Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13565
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 13:12:26 -
[1] - Quote
Hey folks. There's a small change that's currently planned for our February release and we'd like to get your feedback.
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.
The current planned numbers are:
Frigate, Rookie Ship, Shuttle, Small NPC: 700 hp Destroyer: 1000 hp Cruiser, Mining Barge, Medium NPC, Generic NPC: 1500 hp Battlecruiser, Industrial: 2500 hp Battleship, Large NPC, Officer NPC: 3500 hp Carrier, Dread, Rorqual, Orca, Freighter: 15000 hp Supercarrier: 25000 hp Titan: 30000 hp
The CSM feedback we've received so far has been positive, and we'd like to hear what you all think. Thanks!
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1866
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 13:15:39 -
[2] - Quote
It's a good proposition
Akrasjel Lanate
Founder and CEO of Naquatech Conglomerate
Executor of Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
Konrad Kane
146
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 13:16:33 -
[3] - Quote
Endie, noble protector of wrecks .... well some of them at least. |
MainDrain
Applied Anarchy ChaosTheory.
320
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 13:16:52 -
[4] - Quote
I'm all for this. It makes sense that large wrecks are harder to destroy.
If we could get different wreck models for different classes of ships, that would be nice too |
JonnyPew
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
14
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 13:17:36 -
[5] - Quote
Protect the wrecks!
I like this change.
EVE Online is my hobby
http://www.youtube.com/JonnyPew
|
BigSako
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
120
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 13:19:08 -
[6] - Quote
This means you can no longer one-shot titan/super carrier wrecks.
Not sure if this is a good or a bad thing. |
Absolon Echerie
EVE University Ivy League
17
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 13:23:40 -
[7] - Quote
I take it this will be without any resists? Or will wrecks even get an inherited resist profile from their former ship?
Without resists this seems about right, considering the dps generally required to take down a ship of that size. it should still take a second or 2-3 to destroy the wreck, and have the benefit of countering accidental wreck (and loot) destruction.
And looking at the amount of wrecks a stealth bomber could still one-shot the changes would not be that bad :) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13566
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 13:25:27 -
[8] - Quote
Absolon Echerie wrote:I take it this will be without any resists? Or will wrecks even get an inherited resist profile from their former ship?
Currently wrecks have no resists and their hitpoints are entirely hull. This proposal doesn't change either of those things.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Bjurn Akely
Knights of Nii The 20 Minuters
91
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 13:28:24 -
[9] - Quote
Scratching my head to understand what problem this change will fix. Or is it merely 'cosmetic'? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16093
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 13:36:34 -
[10] - Quote
Wow. Let the tears flow.
Good 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.
|
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
737
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 13:36:49 -
[11] - Quote
Bjurn Akely wrote:Scratching my head to understand what problem this change will fix. Or is it merely 'cosmetic'?
Will probably help save wrecks from smartbombs in large fleets. Or pipe bombing. Like if you pipe bomb a fleet of ABC's, you won't immediately nuke your loot when you forget to cycle a couple SB. Maybe, least thats kind of how i view it.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Nam Dnilb
Universal Frog
248
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 13:38:58 -
[12] - Quote
Bjurn Akely wrote:Scratching my head to understand what problem this change will fix. Or is it merely 'cosmetic'?
People try to deny enemy players the loot from the wrecks by blowing them up. |
Scotsman Howard
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
6
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 13:57:01 -
[13] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Bjurn Akely wrote:Scratching my head to understand what problem this change will fix. Or is it merely 'cosmetic'? Will probably help save wrecks from smartbombs in large fleets. Or pipe bombing. Like if you pipe bomb a fleet of ABC's, you won't immediately nuke your loot when you forget to cycle a couple SB. Maybe, least thats kind of how i view it.
Smartbombs do not kill wrecks now, so unless they change that mechanic first, this will not affect that area. If you watch the videos of R&K smartbombing, the wrecks were not destroyed and formed a nice little ball. |
l0rd carlos
TURN LEFT
1265
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 14:05:25 -
[14] - Quote
Bjurn Akely wrote:Scratching my head to understand what problem this change will fix. Or is it merely 'cosmetic'?
In skirmish battles you often kill the wreck in order to deny the enemy a warpin.
Here is an example fight where we do this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyzkZhkXkJk
Youtube Channel about Micro and Small scale PvP with commentary: Fleet Commentary by l0rd carlos
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17238
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 14:05:58 -
[15] - Quote
Well this is nice.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44117
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 14:06:43 -
[16] - Quote
Totally logical change.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
201
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 14:11:10 -
[17] - Quote
Hehe, wreck popping was one of the few effective ways of interrupting work of large freighter ganker groups in hisec (primarily goons and thier code alts), so it is nice to see that CSM is working for the null block interests as per usual.
Now, I have nothing against this proposal but there is a major caveat - if you're gonna do this please fix the ability to loot other people's cargo while avoiding getting suspect flagged for it.
What I'm referring to is the fact that one can get next to a yellow wreck with a ship with fleet hanger (e.g. Deep space transport or an Orca) and a character in a noob ship, use the character in the noob ship to transfer cargo to DST and only the noob ship guy will get suspect flagged while DST will merrily warp away with stolen goods.
Please fix this so that Fleet hanger ship can't receive such (illegal) loot or can do it but gets flagged in the process (obviously, make it so that it is not prone to abuse). Do that, and I don't think many will care about EHP of the wrecks. |
Sarah Flynt
144
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 14:12:28 -
[18] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Carrier, Dread, Rorqual, Orca, Freighter: 15000 hp You do realize that this is a massive buff to freighter ganking?
When can we expect a fix for risk free looting in highsec via a fleet hangar/freight container/can and a laundering alt in return?
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Cpt Patrick Archer
Quam Singulari Triumvirate.
55
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 14:20:05 -
[19] - Quote
I approve of this!
Could be a little bit higher imo. |
Sharps
WiNGSPAN Academy for Enterprising Pilots The WINGSPAN Logo Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 14:22:08 -
[20] - Quote
What about MTUs?
Also, can we probe down wrecks now please? |
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
201
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 14:26:57 -
[21] - Quote
Sharps wrote:Also, can we probe down wrecks now please? This would be awesome. +1 |
Clark Yalken
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 14:28:56 -
[22] - Quote
Makes sense to me.
MainDrain wrote:If we could get different wreck models for different classes of ships, that would be nice too
This also makes sense and would be nice to see. It's a small change, but makes things a bit more realistic. |
Miner Hottie
Haywire.
183
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 14:28:59 -
[23] - Quote
Carebears of Eve rejoiced.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
1139
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 14:31:03 -
[24] - Quote
Are you considering having this affect salvage times as what this means is that a ninja salvage ship is the best way to essentially circumvent what I read as the intent behind these changes.
Or change cans? |
Asinae Antaelis
7
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 14:32:31 -
[25] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The current planned numbers are:
Frigate, Rookie Ship, Shuttle, Small NPC: 700 hp Destroyer: 1000 hp Cruiser, Mining Barge, Medium NPC, Generic NPC: 1500 hp Battlecruiser, Industrial: 2500 hp [/b]
The CSM feedback we've received so far has been positive, and we'd like to hear what you all think. Thanks!
Shouldn't this be proportionnal to average hull hitpoint? like 1/2 the ship's hull Cause for frigs, the wreck would have more raw hp than the flying ship... |
Jadek Kin
Incorruptibles
6
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 14:47:05 -
[26] - Quote
Asinae Antaelis wrote:Shouldn't this be proportionnal to average hull hitpoint? like 1/2 the ship's hull Cause for frigs, the wreck would have more raw hp than the flying ship... Salvage tanking. CCPlease, let me duct tape this battle hardened salvage to my ship. |
Anthar Thebess
1410
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 14:48:12 -
[27] - Quote
Good change, but i think that we need more EHP starting from battleship class wrecks. Most of the battleships do 3500 alpha damage from full rack of guns, so they can easily one shoot a wreck. But i will not argue as a lot was gained already
Now for player experience and in game immersion, capital wrecks need huge buff to hit points. 25000 is minimum (thing about killing wreck by one shoot from all guns from maelstrom) But why not go way above this numbers. Make all capital wrecks to have 200.000 hit points , and super capital wrecks above 500.000 hit points. Can you also change so capital wrecks don't disappear when salvaged, and stay on grid until downtime ( maybe even longer) ? This are also big changes , but...... why?
Because of this : http://i.imgur.com/UhHrWHj.jpg A single image posted across the web will affect more people than the BR we get from zkill. People that never played eve will ignore BR, but if he is slightly interested in spaceships, he will not ignore screenshot. Trust me. After each capital battle, you will get tons of screenshots posted across the web. They will be a free eve commercials. Capital graveyards will be good place to generate short therm hot zones, many people will want to see them. You put a lot of work in creating this wreck graphics, why are you allowing them to be instantly gone after the battle?
During the battle not many people have time to do nice screenshots, they have low res settings, are occupied in surviving. Currently CCP is losing a lot of attention this screenshots can generate.
(off topic) We are talking about wrecks. What about : - smart bombs damaging and wrecks including NPC wrecks? - inability to salvage wreck that have more m3 inside of it than the can left after the salvaging process
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Gauis Aldent
Concordiat Spaceship Samurai
6
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 14:48:38 -
[28] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Hehe, wreck popping was one of the few effective ways of interrupting work of large freighter ganker groups in hisec (primarily goons and thier code alts), so it is nice to see that CSM is working for the null block interests as per usual.
Now, I have nothing against this proposal but there is a major caveat - if you're gonna do this please fix the ability to loot other people's cargo while avoiding getting suspect flagged for it.
What I'm referring to is the fact that one can get next to a yellow wreck with a ship with fleet hanger (e.g. Deep space transport or an Orca) and a character in a noob ship, use the character in the noob ship to transfer cargo to DST and only the noob ship guy will get suspect flagged while DST will merrily warp away with stolen goods.
Please fix this so that Fleet hanger ship can't receive such (illegal) loot or can do it but gets flagged in the process (obviously, make it so that it is not prone to abuse). Do that, and I don't think many will care about EHP of the wrecks.
Wreck popping? You mean murdering all of the defenseless crew who may have survived the original encounter? Seems like popping any wreck should be a crime far worst than podding a capsuleer. It should bring concord for the lives of the hundreds or even thousands of baseliners you are murdering in cold blood! |
My Little Friend
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 14:48:38 -
[29] - Quote
I'm glad to see that CCP is focusing on fixing the real issues rather than wasting time on silly things like sov or incentives to fight over it. I quite look forward to seeing my titan wreck getting shot multiple times when I die in lowsec because of the poorly thought out jump range and fatigue changes.
+1 I support this change and other important issues like this one. |
Steven Grlscz
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
5
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 14:52:30 -
[30] - Quote
+1 good change. |
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
1983
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 14:55:27 -
[31] - Quote
Go for it!
#WreckLivesMatter
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Retired Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - Ex-BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
|
Cixi
19
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 14:56:27 -
[32] - Quote
Still too few hull point imo, a wreck should be very hard to destroy, it's already a bunch of junk pieces floating in space.
Sharps wrote:What about MTUs?
Also, can we probe down wrecks now please?
+1 |
Bisu Deckryder
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
44
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 14:59:04 -
[33] - Quote
Geuss I'm gonna have to start flying arty to pop wrecks before the krabs |
Bisu Deckryder
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
44
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:00:00 -
[34] - Quote
My Little Friend wrote:I'm glad to see that CCP is focusing on fixing the real issues rather than wasting time on silly things like sov or incentives to fight over it. I quite look forward to seeing my titan wreck getting shot multiple times when I die in lowsec because of the poorly thought out jump range and fatigue changes.
+1 I support this change and other important issues like this one.
But your in Amok. you aren't allowed to good post |
Chengan Chakaid
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:05:07 -
[35] - Quote
"Hehe, wreck popping was one of the few effective ways of interrupting work of large freighter ganker groups in hisec"
Wait a moment, you could single-handedly interrupt the work of a whole group? Glad it gets changed, seems rather op. It's Eve, one should not expect to be effective against a group. |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
203
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:15:02 -
[36] - Quote
Chengan Chakaid wrote:"Hehe, wreck popping was one of the few effective ways of interrupting work of large freighter ganker groups in hisec"
Wait a moment, you could single-handedly interrupt the work of a whole group? Glad it gets changed, seems rather op. It's Eve, one should not expect to be effective against a group. Apparently I did, even though they always claimed they didn't care about it in local. Apparently they cry much more then anti-gankers or freighter pilots since even CSM takes time to focus on the quality of their gameplay. Poor babies, never thought they are so sensitive. |
Niraia
Nocturnal Romance Cynosural Field Theory.
388
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:18:09 -
[37] - Quote
This will bring balance to the game! +1
GÖÑ
|
Manic Velocity
The Corp I Just Left
136
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:24:54 -
[38] - Quote
I know nothing about game development, but I can say with 104% certainty that this is a good change.
@manicvelocity
|
Esnaelc Sin'led
The Unchained Club
50
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:25:15 -
[39] - Quote
Titan : 50 000. |
Rupee Rue
Price History What's In Your Wallet
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:27:52 -
[40] - Quote
This will make my Happy Rue Year events even more fun. +1
Side note: I accidently removed Wrecks from my Overview...now I can't even target Minmatar ships |
|
aria Yatolila
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
51
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:44:13 -
[41] - Quote
Sound good, nice change ! What about ship fitted with bulkead rigs/modules, as thoses modules reinforce the structure of the ship, wich is for me the main component of a wreck ?
Lady Yatolila, retainer of her Lady Kadesh and Khanid Royal House
|
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
159
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:46:14 -
[42] - Quote
+1
Good change, CCP! |
Eliana Eros
Neon Incorporated 404 Alliance Not Found
33295
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:46:14 -
[43] - Quote
#wrecklivesmatter
Now when i somehow manage to win a fight, the losers cant bomb all the wrecks? Does that mean...that i can maybe loot? Crazy talk.
=p
GÖÑ's and Glomps for everyone...well almost everyone.
Ze Goggles
|
Anthar Thebess
1414
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:46:43 -
[44] - Quote
Asinae Antaelis wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
The current planned numbers are:
Frigate, Rookie Ship, Shuttle, Small NPC: 700 hp Destroyer: 1000 hp Cruiser, Mining Barge, Medium NPC, Generic NPC: 1500 hp Battlecruiser, Industrial: 2500 hp [/b]
The CSM feedback we've received so far has been positive, and we'd like to hear what you all think. Thanks!
Shouldn't this be proportionnal to average hull hitpoint? like 1/2 the ship's hull Cause for frigs, the wreck would have more raw hp than the flying ship...
From RL perspective. To sunk a ship today you need to punch hole in this hull, so big, you cannot remove water moving in. In case of EVE armor and hull give you information how much damage you need to do before hole will be 'big enough' to do the job.
In both cases rest of the ship is mostly intact.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Chengan Chakaid
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:53:21 -
[45] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Chengan Chakaid wrote:"Hehe, wreck popping was one of the few effective ways of interrupting work of large freighter ganker groups in hisec"
Wait a moment, you could single-handedly interrupt the work of a whole group? Glad it gets changed, seems rather op. It's Eve, one should not expect to be effective against a group. Apparently I did, even though they always claimed they didn't care about it in local. Apparently they cry much more then anti-gankers or freighter pilots since even CSM takes time to focus on the quality of their gameplay. Poor babies, never thought they are so sensitive.
Anti-gankers? Sorry, I feel like I'm getting dragged into some emotionally loaded conflict and I don't want that. As far as I'm concerned it seems to be waaaaaaaay too op, so good change! +1
o7m8s |
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services The WINGSPAN Logo Alliance
647
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:53:38 -
[46] - Quote
Definitely endorsed.
I would still love to see varying signature radii implemented. For example these values won't change the effect of a torpedo volley on any sub capital wreck. It's the little things.
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|
Danmal
Proioxis Assault Force
36
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:56:20 -
[47] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks. There's a small change that's currently planned for our February release and we'd like to get your feedback.
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.
The current planned numbers are:
Frigate, Rookie Ship, Shuttle, Small NPC: 700 hp Destroyer: 1000 hp Cruiser, Mining Barge, Medium NPC, Generic NPC: 1500 hp Battlecruiser, Industrial: 2500 hp Battleship, Large NPC, Officer NPC: 3500 hp Carrier, Dread, Rorqual, Orca, Freighter: 15000 hp Supercarrier, NPC Supercarrier: 25000 hp Titan: 30000 hp
The CSM feedback we've received so far has been positive, and we'd like to hear what you all think. Thanks!
I find this unnecessary. For player wrecks, the quick destruction of the wreck can be tactically important because they are a warp-in points. Hence why reward slow/worse PVPers by giving them more time. Second, I am against applying this to NPC wrecks too. Some diligent PVErs destroy their wrecks in low/null so as to remain anonymous, which becomes a chore when they have a lot of hitpoints. Hence, there is at least as good an argument for not increasing their HP. I am not sure what the argument for increasing NPC wreck HP would be.
|
MissBolyai
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
151
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 15:59:26 -
[48] - Quote
Stupid change
-1 |
Aleesha Al'Thor
The Founding Four Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 16:00:03 -
[49] - Quote
Chengan Chakaid wrote:"Hehe, wreck popping was one of the few effective ways of interrupting work of large freighter ganker groups in hisec"
Wait a moment, you could single-handedly interrupt the work of a whole group? Glad it gets changed, seems rather op. It's Eve, one should not expect to be effective against a group.
You mean like afk cloakies? |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
298
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 16:00:55 -
[50] - Quote
ganking buff... well i'm glad to see CSM doing the good work... |
|
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
298
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 16:06:58 -
[51] - Quote
Danmal wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks. There's a small change that's currently planned for our February release and we'd like to get your feedback.
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.
The current planned numbers are:
Frigate, Rookie Ship, Shuttle, Small NPC: 700 hp Destroyer: 1000 hp Cruiser, Mining Barge, Medium NPC, Generic NPC: 1500 hp Battlecruiser, Industrial: 2500 hp Battleship, Large NPC, Officer NPC: 3500 hp Carrier, Dread, Rorqual, Orca, Freighter: 15000 hp Supercarrier, NPC Supercarrier: 25000 hp Titan: 30000 hp
The CSM feedback we've received so far has been positive, and we'd like to hear what you all think. Thanks! I find this unnecessary. For player wrecks, the quick destruction of the wreck can be tactically important because they are warp-in points. Hence why reward slow/worse PVPers by giving them more time. Second, I am against applying this to NPC wrecks too. Some diligent PVErs destroy their wrecks in low/null so as to remain anonymous, which becomes a chore when they have a lot of hitpoints. Hence, there is at least as good an argument for not increasing their HP. I am not sure what the argument for increasing NPC wreck HP would be.
this is about ppl destroying ganked freighter wrecks before gankers could loot them; i guess they cried long enough that their CSM representatives went to CCP and managed to implement this change "for the good of the game" ofc
|
Gliese Casserres
Fistful of Finns Paisti Syndicate
33
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 16:08:55 -
[52] - Quote
CODE ALWAYS WINS
Am I rite? |
Anthar Thebess
1415
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 16:22:57 -
[53] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:Definitely endorsed.
I would still love to see varying signature radii implemented. For example these values won't change the effect of a torpedo volley on any sub capital wreck. It's the little things. Nice idea, but to much calculation,
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Soldarius
O C C U P Y Test Alliance Please Ignore
1445
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 16:23:06 -
[54] - Quote
I seem to recall this being asked for far into the past. Nice to see it finally being implemented.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Anthar Thebess
1415
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 16:24:34 -
[55] - Quote
Aleesha Al'Thor wrote:Chengan Chakaid wrote:"Hehe, wreck popping was one of the few effective ways of interrupting work of large freighter ganker groups in hisec"
Wait a moment, you could single-handedly interrupt the work of a whole group? Glad it gets changed, seems rather op. It's Eve, one should not expect to be effective against a group. You mean like afk cloakies? Afk cloacker is just one guy from the whole fleet waiting for the cyno.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
rofflesausage
State War Academy Caldari State
239
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 16:32:30 -
[56] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Absolon Echerie wrote:I take it this will be without any resists? Or will wrecks even get an inherited resist profile from their former ship? Currently wrecks have no resists and their hitpoints are entirely hull. This proposal doesn't change either of those things.
Can we remote rep wrecks up to their original HP? |
EveIs ABadGame PleaseQuit
Shooting Blues Everyday
6
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 16:36:18 -
[57] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Carrier, Dread, Rorqual, Orca, Freighter: 15000 hp You do realize that this is a massive buff to freighter ganking? When can we expect a fix for risk free looting in highsec via a fleet hangar/freight container/can and a laundering alt in return?
A bloobloo a bloobloo moooooom, it's not faaaaiiiir. |
Lucas Quaan
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
115
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 16:37:19 -
[58] - Quote
MissBolyai wrote:Stupid change
-1 It just became a group task instead. ;)
#AMT |
Kynric
Sky Fighters
373
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 16:38:57 -
[59] - Quote
Ivthink there is a misunderstanding. I was thinking my poor assault ship is a wreck, please rebalance it. Instead my assault ships wreck gets rebalanced. |
Sahriah BloodStone
No.Mercy Triumvirate.
248
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 16:47:33 -
[60] - Quote
Good change, long overdue
Sahriah Bloodstone
Praetor, No.Mercy
"Never underestimate your enemy or disrespect its abilities. If you do, you shall become the hunted "
|
|
KIller Wabbit
Unleashed' Fury Imminent Threat
922
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 16:53:07 -
[61] - Quote
So let's raise the return rate on high sec pirating. Null bloc's get their way yet again. |
Edward James Reed
Reed's
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 16:55:35 -
[62] - Quote
+1 for this change.
Also +1 for probe-scan wrecks: if it's in space - it may be scanned. May bring some interesting opportunities. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
64
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 17:36:39 -
[63] - Quote
Danmal wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks. There's a small change that's currently planned for our February release and we'd like to get your feedback.
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.
The current planned numbers are:
Frigate, Rookie Ship, Shuttle, Small NPC: 700 hp Destroyer: 1000 hp Cruiser, Mining Barge, Medium NPC, Generic NPC: 1500 hp Battlecruiser, Industrial: 2500 hp Battleship, Large NPC, Officer NPC: 3500 hp Carrier, Dread, Rorqual, Orca, Freighter: 15000 hp Supercarrier, NPC Supercarrier: 25000 hp Titan: 30000 hp
The CSM feedback we've received so far has been positive, and we'd like to hear what you all think. Thanks! I find this unnecessary. For player wrecks, the quick destruction of the wreck can be tactically important because they are warp-in points. Hence why reward slow/worse PVPers by giving them more time. Second, I am against applying this to NPC wrecks too. Some diligent PVErs destroy their wrecks in low/null so as to remain anonymous, which becomes a chore when they have a lot of hitpoints. Hence, there is at least as good an argument for not increasing their HP. I am not sure what the argument for increasing NPC wreck HP would be. EDIT: Because of my first point, I suppose this to be the proposal from a group that's bad at PVP pushing their own agenda, am I right? EDIT2: As I am getting madder about this, can you please start impeaching CSM members who clearly push their own agendas rather than the interests of the community. Thank you.
The value of a utility high with a salvager or a few salvage drones in bay just became a new thing and may have just given a new role of salvage ships in fleet ops. It will be interesting to see how this plays out as a change.
Personally I have little skin in the game as I don't destroy wrecks very often. But I like the idea that a wreck is harder to destroy the larger it is, seems very logical. Though in a game logic is not always the best game play given other mechanics and game play. So I am interested to see how this change plays out and not shoot the idea down outright. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
17434
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 17:36:54 -
[64] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks. There's a small change that's currently planned for our February release and we'd like to get your feedback.
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.
The current planned numbers are:
Frigate, Rookie Ship, Shuttle, Small NPC: 700 hp Destroyer: 1000 hp Cruiser, Mining Barge, Medium NPC, Generic NPC: 1500 hp Battlecruiser, Industrial: 2500 hp Battleship, Large NPC, Officer NPC: 3500 hp Carrier, Dread, Rorqual, Orca, Freighter: 15000 hp Supercarrier, NPC Supercarrier: 25000 hp Titan: 30000 hp
The CSM feedback we've received so far has been positive, and we'd like to hear what you all think. Thanks!
Looks good. Ship it.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Talassa Noran
BioMetalFoundry
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 17:43:43 -
[65] - Quote
it makes sense, but it will just be abused so
-1 |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2545
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 17:50:43 -
[66] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Asinae Antaelis wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
The current planned numbers are:
Frigate, Rookie Ship, Shuttle, Small NPC: 700 hp Destroyer: 1000 hp Cruiser, Mining Barge, Medium NPC, Generic NPC: 1500 hp Battlecruiser, Industrial: 2500 hp [/b]
The CSM feedback we've received so far has been positive, and we'd like to hear what you all think. Thanks!
Shouldn't this be proportionnal to average hull hitpoint? like 1/2 the ship's hull Cause for frigs, the wreck would have more raw hp than the flying ship... From RL perspective. To sunk a ship today you need to punch hole in this hull, so big, you cannot remove water moving in. In case of EVE armor and hull give you information how much damage you need to do before hole will be 'big enough' to do the job. In both cases rest of the ship is mostly intact.
Do we really know what would happen to a ship in the case of an actual hull breach? Like how much the remains get damage during the pressure equalization between the inner of the ship and the void of space. |
Kaoraku Shayiskhun
The 1st Regiment HUN Reloaded
2
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 17:54:09 -
[67] - Quote
Reality? When a small ship collition to a capital ship, and the smaller one not blown up? Yeah, that was a really needed REBALANCE, wrecks was pretty OP |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3748
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:03:24 -
[68] - Quote
CCP, the issue of making ganking more profitable is one that needs addressing, I propose, as a way to complete this re-balance: Exploding freight containers. If my ship explodes, so does my freight container, along with all its contents. Make it have a volume that is about 70% of its own volume, as a penalty for using them (that is, you can use this freight container, but you will be carrying less cargo).
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
646
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:06:12 -
[69] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Do we really know what would happen to a ship in the case of an actual hull breach? Like how much the remains get damage during the pressure equalization between the inner of the ship and the void of space.
The pressure difference isn't that big of a deal, it's roughly equivalent to the pressure at 10 meters depth in water. |
Insidious
Hax.
17
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:09:59 -
[70] - Quote
excellent idea
hell i would go further and let the capsuler escape be manual release |
|
Messenger Of Truth
Butlerian Crusade
25
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:17:09 -
[71] - Quote
This is a good change overall but does have possibly unintended consequences on the profitability of freighter ganking. The gankers are (broadly-speaking) protected by concord - the very mechanics they subvert! With bumpers and looters in npc corps, its hard to assault their valuable ships.
\I would like to see consequence-free bump tackling changed - you shouldn't be able to tackle in hisec without going suspect or criminal. Likewise, ships involved on looting from gank victims should not be protected by concord.
Still, wreck hp is a good change for the game. |
Dunmer Orion
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:20:01 -
[72] - Quote
Good idea, makes sense to me. Will it affect salvaging times?
-DO |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1895
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:21:15 -
[73] - Quote
Lol. Go for it. This owns.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Ruby Gnollo
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:35:37 -
[74] - Quote
Bjurn Akely wrote:Scratching my head to understand what problem this change will fix. Or is it merely 'cosmetic'?
Maybe it's because some find too easy to deny loot even when loosing ground by shooting big wrecks |
Chalithra Lathar
Rhongomiant Legion Industries The Explicit Alliance
33
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:52:56 -
[75] - Quote
#WreckLivesMatter |
DirtyGibson Hand
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:53:27 -
[76] - Quote
This is a good post. Good job goodposter. Will you be the champion for scannable wrecks?
Sharps wrote:What about MTUs?
Also, can we probe down wrecks now please?
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2160
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:55:27 -
[77] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:CCP, the issue of making ganking more profitable is one that needs addressing, I propose, as a way to complete this re-balance: Exploding freight containers. If my ship explodes, so does my freight container, along with all its contents. Make it have a volume that is about 70% of its own volume, as a penalty for using them (that is, you can use this freight container, but you will be carrying less cargo). No, the game needs more conflict drivers not less. Removing the spoils of victory for out-maneuvering your opponent does not seem to be a good way to incentivize player interaction.
+1 for a good, minor change which should shake things up slightly and one that makes sense. Numbers seem fine. |
MissBolyai
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
151
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 19:06:45 -
[78] - Quote
Lucas Quaan wrote:MissBolyai wrote:Stupid change
-1 It just became a group task instead. ;) #AMT Do we have a artymach fleet comp? or do I just bring it as a flagship wreck dunker? |
MissBolyai
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
151
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 19:13:22 -
[79] - Quote
If there's nothing to stop this change, can you at least give us killmails for wrecks now? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17242
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 19:21:26 -
[80] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:So let's raise the return rate on high sec pirating. Null bloc's get their way yet again.
Current chance of being ganked in a freighter stands at less than 0.1%.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
Gauis Aldent
Concordiat Spaceship Samurai
8
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 19:25:46 -
[81] - Quote
Edward James Reed wrote:+1 for this change.
Also +1 for probe-scan wrecks: if it's in space - it may be scanned. May bring some interesting opportunities.
Role bonus for the noctis? :) |
Bisu Deckryder
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
44
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 19:28:40 -
[82] - Quote
Lamo gankers vs anti gankers is the biggest whine fest in eve. Both sides make the pubbiest null or low sec player looks well rounded |
MarkeeDragon
Merchants Trade Consortium The Last Chancers.
4
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 19:40:12 -
[83] - Quote
I think this would be a positive change. Will help with griefing a bit. |
Femerov
gaming is not a crime The Volition Cult
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 19:47:33 -
[84] - Quote
does that also mean we are going to get more salvage from the biger wrecks now they have bigger masses ? :) |
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance
309
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 19:48:57 -
[85] - Quote
Popping wrecks quickly is a valid assets denial tactic, and should not be changed.
If wrecks are to get more hitpoints based on ship type (which does make sense) then prevent looting a wreck while it is locked, so that looters have first to take care of ships trying to destroy the wreck before taking the loot.
Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XI
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
Freedom fighters, unite with Chao3
|
Sasha Cohenberg
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling CODE.
35
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 19:53:32 -
[86] - Quote
As an Ethical Hauler, I'm glad this change is happening. If i ever pick up a scam contract and get ganked, the gankers can no longer pop my wreck containing the contract and deny me my collateral. Now I'll be able to reship and get my wraps from my wrecks upon reshipping at station. Thanks CCP! |
death minner
River-Rats in space The Ditanian Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 20:04:16 -
[87] - Quote
Well, if there are going to be more hit-points, it should be due to more salvageable parts of the ship surviving... |
death minner
River-Rats in space The Ditanian Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 20:08:00 -
[88] - Quote
Sasha Cohenberg wrote:As an Ethical Hauler, I'm glad this change is happening. If i ever pick up a scam contract and get ganked, the gankers can no longer pop my wreck containing the contract and deny me my collateral. Now I'll be able to reship and get my wraps from my wrecks upon reshipping at station. Thanks CCP!
or their hauler comes in and loots your wreck while you are trying to reship and you still loose out. neut alt transfers content to fleet hangar, or whatever and no one gets killed but the neut
|
Ashla Boga
Pro Synergy
45
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 20:26:37 -
[89] - Quote
You asked for the feedback from the other thread moved over, so I'll just copy and paste this:
Nyalnara wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote: Currently we will have fleet warp changes inbound and when FC cannot warp fleet , people waping to wrecks are very important thing, that we need to have.
Which is exactly why we proposed wreck to need potentially more than one salvager cycle to clear.
I'm sorry to say that one cycle salvaging is done because it's a pass/fail mechanic and if they complete in one cycle it's because they have good skills or lots of luck, not because all wrecks just magically are always only one cycle. This would be a sucker punch to real salvagers that do this all the time to just arbitrarily remove the success rate system so the wrecks don't get salvaged as quickly.
As far as the OP and wreck EHP, I've got to say for player wrecks especially every size of wreck being insta-pop isn't a great thing currently. I think it would also hurt gankers to make MTU's unable to tractor from a warp gate in a system or immediately off of stations. I understand that 90% of the time that MTU just gets killed by someone with a halfway decent ship who doesn't mind going suspect, but it's pretty frustrating to see a 30 wreck ball of empty wrecks gathered around one after a gank, knowing it's probably just an alt of one of the gankers. Maybe we could make MTUs go suspect if they pull ganker/ganked wrecks in >:) so players aren't penalized for killing it then.
Also I think it's freaking RIDICULOUS that you can go to salvage an elite cruiser or battleship wreck and only get 1000 isk worth from it sometimes. If they play with sizes they should play with material drop as well. If it costs 200 m, 500m, 1000m to build it, it shouldn't drop 4 metal scraps alone. Just my two cents.
(a) Change the wreck ehps based on size? Yes! (b) Change looting mechanics for MTUs and gankers? Yes! (c) Change base composition of various sized wrecks? Yes!
Wrecks are still only going to last 2 hours even if they are bigger after all.
(P.S. no pun intended - anytime you're dealing with wreck stuff, you should totally come to me first, I'm an expert in the field.... of blue triangles.) |
Shallanna Yassavi
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
76
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 20:34:44 -
[90] - Quote
Can we make the wrecks bumpable? It would leave a way to steal/deny loot.
A signature :o
|
|
Commander IceQ
Wet Soap Guard
16
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 20:36:07 -
[91] - Quote
My Little Friend wrote:I'm glad to see that CCP is focusing on fixing the real issues rather than wasting time on silly things like sov or incentives to fight over it. I quite look forward to seeing my titan wreck getting shot multiple times when I die in lowsec because of the poorly thought out jump range and fatigue changes.
+1 I support this change and other important issues like this one. Yes and CCP only has 2 Developers...
Seriously? If a post does not affect the part of the game that matters to you, why bother posting? They have teams focusing on different aspects of the game. Why not go raise your issue in Features and Ideas instead of whining in posts that are not relevant to your concerns? Grow up a little.
OT: I have lost millions accidentally shooting my own wrecks. I definitely support this.
I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it.
|
Ashla Boga
Pro Synergy
45
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 20:36:16 -
[92] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Sharps wrote:Also, can we probe down wrecks now please? This would be awesome. +1
I thought about proposing a hybrid wreck system where instead of the current 2 hour timer, it has like a 90 minute "Marked as how player left it" timer, then the wrecks turn blue and it gets a 90 minute scannable Core Probe signature.
Example:
Player kills another player, wreck is left behind for 90 minutes, he didn't mark it as anything, so it's white to fleet and corp as per usual; after 90 minutes that wreck if the player has not returned becomes a blue wreck with a signature to scan it down.
Example 2:
Players slaughters a field of rats, doesn't bookmark it, doesn't salvage it. Field is yellow for first 90 minutes, then it turns blue and becomes a - Small Wreck Cluster - Medium Wreck Cluster - Large Wreck Cluster Based on how many wrecks and sizes they were and is able to be scanned down. This would add some life into the exploration and salvaging trades, and give new players with few contacts other than a little Magnate and probe module a chance to make some isk while learning to probe better. I think it would overall reduce server lag compared to 2 hour system now.
Could also work with just adding a 60 minute scannable timer, or even change it to 60 minutes of white/yellow, 2 hours of scannable and blue abandoned wrecks (would be even better in my eyes!) |
Mai Khumm
Lonetrek Freeport
765
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 20:40:02 -
[93] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Carrier, Dread, Rorqual, Orca, Freighter: 15000 hp You do realize that this is a massive buff to freighter ganking? When can we expect a fix for risk free looting in highsec via a fleet hangar/freight container/can and a laundering alt in return? Never...that actually goes against Goons/CODE and obviously some CSM members looking out for the greater good of Goonswarm Online! |
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders
4284
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 20:45:51 -
[94] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Hehe, wreck popping was one of the few effective ways of interrupting work of large freighter ganker groups in hisec (primarily goons and thier code alts), so it is nice to see that CSM is working for the null block interests as per usual.
Now, I have nothing against this proposal but there is a major caveat - if you're gonna do this please fix the ability to loot other people's cargo while avoiding getting suspect flagged for it.
What I'm referring to is the fact that one can get next to a yellow wreck with a ship with fleet hanger (e.g. Deep space transport or an Orca) and a character in a noob ship, use the character in the noob ship to transfer cargo to DST and only the noob ship guy will get suspect flagged while DST will merrily warp away with stolen goods.
Please fix this so that Fleet hanger ship can't receive such (illegal) loot or can do it but gets flagged in the process (obviously, make it so that it is not prone to abuse). Do that, and I don't think many will care about EHP of the wrecks. LMAO clever use of game mechanics.
And no, your proposal makes no sense. Loot is loot, it's just stuff, there's no such thing as 'illegal loot'.
Anyway, good change makes sense.
Make space glamorous!
Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
|
Lou Arnoux
University of Caille Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 20:55:38 -
[95] - Quote
Very good change. Will provide good gameplay options for currently uncounterable tactics. |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
226
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 20:59:52 -
[96] - Quote
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:LMAO clever use of game mechanics. And no, your proposal makes no sense. Loot is loot, it's just stuff, there's no such thing as 'illegal loot'. Anyway, good change makes sense. I know, right, clever way to avoid intended consequences of looting somebody else's stuff. As for illegal looting, call it what you will, the point is that it is supposed to flag you as a suspect if you pick it up which this "cleverness" circumvents. |
Mintoko
Taedium In Perpetuam
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 21:00:57 -
[97] - Quote
Lou Arnoux wrote:Very good change. Will provide good gameplay options for currently uncounterable tactics.
You mean not being able to counter a wreck being popped to deny the looting? Popping a wreck is a counter for the ganking. Now you want a counter for the counter? |
Pale Peril
EVE University Ivy League
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 21:05:01 -
[98] - Quote
HrmGǪ looks like there is a limit to how many times you can quote in one post in these forumsGǪ o-O
I like this change and its seemingly an obviously do-able GÇ£little thingsGÇ¥ without too much work.
Also, I like many of the suggestions thus far made in this thread to add more to wrecks, though I would think making most of the those iterative additions for future releases, right?
For instance:
Sharps wrote:What about MTUs?
Dunmer Orion wrote: [...] Will it affect salvaging times?
I likey!
I donGÇÖt know if the salvaging algorithm was taking into account the wreckGÇÖs HP before this change, but I am too curious if this would increase salvage times.
Sharps wrote:Also, can we probe down wrecks now please?
Edward James Reed wrote: [...] Also +1 for probe-scan wrecks: if it's in space - it may be scanned. May bring some interesting opportunities.
IGÇÖm into this too, if it has little effect on server/client performance. |
Skyrider Deathknight
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 21:05:12 -
[99] - Quote
Can we get a disclaimer that this totally isn't anything to do with the dude recent smartbombing the highsec mothership wreck recently.
|
Pale Peril
EVE University Ivy League
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 21:05:51 -
[100] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote: [...] Can you also change so capital wrecks don't disappear when salvaged, and stay on grid until downtime ( maybe even longer) ? This are also big changes , but...... why? [b] Because of this : http://i.imgur.com/UhHrWHj.jpg A single image posted across the web will affect more people than the BR we get from zkill. People that never played eve will ignore BR, but if he is slightly interested in spaceships, he will not ignore screenshot. Trust me. After each capital battle, you will get tons of screenshots posted across the web. They will be a free eve commercials. Capital graveyards will be good place to generate short therm hot zones, many people will want to see them. You put a lot of work in creating this wreck graphics, why are you allowing them to be instantly gone after the battle? [...] Like this too, as long at it also doesnGÇÖt have much effect on server performance. Perhaps not much more persistent that after downtown (or less).
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: [...] Wreck popping? You mean murdering all of the defenseless crew who may have survived the original encounter? Seems like popping any wreck should be a crime far worst than podding a capsuleer. It should bring concord for the lives of the hundreds or even thousands of baseliners you are murdering in cold blood! [...]
Yummy, yummy grimdarkness. IGÇÖm totally into the prospect adding potential low value GÇ£livestockGÇ¥ into the salvaging loot tables proportional to larger size wrecks if there is a lore reason for potential surviving crew/passengers.
And I image it's not a difficult change to make before the February release, eh? :Those Janitors obviously are in need of a new employer and would do well in my station hanger. :D |
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
765
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 21:34:55 -
[101] - Quote
gascanu wrote:this is about ppl destroying ganked freighter wrecks before gankers could loot them; i guess they cried long enough that their CSM representatives went to CCP and managed to implement this change "for the good of the game" ofc
Some recent research has proven that tin foil hats actually increase the strength of common radio frequencies, and are actually detrimental to followers of certain conspiracy theories. Those of a more paranoid persuasion should avoid wearing them.
I thought this may be relevant information for you. |
everyholeisthegoal
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 21:50:12 -
[102] - Quote
I'm all for this change, but with one amendment......the loot should not be so easily accessible.
Dropped loot should be easily accessible, but cargo should not. Cargo should be dropped in containers that need to be hacked just like data/relic sites. The higher the cargo value.....the harder the hack!
Successful hacking - no CCP police....blow it up.....and they will chase you down! |
Powers Sa
1399
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 21:54:19 -
[103] - Quote
awesome change
Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk
Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.
|
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
65
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 22:08:44 -
[104] - Quote
everyholeisthegoal wrote:I'm all for this change, but with one amendment......the loot should not be so easily accessible.
Dropped loot should be easily accessible, but cargo should not. Cargo should be dropped in containers that need to be hacked just like data/relic sites. The higher the cargo value.....the harder the hack!
Successful hacking - no CCP police....blow it up.....and they will chase you down! I like the idea that new game play could come from wrecks. But to be fair to attackers I would say convert the loot distribution model from dropped/destroyed to dropped/deployed/destroyed; where a part of the loot behaves as it does now and there is a chance for a portion of the loot to drop as an invulnerable container with part of the loot in it. The container must be hacked to retrieve the contents and has no suspect flags.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17244
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 22:39:23 -
[105] - Quote
Mai Khumm wrote:Sarah Flynt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Carrier, Dread, Rorqual, Orca, Freighter: 15000 hp You do realize that this is a massive buff to freighter ganking? When can we expect a fix for risk free looting in highsec via a fleet hangar/freight container/can and a laundering alt in return? Never...that actually goes against Goons/CODE and obviously some CSM members looking out for the greater good of Goonswarm Online!
You may want to come out from under your rock.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
shootyou longtyme
Systems High Guard SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 22:42:04 -
[106] - Quote
Cpt Patrick Archer wrote:
Could be a little bit higher imo.
Yepps, at least double.
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5665
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 22:45:08 -
[107] - Quote
Big improvement.
I really want to see sneaking around fleet battles ninja looting to be viable in EVE. This change should help that.
Pro tip to anti-gankers whining about the change - you too can try to loot freighter wrecks, and we'll happily fight you over them.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
767
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 22:58:58 -
[108] - Quote
Will the new structures leave (massive) wrecks, and what HP will they have? |
Oshien
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
2
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 23:03:12 -
[109] - Quote
Seems like a logical change... I approve. |
Defier Orilis
Defiance Eden Initiative
73
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 23:06:08 -
[110] - Quote
I approve this message. It makes sense and feel more natural.
Thx, Defier. |
|
Sabin Minks
SergalJerk Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 23:12:58 -
[111] - Quote
Terra Chrall wrote:everyholeisthegoal wrote:I'm all for this change, but with one amendment......the loot should not be so easily accessible.
Dropped loot should be easily accessible, but cargo should not. Cargo should be dropped in containers that need to be hacked just like data/relic sites. The higher the cargo value.....the harder the hack!
Successful hacking - no CCP police....blow it up.....and they will chase you down! I like the idea that new game play could come from wrecks. But to be fair to attackers I would say convert the loot distribution model from dropped/destroyed to dropped/deployed/destroyed; where a part of the loot behaves as it does now and there is a chance for a portion of the loot to drop as an invulnerable container with part of the loot in it. The container must be hacked to retrieve the contents and has no suspect flags.
These idea are gold right here.
These new wreck changes make sense.
I see alot of people complaining about gankers, and goons.
Does a small house implode into a small pile of rubble? Yes. Does a big building implode into a big pile of rubble? yes Logic wins here.
As far as the people saying the CSM are in favor of this because of goons.... Please direct your attention to the reddit.... READ, Form a thought, then come back.. and possibly complain. |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
227
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 23:24:45 -
[112] - Quote
Sabin Minks wrote:As far as the people saying the CSM are in favor of this because of goons.... Please direct your attention to the reddit.... READ, Form a thought, then come back.. and possibly complain.
Noone is saying that this propsal is benificial only to goons and gankers, but the fact is that this is a subject which was a sore spot for freighter gankers for some time, that CSM member 'championing' it comes from a well known ganking corp (former home to the goonswarm minluv) and that he specifically mentiones freighter wrecks in one of his early reddit comments (which likely indicates that he specifically thought about that as well when 'championing' this).
The change per se is not bad and even has some logic to it. They just need to fix the looting thing, then its all fine and dandy by me (and most of the ag crew, I'd bet). |
Jarsoom Blade
Blade's Legion
28
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 00:19:29 -
[113] - Quote
Read the post with CCP Fozzie's voice in mind for some reason. Morgan Freeman, get 'wrecked'!
See what I did there.
This is EVE
|
death minner
River-Rats in space The Ditanian Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 00:29:39 -
[114] - Quote
For a short trip down memory lane... it used to be that if someone salvaged a wreck that had more that 27k of stuff in it the wreck vanished and the loot with it, but, gankers cried that all their hard work was being taken away from them so CCP made it so that now a wreck isn't salvageable while there's more than enough m3 left in it to fill a cargo can.
I'm not saying that things keep getting changed just to suit a certain portion of eve players as has been alluded to in various posts, but I can say that in a certain light, it does at times appear that way. |
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
722
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 00:30:45 -
[115] - Quote
Please add individual models for each ship. Have to whip that art department into shape. |
Berluth Luthian
Kill'em all. Let Bob sort'em out. Minmatar Republic Marines
210
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 00:39:56 -
[116] - Quote
I think increasing wreck gamely just a bit could add a lot to the game.
Something like...
Failed cycles (unsuccessful) potentially cause AOE explosions that damage 50% of the wreck's HP. If the wreck isn't destroyed you can continue to attempt salvaging. The explosion is due to unstable pieces of the ship being disassembled. Fields of ships dead ships would need to be salvaged carefully, but this could mean you put more value of dead ships into their potential salvage. |
Gorion Wassenar
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
134
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 00:41:11 -
[117] - Quote
Fix the DST looting and I might consider it. Pretty against this as keeping range from anything is already a huge pain in the ass as it is.
Rote Kapelle - NOW IN SLIGHTLY MORE LAW ABIDING FLAVOR!
"DRINK STARSI!" -¬-«GäóOwnership Group Chairman
|
Atomeon
The Scope Gallente Federation
66
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 01:44:16 -
[118] - Quote
Since you rebalance the wrecks then rebalance their lock time too. Bigger wreck gets insta locked etc. |
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
508
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 03:12:42 -
[119] - Quote
Good change
Would also like to see an increase in time taken to transfer items from larger wrecks instead of an instant transfer as it currently is.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
42
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 03:29:20 -
[120] - Quote
+1
Also you Anti-Gankers need to realise that there's more to EVE than Highsec and CODE. lol gut rekt
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
|
Haidere
Evolution Northern Coalition.
11
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 03:37:24 -
[121] - Quote
Definitely a good idea, will cut down on accidentally targeting/destroying wrecks, my 2 isk though, leave wrecks that were the victims of a gank remain very low. |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
889
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 03:42:03 -
[122] - Quote
You can still shoot wrecks, it's just that now you will have to throw more than 2 mil at it to make sure it dies.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
43
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 04:02:07 -
[123] - Quote
Haidere wrote:Definitely a good idea, will cut down on accidentally targeting/destroying wrecks, my 2 isk though, leave wrecks that were the victims of a gank remain very low. A gank is a kill, the game doesn't care if it was a suicide gank or not. A kill is a kill.
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
552
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 05:54:11 -
[124] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Frigate, Rookie Ship, Shuttle, Small NPC: 700 hp Destroyer: 1000 hp Cruiser, Mining Barge, Medium NPC, Generic NPC: 1500 hp Battlecruiser, Industrial: 2500 hp Battleship, Large NPC, Officer NPC: 3500 hp Carrier, Dread, Rorqual, Orca, Freighter: 15000 hp Supercarrier, NPC Supercarrier: 25000 hp Titan: 30000 hp
The CSM feedback we've received so far has been positive, and we'd like to hear what you all think.
My only concern is whether I'll be able to tell these wreck categories apart? Do they get different names? Different icons? Do they get different signature radii? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17244
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 05:59:06 -
[125] - Quote
Salpad wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Frigate, Rookie Ship, Shuttle, Small NPC: 700 hp Destroyer: 1000 hp Cruiser, Mining Barge, Medium NPC, Generic NPC: 1500 hp Battlecruiser, Industrial: 2500 hp Battleship, Large NPC, Officer NPC: 3500 hp Carrier, Dread, Rorqual, Orca, Freighter: 15000 hp Supercarrier, NPC Supercarrier: 25000 hp Titan: 30000 hp
The CSM feedback we've received so far has been positive, and we'd like to hear what you all think. My only concern is whether I'll be able to tell these wreck categories apart? Do they get different names? Different icons? Do they get different signature radii?
They currently have different names.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Nelly Galbatha
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 06:13:57 -
[126] - Quote
Can you give giant freight container's for hit points also? |
Mistique Jasson
Platinum Octopus Infernal Octopus
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 07:58:16 -
[127] - Quote
This will make salvage the wrecks harder? |
Molly Duma
F0RCED ENTRY
8
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 08:44:13 -
[128] - Quote
Maybe hit the Titan wreck with 50 000 hitpoints?
EvE Offline Server Status
|
Daksa Crendraven
Imperial Guardians SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 08:50:26 -
[129] - Quote
Well... Thanks for the loot then! :) |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
231
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 08:51:50 -
[130] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:You can still shoot wrecks, it's just that now you will have to throw more than 2 mil at it to make sure it dies. So, now it's somehow about value of the ship performing the gank? |
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2104
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 09:14:09 -
[131] - Quote
+1 good change, about time this exploit got fixed.
This is completely unrelated: but I just want to thank our goonswarm overlords for making all this possible.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Vulfen
Snuff Box Snuffed Out
182
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 09:40:53 -
[132] - Quote
With wrecks now having more hp, would smart bombs now affect them?, currently i dont below wrecks are damaged by smart bomb damage. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17244
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 09:45:31 -
[133] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:+1 good change, about time this exploit got fixed.
This is completely unrelated: but I just want to thank our goonswarm overlords for making all this possible.
Twas PL
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1497
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 10:36:43 -
[134] - Quote
Can we get them probable while you are at it?
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders
4288
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 11:09:03 -
[135] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Can we get them probable while you are at it? Would be nice, certainly the scavanger mini-profession would have a surge.
Would be a newbie-friendly activity by the way, getting more people into low/null/wh, creating PVP situations, etc.
Honestly can't see any downside, except possibly a slight increase of supply for salvage, mods and other stuff that drops, but that doesn't seem a bad effect.
Make space glamorous!
Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
|
Kestielh Mechielv
Teutate raiders DARKNESS.
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 14:27:16 -
[136] - Quote
We all know who's going to get bennefit from this change. Don't even need to call them ;) |
Aker Krane
OMEGADYNE LABS Rising Darkness
24
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 16:14:08 -
[137] - Quote
Generally speaking, anything that reduces the the amount of destruction/consumption is a bad idea.
Will you be reducing the amount of loot that actually survives the destruction of the hull accordingly? |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2258
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 18:43:51 -
[138] - Quote
I do not care what happens with freighter tanking or High Sec space in general. I'm just excited at the prospect of having trivially longer to warp to a wreck and it being marginally harder to destroy a capital ship wreck to deny the winner a chance at the loot.
I remain firmly opposed to being able to scan down wrecks. That breaks way more than it fixes for 0.0 escalations, missions, and etc.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
626
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 19:32:16 -
[139] - Quote
An odd change... I'd have argued to make wrecks easier to kill and also to shorten the amount of time they last in space. The servers have to keep track of all of this space junk, so making wrecks go away faster helps to reduce the server load.
Also, how about fixing the issue where wrecks cannot be salvaged because they contain too much loot , and/or something too big, to fit within a drop can? |
death minner
River-Rats in space The Ditanian Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 19:55:20 -
[140] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:An odd change... I'd have argued to make wrecks easier to kill and also to shorten the amount of time they last in space. The servers have to keep track of all of this space junk, so making wrecks go away faster helps to reduce the server load.
Also, how about fixing the issue where wrecks cannot be salvaged because they contain too much loot , and/or something too big, to fit within a drop can?
That is not an issue in the sense that it was some unforeseen side effect of a new mechanic or something, in fact that was an intentional change as i stated in a previous post.
o/ DM. |
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
806
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 22:21:39 -
[141] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks. There's a small change that's currently planned for our February release and we'd like to get your feedback.
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.
The current planned numbers are:
Frigate, Rookie Ship, Shuttle, Small NPC: 700 hp Destroyer: 1000 hp Cruiser, Mining Barge, Medium NPC, Generic NPC: 1500 hp Battlecruiser, Industrial: 2500 hp Battleship, Large NPC, Officer NPC: 3500 hp Carrier, Dread, Rorqual, Orca, Freighter: 15000 hp Supercarrier, NPC Supercarrier: 25000 hp Titan: 30000 hp
The CSM feedback we've received so far has been positive, and we'd like to hear what you all think. Thanks! So now shooting wrecks will actually take some effort and involve some risk - Will they generate killmails?
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 23:06:15 -
[142] - Quote
now that gankers , whether intentionally or as a purely coincidental consequence of this rebalance have received a huge buff in effectively guaranteed freighter wreck looting in hisec, is it too much to ask that shooting a wreck in hisec becomes a suspect level offense rather than crimal /concordden? seriously.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17245
|
Posted - 2016.02.02 23:33:05 -
[143] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:now that gankers , whether intentionally or as a purely coincidental consequence of this rebalance have received a huge buff in effectively guaranteed freighter wreck looting in hisec, is it too much to ask that shooting a wreck in hisec becomes a suspect level offense rather than crimal /concordden? seriously.
Looong way to go before ganking is buffed enough to warrant a buff to anti ganking.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Pulttl
Off-By-One Errors
4
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 01:52:51 -
[144] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:now that gankers , whether intentionally or as a purely coincidental consequence of this rebalance have received a huge buff in effectively guaranteed freighter wreck looting in hisec, is it too much to ask that shooting a wreck in hisec becomes a suspect level offense rather than crimal /concordden? seriously.
It sounds like a logical change. Looting someone else's wreck/can and shooting it are equivalent in that both take away its content from the original owner or legitimate looters. Previously with low hitpoints for a wreck, a criminal flag was useful in discouraging shooting wrecks (to some degree), and now, it is an unnecessary device that turns possible PVP opportunities (suspect fights in hisec) into PVE (being CONCORDed) for no greater goal. Giving a suspect flag definitely affects jet can mining if regular jet cans would receive this change as well, but it can create additional content in hisec, like protecting miner friends' can in PVP-ready ships.
Mobile Scan Inhibitors and Mobile Micro Jump Units used to cause a killright to be granted (w/o a criminal flag though), but they simply give a suspect flag like other deployables since the December patch. The similar consideration can be possibly done in toning down the consequence of attacking wrecks/cans.
Identify hisec gankers at GankerLookout.com
|
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
102
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 03:06:12 -
[145] - Quote
Can flip the most value items, kill low-hp jetcan. The wreck HP is irrelevant.
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2111
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 06:32:00 -
[146] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:now that gankers , whether intentionally or as a purely coincidental consequence of this rebalance have received a huge buff in effectively guaranteed freighter wreck looting in hisec, is it too much to ask that shooting a wreck in hisec becomes a suspect level offense rather than crimal /concordden? seriously. +1 Awesome idea, will not tell you why. I love how 1 dimensional AG thinks
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Danmal
Proioxis Assault Force
39
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 07:36:51 -
[147] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:+1 good change, about time this exploit got fixed.
This is completely unrelated: but I just want to thank our goonswarm overlords for making all this possible.
Dear CCP,
you know you are on the wrong path when CODE. calls a change long overdue.
tyvm |
Sjugar02
Antwerpse Kerels RAZOR Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 09:11:10 -
[148] - Quote
I don't think anyone can honestly disagree with this change. People should have a good chance to get loot after killing something. Killing big things is content and we should always strive to reward players that create content. People can still shoot wrecks but they'll have to put in some effort and there is less chance that anyone fatfingers the wreck.
Wrecks will also have a slightly better chance to survive and act as a warpin. I know a lot of kitting gangs like to shoot wrecks that are close to them. Now the wrecks should survive a couple seconds longer and give people some chance to get tackle.
+1 all around |
Borat Guereen
Chao3 Chao3 Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 18:01:12 -
[149] - Quote
"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."
Not surprising, again showing the influence of the goon/CODE bloc on the game to benefit their game play and income before everyone else.
Even if increasing the HP of wrecks based on sizes makes sense logically, why not make other "logical" changes like adding damages to bumping, or removing bumping from the game altogether. Of course, goons/CODE only want to think logically when it benefits them.
I would have strongly opposed this change. I am running for CMS XI and for all of you on this thread that see this change as they are, vote to get rid of the goons/CODE influence on the CSM XI. Put me on top of your ballot vote, and consider my endorsement post when making your choices for CSM XI, and go vote!
Candidate for CSM XI
Speaker of Chao3
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
46
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 18:05:20 -
[150] - Quote
[quote=Borat Guereen Even if increasing the HP of wrecks based on sizes makes sense logically, why not make other "logical" changes like adding damages to bumping, or removing bumping from the game altogether. Of course, goons/CODE only want to think logically when it benefits them.
[/quote] Bumping isn't only being used by CODE. or GSF in HS.. you're one of these "one more nurf or i quits" kind of person eh?
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
|
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
646
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 19:52:07 -
[151] - Quote
Borat Guereen wrote:Even if increasing the HP of wrecks based on sizes makes sense logically, why not make other "logical" changes like adding damages to bumping, or removing bumping from the game altogether. Of course, goons/CODE only want to think logically when it benefits them.
Man, you high-sec miners/haulers really are constantly whining, whining and whining. How about finding support for your ideas, formulating a proposal and let your CSM rep present it to CCP?
|
Ruby Gnollo
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 12:47:43 -
[152] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:Borat Guereen wrote:Even if increasing the HP of wrecks based on sizes makes sense logically, why not make other "logical" changes like adding damages to bumping, or removing bumping from the game altogether. Of course, goons/CODE only want to think logically when it benefits them. Man, you high-sec miners/haulers really are constantly whining, whining and whining. How about finding support for your ideas, formulating a proposal and let your CSM rep present it to CCP?
Maybe because it would be far easier, far cheaper and far more accessible to newcomers to just to dump the CSM and let CCP gamemasters handle the game instead of having to handle the interference of a toxic CSM ? |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
648
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 14:07:57 -
[153] - Quote
Ruby Gnollo wrote:Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:Borat Guereen wrote:Even if increasing the HP of wrecks based on sizes makes sense logically, why not make other "logical" changes like adding damages to bumping, or removing bumping from the game altogether. Of course, goons/CODE only want to think logically when it benefits them. Man, you high-sec miners/haulers really are constantly whining, whining and whining. How about finding support for your ideas, formulating a proposal and let your CSM rep present it to CCP? Maybe because it would be far easier, far cheaper and far more accessible to newcomers to just to dump the CSM and let CCP gamemasters handle the game instead of having to handle the interference of a toxic CSM ?
Good idea. CCP Gamemasters have (to the best of my knowledge) not banned or otherwise sanctioned anyone for bumping. Case closed I guess.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2169
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 14:26:59 -
[154] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote: Good idea. CCP Gamemasters have (to the best of my knowledge) not banned or otherwise sanctioned anyone for bumping. Case closed I guess.
More than that, they have specifically said bumping is not an exploit.
CCP wrote: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.
Non-Exploit
Description
Ship Bumping - Ram the ship of another player with your own in order to prevent them from warping. Case closed.
|
Ruby Gnollo
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 18:18:57 -
[155] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Case closed.
Not really : CSM is still the problem it's always been.
|
Zxl
Deep Space Explorers Inc. GaNg BaNg TeAm
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 07:30:25 -
[156] - Quote
Since you asked:
1. Wrecks mass and hp should be % of the original hull that was destroyed. 2. Wrecks mass should affect any tractor beams speed. (Titan wreck should be moved by the MTU with 1m/s not 2000) 3. Wrecks should have the base armor resists of the destroyed hull and affect the overall damage prior complete termination. 4. Player who ends up with the loot from a wreck should be flagged as suspect. No matter who put it there. 5. Player who shoots at the wreck should still get flagged as attacker unless the wreck belongs to him. 6. Destroying a wreck that doesn't belong to the attacker ,1in high sec should produce kill right for the attacker's head.
7. IF you gonna tackle wrecks and mechanics , at least do it right the first time. |
Marox Calendale
Human League Eleven Signs Network
73
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 08:43:59 -
[157] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks. There's a small change that's currently planned for our February release and we'd like to get your feedback.
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.
The current planned numbers are:
Frigate, Rookie Ship, Shuttle, Small NPC: 700 hp Destroyer: 1000 hp Cruiser, Mining Barge, Medium NPC, Generic NPC: 1500 hp Battlecruiser, Industrial: 2500 hp Battleship, Large NPC, Officer NPC: 3500 hp Carrier, Dread, Rorqual, Orca, Freighter: 15000 hp Supercarrier, NPC Supercarrier: 25000 hp Titan: 30000 hp
The CSM feedback we've received so far has been positive, and we'd like to hear what you all think. Thanks! Will the wrecks also generate more Salvage? |
Anthar Thebess
1422
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 10:47:00 -
[158] - Quote
Values specified in the first post did not changed. Is CCP considering buffing them, or those are final values, and this topic can be closed?
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7159
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 16:07:08 -
[159] - Quote
So just to be totally clear, there was basically one thing that anti-gankers could do that was even remotely effective at combating ganks - which even then was only possible after the gank - and that's now going (or to be more accurate, being made significantly harder)? I honestly can't wait to see how ganker carebears try to spin this into not being another buff to ganking .
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
50
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 16:26:48 -
[160] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:So just to be totally clear, there was basically one thing that anti-gankers could do that was even remotely effective at combating ganks - which even then was only possible after the gank - and that's now going (or to be more accurate, being made significantly harder)? I honestly can't wait to see how ganker carebears try to spin this into not being another buff to ganking . Ganker carebears ? Who are you aiming your gun at? Lol
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7159
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 16:50:39 -
[161] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:So just to be totally clear, there was basically one thing that anti-gankers could do that was even remotely effective at combating ganks - which even then was only possible after the gank - and that's now going (or to be more accurate, being made significantly harder)? I honestly can't wait to see how ganker carebears try to spin this into not being another buff to ganking . Ganker carebears ? Who are you aiming your gun at? Lol Gankers are invariably carebears, this is just the way it is. Think about it, they hide in highsec, fly only cheap disposable ships, only go after weak targets and freak out on the forums when anyone suggests giving other people more ways to fight back, increasing their risk or decreasing their reward. The only difference between them and a mission runner that cries on the forum a lot is the colour of the icons they are shooting at.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
50
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 17:10:59 -
[162] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:So just to be totally clear, there was basically one thing that anti-gankers could do that was even remotely effective at combating ganks - which even then was only possible after the gank - and that's now going (or to be more accurate, being made significantly harder)? I honestly can't wait to see how ganker carebears try to spin this into not being another buff to ganking . Ganker carebears ? Who are you aiming your gun at? Lol Gankers are invariably carebears, this is just the way it is. Think about it, they hide in highsec, fly only cheap disposable ships, only go after weak targets and freak out on the forums when anyone suggests giving other people more ways to fight back, increasing their risk or decreasing their reward. The only difference between them and a mission runner that cries on the forum a lot is the colour of the icons they are shooting at. Carebears can't stand up for themselves.. Gankers, and pretty much every one else can. It's so easy to screw up ganks but carebears are too deep in their spreadsheets to think
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2160
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 17:28:27 -
[163] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:tears of a banned input multiplex ice miner Carebears can't stand up for themselves.. Gankers, and pretty much every one else can. It's so easy to screw up ganks but carebears are too deep in their spreadsheets to think Dom.
Lucas is a guy who is really buthurt because his input multiplex ice mining cheat fleet got banned. He is just here to troll and push bad ideas to destroy EVE for the rest of us. The best thing you can do is simply ignore him so we don't have to endur another debate which will lead to nothing anyway, trust me.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
51
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 17:30:35 -
[164] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:tears of a banned input multiplex ice miner Carebears can't stand up for themselves.. Gankers, and pretty much every one else can. It's so easy to screw up ganks but carebears are too deep in their spreadsheets to think Dom. Lucas is a guy who is really buthurt because his input multiplex ice mining cheat fleet got banned. He is just here to troll and push bad ideas to destroy EVE for the rest of us. The best thing you can do is simply ignore him so we don't have to endur another debate which will lead to nothing anyway, trust me. Ohhhhh ty for letting me know
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7159
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 17:50:56 -
[165] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:Carebears can't stand up for themselves.. Gankers, and pretty much every one else can. It's so easy to screw up ganks but carebears are too deep in their spreadsheets to think Well that's really not the way it works. Try anti-ganking. Like seriously, go out and actually try to prove that it's easy. I think you'd surprise yourself.
Dom Arkaral wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Dom.
Lucas is a guy who is really buthurt because his input multiplex ice mining cheat fleet got banned. He is just here to troll and push bad ideas to destroy EVE for the rest of us. The best thing you can do is simply ignore him so we don't have to endur another debate which will lead to nothing anyway, trust me. Ohhhhh ty for letting me know This is Imas go to insult, unfortunately not even remotely based in reality. Not being an ISBoxer user, the isboxing ban didn't affect me even remotely, but apparently because I think it's better for CCP to implement dynamic, difficult to multibox gameplay while he thinks that throwing in vague EULA clauses is a better idea, he's decided I'm the enemy. Since he can't form a coherent argument he instead yells "It's tears about Isboxer" repeatedly.
In this instance, I'd love to see better ways for anti-gankers and gankers to clash generating real solid content, but because that would be adding challenge for gankers, they (being the carebears they are) can't handle that and start back in at insulting the character of the people making the valid arguments.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
51
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 18:09:52 -
[166] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:Carebears can't stand up for themselves.. Gankers, and pretty much every one else can. It's so easy to screw up ganks but carebears are too deep in their spreadsheets to think Well that's really not the way it works. Try anti-ganking. Like seriously, go out and actually try to prove that it's easy. I think you'd surprise yourself. Dom Arkaral wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Dom.
Lucas is a guy who is really buthurt because his input multiplex ice mining cheat fleet got banned. He is just here to troll and push bad ideas to destroy EVE for the rest of us. The best thing you can do is simply ignore him so we don't have to endur another debate which will lead to nothing anyway, trust me. Ohhhhh ty for letting me know This is Imas go to insult, unfortunately not even remotely based in reality. Not being an ISBoxer user, the isboxing ban didn't affect me even remotely, but apparently because I think it's better for CCP to implement dynamic, difficult to multibox gameplay while he thinks that throwing in vague EULA clauses is a better idea, he's decided I'm the enemy. Since he can't form a coherent argument he instead yells "It's tears about Isboxer" repeatedly. In this instance, I'd love to see better ways for anti-gankers and gankers to clash generating real solid content, but because that would be adding challenge for gankers, they (being the carebears they are) can't handle that and start back in at insulting the character of the people making the valid arguments. Jesus the salt, And no I will not go against my brothers, for I respect the work they do. And you fail antigankers are still playing because of content creators like CODE.
Deal with it
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Hirisho Presolana
The Rogue Shades
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 18:49:26 -
[167] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks. There's a small change that's currently planned for our February release and we'd like to get your feedback.
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.
The current planned numbers are:
Frigate, Rookie Ship, Shuttle, Small NPC: 700 hp Destroyer: 1000 hp Cruiser, Mining Barge, Medium NPC, Generic NPC: 1500 hp Battlecruiser, Industrial: 2500 hp Battleship, Large NPC, Officer NPC: 3500 hp Carrier, Dread, Rorqual, Orca, Freighter: 15000 hp Supercarrier, NPC Supercarrier: 25000 hp Titan: 30000 hp
The CSM feedback we've received so far has been positive, and we'd like to hear what you all think. Thanks!
what if the HP decrease slowly? this will make sense to the wreck despawn after a certain ammount of time.. also, bigger wrecks will gloriously stay around for more time.. at 10HP per minute, frigate wrecks will stay up for more or less 1hour, while titan wrecks for 50 hours!
|
Skalle Pande
Teknisk Forlag
92
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:15:34 -
[168] - Quote
Hirisho Presolana wrote: what if the HP decrease slowly? this will make sense to the wreck despawn after a certain ammount of time.. also, bigger wrecks will gloriously stay around for more time.. at 10HP per minute, frigate wrecks will stay up for more or less 1hour, while titan wrecks for 50 hours!
A really nice and simple idea - would improve many things at the same time. +1 edit:Remember to do it to NPC wrecks too |
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
319
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:17:24 -
[169] - Quote
Zxl wrote:5. Player who shoots at the wreck should still get flagged as attacker unless the wreck belongs to him. 6. Destroying a wreck that doesn't belong to the attacker ,1in high sec should produce kill right for the attacker's head.
It already works that way. |
Knitram Relik
Running With Railguns
22
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 21:41:54 -
[170] - Quote
Good change. I fleet of 20 that pop a freighter shouldn't have the spoils of their honorable PvP thwarted by one spoil sport. Yay ganking buff! |
|
Drammie Askold
The Senate and People of Rome Kids With Guns Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 23:16:59 -
[171] - Quote
A good idea, glad it's happening. |
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
807
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 06:31:55 -
[172] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:Carebears can't stand up for themselves.. Gankers, and pretty much every one else can. It's so easy to screw up ganks but carebears are too deep in their spreadsheets to think Well that's really not the way it works. Try anti-ganking. Like seriously, go out and actually try to prove that it's easy. I think you'd surprise yourself. Dom Arkaral wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Dom.
Lucas is a guy who is really buthurt because his input multiplex ice mining cheat fleet got banned. He is just here to troll and push bad ideas to destroy EVE for the rest of us. The best thing you can do is simply ignore him so we don't have to endur another debate which will lead to nothing anyway, trust me. Ohhhhh ty for letting me know This is Imas go to insult, unfortunately not even remotely based in reality. Not being an ISBoxer user, the isboxing ban didn't affect me even remotely, but apparently because I think it's better for CCP to implement dynamic, difficult to multibox gameplay while he thinks that throwing in vague EULA clauses is a better idea, he's decided I'm the enemy. Since he can't form a coherent argument he instead yells "It's tears about Isboxer" repeatedly. In this instance, I'd love to see better ways for anti-gankers and gankers to clash generating real solid content, but because that would be adding challenge for gankers, they (being the carebears they are) can't handle that and start back in at insulting the character of the people making the valid arguments. Jesus the salt, And no I will not go against my brothers, for I respect the work they do. And you fail antigankers are still playing because of content creators like CODE. Deal with it Wrong, most of us still play despite the nulbear alt alliances like CODE who believe ganking should have no risk - Other than losing a cheap ship and warping back to a station till timers run down.
One change that could begin to address the Ganker vs Antiganker problem - Mach bumps Freighter - Mach goes flashy - Friends (mercs or allies) in fleet with freighter can legally attack mach and anyone who comes to his aid, including neutral logi (rep a suspect become a suspect) - Gankers then have to work for their, currently all but guaranteed, prize.
Concord intervention could be limited (or removed) by adding the ability to temporarily declare war against a "fleet" for a limited engagement. Once the declaration is declared, the fleets are locked, no new members can join and if you leave fleet while the engagement is active you remain vulnerable to attack. Those involved in the engagement are unable to dock or use star gates for the duration, (10 mins?) reshipping would only be possible from a ship capable of holding spare ships, Bowhead, Orca (which would also be vulnerable to attack). Yes this is easliy manipulated by not having the bumper in the gank fleet and using a secondary player for the warpin BUT if each gank costs the gankers a mach it balances the accounting a bit and forces them to be a little more creative. It also creates a role for groups who want to participate in "antiganking" aside from the odd pod kill After a successful gank.
Risk free freighter bumping (especially in highsec) needs to be addressed - How big a bucket would CCP need to have ready if bumpers got some sort of aggression timer. It would need to be a different type of timer (a timer specifically related to ganking so antigankers can engage), don't want to make bumping impossible just risky. Not all freighter pilots will want or bother with having a fleet escort them, so there is still the opportunity for risk free ganks where Concord has the final say.
The neutral freighter collecting the loot should also become a suspect - Once an item of loot from a ganked wreck is placed into the hold of a ship, that ship becomes suspect - ALL wrecks should be yellow to everyone, especially now with them requiring some effort to kill . Gankers would need to ensure they have adequate means of protecting their loot collectors.
A gank that involves anti gankers would have no or limited concord response, allowing the involved parties to fight it out. Gankers no longer able to use cheap as destroyers for their jollies would need to field fleets capable of winning a "fight" ( not just killing a defenseless ship)
Ganking has and always will have a place in Eve, it just needs to have some risk with a defensive element added to it. Make ganking like Eve is supposed to be - Based on risk vs reward.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17288
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 06:44:51 -
[173] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: Wrong, most of us still play despite the nulbear alt alliances like CODE who believe ganking should have no risk - Other than losing a cheap ship and warping back to a station till timers run down.
One change that could begin to address the Ganker vs Antiganker problem - Mach bumps Freighter - Mach goes flashy - Friends (mercs or allies) in fleet with freighter can legally attack mach and anyone who comes to his aid, including neutral logi (rep a suspect become a suspect) - Gankers then have to work for their, currently all but guaranteed, prize.
Concord intervention could be limited (or removed) by adding the ability to temporarily declare war against a "fleet" for a limited engagement. Once the declaration is declared, the fleets are locked, no new members can join and if you leave fleet while the engagement is active you remain vulnerable to attack. Those involved in the engagement are unable to dock or use star gates for the duration, (10 mins?) reshipping would only be possible from a ship capable of holding spare ships, Bowhead, Orca (which would also be vulnerable to attack). Yes this is easliy manipulated by not having the bumper in the gank fleet and using a secondary player for the warpin BUT if each gank costs the gankers a mach it balances the accounting a bit and forces them to be a little more creative. It also creates a role for groups who want to participate in "antiganking" aside from the odd pod kill After a successful gank.
Risk free freighter bumping (especially in highsec) needs to be addressed - How big a bucket would CCP need to have ready if bumpers got some sort of aggression timer. It would need to be a different type of timer (a timer specifically related to ganking so antigankers can engage), don't want to make bumping impossible just risky. Not all freighter pilots will want or bother with having a fleet escort them, so there is still the opportunity for risk free ganks where Concord has the final say.
The neutral freighter collecting the loot should also become a suspect - Once an item of loot from a ganked wreck is placed into the hold of a ship, that ship becomes suspect - ALL wrecks should be yellow to everyone, especially now with them requiring some effort to kill . Gankers would need to ensure they have adequate means of protecting their loot collectors.
A gank that involves anti gankers would have no or limited concord response, allowing the involved parties to fight it out. Gankers no longer able to use cheap as destroyers for their jollies would need to field fleets capable of winning a "fight" ( not just killing a defenseless ship)
Ganking has and always will have a place in Eve, it just needs to have some risk with a defensive element added to it. Make ganking like Eve is supposed to be - Based on risk vs reward.
Or you could use the current mechanics available.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
807
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 12:26:34 -
[174] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: Wrong, most of us still play despite the nulbear alt alliances like CODE who believe ganking should have no risk - Other than losing a cheap ship and warping back to a station till timers run down.
One change that could begin to address the Ganker vs Antiganker problem - Mach bumps Freighter - Mach goes flashy - Friends (mercs or allies) in fleet with freighter can legally attack mach and anyone who comes to his aid, including neutral logi (rep a suspect become a suspect) - Gankers then have to work for their, currently all but guaranteed, prize.
Concord intervention could be limited (or removed) by adding the ability to temporarily declare war against a "fleet" for a limited engagement. Once the declaration is declared, the fleets are locked, no new members can join and if you leave fleet while the engagement is active you remain vulnerable to attack. Those involved in the engagement are unable to dock or use star gates for the duration, (10 mins?) reshipping would only be possible from a ship capable of holding spare ships, Bowhead, Orca (which would also be vulnerable to attack). Yes this is easliy manipulated by not having the bumper in the gank fleet and using a secondary player for the warpin BUT if each gank costs the gankers a mach it balances the accounting a bit and forces them to be a little more creative. It also creates a role for groups who want to participate in "antiganking" aside from the odd pod kill After a successful gank.
Risk free freighter bumping (especially in highsec) needs to be addressed - How big a bucket would CCP need to have ready if bumpers got some sort of aggression timer. It would need to be a different type of timer (a timer specifically related to ganking so antigankers can engage), don't want to make bumping impossible just risky. Not all freighter pilots will want or bother with having a fleet escort them, so there is still the opportunity for risk free ganks where Concord has the final say.
The neutral freighter collecting the loot should also become a suspect - Once an item of loot from a ganked wreck is placed into the hold of a ship, that ship becomes suspect - ALL wrecks should be yellow to everyone, especially now with them requiring some effort to kill . Gankers would need to ensure they have adequate means of protecting their loot collectors.
A gank that involves anti gankers would have no or limited concord response, allowing the involved parties to fight it out. Gankers no longer able to use cheap as destroyers for their jollies would need to field fleets capable of winning a "fight" ( not just killing a defenseless ship)
Ganking has and always will have a place in Eve, it just needs to have some risk with a defensive element added to it. Make ganking like Eve is supposed to be - Based on risk vs reward.
Or you could use the current mechanics available. Those are? What mechanic allows someone to kill a bumper without getting Concorded - War dec, LOL they are the best joke next to ganking.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7160
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 13:17:04 -
[175] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:Jesus the salt, And no I will not go against my brothers, for I respect the work they do. And you fail antigankers are still playing because of content creators like CODE. Deal with it ROFL. Yeah, I'm the salty one. That must be it. Kids and their memes these day.
I didn't ask you to go against your "brothers". Just to understand that balance works both ways and that continuously demanding easy gameplay and rejecting challenging changes makes them carebears. If you also hate a challenge and want to stick with easymode gameplay, be my guest, but I'll continue to push for EVE to be more challenging for all sides, not just the ones I'm not on.
baltec1 wrote:Or you could use the current mechanics available. By all means baltec, start up an anti-ganking group and show us all how it's done. If you did (which undoubtedly you won't because that would involve effort) I don't suppose it would take long for you to realise how utterly stacked against you the odds are.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17296
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 21:08:02 -
[176] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Those are? What mechanic allows someone to kill a bumper without getting Concorded - War dec, LOL they are the best joke next to ganking.
You don't need to kill him to beat him. A simple web ship defeats a bumping ship before it can even get up to speed.
Lucas Kell wrote:By all means baltec, start up an anti-ganking group and show us all how it's done. If you did (which undoubtedly you won't because that would involve effort) I don't suppose it would take long for you to realise how utterly stacked against you the odds are.
According to the Red Freight stats for 2015 they failed 0.11% of contracts in total. If anyone has the odds stacked against them its the pirates.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
52
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 21:31:45 -
[177] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:
Those are? What mechanic allows someone to kill a bumper without getting Concorded - War dec, LOL they are the best joke next to ganking.
You don't need to kill him to beat him. A simple web ship defeats a bumping ship before it can even get up to speed. Lucas Kell wrote:By all means baltec, start up an anti-ganking group and show us all how it's done. If you did (which undoubtedly you won't because that would involve effort) I don't suppose it would take long for you to realise how utterly stacked against you the odds are. According to the Red Freight stats for 2015 they failed 0.11% of contracts in total. If anyone has the odds stacked against them its the pirates.
but a webbing alt is soooooo hard to get
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
289
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 23:54:29 -
[178] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:but a webbing alt is soooooo hard to get So, what you're saying is that having a second account is your only solution for a mechanic like bumping where a single player can basically keep you unable to warp off indefinitely and in which you (as a freighter pilot) can do absolutely nothing to (through active play) avoid further bumps. |
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
52
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 23:55:43 -
[179] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:but a webbing alt is soooooo hard to get So, what you're saying is that having a second account is your only solution for a mechanic like bumping where a single player can basically keep you unable to warp off indefinitely and in which you (as a freighter pilot) can do absolutely nothing to (through active play) avoid further bumps.
every pilot ends up having more than one account and my solution is easy, let someone else do it (Like Siggy <3)
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
289
|
Posted - 2016.02.07 00:25:27 -
[180] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote: every pilot ends up having more than one account
A simple "yes" would suffice. |
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
807
|
Posted - 2016.02.07 00:57:06 -
[181] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:
Those are? What mechanic allows someone to kill a bumper without getting Concorded - War dec, LOL they are the best joke next to ganking.
You don't need to kill him to beat him. A simple web ship defeats a bumping ship before it can even get up to speed. Lucas Kell wrote:By all means baltec, start up an anti-ganking group and show us all how it's done. If you did (which undoubtedly you won't because that would involve effort) I don't suppose it would take long for you to realise how utterly stacked against you the odds are. According to the Red Freight stats for 2015 they failed 0.11% of contracts in total. If anyone has the odds stacked against them its the pirates. I see your talking out of the top of your head again Baltec. "You don't need to kill him to beat him", what rubbish is this you're on about?
-- - -- Having been in a small gang who recently spent 20 mins to free a freighter from 3 bumpers (while goons waited out their timers and loud convos were strewn across many mumble channels) to eventually get the freighter free by throwing the "Ima Goon Alt" card; I can assure you, simply "beating" the bumper (one way or another) is not very satisfying and as Eve is meant to be a PVP oriented game, maybe ganking/bumping should have an element of risk added to it.The bumpers should face some risk other than being bumped off themselves be beaten by webs or having an alt in the right corp.
Without bumpers most ganks would never happen, yet it is a totally risk free mechanic.
NB; Seriously; using Red Frog stats as an example of how successful gankers are?
Side benefit for CCP by adding the need for skills (to fly competent combat ships) to gank, skill packets go on sale in less than a week - Think of all the gank alts who would need to train up skills.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
52
|
Posted - 2016.02.07 02:00:51 -
[182] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote: every pilot ends up having more than one account
A simple "yes" would suffice. no need to get mad lol
CODE. Always wins!
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Justin Cody
Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens
344
|
Posted - 2016.02.07 04:15:19 -
[183] - Quote
I really don't care about this...so I suppose I'm ok with it. Seems to me to be fixing something that isn't broken...but whatever. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17298
|
Posted - 2016.02.07 04:29:42 -
[184] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:but a webbing alt is soooooo hard to get So, what you're saying is that having a second account is your only solution for a mechanic like bumping where a single player can basically keep you unable to warp off indefinitely and in which you (as a freighter pilot) can do absolutely nothing to (through active play) avoid further bumps.
Or bring a friend? This is an MMO after all.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17298
|
Posted - 2016.02.07 04:34:07 -
[185] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: I see your talking out of the top of your head again Baltec. "You don't need to kill him to beat him", what rubbish is this you're on about?
-- - -- Having been in a small gang who recently spent 20 mins to free a freighter from 3 bumpers (while goons waited out their timers and loud convos were strewn across many mumble channels) to eventually get the freighter free by throwing the "Ima Goon Alt" card; I can assure you, simply "beating" the bumper (one way or another) is not very satisfying and as Eve is meant to be a PVP oriented game, maybe ganking/bumping should have an element of risk added to it.The bumpers should face some risk other than being bumped off themselves be beaten by webs or having an alt in the right corp.
If using a web alt is too hard for you then just gank the bumping ship. After all ganking is risk free.
Sgt Ocker wrote: NB; Seriously; using Red Frog stats as an example of how successful gankers are?
Yea, how dare I use the largest freight organisation in EVE to see how dangerous it is for freighters.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2186
|
Posted - 2016.02.07 07:03:49 -
[186] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Without bumpers most ganks would never happen, yet it is a totally risk free mechanic. You seem to have answered your own question (well really, off-topic whine) with that. Why would CCP want to make possibly the safest ship in the game (at least the one that requires fielding the most DPS to beat the race against the NPCs) even safer? Also as baltec correctly points out, the statistics from Red Frog show that they can be flown incredibly, almost perfectly, safe in highsec. Do you really, honestly think they should be made even safer by removing bumping?
Well that won't happen. At best, somewhere down the line CCP will replace bumping with an alternative interdiction method so that players can prey on these large, lumbering ships that have the intended weakness, like all capital ships, to be vulberable to groups of small ships and thus require an escort. This drives conflict, makes hauling have meaning, and serves as a trade-for these massively powerful ships that would otherwise be better in almost ever way than the smaller haulers.
So even then, Goons will be shooting up freighters belong to their enemies, the lazy, and the foolish who make such activities profitable, as the developer intends for the game to work. CODE will still be dunking those AFKers and non-complaints who do not submit to the will of James 315. Hauling, even in highsec, is suppose to have risk and bumping is one tool that enables it. Do not expect it to go away without a replacement. And for the record, the bumper is at the exact same risk as the hauler, vulnerable to ganking just like everyone else who undocks in this game.
This is all off-topic. Wrecks having more HP is a minor change that benefits anyone in all areas of space who has a victory by making it harder to spoil the prize for the victors. Sore losers cannot, out of spite deny loot as easily which is a good thing, just like when the game was changed to still give kill mails if you self-destruct which was used to prevent victors from getting what they earned. Maybe now with citadels being released, adding and removing implants can disallowed in-space preventing the practice of yanking your expensive implants used similarly to deny the winners their due.
All of this is good as it gives players reasons to undock and fight each other. Killmails and loot are often the only tangible reason to attack someone. Changes that more fairly allow the winners to claim their prizes are good for the game overall. Look beyond your small corner of Eve for one and your personal self-interest for once. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7160
|
Posted - 2016.02.07 10:39:54 -
[187] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:According to the Red Freight stats for 2015 they failed 0.11% of contracts in total. If anyone has the odds stacked against them its the pirates. All that tells us is that red freight know how to avoid being killed, and gankers don't try hard enough to kill them. It says absolutely nothing about the state of anti-ganking and you know it. Again though, if you would like to step up to the plate and prove that anti-ganking is fine, go right ahead and and set it up.
Black Pedro wrote:Wrecks having more HP is a minor change that benefits anyone in all areas of space who has a victory by making it harder to spoil the prize for the victors. lol, no it isn't. It's lowering the bar on the victory. Before you could only have a partial victory if someone volleyed the loot before you got to it, as anti gankers had that one way to fight back. That is now gone, so you have even less to worry about, even less effort to put in. You support it because it makes your gameplay easier and your detest challenging gameplay. So let's not sit around pretending this is something it isn't.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
289
|
Posted - 2016.02.07 12:22:41 -
[188] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:but a webbing alt is soooooo hard to get So, what you're saying is that having a second account is your only solution for a mechanic like bumping where a single player can basically keep you unable to warp off indefinitely and in which you (as a freighter pilot) can do absolutely nothing to (through active play) avoid further bumps. Or bring a friend? This is an MMO after all. The game being a MMO has nothing to do with forcing other people into doing mundane tasks like webbing which are there primary due to the abysmal amount of time it takes to freighter things around and bumping mechanics which are - in their hi-sec version, completely broken. Also, I would really love to know the numbers behind people actually using other players for webbing instead of alts. My guess is that number is in the low single-digit percentages.
I understand that CCP likes additional subs, but I wonder if they also like all the potential subs which have been lost due to the fact that people learn about how boring and stupid some things in this game are. Freightering and webbing being the least of those problems, but one nonetheless. Also, it is lovely seeing people like you who on the face of it advocate for the diversity in the game while in reality protecting established mechanics and in particular your little niche while also suggesting that solo play should be kept utterly miserable in this game for people interested in playing truckers in hisec.
However, this whole discussion is a bit off-topic. Isn't it? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17299
|
Posted - 2016.02.07 13:10:47 -
[189] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:All that tells us is that red freight know how to avoid being killed, and gankers don't try hard enough to kill them. It says absolutely nothing about the state of anti-ganking and you know it.
What it shows is that ganking of freighters is very very rare. Red Freight alone jumped through well over 2 million gates so if we expand that to the entire freighter fleet in highsec the number getting ganked is staggeringly tiny.
Lucas Kell wrote:lol, no it isn't. It's lowering the bar on the victory. Before you could only have a partial victory if someone volleyed the loot before you got to it, as anti gankers had that one way to fight back. That is now gone, so you have even less to worry about, even less effort to put in. You support it because it makes your gameplay easier and your detest challenging gameplay. So let's not sit around pretending this is something it isn't.
The only people complaining about this change is the AG community who are upset that it will now require just two nados to pop the wreck.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17299
|
Posted - 2016.02.07 13:13:51 -
[190] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: So, what you're saying is that having a second account is your only solution for a mechanic like bumping where a single player can basically keep you unable to warp off indefinitely and in which you (as a freighter pilot) can do absolutely nothing to (through active play) avoid further bumps.
Or bring a friend? This is an MMO after all. [/quote] The game being a MMO has nothing to do with forcing other people into doing mundane tasks like webbing which are there primary due to the abysmal amount of time it takes to freighter things around and bumping mechanics which are - in their hi-sec version, completely broken. Also, I would really love to know the numbers behind people actually using other players for webbing instead of alts. My guess is that number is in the low single-digit percentages.
I understand that CCP likes additional subs, but I wonder if they also like all the potential subs which have been lost due to the fact that people learn about how boring and stupid some things in this game are. Freightering and webbing being the least of those problems, but one nonetheless. Also, it is lovely seeing people like you who on the face of it advocate for the diversity in the game while in reality protecting established mechanics and in particular your little niche while also suggesting that solo play should be kept utterly miserable in this game for people interested in playing truckers in hisec. [/quote]
So don't run with a web friend and take the risk, at the end of the day a web ship spends a hell of a lot less time clicking than the gankers scout ships does.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: However, this whole discussion is a bit off-topic. Isn't it?
So why bring it up?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
289
|
Posted - 2016.02.07 13:19:16 -
[191] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: So why bring it up?
Well, I didn't? |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
289
|
Posted - 2016.02.07 13:25:17 -
[192] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote: every pilot ends up having more than one account
A simple "yes" would suffice. no need to get mad lol CODE. Always wins! Keep your passive-agressive taunts for in-game local smack. Here you just sound like you have nothing better to say. Which is probably true.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17299
|
Posted - 2016.02.07 13:26:27 -
[193] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote: So why bring it up?
Well, I didn't?
Your side sure did and you continued. Its funny how every time you hit something you cant refute it becomes off topic and should be dropped.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
807
|
Posted - 2016.02.07 15:48:44 -
[194] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: I see your talking out of the top of your head again Baltec. "You don't need to kill him to beat him", what rubbish is this you're on about?
-- - -- Having been in a small gang who recently spent 20 mins to free a freighter from 3 bumpers (while goons waited out their timers and loud convos were strewn across many mumble channels) to eventually get the freighter free by throwing the "Ima Goon Alt" card; I can assure you, simply "beating" the bumper (one way or another) is not very satisfying and as Eve is meant to be a PVP oriented game, maybe ganking/bumping should have an element of risk added to it.The bumpers should face some risk other than being bumped off themselves be beaten by webs or having an alt in the right corp.
If using a web alt is too hard for you then just gank the bumping ship. After all ganking is risk free. Sgt Ocker wrote: NB; Seriously; using Red Frog stats as an example of how successful gankers are?
Yea, how dare I use the largest freight organisation in EVE to see how dangerous it is for freighters. You have an amazing ability to not respond to a post in any sort of context. The ultimate troll - Answers without addressing anything in relation to the post he is responding to. Inane irrelevant responses have become your trademark.
LOL like red frog are the only ones who get ganked. They are actually the least likely to be ganked (as their contract completion rate shows). Yet 24 other freighters were ganked in 36 hours, by 2 groups.
But the amount ganked is not the issue I was trying to address, it is the completely risk free element that allows it to happen that needs attention. Freighter bumping should involve some risk to the bumper, not just the freighter it is setting up to die.
Black Pedro - Where did I say I wanted Mach bumping removed? Try reading what I wrote and responding to it.
As for freighters needing an escourt everywhere they go - I agree, but there needs to be a way for that escort to do more than just web off the freighter if it is in danger (Eve is a pvp game, not a "quick lets escape safely" game). You and others seem to be under the illusion bumping should not have any risk attached to it. Oh and just for interests sake - The DPS of a bumping mach is irrelevant, they never use it. (you might want to find out how bumping is done before commenting on it)
So you believe CCP will only ever increase the ease with which gankers pursue their activities? Well I suppose if they did change it to a risk vs reward activity they could likely lose a lot of subs from all the nulbears who have ganking alts.
And of course, on topic - This is another "if it ain't broke don't fix it change", that just had to be introduced. While things that are actually broken sit in the too hard basket. Wrecks have more EHP, who cares, we will still shoot them to deny others the loot. If I can't carry the loot away I'll make sure no-one else can, one way or another. All in all this change breaks more than it "fixes" but that would be intended.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7160
|
Posted - 2016.02.07 16:10:55 -
[195] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:What it shows is that ganking of freighters is very very rare. Red Freight alone jumped through well over 2 million gates so if we expand that to the entire freighter fleet in highsec the number getting ganked is staggeringly tiny. Which in itself means nothing. I'm sure there are hundreds of activities and circumstances that occur vary rarely, but that doesn't mean they are exempt from balance. What you are saying is that because gankers kill only a small percentage of freighters, that ganking should not be balanced to anti-ganking. Arguably, because only a very small percentage of ganks are thwarted by anti-ganking activity, that by your reckoning should be enough to show that anti-ganking needs a boost.
baltec1 wrote:The only people complaining about this change is the AG community who are upset that it will now require just two nados to pop the wreck. Of course the people complaining are the AG community, because it;s a direct nerf to one of the only method they had of even affecting gankers. They now stand nearly no chance of stopping a gank (as before) and further have a much lower chance of preventing the gank being profitable. I honestly cant believe you can't see how incredibly out of balance that is. I get that you like ganking, and I totally understand why, but the game is supposed to be challenging for all involved, not just the playstyles you oppose.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7160
|
Posted - 2016.02.07 16:16:13 -
[196] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:As for freighters needing an escourt everywhere they go - I agree, but there needs to be a way for that escort to do more than just web off the freighter if it is in danger (Eve is a pvp game, not a "quick lets escape safely" game). You and others seem to be under the illusion bumping should not have any risk attached to it. This. Very much this. This is why IMHO anti-ganking needs to be balanced against ganking, so there is a much more even fight between the two sides with effort on both dictating the outcome. As it is, all the systems involved benefit the ganker while anti-gankers have to pretty much work retroactively, which against disposable pilots in disposable ships means very little. Destroying the loot was the only real way to actually hurt the ganker.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2189
|
Posted - 2016.02.07 16:34:14 -
[197] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: Where did I say I wanted Mach bumping removed? Try reading what I wrote and responding to it. Well bumping cannot be removed - it is an emergent property of the physics engine the game designers selected many years ago. Whining that bumpers have no additional risk than standard risk all ships have is all well and good, but there is no solution. The engine cannot determine the intentionality behind a bump, so if you make bumping "illegal", you will criminalize many incidental ship-to-ship contacts leading to much hilarity on the Jita undock amongst other places.
I am not even completely adverse to replacing bumping with another mechanic, but if you don't want bumping removed, there there is nothing that can be done to help you.
Sgt Ocker wrote: As for freighters needing an escourt everywhere they go - I agree, but there needs to be a way for that escort to do more than just web off the freighter if it is in danger (Eve is a pvp game, not a "quick lets escape safely" game). You and others seem to be under the illusion bumping should not have any risk attached to it. i am not under any such illusion. A bumping ship is under the exact same frisk as any other in this game. They can, and are, ganked by other players. Actually, it is quite profitable to do so.
Again, I have no problem with bumping being changed so that escorts can do more to respond than just gank. But that doesn't mean your mischaracterization of bumping as "risk-free" is true. If that was true, that would mean that hauling in an NPC corp is also risk-free since they are equally protected by CONCORD as the bumpers?
Sgt Ocker wrote: Oh and just for interests sake - The DPS of a bumping mach is irrelevant, they never use it. (you might want to find out how bumping is done before commenting on it) i know exactly how the mechanics of bumping work. My point was that freighters are the safest ships in the game as they require the most DPS to explode while under the protection of CONCORD. And they are: their massive EHP walls mean bumping is necessary to hold them long enough to get a criminal ganking fleet on top of them which you acknowledge when you said that without bumpers "most ganks would never happen".
Whether it is bumping or something else, there needs to be a way to interdict capital ships in highsec. Maybe that method should have a legal, CONCORD-approved response, but if bumping is removed, an equivalent mechanism will be put in place so criminals can still operate and thus freighters will continue to explode as they do now.
Freighters will continue to explode in highsec as is intended by the designers of this game.
Sgt Ocker wrote: So you believe CCP will only ever increase the ease with which gankers pursue their activities? Well I suppose if they did change it to a risk vs reward activity they could likely lose a lot of subs from all the nulbears who have ganking alts.
I never said that but suicide gank is a fully intended mechanic. CCP had the opportunity to nerf freighter ganking just a few years ago when they rebalanced the ship class, and they chose not to. They could have given them the ability to fit a DCU to nerf ganking directly or an MJD to counter bumping but they didn't. Any change to bumping will have an equivalent method put in place to allow groups of plays to kill these capital ships. |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
289
|
Posted - 2016.02.07 17:07:31 -
[198] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote: So why bring it up?
Well, I didn't? Your side sure did and you continued. Its funny how every time you hit something you cant refute it becomes off topic and should be dropped. a) I personally started nothing, just commented on some of your posts and then said that the whole stream of discussion went off-topic. I play mostly solo so not sure whom I should be coordinating with regarding the 'my side' about topics of the post. b) Regarding refuting, I usually try to discuss my viewpoint as long as I don't hit the 'that's the way its always been', 'gank the bumper, that's a legit response' and/or 'just one more nerf' arguments. After that it's more a mud slinging battle then a constructive discussion. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17299
|
Posted - 2016.02.07 17:09:14 -
[199] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Which in itself means nothing. I'm sure there are hundreds of activities and circumstances that occur vary rarely, but that doesn't mean they are exempt from balance. What you are saying is that because gankers kill only a small percentage of freighters, that ganking should not be balanced to anti-ganking. Arguably, because only a very small percentage of ganks are thwarted by anti-ganking activity, that by your reckoning should be enough to show that anti-ganking needs a boost.
If anything ganking nee to be buffed not nerfed even more. You currently have a 99.9% chance of making the trip, in fact the chances are so small you are more likely to be injured in a car accident traveling home to play eve.
Lucas Kell wrote: Of course the people complaining are the AG community, because it;s a direct nerf to one of the only method they had of even affecting gankers. They now stand nearly no chance of stopping a gank (as before) and further have a much lower chance of preventing the gank being profitable. I honestly cant believe you can't see how incredibly out of balance that is. I get that you like ganking, and I totally understand why, but the game is supposed to be challenging for all involved, not just the playstyles you oppose.
Cry me a river. Its not lost on anyone here that you are currently kicking up a fuss over less risk and cost than gankers face.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
319
|
Posted - 2016.02.07 17:55:05 -
[200] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:But the amount ganked is not the issue I was trying to address, it is the completely risk free element that allows it to happen that needs attention. Freighter bumping should involve some risk to the bumper, not just the freighter it is setting up to die.
I've lost a bumping mach to a gank and there have been more attempts. GF in local, new one from Jita a few minutes later. |
|
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
442
|
Posted - 2016.02.07 18:01:04 -
[201] - Quote
Nice change!
It's about time, too. The old wrecks were kind of silly in that respect. A giant titan wreck and a small frigate all the same after death? That was just dumb. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7161
|
Posted - 2016.02.07 21:18:19 -
[202] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:If anything ganking nee to be buffed not nerfed even more. You currently have a 99.9% chance of making the trip, in fact the chances are so small you are more likely to be injured in a car accident traveling home to play eve. But you don't have a 99.9% chance because ganking is hard, risky or costly, you have a 99.9% chance because the amount of hauling done in the game significantly outweighs the amount of ganking being done. Take times like Burn Jita. Red frog significantly reduce how much hauling is done because the simple act of gankers being in the system puts too great a risk on their operation. If the problem was that haulers were difficult to gank, then they would operate as normal, knowing they are safe.
You say that ganking should be buffed because you like ganking and you're a carebear so you naturally want your gameplay to be easy. Unfortunately EVE is not designed to be easy.
baltec1 wrote:Cry me a river. Its not lost on anyone here that you are currently kicking up a fuss over less risk and cost than gankers face. Mate, I'm not "kicking up a fuss" over anything, I'm simply pointing out the fact that ganking is significantly easier and more rewarding than anti-ganking, and that this change only makes that more so. Your repeated refusal to prove that anti-ganking is in fact as easy as you claim is further proof of this. I understand that you don't like the idea of other people's content being balanced in such a way that gankers and anti-gankers have to fight on a level playing field, but come on, your rebuttals here are weak. Drop some of that bias and look at it objectively. I gank significantly more than I anti-gank exactly because it's ludicrously easy to do, and anti-ganking is a massive time waste, but I'm willing to point out the massive flaws in the gameplay that push me to that choice.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
808
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 05:05:00 -
[203] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: Where did I say I wanted Mach bumping removed? Try reading what I wrote and responding to it. Well bumping cannot be removed - it is an emergent property of the physics engine the game designers selected many years ago. Whining that bumpers have no additional risk than standard risk all ships have is all well and good, but there is no solution. The engine cannot determine the intentionality behind a bump, so if you make bumping "illegal", you will criminalize many incidental ship-to-ship contacts leading to much hilarity on the Jita undock amongst other places. I am not even completely adverse to replacing bumping with another mechanic, but if you don't want bumping removed, there there is nothing that can be done to help you. Sgt Ocker wrote: As for freighters needing an escourt everywhere they go - I agree, but there needs to be a way for that escort to do more than just web off the freighter if it is in danger (Eve is a pvp game, not a "quick lets escape safely" game). You and others seem to be under the illusion bumping should not have any risk attached to it. I am not under any such illusion. A bumping ship is under the exact same frisk as any other in this game. They can, and are, ganked by other players. Actually, it is quite profitable to do so. Again, I have no problem with bumping being changed so that escorts can do more to respond than just gank. But that doesn't mean your mischaracterization of bumping as "risk-free" is true. If that was true, that would mean that hauling in an NPC corp is also risk-free since they are equally protected by CONCORD as the bumpers? Sgt Ocker wrote: Oh and just for interests sake - The DPS of a bumping mach is irrelevant, they never use it. (you might want to find out how bumping is done before commenting on it) i know exactly how the mechanics of bumping work. My point was that freighters are the safest ships in the game as they require the most DPS to explode while under the protection of CONCORD. And they are: their massive EHP walls mean bumping is necessary to hold them long enough to get a criminal ganking fleet on top of them which you acknowledge when you said that without bumpers "most ganks would never happen". Whether it is bumping or something else, there needs to be a way to interdict capital ships in highsec. Maybe that method should have a legal, CONCORD-approved response, but if bumping is removed, an equivalent mechanism will be put in place so criminals can still operate and thus freighters will continue to explode as they do now. Freighters will continue to explode in highsec as is intended by the designers of this game. Sgt Ocker wrote: So you believe CCP will only ever increase the ease with which gankers pursue their activities? Well I suppose if they did change it to a risk vs reward activity they could likely lose a lot of subs from all the nulbears who have ganking alts.
I never said that but suicide gank is a fully intended mechanic. CCP had the opportunity to nerf freighter ganking just a few years ago when they rebalanced the ship class, and they chose not to. They could have given them the ability to fit a DCU to nerf ganking directly or an MJD to counter bumping but they didn't. Any change to bumping will have an equivalent method put in place to allow groups of plays to kill these capital ships. I'll try to make my suggestion a little clearer for you.
BUMPERS face NO RISK at all from current legitimate game mechanics. Ganking a bumper is in no way profitable. You kill the Mach, Concord kills you - Where is the profit? Again you are under the illusion the most valuable ship in a gank fleet (bumpers) should remain invulnerable to legitimate attack while performing their role.
Freighters obviously aren't the safest ships - They can be set up to die by a ship that is invulnerable to legitimate attack, while performing an aggressive act. Any other form of aggressive act gains a suspect, limited engagement or criminal flag - Bumping is an aggressive act that has no legal ramifications.
I don't see why gankers would be so afraid of having to actually fight for the right to kill a ship that is not capable of defending itself. Oh wait, sorry they don't want ganking to be a "Risk vs Reward" (like just about everything else in Eve) activity, they want to use the cheapest ships possible with a known outcome and managed, well defined risk. How un - Eve is that.
The only Machariel ganked in highsec in the past week, while 24 freighters are ganked in 36 hours - So, is ganking bumpers a "thing"? What happens when you kill a bumping Mach?
-- - -- - -- - -- Suggestion; A new type of aggression timer specifically so anyone in fleet with a freighter can freely engage someone passively attacking (bumping) it. Would simply mean, bumping has an associated element of risk that can be managed by force (eve game play) by both sides. The bumper should face the same inherent risk of getting killed as the freighter he is setting up to die.
Scenario - Freighter pilot hires an antigank fleet (or has corp mates in fleet) to escort him to trade hub. Bump Mach bumps freighter off alignment, Mach becomes vulnerable to attack by freighters fleet mates, Mach calls in assistance to fight those in fleet with freighter, Eve game play (PVP) secured - there is a fight over the safe passage of a freighter.
Not every freighter pilot will bother with a defensive fleet (lazy, believe they'll be safe, too busy with spreadsheets) so the opportunity for risk free bumping still arises as the aggression timer is only visible to the freighter pilot and his fleet, or lack thereof.
Sounds ridiculous right, why should the guy setting up the gank face any legitimate risk?
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2191
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 06:14:04 -
[204] - Quote
Creating such an "bumping aggression flag" is impossible without breaking the CrimeWatch 2.0 safety settings and opening a loophole so bad guys can now flag innocent targets and get CONCORD-free kills by getting targets to bump themselves suspect. If you want bumpers to have more risk, you will have to change the whole highsec capital interdiction mechanics, not add an easily exploitable way to make people go suspect in highsec.
This is completely off-topic, so if you have such an idea, I suggest you raise it in the appropriate forum so it can be discussed properly. Otherwise, I suggest you stop whining and use the existing mechanics to bring risk to the bumpers by exploding them like the gankers choose to do for the haulers under the exact same rule set.
|
NorthCrossroad
EVE University Ivy League
97
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 07:24:14 -
[205] - Quote
Like the idea, but values for bigger ships still look a bit low.
30k HP is really not that much for a titan, that usually is used in fleet warfare. I'd suggest something like: - BC - 10k - Dread - 25k - SC - 70k - Titan - 120k |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17300
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 10:15:37 -
[206] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:If anything ganking nee to be buffed not nerfed even more. You currently have a 99.9% chance of making the trip, in fact the chances are so small you are more likely to be injured in a car accident traveling home to play eve. But you don't have a 99.9% chance because ganking is hard, risky or costly, you have a 99.9% chance because the amount of hauling done in the game significantly outweighs the amount of ganking being done. Take times like Burn Jita. Red frog significantly reduce how much hauling is done because the simple act of gankers being in the system puts too great a risk on their operation. If the problem was that haulers were difficult to gank, then they would operate as normal, knowing they are safe. You say that ganking should be buffed because you like ganking and you're a carebear so you naturally want your gameplay to be easy. Unfortunately EVE is not designed to be easy. baltec1 wrote:Cry me a river. Its not lost on anyone here that you are currently kicking up a fuss over less risk and cost than gankers face. Mate, I'm not "kicking up a fuss" over anything, I'm simply pointing out the fact that ganking is significantly easier and more rewarding than anti-ganking, and that this change only makes that more so. Your repeated refusal to prove that anti-ganking is in fact as easy as you claim is further proof of this. I understand that you don't like the idea of other people's content being balanced in such a way that gankers and anti-gankers have to fight on a level playing field, but come on, your rebuttals here are weak. Drop some of that bias and look at it objectively. I gank significantly more than I anti-gank exactly because it's ludicrously easy to do, and anti-ganking is a massive time waste, but I'm willing to point out the massive flaws in the gameplay that push me to that choice.
You say bumping is super easy and risk free yet when we say you can use to defend freighters it's suddenly too hard and risky. You say ganking is risk free and super easy yet when you are told to gank a wreck it's suddenly too risky and hard.
Not a very compelling argument you have there.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21259
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 10:57:49 -
[207] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
You say bumping is super easy and risk free yet when we say you can use to defend freighters it's suddenly too hard and risky. You say ganking is risk free and super easy yet when you are told to gank a wreck it's suddenly too risky and hard.
Not a very compelling argument you have there.
Much like the other argument. It's wrong of us to expect freighter pilots to use a webber, but we should introduce game breaking and loophole enabling changes. Then all of a sudden freighter pilots will be calling in fleets. But if they don't then they apparently deserve the risk.
Which is nothing like what we're suggesting now, is it?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders
4294
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 11:45:21 -
[208] - Quote
The balance isn't between ganking and anti-ganking.
It's between the gankers and the 'gankee' (e.g. freighter). It takes:
. 1 ship (webber) to reduce gank probability to almost zero, 1 human player can easily manage both webber and freighter . About a dozen or so ships/players to attempt a successful freighter gank
Seems quite favorable to the freighter to me.
Make space glamorous!
Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
319
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 12:41:13 -
[209] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:BUMPERS face NO RISK at all from current legitimate game mechanics. Ganking a bumper is in no way profitable. You kill the Mach, Concord kills you - Where is the profit?
You can't gank if it's not profitable? Oh no,CODE.'s been doing it wrong all this time! Also nobody ever fits deadspace MWDs on bumping machs, it's unheard of! And suppose they did, why you'd have to loot the wreck and everyone knows that's impossible!
Oh wait, hadn't this thread turned into mostly whining about looting ganks being supposedly easy and risk free? |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7161
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 14:02:16 -
[210] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:You say bumping is super easy and risk free yet when we say you can use to defend freighters it's suddenly too hard and risky. You say ganking is risk free and super easy yet when you are told to gank a wreck it's suddenly too risky and hard.
Not a very compelling argument you have there. I didn't say bumping was "too risky and hard" for anti-gankers, it's simply pointless. It simply leaves the gankers going after a different target while the anti-ganker is bumping a ship they have no intention of ganking.
Ganking a wreck is a guaranteed zero return activity, and getting it done in the half second it takes someone to open the wreck and hammer the take all button is incredibly difficult even without the HP rebalance, leaving the only real option to get rid of the loot as "steal it faster" which is a bad idea when next to a whole group of flash reds. Also, let's face it, if the opposing mechanic to ganking is also ganking, then the game hasn't got much depth.
Again, your rebuttals are weak, because you're ignoring the point I'm making which is that both sides should have good ways of fighting against each other while it's currently very much one sided in favour of the gankers. The reason you can't come up with a compelling counterargument is that you know arguing against the existence of competitive content is dumb.
So why is it you have such an opposition to ganking and anti-ganking being able to directly compete with effort and skill based mechanics? If the anti-gankers put in more effort than the gankers, they should be able to win at the very least half of the time, instead of how it currently is, where the absolute best anti-gankers "win" a tiny fraction of the time and are rewarded with nothing, while gankers can put in basically no effort (most are just F1 monkeys) win most of the time and make a hefty amount of isk in the process, all while using cheap disposable ships on alts.
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:The balance isn't between ganking and anti-ganking.
It's between the gankers and the 'gankee' (e.g. freighter). It takes:
. 1 ship (webber) to reduce gank probability to almost zero, 1 human player can easily manage both webber and freighter . About a dozen or so ships/players to attempt a successful freighter gank
Seems quite favorable to the freighter to me. But it should be between the gankers and the anti-gankers since those are the opposing sides of the mechanic. The target is pretty much passive. It's like taking a moon, it isn't between a group and the POS, it's between two groups fighting over the POS. Also, this change isn't affecting the ability of freighters, it's directly nerfing the ability of anti-gankers to attack the revenue stream of gankers.
A webber doesn't reduce the probably to nearly zero, since there are so many other factors in play. I'd been involved in many a gank against people using webbers, they do happen a fair bit. Even just a fast locking suicide tackle can render the web useless. Using a webber makes other people more favorable targets, sure, but they don't make you immune to ganking.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
320
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 14:19:48 -
[211] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Ganking a wreck is a guaranteed zero return activity, and getting it done in the half second it takes someone to open the wreck and hammer the take all button...
We don't do that you know. Well obviously you don't know, but we don't do that. That's a great way to turn a looting freighter into a lossmail. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7161
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 14:50:35 -
[212] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Ganking a wreck is a guaranteed zero return activity, and getting it done in the half second it takes someone to open the wreck and hammer the take all button... We don't do that you know. Well obviously you don't know, but we don't do that. That's a great way to turn a looting freighter into a lossmail. It's close enough in most instances. The point being made (that you are wildly attempting to avoid) is that it takes such a short amount of time to loot that even with the old HP most attempts to volley the loot failed, and increasing the amount of damage required to destroy the wreck increases the amount of time it takes to destroy, so makes it even less likely to occur.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders
4295
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 16:18:30 -
[213] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Gully Alex Foyle wrote:The balance isn't between ganking and anti-ganking.
It's between the gankers and the 'gankee' (e.g. freighter). It takes:
. 1 ship (webber) to reduce gank probability to almost zero, 1 human player can easily manage both webber and freighter . About a dozen or so ships/players to attempt a successful freighter gank
Seems quite favorable to the freighter to me. But it should be between the gankers and the anti-gankers since those are the opposing sides of the mechanic. The target is pretty much passive. It's like taking a moon, it isn't between a group and the POS, it's between two groups fighting over the POS. Also, this change isn't affecting the ability of freighters, it's directly nerfing the ability of anti-gankers to attack the revenue stream of gankers. If the target is pretty much passive he deserves to diaf. :)
But seriously, Shouldn't anti-ganking be like, anti ganking? What's the point of destroying wrecks if the target died anyway?
Or shouldn't anti-gankers loot the wreck themselves and give it back to the victim?
I don't know Lucas, if shooting at wrecks is all they do, anti-ganking is pretty much a failure.
I mean, if I were a freighter pilot I would consider them all but useless.
Why don't they do a real anti-ganking service, instead? Charging freighter pilots like CODE does? I think a dozen or so competent dudes could easily shut off ganking in a system like Uedama with ECM, reps, concord spawning (if it's legit), some spying (ganker fleets are quite open, aren't they?), etc.
Don't mean to take sides here, but to an external observer gankers look like a fun bunch, decently organized and competent. While anti-gankers don't seem to be doing their job at all!
Make space glamorous!
Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
53
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 16:33:15 -
[214] - Quote
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:[quote=Gully Alex Foyle]The balance isn't between ganking and anti-ganking.
It's between the gankers and the 'gankee' (e.g. freighter). It takes:
. 1 ship (webber) to reduce gank probability to almost zero, 1 human player can easily manage both webber and freighter . About a dozen or so ships/players to attempt a successful freighter gank
Seems quite favorable to the freighter to me. Charging freighter pilots like CODE does? I think a dozen or so competent dudes could easily shut off ganking in a system like Uedama with ECM, reps, concord spawning (if it's legit), some spying (ganker fleets are quite open, aren't they?), etc.
They try to rep, ecm, and they still fail... Failing is pretty much the only thing they're good at (oh and whining on the forums)
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7162
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 16:39:45 -
[215] - Quote
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:If the target is pretty much passive he deserves to diaf. :) True enough. But if someone wants to kill the passive player and someone else wants to defend him that should be a level fight.
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:But seriously, Shouldn't anti-ganking be like, anti ganking? What's the point of destroying wrecks if the target died anyway?
Or shouldn't anti-gankers loot the wreck themselves and give it back to the victim?
I don't know Lucas, if shooting at wrecks is all they do, anti-ganking is pretty much a failure.
I mean, if I were a freighter pilot I would consider them all but useless. Absolutely. They absolutely should be able to directly compete with the gankers over the loss of the freighter in the first place. They however can't. Ganking mechanics are such that anti-gankers need a miracle just to be on grid with the ganker during the 20 second window the gank occurs, unless the gankers are being shockingly obvious about what they are hitting. Most anti-ganking ships align, warp and target slower than ganking ships.
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:Why don't they do a real anti-ganking service, instead? Charging freighter pilots like CODE does? I think a dozen or so competent dudes could easily shut off ganking in a system like Uedama with ECM, reps, concord spawning (if it's legit), some spying (ganker fleets are quite open, aren't they?), etc. You should really try it. A dozen or so competent dudes would rapidly realise that they are fighting an impossible battle. The reason that more competent players don't anti-gank is because they know well enough that the mechanics suck and there's little chance of success and a low chance of reward. Even if they do manage to get on grid at the right time, they have reps which are much lower hp/s than the damage coming in and chance based mechanics like ECM. At best they can make the gankers need to throw a few more catalysts in to get it done, and at 2m a pop, that's hardly a problem.
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:Don't mean to take sides here, but to an external observer gankers look like a fun bunch, decently organized and competent. While anti-gankers don't seem to be doing their job at all! That's exactly how it is, because anyone with an ounce of sense chooses to do ganking or at the very least not bother with anti-ganking. It's one sided gameplay, so naturally it looks one sided.
Dom Arkaral wrote:They try to rep, ecm, and they still fail... Failing is pretty much the only thing they're good at (oh and whining on the forums) Thanks for supporting the point I am making.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
321
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 18:49:59 -
[216] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Absolutely. They absolutely should be able to directly compete with the gankers over the loss of the freighter in the first place. They however can't. Ganking mechanics are such that anti-gankers need a miracle just to be on grid with the ganker during the 20 second window the gank occurs, unless the gankers are being shockingly obvious about what they are hitting. Most anti-ganking ships align, warp and target slower than ganking ships.
It's not mechanics, it's just that no competent players find the AG cause attractive. Preventing ganks is easy, profiting from other people's ganks is easy, increasing ganker losses is easy. You're just all terrible at EVE. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2571
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 19:05:06 -
[217] - Quote
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Why don't they do a real anti-ganking service, instead? Charging freighter pilots like CODE does? I think a dozen or so competent dudes could easily shut off ganking in a system like Uedama with ECM, reps, concord spawning (if it's legit), some spying (ganker fleets are quite open, aren't they?), etc.
Don't mean to take sides here, but to an external observer gankers look like a fun bunch, decently organized and competent. While anti-gankers don't seem to be doing their job at all!
Not gonna happen because the gankee think he should not get ganked in the first place so he won't pay to maybe be defended. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7162
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 19:08:54 -
[218] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:It's not mechanics, it's just that no competent players find the AG cause attractive. Preventing ganks is easy, profiting from other people's ganks is easy, increasing ganker losses is easy. You're just all terrible at EVE. Prove it then, Mr Competent. If it's so easy you should have no problem demonstrating how an anti-gank group should operate competitively and with good rewards.
The reality is though that more competent people don't AG because it's insanely difficult to do and less rewarding that pretty much every other activity. You pretty much have to be nuts to choose that as a playstyle.
Frostys Virpio wrote:Not gonna happen because the gankee think he should not get ganked in the first place so he won't pay to maybe be defended. Well the main thing is that they won't pay because there would be a 99.9999999999999% chance it's a scam.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17307
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 19:44:41 -
[219] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Prove it then, Mr Competent. If it's so easy you should have no problem demonstrating how an anti-gank group should operate competitively and with good rewards.
Again, red freight has a 99.9% success rate and sell their service very well. There is your evidence that its not only possible to beat gankers but to render them a none issue.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
321
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 19:50:35 -
[220] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Prove it then, Mr Competent. If it's so easy you should have no problem demonstrating how an anti-gank group should operate competitively and with good rewards.
Why should I do your job for you? I'm a ganker and I like most of my fellow gankers. To date none have annoyed me enough to want to ruin their days at the expense of less bears dying. |
|
Anthar Thebess
1427
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 20:02:41 -
[221] - Quote
How many freighters are killed by suicide gank fleets outside of +2j from uedama or niarja? Few per month. If someone is choosing to move a freighter by a known gank system it is his decision.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7162
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 21:19:54 -
[222] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Again, red freight has a 99.9% success rate and sell their service very well. There is your evidence that its not only possible to beat gankers but to render them a none issue. Except as we've already covered, it doesn't. All it shows is there are vastly more hauler trips than gank attempts. The fact that Red Frog cannot operate as normal during Burn Jita categorically proves that they cannot render gankers a non issue. Why don't you fetch some statistics on how many ganks occur vs how many anti-gank attempts are successful. As your side of this discussion is keen to point out, the only thing AGs are good at is failing, so I think you'll find similar numbers there.
Masao Kurata wrote:Why should I do your job for you? I'm a ganker and I like most of my fellow gankers. To date none have annoyed me enough to want to ruin their days at the expense of less bears dying. In other words, you can't prove it and your suggestion that competence is the issue is nothing more than a desperate attack. Thanks for playing, try harder next time.
Anthar Thebess wrote:How many freighters are killed by suicide gank fleets outside of +2j from uedama or niarja? Few per month. If someone is choosing to move a freighter by a known gank system it is his decision. Well technically it's CCPs decision since they specifically designed the flow of highsec to create bottlenecks when moving between faction controlled areas. That still has no impact however on the fact that anti-gankers have very little in the way of balanced mechanics to compare with gankers.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
53
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 21:36:09 -
[223] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:Again, red freight has a 99.9% success rate and sell their service very well. There is your evidence that its not only possible to beat gankers but to render them a none issue. Except as we've already covered, it doesn't. All it shows is there are vastly more hauler trips than gank attempts. The fact that Red Frog cannot operate as normal during Burn Jita categorically proves that they cannot render gankers a non issue. Why don't you fetch some statistics on how many ganks occur vs how many anti-gank attempts are successful. As your side of this discussion is keen to point out, the only thing AGs are good at is failing, so I think you'll find similar numbers there. Masao Kurata wrote:Why should I do your job for you? I'm a ganker and I like most of my fellow gankers. To date none have annoyed me enough to want to ruin their days at the expense of less bears dying. In other words, you can't prove it and your suggestion that competence is the issue is nothing more than a desperate attack. Thanks for playing, try harder next time. Anthar Thebess wrote:How many freighters are killed by suicide gank fleets outside of +2j from uedama or niarja? Few per month. If someone is choosing to move a freighter by a known gank system it is his decision. Well technically it's CCPs decision since they specifically designed the flow of highsec to create bottlenecks when moving between faction controlled areas. That still has no impact however on the fact that anti-gankers have very little in the way of balanced mechanics to compare with gankers.
AG can be good, if they can get decent FCS, enough people willing to rep or alpha or whatever
But AG kicks everyone that has a clue about the game, so AG will stay bad
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Sasha Cohenberg
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling CODE.
43
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 21:42:18 -
[224] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: Ganking a wreck is a guaranteed zero return activity, and getting it done in the half second it takes someone to open the wreck and hammer the take all button is incredibly difficult even without the HP rebalance, leaving the only real option to get rid of the loot as "steal it faster" which is a bad idea when next to a whole group of flash reds. Also, let's face it, if the opposing mechanic to ganking is also ganking, then the game hasn't got much depth.
Alright this one paragraph here shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Its actually faster to lock and shoot a wreck than it is to click the wreck, and then click loot all locking takes 1 tick minimum looting takes more
also yes while ganking a wreck has zero return, the cost is about 1.5 million isk per wreck gank. Maybe throw in some ratting or tags every 50 wreck ganks. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2575
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 21:42:33 -
[225] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:How many freighters are killed by suicide gank fleets outside of +2j from uedama or niarja? Few per month. If someone is choosing to move a freighter by a known gank system it is his decision.
The tools to anti-gank are also there anyway. Beside the obvious options like webbing the freighter into warp, a freighter with resist amp fitted can use remote armor rep cruiser to "kite" the concord timer and survive for example. People are just not willing to cooperate to do this in an efficient way because "I'm not gonna be the next one to blow up" mean nobody take the risk seriously. Everybody expect someone else to be the poor chap to go boom so they will go freely across.
Information warfare boosted rooks can mess up with talos' targeting for example but people don't want to put the effort in for the very low chance that it will be needed. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17308
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 22:58:47 -
[226] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Except as we've already covered, it doesn't.
You putting your fingers in your ears does not change the fact its very very safe for freighters.
Lucas Kell wrote: All it shows is there are vastly more hauler trips than gank attempts. The fact that Red Frog cannot operate as normal during Burn Jita categorically proves that they cannot render gankers a non issue.
Got any evidence for that bold claim?
Lucas Kell wrote: Why don't you fetch some statistics on how many ganks occur vs how many anti-gank attempts are successful. As your side of this discussion is keen to point out, the only thing AGs are good at is failing, so I think you'll find similar numbers there.
99.9% rate of delivery, red freight escort their ships not only because its safer flying with a web alt but also faster. In every whine post by AG we see a total lack of knowledge, effort and willpower. You refuse to use any tactic claiming its too risky, expensive or hard to do. Meanwhile gankers are using anti gank tactics and red freight is enjoying massive success.
Answer this, if red freight are able to reduce the risk of ganking to as close to 0 as you can get then why cant you?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21263
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 23:25:54 -
[227] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Answer this, if red freight are able to reduce the risk of ganking to as close to 0 as you can get then why cant you? :EFFORT:
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7162
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 23:43:27 -
[228] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:AG can be good, if they can get decent FCS, enough people willing to rep or alpha or whatever
But AG kicks everyone that has a clue about the game, so AG will stay bad No, they really can't.
Sasha Cohenberg wrote:Alright this one paragraph here shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Its actually faster to lock and shoot a wreck than it is to click the wreck, and then click loot all locking takes 1 tick minimum looting takes more Indeed, locking takes a tick, as does the shot landing, as does opening a container and clicking the loot button. So back before this change the two were somewhat similar in speed, as evidenced by the occasional success of the loot gank. Following the change however, insta-locking and wrecking 15k HP in the first tick is unlikely, and certainly at a much higher cost than 1.5m, and likely more than the what, 100m it costs to gank a freighter if we're being overly generous?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
809
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 23:55:19 -
[229] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Creating such an "bumping aggression flag" is impossible without breaking the CrimeWatch 2.0 safety settings and opening a loophole so bad guys can now flag innocent targets and get CONCORD-free kills by getting targets to bump themselves suspect. If you want bumpers to have more risk, you will have to change the whole highsec capital interdiction mechanics, not add an easily exploitable way to make people go suspect in highsec.
This is completely off-topic, so if you have such an idea, I suggest you raise it in the appropriate forum so it can be discussed properly. Otherwise, I suggest you stop whining and use the existing mechanics to bring risk to the bumpers by exploding them like the gankers choose to do for the haulers under the exact same rule set.
There is no highsec capital interdiction mechanic - A "Mechanic" implies risk. Bumping is something gankers found to be risk free so use it and CCP lets them continue to use a half made mechanic because it suits them to do so. If bumping were a legit mechanic, it would be ok but bumping in Eve makes absolutely no sense- If you bump into something that weights 10X more than you at speed, you should take damage but as Devs can't calculate that, a specific (read specific = available to a set group) flag to enable fleet members to attack something that has committed an aggressive act on a freighter in the fleet would mean bumping is no longer a risk free mechanic.
Why should those trying to protect a freighter from gankers have to become gankers to do so? The bumper is committing an act of aggression in highsec, there should be consequences for that
I really don't get how some people can play this game with such pure narrow mindedness.
As for starting a thread - At Pedros suggestion
Oh and Pedro; If you had actually read what I wrote you would see what you imply would be next to impossible to pull off. It would not break the all but ineffective "crime watch 2.0" as only a neutral party hitting a freighter would get flagged, sure an individual could push a ship into a freighter causing it to bump and be flagged but all that would happen is those in fleet with the freighter could legally kill it, Without Concord intervention.
Scenario; I am in fleet with a freighter, I see you sitting 10K from the freighter as we jump. I bump you into the freighter, you get a timer to my fleet, leaving us free to engage you. No Concord needed - You were forced to get flagged (with a mechanic that has no repercussions) and you either win the "legal" if not slyly gained, engagement or you die. Hmm interesting, baiting with freighters in highsec.. Anti gankers have a legitimate way to kill bumpers, Oh the horror of it all, the risk free mach bumper is no longer completely risk free)
PS; Nothing is impossible, the concept of - Flagged to a specific group = NO Concord intervention. Suggestion, sit in a quiet place with a cup of coffee and read what my suggestion entailed, you'll see, while it is exploitable to an extent (although not as exploitable as risk free bumping in Machs), it does not involve Concord at all (it actually creates opportunity for PVP). You need someone to bump a Freighter to initiate a flagged response, that flag is only visible to those in the freighters fleet and the bumpers fleet. The guy who bumped you into the freighter can only freely engage (no concord) if they are in one of those fleets.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7162
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 00:01:16 -
[230] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:You putting your fingers in your ears does not change the fact its very very safe for freighters. You providing random unrelated statistics does not change the fact that ganking is far easier and more rewarding than anti-ganking. I'm not really sure why every time you get into a corner you just throw out random statistics and repeatedly point at them, but it really doesn't help your case.
baltec1 wrote:Got any evidence for that bold claim? You mean other than the massive warnings stating that on their site every time there's a Burn Jita, or the fact that their queue jumps into Kraken status? I think that's enough to be honest.
baltec1 wrote:99.9% rate of delivery, red freight escort their ships not only because its safer flying with a web alt but also faster. In every whine post by AG we see a total lack of knowledge, effort and willpower. You refuse to use any tactic claiming its too risky, expensive or hard to do. Meanwhile gankers are using anti gank tactics and red freight is enjoying massive success. Except again, you are talking about the statistics of hundreds of thousands of freighter runs, all at a relatively low value against a small number of pilots who choose to engage in ganking. With that many trips the percentage will be low, regardless of how out of balance the mechanics are. Again though you're trying to twist the topic not only to the ability of freighter pilots to proactively work to reduce the chances of being selected as a target, but specifically the group best trained in doing so in the entire game.
baltec1 wrote:Answer this, if red freight are able to reduce the risk of ganking to as close to 0 as you can get then why cant you? I've never been ganked, this whole discussion has nothing to do with me being ganked, hell it has nothing to do with any freighter being ganked. The conversation is about how gankers have easy, fun and rewarding gameplay, while anti-gankers have incredibly difficult and unrewarding gameplay, and your desire to keep that status quo. Answer this: If EVE is supposed to be a game about being tough, challenging and unforgiving, why are you so afraid of having to put in a bit of effort to fight off an opposing group on a level playing field?
Coming from you lot and how desperate you are to ensure you have to put in zero effort to gank and have no opposition, that is laughable. I'm always up for more effort and more challenges, just not to cripple myself with bad mechanics for no reward. Hell, half my posts on this forum are about more dynamic content and making EVE require significantly more input to get anything out of it.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
322
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 00:38:59 -
[231] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: likely more than the what, 100m it costs to gank a freighter if we're being overly generous?
Thanks for demonstrating that you have no idea about that either. |
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21264
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 00:52:49 -
[232] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Coming from you lot and how desperate you are to ensure you have to put in zero effort to gank and have no opposition, that is laughable. I'm always up for more effort and more challenges, just not to cripple myself with bad mechanics for no reward. Hell, half my posts on this forum are about more dynamic content and making EVE require significantly more input to get anything out of it. You're not often right and you're wrong again. But thanks for replying.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2193
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 07:22:08 -
[233] - Quote
You really are like a dog with a bone - you just can't let your terrible (and off-topic) idea go.
Sgt Ocker wrote:There is no highsec capital interdiction mechanic - A "Mechanic" implies risk. Bumping is something gankers found to be risk free so use it and CCP lets them continue to use a half made mechanic because it suits them to do so. If bumping were a legit mechanic, it would be ok but bumping in Eve makes absolutely no sense- If you bump into something that weights 10X more than you at speed, you should take damage but as Devs can't calculate that, a specific (read specific = available to a set group) flag to enable fleet members to attack something that has committed an aggressive act on a freighter in the fleet would mean bumping is no longer a risk free mechanic. Of course it is a mechanic. CCP even said this directly: "CCP considers the act of bumping a normal game mechanic". Capital ships are intended to be slow and vulnerable, and thus can be bumped as has been the case since they were introduced. Just because you don't like it or can't understand it, does not mean it is not an accepted game mechanic.
Sgt Ocker wrote:Why should those trying to protect a freighter from gankers have to become gankers to do so? The bumper is committing an act of aggression in highsec, there should be consequences for that Perhaps there should, but with highsec safety being turned up to 11 in the recent past, there is no room for random suspect flags for bumping ships. CrimeWatch 2.0 specifically prevents you from flagging yourself without turning your flag off green, and then committing a deliberate act. Making bumping give flags breaks this.
This is not a difficult concept to understand. You will need to propose another idea, one that doesn't involve giving bad guys a tool to flag targets, if you want highsec freighter tackling to have some mechanical consequences.
Sgt Ocker wrote:I really don't get how some people can play this game with such pure narrow mindedness. And I don't get how some people can be so fixated on an idea to address a perceived problem to their little corner of the game, that they miss the wide-ranging, and sometimes game-breaking, effects that idea would have on everyone else.
We get it - you don't like bump-tackling in highsec. Well, I am sorry to say additional, arbitrary flags for incidental or deliberate ship contact is not ever going to happen. CCP is more likely to just nerf/remove bumping by boosting a freighter's agility or adding an escape module than to implement your God-awful flagging idea. But I suspect they won't to that - freighters are still safe enough, probably too safe. They will instead implement a complete change in the interdiction mechanic in highsec, one that allows fights to start and escalate around (eventually) all capital ships in highsec.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7162
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 07:39:19 -
[234] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Lucas Kell wrote: likely more than the what, 100m it costs to gank a freighter if we're being overly generous? Thanks for demonstrating that you have no idea about that either. So you're saying 50-60 catalysts isn't enough to kill a freighter? Look NPC alt, stop being terrible. If you have nothing constructive to say, don't bother.
Mag's wrote:You're not often right and you're wrong again. But thanks for replying. OK, if you say so.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Top Guac
Mexican Avacado Syndicate
129
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 08:28:57 -
[235] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:If you have nothing constructive to say, don't bother. To be fair to him, having nothing constructive to say never stops you posting. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7162
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 09:10:13 -
[236] - Quote
Top Guac wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:If you have nothing constructive to say, don't bother. To be fair to him, having nothing constructive to say never stops you posting. You not agreeing with it doesn't make it non-constructive. Believe it or not people can actually hold opposing opinions on a matter and remain somewhat civil, working towards common ground, rather than this strange reaction some people have on here where they go "I disagree SO I HATE YOU!". People like yourself with not much to say beyond not-so-subtle attacks don't really help either.
At the end of the day, my opinion is pretty clear: - Anti-gankers don't have much hope of stopping ganks, and this change reduces one of the only ways they had to hurt gankers (even if not stopping them). - A good approach would be a way to make anti-ganking somewhat competitive with ganking, so both side had to put in effort and react to each other with a balanced shot at winning the field, which would negate the impact of this change.
I'd like to say I;m surprised that some of the names here are opposed to actual two-sided PvP content, but in all honesty, I've come to realise that when people claim they like the dark nature of EVE and the fact that non-consensual PvP exists, what they really mean is "I like that the playstyle I choose is stronger than other people's".
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
WhyTry1
Comply Or Die Skeleton Crew.
95
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 09:27:13 -
[237] - Quote
but why? no seriously the purpose of this change is.......
people asking for more HP what so you can loot it for longer? Im sorry but this is only buffing freighter bankers, nothing more. Super/Dreads/Titans get literally looted immediately, so does everything else.
The only reason why you want to delay this to get the larger haul 0 i.e. freighters and transports. The one shot wreck was a good way to stop those people getting the loot, OK one shot too much 150000 sounds OK, still allows them to get some loot, but tbh most people who get freighter ganked in highsec probably don't have a BS fleet with them. So your not helping those, but its another nullsec change.
So screw the highsec guys.
If this is just about freighter/transport ganking then say so don't hide behind it being a general change because it doesn't make much difference. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17312
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 09:37:07 -
[238] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:You providing random unrelated statistics does not change the fact that ganking is far easier and more rewarding than anti-ganking.
You say ganking needs nerfed, I provide data from the largest shipping organisation in EVE that shows ganking is nearly none existent. Its entirely relevant, you just don't like that the data shows you to be wrong.
Lucas Kell wrote:You mean other than the massive warnings stating that on their site every time there's a Burn Jita, or the fact that their queue jumps into Kraken status? I think that's enough to be honest.
A warning put out for a single weekend a year and a blip in demand does not change the fact that 99.9% of deliveries were successful. Try again.
Lucas Kell wrote:Except again, you are talking about the statistics of hundreds of thousands of freighter runs, all at a relatively low value against a small number of pilots who choose to engage in ganking. With that many trips the percentage will be low, regardless of how out of balance the mechanics are. Again though you're trying to twist the topic not only to the ability of freighter pilots to proactively work to reduce the chances of being selected as a target, but specifically the group best trained in doing so in the entire game.
So now I have too much data? You keep on demanding evidence and now that you have a very large sample you want to brush it away because there are "too many freighter runs". You don't like this data set because it shows you are wrong.
Lucas Kell wrote:I've never been ganked, this whole discussion has nothing to do with me being ganked, hell it has nothing to do with any freighter being ganked. The conversation is about how gankers have easy, fun and rewarding gameplay, while anti-gankers have incredibly difficult and unrewarding gameplay, and your desire to keep that status quo. Answer this: If EVE is supposed to be a game about being tough, challenging and unforgiving, why are you so afraid of having to put in a bit of effort to fight off an opposing group on a level playing field?
Forgive me but isn't this thread about the wreck HP buff and arn't you bitching about how you can no longer use a rifter to pop the wreck with 40+billion isk of cargo in it anymore? Its a tad contradictory that you keep on saying gankers face no risk then turn around and whine that you dont want to have to risk two nados to gank a wreck.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17312
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 09:38:50 -
[239] - Quote
WhyTry1 wrote:but why? no seriously the purpose of this change is.......
people asking for more HP what so you can loot it for longer? Im sorry but this is only buffing freighter bankers, nothing more. Super/Dreads/Titans get literally looted immediately, so does everything else.
The only reason why you want to delay this to get the larger haul 0 i.e. freighters and transports. The one shot wreck was a good way to stop those people getting the loot, OK one shot too much 150000 sounds OK, still allows them to get some loot, but tbh most people who get freighter ganked in highsec probably don't have a BS fleet with them. So your not helping those, but its another nullsec change.
So screw the highsec guys.
If this is just about freighter/transport ganking then say so don't hide behind it being a general change because it doesn't make much difference.
A lot of titans and supers dont get looted because someone on the other side pops the wreck. Also with the fleet warp changes having wrecks to warp to is going to be very important.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7162
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 10:29:07 -
[240] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:[You say ganking needs nerfed Except I didn't, so what you provided was irrelevant. I stated that anti-ganking as a playstyle needs a buff.
baltec1 wrote:A warning put out for a single weekend a year and a blip in demand does not change the fact that 99.9% of deliveries were successful. Try again. No, what it [proves is that your claim that red-frog can treat gankers as a non-issue is categorically false. And it still remain irrelevant for the reason given above.
baltec1 wrote:So now I have too much data? No, you have irrelevant data.
baltec1 wrote:Forgive me but isn't this thread about the wreck HP buff and arn't you bitching about how you can no longer use a rifter to pop the wreck with 40+billion isk of cargo in it anymore? Its a tad contradictory that you keep on saying gankers face no risk then turn around and whine that you dont want to have to risk two nados to gank a wreck. No, what I'm saying is that prior to this change, anti-gankers had nearly no chance of stopping a gank and a small chance of ganking the wreck, at least making them able to fight gankers margins. This change makes it so they still have nearly no chance of stopping a gank and also nearly no chance of being able to target the wreck and kill it with two nados before it gets looted. It would be nice to know that CCP even recognises anti-ganking as a playstyle and looks to improve that too, rather than arbitrarily slinging in a nerf because gankers have been complaining that they sometimes lose their loot.
And mate, I don't have to risk anything because I don't engage in anti-ganking. I'm competent enough to know that there's absolutely no point in even attempting to fight gankers. The mechanics are just not there for fighting them, there's next to nothing you can do to gankers after the gank (even less now) and there's no reward, so why would I engage in it? Instead I volley frigates and shuttles off the Niarja gate while flipping plex, since those are the easy, rewarding activities, and people like you have convinced me that's all EVE is about, being easy.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17312
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 10:53:52 -
[241] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Except I didn't, so what you provided was irrelevant. I stated that anti-ganking as a playstyle needs a buff.
Which results in a nerf to ganking.
Lucas Kell wrote:No, what it [proves is that your claim that red-frog can treat gankers as a non-issue is categorically false. And it still remain irrelevant for the reason given above.
I didnt say they treat it as a none issue, it just is a none issue because they take steps to protect themselves.
Lucas Kell wrote:No, you have irrelevant data. You say its too hard to protect freighters, I show you the largest freight organisation in EVE have no problem protecting their freighters. You not likeing being wrong does not make that data set go away.
Lucas Kell wrote:No, what I'm saying is that prior to this change, anti-gankers had nearly no chance of stopping a gank and a small chance of ganking the wreck, at least making them able to fight gankers margins. This change makes it so they still have nearly no chance of stopping a gank and also nearly no chance of being able to target the wreck and kill it with two nados before it gets looted. It would be nice to know that CCP even recognises anti-ganking as a playstyle and looks to improve that too, rather than arbitrarily slinging in a nerf because gankers have been complaining that they sometimes lose their loot.
So if its next to impossible to stop gankers how does red freight, the largest freight organisation in EVE have a 99.9% success rate? Seems to me you are trying to get CCP to do the protecting for you to make up for you own lack in skills.
Lucas Kell wrote: And mate, I don't have to risk anything because I don't engage in anti-ganking. I'm competent enough to know that there's absolutely no point in even attempting to fight gankers. The mechanics are just not there for fighting them, there's next to nothing you can do to gankers after the gank (even less now) and there's no reward, so why would I engage in it? Instead I volley frigates and shuttles off the Niarja gate while flipping plex, since those are the easy, rewarding activities, and people like you have convinced me that's all EVE is about, being easy.
If ganking is so easy, risk free and guarantees success why are you not ganking the gankers? Their ships are all profitable to gank.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44449
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 10:54:30 -
[242] - Quote
WhyTry1 wrote:but why? no seriously the purpose of this change is....... When Anthar made the original suggestion back in June last year, CCP were planning to introduce changes to fleet warp making it impossible to fleet warp onto scan results:
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/fleet-warp-changes-coming-in-august-release/
So Anthar's suggestion was primarily aimed (from the OP in the post) on ensuring warp in points on grid remain during lowsec/nullsec fights:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=431120&find=unread
It's very common to pop wrecks so that an opponent can't easily warp to you or nearby. Giving the wrecks more HP is good for low/null fights and gives more opportunities to maneuver on grid.
So there is a real reason and it is a good change.
Additionally, if I was speculating, this change might be part of the changes CCP are working on so they can implement changes to the fleet warp mechanics they wanted to before. When they pulled back from those changes, CCP Larrikin indicated the main issue was technical based around fleet bookmarks, but that the idea was still very much in planning. So this may be part of that development process to allow fleet warp changes, but just speculation on that.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Anthar Thebess
1442
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 11:27:03 -
[243] - Quote
We can be sure that CCP will introduce new fleet warps at some point. Simply i will never agree, to argument that killing ships is bad. Eve is all about killing stuff.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7166
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 11:31:40 -
[244] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Which results in a nerf to ganking. No, it doesn't. A buff to a playstyle isn't a nerf to another. The fact that more people would be able to fight back would mean that at times you'd have more to compete with, but the act of ganking itself would be unchanged.
baltec1 wrote:I didnt say they treat it as a none issue, it just is a none issue because they take steps to protect themselves. Except obviously it isn't, since they have to avoid the system if there is a gank event in it. If the steps protected them they would fly right on through.
baltec1 wrote:You say its too hard to protect freighters, I show you the largest freight organisation in EVE have no problem protecting their freighters. You not liking being wrong does not make that data set go away. Except again, all that shows is that: a) freighter runs outnumber gank attempts and b) red-frog make sure they are less appealing targets
Again though, this changes nothing about the fact that anti-ganking as a playstyle is pretty much pointless as it stands because it's so out of balance.
baltec1 wrote:So if its next to impossible to stop gankers how does red freight, the largest freight organisation in EVE have a 99.9% success rate? Seems to me you are trying to get CCP to do the protecting for you to make up for you own lack in skills. By not being chosen as targets. By running with lower value cargo and webbing the freighter, the difficulty of the gank is increased and the reward lowered, so the gankers simply pick easier and more rewarding targets. As there are so many freighter runs, they can opt to be selective about their targets.
And no, I'm suggestign CCP actually make it a viable playstyle. If you want to prove it already is and it's purely down to a lack of skill, by all means start up and anti-ganking group and prove it. You won't though because you know it's a lot of effort with nearly no chance of success for nearly no reward. Instead you'll keep pointing at red frog and using their stats as an excuse for why your already easy playstyle should be easier.
baltec1 wrote:If ganking is so easy, risk free and guarantees success why are you not ganking the gankers? Their ships are all profitable to gank. So what you are saying is that since anti-ganking isn't actually viable, more people should instead just gank, and gank cheap disposable ships at that? I'd like to see diversity in playstyles, not just more of the exact same playstyle.
Again I ask though, if EVE is supposed to be a game about being tough, challenging and unforgiving, why are you so afraid of having to put in a bit of effort to fight off an opposing group on a level playing field?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17312
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 11:49:59 -
[245] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:No, it doesn't. A buff to a playstyle isn't a nerf to another. The fact that more people would be able to fight back would mean that at times you'd have more to compete with, but the act of ganking itself would be unchanged.
A buff to anti-ganking would not nerf ganking. Great logic there.
Lucas Kell wrote:Except obviously it isn't, since they have to avoid the system if there is a gank event in it. If the steps protected them they would fly right on through.
Got any evidence they actively avoid highsec choke points and avoid jita?
Lucas Kell wrote: Again though, this changes nothing about the fact that anti-ganking as a playstyle is pretty much pointless as it stands because it's so out of balance.
RFF use the exact same mechanics you have access to to get a 99.9% success rate. The tools are already there, you just won't use them.
Lucas Kell wrote:By not being chosen as targets. By running with lower value cargo and webbing the freighter, the difficulty of the gank is increased and the reward lowered, so the gankers simply pick easier and more rewarding targets. As there are so many freighter runs, they can opt to be selective about their targets.
And no, I'm suggestign CCP actually make it a viable playstyle. If you want to prove it already is and it's purely down to a lack of skill, by all means start up and anti-ganking group and prove it. You won't though because you know it's a lot of effort with nearly no chance of success for nearly no reward. Instead you'll keep pointing at red frog and using their stats as an excuse for why your already easy playstyle should be easier.
RFF are already proving with their own anti-ganking activities. Incidentally, RFF completed 51,796 contracts with a cargo greater than 500,000 m3 so lets put a pin that that side of your argument right now.
Lucas Kell wrote: Again I ask though, if EVE is supposed to be a game about being tough, challenging and unforgiving, why are you so afraid of having to put in a bit of effort to fight off an opposing group on a level playing field?
Thats a little rich coming from someone unwilling to use two ganking nados to pop a wreck made by over a dozen now dead teir 3 battlecruisers.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7174
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 12:06:10 -
[246] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:A buff to anti-ganking would not nerf ganking. Great logic there. Well it wouldn;t. A nerf to ganking would affect ganking regardless of what other people did. Halving the damage of people with a criminal timer for example, that is a nerf to ganking. Buffing an opposing playstyle may make you have to work harder to compete with that playstyle, but it's no more a nerf to ganking than improving missions is a nerf to incursions.
baltec1 wrote:Got any evidence they actively avoid highsec choke points and avoid jita? Yes, their warning message on their site every time Burn Jita is in effect and the size of their freight queue at the same time.
baltec1 wrote:RFF use the exact same mechanics you have access to to get a 99.9% success rate. The tools are already there, you just won't use them. How many times does it have to be said. Anti-ganking != Freighters taking steps to avoid being ganked. If you're suggesting the only way to protect a freighter is to get in the freighter, choose the correct amount of cargo and the correct route and use a web alt, then you aren't talking about anti-ganking as a playstyle, you are talking about hauling as a playstyle. You're proving my point because you can't come up with a good counterpoint which is why you're going ham on this strawman.
I tell you what, I'll make it simple. Any reference to red frog I'll simply ignore, since we're not talking about the hauling playstyle.
baltec1 wrote:Thats a little rich coming from someone unwilling to use two ganking nados to pop a wreck made by over a dozen now dead teir 3 battlecruisers. Hardly, losing two nados over a nearly zero chance of actually popping the wreck in time with a guaranteed zero return has nothing to do with wanting easy gameplay, it's basic common sense. Plus, like the change would be fine if they improved other aspects of anti-ganking to compensate, making it a more viable playstyle. You however want to make sure that noone even has a chance to disrupt your easy, profitable gameplay. There's a distinct difference. Thanks for again not answering the question though, since it just further proves the point.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17312
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 12:20:01 -
[247] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Well it wouldn;t. A nerf to ganking would affect ganking regardless of what other people did. Halving the damage of people with a criminal timer for example, that is a nerf to ganking. Buffing an opposing playstyle may make you have to work harder to compete with that playstyle, but it's no more a nerf to ganking than improving missions is a nerf to incursions.
If a change makes ganking harder to do that right there is a nerf to ganking. Stop being dishonest.
Lucas Kell wrote:Yes, their warning message on their site every time Burn Jita is in effect and the size of their freight queue at the same time.
Well then I guess you will be shocked to hear that all of the choke points are the most heavily traveled by RFF according to their own statistics. Turns out, a once a year event over a weekend has very little impact on their operation.
How many times does it have to be said. Anti-ganking != Freighters taking steps to avoid being ganked. If you're suggesting the only way to protect a freighter is to get in the freighter, choose the correct amount of cargo and the correct route and use a web alt, then you aren't talking about anti-ganking as a playstyle, you are talking about hauling as a playstyle. You're proving my point because you can't come up with a good counterpoint which is why you're going ham on this strawman.[/quote]
Yes its anti-gank because they are taking actions to AVOID BEING GANKED. They have turned anti-ganking into a profitable business while you flounder around in disorganization and chaos. You spend more time bitching about ganking than actually doing anything about it.
Lucas Kell wrote: I tell you what, I'll make it simple. Any reference to red frog I'll simply ignore, since we're not talking about the hauling playstyle.
How surprising, you chose to ignore anything that goes against your argument.
Lucas Kell wrote:Hardly, losing two nados over a nearly zero chance of actually popping the wreck in time with a guaranteed zero return has nothing to do with wanting easy gameplay, it's basic common sense. Plus, like the change would be fine if they improved other aspects of anti-ganking to compensate, making it a more viable playstyle. You however want to make sure that noone even has a chance to disrupt your easy, profitable gameplay. There's a distinct difference. Thanks for again not answering the question though, since it just further proves the point.
Yep, instablap nados that will catch frigates before they warp off cant target and kill a wreck and battleship can lock instantly. See, its no wonder you do so poorly when you don't even know how to use most of the ships and mechanics out there and you refuse to learn.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7174
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 12:29:55 -
[248] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:If a change makes ganking harder to do that right there is a nerf to ganking. Stop being dishonest. I'm not, I'm suggesting a buff to an opposing playstyle, not nerfs to ganking. You know this, yet you'll keep pretending it's something else because you can't come up with a godo reason as to why you should have no opposing team to compete against.
baltec1 wrote:Yes its anti-gank because they are taking actions to AVOID BEING GANKED. That's still not anti-ganking. Avoiding being the target of something and fighting against the act in general are not the same thing. I tend do drink zero sugar drinks, that doesn't make me anti-sugar.
baltec1 wrote:They have turned anti-ganking into a profitable business No, they have turned hauling into a profitable business. But since we're still not talking about hauling, it's still irrelevant.
baltec1 wrote:How surprising, you chose to ignore anything that goes against your argument. I choose to ignore people wasting my time with obvious strawmen.
baltec1 wrote:Yep, instablap nados that will catch frigates before they warp off cant target and kill a wreck and battleship can lock instantly. See, its no wonder you do so poorly when you don't even know how to use most of the ships and mechanics out there and you refuse to learn.
Even targeting with a single instalock frigate only manages to blap the wreck as it is now a small amount of the time. Are you suggesting that coordinating two ships won't fail more often than a single ship does currently?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
327
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 12:37:08 -
[249] - Quote
Stop whining, get good. You even complain about the disadvantages gankers have to overcome as if they were advantages, calling it a miracle if you're on the same grid (there are ways to guarantee this and ways to practically guarantee this) because a gank has to take 25 seconds or less in 0.5, or 10 in 1.0. You DO realise that having to win a fight in 25 seconds or you lose (and losing your ship even if you win) is a HUGE mechanical disadvantage, right? |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7174
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 12:47:55 -
[250] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Stop whining, get good. You even complain about the disadvantages gankers have to overcome as if they were advantages, calling it a miracle if you're on the same grid (there are ways to guarantee this and ways to practically guarantee this) because a gank has to take 25 seconds or less in 0.5, or 10 in 1.0. You DO realise that having to win a fight in 25 seconds or you lose (and losing your ship even if you win) is a HUGE mechanical disadvantage, right? Then prove it. You keep claiming that it's all down to skill yet you refuse to prove it, and by some miracle not a single other skilled players has managed to prove it either. According to you, everything is balanced but for some unknown reason, skilled players gravitate towards ganking and completely avoid anti-ganking. Do you not know how ridiculous that sounds?
Newsflash buddy, you're not a skilled player, you simply pick easy tasks. And you're an NPC alt to boot.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
53
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:03:37 -
[251] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Stop whining, get good. You even complain about the disadvantages gankers have to overcome as if they were advantages, calling it a miracle if you're on the same grid (there are ways to guarantee this and ways to practically guarantee this) because a gank has to take 25 seconds or less in 0.5, or 10 in 1.0. You DO realise that having to win a fight in 25 seconds or you lose (and losing your ship even if you win) is a HUGE mechanical disadvantage, right? Then prove it. You keep claiming that it's all down to skill yet you refuse to prove it, and by some miracle not a single other skilled players has managed to prove it either. According to you, everything is balanced but for some unknown reason, skilled players gravitate towards ganking and completely avoid anti-ganking. Do you not know how ridiculous that sounds? Newsflash buddy, you're not a skilled player, you simply pick easy tasks. And you're an NPC alt to boot. Dude, just stop I don't even want to read all the sad replies you give to people who understand legit game mechanics. And quoting you, you're not a skilled player either, nor a constructive one... so please go back to mining and let the big boys handle the big stuff
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
329
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:08:14 -
[252] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Stop whining, get good. You even complain about the disadvantages gankers have to overcome as if they were advantages, calling it a miracle if you're on the same grid (there are ways to guarantee this and ways to practically guarantee this) because a gank has to take 25 seconds or less in 0.5, or 10 in 1.0. You DO realise that having to win a fight in 25 seconds or you lose (and losing your ship even if you win) is a HUGE mechanical disadvantage, right? Then prove it. You keep claiming that it's all down to skill yet you refuse to prove it, and by some miracle not a single other skilled players has managed to prove it either. According to you, everything is balanced but for some unknown reason, skilled players gravitate towards ganking and completely avoid anti-ganking. Do you not know how ridiculous that sounds?
Doesn't sound ridiculous at all, anti-ganking is what sounds ridiculous. Why would anyone want to prevent explosions?
Quote:Newsflash buddy, you're not a skilled player, you simply pick easy tasks. And you're an NPC alt to boot.
I post with my scout because when I created him he was meant to be my main, but things drifted. Problem? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17312
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:20:57 -
[253] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Then prove it. You keep claiming that it's all down to skill yet you refuse to prove it, and by some miracle not a single other skilled players has managed to prove it either. According to you, everything is balanced but for some unknown reason, skilled players gravitate towards ganking and completely avoid anti-ganking. Do you not know how ridiculous that sounds?
Newsflash buddy, you're not a skilled player, you simply pick easy tasks. And you're an NPC alt to boot.
"Red Frog Freight serviced* all high sec regions (21 regions), and all 891 systems with stations in them in contiguous high security space. This is the third year in a row Red Frog delivered to every possible solar system.
* serviced = pick up or drop off location"
"Red Frog Freight failed contracts 245, representing about 0.11% of all contracts issued."
"Contracts (completed)247,948"
"Rewards (in M isk)5,703,343"
"Tips (in M isk)293,277"
So while you are scrabbling around crying its impossible these guys are making bank doing the very thing you cant seem to manage. This is all the evidence we need to see what is actually going on, turns out the freight community is making way more bank than the ganking community.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7174
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:26:37 -
[254] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Doesn't sound ridiculous at all, anti-ganking is what sounds ridiculous. Why would anyone want to prevent explosions? It's more about redirecting explosions. I strongly believe that everything in EVE should be open to a player based counter, that one group trying to shoot something should have to fight against the opposing group trying to defend it. As the mechanics currently stand this isn't something that happens with ganking. Gankers are generally just fighting against the decisions the target made before they even undocked. It's very passive. I'd love to see more focus put on people actively defending their ships from ganks, and in the long run if anti-ganking were to be more viable, a reduction in the mechanical safety of haulers and miners who refuse to actively prevent their ship exploding.
Masao Kurata wrote:I post with my scout because when I created him he was meant to be my main, but things drifted. Problem? Generally when people post with their NPC alts they aren't really the best people to have a reasonable discussion with as they have no reason to really stand by what they say.
baltec1 wrote:So while you are scrabbling around crying its impossible these guys are making bank doing the very thing you cant seem to manage. Except of course I didn't, since once again you are talking about hauling, not about anti-ganking. Thanks once again for proving my point by being unable to come up with an argument beyond your strawman.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Anthar Thebess
1443
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:26:54 -
[255] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: "Red Frog Freight failed contracts 245, representing about 0.11% of all contracts issued."
This is not connected only to ganks. Sometimes contracts are overdue as hauling guy took to much on himself or his internet provider failed.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17313
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:34:17 -
[256] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:baltec1 wrote: "Red Frog Freight failed contracts 245, representing about 0.11% of all contracts issued."
This is not connected only to ganks. Sometimes contracts are overdue as hauling guy took to much on himself or his internet provider failed.
Yes it does cover everything from cargo blow up to people removing the contract before it was finished.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
53
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:35:50 -
[257] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:baltec1 wrote: "Red Frog Freight failed contracts 245, representing about 0.11% of all contracts issued."
This is not connected only to ganks. Sometimes contracts are overdue as hauling guy took to much on himself or his internet provider failed. Yes it does cover everything from cargo blow up to people removing the contract before it was finished. Still a very small number, considering the number of contracts they accept and successfully deliver :D
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17313
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:36:17 -
[258] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Except of course I didn't, since once again you are talking about hauling, not about anti-ganking. Thanks once again for proving my point by being unable to come up with an argument beyond your strawman.
"No no no all of those successful freight trips don't count because they took steps to counter gankers and didn't die"
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7174
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:40:22 -
[259] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:"No no no all of those successful freight trips don't count because they took steps to counter gankers and didn't die" Seriously guy, you know the difference between hauling and anti-ganking as a playstyle. You're just being deliberately obtuse because you can't come up with a decent counterpoint and the reason you can't do that is because there is no good reason why there shouldn't be more active gameplay between gankers and anti-gankers.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
53
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:49:35 -
[260] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:"No no no all of those successful freight trips don't count because they took steps to counter gankers and didn't die" Seriously guy, you know the difference between hauling and anti-ganking as a playstyle. You're just being deliberately obtuse because you can't come up with a decent counterpoint and the reason you can't do that is because there is no good reason why there shouldn't be more active gameplay between gankers and anti-gankers.
Hey guy, is this a post about CODE. and aanti-ganking? No it's a post about wreck hp buff... and that concerns everyone ingame. The ONLY people I saw hating on this buff is AG.
Now let's get back on the main subject, before this gets locked up because of off-topic posting....
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7174
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 14:00:10 -
[261] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:Hey guy, is this a post about CODE. and aanti-ganking? No it's a post about wreck hp buff... and that concerns everyone ingame. The ONLY people I saw hating on this buff is AG. That's because it's a direct nerf to one of the few things AGs could do to negatively affect gankers. If this were balanced out with improvements in other areas to make active anti-ganking more viable, it wouldn't be so bad a change. Without that though it's a kick in the nuts to a group that's already laying on the floor.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Anthar Thebess
1443
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 14:00:17 -
[262] - Quote
Antiganking and ganking is role playing in eve. To do both you need to dedicate lot of time. I also gank, mostly tornado or vexor. If i sit for 8 hours on the gate waiting and scanning for target i don't expect for antiganking to be less time consuming.
Want to be good antiganker? Patrol gank areas 8 hours a day with friends. Battlecruisers are used for ganking freighters, pilots have kill rights or less than -5 sec status. Why you don't insta point them in a svipul or loki and then kill them? 5 guys can easily disrupt most of the ganks this way - just by fitting 2 points on each ship you remove 10 battlecruisers from the gank fleet. Don't want to pay isk to activate kill right? Even when this is sole purpose of this mechanic. Form alliance, and ask all freighter pilots to put kill rights to this alliance for 0 isk.
How many times i had 10mil kill right on my tornado, and for 2 days no one cared to claim it?
Effort, this is what you are missing in antiganking.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
53
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 14:04:28 -
[263] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Antiganking and ganking is role playing in eve. To do both you need to dedicate lot of time. I also gank, mostly tornado or vexor. If i sit for 8 hours on the gate waiting and scanning for target i don't expect for antiganking to be less time consuming.
Want to be good antiganker? Patrol gank areas 8 hours a day with friends. Battlecruisers are used for ganking freighters, pilots have kill rights or less than -5 sec status. Why you don't insta point them in a svipul or loki and then kill them? 5 guys can easily disrupt most of the ganks this way - just by fitting 2 points on each ship you remove 10 battlecruisers from the gank fleet. Don't want to pay isk to activate kill right? Even when this is sole purpose of this mechanic. Form alliance, and ask all freighter pilots to put kill rights to this alliance for 0 isk.
How many times i had 10mil kill right on my tornado, and for 2 days no one cared to claim it?
Effort, this is what you are missing in antiganking.
+1
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
53
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 14:05:42 -
[264] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:Hey guy, is this a post about CODE. and aanti-ganking? No it's a post about wreck hp buff... and that concerns everyone ingame. The ONLY people I saw hating on this buff is AG. That's because it's a direct nerf to one of the few things AGs could do to negatively affect gankers. If this were balanced out with improvements in other areas to make active anti-ganking more viable, it wouldn't be so bad a change. Without that though it's a kick in the nuts to a group that's already laying on the floor.
This buff is bigger than you, Anti-Ganking and CODE. Get over it
And like Tora would say, Adapt or Die
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7174
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 14:15:13 -
[265] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Antiganking and ganking is role playing in eve. To do both you need to dedicate lot of time. I also gank, mostly tornado or vexor. If i sit for 8 hours on the gate waiting and scanning for target i don't expect for antiganking to be less time consuming.
Want to be good antiganker? Patrol gank areas 8 hours a day with friends. Battlecruisers are used for ganking freighters, pilots have kill rights or less than -5 sec status. Why you don't insta point them in a svipul or loki and then kill them? 5 guys can easily disrupt most of the ganks this way - just by fitting 2 points on each ship you remove 10 battlecruisers from the gank fleet. Don't want to pay isk to activate kill right? Even when this is sole purpose of this mechanic. Form alliance, and ask all freighter pilots to put kill rights to this alliance for 0 isk.
How many times i had 10mil kill right on my tornado, and for 2 days no one cared to claim it?
Effort, this is what you are missing in antiganking. OK, so prove it. Because the way it looks at the moment, even though this is obvious advice, not a single anti-ganker has managed to pull this off. I fail to believe that lack of effort is the issue here (since that would suggest that noone that chooses to anti-gank is able to put in any effort, and anyone that can put in effort chooses not to anti-gank), and in my opinion it's that the mechanics to defend a target from gankers are incredibly weak and easily countered.
I think you are underestimating the complexity of the situation overstating the effects that would have on the gankers. During Burn Amarr we had a huge number of anti-gankers trying to point on the undock and on the gates to the target, and swarms of them around the target, and we didn't even make any special effort to defeat them, just added more disposable F1 monkeys to the fleet. Other than giving us something to do in local while we were waiting out our timers, they were laughable incapable of slowing us down regardless of the effort they put in.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7174
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 14:17:06 -
[266] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:This buff is bigger than you, Anti-Ganking and CODE. Get over it
And like Tora would say, Adapt or Die Tora would generally be pro-content too I imagine though, whereas you seem to be against the idea of having a viable opposing team to fight. Stop being such a carebear.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17314
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 14:23:37 -
[267] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: I think you are underestimating the complexity of the situation overstating the effects that would have on the gankers. During Burn Amarr we had a huge number of anti-gankers trying to point on the undock and on the gates to the target, and swarms of them around the target, and we didn't even make any special effort to defeat them, just added more disposable F1 monkeys to the fleet. Other than giving us something to do in local while we were waiting out our timers, they were laughable incapable of slowing us down regardless of the effort they put in.
Because they were unorganized, running poorly fitted ships, zero probers, not using any good tactics or even communicating with each other. We lost more to the police than anti gankers because of those reasons. They didn't even try to find the undock ping we were using.
AG doesn't win because its full of bad pilots who cant work together. Meanwhile you have RFF doing their own protection and raking in an utter fortune while being so safe they might as well be immune to attack.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
53
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 14:23:52 -
[268] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:This buff is bigger than you, Anti-Ganking and CODE. Get over it
And like Tora would say, Adapt or Die Tora would generally be pro-content too I imagine though, whereas you seem to be against the idea of having a viable opposing team to fight. Stop being such a carebear.
Lol says the Internet tearrorist
I know plenty of SMA that gank, I have ganked on my scout. Maybe it's time you tried it instead of making a fool of yourself on the forums... Htfu or gtfo
Seriously
Ty
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Anthar Thebess
1443
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 14:29:19 -
[269] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:OK, so prove it. Because the way it looks at the moment, even though this is obvious advice, not a single anti-ganker has managed to pull this off.
This is a problem, you need more than 1 person to do it. Try armor HIC that have insta lock, they scram at 32km range can mount 5 hic scrams. 3 people sitting at gate can capture up to 15 gank ships.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
53
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 14:33:25 -
[270] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:OK, so prove it. Because the way it looks at the moment, even though this is obvious advice, not a single anti-ganker has managed to pull this off. This is a problem, you need more than 1 person to do it. Try armor HIC that have insta lock, they scram at 32km range can mount 5 hic scrams. 3 people sitting at gate can capture up to 15 gank ships. HICs can only mount one bubble mod... (those that have infinite point with the script) Sorry
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7174
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 14:40:33 -
[271] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Because they were unorganized, running poorly fitted ships, zero probers, not using any good tactics or even communicating with each other. We lost more to the police than anti gankers because of those reasons. They didn't even try to find the undock ping we were using.
AG doesn't win because its full of bad pilots who cant work together. Meanwhile you have RFF doing their own protection and raking in an utter fortune while being so safe they might as well be immune to attack. So prove it. Demonstrate how easily you can be an anti-ganker if you put the effort in and I will gladly admit defeat.
Also RFF are haulers, not anti-gankers. Unless you are suggesting anti-gankers are given the ability to remotely control how other people's freighters are fit, loaded cargo and fly, it's still irrelevant. Plus if you wanted to drop an RFF freighter, you could. There's no such thing as immunity to ganking.
Dom Arkaral wrote:I know plenty of SMA that gank, I have ganked on my scout. Maybe it's time you tried it instead of making a fool of yourself on the forums... I do. Stop being terrible.
Anthar Thebess wrote:This is a problem, you need more than 1 person to do it. Try armor HIC that have insta lock, they scram at 32km range can mount 5 hic scrams. 3 people sitting at gate can capture up to 15 gank ships. I'm sure you do, yet I've seen fleets of anti-gankers still unable to do a damn thing to even slow down a gank. I think the phrase "easier said than done" comes into play here. But by all means demonstrate how you can consistently stop ganks with your instalocking hics.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
332
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 14:40:44 -
[272] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:OK, so save me the effort of doing it myself.
FTFY. |
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
53
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 14:44:55 -
[273] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:I know plenty of SMA that gank, I have ganked on my scout. Maybe it's time you tried it instead of making a fool of yourself on the forums... I do. Stop being terrible. Prove it
Lol bring it son, I'll be waiting for ya :)
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7174
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 14:52:23 -
[274] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:OK, so save me the effort of doing it myself. FTFY. He's the one making the wild claim that anti-ganking is easy. I've given it a try and seen that it's not as easy as it seems, and all the player failing at anti-ganking daily would seem to be further proof. If he wants me to take this claim seriously he needs to provide evidence of anti-gankers succeeding somewhat consistently under the current mechanics. He won't though because he can't.
Dom Arkaral wrote:Prove it
Lol bring it son, I'll be waiting for ya :) I'm sure there's some on this characters killboard somewhere. If not try my alt Argus Kell, he's definitely got some from Burn Jita. Can't remember which alts I used during Burn Amarr, none on my remaining active accounts I'm pretty sure.
Well that was easy.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
53
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 14:55:50 -
[275] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:OK, so save me the effort of doing it myself. FTFY. He's the one making the wild claim that anti-ganking is easy. I've given it a try and seen that it's not as easy as it seems, and all the player failing at anti-ganking daily would seem to be further proof. If he wants me to take this claim seriously he needs to provide evidence of anti-gankers succeeding somewhat consistently under the current mechanics. He won't though because he can't. Dom Arkaral wrote:Prove it
Lol bring it son, I'll be waiting for ya :) I'm sure there's some on this characters killboard somewhere. If not try my alt Argus Kell, he's definitely got some from Burn Jita. Can't remember which alts I used during Burn Amarr, none on my remaining active accounts I'm pretty sure. Well that was easy. Lol are those the only time you actually ganked? Did you ever solo gank anything or do a small freighter fleet?
If those are the only ganking events you did, you clearly have no clue about ganking lol
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Anthar Thebess
1443
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 15:01:09 -
[276] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:OK, so prove it. Because the way it looks at the moment, even though this is obvious advice, not a single anti-ganker has managed to pull this off. This is a problem, you need more than 1 person to do it. Try armor HIC that have insta lock, they scram at 32km range can mount 5 hic scrams. 3 people sitting at gate can capture up to 15 gank ships. HICs can only mount one bubble mod... (those that have infinite point with the script) Sorry ????? My broadsword have 5 scrams.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders
4296
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 15:02:48 -
[277] - Quote
Just had a look at zkill, most recent freighter kills, first page.
18 out of 22 were either not tanked or 'anti-tanked' (cargo expanders).
82% of freighter pilots don't even try to avoid getting ganked!
This discussion is just silly, it's like saying that mechanics should change because some fool dies repeatedly trying to 1v1 a svipul in a noobship.
Make space glamorous!
Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
53
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 15:07:00 -
[278] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:OK, so prove it. Because the way it looks at the moment, even though this is obvious advice, not a single anti-ganker has managed to pull this off. This is a problem, you need more than 1 person to do it. Try armor HIC that have insta lock, they scram at 32km range can mount 5 hic scrams. 3 people sitting at gate can capture up to 15 gank ships. HICs can only mount one bubble mod... (those that have infinite point with the script) Sorry ????? My broadsword have 5 scrams. Not the warp disruption field generators
And if you do, how do you shoot stuff? Lol
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Anthar Thebess
1443
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 15:09:33 -
[279] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:OK, so prove it. Because the way it looks at the moment, even though this is obvious advice, not a single anti-ganker has managed to pull this off. This is a problem, you need more than 1 person to do it. Try armor HIC that have insta lock, they scram at 32km range can mount 5 hic scrams. 3 people sitting at gate can capture up to 15 gank ships. HICs can only mount one bubble mod... (those that have infinite point with the script) Sorry ????? My broadsword have 5 scrams. Not the warp disruption field generators And if you do, how do you shoot stuff? Lol I don't shoot stuff, people do it for me, and in case of antigankers faction police. My job is to capture target, and keep him pin down.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7174
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 15:10:58 -
[280] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:Lol are those the only time you actually ganked? Did you ever solo gank anything or do a small freighter fleet?
If those are the only ganking events you did, you clearly have no clue about ganking lol I've done loads of different type, I just have 20 accounts, so trying to keep track of which character did what and when isn't the easiest of tasks. I've done most types though, solo a dualbox miner ganking, solo alpha ganking autopiloters, large and small group freighter ganking, I FCed a few back during one of the interdictions too.
That said, you're attempting to attack my knowledge of ganking for what reason exactly? Even if I'd never ganked a single ship, the incredible lack of successful anti-gankers speaks of itself.
Out of curiosity, would you really be against them making anti-ganking more viable? Like under all circumstances? What if they made ganking in general easier but gave people more tools to actively defend ships so that there was a much more active and dynamic fight?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
|
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders
4297
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 15:16:44 -
[281] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:What if they made ganking in general easier but gave people more tools to actively defend ships so that there was a much more active and dynamic fight? Highsec really isn't the place for active and dynamic fighting.
Crimewatch mechanics are there so PVErs can largely mind their own business in highsec with a greatly reduced chance of PVP.
CONCORD and the Police are there to hinder PVP, not to make it flourish.
Make space glamorous!
Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7174
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 15:18:58 -
[282] - Quote
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:Just had a look at zkill, most recent freighter kills, first page. 18 out of 22 were either not tanked or 'anti-tanked' (cargo expanders). 82% of freighter pilots don't even try to avoid getting ganked! This discussion is just silly, it's like saying that mechanics should change because some fool dies repeatedly trying to 1v1 a svipul in a noobship. Of course they were, because as well they should, gankers choose the softest valuable targets. Mechanics shouldn't change because freighters die, they should change because there's no real way for anti-gankers to succeed. It should be a battle between the two opposing sides, but currently that battle is massively in favour of the ganker, so much so that they ridicule the anti-gankers while they are doing the gank. In my mind, the ideal outcome would be that the same amount of freighters are ganked, but there are more gank attempts and more fighting between the two sides. Ganking should be cheaper in the instances where there's no effort to prevent the gank but more expensive when there is.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
53
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 15:28:11 -
[283] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:Lol are those the only time you actually ganked? Did you ever solo gank anything or do a small freighter fleet?
If those are the only ganking events you did, you clearly have no clue about ganking lol I've done loads of different type, I just have 20 accounts, so trying to keep track of which character did what and when isn't the easiest of tasks. I've done most types though, solo a dualbox miner ganking, solo alpha ganking autopiloters, large and small group freighter ganking, I FCed a few back during one of the interdictions too. That said, you're attempting to attack my knowledge of ganking for what reason exactly? Even if I'd never ganked a single ship, the incredible lack of successful anti-gankers speaks of itself. Out of curiosity, would you really be against them making anti-ganking more viable? Like under all circumstances? What if they made ganking in general easier but gave people more tools to actively defend ships so that there was a much more active and dynamic fight? It's up to anti-gankers to make themselves relevant. It's not CCP's job to nerf everything to make you guys relevant...
I'm all for dynamic content, but you have to understand that a bunch of lazy forum warriors won't get action until they decide to go get some.
People 4 years ago said that CODE. wouldn't last until the end of the year. Why did they succeed? They had people with one goal to rid highsec of bots. They worked hard to get where they are today, they adapted to every nerf CCP threw at them, that's why they're still standing. It's the Darwin Law, only the strong survive.
That being said, CODE. started small, but AG rushed straight to a point where failure was inevitable. So there's your inspiration for today.
So go make yourself some content
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7174
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 15:36:17 -
[284] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:It's up to anti-gankers to make themselves relevant. It's not CCP's job to nerf everything to make you guys relevant... Right, and in my opinion current mechanics make it impossible for anti-gankers to make themselves relevant. You also need to stop saying "you guys" since I don't anti-gank since I'm not a masochist. I, like most sane people, can see that there's no point in even attempting it in it's current state.
Dom Arkaral wrote:Why did they succeed? They had people with one goal to rid highsec of bots. This is demonstably false. CODE actually go after people who provide them with tears and tend to ignore the people that are more likely to actually be bots. In a way CODE actually support bots by removing their competition.
Dom Arkaral wrote:So go make yourself some content I do, by not anti-ganking. And that's a shame.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
53
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 15:44:13 -
[285] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:It's up to anti-gankers to make themselves relevant. It's not CCP's job to nerf everything to make you guys relevant... Right, and in my opinion current mechanics make it impossible for anti-gankers to make themselves relevant. You also need to stop saying "you guys" since I don't anti-gank since I'm not a masochist. I, like most sane people, can see that there's no point in even attempting it in it's current state. Dom Arkaral wrote:Why did they succeed? They had people with one goal to rid highsec of bots. This is demonstably false. CODE actually go after people who provide them with tears and tend to ignore the people that are more likely to actually be bots. In a way CODE actually support bots by removing their competition. Dom Arkaral wrote:So go make yourself some content I do, by not anti-ganking. And that's a shame. You're an anti-ganker otherwise you wouldn't be unleashing a sea of salty tears
And yes, at it's humble beginnings CODE. hunted bots. But they evolved, adapted to become what they now are
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7174
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 15:55:39 -
[286] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:You're an anti-ganker otherwise you wouldn't be unleashing a sea of salty tears Oh you're one of those people. Apologies I didn't realise. Not every opinion that opposes your own is "tears" and believe it or not it's actually possible for people to have opinions about mechanics they don't actively use.
Dom Arkaral wrote:And yes, at it's humble beginnings CODE. hunted bots. But they evolved, adapted to become what they now are No, at it's humble beginnings it was a guy rageposting because CCP buffed miners. Effectively it was proof that complaining on the forums can at least to some extent work, which is why it's always funny when CODE members tell people to HFTU and stop posting on the forum. All of the "but the bots" stuff was just propaganda to turn people against miners in general, while in reality actual botters have always been the targets you are least likely to hunt.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
53
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 16:07:30 -
[287] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:You're an anti-ganker otherwise you wouldn't be unleashing a sea of salty tears Oh you're one of those people. Apologies I didn't realise. Not every opinion that opposes your own is "tears" and believe it or not it's actually possible for people to have opinions about mechanics they don't actively use. Dom Arkaral wrote:And yes, at it's humble beginnings CODE. hunted bots. But they evolved, adapted to become what they now are No, at it's humble beginnings it was a guy rageposting because CCP buffed miners. Effectively it was proof that complaining on the forums can at least to some extent work, which is why it's always funny when CODE members tell people to HFTU and stop posting on the forum. All of the "but the bots" stuff was just propaganda to turn people against miners in general, while in reality actual botters have always been the targets you are least likely to hunt. Man, I really love the tears, keep sending them
Also, of course we don't find bots... they're all banned lmao And those that aren't are never too far from a ban :D
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7174
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 16:09:54 -
[288] - Quote
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
333
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 17:16:28 -
[289] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Right, and in my opinion current mechanics make it impossible for anti-gankers to make themselves relevant. You also need to stop saying "you guys" since I don't anti-gank since I'm not a masochist. I, like most sane people, can see that there's no point in even attempting it in it's current state.
The actual game mechanics give gankers every disadvantage. You're not looking for something to level the playing field, it's already tilted in your favour. You're looking for a win button, like killing a 500 HP wreck was, but only finding the whine button. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7174
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 17:35:32 -
[290] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:The actual game mechanics give gankers every disadvantage. You're not looking for something to level the playing field, it's already tilted in your favour. You're looking for a win button, like killing a 500 HP wreck was, but only finding the whine button. If a 500 HP wreck as an I win button, then how come wrecks were still looted most of the time?
And in no way is it tilted in the favour of anti-gankers. That's the obvious truth, which you have already made clear you are unwilling (but in reality unable) to disprove. Why don;t you just be honest. You like one sided mechanics, the lack of risk and the abundant reward, and the thought of actually having to compete with other players terrifies you. That's why you're opposed to even the suggestion of balancing the mechanics.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17316
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 17:35:37 -
[291] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:So prove it. Demonstrate how easily you can be an anti-ganker if you put the effort in and I will gladly admit defeat.
I have, RFF have shown they can reduce ganking losses down to as close to zero as you can get (less than 0.11% chance of losing to gankers).
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
335
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 17:45:26 -
[292] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:If a 500 HP wreck as an I win button, then how come wrecks were still looted most of the time?
Because only a few AG were even willing to take the small loss of a thrasher and a little sec, even on an alt, and the ones who did it were still terrible at identifying the warpin and didn't do anything obvious like get a spy into a public fleet. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7174
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 17:47:02 -
[293] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:So prove it. Demonstrate how easily you can be an anti-ganker if you put the effort in and I will gladly admit defeat. I have, RFF have shown they can reduce ganking losses down to as close to zero as you can get (less than 0.11% chance of losing to gankers). Except all that shows, once again, is that RFF can successfully be haulers, not anti-gankers. It demonstrates that by being less likely to be chosen as a target they can survive due to the sheer number of targets flying around and the relatively low number of gankers. Should they ever be the only targets flying around, their losses would increase due to the simple fact that it's impossible to be ungankable.
How many times are you going to present those same figures? They are irrelevant figures which only prove that you are unwilling to have a reasonable dicsussion.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7174
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 17:49:57 -
[294] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Because only a few AG were even willing to take the small loss of a thrasher and a little sec, even on an alt, and the ones who did it were still terrible at identifying the warpin and didn't do anything obvious like get a spy into a public fleet. Bull. I've seen people try and fail while on grid. Sometimes the looter is just faster, especially if the AG has a higher latency.
Oh wait, yeah, it's because they aren't an awesome skilled pilot like you, right? By all means demonstrate how it's done.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
336
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 17:53:17 -
[295] - Quote
Okay you asked for it, HERE is why AG is useless: you actively drive off competent players. The few who have any inclination of helping your insane agenda or making you better players either leave because you're such a toxic and negative community or get banned from your channel and blocked by half of you because they have actual experience with highsec content creation. AG is a bunch of angry miners and ratters who don't want to learn anything about pvp, especially highsec pvp, and feel that CCP should just hand everything to them on a plate. |
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
54
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 17:54:32 -
[296] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Okay you asked for it, HERE is why AG is useless: you actively drive off competent players. The few who have any inclination of helping your insane agenda or making you better players either leave because you're such a toxic and negative community or get banned from your channel and blocked by half of you because they have actual experience with highsec content creation. AG is a bunch of angry miners and ratters who don't want to learn anything about pvp, especially highsec pvp, and feel that CCP should just hand everything to them on a plate. AMEN
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17317
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 18:00:27 -
[297] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:
How many times are you going to present those same figures?
Every time you spout bullshit that there is nothing you can do to stop gankers. Here we have the largest freight organisation in EVE, they have stats that show they can reduce the risk of losing cargo to gankers to near zero. The problem you have starts and ends with AG and AG alone.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Aerich e'Kieron
Peace.Keepers
92
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 19:45:53 -
[298] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Hehe, wreck popping was one of the few effective ways of interrupting work of large freighter ganker groups in hisec (primarily goons and thier code alts), so it is nice to see that CSM is working for the null block interests as per usual.
Now, I have nothing against this proposal but there is a major caveat - if you're gonna do this please fix the ability to loot other people's cargo while avoiding getting suspect flagged for it.
What I'm referring to is the fact that one can get next to a yellow wreck with a ship with fleet hanger (e.g. Deep space transport or an Orca) and a character in a noob ship, use the character in the noob ship to transfer cargo to DST and only the noob ship guy will get suspect flagged while DST will merrily warp away with stolen goods.
Please fix this so that Fleet hanger ship can't receive such (illegal) loot or can do it but gets flagged in the process (obviously, make it so that it is not prone to abuse). Do that, and I don't think many will care about EHP of the wrecks.
Might be kind of cool is stolen loot was flagged as such, kind of like illegal drugs Perhaps make stolen loot difficult or impossible to sell on the highsec market, maybe the same customs officer scanning of ships with illegal content etc etc
I haven't thought this through at all btw, just popped into my head so I'm spending 45 seconds to blurt it out
(has a ~ 9.9~ sec status and wants to fit his ships completely with "stolen" goods) |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7175
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 19:50:10 -
[299] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Okay you asked for it, HERE is why AG is useless: you actively drive off competent players. The few who have any inclination of helping your insane agenda or making you better players either leave because you're such a toxic and negative community or get banned from your channel and blocked by half of you because they have actual experience with highsec content creation. AG is a bunch of angry miners and ratters who don't want to learn anything about pvp, especially highsec pvp, and feel that CCP should just hand everything to them on a plate. I've met plenty of reasonable, well spoken and competent AGs. I supposed when you're a code member and you leap into their channel going "You guys suck!" and "oh the tears! lololololol" you don't get the best reception. Again though, I welcome you to prove it, by demonstrating how well you can AG if you do it right.
baltec1 wrote:Every time you spout bullshit that there is nothing you can do to stop gankers. Here we have the largest freight organisation in EVE, they have stats that show they can reduce the risk of losing cargo to gankers to near zero. The problem you have starts and ends with AG and AG alone. I didn't say there's nothing you can do to stop gankers, I said that the mechanics for players who are not the actual hauler to fight back against a gank in progress (so anti-gankers) are weak enough to pretty much guarantee their loss.
And once again, Red Frog make themselves less likely to be chosen as targets, which any hauler can do, but since there is no way to make yourself ungankable, they are only able to get their loss rates so low because of other freighter dying. Should they be the only targets available, they would lose significantly more ships. Again though that's irrelevant because thy are haulers, not anti-gankers.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
338
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 19:52:44 -
[300] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I've met plenty of reasonable, well spoken and competent AGs. I supposed when you're a code member and you leap into their channel going "You guys suck!" and "oh the tears! lololololol" you don't get the best reception.
Or y'know when you just try to answer questions, correct misunderstandings, teach mechanics relevant to the discussion or suggest tactics.
Quote:Again though, I welcome you to prove it, by demonstrating how well you can AG if you do it right.
Not my war, my war's against carebears. |
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
55
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 20:03:26 -
[301] - Quote
Lol last time I went to AG chan: "Me: hi You plebs: OMG HE HAS A MINING PERMIT. HE'S A SPY KICK HIM FOREVER
So that supports the fact you'll kick anyone even if they're only permit holders (which doesn't mean shiz really)
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7175
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 20:25:09 -
[302] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Or y'know when you just try to answer questions, correct misunderstandings, teach mechanics relevant to the discussion or suggest tactics. Purely based on your responses in this thread, I very much doubt you were as reasonable as you say.
Masao Kurata wrote:Not my war, my war's against carebears. Sound's perfect, it's pretty obvious that's what gankers are.
Dom Arkaral wrote:Lol last time I went to AG chan: "Me: hi You plebs: OMG HE HAS A MINING PERMIT. HE'S A SPY KICK HIM FOREVER
So that supports the fact you'll kick anyone even if they're only permit holders (which doesn't mean shiz really) Well actually it means a fair bit. Not to mention that they have code members coming in to troll quite frequently, it's no surprise they have zero tolerance for code members showing up.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
339
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 20:30:30 -
[303] - Quote
Hmm, think I'm about done trying to reason with the troll. Fortunately it won't matter when this thread is locked because it was a fait accompli as of the first post. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17318
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 20:47:54 -
[304] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Hmm, think I'm about done trying to reason with the troll. Fortunately it won't matter when this thread is locked because it was a fait accompli as of the first post.
Change has gone through anyway.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red
55
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 21:03:30 -
[305] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Or y'know when you just try to answer questions, correct misunderstandings, teach mechanics relevant to the discussion or suggest tactics. Purely based on your responses in this thread, I very much doubt you were as reasonable as you say. Masao Kurata wrote:Not my war, my war's against carebears. Sound's perfect, it's pretty obvious that's what gankers are. Dom Arkaral wrote:Lol last time I went to AG chan: "Me: hi You plebs: OMG HE HAS A MINING PERMIT. HE'S A SPY KICK HIM FOREVER
So that supports the fact you'll kick anyone even if they're only permit holders (which doesn't mean shiz really) Well actually it means a fair bit. Not to mention that they have code members coming in to troll quite frequently, it's no surprise they have zero tolerance for code members showing up. Permit holder =/= CODE. Member or New Order supporter... Some folks just get it to get some peace
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Berry Nice
NO TAXES FOR EVER
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:26:00 -
[306] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Sound's perfect, it's pretty obvious that's what gankers are.
You seem to logically side with the gankers on this topic though, against your criticism of gankers. You say that "Changes should be made not because of how things are, but of how things would be." In fact, there is no counter to wreck shooting, and it was obviously broken and uncounterable, and was changed because it was so unfair and one sided. However, ganking is easily stoppable with a single person, let alone 5-6 people.
If there was as concerted an effort towards anti-ganking as there was towards ganking itself, the winner 100 times out of 100 would be anti-gankers as they have to do so much less than gankers themselves.
Being the good guy isn't profitable, nor should it be. Stopping things from happening isn't what eve was meant to be, and that is why so many fewer people anti-gank than gank.
If you watch anti-gankers, they don't fail because they're unable to succeed, it's because they're terrible players.
They don't understand game mechanics, they don't know how they can help, and they get discouraged by the inept and stupid leadership that drives them away.
There are three things as an anti-ganker you can do, and each one of them fundamentally hurts a gank fleet substantially to the point of failure. (And yet I never see any of this things actually attempted) |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7194
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 11:54:02 -
[307] - Quote
Berry Nice wrote:In fact, there is no counter to wreck shooting, and it was obviously broken and uncounterable, and was changed because it was so unfair and one sided. Loot the wreck. it's a pretty good counter than seems to be working for most people.
Berry Nice wrote:However, ganking is easily stoppable with a single person, let alone 5-6 people. It's not though, is it. Let's see you stop a whole bunch of ganks "easily" on your own. Even with a massive pile of anti-gankers, usually it just means a few more bodies or a second run are needed.
Berry Nice wrote:If there was as concerted an effort towards anti-ganking as there was towards ganking itself, the winner 100 times out of 100 would be anti-gankers as they have to do so much less than gankers themselves. Prove it. Make the effort and prove that anti-ganking is as easy and consistent as you say, show me the balanced rewards, and I'll happily admit defeat. The reaslity is that anti-gankers aren't as organised because the players skilled enough to organise it know well enough that it's too badly balanced to be worthwhile.
Berry Nice wrote:Being the good guy isn't profitable, nor should it be. Stopping things from happening isn't what eve was meant to be, and that is why so many fewer people anti-gank than gank. It's a game. Good guy or bad guy, you should be rewarded for your effort and risk.
Berry Nice wrote:If you watch anti-gankers, they don't fail because they're unable to succeed, it's because they're terrible players.
They don't understand game mechanics, they don't know how they can help, and they get discouraged by the inept and stupid leadership that drives them away.
There are three things as an anti-ganker you can do, and each one of them fundamentally hurts a gank fleet substantially to the point of failure. (And yet I never see any of this things actually attempted) Once again, prove it. I see the the exact opposite way,that they are terrible players because they are unable to succeed. You seem to think it's super easy, so it shouldn't be too hard for you to prove it.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red Complaints Department
59
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 12:29:12 -
[308] - Quote
Lucas Kell The change went through, get over it or gtfo
There's nothing left to talk about here CCPlease lock this tearnought
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7197
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 13:22:37 -
[309] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:Lucas Kell The change went through, get over it or gtfo
There's nothing left to talk about here CCPlease lock this tearnought There clearly is something for people to talk about hence the continued discussion (and the counter being planned by CCP). If you don't want to be part of it, then don't. Threads don't have to be locked just because you don't want to post in or read them.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red Complaints Department
59
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 13:55:53 -
[310] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:Lucas Kell The change went through, get over it or gtfo
There's nothing left to talk about here CCPlease lock this tearnought There clearly is something for people to talk about hence the continued discussion (and the counter being planned by CCP). If you don't want to be part of it, then don't. Threads don't have to be locked just because you don't want to post in or read them.
This thread isn't about the change since page 5, it's now about anti-ganking and you telling people to prove you wrong.......
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7197
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 15:02:46 -
[311] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:This thread isn't about the change since page 5, it's now about anti-ganking The change directly affects anti-ganking so it follows. Again though, if it offends you so to read it, don't.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red Complaints Department
59
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 15:08:02 -
[312] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:This thread isn't about the change since page 5, it's now about anti-ganking The change directly affects anti-ganking so it follows. Again though, if it offends you so to read it, don't. Anti-Ganking = saving the freighter AG =/= killing that freighter's possessions
Lol
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7197
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 16:01:57 -
[313] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:Anti-Ganking = saving the freighter AG =/= killing that freighter's possessions True enough. That means there are zero mechanics AGs can you to stand a reasonable chance of affecting gankers with a modicum of consistency. That's why as a last resort they volley the wreck.
Also, following your logic, ganking =/= looting a wreck, therefore prior to this change it took:
1+ players to loot vs. 1+ players to volley the wreck however now it takes 1+ players to loot vs. 2+ players to volley the wreck
Imbalance.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red Complaints Department
59
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 16:04:52 -
[314] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:Anti-Ganking = saving the freighter AG =/= killing that freighter's possessions True enough. That means there are zero mechanics AGs can you to stand a reasonable chance of affecting gankers with a modicum of consistency. That's why as a last resort they volley the wreck. Also, following your logic, ganking =/= looting a wreck, therefore prior to this change it took: 1+ players to loot vs. 1+ players to volley the wreck however now it takes 1+ players to loot vs. 2+ players to volley the wreck Imbalance. Tell me, how many people did it take to get said loot?
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7197
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 16:30:02 -
[315] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:Tell me, how many people did it take to get said loot? Aka kill the ship LOL, so the way you are playing this is that if AGs show up and shoot at the gankers but the ship dies anyway, then they volley the loot off the field as a last resort, those are two separate actions, but if gankers gank a ship then one of the gankers ships who wasn't shooting the target goes and loots the loot, that is all part of the same action.
That's probably the best example of double standards I've seen in a long while. Either dealing with the loot is part of both playstyles, or neither.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red Complaints Department
59
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 16:35:57 -
[316] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:Tell me, how many people did it take to get said loot? Aka kill the ship LOL, so the way you are playing this is that if AGs show up and shoot at the gankers but the ship dies anyway, then they volley the loot off the field as a last resort, those are two separate actions, but if gankers gank a ship then one of the gankers ships who wasn't shooting the target goes and loots the loot, that is all part of the same action. That's probably the best example of double standards I've seen in a long while. Either dealing with the loot is part of both playstyles, or neither. Drop the ball son, it's all ogre
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7197
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 16:47:45 -
[317] - Quote
I accept your admission of defeat.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red Complaints Department
59
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 17:04:40 -
[318] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I accept your admission of defeat. LOL
prove it
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
366
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 17:04:49 -
[319] - Quote
I have been seriously considering giving you exact instructions to stop over 90% of freighter ganks. It is not very hard and demonstrates that you are just a bunch of miners and ratters with no ingenuity whatsoever.
But CCP is doing it for you and you would never show any humility anyway. No matter how much you would owe your new success to a ganker, you would never admit it, there would just be more gloating and I really hate skillless, clueless plebs gloating. So go back to your actual superpower: whining to CCP until they kill highsec pvp. Then you can enjoy your safe zone for a few months, get bored and quit EVE. Then as the ecosystem goes to hell with predation removed and more players quit, you can gloat about how you helped kill EVE. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7197
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 17:17:14 -
[320] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:I have been seriously considering giving you exact instructions to stop over 90% of freighter ganks. It is not very hard and demonstrates that you are just a bunch of miners and ratters with no ingenuity whatsoever. Sure you are. I'm also sure that if you did, it would fall into the category "easier said than done" where you have a proposal that sounds great on paper but is nearly impossible to pull off with any effect in reality.
Masao Kurata wrote:But CCP is doing it for you and you would never show any humility anyway. No matter how much you would owe your new success to a ganker, you would never admit it, there would just be more gloating and I really hate skillless, clueless plebs gloating. Why would I need to show humility? I'm not an AG. I gank vastly more than I AG.
Masao Kurata wrote:So go back to your actual superpower: whining to CCP until they kill highsec pvp. Then you can enjoy your safe zone for a few months, get bored and quit EVE. Then as the ecosystem goes to hell with predation removed and more players quit, you can gloat about how you helped kill EVE. I don't want to rid highsec of PvP, you're just having an over the top knee-jerk reaction to the proposal for a discussion on balance. If anything I and pushing for more PvP as I want improved active mechanics for AGs to fight off gankers and better rewards to encourage them to do so. But I can assure you that if ganking were killed off I would still not get bored and quit. The forums would be slightly cleaner, and I wouldn't have to listen to so many people saying "OH THE TEARS!" every time someone said anything in local, but no, I would certainly nto get bored and quit. Mainly because I rarely undock a ship in highsec that isn't blinky red anyway.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
368
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 17:47:49 -
[321] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:I have been seriously considering giving you exact instructions to stop over 90% of freighter ganks. It is not very hard and demonstrates that you are just a bunch of miners and ratters with no ingenuity whatsoever. Sure you are. I'm also sure that if you did, it would fall into the category "easier said than done" where you have a proposal that sounds great on paper but is nearly impossible to pull off with any effect in reality.
Not at all. That said, you would have to exhibit some minimal effort in flying spaceships, less than ganking requires though. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7198
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 18:49:16 -
[322] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Not at all. That said, you would have to exhibit some minimal effort in flying spaceships, less than ganking requires though. Indeed, and you will keep saying that and keep saying "oh but I'm not going to tell AGs how, but if they knew, they'd be able to do it easily" and this will continue until the end of time because the reality is that you'd state something that everyone including the AGs already know but simply isn't feasible. It's quite simple mate, if you want to prove that playing as an AG is easy, go right ahead, if not then it's plainly obvious it's because you can't. Without that, being that I have experience in both ganking and anti-ganking, I'll stick with my original opinion that it's massively unbalanced in favour of ganking, which is further supported by the number of players willing to participate in each.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
368
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 18:53:15 -
[323] - Quote
Of course it's feasible, but even if I wasn't quitting EVE I wouldn't do it myself. Killing carebears is the one true cause in this game. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7198
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 18:55:36 -
[324] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Of course it's feasible, but even if I wasn't quitting EVE I wouldn't do it myself. Killing carebears is the one true cause in this game. Exactly, and since gankers quite clearly are carebears, you should have no problem becoming an AG.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red Complaints Department
59
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 19:12:14 -
[325] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Of course it's feasible, but even if I wasn't quitting EVE I wouldn't do it myself. Killing carebears is the one true cause in this game. Exactly, and since gankers quite clearly are carebears, you should have no problem becoming an AG. Ed: I love by the way how you're literally going to ragequit because they are adding a bit of EHP to freighters, and you have the nerve to claim that AGs failing is down to effort. (and by "literally" I of course mean "not" since nobody quits EVE, they just threaten to when they have a tantrum).
Let it go
I think you're not talking about the wreck hp buff anymore Lucas Don't make ISD lock this one too
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7198
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 19:32:27 -
[326] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:Let it go
I think you're not talking about the wreck hp buff anymore Lucas Of course I am, I'm talking about how the wreck HP buff negatively affects a style of play. It's nothing to do with me if gankers want to keep running in slinging insults around, making claims they refuse to prove and derailing the conversation.
And once again, you are choosing to be a part of the thread. Stop trying to further derail it just because you don't like it being open.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red Complaints Department
59
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 19:36:06 -
[327] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:Let it go
I think you're not talking about the wreck hp buff anymore Lucas Of course I am, I'm talking about how the wreck HP buff negatively affects a style of play. It's nothing to do with me if gankers want to keep running in slinging insults around, making claims they refuse to prove and derailing the conversation. And once again, you are choosing to be a part of the thread. Stop trying to further derail it just because you don't like it being open. You can't prove the gankers false either You keep sending the ball when you lack an answer
We have stats that you turn away like a true antiganker.
I'm done here, Praise James o7
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Globby
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
318
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 17:24:52 -
[328] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:Let it go
I think you're not talking about the wreck hp buff anymore Lucas Of course I am, I'm talking about how the wreck HP buff negatively affects a style of play. It's nothing to do with me if gankers want to keep running in slinging insults around, making claims they refuse to prove and derailing the conversation. And once again, you are choosing to be a part of the thread. Stop trying to further derail it just because you don't like it being open.
I'll post a couple undeniable facts for you:
Wreck shooting was an incredibly low barrier to entry (15 minute alt) method that had absolutely no counterplay unless the pilot made a very stupid and hard to make mistake. It was a method that consistently allowed a 2 million isk thrasher to deny hundreds of billions of loot that 15-40 people worked together to achieve. It was a punishment that could have completely broke the freighter ganking game.
Wreck shooting was absolutely in need of a nerf, and it was nerfed because it makes no sense to have one guy be able to thwart the efforts of 20 guys.
@Lucas Kell I'm not going to speak up to how antigankers could still (very much so) cost effectively wreck shoot and deny hundreds of billions of loot. It just costs a reasonable amount to do and requires you to bring more than one guy (more like 2). It is still disproportionately more cost effective than ganking though for (loot destroyed)/(ship cost). (I'm not in the business of helping my competition.) |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7203
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 18:03:52 -
[329] - Quote
Globby wrote:I'll post a couple undeniable facts for you: Thanks, although your definition of undeniable is different from most people's.
Globby wrote:Wreck shooting was an incredibly low barrier to entry (15 minute alt) method that had absolutely no counterplay unless the pilot made a very stupid and hard to make mistake. It was a method that consistently allowed a 2 million isk thrasher to deny hundreds of billions of loot that 15-40 people worked together to achieve. It was a punishment that could have completely broke the freighter ganking game. And a wreck looter could counter this by simply looting the wreck faster than the guy shooting it. It was the EVE equivalent of a quick draw. You're making out like you lost all of your loot to a bunch of 15 minute thrasher alts, which you and I both know is complete rubbish. Following the change two people now need to coordinate a strike and both land the hit before the one person can loot it. That is a considerably harder task.
Globby wrote:Wreck shooting was absolutely in need of a nerf, and it was nerfed because it makes no sense to have one guy be able to thwart the efforts of 20 guys. They never could thwart the efforts of 20 guys. The gankers aren't looters, they are combat pilots. To thwart them, the one player would have to be able to stop the gank, which they can't. No, the one thrasher pilot could thwart the efforts of the one looter, that was all.
Globby wrote:@Lucas Kell I'm not going to speak up to how antigankers could still (very much so) cost effectively wreck shoot and deny hundreds of billions of loot. It just costs a reasonable amount to do and requires you to bring more than one guy (more like 2). It is still disproportionately more cost effective than ganking though for (loot destroyed)/(ship cost). (I'm not in the business of helping my competition.) It's quite ironic you talking about the value of the loot in the wreck like it should be a factor, when you spend so much time telling gank victims that they shouldn't expect to live just because their ship is valuable. This is exactly the same thing. You're saying "my loot is valuable, therefore it should cost you a lot to destroy". Ridiculous.
Clearly deniable.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Globby
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
319
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 18:52:41 -
[330] - Quote
Your naivety is showing.
*Loot mechanics do not allow you to loot a wreck for a tick or two after it spawns. It is impossible to beat a insta-lock thrasher to the punch. It is 100% game mechanically impossible if the wreck shooter is competent. The wreck isn't 'openable' for one to two seconds, but is completely shootable. There is no quickdraw, it's dependant on whether or not the wreckshooter is competent.
I guess you have a point, with respects to them not stopping the gank, but there was absolutely no way to stop them from shooting the wreck. I've laid out the 100% sure fire way to shoot a wreck without any counter play many times.
I'm not saying it should cost a lot to destroy, I'm just saying that there is a balance to what a 15 minute alt in a 2 million isk thrasher should be able to do (ie not destroy/deny hundreds of billions in isk over 4 months.)
1) Wreck shooting was an incredibly low barrier to entry (15 minute alt) method that had absolutely no counterplay unless the pilot made a very stupid and hard to make mistake. (see * for details)
2) It was a method that consistently allowed a 2 million isk thrasher on an alt to deny hundreds of billions of loot that 15-40 people worked together to achieve.
3) It was a punishment that could have completely broke the freighter ganking game.
Please point me to which of the three numbers above are incorrect.
Lucas Kell wrote:It's quite ironic you talking about the value of the loot in the wreck like it should be a factor, when you spend so much time telling gank victims that they shouldn't expect to live just because their ship is valuable.
I don't say that, in fact I say the opposite, don't fly a capital ship without support. If 20+ guys want you dead and you're alone, the game shouldn't continue to make it harder for an actual organization to capitalize on a single guy's stupidity. (ESPECIALLY WHEN DSTS AND JUMP FREIGHTERS ARE NEARLY 100% SECURE HAULING TENS OF BILLIONS LOL)
lucas kell wrote: You're saying "my loot is valuable, therefore it should cost you a lot to destroy". Ridiculous.
It's actually not what I said, but yeah keep distorting the argument. You fail to realize wreck shooting is still completely viable, it just is a little harder to do now that it can't be done by a 15 minute alt in a 2 million isk thrasher. |
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7203
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 19:20:35 -
[331] - Quote
Globby wrote:*Loot mechanics do not allow you to loot a wreck for a tick or two after it spawns. It is impossible to beat a insta-lock thrasher to the punch. It is 100% game mechanically impossible if the wreck shooter is competent. The wreck isn't 'openable' for one to two seconds, but is completely shootable. There is no quickdraw, it's dependant on whether or not the wreckshooter is competent. And yet, still gankers managed to obtain the vast majority of their loot. Funny that.
Globby wrote:I guess you have a point, with respects to them not stopping the gank, but there was absolutely no way to stop them from shooting the wreck. I've laid out the 100% sure fire way to shoot a wreck without any counter play many times. What do you mean there's no way to stop them? You could gank them, surely? I mean seeing a thrasher on grid with your target should give you a good idea of what happens next. You opting to perform a gank while there is an obvious wreck popper about is about the equivalent level of competency of a freighter fitting for cargo, filling up and hitting autopilot.
Globby wrote:I'm not saying it should cost a lot to destroy, I'm just saying that there is a balance to what a 15 minute alt in a 2 million isk thrasher should be able to do (ie not destroy/deny hundreds of billions in isk over 4 months.) Yes you are, that's exactly what you are saying. You quite clearly said that when you complained " It was a method that consistently allowed a 2 million isk thrasher to deny hundreds of billions of loot". You use the argument that the value of the target is irrelevant to the level of isk and effort used to destroy it, and I'm simply reiterating that.
Globby wrote:1) Wreck shooting was an incredibly low barrier to entry (15 minute alt) method that had absolutely no counterplay unless the pilot made a very stupid and hard to make mistake. (see * for details)
2) It was a method that consistently allowed a 2 million isk thrasher on an alt to deny hundreds of billions of loot that 15-40 people worked together to achieve.
3) It was a punishment that could have completely broke the freighter ganking game.
Please point me to which of the three numbers above are incorrect. All three. 1 because it can be countered in multiple ways with ease, 2 because the value of the loot is irrelevant and the wreck shooter didn't change what the 15-40 people worked to achieve, they destroyed what one looter tried to achieve, and 3 because it's been around for ages and hasn't shown signs of even remotely weakening ganking let alone breaking it.
Globby wrote:I don't say that, in fact I say the opposite, don't fly a capital ship without support. If 20+ guys want you dead and you're alone, the game shouldn't continue to make it harder for an actual organization to capitalize on a single guy's stupidity. (ESPECIALLY WHEN DSTS AND JUMP FREIGHTERS ARE NEARLY 100% SECURE HAULING TENS OF BILLIONS LOL)
It's actually not what I said, but yeah keep distorting the argument. You fail to realize wreck shooting is still completely viable, it just is a little harder to do now that it can't be done by a 15 minute alt in a 2 million isk thrasher. It's exactly what you said, and you are repeating that here, otherwise the value of the thrasher would not be mentioned.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Globby
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
320
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 19:45:08 -
[332] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:And yet, still gankers managed to obtain the vast majority of their loot. Funny that. How is this relevant? Do you have any evidence? Why even post something so incorrect and refutable?
Lucas Cuck wrote:What do you mean there's no way to stop them? You could gank them, surely? I mean seeing a thrasher on grid with your target should give you a good idea of what happens next. You opting to perform a gank while there is an obvious wreck popper about is about the equivalent level of competency of a freighter fitting for cargo, filling up and hitting autopilot.
This isn't how it works, and I'll write it out once again, how impossible it is to counter.
The thrasher sits at a ping, or bounces pings until the gankers land on target. This means he isn't killable if he is remotely competent up until the gank starts to happen. As soon as the gank starts to happen, he warps down to the target and holds his session time invulnerability (10 seconds.) Either the freighter dies and he locks and shoots the wreck before anyone else can kill him, or the gankers fail and there was no point for a wreck shooter anyway.
Lucas Kell wrote:You use the argument that the value of the target is irrelevant to the level of isk and effort used to destroy it, and I'm simply reiterating that.
Killing a target with a bunch of loot in it isn't irresponsible, hauling with 20 bil through a known dangerous system is. There is a huuuuge difference between these two attitudes.
Lucas Kell wrote:All three. 1 because it can be countered in multiple ways with ease, 2 because the value of the loot is irrelevant and the wreck shooter didn't change what the 15-40 people worked to achieve, they destroyed what one looter tried to achieve, and 3 because it's been around for ages and hasn't shown signs of even remotely weakening ganking let alone breaking it. 1) it can't, read above. give an example (hint: probers don't work, shooting it before it shoots the wreck after landing is impossible due to session timer and tick rates, smartbombs are inviable because you'd have to cover every single entrance angle and it would take like 40 dudes in battleships to MAYBE to it) 2)The gankers all work together to destroy and loot freighters. Looting freighters is important to continue ganking, otherwise you go bankrupt. They killed it to loot it, and if you couldn't loot any freighters there would be almost no suicide ganking. 3) Sure it's been around since forever, but it only recently started happening (6 months or so) But it has indeed, destroyed hundreds of billions. There were only two people regularly doing it, imagine if there were 5 or 6.
lk wrote:It's exactly what you said, and you are repeating that here, otherwise the value of the thrasher would not be mentioned. The point to my argument is that a single 15 minute alt in a 2 million isk thrasher can do something that is 100% uncounterable (read above, don't debate this point without providing evidence like the last two times) and deny hundreds of billions of loot, and if there were enough of them ganking would die. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7205
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 20:58:46 -
[333] - Quote
Globby wrote:How is this relevant? Do you have any evidence? Why even post something so incorrect and refutable? Pretty much down to anecdotal evidence and first hand knowledge. Doesn't to stop you making wild claims that anti-ganking is easy, and that no competent player has ever attempted it. The thing is , miniluv are very proud of their self sufficiency and talk about their paying out 20 plex a month to top pilots or whatever it is, same with most gankers claiming they are making plenty of isk, until of course someone that;s not a ganker makes such a claim, then you're all suddenly poor.
Globby wrote:This isn't how it works, and I'll write it out once again, how impossible it is to counter.
The thrasher sits at a ping, or bounces pings until the gankers land on target. This means he isn't killable if he is remotely competent up until the gank starts to happen. As soon as the gank starts to happen, he warps down to the target and holds his session time invulnerability (10 seconds.) Either the freighter dies and he locks and shoots the wreck before anyone else can kill him, or the gankers fail and there was no point for a wreck shooter anyway. And yet, when watching this very thing occur, I've seen the thrasher get popped on many occasions, and I've seen the loot taken on many occasions. In fact the thing I see the least of is the wreck popping. Oh I supposed once again that comes down to your unsubstantiated claim that every AG is completely incompetent. Also, warping doesn't give you a session timer. Oh, and since you suggest to anti-gankers to kill the gankers while they bounce safes, you can hardly use that one as an excuse either.
The reality is this is much like the complaining about gate campers. It's a race to the button, and sometimes you lose. Well, it was a race to the button, now it's 2 people's coordination vs one person looting a wreck. You got your change to make wrecks almost immune to interference, now prepare for he nerfs to balance it.
Globby wrote:Killing a target with a bunch of loot in it isn't irresponsible, hauling with 20 bil through a known dangerous system is. There is a huuuuge difference between these two attitudes. No but killiing that target with a bunch of AGs trying to volley your loot is. It's called risk mate, and it exists in almost all of the mechanics.
Globby wrote:1) it can't, read above. give an example (hint: probers don't work, shooting it before it shoots the wreck after landing is impossible due to session timer and tick rates, smartbombs are inviable because you'd have to cover every single entrance angle and it would take like 40 dudes in battleships to MAYBE to it) 2)The gankers all work together to destroy and loot freighters. Looting freighters is important to continue ganking, otherwise you go bankrupt. They killed it to loot it, and if you couldn't loot any freighters there would be almost no suicide ganking. 3) Sure it's been around since forever, but it only recently started happening (6 months or so) But it has indeed, destroyed hundreds of billions. There were only two people regularly doing it, imagine if there were 5 or 6. 1. It can 2. The gankers gank and one person cannot stop that. One person loots and one person can (or could) stop that. People have always been able to do it and gankers still managed to loot a huge number of freighters, so obviously there wouldn't be almost no suicide ganking. What this is almost none of is anti-gankers since it' insanely difficult and completely unrewarding. 3. I'm sure it has destroyed a tiny fraction of the amount looted..
Globby wrote:The point to my argument is that a single 15 minute alt in a 2 million isk thrasher can do something that is 100% uncounterable (read above, don't debate this point without providing evidence like the last two times) and deny hundreds of billions of loot, and if there were enough of them ganking would die. Except it's not. The point to your argument is that you want easy risk-free isk and you get upset at the thought of not getting that. You're a carebear, plain and simple. EVE is not supposed to be easy, get used to it.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Globby
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
320
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 21:44:56 -
[334] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Pretty much down to anecdotal evidence and first hand knowledge. Doesn't to stop you making wild claims that anti-ganking is easy, and that no competent player has ever attempted it. The thing is , miniluv are very proud of their self sufficiency and talk about their paying out 20 plex a month to top pilots or whatever it is, same with most gankers claiming they are making plenty of isk, until of course someone that;s not a ganker makes such a claim, then you're all suddenly poor.
Totally irrelevant to the point at hand, but yeah keep claiming i say things I don't say at all, or claim I say things that other people have said.
lucas dumb wrote:Also, warping doesn't give you a session timer. Oh, and since you suggest to anti-gankers to kill the gankers while they bounce safes, you can hardly use that one as an excuse either.
1) You again, ignore the crux of the issue and voice your anecdotal evidence as a contrary to the game mechanics which are absolute. According to game mechanics, as long as the thrasher is competant (which is REALLY easy in this situation) the thrasher NEVER loses. Your lack of proper arguments against it shows that. It is a fact that: After landing from warp, as long as you do nothing your ship is invulnerable and unlockable for 10 seconds. A wreck is unable to be looted for a minimum of two seconds (a lot more in tidi and lag, which generally happens during ganks). A wreck can get killed before a looter even has a chance to open the wreck itself.
ALL OF THESE CAN BE TESTED ON YOUR OWN AS PROOF.
lk wrote:Oh, and since you suggest to anti-gankers to kill the gankers while they bounce safes, you can hardly use that one as an excuse either. I never said this, why do you keep lying?
"No but killiing that target with a bunch of AGs trying to volley your loot is. It's called risk mate, and it exists in almost all of the mechanics." but there is no way to prevent this other than secretly killing things without anyone knowing?
lk wrote: The gankers gank and one person cannot stop that. One person loots and one person can (or could) stop that. People have always been able to do it and gankers still managed to loot a huge number of freighters, so obviously there wouldn't be almost no suicide ganking. What this is almost none of is anti-gankers since it' insanely difficult and completely unrewarding.
The only time looting succeeded is when there were no wreck shooters or they screwed up. There was no 'outplaying' wreck shooters, and you continue to ignore that argument and post lies and falsities about it. Give me a counter baby and i'll refute it with knowledge from actual game experience.
lk wrote: Except it's not. The point to your argument is that you want easy risk-free isk and you get upset at the thought of not getting that. You're a carebear, plain and simple. EVE is not supposed to be easy, get used to it.
this guy lol
You're so out of touch and don't actually argue. If I didn't know any better I would just assume you were trolling but unfortunately I'm quite aware of your intelligence.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7205
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 22:05:37 -
[335] - Quote
Globby wrote:Totally irrelevant to the point at hand, but yeah keep claiming i say things I don't say at all, or claim I say things that other people have said. Lol, gankers making isk hand of fist is irrelevant to the balance of gankers. Good one.
Globby wrote:1) You again, ignore the crux of the issue and voice your anecdotal evidence as a contrary to the game mechanics which are absolute. According to game mechanics, as long as the thrasher is competant (which is REALLY easy in this situation) the thrasher NEVER loses. Your lack of proper arguments against it shows that. It is a fact that: After landing from warp, as long as you do nothing your ship is invulnerable and unlockable for 10 seconds. A wreck is unable to be looted for a minimum of two seconds (a lot more in tidi and lag, which generally happens during ganks). A wreck can get killed before a looter even has a chance to open the wreck itself.
ALL OF THESE CAN BE TESTED ON YOUR OWN AS PROOF. Actually, I simply stated the fact that wreck looters can and do get popped, and that your reasoning for being unable to was incorrect. The fact remains that the moment they are able to take any action, so are you. If it were possible to with 100% certainty destroy every wreck, that would have been done consistenly for a long time. However it isn't, it's a small (and now much smaller) chance to destroy the wreck if and only if the gankers choose to gank with you around.
Globby wrote:I never said this, why do you keep lying? It's constantly being claimed that the gankers can just be killed, like it's that easy. Yet now, you destroying one single destroyer is apparently too much.
Globby wrote:but there is no way to prevent this other than secretly killing things without anyone knowing? Obviously yes, as some players manage to prevent it. You can volley the ship of the field, you can simply loot the wreck first, you can avoid the gank while the loot popper is there. Hell, you could infiltrate the anti-gank group with a 15 minute old alt, say "I'll pop the wreck!" then don't and run away laughing.
Globby wrote:The only time looting succeeded is when there were no wreck shooters or they screwed up. There was no 'outplaying' wreck shooters, and you continue to ignore that argument and post lies and falsities about it. Give me a counter baby and i'll refute it with knowledge from actual game experience. Wait, so you mean all of those times I was present for a gank, there was a loot popper on field and they got the wreck but not before the looter managed to nab the loot, you're saying those times the loot actually got popped and what, the looter quickly ran off and bought the lost loot to cover his failure? You realise you;re not the only one with game experience, right?
Tsk tsk, personal attacks to boot. Get better arguments and you won't need to resort to such measures.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red Complaints Department
59
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 22:36:25 -
[336] - Quote
[quote=Lucas Kell] just shut up dude, no one cares
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Globby
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
320
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 23:01:22 -
[337] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Lol, gankers making isk hand of fist is irrelevant to the balance of gankers. Good one.
We're talking about Wreck EHP, and how thrashers one shotting wrecks without a counter is unbalanced and was rightfully changed. Fixing something stupid broken isn't determined by who is affected or what is being screwed over.
Also, I need not remind you that if everyone instead of ganking ratted in nullsec at the end of the day they'd all walk out with considerably more money than if they had spent it ganking even very profitable freighters.
lk wrote:Actually, I simply stated the fact that wreck looters can and do get popped, and that your reasoning for being unable to was incorrect. The fact remains that the moment they are able to take any action, so are you. If it were possible to with 100% certainty destroy every wreck, that would have been done consistenly for a long time. However it isn't, it's a small (and now much smaller) chance to destroy the wreck if and only if the gankers choose to gank with you around. They misplayed it. Please think of a gameplay counter to the situation two posts above and come back to me. Just because some guys suck at doing something doesn't mean it's balanced and there is counter-play.
lk wrote:It's constantly being claimed that the gankers can just be killed, like it's that easy. Yet now, you destroying one single destroyer is apparently too much.
Like I said, you ignore the argument, yet again and post nonsense. I told you there is no counter, gave you a 100% sure fire recipe to succeed 100% of the time, and you have yet to post a counter, because it doesn't exist. You are consistently wrong on game mechanic issues and have definitely lost all credibility here.
lk wrote:but there is no way to prevent this other than secretly killing things without anyone knowing? Obviously yes, as some players manage to prevent it. You can volley the ship of the field, you can simply loot the wreck first, you can avoid the gank while the loot popper is there. Hell, you could infiltrate the anti-gank group with a 15 minute old alt, say "I'll pop the wreck!" then don't and run away laughing.
lk wrote:Wait, so you mean all of those times I was present for a gank, there was a loot popper on field and they got the wreck but not before the looter managed to nab the loot, you're saying those times the loot actually got popped and what, the looter quickly ran off and bought the lost loot to cover his failure? You realise you;re not the only one with game experience, right?
Except that, hey guess what, this just means the wreck shooter messed up.
Do this before you reply:
1) Re-read my previous post and read the little bit of how wreck shooting works, and how people shoot wrecks. Give me a counter gankers could do to stop this from happening. 2) Test each of the 'facts' you don't believe on sisi. 3) Don't post 'anecdotes' or 'first hand experiences' as a response to dismiss reality. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7205
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 23:55:44 -
[338] - Quote
Globby wrote:We're talking about Wreck EHP, and how thrashers one shotting wrecks without a counter is unbalanced and was rightfully changed. Fixing something stupid broken isn't determined by who is affected or what is being screwed over.
Also, I need not remind you that if everyone instead of ganking ratted in nullsec at the end of the day they'd all walk out with considerably more money than if they had spent it ganking even very profitable freighters. Except the obvipous counters of course.
And if you performed anti-ganking, you'd be completely broke, yet you seem to think that doesn't need any balance passes.
Globby wrote:They misplayed it. Please think of a gameplay counter to the situation two posts above and come back to me. Just because some guys suck at doing something doesn't mean it's balanced and there is counter-play. See, this is always the way with people like you. You lose and it's unfair, couldn't be helped, clearly the system is broken. They lose, it's because they were incompetent. It's laughable.
Globby wrote:I told you there is no counter And were wrong.
Globby wrote:Except that, hey guess what, this just means the wreck shooter messed up. See above. This is just your bias showing, nothing more. In your mind you are perfect so beating you is proof of a flaw, but your enemy is incompetent, so them failing is entirely their fault. You seriously need to get over yourself. I trust CCP to balance out the system based on the facts, not on your twisted perception.
Globby wrote:Do this before you reply:
1) Re-read my previous post and read the little bit of how wreck shooting works, and how people shoot wrecks. Give me a counter gankers could do to stop this from happening. 2) Test each of the 'facts' you don't believe on sisi. 3) Don't post 'anecdotes' or 'first hand experiences' as a response to dismiss reality. Do this before you reply: 1) Understand that you losing isn't a sign of a flawed system, and that risk is an inherent part of the game for most people, and should be for you too. 2) Look objectively at how difficult both ganking and anti-ganking are and their relative reward structures and make reasoned, unbiased criticisms 3) Chill out brother, it's just a game.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Globby
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
320
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 19:09:08 -
[339] - Quote
You still haven't given me a counter. Give me a counter, anything at all. Please give me a counter play and I'll tell you how fundamentally wrong you are. I've been asking for three posts and you've still yet to post a single one.
Your entire argument is just "but you said this" when I never said it, or "your ganker bias is showing" without actually debating the arguments themselves.
I want to know your mindset here, because I'm genuinely interested. You either 1) know you're wrong, and you're still just sitting here 'trolling' and pretending to be dense, or 2) you're genuinely ignorant of game mechanics and too dense to accept that you're wrong and you're talking about irrelevancies to conceal this. |
Globby
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
320
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 19:22:12 -
[340] - Quote
"Hmmm, he said something entirely correct so I'm going to completely ignore what he said and talk about something he didn't say, but I'm going to claim he said to save face."
-And if you performed anti-ganking, you'd be completely broke, yet you seem to think that doesn't need any balance passes. - Doesn't to stop you making wild claims that anti-ganking is easy, and that no competent player has ever attempted it. -Oh, and since you suggest to anti-gankers to kill the gankers while they bounce safes, you can hardly use that one as an excuse either. -It's quite ironic you talking about the value of the loot in the wreck like it should be a factor, when you spend so much time telling gank victims that they shouldn't expect to live just because their ship is valuable.
"I'm going to make baseless claims based on (probably false) anecdotal evidence and talk about things that are impossible to debate to further conceal my naivety."
-Except the obvipous counters of course. (x10) -Wait, so you mean all of those times I was present for a gank... -Pretty much down to anecdotal evidence and first hand knowledge. -And yet, when watching this very thing occur, I've seen the thrasher get popped on many occasions, and I've seen the loot taken on many occasions. -And yet, still gankers managed to obtain the vast majority of their loot. Funny that.
"I'm going to say something completely incorrect and refuse to provide any logic or proof that it is correct. I'm not even going to test it myself."
-Except the obvipous counters of course. -You can volley the ship of the field -you can simply loot the wreck first -you can avoid the gank while the loot popper is there -Hell, you could infiltrate the anti-gank group with a 15 minute old alt, say "I'll pop the wreck!" then don't and run away laughing.
"muh bias"
-See, this is always the way with people like you. You lose and it's unfair, couldn't be helped, clearly the system is broken. They lose, it's because they were incompetent. It's laughable. -See above. This is just your bias showing, nothing more. -You seriously need to get over yourself. I trust CCP to balance out the system based on the facts, not on your twisted perception. -Chill out brother, it's just a game.
"Let me post any kind of logic or game mechanic that could counter wreck shooting at all, instead of spreading lies, misinformation, and ignorance to everyone reading these forums."
- ? |
|
Globby
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
320
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 19:29:42 -
[341] - Quote
Hey but I'm up to debate with you on teamspeak or something and record it and post it somewhere. That way it's a lot harder to misdirect arguments and run with blatant lies. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7209
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 20:25:02 -
[342] - Quote
Globby wrote:You still haven't given me a counter. Give me a counter, anything at all. Please give me a counter play and I'll tell you how fundamentally wrong you are. I've been asking for three posts and you've still yet to post a single one. I have, and each time you've just gone "NOPE!". The fact that it is frequently countered is proof there is in fact a counter.
Globby wrote:I want to know your mindset here, because I'm genuinely interested. You either 1) know you're wrong, and you're still just sitting here 'trolling' and pretending to be dense, or 2) you're genuinely ignorant of game mechanics and too dense to accept that you're wrong and you're talking about irrelevancies to conceal this. It's simple, I don't devote that much time to players like yourself. The simple fact that wreck shooting has been around forever and ganking has not ceased to exist shows that wreck shooting isn't the easy uncounterable mechanic you claim it to be. I'd very much like to see anti-ganking improved in such a way that wreck shooting isn't even close to the best idea too, but since every time anyone raises the idea of gankers having a viable enemy they get trolled repeatedly be the same group of people.
"Hmmm, he said something entirely correct so I'm going to completely ignore what he said and talk about something he didn't say, but I'm going to claim he said to save face."
You and your "crew" get treated as one and the same. Just like how my opinion is judged on being an Imperium member over my actual post content, yours is judged on being part of "ganker tears" group. to be clear though, are you then saying that those points are not ones you would make, so do you agree with all of the following: - Anti- ganking needs to be improved for better balance against gankers - Anti-ganking is difficult, competent players attempt it all the time and their failure is not a reflection on their personal skill - Anti-ganker have no ability to kill gankers in transit - Ganking someone with a high value of items in their ship with low value ganking ships is fair, but ganking high value wrecks with low value ships is not
"I'm going to make baseless claims based on (probably false) anecdotal evidence and talk about things that are impossible to debate to further conceal my naivety."
But you are doing the exact same thing. For some reason you expect me to simply take what you are saying at face value, like it's gospel, yet my own first hand experience is apparently invalid, as is common sense deductions like gankers managing to get their loot with AGs on grid proving that their mechanic is not an I win button.
"muh bias"
Obvious bias is obvious. vOv
Globby wrote:Hey but I'm up to debate with you on teamspeak or something and record it and post it somewhere. That way it's a lot harder to misdirect arguments and run with blatant lies. I can't think of much I want to do less than hang around on teamspeak with you. Sorry friend.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Globby
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
320
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 21:12:44 -
[343] - Quote
lk wrote:I can't think of much I want to do less than hang around on teamspeak with you. Sorry friend.
says volumes
also which counter did you say was a counter? |
Globby
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
320
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 21:15:21 -
[344] - Quote
Also if a viable counter is "wait until all wreck shooters are offline" then lmao. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7209
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 21:20:24 -
[345] - Quote
Globby wrote:also which counter did you say was a counter? - Shoot the wreck popper - Loot the wreck faster - Choose an alternate target away from the wreck popper - Infiltrate the anti-ganking group and opt for yourself to shoot the wreck, then don't shoot it.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Globby
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
320
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 21:26:49 -
[346] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Globby wrote: also which counter did you say was a counter?
- Shoot the wreck popper - Loot the wreck faster - Choose an alternate target away from the wreck popper - Infiltrate the anti-ganking group and opt for yourself to shoot the wreck, then don't shoot it. 1) If the wreck shooter plays properly: You will be able to kill him as he is able to kill the wreck. Both his shot, and your shot will both be fired, and the wreck will still die because he would have been holding his end-warp invulnerability as the freighter died. He is also impossible to probe down because he is bouncing safes until the gank starts to happen. There is a huge window of opportunity for the wreck shooter here and a bunch of maneuverability for him. You can test all these things out for yourself if you don't believe any of it.
2) Go and self destruct a ship and try and loot it right away, you will have a delay of at least a couple of seconds. This delay is more than long enough for a thrasher to shoot the wreck and destroy it. You can test all these things out for yourself if you don't believe any of it.
3) This is an odd one, because the counter is "don't fight it." Imagine applying that theory to anything else in eve and if you argued for it you'd be called a crazy man.
4) This would work like, what once or twice? As if people would fall for it over and over again. It also doesn't matter, as some of the wreck shooters are unaffiliated with AG and are alts with no ties to there main, therefore aren't 'infiltratable'.
Do you have a problem with the above reasoning? I'll tell you, flying a wreck shooter 'perfectly' is actually really easy once you understand game mechanics. All you do is bounce pings and warp to the freighter as the gank starts. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7209
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 21:47:16 -
[347] - Quote
Globby wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Globby wrote: also which counter did you say was a counter?
- Shoot the wreck popper - Loot the wreck faster - Choose an alternate target away from the wreck popper - Infiltrate the anti-ganking group and opt for yourself to shoot the wreck, then don't shoot it. 1) If the wreck shooter plays properly: You will be able to kill him as he is able to kill the wreck. Both his shot, and your shot will both be fired, and the wreck will still die because he would have been holding his end-warp invulnerability as the freighter died. He is also impossible to probe down because he is bouncing safes until the gank starts to happen. There is a huge window of opportunity for the wreck shooter here and a bunch of maneuverability for him. You can test all these things out for yourself if you don't believe any of it. 2) Go and self destruct a ship and try and loot it right away, you will have a delay of at least a couple of seconds. This delay is more than long enough for a thrasher to shoot the wreck and destroy it. You can test all these things out for yourself if you don't believe any of it. 3) This is an odd one, because the counter is "don't fight it." Imagine applying that theory to anything else in eve and if you argued for it you'd be called a crazy man. 4) This would work like, what once or twice? As if people would fall for it over and over again. It also doesn't matter, as some of the wreck shooters are unaffiliated with AG and are alts with no ties to there main, therefore aren't 'infiltratable'. Do you have a problem with the above reasoning? I'll tell you, flying a wreck shooter 'perfectly' is actually really easy once you understand game mechanics. All you do is bounce pings and warp to the freighter as the gank starts. But all of these counters are inspired by the counters provided by gankers to gank victims. They tell people to web, which only works if the gankers don't have a suicide tackle as fast or faster than the webber and they tell people to avoid the systems or to not make the run when there are gankers there. Effectively what you're saying that these aren't valid counters because if the other player also puts in a significant amount of effort they can also be successful some of the time and/or because it means not doing what you wanted to do while it's too risky, all while the opposing team stand to gain absolutely nothing even if they are successful while you have already achieved the main success of killing the target.
#3 really sticks out as the strangest response here, considering how many times I've seen freighter pilots being told that they should not jump into a system with gankers present. It comes across like gankers should never have to say "no, this is far too risky, stand down" while other players should still have to make that judgement call.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Globby
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
320
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 22:03:04 -
[348] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:But all of these counters are inspired by the counters provided by gankers to gank victims. They tell people to web, which only works if the gankers don't have a suicide tackle as fast or faster than the webber and they tell people to avoid the systems or to not make the run when there are gankers there. Effectively what you're saying that these aren't valid counters because if the other player also puts in a significant amount of effort they can also be successful some of the time and/or because it means not doing what you wanted to do while it's too risky, all while the opposing team stand to gain absolutely nothing even if they are successful while you have already achieved the main success of killing the target.
#3 really sticks out as the strangest response here, considering how many times I've seen freighter pilots being told that they should not jump into a system with gankers present. It comes across like gankers should never have to say "no, this is far too risky, stand down" while other players should still have to make that judgement call.
you literally cannot debate wreck shooting without bringing up other issues, just to distort the argument. you lost, and you bring in irrelevancies. peace |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7210
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 22:06:46 -
[349] - Quote
Globby wrote:you literally cannot debate wreck shooting without bringing up other issues, just to distort the argument. you lost, and you bring in irrelevancies. peace Wut?
Effectively I put forward valid counters, you dismissed them as too hard, I compared them to very similar arguments given by gankers to gank victims and you ragequit the discussion. Certainly doesn't sound like I'm losing this round.
And still that #3 makes me kek.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Globby
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
320
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 22:28:02 -
[350] - Quote
You're ignoring the fact that this is no gameplay counter to it. If I wanted to stop you from shooting the wreck of this freighter I bumped, me and 20 guys cant stop you if you play properly. We just lose, so we either wait for you to log off or gank the freighter and hope you mess up (which is really hard for a wreck shooter unless really bad) or just take the loss.
>But all of these counters are inspired by the counters provided by gankers to gank victims. irrelevant to wreck shooting >They tell people to web, which only works if the gankers don't have a suicide tackle as fast or faster than the webber and they tell people to avoid the systems or to not make the run when there are gankers there. irrelevant to wreck shooting >#3 really sticks out as the strangest response here, considering how many times I've seen freighter pilots being told that they should not jump into a system with gankers present. there are many viable routes, there are many ways to mitigate the risk of getting ganked. There is no way to mitigate the risk of a wreck shooter other than hoping he doesnt notice you or he messes up.
> Effectively what you're saying that these aren't valid counters because if the other player also puts in a significant amount of effort excuse me? the amount of effort required is extremely low, how hard is it to invest 2 million isk, a 15 minute alt and learn to make pings on gates? the effort required to be 'excellent' is tiny.
>successful some of the time lol
why do you keep bringing up other stuff that doesnt matter all the time, we're debating wreck shooting to deny loot as a broken mechanic, we're not balancing it off of ganking. that can (and should) be balanced on it's own.
|
|
Globby
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
320
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 22:29:19 -
[351] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Globby wrote:you literally cannot debate wreck shooting without bringing up other issues, just to distort the argument. you lost, and you bring in irrelevancies. peace Wut? Effectively I put forward valid counters, you dismissed them as too hard, I compared them to very similar arguments given by gankers to gank victims and you ragequit the discussion. Certainly doesn't sound like I'm losing this round. And still that #3 makes me kek. nice edit btw
>you dismissed them as too hard fundamentally impossible against a competent pilot.
>I compared them to very similar arguments given by gankers to gank victims and you ragequit the discussion. but it's not relevant as there are counters to being bumped, being ganked, and being scanned. |
Globby
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
320
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 22:32:09 -
[352] - Quote
I went by, step by step refuting your 'counters' and you completely forget what had happened three posts ago. For some reason, you have to keep relating wreck shooting to ganking as if they're the same thing, and one must be balanced with eachother, which they definitely do not. Wreck shooting is, by itself undeniably broken (that's why CCP actually changed it) and shouldn't be allowed to stay just because it benefits one style of play over another.
e: ALL OF THIS IS IMPLYING THAT IT'S GONE
It's actually still viable for 40-70 million with 2-3 people, which is, still better than ganking in terms of (isk destroyed)/(isk spent) wrt number of people needed |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7211
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 23:13:35 -
[353] - Quote
Globby wrote:You're ignoring the fact that this is no gameplay counter to it. If I wanted to stop you from shooting the wreck of this freighter I bumped, me and 20 guys cant stop you if you play properly. Sure you can, I listed counters above. Even just inviting me to a fleet, duel of conversation at the moment of destruction would delay me long enough to grab the wreck. More importantly though, if I'm known to be an elite wreck shooter, why are you engaging in the activity knowing full well I'm going to try to volley the wreck? Like during Burn Jita, freighter are jumping in ad getting popped and people are like "WTF are you doing going to Jita with gankers in system". This is no different. What you really want is a way to guarantee your loot, so you don't have to worry about ever losing it and never have to even consider the possibility of someone beating you.
>But all of these counters are inspired by the counters provided by gankers to gank victims. irrelevant to wreck shooting
It's a pointer the the hyprocricy of the modern ganker.
>#3 really sticks out as the strangest response here, considering how many times I've seen freighter pilots being told that they should not jump into a system with gankers present. there are many viable routes, there are many ways to mitigate the risk of getting ganked. There is no way to mitigate the risk of a wreck shooter other than hoping he doesnt notice you or he messes up.
Travelling from Amarr to Jita means you have to go through Niarja, Uedama or lowsec. There's no other route. Also, that's entirely the point. There are other systems to gank in. You could simply pick a new target in a new system. But much like the pilot flying though Niarja, you don't want to pick a new target, you want that one. You just want that target with a guaranteed loot bag at the end of it. Tough. That's what risk is.
> Effectively what you're saying that these aren't valid counters because if the other player also puts in a significant amount of effort excuse me? the amount of effort required is extremely low, how hard is it to invest 2 million isk, a 15 minute alt and learn to make pings on gates? the effort required to be 'excellent' is tiny.And fly between the pings, and avoid being blapped by the ganker and learn to get the targeting and firing into the first server tick after the wrek appears, and potentially moving to the UK. Yet another of the times you're understating the amount of effort by your opposition.
>successful some of the time lol
Yes, some of the time. I know for a fact that wreck poppers aren't always successful (in fact I've seen more fail that succeed, but that's beside the point), thus making their success "some of the time".
Globby wrote:why do you keep bringing up other stuff that doesnt matter all the time, we're debating wreck shooting to deny loot as a broken mechanic, we're not balancing it off of ganking. that can (and should) be balanced on it's own. Why do you keep dismissing every single thing that opposes your viewpoint as "other stuff"? We are talking about ganking since you keep telling me how one guy shouldn't be able to destroy 20 guys work. If we weren't talking about ganking then we would be talking about one single looter vs one single wreck popper, which used to be the balanced way it was done.
Globby wrote:I went by, step by step refuting your 'counters' and you completely forget what had happened three posts ago. You didn't refute anything, you just went "nope" like because it's your opinion that wreck poppers are unstoppable that it is automatically fact. Refuting something requires a basic level of proof, and since we do in fact know for certain that some wreck poppers fail and that some gankers do in fact get their loot, we already know that you can provide no proof that wreck poppers are unstoppable. Effectively what you are saying is "Without killing or distracting the wreck popper, looting the wreck faster, picking a different target or timing our ganking in such a way that anti-gankers aren't around to pop our loot, loot poppers are unstoppable!".
Globby wrote:IIt's actually still viable for 40-70 million with 2-3 people, which is, still better than ganking in terms of (isk destroyed)/(isk spent) wrt number of people needed Yes, because coordinating two people firing in a fraction of a second is in no way significantly more difficult than coordinating a single person. I'll give you that it's still viable, but it's certainly not reasonable. I doubt we'll see much of it, so I guess in that way you win, you'll now have like a 99% chance of getting your loot rather than like 70% or whatever it was pre-change.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Globby
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
320
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 23:40:13 -
[354] - Quote
ya okay you just dont get it
i'm done here you win |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7212
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 00:29:30 -
[355] - Quote
Woohoo!
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Ms GoodyMaker
Delainen Technologies
2
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 17:54:16 -
[356] - Quote
Would CCP kindly flip the switch and make all wrecks blue so they can be tractored by anyone? There is absolutely no reason not to do this.
While you are at it, add cargo containers and wrecks to the scannable items table, so they can be scanned down.
Thank you. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17440
|
Posted - 2016.02.20 02:09:10 -
[357] - Quote
Globby wrote:ya okay you just dont get it
i'm done here you win
You wont win against him, he has a vested interest in not understanding the game mechanics. |
Andrew Indy
POS Party Ember Sands
152
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 01:59:07 -
[358] - Quote
If you don't want a thrasher to kill wrecks why not just bump the freighter like 100KM from the gate and pop anyone who burns towards the freighter in a thrasher. Its not like Gankers don't have Bump Machs already.
I'm assuming that they could combat you out if they really wanted but that would add another layer for the anti gankers to overcome.
Either way i'm fine with the EHP buff on wrecks, if you die in a freighter its a very small consolation that your wreck was popped. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
7305
|
Posted - 2016.02.29 19:53:27 -
[359] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Carrier, Dread, Rorqual, Orca, Freighter: 15000 hp You do realize that this is a massive buff to freighter ganking? When can we expect a fix for risk free looting in highsec via a fleet hangar/freight container/can and a laundering alt in return?
Shhhh. CCP coddles carebears and hates gankers. Don't you know?
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17505
|
Posted - 2016.03.09 00:42:56 -
[360] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Sarah Flynt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Carrier, Dread, Rorqual, Orca, Freighter: 15000 hp You do realize that this is a massive buff to freighter ganking? When can we expect a fix for risk free looting in highsec via a fleet hangar/freight container/can and a laundering alt in return? Shhhh. CCP coddles carebears and hates gankers. Don't you know?
Enormous freight containers are already impossible to drag through a fleet hanger. |
|
Sarah Flynt
169
|
Posted - 2016.03.09 23:37:33 -
[361] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Sarah Flynt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Carrier, Dread, Rorqual, Orca, Freighter: 15000 hp You do realize that this is a massive buff to freighter ganking? When can we expect a fix for risk free looting in highsec via a fleet hangar/freight container/can and a laundering alt in return? Shhhh. CCP coddles carebears and hates gankers. Don't you know? Enormous freight containers are already impossible to drag through a fleet hanger.
You don't say? That's not what I'm talking about.
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17508
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 20:45:04 -
[362] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:
You don't say? That's not what I'm talking about.
You want a counter to dragging loot through a fleet hanger, stuffing your cargo into the enormous freight containers means only a freighter can loot it. There's your fix. |
Sarah Flynt
169
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 21:22:03 -
[363] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Sarah Flynt wrote:
You don't say? That's not what I'm talking about.
You want a counter to dragging loot through a fleet hanger, stuffing your cargo into the enormous freight containers means only a freighter can loot it. There's your fix. Freight containers can be used for the purpose of laundering loot in the same way as a fleet hanger: you can launch freight containers into space, use a laundering alt in a noob ship who puts the loot from the wreck into the freight container. Somebody else in the same fleet picks it up without gaining a suspect flag. The one who picks it up doesn't need to scoop the freight container, he can just open it and loot everything inside, hence no need for a freighter. Freight containers have the drawback that you can't put containers or contract packages into them, that's why fleet hangars are currently the preferred choice.
We want the whole mechanic getting fixed, not just the special case "fleet hangar".
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17509
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 22:04:45 -
[364] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:baltec1 wrote:Sarah Flynt wrote:
You don't say? That's not what I'm talking about.
You want a counter to dragging loot through a fleet hanger, stuffing your cargo into the enormous freight containers means only a freighter can loot it. There's your fix. Freight containers can be used for the purpose of laundering loot in the same way as a fleet hanger: you can launch freight containers into space, use a laundering alt in a noob ship who puts the loot from the wreck into the freight container. Somebody else in the same fleet picks it up without gaining a suspect flag. The one who picks it up doesn't need to scoop the freight container, he can just open it and loot everything inside, hence no need for a freighter. Freight containers have the drawback that you can't put containers or contract packages into them, that's why fleet hangars are currently the preferred choice. We want the whole mechanic getting fixed, not just the special case "fleet hangar".
Nobody does that. Not only is it overly complicated and takes considerably longer but the freight container has next to no tank and is easily volleyed by damn near anything. |
Sarah Flynt
170
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 22:18:17 -
[365] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Nobody does that. Not only is it overly complicated and takes considerably longer but the freight container has next to no tank and is easily volleyed by damn near anything.
Nobody does that, yet. As soon as fleet hangars are fixed, people will as it's the next best thing and we're back to square one.
baltec1 wrote:but the freight container has next to no tank and is easily volleyed by damn near anything. I think I have heard that one before regarding freighter wrecks. Look how that turned out ...
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17509
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 22:29:07 -
[366] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:baltec1 wrote:but the freight container has next to no tank and is easily volleyed by damn near anything. I think I have heard that one before regarding freighter wrecks. Look how that turned out ...
It became near impossible to loot anything. Why would gankers use this tactic when its near impossible to keep the container alive? You are demanding a nerf to something that doesn't even exist. |
Beldantazar
Empyrean Acolytes
4
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 22:34:03 -
[367] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Sarah Flynt wrote:baltec1 wrote:but the freight container has next to no tank and is easily volleyed by damn near anything. I think I have heard that one before regarding freighter wrecks. Look how that turned out ... It became near impossible to loot anything. Why would gankers use this tactic when its near impossible to keep the container alive? You are demanding a nerf to something that doesn't even exist.
They are demanding the nerf because they are capable of basic pattern recognition and thus recognize that unless the entire mechanic is fixed, this is the next thing that players will do if the hangar laundering is fixed. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17509
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 22:41:51 -
[368] - Quote
Beldantazar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Sarah Flynt wrote:baltec1 wrote:but the freight container has next to no tank and is easily volleyed by damn near anything. I think I have heard that one before regarding freighter wrecks. Look how that turned out ... It became near impossible to loot anything. Why would gankers use this tactic when its near impossible to keep the container alive? You are demanding a nerf to something that doesn't even exist. They are demanding the nerf because they are capable of basic pattern recognition and thus recognize that unless the entire mechanic is fixed, this is the next thing that players will do if the hangar laundering is fixed.
The tactic wont work. |
Beldantazar
Empyrean Acolytes
5
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 22:55:13 -
[369] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Beldantazar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Sarah Flynt wrote:baltec1 wrote:but the freight container has next to no tank and is easily volleyed by damn near anything. I think I have heard that one before regarding freighter wrecks. Look how that turned out ... It became near impossible to loot anything. Why would gankers use this tactic when its near impossible to keep the container alive? You are demanding a nerf to something that doesn't even exist. They are demanding the nerf because they are capable of basic pattern recognition and thus recognize that unless the entire mechanic is fixed, this is the next thing that players will do if the hangar laundering is fixed. The tactic wont work.
Are you saying the laundering won't work? or that the thing will be popped too fast to be useful? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17510
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 01:37:55 -
[370] - Quote
Beldantazar wrote:
Are you saying the laundering won't work? or that the thing will be popped too fast to be useful?
It has the same tank as wrecks used to, looting after a gank was next to impossible so yea, they will get popped before you can finish the transfer. Nobody will use that tactic because it simply won't work. |
|
Sarah Flynt
170
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 03:42:42 -
[371] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Sarah Flynt wrote:baltec1 wrote:but the freight container has next to no tank and is easily volleyed by damn near anything. I think I have heard that one before regarding freighter wrecks. Look how that turned out ... It became near impossible to loot anything. Why would gankers use this tactic when its near impossible to keep the container alive? You are demanding a nerf to something that doesn't even exist. Read the first post of this very thread again, then you know how it turned out.
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17510
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 01:34:33 -
[372] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote: Read the first post of this very thread again, then you know how it turned out.
Notice how nobody is asking for enormous freight containers to be given huge tanks. This tactic you are demanding a nerf to doesn't happen and will never happen. |
BIoodRaine
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.17 10:43:32 -
[373] - Quote
This game was long time ago rigged in favor of sociopaths who seems to be a very carefully nursed species in EVE by CCP Devs. So stop wasting you time trying to make sense of CCP game design decisions, they are just focused to protect a very specific category of troubled people, who find in this game their favorite space to perpetuate their sadistic tendencies, going from killing and torture little bugs, to grief real people.
So any action made to grief the griefers is not meet with classical "adapt or die" motto, but with brief changes to the game play meant to stop the things who upset them, and protect that sensible flowers from being emotionally damaged...
In this time any advantage for as anti-pirates and anti-griefers are eradicated by intent. (See gate sentries mechanics nerf, removal of kill rights for ship kills in low sec, etc, etc.)
In conclusion move on , and go play a game designed by normal people for normal people; or if you really like this game very much, just move in low sec were that kind of people (griefers) will not go.
PS: Hi-sec is not a place who worth the name as at this moment is just a refuge for new players and risk adverse psychos. Just imagine how you can call a place were criminals can kill and rob people, then they can accommodate to any station without being arrested or they can travel and live in that space without any real impediment, they can keep killing people every 15 minutes with some incompetent police/concord guys having the memory of a exotic fish and who cannot do anything else but to watch them them flying around... But of course that is very very logical, so CCP just needed to move on and do an urgent "rebalance" for the poor wrecks, after 10 years of being just like that, and after nobody except gankers, asked for a change. |
ARES-DESIDERATUS
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2016.03.19 02:54:27 -
[374] - Quote
BIoodRaine wrote:This game was long time ago rigged in favor of sociopaths who seems to be a very carefully nursed species in EVE by CCP Devs. So stop wasting your time trying to make sense of CCP game design decisions, they are just focused to protect a very specific category of troubled people, who find in this game their favorite space to perpetuate their sadistic tendencies, going from killing and torture little bugs, to grief real people.
So any action made to grief the griefers is not meet with classical "adapt or die" motto, but with brief changes to the game play meant to stop the things who upset them, and protect that sensible flowers from being emotionally damaged...
In this time any advantage for anti-pirates and anti-griefers are eradicated by intent. (See gate sentries mechanics nerf, removal of kill rights for ship kills in low sec, etc, etc.)
In conclusion move on , and go play a game designed by normal people for normal people; or if you really like this game very much, just move in low sec were that kind of people (griefers) will not go.
PS: Hi-sec is not a place who worth the name as at this moment is just a refuge for new players and risk adverse psychos. Just imagine how you can call a place were criminals can kill and rob people, then they can accommodate to any station without being arrested or they can travel and live in that space without any real impediment; they can keep killing people every 15 minutes with some incompetent police/concord guys having the memory of a exotic fish and who cannot do anything else but to watch them them flying around... But of course that is very very logical, so CCP just needed to move on and do an urgent "rebalance" for the poor wrecks, after 10 years of being just like that, and after nobody except gankers, asked for a change. You sound mad bro... "sadistic tendencies", "killing and torturing little bugs"
Seriously let it out.
I bet you eat animals in real life and don't care how much pain and suffering we put hundreds of billions of animals through every year yet you gonna come on here with this kind of melodramatic carebear whining.
Kind of makes me want to become a high sec pirate again.
Don't like my post.
|
BIoodRaine
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.19 08:45:25 -
[375] - Quote
ARES-DESIDERATUS wrote:You sound mad bro... "sadistic tendencies", "killing and torturing little bugs"
I bet you eat animals in real life and don't care how much pain and suffering we put hundreds of billions of animals through every year yet you gonna come on here with this kind of melodramatic carebear whining. hypocrite.
Kind of makes me want to become a high sec pirate again.
This is exactly the type of CCP customers about what i wrote, that kind who needs a special virtual enviroment to release his impulses... If you look at his post you can see that he don't have the cognitive capacity to make a simple difference between some basic acts in life, like the one of killing animals to feed and survive, and something very different like killings made by deranged people to satisfy their sadistic pleasures... So, from his point of view, a guy who prepare food for his family is just a hypocrite with the same kind of ideas and impulses like Andrei Chikatilo |
ARES-DESIDERATUS
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2016.03.19 20:29:42 -
[376] - Quote
Actually killing animals for food is completely unnecessary in modern society, and it's actually healthier to live on a properly prepared vegan diet (complete nutritional intake + no cholesterol). Do some research.
And even if I killed and tortured bugs every day, I could still be inflicting less suffering on the world because I could choose to only kill the bugs who don't feel pain, whereas the animals you choose to eat every day are every bit as capable as suffering as humans are. You aren't sadistic, you just close your mind to the reality of your actions.
The point is you are a carebear and you're whining about "sadistic" players in EVE when in reality you you are no better than any of the players you are complaining about, and in some cases you're actually far worse.
If you have a point to make you can make it without your little carebear whining and without making horrible assumptions and labeling normal every day EVE players "sadistic", "troubled", and straight up calling us psychopaths who torture bugs for no reason (on what basis do you make this ridiculous claim?) If you were capable of doing that you might have something worth saying but for now you're just a butthurt carebear.
You might consider going to play those "normal" games you spoke of, where you can live in a peaceful village free from sadistic players and can farm in peace.
Don't like my post.
|
BIoodRaine
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.20 17:15:45 -
[377] - Quote
You get it totally wrong, i don't complain about sadistic players, they are a good share of player base and CCP need to keep them as they are probably one of the most faithful category of players, mostly because is very hard for them to find elsewhere an indulgent game enviroment like this.
My main problem is not with sadistic tendencies of the griefers, as they are who they are and will not change anytime, but with CCP who in a rush for money forget about players who have other incentives to play this game; for example anti-piracy gameplay who got evicted completely by the gameplay design decisions and the changes from last years; the countless buffs to the outlaw gamestyle like gate sentries nerfs, removal of killrights for ship killing in low sec, introduction of security tags, etc, and most recent, the increase of the freighters wrecks hitpoints, all this unbalanced the game in a single direction and favoring just one type of players, the outlaws.
PS: At least you managed to made the distinction between sadism and normal people activities, so my time on this forum was not wasted completely... Otherwise i know that i gain nothing by expressing the opinions of a minority, because CCP will pursue for sure the same agenda as it did in the last 2-3 years. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: [one page] |