Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
7852
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 18:02:40 -
[211] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dirty Forum Alt wrote:Vortexo VonBrenner wrote:Quite simply because the wreck EHP issue directly relates to ganking, and having things like ganking possible in the game directly relates to the overall theme on safety in the game. It seemed a pretty direct connection to me *shrug* maybe I'm wrong... #1 You are the now saying explicitly that Dracvlad is correct and CCP increased wreck EHP as a direct buff to ganking? #2 Wreck EHP doesn't affect safety. By the time you get to the EHP of the wreck, the safety of the ship that made the wreck is already a moot point. Increasing the wreck EHP is just a direct reward to gankers. If anything it makes their profession safer, so it is an example of CCP pandering to people who want the game to be safe and easy for their own play style. edit: #3 Shocking as it may seem to you, Gankers got by just fine ganking AND looting their victims with the old, low wreck ehp... Just because people started competing to deny the loot and modern gankers are lazy doesn't mean EVE needed to change to accommodate them... Ok lets put a pin in this daftness. They want to nerf ganking by making turning a profit impossible. Instakilling the wreck with anything armed with a peashooter made this possible with no possibility to counter it so naturally they are bitter it has been removed. Wrecks can still be blown up but it now require them to put actual in effort and risk to accomplish. Unsurprisingly they don't do that.
Ganking is not intended to be profitable. It has even been said so.
Funny you bring up the term "no possibility to counter it". Want to make that the core subject? We can do this all day.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Lex Gabinia
Res Repetundae
42
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 18:04:44 -
[212] - Quote
[quote=Herzog Wolfhammer
So like bumping, ganking needs another no-consequence mechanic.
Check. [/quote]
I'm sorry, I did not realize that scanners were used exclusively for ganking. /sarcasm
You're kind of making my point. Scanners are not used exclusively for ganking so it makes no sense to be flagged suspect for their use.
Wait I have an idea, let's have a popup that asks the player each time they activate the module if this is for ganking purposes. That way we can know their intentions and flag them or not accordingly. |
Lex Gabinia
Res Repetundae
42
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 18:08:45 -
[213] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Ganking is not intended to be profitable. It has even been said so.
Where has this been said? Other than insurance profit I do not recall this being said. |
Remiel Pollard
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
7679
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 18:10:09 -
[214] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dirty Forum Alt wrote:Vortexo VonBrenner wrote:Quite simply because the wreck EHP issue directly relates to ganking, and having things like ganking possible in the game directly relates to the overall theme on safety in the game. It seemed a pretty direct connection to me *shrug* maybe I'm wrong... #1 You are the now saying explicitly that Dracvlad is correct and CCP increased wreck EHP as a direct buff to ganking? #2 Wreck EHP doesn't affect safety. By the time you get to the EHP of the wreck, the safety of the ship that made the wreck is already a moot point. Increasing the wreck EHP is just a direct reward to gankers. If anything it makes their profession safer, so it is an example of CCP pandering to people who want the game to be safe and easy for their own play style. edit: #3 Shocking as it may seem to you, Gankers got by just fine ganking AND looting their victims with the old, low wreck ehp... Just because people started competing to deny the loot and modern gankers are lazy doesn't mean EVE needed to change to accommodate them... Ok lets put a pin in this daftness. They want to nerf ganking by making turning a profit impossible. Instakilling the wreck with anything armed with a peashooter made this possible with no possibility to counter it so naturally they are bitter it has been removed. Wrecks can still be blown up but it now require them to put actual in effort and risk to accomplish. Unsurprisingly they don't do that. Ganking is not intended to be profitable. It has even been said so. Funny you bring up the term "no possibility to counter it". Want to make that the core subject? We can do this all day.
Ganking is also not intended to not be profitable, as well, because it's considered to be legitimate gameplay. In order to keep it legitimate, it needs to be potentially profitable, and just like any other activity in EVE, it comes with the risk of being very costly as well. You keep talking as if you have an argument that ganking has no counters as well. This is not true, and can be demonstrated quite easily to not be true, so how about we steer away from this nonsense shall we, and try to apply our critical faculties a little more... idk, critically.
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17724
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 18:16:58 -
[215] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Ganking is not intended to be profitable. It has even been said so.
Piracy is the act of attacking and stealing someone elses **** and selling it to turn a profit, this is what gankers are doing (code being the obvious exception, they are just terrorists).
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Funny you bring up the term "no possibility to counter it". Want to make that the core subject? We can do this all day.
The mechanics made it impossible, feel free to tell me how you think it could be countered and I'll point out that the game operates in 1 second ticks which means no matter what you do their shot will always land. There is simple no time to react let alone send the command before they have blown up the wreck, its the same reason why insta warp cepters are impossible to catch. |
Divine Entervention
Pipebomb Housing Unlimited Against ALL Authorities
842
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 18:20:57 -
[216] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Divine Entervention wrote:nah
Just make it so the person scanned has a warning show up on his screen identifying who scanned him. Already have that.
Where? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5036
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 18:23:10 -
[217] - Quote
Lex Gabinia wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
So like bumping, ganking needs another no-consequence mechanic.
Check.
I'm sorry, I did not realize that scanners were used exclusively for ganking. /sarcasm You're kind of making my point. Scanners are not used exclusively for ganking so it makes no sense to be flagged suspect for their use. Wait I have an idea, let's have a popup that asks the player each time they activate the module if this is for ganking purposes. That way we can know their intentions and flag them or not accordingly.
I have used them on CODE. bumping ships. Great way to get an idea of what it would take to gank the bumping ship.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Dirty Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
332
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 18:26:12 -
[218] - Quote
People have been blowing up titan wrecks loaded with tens of billions of isk in 0.0 space for years - to deny the enemy their loot. I have never yet seen a PL thread whining about this massive loss of profit.
But someone uses the exact same tactic in high sec, against gankers, at more direct loss to themselves due to concord and sec status hits...and suddenly *now* it is broken and needs to be changed?
Why are the gankers special snowflakes whose way of life needs extra protection?
You want a counter? how about you throw in something with smartbombs to defend the wreck by instapopping them as they come in? Or just loot it faster you lazy piece of ****. You have options - but instead of making you think creatively to solve your problem CCP stepped in and made your problem go away.
My posting history speaks for itself. I am no friend of "safe highsec" people, nor of anti-ganking in general....but I am offended by mechanic changes purely to make EVE easier for a specific group because they complained. No matter who it benefits.
As well as with people being hypocrites and expecting everyone *else* to HTFU while they demand favouritism of their own... |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5036
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 18:27:19 -
[219] - Quote
Divine Entervention wrote:baltec1 wrote:Divine Entervention wrote:nah
Just make it so the person scanned has a warning show up on his screen identifying who scanned him. Already have that. Where?
Your overview. To use a scanner you have to yellow box the target unless you are using a passive targeting array.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources Silent Infinity
228
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 18:31:06 -
[220] - Quote
The Groundskeeper wrote:No, I'm Endie. And I can tell you straight up that gankers were one of those I was aware would be positively affected, yes, but they were not the main point. At least get your story straight as that sounds an awful lot different from what you said on reddit when being called out for it shortly after the CSM X meeting minutes were released. Not a single word about poor SC or Titan wrecks:
Jestertrek wrote:[Editorial] This more or less confirms Endie pushed the wreck HP change to CCP strictly as a benefit to his own alliance suicide gankers. EndiePosts wrote:I was asked by people in an alliance I am no longer in to raise concerns about JF ganking and to pass on details, and I did so, and tried to argue their case. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/47q09h/dev_blog_the_second_csm_x_summit_meeting_minutes/d0f03vy
But anyway: well played. The CSM CCP deserves I guess.
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17724
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 18:33:57 -
[221] - Quote
Divine Entervention wrote:baltec1 wrote:Divine Entervention wrote:nah
Just make it so the person scanned has a warning show up on his screen identifying who scanned him. Already have that. Where?
There is a graphic that plays when they scan you that is easily visible and pinpoints their own ship. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17724
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 18:37:13 -
[222] - Quote
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:People have been blowing up titan wrecks loaded with tens of billions of isk in 0.0 space for years - to deny the enemy their loot. I have never yet seen a PL thread whining about this massive loss of profit.
Its the first thing said every time when someone pops the wreck, its been an issue for over a decade.
|
Lex Gabinia
Res Repetundae
43
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 18:40:59 -
[223] - Quote
Maybe we should have to scan a wreck before it can be looted or shot and then get suspect timers. Would certainly make mission running more interesting. |
Dirty Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
332
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 18:43:59 -
[224] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dirty Forum Alt wrote:People have been blowing up titan wrecks loaded with tens of billions of isk in 0.0 space for years - to deny the enemy their loot. I have never yet seen a PL thread whining about this massive loss of profit. Its the first thing said every time when someone pops the wreck, its been an issue for over a decade. And as I said in my first post on the subject - I have no problem with the change itself.
I took offense at the implication that the reason the change was made and was good was that it somehow made high-sec "less safe"....and at the fact that CCP only bothered to fix it when gankers complained to them - rather than because it has been broken in 0.0 for over a decade... |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1979
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 18:52:12 -
[225] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dirty Forum Alt wrote:Vortexo VonBrenner wrote:Quite simply because the wreck EHP issue directly relates to ganking, and having things like ganking possible in the game directly relates to the overall theme on safety in the game. It seemed a pretty direct connection to me *shrug* maybe I'm wrong... #1 You are the now saying explicitly that Dracvlad is correct and CCP increased wreck EHP as a direct buff to ganking? #2 Wreck EHP doesn't affect safety. By the time you get to the EHP of the wreck, the safety of the ship that made the wreck is already a moot point. Increasing the wreck EHP is just a direct reward to gankers. If anything it makes their profession safer, so it is an example of CCP pandering to people who want the game to be safe and easy for their own play style. edit: #3 Shocking as it may seem to you, Gankers got by just fine ganking AND looting their victims with the old, low wreck ehp... Just because people started competing to deny the loot and modern gankers are lazy doesn't mean EVE needed to change to accommodate them... Ok lets put a pin in this daftness. They want to nerf ganking by making turning a profit impossible. Instakilling the wreck with anything armed with a peashooter made this possible with no possibility to counter it so naturally they are bitter it has been removed. Wrecks can still be blown up but it now require them to put actual in effort and risk to accomplish. Unsurprisingly they don't do that.
CCP have already said taht Ganking a T2 fit ship is not ment to be profitable, you know that.
The wrecks had been like that for ages, but as soon as AG start blowing them up you get it changed. Where was the fights, where was the blowing ships up to stop the wreck from getting destroyed where was risking the freighter and get it out when suspect, where was all that content, screwed by your lazy crying to CCP. For all the times I heard you lot call us fail because we could not kill catalysts and you dare to whine about being unable to kill destroyers doing the exact same thing.
I have also noted CCP's stealth move of this thread to this forum, did you ask for that too?
This will not go away, I will ram this down your complacent entitled throats every time you whine about hisec and ganking being nerfed, all you want is your easy life of guaranteed easy ISK and the rules of having to fight don't apply to Gankers, only to the plebs they prey upon.
You destroyed content for the other side, simple as because they started to threaten your easy ISK and you went and pulled a flanker on CCP. That is the daftness.
COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17724
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 18:52:18 -
[226] - Quote
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dirty Forum Alt wrote:People have been blowing up titan wrecks loaded with tens of billions of isk in 0.0 space for years - to deny the enemy their loot. I have never yet seen a PL thread whining about this massive loss of profit. Its the first thing said every time when someone pops the wreck, its been an issue for over a decade. And as I said in my first post on the subject - I have no problem with the change itself. I took offense at the implication that the reason the change was made and was good was that it somehow made high-sec "less safe"....and at the fact that CCP only bothered to fix it when gankers complained to them - rather than because it has been broken in 0.0 for over a decade...
They changed it because it landed on their list of things to do after they started working on our very large list of things to do. The actual argument to get it fixed was indeed made by a player asking for wrecks in null sec to not be so easy to destroy not only to allow them to loot titans but also to get tactical warp ins. Endie took that argument to the CSM but by that point other issues around wrecks had also been brought up including the issues of poping the wreck before gankers could loot it. That it took the anti-gankers over a decade to figure out they could target the wreck and saw this buff to wreck HP land soon after is pure coincidence.
The tactic of blowing up the wreck is still a valid one it just requires more than an ibis armed with a civilian railgun to pull it off. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17724
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 18:55:20 -
[227] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
CCP have already said taht Ganking a T2 fit ship is not ment to be profitable, you know that.
CCP said that ganking an unfitted T2 hull should not be profitable.
Dracvlad wrote: The wrecks had been like that for ages, but as soon as AG start blowing them up you get it changed.
Boomerang exploit had been in the game for almost a decade before it got fixed. Broken mechanics should be getting fixed no?
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1979
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 18:57:24 -
[228] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dirty Forum Alt wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dirty Forum Alt wrote:People have been blowing up titan wrecks loaded with tens of billions of isk in 0.0 space for years - to deny the enemy their loot. I have never yet seen a PL thread whining about this massive loss of profit. Its the first thing said every time when someone pops the wreck, its been an issue for over a decade. And as I said in my first post on the subject - I have no problem with the change itself. I took offense at the implication that the reason the change was made and was good was that it somehow made high-sec "less safe"....and at the fact that CCP only bothered to fix it when gankers complained to them - rather than because it has been broken in 0.0 for over a decade... They changed it because it landed on their list of things to do after they started working on our very large list of things to do. The actual argument to get it fixed was indeed made by a player asking for wrecks in null sec to not be so easy to destroy not only to allow them to loot titans but also to get tactical warp ins. Endie took that argument to the CSM but by that point other issues around wrecks had also been brought up including the issues of poping the wreck before gankers could loot it. That it took the anti-gankers over a decade to figure out they could target the wreck and saw this buff to wreck HP land soon after is pure coincidence. The tactic of blowing up the wreck is still a valid one it just requires more than an ibis armed with a civilian railgun to pull it off.
Again absolute rubbish on your part, you could not destroy a wreck with an ibis. So now you are pushing ISK tank? What next?
You got that pushed up to a level you knew that the small hisec entities and solo players could not do, it needs a Tornado with a perfect hit and at least another destroyer, you know that hisec players who oppose you do not have the means. So you got total security for your activities by doing this, well played, and in doing so you removed the fun for the AG movement, put them back to being a big target to shoot at and have to sit there repping and rubbish like that. Just because you were too lazy to defend the wreck.
COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17725
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 19:02:06 -
[229] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
You got that pushed up to a level you knew that the small hisec entities and solo players could not do, it needs a Tornado with a perfect hit
So use one.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1979
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 19:06:00 -
[230] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
You got that pushed up to a level you knew that the small hisec entities and solo players could not do, it needs a Tornado with a perfect hit
So use one.
There you go, you had it moved to that level to defend the wreck which you could not do yourself and your answer is go use one, typical baltec1.
The simple fact is that as soon as AG started shooting the wrecks you pushed to have it changed because you are too useless to defend the wreck against people you said were fail. Who is tthe failure, the people who whined to get the rules changed to cover their own weakness which they projected on others.
COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17725
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 19:10:49 -
[231] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
There you go, you had it moved to that level to defend the wreck which you could not do yourself and your answer is go use one, typical baltec1.
The simple fact is that as soon as AG started shooting the wrecks you pushed to have it changed because you are too useless to defend the wreck against people you said were fail. Who is tthe failure, the people who whined to get the rules changed to cover their own weakness which they projected on others.
So I take it you won't risk a torando. |
Lex Gabinia
Res Repetundae
43
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 19:11:17 -
[232] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
You got that pushed up to a level you knew that the small hisec entities and solo players could not do, it needs a Tornado with a perfect hit
So use one. There you go, you had it moved to that level to defend the wreck which you could not do yourself and your answer is go use one, typical baltec1. The simple fact is that as soon as AG started shooting the wrecks you pushed to have it changed because you are too useless to defend the wreck against people you said were fail. Who is tthe failure, the people who whined to get the rules changed to cover their own weakness which they projected on others.
What does any of this have to do with the idea of getting a suspect flag for using scanners?
The change happened seems most people like the change for various reasons who the **** cares why it happened years later?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5036
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 19:17:00 -
[233] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
You got that pushed up to a level you knew that the small hisec entities and solo players could not do, it needs a Tornado with a perfect hit
So use one. There you go, you had it moved to that level to defend the wreck which you could not do yourself and your answer is go use one, typical baltec1. The simple fact is that as soon as AG started shooting the wrecks you pushed to have it changed because you are too useless to defend the wreck against people you said were fail. Who is tthe failure, the people who whined to get the rules changed to cover their own weakness which they projected on others.
That is some mighty fine post hoc ergo propter hoc you got there.
Sorry, all you got is the timing. Could be your story is legit, but it also could be Bravo Sierra.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1979
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 19:18:51 -
[234] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
There you go, you had it moved to that level to defend the wreck which you could not do yourself and your answer is go use one, typical baltec1.
The simple fact is that as soon as AG started shooting the wrecks you pushed to have it changed because you are too useless to defend the wreck against people you said were fail. Who is tthe failure, the people who whined to get the rules changed to cover their own weakness which they projected on others.
So I take it you won't risk a torando.
You could not stop a frigate or a destroyer...
COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17725
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 19:20:31 -
[235] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
You could not stop a frigate.
Because it was impossible. Now gankers stand a chance and you have to actually put some effort and isk into disrupting gankers in this way. Evidently you are not willing to do either. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1979
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 19:21:53 -
[236] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
You could not stop a frigate.
Because it was impossible. Now you have to actually put some effort and isk into disrupting gankers. Evidently you are not willing to do either.
No it was not impossible, it is about as impossible as blowing up Catalysts on the way to ganks, you just decided that you had to get the rules changed and did.
COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17726
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 19:27:06 -
[237] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: No it was not impossible, it is about as impossible as blowing up Catalysts on the way to ganks, you just decided that you had to get the rules changed and did.
Wrecks had 500 HP. Anything could kill them and a frigate could target and pop it before anything could lock the frigate in turn. Its the very same reason why it is impossible to target and shoot an insta warp interceptor, the mechanics simply will not allow it.
The tactic still works, it was not removed, they just stopped you from having such a laughably easy time. If you want to pop wrecks then go do it, nothing is stopping you. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
671
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 19:28:34 -
[238] - Quote
Lex Gabinia wrote:What does any of this have to do with the idea of getting a suspect flag for using scanners?
Nothing of course, but there must be messages pushed. Talk is the only thing AG can do. So messages, even completely rubbish, off topic ones, are on the table to be splurged in any thread. Nothing shall deny the conspiracy. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1979
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 19:49:43 -
[239] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Lex Gabinia wrote:What does any of this have to do with the idea of getting a suspect flag for using scanners?
Nothing of course, but there must be messages pushed. Talk is the only thing AG can do. So messages, even completely rubbish, off topic ones, are on the table to be splurged in any thread. Nothing shall deny the conspiracy.
Yeah but Gankers on the CSM push CCP to change the rules when someone does something in game that starts to work against their easy lifestyle...
COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
|
Galaxy Chicken
Free Highsec Industrialists
54
|
Posted - 2016.07.28 19:57:14 -
[240] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: I am quite happy to protect myself against people who might decide to use legal action against me, some of you people take this game way to seriously....
*Thinks we all take EVE too seriously*
*Called a lawyer over EVE stuff*
? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |