EVE Search - Bumping

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Bumping

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
GsyBoy Hooded Underworld Guys Northern Coalition. 14	Posted - 2016.04.23 08:11:12 - [1] - Quote So you get 2 mins 45 secs of bumping, scram and repeat? Did I miss something?
GsyBoy Hooded Underworld Guys Northern Coalition. 14	Posted - 2016.04.23 08:16:47 - [2] - Quote Also spice it up, if turned greater than 170 degrees to where you are warping, when you turn in warp, after the 180 secs, the stress tears your ship in half.
Gunrunner1775 Interstellar Engineering and Electronics INC 57	Posted - 2016.04.23 08:47:53 - [3] - Quote not much info out... however... this is how i understand it player hits warp to button.... a timer starts... 180 seconds later... ship warps... no matter speed / alignment / bumping / stuck in geometry of the terrain... if ship is not being bumped.. and not stuck in geometry.. it will align and warp to normaly.. and alot faster then the 180 seconds timer unless its pointed the real question is... does that timer "reset" at the time the ship gets pointed... if timer is not reset.. then attacker must keep the target pointed the entire time until it is destroyed.. will require attackers to slightly alter tactics if timer is reset.. then this change is realy nothing more then cosmetic and will have minimal to no effect in the game
Grauth Thorner Vicious Trading Company 491	Posted - 2016.04.23 08:54:47 - [4] - Quote Bump. View real-time damage statistics in-game >EVE Live DPS Graph application forum thread >iciclesoft.com
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2402	Posted - 2016.04.23 09:15:42 - [5] - Quote Gunrunner1775 wrote: the real question is... does that timer "reset" at the time the ship gets pointed... if timer is not reset.. then attacker must keep the target pointed the entire time until it is destroyed.. will require attackers to slightly alter tactics if timer is reset.. then this change is realy nothing more then cosmetic and will have minimal to no effect in the game Right now being pointed cancels warp. I would expect that mechanic to remain unchanged, otherwise it would be impossible to tackle a non-war target in highsec due to CONCORD. This would be an incredible nerf to criminal ganking and would force gankers to completely change tactics and make it much more expensive. I would not put that past CCP at this point, but I would expect their recent focus on easy changes means they will do as little as possible and thus won't touch the core of the warp scamble/disrupt mechanics. Even still, it will have a large impact on ransom bumpers making it impossible to hold a freighter for any length of time solo. But if a real ganking fleet is operating, you will not be safe, although the effort required to point you means you are not likely to be bump-tackled for nearly as long before they get around to exploding you. In either case, no matter how you look at it, it is yet another nerf to ganking. I wonder if this is the "one more nerf" that will finally make things balanced? Why Do They Gank?
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 240	Posted - 2016.04.23 09:26:12 - [6] - Quote GsyBoy wrote: So you get 2 mins 45 secs of bumping, scram and repeat? Did I miss something? 15 seconds apparently.
GsyBoy Hooded Underworld Guys Northern Coalition. 14	Posted - 2016.04.23 09:32:46 - [7] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: GsyBoy wrote: So you get 2 mins 45 secs of bumping, scram and repeat? Did I miss something? 15 seconds apparently. Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi, would recommend in bumping 101 giving yourself some time for error. If warp cancelled by 'science' would assume timer reset or would be weird.
GsyBoy Hooded Underworld Guys Northern Coalition. 14	Posted - 2016.04.23 09:53:35 - [8] - Quote I see no major strategy changes, just scram with burner alt every 2 mins 59.999999secs recurring and can hold until downtime.
GsyBoy Hooded Underworld Guys Northern Coalition. 14	Posted - 2016.04.23 10:10:43 - [9] - Quote Issue Ganking is indefensible however ganking and grieving, when done manually, has a valid place in game. Recommendation Use two of the new concepts introduced. A one time mod and being jumped to random system place. Consequence If effort by pilot made to fit, cost, not be afk and travel through station systems to refit replacement after use, you can prevent being ganked.
Kieron VonDeux 158	Posted - 2016.04.23 10:15:16 - [10] - Quote I think they are just trying to limit the "bumping while pinging to see if we can get enough people to log in" thing. If you can't gank them in those 3 minutes, then you probably should have set up the trap better.
GsyBoy Hooded Underworld Guys Northern Coalition. 14	Posted - 2016.04.23 10:22:12 - [11] - Quote Obviously if not screamed pointed or bubbled, short spool timer 20 secs to allow wardecer to point,
Alan Bion Bion Corporation 0	Posted - 2016.04.23 15:41:56 - [12] - Quote How long can you fly through objects? Fly rammed another ship and repel it without damage? When small boats speeding confronted huge ships, although in theory should have been in a cake break on them? What kind of garbage? This is sheer nonsense. Yes, in space like there is weightlessness, vacuum, I was not there myself, do not know) However, even in a vacuum, before the body under the condition of weightlessness will scatter to the sides, they will be damaged by a collision ... and then .. . already in 2016, and the physics in the game dosih missing ... It is a sad fact ... Do not you think? -í-¦-+-+-î-¦-+ -+-+-¦-+-+ -+-¦-é-¦-é-î -ü-¦-¦-+-+-î -+-¦-è-¦-¦-é-ï? -¢-¦-é-¦-é-î -é-¦-Ç-¦-+-+-+ -¦ -¦-Ç-â-¦-+-¦ -¦-+-Ç-¦-¦-+-î -+ -+-é-é-¦-+-¦-+-¦-¦-é-î -¦-¦-+ -¦-¦-+ -+-+-¦-Ç-¦-¦-¦-¦-+-+-¦? -Ü-+-¦-¦-¦ -+-¦-+-¦-+-¦ -¦-+-Ç-¦-¦-+-+-¦-+ -Ç-¦-+-+-¦-+-¦-¦-ê-+-ü-î -ü-é-¦-+-¦-+-¦-¦-Ä-é -+-¦-Ç-+-+-+-ï-¦ -¦-+-Ç-¦-¦-+-+, -à-+-é-Å -+-+ -+-¦-¦-¦ -¦-+-+-¦-+-ï -¦-ï-+-+ -¦-ï -¦ -+-¦-+-¦-ê-¦-â -Ç-¦-+-¦-+-é-î-ü-Å -+ -+-+-à? -º-é-+ -+-¦ -ä-+-¦-+-Å? -¡-é-+ -¦-¦ -ü-â-ë-+-¦ -¦-Ç-¦-¦. -ö-¦, -¦ -¦-+-ü-+-+-ü-¦ -¦-Ç-+-¦-¦ -¦-ï -¦-ü-é-î -+-¦-¦-¦-ü-+-+-+-ü-é-î, -¦-¦-¦-â-â-+, -Å -é-¦-+ -ü-¦-+ -+-¦ -¦-ï-+, -+-¦ -¦ -¦-â-Ç-ü-¦) -P-¦-+-¦-¦-+, -¦-¦-¦-¦ -¦ -¦-¦-¦-â-â-+-¦, -+-¦-Ç-¦-¦ -é-¦-+ -¦-¦-¦ -é-¦-+-¦ -+-Ç-+ -â-ü-+-+-¦-+-+ -+-¦-¦-¦-ü-+-+-+-ü-é-+ -Ç-¦-+-+-¦-é-Å-é-ü-Å -¦ -ü-é-+-Ç-+-+-ï, -+-+-+ -+-+-+-â-ç-¦-é -+-+-¦-Ç-¦-¦-¦-¦-+-+-Å -+-é -ü-é-+-+-¦-+-+-¦-¦-+-+-Å... -¦ -é-â-é... -â-¦-¦ 2016 -¦-+-¦, -¦ -ä-+-+-+-¦-¦ -¦ -+-¦-Ç-¦ -¦-+-ü-+-à -+-+-Ç -+-é-ü-â-é-ü-é-¦-â-¦-é... -¡-é-+ -+-¦-ç-¦-+-î-+-ï-¦ -ä-¦-¦-é... -Æ-ï -é-¦-¦ -+-¦ -ü-ç-+-é-¦-¦-é-¦?
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 577	Posted - 2016.04.23 16:34:22 - [13] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Right now being pointed cancels warp. I would expect that mechanic to remain unchanged, otherwise it would be impossible to tackle a non-war target in highsec due to CONCORD. This would be an incredible nerf to criminal ganking and would force gankers to completely change tactics and make it much more expensive. I would not put that past CCP at this point, but I would expect their recent focus on easy changes means they will do as little as possible and thus won't touch the core of the warp scamble/disrupt mechanics. Even still, it will have a large impact on ransom bumpers making it impossible to hold a freighter for any length of time solo. But if a real ganking fleet is operating, you will not be safe, although the effort required to point you means you are not likely to be bump-tackled for nearly as long before they get around to exploding you. In either case, no matter how you look at it, it is yet another nerf to ganking. I wonder if this is the "one more nerf" that will finally make things balanced? I had a feeling this sort of thing was coming. Remember, when Fozzie announced that Freighters would be getting 33% hull resists, he said, "This won't kill ganking, and neither will the other changes we have coming down the pipe". The quoting is not exactly verbatim, but it is the gist (A-type) of what he said. Focusing on the bump mechanics is the first logical step. I don't claim to know what else could be coming down the pipe, but if this is the direction it's going, I could imagine the next step would be limiting, restricting, or banning criminal players from docking in highsec eventually. That's the next logical step after this one, and technically speaking many of those sorts of mechanics already exist in game for non-NPC stations. How much you want to bet that a selling point of citadels is going to be a way for criminals to circumvent that sort of restriction? "Hey Capsuleers! We have an exciting announcement today. We're changing higsec docking mechanics so criminals can no longer dock at NPC stations, but if they have docking rights at a citadel..." Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2404	Posted - 2016.04.23 17:27:46 - [14] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: I had a feeling this sort of thing was coming. Remember, when Fozzie announced that Freighters would be getting 33% hull resists, he said, "This won't kill ganking, and neither will the other changes we have coming down the pipe". The quoting is not exactly verbatim, but it is the gist (A-type) of what he said. Focusing on the bump mechanics is the first logical step. Bumping is just a side-show. Making it so that you now need to use some suicide scrams adds little effort to the massive bar that already exists to gank a freighter in highsec. Any group that is organized enough to gather 20-30 players to attack a single other player is not going to notice having to sacrifice a noobship every 2.5 minutes instead of the 15 minutes they already had to account for for the logoff timer. Highsec has many problems which limit player interaction and prevent sandbox gameplay from fully developing. It is absurd that an AFK player in a freighter is so immune to the other players in the sandbox with no effort or action on their part. Highsec is long overdue for a complete rethink of the mechanics, and whenever CCP gets around to that, this content-killing situation will be addressed, exactly like it was for Aegis sov, with the goal of groups of all sizes being able to play as criminals. Fozzie has said that CCP would like to let the other capitals back into highsec. There is no chance of that with the current bumping/interdiction/CONCORD mechanics as they would be invulnerable. I expect the long-term goal to accomplish that will involve adding a new interdiction mechanic entirely that will allow capitals to be vulnerable to attack and that mechanic will apply to freighters. I think everyone agrees that being able to bump someone indefinitely was a little broken, but there does need to be some way to hold these freighters down long enough to get a fleet there to overcome the insane amount of EHP they can have. Don't get me wrong, this is a significant nerf, and on top of the EHP buff will probably result in a noticeable reduction of freighter ganks, but it will not kill ganking in highsec, especially of the super-profitable whales. I expect though that if there is such an unhealthy reduction in ganking, CCP will revisit the issue and rebalance freighters to make them more vulnerable. I expect CCP would be very unhappy if any ship class became effectively invulnerable (which arguably freighters already boarderline are), and would make changes to facilitate the player-player interaction they have identified as being so important for the health of the game. Why Do They Gank?
GsyBoy Hooded Underworld Guys Northern Coalition. 14	Posted - 2016.04.23 18:43:31 - [15] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: any ship class became effectively invulnerable (which arguably freighters already boarderline are) I think quite the opposite. If you get targeted in high sec while running a route you will die. That is more of an issue in my eyes
Kieron VonDeux 160	Posted - 2016.04.23 18:56:31 - [16] - Quote GsyBoy wrote: Black Pedro wrote: any ship class became effectively invulnerable (which arguably freighters already boarderline are) I think quite the opposite. If you get targeted in high sec while running a route you will die. That is more of an issue in my eyes I think there is a huge perception problem here. Many think it is more dangerous than it should be, and many think it isn't dangerous enough. All I can say is that it certainly seems far more dangerous than it used to be when I first started playing a decade ago.
Shayla Etherodyne United Nations Industrial Holdings 18	Posted - 2016.04.23 22:07:38 - [17] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: I expect though that if there is such an unhealthy reduction in ganking, I suspect that CCP count a lot on the increase in deaths thanks to implementing the citadels. And want to allow constructions of the citadels first. So they want and need a period of almost peace for the freighters while the large and XL citadels are built and deployed, after enough have been deployed the pendulum will swing in the other direction.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2404	Posted - 2016.04.24 05:44:00 - [18] - Quote GsyBoy wrote: Black Pedro wrote: any ship class became effectively invulnerable (which arguably freighters already boarderline are) I think quite the opposite. If you get targeted in high sec while running a route you will die. That is more of an issue in my eyes That is working as intended. You are not suppose to be 100% safe anywhere in this game. If a group 30 times your size wants your exploded, they should have a very good chance of exploding you, especially if you are using autopilot in an unarmed ship and are out walking your dog. Right now freighters are still dying. Not very frequently compared to other ship classes, but they are still dying. If any of these changes makes that stop, then CCP will step in and change something so they start dying again. Simple as that. The problem with ganking is that years of nerfs have raised the bar of entry to play the game as a highwayman so high that now, only a few groups in the game can meet it. Each nerf has been met with 'just bring one more player' that now, N+1 means that any group large enough to gank, outnumbers the average group size in this game by so much there is nothing you can do. And typical sized groups are locked out from using the mechanic at all as they just don't have enough players to meet the arbitrary NPC-enforced DPS check. Just like Dominion sov, this high barrier to entry and N+1 phenomenon does not make for the most interesting gameplay, not to mention the content-stifling effects of CONCORD and the faction police. Freighters should be much more vulnerable to attack, but even more easy to defend if they are to do more than serve as a free NPC transport service that encourage players to autopilot and go do something else other than play Eve. Freighter interdiction (and highsec criminal mechanics in general) should be redesigned, like the new citadels and Rorqual, with the idea of escalation of fights in mind. Why Do They Gank?
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 44666	Posted - 2016.04.24 06:01:32 - [19] - Quote Shayla Etherodyne wrote: Black Pedro wrote: I expect though that if there is such an unhealthy reduction in ganking, I suspect that CCP count a lot on the increase in deaths thanks to implementing the citadels. And want to allow constructions of the citadels first. So they want and need a period of almost peace for the freighters while the large and XL citadels are built and deployed, after enough have been deployed the pendulum will swing in the other direction. If CCP ever get to a situation where they control the narrative of the game that closely, then I can't see any positive in that. Since 2011, Hilmar has been very clear that CCP are the custodians of the game, but the players make Eve what it is. Along those lines, if Citadels are going to be built, then it should be up to the will of players to see that happen, not for CCP to quiet down the environment in highsec temporarily and then change it down the road. I certainly hope that's not what this is about. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
GsyBoy Hooded Underworld Guys Northern Coalition. 14	Posted - 2016.04.24 18:39:59 - [20] - Quote My point is still not being understood. Nothing should be 100% safe or not safe. At the moment a targeted freighter is dead 100% of the time. This three minute rule fixes nothing.
TigerXtrm KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 1464	Posted - 2016.04.24 19:26:14 - [21] - Quote GsyBoy wrote: My point is still not being understood. Nothing should be 100% safe or not safe. At the moment a targeted freighter is dead 100% of the time. This three minute rule fixes nothing. It fixes a 100% safe/not safe thing where bumping a ship was possible infinitely with no risk to the bumper. This assumes 1v1 and if you work as a team then using scrams as such is a valid tactic, but still requires more work than what it does currently. My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
Shayla Etherodyne United Nations Industrial Holdings 18	Posted - 2016.04.24 20:23:36 - [22] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Shayla Etherodyne wrote: Black Pedro wrote: I expect though that if there is such an unhealthy reduction in ganking, I suspect that CCP count a lot on the increase in deaths thanks to implementing the citadels. And want to allow constructions of the citadels first. So they want and need a period of almost peace for the freighters while the large and XL citadels are built and deployed, after enough have been deployed the pendulum will swing in the other direction. If CCP ever get to a situation where they control the narrative of the game that closely, then I can't see any positive in that. Since 2011, Hilmar has been very clear that CCP are the custodians of the game, but the players make Eve what it is. Along those lines, if Citadels are going to be built, then it should be up to the will of players to see that happen, not for CCP to quiet down the environment in highsec temporarily and then change it down the road. I certainly hope that's not what this is about. From my point of view, what CCP is doing with the NPC stations broker fees is exactly that. Pushing people into building citadels in a very unsubtle way. Wouldn't be surprised in them manipulating the environment in other ways. If down the road it show to be too much they will change some other thing or roll back.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2409	Posted - 2016.04.24 20:31:00 - [23] - Quote GsyBoy wrote: My point is still not being understood. Nothing should be 100% safe or not safe. At the moment a targeted freighter is dead 100% of the time. This three minute rule fixes nothing. As it should be if if 30-times the number of people target you. You would not expect to win a 1 vs. 30 battle in lowsec, no matter what you are flying. Why do you expect you win a 1 vs 30 PvP encounter while flying an unarmed hauler solo in highsec? That doesn't mean there isn't a plethora of things you can do to keep you freighter almost perfectly safe in highsec. Red Frog Freight and other professional haulers do these simple things on daily basis and lose only a couple freighters ever thousand trips. But if you have not taken precautions, and do not have friends with you, and 30 other players set their sights on you, you are going to die. As it should be. Anything else would be broken. Why Do They Gank?
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17699	Posted - 2016.04.24 20:46:51 - [24] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Gunrunner1775 wrote: the real question is... does that timer "reset" at the time the ship gets pointed... if timer is not reset.. then attacker must keep the target pointed the entire time until it is destroyed.. will require attackers to slightly alter tactics if timer is reset.. then this change is realy nothing more then cosmetic and will have minimal to no effect in the game Right now being pointed cancels warp. I would expect that mechanic to remain unchanged, otherwise it would be impossible to tackle a non-war target in highsec due to CONCORD. This would be an incredible nerf to criminal ganking and would force gankers to completely change tactics and make it much more expensive. I would not put that past CCP at this point, but I would expect their recent focus on easy changes means they will do as little as possible and thus won't touch the core of the warp scamble/disrupt mechanics. Even still, it will have a large impact on ransom bumpers making it impossible to hold a freighter for any length of time solo. But if a real ganking fleet is operating, you will not be safe, although the effort required to point you means you are not likely to be bump-tackled for nearly as long before they get around to exploding you. In either case, no matter how you look at it, it is yet another nerf to ganking. I wonder if this is the "one more nerf" that will finally make things balanced? Silly Pedro, you know very well what the nerf that will accomplish that is. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Sustrai Aditua Irubo Kovu 116	Posted - 2016.04.24 20:55:06 - [25] - Quote Regardless of what the people who are enjoying taking advantage of a situation might say (especially should this situation be altered against their WILLS) how the creators want the creation to look will prevail. The ones who like to take advantage of situations will just have to find something else to take advantage of . QQ waaah waaah QQ. I'm sure the entitled among us (who insist people design things to their own preferences and definitions of reality, rather than get in there and build their OWN creations [hardy har har to that]) will squeal like the stuck pigs they must be (for all the squealing they do) if some low hanging fruit they're thriving upon is shifted to where they'd have to actually make an effort to get it. And, this is how it's always been. This is how it will always be. Those of us who don't mind some work, and effort with a certain amount of determination involved have always known these people are there, and seemingly will never go away. So be it. QQ some more for us baby QQ. The bump the freighter interminably while we take our first-grader ships and whittle it down for an hour and a half "dynamic" sort of makes a lot of the ship design, and attributes a laughing stock. That it can be done at all demonstrates a loophole in design any true engineer would lose sleep over until it was plugged. It also points up what could be a deeper set of flaws in a process. Once again appears the Gordian Knot. No designer worth spit would allow the unwashed masses, the roaring minions, who have no appreciation of sound and cogent design, but are just lapping up crumbs from a gaping hole in what should be a fabulous design, influence any decision he or she makes - (emphasize: worth spit.) Knowing the obnoxiously loud minority of players in the gaming world who just love that low hanging fruit and will squall like a Vogon poet to keep it (insisting it's how reality itself desires it) like I do, I can see how freighter bumping will bring out the earplugs for those of us who just have to live with these people...as long as there's this civilization thing working here. It's heartening to see something, however convoluted, being done about this. For, as we all know to actually hyperwarp a space ship it doesn't need to be moving at all. All it needs is coordinates and the hyperdrive. The fictional fysixs does the rest. +1 for intelligence -1 for the ganker mentality
sero Hita Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 163	Posted - 2016.04.24 21:07:31 - [26] - Quote Sustrai Aditua wrote: Regardless of what the people who are enjoying taking advantage of a situation might say (especially should this situation be altered against their WILLS) how the creators want the creation to look will prevail. The ones who like to take advantage of situations will just have to find something else to take advantage of . QQ waaah waaah QQ. I'm sure the entitled among us (who insist people design things to their own preferences and definitions of reality, rather than get in there and build their OWN creations [hardy har har to that]) will squeal like the stuck pigs they must be (for all the squealing they do) if some low hanging fruit they're thriving upon is shifted to where they'd have to actually make an effort to get it. And, this is how it's always been. This is how it will always be. Those of us who don't mind some work, and effort with a certain amount of determination involved have always known these people are there, and seemingly will never go away. So be it. QQ some more for us baby QQ. The bump the freighter interminably while we take our first-grader ships and whittle it down for an hour and a half "dynamic" sort of makes a lot of the ship design, and attributes a laughing stock. That it can be done at all demonstrates a loophole in design any true engineer would lose sleep over until it was plugged. It also points up what could be a deeper set of flaws in a process. Once again appears the Gordian Knot. No designer worth spit would allow the unwashed masses, the roaring minions, who have no appreciation of sound and cogent design, but are just lapping up crumbs from a gaping hole in what should be a fabulous design, influence any decision he or she makes - (emphasize: worth spit.) Knowing the obnoxiously loud minority of players in the gaming world who just love that low hanging fruit and will squall like a Vogon poet to keep it (insisting it's how reality itself desires it) like I do, I can see how freighter bumping will bring out the earplugs for those of us who just have to live with these people...as long as there's this civilization thing working here. It's heartening to see something, however convoluted, being done about this. For, as we all know to actually hyperwarp a space ship it doesn't need to be moving at all. All it needs is coordinates and the hyperdrive. The fictional fysixs does the rest. +1 for intelligence -1 for the ganker mentality Why do you even bother changing posting alt the whole time? You are not fooling anyone. "I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
sero Hita Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 163	Posted - 2016.04.24 21:18:32 - [27] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Highsec has many problems which limit player interaction and prevent sandbox gameplay from fully developing. It is absurd that an AFK player in a freighter is so immune to the other players in the sandbox with no effort or action on their part. Highsec is long overdue for a complete rethink of the mechanics, and whenever CCP gets around to that, this content-killing situation will be addressed, exactly like it was for Aegis sov, with the goal of groups of all sizes being able to play as criminals. Not to be rude, but that does seem a little bit naive IMO. With all the changes they have done lately it does not seem likely that their end goal is that everyone can play as a criminal. And btw. Aegis sov was meant to make it harder to keep unused sov, nothing about being able to play as a criminal. "I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
Bobb Bobbington Bros Before Holes The Devils' Rejects 285	Posted - 2016.04.24 21:53:41 - [28] - Quote GsyBoy wrote: My point is still not being understood. Nothing should be 100% safe or not safe. At the moment a targeted freighter is dead 100% of the time. This three minute rule fixes nothing. I mean, you could also use that logic to state that if you jump into a lowsec gatecamp in a t1 hauler you have a near 100% chance of dieing also, so they should get a module that lets them escape the gatecamp. However, in reality, it is the hauler's fault for ignoring safety and not getting a scout or just not going through low. The key part of your post is the "targeted freighter". Exactly. A targeted freighter. You wouldn't complain about not being able to ignore a scram, because it's your own fault getting into such a situation. A freighter stays safe by keeping the cargo value low enough so that gankers won't bother, or by traveling through high-highsec systems. A group of 30 people should be able to kill a single freighter if he becomes a target through his own fault of hauling too high-value goods. Why should one person be able to stop thirty? This is a signature. It has a 25m signature. No it's not a cosmic signature. Probably. Btw my corp's recruiting.
GsyBoy Hooded Underworld Guys Northern Coalition. 15	Posted - 2016.04.25 00:22:43 - [29] - Quote Bobb Bobbington wrote: GsyBoy wrote: My point is still not being understood. Nothing should be 100% safe or not safe. At the moment a targeted freighter is dead 100% of the time. This three minute rule fixes nothing. I mean, you could also use that logic to state that if you jump into a lowsec gatecamp in a t1 hauler you have a near 100% chance of dieing also, so they should get a module that lets them escape the gatecamp. However, in reality, it is the hauler's fault for ignoring safety and not getting a scout or just not going through low. The key part of your post is the "targeted freighter". Exactly. A targeted freighter. You wouldn't complain about not being able to ignore a scram, because it's your own fault getting into such a situation. A freighter stays safe by keeping the cargo value low enough so that gankers won't bother, or by traveling through high-highsec systems. A group of 30 people should be able to kill a single freighter if he becomes a target through his own fault of hauling too high-value goods. Why should one person be able to stop thirty? You argument makes no sense. I could have a cloak/mwd or tank/cyno or battle hauler or be a decoy to agro to either clear gate or prevent jumping after my main cargo ship. A freighter carries stuff a to b, that's it. My point still stands, this change is pointless, just need to scram every 3 mins and can still bump to hearts content. Also can follow all the above and freighters still get killed for giggles, Just think they need a little valid love.
Elite Harvester Elite Harvesters 55	Posted - 2016.04.25 02:05:07 - [30] - Quote To summarize this thread: "Just one more nerf, CCP! Just one more!" This nerf to big ship ganking and ransoming isn't even out yet and you're already asking for another one? Visit www.MinerBumping.com to find out how *you can help* save Highsec.
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 899	Posted - 2016.04.25 02:40:35 - [31] - Quote GsyBoy wrote: At the moment a targeted freighter is dead 100% of the time. Correct. Though I'd add the addendum that the many more that get ignored or, by their own doing, avoid death are alive 100% after the fact. How do you think the far greater quantity of unmolested freighters indeed go unmolested? And, before you answer with the word "luck", that's not even a big part of it. Maybe it is for XCOM, that isn't quite how it works here. You also earlier stated something to the neighborhood of, "ganking is indefensible," which is incorrect; according to the term's definition, you're either incorrectly assuming ganking is illegitimate or unjustified, which you have indicated is not the case, or incorrectly assume one cannot defend against ganking. You can in fact, just not with simple align time or tank...proper preparatory intel gathering, smart decision making when plotting a time and path for navigation, and using various means to gain clairvoyance of your chosen path ahead of your freighter are your main means of defense. Yes, a freighter may as well just pop the moment a ganker fires off the first round, but you miss the point of how you go about in Eve answering the question, "How do I get from point A to point B safely in a ship that cannot nor is built to fight back?" Eve sometimes does that; sometimes, it simply rewards unconventional thinking and tactics, sometimes Eve requires it to even succeed at all. This is one of the later moments. If you land where a ganker/gankers have set-up shop, just as they have planned for you to, you have already failed your mission. Your mission is to survive, and in this case, by not letting the situation get to that point in the first place. "Tomahawks?" "----in' A, right?" "Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each." "----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs 5992	Posted - 2016.04.25 03:57:03 - [32] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Any group that is organized enough to gather 20-30 players to attack a single other player is not going to notice having to sacrifice a noobship every 2.5 minutes instead of the 15 minutes they already had to account for for the logoff timer. In my experience, at least some ganks are a significant number of "multi-boxed" accounts. I'm not against ganks. I am however disappointed at the lack of gameplay options for the person being ganked; it is extremely boring.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 44670	Posted - 2016.04.25 04:44:08 - [33] - Quote GsyBoy wrote: My point is still not being understood. Nothing should be 100% safe or not safe. At the moment a targeted freighter is dead 100% of the time. This three minute rule fixes nothing. How many characters does it take to gank a Freighter? If the freighter pilot has that much support also, the gank isn't going to happen. Solo freighter pilots put themselves at risk and a fleet of 20-30 trying to kill them, should succeed. So no, a Freighter isn't safe against a fleet of gank ships that have prepared themselves adequately to kill it. Maybe the freighter should have prepared adequately to not be killed. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
March rabbit Mosquito squadron 1751	Posted - 2016.04.25 05:33:26 - [34] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: I think everyone agrees that being able to bump someone indefinitely was a little broken Not quite "a little". Effect of warp disruptor without any timers, any aggro mechanics, etc... Black Pedro wrote: , but there does need to be some way to hold these freighters down long enough to get a fleet there to overcome the insane amount of EHP they can have. Not agree This is example of 'holding hand' for gankers. Anti-gankers can request the same: they want to be able to prevent the gank. Would you like game mechanics which would not allow gank to happen faster than AG fleet needs to gather and prepare? Sure not. It is Ok in Eve Online to lose if you didn't prepare well. The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2414	Posted - 2016.04.25 07:07:07 - [35] - Quote sero Hita wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Highsec has many problems which limit player interaction and prevent sandbox gameplay from fully developing. It is absurd that an AFK player in a freighter is so immune to the other players in the sandbox with no effort or action on their part. Highsec is long overdue for a complete rethink of the mechanics, and whenever CCP gets around to that, this content-killing situation will be addressed, exactly like it was for Aegis sov, with the goal of groups of all sizes being able to play as criminals. Not to be rude, but that does seem a little bit naive IMO. With all the changes they have done lately it does not seem likely that their end goal is that everyone can play as a criminal. And btw. Aegis sov was meant to make it harder to keep unused sov, nothing about being able to play as a criminal. I never said Aegis sov had anything to do with criminal mechanics in highsec as it clearly did not. I did say that one of the main goals of Aegis sov was to lower the artificial and arbitrary bar for number of players need to attack sov under the Dominion system (goal #3 in the devbog). Freighter ganking mechanics suffer from the same issue as Dominion sov that systemic pressure requires a massive number of players to even try to attack so, in fact, most groups cannot even try. The mechanic is only usable to a few groups in the game that have the numbers to meet this NPC-enforced bar, and that is bad for player-driven content. I think you are wrong: CCP clearly wants players to have the option of playing as a criminal. CrimeWatch 2.0 was a significant effort taken only a few years ago to allow criminal gameplay to take place in Empire. It would have been much easier to just turn off weapons in highsec, or lock criminals out of highsec if they did not want to facilitate criminal gameplay. I take Fozzie at his word when he said they have no intention of removing ganking and that CCP views it as a normal and intended game mechanic. The problem, which is just not limited to ganking, is balancing the mechanic for all group sizes and ship types. For years, CCP has tried to balance criminal vs. CONCORD by just making it harder to shoot something but they are rapidly running out of room for nerfs. Already, it is near impossible for typically sized group in this game to gank a freighter, leaving the mechanic only in the hands of specialized groups, and large nullsec alliances. And if they are serious at all with their stated intention to allow the other capitals back into highsec, something significant would have to happen as they would be completely invulnerable under the current CrimeWatch system. The whole thing needs a complete rethink, like Aegis sov was for sov mechanics, where criminal gameplay can be supported by all groups sizes. Add in the underdeveloped bounty hunting and contraband systems, and even a revamp to the problematic war declaration mechanic, and there is enough meat there for a whole Empire-focused expansion. I think almost every Eve player will agree a safe highsec is a boring highsec even if they have different ideas of what form that danger should take. CCP has to find a system where conflict can take place, and players can develop their own content, whether that is through criminal ganking or some other mechanic. Just making it harder/costlier to attack means less people will attack, and when they do, the conflict will be so imbalanced that there is little chance of unexpected things happening - in other words it just makes highsec more boring. March rabbit wrote: Black Pedro wrote: , but there does need to be some way to hold these freighters down long enough to get a fleet there to overcome the insane amount of EHP they can have. This is example of 'holding hand' for gankers. Anti-gankers can request the same: they want to be able to prevent the gank. Would you like game mechanics which would not allow gank to happen faster than AG fleet needs to gather and prepare? Sure not. They are not at all the same. In one case, players are fighting an arbitrary and infallible NPC-enforced mechanic. In the other, the group is fighting other players. If you are going to give players 100% reliable protection provided by NPCs, there has to be a game mechanic whereby the players can get around it. In this case, if the faction police are going to make it impossible for a criminal fleet to loiter in space, there needs to be a way for that criminal fleet to tackle a target long enough to get there, or it is literally impossible for them to gank the target. Without the bumping/scram mechanic, criminals could not operate at all and only neutrals could gank a moving target. That isn't 'hand-holding', that is just enabling player-driven content from happening at all. Anti-gankers are fighting other players and have all the tools every player has at their disposal to force a fight. Criminals are free-to-shoot and can be scrammed. But I would be open to some mechanic that slows down a gank and allows more time for anti-ganking to respond. As long of course the criminals are actually given the ability to participate in a fair fight by removing the faction police. Maybe freighters should have something like the Rorqual is going to get that provides a few minutes of absolute protection for a freighter to give time for friends to arrive, but activating it then forfeits CONCORD and facpo protection. I am not sure that is the best option, but some general rethink of the interdiction mechanics like this is what I am saying is necessary to get criminal gameplay out of the corner CCP has painted it into by just raising the bar required for a criminal to attack in highsec. Why Do They Gank?
Shayla Etherodyne United Nations Industrial Holdings 18	Posted - 2016.04.25 07:42:06 - [36] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Stuff You are seriously arguing the right for a single man to be able to kill a freighter? Because in the end it is what you are saying. For you apparently any bar is too high for your criminal activity in high sec. There are activities that aren't meant for a single player or even a small group. If you want to gank a freighter in high sec you need to be organized and have your friends at hand. It shouldn't be "I keep it bumpend for half a hor while I call my friends on the telephone".
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 254	Posted - 2016.04.25 08:20:42 - [37] - Quote Shayla Etherodyne wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Stuff You are seriously arguing the right for a single man to be able to kill a freighter? Because in the end it is what you are saying. For you apparently any bar is too high for your criminal activity in high sec. There are activities that aren't meant for a single player or even a small group. If you want to gank a freighter in high sec you need to be organized and have your friends at hand. It shouldn't be "I keep it bumpend for half a hor while I call my friends on the telephone". I think that's just your wrong interpretation of what he wrote. Black has never said anything like that. As to activities that aren't meant for a single player or even a small group - flying capital sized ships fits into that category. So you would argue then that flying freighters should be more difficult than it currently is?
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2414	Posted - 2016.04.25 08:21:36 - [38] - Quote Shayla Etherodyne wrote: You are seriously arguing the right for a single man to be able to kill a freighter? Because in the end it is what you are saying. For you apparently any bar is too high for your criminal activity in high sec. Of course I never said that. But 30 people to attack an AFK freighter is far too much. Remember, the original proposal for citadels was for the entosis mechanic to allow one person to attack an XL citadel. Right now, a single person can contest sov in null. CCP realizes that arbitrary bars to entry stifle content and this group size issue is a problem and has been looking for ways to solve it for both claiming sovereign space and for attacking structures. It only makes sense they will try to do the same thing when they next revisit criminal mechanics. But for the record, a big reduction in the group size needed to attack has to come with new abilities to defend. If a single player can alpha a freighter off the field before the hauler pilot can respond, freighters would be completely useless. Freighters should be easy to defend, but you should actually have to defend them rather than just hiding behind a massive wall of EHP which allows you to use them AFK. The current system is very binary and prevents most player conflict from even starting, and when it does, the force the aggressors have to use is so overwhelming the content is over quickly and the outcome is not very much in doubt. For all the bad things you can say about indefinite bump-tackling, it did allow time for anti-gankers or friends of tackled pilot to respond. Freighter ganks are going to occur much more rapidly now, leaving even less time for white knights to get into a position to help. The whole thing needs a rethink. I am sure there is an interdiction mechanic out there that would support the development of player conflict better than the current system and that doesn't involve bumping at all. Shayla Etherodyne wrote: There are activities that aren't meant for a single player or even a small group. Why not? Because you say so? If a small group of players can claim sovereign space, they should also be able to operate as criminals in highsec and knock over a transport. An equally-sized and equipped defending group should have no problem seeing them off, but the criminals should be able to try. Citadels are clearly intended to force players to actually have to defend their stuff, even to small groups, while giving them a significant advantage in doing so. Further, mechanics exist so that both sides are forced to commit to the fight. I am sure that whenever CCP next gets around to looking criminal mechanics they will incorporate both ideas and content-creation in highsec will be much better for it. Why Do They Gank?
March rabbit Mosquito squadron 1751	Posted - 2016.04.25 08:32:37 - [39] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: ... In one case, players are fighting an arbitrary and infallible NPC-enforced mechanic. In the other, the group is fighting other players. Not really this. Suicide ganking is 100% NPC-enforced mechanics. All its conditions are controlled by CONCORD and game mechanics. In simple words it is your DPS (ship, fit, skills, ammo - all provided by the game) against EHP of target (again - totally game mechanics) + CONCORD response time. Black Pedro: If you are going to give players 100% reliable protection provided by NPCs It is not protection. It is punishing of attacker AFTER attack happened. Tell about protection to one-shotted capsule. Black Pedro: there has to be a game mechanic whereby the players can get around it. It is already present. Neutral eyes, neutral OGBs, more people attacking at once, etc... Black Pedro: In this case, if the faction police are going to make it impossible for a criminal fleet to loiter in space, there needs to be a way for that criminal fleet to tackle a target long enough to get there, or it is literally impossible for them to gank the target. Without the bumping/scram mechanic, criminals could not operate at all and only neutrals could gank a moving target. You only 'criminal' for 15 minutes after initial attack. After it you are free. And thanks to security tags you can buy yourself legal status easily. So again: all you need is already there. Black Pedro: That isn't 'hand-holding', that is just enabling player-driven content from happening at all. Anti-gankers are fighting other players and have all the tools every player has at their disposal to force a fight. Criminals are free-to-shoot and can be scrammed. Anti-gankers play the same game. They cannot attack gankers unless they -10 or already started attack. AG cannot 'force' anything. If you don't attack you cannot be countered. Gankers always do first turn. Black Pedro: But I would be open to some mechanic that slows down a gank and allows more time for anti-ganking to respond. As long of course the criminals are actually given the ability to participate in a fair fight by removing the faction police. Maybe freighters should have something like the Rorqual is going to get that provides a few minutes of absolute protection for a freighter to give time for friends to arrive, but activating it then forfeits CONCORD and facpo protection. And here i completely agree. More freedom for players and less hardcoded mechanics is always welcome. The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Shayla Etherodyne United Nations Industrial Holdings 19	Posted - 2016.04.25 08:48:18 - [40] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Shayla Etherodyne wrote: You are seriously arguing the right for a single man to be able to kill a freighter? Because in the end it is what you are saying. For you apparently any bar is too high for your criminal activity in high sec. Of course I never said that. But 30 people to attack an AFK freighter is far too much. it is not 30 people, it is 30 accounts with dirty cheap ships and moderate skills. A low bar for a theoretically semi-safe area if you aren't in a wardec. If it was 30 expensive ships it would be too high, if it was 30 accounts in a wardeccing corp it would be too high. But 30 gankers? Even without helpful programs of questionable legality it mean 10-15 players. If you can't muster that many players select smaller targets. Black Pedro wrote: Remember, the original proposal for citadels was for the entosis mechanic to allow one person to attack an XL citadel. Right now, a single person can contest sov in null. CCP realizes that arbitrary bars to entry stifle content and this group size issue is a problem and has been looking for ways to solve it for both claiming sovereign space and for attacking structures. It only makes sense they will try to do the same thing when they next revisit criminal mechanics. I can't start 500 building jobs and 500 research jobs. That is an arbitrary bar stopping me from dominating the market. Bars are needed. You think that 30 account to gank a freighter are too much, to me ti seem a reasonable level. Black Pedro wrote: If a single player can alpha a freighter off the field before the hauler pilot can respond, freighters would be completely useless. Freighters should be easy to defend, but you should actually have to defend them rather than just hiding behind a massive wall of EHP which allows you to use them AFK. Hauling is boring. You want to enforce people into staying constantly alert while doing a boring activity. A bad recipe in a game. If someone go AFK he accept a risk to lose the ship, but you should balance that risk with the needs of keeping the game fun for the one playing it. Easy to kill, easy to defend, boring as you have to stay there for hours clicking jump is a bad recipe.
Anthar Thebess 1498	Posted - 2016.04.25 08:57:49 - [41] - Quote Bumping change is bad, CCP is again boosting big ganking groups. Let analyze how boosting ehp of freighters affected ganking : Before - most of freighters dying in 0.5-0.7 - rare jf kills, most of them auto piloting After - bigger part of freighters dying in 0.7-0.9 - constant jf kills, including empty ones - JF dying in 1.0 Most of you ask why. People needed to join bigger groups to continue having fun in this game. More bodies allowed to do stuff that, was hard before freighter buff. How the game will look like after this bumping changes? - every day burn jita or amarr - jf dying on station undock - t1 indy ships massacred by t1 destroyers carrying 40 mil Why? People will need to consolidate even more, and move to a places where they can kill a target under 6min, so maximum 1 jump from the staging system. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2414	Posted - 2016.04.25 08:59:09 - [42] - Quote March rabbit wrote: Black Pedro: If you are going to give players 100% reliable protection provided by NPCs It is not protection. It is punishing of attacker AFTER attack happened. Tell about protection to one-shotted capsule. Black Pedro: there has to be a game mechanic whereby the players can get around it. It is already present. Neutral eyes, neutral OGBs, more people attacking at once, etc... I was referring to the Faction Police, not CONCORD. The facpo prevent criminal fleets from staying in space. If your target is moving, you need a way to tackle them temporarily and allow the criminal fleet to undock and get on top of them or they are completely invulnerable to criminals. There is no viable way a -10 could attack a moving ship in highsec without the bumping/scram mechanic. You could use tags to circumvent the whole criminal mechanic, but then why have criminal status at all? In any case gankers continue to have access to a highsec tackle as I am sure CCP has reached the same conclusion that limited bumping is absolutely necessary for criminals to operate (after all they could have made it so you enter warp at the expected time completely ignoring bumping). The 3 minute warp cap will not change much for active gank fleets who will just sacrifice a suicide scram much like they already do to prevent the logoff timer to keep the freighter tackled. It will just speed up ganks, and kill off ransom bumpers. What I am saying more generally though is that the whole thing is due for reconsideration. There are many other ways players could start and finish a fight over a freighter that might support more interesting game play than the current system of bump-tackling and a DPS race against CONCORD. Why Do They Gank?
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2414	Posted - 2016.04.25 09:13:27 - [43] - Quote Shayla Etherodyne wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Why not? Because you say so? So you are actually arguing that solo players should be able to kill freighters? Or where is your bar? 3 accounts? 5? 10? Just like sov or citadels, a small group of players (whatever CCP decides is best for balance 5-10 or so like as for Citadels) should be able to kill an undefended freighter. If it defended, it should take much more. Making attacking easy but defending even easier is how you get things to happen in the game, not cranking up arbitrary EHP walls that lock small groups out of being the aggressor. Making it so that you do not require massive fleets to even be able to attack is exactly what CCP has spend the last few years trying to solve for other game systems. I have no doubt that somewhere down the line the whole thing will be rethought, and much like Citadels, players will be forced to actually defend their stuff, instead of relying on the huge bar to attack as protection and AFKing their capital ship across New Eden while they go make a sandwich or watch Netflix. Why Do They Gank?
Kitsune Rei Tastes Like Purple 53	Posted - 2016.04.25 09:17:01 - [44] - Quote Why not just make sec status a dynamic value? If a certain threshold of destruction is met, the sec status of a system drops by 0.1 at the next downtime. Imagine Jita as a 0.4 system. EDIT: If the threshold isn't met, it gains 0.1 sec status until it reaches it's original value.
Shayla Etherodyne United Nations Industrial Holdings 19	Posted - 2016.04.25 09:18:14 - [45] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Shayla Etherodyne wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Why not? Because you say so? So you are actually arguing that solo players should be able to kill freighters? Or where is your bar? 3 accounts? 5? 10? Just like sov or citadels, a small group of players (whatever CCP decides is best for balance 5-10 or so like as for Citadels) should be able to kill an undefended freighter. If it defended, it should take much more. Making attacking easy but defending even easier is how you get things to happen in the game, not cranking up arbitrary EHP walls that lock small groups out of being the aggressor. Making it so that you do not require massive fleets to even be able to attack is exactly what CCP has spend the last few years trying to solve for other game systems. I have no doubt that somewhere down the line the whole thing will be rethought, and much like Citadels, players will be forced to actually defend their stuff, instead of relying on the huge bar to attack as protection and AFKing their capital ship across New Eden while they go make a sandwich or watch Netflix. 5-10 accounts, so as low as 2 players. Your bar is extremely low.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2414	Posted - 2016.04.25 09:28:16 - [46] - Quote Shayla Etherodyne wrote: 5-10 accounts, so as low as 2 players. Your bar is extremely low. Do you think that bar is too low to attack Citadels as well? Why Do They Gank?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7491	Posted - 2016.04.25 09:30:46 - [47] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: But 30 people to attack an AFK freighter is far too much. It's only 30 people in highsec, it's one person anywhere else, and why is that too much? A capital ship in highsec will be naturally difficult to attack. Whether you like it or not, highsec is supposed to be safer than elsewhere and that means that criminal activity is harder. If that's not something you can get on board with there are 3 other sections of space to live in. And let's be real here, you're talking about 30 low SP characters in cheap disposable ships. If it took 30 pirate faction battleships and months of training you might have a point. Black Pedro wrote: Remember, the original proposal for citadels was for the entosis mechanic to allow one person to attack an XL citadel. Right now, a single person can contest sov in null. CCP realizes that arbitrary bars to entry stifle content Citadels they changed and in fact are going with a mechanic that mitigates damage, forcing a minimum number of players. Sov is almost universally (by which I mean everyone who isn;t gaining massively from it's current broken state) in agreement that sov is broken right now. Even CCP have suggested that sov mechanics may move into citadels in the long run, which would put them under the same damage mitigation mechanics. What CCP started to move towards which thankfully they are backing off of was making pretty much all mechanics soloable. In reality some things should be able to be done alone, other should require a minimum group size, and if people can't get that group then too bad, that's just how MMOs work. Black Pedro wrote: But for the record, a big reduction in the group size needed to attack has to come with new abilities to defend. If a single player can alpha a freighter off the field before the hauler pilot can respond, freighters would be completely useless. Freighters should be easy to defend, but you should actually have to defend them rather than just hiding behind a massive wall of EHP which allows you to use them AFK. I agree the system needs to be more active, but realise that what you are saying here is that haulers would then have a minimum group size for entry into the mechanics, defined by whatever group were actively attacking freighters. You have a 50 man gank group and all of a sudden freighters require a similar sized force just to escort them through highsec. When you consider that hauling is already so slow and low reward that flying AFK is pretty much a requirement to haul without shooting yourself, the prospect of splitting that between an escort party seems unrealistic. Black Pedro wrote: For all the bad things you can say about indefinite bump-tackling, it did allow time for anti-gankers or friends of tackled pilot to respond. Freighter ganks are going to occur much more rapidly now, leaving even less time for white knights to get into a position to help. Personally I had no problem with bump tackling to an extent. The problem I had with it was people would bump for hours with little to no intent of ever ganking the freighter, just because they can. I actually preferred the old logoff mechanics, so if you started bumping a pilot he could choose to log off and not play, giving gankers a 15 minute window to destroy them before they vanished. When they changed that to allow you to keep someone in space forever, it broke it a bit. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7491	Posted - 2016.04.25 09:34:53 - [48] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Shayla Etherodyne wrote: 5-10 accounts, so as low as 2 players. Your bar is extremely low. Do you think that bar is too low to attack Citadels as well? Bear in mind that is pretty much going to be medium citadels only at that size, you'll need considerably bigger ships than catalysts to hit the citadel, with the one player in the citadel that the freighter would have in it, the bar becomes much higher as citadels can do pretty high damage, and most importantly the citadel has to be in a corp, which can be wardecced and I believe needs to be wardecced to hit the citadel. The current requirement for killing a wardecced AFK freighter in highsec is 1. I imagine ganking a citadel will take considerably more than 10 players. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Corvald Tyrska Valknetra 119	Posted - 2016.04.25 09:40:29 - [49] - Quote Kitsune Rei wrote: Why not just make sec status a dynamic value? If a certain threshold of destruction is met, the sec status of a system drops by 0.1 at the next downtime. Imagine Jita as a 0.4 system. EDIT: If the threshold isn't met, it gains 0.1 sec status until it reaches it's original value. There are a lot of reasons this wouldn't work. In practice, the most organised and co-ordinated groups are not HiSec players which means the co-ordinated ganking groups have a huge advantage. On top of that with the alpha available through certain ships there is no way a group could actually prevent the destruction of a targeted ship even with co-ordinated logistics to try and protect it. The alpha will overcome any repping and kill the ship regardless. Have a look at the history of N+1 Nullsec doctrines to see this in action as fleets moved through Maelstrom, Slowcat and Dreadnaught blobs to overcome grouped up triage logistics with massive alphas. Even if groups did co-ordinate to protect the freighters, pirate groups could just sit on the Jita undock and smartbomb hundreds of frigates to help drop the sec status with no way to stop it other than counter ganking (which would also drop the sec status). It would definitely be worth suiciding a bunch of battleship fleets just to drop the sec status of trade hubs and even if you don't want to go that far it is easy enough to burn through a few thousand cheap thrashers. Worse, you are essentially forcing thousands of HiSec players who only want to mine, mission run, rat, or do indy/PI to abandon their chosen activities for a period of time each day and co-ordinate to defend the sec status of their system. To prevent that you would have to allow all those activities to help raise the sec status of the system at which point you have nearly recreated Sov Null. Finally, the sec status represents the Concord response time for the system. Logically, why would Concord respond less quickly to known trouble spots. Realistically, heavy ganking should raise the sec status temporarily as Concord are going be watching the area more closely and be more ready to respond.
Kitsune Rei Tastes Like Purple 53	Posted - 2016.04.25 10:39:56 - [50] - Quote Corvald Tyrska wrote: Kitsune Rei wrote: Why not just make sec status a dynamic value? If a certain threshold of destruction is met, the sec status of a system drops by 0.1 at the next downtime. Imagine Jita as a 0.4 system. EDIT: If the threshold isn't met, it gains 0.1 sec status until it reaches it's original value. There are a lot of reasons this wouldn't work. In practice, the most organised and co-ordinated groups are not HiSec players which means the co-ordinated ganking groups have a huge advantage. On top of that with the alpha available through certain ships there is no way a group could actually prevent the destruction of a targeted ship even with co-ordinated logistics to try and protect it. The alpha will overcome any repping and kill the ship regardless. Have a look at the history of N+1 Nullsec doctrines to see this in action as fleets moved through Maelstrom, Slowcat and Dreadnaught blobs to overcome grouped up triage logistics with massive alphas. Even if groups did co-ordinate to protect the freighters, pirate groups could just sit on the Jita undock and smartbomb hundreds of frigates to help drop the sec status with no way to stop it other than counter ganking (which would also drop the sec status). It would definitely be worth suiciding a bunch of battleship fleets just to drop the sec status of trade hubs and even if you don't want to go that far it is easy enough to burn through a few thousand cheap thrashers. Worse, you are essentially forcing thousands of HiSec players who only want to mine, mission run, rat, or do indy/PI to abandon their chosen activities for a period of time each day and co-ordinate to defend the sec status of their system. To prevent that you would have to allow all those activities to help raise the sec status of the system at which point you have nearly recreated Sov Null. Finally, the sec status represents the Concord response time for the system. Logically, why would Concord respond less quickly to known trouble spots. Realistically, heavy ganking should raise the sec status temporarily as Concord are going be watching the area more closely and be more ready to respond. My hope in this is to make player action have an impact. Jita is burned on a daily basis because that's where the targets are. As soon as it hits 0.4, targets are going to dry up, and criminals will need to look for other targets. Consequently, the map is impacted, the economy is impacted, but because there are fewer targets, Jita is going to go back to 0.5 tomorrow. I like the idea that an individual or group can have a profound impact on the shape and nature of the game universe. In terms of CONCORD, those ships are piloted by people; people with families. That guy flying the Polaris Battleship above the Perimeter gate has less than a month to retirement. At some point, the Space Police should just say, "Hey, we're leaving the gate guns and station guns in place, but we didn't sign up for this ****." I understand your concerns of unintended consequences, but unintended consequences is one of the things that makes EVE awesome.
Diolo en Divalone Infinity Engine Sleeping Dragons 0	Posted - 2016.04.25 14:00:10 - [51] - Quote In my mind this is not a serious nerf to ganking at all. Most ganks are completed within three minutes. In addittion a ship with the cost of a freighter should provide a distinct advantage against attackers in much cheaper ships. If you cannot gank it within three minutes you need more people or more expensive tools.
Kitsune Rei Tastes Like Purple 53	Posted - 2016.04.25 14:09:00 - [52] - Quote Diolo en Divalone wrote: In my mind this is not a serious nerf to ganking at all. Most ganks are completed within three minutes. In addittion a ship with the cost of a freighter should provide a distinct advantage against attackers in much cheaper ships. If you cannot gank it within three minutes you need more people or more expensive tools. You're describing N+1 tactics that Black Pedro has mentioned before. There's nothing fun or immersive about N+1.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1352	Posted - 2016.04.25 15:58:37 - [53] - Quote Quote: For all the bad things you can say about indefinite bump-tackling, it did allow time for anti-gankers or friends of tackled pilot to respond. Freighter ganks are going to occur much more rapidly now, leaving even less time for white knights to get into a position to help. Gankers flooded the area with loads of bumpers and stacked up targets who they kept in place then they hyperdunked or ganked as required, thankfully hyperdunking was removed so that option went, but still it was very difficult . It was impossible to get in place to defend, there was so many people being bumped The changes will mean that the ganker fleet will have to be close to the selected target so the AG players can ignore the multiple bumpers and focus on the ganker fleet, location and what is being bumped which now does not have the time to run around to confuse them but has to head there, meaning that its going to be slightly easier for the AG players to have an effect. So it will be note bumpers, get scouts near it for warp ins, keep tabs on the gank fleet, and narrow down the likely target if the warp timer does not get re-set by a point. If it does re-set the timer then there is no change. The question whether the timer gets reset by being pointed is critical, because they have so many alts that they can suicide point multiple targets and stack up what is required for the real target no sweat and some poor casual hisec player is still going to be sat there for perhaps hours, ransoming will not change because they will just have to have a suicide alt in system to scare the freighter pilot that they are serious. They will need six suicide point pilots to keep that person held, not an issue for them at all imo, that is two accounts, thats all, yeah it adds to their costs in terms of two plexes, but that is not a lot. Lets see what CCP means by the three minute timer... EDIT Perhaps I changed my sig too soon in terms of that question? Ella's Snack bar. The Hisec sandbox is basically no longer a themepark for gankers now that CCP have rebalanced key areas. Well done CCP
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2417	Posted - 2016.04.25 16:18:41 - [54] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: The question whether the timer gets reset by being pointed is critical, because they have so many alts that they can suicide point multiple targets and stack up what is required for the real target no sweat and some poor casual hisec player is still going to be sat there for perhaps hours, ransoming will not change because they will just have to have a suicide alt in system to scare the freighter pilot that they are serious. They will need six suicide point pilots to keep that person held, not an issue for them at all imo, that is two accounts, thats all, yeah it adds to their costs in terms of two plexes, but that is not a lot. That is the question and as I said I am pretty confident the 3 minutes timer will be disruptable by a scram as it currently is. Not only is that much easier to implement than rewriting the scram/warp code (and CCP is all about efficient changes these days), it would nerf bumping for ransom significantly (although perhaps an empty threat of ganking would be more credible if the bumper was expending noobships every few minutes), while being only a marginal nerf for a true criminal gank fleet. Since CCP considers ganking a normal game mechanic and has gone to much effort to allow criminals to operate, I doubt that they would put in extra work to effectively eliminate freighters as targets for criminal game play in highsec. But as you say, we shall see. Why Do They Gank?
Diolo en Divalone Infinity Engine Sleeping Dragons 1	Posted - 2016.04.25 16:29:44 - [55] - Quote Kitsune Rei wrote: Diolo en Divalone wrote: In my mind this is not a serious nerf to ganking at all. Most ganks are completed within three minutes. In addittion a ship with the cost of a freighter should provide a distinct advantage against attackers in much cheaper ships. If you cannot gank it within three minutes you need more people or more expensive tools. You're describing N+1 tactics that Black Pedro has mentioned before. There's nothing fun or immersive about N+1. N+1 will always be a viable and important tactic for all aspects of the game, but i also mentioned more effective tools. If a good number of taloses cannot do the job i would be more woried. As is stands now the backlash from this seems to be mostly gankers complaining that you cannot maintain the awsome profit freighter ganking with catalysts provide.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1352	Posted - 2016.04.25 16:45:07 - [56] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Dracvlad wrote: The question whether the timer gets reset by being pointed is critical, because they have so many alts that they can suicide point multiple targets and stack up what is required for the real target no sweat and some poor casual hisec player is still going to be sat there for perhaps hours, ransoming will not change because they will just have to have a suicide alt in system to scare the freighter pilot that they are serious. They will need six suicide point pilots to keep that person held, not an issue for them at all imo, that is two accounts, thats all, yeah it adds to their costs in terms of two plexes, but that is not a lot. That is the question and as I said I am pretty confident the 3 minutes timer will be disruptable by a scram as it currently is. Not only is that much easier to implement than rewriting the scram/warp code (and CCP is all about efficient changes these days), it would nerf bumping for ransom significantly (although perhaps an empty threat of ganking would be more credible if the bumper was expending noobships every few minutes), while being only a marginal nerf for a true criminal gank fleet. Since CCP considers ganking a normal game mechanic and has gone to much effort to allow criminals to operate, I doubt that they would put in extra work to effectively eliminate freighters as targets for criminal game play in highsec. But as you say, we shall see. I am fine with ganking as it adds content. I am however more interested in balanced game play and if the timer re-sets then its no change business as before with a bit of extra cost and some poor sap still being sat there for hours. Also no change in terms of the tactics apart from trying to intercept the suicide pointer and there are only a few people who are willing to do that as most AG players do not have the ability to have a criminal account. or alt. But with a three minute timer you will still have the ability to gank freighters, it will just mean you have less tactical freedom and have to be more selective than before. Because the gankers have other issues like a loss of Goon funding, the loss of key players and some turmoil between two groups. Freighters should require multiple players to kill and if you cannot get the numbers to kill it and get them there in time that's your issue, its like the AG players did not have the numbers and most of the time could not get there in time because of the advantages taht Gankers had in my earlier post. Making the timer not re-set will not remove the tactical advantages gankers have and still leave people sitting in space being bumped for extended periods of time. We shall see. Ella's Snack bar. The Hisec sandbox is basically no longer a themepark for gankers now that CCP have rebalanced key areas. Well done CCP
Pandora Carrollon Kingsman Tailors 176	Posted - 2016.04.25 16:46:21 - [57] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: GsyBoy wrote: My point is still not being understood. Nothing should be 100% safe or not safe. At the moment a targeted freighter is dead 100% of the time. This three minute rule fixes nothing. As it should be if if 30-times the number of people target you. You would not expect to win a 1 vs. 30 battle in lowsec, no matter what you are flying. Why do you expect you win a 1 vs 30 PvP encounter while flying an unarmed hauler solo in highsec? That doesn't mean there isn't a plethora of things you can do to keep you freighter almost perfectly safe in highsec. Red Frog Freight and other professional haulers do these simple things on daily basis and lose only a couple freighters ever thousand trips. But if you have not taken precautions, and do not have friends with you, and 30 other players set their sights on you, you are going to die. As it should be. Anything else would be broken. I think you are mistaking perfect skilled flying with 'perfectly safe'. If a hauler is doing the right things and flying "perfectly", then yes, they should be "perfectly" safe. You're the lion complaining that those darned Gazelles, even the fastest of them, or the massive Pacaderms, even the strongest and most powerful, should be able to be caught and killed by you. That's ludicrous. You need to play within limits as well. If you can't make your kill in a certain period of time because a hauler is doing all the right things, then the hauler has earned the right to get away. Your "30" people is irrelevant because it's just 30 ships playing Hyena waiting take part in the spoils. It's not like the target could fight back anyway. No, you need a time clock to do your kill just like every other combat task in EVE. Nobody gets unlimited time to do combat why should bump gankers? Besides, using a tiny rookie ship to scram, bump and then gank a Billion ISK Freighter with a Billion ISK cargo is something that should not be possible... by mass physics alone. 1 or 30 is meaningless. Be happy that CCP is giving you 3 minutes to do the impossible. You can debate the 3 minutes, I'm sure CCP didn't arrive at that arbitrarily though. HiSec is not 100% safe, but if you fly perfectly, you should be rewarded for that. Bump ganking should not be a 100% perfect thing either. Accept the challenge, change your tactics or find some other way to make it happen. That big, juicy Loot Pi+¦ata should not be 100% bump killable just because you want the goodies inside of it. Each side needs their challenge. The hauler has to hold out against bumpers for 3 minutes. The bumpers need to do their thing fast enough to take care of business in 3 minutes. Seems fair to me. 3...2...1... go! Be Positive GÇó Change yourself first, New Eden will come later GÇó EVE is Awesome GÇó CCP isn't the enemy GÇó Players are people too GÇó Where're the clothing blueprints GÇó Yeah, I'm still learning this game -- Pandora's Rules to EVE by
Shayla Etherodyne United Nations Industrial Holdings 20	Posted - 2016.04.25 17:06:05 - [58] - Quote Kitsune Rei wrote: My hope in this is to make player action have an impact. Jita is burned on a daily basis because that's where the targets are. As soon as it hits 0.4, targets are going to dry up, and criminals will need to look for other targets. Consequently, the map is impacted, the economy is impacted, but because there are fewer targets, Jita is going to go back to 0.5 tomorrow. I like the idea that an individual or group can have a profound impact on the shape and nature of the game universe. In terms of CONCORD, those ships are piloted by people; people with families. That guy flying the Polaris Battleship above the Perimeter gate has less than a month to retirement. At some point, the Space Police should just say, "Hey, we're leaving the gate guns and station guns in place, but we didn't sign up for this ****." I understand your concerns of unintended consequences, but unintended consequences is one of the things that makes EVE awesome. So you hate trade hubs? You want people to run around the map to find what they need? You know, someone don't like spending an evening to get a fit.
Shayla Etherodyne United Nations Industrial Holdings 20	Posted - 2016.04.25 17:08:29 - [59] - Quote Kitsune Rei wrote: Diolo en Divalone wrote: In my mind this is not a serious nerf to ganking at all. Most ganks are completed within three minutes. In addittion a ship with the cost of a freighter should provide a distinct advantage against attackers in much cheaper ships. If you cannot gank it within three minutes you need more people or more expensive tools. You're describing N+1 tactics that Black Pedro has mentioned before. There's nothing fun or immersive about N+1. Instead destroying a freighter with a couple of players in high sec and without a wardec is fun and immersive ....
Kitsune Rei Tastes Like Purple 55	Posted - 2016.04.25 17:17:54 - [60] - Quote Shayla Etherodyne wrote: Kitsune Rei wrote: My hope in this is to make player action have an impact. Jita is burned on a daily basis because that's where the targets are. As soon as it hits 0.4, targets are going to dry up, and criminals will need to look for other targets. Consequently, the map is impacted, the economy is impacted, but because there are fewer targets, Jita is going to go back to 0.5 tomorrow. I like the idea that an individual or group can have a profound impact on the shape and nature of the game universe. In terms of CONCORD, those ships are piloted by people; people with families. That guy flying the Polaris Battleship above the Perimeter gate has less than a month to retirement. At some point, the Space Police should just say, "Hey, we're leaving the gate guns and station guns in place, but we didn't sign up for this ****." I understand your concerns of unintended consequences, but unintended consequences is one of the things that makes EVE awesome. So you hate trade hubs? You want people to run around the map to find what they need? You know, someone don't like spending an evening to get a fit. I have nothing against trade hubs. I do take issue with complacency. How dare anyone suggest something that might make the game more interesting than: A. Set destination B. Undock C. Press the little A on your HUD. D. Watch Netflix or walk the dog. E. Find yourself blown up and then complain that this is hard work.
Gal Desh University of Caille Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2016.04.25 17:19:04 - [61] - Quote While I never supported ganking, I viewed it as a play style. Bumping indefinitely never made sense because there was nothing that could be done about it. It lasted until either the person doing the bumping got bored or friends decided to show up and gank you. So, the 3 minutes is a great place to start. I would argue that it is still too long. I would put it at 2 minutes. If people want to gank, then they should be ready to gank. It's not the other pilots fault (freighter or any other ship) that the ganking partying wasn't ready. However, I would also argue that there does need to be some risk there for the people being ganked. I would propose that anyone on "auto pilot" would have a % shield/armor/hull decreased. Like a reverse damage control. Anyone not AFK, has their normal ship and is sitting in front of their computer playing the game. If they go AFK and do auto pilot, then they get a % defense nerf to whatever ship they are auto piloting. Just my thoughts.
Kitsune Rei Tastes Like Purple 55	Posted - 2016.04.25 17:24:39 - [62] - Quote Shayla Etherodyne wrote: Kitsune Rei wrote: Diolo en Divalone wrote: In my mind this is not a serious nerf to ganking at all. Most ganks are completed within three minutes. In addittion a ship with the cost of a freighter should provide a distinct advantage against attackers in much cheaper ships. If you cannot gank it within three minutes you need more people or more expensive tools. You're describing N+1 tactics that Black Pedro has mentioned before. There's nothing fun or immersive about N+1. Instead destroying a freighter with a couple of players in high sec and without a wardec is fun and immersive .... If it weren't fun and immersive why would it be so popular? Why are there gaggles of Artynados hanging out in Jita? Those guys aren't sitting there thinking, "Man this is so boring. I wonder what's going on in the other room." But every bump in Freighter EHP, all that means is you bring more guns to bear on the target. That's it. N+1. And nothing changes. EHP goes up ----> add one more Nado. Repeat. At some point this arms race has to end and another option needs to be implemented.
Shayla Etherodyne United Nations Industrial Holdings 22	Posted - 2016.04.25 18:08:57 - [63] - Quote Kitsune Rei wrote: I have nothing against trade hubs. I do take issue with complacency. How dare anyone suggest something that might make the game more interesting than: A. Set destination B. Undock C. Press the little A on your HUD. D. Watch Netflix or walk the dog. E. Find yourself blown up and then complain that this is hard work. So many assumptions in so few words. Let's sum it up Kitsune Rei "I hate people that don't play as I want them to play"
Sustrai Aditua Irubo Kovu 121	Posted - 2016.04.25 18:43:56 - [64] - Quote sero Hita wrote: Why do you even bother changing posting alt the whole time? You are not fooling anyone. QQ Mommy! Johnny's got a bigger piece! QQ
Kitsune Rei Tastes Like Purple 56	Posted - 2016.04.25 19:21:57 - [65] - Quote Shayla Etherodyne wrote: Kitsune Rei wrote: I have nothing against trade hubs. I do take issue with complacency. How dare anyone suggest something that might make the game more interesting than: A. Set destination B. Undock C. Press the little A on your HUD. D. Watch Netflix or walk the dog. E. Find yourself blown up and then complain that this is hard work. So many assumptions in so few words. Try to think about the effects of your proposal. 1) trade hubs would become unsafe as soon as they start to develop, so they will disappear. 2) people would not travel to sell stuff, there is no incentive to do that, so they would put what they build or wnat tosell in their current station. You have ever tried getting all the pieces for a fit in low sec? I don't enjoy running around the map to find a module here one there. I doubt most people will like it. For what reason you want to wreck the game of a lot of people? What will be the benefit? Or the only goal is "People should play in the way Kitsune Rei want them to play"? Not at all. I would just like to see player action have an impact. Gankers in high sec blapped freighters today. Tomorrow, they're going to blap some more freighters. And since there is obviously nothing that can be done about it due to the tactics of N+1 and an endless arms race, I thought it would be interesting to have those actions have an impact. But your complacency of buy everything in one place, sell everything in one place and adapting to changing circumstances and environments is too taxing on your delicate sensibilities you can just go on ignoring any suggestions and complaining about the game being too hard for you.
Shayla Etherodyne United Nations Industrial Holdings 22	Posted - 2016.04.25 19:37:35 - [66] - Quote Kitsune Rei wrote: Not at all. I would just like to see player action have an impact. Gankers in high sec blapped freighters today. Tomorrow, they're going to blap some more freighters. And since there is obviously nothing that can be done about it due to the tactics of N+1 and an endless arms race, I thought it would be interesting to have those actions have an impact. But your complacency of buy everything in one place, sell everything in one place and adapting to changing circumstances and environments is too taxing on your delicate sensibilities you can just go on ignoring any suggestions and complaining about the game being too hard for you. LOL, again assumptions. It seem that you have no idea of the consequences of your suggestion. it wouldn't be "hard", it would be boring. it will add nothing and remove a lot.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3203	Posted - 2016.04.25 19:50:37 - [67] - Quote The bumping change is a much needed fix to a poor game mechanic. The solution to more interesting ganking is to stop treating industrial ships as unfittable targets, and give them equal slots and PG/CPU to other ships of the same size. Then the target has a bunch of options they can employ and you can allow ganks more time to happen, meaning more time for strategy and outside influence to happen. As long as ganks stay a 15 seconds and it's done, and the industrials stay unfittable targets (3 low slots does not count as fittable), we will continue to have these major issues.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 26116	Posted - 2016.04.25 20:15:19 - [68] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: The solution to more interesting ganking is to stop treating industrial ships as unfittable targets CCP don't, people do. With few exceptions most industrial ships are able to be fit in a variety of ways, including for resists and hitpoints. If you want to change "industrial ships" to freighters then you'd be correct. Quote: and give them equal slots and PG/CPU to other ships of the same size. They're industrial ships, they're designed to move stuff around not partake in battle; they have no business having the same attributes as a combat ship. Quote: Then the target has a bunch of options they can employ and you can allow ganks more time to happen, meaning more time for strategy and outside influence to happen. The targets already have a multitude of options that they can employ, most can be employed before they even undock. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 10218	Posted - 2016.04.25 20:20:59 - [69] - Quote I wouldn't be averse to having a high slot or two on a freighter. Like with some of the smaller industrial ships. While it's unlikely to accomplish much, at least you could laugh maniacally while picking off drones as you go down in flames. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Kitsune Rei Tastes Like Purple 57	Posted - 2016.04.25 20:36:08 - [70] - Quote Shayla Etherodyne wrote: Kitsune Rei wrote: Not at all. I would just like to see player action have an impact. Gankers in high sec blapped freighters today. Tomorrow, they're going to blap some more freighters. And since there is obviously nothing that can be done about it due to the tactics of N+1 and an endless arms race, I thought it would be interesting to have those actions have an impact. But your complacency of buy everything in one place, sell everything in one place and adapting to changing circumstances and environments is too taxing on your delicate sensibilities you can just go on ignoring any suggestions and complaining about the game being too hard for you. LOL, again assumptions. It seem that you have no idea of the consequences of your suggestion. it wouldn't be "hard", it would be boring. it will add nothing and remove a lot. It adds another dynamic to hi sec and removes targets from target rich environments. You've spent the better part of this thread complaining at anyone who thinks the current status isn't bad and ridicule any who offer alternatives. Are you always this averse to both the status quo and proposed changes. Or did you have some other option that goes along with that bitterness?
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3203	Posted - 2016.04.25 20:38:36 - [71] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Quote: and give them equal slots and PG/CPU to other ships of the same size. They're industrial ships, they're designed to move stuff around not partake in battle; they have no business having the same attributes as a combat ship.. Spanish Galleons from the actual pirate era say you are wrong. Get your head out of the modern era where piracy is basically non existant, look at the actual piracy eras. Viking Longboats & Spanish Galleons were the large cargo vessels of their respective eras. And they were warships. So yes, CCP do treat industrial ships as nothing more than targets, there are not a 'variety' of fits for them. And that is the root of the problem.
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 901	Posted - 2016.04.25 20:58:42 - [72] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: I wouldn't be averse to having a high slot or two on a freighter. Like with some of the smaller industrial ships. While it's unlikely to accomplish much, at least you could laugh maniacally while picking off drones as you go down in flames. Mr Epeen Why not? Hell, CCP could go pure troll-powers-activated mode and give them disco options and a range buff with some massive "no-dock, no jump" restricting weapons timer (say 30 minute timer or until your ship go boom). I overheard someone post that in chat once some time ago and thought, "Eh...useless and unneeded, but it'd be kind of funny to watch at least. For once, a freighter could actually pick up a rare kill before eating a bullet." Giving them a direct defense mechanism might be blasphemously contrary to their intentional way of design, but then again so was slapping rigs on them, right? It wouldn't be enough to really save a freighter and that's intentional, but it would also just be funny seeing a supposedly defenseless creature such as a freighter bloody somebody's noose a bit before dying. AND, it would encourage active play more since it would never work on AP. "Tomahawks?" "----in' A, right?" "Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each." "----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Kitsune Rei Tastes Like Purple 58	Posted - 2016.04.25 21:01:12 - [73] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Quote: and give them equal slots and PG/CPU to other ships of the same size. They're industrial ships, they're designed to move stuff around not partake in battle; they have no business having the same attributes as a combat ship.. Spanish Galleons from the actual pirate era say you are wrong. Get your head out of the modern era where piracy is basically non existant, look at the actual piracy eras. Viking Longboats & Spanish Galleons were the large cargo vessels of their respective eras. And they were warships. So yes, CCP do treat industrial ships as nothing more than targets, there are not a 'variety' of fits for them. And that is the root of the problem. Spanish Galleons were easy targets for faster ships. Viking Longboat were more troop transport than combat vessel. So unless you''re talking about having a Badger full of trained mercenaries boarding another ship, this allegory makes no sense.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 26116	Posted - 2016.04.25 21:01:23 - [74] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Quote: and give them equal slots and PG/CPU to other ships of the same size. They're industrial ships, they're designed to move stuff around not partake in battle; they have no business having the same attributes as a combat ship.. Spanish Galleons from the actual pirate era say you are wrong. Get your head out of the modern era where piracy is basically non existant, look at the actual piracy eras. Viking Longboats & Spanish Galleons were the large cargo vessels of their respective eras. And they were warships. A Galleon was a warship that was used to transport goods; they were basically hauling with a battleship. A Viking Longboat was primarily a troop transport when used for war, IIRC they rarely engaged in naval combat. Quote: So yes, CCP do treat industrial ships as nothing more than targets, there are not a 'variety' of fits for them. And that is the root of the problem. Nope, the root of the problem is that you believe this to be the case, when in fact it is not. The fact of the matter is that most of the industrial ship line up, haulers in particular, can be fitted in ways that makes them undesirable targets; unless the pilot is AFK. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs 5995	Posted - 2016.04.25 21:04:11 - [75] - Quote If you were not AFK, you might as well as go AFK once the bumping begins. Freighters, orca, and bowhead, are just cat toys once the bumping begins.
Kitsune Rei Tastes Like Purple 58	Posted - 2016.04.25 21:11:19 - [76] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: A Galleon was a warship that was used to transport goods; they were basically hauling with a battleship. I imagine a Raven with nothing but Expanded Cargohold IIs in the lows and Cargohold Optimization Rigs
Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs 5995	Posted - 2016.04.25 21:18:45 - [77] - Quote Kitsune Rei wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: A Galleon was a warship that was used to transport goods; they were basically hauling with a battleship. I imagine a Raven with nothing but Expanded Cargohold IIs in the lows and Cargohold Optimization Rigs Once upon a time, hauling with dreads was common. Then came the great cargo nerf.
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 902	Posted - 2016.04.25 21:47:04 - [78] - Quote Tau Cabalander wrote: If you were not AFK, you might as well as go AFK once the bumping begins. Freighters, orca, and bowhead, are just cat toys once the bumping begins. I think that also brings up another interesting point that disturbingly few people seem to get...that a freighter's best form of tank is not really the tank...it's planning and pilots' instinct more so. If you ever get to the point that someone starts bumping your freighter, you've already failed in that defense. They just haven't pulled the trigger yet. Too many people think the issue is that a freighter doesn't have a chance when in reality, the chance they argue they never had was one that they simply took far sooner in the day than they thought. "Tomahawks?" "----in' A, right?" "Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each." "----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Geronimo McVain McVain's Minning and Exploration Inc 36	Posted - 2016.04.26 09:40:38 - [79] - Quote I really don't think that the ganking is the real problem: it's that the gankers can operate so freely. There should be some mechanic like a cooldown INDEPENDENT from Sec Status. If you ganked x ships within 2 Month in High you get a permanent suspect flag until the Counter is below some threshold. This way the gankers can still operate but it gets dangerous because others can attack them. At the moment Concord is protecting the gankers till they hit a target. This way they would either have to stop ganking or take higher risks. You can now raise your Sec Status quickly again to gain the Concord immunity which more or less destroys all anti-gank activities. Just raising the difficulty to gank will reduce player interaction but raising the danger for Gankers will spark more Anti-Gankers. Or you can reduce the weapon damage in very high sec areas (Trade hubs) and prolong the Concord response time so that Anti-Gankers have a chance to intervene or totally void Concord involvement when there are players fighting the gankers. It would be much more satisfying to kill the ganker then to watch Concord do the Job.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2296	Posted - 2016.04.26 10:31:25 - [80] - Quote GsyBoy wrote: Bobb Bobbington wrote: GsyBoy wrote: My point is still not being understood. Nothing should be 100% safe or not safe. At the moment a targeted freighter is dead 100% of the time. This three minute rule fixes nothing. I mean, you could also use that logic to state that if you jump into a lowsec gatecamp in a t1 hauler you have a near 100% chance of dieing also, so they should get a module that lets them escape the gatecamp. However, in reality, it is the hauler's fault for ignoring safety and not getting a scout or just not going through low. The key part of your post is the "targeted freighter". Exactly. A targeted freighter. You wouldn't complain about not being able to ignore a scram, because it's your own fault getting into such a situation. A freighter stays safe by keeping the cargo value low enough so that gankers won't bother, or by traveling through high-highsec systems. A group of 30 people should be able to kill a single freighter if he becomes a target through his own fault of hauling too high-value goods. Why should one person be able to stop thirty? You argument makes no sense. I could have a cloak/mwd or tank/cyno or battle hauler or be a decoy to agro to either clear gate or prevent jumping after my main cargo ship. A freighter carries stuff a to b, that's it. My point still stands, this change is pointless, just need to scram every 3 mins and can still bump to hearts content. Also can follow all the above and freighters still get killed for giggles, Just think they need a little valid love. All of your tactics for avoiding that low sec camp have a variation that works with hs freighters Citadel worm hole tax
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite 2431	Posted - 2016.04.26 12:27:20 - [81] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: So yes, CCP do treat industrial ships as nothing more than targets, there are not a 'variety' of fits for them. And that is the root of the problem. A freighter in highsec is already protected by a automated, invincible, 100% deadly police force which even scales with the amount of Gankers there are. So what kind of weapons on a freighter will save you from destruction if 40+ people attack you? What if they bring 5 more to compensate for the amount you can kill in a worst case scenario. What about all the friends you could bring to the fight RIGHT NOW? Why do you think that CCP should change the rules so you can win in a 1 vs 40 fight without effort? I am also not surprised that this is a thread about another nerf to ganking and carebears already start to cry for the next nerf while they paint on this one is not even dry. the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Lugh Crow-Slave 2304	Posted - 2016.04.26 12:34:24 - [82] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: So yes, CCP do treat industrial ships as nothing more than targets, there are not a 'variety' of fits for them. And that is the root of the problem. A freighter in highsec is already protected by a automated, invincible, 100% deadly police force which even scales with the amount of Gankers there are. So what kind of weapons on a freighter will save you from destruction if 40+ people attack you? What if they bring 5 more to compensate for the amount you can kill in a worst case scenario. What about all the friends you could bring to the fight RIGHT NOW? Why do you think that CCP should change the rules so you can win in a 1 vs 40 fight without effort? I am also not surprised that this is a thread about another nerf to ganking and carebears already start to cry for the next nerf while they paint on this one is not even dry. not even dry? try it is still being painted we still have a day till its in the game Citadel worm hole tax
Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore 13956	Posted - 2016.04.26 13:07:18 - [83] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Get your head out of the modern era where piracy is basically non existant. No one let facts get in this guy's way.. I wish I had 6-7 billion non-existent dollars per year.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 258	Posted - 2016.04.26 13:53:38 - [84] - Quote Oh man. I just love it when the word "carebear" gets flung around, when in threads such as these it is mostly the gankers crying it ain't fair. It's easy: IF your ganksquad is ready, nothing changes. One would almost think they're "entitled" or somesuch nonsense. I do agree there is a problem with highsec in general though; it'd be a lot more entertaining if (1) docking rights for criminals were revoked (2) there'd be no faction police and (3) concord would start off with frigs and gradually step up the game eventually dropping battleships -- including a chance to get away with it. Perhaps not "the" perfect solution, but far more engaging than the 30 second window we have now. A larger window of opportunity would encourage antigankers to form and roam the spacelanes. It's bad when an NPC corp has to do a player's job. On topic of bumping... I can't see any reasonable line of thinking that allows warp disruption without criminal flag. Piling bad mechanics on top of flawed concepts will not improve the design. Already the fact that empires highsec borders meet each other without some lowsec in between is poorly conceived. We need more reasons to shoot one another in proper fleet battles. We do not need to bicker over 30 seconds of spasm only because the game mechanics don't allow anything else. There is no PvP honour in throwing 2 mil catalysts at unarmed targets while operating in NPC corps under Concord protection yourself. Enough with the "carebear" already, focus on the mechanics please. Brokk out. Fly safe 'n all that. (or die trying)
Isaac Armer The Soup Kitchen 172	Posted - 2016.04.26 14:02:40 - [85] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: A freighter in highsec is already protected To start, there's nothing wrong with ganking at all, but I'm not sure you understand what the word 'protected' means. Protection is proactive, concord is not. And gankers calling people carebears is a bit hypocritical, isn't it? Ganking and HS wardeccing are some of the most risk-free playstyles in game. Nothing wrong with them, but don't sugarcoat what they are.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2424	Posted - 2016.04.26 14:25:21 - [86] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: So yes, CCP do treat industrial ships as nothing more than targets, there are not a 'variety' of fits for them. And that is the root of the problem. A freighter in highsec is already protected by a automated, invincible, 100% deadly police force which even scales with the amount of Gankers there are. So what kind of weapons on a freighter will save you from destruction if 40+ people attack you? What if they bring 5 more to compensate for the amount you can kill in a worst case scenario. What about all the friends you could bring to the fight RIGHT NOW? Why do you think that CCP should change the rules so you can win in a 1 vs 40 fight without effort? I am also not surprised that this is a thread about another nerf to ganking and carebears already start to cry for the next nerf while they paint on this one is not even dry. I agree that is usually customary to wait for the incoming ganking nerf to be implemented before asking for the 'one more' that will make everything balanced. Otherwise, how can you keep up the pretense that this is the one that is going to finally set things straight? But more generally, you are absolutely correct. The problem is that years of carebear whining (and the resulting cascade of 'one more nerfs') has resulted in ganking penalties so onerous, and a NPC response so much more efficient and powerful than players could ever hope to be. No matter how many guns you gave a freighter, it could never approach the power and influence the CONCORD response brings to a PvP engagement so aside from some false psychological value, it would do nothing to make a difference. When you already set the bar at multiple dozen ships to even attempt an attack on a freighter, a few more to deal with the meager damage a freighter could do means little. Players can't really have it both ways. Either you benefit from the increasingly punitive safety blanket of highsec that has criminal penalties so onerous (like the faction police) it keeps criminals in stations except briefly to strike, and a CONCORD response so quick and powerful that it makes it impossible for your friends to come help you or even make a difference if they do show up, or you have more moderate restrictions that allow criminals to fly in space and give good fights, and slower and less omnipotent CONCORD response that could potentially allow more nuanced fights to take place. Clearly some protection or safety system is needed in highsec of course, but complaining that criminals are not vulnerable enough or ganking isn't interesting enough when the very restrictive mechanics carebears whined for over the years is what forces criminals to use such overwhelming force in hit and run strikes is completely missing the big picture. The reality is criminals are going to commit crimes and do their part to keep a little bit of risk in highsec as the developers of the game intend whether the game allows them to use something other than suicide catalysts or not. Don't hate the player hate the game and all that. But the game could really be much better if the whole mechanic was rethought from the ground up so that quick, suicide strikes were not the only mechanism to waylay a freighter and there was potential for escalation on both sides. But until then, gankers are still gonna gank with or without this slight modification changing bump->repeat->gank to bump->point ->repeat->gank and players (usually recently exploded ones) will keep coming to these forums with that one nerf that if implement, would suddenly make ganking fair and balanced. It's one of those eternal circles of Eve. Why Do They Gank?
David Therman University of Caille Gallente Federation 141	Posted - 2016.04.26 14:51:31 - [87] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: So what kind of weapons on a freighter will save you from destruction if 40+ people attack you? Welllll.... not a traditional offensive system, but what if CCP introduces a module similar to the new damage controls (emergency hull energizer?) for capitals... only in this case it's industrial/freighter specific, and that it re-directs ALL damage done during the duration back to the ship that delivered it. The module then self-destructs after the cycle is complete. I'm thinking, ohhh... 5, maybe10 seconds or thereabouts? Of course, you could have penalties such as the 0% resists found with polarised weapons, or a 50% reduction in cargo capacity... and it would have fairly steep costs for manufacturing it too. This would be an active module, so I imagine a lot of targets who just set auto-pilot and let their ship sail to their doom are still going to blow up anyway. The thought of tornado's trying to blow away an unsuspecting hauler only to self-combust is quite amusing, I must say... that's just one mod, I'm sure I can think of a few more.
Kitsune Rei Tastes Like Purple 59	Posted - 2016.04.26 14:58:15 - [88] - Quote David Therman wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: So what kind of weapons on a freighter will save you from destruction if 40+ people attack you? Welllll.... not a traditional offensive system, but what if CCP introduces a module similar to the new damage controls (emergency hull energizer?) for capitals... only in this case it's industrial/freighter specific, and that it re-directs ALL damage done during the duration back to the ship that delivered it. The module then self-destructs after the cycle is complete. I'm thinking, ohhh... 5, maybe10 seconds or thereabouts? Of course, you could have penalties such as the 0% resists found with polarised weapons, or a 50% reduction in cargo capacity... and it would have fairly steep costs for manufacturing it too. This would be an active module, so I imagine a lot of targets who just set auto-pilot and let their ship sail to their doom are still going to blow up anyway. The thought of tornado's trying to blow away an unsuspecting hauler only to self-combust is quite amusing, I must say... that's just one mod, I'm sure I can think of a few more. All damage inflicted by a PvP enthusiast to any ship in high sec is already reflected back when space 5-0 shows up. I fail to see how this addresses anything. A freighter reflects damage back at their assailant while CONCORD is shooting at them as well?
David Therman University of Caille Gallente Federation 141	Posted - 2016.04.26 15:38:18 - [89] - Quote Kitsune Rei wrote: David Therman wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: So what kind of weapons on a freighter will save you from destruction if 40+ people attack you? Welllll.... not a traditional offensive system, but what if CCP introduces a module similar to the new damage controls (emergency hull energizer?) for capitals... only in this case it's industrial/freighter specific, and that it re-directs ALL damage done during the duration back to the ship that delivered it. The module then self-destructs after the cycle is complete. I'm thinking, ohhh... 5, maybe10 seconds or thereabouts? Of course, you could have penalties such as the 0% resists found with polarised weapons, or a 50% reduction in cargo capacity... and it would have fairly steep costs for manufacturing it too. This would be an active module, so I imagine a lot of targets who just set auto-pilot and let their ship sail to their doom are still going to blow up anyway. The thought of tornado's trying to blow away an unsuspecting hauler only to self-combust is quite amusing, I must say... that's just one mod, I'm sure I can think of a few more. All damage inflicted by a PvP enthusiast to any ship in high sec is already reflected back when space 5-0 shows up. I fail to see how this addresses anything. A freighter reflects damage back at their assailant while CONCORD is shooting at them as well? I wasn't being entirely serious with that idea (actually, not at all) but surely you must know there's a window between when the gankers start firing and when Concord show up? It's during that window where you would use it, if such a module existed and you timed it right you could redirect 2, if not 3 volleys from a Talos, which I'm assuming would be enough to blow it up... and thus one less Talos on the field, and a kill for the indy pilot. Or in the case of a tornado pilot, his insta-gib volley smashes straight back into him, and thus the gank is prevented. Having said that I can imagine catalyst/talos ganks would wise up to it very quickly. Honestly though, I wasn't expecting anyone to take that idea seriously... it was something that just popped into my head when I saw Ima's post, it probably should have stayed in there. Or posted with the other bad ideas in F+I.
Kitsune Rei Tastes Like Purple 59	Posted - 2016.04.26 16:20:06 - [90] - Quote David Therman wrote: Kitsune Rei wrote: David Therman wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: So what kind of weapons on a freighter will save you from destruction if 40+ people attack you? Welllll.... not a traditional offensive system, but what if CCP introduces a module similar to the new damage controls (emergency hull energizer?) for capitals... only in this case it's industrial/freighter specific, and that it re-directs ALL damage done during the duration back to the ship that delivered it. The module then self-destructs after the cycle is complete. I'm thinking, ohhh... 5, maybe10 seconds or thereabouts? Of course, you could have penalties such as the 0% resists found with polarised weapons, or a 50% reduction in cargo capacity... and it would have fairly steep costs for manufacturing it too. This would be an active module, so I imagine a lot of targets who just set auto-pilot and let their ship sail to their doom are still going to blow up anyway. The thought of tornado's trying to blow away an unsuspecting hauler only to self-combust is quite amusing, I must say... that's just one mod, I'm sure I can think of a few more. All damage inflicted by a PvP enthusiast to any ship in high sec is already reflected back when space 5-0 shows up. I fail to see how this addresses anything. A freighter reflects damage back at their assailant while CONCORD is shooting at them as well? I wasn't being entirely serious with that idea (actually, not at all) but surely you must know there's a window between when the gankers start firing and when Concord show up? It's during that window where you would use it, if such a module existed and you timed it right you could redirect 2, if not 3 volleys from a Talos, which I'm assuming would be enough to blow it up... and thus one less Talos on the field, and a kill for the indy pilot. Or in the case of a tornado pilot, his insta-gib volley smashes straight back into him, and thus the gank is prevented. Having said that I can imagine catalyst/talos ganks would wise up to it very quickly. Honestly though, I wasn't expecting anyone to take that idea seriously... it was something that just popped into my head when I saw Ima's post, it probably should have stayed in there. Or posted with the other bad ideas in F+I. I totally understand. I myself have poorly thought out or even stupid ideas all the time. Now get out of my head! There's only room for so many in here!
Shayla Etherodyne United Nations Industrial Holdings 26	Posted - 2016.04.26 18:35:24 - [91] - Quote Kitsune Rei wrote: It adds another dynamic to hi sec and removes targets from target rich environments. You've spent the better part of this thread complaining at anyone who thinks the current status isn't bad and ridicule any who offer alternatives. Are you always this averse to both the status quo and proposed changes. Or did you have some other option that goes along with that bitterness? I am specifically arguing against your alternative, simply because it is a badly thought idea.
Shayla Etherodyne United Nations Industrial Holdings 26	Posted - 2016.04.26 18:41:19 - [92] - Quote Tau Cabalander wrote: Kitsune Rei wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: A Galleon was a warship that was used to transport goods; they were basically hauling with a battleship. I imagine a Raven with nothing but Expanded Cargohold IIs in the lows and Cargohold Optimization Rigs Once upon a time, hauling with dreads was common. Then came the great cargo nerf. Even before there was hauling "minerals" turned into modules with carriers loaded with frigates equipped with capital class modules. Then several nerfs come (module refining, being unable to move ships with illegal modules and so on).
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3210	Posted - 2016.04.26 20:38:48 - [93] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: "I didn't bother reading what was actually written but just assumed you were wanting ganking to be harder because you dared suggest non helpless industrial vessels" Fixed that response for you, since you didn't bother reading anything I actually wrote, like the bit where I said it should take far longer before the concord 'response' occurs. (I'd love to replace Concord ships with just your self destruct mechanism being remotely triggered also, to make Concords power an override that can't be removed rather than fleets of ubber battleships that everyone when whines ignore other targets than criminals). And with the ganks taking far longer, everything else you wrote is utterly invalid. Like I said, you are just all stuck in a tunnel vision mindset about the whole gank & industrials equation. Including CCP.
Grauth Thorner Vicious Trading Company 500	Posted - 2016.04.28 21:59:01 - [94] - Quote Kieron VonDeux wrote: GsyBoy wrote: Black Pedro wrote: any ship class became effectively invulnerable (which arguably freighters already boarderline are) I think quite the opposite. If you get targeted in high sec while running a route you will die. That is more of an issue in my eyes I think there is a huge perception problem here. Many think it is more dangerous than it should be, and many think it isn't dangerous enough. All I can say is that it certainly seems far more dangerous than it used to be when I first started playing a decade ago. Looking at the price of hauling stuff, I'd say it isn't dangerous enough. View real-time damage statistics in-game >EVE Live DPS Graph application forum thread >iciclesoft.com
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 280	Posted - 2016.04.28 22:05:47 - [95] - Quote Isaac Armer wrote: To start, there's nothing wrong with ganking at all, but I'm not sure you understand what the word 'protected' means. Protection is proactive, concord is not. So protected is only a proactive measure, with no possibility that it's a reactive measure? Does the fire service not protect the community by reacting to emergencies? Do doctors not protect the lives of the patients by reacting to trauma and other life threatening medical conditions? Do the police not protect people by reacting to crime?
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 26123	Posted - 2016.04.28 22:15:21 - [96] - Quote Grauth Thorner wrote: Kieron VonDeux wrote: I think there is a huge perception problem here. Many think it is more dangerous than it should be, and many think it isn't dangerous enough. All I can say is that it certainly seems far more dangerous than it used to be when I first started playing a decade ago. Looking at the price of hauling stuff, I'd say it isn't dangerous enough. I agree, it's safe enough that Red Frog managed a 99%+ successful delivery rate last year according to their annual report; I don't believe they specified how many failures were down to ganks, they did bump their prices fairly recently though. There again, I'd say that Red Frog, being professionals, put a damn sight more effort into not getting ganked than the usual hapless victim does. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Isaac Armer The Soup Kitchen 180	Posted - 2016.04.28 22:25:38 - [97] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: So protected is only a proactive measure, with no possibility that it's a reactive measure? Does the fire service not protect the community by reacting to emergencies? Do doctors not protect the lives of the patients by reacting to trauma and other life threatening medical conditions? Do the police not protect people by reacting to crime? Fire services protect people from losing everything, not from fires starting in the first place Doctors protect people from dying/getting worse, not from getting sick or being hurt in the first place Police protect people from crimes getting out of control, not from crimes happening in the first place My point was simply that CONCORD was specifically designed as a form of punishment, not protection from something bad happening to you
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 280	Posted - 2016.04.28 22:29:03 - [98] - Quote Isaac Armer wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: So protected is only a proactive measure, with no possibility that it's a reactive measure? Does the fire service not protect the community by reacting to emergencies? Do doctors not protect the lives of the patients by reacting to trauma and other life threatening medical conditions? Do the police not protect people by reacting to crime? Fire services protect people from losing everything, not from fires starting in the first place Doctors protect people from dying/getting worse, not from getting sick or being hurt in the first place Police protect people from crimes getting out of control, not from crimes happening in the first place My point was simply that CONCORD was specifically designed as a form of punishment, not protection from something bad happening to you Read the first three words of each sentence in your reply there. So they do protect then, even as a reactive measure. That is the same with CONCORD. And, no. Your point was that Ima didn't understand the meaning of the word protection, yet you demonstrated that exact same lack of understanding in your reply to her.
Isaac Armer The Soup Kitchen 180	Posted - 2016.04.29 03:22:53 - [99] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Read the first three words of each sentence in your reply there. So they do protect then, even as a reactive measure. That is the same with CONCORD. And, no. Your point was that Ima didn't understand the meaning of the word protection, yet you demonstrated that exact same lack of understanding in your reply to her. confirming an NPC alt is trying to defend code. Post with your main, please. Did you even read what I posted? concord doesn't defend anyone. You're honestly disagreeing with that? I'm not going to argue semantics with you when we all know concord doesn't exist to defend anyone. There's nothing wrong with ganking, but as we all know, HS ganking and merc-ing relies on a system that doesn't protect anyone, but punishes people who get sloppy and lazy. Reactive is punishment, not protection. What nerve did I hit that made you react like this?
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 282	Posted - 2016.04.29 03:32:37 - [100] - Quote Isaac Armer wrote: confirming an NPC alt is trying to defend code. Post with your main, please. Did you even read what I posted? concord doesn't defend anyone. You're honestly disagreeing with that? I'm not going to argue semantics with you when we all know concord doesn't exist to defend anyone. There's nothing wrong with ganking, but as we all know, HS ganking and merc-ing relies on a system that doesn't protect anyone, but punishes people who get sloppy and lazy. Reactive is punishment, not protection. What nerve did I hit that made you react like this? I didn't say CONCORD defends anyone and I'm not defending CODE. They are big enough to defend themselves. You claimed that CONCORD does not protect. You made that claim on the basis of asserting that another player does not know the meaning of the word. Yet you completely misrepresented it in your post. I was just pointing out your limited understanding. Not anything to do with CODE. As to being an NPC alt, so what? Is that illegal? Am I going to be ban hammered for posting in the forum using an character in an NPC corp? Not a nerve either. Just pointing out stupidity.
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 7571	Posted - 2016.04.29 08:21:04 - [101] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: So yes, CCP do treat industrial ships as nothing more than targets, there are not a 'variety' of fits for them. And that is the root of the problem. A freighter in highsec is already protected by a automated, invincible, 100% deadly police force which even scales with the amount of Gankers there are. So what kind of weapons on a freighter will save you from destruction if 40+ people attack you? What if they bring 5 more to compensate for the amount you can kill in a worst case scenario. What about all the friends you could bring to the fight RIGHT NOW? Why do you think that CCP should change the rules so you can win in a 1 vs 40 fight without effort? I am also not surprised that this is a thread about another nerf to ganking and carebears already start to cry for the next nerf while they paint on this one is not even dry. Freighters are "protected" in the same manner that the police protect us. That is, cops can only be relied upon to draw chalk around the body if the killer is motivated enough. And you know that. The rest of your comment actually contradicts the "protection" you stated. Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 284	Posted - 2016.04.29 08:29:05 - [102] - Quote Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Freighters are "protected" in the same manner that the police protect us. That is, cops can only be relied upon to draw chalk around the body if the killer is motivated enough. And you know that. The rest of your comment actually contradicts the "protection" you stated. That is as disingenuous a concept of protection as the previous guy who posted. In highsec many people fly around even without local open. Intel channels are the exception rather than the norm. Freighters often successfully autopilot to their desitnation. People mine away in belts AFK, or semi-AFK watching Netflix and that happens every day. You can undock from a station with dozens of people outside and not instantly feel like you are going to be killed. The threat of CONCORD response to the actions of someone who shoots, is a major deterrent to some players and every bit as much a reason why highsec is not nullsec. As a community, highsec is protected by CONCORD, even if one individual gank occurs. That doesn't change the fact that CONCORD offers protection to people in highsec.
Celthric Kanerian Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation 739	Posted - 2016.04.29 09:22:20 - [103] - Quote GsyBoy wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: GsyBoy wrote: So you get 2 mins 45 secs of bumping, scram and repeat? Did I miss something? 15 seconds apparently. Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi . Is that an actual saying?
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 2448	Posted - 2016.04.29 10:11:17 - [104] - Quote Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Freighters are "protected" in the same manner that the police protect us. That is, cops can only be relied upon to draw chalk around the body if the killer is motivated enough. And you know that. The rest of your comment actually contradicts the "protection" you stated. Citizen! If you attack a target it takes CONCORD only a few seconds to show up and completely disable your ship, your guns and your drones. If the ganker does not manage to kill the ship in that amount of time the target obviously survives. Now gankers are perfectly capable of calculating the amount of damage they need to dish out to kill the target maybe even factoring in some interference from ag. They will therefor not attack a target which they can not destroy, since they lose all their ships in the process without a kill Maybe you don't like the term, but I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that ships who do not get killed because CONCORD would destroy you before you can achieve your task are therefor "protected by CONCORD". I mean in literally every bumping thread ag folks are complaining that bumping Freighters is ridiculous because the bumping ship is "inconsequential". Which obviously just means that it can do it's thing and you are unable to interfere with it because it is "protected by CONCORD" or just because ag is so bad they can't even kill a low EHP bumping ship and therefor rely on CCP to change the game in their favor once again. I hope that made clear what I mean by that term. Let me know if you are still confused, I am here to help citizen. Agent Ima Wreckyou the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Isaac Armer The Soup Kitchen 182	Posted - 2016.04.29 14:19:19 - [105] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: I didn't say CONCORD defends anyone and I'm not defending CODE. They are big enough to defend themselves. You claimed that CONCORD does not protect. You made that claim on the basis of asserting that another player does not know the meaning of the word. Yet you completely misrepresented it in your post. I was just pointing out your limited understanding. Not anything to do with CODE. As to being an NPC alt, so what? Is that illegal? Am I going to be ban hammered for posting in the forum using an character in an NPC corp? Just pointing out the stupidity of calling out another player when you don't understand the meaning yourself. If you call out other players, then you better be pretty sure of your ground. Stones and glass houses and all that. We might be arguing semantics now. I don't consider retroactive punishment protection. That is retaliation. If someone shoots someone in the street and the police take the criminal to jail, we don't say "thank you for protecting the guy who got shot," we say "thank you for punishing a criminal" CONCORD has never protected anyone. They avenge you, the react to what someone does. They don't protect anyone. I have nothing against code either, it's a very valid playstyle. Claiming concord protects freighters simply isn't true, however. (and I say that thinking a 30 man fleet should always be able to take down a solo pilot in a freighter anywhere, even HS. 30 on 1 should never favor the one player)
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 266	Posted - 2016.04.29 17:04:58 - [106] - Quote That said ..... highsec rules are quite specific on the topic of aggression: you either have a Wardec warrent, the target is criminal, or you accept that concordokken will take place. Bumping is a nice case of out-of-the-box thinking and emergent gameplay but bumping for hours is just milking it. Out of several available options, eg: bumper suspect flag or straight out removal of the mechanic on ships entering warp, CCP came up with a compromise that allows unconsequential bumping for three minutes. THREE MINUTES. That's a long time allowing travel from several systems over. Yet, gankers whine as if they've been robbed. Pathetic. Take comfort in the notion your controversial mechanic is still there, albeit for a limited timespan. A glass that could have been empty is still half full. Be grateful.
Sentamon Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2347	Posted - 2016.04.29 20:11:42 - [107] - Quote The 3 minute "rule" is a prime example of one of those game mechanics that people hate because you shouldn't need a college course to memorize all the goofy rules in place to counter bad game mechanics. Some sensible way to solve this is: * ship collision damage (before people say "but Jita 4-4" , ships undocking on top of each other is another terrible mechanic that needs to be fixed) * detach warp start from acceleration completely, ie your ship has a it's set time to enter warp and no amount of bumping will stop that) ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
Zar Myx New Eden Browncoats 2	Posted - 2016.04.29 21:12:03 - [108] - Quote If the cop's pop you, there should be nonaggression type timer. You need a time out to think about what you have done. It doesn't need to be very long. You can still try and kill and the haulers and miners you want, but at least there is a small penalty when in hi-sec. You just need a little time to stare at your naval and determine if you have chosen the right path. I think you probably have, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't reflect on it every now and then.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 269	Posted - 2016.04.29 22:13:03 - [109] - Quote There is a 15 minute timer during which you can't warp anywhere. They just use alts for a suicide point.
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 7579	Posted - 2016.04.30 01:53:40 - [110] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Freighters are "protected" in the same manner that the police protect us. That is, cops can only be relied upon to draw chalk around the body if the killer is motivated enough. And you know that. The rest of your comment actually contradicts the "protection" you stated. Citizen! If you attack a target it takes CONCORD only a few seconds to show up and completely disable your ship, your guns and your drones. If the ganker does not manage to kill the ship in that amount of time the target obviously survives. Now gankers are perfectly capable of calculating the amount of damage they need to dish out to kill the target maybe even factoring in some interference from ag. They will therefor not attack a target which they can not destroy, since they lose all their ships in the process without a kill Maybe you don't like the term, but I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that ships who do not get killed because CONCORD would destroy you before you can achieve your task are therefor "protected by CONCORD". I mean in literally every bumping thread ag folks are complaining that bumping Freighters is ridiculous because the bumping is "inconsequential". Which obviously just means that it can do it's thing and you are unable to interfere with it because it is "protected by CONCORD" or just because ag is so bad they can't even kill a low EHP bumping ship and therefor rely on CCP to change the game in their favor once again. I hope that made clear what I mean by that term. Let me know if you are still confused, I am here to help citizen. Agent Ima Wreckyou Member of an organization that says "CODE. always wins" says Concord protects ships. And you proved my point again. As for killing low EHP bumping ships, be careful what you wish for. Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1400	Posted - 2016.04.30 11:36:51 - [111] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Freighters are "protected" in the same manner that the police protect us. That is, cops can only be relied upon to draw chalk around the body if the killer is motivated enough. And you know that. The rest of your comment actually contradicts the "protection" you stated. Citizen! If you attack a target it takes CONCORD only a few seconds to show up and completely disable your ship, your guns and your drones. If the ganker does not manage to kill the ship in that amount of time the target obviously survives. Now gankers are perfectly capable of calculating the amount of damage they need to dish out to kill the target maybe even factoring in some interference from ag. They will therefor not attack a target which they can not destroy, since they lose all their ships in the process without a kill Maybe you don't like the term, but I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that ships who do not get killed because CONCORD would destroy you before you can achieve your task are therefor "protected by CONCORD". I mean in literally every bumping thread ag folks are complaining that bumping Freighters is ridiculous because the bumping is "inconsequential". Which obviously just means that it can do it's thing and you are unable to interfere with it because it is "protected by CONCORD" or just because ag is so bad they can't even kill a low EHP bumping ship and therefor rely on CCP to change the game in their favor once again. I hope that made clear what I mean by that term. Let me know if you are still confused, I am here to help citizen. Agent Ima Wreckyou It is simply a question of risk and reward: Lets compare risk and rewards for a Ganker Bumper, the gankers themselves and a AG member ganking the Macherial. Bumper Risk - No criminal flag yet is effectively pointing someone - Slight risk of being ganked but is fast moving, best bumping fit can be taken down by one Talos Rewards - Gets a slice of the loot and of course ransoms to stop bumping AG Bumper Ganker Risk - Will go criminal - Will lose a Talos - Will lose security status and the impact that has on what may be a limited number of accounts, so incurring costs - May lose POD Reward - Has no interest in the freighter so no skin in the game - The Freighter pilot will often not even notice that he was saved in this way so no reward will be forthcoming Ganker Risk - Losses are paid by Goons or paid by donations T2 fitted Catalyst, T2 Brutix or T2 Talos or T2 Bomber - Security status impact that has no value because this toon is used solely for that on alliance funded accounts and they fly around in no value pods shuttles or noob ships apart from the gank ship Reward - Slice of the loot So notice something, AG guy has no reward at all only loss on his own pocket, Ganker bumper gets loot plus ransoms and due to the AG player having such a high cost the risk is remote as there is no reward. Case closed on Bumping... Ella's Snack bar. The Hisec sandbox is basically no longer a themepark for gankers now that CCP have rebalanced key areas. Well done CCP
Bumblefck Kerensky Initiatives 11842	Posted - 2016.04.30 11:40:44 - [112] - Quote Celthric Kanerian wrote: GsyBoy wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: GsyBoy wrote: So you get 2 mins 45 secs of bumping, scram and repeat? Did I miss something? 15 seconds apparently. Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi . Is that an actual saying? It is now Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi . Bumble's Space Log
Angelique Duchemin GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 980	Posted - 2016.04.30 11:53:55 - [113] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: - Losses are paid by Goons Goonswarm Federation has never paid a cent to any ganker group. The groups fund themselves with the loot they collect. Even the official goon ganker group funds itself. What Goonswarm does provide is web services and a recruitment pool. The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1400	Posted - 2016.04.30 12:21:05 - [114] - Quote Angelique Duchemin wrote: Dracvlad wrote: - Losses are paid by Goons Goonswarm Federation has never paid a cent to any ganker group. The groups fund themselves with the loot they collect. Even the official goon ganker group funds itself. What Goonswarm does provide is web services and a recruitment pool. Can't break the habit of lying can you. Ella's Snack bar. The Hisec sandbox is basically no longer a themepark for gankers now that CCP have rebalanced key areas. Well done CCP
Angelique Duchemin GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 980	Posted - 2016.04.30 13:46:24 - [115] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Angelique Duchemin wrote: Dracvlad wrote: - Losses are paid by Goons Goonswarm Federation has never paid a cent to any ganker group. The groups fund themselves with the loot they collect. Even the official goon ganker group funds itself. What Goonswarm does provide is web services and a recruitment pool. Can't break the habit of lying can you. You being the expert with internal experience on Goon finances and their suicide ganking institutions yes? The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 11572	Posted - 2016.04.30 15:13:52 - [116] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Can't break the habit of lying can you. Is it that hard to believe that a group dedicated to freighter ganking can be financially self-sufficient? Twitter: @EVEAndski "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 271	Posted - 2016.04.30 16:28:30 - [117] - Quote Andski wrote: Is it that hard to believe that a group dedicated to freighter ganking can be financially self-sufficient? Whenever I bring up the fact that some cheap ships are ISK efficient even against an empty hauler, other ganksters show up whining about "it's wrong to balance around ISK efficiency". OF COURSE THEY'RE SELF SUFFICIENT! On the other hand, an AG Falcon can fix that. Haulers really need to get organized. Becoming criminal themselves by ganking the bumper however is not a proper solution. Some of us can't conduct business with killrights over our heads and a -5 sec status.
Shayla Etherodyne United Nations Industrial Holdings 32	Posted - 2016.04.30 18:19:57 - [118] - Quote Angelique Duchemin wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Angelique Duchemin wrote: Dracvlad wrote: - Losses are paid by Goons Goonswarm Federation has never paid a cent to any ganker group. The groups fund themselves with the loot they collect. Even the official goon ganker group funds itself. What Goonswarm does provide is web services and a recruitment pool. Can't break the habit of lying can you. You being the expert with internal experience on Goon finances and their suicide ganking institutions yes? On reddit there is a leaked conversation where a Goon representative inform CODE that they will stop financing them. It can be a fabrication, but it seem credible.
Angelique Duchemin GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 980	Posted - 2016.04.30 18:35:15 - [119] - Quote Shayla Etherodyne wrote: Angelique Duchemin wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Angelique Duchemin wrote: Dracvlad wrote: - Losses are paid by Goons Goonswarm Federation has never paid a cent to any ganker group. The groups fund themselves with the loot they collect. Even the official goon ganker group funds itself. What Goonswarm does provide is web services and a recruitment pool. Can't break the habit of lying can you. You being the expert with internal experience on Goon finances and their suicide ganking institutions yes? On reddit there is a leaked conversation where a Goon representative inform CODE that they will stop financing them. It can be a fabrication, but it seem credible. It was on reddit so it must be true yes? Apply some logical thinking here. Of all the things that Goonswarm have said and all the things Goonswarm has done in Eve. Does it make sense that we try to hide it if we paid people to gank in high sec? As if that was somehow too far. Too mean for us to bear the bad PR of having the rest of Eve find out. Goonswarm provides voice coms. IT services and recruits for the goonswarm gank entity (which I am part of mind you) But Goonswarm will not pay isk to support it. The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1405	Posted - 2016.04.30 19:45:33 - [120] - Quote Ahem you are still digging yourselves deeper in salty denials about Goon funding of CODE and the involvement of Miniluv. You totally convinced me Ella's Snack bar. The Hisec sandbox is basically no longer a themepark for gankers now that CCP have rebalanced key areas. Well done CCP
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17603	Posted - 2016.04.30 20:40:15 - [121] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Angelique Duchemin wrote: Dracvlad wrote: - Losses are paid by Goons Goonswarm Federation has never paid a cent to any ganker group. The groups fund themselves with the loot they collect. Even the official goon ganker group funds itself. What Goonswarm does provide is web services and a recruitment pool. Can't break the habit of lying can you. He isn't lying.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 2450	Posted - 2016.05.01 09:03:39 - [122] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Ahem you are still digging yourselves deeper in salty denials about Goon funding of CODE and the involvement of Miniluv. You totally convinced me I can absolutely confirm that CODE. and Goonswarm Federation are two separate entities and that we never actually received funding from Goonswarm. I also would like to use this moment to thank our Goonswarm overlords for making all this possible. the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 2450	Posted - 2016.05.01 09:21:39 - [123] - Quote Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Member of an organization that says "CODE. always wins" says Concord protects ships. And you proved my point again. As for killing low EHP bumping ships, be careful what you wish for. Not addressing any point or raising any questions paired with a generic "but I was right!" answer usually means I got my point across, you are just not ready to admit it. Once again the CODE wins, like it always does. To be honest I am realy not concerned about the ganker bumping thing, at least not from you. I mean I have single solo kills worth more than your whole 10 year killboard history. It's like you are not even playing the game. The only thing I see you doing is patting yourself on the back for stuff CCP is changing, which is probably the lowest kind of level a gamer can fall too the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Angelique Duchemin GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 983	Posted - 2016.05.01 10:06:28 - [124] - Quote Gankers will be fine. They adapt and the freighter murder will continue. When CCP makes freighters feel safer it just makes them carry more valuable cargo. Which then increases the motivation to kill them. The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.
Nalia White Tencus 169	Posted - 2016.05.01 10:32:18 - [125] - Quote Guys you have to get your definition of carebear right. it's the exact opposite of what you guys think. The freighter pilots who fly around with billions of ISK in their cargo are actualy the ones with the balls. Because they have to risk their whole cargo for a tiny amount of profit. You guys in the catalysts (or even me ganking players in null without dying using traps and falcons) are actualy the carebears. Planning for lots of reward without actualy risking much is the definition of carebearing. This thematic once again shows the malevolent intent of the players behind the gankers... You guys are sociopaths, thinking you are the big fish with the balls, while you are just little carebears. deal with it, i know i do :)
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2448	Posted - 2016.05.01 10:53:10 - [126] - Quote Nalia White wrote: Guys you have to get your definition of carebear right. it's the exact opposite of what you guys think. The freighter pilots who fly around with billions of ISK in their cargo are actualy the ones with the balls. Because they have to risk their whole cargo for a tiny amount of profit. You guys in the catalysts (or even me ganking players in null without dying using traps and falcons) are actualy the carebears. Planning for lots of reward without actualy risking much is the definition of carebearing. This thematic once again shows the malevolent intent of the players behind the gankers... You guys are sociopaths, thinking you are the big fish with the balls, while you are just little carebears. deal with it, i know i do :) Freighter pilots who take precautions, undock and haul billions of ISK in cargo are not carebears. They are actually playing the game. The carebears are the players who come to these forums and whine how unfair it is that other players can hunt them and explode them despite the fact that this game play is completely intended and intentionally designed by CCP. The vulnerability to other players and the cat-and-mouse gameplay it spawns is literally one of, if not the, most fundamental central pillar of the game. You, for example, are a carebear because you come to these forums to whine how you are not invincible to the other players in this PvP game and to call them sociopaths. The professional haulers at say Red Frog Freight are not carebears because the get down to the business of hauling and take responsibility for their safety using the many in-game tools CCP has provided to keep your assets safe. And players who undock and make content by shooting other players? They are certainly not carebears no matter how hard you try to spin the definition of the term. Why Do They Gank?
Kitsune Rei Tastes Like Purple 63	Posted - 2016.05.01 11:01:06 - [127] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Nalia White wrote: Guys you have to get your definition of carebear right. it's the exact opposite of what you guys think. The freighter pilots who fly around with billions of ISK in their cargo are actualy the ones with the balls. Because they have to risk their whole cargo for a tiny amount of profit. You guys in the catalysts (or even me ganking players in null without dying using traps and falcons) are actualy the carebears. Planning for lots of reward without actualy risking much is the definition of carebearing. This thematic once again shows the malevolent intent of the players behind the gankers... You guys are sociopaths, thinking you are the big fish with the balls, while you are just little carebears. deal with it, i know i do :) Freighter pilots who take precautions, undock and haul billions of ISK in cargo are not carebears. They are actually playing the game. The carebears are the players who come to these forums and whine how unfair it is that other players can hunt them and explode them despite the fact that this game play is completely intended and intentionally designed by CCP. The vulnerability to other players and the cat-and-mouse gameplay it spawns is literally one of, if not the, most fundamental central pillar of the game. You, for example, are a carebear because you come to these forums to whine how you are not invincible to the other players in this PvP game and to call them sociopaths. The professional haulers at say Red Frog Freight are not carebears because the get down to the business of hauling and take responsibility for their safety using the many in-game tools CCP has provided to keep your assets safe. And players who undock and make content by shooting other players? They are certainly not carebears no matter how hard you try to spin the definition of the term. THIS^ I live in high sec. I run missions and mine (while waiting for the "decline mission because it's against faction or in low sec" timer. Some time, I will finish those scanning skills and get crazy with that. But I will never, ever complain about soneone shooting me or anyone else in High Sec. Shooting stuff is what this game is about. Use your head and play the game while you're playing the game (instead of ******* off to the kitchen or watching TV in the other room). I am not a care bear. I am an Eve Player.
Nalia White Tencus 169	Posted - 2016.05.01 11:40:34 - [128] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Nalia White wrote: Guys you have to get your definition of carebear right. it's the exact opposite of what you guys think. The freighter pilots who fly around with billions of ISK in their cargo are actualy the ones with the balls. Because they have to risk their whole cargo for a tiny amount of profit. You guys in the catalysts (or even me ganking players in null without dying using traps and falcons) are actualy the carebears. Planning for lots of reward without actualy risking much is the definition of carebearing. This thematic once again shows the malevolent intent of the players behind the gankers... You guys are sociopaths, thinking you are the big fish with the balls, while you are just little carebears. deal with it, i know i do :) Freighter pilots who take precautions, undock and haul billions of ISK in cargo are not carebears. They are actually playing the game. The carebears are the players who come to these forums and whine how unfair it is that other players can hunt them and explode them despite the fact that this game play is completely intended and intentionally designed by CCP. The vulnerability to other players and the cat-and-mouse gameplay it spawns is literally one of, if not the, most fundamental central pillar of the game. You, for example, are a carebear because you come to these forums to whine how you are not invincible to the other players in this PvP game and to call them sociopaths. The professional haulers at say Red Frog Freight are not carebears because the get down to the business of hauling and take responsibility for their safety using the many in-game tools CCP has provided to keep your assets safe. And players who undock and make content by shooting other players? They are certainly not carebears no matter how hard you try to spin the definition of the term. 1. I never had something to do with highsec PVP. I am totaly unbiased therefore as i said i live in null and hunt my victims there (so your assumptions i am whining here are null and void). You label me as a carebear for the wrong reasons buddy. At least try to read the stuff i wrote because i already said what i was doing and why i am actualy a carebear. 2. I read the forums enough to see how players in different aspects of the game "function". for every pilot who whines and moans that they should be safe in this game for any kind of reason (which is bullshit, we all know that) there are 5 "sociopaths" who tell him he has to endure this because they obviously need him as target to get ganked. I knew exactly what would happen when i use the word sociapath as it triggers those people :P I am sorry for this. They are obviously not sociopaths in the inherent meaning of the word, god forbid but even I like to trigger some people sometimes as those guys like to trigger their victims on and on (which i also hate. It's one thing to gank someone but rubbing it in afterwards is where i draw the line and where the word sociopath actualy gets some merit) 3. I am not spinning the term of a carebear. Someone with balls = Takes a lot of risk in his actions to make a profit (be it ISK, tears, fun, whatever) Flying a carrier solo (flying anything solo actualy). Hauling big stuff. Beeing one of the first to try out new content (sleeper sites, burner missions) Carebear = Takes the least amount of risk to make profit All the highsec ganking, High sec war deccing of new bro corps, Gatecamping with 2 scouts and falcon alt, station trading How the **** people using cheap catalysts with 30 other people not counting as carebears is way beyond me.
Kitsune Rei Tastes Like Purple 64	Posted - 2016.05.01 11:50:07 - [129] - Quote Nalia White wrote: Carebear = Takes the least amount of risk to make profit All the highsec ganking, High sec war deccing of new bro corps, Gatecamping with 2 scouts and falcon alt, station trading How the **** people using cheap catalysts with 30 other people not counting as carebears is way beyond me. Maximizing profits and minimizing risk isn't "carebear". That's just being smart. EDIT: Sorry hit post too soon. What (I think) Pedro is saying is each player has their own threshold for risk and should plan and act accordingly. But to come here and flip the table over, upset about taking on too much risk is "carebear".
Giaus Felix Hedion University Amarr Empire 146	Posted - 2016.05.01 11:50:30 - [130] - Quote Nalia White wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Nalia White wrote: Guys you have to get your definition of carebear right. it's the exact opposite of what you guys think. The freighter pilots who fly around with billions of ISK in their cargo are actualy the ones with the balls. Because they have to risk their whole cargo for a tiny amount of profit. You guys in the catalysts (or even me ganking players in null without dying using traps and falcons) are actualy the carebears. Planning for lots of reward without actualy risking much is the definition of carebearing. This thematic once again shows the malevolent intent of the players behind the gankers... You guys are sociopaths, thinking you are the big fish with the balls, while you are just little carebears. deal with it, i know i do :) Freighter pilots who take precautions, undock and haul billions of ISK in cargo are not carebears. They are actually playing the game. The carebears are the players who come to these forums and whine how unfair it is that other players can hunt them and explode them despite the fact that this game play is completely intended and intentionally designed by CCP. The vulnerability to other players and the cat-and-mouse gameplay it spawns is literally one of, if not the, most fundamental central pillar of the game. You, for example, are a carebear because you come to these forums to whine how you are not invincible to the other players in this PvP game and to call them sociopaths. The professional haulers at say Red Frog Freight are not carebears because the get down to the business of hauling and take responsibility for their safety using the many in-game tools CCP has provided to keep your assets safe. And players who undock and make content by shooting other players? They are certainly not carebears no matter how hard you try to spin the definition of the term. 1. I never had something to do with highsec PVP. I am totaly unbiased therefore as i said i live in null and hunt my victims there (so your assumptions i am whining here are null and void). You label me as a carebear for the wrong reasons buddy. At least try to read the stuff i wrote because i already said what i was doing and why i am actualy a carebear. 2. I read the forums enough to see how players in different aspects of the game "function". for every pilot who whines and moans that they should be safe in this game for any kind of reason (which is bullshit, we all know that) there are 5 "sociopaths" who tell him he has to endure this because they obviously need him as target to get ganked. I knew exactly what would happen when i use the word sociapath as it triggers those people :P I am sorry for this. They are obviously not sociopaths in the inherent meaning of the word, god forbid but even I like to trigger some people sometimes as those guys like to trigger their victims on and on (which i also hate. It's one thing to gank someone but rubbing it in afterwards is where i draw the line and where the word sociopath actualy gets some merit) 3. I am not spinning the term of a carebear. Someone with balls = Takes a lot of risk in his actions to make a profit (be it ISK, tears, fun, whatever) Flying a carrier solo (flying anything solo actualy). Hauling big stuff. Beeing one of the first to try out new content (sleeper sites, burner missions) Carebear = Takes the least amount of risk to make profit All the highsec ganking, High sec war deccing of new bro corps, Gatecamping with 2 scouts and falcon alt, station trading How the **** people using cheap catalysts with 30 other people not counting as carebears is way beyond me. A carebear wants somebody else to remove or manage the risks associated with Eve for them, a non-carebear does it for themself. I am Ralph's junk DNA.
Nalia White Tencus 170	Posted - 2016.05.01 11:54:11 - [131] - Quote Kitsune Rei wrote: Nalia White wrote: Carebear = Takes the least amount of risk to make profit All the highsec ganking, High sec war deccing of new bro corps, Gatecamping with 2 scouts and falcon alt, station trading How the **** people using cheap catalysts with 30 other people not counting as carebears is way beyond me. Maximizing profits and minimizing risk isn't "carebear". That's just being smart. True, but not beeing smart or beeing smart has nothing to do with it though. It's like saying an apple is green when you are discussing if it is round or rectangular. You can somewhat say though that smart people tend to carebear and the less smart players use their balls :P But as we are all EVE players and we are all somewhat "smart" i'd use the term "brave" instead of less smart :)
Nalia White Tencus 170	Posted - 2016.05.01 11:58:37 - [132] - Quote Giaus Felix wrote: Nalia White wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Nalia White wrote: Guys you have to get your definition of carebear right. it's the exact opposite of what you guys think. The freighter pilots who fly around with billions of ISK in their cargo are actualy the ones with the balls. Because they have to risk their whole cargo for a tiny amount of profit. You guys in the catalysts (or even me ganking players in null without dying using traps and falcons) are actualy the carebears. Planning for lots of reward without actualy risking much is the definition of carebearing. This thematic once again shows the malevolent intent of the players behind the gankers... You guys are sociopaths, thinking you are the big fish with the balls, while you are just little carebears. deal with it, i know i do :) Freighter pilots who take precautions, undock and haul billions of ISK in cargo are not carebears. They are actually playing the game. The carebears are the players who come to these forums and whine how unfair it is that other players can hunt them and explode them despite the fact that this game play is completely intended and intentionally designed by CCP. The vulnerability to other players and the cat-and-mouse gameplay it spawns is literally one of, if not the, most fundamental central pillar of the game. You, for example, are a carebear because you come to these forums to whine how you are not invincible to the other players in this PvP game and to call them sociopaths. The professional haulers at say Red Frog Freight are not carebears because the get down to the business of hauling and take responsibility for their safety using the many in-game tools CCP has provided to keep your assets safe. And players who undock and make content by shooting other players? They are certainly not carebears no matter how hard you try to spin the definition of the term. 1. I never had something to do with highsec PVP. I am totaly unbiased therefore as i said i live in null and hunt my victims there (so your assumptions i am whining here are null and void). You label me as a carebear for the wrong reasons buddy. At least try to read the stuff i wrote because i already said what i was doing and why i am actualy a carebear. 2. I read the forums enough to see how players in different aspects of the game "function". for every pilot who whines and moans that they should be safe in this game for any kind of reason (which is bullshit, we all know that) there are 5 "sociopaths" who tell him he has to endure this because they obviously need him as target to get ganked. I knew exactly what would happen when i use the word sociapath as it triggers those people :P I am sorry for this. They are obviously not sociopaths in the inherent meaning of the word, god forbid but even I like to trigger some people sometimes as those guys like to trigger their victims on and on (which i also hate. It's one thing to gank someone but rubbing it in afterwards is where i draw the line and where the word sociopath actualy gets some merit) 3. I am not spinning the term of a carebear. Someone with balls = Takes a lot of risk in his actions to make a profit (be it ISK, tears, fun, whatever) Flying a carrier solo (flying anything solo actualy). Hauling big stuff. Beeing one of the first to try out new content (sleeper sites, burner missions) Carebear = Takes the least amount of risk to make profit All the highsec ganking, High sec war deccing of new bro corps, Gatecamping with 2 scouts and falcon alt, station trading How the **** people using cheap catalysts with 30 other people not counting as carebears is way beyond me. A carebear wants somebody else to remove or manage the risks associated with Eve for them, a non-carebear does it for themself. I have to say this is true. in the sense of metagaming (crying in the forum that is) the carebear term can actualy be used that way you described. My arguments were more about actualy gameplay and there your argument is also valid but kind of in the opposite direction. For example a freighter pilot flying around with a big cargo is not carebearing but when he gets blown up and comes to the forum to whine he is metagame-carebearing :) If he would have used frogs to transport his stuff he would have carebeared in his playstyle.
Kitsune Rei Tastes Like Purple 64	Posted - 2016.05.01 12:08:35 - [133] - Quote Nalia White wrote: Kitsune Rei wrote: Nalia White wrote: Carebear = Takes the least amount of risk to make profit All the highsec ganking, High sec war deccing of new bro corps, Gatecamping with 2 scouts and falcon alt, station trading How the **** people using cheap catalysts with 30 other people not counting as carebears is way beyond me. Maximizing profits and minimizing risk isn't "carebear". That's just being smart. True, but not beeing smart or beeing smart has nothing to do with it though. It's like saying an apple is green when you are discussing if it is round or rectangular. You can somewhat say though that smart people tend to carebear and the less smart players use their balls :P But as we are all EVE players and we are all somewhat "smart" i'd use the term "brave" instead of less smart :) Call it brave then. But if you get blown up because you were brave, don't come to the forums to complain about how you were brave when you got blown up. Because that makes you a carebear. Go be brave but don't complain about what happens when you're brave. Make sense?
Nalia White Tencus 171	Posted - 2016.05.01 12:15:22 - [134] - Quote Kitsune Rei wrote: Nalia White wrote: Kitsune Rei wrote: Nalia White wrote: Carebear = Takes the least amount of risk to make profit All the highsec ganking, High sec war deccing of new bro corps, Gatecamping with 2 scouts and falcon alt, station trading How the **** people using cheap catalysts with 30 other people not counting as carebears is way beyond me. Maximizing profits and minimizing risk isn't "carebear". That's just being smart. True, but not beeing smart or beeing smart has nothing to do with it though. It's like saying an apple is green when you are discussing if it is round or rectangular. You can somewhat say though that smart people tend to carebear and the less smart players use their balls :P But as we are all EVE players and we are all somewhat "smart" i'd use the term "brave" instead of less smart :) Call it brave then. But if you get blown up because you were brave, don't come to the forums to complain about how you were brave when you got blown up. Because that makes you a carebear. Go be brave but don't complain about what happens when you're brave. Make sense? that's exactly what i said. it does makes sense yes :)
Geronimo McVain McVain's Minning and Exploration Inc 42	Posted - 2016.05.01 19:15:03 - [135] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: You, for example, are a carebear because you come to these forums to whine how you are not invincible to the other players in this PvP game and to call them sociopaths. The professional haulers at say Red Frog Freight are not carebears because the get down to the business of hauling and take responsibility for their safety using the many in-game tools CCP has provided to keep your assets safe. And players who undock and make content by shooting other players? They are certainly not carebears no matter how hard you try to spin the definition of the term. She's right. You are searching for easy target instead searching for the hard target. You are living in the safety of High searching for stupid or inexperienced players instead of taking the risks of low or null. In Null everyone is a target and everyone know the risk and they use all the tricks. You know that you are safe in High while you have all the time to choose a target. Would you do the same in Null? So who is the carebear?
Shayla Etherodyne United Nations Industrial Holdings 34	Posted - 2016.05.01 19:37:34 - [136] - Quote Giaus Felix wrote: A carebear wants somebody else to remove or manage the risks associated with Eve for them, a non-carebear does it for themself. Isn't that exactly what the people coming to the forum and saying "CCP how you dare to change this tactic that allow us to bump a ship for hours without consequences" is doing?
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 2452	Posted - 2016.05.01 19:38:03 - [137] - Quote Geronimo McVain wrote: She's right. You are searching for easy target instead searching for the hard target. You are living in the safety of High searching for stupid or inexperienced players instead of taking the risks of low or null. In Null everyone is a target and everyone know the risk and they use all the tricks. You know that you are safe in High while you have all the time to choose a target. Would you do the same in Null? So who is the carebear? People like you remind me of that fat kid we had in school. He called everyone else fat, no matter how skinny they where just because it was the one thing that did hurt him and he just thought it would work for everyone else too, even if they where not actually fat. the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Kitsune Rei Tastes Like Purple 66	Posted - 2016.05.01 19:38:51 - [138] - Quote Geronimo McVain wrote: Black Pedro wrote: You, for example, are a carebear because you come to these forums to whine how you are not invincible to the other players in this PvP game and to call them sociopaths. The professional haulers at say Red Frog Freight are not carebears because the get down to the business of hauling and take responsibility for their safety using the many in-game tools CCP has provided to keep your assets safe. And players who undock and make content by shooting other players? They are certainly not carebears no matter how hard you try to spin the definition of the term. She's right. You are searching for easy target instead searching for the hard target. You are living in the safety of High searching for stupid or inexperienced players instead of taking the risks of low or null. In Null everyone is a target and everyone know the risk and they use all the tricks. You know that you are safe in High while you have all the time to choose a target. Would you do the same in Null? So who is the carebear? You may have all the time in the world to choose a target but you don't have all the time in the world to execute. In Null you can take 23 hours to kill a target. In high sec, you have until CONCORD shows up.
Shayla Etherodyne United Nations Industrial Holdings 34	Posted - 2016.05.01 19:41:25 - [139] - Quote Nalia White wrote: If he would have used frogs to transport his stuff he would have carebeared in his playstyle. You can use frogs to move stuff? How it is done?
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2450	Posted - 2016.05.01 19:50:58 - [140] - Quote Geronimo McVain wrote: So who is the carebear? You. The carebear is the player that refuses to accept what type of game this is. Avoiding PvP is not being a carebear. Complaining that you are at risk to other players when that is specifically and intentionally how the game has been designed is the very definition of being a carebear. You are also a carebear because you choose to (repeated) whine and complain that you are not completely safe in highsec despite the fact that CCP has made crystal clear that you are responsible for your own safety there. You are not entitled to be free of risk in this game. Play the game how you want, but refusing to explode another player because "you are not at enough risk" is inane. If some other player makes a mistake and exposes their assets to you, it makes perfect sense from a moral and general game perspecitve to call them on that and shoot them and take their stuff, regardless of whether you are at extreme risk or completely safe. And if you take steps to manoeuvre your opponent into making that mistake or increase the chance you find them unprepared or inattentive, you are clever, not a carebear. So again, the carebear is the player that denies or refuses to accept that their stuff has put intentionally at risk by CCP in this PvP sandbox game. A carebear is a player whose world-view mistakenly does not include the possibility of being shot. The player who goes out seeking to shoot another player (or avoid being shot by another player) is not carebear. They are just playing the game CCP designed. Why Do They Gank?
Grauth Thorner Vicious Trading Company 502	Posted - 2016.05.01 21:12:58 - [141] - Quote In the end it's all PvP, avoiding fights, ganking, mining, playing the market, having fleet battles, doing duels. It's all PvP except for Project Discovery. View real-time damage statistics in-game >EVE Live DPS Graph application forum thread >iciclesoft.com
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17603	Posted - 2016.05.02 00:49:09 - [142] - Quote Geronimo McVain wrote: Black Pedro wrote: You, for example, are a carebear because you come to these forums to whine how you are not invincible to the other players in this PvP game and to call them sociopaths. The professional haulers at say Red Frog Freight are not carebears because the get down to the business of hauling and take responsibility for their safety using the many in-game tools CCP has provided to keep your assets safe. And players who undock and make content by shooting other players? They are certainly not carebears no matter how hard you try to spin the definition of the term. She's right. You are searching for easy target instead searching for the hard target. You are living in the safety of High searching for stupid or inexperienced players instead of taking the risks of low or null. In Null everyone is a target and everyone know the risk and they use all the tricks. You know that you are safe in High while you have all the time to choose a target. Would you do the same in Null? So who is the carebear? You seem to be struggling with the concept of piracy.
Geronimo McVain McVain's Minning and Exploration Inc 43	Posted - 2016.05.02 06:25:37 - [143] - Quote Kitsune Rei wrote: You may have all the time in the world to choose a target but you don't have all the time in the world to execute. In Null you can take 23 hours to kill a target. In high sec, you have until CONCORD shows up. Right but it's all controlled in High. You know exactly how much time you have so you can plan accordingly. Player interaction is almost excluded because before the victim could type a help call he's dead. So in the end it's all much more controlled then in Null where everyone might take mercy and help the victim. Or just gank you while you are waiting for targets. But because you need to kill the victim in seconds there isn't much chance of player interfering in high AND you are protected by Concord in High all the time till you actually kill something. So I would loose standing and get concorded even if I kill some known notorious ganker. And because he is using cheap ships probably without shields etc he isn't risking anything. And you can bet he has some alt to do everything else so he doesn't have to suffer the consequences. I have no real problem with the ganking in High but I really dislike that these guy paint themself as heros executing the greater plan of CCP. In Neocron I had the same type of players camping the training grounds for the noobs. Of cause they didn't want to grief but they wanted to introduce the players to Neocron. . In the end it's nothing else then killing Highsec belt rats with an Machariel but with higher loot. Both isn't glorious but at least people killing belt rats aren't bragging that they are the best, needed by CCP etc.
Kitsune Rei Tastes Like Purple 75	Posted - 2016.05.02 10:11:44 - [144] - Quote Geronimo McVain wrote: Kitsune Rei wrote: You may have all the time in the world to choose a target but you don't have all the time in the world to execute. In Null you can take 23 hours to kill a target. In high sec, you have until CONCORD shows up. Right but it's all controlled in High. You know exactly how much time you have so you can plan accordingly. Player interaction is almost excluded because before the victim could type a help call he's dead. So in the end it's all much more controlled then in Null where everyone might take mercy and help the victim. Or just gank you while you are waiting for targets. But because you need to kill the victim in seconds there isn't much chance of player interfering in high AND you are protected by Concord in High all the time till you actually kill something. So I would loose standing and get concorded even if I kill some known notorious ganker. And because he is using cheap ships probably without shields etc he isn't risking anything. And you can bet he has some alt to do everything else so he doesn't have to suffer the consequences. I have no real problem with the ganking in High but I really dislike that these guy paint themself as heros executing the greater plan of CCP. In Neocron I had the same type of players camping the training grounds for the noobs. Of cause they didn't want to grief but they wanted to introduce the players to Neocron. . In the end it's nothing else then killing Highsec belt rats with an Machariel but with higher loot. Both isn't glorious but at least people killing belt rats aren't bragging that they are the best, needed by CCP etc. So you can do as you like, I don't care, but don't complain when CCP is limiting your gameplay. If you want to kill players: Go to Null. If you want easy kills with loot: rat. But you have no rights to kill other players for fun in High. There are 50+% of New Eden where you can do it. CCP gives or takes the ability to do it and you are complaining so hard if something is taken away like any "Carebear" that he got unfairly shot. They're playing the game. That's it. I think you're problem is your erroneous definition of carebear. Carebearing is not what you do in game. Carebearing is something happening in game that motivates an individual to come to the forums and splerg about how CCP is bad, other players are bad, game mechanics are bad. Everything but the individual splerging is bad. Miners and haulers are neither carebears, until they come here bitching about how the game and it's players and it's developer are making their lives tough.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 2456	Posted - 2016.05.02 10:29:33 - [145] - Quote Geronimo McVain wrote: If you want to kill players: Go to Null. If you want easy kills with loot: rat. But you have no rights to kill other players for fun in High. There are 50+% of New Eden where you can do it. Calm down miner. You know perfectly well it's not about the fun, but about the law. If you mine or haul in New Order territory (Highsec) without permit, you should not be surprised if you lose your ship. We are a community in Highsec and we have some rules namely the New Halaima Code of Conduct. You are expected to follow those rules and fulfill your duties. If you want anarchy and just do what you want, go to null and build your own empire! the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Pak Narhoo Splinter Foundation 1692	Posted - 2016.05.02 10:33:23 - [146] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Geronimo McVain wrote: If you want to kill players: Go to Null. If you want easy kills with loot: rat. But you have no rights to kill other players for fun in High. There are 50+% of New Eden where you can do it. Calm down miner. You know perfectly well it's not about the fun, but about the law. If you mine or haul in New Order territory (Highsec) without permit, you should not be surprised if you lose your ship. We are a community in Highsec and we have some rules namely the New Halaima Code of Conduct. You are expected to follow those rules and fulfill your duties. If you want anarchy and just do what you want, go to null and build your own empire!
Kitsune Rei Tastes Like Purple 77	Posted - 2016.05.02 10:51:23 - [147] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Geronimo McVain wrote: If you want to kill players: Go to Null. If you want easy kills with loot: rat. But you have no rights to kill other players for fun in High. There are 50+% of New Eden where you can do it. Calm down miner. You know perfectly well it's not about the fun, but about the law. If you mine or haul in New Order territory (Highsec) without permit, you should not be surprised if you lose your ship. We are a community in Highsec and we have some rules namely the New Halaima Code of Conduct. You are expected to follow those rules and fulfill your duties. If you want anarchy and just do what you want, go to null and build your own empire! Even if it were for the fun so what? You seem to hold on to this misconception that there are areas of space that are perfectly safe. There are no such areas anywhere in this game. So when you say there is 50%+ of New Eden where you can target and engage other players, you are flat out mistaken. That dynamic exists in 100% of New Eden.
Xiahou Altiska Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2016.05.02 13:43:54 - [148] - Quote High-Sec ganking is fine. Ganking via an impossible-to-counter bumping exploit to paralyze other players is not. Now bumping has a counter that doesn't involve Crimewatch for either player. If you want to gank freighters in high-sec, get your fleet together and do it. All this does is keep individuals from locking down targets while the rest of the corp showers, gets their coffee, and takes their dog for a walk before undocking.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 2458	Posted - 2016.05.02 14:52:29 - [149] - Quote Xiahou Altiska wrote: High-Sec ganking is fine. Ganking via an impossible-to-counter bumping exploit to paralyze other players is not. Now bumping has a counter that doesn't involve Crimewatch for either player. Where is the counter that does not involve crimewatch to haulers in NPC corps? the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17606	Posted - 2016.05.02 14:53:54 - [150] - Quote Xiahou Altiska wrote: High-Sec ganking is fine. Ganking via an impossible-to-counter bumping exploit to paralyze other players is not. It isn't an exploit and its far from impossible to counter. Simply bringing a web ship renders bumping all but impossible and if you are bumped getting a fast ship out in front of the freighter allowed you to instantly warp off. It was very easy to both avoid and counter and entire fleet of bumping ships with just one friendly ship.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 271	Posted - 2016.05.02 15:56:07 - [151] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Where is the counter that does not involve crimewatch to haulers in NPC corps? You have a point there, but two wrongs don't make one right. Besides, you too use this to keep your own hauler safe (as would I).
Nalia White Tencus 172	Posted - 2016.05.02 16:03:52 - [152] - Quote Kitsune Rei wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: Geronimo McVain wrote: If you want to kill players: Go to Null. If you want easy kills with loot: rat. But you have no rights to kill other players for fun in High. There are 50+% of New Eden where you can do it. Calm down miner. You know perfectly well it's not about the fun, but about the law. If you mine or haul in New Order territory (Highsec) without permit, you should not be surprised if you lose your ship. We are a community in Highsec and we have some rules namely the New Halaima Code of Conduct. You are expected to follow those rules and fulfill your duties. If you want anarchy and just do what you want, go to null and build your own empire! Even if it were for the fun so what? You seem to hold on to this misconception that there are areas of space that are perfectly safe. There are no such areas anywhere in this game. So when you say there is 50%+ of New Eden where you can target and engage other players, you are flat out mistaken. That dynamic exists in 100% of New Eden. He's a troll and one of the people who uses "talking down" to people to get his enjoyment i mentioned earlier :) Just ignore.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 2459	Posted - 2016.05.02 16:56:21 - [153] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: Where is the counter that does not involve crimewatch to haulers in NPC corps? You have a point there, but two wrongs don't make one right. Besides, you too use this to keep your own hauler safe (as would I). If you read the first posts of the minerbumping blog about the invincible stabber, highlighting the problem that multiple battleships could not even suicide gank an annoying Stabber was kind of the message. It also made fun of the corp recycling non-exploit to cancel wardecs, which is still not fixed. Today I am totally save shipping billions in gank mats across Highsec since almost all the people who are still able to gank it are blue. I don't have to protect my cargo, I could even watch TV while the thing is on ap. You don't think that is broken? I do. How can this Hello-Kitty-Vikings still pretend "EVE is hard" and "Wreck their dreams" are somehow representative for the game? the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 271	Posted - 2016.05.02 17:31:14 - [154] - Quote Yea. You were on of the first gankers I noticed when I was still very new to the game; probably because of the name and the ever-flashing red skull. I thought you were a bot LOL. Not saying you're not contributing to that peculiar highsec atmosphere, and agreed for the most part that some things are just too safe nowadays. Also congrats on eliminating the competition by ganking them, in order to gain free reign on the shipping lanes. Well played! EvE is still the same harsh game though. A slight rebalance or a timer on bumping hasn't changed that -- in fact, us Nullbears have been hit by similar rebalances; such as for instance jump fatigue, a vaporized lowslot on my Gila, deadlier-than-ever carriers, AoE doomsdays, infiniSCRAMS on HICs, no more double-bubbles on our Heretics, ... There is nothing wrong with updates to the game, shaking the meta or granting other ships a spot in the sun for a change. I'm sure you will cope as you always have. As a brand new player, seeing those red skulls in local made me research WTF was going on and come up with tactics to blow up/outsmart the ganksquads. I for one don't want ganking to disappear -- I just don't see what bumping has to do with ganking. You are free to open fire (at your own peril) ; but as for bumping we don't see eye to eye. I'll leave it at that.
Xiahou Altiska Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 6	Posted - 2016.05.03 13:08:05 - [155] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Xiahou Altiska wrote: High-Sec ganking is fine. Ganking via an impossible-to-counter bumping exploit to paralyze other players is not. Now bumping has a counter that doesn't involve Crimewatch for either player. Where is the counter that does not involve crimewatch to haulers in NPC corps? Cargo scanning and math.
Geronimo McVain McVain's Minning and Exploration Inc 44	Posted - 2016.05.03 13:44:21 - [156] - Quote Nalia White wrote: He's a troll and one of the people who uses "talking down" to people to get his enjoyment i mentioned earlier :) Just ignore. I just can't stand the whinning that the game is so harsh to gankers. Live with whatever CCP allows you. You call people carebear that want total safety but you also want your playstyle sheltered. That why this thread is here.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page]

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