast.. - I'm toast and you're toast.. I'm totally fine with that..
BUMPING is an attack if it is applied to prevent me from warping.. - that should make you toast as well.. but I'll be happy if you're just tagged.
Again, I'm talking HISEC only.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16199
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:51:13 -
[965] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: BUMPING is an attack if it is applied to prevent me from warping..
No it isn't, and no it doesn't.
Your warp engines are not locked out whatsoever.
"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.
|
Enabran' Tain
Viziam Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:51:53 -
[966] - Quote
This would literally work.
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. |
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
8
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:52:00 -
[967] - Quote
''something something hauling is 99.9 % safe....''
gankers freighter wrecks statistically were probably 99.9 % safe from going pop, didn't stop Warr Akini and friends on csm from cryiing to ccp to change wreck hps though did it? |
Iain Cariaba
2552
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:54:03 -
[968] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Then explain how I could be butthurt when I have nothing to gain or lose from this discussion. I am not a ganker. In fact, seeing as I have an alt with a nice Charon, I'm quite likely to be on of their targets. Yet I still support their freedom to use the tools provided, whether intentionally or not, to gank me, just as I use the tools provided, whether intentionally or not, to keep them from doing so.
So now I have two questions for you to answer. How much higher than 99.9% safe do you want before it meets your qualification as reasonable and Why are you unable to use the provided tools to try and ensure your own safety? You were not the target of my "butthurt" comment.. But OK, I'll bite: Please define the tools provided which YOU use (or can use) to "tkeep them from doing so". Please educate me In addition to the methods posted in the last few posts, there are a few things that you can do as a solo player.
Don't put multiple billions of isk worth of stuff into a freighter. Don't put hundreds of millions of isk worth of stuff into a 21 industrial. Fit hauling ships, except blockade runners, and mining ships for tank instead of cargo/yield. Don't autopilot. Don't go AFK while undocked. If you need to pee, dock up.
There are other ways as well. Googling "eve online how to avoid gankers" should provide a few more ideas.
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?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:54:57 -
[969] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Then explain how I could be butthurt when I have nothing to gain or lose from this discussion. I am not a ganker. In fact, seeing as I have an alt with a nice Charon, I'm quite likely to be on of their targets. Yet I still support their freedom to use the tools provided, whether intentionally or not, to gank me, just as I use the tools provided, whether intentionally or not, to keep them from doing so.
So now I have two questions for you to answer. How much higher than 99.9% safe do you want before it meets your qualification as reasonable and Why are you unable to use the provided tools to try and ensure your own safety? You were not the target of my "butthurt" comment.. But OK, I'll bite: Please define the tools provided which YOU use (or can use) to "tkeep them from doing so". Please educate me A scout in any ship will be your first and best line of defense. He'll see the bumping ship and warn you not to jump into the system. You can even dock up. If you want to risk it, make sure your scout has stasis webifiers fit so that you can get into warp faster. Best bet is get a rapier and sit on the gate your freighter will jump through at zero, when he jumps in and decloaks and starts to align, hit him with the webs and you'll zoom off into warp. Timing is important.
OK, I knew that.
It's a valid point.. but why should the BUMPER have no risk? - especially since he's participating in an attempted gank?
Why are you so keen to protect the BUMPER?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Iain Cariaba
2552
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:55:57 -
[970] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:''something something hauling is 99.9 % safe....''
gankers freighter wrecks statistically were probably 99.9 % safe from going pop, didn't stop Warr Akini and friends on csm from cryiing to ccp to change wreck hps though did it? Evidence?
The story I was told about that had more to do with nullsec and lowsec tactics than freighter ganking.
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?
|
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21178
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:56:17 -
[971] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:''something something hauling is 99.9 % safe....''
gankers freighter wrecks statistically were probably 99.9 % safe from going pop, didn't stop Warr Akini and friends on csm from cryiing to ccp to change wreck hps though did it? I know you would love to have that change linked solely to ganking and freighter wrecks. But both you and I know, that's not the case.
I see you avoided the questions again.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Iain Cariaba
2558
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:57:07 -
[972] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Then explain how I could be butthurt when I have nothing to gain or lose from this discussion. I am not a ganker. In fact, seeing as I have an alt with a nice Charon, I'm quite likely to be on of their targets. Yet I still support their freedom to use the tools provided, whether intentionally or not, to gank me, just as I use the tools provided, whether intentionally or not, to keep them from doing so.
So now I have two questions for you to answer. How much higher than 99.9% safe do you want before it meets your qualification as reasonable and Why are you unable to use the provided tools to try and ensure your own safety? You were not the target of my "butthurt" comment.. But OK, I'll bite: Please define the tools provided which YOU use (or can use) to "tkeep them from doing so". Please educate me A scout in any ship will be your first and best line of defense. He'll see the bumping ship and warn you not to jump into the system. You can even dock up. If you want to risk it, make sure your scout has stasis webifiers fit so that you can get into warp faster. Best bet is get a rapier and sit on the gate your freighter will jump through at zero, when he jumps in and decloaks and starts to align, hit him with the webs and you'll zoom off into warp. Timing is important. OK, I knew that. It's a valid point.. but why should the BUMPER have no risk? - especially since he's participating in an attempted gank? Why are you so keen to protect the BUMPER? Why should the freighter have no risk? It is the players that provide the risk to the freighter, who otherwise has zero risk in his activities, so why shouldn't players also provide the additional risk to the gankers?
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?
|
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
10615
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:57:32 -
[973] - Quote
Enabran' Tain wrote:This would literally work.
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.
That's a terrible idea NPC alt, a terrible idea - who cares if the bumping is done on purpose? It's a level of handholding and unacceptance of the risks of docking that simply does not gel with the ethos of the game.
You wouldn't argue for an automatic suspect flag when someone undercuts your market order by 0.01 isk, would you?! (although that might actually be kind of awesome).
You might as well propose fitting T3 Candyfloss around all of our ships, while you're at it
Got a HoleySheet1 corpse? I'll buy it for 200m!
Bumble's Space Log
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
8
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:57:46 -
[974] - Quote
@ Enabran' Tain ,''Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot. ''
thats too open to abuse, the conditions for receiving a penalty need to be defined so as to completely eliminate accidental collisions , see my posts on this above.
i agree there is no reason that something couldnt be coded quite easily to create some sort of consequence for bumping , particularly for extended periods . |
Iain Cariaba
2558
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:58:45 -
[975] - Quote
Enabran' Tain wrote:This would literally work.
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. Repeatedly posting the same bad idea isn't going to magically make it better.
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?
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25823
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:58:51 -
[976] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:BUMPING is an attack if it is applied to prevent me from warping.. Wrong, so very wrong. Bumping doesn't prevent you from warping, it prevents you from aligning.
Preventing you from warping absolutely involves the use of an offensive module, which rightly flags you in empire space as a criminal, preventing you from aligning does not.
Quote:- that should make you toast as well.. but I'll be happy if you're just tagged. I believe you proposed a criminal flag for bumping, am I correct?
Do you know what the consequences for gaining a criminal flag in hisec are?
Quote:Again, I'm talking HISEC only. That's irrelevant, the flagging system also applies all the way down to empire systems with a status of 0.1, as such we have to consider the effect any proposed changes would have in all of the areas covered by the crimewatch mechanic.
You're looking at a small segment of one of those picture puzzles, we're looking at the whole thing.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:00:27 -
[977] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Then explain how I could be butthurt when I have nothing to gain or lose from this discussion. I am not a ganker. In fact, seeing as I have an alt with a nice Charon, I'm quite likely to be on of their targets. Yet I still support their freedom to use the tools provided, whether intentionally or not, to gank me, just as I use the tools provided, whether intentionally or not, to keep them from doing so.
So now I have two questions for you to answer. How much higher than 99.9% safe do you want before it meets your qualification as reasonable and Why are you unable to use the provided tools to try and ensure your own safety? You were not the target of my "butthurt" comment.. But OK, I'll bite: Please define the tools provided which YOU use (or can use) to "tkeep them from doing so". Please educate me In addition to the methods posted in the last few posts, there are a few things that you can do as a solo player. Don't put multiple billions of isk worth of stuff into a freighter. Don't put hundreds of millions of isk worth of stuff into a 21 industrial. Fit hauling ships, except blockade runners, and mining ships for tank instead of cargo/yield. Don't autopilot. Don't go AFK while undocked. If you need to pee, dock up. There are other ways as well. Googling "eve online how to avoid gankers" should provide a few more ideas.
good points also.. I follow these rules pretty much.
CODE scum use the BUMPING against miners as well.. that same GUY in an NPC Corp coordinating a gank in a miner.. without risk
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Enabran' Tain
Viziam Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:02:26 -
[978] - Quote
Quote: 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.
bigbud skunkafella wrote:@ Enabran' Tain ,''Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot. ''
thats too open to abuse, the conditions for receiving a penalty need to be defined so as to completely eliminate accidental collisions , see my posts on this above.
i agree there is no reason that something couldnt be coded quite easily to create some sort of consequence for bumping , particularly for extended periods .
It wasent explain why its open to abuse. The conditions we're defined. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4611
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:02:50 -
[979] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:
Not so fast...
Shoot me in HISEC and you're toast.. - I'm toast and you're toast.. I'm totally fine with that..
BUMPING is an attack if it is applied to prevent me from warping.. - that should make you toast as well.. but I'll be happy if you're just tagged.
Again, I'm talking HISEC only.
You should re-read what I wrote. I did not say shooting you is not without consequences. I said I could do it. If I am willing to face the consequences then I'll shoot you. Nothing in the game will stop me. CCP does not consider it a bad thing, in fact they consider it a Good ThingGäó. The game was designed this way on purpose.
Bumping is not an attack. It does no damage to your ship. It does not interfere with your ships warp drives, your ships engines, or anything else. All it does it knock you off alignment. As such it does not cause any kind of flag. It works this way on purpose.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
8
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:03:21 -
[980] - Quote
Why are you so keen to protect the BUMPER? [/quote] Why should the freighter have no risk? It is the players that provide the risk to the freighter, who otherwise has zero risk in his activities, so why shouldn't players also provide the additional risk to the gankers?[/quote]
the freighter is always at risk as soon as he undocks , moreso when he enters a chokepoint system . the bumper on the other hand is free to basically aggress the freighter for an unlimited amount of time with no consequences for his actions.
unless of course the freighter pilot should , before undocking to ensure safe passage have about 7 webbing alts, a counter bumping battleship and 3 talos on standby in case he gets caught out .
|
|
Iain Cariaba
2558
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:04:57 -
[981] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Then explain how I could be butthurt when I have nothing to gain or lose from this discussion. I am not a ganker. In fact, seeing as I have an alt with a nice Charon, I'm quite likely to be on of their targets. Yet I still support their freedom to use the tools provided, whether intentionally or not, to gank me, just as I use the tools provided, whether intentionally or not, to keep them from doing so.
So now I have two questions for you to answer. How much higher than 99.9% safe do you want before it meets your qualification as reasonable and Why are you unable to use the provided tools to try and ensure your own safety? You were not the target of my "butthurt" comment.. But OK, I'll bite: Please define the tools provided which YOU use (or can use) to "tkeep them from doing so". Please educate me In addition to the methods posted in the last few posts, there are a few things that you can do as a solo player. Don't put multiple billions of isk worth of stuff into a freighter. Don't put hundreds of millions of isk worth of stuff into a 21 industrial. Fit hauling ships, except blockade runners, and mining ships for tank instead of cargo/yield. Don't autopilot. Don't go AFK while undocked. If you need to pee, dock up. There are other ways as well. Googling "eve online how to avoid gankers" should provide a few more ideas. good points also.. I follow these rules pretty much. CODE scum use the BUMPING against miners as well.. that same GUY in an NPC Corp coordinating a gank in a miner.. without risk An attentive and active miner will never get ganked more than once. It happened to me 8 years ago, and rather than get mad over it, I asked the guys who ganked me what I did wrong. I mined for nearly 5 years after that in all four security types in the game, and never got ganked while mining again. As I've said numerous times, if you get ganked, it's your fault, not the ganker's.
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?
|
Iain Cariaba
2562
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:07:52 -
[982] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:the freighter is always at risk as soon as he undocks , moreso when he enters a chokepoint system . the bumper on the other hand is free to basically aggress the freighter for an unlimited amount of time with no consequences for his actions.
unless of course the freighter pilot should , before undocking to ensure safe passage have about 7 webbing alts, a counter bumping battleship and 3 talos on standby in case he gets caught out .
You're forgetting the fact that the only threat to a freighter in highsec is another player. Outside another player interfering, a freighter in highsec has that lauded 100% safety.
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?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4613
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:08:12 -
[983] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Then explain how I could be butthurt when I have nothing to gain or lose from this discussion. I am not a ganker. In fact, seeing as I have an alt with a nice Charon, I'm quite likely to be on of their targets. Yet I still support their freedom to use the tools provided, whether intentionally or not, to gank me, just as I use the tools provided, whether intentionally or not, to keep them from doing so.
So now I have two questions for you to answer. How much higher than 99.9% safe do you want before it meets your qualification as reasonable and Why are you unable to use the provided tools to try and ensure your own safety? You were not the target of my "butthurt" comment.. But OK, I'll bite: Please define the tools provided which YOU use (or can use) to "tkeep them from doing so". Please educate me A scout in any ship will be your first and best line of defense. He'll see the bumping ship and warn you not to jump into the system. You can even dock up. If you want to risk it, make sure your scout has stasis webifiers fit so that you can get into warp faster. Best bet is get a rapier and sit on the gate your freighter will jump through at zero, when he jumps in and decloaks and starts to align, hit him with the webs and you'll zoom off into warp. Timing is important. OK, I knew that. It's a valid point.. but why should the BUMPER have no risk? - especially since he's participating in an attempted gank? Why are you so keen to protect the BUMPER?
Risk is not something CCP imposes. The only thing coming even remotely close is CONCORD, but that is not risk. Not at all.*
Risk, it something players impose on each other in this game and is the very spirit of the game. Player A imposes risk on player B who tries to mitigate that risk. The mitigation can be direct--i.e. he shoots A in the face. Or indirect by avoiding A.
So, the reason bumpers face so little risk is other players are unwilling to impose said risk on the bumping ship and pilot.
*It is not risk because you cannot evade CONCORD. You can try, but even if you succeed that is an exploit. CONCORD is punishment and it is swift and it is certain. Risk is about an uncertain event. We can talk about the risk of getting ganked because it is not certain. We can talk about the risk of getting scammed because it is not certain. There is no risk with CONCORD, engage in a criminal act and CONCORD will burn down your ship with probability 1.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:09:59 -
[984] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Then explain how I could be butthurt when I have nothing to gain or lose from this discussion. I am not a ganker. In fact, seeing as I have an alt with a nice Charon, I'm quite likely to be on of their targets. Yet I still support their freedom to use the tools provided, whether intentionally or not, to gank me, just as I use the tools provided, whether intentionally or not, to keep them from doing so.
So now I have two questions for you to answer. How much higher than 99.9% safe do you want before it meets your qualification as reasonable and Why are you unable to use the provided tools to try and ensure your own safety? You were not the target of my "butthurt" comment.. But OK, I'll bite: Please define the tools provided which YOU use (or can use) to "tkeep them from doing so". Please educate me A scout in any ship will be your first and best line of defense. He'll see the bumping ship and warn you not to jump into the system. You can even dock up. If you want to risk it, make sure your scout has stasis webifiers fit so that you can get into warp faster. Best bet is get a rapier and sit on the gate your freighter will jump through at zero, when he jumps in and decloaks and starts to align, hit him with the webs and you'll zoom off into warp. Timing is important. OK, I knew that. It's a valid point.. but why should the BUMPER have no risk? - especially since he's participating in an attempted gank? Why are you so keen to protect the BUMPER? Why should the freighter have no risk? It is the players that provide the risk to the freighter, who otherwise has zero risk in his activities, so why shouldn't players also provide the additional risk to the gankers?
Your's is the most rational response I have received since first posting on this topic.
I actually have no cogent answer for you at this moment - I'm thinking
Frankly I was focusing on the total lack of risk for the BUMPER.. - but wait, all I'm asking for is that he be tagged as a suspect.
Give me a chance to call a friend Give me a chance to recruit someone nearby.. Give HIM something to think about...
What do you think?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25823
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:11:39 -
[985] - Quote
All of this talk about how there should be consequences for bumpers, and not one of the people talking about it is willing to grow a pair and provide those consequences using the tools that exist to enable them to so.
Why is that, is it because they don't like the consequences, of which they're so fond of spouting off about, of doing so? Are they in possession of a large mouth but no trousers? Are they just plain unsuited to be playing a game of this nature?
Answers in the form of amusing memes appreciated, antimatter answers also welcome
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:12:00 -
[986] - Quote
Enabran' Tain wrote:Quote: 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.
bigbud skunkafella wrote:@ Enabran' Tain ,''Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot. ''
thats too open to abuse, the conditions for receiving a penalty need to be defined so as to completely eliminate accidental collisions , see my posts on this above.
i agree there is no reason that something couldnt be coded quite easily to create some sort of consequence for bumping , particularly for extended periods . It wasent explain why its open to abuse. The conditions we're defined.
ok, going from what you've posted above, though u may have fleshed it out in other posts which i've not seen--
a battleship undocks from jita , in doing so bumps an indy/orca/freighter , 1 hit, they both then travel to amarr the battleship pilot is at keyboard but distracted occasionally, so intermittently falls behind then catches up to the ship that he bumped on undock, hitting it 5 times en route, unfortunately for him the 5th time was in niarja as he lands on madirmilire gate.... |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16200
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:12:16 -
[987] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote: the freighter is always at risk as soon as he undocks
Then equally so is the faction battleship they have undocked with basically no tank and fit for speed and speed alone, and guaranteed to be within 20km of a gate pretty much all the time.
The difference is that one side are real players and willing to do something about it, and the other side aren't.
"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.
|
Iain Cariaba
2562
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:14:05 -
[988] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Your's is the most rational response I have received since first posting on this topic. I actually have no cogent answer for you at this moment - I'm thinking Frankly I was focusing on the total lack of risk for the BUMPER.. - but wait, all I'm asking for is that he be tagged as a suspect. Give me a chance to call a friend Give me a chance to recruit someone nearby.. Give HIM something to think about... What do you think? I think if you want additional risk to the bumpers, it should be up to you to provide the risk. Use the same tools and mechanics the gankers use against them.
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?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44217
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:14:22 -
[989] - Quote
Enabran' Tain wrote:Quote:1st - I know the act of bumping is not a reason an exploit, however the people who do the bumping can and often do (in High sec) bump someone for 30-60 minutes or more!! Holding them hostage with the police in clear site with no repercussion. Even having a webber does not mean they will be able to get away prior, once the bumping has started, there is very little anyone can do to help. This can be done at many neighboring system gates all at the same time. Waiting indefinitely for a gank fleet, or just holding hostage and harassing a user. 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. I'm sick and tired of pointing out all the flaws in this suggestion, so I'm going to totally change my response to;
I hope CCP does this. Would be a fantastic change, long overdue. Best suggestion ever.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:21:07 -
[990] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Your's is the most rational response I have received since first posting on this topic. I actually have no cogent answer for you at this moment - I'm thinking Frankly I was focusing on the total lack of risk for the BUMPER.. - but wait, all I'm asking for is that he be tagged as a suspect. Give me a chance to call a friend Give me a chance to recruit someone nearby.. Give HIM something to think about... What do you think? I think if you want additional risk to the bumpers, it should be up to you to provide the risk. Use the same tools and mechanics the gankers use against them.
and then I'm playing their game and not my own.. - I don't have the wherewithall, time & contacts to provide much risk on my own.
throw me a bone, let me have an option; just tag them. I don't see a problem; it's HISEC after all
it's logical; it's realistic and IMHO BALANCES the game from what is really a gankers advantage.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:24:04 -
[991] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Here's a real solution to bumping.
Each member of the AG community devotes one character slot to creating an anti-bumping gank alt and spends a few hours a week participating in coordinated anti-ganking bumper ganks.
The AG community claims gankers aren't real PvPers, this would be your chance to prove it. The ganking community claims to be elite PvPers, this would be your chance to prove it.
Additionally, the AG community would get a respect for exactly how hard being a ganker really is, and the gankers would get some good fights out of it.
Oops... accidentally hit edit and cleared my original post here....
If ISD is monitoring this, is there any way to restore the original and make this a new post?
What is AG?
sorry really don't know
I like the gist of your suggestion..
(I still want the BUMPER tag )
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:26:03 -
[992] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:All of this talk about how there should be consequences for bumpers, and not one of the people talking about it is willing to grow a pair and provide those consequences using the tools that exist to enable them to do so. Why is that, is it because they don't like the consequences, of which they're so fond of spouting off about, of doing so? Are they in possession of a large mouth but no trousers? Are they just plain unsuited to be playing a game of this nature? Answers in the form of amusing memes appreciated, antimatter answers also welcome
BALLS?
that;s YOUR contribution?
How old are you? Really?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:27:25 -
[993] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:''something something hauling is 99.9 % safe....''
gankers freighter wrecks statistically were probably 99.9 % safe from going pop, didn't stop Warr Akini and friends on csm from cryiing to ccp to change wreck hps though did it? Evidence? The story I was told about that had more to do with nullsec and lowsec tactics than freighter ganking.
well yes , you can choose to believe that if you wish...
"Sion Kumitomo said on Twitter The original idea was Warr Akini's, and both then Goonswarm CSM reps pushed it. Other CSM's supported it as well."
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:29:33 -
[994] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Then explain how I could be butthurt when I have nothing to gain or lose from this discussion. I am not a ganker. In fact, seeing as I have an alt with a nice Charon, I'm quite likely to be on of their targets. Yet I still support their freedom to use the tools provided, whether intentionally or not, to gank me, just as I use the tools provided, whether intentionally or not, to keep them from doing so.
So now I have two questions for you to answer. How much higher than 99.9% safe do you want before it meets your qualification as reasonable and Why are you unable to use the provided tools to try and ensure your own safety? You were not the target of my "butthurt" comment.. But OK, I'll bite: Please define the tools provided which YOU use (or can use) to "tkeep them from doing so". Please educate me A scout in any ship will be your first and best line of defense. He'll see the bumping ship and warn you not to jump into the system. You can even dock up. If you want to risk it, make sure your scout has stasis webifiers fit so that you can get into warp faster. Best bet is get a rapier and sit on the gate your freighter will jump through at zero, when he jumps in and decloaks and starts to align, hit him with the webs and you'll zoom off into warp. Timing is important. OK, I knew that. It's a valid point.. but why should the BUMPER have no risk? - especially since he's participating in an attempted gank? Why are you so keen to protect the BUMPER? Risk is not something CCP imposes. The only thing coming even remotely close is CONCORD, but that is not risk. Not at all.* Risk, it something players impose on each other in this game and is the very spirit of the game. Player A imposes risk on player B who tries to mitigate that risk. The mitigation can be direct--i.e. he shoots A in the face. Or indirect by avoiding A. So, the reason bumpers face so little risk is other players are unwilling to impose said risk on the bumping ship and pilot. *It is not risk because you cannot evade CONCORD. You can try, but even if you succeed that is an exploit. CONCORD is punishment and it is swift and it is certain. Risk is about an uncertain event. We can talk about the risk of getting ganked because it is not certain. We can talk about the risk of getting scammed because it is not certain. There is no risk with CONCORD, engage in a criminal act and CONCORD will burn down your ship with probability 1.
If risk is ONLY imposed by players, then why even have CONCORD? Why have HISEC?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Iain Cariaba
2564
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:30:40 -
[995] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:and then I'm playing their game and not my own.. - I don't have the wherewithall, time & contacts to provide much risk on my own. No, you're playing CCP's game, not the ganker's. This topic has been brought up, ad nauseam, for literally years. If CCP hasn't fixed your alleged problem by now, and didn't come out and say "legacy code", then it's most likely they don't see it as a problem.
Bella Jennie wrote:throw me a bone, let me have an option; just tag them.[/quote You have many options. Most of them involve not getting into that situation to begin with, which you can do with 99.9% reliability. Bella Jennie wrote:I don't see a problem; it's HISEC after all Yes, it is highsec, not totalsec. We're back to me asking how much above 99.9% safety is reasonable to you. [quote=Bella Jennie]it's logical; it's realistic and IMHO BALANCES the game from what is really a gankers advantage. Outside of simply bad luck, which doesn't really happen often, if you get into a situation where you're getting bumped in a freighter, you've already done absolutely everything wrong that you possibly could. At what point do you start taking responsibility for your own failure to protect yourself?
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?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:30:56 -
[996] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:All of this talk about how there should be consequences for bumpers, and not one of the people talking about it is willing to grow a pair and provide those consequences using the tools that exist to enable them to do so. Why is that, is it because they don't like the consequences, of which they're so fond of spouting off about, of doing so? Are they in possession of a large mouth but no trousers? Are they just plain unsuited to be playing a game of this nature? Answers in the form of amusing memes appreciated, antimatter answers also welcome BALLS? that;s YOUR contribution? How old are you? Really?
@Jonah Gravenstein] , my suggestion involves players being able to inflict consequences onto a bumper(s) , no ccp handholding involved . so your objection is?
|
Top Guac
Mexican Avacado Syndicate
119
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:31:31 -
[997] - Quote
I think, if a freighter jumps 5 gates and doesn't use webs even once, the freighter should go suspect.
He's clearly completely careless and deliberately baiting other players into wanting to shoot him and that's total douchebag play.
Risk free hauling shouldn't be allowed and anyone that does it is a total douche. Make them suspec so they can be killed. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16200
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:33:14 -
[998] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:my suggestion involves players being able to inflict consequences onto a bumper(s)
You already can do that.
Why should you get anything else, just because you won't use what you already have?
"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.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25823
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:34:37 -
[999] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Your's is the most rational response I have received since first posting on this topic. I actually have no cogent answer for you at this moment - I'm thinking Frankly I was focusing on the total lack of risk for the BUMPER.. - but wait, all I'm asking for is that he be tagged as a suspect. Give me a chance to call a friend Give me a chance to recruit someone nearby.. Give HIM something to think about... What do you think? I think if you want additional risk to the bumpers, it should be up to you to provide the risk. Use the same tools and mechanics the gankers use against them. and then I'm playing their game and not my own.. - I don't have the wherewithall, time & contacts to provide much risk on my own. It's not their game, it's the game, and that is how it was designed.
Your inability to provide much risk on your own is entirely down to the choice you made to play solo, numbers are the original force multiplier. In Eve your choices have consequences, one of the consequences of choosing to play solo is that you're ineffectual and weak.
Quote:throw me a bone, let me have an option; just tag them. I don't see a problem; it's HISEC after all
it's logical; it's realistic and IMHO BALANCES the game from what is really a gankers advantage. To you and a few others maybe, to the rest of us the idea is ill conceived and a sop to those too chicken to provide the risk to bumpers themselves.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Iain Cariaba
2564
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:35:54 -
[1000] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:''something something hauling is 99.9 % safe....''
gankers freighter wrecks statistically were probably 99.9 % safe from going pop, didn't stop Warr Akini and friends on csm from cryiing to ccp to change wreck hps though did it? Evidence? The story I was told about that had more to do with nullsec and lowsec tactics than freighter ganking. well yes , you can choose to believe that if you wish... "Sion Kumitomo said on Twitter The original idea was Warr Akini's, and both then Goonswarm CSM reps pushed it. Other CSM's supported it as well." Do you have a list of those CSMs?
If you notice, the buff to wreck hp goes across the board, into hulls that you cannot fly in highsec. I'm thinking my version, which comes from those who participate in what Bella refers to as douchery, is probably a bit more accurate than an "I'm a twit" post.
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?
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4613
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:36:08 -
[1001] - Quote
I want to reiterate that point.
CCP does not impose risk in the game. At all, as far as I can see. CONCORD does not impose a risk. Risk by definition involves probabilities. And while there is a probability associated with a CONCORD response it is trivial and 1. Further, there is no real way to mitigate the effects of a CONCORD response. If they are coming after you, they will burn your ship down that loss is assured. No matter what.
Risk is something players impose on each other. It is what makes this game interesting and worth play. No risk just makes it a boring simulation game....it would be like playing SIMS in Space or something. Removing or even reducing player generated risk is something CCP should approach with considerable caution.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:37:47 -
[1002] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote: the freighter is always at risk as soon as he undocks
Then equally so is the faction battleship they have undocked with basically no tank and fit for speed and speed alone, and guaranteed to be within 20km of a gate pretty much all the time. The difference is that one side are real players and willing to do something about it, and the other side aren't.
'real players' who have pretty much unlimited resources and suffer little or no consequences to any losses inflicted on them cos good ole uncle jimmy or mittens is always there to hold their hands in case they get hurt by the consequences of their actions ? who have no worries about sec status cos all they do is undock , warp , lock hit f1 , those the 'real players' you're talking about?
a speed fit mach is a slightly harder target to pop than a freighter as i am sure you are fully aware, but do carry on trolling.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:38:32 -
[1003] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:and then I'm playing their game and not my own.. - I don't have the wherewithall, time & contacts to provide much risk on my own. No, you're playing CCP's game, not the ganker's. This topic has been brought up, ad nauseam, for literally years. If CCP hasn't fixed your alleged problem by now, and didn't come out and say "legacy code", then it's most likely they don't see it as a problem. Bella Jennie wrote:throw me a bone, let me have an option; just tag them.[/quote You have many options. Most of them involve not getting into that situation to begin with, which you can do with 99.9% reliability. Bella Jennie wrote:I don't see a problem; it's HISEC after all Yes, it is highsec, not totalsec. We're back to me asking how much above 99.9% safety is reasonable to you. [quote=Bella Jennie]it's logical; it's realistic and IMHO BALANCES the game from what is really a gankers advantage. Outside of simply bad luck, which doesn't really happen often, if you get into a situation where you're getting bumped in a freighter, you've already done absolutely everything wrong that you possibly could. At what point do you start taking responsibility for your own failure to protect yourself?
OK, I did have a hauler shot out from under me - totally my fault because I assumed HISEC was safe..
I made appropriate arrangements to protect myself as much as possible. - I learned; I adapted.
does not address my point: - what is so terrible about the SUSPECT tag in HISEC?
edited to add: CCP has evolved the game to balance out the situation between HISEC players and the gankers.. - I really believe this is an appropriate fix and CCP will address it. - I believe the reason for no fix to date is more technical
Time will tell
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4613
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:38:52 -
[1004] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:
If risk is ONLY imposed by players, then why even have CONCORD? Why have HISEC?
CONCORD punishes, when CONCORD is invoked there is no risk, only certainty. It is not a risk, it is a deterrent. Risk can be a deterrent, but not all deterrents are a risk. Much like how all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Iain Cariaba
2566
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:40:33 -
[1005] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote: the freighter is always at risk as soon as he undocks
Then equally so is the faction battleship they have undocked with basically no tank and fit for speed and speed alone, and guaranteed to be within 20km of a gate pretty much all the time. The difference is that one side are real players and willing to do something about it, and the other side aren't. 'real players' who have pretty much unlimited resources and suffer little or no consequences to any losses inflicted on them cos good ole uncle jimmy or mittens is always there to hold their hands in case they get hurt by the consequences of their actions ? who have no worries about sec status cos all they do is undock , warp , lock hit f1 , those the 'real players' you're talking about? a speed fit mach is a slightly harder target to pop than a freighter as i am sure you are fully aware, but do carry on trolling. Again, an attentive, active pilot who uses the tools already provided to ensure their own safety is already 99.9% safe. So now I direct the question to you, how much more than 99.9% safety will it take for it to be safe enough for you?
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.
16201
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:41:25 -
[1006] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:'real players' who have pretty much unlimited resources and suffer little or no consequences to any losses inflicted on them cos good ole uncle jimmy or mittens is always there to hold their hands in case they get hurt by the consequences of their actions ? who have no worries about sec status cos all they do is undock , warp , lock hit f1 , those the 'real players' you're talking about? a speed fit mach is a slightly harder target to pop than a freighter as i am sure you are fully aware, but do carry on trolling.
That's it? That's your answer? "Grr, nullsec" is the best you can do?
They have every bit the same opportunities as you do, and that includes alt accounts and alternate sources of income. Cry more that alts exist, but this isn't the right thread for it.
But seriously, is that the excuse you're going to use for why you don't bother using the existing mechanisms to attack the bumper? Because you aren't in a nullsec alliance?
Even for a carebear, that's a damned stupid answer.
"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.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25824
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:41:46 -
[1007] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:All of this talk about how there should be consequences for bumpers, and not one of the people talking about it is willing to grow a pair and provide those consequences using the tools that exist to enable them to do so. Why is that, is it because they don't like the consequences, of which they're so fond of spouting off about, of doing so? Are they in possession of a large mouth but no trousers? Are they just plain unsuited to be playing a game of this nature? Answers in the form of amusing memes appreciated, antimatter answers also welcome BALLS? that;s YOUR contribution? How old are you? Really? It's an idiom to describe people who shy away from conflict, when you grow up you'll realise that.
As for your query as to my age, judging by the childish nature of your posting, old enough to be your father.
bigbud skunkafella wrote:@Jonah Gravenstein] , my suggestion involves players being able to inflict consequences onto a bumper(s) , no ccp handholding involved . so your objection is?
I wasn't addressing anybody in particular but AG as a whole; I know that there are people in AG that are willing to accept the consequences of their actions and I applaud them fr it, they are very few though, most are just hot air and bluster.
My objextion is that there are already mechanics in place that allow people to inflict consequences on a bumper; they aren't used, what makes you think that yours would be?
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:44:34 -
[1008] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:
If risk is ONLY imposed by players, then why even have CONCORD? Why have HISEC?
CONCORD punishes, when CONCORD is invoked there is no risk, only certainty. It is not a risk, it is a deterrent. Risk can be a deterrent, but not all deterrents are a risk. Much like how all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
wordgames are not productive towards solving gameplay balance issues
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:46:23 -
[1009] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:''something something hauling is 99.9 % safe....''
gankers freighter wrecks statistically were probably 99.9 % safe from going pop, didn't stop Warr Akini and friends on csm from cryiing to ccp to change wreck hps though did it? Evidence? The story I was told about that had more to do with nullsec and lowsec tactics than freighter ganking. well yes , you can choose to believe that if you wish... "Sion Kumitomo said on Twitter The original idea was Warr Akini's, and both then Goonswarm CSM reps pushed it. Other CSM's supported it as well." Do you have a list of those CSMs? If you notice, the buff to wreck hp goes across the board, into hulls that you cannot fly in highsec. I'm thinking my version, which comes from those who participate in what Bella refers to as douchery, is probably a bit more accurate than an "I'm a twit" post.
if you think that there is no connection between ag popping hundreds of billions isk of warr and cos ill gotten gains and warr akini pushing for, of all things that could do with a look at in eve , hp increase for wrecks , or believe he did this out of a selfless desire to make the game better for everyone, then i really don't know w[hat to say tbh .... |
Enabran' Tain
Viziam Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:47:31 -
[1010] - Quote
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. |
|
Iain Cariaba
2566
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:47:33 -
[1011] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:does not address my point: - what is so terrible about the SUSPECT tag in HISEC? Because of that 99.9% number. You've already had numerous opportunities to avoid the bump, but you didn't. Now, you get to deal with the consequences of choosing not to take them. In case you didn't know, EvE is big on consequences for your actions. In this instance, a player is using a certain mechanic to apply those consequences, so you shouldn't have to rely on coded mechanics in order to escalate things. You already had your chance to use the coded mechanics to prevent this in the first place, after all, more mechanics aren't going to help you.
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?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:49:30 -
[1012] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:@Jonah Gravenstein] , my suggestion involves players being able to inflict consequences onto a bumper(s) , no ccp handholding involved . so your objection is?
I wasn't addressing anybody in particular but AG as a whole; I know that there are people in AG that are willing to accept the consequences of their actions and I applaud them fr it, they are very few though, most are just hot air and bluster.
My objection is that there are already mechanics in place that allow people to inflict consequences on a bumper; they aren't used, what makes you think that yours would be?[/quote]
so you don't think an option for a victim of bumping to engage (with his fleet mates) the annoying bastard who's bumping him would be used , ever? ok
soz, messed up the quotes , again lol |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44222
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:50:31 -
[1013] - Quote
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.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16203
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:52:40 -
[1014] - Quote
Problem: NPC corp alts being used to troll without consequences.
Solution: Ban all NPC corp characters from posting in Player Features and Ideas Discussion.
Conclusion: MUCH less consequence-free trolling.
"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.
|
Iain Cariaba
2566
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:55:06 -
[1015] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:''something something hauling is 99.9 % safe....''
gankers freighter wrecks statistically were probably 99.9 % safe from going pop, didn't stop Warr Akini and friends on csm from cryiing to ccp to change wreck hps though did it? Evidence? The story I was told about that had more to do with nullsec and lowsec tactics than freighter ganking. well yes , you can choose to believe that if you wish... "Sion Kumitomo said on Twitter The original idea was Warr Akini's, and both then Goonswarm CSM reps pushed it. Other CSM's supported it as well." Do you have a list of those CSMs? If you notice, the buff to wreck hp goes across the board, into hulls that you cannot fly in highsec. I'm thinking my version, which comes from those who participate in what Bella refers to as douchery, is probably a bit more accurate than an "I'm a twit" post. if you think that there is no connection between ag popping hundreds of billions isk of warr and cos ill gotten gains and warr akini pushing for, of all things that could do with a look at in eve , hp increase for wrecks , or believe he did this out of a selfless desire to make the game better for everyone, then i really don't know w[hat to say tbh .... No, I actually do think that. Unlike you, I'm familiar with Goonswarm, flew with them several times. Most of them really are as devoted to this game as I am, and do really want what's best for it. Of course, if I've misinterpreted my impression of Goonswarm, I'm sure the people who post in here that are a part of it will correct me.
Besides, you're talking about a change that has limited scope inside highsec, but a much, much broader impact in other areas. Trying to pawn this off as CCP catering to Goonswarm is disingenuous.
Even if that were true, I don't find it surprising that CCP would listen to the single largest collection of players in the game.
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?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:56:43 -
[1016] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:'real players' who have pretty much unlimited resources and suffer little or no consequences to any losses inflicted on them cos good ole uncle jimmy or mittens is always there to hold their hands in case they get hurt by the consequences of their actions ? who have no worries about sec status cos all they do is undock , warp , lock hit f1 , those the 'real players' you're talking about? a speed fit mach is a slightly harder target to pop than a freighter as i am sure you are fully aware, but do carry on trolling. That's it? That's your answer? "Grr, nullsec" is the best you can do? They have every bit the same opportunities as you do, and that includes alt accounts and alternate sources of income. Cry more that alts exist, but this isn't the right thread for it. But seriously, is that the excuse you're going to use for why you don't bother using the existing mechanisms to attack the bumper? Because you aren't in a nullsec alliance? Even for a carebear, that's a damned stupid answer.
whose crying? i was responding to the 'real players' comment , pointing out that the 'real players' referred to are not quite 'real players' due to the fact that they are most commonly alts who have a very limited style of play, as compared to most other eve players .
but this isnt really discussing the topic is it?
|
Iain Cariaba
2566
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:58:13 -
[1017] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Problem: NPC corp alts being used to troll without consequences.
Solution: Ban all NPC corp characters from posting in Player Features and Ideas Discussion.
Conclusion: MUCH less consequence-free trolling. I can't support this, as I'm currently in NPC corp.
Being laid off from work, so in between jobs, makes me hesitant to join a corp when I don't know when my play time will be once I get a new job.
Then again, this is my main, and with a couple exceptions when what I named one of my alts made the post funnier in C&P, I've always posted with my main.
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?
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1796
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:58:18 -
[1018] - 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/
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16205
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 19:59:57 -
[1019] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:pointing out that the 'real players' referred to are not quite 'real players' due to the fact that they are most commonly alts who have a very limited style of play
Really? Because I know plenty of people in CODE, for example, who gank with their mains. Having been in CODE, and being a CODE supporter since basically day 1, after all. Meanwhile the Miniluv guys do both, since they're all nullsec anyway so their sec status is in the toilet regardless.
What do you have to support your assertion? Because as far as I can tell, it's basically untrue.
And, since you clearly cannot tell, "real player" is not determined by assets, but by attitude.
"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.
|
Iain Cariaba
2566
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 20:00:04 -
[1020] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:'real players' who have pretty much unlimited resources and suffer little or no consequences to any losses inflicted on them cos good ole uncle jimmy or mittens is always there to hold their hands in case they get hurt by the consequences of their actions ? who have no worries about sec status cos all they do is undock , warp , lock hit f1 , those the 'real players' you're talking about? a speed fit mach is a slightly harder target to pop than a freighter as i am sure you are fully aware, but do carry on trolling. That's it? That's your answer? "Grr, nullsec" is the best you can do? They have every bit the same opportunities as you do, and that includes alt accounts and alternate sources of income. Cry more that alts exist, but this isn't the right thread for it. But seriously, is that the excuse you're going to use for why you don't bother using the existing mechanisms to attack the bumper? Because you aren't in a nullsec alliance? Even for a carebear, that's a damned stupid answer. whose crying? i was responding to the 'real players' comment , pointing out that the 'real players' referred to are not quite 'real players' due to the fact that they are most commonly alts who have a very limited style of play, as compared to most other eve players . but this isnt really discussing the topic is it? Or it could just separate the "real players" as being those who take the punches their dealt and stand back up, as opposed to those who simply want to change the rules so their opponent has their hands handcuffed behind them.
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?
|
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25824
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 20:00:11 -
[1021] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:so you don't think an option for a victim of bumping to engage (with his fleet mates) the annoying bastard who's bumping him would be used , ever? ok
soz, messed up the quotes , again lol I think the likelihood is low; take a look at the suspect mechanic for example, a suspect has an open season flag on his head, despite that many people, including their victims, don't take advantage of it.
In return I have a question for you.
If a person who is being bumped is in a fleet, how did they end up getting bumped? Any hauler that is in a fleet should be taking advantage of fast locking ships with web bonuses to expedite their journey, which is a highly effective method of not being bumped.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4614
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 20:04:02 -
[1022] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:
If risk is ONLY imposed by players, then why even have CONCORD? Why have HISEC?
CONCORD punishes, when CONCORD is invoked there is no risk, only certainty. It is not a risk, it is a deterrent. Risk can be a deterrent, but not all deterrents are a risk. Much like how all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. wordgames are not productive towards solving gameplay balance issues
Ignorance of the concept of risk isn't helpful either. And failure to understand basic logic is a problem too.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Iain Cariaba
2566
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 20:04:16 -
[1023] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:If a person who is being bumped is in a fleet, how did they end up getting bumped? Any hauler that is in a fleet should be taking advantage of fast locking ships with web bonuses to expedite their journey, which is a highly effective method of not being bumped.
Not only is it effective at keeping you from getting bumped, but it cuts 37s off my alt's align time. meaning for every 2 systems I've cut over a minute off my trip. Trust me, that really adds up fast.
Edit: Fix your quotes, Jonah, or I'm going to park my Charon in your lap.
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?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 20:04:29 -
[1024] - Quote
Besides, you're talking about a change that has limited scope inside highsec, but a much, much broader impact in other areas. Trying to pawn this off as CCP catering to Goonswarm is disingenuous.
if you want to call guaranteed freighter wreck looting by miniluv /code of limited scope inside highsec then u just go ahead.
|
Iain Cariaba
2566
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 20:06:10 -
[1025] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
Besides, you're talking about a change that has limited scope inside highsec, but a much, much broader impact in other areas. Trying to pawn this off as CCP catering to Goonswarm is disingenuous.
if you want to call guaranteed freighter wreck looting by miniluv /code of limited scope inside highsec then u just go ahead.
The only reason it's guaranteed is because AG are too scared to field the half a dozen thrashers to stop them.
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.
16205
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 20:06:29 -
[1026] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
Besides, you're talking about a change that has limited scope inside highsec, but a much, much broader impact in other areas. Trying to pawn this off as CCP catering to Goonswarm is disingenuous.
if you want to call guaranteed freighter wreck looting by miniluv /code of limited scope inside highsec then u just go ahead.
"Waah, effort"
"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.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25828
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 20:07:42 -
[1027] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:I can't support this, as I'm currently in NPC corp.
Being laid off from work, so in between jobs, makes me hesitant to join a corp when I don't know when my play time will be once I get a new job.
Then again, this is my main, and with a couple exceptions when what I named one of my alts made the post funnier in C&P, I've always posted with my main. Good luck with the job hunting, it's hard out there. Keep at it and it'll happen, just has for me after nearly 3 years of failing at being self employed and doing agency scutwork.
They weren't my quotes, 'tis all bigbud skunkafella's fault. I want to partake of whatever he's smoking, it seems to be some really good stuff.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 20:08:11 -
[1028] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:If a person who is being bumped is in a fleet, how did they end up getting bumped? Any hauler that is in a fleet should be taking advantage of fast locking ships with web bonuses to expedite their journey, which is a highly effective method of not being bumped.
Not only is it effective at keeping you from getting bumped, but it cuts 37s off my alt's align time. meaning for every 2 systems I've cut over a minute off my trip. Trust me, that really adds up fast. Edit: Fix your quotes, Jonah, or I'm going to park my Charon in your lap.
the issue is that when you are bumped, there is very little you can do about it , the bumper faces no consequences for what is for all intents and purposes an act of aggression/piracy .
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16209
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 20:08:57 -
[1029] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:I can't support this, as I'm currently in NPC corp.
Being laid off from work, so in between jobs, makes me hesitant to join a corp when I don't know when my play time will be once I get a new job.
Then again, this is my main, and with a couple exceptions when what I named one of my alts made the post funnier in C&P, I've always posted with my main. Good luck with the job hunting, it's hard out there. Keep at it and it'll happen, just has for me after nearly 3 years of failing at being self employed and doing agency scutwork.
Having been in the job hunting business myself irl for a while, I also wish you luck. It's hard times out there.
"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.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 20:10:14 -
[1030] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:
Besides, you're talking about a change that has limited scope inside highsec, but a much, much broader impact in other areas. Trying to pawn this off as CCP catering to Goonswarm is disingenuous.
if you want to call guaranteed freighter wreck looting by miniluv /code of limited scope inside highsec then u just go ahead.
"Waah, effort"
yep, lot of effort involved in countering wreck poppers apparently .... |
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4615
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 20:10:55 -
[1031] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:if you think that there is no connection between ag popping hundreds of billions isk of warr and cos ill gotten gains and warr akini pushing for, of all things that could do with a look at in eve , hp increase for wrecks , or believe he did this out of a selfless desire to make the game better for everyone, then i really don't know w[hat to say tbh .... No, I actually do think that. Unlike you, I'm familiar with Goonswarm, flew with them several times. Most of them really are as devoted to this game as I am, and do really want what's best for it. Of course, if I've misinterpreted my impression of Goonswarm, I'm sure the people who post in here that are a part of it will correct me. Besides, you're talking about a change that has limited scope inside highsec, but a much, much broader impact in other areas. Trying to pawn this off as CCP catering to Goonswarm is disingenuous. Even if that were true, I don't find it surprising that CCP would listen to the single largest collection of players in the game.
I agree with Iain.
In fact, I once thought like you. I drank deep of the kool-aid that Goons want to ruin the game. Then when our alliance CEO mentioned he was voting for the Mittani for CSM I was like, "Hmmm...let me go read what the Mittani is advocating...." I was quite pleasantly surprised. So I voted for him too.
Later we allied with Goons (and TEST at the time) and found out that, yes, Goons are devoted to the game. Yes many revel in being the villains and play it to the hilt, but still they really do like the game.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Iain Cariaba
2574
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 20:12:09 -
[1032] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:If a person who is being bumped is in a fleet, how did they end up getting bumped? Any hauler that is in a fleet should be taking advantage of fast locking ships with web bonuses to expedite their journey, which is a highly effective method of not being bumped.
Not only is it effective at keeping you from getting bumped, but it cuts 37s off my alt's align time. meaning for every 2 systems I've cut over a minute off my trip. Trust me, that really adds up fast. Edit: Fix your quotes, Jonah, or I'm going to park my Charon in your lap. the issue is that when you are bumped, there is very little you can do about it , the bumper faces no consequences for what is for all intents and purposes an act of aggression/piracy . So what's stopping you from preventing yourself from getting bumped in the first place? That method has been proven to be 99.9% effective. The only way a freighter should ever get bumped is because of extremely bad luck, or because the pilot failed utterly in keeping himself safe.
What you're missing here is that the bumper is the consequence. Any escalation rests solely in the hands of the player.
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?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 20:13:03 -
[1033] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:
Besides, you're talking about a change that has limited scope inside highsec, but a much, much broader impact in other areas. Trying to pawn this off as CCP catering to Goonswarm is disingenuous.
if you want to call guaranteed freighter wreck looting by miniluv /code of limited scope inside highsec then u just go ahead.
The only reason it's guaranteed is because AG are too scared to field the half a dozen thrashers to stop them. Again, the options are there. If they fail to use them, it's entire their fault.
so ag should just reship from their limited numbers of logi/ecm/pew pew ships into thrashers to pop a possibly empty wreck? |
Iain Cariaba
2574
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 20:13:45 -
[1034] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:if you think that there is no connection between ag popping hundreds of billions isk of warr and cos ill gotten gains and warr akini pushing for, of all things that could do with a look at in eve , hp increase for wrecks , or believe he did this out of a selfless desire to make the game better for everyone, then i really don't know w[hat to say tbh .... No, I actually do think that. Unlike you, I'm familiar with Goonswarm, flew with them several times. Most of them really are as devoted to this game as I am, and do really want what's best for it. Of course, if I've misinterpreted my impression of Goonswarm, I'm sure the people who post in here that are a part of it will correct me. Besides, you're talking about a change that has limited scope inside highsec, but a much, much broader impact in other areas. Trying to pawn this off as CCP catering to Goonswarm is disingenuous. Even if that were true, I don't find it surprising that CCP would listen to the single largest collection of players in the game. I agree with Iain. In fact, I once thought like you. I drank deep of the kool-aid that Goons want to ruin the game. Then when our alliance CEO mentioned he was voting for the Mittani for CSM I was like, "Hmmm...let me go read what the Mittani is advocating...." I was quite pleasantly surprised. So I voted for him too. Later we allied with Goons (and TEST at the time) and found out that, yes, Goons are devoted to the game. Yes many revel in being the villains and play it to the hilt, but still they really do like the game. When you truly enjoy being the villain, why would you want to ruin pretty much the only game that really allows you to do so?
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?
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25828
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 20:14:29 -
[1035] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:If a person who is being bumped is in a fleet, how did they end up getting bumped? Any hauler that is in a fleet should be taking advantage of fast locking ships with web bonuses to expedite their journey, which is a highly effective method of not being bumped.
Not only is it effective at keeping you from getting bumped, but it cuts 37s off my alt's align time. meaning for every 2 systems I've cut over a minute off my trip. Trust me, that really adds up fast. Edit: Fix your quotes, Jonah, or I'm going to park my Charon in your lap. the issue is that when you are bumped, there is very little you can do about it , the bumper faces no consequences for what is for all intents and purposes an act of aggression/piracy . The bumper only faces no consequence because people are unwilling to provide them, because they're afraid of the consequences of doing so.
If a hauler has a fleet with it, it should never be in a position to be bumped.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Iain Cariaba
2574
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 20:15:11 -
[1036] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:
Besides, you're talking about a change that has limited scope inside highsec, but a much, much broader impact in other areas. Trying to pawn this off as CCP catering to Goonswarm is disingenuous.
if you want to call guaranteed freighter wreck looting by miniluv /code of limited scope inside highsec then u just go ahead.
The only reason it's guaranteed is because AG are too scared to field the half a dozen thrashers to stop them. Again, the options are there. If they fail to use them, it's entire their fault. so ag should just reship from their limited numbers of logi/ecm/pew pew ships into thrashers to pop a possibly empty wreck? They should be aware enough of the situation to recognize when the anti-gank has failed, and already be reshipping before the freighter pops. Just stage ship near where the ganks usually happen, just like the gankers do.
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?
|
Enabran' Tain
Viziam Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 20:39:22 -
[1037] - Quote
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. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4616
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 20:40:11 -
[1038] - Quote
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.
Awesome.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mazzara
Big Diggers Get Off My Lawn
28
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 20:52:12 -
[1039] - Quote
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.
bumpers grab at straws to justify their exploiting of this weak mechanic, and cry about anything that would change that.
Now don't get me wrong, if you wanna gank feighters in high sec more power to ya, but you should have to use a legit tackle and get the concord hammer like anyone else
No matter how much you scrub, how hot of water you use,-áyou can't wash shame!
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1798
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 20:57:57 -
[1040] - 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/
|
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44224
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 21:01:55 -
[1041] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote: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. I wouldn't bother.
I think the discussion has become posting on as many alts as possible to make it seem like more people think it's a problem.
In the absence of evidence, what else is there to do?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4617
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 21:03:16 -
[1042] - 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.
bumpers grab at straws to justify their exploiting of this weak mechanic, and cry about anything that would change that.
Now don't get me wrong, if you wanna gank feighters in high sec more power to ya, but you should have to use a legit tackle and get the concord hammer like anyone else
Anyone else can bump too.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 21:09:14 -
[1043] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:[quote=Iain Cariaba][quote=bigbud skunkafella]
In fact, I once thought like you. I drank deep of the kool-aid that Goons want to ruin the game. Then when our alliance CEO mentioned he was voting for the Mittani for CSM I was like, "Hmmm...let me go read what the Mittani is advocating...." I was quite pleasantly surprised. So I voted for him too.
.
GÇ£We donGÇÖt want to ruin the game, we want to ruin your game.GÇ¥ ring any bells?
anyway, we're geting off topic .
if we look at bumping in hisec in it's current form logically the ability of a person to obstruct another person by deliberately ramming their ship to prevent them entering warp for a potentially unlimited amount of time with the intent of holding them there until they can be murdered and robbed by a bunch of cutthroat pirates while the relevant authorities take no action makes no sense whatsoever .
a vast majority of genuinely neutral observers would look at this and agree it's akin to the example an opponent of any change to this mechanic made , ie a hijacked truck being rammed off the road by another truck for an hour or more before actually being hijacked and robbed while the authorities did nothing till the actual hijack /robbery took place.
most, if not all opponents in this thread have a direct stake in maintaining the status quo, and have contributed little to the discussion apart from hot air and trolling in an apparent attempt to close the thread.
i have made several suggestions , mostly in an attempt to find a balance that involves more player driven content ie fun , rather than suspect/criminal timers as some have suggested.
if any opponents have anything more substantial to say , hell , even a suggestion themselves for the sake of discussion, please let's hear it .
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4617
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 21:13:22 -
[1044] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:[quote=Iain Cariaba][quote=bigbud skunkafella]
In fact, I once thought like you. I drank deep of the kool-aid that Goons want to ruin the game. Then when our alliance CEO mentioned he was voting for the Mittani for CSM I was like, "Hmmm...let me go read what the Mittani is advocating...." I was quite pleasantly surprised. So I voted for him too.
. GÇ£We donGÇÖt want to ruin the game, we want to ruin your game.GÇ¥ ring any bells? anyway, we're geting off topic . if we look at bumping in hisec in it's current form logically the ability of a person to obstruct another person by deliberately ramming their ship to prevent them entering warp for a potentially unlimited amount of time with the intent of holding them there until they can be murdered and robbed by a bunch of cutthroat pirates while the relevant authorities take no action makes no sense whatsoever . a vast majority of genuinely neutral observers would look at this and agree it's akin to the example an opponent of any change to this mechanic made , ie a hijacked truck being rammed off the road by another truck for an hour or more before actually being hijacked and robbed while the authorities did nothing till the actual hijack /robbery took place. most, if not all opponents in this thread have a direct stake in maintaining the status quo, and have contributed little to the discussion apart from hot air and trolling in an apparent attempt to close the thread. i have made several suggestions , mostly in an attempt to find a balance that involves more player driven content ie fun , rather than suspect/criminal timers as some have suggested. if any opponents have anything more substantial to say , hell , even a suggestion themselves for the sake of discussion, please let's hear it .
Yes, it is what happens with the following:
Ganks War decs Market PvP NS wars AWOXing Corp thefts Jita scammers NS/LS Roams
Pretty much most of the game.
"We aren't here to ruin the game, we are here to ruin your game", means they intend to play the game as CCP intended.
And no, we are totally on topic. That you can't see it is part of your problem.
"Hi, I'm here to ruin your game!" That, in a nutshell, is Eve Online. Bumping is but one small facet.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 21:17:58 -
[1045] - Quote
so nothing to say on the topic, thank you , next ? |
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 21:23:50 -
[1046] - Quote
OK, maybee lastttt.....opinion on the looting. If a transfer from wreck/can to Fleet Hangar would result in a FY.....limit the transfer to the cargo/ore capacity of current ship getting tagged with Suspect? Good or Bad?....Or limit transfer size in general based on that logical fact.
If the Suspect timer, happens because of the act of stealing from a container/wreck.....then that would imply they are physically taking it on board first, THEN moving it to DST?
And yes....gankers can loot wreck right after it drops, but it only happens if the fleet is large enough and CONCORD is still clearing the ganker fleet out, which can be 5 or so seconds. I'll try to get video up to CONFIRMING this before i claim, it as fact that they have time to do is and the oddness at times that the wreck gets looted with zero Suspect timers shown in local, and the quickness at which the Blue wrecks are picked up. |
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
10615
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 21:32:23 -
[1047] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Problem: NPC corp alts being used to troll without consequences.
Solution: Ban all NPC corp characters from posting in Player Features and Ideas Discussion.
Conclusion: MUCH less consequence-free trolling.
Quoting for truth and justice
Got a HoleySheet1 corpse? I'll buy it for 200m!
Bumble's Space Log
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2174
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 21:38:41 -
[1048] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote: i have made several suggestions , mostly in an attempt to find a balance that involves more player driven content ie fun , rather than suspect/criminal timers as some have suggested.
if any opponents have anything more substantial to say , hell , even a suggestion themselves for the sake of discussion, please let's hear it .
Ok. Radical idea incoming to remove bumping:
Freighters (eventually maybe all capitals) do not generate a criminal flag in highsec if pointed/scrambled, while other aggressive modules still do. However, if you apply a point to a capital, you immediately go suspect. Freighters are then given a super MJD they can fit that warps them 500 km with a reasonably long (3-5 minutes?) spool-up time.
Pros: freighter escorts can clear off the tackler with guns and no CONCORD response Cons: freighters are subject to harassment by non-committed attackers or tanky tacklers
Discuss. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4617
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 21:39:03 -
[1049] - Quote
Summary:
AG folks want CCP to fix a non-problem so that they can have an easier time anti-ganking.
Everyone else point out the following:
You have options.
1. Don't get bumped. Use a scout, preferably a webbing scout, and you can avoid the problem. 2. Gank the bumping ship.
Neither of these satisfies the AG folks apparently.
When asked how serious a problem is this, there is not much to go on. While there is data on ganks, there is no data on freighters not ganked. So the frequency of ganks is not known. The neither helps nor hurts either side of the argument.
It has been noted that Red Frog fails contracts 0.1% of the time indicating that prudent use of a freighter should greatly mitigate the risk of ganks.
My conclusions:
1. Bumping is fine, there are in game strategies to deal with it. 2. No need to change it. 3. Most suggestions are "mechanical" in that they are not the result of player innovation and contrary to the basic nature of the game.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 22:05:22 -
[1050] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote: i have made several suggestions , mostly in an attempt to find a balance that involves more player driven content ie fun , rather than suspect/criminal timers as some have suggested.
if any opponents have anything more substantial to say , hell , even a suggestion themselves for the sake of discussion, please let's hear it .
Ok. Radical idea incoming to remove bumping: Freighters (eventually maybe all capitals) do not generate a criminal flag in highsec if pointed/scrambled, while other aggressive modules still do. However, if you apply a point to a capital, you immediately go suspect. Freighters are then given a super MJD they can fit that warps them 500 km with a reasonably long (3-5 minutes?) spool-up time. Pros: freighter escorts can clear off the tackler with guns and no CONCORD response Cons: freighters are subject to harassment by non-committed attackers or tanky tacklers Discuss.
thank you, tho i have never advocated removing bumping , just some sort of rebalance to make it less op.
those ideas certainly have merit , it would make some sort of freighter escort essential and create lots of content .
i believe a 100 km limited use mjd would be sufficient tho, a scram /point wouldnt prevent alignment, perhaps this change in conjunction with my suggestion for a limited engagement type option between a freighter+ fleet and bumper would work well. the freighter can be held by a tackler , but a bumper would be vulnerable after a short time if/when the freighter gets his fleet together. a strong escort would be a strong deterrent .
|
|
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1594
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 22:08:46 -
[1051] - Quote
Temporarily locked for a good scrubbing.
ISD Decoy
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 22:55:27 -
[1052] - Quote
ISD Decoy wrote:I have removed 8+ pages of garbage. Please follow our rules, stay on topic, remain respectful, and lower the troll factor! If the garbage continues I will close the thread, but I'm hoping meaningful discussion can continue.
thank you for keeping it open isd decoy
o7
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 23:02:59 -
[1053] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Black Pedro wrote:[quote=bigbud skunkafella] i have made several suggestions , mostly in an attempt to find a balance that involves more player driven content ie fun , rather than suspect/criminal timers as some have suggested.
if any opponents have anything more substantial to say , hell , even a suggestion themselves for the sake of discussion, please let's hear it . Ok. Radical idea incoming to remove bumping: Freighters (eventually maybe all capitals) do not generate a criminal flag in highsec if pointed/scrambled, while other aggressive modules still do. However, if you apply a point to a capital, you immediately go suspect. Freighters are then given a super MJD they can fit that warps them 500 km with a reasonably long (3-5 minutes?) spool-up time. Pros: freighter escorts can clear off the tackler with guns and no CONCORD response Cons: freighters are subject to harassment by non-committed attackers or tanky tacklers Discuss.
would your proposed super mjd be immune to scram so the freighter would have some means of escape from being permanently troll tackled in an empty system ?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4621
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 23:14:36 -
[1054] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:Black Pedro wrote:[quote=bigbud skunkafella] i have made several suggestions , mostly in an attempt to find a balance that involves more player driven content ie fun , rather than suspect/criminal timers as some have suggested.
if any opponents have anything more substantial to say , hell , even a suggestion themselves for the sake of discussion, please let's hear it . Ok. Radical idea incoming to remove bumping: Freighters (eventually maybe all capitals) do not generate a criminal flag in highsec if pointed/scrambled, while other aggressive modules still do. However, if you apply a point to a capital, you immediately go suspect. Freighters are then given a super MJD they can fit that warps them 500 km with a reasonably long (3-5 minutes?) spool-up time. Pros: freighter escorts can clear off the tackler with guns and no CONCORD response Cons: freighters are subject to harassment by non-committed attackers or tanky tacklers Discuss. would your proposed super mjd be immune to scram so the freighter would have some means of escape from being permanently troll tackled in an empty system ?
How about no, but a scram cause a criminal flag--i.e. invoke CONCORD.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Iain Cariaba
2579
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 23:17:57 -
[1055] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:if we look at bumping in hisec in it's current form logically the ability of a person to obstruct another person by deliberately ramming their ship to prevent them entering warp for a potentially unlimited amount of time with the intent of holding them there until they can be murdered and robbed by a bunch of cutthroat pirates while the relevant authorities take no action makes no sense whatsoever. A decent analogy for freighter bumping is the old ghetto analogy. A freighter flying through areas where gankers operate is like walking through the ghetto. A smart person walking through this ghetto carries little cash, pay attention to his surroundings, brings friends if possible, hell, maybe even brings a car to make the trip quickly. When you tape a $100 bill to your forehead, wear a blindfold, and lay down to take a nap, you can't be surprised when someone comes over, beats the crap out of you, and takes everything you've got., and yes, this even happens right in front of police stations in the ghettos I've lived in.
Translation to EvE: Smart pilot: Don't lload billions into a freighter. Check killboards for ganks along your route,put known bumpers on watchlist so you know if they're on, use other basic intel tools. Bring a scout. Bring webs to get you out faster The other guy: Loads multiple times his hull's value in the hold, doesn't use scouts, doesn't use webs and takes almost a minute to warp off the gate.
Remember, highsec isn't the suburbs, it's the ghetto. Lowsec is the slums. Nullsec is a dictatorial 3rd world country. Wormholes are the badlands from Mad Max.
bigbud skunkafella wrote:a vast majority of genuinely neutral observers would look at this and agree it's akin to the example an opponent of any change to this mechanic made , ie a hijacked truck being rammed off the road by another truck for an hour or more before actually being hijacked and robbed while the authorities did nothing till the actual hijack /robbery took place. Actually, the hijacked truck is a bad analogy. The one above is far more fitting.
bigbud skunkafella wrote:most, if not all opponents in this thread have a direct stake in maintaining the status quo, and have contributed little to the discussion apart from hot air and trolling in an apparent attempt to close the thread. Or, maybe most of them are like me. The status quo doesn't matter as much as keeping the sandbox from being used by the local cats.
bigbud skunkafella wrote:I have made several suggestions , mostly in an attempt to find a balance that involves more player driven content ie fun , rather than suspect/criminal timers as some have suggested. The issue here is you're trying to balance something that is only perceived as unbalanced due to one side being either afraid or unwilling to do anything about it without coded permission. The imbalance is in the player attitudes, not the mechanic.
bigbud skunkafella wrote:if any opponents have anything more substantial to say , hell , even a suggestion themselves for the sake of discussion, please let's hear it . I had a good one that apparently got misplaced in the purge.
Every member of the AG crowd dedicates one character slot and trains up an anti-bumper ganking alt. Then, they spend a couple hours a week participating in coordinated anti-bumper ganks to protect freighters.
The AG crowd claims gankers are afraid of real PvP, this is their chance to prove it. The ganker community claims elite Pvper status, also their chance to prove it.
The AG crowd can still bear away on their mains without risking their precious sec status or worrying about those evil killrights.
The ganker community gets some good fights, and maybe a bit more respect from the AG crowd once they learn that coordinating those ganks isn't the "easy kills" they think it is.
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?
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25830
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 23:22:17 -
[1056] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:would your proposed super mjd be immune to scram so the freighter would have some means of escape from being permanently troll tackled in an empty system ? None of the other modules in the MJD family are immune to scrams, why should this proposed module be any different?
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4621
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 23:24:40 -
[1057] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Remember, highsec isn't the suburbs, it's the ghetto. Lowsec is the slums. Nullsec is a dictatorial 3rd world country. Wormholes are the badlands from Mad Max.
Can we get flame throwing guitars?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21179
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 23:28:27 -
[1058] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:would your proposed super mjd be immune to scram so the freighter would have some means of escape from being permanently troll tackled in an empty system ? None of the other modules in the MJD family are immune to scrams, why should this proposed module be any different? Because of the rampant troll tackling that's happening in empty systems, throughout highsec of course. Didn't you know?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44227
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 23:36:53 -
[1059] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:would your proposed super mjd be immune to scram so the freighter would have some means of escape from being permanently troll tackled in an empty system ?
If:
bigbud skunkafella wrote:those ideas certainly have merit , it would make some sort of freighter escort essential and create lots of content .
is true, how would troll tackling in an empty system occur?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
272
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 23:38:39 -
[1060] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:
Besides, you're talking about a change that has limited scope inside highsec, but a much, much broader impact in other areas. Trying to pawn this off as CCP catering to Goonswarm is disingenuous.
if you want to call guaranteed freighter wreck looting by miniluv /code of limited scope inside highsec then u just go ahead.
The only reason it's guaranteed is because AG are too scared to field the half a dozen thrashers to stop them. Again, the options are there. If they fail to use them, it's entire their fault.
Did CCP cater to CFC exclusivelly with this change - certainly not. Was there a significant contribution from freighter ganking groups (minluv and code) to push for this - I'm pretty certain. Wreck HP has been whined about by freighter gankers for a while.
As for wrecks, they take either two tornadoes or at least 8 thrashers (add a few to be sure). Fun fact, it will be easier (or at least as hard) to gank an active fit pve tengu then a wreck of a freighter. I find that hillarious. |
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4623
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 23:39:49 -
[1061] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:
Besides, you're talking about a change that has limited scope inside highsec, but a much, much broader impact in other areas. Trying to pawn this off as CCP catering to Goonswarm is disingenuous.
if you want to call guaranteed freighter wreck looting by miniluv /code of limited scope inside highsec then u just go ahead.
The only reason it's guaranteed is because AG are too scared to field the half a dozen thrashers to stop them. Again, the options are there. If they fail to use them, it's entire their fault. Did CCP cater to CFC exclusivelly with this change - certainly not. Was there a significant contribution from freighter ganking groups (minluv and code) to push for this - I'm pretty certain. Wreck HP has been whined about by freighter gankers for a while. As for wrecks, they take either two tornadoes or at least 8 thrashers (add a few to be sure). Fun fact, it will be easier (or at least as hard) to gank an active fit pve tengu then a wreck of a freighter. I find that hillarious.
Look who is talking about motivations.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
273
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 23:45:03 -
[1062] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:... Look who is talking about motivations. I do hope that you are trolling hard buddy, because if you're not... |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44227
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 23:49:45 -
[1063] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:As for wrecks, they take either two tornadoes or at least 8 thrashers (add a few to be sure). Fun fact, it will be easier (or at least as hard) to gank an active fit pve tengu then a wreck of a freighter. I find that hillarious. That's an hilarious lossmail.
The guy is unfortunately 1:32 on his killboard.
So probably worth qualifying the statement as, it will be easier to gank some active fit pve tengus than a wreck of a freighter.
The guy just has no pvp experience, so flaming him (see rule 36) by pointing out that he is easier to kill than a wreck, is unfortunate.
Put that same tengu in someone else's hands and the outcome would be very different. The guy deserves some help, not ridicule to make a point about how some players are worse than stationary objects.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
273
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 23:54:01 -
[1064] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:As for wrecks, they take either two tornadoes or at least 8 thrashers (add a few to be sure). Fun fact, it will be easier (or at least as hard) to gank an active fit pve tengu then a wreck of a freighter. I find that hillarious. That's an hilarious lossmail. The guy is unfortunately 1:32 on his killboard. So probably worth qualifying the statement as, it will be easier to gank some active fit pve tengus than a wreck of a freighter. The guy just has no pvp experience, so flaming him ( see rule 36) by pointing out that he is easier to kill than a wreck, is unfortunate. Put that same tengu in someone else's hands and the outcome would be very different. The guy deserves some help, not ridicule to make a point about how some players are worse than stationary objects. The point was not ridiculing, it was illustrating the fact that it will be easier to kill a pve fit tengu then a wreck, capital or not. His fit, while not the best, was certainly working for his purposes and definetely wasn't the worst I've ever seen. |
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 23:54:35 -
[1065] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:would your proposed super mjd be immune to scram so the freighter would have some means of escape from being permanently troll tackled in an empty system ? None of the other modules in the MJD family are immune to scrams, why should this proposed module be any different? Because of the rampant troll tackling that's happening in empty systems, throughout highsec of course. Didn't you know?
yes , it would probably become an issue if pedros suggestion came to pass, i'm discussing his proposal in a constructive manner, while u... ?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21180
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 23:58:01 -
[1066] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Mag's wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:would your proposed super mjd be immune to scram so the freighter would have some means of escape from being permanently troll tackled in an empty system ? None of the other modules in the MJD family are immune to scrams, why should this proposed module be any different? Because of the rampant troll tackling that's happening in empty systems, throughout highsec of course. Didn't you know? yes , it would probably become an issue if pedros suggestion came to pass, i'm discussing his proposal in a constructive manner, while u... ? Constructive? Oh you're in that frame of mind atm. Cool. How about answering those questions?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44227
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 23:58:05 -
[1067] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:The point was not ridiculing, it was illustrating the fact that it will be easier to kill a pve fit tengu then a wreck, capital or not. His fit, while not the best, was certainly working for his purposes and definetely wasn't the worst I've ever seen. Except that it won't.
What are the resists of a wreck?
What are the resists (even base) of that Tengu fit?
Total damage =/= total output hit values.
The incoming damage is mitigated by resists, so that even with 14K damage on the lossmail, the total required damage output is significantly higher.
Whereas for a wreck, it's just a flat 15K of any damage profile, since resists are 0.
You are ridiculing a guy without even the knowledge of what the total damage output was required to get through his resists to do 14K damage. Nice one.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 23:59:09 -
[1068] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:would your proposed super mjd be immune to scram so the freighter would have some means of escape from being permanently troll tackled in an empty system ? If: bigbud skunkafella wrote:those ideas certainly have merit , it would make some sort of freighter escort essential and create lots of content . is true, how would troll tackling in an empty system occur?
there are hundreds of freighters plying their trade at any one point in the game, in response to pedros suggestion, i am trying to work out the pitfalls in a constructive manner, u got anything constructive to add , lets hear it, otherwise please carry on and i'll hide your posts to spend time discussing the topic of this thread with people who have some decent input to share . thanks
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
30
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 23:59:18 -
[1069] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:
Besides, you're talking about a change that has limited scope inside highsec, but a much, much broader impact in other areas. Trying to pawn this off as CCP catering to Goonswarm is disingenuous.
if you want to call guaranteed freighter wreck looting by miniluv /code of limited scope inside highsec then u just go ahead.
The only reason it's guaranteed is because AG are too scared to field the half a dozen thrashers to stop them. Again, the options are there. If they fail to use them, it's entire their fault. so ag should just reship from their limited numbers of logi/ecm/pew pew ships into thrashers to pop a possibly empty wreck? They should be aware enough of the situation to recognize when the anti-gank has failed, and already be reshipping before the freighter pops. Just stage ship near where the ganks usually happen, just like the gankers do. Or, they could simply stop trying to save people from their own compounded failures and just simply undock in the ships to pop the wreck in the first place.
Well there are times the ganks fail at 10% hull because reps were applied....So at what point do you become aware enough of the situation to change ships? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16210
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 23:59:55 -
[1070] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:The point was not ridiculing, it was illustrating the fact that it will be easier to kill a pve fit tengu then a wreck, capital or not. His fit, while not the best, was certainly working for his purposes and definetely wasn't the worst I've ever seen. Except that it won't. What are the resists of a wreck? What are the resists (even base) of that Tengu fit? Total damage =/= total output hit values. The incoming damage is mitigated by resists, so that even with 14K damage on the lossmail, the total required damage output is significantly higher. Whereas for a wreck, it's just a flat 15K of any damage profile, since resists are 0. You are ridiculing a guy without even the knowledge of what the total damage output was required to get through his resists to do 1`4K damage. Nice one.
Forget resists, there's a zero transversal.
Although their tears and hypocrisy is frankly 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.
|
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44227
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 00:03:04 -
[1071] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:there are hundreds of freighters plying their trade at any one point in the game, in response to pedros suggestion, i am trying to work out the pitfalls in a constructive manner, u got anything constructive to add , lets hear it, What pitfalls?
You yourself acknowledged that the proposal has merit on the basis of making some sort of escort essential.
If an escort is essential, then how can a freighter be troll tackled in an empty system?
That's not trolling. It's asking a simple question on the basis of the information already added to the thread.
If an escort is essential, how does one get permanently troll tackled?
Constructive question, hoping for a constructive answer.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44227
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 00:05:57 -
[1072] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Forget resists, there's a zero transversal. Yeah, I was just trying to make it as simple as possible.
If the tengu was also stationary and there was 0 transversal, the 14K damage still doesn't mean it was easier to kill than a wreck.
It's just a poor understanding of the values on a killmail.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
274
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 00:12:55 -
[1073] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote: Whereas for a wreck, it's just a flat 15K of any damage profile, since resists are 0.
You are ridiculing a guy without even the knowledge of what the total damage output was required to get through his resists to do 14K damage. Nice one.
Again, I'm ridiculing noone, if anyone, you are trying to do that.
As for resis, I have no idea how he died, was it inside of a site, in a belt? Were his invulns on or not? If you are planing on ganking a pve boat you will usually pre-scan him and prepare to hit him where his lowest resistance lays, so what the purpose of your 'story' is - I have no idea.
What's relevant is that a thrasher with t2 arties puts out about 2000 alpha damage so for a 15k ehp w/o resis, you still need at least 8 of them and more to make the kill certain. My point stands - being able to gank a pve t3 cruiser easier then a wreck of a transport capital ship is funny. If you want to, go and look for 'better' tengu fits who also died to ganking squads. |
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 00:14:26 -
[1074] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:there are hundreds of freighters plying their trade at any one point in the game, in response to pedros suggestion, i am trying to work out the pitfalls in a constructive manner, u got anything constructive to add , lets hear it, What pitfalls? You yourself acknowledged that the proposal has merit on the basis of making some sort of escort essential. If an escort is essential, then how can a freighter be troll tackled in an empty system? That's not trolling. It's asking a simple question on the basis of the information already added to the thread. If an escort is essential, how does one get permanently troll tackled? Constructive question, hoping for a constructive answer.
if, as pedro suggests tackling a freighter is to become a suspect level offence , then there is nothing to prevent troll tackling indefinitely of any unescorted freighters in an empty or near empty system , which would just replace the problem of unlimited bumping with unlimited tackle. hence my suggestion that the tackle is only allowed in 0.5 systems to prevent abuse of this mechanic.
his idea has some merit as i said, let's discuss . |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16210
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 00:17:17 -
[1075] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Forget resists, there's a zero transversal. Yeah, I was just trying to make it as simple as possible. If the tengu was also stationary and there was 0 transversal, the 14K damage still doesn't mean it was easier to kill than a wreck. But absolutely, if the tengu is moving at all to mitigate damage, that also reduces incoming damage. It's just a poor understanding of what the values on a killmail mean. If it was stationary and fit with polarized launchers, then yeah it could be totally easier to kill than a wreck. But otherwise, it's not the right conclusion.
Not like we weren't already aware that anti gankers don't actually know how to play the game.
"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
44227
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 00:17:30 -
[1076] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:there are hundreds of freighters plying their trade at any one point in the game, in response to pedros suggestion, i am trying to work out the pitfalls in a constructive manner, u got anything constructive to add , lets hear it, What pitfalls? You yourself acknowledged that the proposal has merit on the basis of making some sort of escort essential. If an escort is essential, then how can a freighter be troll tackled in an empty system? That's not trolling. It's asking a simple question on the basis of the information already added to the thread. If an escort is essential, how does one get permanently troll tackled? Constructive question, hoping for a constructive answer. if, as pedro suggests tackling a freighter is to become a suspect level offence , then there is nothing to prevent troll tackling indefinitely of any unescorted freighters in an empty or near empty system , which would just replace the problem of unlimited bumping with unlimited tackle. hence my suggestion that the tackle is only allowed in 0.5 systems to prevent abuse of this mechanic. his idea has some merit as i said, let's discuss . Adding my above edit here to explain my thinking:
If the freighter pilot was silly enough to not have the essential escort and is tackled, he could just burn back to the gate slowly and jump through, then continue on his journey a different way, or get an escort to assist him?
So a permanent troll tackle is not possible at all with current mechanics modified by the proposal. So how would it be possible, even without the essential escort?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44227
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 00:19:08 -
[1077] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Again, I'm ridiculing noone, if anyone, you are trying to do that. Read the rules. You are the one that broke them to post a guys lossmail as evidence that some ships will be easier to kill than stationary wrecks.
You certainly weren't posting it in praise of his abilities and on top of that you were wrong in how you read the lossmail.
Quote:As for resis, I have no idea how he died, was it inside of a site, in a belt? Were his invulns on or not? If you are planing on ganking a pve boat you will usually pre-scan him and prepare to hit him where his lowest resistance lays, so what the purpose of your 'story' is - I have no idea So you admit to having no idea, yet you post it as evidence (wrongly) that a pve tengu will be easier to kill than a wreck?
If you have no idea, then it's worth getting an idea before wrongly posting someone's lossmail because he had the misfortune to be ganked.
For example, the lowest shield resist of that fit for even a basically skills character is 48.3%, so with it being a shield tank, only half the incoming damage would get through his resists if everyone was firing EM damage.
And no, I'm not ridiculing him. His lossmail should not be in this thread at all.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
274
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 00:26:19 -
[1078] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Again, I'm ridiculing noone, if anyone, you are trying to do that. Read the rules. You are the one that broke them to post a guys lossmail as evidence that some ships will be easier to kill than stationary wrecks. You certainly weren't posting it in praise of his abilities and on top of that you were wrong in how you read the lossmail. ... and as soon as you've indicated what my error was, I've edited the posts :). Now can we get back to what the thread is supposed to be about, i.e. bumping and looting. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44228
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 00:30:06 -
[1079] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:... and as soon as you've indicated what my error was, I've edited the posts :). Now can we get back to what the thread is supposed to be about, i.e. bumping and looting. Don't make incorrect claims about ganking wrecks and I'm sure we probably can stay on bumping and looting.
That's a good idea.
There's also no spin in pointing out the facts.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4623
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 00:33:41 -
[1080] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:As for wrecks, they take either two tornadoes or at least 8 thrashers (add a few to be sure). Fun fact, it will be easier (or at least as hard) to gank an active fit pve tengu then a wreck of a freighter. I find that hillarious. That's an hilarious lossmail. The guy is unfortunately 1:32 on his killboard. So probably worth qualifying the statement as, it will be easier to gank some active fit pve tengus than a wreck of a freighter. The guy just has no pvp experience, so flaming him ( see rule 36) by pointing out that he is easier to kill than a wreck, is unfortunate. Put that same tengu in someone else's hands and the outcome would be very different. The guy deserves some help, not ridicule to make a point about how some players are worse than stationary objects.
Not only that, but looking at what killed him my guess is they were shooting right into his resist hole too. EM is...errr was his weakest resist.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44228
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 00:35:05 -
[1081] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Not only that, but looking at what killed him my guess is they were shooting right into his resist hole too. EM is...errr was his weakest resist. For a low skill character, 48.3% more in shields and 50% more in armor than the 0% resist of a wreck.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 00:35:39 -
[1082] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:if we look at bumping in hisec in it's current form logically the ability of a person to obstruct another person by deliberately ramming their ship to prevent them entering warp for a potentially unlimited amount of time with the intent of holding them there until they can be murdered and robbed by a bunch of cutthroat pirates while the relevant authorities take no action makes no sense whatsoever. A decent analogy for freighter bumping is the old ghetto analogy. A freighter flying through areas where gankers operate is like walking through the ghetto. A smart person walking through this ghetto carries little cash, pay attention to his surroundings, brings friends if possible, hell, maybe even brings a car to make the trip quickly. When you tape a $100 bill to your forehead, wear a blindfold, and lay down to take a nap, you can't be surprised when someone comes over, beats the crap out of you, and takes everything you've got., and yes, this even happens right in front of police stations in the ghettos I've lived in. Translation to EvE: Smart pilot: Don't lload billions into a freighter. Check killboards for ganks along your route,put known bumpers on watchlist so you know if they're on, use other basic intel tools. Bring a scout. Bring webs to get you out faster The other guy: Loads multiple times his hull's value in the hold, doesn't use scouts, doesn't use webs and takes almost a minute to warp off the gate. Remember, highsec isn't the suburbs, it's the ghetto. Lowsec is the slums. Nullsec is a dictatorial 3rd world country. Wormholes are the badlands from Mad Max. [quote=bigbud skunkafella]a vast majority of genuinely neutral observers would look at this and agree it's akin to the example an opponent of any change to this mechanic made , ie a hijacked truck being rammed off the road by another truck for an hour or more before actually being hijacked and robbed while the authorities did nothing till the actual hijack /robbery took place. Actually, the hijacked truck is a bad analogy. The one above is far more fitting.
so you're trying to tell me that even in the worst ghettos in the world, the authorities would stand by and do absolutely nothing if trucks empty or otherwise passing thru were regularly rammed repeatedly for hours before being hijacked/robbed and would only respond at the moment of actual robbery/hijack ?
edit; soz, messed up quotes again lol |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
276
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 00:37:46 -
[1083] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:For example, the lowest shield resist of that fit for even a basically skills character is 48.3%, so with it being a shield tank, only half the incoming damage would get through his resists if everyone was firing EM damage. Dunno, maybe you'll be doing the gank away from gates in a system which has concord response time allowing for two-three cycles as opposed to ganking a wreck with concord on grid. Just some ideas.
Quote:And no, I'm not ridiculing him. His lossmail should not be in this thread at all, especially when it doesn't demonstrate what you claim it does. Oh please, drag this a bit more
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4623
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 00:38:27 -
[1084] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:The point was not ridiculing, it was illustrating the fact that it will be easier to kill a pve fit tengu then a wreck, capital or not. His fit, while not the best, was certainly working for his purposes and definetely wasn't the worst I've ever seen. Except that it won't. What are the resists of a wreck? What are the resists (even base) of that Tengu fit? Total damage =/= total output hit values. The incoming damage is mitigated by resists, so that even with 14K damage on the lossmail, the total required damage output is significantly higher. Whereas for a wreck, it's just a flat 15K of any damage profile, since resists are 0. You are ridiculing a guy without even the knowledge of what the total damage output was required to get through his resists to do 14K damage. Nice one.
Shield Resist/Armor Resist
EM: 48.3%/50% Therm: 89.7%/86.3% Kin: 84.5%/62.5% Exp: 74.1%/10%
That is with my skills. His worst EHP is for EM.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 00:41:22 -
[1085] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:there are hundreds of freighters plying their trade at any one point in the game, in response to pedros suggestion, i am trying to work out the pitfalls in a constructive manner, u got anything constructive to add , lets hear it, What pitfalls? You yourself acknowledged that the proposal has merit on the basis of making some sort of escort essential. If an escort is essential, then how can a freighter be troll tackled in an empty system? That's not trolling. It's asking a simple question on the basis of the information already added to the thread. If an escort is essential, how does one get permanently troll tackled? Constructive question, hoping for a constructive answer. if, as pedro suggests tackling a freighter is to become a suspect level offence , then there is nothing to prevent troll tackling indefinitely of any unescorted freighters in an empty or near empty system , which would just replace the problem of unlimited bumping with unlimited tackle. hence my suggestion that the tackle is only allowed in 0.5 systems to prevent abuse of this mechanic. his idea has some merit as i said, let's discuss . Adding my above edit here to explain my thinking: If the freighter pilot was silly enough to not have the essential escort and is tackled, he could just burn back to the gate slowly and jump through, then continue on his journey a different way, or get an escort to assist him?
So a permanent troll tackle is not possible at all with current mechanics modified by the proposal. So how would it be possible, even without the essential escort?
of course, theres nothing to stop the troll tackler from jumping bak thru, or having a fleet mate on other side is there? |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44229
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 00:41:45 -
[1086] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Dunno, maybe you'll be doing the gank away from gates in a system which has concord response time allowing for two-three cycles as opposed to ganking a wreck with concord on grid. Just some ideas. I don't gank. It's not what I play the game for.
Aside from that, it woudln't matter. Posting a 14.1K damage lossmail as proof that a pve fit tengu is easier to kill than a wreck is factually incorrect.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
276
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 00:46:33 -
[1087] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Not only that, but looking at what killed him my guess is they were shooting right into his resist hole too. EM is...errr was his weakest resist. For a low skill character, 48.3% more in shields and 50% more in armor than the 0% resist of a wreck.
For a full level V skill char, that tengu has 17018 EHP against EM. So, one thrasher worth of volley more then a wreck. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25832
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 00:48:08 -
[1088] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:of course, theres nothing to stop the troll tackler from jumping bak thru, or having a fleet mate on other side is there? True enough for the fleetmate, not for the tackle due to weapons timers, however that risk is there for every ship, not just freighters. Also please explain the term troll tackle.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44230
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 00:49:30 -
[1089] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:of course, theres nothing to stop the troll tackler from jumping bak thru, or having a fleet mate on other side is there? Of course there is:
- Weapons timer which restricts jumping for 60 seconds
So if the tackle drops point to be able to jump, the freighter can align and warp.
If the tackle maintains tackle to prevent warp, the freighter jumps and warps.
If the extension is now that a freighter can be troll tackled in 2 empty systems because he didn't bring his essential escort, then where does it end?
How many concessions needs to be made before you agree that enough is enough and at some point, the Freighter pilot also has to take some responsibility for the situation?
Why for example couldn't he jump in Corp chat, or anti-ganking, or gank-intel, or any other public chat channel and announce that an easy kill is available for anyone that wants to come?
Why not just do away with flying in space for freighters all together and just let us /moveme command our way from one station to another?
Hopefully that is a ridiculous suggestion to everyone, but at what point between there and jumping back through the gate is enough, enough?
From where I look at it, it seems there is never a point at which the freighter pilot has to be responsible for his decision.
At one point, the suggestion is good because that means content will be generated and an escort will be essential. But then, wait what if someone doesn't take their essential escort, then in additionto removing bumping, MJD mechanics need to be changed as well.
We still need to give them an out?
Easier just to go with a /moveme implementation for freighters.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44230
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 01:00:08 -
[1090] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:For a full level V skill char, that tengu has 17018 EHP against EM. So, one thrasher worth of volley more then a wreck. A fully skilled character will not sit still. A fully skilled character would overheat during a gank to sends resists highers. A fully skilled character would overheat his AB to pull range and get from optimal into falloff.
A fully skilled character who did just those 3 basic things would have 29.2K EHP and would be mitigating damage the whole time:
http://puu.sh/mWb1L/a3d2524962.png
And at the end of the day, your claim that a pve tengu is easier to kill than a wreck is still wrong, even without hypotheticals about what someone would do.
So much for getting back to bumping and looting I guess.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
|
Enabran' Tain
Viziam Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 01:02:47 -
[1091] - Quote
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.
Vectors: The speed and mass of the ship could play a part in rather or not it is registered as an actual aggressive bump, as micro warp drives are needed and they increase the mass of the ship greatly.
Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot, but if the bumper tries to bump the orca into other ships multiple times, it will not cause a suspect timer for the Orca due to lack of necessary speed for it to register as an aggressive bump.
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 and done deliberately. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44230
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 01:03:26 -
[1092] - Quote
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.
Vectors: The speed and mass of the ship could play a part in rather or not it is registered as an actual aggressive bump, as micro warp drives are needed and they increase the mass of the ship greatly.
Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot, but if the bumper tries to bump the orca into other ships multiple times, it will not cause a suspect timer for the Orca due to lack of necessary speed for it to register as an aggressive bump.
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 and done deliberately. Yeah it's awesome. I totally agree with this suggestion.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25832
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 01:04:33 -
[1093] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Not only that, but looking at what killed him my guess is they were shooting right into his resist hole too. EM is...errr was his weakest resist. For a low skill character, 48.3% more in shields and 50% more in armor than the 0% resist of a wreck. For a full level V skill char, that tengu has 17018 EHP against EM. So, one thrasher worth of volley more then a wreck. I should point out that this figure is only true with everything running, if the modules are inactive the EHP against EM is 12764 according to EveHQ; in short the modules being active gives 33% more tank than them being off.
Now we have no way of knowing which is the case, or the skill levels of the pilot involved, so for arguments sake I say that we use the middle ground of 14800 if we're going to use it as an example.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 01:10:14 -
[1094] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:of course, theres nothing to stop the troll tackler from jumping bak thru, or having a fleet mate on other side is there? Of course there is: - Weapons timer which restricts jumping for 60 seconds So if the tackle drops point to be able to jump, the freighter can align and warp. If the tackle maintains tackle to prevent warp, the freighter jumps and warps. If the extension is now that a freighter can be troll tackled in 2 empty systems because he didn't bring his essential escort, then where does it end? How many concessions needs to be made before you agree that enough is enough and at some point, the Freighter pilot also has to take some responsibility for the situation? Why for example couldn't he jump in Corp chat, or anti-ganking, or gank-intel, or any other public chat channel and announce that an easy kill is available for anyone that wants to come? Why not just do away with flying in space for freighters all together and just let us /moveme command our way from one station to another? Hopefully that is a ridiculous suggestion to everyone, but at what point between there and jumping back through the gate is enough, enough? From where I look at it, it seems there is never a point at which the freighter pilot has to be responsible for his decision. At one point, the suggestion is good because that means content will be generated and an escort will be essential. But then, wait what if someone doesn't take their essential escort, then in additionto removing bumping, MJD mechanics need to be changed as well. We still need to give them an out? Easier just to go with a /moveme implementation for freighters.
oh please. if the above proposal went ahead as is , then think of troll tackling and multiply x 2-300 at any one time all over hisec .just try engaging your brain before typing please or i'll have to add you to the list of timewasters whose posts i've already hidden .
so my asking pedro to clarify if his proposed 3-5 minute cycle 'super mjd' would be immune to scram is suddenly ,according to you , me suggesting that mjd mechanics need to be changed? troll harder please.
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
276
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 01:13:04 -
[1095] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:For a full level V skill char, that tengu has 17018 EHP against EM. So, one thrasher worth of volley more then a wreck. A fully skilled character will not sit still. A fully skilled character would overheat during a gank to increase resists. A fully skilled character would overheat his AB to pull range and get from optimal into falloff. A fully skilled character who did just those 3 basic things would have 29.2K EHP and would be mitigating damage the whole time: http://puu.sh/mWb1L/a3d2524962.png And at the end of the day, your claim that a pve tengu is easier to kill than a wreck is still wrong, even without hypotheticals about what someone would do. So much for getting back to bumping and looting I guess. My full V skills char was a best case illustration for ehp.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25832
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 01:14:58 -
[1096] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:For a full level V skill char, that tengu has 17018 EHP against EM. So, one thrasher worth of volley more then a wreck. A fully skilled character will not sit still. A fully skilled character would overheat during a gank to increase resists. A fully skilled character would overheat his AB to pull range and get from optimal into falloff. A fully skilled character who did just those 3 basic things would have 29.2K EHP and would be mitigating damage the whole time: http://puu.sh/mWb1L/a3d2524962.png And at the end of the day, your claim that a pve tengu is easier to kill than a wreck is still wrong, even without hypotheticals about what someone would do. So much for getting back to bumping and looting I guess. My full V skills char was a best case illustration for ehp. Best case scenario for your argument, worst case scenario for anybody trying to kill it.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44231
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 01:18:08 -
[1097] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:oh please. if the above proposal went ahead as is , then think of troll tackling and multiply x 2-300 at any one time all over hisec .just try engaging your brain before typing please or i'll have to add you to the list of timewasters whose posts i've already hidden . All I've asked since this was raised is how does a freighter with his essential escort get permanently tackled in an empty system?
If he has his escort, then the tackler gets killed.
If he doesn't have his escort, then how much more do we need to give him?
Why is the freighter pilot not responsible for his stupidity and why is not jumping into a chat channel an easy way out in that situation?
Quote:so my asking pedro to clarify if his proposed 3-5 minute cycle 'super mjd' would be immune to scram is suddenly ,according to you , me suggesting that mjd mechanics need to be changed? troll harder please. It would be a change to MJD mechanics, because MJDs are not immune to scrams.
So if you want an MJD to be immune to a scram, then the MJD mechanics need to change.
And I'm not a troll. If you've had an emotional response to a post of mine, then I'm sorry.
I'm just asking questions because no matter how much is suggested, it seems to be never enough. At some point, if there is to be consensus on anything, then there needs to be some common ground that everyone can agree on as a starting point.
So where is the last point at which enough is enough and a freighter pilot has to be responsible for his choices? If we can find that, then that will at least be something.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44231
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 01:23:59 -
[1098] - Quote
.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Paranoid Loyd
8382
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 01:31:09 -
[1099] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:click the link, because a full V skills character to EM resists has 18.6K EHP with heat: http://puu.sh/mWcHY/297c8f0128.png Maybe you used a different fit or something. That of course implies no other damage mitigation other than heat. Not even moving at all. And still, the claim that a pve tengu is easier to kill than a wreck is incorrect. Except most of the incoming damage would have been from EMP, so throw some Thermal in there to make it proper.
"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!
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 02:12:02 -
[1100] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:oh please. if the above proposal went ahead as is , then think of troll tackling and multiply x 2-300 at any one time all over hisec .just try engaging your brain before typing please or i'll have to add you to the list of timewasters whose posts i've already hidden . All I've asked since this was raised is how does a freighter with his essential escort get permanently tackled in an empty system? If he has his escort, then the tackler gets killed. If he doesn't have his escort, then how much more do we need to give him? Why is the freighter pilot not responsible for his stupidity and why is not jumping into a chat channel an easy way out in that situation? Quote:so my asking pedro to clarify if his proposed 3-5 minute cycle 'super mjd' would be immune to scram is suddenly ,according to you , me suggesting that mjd mechanics need to be changed? troll harder please. It would be a change to MJD mechanics, because MJDs are not immune to scrams. So if you want an MJD to be immune to a scram, then the MJD mechanics need to change. And I'm not a troll. If you've had an emotional response to a post of mine, then I'm sorry. I'm just asking questions because no matter how much is suggested, it seems to be never enough. At some point, if there is to be consensus on anything, then there needs to be some common ground that everyone can agree on as a starting point. So where is the last point at which enough is enough and a freighter pilot has to be responsible for his choices? If we can find that, then that will at least be something.
i never said i wanted a mjd to be immune to scram, but you can read so i guess you knew that.
any mechanics change needs to be balanced in order to void unintended consequences , the unrestricted ability to use an aggressive module on freighters anywhere in hisec without concord intervention has the potential for massive abuse / disruption of freighter traffic . hence my questions to pedro in order to clarify what he was suggesting.
my suggestion of only allowing the use of the proposed mechanic in 0.5 systems was an attempt to mitigate these potential abuses .
bumping would still be a thing too, but the unlimited bumping we see now would be prone to consequences after a short time. meaning any gankers would have to be prepared to gank their target in a shorter time period, or have multiple bumpers on standby to hold the target in place till ready to kill if its going to take more than say 10-15 mins,
this would encourage freighter pilots to have a decent escort, and gankers to target weakly or unescorted freighters. tho if an ag fleet was close by then the situation could change in a flash ...
the flag for freighters to enable fleet members to attack the bumper would create lots of content too, and encourage more pvp , while also enabling the bumper(s) to engage the freighter when it is activated. hisec could become pvp central with these changes, with potentially huge fleets duking it out in the hotspots.
dunno bout u but that sounds awesome to me
|
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44240
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 02:20:35 -
[1101] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:bumping would still be a thing too
Quote Black Pedro:
Radical idea incoming to remove bumping:
...
Quote:the flag for freighters to enable fleet members to attack the bumper would create lots of content too, and encourage more pvp , while also enabling the bumper(s) to engage the freighter when it is activated. hisec could become pvp central with these changes, with potentially huge fleets duking it out in the hotspots. dunno bout u but that sounds awesome to me Maybe we can discuss the mechanics changes on limited engagements that would be needed for this then, because currently there is no such thing as a limited engagement to a fleet.
Limited engagements exist pilot to pilot.
So either the bumping is removed as per Black Pedro's proposal to remove it and MJD mechanics change to prevent a scram from disabling them, or bumping is not removed but limited engagement mechanics are changed to accomodate freighters.
All still while no answer to the simple question of when does the freighter pilot have to take some responsibility for their own safety and accept that an escort is a simple and acceptable solution (which was recognized as essential in the first reply to Black Pedro's suggestion)?
Edit: to include the bit above that I edited but maybe after you quoted:
I'm normally one of the more moderate regulars in the forum and try to stick to verifiable facts as much as possible and be helpful where I can.
However, in this thread I can appreciate the claims by the ganking community that the anti-gankers regularly back-flip, have double standards and are hypocrits. It really does feel like that in this thread.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4627
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 02:25:33 -
[1102] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:oh please. if the above proposal went ahead as is , then think of troll tackling and multiply x 2-300 at any one time all over hisec .just try engaging your brain before typing please or i'll have to add you to the list of timewasters whose posts i've already hidden . so my asking pedro to clarify if his proposed 3-5 minute cycle 'super mjd' would be immune to scram is suddenly ,according to you , me suggesting that mjd mechanics need to be changed? troll harder please.
What, the weapons timers is a thing. You get them for any offensive module used against another player.
Quote:Also known as Weapons Flag, this flag becomes active when you activate any offensive module (weapons, stasis webifier etc.) upon another player. Some non-targeted modules, such as smartbombs or Bastion Modules, will also cause a weapons flag when activated. Regardless of the Security status of the solar system, having an active Weapons Flag will prevent you from docking in any station, jumping through stargate, ejecting from or boarding another ship while in space, and storing a ship in a corporation or fleet hangar. This flag lasts for 60 seconds, starting from the moment you open fire, and will renew each time you take further offensive action GÇô meaning that you will have to wait a full 60 seconds after the last offensive action before being able to dock, jump etc. (even if you lose your ship).
So, burn back towards gate, jump, warp and then dock. No more troll tackle. Problem solved.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21183
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 02:28:07 -
[1103] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:oh please. if the above proposal went ahead as is , then think of troll tackling and multiply x 2-300 at any one time all over hisec .just try engaging your brain before typing please or i'll have to add you to the list of timewasters whose posts i've already hidden . so my asking pedro to clarify if his proposed 3-5 minute cycle 'super mjd' would be immune to scram is suddenly ,according to you , me suggesting that mjd mechanics need to be changed? troll harder please. Please engage your brain before posting. (is that how I'm meant to say it?) The point is that you keep failing to grasp, is at some point the freighter pilot needs to accept some responsibility for his actions. Your just keep asking for more and more get out clauses.
When current hauling can be done at a safety of 99.9% and that still seems to be not enough. I have my doubts that you'll be happy until it reaches 100%.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 02:35:42 -
[1104] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:bumping would still be a thing too Quote Black Pedro: Radical idea incoming to remove bumping:
...Quote:the flag for freighters to enable fleet members to attack the bumper would create lots of content too, and encourage more pvp , while also enabling the bumper(s) to engage the freighter when it is activated. hisec could become pvp central with these changes, with potentially huge fleets duking it out in the hotspots. dunno bout u but that sounds awesome to me Maybe we can discuss the mechanics changes on limited engagements that would be needed for this then, because currently there is no such thing as a limited engagement to a fleet. Limited engagements exist pilot to pilot. So either the bumping is removed as per Black Pedro's proposal to remove it and MJD mechanics change to prevent a scram from disabling them, or bumping is not removed but limited engagement mechanics are changed to accomodate freighters. All still while no answer to the simple question of when does the freighter pilot have to take some responsibility for their own safety and accept that an escort is a simple and acceptable solution (which was recognized as essential in the first reply to Black Pedro's suggestion)? Edit: to include the bit above that I edited but maybe after you quoted:I'm normally one of the more moderate regulars in the forum and try to stick to verifiable facts as much as possible and be helpful where I can. However, in this thread I can appreciate the claims by the ganking community that the anti-gankers regularly back-flip, have double standards and are hypocrits. It really does feel like that in this thread.
well it would be pretty essential to at least have some escort capable of clearing tackle if pedros suggestion was adopted.but unless the mechanic is limited to say 0.5 systems then imo the effects could be catastrophic for the resons i outlined earlier .
yes it would be a new 'limited engagement ' thingy, but pretty easy to implement, understand.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4627
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 02:41:50 -
[1105] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
well it would be pretty essential to at least have some escort capable of clearing tackle if pedros suggestion was adopted.but unless the mechanic is limited to say 0.5 systems then imo the effects could be catastrophic for the resons i outlined earlier .
yes it would be a new 'limited engagement ' thingy, but pretty easy to implement, understand.
edit;please leave out the insults, it adds nothing to the discussion .
One can currently bump in any system. Why would using a scram or point be anymore of a thing than bumping is, especially when you can be shot without drawing CONCORD?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44240
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 02:48:58 -
[1106] - Quote
Quote:the flag for freighters to enable fleet members to attack the bumper would create lots of content too
To address this specific bit separately, since the earlier suggestion is that tacklers could setup on opposite sides of a gate and then tackle and that would be magnified 2-300 times and be a problem.
Then say I wanted to become a bumper under the new mechanics (I don't, just a hypothetical), then I could easily jump into a Mach no problems.
However, I could also put my freighter pilot alt into a Freighter and sit her on a gate.
When a target freighter comes into system and takes it's 45-50 seconds to align, I could line my Mach up and bump my freighter alt into the target. Freighter on Freighter bump.
My alt would get a limited engagement timer to me under this proposal, no problem. But now what happens between 2 seemingly totally innocent freighters that collide?
There's no MWD involved from my freighter, so all the game detects is a collision between 2 Freighters and it has already worked out that my freighter is a victim and granted her a limited engagement against my Mach.
How does it work out who gets to call in their fleet to assist and who doesn't? They are exactly the same thing, one victim already bumped by a Mach and the other just another freighter.
Like, if we are going to go to extremes of hypothetical rather than accepting at some point a Freighter pilot should actually prepare themself, then bumping a freighter into another freighter to avoid limited engagement timers seems quite possible. Maybe not everytime, but with practice it would be very possible.
Quote:yes it would be a new 'limited engagement ' thingy, but pretty easy to implement, understand. But why implement it at all. At what point does the Freighter pilot have responsibility to take some precautions too?
Where is the line drawn that accepts that flying a billion ISK, slow ship in highsec has some inherent risk and the pilot should be ready for that?
Quote:edit;please leave out the insults, it adds nothing to the discussion Don't call me a troll and we'll be fine.
I'm entitled to my opinion on things though and for the first time in 3 years here on the forum, it really feels like what I wrote above.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Enabran' Tain
Viziam Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 03:31:42 -
[1107] - Quote
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.
Vectors: The speed and mass of the ship could play a part in rather or not it is registered as an actual aggressive bump, as micro warp drives are needed and they increase the mass of the ship greatly.
Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot, but if the bumper tries to bump the orca into other ships multiple times, it will not cause a suspect timer for the Orca due to lack of necessary speed for it to register as an aggressive bump.
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 and done deliberately. |
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21184
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 03:33:27 -
[1108] - Quote
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.
Vectors: The speed and mass of the ship could play a part in rather or not it is registered as an actual aggressive bump, as micro warp drives are needed and they increase the mass of the ship greatly.
Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot, but if the bumper tries to bump the orca into other ships multiple times, it will not cause a suspect timer for the Orca due to lack of necessary speed for it to register as an aggressive bump.
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 and done deliberately. I love this idea. Please CCP, make it happen.
Edit: In fact hire this man, what could possibly go wrong?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44240
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 03:33:37 -
[1109] - Quote
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.
Vectors: The speed and mass of the ship could play a part in rather or not it is registered as an actual aggressive bump, as micro warp drives are needed and they increase the mass of the ship greatly.
Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot, but if the bumper tries to bump the orca into other ships multiple times, it will not cause a suspect timer for the Orca due to lack of necessary speed for it to register as an aggressive bump.
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 and done deliberately. Yes this is awesome. CCP should implement this.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17279
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 04:39:15 -
[1110] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote: Cruisers bump battleships just fine. There is no possible way for a mach to have twice the agility of a cruiser.
GL bumping the mach fit I listed above with any kind of reliability. As for agility, yes there is - fit an oversize mwd to cruiser (fit for bumping the freighter).
Why are you fitting an oversized MWD in the first place?
A single cruiser ramming into a MWDing mach will knock the mach out of alignment and force it to miss its target. I have had it done to me so many times out in null when trying to bump carriers I have lost count.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17281
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 05:08:12 -
[1111] - Quote
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.
Stick orca/bowhead in front of autopiloting freighter, let it hit 5 times, blow up now agressed afk freighter with a stealth bomber.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4630
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 06:14:02 -
[1112] - Quote
baltec1 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.
Stick orca/bowhead in front of autopiloting freighter, let it hit 5 times, blow up now agressed afk freighter with a stealth bomber.
Awwww man you ruined it!
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Brad Neece
The Scope Gallente Federation
30
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 06:22:29 -
[1113] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote: Cruisers bump battleships just fine. There is no possible way for a mach to have twice the agility of a cruiser.
GL bumping the mach fit I listed above with any kind of reliability. As for agility, yes there is - fit an oversize mwd to cruiser (fit for bumping the freighter). Why are you fitting an oversized MWD in the first place? A single cruiser ramming into a MWDing mach will knock the mach out of alignment and force it to miss its target. I have had it done to me so many times out in null when trying to bump carriers I have lost count.
Do you have any videos or anything to make this, observable ? Because it's a miss for me everytime.....I'm not approaching, I'm aiming ahead of it's intended direction..... And at times the angle of adjustment needed to catch the bumper, causes me to bump the freighter in the process, A simple fit you can share? Or tactic that is missing in my approach? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4630
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 06:22:47 -
[1114] - Quote
Personally I think we should all endeavor to get on bigbud's block list so this thread can die.
We can ignore Rhamemanuel or whatever her name is as she's just a goofball. Then this thread can die and sink below page 1 and die the ignominious death it deserves.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2176
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 06:24:12 -
[1115] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
well it would be pretty essential to at least have some escort capable of clearing tackle if pedros suggestion was adopted.but unless the mechanic is limited to say 0.5 systems then imo the effects could be catastrophic for the resons i outlined earlier .
yes it would be a new 'limited engagement ' thingy, but pretty easy to implement, understand.
edit;please leave out the insults, it adds nothing to the discussion .
I am not advocating for any of this for the record. Bumping in my eyes works perfectly fine in that it is almost 100% avoidable with a small amount of effort, and can lead to an escalation of fights - if it has any problems it is just that the mechanic is unintuitive to those that don't understand the game. But if you want to throw around ideas:
Idea two: Capital Interdictor deployable. A moderately expensive deployable that takes a minute to online (to allow scouts to see one is on a gate ahead). It can be scooped at this point, but if activated it is consumed. It can be activated on any capital ship having the effect of an infinite point near instantly and a timer starts (say 20 minutes). During this time the deployable is vulnerable and if it is destroyed, the tackled capital receives a short buff that boosts its agility and immunity to point so it can instawarp. Anyone who attacks the deployable goes suspect of course.
This allows aggressors to tackle a capital ship and the escorts a legal way to get out of it. It also could be used by the escorts to escape from a bumper by deploying it and then destroying it so there probably should be a short period of invulnerability (5 minutes? Although that could be the original deployment timer) so that aggressors can get some ships on the field to defend the deployable in that case.
A variant of this which could enable the other capitals in highsec is to have the deployable turn the capital ship suspect at the end of the 20 minutes. It would serve sort of an entosis mechanism forcing a fight where the capital ship's side is trying to destroy the deployable to free the ship, while the aggressors are trying to defend it so that CONCORD goes away and a real fight against the carrier or whatever can happen.
All of this, and the escalation idea it is centered around are hampered by the way flags work in highsec though. If you make a bumper or looter suspect now, the other side would just shoot it from behind the protection of CONCORD with no risk or escalation of the fight possible. Ideally you would want some system where if you join the game of cops and robbers you are now vulnerable to everyone on the other side rather than each side just sniping the other behind the safety of the NPCs.
Something drastic will have to change if CCP follows through with allowing capitals back into highsec though. My guess is any change to bumping is going to have to wait until then. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2147
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 07:31:30 -
[1116] - Quote
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.
Vectors: The speed and mass of the ship could play a part in rather or not it is registered as an actual aggressive bump, as micro warp drives are needed and they increase the mass of the ship greatly.
Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot, but if the bumper tries to bump the orca into other ships multiple times, it will not cause a suspect timer for the Orca due to lack of necessary speed for it to register as an aggressive bump.
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 and done deliberately. +1
If you post it one more time CCP may actually implement it. You should add some story about why it will attract new players and increase CCP's revenue stream.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
276
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 07:33:53 -
[1117] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
A single cruiser ramming into a MWDing mach will knock the mach out of alignment and force it to miss its target. I have had it done to me so many times out in null when trying to bump carriers I have lost count.
I'd make a wild guess there's a bit of difference between Mach fitted for PvP in null/low and a hisec bumper. But that is just my guess. |
Enabran' Tain
Viziam Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 07:49:26 -
[1118] - Quote
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, at a certain speed, the aggressor gets a suspect timer for just the aggressed and everyone in his fleet, to attack.
Vectors: Quote:The speed and mass of the ship could play a part in rather or not it is registered as an actual aggressive bump, as micro warp drives are needed and they increase the mass of the ship greatly.
Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot, but if the bumper tries to bump the orca into other ships multiple times, it will not cause a suspect timer for the Orca due to lack of necessary speed for it to register as an aggressive bump.
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 and done deliberately.
The speed and mass would literally determine an aggressive bump. Hitting someone going several thousand k/sec multiple times in minutes would earn a suspect time. |
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21188
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 07:51:11 -
[1119] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Personally I think we should all endeavor to get on bigbud's block list so this thread can die.
We can ignore Rhamemanuel or whatever her name is as she's just a goofball. Then this thread can die and sink below page 1 and die the ignominious death it deserves. To get on the block list, you simply have to ask awkward questions. The ones none of them want to confront, as it breaks their argument.
Rham. Well she does have issues with evidence, although now 'wild guesses' may prevail. But she has provided some entertainment, so it's not all bad. Well it is, but it was funny bad. If you know what I mean. I'll get my coat.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21188
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 07:51:57 -
[1120] - Quote
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, at a certain speed, the aggressor gets a suspect timer for just the aggressed and everyone in his fleet, to attack. Vectors: Quote:The speed and mass of the ship could play a part in rather or not it is registered as an actual aggressive bump, as micro warp drives are needed and they increase the mass of the ship greatly. Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot, but if the bumper tries to bump the orca into other ships multiple times, it will not cause a suspect timer for the Orca due to lack of necessary speed for it to register as an aggressive bump. 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 and done deliberately. The speed and mass would literally determine an aggressive bump. Hitting someone going several thousand k/sec multiple times in minutes would earn a suspect time. This needs to be a thing ASAP.
Please hire this guy.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44249
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 07:56:15 -
[1121] - Quote
Mag's 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, at a certain speed, the aggressor gets a suspect timer for just the aggressed and everyone in his fleet, to attack. Vectors: Quote:The speed and mass of the ship could play a part in rather or not it is registered as an actual aggressive bump, as micro warp drives are needed and they increase the mass of the ship greatly. Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot, but if the bumper tries to bump the orca into other ships multiple times, it will not cause a suspect timer for the Orca due to lack of necessary speed for it to register as an aggressive bump. 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 and done deliberately. The speed and mass would literally determine an aggressive bump. Hitting someone going several thousand k/sec multiple times in minutes would earn a suspect time. This needs to be a thing ASAP. Please hire this guy. +1
I wonder how many more +1s I'll give it in this thread, but only because it's an awesome idea.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21213
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 07:57:49 -
[1122] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Mag's 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, at a certain speed, the aggressor gets a suspect timer for just the aggressed and everyone in his fleet, to attack. Vectors: Quote:The speed and mass of the ship could play a part in rather or not it is registered as an actual aggressive bump, as micro warp drives are needed and they increase the mass of the ship greatly. Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot, but if the bumper tries to bump the orca into other ships multiple times, it will not cause a suspect timer for the Orca due to lack of necessary speed for it to register as an aggressive bump. 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 and done deliberately. The speed and mass would literally determine an aggressive bump. Hitting someone going several thousand k/sec multiple times in minutes would earn a suspect time. This needs to be a thing ASAP. Please hire this guy. +1 I wonder how many more +1s I'll give it in this thread, but only because it's an awesome idea. I know right. I'm so disappointed they shut his thread down. I was all set to +1 his OP and everything.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Enabran' Tain
Viziam Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 08:19:47 -
[1123] - Quote
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, at a certain speed, the aggressor gets a suspect timer for just the aggressed and everyone in his fleet, to attack.
Vectors: The speed and mass of the ship could play a part in rather or not it is registered as an actual aggressive bump, as micro warp drives are needed and they increase the mass of the ship greatly.
Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot, but if the bumper tries to bump the orca into other ships multiple times, it will not cause a suspect timer for the Orca due to lack of necessary speed for it to register as an aggressive bump.
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 and done deliberately.
The speed and mass would literally determine an aggressive bump. Hitting someone going several thousand k/sec multiple times in minutes would earn a suspect time. |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
276
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 08:38:04 -
[1124] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: My full V skills char was a best case illustration for ehp.
Best case scenario for your argument, worst case scenario for anybody trying to kill it. Exactly, which is why it's relevant since it shows how close its ehp is to ehp of a wreck.
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2149
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 08:46:59 -
[1125] - Quote
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, at a certain speed, the aggressor gets a suspect timer for just the aggressed and everyone in his fleet, to attack.
Vectors: The speed and mass of the ship could play a part in rather or not it is registered as an actual aggressive bump, as micro warp drives are needed and they increase the mass of the ship greatly.
Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot, but if the bumper tries to bump the orca into other ships multiple times, it will not cause a suspect timer for the Orca due to lack of necessary speed for it to register as an aggressive bump.
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 and done deliberately.
The speed and mass would literally determine an aggressive bump. Hitting someone going several thousand k/sec multiple times in minutes would earn a suspect time. +1 The idea gets better every time I read it. I am sorry to hear they closed your thread. Your idea really deserved it's own thread me thinks (maybe even a couple of threads, that's how good it is).
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21213
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 08:51:03 -
[1126] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou 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, at a certain speed, the aggressor gets a suspect timer for just the aggressed and everyone in his fleet, to attack.
Vectors: The speed and mass of the ship could play a part in rather or not it is registered as an actual aggressive bump, as micro warp drives are needed and they increase the mass of the ship greatly.
Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot, but if the bumper tries to bump the orca into other ships multiple times, it will not cause a suspect timer for the Orca due to lack of necessary speed for it to register as an aggressive bump.
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 and done deliberately.
The speed and mass would literally determine an aggressive bump. Hitting someone going several thousand k/sec multiple times in minutes would earn a suspect time. +1 The idea gets better every time I read it. I am sorry to hear they closed your thread. Your idea really deserved it's own thread me thinks (maybe even a couple of threads, that's how good it is). Or maybe even it's own forum section? Enabran' Tain's wonderful feature and idea.
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
276
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 09:00:24 -
[1127] - Quote
Enabran' Tain's mega-exploitable features and ideas? |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44249
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 09:04:20 -
[1128] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Enabran' Tain's mega-exploitable features and ideas? We all just think it's awesome.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2151
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 09:06:23 -
[1129] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Enabran' Tain's mega-exploitable features and ideas? What are you talking about?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17282
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 09:21:03 -
[1130] - Quote
Brad Neece wrote:baltec1 wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote: Cruisers bump battleships just fine. There is no possible way for a mach to have twice the agility of a cruiser.
GL bumping the mach fit I listed above with any kind of reliability. As for agility, yes there is - fit an oversize mwd to cruiser (fit for bumping the freighter). Why are you fitting an oversized MWD in the first place? A single cruiser ramming into a MWDing mach will knock the mach out of alignment and force it to miss its target. I have had it done to me so many times out in null when trying to bump carriers I have lost count. Do you have any videos or anything to make this, observable ? Because it's a miss for me everytime.....I'm not approaching, I'm aiming ahead of it's intended direction..... And at times the angle of adjustment needed to catch the bumper, causes me to bump the freighter in the process, A simple fit you can share? Or tactic that is missing in my approach?
Don't go from the Side. Start point is the freighter, when the battleship starts it's run you ram it head on this will cause it to at the very worst ping to the side and miss. The more cruisers you have to get in the way the more effective it will be.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
276
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 09:30:39 -
[1131] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Don't go from the Side. Start point is the freighter, when the battleship starts it's run you ram it head on this will cause it to at the very worst ping to the side and miss. The more cruisers you have to get in the way the more effective it will be.
I've tried this with a couter-bumping mach, while it would initially bump the bumper, the bumping mach's recovery time is very quick and he'd just get a slightly delayed bump regardless. I'd guess that using cruiser would be even less effective, but will give it a try just for argument sake. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17282
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 09:36:53 -
[1132] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote:
A single cruiser ramming into a MWDing mach will knock the mach out of alignment and force it to miss its target. I have had it done to me so many times out in null when trying to bump carriers I have lost count.
I'd make a wild guess there's a bit of difference between Mach fitted for PvP in null/low and a hisec bumper. But that is just my guess.
The game mechanics are exactly the same.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
277
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 09:37:22 -
[1133] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Enabran' Tain's mega-exploitable features and ideas? What are you talking about? You get 5 bumping machs (nothing special for code) and ram the orca while positioning a 'victim' ship directly behind the orca. Orca does 5 bumps with 1+k speeds and gets flagged. 'Victim' ship and his fleet kill orca. Profit. |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
277
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 09:40:36 -
[1134] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote:
A single cruiser ramming into a MWDing mach will knock the mach out of alignment and force it to miss its target. I have had it done to me so many times out in null when trying to bump carriers I have lost count.
I'd make a wild guess there's a bit of difference between Mach fitted for PvP in null/low and a hisec bumper. But that is just my guess. The game mechanics are exactly the same. The ship stats are not, however. |
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 09:43:05 -
[1135] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Quote:the flag for freighters to enable fleet members to attack the bumper would create lots of content too To address this specific bit separately, since the earlier suggestion is that tacklers could setup on opposite sides of a gate and then tackle and that would be magnified 2-300 times and be a problem. Then say I wanted to become a bumper under the new mechanics (I don't, just a hypothetical), then I could easily jump into a Mach no problems. However, I could also put my freighter pilot alt into a Freighter and sit her on a gate. When a target freighter comes into system and takes it's 45-50 seconds to align (or is auto piloting its 15km in from it's warpin), I could line my Mach up and bump my freighter alt into the target. Freighter on Freighter bump. My alt would get a limited engagement timer to me under this proposal, no problem. But now what happens between 2 seemingly totally innocent freighters that collide? There's no MWD involved from my freighter, so all the game detects is a collision between 2 Freighters and it has already worked out that my freighter is a victim and granted her a limited engagement against my Mach. Earlier in the thread it was claimed that up to 6 Machs bump 1 freighter, so I could easily work with at least 1 other person so we can control what happens to my freighter alt and continue to bump her into the target. How does it work out who gets to call in their fleet to assist and who doesn't? They are exactly the same thing, one victim already bumped by a Mach and the other just another freighter. Like, if we are going to go to extremes of hypothetical rather than accepting at some point a Freighter pilot should actually prepare themself, then bumping a freighter into another freighter to avoid limited engagement timers seems quite possible. Maybe not everytime, but with practice it would be very possible. Quote:yes it would be a new 'limited engagement ' thingy, but pretty easy to implement, understand. But why implement it at all. At what point does the Freighter pilot have responsibility to take some precautions too? Where is the line drawn that accepts that flying a billion ISK, slow ship in highsec has some inherent risk and the pilot should be ready for that? Why should a Freighter pilot be given out after out after out, when no one else in the game gets them? Also, no we don't know it is easy. We know that some aspects of the fleet code are difficult for CCP to currently change (there have been many calls for improvements and responses from CCP that it isn't that easy but I don't remember what), so it's isn't obvious at all that it would currently be easy to set a flag for the whole fleet (I'll see if I can hunt a reference down to confirm what I am saying, since my word alone isn't evidence..). Quote:edit;please leave out the insults, it adds nothing to the discussion Don't call me a troll and we'll be fine, so maybe a bit of the same treatment as the way you want to treated is in order. I'm entitled to my opinion on things though and for the first time in 3 years here on the forum, it really feels like what I wrote above.
under my proposal for the fleet engagement timer against bumpers, the freighter pilot would be best advised to have a fleet with him to engage the bumper if flag is obtained, an afk freighter however wouldn't be at keyboard so would be open to extended bumping with no consequence for the bumper. or he can just wing it in the hope that a fleet will be available at short notice to come to his rescue when bumped. also creates a market for bounty hunters/vigilantes/militias , whatever you want to call them .
your example of using the alt freighter is interesting, and would involve a lot of skill to prevent a freighter from escaping for an extended period , and effort, so if you can pull it off , fair play to u.
the flag timer between alts is irrelevant in the alt scenario, unless you wished to engage your alt bumper .
the risk under my proposal would still be there for all freighters, but an ak freighter pilot would have a much better chance of safe passage than an afk one. working as intended .
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25836
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 09:44:15 -
[1136] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote:
A single cruiser ramming into a MWDing mach will knock the mach out of alignment and force it to miss its target. I have had it done to me so many times out in null when trying to bump carriers I have lost count.
I'd make a wild guess there's a bit of difference between Mach fitted for PvP in null/low and a hisec bumper. But that is just my guess. The game mechanics are exactly the same. The ship stats are not, however. The ship stats are irrelevant, they are not under discussion here, the art of bumping is.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
277
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 09:47:13 -
[1137] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:The ship stats are irrelevant...
I hope you're joking. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17282
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 09:55:59 -
[1138] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote:
A single cruiser ramming into a MWDing mach will knock the mach out of alignment and force it to miss its target. I have had it done to me so many times out in null when trying to bump carriers I have lost count.
I'd make a wild guess there's a bit of difference between Mach fitted for PvP in null/low and a hisec bumper. But that is just my guess. The game mechanics are exactly the same. The ship stats are not, however.
Very little difference between a Mach and my nano mega.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 09:56:03 -
[1139] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Enabran' Tain's mega-exploitable features and ideas? What are you talking about? You get 5 bumping machs (nothing special for code) and ram the orca while positioning a 'victim' ship directly behind the orca. Orca does 5 bumps with 1+k speeds and gets flagged. 'Victim' ship and his fleet kill orca. Profit.
under my fleet flag proposal rham, there would have to be a specific set of circumstances for the flag to be obtained, an active mwd on the bumper being one of them would prevent the above from happening. the false target ship would also have to be trying to enter warp continuously to obtain a flag which i believe would render the above scenario impossible, tho i could be wrong of course cos i'm gonna be late for work and rushing a reply
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25837
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 09:58:08 -
[1140] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:The ship stats are irrelevant...
I hope you're joking. Nope.
As you're so fond of informing us, the topic under discussion is the art of bumping. A T1 cruiser fitted properly is perfectly capable of bumping a Machariel regardless of whether the Machariel is fitted for bumping or shooting people in the face.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
277
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 10:09:30 -
[1141] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:The ship stats are irrelevant...
I hope you're joking. Nope. As you're so fond of informing us, the topic under discussion is the art of bumping. A T1 cruiser fitted properly is perfectly capable of bumping a Machariel regardless of whether the Machariel is fitted for bumping or shooting people in the face. What's important is wheather that bump is consequential in terms of stopping the use of the Mach as an alignment/warp disruption tool. I'd guess that is not the case when bumping machs are concerned. I know for a fact that it doesn't work when using Mach for counter-bumping, so can't see how a t1 cruiser would be more efficient. Also, if you're trying to diconnect discussion about ship stats from discussion about counter-bumping, you are likely not really serious about the discussion in the first place. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17282
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 10:29:43 -
[1142] - Quote
Best part of this is Goons managed to mess up my bumping runs with AB harpies.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2153
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 10:35:58 -
[1143] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Enabran' Tain's mega-exploitable features and ideas? What are you talking about? You get 5 bumping machs (nothing special for code) and ram the orca while positioning a 'victim' ship directly behind the orca. Orca does 5 bumps with 1+k speeds and gets flagged. 'Victim' ship and his fleet kill orca. Profit. under my fleet flag proposal rham, there would have to be a specific set of circumstances for the flag to be obtained, an active mwd on the bumper being one of them would prevent the above from happening. the false target ship would also have to be trying to enter warp continuously to obtain a flag which i believe would render the above scenario impossible, tho i could be wrong of course cos i'm gonna be late for work and rushing a reply No, seams watertight to me, no need to think it over. A rushed fix is still a fix, and when I see the responses from the concerned AG crowd in this thread it's about time we do "something". So I would rather see this implemented sooner than later.
We all know the AG crowd is top-notch if it comes to game mechanics, so I am not concerned here at all.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
277
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 10:48:20 -
[1144] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Best part of this is Goons managed to mess up my bumping runs with AB harpies. I guess we should get goons to join the anti-bumping efforts |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25839
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 12:15:38 -
[1145] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:What's important is wheather that bump is consequential in terms of stopping the use of the Mach as an alignment/warp disruption tool. I'd guess that is not the case when bumping machs are concerned. I know for a fact that it doesn't work when using Mach for counter-bumping, so can't see how a t1 cruiser would be more efficient. You need to practice more, just because you can't do it doesn't make it impossible.
Quote:Also, if you're trying to diconnect discussion about ship stats from discussion about counter-bumping, you are likely not really serious about the discussion in the first place. That's really rich coming from somebody that wanted to disconnect discussion about ganking from discussion about bumping and looting.
The mechanics are the same regardless of the ship stats, ergo the ship stats aren't particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, which is about the mechanics.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
277
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 12:21:14 -
[1146] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote: The mechanics are the same regardless of the ship stats, ergo the ship stats aren't particularly relevant.
So, what you are saying is that a bumping fit Mach (align time 7 secs w/o mwd or skills) is the same thing as a Mach w/o agility mods/rigs (12,6 secs w/o mwd or skills). Those 5,6 seconds are irrelevant? |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25840
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 12:36:32 -
[1147] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote: The mechanics are the same regardless of the ship stats, ergo the ship stats aren't particularly relevant.
So, what you are saying is that a bumping fit Mach (align time 7 secs w/o mwd or skills) is the same thing as a Mach w/o agility mods/rigs (12,6 secs w/o mwd or skills). Those 5,6 seconds are irrelevant? Put it this way, when Baltec1 says that a T1 Cruiser can bump a bumping Machariel I tend to believe him, because he has consistently proven, over many years, that he is knowledgeable about game mechanics and ship fits; you haven't.
TL;DR You're your own worst enemy if you expect others to take you seriously.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
277
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 12:39:47 -
[1148] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:That's really rich coming from somebody that wanted to disconnect discussion about ganking from discussion about bumping and looting. Lol, so you are equating discussion about a basic trait of ships when talking about bumping (ship agility stats) to discussion about bumping and ganking - activities which can be used in conjunction but are completely independent and viable on their own? Rich is a poor word to describe your stretching of arguments.
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote: The mechanics are the same regardless of the ship stats, ergo the ship stats aren't particularly relevant.
So, what you are saying is that a bumping fit Mach (align time 7 secs w/o mwd or skills) is the same thing as a Mach w/o agility mods/rigs (12,6 secs w/o mwd or skills). Those 5,6 seconds are irrelevant? Put it this way, when Baltec1 says that a T1 Cruiser can bump a bumping Machariel I tend to believe him, because he has consistently proven, over many years, that he is knowledgeable about game mechanics and ship fits; you haven't. TL;DR You're your own worst enemy if you expect others to take you seriously. So, if I give you numbers which can be easily verified if you care to open your eft (or whatever you're using), you'll simply ignore them and make this a personal issue. Well, color me surprised. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25840
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 12:52:54 -
[1149] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: So, if I give you numbers which can be easily verified if you care to open your eft (or whatever you're using), you'll simply ignore them and make this a personal issue. Well, color me surprised.
I won't dispute your numbers unless you present them as an inappropriate comparison like you did earlier in the thread. I will dispute your understanding of what those numbers actually mean or how they apply in practice, because they're only half the story.
There's no personal issues involved. I'm not known for mincing my words so if there was one you'd know about it.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
277
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 13:03:35 -
[1150] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Very little difference between a Mach and my nano mega.
If you're comparing your 2xNano, 2xOverdrive mega fit vs a typical bumper mach - the difference is about 4 secs w/o skills or mwd. Add likely difference in implants (hisec vs nullsec) into equation too. Weather that is little or big difference will probably be a matter of individual interpretation, depending on which side one belongs to. |
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
277
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 13:07:32 -
[1151] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote: I will dispute your understanding of what those numbers actually mean or how they apply in practice, because they're only half the story. Let me put it like this then - does the "half" represented by ship stats matter in discussing the issue of bumping?
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25840
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 13:44:07 -
[1152] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote: I will dispute your understanding of what those numbers actually mean or how they apply in practice, because they're only half the story. Let me put it like this then - does the "half" represented by ship stats matter in discussing the issue of bumping? To the extent that you believe they do? Not in my opinion.
I refuse to engage you further on this particular subject, suffice to say I disagree with you, leave it at that.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17282
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 13:49:10 -
[1153] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:That's really rich coming from somebody that wanted to disconnect discussion about ganking from discussion about bumping and looting. Lol, so you are equating discussion about a basic trait of ships when talking about bumping (ship agility stats) to discussion about bumping and ganking - activities which can be used in conjunction but are completely independent and viable on their own? Rich is a poor word to describe your stretching of arguments. Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote: The mechanics are the same regardless of the ship stats, ergo the ship stats aren't particularly relevant.
So, what you are saying is that a bumping fit Mach (align time 7 secs w/o mwd or skills) is the same thing as a Mach w/o agility mods/rigs (12,6 secs w/o mwd or skills). Those 5,6 seconds are irrelevant? Put it this way, when Baltec1 says that a T1 Cruiser can bump a bumping Machariel I tend to believe him, because he has consistently proven, over many years, that he is knowledgeable about game mechanics and ship fits; you haven't. TL;DR You're your own worst enemy if you expect others to take you seriously. So, if I give you numbers which can be easily verified if you care to open your eft (or whatever you're using), you'll simply ignore them and make this a personal issue. Well, color me surprised.
EFT is not as accurate as you assume.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17282
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 13:59:32 -
[1154] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote: Very little difference between a Mach and my nano mega.
If you're comparing your 2xNano, 2xOverdrive mega fit vs a typical bumper mach - the difference is about 4 secs w/o skills or mwd. Add likely difference in implants (hisec vs nullsec) into equation too. Weather that is little or big difference will probably be a matter of individual interpretation, depending on which side one belongs to.
Actually I'm comparing my harpy fleet mega with the mach.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
287
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 14:26:56 -
[1155] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Actually I'm comparing my harpy fleet mega with the mach.
No idea which of the mega losses that one is, but the one I mentioned was the best one for comparison (speed plays a role as well in the bumping game). Care to share the fit / stats, just for comparison purposes? Re. eft - it might not be precise down to a single percentage, but it gets the job done and provides more then a decent reference point for what we're discussing. |
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 14:27:03 -
[1156] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Enabran' Tain's mega-exploitable features and ideas? What are you talking about? You get 5 bumping machs (nothing special for code) and ram the orca while positioning a 'victim' ship directly behind the orca. Orca does 5 bumps with 1+k speeds and gets flagged. 'Victim' ship and his fleet kill orca. Profit. under my fleet flag proposal rham, there would have to be a specific set of circumstances for the flag to be obtained, an active mwd on the bumper being one of them would prevent the above from happening. the false target ship would also have to be trying to enter warp continuously to obtain a flag which i believe would render the above scenario impossible, tho i could be wrong of course cos i'm gonna be late for work and rushing a reply
further to the above, the added proviso that a ship that that has entered its warp cycle cannot gain a flag from hi speed collisions should be easy enough to implement and completely prevent the above example of exploiting the mechanic .
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2155
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 14:34:17 -
[1157] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:further to the above, the added proviso that a ship that that has entered its warp cycle cannot gain a flag from hi speed collisions should be easy enough to implement and completely prevent the above example of exploiting the mechanic .
Wow wow whooo.. what do you mean your idea could have been exploited?
Well it's fixed now, so we can go on with it. Maybe send it to some CSM members or something
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 14:37:57 -
[1158] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Enabran' Tain's mega-exploitable features and ideas? What are you talking about? You get 5 bumping machs (nothing special for code) and ram the orca while positioning a 'victim' ship directly behind the orca. Orca does 5 bumps with 1+k speeds and gets flagged. 'Victim' ship and his fleet kill orca. Profit. under my fleet flag proposal rham, there would have to be a specific set of circumstances for the flag to be obtained, an active mwd on the bumper being one of them would prevent the above from happening. the false target ship would also have to be trying to enter warp continuously to obtain a flag which i believe would render the above scenario impossible, tho i could be wrong of course cos i'm gonna be late for work and rushing a reply No, seams watertight to me, no need to think it over. A rushed fix is still a fix, and when I see the responses from the concerned AG crowd in this thread it's about time we do "something". So I would rather see this implemented sooner than later. We all know the AG crowd is top-notch if it comes to game mechanics, so I am not concerned here at all.
good , now how about you produce some positive input to the discussion instead of just snark...?
lets just imagine for the sake of argument , that ccp has decided to rebalance bumping of hisec freighters to insert an element of increased risk for the bumper , especially over extended periods of bumping .
the preferred conditions of any change are to 1/encourage more meaningful pvp, 2/not make bumping so risky as to be totally redundant as a tactic for holding freighters for enough time for a reasnably organised gang to gank the target.
let's hear your suggestions ... |
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 14:41:03 -
[1159] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:further to the above, the added proviso that a ship that that has entered its warp cycle cannot gain a flag from hi speed collisions should be easy enough to implement and completely prevent the above example of exploiting the mechanic .
Wow wow whooo.. what do you mean your idea could have been exploited? Well it's fixed now, so we can go on with it. Maybe send it to some CSM members or something
yes , i did state that i was late for work when i attempted to address this earlier, but go ahead and snark if you wish.
anything positive to add?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21216
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 14:44:14 -
[1160] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:under my fleet flag proposal rham, there would have to be a specific set of circumstances for the flag to be obtained, an active mwd on the bumper being one of them would prevent the above from happening. the false target ship would also have to be trying to enter warp continuously to obtain a flag which i believe would render the above scenario impossible, tho i could be wrong of course cos i'm gonna be late for work and rushing a reply further to the above, the added proviso that a ship that that has entered its warp cycle cannot gain a flag from hi speed collisions should be easy enough to implement and completely prevent the above example of exploiting the mechanic . That's great if you think you have it all covered. Now you just need to prove the problem exists, to require such a fundamental change. That this change is based on balancing current statistics. Such as the 99.9% chance of safety when hauling.
No rush. We can wait.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17282
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 15:04:15 -
[1161] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote: Actually I'm comparing my harpy fleet mega with the mach.
No idea which of the mega losses that one is, but the one I mentioned was the best one for comparison (speed plays a role as well in the bumping game). Care to share the fit / stats, just for comparison purposes? Re. eft - it might not be precise down to a single percentage, but it gets the job done and provides more then a decent reference point for what we're discussing.
The bumping mechanics are exactly the same. Doesn't matter what battleship you use, a cruiser with a closing speed of roughly 5km/sec is going to have a big impact.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 15:04:50 -
[1162] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:of course, theres nothing to stop the troll tackler from jumping bak thru, or having a fleet mate on other side is there? True enough for the fleetmate, not for the tackle due to weapons timers, however that risk is there for every ship, not just freighters. Also please explain the term troll tackle.
under pedros proposal, the risk of troll tackle is only there for freighters, due to there not being a concord response , as there would in any other case of illegally tackling any other ship in hisec.
troll tackling = tackling a freighter with no intent to properly engage, doing it for giggles, a bit like the troll inty concept regarding entosis mechanics that i'm sure you've heard about.
tho if pedros suggestion only allowed point rather than scram , then the mjd to escape the point would of course help prevent this being abused too much.
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2156
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 15:10:40 -
[1163] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:further to the above, the added proviso that a ship that that has entered its warp cycle cannot gain a flag from hi speed collisions should be easy enough to implement and completely prevent the above example of exploiting the mechanic .
Wow wow whooo.. what do you mean your idea could have been exploited? Well it's fixed now, so we can go on with it. Maybe send it to some CSM members or something yes , i did state that i was late for work when i attempted to address this earlier, but go ahead and snark if you wish. anything positive to add? No, the idea is perfect I believe. No room for abuse. So how do we go from here. The game will not fix itself and only whining in the forum will not change anything. So what's your plan?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Enabran' Tain
Viziam Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 15:37:48 -
[1164] - Quote
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, at a certain speed, the aggressor gets a suspect timer for just the aggressed and everyone in his fleet, to attack.
Vectors: The speed and mass of the ship could play a part in rather or not it is registered as an actual aggressive bump, as micro warp drives are needed and they increase the mass of the ship greatly.
Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot, but if the bumper tries to bump the orca into other ships multiple times, it will not cause a suspect timer for the Orca due to lack of necessary speed for it to register as an aggressive bump.
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 and done deliberately.
The speed and mass would literally determine an aggressive bump. Hitting someone going several thousand k/sec multiple times in minutes would earn a suspect time. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2159
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 16:15:09 -
[1165] - Quote
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, at a certain speed, the aggressor gets a suspect timer for just the aggressed and everyone in his fleet, to attack.
Vectors: The speed and mass of the ship could play a part in rather or not it is registered as an actual aggressive bump, as micro warp drives are needed and they increase the mass of the ship greatly.
Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot, but if the bumper tries to bump the orca into other ships multiple times, it will not cause a suspect timer for the Orca due to lack of necessary speed for it to register as an aggressive bump.
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 and done deliberately.
The speed and mass would literally determine an aggressive bump. Hitting someone going several thousand k/sec multiple times in minutes would earn a suspect time. I am so excited about this, I currently mash F5 every 10 seconds to see if this feature makes it into the patch notes.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21217
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 16:24:51 -
[1166] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou 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, at a certain speed, the aggressor gets a suspect timer for just the aggressed and everyone in his fleet, to attack.
Vectors: The speed and mass of the ship could play a part in rather or not it is registered as an actual aggressive bump, as micro warp drives are needed and they increase the mass of the ship greatly.
Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot, but if the bumper tries to bump the orca into other ships multiple times, it will not cause a suspect timer for the Orca due to lack of necessary speed for it to register as an aggressive bump.
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 and done deliberately.
The speed and mass would literally determine an aggressive bump. Hitting someone going several thousand k/sec multiple times in minutes would earn a suspect time. I am so excited about this, I currently mash F5 every 10 seconds to see if this feature makes it into the patch notes. Oh thank Bob. I thought I was the only one.
The sooner the better tbh.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
ISD Fractal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
914
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 16:43:15 -
[1167] - Quote
Quote:13. Spamming is prohibited.
Spam is defined as the repetitive posting of the same topic or nonsensical post that has no substance and is often designed to annoy other forum users. This can include the words GÇ£firstGÇ¥, GÇ£go back to insert other game nameGÇ¥ and other such posts that contribute no value to forum discussion. Spamming also includes the posting of ASCII art within a forum post, or the practice of GÇ£thread necromancyGÇ¥ which involved bumping of old threads for no justifiable reason.
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.
I have removed several posts by the same individual posting their ideas over and over again. Please post one idea and don't spam the forums to increase visibility. Additionally, I have removed all references to a lengthy side-discussion about wreck HP that does not belong in this thread.
ISD Fractal
Lieutenant
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 17:16:56 -
[1168] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote: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.
Sorry but I don't buy into the constant chant of: "you can do it to me as well" - well I don't want to do it to you - I don't want to play like you - if you play like a douche, I don't want to also be a douche..
I want the game mechanics/rules to treat you like a criminal whenever you act like one. - as always, I'm talking about when in HISEC.
I even want you banned from HISEC if you're a habitual criminal.
These are reasonable expectations for people who prefer to play "casually".. - and don't give me the BS about I shouldn't be playing THIS game or I'm playing it wrong..
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2182
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 17:20:11 -
[1169] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:of course, theres nothing to stop the troll tackler from jumping bak thru, or having a fleet mate on other side is there? True enough for the fleetmate, not for the tackle due to weapons timers, however that risk is there for every ship, not just freighters. Also please explain the term troll tackle. under pedros proposal, the risk of troll tackle is only there for freighters, due to there not being a concord response , as there would in any other case of illegally tackling any other ship in hisec. troll tackling = tackling a freighter with no intent to properly engage, doing it for giggles, a bit like the troll inty concept regarding entosis mechanics that i'm sure you've heard about. tho if pedros suggestion only allowed point rather than scram , then the mjd to escape the point would of course help prevent this being abused too much. Since the tackler would be suspect, I am not sure why it would be any worse than other spaces. You can "troll tackle" a ship in a tanked Legion in low sec, but eventually someone will come by and explode you. If you "troll tackle" in a cheap frigate, your death should be even faster to a passerby or to friends of the capital pilot.
Why should you be able to just MJD away from any attacker? Seems like a solo, get-out-of-PvP-card to me.
Freighters are suppose to be a vulnerable ship that needs fleet support. Allowing them to MJD away without any consequence from any threat is way too OP. You are not entitled to be free from non-consensual interaction of other players in this game, especially when you are piloting an incredibly powerful capital ship like a freighter.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 17:22:46 -
[1170] - Quote
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, at a certain speed, the aggressor gets a suspect timer for just the aggressed and everyone in his fleet, to attack.
Vectors: The speed and mass of the ship could play a part in rather or not it is registered as an actual aggressive bump, as micro warp drives are needed and they increase the mass of the ship greatly.
Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot, but if the bumper tries to bump the orca into other ships multiple times, it will not cause a suspect timer for the Orca due to lack of necessary speed for it to register as an aggressive bump.
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 and done deliberately.
The speed and mass would literally determine an aggressive bump. Hitting someone going several thousand k/sec multiple times in minutes would earn a suspect time.
..if the targetted ship was prevented from entering warp as a result of these collisions . the suspect timer imo after a few minutes would effectively remove bumping as a tactic in hisec from the game, which is imo too drastic a measure.
i have no problem with bumping per se, just the potentially unlimited bumping with no consequence for the bumper that exists at current time. gankers should be able to use bumping to get a freighter out of range of guns to allow a gank attempt , but mechanics should be balanced to bring a level of risk beyond what is required for a reasonably organised gank squad to kill the target. |
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 17:28:29 -
[1171] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote: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.
bumpers grab at straws to justify their exploiting of this weak mechanic, and cry about anything that would change that.
Now don't get me wrong, if you wanna gank feighters in high sec more power to ya, but you should have to use a legit tackle and get the concord hammer like anyone else Anyone else can bump too. What does that actually mean?
Are you suggesting that a broken, unrealistic game mechanic should be retained "forever" because it can be used equally by all players?
That makes no sense to me because as I stated here previously: - I don't want to play like you.
And NO, not everyone can use the BUMPING EXPLOIT in the same way.. - I don't "multibox" so IF I did bump, there's no follow up. - I'm not part of some ganking troop.. no interest either.
And there must, or at least should be a wide range of ways to play a game - or frankly it would suck - and certainly it would NOT be the "sandbox" that all the power players seem to constantly invoke.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 17:31:35 -
[1172] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:of course, theres nothing to stop the troll tackler from jumping bak thru, or having a fleet mate on other side is there? True enough for the fleetmate, not for the tackle due to weapons timers, however that risk is there for every ship, not just freighters. Also please explain the term troll tackle. under pedros proposal, the risk of troll tackle is only there for freighters, due to there not being a concord response , as there would in any other case of illegally tackling any other ship in hisec. troll tackling = tackling a freighter with no intent to properly engage, doing it for giggles, a bit like the troll inty concept regarding entosis mechanics that i'm sure you've heard about. tho if pedros suggestion only allowed point rather than scram , then the mjd to escape the point would of course help prevent this being abused too much. Since the tackler would be suspect, I am not sure why it would be any worse than other spaces. You can "troll tackle" a ship in a tanked Legion in low sec, but eventually someone will come by and explode you. If you "troll tackle" in a cheap frigate, your death should be even faster to a passerby or to friends of the capital pilot. Why should you be able to just MJD away from any attacker? Seems like a solo, get-out-of-PvP-card to me. Freighters are suppose to be a vulnerable ship that needs fleet support. Allowing them to MJD away without any consequence from any threat is way too OP. You are not entitled to be free from non-consensual interaction of other players in this game, especially when you are piloting an incredibly powerful capital ship like a freighter.
sorry pedro, i was replying to a query posted a while back, if you read my previous posts on your idea, you'll see that i was trying to figure out the potential consequences resulting from the radical changes you suggested.
of course you are aware that mjd is only affected by scram, so a freighter pilot would be able to escape a long point by using mjd, however he will then be unable to re-use the mjd for up to 5 mins afterwards .
as a way to prevent troll tackling from becoming an issue, what about only interdictor class ships would be capable of holding a freighter in hisec without conc intervention,,,?
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2160
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 17:31:51 -
[1173] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella 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, at a certain speed, the aggressor gets a suspect timer for just the aggressed and everyone in his fleet, to attack.
Vectors: The speed and mass of the ship could play a part in rather or not it is registered as an actual aggressive bump, as micro warp drives are needed and they increase the mass of the ship greatly.
Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot, but if the bumper tries to bump the orca into other ships multiple times, it will not cause a suspect timer for the Orca due to lack of necessary speed for it to register as an aggressive bump.
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 and done deliberately.
The speed and mass would literally determine an aggressive bump. Hitting someone going several thousand k/sec multiple times in minutes would earn a suspect time. ..if the targetted ship was prevented from entering warp as a result of these collisions . the suspect timer imo after a few minutes would effectively remove bumping as a tactic in hisec from the game, which is imo too drastic a measure. i have no problem with bumping per se, just the potentially unlimited bumping with no consequence for the bumper that exists at current time. gankers should be able to use bumping to get a freighter out of range of guns to allow a gank attempt , but mechanics should be balanced to bring a level of risk beyond what is required for a reasonably organised gank squad to kill the target. Now look at that, my two favored game designers are about to merge their ideas. Now I am getting really excited. Highsec is about to get really interesting for everyone.
Now if only Rham would join in, I would completely lose it.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21217
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 17:34:47 -
[1174] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:These are reasonable expectations for people who prefer to play "casually".. - and don't give me the BS about I shouldn't be playing THIS game or I'm playing it wrong.. No they really are not reasonable. Your asking for the game to change for you, instead of adapting to it.
If I play soccer then decide I don't like just kicking the ball, then pick it up and run with it, I will not succeed. Same as with Chess. I may not like how certain pieces move, that doesn't mean I cam change the rules to suit me. Or playing CoD and wanting to be left alone and not shot, because you want to investigate the map.
Quite frankly your stance in this regard, is ridiculous.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 17:59:26 -
[1175] - Quote
This is still referencing the issue of BUMPING for the purpose of ganking without fear of any consequence to the bumping ship...
A very common excuse for this "feature" to be retained - even is HISEC - is that when you play Eve, it is ESSENTIAL that others can "ruin your day" any time, any where and any how..
You should not be able to feel safe ANYWHERE! anytime.. (I suppose that if there was some way to screw with you while docked, the gank 'em proponents would love it)
Really? Is "the biggest" draw of Eve the ability of players to act like jerks?
Is non-consensual PVP a "cornerstone" of this game for real? - if that's the case, logic tells me that it's about the ability to pick on the weak.
Is that it? The ability to pick on the weak?
Is there really NO OTHER WAY to play Eve without engaging in PVP, joining a large corp and becoming a "pirate". - I mean judging from the responses here, if you want to be a miner you're stupid, lazy scum to be harassed at every opportunity; EVEN in HISEC. (I had asked: why even have HISEC then?)
I stated that I wanted to play in HISEC and just be reasonably safe. This caused heads to explode and the hate posts went through the roof! (well, those are your jerk players I referred to)
My thinking is that a game must evolve over time; CCP is doing it constantly and that's great. I think a game should have options to play in a wide variety of styles - even including a bit of couchery to spice it up - THAT is a REAL sandbox IMHO. Not a game overrun with jerks.
So I wonder if a MODERATOR could possibly jump in and confirm this one way or another. - or at least give a bit of insight into this.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21217
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 18:04:09 -
[1176] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:
I stated that I wanted to play in HISEC and just be reasonably safe. This caused heads to explode and the hate posts went through the roof! (well, those are your jerk players I referred to).
Wrong again. We asked what you meant by reasonably safe. Of you don't think 99.9% is reasonable, just what is?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 18:10:39 -
[1177] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:
I stated that I wanted to play in HISEC and just be reasonably safe. This caused heads to explode and the hate posts went through the roof! (well, those are your jerk players I referred to).
Wrong again. We asked what you meant by reasonably safe. Of you don't think 99.9% is reasonable, just what is?
I'm not going to define this by a number - that's just a clever debating trap.
I have repeatedly stated that:
*** I want you to be tagged as a criminal IF you act like one in HISEC ***
That's as best as I can state it right now - but with more (SINCERE) debate, new ideas, new definitions will spawn..
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21217
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 18:13:52 -
[1178] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Mag's wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:
I stated that I wanted to play in HISEC and just be reasonably safe. This caused heads to explode and the hate posts went through the roof! (well, those are your jerk players I referred to).
Wrong again. We asked what you meant by reasonably safe. Of you don't think 99.9% is reasonable, just what is? I'm not going to define this by a number - that's just a clever debating trap. I have repeatedly stated that: *** I want you to be tagged as a criminal IF you act like one in HISEC *** That's as best as I can state it right now - but with more (SINCERE) debate, new ideas, new definitions will spawn.. Seeing as that is already the case, what's the problem?
Oh and since when we're facts and figures a trap?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 18:19:37 -
[1179] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:These are reasonable expectations for people who prefer to play "casually".. - and don't give me the BS about I shouldn't be playing THIS game or I'm playing it wrong.. No they really are not reasonable. You're asking for the game to change for you, instead of adapting to it. If you play soccer then decide you don't like just kicking the ball, pick it up and run with it, you will not succeed. Same as with Chess. You may not like how certain pieces move, that doesn't mean you can change the rules to suit. Or playing CoD and wanting to be left alone and not shot, because you want to investigate the map. The point is you don't play soccer and expect rugby. You don't play Chess expecting checkers and you don't play CoD for a local tourist site. Quite frankly your stance in this regard, is ridiculous.
I'm "asking the game to change for me" - OMFG!!!!!
What if I had a really sound idea?
You guys act like it's impossible to change a game.. however CCP is doing quite a lot of that.
One last point and it relates to an on-line game business model. CCP is after all, in business.
Suppose NEW players join Eve.. suppose they prefer playing in styles a bit different from the diehard Eve veterans.. - are you saying CCP should in no way cater to them? yet I notice CCP trying to broaden appeal to attract more players
- are you suggesting this should be an exclusive game - maintained in a specific manner to the satisfaction of the veterans? yet I see CCP making changes in gameplay at the outrage of the most fervent veterans.. (look at the hate over SKILL TRADING! OMG!)
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 18:24:01 -
[1180] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Mag's wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:
I stated that I wanted to play in HISEC and just be reasonably safe. This caused heads to explode and the hate posts went through the roof! (well, those are your jerk players I referred to).
Wrong again. We asked what you meant by reasonably safe. Of you don't think 99.9% is reasonable, just what is? I'm not going to define this by a number - that's just a clever debating trap. I have repeatedly stated that: *** I want you to be tagged as a criminal IF you act like one in HISEC *** That's as best as I can state it right now - but with more (SINCERE) debate, new ideas, new definitions will spawn.. Seeing as that is already the case, what's the problem? Oh and since when we're facts and figures a trap?
Seriously? Are you for real? WTF?
you know damn well what we are discussing here: BUMPING is currently NOT a crime; it has no consequences from the POLICE.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 18:27:59 -
[1181] - Quote
to recap, my suggestions to rebalance bumping to prevent or limit the extended (ab)use of this tactic with no consequence for the bumper are;
1/have an inbuilt limited use mjd on freighters as a tool to escape harassment from bumping. criticisms have been this is not enough to counter bumping in it's current form, to it being a 'get out of jail free card' for freighters.
2/ have a bumper obtain a flag after a certain amount of time that would enable the freighter pilots fleet to engage the bumper in a 'limited fleet engagement' type timer without interference from concord, also allowing the bumper to engage the freighter when activated.
i believe the 2nd option can be coded in such a way to prevent abuse / flagging from accidental collisions fairly easily as i have outlined in previous posts .
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21218
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 18:28:29 -
[1182] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Mag's wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:These are reasonable expectations for people who prefer to play "casually".. - and don't give me the BS about I shouldn't be playing THIS game or I'm playing it wrong.. No they really are not reasonable. You're asking for the game to change for you, instead of adapting to it. If you play soccer then decide you don't like just kicking the ball, pick it up and run with it, you will not succeed. Same as with Chess. You may not like how certain pieces move, that doesn't mean you can change the rules to suit. Or playing CoD and wanting to be left alone and not shot, because you want to investigate the map. The point is you don't play soccer and expect rugby. You don't play Chess expecting checkers and you don't play CoD for a local tourist site. Quite frankly your stance in this regard, is ridiculous. I'm "asking the game to change for me" - OMFG!!!!! You are yes. You're asking for the core of the game to change, because you don't want to play the game. The whole 'your way my way' stance, doesn't mean the core of the game should change. Highsec is already reasonably safe. If you don't want to use the tools and options currently available, that doesn't mean the game has to change. That figure you and others hate so much, 99.9%, is based on factual evidence and directly concerns this topic. So again I ask, when the odds are so high in your favour, just what is reasonable to you?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 18:32:48 -
[1183] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:to recap, my suggestions to rebalance bumping to prevent or limit the extended (ab)use of this tactic with no consequence for the bumper are;
1/have an inbuilt limited use mjd on freighters as a tool to escape harassment from bumping. criticisms have been this is not enough to counter bumping in it's current form, to it being a 'get out of jail free card' for freighters.
2/ have a bumper obtain a flag after a certain amount of time that would enable the freighter pilots fleet to engage the bumper in a 'limited fleet engagement' type timer without interference from concord, also allowing the bumper to engage the freighter when activated.
i believe the 2nd option can be coded in such a way to prevent abuse / flagging from accidental collisions fairly easily as i have outlined in previous posts .
The way I see it, a "GET OUT OF GANK CARD" for freighters is a great thing ---
---> as long as BUMPERS have a "AVOID JAIL ALTOGETHER CARD"
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 18:34:27 -
[1184] - Quote
@Bella Jennie , please don't let them derail the thread , it is their intention to get it locked by disrupting the discussion as much as possible. stay on topic and let us hear any thoughts you have on the topic
sorry , cross posted ^^ |
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21218
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 18:36:31 -
[1185] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Mag's wrote: Seeing as that is already the case, what's the problem?
Oh and since when we're facts and figures a trap?
Seriously? Are you for real? WTF? you know damn well what we are discussing here: BUMPING is currently NOT a crime; it has no consequences from the POLICE. I'm discussing facts, not what you deem as facts. Try being a little clearer on future, as it seems you know it's not a crime. I'm still asking for evidence from your side, as to why this needs changing. Balance and fundamental changes to the game, should not be based on specific special circumstances, viewed alone. We need to look at the whole to understand if it is indeed a problem.
So please, provide that evidence. I'm sure we'll all be glad to see it.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 18:38:34 -
[1186] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Mag's wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:These are reasonable expectations for people who prefer to play "casually".. - and don't give me the BS about I shouldn't be playing THIS game or I'm playing it wrong.. No they really are not reasonable. You're asking for the game to change for you, instead of adapting to it. If you play soccer then decide you don't like just kicking the ball, pick it up and run with it, you will not succeed. Same as with Chess. You may not like how certain pieces move, that doesn't mean you can change the rules to suit. Or playing CoD and wanting to be left alone and not shot, because you want to investigate the map. The point is you don't play soccer and expect rugby. You don't play Chess expecting checkers and you don't play CoD for a local tourist site. Quite frankly your stance in this regard, is ridiculous. I'm "asking the game to change for me" - OMFG!!!!! You are yes. You're asking for the core of the game to change, because you don't want to play the game. The whole 'your way my way' stance, doesn't mean the core of the game should change. Highsec is already reasonably safe. If you don't want to use the tools and options currently available, that doesn't mean the game has to change. That figure you and others hate so much, 99.9%, is based on factual evidence and directly concerns this topic. So again I ask, when the odds are so high in your favour, just what is reasonable to you?
Unless you took part in the development of Eve or you work at CCP now, please don't preach to me about "the core of the game".
And besides that, ALL things are subject to change.
And YES, I want to play Eve.
My experience in gaming and my strength of logic convince me that CCP will adjust the BUMPING mechanic when they are able to.. Unless they are truly catering to the harassers.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21218
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 18:42:13 -
[1187] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:@Bella Jennie , please don't let them derail the thread , it is their intention to get it locked by disrupting the discussion as much as possible. stay on topic and let us hear any thoughts you have on the topic sorry , cross posted ^^ So discussing the topic and providing evidence, is derailing it? Unlike wrecks which your side tinfoilded over and which was removed?
I know your argument is weak, bit those types of posts only highlight it more. Try staying on topic please.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 18:42:18 -
[1188] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Mag's wrote: Seeing as that is already the case, what's the problem?
Oh and since when we're facts and figures a trap?
Seriously? Are you for real? WTF? you know damn well what we are discussing here: BUMPING is currently NOT a crime; it has no consequences from the POLICE. I'm discussing facts, not what you deem as facts. Try being a little clearer on future, as it seems you know it's not a crime. I'm still asking for evidence from your side, as to why this needs changing. Balance and fundamental changes to the game, should not be based on specific special circumstances, viewed alone. We need to look at the whole to understand if it is indeed a problem. So please, provide that evidence. I'm sure we'll all be glad to see it.
You must be a liberal
What you call "facts" are merely your opinions. Same as mine.. Equal to mine but only opinions.
I'm going to add: I don't have to show you anything I don't have to prove anything - to YOU
I'm merely posting here to petition CCP YOU can't do anything for me but mock me. You're not even a sincere debater.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25844
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 18:44:01 -
[1189] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Is there really NO OTHER WAY to play Eve without engaging in PVP, joining a large corp and becoming a "pirate". You can't play Eve without engaging in PvP of one form or another, that is bt design and is the considered opinion of the Devs.
New Player FAQ wrote: Furthermore, as we mentioned previously, once you enter New Eden you must consider every action you take as a form of PvP since this is the core game concept.
Quote:- I mean judging from the responses here, if you want to be a miner you're stupid, lazy scum to be harassed at every opportunity; EVEN in HISEC. (I had asked: why even have HISEC then?)
Indeed; why even have mining then? That's a hyperbolic falsehood. Miners are treated according to how they act, a miner who is afk in a max yield barge or exhumer is treated as being dumb and lazy; because this is a PvP game where going afk is dumb and lazy. A miner who is at the keyboard, packing a tank and aware of their surroundings is generally treated with more respect.
Quote:I stated that I wanted to play in HISEC and just be reasonably safe. This caused heads to explode and the hate posts went through the roof! (well, those are your jerk players I referred to) If you want to be safe in hisec, take steps to ensure your safety.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 18:48:15 -
[1190] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Is there really NO OTHER WAY to play Eve without engaging in PVP, joining a large corp and becoming a "pirate". You can't play Eve without engaging in PvP of one form or another, that is bt design and is the considered opinion of the Devs. New Player FAQ wrote: Furthermore, as we mentioned previously, once you enter New Eden you must consider every action you take as a form of PvP since this is the core game concept. Quote:- I mean judging from the responses here, if you want to be a miner you're stupid, lazy scum to be harassed at every opportunity; EVEN in HISEC. (I had asked: why even have HISEC then?)
Indeed; why even have mining then? That's a hyperbolic falsehood. Miners are treated according to how they act, a miner who is afk in a max yield barge or exhumer is treated as being dumb and lazy; because this is a PvP game where going afk is dumb and lazy. A miner who is at the keyboard, packing a tank and aware of their surroundings is generally treated with more respect. Quote:I stated that I wanted to play in HISEC and just be reasonably safe. This caused heads to explode and the hate posts went through the roof! (well, those are your jerk players I referred to) If you want to be safe in hisec, take steps to ensure your safety.
you've added nothing new.. you're just being contrary while merely making the discussion circular.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21218
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 18:48:23 -
[1191] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Mag's wrote:You are yes. You're asking for the core of the game to change, because you don't want to play the game. The whole 'your way my way' stance, doesn't mean the core of the game should change. Highsec is already reasonably safe. If you don't want to use the tools and options currently available, that doesn't mean the game has to change. That figure you and others hate so much, 99.9%, is based on factual evidence and directly concerns this topic. So again I ask, when the odds are so high in your favour, just what is reasonable to you? Unless you took part in the development of Eve or you work at CCP now, please don't preach to me about "the core of the game". And besides that, ALL things are subject to change. And YES, I want to play Eve. My experience in gaming and my strength of logic convince me that CCP will adjust the BUMPING mechanic when they are able to.. Unless they are truly catering to the harassers. Please read the new player FAQ and other such related info from CCP, then you can tell me if I'm wrong. There is also a famous Falcon punch post, that will say the same. Most of which have already been posted in this thread. But seeing as facts are not your bag, I won't be holding my breath for when you admit being wrong.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 18:48:59 -
[1192] - Quote
bumping in it's current form is like going down the street , seeing an overweight old lady walking home with her groceries , repeatedly running into her at high speed to prevent her getting home for several hours , till your large gang of criminally minded associates come by to murder and rob her .
at which point the police show up to take down the individuals who killed and robbed her, but ignore you totally .
and it's also all her fault because she didn't bring 15 strapping blokes to protect her every time she went shopping....
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21218
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 18:52:47 -
[1193] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:bumping in it's current form is like going down the street , seeing an overweight old lady walking home with her groceries , repeatedly running into her at high speed to prevent her getting home for several hours , till your large gang of criminally minded associates come by to murder and rob her . at which point the police show up to take down the individuals who killed and robbed her, but ignore you totally . and it's also all her fault because she didn't bring 15 strapping blokes to protect her every time she went shopping.... Please stop with the ill conceived RL comparisons. They always fail and do not add to the discussion. Thank you.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 18:55:06 -
[1194] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:bumping in it's current form is like going down the street , seeing an overweight old lady walking home with her groceries , repeatedly running into her at high speed to prevent her getting home for several hours , till your large gang of criminally minded associates come by to murder and rob her . at which point the police show up to take down the individuals who killed and robbed her, but ignore you totally . and it's also all her fault because she didn't bring 15 strapping blokes to protect her every time she went shopping....
Spot on!!
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25844
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 18:55:33 -
[1195] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:you've added nothing new.. you're just being contrary while merely making the discussion circular. I'm not being contrary at all, you asked if there was a way to play Eve without engaging in PvP, I answered your question.
You stated that miners are treated as stupid and lazy, I pointed out that that generally happens to people who are being stupid and lazy in a PvP environment such as Eve.
Your last point was that you wanted to be safe in hisec, I pointed out that your safety in hisec is your responsibility and that you should take steps to fulfil that responsibility.
Nowhere was I being circular, nor have I stated anything that is false or misleading.
Try harder.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21218
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 18:56:04 -
[1196] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:you've added nothing new.. you're just being contrary while merely making the discussion circular. So showing evidence to back up claims you dispute, is adding nothing new?
Do you mean you are aware of those facts already? If so, why are you disputing them? Or ate you simply and deliberately choosing to ignore them?
I'm not sure which is worse tbh.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21219
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 19:01:13 -
[1197] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:
Spot on!!
Facts you claim don't add anything, but poor RL comparisons are 'spot on'. Really?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 19:11:29 -
[1198] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:bumping in it's current form is like going down the street , seeing an overweight old lady walking home with her groceries , repeatedly running into her at high speed to prevent her getting home for several hours , till your large gang of criminally minded associates come by to murder and rob her . at which point the police show up to take down the individuals who killed and robbed her, but ignore you totally . and it's also all her fault because she didn't bring 15 strapping blokes to protect her every time she went shopping....
...and not only that, any good samaritans who try to intervene will get shot by the police , who will then stand by doing nothing till the act of murder takes place ...
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21220
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 19:15:58 -
[1199] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:You must be a liberal What you call "facts" are merely your opinions. Same as mine.. Equal to mine but only opinions. I'm going to add: I don't have to show you anything I don't have to prove anything - to YOU I'm merely posting here to petition CCP YOU can't do anything for me but mock me. You're not even a sincere debater. You're now starting to get personal. The last resort of a failed argument.
Not facts? Please, do tell. Oh and proving you wrong, isn't mocking you. Please try to stay on topic.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44252
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 20:08:37 -
[1200] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:under my proposal for the fleet engagement timer against bumpers, the freighter pilot would be best advised to have a fleet with him to engage the bumper if flag is obtained, And this comes right back to the current situation, where without evidence of a significant problem existing, many of us say exactly the same thing, except that a fleet is not required. Just one other ship using webs.
So under the current mechanics, the freighter pilot is best advised to have webbing support and he can avoid any issue to begin with.
So why change mechanics only to make a similar recommendation to freighter pilots as what many of us that regularly fly freighters recommend now?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
|
Iain Cariaba
2583
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 20:15:13 -
[1201] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:What you call "facts" are merely your opinions. Same as mine.. Equal to mine but only opinions.
I'm going to add: I don't have to show you anything I don't have to prove anything - to YOU
I'm merely posting here to petition CCP YOU can't do anything for me but mock me. You're not even a sincere debater. Oh, please do save us from the hypocrisy.
You claim you don't want to play like the gankers. Well, don't. Use the tools already available to protect yourself from them, like I do, and you won't be playing like them. Let those who fail to play the game as if it's an open PvP world suffer their consequences, and go about your business with 99.9% safety.
Where the hypocrisy comes in is that, based on your stance that you don't want to play the game like someone else does, then everyone needs to play the game like you do. Neither of these options will work. Just simply do what I do, play the game the way you want to, all while keeping in mind that it's entirely possible for someone to come along and try to ruin your day.
Oh, and before you sperg off about you talking about highsec again, even in highsec you should be actually playing the game. AFK mining, AFK hauling, AFK missioning, none of that is actually playing the game. Anyone doing those is actually worse than an NPC. At least the NPC has some intelligence, even if it is artificial.
To continue on. One of the biggest draws of the game is that you can do pretty much anything you want, that includes being a jerk. If you don't want to be a jerk, you don't have to. You will, however, have to deal with them at some point.
In closing, having seen that you still don't get it, I'm going to ask you those dreaded questions you've still yet failed to answer.
How much more than 99.9% safety does it take for you to consider it reasonable? Why should you not be responsible for your own safety in EvE?
Oops, almost missed this one, and that would've been a shame as it's so telling.
Bella Jennie wrote:I even want you banned from HISEC if you're a habitual criminal. So, contrary to some of your earlier statements, you do indeed want total safety in highsec. Those "habitual criminals" as you call them are quite literally the only threat freighters face in highsec. Banning them from highsec will simply ensure total 100% safety for any freighter in an NPC corp.
Gotta watch what you say in those times when you're spewing venom all over the forums. Your real agenda slips out when you do.
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?
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25852
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 20:38:21 -
[1202] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:I even want you banned from HISEC if you're a habitual criminal. So, contrary to some of your earlier statements, you do indeed want total safety in highsec. Those "habitual criminals" as you call them are quite literally the only threat freighters face in highsec. Banning them from highsec will simply ensure total 100% safety for any freighter in an NPC corp. Gotta watch what you say in those times when you're spewing venom all over the forums. Your real agenda slips out when you do. What she fails to realise is that banning habitual criminals from hisec detrimentally impacts people who have earned their negative sec status in other areas of space, as well as those that prey on people with negative sec status or criminal flags; which is short sighted at best.
It's either that or she doesn't care about the potential impact on others so long as her wants are fulfilled; which is incredibly selfish. Either scenario makes her the worst possible kind of person to discuss or dictate balance.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4635
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 20:46:47 -
[1203] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:you've added nothing new.. you're just being contrary while merely making the discussion circular. I'm not being contrary at all, you asked if there was a way to play Eve without engaging in PvP, I answered your question; complete with a quote from the New Player FAQ that states everything you do in New Eden is to be considered a form of PvP, because that's the core concept of the game. That quote is not disputable, and I can provide others from the same official CCP document that further reinforce what it says. You stated that miners are treated as stupid and lazy, I pointed out that's what generally happens to people who are being stupid and lazy in a PvP environment such as Eve; just as it's what happens to people who are stupid and lazy in real life. I also pointed out that a miner who knows that Eve is a PvP environment and plans accordingly is often treated with respect. Your last point was that you wanted to be safe in hisec, I pointed out that your safety in hisec is your responsibility and that you should take steps to fulfil that responsibility. Nowhere was I being circular, nor have I stated anything that is false or misleading. Try harder.
Jonah is exactly correct. Even mining has a PvP aspect to it. Since the belts are open to anyone if somebody comes into the belt then they can take some of the more valuable ore before I do. That is a type of competition, a type of PvP. When I sell something on the market and undercut the current lowest price seller I am going to take sales he might have otherwise gotten. CompetitionGǪPvP.
To say one wants to play the game and not engage in behavior that does not impact other players that person is just being silly. Hell, when I buy something off the market, it has an effect. Players participating in the market is what generates prices which in turn tell inventors and/or builders information on what to build. Prices inform miners on what are the best rocks to mine. Etc.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:03:24 -
[1204] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:What you call "facts" are merely your opinions. Same as mine.. Equal to mine but only opinions.
I'm going to add: I don't have to show you anything I don't have to prove anything - to YOU
I'm merely posting here to petition CCP YOU can't do anything for me but mock me. You're not even a sincere debater. Oh, please do save us from the hypocrisy. You claim you don't want to play like the gankers. Well, don't. Use the tools already available to protect yourself from them, like I do, and you won't be playing like them. Let those who fail to play the game as if it's an open PvP world suffer their consequences, and go about your business with 99.9% safety. Where the hypocrisy comes in is that, based on your stance that you don't want to play the game like someone else does, then everyone needs to play the game like you do. Neither of these options will work. Just simply do what I do, play the game the way you want to, all while keeping in mind that it's entirely possible for someone to come along and try to ruin your day. Oh, and before you sperg off about you talking about highsec again, even in highsec you should be actually playing the game. AFK mining, AFK hauling, AFK missioning, none of that is actually playing the game. Anyone doing those is actually worse than an NPC. At least the NPC has some intelligence, even if it is artificial. To continue on. One of the biggest draws of the game is that you can do pretty much anything you want, that includes being a jerk. If you don't want to be a jerk, you don't have to. You will, however, have to deal with them at some point. In closing, having seen that you still don't get it, I'm going to ask you those dreaded questions you've still yet failed to answer. How much more than 99.9% safety does it take for you to consider it reasonable? Why should you not be responsible for your own safety in EvE? Oops, almost missed this one, and that would've been a shame as it's so telling. Bella Jennie wrote:I even want you banned from HISEC if you're a habitual criminal. So, contrary to some of your earlier statements, you do indeed want total safety in highsec. Those "habitual criminals" as you call them are quite literally the only threat freighters face in highsec. Banning them from highsec will simply ensure total 100% safety for any freighter in an NPC corp. Gotta watch what you say in those times when you're spewing venom all over the forums. Your real agenda slips out when you do. I admit I don't have all the answers.
I hope that discussion will spawn ideas.. but I do have a strong opinion about what is broken - and that is the lack of consequences when BUMPING in HISEC in order to arrange a gank.
I read your suggestions; I know all about it. Many are valid - but they don't fix the problem issue for me.
Read my other posts to address your "use the tools provided" suggestion..
I've also already addressed the "99.9%" number which you clearly enjoy spewing out so much.
As far as the jerks, NOPE, I don't want to be forced to deal with them, in HISEC, unless they are killed when they kill me or, help to kill me.
And if the opportunity to be a jerk is the main draw of Eve, it's kind of sad. You think CCP would be proud to list that as a selling point for their game? Really?
I don't mind someone trying to ruin my day.. but I want them to pay dearly for it when I'm in HISEC. - At the very least, I want them to have THE RISK of paying for it.. in HISEC.
Stop preaching about AFK; you sound like a CODE clone. Meanwhile, I don't play AFK; never played AFK.. but thinking about it now that you brought it up, I might enjoy the option once in a while.. in HISEC.
You want status quo; I want evolution towards improvement, logic and realism.
Bottom line you come off as quite an an elitist. and your tone quite condescending. I get it, your a top player.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44256
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:07:50 -
[1205] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Jonah is exactly correct. Even mining has a PvP aspect to it. Since the belts are open to anyone if somebody comes into the belt then they can take some of the more valuable ore before I do. That is a type of competition, a type of PvP. When I sell something on the market and undercut the current lowest price seller I am going to take sales he might have otherwise gotten. CompetitionGǪPvP.
To say one wants to play the game and not engage in behavior that does not impact other players that person is just being silly. Hell, when I buy something off the market, it has an effect. Players participating in the market is what generates prices which in turn tell inventors and/or builders information on what to build. Prices inform miners on what are the best rocks to mine. Etc.
On top of that, there is the economic side we all know well. For Bella as a newer player:
Whether we like it or not, PvEers/Industrialists need pvp in the game just as much as pvpers need PvEers/Industrialists in return; and highsec is a major centre for that dependence.
If highsec becomes safe (at least from outlaws), the demand for replacement Freighters will drop. No demand to replace them means no demand to produce them. Similarly, the reduced CONCORDing of catalysts, taloses and other gank ships will reduce the demand to buy them, reducing the need to build them. When the ships aren't needed, neither are the fittings; and once overall demand to build is reduced, the demand for minerals will drop also.
More destruction in the game leads to more production, but the reverse doesn't hold true.
Highsec systems like Uedama, Madirlimire, Niarja and surrounds are regularly in the top system statistics on zkillboard ( http://puu.sh/mX7eH/3b49e00fee.jpg ) highlighting their importance as major centres of destruction in the game.
Similarly, regions that are mostly highsec are also significant in the game in terms of total destruction (Destruction by Region for September 2015).
So whether we like it or not, everyone's play is affected by the amount of pvp that goes on in highsec, with the correlation that more pvp is good for everyone in the game.
I guess, at least if outlaws are banned from highsec, there'll still be wardecs to keep the demand rolling. Maybe a lot of the current gankers can switch and become wardeccers. PvEers/Industrialists will be fine with that I'm sure.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:11:09 -
[1206] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:you've added nothing new.. you're just being contrary while merely making the discussion circular. I'm not being contrary at all, you asked if there was a way to play Eve without engaging in PvP, I answered your question; complete with a quote from the New Player FAQ that states everything you do in New Eden is to be considered a form of PvP, because that's the core concept of the game. That quote is not disputable, and I can provide others from the same official CCP document that further reinforce what it says. You stated that miners are treated as stupid and lazy, I pointed out that's what generally happens to people who are being stupid and lazy in a PvP environment such as Eve; just as it's what happens to people who are stupid and lazy in real life. I also pointed out that a miner who knows that Eve is a PvP environment and plans accordingly is often treated with respect. Your last point was that you wanted to be safe in hisec, I pointed out that your safety in hisec is your responsibility and that you should take steps to fulfil that responsibility. Nowhere was I being circular, nor have I stated anything that is false or misleading. Try harder. Jonah is exactly correct. Even mining has a PvP aspect to it. Since the belts are open to anyone if somebody comes into the belt then they can take some of the more valuable ore before I do. That is a type of competition, a type of PvP. When I sell something on the market and undercut the current lowest price seller I am going to take sales he might have otherwise gotten. CompetitionGǪPvP. To say one wants to play the game and not engage in behavior that does not impact other players that person is just being silly. Hell, when I buy something off the market, it has an effect. Players participating in the market is what generates prices which in turn tell inventors and/or builders information on what to build. Prices inform miners on what are the best rocks to mine. Etc.
with all due respect, reading your posts is an excercize in wordplay, nuance of definitions..
"even mining has a PVP aspect" indeed! it's comical.
Comical while adding nothing to the gist of this thread..
I'm trying to make you aware.. no disrespect intended. Really.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:17:59 -
[1207] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Jonah is exactly correct. Even mining has a PvP aspect to it. Since the belts are open to anyone if somebody comes into the belt then they can take some of the more valuable ore before I do. That is a type of competition, a type of PvP. When I sell something on the market and undercut the current lowest price seller I am going to take sales he might have otherwise gotten. CompetitionGǪPvP.
To say one wants to play the game and not engage in behavior that does not impact other players that person is just being silly. Hell, when I buy something off the market, it has an effect. Players participating in the market is what generates prices which in turn tell inventors and/or builders information on what to build. Prices inform miners on what are the best rocks to mine. Etc.
On top of that, there is the economic side we all know well. For Bella as a newer player: Whether we like it or not, PvEers/Industrialists need pvp in the game just as much as pvpers need PvEers/Industrialists in return; and highsec is a major centre for that dependence. If highsec becomes safe (at least from outlaws), the demand for replacement Freighters will drop. No demand to replace them means no demand to produce them. Similarly, the reduced CONCORDing of catalysts, taloses and other gank ships will reduce the demand to buy them, reducing the need to build them. When the ships aren't needed, neither are the fittings; and once demand the overall to build is reduced, the demand for minerals will drop also. More destruction in the game leads to more production, but the reverse doesn't hold true. Highsec systems like Uedama, Madirlimire, Niarja and surrounds are regularly in the top system statistics on zkillboard ( http://puu.sh/mX7eH/3b49e00fee.jpg ) highlighting their importance as major centres of destruction in the game. Similarly, regions that are mostly highsec are also significant in the game in terms of total destruction ( Destruction by Region for September 2015). So whether we like it or not, everyone's play is affected by the amount of pvp that goes on in highsec, with the correlation that more pvp is good for everyone in the game. I guess, at least if outlaws are banned from highsec, there'll still be wardecs. Maybe a lot of the current gankers can switch and become wardeccers. PvEers/Industrialists will be fine with that I'm sure.
Actually, you bring up an important point. The destruction of assets in Eve drives the player controlled economy.
Please don't think I'm against destruction. I agree with you on the freighters and Catalysts completely. Just that I want to make it harder in HISEC.
I'm actually with you:
I want them to need & lose MORE Catalysts..
I want to add BUMPING SHIPS to the tally of destroyed vessels.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44256
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:21:53 -
[1208] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:with all due respect, reading your posts is an excercize in wordplay, nuance of definitions.. "even mining has a PVP aspect" indeed! it's comical. Comical while adding nothing to the gist of this thread.. I'm trying to make you aware.. no disrespect intended. Really. It's not wordplay, just well established and accepted facts about gameplay.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:24:43 -
[1209] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:
Spot on!!
Facts you claim don't add anything, but poor RL comparisons are 'spot on'. Really?
Because you are clinging, closed mindedly to your paradigm, you can't get it.. I even believe you don't want to get it.
Because I'm telling you it's the BEST, clearest and most ACCURATE analogy of the problem I've seen stated to date and anyone who claims otherwise does so because it's against their agenda..
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44256
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:25:37 -
[1210] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:I want them to need & lose MORE Catalysts..
I want to add BUMPING SHIPS to the tally of destroyed vessels. Don't you want outlaws banned from highsec also?
You can't have both of those situations. Ganking characters are outlaws. That's been stated many times in the thread as a reason they can't be counter-ganked, because they are constantly moving when undocked to prevent being caught by faction police and other players that can freely kill them.
So if you remove outlaws from highsec, you remove destruction.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:26:27 -
[1211] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:with all due respect, reading your posts is an excercize in wordplay, nuance of definitions.. "even mining has a PVP aspect" indeed! it's comical. Comical while adding nothing to the gist of this thread.. I'm trying to make you aware.. no disrespect intended. Really. It's not wordplay, just well established and accepted facts about gameplay.
OK, so how does it relate to BUMPING for the purpose of ganking not having consequences.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:27:56 -
[1212] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:I want them to need & lose MORE Catalysts..
I want to add BUMPING SHIPS to the tally of destroyed vessels. Don't you want outlaws banned from highsec also? You can't have both of those situations. Ganking characters are outlaws. That's been stated many times in the thread as a reason they can't be counter-ganked, because they are constantly moving when undocked to prevent being caught by faction police and other players that can freely kill them. So if you remove outlaws from highsec, you remove a large quantity of destruction, unless it is replaced by an equivalent increase in wardecs.
these gankers make endless alts.. give me a break
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Iain Cariaba
2585
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:28:50 -
[1213] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:I hope that discussion will spawn ideas.. but I do have a strong opinion about what is broken - and that is the lack of consequences when BUMPING in HISEC in order to arrange a gank. Bumping and the inevitable gank are player derived consequences for the problem of irresponsible freighter pilots in highsec. As they are a player derived consequence, they should have a player derived counter.
Bella Jennie wrote:Read my other posts to address your "use the tools provided" suggestion..
I've also already addressed the "99.9%" number which you clearly enjoy spewing out so much. Dismissing them out of hand is not addressing them.
Bella Jennie wrote:As far as the jerks, NOPE, I don't want to be forced to deal with them, in HISEC, unless they are killed when they kill me or, help to kill me.
And if the opportunity to be a jerk is the main draw of Eve, it's kind of sad. You think CCP would be proud to list that as a selling point for their game? Really? Train your Reading Comprehension up another level, then re-read my comment.
Bella Jennie wrote:I don't mind someone trying to ruin my day.. but I want them to pay dearly for it when I'm in HISEC. - At the very least, I want them to have THE RISK of paying for it.. in HISEC. They have the risk of paying for it. It is the exact same risk a freighter pilot takes when he decides his profit margin outweighs his safety. It is simply your responsibility as a player to provide that risk. What you want is to have zero risk of your own.
Bella Jennie wrote:You want status quo; I want evolution towards improvement, logic and realism.
Bottom line you come off as quite an an elitist. and your tone quite condescending. I get it, your a top player no doubt very proud of your kill score.. You don't want evolution, you want Trammel. You want all form of risk for you removed from the game. Yes, you spew the phrase "in highsec" with all caps, but I seriously doubt you'll ever leave highsec. if the 0.1% chance of losing a ship is too much for you in highsec, the much higher chances outside highsec must give you night terrors.
Yeah, I am kind of an elitist. No one who considers themselves a success at EvE isn't. EvE is considered by many to be the hardest MMO to play. One of the reasons for this is the very thing you're trying to destroy, the freedom of the sandbox. As for the condescending tone, when you stop and realize that you're trying to change one of the core tenets of the game for no other reason then you don't like it, of course I'm condescending.
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?
|
Paranoid Loyd
8391
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:30:03 -
[1214] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:these gankers make endless alts.. give me a break I'm a ganker and I know many more gankers than you, I have never met anyone that has made more than 3 or 4 alts and only one or two of them are gankers. I am curious where this misconception comes from.
"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!
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44257
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:30:24 -
[1215] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:OK, so how does it relate to BUMPING for the purpose of ganking not having consequences.
Nothing in particular. A side-discussion began because a comment was made about banning outlaws from highsec.
That's all part of that side discussion.
Banning outlaws from highsec isn't related to bumping directly, only indirectly; but not related to that side discussion.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Iain Cariaba
2585
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:32:27 -
[1216] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:I want them to need & lose MORE Catalysts..
I want to add BUMPING SHIPS to the tally of destroyed vessels. Don't you want outlaws banned from highsec also? You can't have both of those situations. Ganking characters are outlaws. That's been stated many times in the thread as a reason they can't be counter-ganked, because they are constantly moving when undocked to prevent being caught by faction police and other players that can freely kill them. So if you remove outlaws from highsec, you remove a large quantity of destruction, unless it is replaced by an equivalent increase in wardecs. these gankers make endless alts.. give me a break Actually, they don't. They get banned for recycling alts.
I had an alt with negative sec status that I needed to biomass in order to make room for a character I bought. I got convo'd by the GM shortly after I biomassed her to talk to me about recycling alts. Fortunately, I pay for all my accounts with the same card and had a post in the character bazaar about buying that character as proof of why I biomassed the ganking alt, otherwise it could've gotten hairy/
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?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:32:42 -
[1217] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:these gankers make endless alts.. give me a break I'm a ganker and I know many more gankers than you, I have never met anyone that has made more than 3 or 4 alts and only one or two of them are gankers. I am curious where this misconception comes from.
personal observation...
anyway, your point is rather knitpicky...
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44257
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:33:48 -
[1218] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:these gankers make endless alts.. give me a break Players are not allowed to recycle alts to avoid the consequences of having a low security status. That is a bannable offence.
That affects gankers the most.
So you can roll all the alts you want, but how many accounts are you going to run? Additionally, the statistics published by CCP show that 2/3rds of the playerbase have only 1 account. 86% have 2 or less accounts.
So even in the event that you could roll alts on one account and then just let that subscription lapse and never have a main character, CCP have clearly demonstrated that doesn't happen.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25852
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:36:19 -
[1219] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:I admit I don't have all the answers.
I hope that discussion will spawn ideas.. but I do have a strong opinion about what is broken - and that is the lack of consequences when BUMPING in HISEC in order to arrange a gank. You don't have any of the answers, because you refuse to acknowledge them when they are provided.
The lack of consequences for bumping in hisec is not a balance or mechanics problem; it is a people problem, until people are willing to inflict consequences for bumping then the bumpers will suffer no consequences for their actions. The crimewatch mechanic provides opportunity to punish ne'er-do-wells and last we heard from CCP this is working as intended.
Quote:I read your suggestions; I know all about it. Many are valid - but they don't fix the problem issue for me.
Read my other posts to address your "use the tools provided" suggestion..
I've also already addressed the "99.9%" number which you clearly enjoy spewing out so much. The problem that nobody has been able to provide evidence to support their claim that it's a problem, despite claiming that it's obvious?
Dismissing the 99% figure out of hand is not addressing anything. Red Frog are the largest hauler in the game, the sheer volume of traffic that they generate, and the fact that they publish an annual report, which is where that number comes from, should highlight any glaring problems with how bumping affects freighters.
Quote:As far as the jerks, NOPE, I don't want to be forced to deal with them, in HISEC, unless they are killed when they kill me or, help to kill me.
And if the opportunity to be a jerk is the main draw of Eve, it's kind of sad. You think CCP would be proud to list that as a selling point for their game? Really? Jerk or not, as long as they stick within the, admittedly rather loose by industry standards, rules then you have no choice but to deal with them; personally I deal with them by being an undesirable target.
As for "the opportunity of being a jerk" being a major selling point of Eve, no it's not; the major selling point is that you get to choose between good and evil, to write your own story and to choose your own path, instead of being forced through a scripted story and forced down the path of being a hero like so many other games.
In short, freedom is the salient selling point of Eve, spaceships and spaceships exploding come in very closely behind that.
Quote:I don't mind someone trying to ruin my day.. but I want them to pay dearly for it when I'm in HISEC. - At the very least, I want them to have THE RISK of paying for it.. in HISEC. Good news, you can make them pay dearly for it, shoot them in the face.
Quote:Stop preaching about AFK; you sound like a CODE clone. Meanwhile, I don't play AFK; never played AFK.. but thinking about it now that you brought it up, I might enjoy the option once in a while.. in HISEC. Do you think that going afk in space, in a PvP game, should be free of consequence?
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:37:00 -
[1220] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:I want them to need & lose MORE Catalysts..
I want to add BUMPING SHIPS to the tally of destroyed vessels. Don't you want outlaws banned from highsec also? You can't have both of those situations. Ganking characters are outlaws. That's been stated many times in the thread as a reason they can't be counter-ganked, because they are constantly moving when undocked to prevent being caught by faction police and other players that can freely kill them. So if you remove outlaws from highsec, you remove a large quantity of destruction, unless it is replaced by an equivalent increase in wardecs. these gankers make endless alts.. give me a break Actually, they don't. They get banned for recycling alts. I had an alt with negative sec status that I needed to biomass in order to make room for a character I bought. I got convo'd by the GM shortly after I biomassed her to talk to me about recycling alts. Fortunately, I pay for all my accounts with the same card and had a post in the character bazaar about buying that character as proof of why I biomassed the ganking alt, otherwise it could've gotten hairy/
point taken..
I see dozens of newbie alts enlisted in the HISEC ganking teams.. I suspected that one guy runs a doz each - and he's an alt himself.. maybe slightly older..
I'll defer to your expertise on this one
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
|
Paranoid Loyd
8393
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:37:06 -
[1221] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:these gankers make endless alts.. give me a break I'm a ganker and I know many more gankers than you, I have never met anyone that has made more than 3 or 4 alts and only one or two of them are gankers. I am curious where this misconception comes from. personal observation... anyway, your point is rather knitpicky... My point is you don't know what you are talking about and should stop posting unfounded lies.
"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!
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:41:24 -
[1222] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:these gankers make endless alts.. give me a break I'm a ganker and I know many more gankers than you, I have never met anyone that has made more than 3 or 4 alts and only one or two of them are gankers. I am curious where this misconception comes from. personal observation... anyway, your point is rather knitpicky... My point is you don't know what you are talking about and should stop posting unfounded lies.
I did NOT do that maliciously although my tone was snarky.
I did NOT know what I was talking about and I apologize
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4636
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:42:56 -
[1223] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:This is still referencing the issue of BUMPING for the purpose of ganking without fear of any consequence to the bumping ship...
A very common excuse for this "feature" to be retained - even is HISEC - is that when you play Eve, it is ESSENTIAL that others can "ruin your day" any time, any where and any how..
You should not be able to feel safe ANYWHERE! anytime.. (I suppose that if there was some way to screw with you while docked, the gank 'em proponents would love it)
Really? Is "the biggest" draw of Eve the ability of players to act like jerks?
In a word, yes. Are the players acting like jerks? I wouldnGÇÖt describe it that way. This is a game where you can literally be the GÇ£Bad GuyGÇ¥ and some players take up that challenge. In my view this makes the game interesting and exciting and worth playing. I like the challenge.
Quote:Is non-consensual PVP a "cornerstone" of this game for real? - if that's the case, logic tells me that it's about the ability to pick on the weak.
Is that it? The ability to pick on the weak?
Yes, PvP is the core of the game. You have been shown official CCP documents stating this. CCP designed the game with PvP at the core from the very beginning. As for picking on the weak, yes that is often the case. Attack when your opponent is vulnerable is always a good strategy.
Quote:Is there really NO OTHER WAY to play Eve without engaging in PVP, joining a large corp and becoming a "pirate". - I mean judging from the responses here, if you want to be a miner you're stupid, lazy scum to be harassed at every opportunity; EVEN in HISEC. (I had asked: why even have HISEC then?)
Without engaging in PvP? No. As for joining a large corp or becoming a pirate, you donGÇÖt have to do that. I decided I was going to play Eve without scamming, stealing, etc. That when I joined up with a group, IGÇÖd be loyal to that group. It was my personal choice. So if you want to lone wolf it, go for it, but that choice will put constraints on you. If you want to join a small corp, go for it, but again that choice will put constraints on you. Just keep in mind the rules on what you cannot do in game is extremely short, and it typically revolves around things like using ethnic or gender related slurs, harassment is following a person around all the time in game bugging them even when they have made a good faith effort to get awayGÇöi.e. move 20 jumps away. Other than that short listGǪit is pretty much fair game. Stealing, scams, ganking, lying, spying, etc. are all legitimate. One of the biggest and oldest alliances in the game had all their Sov turned off by a spy. Then all the member corporations were kicked, and the holding corporation with the name of the alliance was given over to said alliances longtime enemies who proceeded to invade the space of the alliance that lost its sov. All completely allowed by CCP. And the scale of the losses was substantial.
HS does afford greater degree of safety, but it is not absolute and never has been. All of the above can still happen. Corp thefts, ganking, lying, scams, etc. Be very, very careful who you trust in game.
Quote:Indeed; why even have mining then? I stated that I wanted to play in HISEC and just be reasonably safe. This caused heads to explode and the hate posts went through the roof! (well, those are your jerk players I referred to) My thinking is that a game must evolve over time; CCP is doing it constantly and that's great. I think a game should have options to play in a wide variety of styles - even including a bit of douchery to spice it up - THAT is a REAL sandbox IMHO. Not a game overrun with jerks. So I wonder if a MODERATOR could possibly jump in and confirm this one way or another. - or at least give a bit of insight into this.
Mining is in the game as part of the economy. The economy in this game is one of the most detailed economies in any MMO. It is basically a giant market simulation. To be quite honest IGÇÖm surprised CCP does not have PhD candidates and PhD economists knocking on their door every day to get at that data for use in articles, dissertations, etc.
You can play however you like, but you cannot insulate yourself from other players. Some of those other players have decided to play the bad guy and they may try to do bad things to you. You have only one real recourse, deal with them as best you can. If they come gunning for you, you can try to kill them first, or you can just try to wait them out and bore them to death. But CCP will not help you.
And it is highly unlikely anyone from CCP, volunteer or otherwise, will show up in this thread. And if they did my guess is you wonGÇÖt like it. Somebody may have linked it or they may link it, but CCP Falcon has a post that would completely disabuse you of just about everything you have written. From your perspective you would likely classify CCP Falcon with the rest of us in the douche category.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Paranoid Loyd
8393
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:48:04 -
[1224] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:I did NOT know what I was talking about and I apologize Fair enough, now you think maybe you might not understand enough about the meta game and maybe just maybe y'all should stop asking for bumping to be "fixed"?
Gankers are more than capable of performing freighter ganks without bumping, if you guys do somehow manage to formulate a good enough argument to get the mechanic changed, the result will be that is is even harder for you to do what you do as it won't be so blantantly obvious when said ganks are going to occur.
"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!
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:49:07 -
[1225] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:You don't have any of the answers, because you refuse to acknowledge them when they are provided.
The lack of consequences for bumping in hisec is not a balance or mechanics problem; it is a people problem, until people are willing to inflict consequences for bumping then the bumpers will suffer no consequences for their actions. The crimewatch mechanic provides opportunity to punish ne'er-do-wells and last we heard from CCP this is working as intended.
let's get to a bottom line..
I don't want to inflict the consequences. OK?
I want logical, realistic game mechanics to create consequences - or at least a higher risk of consequences.. - in HISEC only
Currently BUMPING in order to gank in HISEC does NOT invoke the Crimewatch mechanic... - that is EXACTLY what I hope gets fixed.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:55:39 -
[1226] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Yeah, I am kind of an elitist. No one who considers themselves a success at EvE isn't. EvE is considered by many to be the hardest MMO to play. One of the reasons for this is the very thing you're trying to destroy, the freedom of the sandbox. As for the condescending tone, when you stop and realize that you're trying to change one of the core tenets of the game for no other reason then you don't like it, of course I'm condescending.
we're mosty just going around & around over beaten ground.. making 0 headway
Changing the BUMPING mechanic in HISEC does not destroy the major tenant of the game..
Come to think of it, why are you even playng now with the advent of Crimewatch?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44267
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:59:25 -
[1227] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Currently BUMPING in order to gank in HISEC does NOT invoke the Crimewatch mechanic... - that is EXACTLY what I hope gets fixed. I think if you look back through the whole thread; and the history of previous threads, that a lot of us that seem to be stoic opponents; aren't opposed to change at all. We would just like some solid evidence to show that a change is required.
However, that aside; lets assume for a second that the evidence is convincing.
Those of us that don't see a need for change also fly Freighters and the easy solution now is to just use webbing support.
That reduces the risk of being ganked to at most 0.1% (but lower in reality) based on data currently available from Red Frog Freight (and more data coming in the next couple of weeks that will either confirm the RFF data or show a different pattern).
So if the risk is less than 0.1% currently, how would you change the game to get it to an acceptable level of risk for you?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:03:27 -
[1228] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:I did NOT know what I was talking about and I apologize Fair enough, now you think maybe you might not understand enough about the meta game and maybe just maybe y'all should stop asking for bumping to be "fixed"? Gankers are more than capable of performing freighter ganks without bumping, if you guys do somehow manage to formulate a good enough argument to get the mechanic changed, the result will be that is is even harder for you to do what you do as it won't be so blantantly obvious when said ganks are going to occur.
No, I believe BUMPING without consequence is a flaw. It's illogical and unrealistic.. in HISEC.
and if gankers can gank without BUMPING, what's your problem?
Being a criminal is indeed harder in a law enforced area.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21234
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:05:58 -
[1229] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Mag's wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:
Spot on!!
Facts you claim don't add anything, but poor RL comparisons are 'spot on'. Really? Because you are clinging, closed mindedly to your paradigm, you can't get it.. I even believe you don't want to get it. Because I'm telling you it's the BEST, clearest and most ACCURATE analogy of the problem I've seen stated to date and anyone who claims otherwise does so because it's against their agenda.. Please stop with the projection and stay on topic. Although the irony of your post is amusing, it adds nothing to the discussion. Just as RL comparisons do.
Tell you what. I'll accept the comparison, when you can show me proof that we're all demigods I'm RL, live in a goo filled pod, whilst flying massive starships with a huge crew. Can use wormholes, clones and have a pet Fedo. Until then I'll stick with facts and figures you find uncomfortable. Asking for proof of a problem we're informed of with this game. Thanks anyway.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25855
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:08:24 -
[1230] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:You don't have any of the answers, because you refuse to acknowledge them when they are provided.
The lack of consequences for bumping in hisec is not a balance or mechanics problem; it is a people problem, until people are willing to inflict consequences for bumping then the bumpers will suffer no consequences for their actions. The crimewatch mechanic provides opportunity to punish ne'er-do-wells and last we heard from CCP this is working as intended.
let's get to a bottom line.. I don't want to inflict the consequences. OK? That is entirely your problem, not mine, not CCP's. Your unwillingness to inflict consequences has its own consequences, one of which is that bumpers can bump stuff unmolested.
Quote:I want logical, realistic game mechanics to create consequences - or at least a higher risk of consequences.. - in HISEC only Those mechanics already exist, you just said that you don't want to use them
Quote:Currently BUMPING in order to gank in HISEC does NOT invoke the Crimewatch mechanic... Why is that? Is it remotely possible that CCP don't consider it to be one? It certainly doesn't fulfil the criteria that crimewatch uses to apply the suspect or criminal flags.
Quote:- that is EXACTLY what I hope gets fixed. Hope is a wonderful thing, unfortunately yours is somewhat misplaced imho.
You didn't answer the question I addressed to you either, so I'll ask again.
Do you think that going afk anywhere in space, in a PvP game, should be free of consequence?
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:08:46 -
[1231] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Currently BUMPING in order to gank in HISEC does NOT invoke the Crimewatch mechanic... - that is EXACTLY what I hope gets fixed. I think if you look back through the whole thread; and the history of previous threads, that a lot of us that seem to be stoic opponents; aren't opposed to change at all. We would just like some solid evidence to show that a change is required. However, that aside; lets assume for a second that the evidence is convincing. Those of us that don't see a need for change also fly Freighters and the easy solution now is to just use webbing support. That reduces the risk of being ganked to at most 0.1% (but lower in reality) based on data currently available from Red Frog Freight (and more data coming in the next couple of weeks that will either confirm the RFF data or show a different pattern). So if the risk is less than 0.1% currently, how would you change the game to get it to an acceptable level of risk for you?
here's the thing... and it's not even so much about more safety (although who would NOT want to be safer?)
It's about getting to act like a jerk with impunity..
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Paranoid Loyd
8396
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:10:06 -
[1232] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:I did NOT know what I was talking about and I apologize Fair enough, now you think maybe you might not understand enough about the meta game and maybe just maybe y'all should stop asking for bumping to be "fixed"? Gankers are more than capable of performing freighter ganks without bumping, if you guys do somehow manage to formulate a good enough argument to get the mechanic changed, the result will be that is is even harder for you to do what you do as it won't be so blantantly obvious when said ganks are going to occur. No, I believe BUMPING without consequence is a flaw. It's illogical and unrealistic.. in HISEC. and if gankers can gank without BUMPING, what's your problem? Being a criminal is indeed harder in a law enforced area. Have you seen any argument from me one way or another with regards to bumping? I'm simply pointing out that every time the nerf ganking crowd thinks they are fixing something it ends up mostly backfiring on them. If you have the time to waste, look up the threads that had to do with giving freighters fitting and how the tears of the ignorant ended up making it harder on everyone but mostly the ones who were crying the most.
Again, my problem is it is obvious you don't know enough about what is actually going on to have an objective opinion.
"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!
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:13:39 -
[1233] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:I did NOT know what I was talking about and I apologize Fair enough, now you think maybe you might not understand enough about the meta game and maybe just maybe y'all should stop asking for bumping to be "fixed"? Gankers are more than capable of performing freighter ganks without bumping, if you guys do somehow manage to formulate a good enough argument to get the mechanic changed, the result will be that is is even harder for you to do what you do as it won't be so blantantly obvious when said ganks are going to occur. No, I believe BUMPING without consequence is a flaw. It's illogical and unrealistic.. in HISEC. and if gankers can gank without BUMPING, what's your problem? Being a criminal is indeed harder in a law enforced area. Have you seen any argument from me one way or another with regards to bumping? I'm simply pointing out that every time the nerf ganking crowd thinks they are fixing something it ends up mostly backfiring on them. If you have the time to waste, look up the threads that had to do with giving freighters fitting and how the tears of the ignorant ended up making it harder on everyone but mostly the ones who were crying the most. Again, my problem is it is obvious you don't know enough about what is actually going on to have an objective opinion. you give me very little credit.. ouch
But if you are not afraid of a change in the BUMPING mechanic when done in HISEC, then we have no disagreements.
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44271
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:18:26 -
[1234] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Currently BUMPING in order to gank in HISEC does NOT invoke the Crimewatch mechanic... - that is EXACTLY what I hope gets fixed. I think if you look back through the whole thread; and the history of previous threads, that a lot of us that seem to be stoic opponents; aren't opposed to change at all. We would just like some solid evidence to show that a change is required. However, that aside; lets assume for a second that the evidence is convincing. Those of us that don't see a need for change also fly Freighters and the easy solution now is to just use webbing support. That reduces the risk of being ganked to at most 0.1% (but lower in reality) based on data currently available from Red Frog Freight (and more data coming in the next couple of weeks that will either confirm the RFF data or show a different pattern). So if the risk is less than 0.1% currently, how would you change the game to get it to an acceptable level of risk for you? here's the thing... and it's not even so much about more safety (although who would NOT want to be safer?) It's about getting to act like a jerk with impunity.. Ok, reason aside.
How would you change the game?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25857
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:18:59 -
[1235] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:you give me very little credit.. ouch I'd hazard a guess that's because you haven't posted anything that is deserving of credit.
Quote:But if you are not afraid of a change in the BUMPING mechanic when done in HISEC, then we have no disagreements. I can't speak for Lyod, but for myself, I welcome change, unless it's bad change. Which is what you're proposing because you don't want to use the mechanics, that are universally available, to achieve your goal.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Paranoid Loyd
8401
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:23:04 -
[1236] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:then we have no disagreements. Oh we do, it's just you are focused on the tree right in front of you while I am mostly speaking about the forest.
"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!
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21236
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:25:52 -
[1237] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:you give me very little credit.. ouch I'd hazard a guess that's because you haven't posted anything that is deserving of credit. Quote:But if you are not afraid of a change in the BUMPING mechanic when done in HISEC, then we have no disagreements. I can't speak for Lyod, but for myself, I welcome change, unless it's bad change, which is what you're proposing. Indeed.
I would welcome change, if it could be shown there is a problem. But being told of one without evidence and seemingly only a problem when focusing on a specific special circumstance, isn't how balance is achieved. It certainly isn't justification, for such a fundamental change to game mechanics.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:27:12 -
[1238] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Currently BUMPING in order to gank in HISEC does NOT invoke the Crimewatch mechanic... - that is EXACTLY what I hope gets fixed. I think if you look back through the whole thread; and the history of previous threads, that a lot of us that seem to be stoic opponents; aren't opposed to change at all. We would just like some solid evidence to show that a change is required. However, that aside; lets assume for a second that the evidence is convincing. Those of us that don't see a need for change also fly Freighters and the easy solution now is to just use webbing support. That reduces the risk of being ganked to at most 0.1% (but lower in reality) based on data currently available from Red Frog Freight (and more data coming in the next couple of weeks that will either confirm the RFF data or show a different pattern). So if the risk is less than 0.1% currently, how would you change the game to get it to an acceptable level of risk for you? here's the thing... and it's not even so much about more safety (although who would NOT want to be safer?) It's about getting to act like a jerk with impunity.. Ok, reason aside. How would you change the game?
by including BUMPING in the Crimewatch mechanic
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44271
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:28:54 -
[1239] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:by including BUMPING in the Crimewatch mechanic
That's a little light on detail. Maybe we can drill into it a bit more.
All bumping in highsec?
That's an awesome idea. CCP should definitely implement that.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:29:30 -
[1240] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:you give me very little credit.. ouch I'd hazard a guess that's because you haven't posted anything that is deserving of credit. Quote:But if you are not afraid of a change in the BUMPING mechanic when done in HISEC, then we have no disagreements. I can't speak for Lyod, but for myself, I welcome change, unless it's bad change, which is what you're proposing. Indeed. I would welcome change, if it could be shown there is a problem. But being told of one without evidence and seemingly only a problem when focusing on a specific special circumstance, isn't how balance is achieved. It certainly isn't justification, for such a fundamental change to game mechanics. OK, then please tell me why BUMPING with impunity in HISEC is so vital as to be defended to such an extent as exhibited here?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21236
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:33:04 -
[1241] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Mag's wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:you give me very little credit.. ouch I'd hazard a guess that's because you haven't posted anything that is deserving of credit. Quote:But if you are not afraid of a change in the BUMPING mechanic when done in HISEC, then we have no disagreements. I can't speak for Lyod, but for myself, I welcome change, unless it's bad change, which is what you're proposing. Indeed. I would welcome change, if it could be shown there is a problem. But being told of one without evidence and seemingly only a problem when focusing on a specific special circumstance, isn't how balance is achieved. It certainly isn't justification, for such a fundamental change to game mechanics. OK, then please tell me why BUMPING with impunity in HISEC is so vital as to be defended to such an extent as exhibited here? I actually answered that in the quote. Please re-read it.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:34:01 -
[1242] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:by including BUMPING in the Crimewatch mechanic
That's a little light on detail. Maybe we can drill into it a bit more. All bumping in highsec? That's an awesome idea. CCP should definitely implement that.
well not necessarily.. just the BUMPING that sets up a gank..
- now I do realize this is very complicated technically.. it needs to be worked out
and I'm sure the coding is quite involved as well..
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44276
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:39:01 -
[1243] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:well not necessarily.. just the BUMPING that sets up a gank..
- now I do realize this is very complicated technically.. it needs to be worked out
and I'm sure the coding is quite involved as well..
The difficult part is working out the logic first. Once you have the logic, the coding is simple, since it just has to implement what the logic of the design says.
The good thing about designing an algorithm is that the logic can be designed to a degree by anyone if you don't deal with the technical apsects of the code.
So thinking about the logic:
If you have an outcome to make bumping a crimewatch trigger if it is to set up a gank, what are the logical questions you would ask when bumping occurs to allow you to conclude that it is to set up a gank?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:39:31 -
[1244] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:OK, then please tell me why BUMPING with impunity in HISEC is so vital as to be defended to such an extent as exhibited here? I actually answered that in the quote. Please re-read it. Oh, so you're just gonna stand on "it's fundamental to the game"..
BUMPING with impunity in HISEC is fundamental to the game.. that's your opinion. OK
but honestly, if that's it.. it's a pretty shallow and unrealistic game IMHO
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21236
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:40:57 -
[1245] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: - now I do realize this is very complicated technically.. it needs to be worked out
and I'm sure the coding is quite involved as well..
In other words, it's a fundamental change and for what?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:42:11 -
[1246] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:well not necessarily.. just the BUMPING that sets up a gank..
- now I do realize this is very complicated technically.. it needs to be worked out
and I'm sure the coding is quite involved as well..
The difficult part is working out the logic first. Once you have the logic, the coding is simple, since it just has to implement what the logic of the design says. The good thing about designing an algorithm is that the logic can be designed to a degree by anyone if you don't deal with the technical apsects of the code. So thinking about the logic: If you have an outcome to make bumping a crimewatch trigger if it is to set up a gank, what are the logical questions you would ask when bumping occurs to allow you to conclude that it is to set up a gank? So, starting at the initial trigger: 1. Collision in highsec occurs What the first question you ask when that happens?
good question; good direction
- so first: is it intentional or not?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21236
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:44:41 -
[1247] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Mag's wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:OK, then please tell me why BUMPING with impunity in HISEC is so vital as to be defended to such an extent as exhibited here? I actually answered that in the quote. Please re-read it. Oh, so you're just gonna stand on "it's fundamental to the game".. BUMPING with impunity in HISEC is fundamental to the game.. that's your opinion. OK but honestly, if that's it.. it's a pretty shallow and unrealistic game IMHO Bumping is part of the games mechanics, of course it's fundamental.
Now you want realistic? In a space sim of demi gods, set in fluid motion mechanics? Can we stick with sensible arguments please?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Paranoid Loyd
8401
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:47:04 -
[1248] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Mag's wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:OK, then please tell me why BUMPING with impunity in HISEC is so vital as to be defended to such an extent as exhibited here? I actually answered that in the quote. Please re-read it. Oh, so you're just gonna stand on "it's fundamental to the game".. BUMPING with impunity in HISEC is fundamental to the game.. that's your opinion. OK but honestly, if that's it.. it's a pretty shallow and unrealistic game IMHO Bumping is part of the games mechanics, of course it's fundamental. Now you want realistic? In a space sim of demi gods, set in fluid motion mechanics? Can we stick with sensible arguments please? Let's not forget omnipotent police.
"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!
|
Iain Cariaba
2590
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:47:14 -
[1249] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:here's the thing... and it's not even so much about more safety (although who would NOT want to be safer?) It is about safety. If you fly with safety in mind, you almost never have to worry about getting bumped. If you fly with safety in mind, you can chuckle at the poor schmuck who didn't as you blithely warp away, secure in the knowledge that you're probably going to be making the profits he would have if the roles were reversed.
Instituting a suspect flag for bumping will only give lazy, inattentive pilots more security. Instead of fitting for tank and bringing a scout, they'll instead rely on the AG crowd to camp the trade routes looking to kill bumpers. When the AG crowd isn't doing this, they'll resort to whining on forums to get yet another nerf to ganking. They'll use the suspect timer to justify a criminal timer. This has been an ongoing pattern with carebears. Rather than use the provided tools to get 99.9% safety, they instead try to get more.
This happened with decreasing Concord response times. This happened with making Concord invincible. This happened with redoing mining barges and freighters. This even happened with the current Crimewatch system.
It's never enough with you people until you get 100% total safety.
Bella Jennie wrote:It's about getting to act like a jerk with impunity.. One person's jerk is another's villainous attitude.
I know many, many gankers. Only a handful of them I consider jerks. Simply because one acts the villain in a game that allows you to be the villain doesn't make them a jerk.
If you cop an attitude about them playing the game the way they want to, then their response isn't going to be positive. On the other hand, if you're cool about the loss, they will happily teach you how to avoid the loss in the future.
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?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4638
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:50:23 -
[1250] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:you've added nothing new.. you're just being contrary while merely making the discussion circular. I'm not being contrary at all, you asked if there was a way to play Eve without engaging in PvP, I answered your question; complete with a quote from the New Player FAQ that states everything you do in New Eden is to be considered a form of PvP, because that's the core concept of the game. That quote is not disputable, and I can provide others from the same official CCP document that further reinforce what it says. You stated that miners are treated as stupid and lazy, I pointed out that's what generally happens to people who are being stupid and lazy in a PvP environment such as Eve; just as it's what happens to people who are stupid and lazy in real life. I also pointed out that a miner who knows that Eve is a PvP environment and plans accordingly is often treated with respect. Your last point was that you wanted to be safe in hisec, I pointed out that your safety in hisec is your responsibility and that you should take steps to fulfil that responsibility. Nowhere was I being circular, nor have I stated anything that is false or misleading. Try harder. Jonah is exactly correct. Even mining has a PvP aspect to it. Since the belts are open to anyone if somebody comes into the belt then they can take some of the more valuable ore before I do. That is a type of competition, a type of PvP. When I sell something on the market and undercut the current lowest price seller I am going to take sales he might have otherwise gotten. CompetitionGǪPvP. To say one wants to play the game and not engage in behavior that does not impact other players that person is just being silly. Hell, when I buy something off the market, it has an effect. Players participating in the market is what generates prices which in turn tell inventors and/or builders information on what to build. Prices inform miners on what are the best rocks to mine. Etc. with all due respect, reading your posts is an excercize in wordplay, nuance of definitions.. "even mining has a PVP aspect" indeed! it's comical. Comical while adding nothing to the gist of this thread.. I'm trying to make you aware.. no disrespect intended. Really.
Okay, simple example:
There is one asteroid and we are both interested in mining it. If I get there a few minutes first and have better skills, ship, etc. then IGÇÖll GÇ£winGÇ¥ by getting more of that asteroid and the resulting ore. PvP is competition. As such mining does have a competitive aspect to it. Not in the same sense as me shooting you in the face (in game obviously), but none-the-less it is PvP.
So, if anything you are the one unaware of the nature of this game. About the only aspect of the game where there is little to no competition/PvP is mission running. If I am running a mission for Agent X, you can too. The use of agents is non-rivalrous and non-excludable.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16213
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:53:51 -
[1251] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: - so first: is it intentional or not?
*facepalm
The game engine cannot determine intent. Like, at all, it lacks the capacity.
"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
4638
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:55:32 -
[1252] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Currently BUMPING in order to gank in HISEC does NOT invoke the Crimewatch mechanic... - that is EXACTLY what I hope gets fixed. I think if you look back through the whole thread; and the history of previous threads, that a lot of us that seem to be stoic opponents; aren't opposed to change at all. We would just like some solid evidence to show that a change is required. However, that aside; lets assume for a second that the evidence is convincing. Those of us that don't see a need for change also fly Freighters and the easy solution now is to just use webbing support. That reduces the risk of being ganked to at most 0.1% (but lower in reality) based on data currently available from Red Frog Freight (and more data coming in the next couple of weeks that will either confirm the RFF data or show a different pattern). So if the risk is less than 0.1% currently, how would you change the game to get it to an acceptable level of risk for you? here's the thing... and it's not even so much about more safety (although who would NOT want to be safer?) It's about getting to act like a jerk with impunity..
You keep on impugning our characters and whining when people get heated with you. You really are a special snowflake.
As for who would not want to be safer? Hi. How you doing. I live in null sec and spend a great deal of time there. I also do invention in low sec because the taxes are lower and I know how to avoid the problems low sec.
So here I am in areas of the game less safe than were you prefer to play and IGÇÖm not only fine with it, IGÇÖm making decent ISK too and keeping myself entertained.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21238
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:55:44 -
[1253] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: - so first: is it intentional or not?
*facepalm The game engine cannot determine intent. Like, at all, it lacks the capacity. I tried to explain this to bigbud. Apparently it didn't matter.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4644
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:58:10 -
[1254] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote: This happened with making Concord invincible.
Yep. Some of the newer players may not know this, but waaaay back you could kill CONCORD.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 22:59:01 -
[1255] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:here's the thing... and it's not even so much about more safety (although who would NOT want to be safer?) It is about safety. If you fly with safety in mind, you almost never have to worry about getting bumped. If you fly with safety in mind, you can chuckle at the poor schmuck who didn't as you blithely warp away, secure in the knowledge that you're probably going to be making the profits he would have if the roles were reversed. Instituting a suspect flag for bumping will only give lazy, inattentive pilots more security. Instead of fitting for tank and bringing a scout, they'll instead rely on the AG crowd to camp the trade routes looking to kill bumpers. When the AG crowd isn't doing this, they'll resort to whining on forums to get yet another nerf to ganking. They'll use the suspect timer to justify a criminal timer. This has been an ongoing pattern with carebears. Rather than use the provided tools to get 99.9% safety, they instead try to get more. This happened with decreasing Concord response times. This happened with making Concord invincible. This happened with redoing mining barges and freighters. This even happened with the current Crimewatch system. It's never enough with you people until you get 100% total safety. Bella Jennie wrote:It's about getting to act like a jerk with impunity.. One person's jerk is another's villainous attitude. I know many, many gankers. Only a handful of them I consider jerks. Simply because one acts the villain in a game that allows you to be the villain doesn't make them a jerk. If you cop an attitude about them playing the game the way they want to, then their response isn't going to be positive. On the other hand, if you're cool about the loss, they will happily teach you how to avoid the loss in the future.
the elitist attitude, the contempt for carebears...
I'm never gonna get through to you..
All the changes you list are great improvements. I know you and the other veteran elites hate them. - that's why I asked why you even continue to play.
Because it is about being a jerk; picking on the weak because you can.
That's going to change. it's gotta change if CCP wants any hope of taking the game further..
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 23:01:51 -
[1256] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote: This happened with making Concord invincible.
Yep. Some of the newer players may not know this, but waaaay back you could kill CONCORD.
yea and waaay back you ganked 1st day newbies and played with cans.. - fun times, lots of laughs at all the carebear tears..
it was a game for jerks..
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44280
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 23:03:11 -
[1257] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:good question; good direction
- so first: is it intentional or not?
Ok, so to extend this as I think I know where you are going, the full set of steps might look like
- Collision occurs - Is the collision intentional? - If intentional - suspect flag - Else - continue as normal
So the net result would be only intentional bumping is a trigger for a suspect flag.
The difficulty at this level of detail is that the question
Is the collision intentional?
Is difficult to know, because it needs more questions to be asked first. After all, if I bump into you in highsec, how do you know if it was intentional or not?
So if you break that question down further, how do you determine if my bump into you was intentional or not?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16220
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 23:03:47 -
[1258] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: - so first: is it intentional or not?
*facepalm The game engine cannot determine intent. Like, at all, it lacks the capacity. I tried to explain this to bigbud. Apparently it didn't matter.
It's a motherfucking background process of the physics engine, for crying out loud. it's probably just a simple collision check, no different than say, Skyrim.
You can't change jack **** about that, let alone try to tag along a bunch of other checks associated with a higher level process (like flagging).
Idk all that much about stackless Python from fifteen years ago, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way. They'd have to rewrite the game from the ground up, something they haven't been able to do in half a decade or more, or they wouldn't have taken so long to replace POSes.
Speaking of which, teachable moment here.
Did you know that, in all likelihood, they have not actually fixed POS code at all? What they've done is functionally cut it out of the game by replacing it with a different mechanic, the Citadel system. The POS code is most likely still intertwined into the base game, they're just going to delete all the in game instances of it once they have a stable replacement, and then pretend like it doesn't exist.
You know how I know this? Two reasons.
We've been told repeatedly that CCP has been unable to fix the POS code because it was largely undocumented and wound into too many other things in the base game. Removing it would break EVE in a fundamental, unfixable way. I have no reason to believe they lied about this, so the second assumption moves forward from that.
Secondly, that they have been making their own mini structures in the form of the various, and mostly loathed, deployables for the past year or so. They have been testing and building upon their ability not to fix the POS code, but to build a stable replacement.
Hopefully that makes sense to everybody, I have had a few.
"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
4644
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 23:04:34 -
[1259] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:
the elitist attitude, the contempt for carebears...
I'm never gonna get through to you..
All the changes you list are great improvements. I know you and the other veteran elites hate them. - that's why I asked why you even continue to play.
Because it is about being a jerk; picking on the weak because you can.
That's going to change. it's gotta change if CCP wants any hope of taking the game further..
I'm pretty sure I have not said anything against carebears. People who want to do industry, mining, trading, inventing, etcGǪ.great! I do invention myself and learned it from a couple of players who were carebears first and dabbled in PvP when it suited them.
I also like PvP and living in NS and shooting people in the face. IGÇÖve done small solo roams, big giant fleets engagements, ganked, been ganked, and so forth.
And if I ever meet up with somebody who ganked me, shot me in the face, even kicked us out of our spaceGǪIGÇÖd quite happily sit down and drink an alcoholic beverage with them and have fun. There are people in this game I consider my mortal space enemy (in game)GǪ.who I hope I could be friends with in RL if I ever do get the chance to meet them.
Calling people who want to play differently than you jerks tells us who the real jerk is here.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16220
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 23:04:50 -
[1260] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote: This happened with making Concord invincible.
Yep. Some of the newer players may not know this, but waaaay back you could kill CONCORD. yea and waaay back you ganked 1st day newbies and played with cans.. - fun times, lots of laughs at all the carebear tears.. it was a game for jerks..
It had way more players and way more active players back then.
Pretty clear which one the market prefers.
"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
4644
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 23:07:11 -
[1261] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote: This happened with making Concord invincible.
Yep. Some of the newer players may not know this, but waaaay back you could kill CONCORD. yea and waaay back you ganked 1st day newbies and played with cans.. - fun times, lots of laughs at all the carebear tears.. it was a game for jerks..
Actually no. I never never flipped cans....oh, wait. No I did. I flipped a can flipper's can. He was in a stealth bomber I was in an asault frigate. He ran like a little girl.
I did gank a newish player once, he took from one of my cans...I also sent him 2x the value of his loss....cause he was new and he was a good sport about it.
We know who the jerk here is.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 23:08:46 -
[1262] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:good question; good direction
- so first: is it intentional or not?
Ok, so to extend this as I think I know where you are going, the full set of sets might look like - Collision occurs - Is the collision intentional? - If intentional - suspect flag - Else - continue as normal So the net result would be only intentional bumping is a trigger for a suspect flag. The difficulty at this level of detail is that the question Is the collision intentional? After all, if I bump into you in highsec, how do you know if it was intentional or not? So if you break that question down further, how do you determine if it's intentional or not?
exactly... so how about they check me.. I'm trying to align and warp; perhaps it's taking longer than it should
or perhaps the BUMPER is doing more than once...
maybe both situations being positive simultaneously cause the flag?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 23:10:56 -
[1263] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote: This happened with making Concord invincible.
Yep. Some of the newer players may not know this, but waaaay back you could kill CONCORD. yea and waaay back you ganked 1st day newbies and played with cans.. - fun times, lots of laughs at all the carebear tears.. it was a game for jerks.. Actually no. I never never flipped cans....oh, wait. No I did. I flipped a can flipper's can. He was in a stealth bomber I was in and asault frigate. He ran like a little girl. I did gank a newish player once, he took from one of my cans...I also sent him 2x the value of his loss....cause he was new and he was a good sport about it. We know who the jerk here is. games evolve, the pendulum swings..
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 23:12:10 -
[1264] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote: This happened with making Concord invincible.
Yep. Some of the newer players may not know this, but waaaay back you could kill CONCORD. yea and waaay back you ganked 1st day newbies and played with cans.. - fun times, lots of laughs at all the carebear tears.. it was a game for jerks.. It had way more players and way more active players back then. Pretty clear which one the market prefers. Guess CCP screwed up then
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16221
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 23:14:48 -
[1265] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: exactly... so how about they check me.. I'm trying to align and warp; perhaps it's taking longer than it should
No can do. Introduces a secondary client based check for something like that(as opposed to the currently "streamed" server based check), and thus adds a HUGE potential for hacking in which you can flag somebody on the same grid as you.
"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
4645
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 23:15:26 -
[1266] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote: This happened with making Concord invincible.
Yep. Some of the newer players may not know this, but waaaay back you could kill CONCORD. yea and waaay back you ganked 1st day newbies and played with cans.. - fun times, lots of laughs at all the carebear tears.. it was a game for jerks.. Actually no. I never never flipped cans....oh, wait. No I did. I flipped a can flipper's can. He was in a stealth bomber I was in and asault frigate. He ran like a little girl. I did gank a newish player once, he took from one of my cans...I also sent him 2x the value of his loss....cause he was new and he was a good sport about it. We know who the jerk here is. games evolve, the pendulum swings..
Translation:
Hi CCP, I demand you change the game to suit my desires and screw every other player who disagrees with me.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4645
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 23:16:23 -
[1267] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote: This happened with making Concord invincible.
Yep. Some of the newer players may not know this, but waaaay back you could kill CONCORD. yea and waaay back you ganked 1st day newbies and played with cans.. - fun times, lots of laughs at all the carebear tears.. it was a game for jerks.. It had way more players and way more active players back then. Pretty clear which one the market prefers. Guess CCP screwed up then
Yes, by making the game safer.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16221
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 23:17:14 -
[1268] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote: Translation:
Hi CCP, I demand you change the game to suit my desires and screw every other player who disagrees with me.
You forgot the part about driving the game's active playerbase away so that CCP can promote the worst PvE content in the MMO industry to purely theoretical casual players.
"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
44282
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 23:18:48 -
[1269] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:exactly... so how about they check me.. I'm trying to align and warp; perhaps it's taking longer than it should
or perhaps the BUMPER is doing more than once...
maybe both situations being positive simultaneously cause the flag?
Ok, so to extend that further:
Collision occurs Is the collision intentional?
Is warp-drive active and aligning?
If aligning with warp drive active - not bumping intentionally
If collision but not aligning to warp - bumping intentionally
If intentional - suspect flag Else - continue as normal
Ok, so that throws up the first logic question:
1. What if neither ship is aligning to warp, but one of them is doing it intentionally?
Say a Freighter has warped to 0 in Jita to dock, but as we all do if no instadock, landed 2500m off the station because warp to 0 doesn't. Then the Freighter is involved in a collision with another ship.
Alternatively, what if the Freighter is on autopilot and lands 15km off a gate and then slowboats in to the gate to jump.
In both cases the Freighter will not be aligning to warp and could be intentionally bumped and the current logic misses it.
So how do you deal with that? Is it bad luck, or do more options need to be added?
If more options are needed, then what's the next question to deal with that?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25858
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 23:24:41 -
[1270] - Quote
Again with the name calling
Bella, serious question, why are you playing a game such as this, when you clearly detest the foundations that it was built upon and the opportunities it offers?
Eve fills a niche in the MMO market, it doesn't need to conform to what other games define as acceptable behaviour because if it did it would no longer fill that niche. Filling a very specific niche is what has enabled Eve to survive as long as it has, while outlasting hundreds of games that did conform to the norm.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16221
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 23:24:50 -
[1271] - Quote
How much more of this goat rope are we going to entertain, before the carebear troll gets it into their head that computer code is not ******* magic?
Have a look at this, carebear. That's the code for kicking a ball in a circle between a set number of individual instances of a single class, that can do nothing else.
Needless to say, EVE Online, being an underwater submarine simulator press ganged into service as a space video game, is a fair bit more complicated.
"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.
|
Iain Cariaba
2595
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 23:55:25 -
[1272] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Again with the name calling Bella, serious question, why are you playing a game such as this? You clearly detest the foundations that it was built upon and the opportunities it offers. Eve fills a niche in the MMO market, it doesn't need to conform to what other games define as acceptable behaviour because if it did, it would no longer fill that niche and be redundant. Filling a very specific niche is what has enabled Eve to survive as long as it has, while outlasting hundreds of games that did conform to the norm. I'd say that CCP have been doing it right for longer than the lifespan of most MMO's. I've been wondering the same thing.
Bella, there are many other MMOs out there, some even space themed, that will allow you to have all the security you want while farming their currency. Why don't you go play one of them rather than keep trying to ruin the one game on the market that caters to people who want all that EvE has to offer?
I'm not trying to troll with this question, I am seriously wondering why you play a game that seems to go against everything you think a game should be.
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.
16223
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 00:02:40 -
[1273] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Why don't you go play one of them rather than keep trying to ruin the one game on the market that caters to people who want all that EvE has to offer?
The answer is simple.
The sheer selfishness that can only be found in a malignant narcissist.
"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.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25861
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 00:13:16 -
[1274] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Why don't you go play one of them rather than keep trying to ruin the one game on the market that caters to people who want all that EvE has to offer?
The answer is simple. The sheer selfishness that can only be found in a malignant narcissist. I have my suspicions as to who is behind Bella, the signature suggests one potential name, while the obstinateness and fascination with "illegal" bumping suggests another; your observation fits one of the candidates perfectly.
On the other hand Bella might not be an alt at all, but a naive and earnest person who honestly believes the tripe that they're peddling, and that it'd make Eve a better game.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 01:45:03 -
[1275] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:well not necessarily.. just the BUMPING that sets up a gank..
- now I do realize this is very complicated technically.. it needs to be worked out
and I'm sure the coding is quite involved as well..
The difficult part is working out the logic first. Once you have the logic, the coding is simple, since it just has to implement what the logic of the design says. The good thing about designing an algorithm is that the logic can be designed to a degree by anyone if you don't deal with the technical apsects of the code. So thinking about the logic: If you have an outcome to make bumping a crimewatch trigger if it is to set up a gank, what are the logical questions you would ask when bumping occurs to allow you to conclude that it is to set up a gank? So, starting at the initial trigger: 1. Collision in highsec occurs What the first question you ask when that happens? good question; good direction - so first: is it intentional or not?
so, to determine the first question , the questions would be:is the slower ship a capital class ship entering warp cycle , is the faster ship involved travelling faster than x speed and posess x amount of mass ? if yes then log collisions above x speed until either x amount of time passes or warp succeeds , if warp cycle doesnt complete and hi speed collisions occur repeatedly during x time, fleet flag awarded for 10-15 mins counting from last collision recieved . (not suspect timer ).
by setting the parameters as'' ignoring anything other than a hisec capital class ship outside a docking ring that is entering warp regarding this flag , the server would only have to deal with a few hundred ships at most i believe, tho i'm only guessing at numbers here, mebbe someone knows the stats for hi sec capitals in space at any given moment? |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44309
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 01:53:14 -
[1276] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:so, to determine the first question , the questions would be:is the slower ship a capital class ship entering warp cycle , is the faster ship involved travelling faster than x speed and posess x amount of mass ? if yes then log collisions above x speed until either x amount of time passes or warp succeeds , if warp cycle doesnt complete and hi speed collisions occur repeatedly during x time, fleet flag awarded for 10-15 mins counting from last collision recieved . (not suspect timer ).
by setting the parameters as'' ignoring anything other than a hisec capital class ship outside a docking ring that is entering warp regarding this flag , the server would only have to deal with a few hundred ships at most i believe, tho i'm only guessing at numbers here, mebbe someone knows the stats for hi sec capitals in space at any given moment? Then the same logic error will exist as outlined here:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6321478#post6321478
So what's the next question to ask to address this error in design?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 02:08:08 -
[1277] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:exactly... so how about they check me.. I'm trying to align and warp; perhaps it's taking longer than it should
or perhaps the BUMPER is doing more than once...
maybe both situations being positive simultaneously cause the flag?
Ok, so to extend that further: Collision occursIs warp-drive active and aligning?
If aligning with warp drive active - not bumping intentionally
If collision but not aligning to warp - bumping intentionally If intentional - suspect flag Else - continue as normalOk, so that throws up the first logic error issue: 1. What if neither ship is aligning to warp, but one of them is doing it intentionally? Say a Freighter has warped to 0 in Jita to dock, but as we all do if no instadock, landed 2500m off the station because warp to 0 doesn't. Then the Freighter is involved in a collision with another ship. Alternatively, what if the Freighter is on autopilot and lands 15km off a gate and then slowboats in to the gate to jump. In both cases the Freighter will not be aligning to warp and could be intentionally bumped and the current logic misses it. So how do you deal with that? Is it bad luck, or do more options need to be added? If more options are needed, then what's the next question to deal with that?
id say in this regard, the an at keyboard player has the option of attempting to warp back to gate to evade bumper , by activating his warp drive he then fits the parameters for obtaining a 'limited fleet engagement'/'suspect timer. the afk freighter pilot? well he's afk and his fault , so suffers the consequences.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44309
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 02:13:00 -
[1278] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:id say in this regard, the an at keyboard player has the option of attempting to warp back to gate to evade bumper , by activating his warp drive he then fits the parameters for obtaining a 'limited fleet engagement'/'suspect timer. the afk freighter pilot? well he's afk and his fault , so suffers the consequences.
Ok, so 2 things from this:
1. We need a logic test to determine if someone is AFK 2. AFK get no protection
So if someone is AFK, then the only logical test is a timer test and if they are determined AFK, then bad luck to them. They can be bumped forever, even if they later come back to their keyboard.
So how long is allowed for someone to attempt to warp?
So 3 variables that need to be declared:
1. Speed above which it means intentional bumping? 2. Mass above which it means intentional bumping? 3. How long is someone given to attempt to warp?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 02:41:29 -
[1279] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:[quote=Bella Jennie]exactly... so how about they check me.. I'm trying to align and warp; perhaps it's taking longer than it should
or perhaps the BUMPER is doing more than once...
maybe both situations being positive simultaneously cause the flag?
Ok, so to extend that further: Collision occursIs warp-drive active and aligning?
If aligning with warp drive active - not bumping intentionally
If collision but not aligning to warp - bumping intentionally If intentional - suspect flag Else - continue as normal
Collision occurs above x amount speed + x amount mass yes? continue, no? ignore.
Is warp-drive active and aligning?
If aligning with warp drive active - not bumping intentionally
If collision but not aligning to warp... start timer on current warp cycle of capital ship, if incomplete after x amount of minutes while high speed collisions continuing over this period .. - bumping intentionally
If intentional - suspect flag/fleet engagement flag awarded for 10/15 mins from incident of last bump that meets the parameters. Else - continue as normal
more in line with what is being suggested , but you knew that already didnt you....?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44317
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 02:55:08 -
[1280] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Collision occurs above x amount speed + x amount mass yes? continue, no? ignore.
Is warp-drive active and aligning?
If aligning with warp drive active - not bumping intentionally
If collision but not aligning to warp... start timer on current warp cycle of capital ship, if incomplete after x amount of minutes while high speed collisions continuing over this period .. - bumping intentionally
If intentional - suspect flag/fleet engagement flag awarded for 10/15 mins from incident of last bump that meets the parameters. Else - continue as normal
more in line with what is being suggested , but you knew that already didnt you....? Ok, whatever. Silly pirate emote aside, looks the same to me, just a different order and mixes up logic that is already tested above (eg. collision is tested twice now for the one event), but that's immaterial. Go with your ordering. That's fine.
So:
1. What speed? 2. What mass? 3. How many minutes is acceptable?
So if those are plugged in, then that is the full logic to base the change off.
Suspect flags are already 15 minutes, so no need to change that. Just make it 15 minutes like it is now. That would seem the easiest, rather than adding more variables into the crimewatch timers.
As one last question on this reordeing:
but not aligning to warp... start timer on current warp cycle of capital ship
If the ship is not warping, what current warp cycle are you timing?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 03:05:03 -
[1281] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:id say in this regard, the an at keyboard player has the option of attempting to warp back to gate to evade bumper , by activating his warp drive he then fits the parameters for obtaining a 'limited fleet engagement'/'suspect timer. the afk freighter pilot? well he's afk and his fault , so suffers the consequences.
Ok, so 2 things from this: 1. We need a logic test to determine if someone is AFK 2. AFK get no protection So if someone is AFK, then the only logical test is a timer test and if they are determined AFK, then bad luck to them. They can be bumped forever, even if they later come back to their keyboard. So how long is allowed for someone to attempt to warp (assumption on my part that a warp attempt is the appropriate action to test)? Three variables that need to be declared: 1. Speed above which it means intentional bumping? 2. Mass above which it means intentional bumping? 3. How long is someone given to attempt to warp? And as per my edit above, there's no additional protection for other haulers? Only Capitals (and depending on what definition of Capitals you use, we can assume this means Freighter, Jump Freighter, Orca and Bowhead and nothing else)?
we don't need a logic test to determine if anyone is afk. if they are afk then in doing so they have given up voluntarily their ability to use a mechanic that may help them extract from the situation. if they choose to do that in a 10 bil freighter or an empty one is again entirely up to them.
the flag could only be awarded if warp was prevented for a yet to be determined amount of time, let's say 5 minutes just for example. the speed could be set for lets say above 1500 m/s , mass amount to be determined by the amount needed to prevent a freighter being able to align to warp . these figures would ultimately be worked out by people who do these sorta things .
industrials are not bumped to the extent of capitals and less easy to pin down by bumping , i've never witnessed or heard of an industrial being bumped continuously for hours , though it may happen of course . we're discussing the practical application of this mechanic, if server load implementing this was negligible , then industrials could be included , all depending on resultant server limits. |
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 03:17:27 -
[1282] - Quote
i prefer the fleet engagement option because it is then within the targets control and any consequences are totally player driven, it also prevents a lot of the opportunities for abuse from occurring . |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44317
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 03:21:21 -
[1283] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:we don't need a logic test to determine if anyone is afk. if they are afk then in doing so they have given up voluntarily their ability to use a mechanic that may help them extract from the situation. if they choose to do that in a 10 bil freighter or an empty one is again entirely up to them. Ok, sure.
I thought the protection was for someone at their keyboard, but no bother. I must have read that wrong.
We can drop that from the logic.
So that just leaves us with:
1. what speed? 2. what mass? 3. how long for the timer (which now is a timer on the ship bumping)
and we have 5 minutes of bumping is ok and it only counts as an intentional bump above 1500 m/s.
So mass.
As to this is worked out by people who do this sort of thing, that's what the features and ideas discussion forum is for. How can anyone judge whether a proposal is good or not (or suggest changes), if the idea can't be expressed?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 03:38:47 -
[1284] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:we don't need a logic test to determine if anyone is afk. if they are afk then in doing so they have given up voluntarily their ability to use a mechanic that may help them extract from the situation. if they choose to do that in a 10 bil freighter or an empty one is again entirely up to them. Ok, sure. I thought the protection was for someone at their keyboard, but no bother. I must have read that wrong. We can drop that from the logic. So that just leaves us with: 1. what mass? and we have 5 minutes of bumping is ok and it only counts as an intentional bump above 1500 m/s. So mass? Because the test is an "and" test in your example. Above 1500 m/s and mass (?) ? As to this is worked out by people who do this sort of thing, that's what the features and ideas discussion forum is for. How can anyone judge whether a proposal is good or not (or suggest changes), if the idea can't be expressed?
5 minutes of hi speed bumping , preventing a warp is a possible condition that would need to be met to determine whether a collision was intentional or accidental . this being met rules out any possibility of accidental collisions resulting in a timer .
the mass as i stated would have to be determined by someone who knows , tho the mass figure is less important if the resultant timer is for a fleet engagement timer rather than a suspect flag for the bumper. 5 mins is too short a time for a bumper to get flagged suspect , but plenty time for a prepared freighter pilot in an escort fleet ...
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44326
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 03:52:22 -
[1285] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:5 minutes of hi speed bumping , preventing a warp is a possible condition that would need to be met to determine whether a collision was intentional or accidental . this being met rules out any possibility of accidental collisions resulting in a timer .
the mass as i stated would have to be determined by someone who knows , tho the mass figure is less important if the resultant timer is for a fleet engagement timer rather than a suspect flag for the bumper. 5 mins is too short a time for a bumper to get flagged suspect , but plenty time for a prepared freighter pilot in an escort fleet ...
Yes obviously on the first part. That's in the logic test, but it wasn't expressed that way when it was expressed above, but no matter.
On the mass, ok sure. Leave that aside as an above X value and we will leave it out of trying to decide whether the proposal will work or not (it's actually not that difficult to figure out).
So, logic error #1:
What if there are multiple bumping ships?
Earlier in the thread it was stated that up to 6 Machariels bump the 1 freighter.
So if Mach 1 bumps for 4 1/2 minutes and then stops, only to be replaced by Mach 2, etc. then no flag will ever be produced.
The proposal as it currently stands won't achieve what is desired.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4651
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 05:15:29 -
[1286] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:5 minutes of hi speed bumping , preventing a warp is a possible condition that would need to be met to determine whether a collision was intentional or accidental . this being met rules out any possibility of accidental collisions resulting in a timer .
the mass as i stated would have to be determined by someone who knows , tho the mass figure is less important if the resultant timer is for a fleet engagement timer rather than a suspect flag for the bumper. 5 mins is too short a time for a bumper to get flagged suspect , but plenty time for a prepared freighter pilot in an escort fleet ...
Yes obviously on the first part. That's in the logic test, but it wasn't expressed that way when it was expressed above, but no matter. On the mass, ok sure. Leave that aside as an above X value and we will leave it out of trying to decide whether the proposal will work or not (it's actually not that difficult to figure out). So, logic error #1: What if there are multiple bumping ships? Earlier in the thread it was stated that up to 6 Machariels bump the 1 freighter. So if Mach 1 bumps for 4 1/2 minutes and then stops, only to be replaced by Mach 2, etc. then no flag will ever be produced. The proposal as it currently stands won't achieve what is desired.
Yep, all this will do is induce gankers to use more bumping ships.
Black Perdo's idea is the second best idea so far. Best idea...do nothing.
We already know that the gankers adapt and change their tactics. People who die in freighters to gankers...they never change.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17288
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 06:32:45 -
[1287] - Quote
So having caught up I have a question.
Do you bears know what happens when you bump a webbed freighter?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2185
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 06:54:02 -
[1288] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:5 minutes of hi speed bumping , preventing a warp is a possible condition that would need to be met to determine whether a collision was intentional or accidental . this being met rules out any possibility of accidental collisions resulting in a timer .
the mass as i stated would have to be determined by someone who knows , tho the mass figure is less important if the resultant timer is for a fleet engagement timer rather than a suspect flag for the bumper. 5 mins is too short a time for a bumper to get flagged suspect , but plenty time for a prepared freighter pilot in an escort fleet ...
Just so we are clear on this, there is probably zero chance of the bump-earning-you-a-flag proposal ever being implemented. Not only is it probably technically impossible to implement as Scipio is illustrating (how do you tell from two velocity vectors who bumped who and why?), it would break one of the centerpiece features of Crimewatch 2.0 which are the safety settings. Currently, there is no way to passively/accidentally earn a suspect flag and if you turn your setting to green, the game will lock out any action you can commit to earn that flag. This is 100% and clearly a design goal for how highsec works. How would the game then lock out bumping if you had a green setting?
Even if you managed to build a "evil bumping detection algorithm" that was 99% effective, what are you going to tell to the poor hauler in the 1% who managed to get tricked or maneuvered into bumping himself a suspect flag even though his setting were set on green?
Bumping flags are a non-starter. Look elsewhere to change bumping if you think it is a problem, rather than adding a new, and even more arcane, level of aggression mechanics that are intended to flag bumpers, but will be used by the bad guys to flag innocents for CONCORD-free kills. Any change to bumping is going to simplify the system of aggressing a capital ship, not add another loophole for players to exploit against players who don't understand the rules. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44330
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 06:59:11 -
[1289] - Quote
Yes. Safety settings is on my current list of logic issues.
Hopefully there'll eventually be a realisation that changing the game isn't simple at all and the best solution is the one that has already been found to work well, using webs accepting that the Freighter pilot is responsible for his own safety, not the game.
That's all of course not even considering the issue that there still is no evidence that it's even a problem at all.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 09:29:17 -
[1290] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:5 minutes of hi speed bumping , preventing a warp is a possible condition that would need to be met to determine whether a collision was intentional or accidental . this being met rules out any possibility of accidental collisions resulting in a timer .
the mass as i stated would have to be determined by someone who knows , tho the mass figure is less important if the resultant timer is for a fleet engagement timer rather than a suspect flag for the bumper. 5 mins is too short a time for a bumper to get flagged suspect , but plenty time for a prepared freighter pilot in an escort fleet ...
Yes obviously on the first part. That's in the logic test, but it wasn't expressed that way when it was expressed above, but no matter. On the mass, ok sure. Leave that aside as an above X value and we will leave it out of trying to decide whether the proposal will work or not (it's actually not that difficult to figure out). So, logic error #1: What if there are multiple bumping ships? Earlier in the thread it was stated that up to 6 Machariels bump the 1 freighter. So if Mach 1 bumps for 4 1/2 minutes and then stops, only to be replaced by Mach 2, etc. then no flag will ever be produced. The proposal as it currently stands won't achieve what is desired.
the condition needing to be met is 'was the capital ship able to complete its warp cycle after 5 minutes , if not then a fleet engagement timer is awarded to the capital ship against the bumper, multiple bumpers would mean that after 5 mins from the first hi speed collision that meets the conditions , those bumpers too would receive the fleet engagement timer .
the safety settings would be irrelevant regarding a fleet engagement timer , because its not making the bumper suspect . tho a work around, if you want to insist on the bumper going suspect in your argument, would be a warning that after the conditions are met to be penalised for bumping (5 mins) , that the bumper is going to go suspect in say 10 mins .another workaround could be that like attempting to rep a ship that would make the repper suspect, the module would shut down if safety was green, in this case the mwd .
pedro ;re the velocity vectors , the ship that is going over 1500 m/sec would be the one who receives the penalty. tell me any capital ship that travels at 1500 m/sec and your point would make sense .
|
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 09:51:49 -
[1291] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:[quote=bigbud skunkafella]
So if someone is AFK, then the only logical test is a timer test and if they are determined AFK, then bad luck to them. They can be bumped forever, even if they later come back to their keyboard.
again , the afk player would be vulnerable to extended bumping, not forever, but until he returns to keyboard and activates his warp drive , then the timer would start on the bumper. this scenario shouldnt cause any objections from code & supporters , because it complies with the code ethos of 'always be at the keyboard' . an afk freighter pilot is then far more vulnerable to being bumped away from gate guns and ganked. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44373
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 09:53:36 -
[1292] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:...]the safety settings would be irrelevant regarding a fleet engagement timer , because its not making the bumper suspect . Safety settings are not irrelevant at all.
From the devblog from retribution:
The upshot of all this is that you can never just do something illegal by accident: you always have to deliberately go and disable your safety settings first.
and from the devblog on updated CrimeWatch:
The main one is that a suspect can be freely attacked, but he has no way to defend himself from attack without committing further crimes. We want to ensure that a player always has a right to self-defense, even if he is A Bad Guy. To solve this, we still require a form of A-B flagging. However this will be heavily limited in application, and won't be propagated via assistance chains like the existing aggression flags are. This is where we introduce the concept of a Limited Engagement. An LE is between a pair of characters.
A limited engagement specifically acknowledges that there is no propagation via assistance, so no such thing as a fleet flag. It is only ever a flag between 2 characters.
The only way to achieve a limited engagement with multiple characters is to first go suspect, but to go suspect you must deliberately disable your safety settings.
Logical error.
That's not even dealing with the first part of the post which has it's own logic errors.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 10:02:14 -
[1293] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:[quote=bigbud skunkafella]
So if Mach 1 bumps for 4 1/2 minutes and then stops, only to be replaced by Mach 2, etc. then no flag will ever be produced.
The proposal as it currently stands won't achieve what is desired.
mach 1 that bumps for 4 1/2 mins then stops would still receive a timer if the freighter was unable to complete his warp cycle after 5 mins, the timer would then last for 15 minutes , meaning that mach 1 can continue bumping with the danger of having the flag activated , or withdraw to safety until the timer runs down before resuming his activities .
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44373
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 10:04:08 -
[1294] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:[quote=bigbud skunkafella]
So if Mach 1 bumps for 4 1/2 minutes and then stops, only to be replaced by Mach 2, etc. then no flag will ever be produced.
The proposal as it currently stands won't achieve what is desired. mach 1 that bumps for 4 1/2 mins then stops would still receive a timer if the freighter was unable to complete his warp cycle after 5 mins, the timer would then last for 15 minutes , meaning that mach 1 can continue bumping with the danger of having the flag activated , or withdraw to safety until the timer runs down before resuming his activities . Read more before posting more. It might help.
That's also not how your pseudocode (the logic above is close enough to call it that), works.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44373
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 10:08:21 -
[1295] - Quote
Of course, under the current proposal there is also this:
One guy, being good, could just bump a highsec Capital for 5 minutes in order to gain a limited engagement with others in his fleet, and then kill them all (whether they want pvp or not) without CONCORD intervention. He can bump and go kill.
That would be great in asteroid belts where Freighters and Orcas are used as large storage. He can warp in, bump the freighter/Orca for 5 minutes when its ready to warp, gain a limited engagement with the mining barges and wipe them all out. I would hope the barges would be smart enough to warp off, but this is Eve and if we know anything about this game, it's that stupid people will do stupid things. Great way to wipe out a whole mining fleet for free.
There's a lot more logic errors to come yet with the current proposal too.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 10:29:39 -
[1296] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Yes, yes its a competitive and consequence laiden game in which: - Someone can indefinitely (or until downtime) prevent a freighter from warping using just a bumping ship (doesn't even have to be a mach, ONI or SFI with large MWD will suffice) and a disposable aggro alt in a noob ship (!). No consequences for the bumper whatsoever. - Having negative sec status has very limited practical consequences for a dedicated ganker char and does not limit the ability to perform ganks in hisec in any way, making sec status loss irrelevant (and consequence free) - Killrights against ganker chars are practically useless - Looting stuff from a ganked hauler can be made perfectly safe by using a DST or Orca and a disposable alt Try arguing for removal/change of any of the above mechanics and you get shouted at for being a risk-averse-carebear-emergent-gameplay-hater. Oh, the irony.
worth a quote i believe ... |
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 10:32:20 -
[1297] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Of course, under the current proposal there is also this: One guy, being good, could just bump a highsec Capital for 5 minutes in order to deliberately gain a limited engagement with others in the fleet, and then kill them all (whether they want pvp or not) without CONCORD intervention. He can bump and go kill. That would be great in asteroid belts where Freighters and Orcas are used as large storage. He can warp in, bump the freighter/Orca for 5 minutes when its ready to warp, gain a limited engagement with the mining barges and wipe them all out. I would hope the barges would be smart enough to warp off, but this is Eve and if we know anything about this game, it's that stupid people will do stupid things. Great way to wipe out a whole mining fleet for free. There's a lot more logic errors to come yet with the current proposal too. Edit: I logged in and within 5 minutes found an example. Here is a screenshot I just took (see date and time bottom left against the timedate of this post). In this case 2 x Procurer, 1 x Skiff with an Orca in an ice belt: http://puu.sh/mXNCE/2fa1bb49ae.png With the proposal, I can wait until the Orca moves, warp in and bump in. Get limited engagement and potentially kill all the barges and exhumer with no consequence, or if they are smart at least, totally shut down their mining operation that they peacefully want to conduct. That mining fleet is normally a dozen barges/exhumers. It is small now because we are close to DT. For most of the time it is on, it is much larger. Great targets for the proposal.
fleet engagement flag would have to be activated by the victim of the bumping for the umpteenth time, so the above scenario could only happen if the victim chose to engage,
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44374
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 10:34:46 -
[1298] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Yes, yes its a competitive and consequence laiden game in which: - Someone can indefinitely (or until downtime) prevent a freighter from warping using just a bumping ship (doesn't even have to be a mach, ONI or SFI with large MWD will suffice) and a disposable aggro alt in a noob ship (!). No consequences for the bumper whatsoever. - Having negative sec status has very limited practical consequences for a dedicated ganker char and does not limit the ability to perform ganks in hisec in any way, making sec status loss irrelevant (and consequence free) - Killrights against ganker chars are practically useless - Looting stuff from a ganked hauler can be made perfectly safe by using a DST or Orca and a disposable alt Try arguing for removal/change of any of the above mechanics and you get shouted at for being a risk-averse-carebear-emergent-gameplay-hater. Oh, the irony. worth a quote i believe ... Why is it worth a quote?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21245
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 10:39:29 -
[1299] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Yes, yes its a competitive and consequence laiden game in which: - Someone can indefinitely (or until downtime) prevent a freighter from warping using just a bumping ship (doesn't even have to be a mach, ONI or SFI with large MWD will suffice) and a disposable aggro alt in a noob ship (!). No consequences for the bumper whatsoever. - Having negative sec status has very limited practical consequences for a dedicated ganker char and does not limit the ability to perform ganks in hisec in any way, making sec status loss irrelevant (and consequence free) - Killrights against ganker chars are practically useless - Looting stuff from a ganked hauler can be made perfectly safe by using a DST or Orca and a disposable alt Try arguing for removal/change of any of the above mechanics and you get shouted at for being a risk-averse-carebear-emergent-gameplay-hater. Oh, the irony. worth a quote i believe ... Why is it worth a quote? Because they prefer ill informed rhetoric, over actual evidence.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44376
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 10:41:11 -
[1300] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:fleet engagement flag would have to be activated by the victim of the bumping for the umpteenth time, so the above scenario could only happen if the victim chose to engage, You have never said that, let alone umpteen times.
It still goes against CCP's principle of not propogating flags by assistance, even if it is allowed for one player to commit the rest of his fleet to a pvp situation.
That would also be a new form of Awoxing.
Join a Corp to fly a Freighter/Orca alt and then deliberately commit them to pvp flags that they don't want.
Can't shoot them with the in Corp character because Friendly Fire is set illegal, but can make the Corp members in fleet legal targets for an alt and then kill them all.
CCP not long ago nerfed awoxing. This proposal will bring it right back again (which is also on my current list of issues with the proposal, but there are more).
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 10:53:52 -
[1301] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:fleet engagement flag would have to be activated by the victim of the bumping for the umpteenth time, so the above scenario could only happen if the victim chose to engage, You have never said that, let alone umpteen times. It still goes against CCP's principle of not propogating flags by assistance, even if it is allowed for one player to commit the rest of his fleet to a pvp situation. That would also be a new form of Awoxing. Join a Corp to fly a Freighter/Orca alt and then deliberately commit them to pvp flags that they don't want. CCP not long ago nerfed awoxing. This proposal will bring it right back again (which is also on my current list of issues with the proposal, but there are more).
my whole proposal for a fleet engagement type flag contained the proviso that it would be activated by the victim . please read my posts properly if you wish me to continue responding to your ahem, constructive criticisms.
in answer to your above regarding awoxing type situations , like a suspect timer, the fleet has the option of not engaging the flagged bumper. if a fleet member chooses not to engage the bumper, then he is at no added risk, unless the bumper chooses to suicide gank him. the only person who is immediately vulnerable under my suggestion , is the capital pilot who activates the flag . the rest of the fleet would have to choose to aggress .
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44381
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 11:00:35 -
[1302] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote: my whole proposal for a fleet engagement type flag contained the proviso that it would be activated by the victim . please read my posts properly if you wish me to continue responding to your ahem, constructive criticisms.
in answer to your above regarding awoxing type situations , like a suspect timer, the fleet has the option of not engaging the flagged bumper. if a fleet member chooses not to engage the bumper, then he is at no added risk, unless the bumper chooses to suicide gank him. the only person who is immediately vulnerable under my suggestion , is the capital pilot who activates the flag . the rest of the fleet would have to choose to aggress .
The bumper can engage the fleet. That's what a limited engagement is. It's an A-B flag. Both ways.
Once the awoxing alt activates the flag, the engagement goes both ways. The bumping ship (combat fit) can engage the fleet members.
You can withdraw from dialogue all you like. It's your proposal and I'm not name calling, being abusive, nor insinuating anything about you.
As a Freighter pilot, I have a vested interest in changes proposed to make things safer for me and it is only right to look for the pitfalls in the proposal.
This cuts straight back to the claims about double standards earlier. It's ok for one side to look for them, but apparently not the other. Disappointing.
The only option (for someone that doesn't use a webbing alt) based on the current holes in the idea as it is outlined, would be to stop hauling and stick with industry work and then get other people to haul using inflated collateral so they never lose.
So I'll end it here and just say, yes your proposal should be implemented 100% as you've explained it. It's a wonderful idea and will totally solve bumping in highsec.
Thumbs up.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 11:15:55 -
[1303] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote: my whole proposal for a fleet engagement type flag contained the proviso that it would be activated by the victim . please read my posts properly if you wish me to continue responding to your ahem, constructive criticisms.
in answer to your above regarding awoxing type situations , like a suspect timer, the fleet has the option of not engaging the flagged bumper. if a fleet member chooses not to engage the bumper, then he is at no added risk, unless the bumper chooses to suicide gank him. the only person who is immediately vulnerable under my suggestion , is the capital pilot who activates the flag . the rest of the fleet would have to choose to aggress .
The bumper can engage the fleet. That's what a limited engagement is. It's an A-B flag. Both ways. If it's not a both ways flag, then it isn't a limited engagement, it's a suspect flag; which is not possible if someone has their safety set green (that is all in the 2 links I provided earlier). Once the awoxing alt activates the flag, the engagement goes both ways. The bumping ship (combat fit) can engage the fleet members. It's your proposal and I'm not name calling, being abusive, nor insinuating anything about you. Every post is attempting to be constructive. As a Freighter pilot, I have a vested interest in changes proposed to make things safer for me and it is only right to look for the pitfalls in the proposal. This cuts straight back to the claims about double standards earlier. It's ok for one side to look for them, but apparently not the other. Disappointing. The only option (for someone that doesn't use a webbing alt) based on the current holes in the idea as it is outlined, would be to stop hauling and stick with industry work and then get other people to haul using inflated collateral so they never lose. So I'll end it here and just say, yes your proposal should be implemented 100% as you've explained it. It's a wonderful idea and will totally solve bumping in highsec. Thumbs up.
so because you say a limited engagement timer activated against a pilot for 'illegally' obstructing a capital pilot from going about his lawful business should be permitted only on terms that would benefit the bad guys most and allow for 'awoxing' type abuse , it must be the only way because...?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 11:26:24 -
[1304] - Quote
look at the timer /flag as similar to a kr , but only available to the freighter pilots fleet , once activated (manually just to be clear :) ) by the freighter pilot, , the freighter pilot and bumper are able to aggress each other legally, but , just like a kr, the bumper may only defend himself against those who choose to aggress him. lets call it a ' clear my way of obstructions' right. |
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 11:29:46 -
[1305] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:look at the timer /flag as similar to a kr , but only available to the freighter pilots fleet , once activated (manually just to be clear :) ) by the freighter pilot, , the freighter pilot and bumper are able to aggress each other legally, but , just like a kr, the bumper may only defend himself against those who choose to aggress him. lets call it a ' clear my way of obstructions' right.
yes ,b4 you feel the need to point it out - i know freighter pilots are unable to aggress . |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25870
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 11:50:32 -
[1306] - Quote
Oh my, such a complicated proposal to address something that may not even exist. At least one viable counter, that is capable of dealing with such a hypothetical scenario, already exists.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17289
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 12:01:13 -
[1307] - Quote
Someone has yet to post any evidence that change is needed.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 12:05:19 -
[1308] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Oh my, such a complicated proposal to address something that may not even exist. At least one viable counter, that is capable of dealing with such a hypothetical scenario, already exists.
so ''illegally'' obstructing a law abiding pilot for a potentially unlimited amount of time with no consequences for the pilot doing the obstruction is not worthy enough of discussing proposals to balance it?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 12:08:00 -
[1309] - Quote
if your position is that these mechanics are perfectly fine as they are and there is no point discussing any proposals to change them, then you have made this perfectly clear in your previous posts. so why continue posting? |
Top Guac
Mexican Avacado Syndicate
127
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 12:08:54 -
[1310] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Oh my, such a complicated proposal to address something that may not even exist. At least one viable counter, that is capable of dealing with such a hypothetical scenario, already exists. so ''illegally'' obstructing a law abiding pilot for a potentially unlimited amount of time with no consequences for the pilot doing the obstruction is not worthy enough of discussing proposals to balance it? Illegal is a lie.
Daily Quac winner for the post with the most. Bullshit that is. The most bullshit rivalling the levels of JamesBeam himself.
Wear it with pride. Certificate is in the post. |
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25870
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 12:11:20 -
[1311] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Oh my, such a complicated proposal to address something that may not even exist. At least one viable counter, that is capable of dealing with such a hypothetical scenario, already exists. so ''illegally'' obstructing a law abiding pilot for a potentially unlimited amount of time with no consequences for the pilot doing the obstruction is not worthy enough of discussing proposals to balance it? When you can prove that such a problem exists, with actual evidence instead of supposition and guesswork, and you can prove that your hypothetical problem is unbalanced; then we'll have something to discuss.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17289
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 12:15:56 -
[1312] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:if your position is that these mechanics are perfectly fine as they are and there is no point discussing any proposals to change them, then you have made this perfectly clear in your previous posts. so why continue posting?
Why do you keep on saying "so ''illegally'' obstructing a law abiding pilot for a potentially unlimited amount of time with no consequences" after being shown multiple times that its not illegal and that there are many very easy ways of getting out and avoiding the situation entirely?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 12:19:18 -
[1313] - Quote
Top Guac wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Oh my, such a complicated proposal to address something that may not even exist. At least one viable counter, that is capable of dealing with such a hypothetical scenario, already exists. so ''illegally'' obstructing a law abiding pilot for a potentially unlimited amount of time with no consequences for the pilot doing the obstruction is not worthy enough of discussing proposals to balance it? Illegal is a lie. Daily Quac winner for the post with the most. Bullshit that is. The most bullshit rivalling the levels of JamesBeam himself. Wear it with pride. Certificate is in the post.
''illegal'' was in inverted commas for a reason .
and thank you , can you confirm it as a4 size so i can buy a frame for it ?
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2166
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 12:23:29 -
[1314] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:look at the timer /flag as similar to a kr , but only available to the freighter pilots fleet , once activated (manually just to be clear :) ) by the freighter pilot, , the freighter pilot and bumper are able to aggress each other legally, but , just like a kr, the bumper may only defend himself against those who choose to aggress him. lets call it a ' clear my way of obstructions' right. yes ,b4 you feel the need to point it out - i know freighter pilots are unable to aggress . Look, as long as there is any game mechanic that may result in others becoming a legal target even if they have their safety on we will find a way to use this to kill people. Carebears are usually not really good with game mechanics, but we are and we will find a way. CCP knows this, and they will never implement something like that.
Your idea is to try to fix bumping, wich is not really an issue and by doing so you will just open a can of worms in some other part of the game. This is like thread #7567783 about bumping and there are always a ton of ideas. But they all fail and will do more harm than anything else to your own carebear friends.
Also if this really gets "fixed", what do you think will happen? A ton of free kills for you because we forget to adapt? The only thing that will happen is that you or some other carebear will be back here and cry for the next nerf.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 12:26:34 -
[1315] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:if your position is that these mechanics are perfectly fine as they are and there is no point discussing any proposals to change them, then you have made this perfectly clear in your previous posts. so why continue posting? Why do you keep on saying "so ''illegally'' obstructing a law abiding pilot for a potentially unlimited amount of time with no consequences" after being shown multiple times that its not illegal and that there are many very easy ways of getting out and/or avoiding the situation entirely?
ok, as an experiment, why don't you try going out and finding an overweight old person returning from the grocery store and repeatedly run into them at high speed to prevent them returning home, and see if the police turn up and listen to your argument that they had no right to arrest you because you haven't killed and robbed them, and were only holding them till your gang of criminal associates could arrive to do the actual robbery and murder.
then , when you have been released from custody, let me know how eve bumping mechanics as they stand are totally realistic and sensible from a logical point of view .
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25870
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 12:30:31 -
[1316] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:baltec1 wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:if your position is that these mechanics are perfectly fine as they are and there is no point discussing any proposals to change them, then you have made this perfectly clear in your previous posts. so why continue posting? Why do you keep on saying "so ''illegally'' obstructing a law abiding pilot for a potentially unlimited amount of time with no consequences" after being shown multiple times that its not illegal and that there are many very easy ways of getting out and/or avoiding the situation entirely? ok, as an experiment, why don't you try going out and finding an overweight old person returning from the grocery store and repeatedly run into them at high speed to prevent them returning home, and see if the police turn up and listen to your argument that they had no right to arrest you because you haven't killed and robbed them, and were only holding them till your gang of criminal associates could arrive to do the actual robbery and murder. then , when you have been released from custody, let me know how eve bumping mechanics as they stand are totally realistic and sensible from a logical point of view . Terrible analogy, in many countries in the real world that would be considered a breach of the peace or an assault, both of which are crimes; in others the police would turn up and rob both you and the elderly person, before beating you both to death and dumping your bodies in the river.
In Eve there is only one crime, which is the unauthorised use of an offensive module on another player; different places, different laws.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Top Guac
Mexican Avacado Syndicate
127
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 12:32:48 -
[1317] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:baltec1 wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:if your position is that these mechanics are perfectly fine as they are and there is no point discussing any proposals to change them, then you have made this perfectly clear in your previous posts. so why continue posting? Why do you keep on saying "so ''illegally'' obstructing a law abiding pilot for a potentially unlimited amount of time with no consequences" after being shown multiple times that its not illegal and that there are many very easy ways of getting out and/or avoiding the situation entirely? ok, as an experiment, why don't you try going out and finding an overweight old person returning from the grocery store and repeatedly run into them at high speed to prevent them returning home, and see if the police turn up and listen to your argument that they had no right to arrest you because you haven't killed and robbed them, and were only holding them till your gang of criminal associates could arrive to do the actual robbery and murder. then , when you have been released from custody, let me know how eve bumping mechanics as they stand are totally realistic and sensible from a logical point of view . I take the award back. I only give awards for bullshitting.
But this is insanity. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17289
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 12:35:50 -
[1318] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:ok, as an experiment, why don't you try going out and finding an overweight old person returning from the grocery store and repeatedly run into them at high speed to prevent them returning home, and see if the police turn up and listen to your argument that they had no right to arrest you because you haven't killed and robbed them, and were only holding them till your gang of criminal associates could arrive to do the actual robbery and murder. then , when you have been released from custody, let me know how eve bumping mechanics as they stand are totally realistic and sensible from a logical point of view .
This is a game not real life.
Again, why is this change needed when we already have a number of very effective ways to counter bumping.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 13:32:57 -
[1319] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:look at the timer /flag as similar to a kr , but only available to the freighter pilots fleet , once activated (manually just to be clear :) ) by the freighter pilot, , the freighter pilot and bumper are able to aggress each other legally, but , just like a kr, the bumper may only defend himself against those who choose to aggress him. lets call it a ' clear my way of obstructions' right. yes ,b4 you feel the need to point it out - i know freighter pilots are unable to aggress . Look, as long as there is any game mechanic that may result in others becoming a legal target even if they have their safety on we will find a way to use this to kill people. Carebears are usually not really good with game mechanics, but we are and we will find a way. CCP knows this, and they will never implement something like that. Your idea is to try to fix bumping, wich is not really an issue and by doing so you will just open a can of worms in some other part of the game. This is like thread #7567783 about bumping and there are always a ton of ideas. But they all fail and will do more harm than anything else to your own carebear friends. Also if this really gets "fixed", what do you think will happen? A ton of free kills for you because we forget to adapt? The only thing that will happen is that you or some other carebear will be back here and cry for the next nerf.
you will adapt of course, but if that adapting involves being less able or willing to risk a max agility bumper mach as the bump weapon of choice, then balance will have been achieved .
unlimited bumping would then be harder because without the max agility mach, countering *extended* bumping would become more balanced.
my proposal potentially involves a lot more meaningful pvp between gankers and their opponents, which is what you guys always whine about there not being enough, so i don't understand your objections to this sort of solution to the issue .
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 13:39:28 -
[1320] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:ok, as an experiment, why don't you try going out and finding an overweight old person returning from the grocery store and repeatedly run into them at high speed to prevent them returning home, and see if the police turn up and listen to your argument that they had no right to arrest you because you haven't killed and robbed them, and were only holding them till your gang of criminal associates could arrive to do the actual robbery and murder. then , when you have been released from custody, let me know how eve bumping mechanics as they stand are totally realistic and sensible from a logical point of view . This is a game not real life. Again, why is this change needed when we already have a number of very effective ways to counter bumping.
This is nonsense..
Eve is certainly modeled off of RL based SciFi.. not Fantasy; they didn't include magic spells..
And don't use the "LIQUID SPACE" card.. not many people could easily control spacecraft in a simulation of real physics..
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 13:44:18 -
[1321] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Someone has yet to post any evidence that change is needed. I have repeatedly
guy helps gank someone in HISEC and no one can touch him without being a criminal themselves.. - this is a problem
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 13:45:13 -
[1322] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:ok, as an experiment, why don't you try going out and finding an overweight old person returning from the grocery store and repeatedly run into them at high speed to prevent them returning home, and see if the police turn up and listen to your argument that they had no right to arrest you because you haven't killed and robbed them, and were only holding them till your gang of criminal associates could arrive to do the actual robbery and murder. then , when you have been released from custody, let me know how eve bumping mechanics as they stand are totally realistic and sensible from a logical point of view . ... THIS...
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 13:51:00 -
[1323] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:if your position is that these mechanics are perfectly fine as they are and there is no point discussing any proposals to change them, then you have made this perfectly clear in your previous posts. so why continue posting? Why do you keep on saying "so ''illegally'' obstructing a law abiding pilot for a potentially unlimited amount of time with no consequences" after being shown multiple times that its not illegal and that there are many very easy ways of getting out and/or avoiding the situation entirely?
silly....
We are saying that it SHOULD BE made illegal..
you don't realize that?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16237
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 13:52:29 -
[1324] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: We are saying that it SHOULD BE made illegal..
And that not only breaks game balance, is not necessary, but is also impossible.
You very literally cannot be more 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.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
29
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 13:57:07 -
[1325] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Someone has yet to post any evidence that change is needed. when someone has as closed a mind as you, No amount of "evidence" will suffice..
in any case asking for evidence is just a ploy.. when you got nothing
besides, no one needs to prove anything to you..
CCP needs to be convinced.
Let's see.. they established Crimewatch.. Concord Invincibility & reaction time changes..
Mark my words, they'll get around to fixing BUMPING despite your self serving whining..
- I'm thinking that it is a complicated mechanic technically.. and that's only why it hasn't been fixed to date..
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
14
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 14:03:41 -
[1326] - Quote
re the 'carebear' insinuations , and the false idea that i wish to see an end to hisec ganking or wish hisec to be 100% safe;
i personally would love it if the hi-sec economy could sustain ganking on the levels of a 'burn' event 23/7, 365 days per year , for the isk making opportunities that would exist and the content that this would provide for everyone involved. unfortunately it isn't the case .
if anything i'm not even a 'neutra'l observer but more biased towards ensuring that a healthy ganking environment exists in hisec so my corp and i can log in and have fun doing what we do, ie hunt and rob hi sec gankers and killing their looters.
i know that this might be a difficult concept for you guys to get your heads round, but that's your problem, not mine.
this character is my main, i use it solely for pvp , my other 2 alts on this, my only account are 3 mil odd sp alts that i use for other forms of pvp,(one for solo nullsec shenanigans) no mining, ratting or missioning involved.
if any of you can honestly say the same then feel free to call me a 'carebear', otherwise please just stay on topic . |
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
14
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 14:19:36 -
[1327] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: We are saying that it SHOULD BE made illegal..
And that not only breaks game balance, is not necessary, but is also impossible. You very literally cannot be more wrong.
nothing is impossible just because you say it is.
my proposal could be implemented in some form without too much extra load on the servers due to it only affecting hi-sec capitals in space involved in hi speed collisions while trying to enter warp outside a docking ring , probably only a few hundred ships at any one time. whether this and the resultant coding required to implement some variation on the current crimewatch flagging system is *impossible*to implement is only known to ccp.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25871
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 14:37:08 -
[1328] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Eve is certainly modeled off of RL based SciFi.. not Fantasy; they didn't include magic spells.. RL SciFi, now there's an oxymoron if ever I saw one. SciFi is fiction, the technologies described in the genre don't exist in real life. Science fiction occasionally becomes science fact, as happened to Arthur C Clarke who wrote about communications satellites in 1945, until that happens SciFi is firmly in the realms of fantasy.
Instantaneous transfer of conciousness, warp drives etc, are covered by Clarke's third law : "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". An addendum to Clarke's third law, attributed to both Niven and Pratchett is that "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology"
TL;DR CCP included stuff that is well into the realms of fantasy and magic.
Quote:And don't use the "LIQUID SPACE" card.. not many people could easily control spacecraft in a simulation of real physics..
Liquid space is an appropriate phrase to use, in Eve space acts like a liquid.
Quote:silly....
We are saying that it SHOULD BE made illegal..
you don't realize that?
We're well aware that you're asking for it to be made illegal, we're asking you to provide justification that goes beyond your opinion as to why such a change should be made; so far you've failed spectacularly failed to do so, while making yourself look foolish.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17293
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 14:37:47 -
[1329] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:baltec1 wrote:Someone has yet to post any evidence that change is needed. I have repeatedly guy helps gank someone in HISEC and no one can touch him without being a criminal themselves.. - this is a problem
The only evidence posted so far was the RF records from last year that show over 99.9% of trips made were successful. If anything this shows highsec is too safe.
Again I ask you people, why is this change needed when it is already super easy to avoid bumping?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16237
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 14:45:19 -
[1330] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote: nothing is impossible just because you say it is.
No, it's impossible because the developers have said it is.
You want an example of what will happen if you mess with the base code of the physics system?
Hit "Ctrl+Alt+Delete", then go into the task manager. From there, find a process (not a program) labeled "Windows Explorer." Then, right click that process and say "end process tree."
That's an accurate approximation of what will happen to EVE if you mess with the base code.
Oh, and if your proposal would add ANY server load whatsoever to the physics checks, you break the base game with lag. ANY check you add to the physics, even if you don't break the code itself, has to be replicated for each and every item, ship, structure, terrain, and every other thing in the game, all at once, all day, every day.
You really should just learn to keep your bad ideas to yourself, carebear.
"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.
|
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
14
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 15:05:14 -
[1331] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote: nothing is impossible just because you say it is.
No, it's impossible because the developers have said it is. You want an example of what will happen if you mess with the base code of the physics system? Hit "Ctrl+Alt+Delete", then go into the task manager. From there, find a process (not a program) labeled "Windows Explorer." Then, right click that process and say "end process tree." That's an accurate approximation of what will happen to EVE if you mess with the base code. Oh, and if your proposal would add ANY server load whatsoever to the physics checks, you break the base game with lag. ANY check you add to the physics, even if you don't break the code itself, has to be replicated for each and every item, ship, structure, terrain, and every other thing in the game, all at once, all day, every day. You really should just learn to keep your bad ideas to yourself, carebear.
so ship speed , and collisions are not events currently logged by the server ?
name calling and insults are usually resorted to by people who have no decent argument to offer, or are losing the argument, or are just plain ill-mannered, which of these are you?
it's also regarded as flaming or trolling, which the isd has already warned about in this thread. you wouldn't be trying to get this thread closed down for some reason would you? |
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 15:07:23 -
[1332] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: - so first: is it intentional or not?
*facepalm The game engine cannot determine intent. Like, at all, it lacks the capacity. are you a game programmer?
do you work for CCP?
if not, what makes you qualified to post that?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 15:12:15 -
[1333] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Translation:
Hi CCP, I demand you change the game to suit my desires and screw every other player who disagrees with me. BINGO!
- just change the words "other player" to "dickhead" OK?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 15:14:26 -
[1334] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: Guess CCP screwed up then
Yes, by making the game safer.
you can't make this kind of stuff up! you're a natural comic!
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
33
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 15:22:56 -
[1335] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:so why continue posting? Because you keep posting your gamebreakingly bad ideas. Why do you think you're entitled to an echo chamber? errr, because he's not an obstinate, thread derailing, duffus?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
15
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 15:24:17 -
[1336] - Quote
for the sake of argument, if my proposal of having a 'fleet engagement ' type flag/timer activated by bumped ship is 'too complicated due to crimewatch system, then the solution would be to , using the parameters described in earlier posts, to just make the bumper suspect after 15 minutes of preventing the target from aligning and/or completing its warp cycle .
simple and effective rebalance |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25871
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 15:24:29 -
[1337] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:name calling and insults are usually resorted to by people who have no decent argument to offer, or are losing the argument, or are just plain ill-mannered, which of these are you? it's also regarded as flaming or trolling, which the isd has already warned about in this thread. you wouldn't be trying to get this thread closed down for some reason would you? Could you please inform your fellow campaigners of this; I, for one, am getting sick of being called a douchebag and a dickhead because my opinions differ from theirs.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
33
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 15:24:47 -
[1338] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: We are saying that it SHOULD BE made illegal..
And that not only breaks game balance, is not necessary, but is also impossible. You very literally cannot be more wrong. you forgot to say the "nah nah nah nah nah nah!" part
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
33
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 15:28:20 -
[1339] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:name calling and insults are usually resorted to by people who have no decent argument to offer, or are losing the argument, or are just plain ill-mannered, which of these are you? it's also regarded as flaming or trolling, which the isd has already warned about in this thread. you wouldn't be trying to get this thread closed down for some reason would you? Could you please inform your fellow campaigners of this; I, for one, am getting sick of being called a douchebag and a dickhead because my opinions differ from theirs. I see - but you feel yourself free to discuss my balls..
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17293
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 15:39:43 -
[1340] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote: simple and effective rebalance
You have yet to show there is any need for a rebalance in the first place. As already asked multiple times, why do you think you require more safety than 99.9%?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 15:41:27 -
[1341] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Again with the name calling Bella, serious question, why are you playing a game such as this? You clearly detest the foundations that it was built upon and the opportunities it offers. Eve fills a niche in the MMO market, it doesn't need to conform to what other games define as acceptable behaviour because if it did, it would no longer fill that niche and be redundant. Filling a very specific niche is what has enabled Eve to survive as long as it has, while outlasting hundreds of games that did conform to the norm. I'd say that CCP have been doing it right for longer than the lifespan of most MMO's. I've been wondering the same thing. Bella, there are many other MMOs out there, some even space themed, that will allow you to have all the security you want while farming their currency. Why don't you go play one of them rather than keep trying to ruin the one game on the market that caters to people who want all that EvE has to offer? I'm not trying to troll with this question, I am seriously wondering why you play a game that seems to go against everything you think a game should be. I like the game.. I like the sandbox.. I like the backstory.. I like the "edge".. I like the variety of options in the things to do and the manner of play..
However unbridled freedom, I should say UNBALANCED unbridled freedom facilitates people playing like douchebags - picking on the weak...
So I just want clean, logical BALANCE..
I think this really defines the problem this thread is discussing:
bigbud skunkafella wrote:ok, as an experiment, why don't you try going out and finding an overweight old person returning from the grocery store and repeatedly run into them at high speed to prevent them returning home, and see if the police turn up and listen to your argument that they had no right to arrest you because you haven't killed and robbed them, and were only holding them till your gang of criminal associates could arrive to do the actual robbery and murder. then , when you have been released from custody, let me know how eve bumping mechanics as they stand are totally realistic and sensible from a logical point of view .
that and my signature says it all..
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 15:44:25 -
[1342] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote: simple and effective rebalance
You have yet to show there is any need for a rebalance in the first place. As already asked multiple times, why do you think you require more safety than 99.9%? I think you should just keep repeating this question over and over.. until it dawns on you that it's meaningless..
oh wait.. that may be never..
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25871
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 15:46:15 -
[1343] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:name calling and insults are usually resorted to by people who have no decent argument to offer, or are losing the argument, or are just plain ill-mannered, which of these are you? it's also regarded as flaming or trolling, which the isd has already warned about in this thread. you wouldn't be trying to get this thread closed down for some reason would you? Could you please inform your fellow campaigners of this; I, for one, am getting sick of being called a douchebag and a dickhead because my opinions differ from theirs. I see - but you feel yourself free to discuss my balls.. Telling someone to grow a pair is not an insult, it is an idiom used to tell someone they need to do something for themselves. I haven't suggested that you do anything that I, or many of the other posters in this thread, don't or wouldn't do; in fact some of us do the things we suggest almost daily, that's how we know that they work.
Calling myself, and others, douchebags and dickheads because we play within the rules, and disagree with your opinions and suggestions is insulting.
I's childish, it's uncouth, it's rude and there's no need for it; it certainly doesn't help the, somewhat pointless and misguided imho, cause that you're trying to promote.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 15:51:31 -
[1344] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:name calling and insults are usually resorted to by people who have no decent argument to offer, or are losing the argument, or are just plain ill-mannered, which of these are you? it's also regarded as flaming or trolling, which the isd has already warned about in this thread. you wouldn't be trying to get this thread closed down for some reason would you? Could you please inform your fellow campaigners of this; I, for one, am getting sick of being called a douchebag and a dickhead because my opinions differ from theirs.
perhaps my use of "dickhead" while perfect descriptively, was a bit over the top....
but now you know how us carebears feel whenever the douches call us that in their vitriolic disdain..
actually though, I like carebear.. it has "care" and teddy bears are cute.. it has a righteous connotation and I'm proud to play in that way..
but for the sake of spicing up the game, I suppose we should be thankful to those who choose to play the douche role..
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 15:55:37 -
[1345] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote: nothing is impossible just because you say it is.
No, it's impossible because the developers have said it is. You want an example of what will happen if you mess with the base code of the physics system? Hit "Ctrl+Alt+Delete", then go into the task manager. From there, find a process (not a program) labeled "Windows Explorer." Then, right click that process and say "end process tree." That's an accurate approximation of what will happen to EVE if you mess with the base code. Oh, and if your proposal would add ANY server load whatsoever to the physics checks, you break the base game with lag. ANY check you add to the physics, even if you don't break the code itself, has to be replicated for each and every item, ship, structure, terrain, and every other thing in the game, all at once, all day, every day. You really should just learn to keep your bad ideas to yourself, carebear. you are coming off as an expert...
clearly an expert of impossible
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Giaus Felix
Hedion University Amarr Empire
117
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 16:02:22 -
[1346] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Instantaneous transfer of conciousness, warp drives etc, are covered by Clarke's third law* : "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". An addendum to Clarke's third law, attributed to both Niven and Pratchett is that "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology"
Speaking of Niven, he had a few more laws that apply especially well to this thread.
- There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it
- No technique works if it isn't used
- Not responsible for advice not taken
I am Ralph's junk DNA.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 16:08:18 -
[1347] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:name calling and insults are usually resorted to by people who have no decent argument to offer, or are losing the argument, or are just plain ill-mannered, which of these are you? it's also regarded as flaming or trolling, which the isd has already warned about in this thread. you wouldn't be trying to get this thread closed down for some reason would you? Could you please inform your fellow campaigners of this; I, for one, am getting sick of being called a douchebag and a dickhead because my opinions differ from theirs. I see - but you feel yourself free to discuss my balls.. Telling someone to grow a pair is not an insult, it is an idiom used to tell someone they need to do something for themselves. I haven't suggested that you do anything that I, or many of the other posters in this thread, don't or wouldn't do; in fact some of us do the things we suggest almost daily, that's how we know that they work. Calling myself, and others, douchebags and dickheads because we play within the rules, and disagree with your opinions and suggestions is insulting. I's childish, it's uncouth, it's rude and there's no need for it; it certainly doesn't help the, somewhat pointless and misguided imho, cause that you're trying to promote. douchbag is merely descriptive of the kind of antisocial, bullying, jerk like play many people affect in the Eve universe.
I just don't think "pirate", "villain" or even "ganker", fully captures the essence of the behavior exhibited.
so what's the problem? If you play like a douche, I can't call you a douche?
- and if you DON'T play like a douche, I'm not even talking about you.. why take offense?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Hopelesshobo
Tactical Nuclear Penguin's
555
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 16:15:31 -
[1348] - Quote
Disclaimer: I have read about 2 pages of this threadnaught
baltec1 wrote:
The only evidence posted so far was the RF records from last year that show over 99.9% of trips made were successful. If anything this shows highsec is too safe.
Again I ask you people, why is this change needed when it is already super easy to avoid bumping?
To be fair, what is the ratio of gankers to non gankers in highsec? Also, what is the percentage of successful trips in the other sectors of space with their ratios as well, so we have a fair comparison.
Personally I think it's silly that someone can bump someone for as long as they feel like until they can get people to login without any repercussion. One thing I was thinking of would be to make it so you can still safely log off if you are being locked by someone. From there possibly modifying the PVP timer to not be a fixed 15 minutes, but to make it more of a sliding scale of either your aggression, or the aggression you have received. So, as an example, they wouldn't be able to use an atron with 1 civilian blaster fitted (or a rookie ship if they hand out timers) to keep someone locked down for 15 minutes. Although I would fear what this sort of sliding scale would do in large scale fleet fights to the servers if it was too complex.
Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16237
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 16:19:14 -
[1349] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: are you a game programmer?
Are you? Because I actually have some experience with coding(several years, and half a dozen contracted projects), enough to know that what you carebears are saying is not only a bad idea, but functionally impossible as well.
"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.
16237
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 16:21:42 -
[1350] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: So I just want clean, logical BALANCE..
No you don't.
You want to break the game utterly because you are too lazy and too stupid to use the existing counters.
"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.
|
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25874
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 16:23:05 -
[1351] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:so what's the problem? If you play like a douche, I can't call you a douche? You certainly hold a high opinion of yourself don't you?
Using your own criteria, your posting habits are those of somebody who acts in the manner you claim to despise; arrogance and obnoxiousness being two of the characteristics of a douchebag.
Quote: and if you DON'T play like a douche, I'm not even talking about you.. why take offense? I play within the rules of the game, my personal playstyle consisting of slaughtering NPCs, the gathering/processing of natural resources, and not dying at the hands of my fellow players. In short I am what many consider to be prey, yet you took it upon yourself to label me, personally, a douchebag earlier in the thread, because I think that your opinions and proposals are all kinds of wrong.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 16:25:05 -
[1352] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: are you a game programmer?
Are you? Because I actually have some experience with coding(several years, and half a dozen contracted projects), enough to know that what you carebears are saying is not only a bad idea, but functionally impossible as well.
I don't claim any technical knowledge, but I'm quite familiar with gaming and my sense of logic is proven in the real world.
logic convinces me that BUMPING is broken: it's unrealistic and it's a GOOD IDEA to address it.
here is the best analogy I have seen to date:
bigbud skunkafella wrote:ok, as an experiment, why don't you try going out and finding an overweight old person returning from the grocery store and repeatedly run into them at high speed to prevent them returning home, and see if the police turn up and listen to your argument that they had no right to arrest you because you haven't killed and robbed them, and were only holding them till your gang of criminal associates could arrive to do the actual robbery and murder. then , when you have been released from custody, let me know how eve bumping mechanics as they stand are totally realistic and sensible from a logical point of view .
As far as "IMPOSSIBLE" - I prefer to leave that to CCP
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 16:26:24 -
[1353] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: So I just want clean, logical BALANCE..
No you don't. You want to break the game utterly because you are too lazy and too stupid to use the existing counters. I say yes
you say no
oh my!
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
35
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 16:28:24 -
[1354] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:so what's the problem? If you play like a douche, I can't call you a douche? You certainly hold a high opinion of yourself don't you? Using your own criteria, your posting habits are those of somebody who acts in the manner you claim to despise; arrogance and obnoxiousness being two of the characteristics of a douchebag. Quote: and if you DON'T play like a douche, I'm not even talking about you.. why take offense? I play within the rules of the game, my personal playstyle consisting of slaughtering NPCs, the gathering/processing of natural resources, and not dying at the hands of my fellow players. In short I am what many consider to be prey, yet you took it upon yourself to label me, personally, a douchebag earlier in the thread, because I think that your opinions and proposals are all kinds of wrong. wow.. watch it..
you're acting all butthurt over a few words...
next thing you'll be open to being called a CAREBEAR!!!
Anyway, from your description of the play style you choose.. I have no beef with you.. - and certainly my reference to "douchebags" does not apply to you.
The net of this is that we have differing opinions..
Fly safe, friend
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16237
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 16:30:52 -
[1355] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: I don't claim any technical knowledge, but I'm quite familiar with gaming and my sense of logic is proven in the real world.
Well, the last two are pretty clearly a lie.
Quote: logic convinces me that BUMPING is broken: it's unrealistic and it's a GOOD IDEA to address it.
That's not logic, that's your selfishness and projection talking.
Basically it's your feelings, which are the polar opposite of logic. And they mean absolutely nothing, I might add, since this isn't tumblr.
Quote: As far as "IMPOSSIBLE" - I prefer to leave that to CCP
They've said as much many times, they cannot change the base code.
You might be so ignorant as to think that your spewing tears all over this thread can change reality, but I'm not and neither are they.
Reals > Feels, carebear.
Get used to 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.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25874
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 16:32:33 -
[1356] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote: wow.. watch it..
you're acting all butthurt over a few words...
No butthurt, just facts.
Quote:next thing you'll be open to being called a CAREBEAR!!! I may be a bear, but I'm no carebear.
Carebear isn't a playstyle, it's an attitude which dictates the game changes to suit you, rather than you change to suit the game.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
35
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 16:44:26 -
[1357] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bella Jennie wrote: if I'm an ignorant, lazy, selfish liar; why do you even bother to engage me?
Because it amuses me to watch you flail around and making a fool of yourself. Also, because I don't like lying. Some poor new player might come on here, see your nonsense, and not know any better. People like you are the true "griefers" in EVE Online, constantly lying to new players and trying to get them to bore themselves to death.
in other words, you just like to troll
well, troll on..
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21245
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 16:44:44 -
[1358] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:fleet engagement flag would have to be activated by the victim of the bumping for the umpteenth time, so the above scenario could only happen if the victim chose to engage, You have never said that, let alone umpteen times. my whole proposal for a fleet engagement type flag contained the proviso that it would be activated by the victim . please read my posts properly if you wish me to continue responding to your ahem, constructive criticisms. OK so I read this and thought, did he really say this for the umpteenth time? So I thought, let's check.
Up until this post, bb talked mostly of MJD. But as you can see, that was his first talk of his flag idea. No mention of the pilot having to activate the flag.
Here he talks more about his idea and fleshes it out some. There is talk of activation, but not that the pilot will be doing it.
He quotes his idea again here.
In this post he talks again about getting a flag, but no mention of how it's activated.
Now this post is interesting. He does mention the following.Quote:...freighter pilot accepts fleet invo from ag fleet, then activates his limited engagement timer on machs, who immediately engage freighter as code logi warp in to rep machs and ag fleet engage machs... He mentions activation of a limited timer, but it's not all that clear how it's activated.
Here he talks of his idea and a fleet engagement timer and not a limited one, but nothing about activation.
This post he tries to give more info regarding speeds etc and when a fleet flag would be awarded. No mention of activation.
At this point he talks of it being a 'limited fleet engagement'/'suspect timer. But again, no words on activation.
This post also talks of when a flag would be awarded, but not about it's activation.
Timers timers everywhere, but not an activation in sight.
He again talks about timers being awarded, but no clarity on activation.
Here he does mention when the timer activates on the bumper. Apparently when the freighter activates his warp drives. So not a manual activation?
And here he mentions activation, but not that's it's done manually.
Ahem.
So I do find his umpteenth time and read my posts properly statements, to be a little out of sorts with what he actually did post. I believe he has me blocked, due to posting uncomfortable facts. So can someone explain his error and ask him to apologize to Scipio please.
Thank you kindly.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
35
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 16:46:19 -
[1359] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:.you think getting deeply into the definition of "CAREBEAR" serves the topic of this thread? You suggested I would be open to being called a carebear, you obviously thought it served the topic of this thread. You have my rebuttal to your suggestion. Oh I see.. whatever I write, you feel compelled to respond?
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25875
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 16:50:44 -
[1360] - Quote
Bella Jennie wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Bella Jennie wrote:.you think getting deeply into the definition of "CAREBEAR" serves the topic of this thread? You suggested I would be open to being called a carebear, you obviously thought it served the topic of this thread. You have my rebuttal to your suggestion. Oh I see.. whatever I write, you feel compelled to respond? When a post is addressed to me personally, it is common courtesy to reply. You're apparently unaware of this, given your failure to reply to a multitude of posts that addressed you personally.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
|
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1596
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 16:56:23 -
[1361] - Quote
I think I cleaned 8 pages of this thread last time. I'm not going to do it again.
The topic has been beaten to death and some feel the need to throw personal attacks at each other. Locked... forever...!
Quote:2. Be respectful toward others at all times.
The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.
3. Ranting is prohibited.
A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
6. Racism and discrimination are prohibited.
Racism, gender stereotyping, hate speech, and sexism are not permitted on the EVE Online Forums. Derogatory posting that includes race, religion or sexual preference based personal attacks and trolling can result in immediate suspension of forum posting privileges.
7. Discussion of real life religion and politics is prohibited.
Discussion of real life religion and politics is strictly prohibited on the EVE Online forums. Discussions of this nature often creates animosity between forum users due to real life political or military conflicts. CCP promotes the growth of a gaming community where equality is at the forefront. Nationalist, religious or political affiliations are not part of EVE Online, and should not be part of discussion on the EVE Online forums.
8. Use of profanity is prohibited.
The use of profanity is prohibited on the EVE Online forums. This includes the partial masking of letters using numbers or alternate symbols, and any attempts at bypassing the profanity filter.
ISD Decoy
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
|
|
|
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] |