EVE Search - - Proposal of Ship Scanning as Hostile Act Resolution -

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

- Proposal of Ship Scanning as Hostile Act Resolution -

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
zus Cyber Naval Command Research and Development 42	Posted - 2016.07.26 15:23:44 - [1] - Quote Proposal of Ship Scanning as Hostile Act in any solar system, pass the Resolution Cargo Scanners / Ship Scanners use as Hostile Act.
Doc Fury Furious Enterprises 8416	Posted - 2016.07.26 15:27:47 - [2] - Quote WatGäó WatGäó is brought to you by Jim Era. Gÿ+ The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper: 'Hodor'.
Sustrai Aditua Intandofisa 464	Posted - 2016.07.26 15:30:04 - [3] - Quote He means like if you peek up a lady's skirt, she'll get kinda hostile...usually. I think grabbing a peek under a kilt is a lethal act. However, I know nothing of any of this personally. If we get chased by zombies, I'm tripping you.
Max Fubarticus K Diamond Holding LTD. Bullets Bombs and Blondes 137	Posted - 2016.07.26 15:30:29 - [4] - Quote zus wrote: Proposal of Ship Scanning as Hostile Act in any solar system, pass the Resolution Cargo Scanners / Ship Scanners use as Hostile Act. Sorry Down voting this one. Civil discourse is uniquely human. After all, when is the last time a pride of lions and a herd of water buffalo negotiated SOV over a watering hole? Never. Someone either gets their ass kicked or eaten. At the end of the day someone holds SOV.
Omar Alharazaad Nefarious Porpoise 3001	Posted - 2016.07.26 15:31:19 - [5] - Quote Yup. Peek up skirt is legit. Thumb up the butt gets the whistle and truncheon. Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.
Dark Lord Trump Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 58	Posted - 2016.07.26 15:37:56 - [6] - Quote Explain why? Cargo scanning is completely harmless to the target ship. I'm going to build a big wall that will keep the Gallente out, and they're going to pay for it!
Pandora Carrollon Kingsman Tailors 488	Posted - 2016.07.26 15:42:25 - [7] - Quote Dark Lord Trump wrote: Explain why? Cargo scanning is completely harmless to the target ship. Until you see that ship is carrying some precious cargo and then it's an expanding ball of particles. It's being proposed as a method to engage Concord faster than normal, or in essence stop ganking behavior. I vote no because if you are going to try to do something that has an effect on a given play style, you need to propose such an effect in the clear and not obfuscate it behind some mechanics change. You say, "I think we need to do away with suicide ganking" and be done with it, let the chips fall where they may. I, speaking only for myself, think it's fine as is since it's easily countered. 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
Sentient Blade Crisis Atmosphere Coalition of the Unfortunate 1673	Posted - 2016.07.26 15:43:20 - [8] - Quote Suggesting cargo scanning is harmless is the same as suggesting bumping a freighter out of alignment is harmless. Neither is currently an aggressive act due to game mechanics but the reality is it only serves one purpose when done on another ship. Make cargo scanners make a person go suspect and job done. After all, if a police officer saw someone peeking in everyones' car windows he would get rightly suspicious.
Lady Ayeipsia Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 1136	Posted - 2016.07.26 15:45:11 - [9] - Quote So basically every custom agent who works for the NPC corps and are checking for contraban such as exotic dancers in say a 1.0 minmirar system would be criminslly flagged? That seems like a bad idea. It's technically not just players who scan. As for the notion of players.... Ok... So I create an alt that flies an ibis with a cargo scanner. By hostile act you mean one of two things... A concordable action or a criminal flag. In the case of concordable, you've just created the easiest method of pulling concord from a gate, allowing gankers more time to kill frieghters. Through an attempt at changed a mechanic you dislike and a lack of understanding of the game mechanics, you've made it easier to gank targets. Congrats... I think. You've just buffed ganking. If you mean criminal flag.... Oooo... People can kill am ibis scanning you. You'll still be scanned and ganked. So you've changed nothing. In the mean time, you've made my life exceedingly difficult We don't like neutral boosters in RvB. People use them despite the prohibition against it. The easiest way to start investigating this is to scan that odd neutral command ship/T3 cruiser. If they are running links that boost multiple types of tank or one that boosts warp disruption modules, chances are it is a neutral boost causing problems and has to be dealt with. If it just has shield boosts, it's more likely somone's mission alt trying to squeeze every last isk per second in. But no... Because you dislike a useful tool, my job becomes harder. Thanks. Or say I am an explorer. Did you know cargo scanners let you are what's in a relic of data site can before hacking it? A quick scan saves me from wasting time on a can that is worthless. But nope, I lose that too because you don't like the mechanics of the game. Just because you don't like done uses for a tool doesn't mean it should be banned. Real world anology... I can kill someone with a baseball bat, a hammer, a tire iron, golf club, length of rope, and a ton of other stuff... Let's make them illegal! Oh wait... They all have valid useful functions. In eve a cargo or ship scanner is no different.
zus Cyber Naval Command Research and Development 42	Posted - 2016.07.26 15:47:01 - [10] - Quote Dark Lord Trump wrote: Explain why? Cargo scanning is completely harmless to the target ship. What is the motive in their use

Sentient Blade Crisis Atmosphere Coalition of the Unfortunate 1674	Posted - 2016.07.26 15:53:40 - [11] - Quote Lady Ayeipsia wrote: So basically every custom agent who works for the NPC corps and are checking for contraban such as exotic dancers in say a 1.0 minmirar system would be criminslly flagged? That seems like a bad idea. It's technically not just players who scan. This makes my brain hurt... or are you actually suggesting that NPCs follow all the same rules and CONCORD is just taking a day off when a rat starts shooting at you in a belt? Lady Ayeipsia wrote: As for the notion of players.... Ok... So I create an alt that flies an ibis with a cargo scanner. By hostile act you mean one of two things... A concordable action or a criminal flag. We have a second mode called suspect. Lady Ayeipsia wrote: In the case of concordable, you've just created the easiest method of pulling concord from a gate, allowing gankers more time to kill frieghters. Through an attempt at changed a mechanic you dislike and a lack of understanding of the game mechanics, you've made it easier to gank targets. Congrats... I think. You've just buffed ganking. CONCORD are being pulled off anyway... all that same IBIS has to do is blast anyone with a civilian gatling gun, and if they're going to drag CONCORD off they're going to already have that prepared. ... Anyway, almost your entire post was nonsense I'm afraid so I'm just going to stop doing it line-by-line. .. Also, ISD will be along in a few to move you to: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=topics&f=270
Rovinia Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE 526	Posted - 2016.07.26 16:35:28 - [12] - Quote This would only lead to random ganking of haulers.... And punish those who play careful enough to not make themselfe a target.
Memphis Baas 1806	Posted - 2016.07.26 16:51:13 - [13] - Quote Remove cargo scanners from the game. Change all cargo holds to be made of glass, so that you can just see wtf everyone is carrying. Or put it in the show info of the ship.
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 970	Posted - 2016.07.26 16:52:25 - [14] - Quote I can see validity on both sides of the issue; on the one hand, cargo scanners are non-hostile modules and their use by themselves denote no aggression, however their use is often an act that very exclusively proceeds intents that are hostile and aggressive. Would adding an indicator, visual via the EWAR icons and maybe an audible one if needed, to let people know they've been scanned suffice as a compromise? Even a suspect timer seems a bit much, but as an extreme, would make better sense than further escalation in the aggression mechanics for simply scanning someone's cargo. At that point, you might as well argue that simply locking on to someone not in fleet and while non-logi or support boat denotes hostile intent or that using combat scan probes to scan down someone else is a hostile action because "why else would someone do that if they didn't have hostile intents in mind?" Both would be not only ridiculous to claim and arguments that would get you no where fast. "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."
Nana Skalski Poseidaon 13957	Posted - 2016.07.26 16:52:55 - [15] - Quote Oh no, this is already becoming ganker/antiganker battle too. HELP! ISD, CLOSE ALL TEH FORUMS, its an outbreak! I give you ( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ Boarding bays Gÿá Every part of a game helps to tell a story. =ƒôò
Caco De'mon New Order Logistics CODE. 3	Posted - 2016.07.26 16:57:35 - [16] - Quote Carrying weapons on ones ship should be considered as an act of hostility. We must make New Eden 100% safe from all violence and threatening acts. The color red is also too aggressive and also should be banned. Also the letter "x".
Ralph King-Griffin Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance 17077	Posted - 2016.07.26 16:59:00 - [17] - Quote zus wrote: Dark Lord Trump wrote: Explain why? Cargo scanning is completely harmless to the target ship. What is the motive in their use Curiosity, same with the ship scanner. Better the Devil you know. =]\|[=
Verlyn Teutate raiders DARKNESS. 59	Posted - 2016.07.26 17:00:41 - [18] - Quote What in the ****.. WHO ARE YOU PEOPLE ?? WHERE DO YOU COME FROM ???
Buliki Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11	Posted - 2016.07.26 17:02:03 - [19] - Quote THEY KNOW! SHUT IT DOWN! Yes, that's what I'm implying... look at yourselves devs... you created that... something to be proud of... Look Sun, I created a karma
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 971	Posted - 2016.07.26 17:04:37 - [20] - Quote Verlyn wrote: What in the ****.. WHO ARE YOU PEOPLE ?? WHERE DO YOU COME FROM ??? Hate to break it to you, but it's GD; this IS where they come from. "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."

Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore 14355	Posted - 2016.07.26 17:06:00 - [21] - Quote Verlyn wrote: What in the ****.. WHO ARE YOU PEOPLE ?? WHERE DO YOU COME FROM ??? Hisec.
Jarod Garamonde Jolly Codgers Get Off My Lawn 2665	Posted - 2016.07.26 17:09:16 - [22] - Quote zus wrote: Proposal of Ship Scanning as Hostile Act in any solar system, pass the Resolution Cargo Scanners / Ship Scanners use as Hostile Act. What's a "hostile act"? (note: the above was posted by someone who doesn't know anything about Empire space, anymore) That moment when you realize the crazy lady with all the cats was right... `[#savethelance]`
Lady Ayeipsia Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 1136	Posted - 2016.07.26 17:10:08 - [23] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: I can see validity on both sides of the issue; on the one hand, cargo scanners are non-hostile modules and their use by themselves denote no aggression, however their use is often an act that very exclusively proceeds intents that are hostile and aggressive. Would adding an indicator, visual via the EWAR icons and maybe an audible one if needed, to let people know they've been scanned suffice as a compromise? Even a suspect timer seems a bit much, but as an extreme, would make better sense than further escalation in the aggression mechanics for simply scanning someone's cargo. At that point, you might as well argue that simply locking on to someone not in fleet and while non-logi or support boat denotes hostile intent or that using combat scan probes to scan down someone else is a hostile action because "why else would someone do that if they didn't have hostile intents in mind?" Both would be not only ridiculous to claim and arguments that would get you no where fast. What about passive targeters? Usually, the two modules are used in conjunction so you do not know you have even been locked, much less scanned.
Lady Ayeipsia Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 1136	Posted - 2016.07.26 17:11:30 - [24] - Quote Caco De'mon wrote: Carrying weapons on ones ship should be considered as an act of hostility. We must make New Eden 100% safe from all violence and threatening acts. The color red is also too aggressive and also should be banned. Also the letter "x". I am strongly opposed to banning Red!
Caco De'mon New Order Logistics CODE. 3	Posted - 2016.07.26 17:15:13 - [25] - Quote Lady Ayeipsia wrote: Caco De'mon wrote: Carrying weapons on ones ship should be considered as an act of hostility. We must make New Eden 100% safe from all violence and threatening acts. The color red is also too aggressive and also should be banned. Also the letter "x". I am strongly opposed to banning Red! Well anything darker than Maroon should go. The rusts are ok as are the pinks but we must think of the space children. I mean, when they are not freaking out over being scanned, can't rest their little innocent eyes on non threatening colors too? Oh and the purples are also out.... *"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 484	Posted - 2016.07.26 17:15:42 - [26] - Quote One of the overriding themes of threads like this is a complete lack of punishment. Losing a cheap ass ship in a gank and then having a 15 min tea break is hardly a punishment. Scanning a ship without the other players knowledge should be more difficult than it presently is. Personally I'd double the timers at a minimum and make them unable to dock in an NPC station for the duration after becoming suspect. It could be argued that even that isn't enough of a deterrent or punishment. But one thing is crystal clear, just looking at the sheer number of threads like this should put up a big warning flag that part of the game is wrong. But CCP just seem to ignore them and quote a post from a while ago then lock them. This isn't the game that was released 12 years ago, it's far different beast now and CCP need to realise something....times change, gamers appetites change. We are now a whole new generation on and they need to change with the times. Sticking to the same old mantra has led us to where we are now, a declining player base because the vast majority are being ignored in favour of a minority who never want change, but lack of change leads to stagnation. CCP needs to move on and change, the route they are on only leads to oblivion.
Verlyn Teutate raiders DARKNESS. 59	Posted - 2016.07.26 17:17:05 - [27] - Quote Hell, at this rate, I PROPOSE CONSENSUAL TARGETING MODE !! As in, "You cant target me if I dont want you to"... Along the lines of " You cant buddylist me if I dont want you to" ... Lets keep this going CCP, really, keep listening to the QQing little ****s and and Eve will for sure go places.
Nana Skalski Poseidaon 13957	Posted - 2016.07.26 17:28:17 - [28] - Quote PLEASE ALSO BRING BACK PLEASURE HUBS AND QUAFE GIRLS. And this veteran retirement station you promised. IBTL. I give you ( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ Boarding bays Gÿá Every part of a game helps to tell a story. =ƒôò
Lex Gabinia Res Repetundae 30	Posted - 2016.07.26 17:32:51 - [29] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: CCP needs to move on and change, the route they are on only leads to oblivion. So...EVE is dying? Also, why does the game have to change instead of the players? Perhaps you should learn to be more open to different kinds of games. I play different games for different experiences. EVE provides the visceral risk of loss and destruction at any moment and requires thought and time to succeed. Other games can be enjoyed casually and with easier success. I and others have said for a long time that if you don't like EVE then don't play. Maybe that is a bit extreme. Instead, maybe we should say that if you don't find everything you want in EVE then find other games that can give you what you think is missing from EVE and try to enjoy EVE for what it does give you.
Shallanna Yassavi Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 277	Posted - 2016.07.26 17:36:03 - [30] - Quote About the only positive thing this would do is make those cargo scanners we salvage from missions by the dozen more valuable. A signature :o

Nana Skalski Poseidaon 13957	Posted - 2016.07.26 17:40:01 - [31] - Quote Shallanna Yassavi wrote: About the only positive thing this would do is make those cargo scanners we salvage from missions by the dozen more valuable. More stuff destroyed? Healthy for economy? Passed? I give you ( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ Boarding bays Gÿá Every part of a game helps to tell a story. =ƒôò
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 484	Posted - 2016.07.26 17:51:06 - [32] - Quote Lex Gabinia wrote: Drago Shouna wrote: CCP needs to move on and change, the route they are on only leads to oblivion. So...EVE is dying? Also, why does the game have to change instead of the players? Perhaps you should learn to be more open to different kinds of games. I play different games for different experiences. EVE provides the visceral risk of loss and destruction at any moment and requires thought and time to succeed. Other games can be enjoyed casually and with easier success. I and others have said for a long time that if you don't like EVE then don't play. Maybe that is a bit extreme. Instead, maybe we should say that if you don't find everything you want in EVE then find other games that can give you what you think is missing from EVE and try to enjoy EVE for what it does give you. Where have I ever said I don't like eve? I love this game and I play exactly as I want to play so np. But.....Players who play this game but fight against change are the problem. I'm not talking about the mechanics specifically, but the whole central concept needs to be examined and re-thought. As for other games, yes I play others from time to time, but this is my main one. As for EvE is dying, no I don't think so, but it's definitely on a downturn atm.
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 973	Posted - 2016.07.26 17:51:31 - [33] - Quote Lady Ayeipsia wrote: Sobaan Tali wrote: I can see validity on both sides of the issue; on the one hand, cargo scanners are non-hostile modules and their use by themselves denote no aggression, however their use is often an act that very exclusively proceeds intents that are hostile and aggressive. Would adding an indicator, visual via the EWAR icons and maybe an audible one if needed, to let people know they've been scanned suffice as a compromise? Even a suspect timer seems a bit much, but as an extreme, would make better sense than further escalation in the aggression mechanics for simply scanning someone's cargo. At that point, you might as well argue that simply locking on to someone not in fleet and while non-logi or support boat denotes hostile intent or that using combat scan probes to scan down someone else is a hostile action because "why else would someone do that if they didn't have hostile intents in mind?" Both would be not only ridiculous to claim and arguments that would get you no where fast. What about passive targeters? Usually, the two modules are used in conjunction so you do not know you have even been locked, much less scanned. Good point, though the main difference would be in knowing who scanned you, though that would understandably have little importance in this case. Yet more of a reason to simply scrap this idea all together. It's a grey area, but too much so to make a case to change things. As a person more likely to be a victim of a gank rather than a perpetrator of one, I still feel this is asking a little much and is a bit over the top. "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."
Specia1 K State War Academy Caldari State 164	Posted - 2016.07.26 18:11:17 - [34] - Quote No -1
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5020	Posted - 2016.07.26 18:15:05 - [35] - Quote Doc Fury wrote: WatGäó WatGäó is brought to you by Jim Era. Clearly an attempt to nerf ganking and thus reward stupidity. "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
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5021	Posted - 2016.07.26 18:17:15 - [36] - Quote Pandora Carrollon wrote: Dark Lord Trump wrote: Explain why? Cargo scanning is completely harmless to the target ship. Until you see that ship is carrying some precious cargo and then it's an expanding ball of particles. Solution: don't be stupid. "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
Lex Gabinia Res Repetundae 31	Posted - 2016.07.26 18:17:59 - [37] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: But.....Players who play this game but fight against change are the problem. I'm not talking about the mechanics specifically, but the whole central concept needs to be examined and re-thought. In the bolded section above you are, as I read it, asking to change the entire concept of the game. If you like a game but want to change the entire concept of the game, hence the game, then why play this game and not another game that has what you like?
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5021	Posted - 2016.07.26 18:19:27 - [38] - Quote zus wrote: Dark Lord Trump wrote: Explain why? Cargo scanning is completely harmless to the target ship. What is the motive in their use To see if you are carrying something valuable--i.e. are you worth ganking. Now, before you say, "SEEEEEE!!! NERF IT!!!!" Think about this...the developers put this there on purpose knowing full well how it would be used. This is literally a feature, not a bug. Your solution is to not be stupid. "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
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 978	Posted - 2016.07.26 18:21:54 - [39] - Quote Thinly veiled anti-ganking thread, posted as a thread describing a proposed change to the game in the wrong effing forum section for change ideas. You're a special kind of stupid, aren't ya? Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 978	Posted - 2016.07.26 18:23:06 - [40] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Your solution is to not be stupid. You're asking pigs to not get muddy. Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.

Galaxy Chicken Free Highsec Industrialists 46	Posted - 2016.07.26 18:24:30 - [41] - Quote I'm pretty sure a lot of people actually see us baddies as an undesirable element that the devs just haven't figured out how to remove.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5021	Posted - 2016.07.26 18:24:43 - [42] - Quote Lex Gabinia wrote: Drago Shouna wrote: But.....Players who play this game but fight against change are the problem. I'm not talking about the mechanics specifically, but the whole central concept needs to be examined and re-thought. In the bolded section above you are, as I read it, asking to change the entire concept of the game. If you like a game but want to change the entire concept of the game, hence the game, then why play this game and not another game that has what you like? Correct. Basic Premise of Eve Online: You can be shot anywhere, anytime by anyone....who is willing to accept the consequences of such an action. What this change is asking for is to limit the above. The solution to "the problem" here is to not be stupid. If you undock in a freighter with 8 billion ISK worth of goods....you are stupid. You are stupid because you have just put a "Gank Me!" sign on. If you reduced the value of your cargo you become much, much less interesting as a potential gank target. If you use the right kind of ship you might get away with it in certain circumstances (e.g. a JF jumping from a citadel to another citadel). But the bottom line here is people are being stupid, other people are taking advantage of that, and the one's being stupid instead of accepting the consequences of their stupidity....want to change the fundamental nature of the game. "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
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5021	Posted - 2016.07.26 18:26:23 - [43] - Quote Galaxy Chicken wrote: I'm pretty sure a lot of people actually see us baddies as an undesirable element that the devs just haven't figured out how to remove. It is more than that...they do not realize that this is a feature, not a bug. To them it is a bug because they do not fully understand the game. "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
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 484	Posted - 2016.07.26 18:29:43 - [44] - Quote Lex Gabinia wrote: Drago Shouna wrote: But.....Players who play this game but fight against change are the problem. I'm not talking about the mechanics specifically, but the whole central concept needs to be examined and re-thought. In the bolded section above you are, as I read it, asking to change the entire concept of the game. If you like a game but want to change the entire concept of the game, hence the game, then why play this game and not another game that has what you like? This has a lot of what I like, but some things are just wrong and need re-examining now the playerbase is changing, and it is changing hence more and more of these kind of posts that have been locked over the last few days. Ignoring them all won't make the players opinions change that made them, it'll eventually just **** them off enough for them to leave like so many others have, and players like you will cheer that we have one less whinging carebear, but where does it stop and we start to get a meaningful increase in new members that will stay? Keeping things as they are obviously isn't working. I've been here over 4 years now, and will probably be here for 4 more, but as a subbed player for all that time I'm entitled to an opinion, and my opinion is that it's sad to see players ignored and numbers shrinking.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5021	Posted - 2016.07.26 18:31:45 - [45] - Quote Another option: If you have small yet valuable cargo you cannot scan a blockade runner (not sure about a deep space transport). It is also one of the fastest ships in the game considering its class (an industrial hauler). Fit it properly and it is nearly impossible to gank in HS. In fact, here let me help you Bads. http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Hauling Go there and read that page and the linked pages. "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
Galaxy Chicken Free Highsec Industrialists 47	Posted - 2016.07.26 18:38:57 - [46] - Quote How about we let the marketing team worry about subscription numbers and us players just worry about having fun. Deal?
Bumblefck Kerensky Initiatives 12637	Posted - 2016.07.26 18:39:12 - [47] - Quote I cargo-scanned OP's skull... ..."No signatures detected" Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi . Bumble's Space Log
Lex Gabinia Res Repetundae 31	Posted - 2016.07.26 18:40:22 - [48] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: Lex Gabinia wrote: Drago Shouna wrote: But.....Players who play this game but fight against change are the problem. I'm not talking about the mechanics specifically, but the whole central concept needs to be examined and re-thought. In the bolded section above you are, as I read it, asking to change the entire concept of the game. If you like a game but want to change the entire concept of the game, hence the game, then why play this game and not another game that has what you like? This has a lot of what I like, but some things are just wrong and need re-examining now the playerbase is changing, and it is changing hence more and more of these kind of posts that have been locked over the last few days. Ignoring them all won't make the players opinions change that made them, it'll eventually just **** them off enough for them to leave like so many others have, and players like you will cheer that we have one less whinging carebear, but where does it stop and we start to get a meaningful increase in new members that will stay? Keeping things as they are obviously isn't working. I've been here over 4 years now, and will probably be here for 4 more, but as a subbed player for all that time I'm entitled to an opinion, and my opinion is that it's sad to see players ignored and numbers shrinking. People have been leaving since the game started. I had a beta character and then along came a baby so I left for a couple of years. (for those doing maths and wondering about this character's birthdate, this is but one of three accounts - but it is the main on this account ) Others tried and didn't like it and left. So what? Players are not ignored. They are asking for changes that would break the basis of the game and the game developer is not willing to make those changes and have told the players this. Getting an answer that you did not want is not being ignored. A game is designed on a certain basis, the game developers like that basis and have said as much repeatedly and recently. Why do they have to change? If a person does not like the games basis they are obliged to adapt to the game not the other way round. Or they can choose not to play.
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 484	Posted - 2016.07.26 18:44:02 - [49] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Another option: If you have small yet valuable cargo you cannot scan a blockade runner (not sure about a deep space transport). It is also one of the fastest ships in the game considering its class (an industrial hauler). Fit it properly and it is nearly impossible to gank in HS. In fact, here let me help you Bads. http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Hauling Go there and read that page and the linked pages. I use my Viator all the time with a cov-ops cloak and haven't lost one yet. Heck I even use it for lvl 2/3/4 distribution missions, the lvl 2/3 when I'm increasing standings with agents. Mines even fitted with a T II Salvager for when you come across the odd wreck at a gate.
Vortexo VonBrenner Raumfahrer Spiff Rakett Piloot Anslutning 2386	Posted - 2016.07.26 18:44:42 - [50] - Quote zus wrote: Proposal of Ship Scanning as Hostile Act in any solar system, pass the Resolution Cargo Scanners / Ship Scanners use as Hostile Act. "pass the resolution"? I hate to disappoint you OP, but I don't think that's the way things work. CCP will do as they wish with their game, it's not run by vote of players. Just double-wrap your cargo and nobody will be interested in it. :D EvE security zones in pictures EvE quick reference pdf A wise man sums up EvE Smoke me a Kipper...

Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 484	Posted - 2016.07.26 18:48:17 - [51] - Quote Lex Gabinia wrote: Drago Shouna wrote: Lex Gabinia wrote: Drago Shouna wrote: But.....Players who play this game but fight against change are the problem. I'm not talking about the mechanics specifically, but the whole central concept needs to be examined and re-thought. In the bolded section above you are, as I read it, asking to change the entire concept of the game. If you like a game but want to change the entire concept of the game, hence the game, then why play this game and not another game that has what you like? This has a lot of what I like, but some things are just wrong and need re-examining now the playerbase is changing, and it is changing hence more and more of these kind of posts that have been locked over the last few days. Ignoring them all won't make the players opinions change that made them, it'll eventually just **** them off enough for them to leave like so many others have, and players like you will cheer that we have one less whinging carebear, but where does it stop and we start to get a meaningful increase in new members that will stay? Keeping things as they are obviously isn't working. I've been here over 4 years now, and will probably be here for 4 more, but as a subbed player for all that time I'm entitled to an opinion, and my opinion is that it's sad to see players ignored and numbers shrinking. People have been leaving since the game started. I had a beta character and then along came a baby so I left for a couple of years. (for those doing maths and wondering about this character's birthdate, this is but one of three accounts - but it is the main on this account ) Others tried and didn't like it and left. So what? Players are not ignored. They are asking for changes that would break the basis of the game and the game developer is not willing to make those changes and have told the players this. Getting an answer that you did not want is not being ignored. A game is designed on a certain basis, the game developers like that basis and have said as much repeatedly and recently. Why do they have to change? If a person does not like the games basis they are obliged to adapt to the game not the other way round. Or they can choose not to play. Repeatedly telling the players if you don't like it feel free to go away doesn't alter the fact that the majority of players feel something is wrong with the game.
Ralph King-Griffin Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance 17078	Posted - 2016.07.26 18:55:56 - [52] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: Lex Gabinia wrote: Drago Shouna wrote: Lex Gabinia wrote: Drago Shouna wrote: But.....Players who play this game but fight against change are the problem. I'm not talking about the mechanics specifically, but the whole central concept needs to be examined and re-thought. In the bolded section above you are, as I read it, asking to change the entire concept of the game. If you like a game but want to change the entire concept of the game, hence the game, then why play this game and not another game that has what you like? This has a lot of what I like, but some things are just wrong and need re-examining now the playerbase is changing, and it is changing hence more and more of these kind of posts that have been locked over the last few days. Ignoring them all won't make the players opinions change that made them, it'll eventually just **** them off enough for them to leave like so many others have, and players like you will cheer that we have one less whinging carebear, but where does it stop and we start to get a meaningful increase in new members that will stay? Keeping things as they are obviously isn't working. I've been here over 4 years now, and will probably be here for 4 more, but as a subbed player for all that time I'm entitled to an opinion, and my opinion is that it's sad to see players ignored and numbers shrinking. People have been leaving since the game started. I had a beta character and then along came a baby so I left for a couple of years. (for those doing maths and wondering about this character's birthdate, this is but one of three accounts - but it is the main on this account ) Others tried and didn't like it and left. So what? Players are not ignored. They are asking for changes that would break the basis of the game and the game developer is not willing to make those changes and have told the players this. Getting an answer that you did not want is not being ignored. A game is designed on a certain basis, the game developers like that basis and have said as much repeatedly and recently. Why do they have to change? If a person does not like the games basis they are obliged to adapt to the game not the other way round. Or they can choose not to play. Repeatedly telling the players if you don't like it feel free to go away doesn't alter the fact that the majority of players feel something is wrong with the game. Prove iits the majority, anecdotal mewling on the forums dont count. Better the Devil you know. =]\|[=
Swoop McFly Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 19	Posted - 2016.07.26 19:04:34 - [53] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: Repeatedly telling the players if you don't like it feel free to go away doesn't alter the fact that the majority of players feel something is wrong with the game. Repeatedly telling the players that something is wrong with the game doesn't alter the fact that the majority of players feel that there isn't. See what I did there?
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 484	Posted - 2016.07.26 19:11:45 - [54] - Quote "Prove its the majority, anecdotal mewling on the forums don't count." Well the last time I checked or we were given the stats, whatever, the vast majority of players were in 0.5 to 1.0 space, HS. I can only presume as all these complaints and threads are started by players in said space that the majority are pissed off with certain playstyles, whether it's wardecs or plain ganking. CCP will probably keep ignoring it all to a large extent, personally I'd much rather have more players to sell my stuff to rather than less and less.
Paranoid Loyd 9309	Posted - 2016.07.26 19:17:07 - [55] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: I can only presume Now that we've cleared that up stop saying the majority unless you preface it with any or all of the following: Ignorant, Lazy, Foolish Fix the Prospect! New Server Hardware!
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 640	Posted - 2016.07.26 19:28:12 - [56] - Quote If you aren't doing anything stupid, there's nothing to fear from being scanned.
Max Fubarticus K Diamond Holding LTD. Bullets Bombs and Blondes 137	Posted - 2016.07.26 19:37:32 - [57] - Quote Ralph King-Griffin wrote: zus wrote: Dark Lord Trump wrote: Explain why? Cargo scanning is completely harmless to the target ship. What is the motive in their use Curiosity, same with the ship scanner. I scanned a ship one time. The character had the usual stuff, ammo, nanite paste, scripts... several Frozen Corpses. My reaction was... this dude has Jeffrey Dahmer syndrome. Freaked me out Last time I scanned. Max Civil discourse is uniquely human. After all, when is the last time a pride of lions and a herd of water buffalo negotiated SOV over a watering hole? Never. Someone either gets their ass kicked or eaten. At the end of the day someone holds SOV.
Darek Castigatus Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel 734	Posted - 2016.07.26 19:37:37 - [58] - Quote Ralph King-Griffin wrote: zus wrote: Dark Lord Trump wrote: Explain why? Cargo scanning is completely harmless to the target ship. What is the motive in their use Curiosity, same with the ship scanner. Actually the ship scanner also has a combat use because it shows current capacitor levels, you'll usually see it on bhaalgorns and other neuting ships so they dont waste neuts on something thats already cap dry. Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin you're welcome
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5021	Posted - 2016.07.26 19:42:25 - [59] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: Repeatedly telling the players if you don't like it feel free to go away doesn't alter the fact that the majority of players feel something is wrong with the game. There is nothing wrong with the game, it is that these players do not understand the game. This is a game of choices and consequences, risk vs. reward. If you make a bad choice it can lead to bad consequences. These consequences are typically imposed by other players. A player who loads up his freighter with 10 billion ISK in goodies and undocks is making a bad choice and taking a considerable risk....and for very little reward. Just as one does not cross a street wearing a blind fold, one should not undock in a freighter with a cargo running into the billions of ISK. "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
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5021	Posted - 2016.07.26 19:47:16 - [60] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: "Prove its the majority, anecdotal mewling on the forums don't count." Well the last time I checked or we were given the stats, whatever, the vast majority of players were in 0.5 to 1.0 space, HS. I can only presume as all these complaints and threads are started by players in said space that the majority are pissed off with certain playstyles, whether it's wardecs or plain ganking. CCP will probably keep ignoring it all to a large extent, personally I'd much rather have more players to sell my stuff to rather than less and less. I am in a NS alliance. I have had anywhere from 2 to all 6 of my alts in HS. That there are pilots in HS, does not tell you much about the views of those players regarding the nature of the game. "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

zus Cyber Naval Command Research and Development 42	Posted - 2016.07.26 19:47:44 - [61] - Quote Elenahina wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Your solution is to not be stupid. You're asking pigs to not get muddy.
Ralph King-Griffin Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance 17080	Posted - 2016.07.26 19:50:52 - [62] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: I can only presume I wouldnt. Better the Devil you know. =]\|[=
Dirty Forum Alt Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 303	Posted - 2016.07.26 19:56:46 - [63] - Quote zus wrote: Proposal of Ship Scanning as Hostile Act in any solar system, pass the Resolution Cargo Scanners / Ship Scanners use as Hostile Act. I know I'm late to the party here, but this reminded me of a fond memory: Ironically about a week into EVE I got a fancy new module called a "ship scanner" - and I tried it out on a random passerby. As it turned out, this passerby was a member of a corp called "Interimo" - which was in an alliance called "End of Line." (though they are probably better known for their time in Privateer Alliance). In any case it was one of the big wardeccing groups of the time... He took it as a *hostile act*...and thus began my first war-dec in EVE. Good times.
Lawrence Lawton The Conference Elite CODE. 0	Posted - 2016.07.26 20:06:05 - [64] - Quote Carebears such as the OP are the greatest existential threat to EVE Online. They will not be satisfied until they have completely eliminated highsec aggression and turned highsec into a risk-free theme park. That is not what EVE is about. I believe that the only suitable role of a Carebear is to provide content for gankers. I counter-propose that we eliminate the Faction Police to make Highsec more attractive to gankers.
Eternus8lux8lucis Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM 850	Posted - 2016.07.26 21:16:14 - [65] - Quote Umm.. Im siting here thinking about this and getting ideas. This is generally NOT a good thing but Ill go with it anyway. Atm scanning and ganking are quite binary as an equation. There really isnt much more than calculate your dps and their EHP along with value of your ships and your targets drop chance in terms of isk. Once this condition is met you simply lock and fire and that is that. Go sit out your 15 min timer and rinse repeat unless youre low on sec and then you head off to concord station to "reship" sec with tags. So how can we make it non binary? Scanning modules offer the greatest area to play with this idea as the gank itself is just lock and shoot. We already have a hacking minigame template but what happens if you needed to hack into the ships security system, instead of 'press buttan recieve bacon' style gameplay, and while the hack is going on the other player becomes your opponent in the hacking minigame. You either are racing for the command node itself to attack or defend or the pilot is the defender and the ganker is only the attacker. This style of interaction would be interesting but tough simply because of the time frames involved in the gank itself. A frieghter warps in 20s or so and a hauler in much less. Being bumped would negate the time frame of course. But a successful attack might mean that the cargo is scanned and can be reported as a target and an unsuccessful attempt would amount to what? Denial of cargo scan? Immunity for bumping? Scanner going suspect? The only issue at present is the time required to attack/defend such an attempt and it would apply the best to freighters given that issue imo. But basically any idea that makes this interaction non binary would be the best option. Rather than fitting and other BS answers we toss about. Anything to make it more challenging rather than 'push buttan receive bacon.' Have you heard anything I've said? You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right? That's right. Had to end sometime.
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 643	Posted - 2016.07.26 21:23:34 - [66] - Quote Eternus8lux8lucis wrote: Umm.. Im siting here thinking about this and getting ideas. This is generally NOT a good thing but Ill go with it anyway. Atm scanning and ganking are quite binary as an equation. There really isnt much more than calculate your dps and their EHP along with value of your ships and your targets drop chance in terms of isk. Once this condition is met you simply lock and fire and that is that. Go sit out your 15 min timer and rinse repeat unless youre low on sec and then you head off to concord station to "reship" sec with tags. So how can we make it non binary? Scanning modules offer the greatest area to play with this idea as the gank itself is just lock and shoot. We already have a hacking minigame template but what happens if you needed to hack into the ships security system, instead of 'press buttan recieve bacon' style gameplay, and while the hack is going on the other player becomes your opponent in the hacking minigame. You either are racing for the command node itself to attack or defend or the pilot is the defender and the ganker is only the attacker. This style of interaction would be interesting but tough simply because of the time frames involved in the gank itself. A frieghter warps in 20s or so and a hauler in much less. Being bumped would negate the time frame of course. But a successful attack might mean that the cargo is scanned and can be reported as a target and an unsuccessful attempt would amount to what? Denial of cargo scan? Immunity for bumping? Scanner going suspect? The only issue at present is the time required to attack/defend such an attempt and it would apply the best to freighters given that issue imo. But basically any idea that makes this interaction non binary would be the best option. Rather than fitting and other BS answers we toss about. Anything to make it more challenging rather than 'push buttan receive bacon.' Awesome suggestion. This would be the new fleet tactic to spam opponents screens with hacking Windows. "Everyone, scan the enemy logi....Now their FC....etc." Great outcome to 'fix' a non-problem.
Verlyn Teutate raiders DARKNESS. 62	Posted - 2016.07.26 22:55:28 - [67] - Quote Eternus8lux8lucis wrote: Umm.. Im siting here thinking about this and getting ideas. This is generally NOT a good thing but Ill go with it anyway. Atm scanning and ganking are quite binary as an equation. There really isnt much more than calculate your dps and their EHP along with value of your ships and your targets drop chance in terms of isk. Once this condition is met you simply lock and fire and that is that. Go sit out your 15 min timer and rinse repeat unless youre low on sec and then you head off to concord station to "reship" sec with tags. So how can we make it non binary? Scanning modules offer the greatest area to play with this idea as the gank itself is just lock and shoot. We already have a hacking minigame template but what happens if you needed to hack into the ships security system, instead of 'press buttan recieve bacon' style gameplay, and while the hack is going on the other player becomes your opponent in the hacking minigame. You either are racing for the command node itself to attack or defend or the pilot is the defender and the ganker is only the attacker. This style of interaction would be interesting but tough simply because of the time frames involved in the gank itself. A frieghter warps in 20s or so and a hauler in much less. Being bumped would negate the time frame of course. But a successful attack might mean that the cargo is scanned and can be reported as a target and an unsuccessful attempt would amount to what? Denial of cargo scan? Immunity for bumping? Scanner going suspect? The only issue at present is the time required to attack/defend such an attempt and it would apply the best to freighters given that issue imo. But basically any idea that makes this interaction non binary would be the best option. Rather than fitting and other BS answers we toss about. Anything to make it more challenging rather than 'push buttan receive bacon.' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67IQ1Jr-4RM
Dark Lord Trump Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 58	Posted - 2016.07.26 23:45:18 - [68] - Quote zus wrote: Dark Lord Trump wrote: Explain why? Cargo scanning is completely harmless to the target ship. What is the motive in their use To see what's inside. What happens next has nothing to do with me. innocent smile I'm going to build a big wall that will keep the Gallente out, and they're going to pay for it!
Chopper Rollins Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 1451	Posted - 2016.07.27 00:24:17 - [69] - Quote Hisec pvp has never really been my thing. However, nothing makes me want to go on a cruel ganking spree more than the summer rash of anti-ganking threads. The idea that such a spree will kill the game is going to need some stats to back it up. That won't happen. Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 646	Posted - 2016.07.27 02:08:43 - [70] - Quote Chopper Rollins wrote: ...summer rash... There's probably an ointment you can use for that. Check in with your neighborhood pharmacy, they'll be happy to help. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.

Valkin Mordirc 2223	Posted - 2016.07.27 04:05:22 - [71] - Quote Something tells me is a satirical troll. But still, Can I get a ONE MORE NERF? EDIT: Maybe not, either he's in it for the long run, or he really believes it. `#DeleteTheWeak`
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 470	Posted - 2016.07.27 04:07:06 - [72] - Quote Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of a ship scanner? If you want scan immunity, double wrap or blockade runner dude.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 470	Posted - 2016.07.27 04:13:20 - [73] - Quote Sentient Blade wrote: Suggesting cargo scanning is harmless is the same as suggesting bumping a freighter out of alignment is harmless. Neither is currently an aggressive act due to game mechanics but the reality is it only serves one purpose when done on another ship. aaaannnndddd WRONG. Ship scanners are used in Armageddons to monitor another ship's capacitor. Also useful to make sure "is this a cyno ship?" And if you want to check out the enemy's Augoror fit with a neutral alt before going in deep, you guessed it: ZKill or Shipscanner! How do we know the container we're about to hack is not worth our trouble? .... This is really getting ridiculous. Was CODE right all along? WERE THEY?! ffs man up.
Knitram Relik Running With Railguns 61	Posted - 2016.07.27 04:45:26 - [74] - Quote No. Double wrap yer stuffs if you don't want people to know what you've got. And grow a pair, this is Eve.
Vortexo VonBrenner Raumfahrer Spiff Rakett Piloot Anslutning 2389	Posted - 2016.07.27 05:12:05 - [75] - Quote Blockade runner bingo is a thing. Actually no need to double-wrap, just don't afk and use your cloak = happytimes EvE security zones in pictures EvE quick reference pdf A wise man sums up EvE Smoke me a Kipper...
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1933	Posted - 2016.07.27 05:47:30 - [76] - Quote Methinks this thread will not get locked like the others because its beneficial to the ganker POV, IBNL COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 471	Posted - 2016.07.27 06:03:29 - [77] - Quote It's actually beneficial to general-purpose intel gathering. Remember how we spin a yarn about active effort to gather intelligence, as opposed to receiving it automatically, for free, on a silver platter? Well, having to scan for contents is one of the "active effort" category. Take that away and you have no way of verifying your nose when you smell trap. The fact that gankers also happen to use this particular module has little to do with anything -- I say the same thing to gankers when they come up with bumping or looting exploits. In this case though ...... You can't ask gankers to "pick their targets more carefully" and then take away the tools to actually do so. Ima Wreckyou is gonna love this but yea. Basically it's a preposterous idea and it'll get locked as soon as the comedy value runs out methinks.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1933	Posted - 2016.07.27 06:05:57 - [78] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: It's actually beneficial to general-purpose intel gathering. Remember how we spin a yarn about active effort to gather intelligence, as opposed to receiving it automatically, for free, on a silver platter? Well, having to scan for contents is one of the "active effort" category. Take that away and you have no way of verifying your nose when you smell trap. The fact that gankers also happen to use this particular module has little to do with anything -- I say the same thing to gankers when they come up with bumping or looting exploits. In this case though ...... You can't ask gankers to "pick their targets more carefully" and then take away the tools to actually do so. Ima Wreckyou is gonna love this but yea. Basically it's a preposterous idea and it'll get locked as soon as the comedy value runs out methinks. Well one issue I have is I have actually gone and ganked a few, perhaps if CCP could remove gate gun assistance to ships that have used that module I would be happy. COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 471	Posted - 2016.07.27 06:11:03 - [79] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Well one issue I have is I have actually gone and ganked a few, perhaps if CCP could remove gate gun assistance to ships that have used that module I would be happy. To be fair ... second whine thread in two days makes me want to fit up a throwaway Thorax and vent some anger towards this excessive tearjerking. I realize all too well what that would make me. But seriously they got to stop or I swear I will.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1933	Posted - 2016.07.27 06:31:05 - [80] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Well one issue I have is I have actually gone and ganked a few, perhaps if CCP could remove gate gun assistance to ships that have used that module I would be happy. To be fair ... second whine thread in two days makes me want to fit up a throwaway Thorax and vent some anger towards this excessive tearjerking. I realize all too well what that would make me. But seriously they got to stop or I swear I will. Go and do it, but as a test, try shooting some ganker scouts COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.

Aurelius Oshidashi Immortal Lunatics Ministry of Agressive Destruction 11	Posted - 2016.07.27 06:56:23 - [81] - Quote For at least the coming months, I have a direct interest in making gankers life hard. It will help my industry operations. However, I don't want to destroy this game by taking the coolest element out of it, being the danger of flying in space. I've been ganked while afk and have been super pissed because of it, then accepted this is the game, then soon after got ganked again. Then I used my anger to advocate for aggressive countermeasures against gankers, like starting an alliance to f u c k them up. That was too great of an endeavour, but within 24 hours after the gank I realised I actually love being scared shitless when undocking my ship. It's what makes this game interesting, it's what makes me think about new strategies to counter gankers. I want to thank CODE or whatever terrorists ganked me for letting me enjoy the game even more. So please don't nerf ganking. Keep EvE dangerous and don't make it a theme park for softies.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1933	Posted - 2016.07.27 07:08:52 - [82] - Quote Aurelius Oshidashi wrote: For at least the coming months, I have a direct interest in making gankers life hard. It will help my industry operations. However, I don't want to destroy this game by taking the coolest element out of it, being the danger of flying in space. I've been ganked while afk and have been super pissed because of it, then accepted this is the game, then soon after got ganked again. Then I used my anger to advocate for aggressive countermeasures against gankers, like starting an alliance to f u c k them up. That was too great of an endeavour, but within 24 hours after the gank I realised I actually love being scared shitless when undocking my ship. It's what makes this game interesting, it's what makes me think about new strategies to counter gankers. I want to thank CODE or whatever terrorists ganked me for letting me enjoy the game even more. So please don't nerf ganking. Keep EvE dangerous and don't make it a theme park for softies. What exactly do you mean by nerfing ganking? And the use of the word softies made me laugh, get away with you... COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5022	Posted - 2016.07.27 07:39:25 - [83] - Quote Knitram Relik wrote: No. Double wrap yer stuffs if you don't want people to know what you've got. And grow a pair, this is Eve. Yes, I too liked to be ganked. Nowadays, people will gank you just to be damn sure that double wrapped cargo is not valuable. "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
Elmund Egivand Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 1267	Posted - 2016.07.27 07:47:37 - [84] - Quote I must try double-wrapping 1 unit of tritanium and park a freighter carrying the stuff outside Jita 4-4 and see what happens. A Minmatar warship is like a rusting Beetle with 500 horsepower Cardillac engines in the rear, armour plating bolted to chassis and a M2 Browning stuck on top.
Aurelius Oshidashi Immortal Lunatics Ministry of Agressive Destruction 12	Posted - 2016.07.27 08:16:20 - [85] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Aurelius Oshidashi wrote: For at least the coming months, I have a direct interest in making gankers life hard. It will help my industry operations. However, I don't want to destroy this game by taking the coolest element out of it, being the danger of flying in space. I've been ganked while afk and have been super pissed because of it, then accepted this is the game, then soon after got ganked again. Then I used my anger to advocate for aggressive countermeasures against gankers, like starting an alliance to f u c k them up. That was too great of an endeavour, but within 24 hours after the gank I realised I actually love being scared shitless when undocking my ship. It's what makes this game interesting, it's what makes me think about new strategies to counter gankers. I want to thank CODE or whatever terrorists ganked me for letting me enjoy the game even more. So please don't nerf ganking. Keep EvE dangerous and don't make it a theme park for softies. What exactly do you mean by nerfing ganking? And the use of the words theme park and softies made me laugh, get away with you... Nerfing ganking means having CCP take measures aimed at decreasing or eliminating ganking. I consider the emotion that comes with being ganked as a good driver for playing this game. With softies I mean people that dont use one of the many ways to counter ganking, but instead call for CCP to eliminate or nerf it through the forums. With theme park I mean an environment in high sec that is almost 100% safe. I've only been playing on an active subscription for a bit over 6 months, so please correct me where needed, I feel these forums are mostly populated by quite experienced players. I mostly absorb and learn, but all these threads calling on CCP to make high safer got me off a bit, I feel a gankfree high sec wouldn't make this game better.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1933	Posted - 2016.07.27 08:39:01 - [86] - Quote Aurelius Oshidashi wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Aurelius Oshidashi wrote: For at least the coming months, I have a direct interest in making gankers life hard. It will help my industry operations. However, I don't want to destroy this game by taking the coolest element out of it, being the danger of flying in space. I've been ganked while afk and have been super pissed because of it, then accepted this is the game, then soon after got ganked again. Then I used my anger to advocate for aggressive countermeasures against gankers, like starting an alliance to f u c k them up. That was too great of an endeavour, but within 24 hours after the gank I realised I actually love being scared shitless when undocking my ship. It's what makes this game interesting, it's what makes me think about new strategies to counter gankers. I want to thank CODE or whatever terrorists ganked me for letting me enjoy the game even more. So please don't nerf ganking. Keep EvE dangerous and don't make it a theme park for softies. What exactly do you mean by nerfing ganking? And the use of the words theme park and softies made me laugh, get away with you... Nerfing ganking means having CCP take measures aimed at decreasing or eliminating ganking. I consider the emotion that comes with being ganked as a good driver for playing this game. With softies I mean people that dont use one of the many ways to counter ganking, but instead call for CCP to eliminate or nerf it through the forums. With theme park I mean an environment in high sec that is almost 100% safe. I've only been playing on an active subscription for a bit over 6 months, so please correct me where needed, I feel these forums are mostly populated by quite experienced players. I mostly absorb and learn, but all these threads calling on CCP to make high safer got me off a bit, I feel a gankfree high sec wouldn't make this game better. First of all ganking is always going to exist in this game contrary to how the HTFU crowd like to say otherwise, what they mean when they say nerf ganking is anything that makes it more difficult, even when it is to remove something that was massively to their advantage. Lets take a few examples of what people call nerfing ganking, CCP decided to change the DCU II to a passive modules, which you do not switch on, so they adjusted the structures on various ships including freighters that could not use it. And the gankers cried nerf. Another one, no consequence bumping to hold people in space, there is now going to be a timer, do you call that a nerf to ganking or an adjustment of a poor mechanic. At the moment they scoop loot by parking a DST next to a wreck and their freighter, incomes a noob ship which scoops the loot into the DST fleet hanger, the freighter pilot scoops that into his hanger, the noob ship goes suspect and can be shot. Would adjusting that be a nerf to ganking or a nerf to loot scooping. When people talk about such things, they get accused of wanting to nerf ganking, when in fact a lot of the time they are talking about poor mechanic which remove consequences. At one point the wrecks all had the saem EHP, which is kinda silly, the AG guys were shooting wrecks so they could not scoop the loot, suddenly and very quickly CCP changed it so the wrecks had more EHP based on the ship size, the AG players said, wow, they acted fast on that, makes sense however, but is a pity and moved on. Who is being a softy here? Hisec is not safe, ganking and war decs are always going to be in this game, most of the forum fights are around mechanic and balance changes that make it less of a cake walk or less like taking candy from a baby. For example this beauty from this thread, Gankers use scouts, some use frigates and they can be ganked with a Catalyst, Aaaarg and his Smurf alts use Thrashers to scout which cannot be taken down by a Catalyst before the gate guns blow them up, you have to use a plated Thorax. I don't agree with the proposal put forward by the OP, but I understand his frustration. Currently there are three threads in the forums where gankers are moaning about the Skiff because they are not able to up their game to gank them. They have the ability to gank them if they work as a team and if they have the will, but they do not and are calling for a nerf to yield and tank. If you are interested in fighting a good start would be not to parrot their baseless propaganda but to learn the reality, as well as blowing up their scouts and gank ships, if you do this enough you might then learn just how easy they have it in some areas. COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Avaelica Kuershin Paper Cats 270	Posted - 2016.07.27 09:10:46 - [87] - Quote When I've had to haul stuff to or from a trade hub, I always assume that I'll be scanned and not just cargo-scanned either. It is so useful that juicier, softer targets are chosen.
Aurelius Oshidashi Immortal Lunatics Ministry of Agressive Destruction 12	Posted - 2016.07.27 09:17:06 - [88] - Quote Damn, my reply disappeared, will rewrite later...
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17710	Posted - 2016.07.27 09:19:23 - [89] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Lets take a few examples of what people call nerfing ganking, CCP decided to change the DCU II to a passive modules, which you do not switch on, so they adjusted the structures on various ships including freighters that could not use it. And the gankers cried nerf. Adding the EHP of another freighter to jump freighters already large tank is a hell of a nerf considering these ships couldn't even fit a DCU. Plus the DCU change failed to meet its own goals, the mod is still a must have on everything that fitted them before. Dracvlad wrote: Another one, no consequence bumping to hold people in space, there is now going to be a timer, do you call that a nerf to ganking or an adjustment of a poor mechanic. Both. There were very easy counters to it but the fix isn't game breaking to ganking as you can still use the tactic to get the freighter into position. Dracvlad wrote: At the moment they scoop loot by parking a DST next to a wreck and their freighter, incomes a noob ship which scoops the loot into the DST fleet hanger, the freighter pilot scoops that into his hanger, the noob ship goes suspect and can be shot. Would adjusting that be a nerf to ganking or a nerf to loot scooping. People have yet to explain how you squeeze a freighter worth of cargo into a DST to pull this off.
Mephiztopheleze Laphroaig Inc. 830	Posted - 2016.07.27 09:21:21 - [90] - Quote Jarod Garamonde wrote: What's a "hostile act"? I define 'hostile act' as: Being in the same constellation as me and not in my fleet/alliance. Occasional Resident Newbie Correspondent for TMC: http://themittani.com/search/site/mephiztopheleze This is my Forum Main. My Combat Alt is sambo Inkura

Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1938	Posted - 2016.07.27 10:04:09 - [91] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Lets take a few examples of what people call nerfing ganking, CCP decided to change the DCU II to a passive modules, which you do not switch on, so they adjusted the structures on various ships including freighters that could not use it. And the gankers cried nerf. Adding the EHP of another freighter to jump freighters already large tank is a hell of a nerf considering these ships couldn't even fit a DCU. Plus the DCU change failed to meet its own goals, the mod is still a must have on everything that fitted them before. Dracvlad wrote: Another one, no consequence bumping to hold people in space, there is now going to be a timer, do you call that a nerf to ganking or an adjustment of a poor mechanic. Both. There were very easy counters to it but the fix isn't game breaking to ganking as you can still use the tactic to get the freighter into position. Dracvlad wrote: At the moment they scoop loot by parking a DST next to a wreck and their freighter, incomes a noob ship which scoops the loot into the DST fleet hanger, the freighter pilot scoops that into his hanger, the noob ship goes suspect and can be shot. Would adjusting that be a nerf to ganking or a nerf to loot scooping. People have yet to explain how you squeeze a freighter worth of cargo into a DST to pull this off. And there you go an example of what I said. He also does some obfuscation on their use of DST's Watch and learn https://www.twitch.tv/jason_kusion 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 17711	Posted - 2016.07.27 10:24:49 - [92] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: And there you go an example of what I said. He also does some obfuscation on their use of DST's Watch and learn https://www.twitch.tv/jason_kusion You link to an offline channel.. Ok lets make this simple. How do you squeeze 1,000,000 m3 package through a 60,000 m3 hold?
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1938	Posted - 2016.07.27 10:32:48 - [93] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: And there you go an example of what I said. He also does some obfuscation on their use of DST's Watch and learn https://www.twitch.tv/jason_kusion You link to an offline channel.. Ok lets make this simple. How do you squeeze 1,000,000 m3 package through a 60,000 m3 hold? Well he is not active at the moment, must have gorged himself on too many fat freighters and the boredom from how easy it was finally got to him. You know how this works, stop playing a dumb troll... COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Gimme Sake State War Academy Caldari State 404	Posted - 2016.07.27 10:40:48 - [94] - Quote Nana Skalski wrote: PLEASE ALSO BRING BACK PLEASURE HUBS AND QUAFE GIRLS. And this veteran retirement station you promised. IBTL. I vote for that. "Never not blob!" ~ Plato
Galaxy Chicken Free Highsec Industrialists 50	Posted - 2016.07.27 13:56:37 - [95] - Quote These threads are greatly entertaining and I advocate for the creation of more of them. One might point out that looting mechanics would be less of an issue if anti-ganking weren't so fail at preventing ganks.
Nomad Willis Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2016.07.27 14:47:19 - [96] - Quote Either create a mod or add a bonus to certain ships that doesn't allow you to be scanned without you seeing who. They can scan you all they want but if you are fit for it, then you will see them scanning you. At least gives you some insight on who is peeking in your "window"
Chopper Rollins Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 1454	Posted - 2016.07.27 15:07:18 - [97] - Quote Nomad Willis wrote: Either create a mod or add a bonus to certain ships that doesn't allow you to be scanned without you seeing who. They can scan you all they want but if you are fit for it, then you will see them scanning you. At least gives you some insight on who is peeking in your "window" There is a scanning effect in space if the scanner has a passive targeting array fitted to avoid yellow box. The number of people for whom this item is a mystery is upsetting. I recommend newbros to fit passive targeting and ship scanner to look at people's fits, to get ideas or see mods they might never have thought of. Cargo scanners also let them know just how stupidly valuable some of those ships going past really are. It's impossible to completely hide that you are scanning ships, so that's out, too. Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
Lan Wang Knights of the Posing Meat FETID 3344	Posted - 2016.07.27 15:11:13 - [98] - Quote zus wrote: Proposal of Ship Scanning as Hostile Act in any solar system, pass the Resolution Cargo Scanners / Ship Scanners / Survey Scanners / Probe Scanners use as Hostile Act. FTFY FETID now recruiting pvp pilots \| lowsec pvp & piracy Loyalist to Angel Cartel Your killboard reads like a "how to get farmed 101" - Noah Reese
Nomad Willis Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2016.07.27 15:41:59 - [99] - Quote Chopper Rollins wrote: Nomad Willis wrote: Either create a mod or add a bonus to certain ships that doesn't allow you to be scanned without you seeing who. They can scan you all they want but if you are fit for it, then you will see them scanning you. At least gives you some insight on who is peeking in your "window" There is a scanning effect in space if the scanner has a passive targeting array fitted to avoid yellow box. The number of people for whom this item is a mystery is upsetting. I recommend newbros to fit passive targeting and ship scanner to look at people's fits, to get ideas or see mods they might never have thought of. Cargo scanners also let them know just how stupidly valuable some of those ships going past really are. It's impossible to completely hide that you are scanning ships, so that's out, too. Good to know, but undocking from trade hubs tends to be a visual crap show. Half the time there are 10 other ships all dog piled while everyone tries to warp off. The scanner is god knows where in relation to your undock postion. How would you know, even if you did see it, that it was you they were targeting. Its not like the eye molest you for very long... quick look and on to the next guy. My point is mostly around tools for both sides. Information and a bit of luck is all that a target really has.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17713	Posted - 2016.07.27 16:16:30 - [100] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: And there you go an example of what I said. He also does some obfuscation on their use of DST's Watch and learn https://www.twitch.tv/jason_kusion You link to an offline channel.. Ok lets make this simple. How do you squeeze 1,000,000 m3 package through a 60,000 m3 hold? You know how this works, stop playing a dumb troll... I know its impossible.

Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5022	Posted - 2016.07.27 17:28:00 - [101] - Quote Nomad Willis wrote: Either create a mod or add a bonus to certain ships that doesn't allow you to be scanned without you seeing who. They can scan you all they want but if you are fit for it, then you will see them scanning you. At least gives you some insight on who is peeking in your "window" You can double wrap your cargo which means it cannot be scanned. However, people might gank you suspecting such cargo is valuable. Just as people will alpha blockade runners (which cannot be cargo scanned) on the off chance they too are carrying something valuable. You do have a way of seeing who is "peeking in your window" you must target a ship to use scanners (i.e. yellow box them). The only way around this is if they fit a passive locking module. If you are not paying attention to who is yellow boxing you as you fly...that is your problem. Fix it. Pay attention. "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
zus Cyber Naval Command Research and Development 43	Posted - 2016.07.27 17:28:41 - [102] - Quote After this discussion i came to the realization that a scanning suppression signal unit needs to be developed although a unit like this can greatly interfere with ship's sensors it will provide the privacy and ease of mind to those who select to use it
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 474	Posted - 2016.07.27 17:30:20 - [103] - Quote Ummmm wise guy. Freighters don't have fitting- where exactly would we put those Scan Suppressors, and secondly ... is it wise to fit something that'll make you primary while at the same time gimping your tank?
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5023	Posted - 2016.07.27 17:48:32 - [104] - Quote Nomad Willis wrote: Chopper Rollins wrote: Nomad Willis wrote: Either create a mod or add a bonus to certain ships that doesn't allow you to be scanned without you seeing who. They can scan you all they want but if you are fit for it, then you will see them scanning you. At least gives you some insight on who is peeking in your "window" There is a scanning effect in space if the scanner has a passive targeting array fitted to avoid yellow box. The number of people for whom this item is a mystery is upsetting. I recommend newbros to fit passive targeting and ship scanner to look at people's fits, to get ideas or see mods they might never have thought of. Cargo scanners also let them know just how stupidly valuable some of those ships going past really are. It's impossible to completely hide that you are scanning ships, so that's out, too. Good to know, but undocking from trade hubs tends to be a visual crap show. Half the time there are 10 other ships all dog piled while everyone tries to warp off. The scanner is god knows where in relation to your undock postion. How would you know, even if you did see it, that it was you they were targeting. Its not like the eye molest you for very long... quick look and on to the next guy. My point is mostly around tools for both sides. Information and a bit of luck is all that a target really has. You have the tools...look at your overview to see who is scanning you. Adjust your overview so you can see as many ships as possible and scroll up and down. I have spotted people scanning me before, it is not that hard. I've even convo'd them and ask if they like what they saw. Usually they do, but there isn't enough of it to make a gank worthwhile. Especially as I use a JF now, and often jump out of the trade hub to who knows where from their perspective. "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
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5023	Posted - 2016.07.27 17:49:56 - [105] - Quote zus wrote: After this discussion i came to the realization that a scanning suppression signal unit needs to be developed although a unit like this can greatly interfere with ship's sensors it will provide the privacy and ease of mind to those who select to use it Ok, how about it gives you a suspect timer so people can shoot you if you use it. You should not be allowed to shield yourself from the consequences of being imprudent. "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
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5023	Posted - 2016.07.27 17:55:21 - [106] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Ummmm wise guy. Freighters don't have fitting- where exactly would we put those Scan Suppressors, and secondly ... is it wise to fit something that'll make you primary while at the same time gimping your tank? Good point. Fit such a module and people might gank you figuring you got something valuable you are hiding. Really....think these things through people. "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
Ralph King-Griffin Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance 17091	Posted - 2016.07.27 18:06:34 - [107] - Quote zus wrote: After this discussion i came to the realization that a scanning suppression signal unit needs to be developed although a unit like this can greatly interfere with ship's sensors it will provide the privacy and ease of mind to those who select to use it Yup, you can rest assured that 100% of gankers that scan you will then fire. Its always good to have things predictable. Edit: Incase you werent aware , blocade runners are cargo scan immune and get ganked on sight , "blocade runner roulet" Better the Devil you know. =]\|[=
zus Cyber Naval Command Research and Development 43	Posted - 2016.07.27 18:18:51 - [108] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Ummmm wise guy. Freighters don't have fitting- where exactly would we put those Scan Suppressors, and secondly ... is it wise to fit something that'll make you primary while at the same time gimping your tank? 3 low fittings
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17715	Posted - 2016.07.27 18:19:12 - [109] - Quote Ralph King-Griffin wrote: Edit: Incase you werent aware , blocade runners are cargo scan immune and get ganked on sight , "blocade runner roulet" Never understood this change. What is the point of making the cargo hold unscannable on a ship that cant be locked anyway because it warps cloaked.
zus Cyber Naval Command Research and Development 43	Posted - 2016.07.27 18:20:44 - [110] - Quote Ralph King-Griffin wrote: zus wrote: After this discussion i came to the realization that a scanning suppression signal unit needs to be developed although a unit like this can greatly interfere with ship's sensors it will provide the privacy and ease of mind to those who select to use it Yup, you can rest assured that 100% of gankers that scan you will then fire. Its always good to have things predictable. Edit: Incase you werent aware , blocade runners are cargo scan immune and get ganked on sight , "blocade runner roulet"

Lady Ayeipsia Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 1150	Posted - 2016.07.27 18:21:18 - [111] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: zus wrote: After this discussion i came to the realization that a scanning suppression signal unit needs to be developed although a unit like this can greatly interfere with ship's sensors it will provide the privacy and ease of mind to those who select to use it Ok, how about it gives you a suspect timer so people can shoot you if you use it. You should not be allowed to shield yourself from the consequences of being imprudent. It's not a bad idea though. It would have to be a low slot mod to work on a frieghter. And it is fairly balanced already. Using it prevents scanning modes from working at the cost of lower tank as it takes up a slot.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5027	Posted - 2016.07.27 18:24:34 - [112] - Quote Ralph King-Griffin wrote: zus wrote: After this discussion i came to the realization that a scanning suppression signal unit needs to be developed although a unit like this can greatly interfere with ship's sensors it will provide the privacy and ease of mind to those who select to use it Yup, you can rest assured that 100% of gankers that scan you will then fire. Its always good to have things predictable. Edit: Incase you werent aware , blocade runners are cargo scan immune and get ganked on sight , "blocade runner roulet" Yup, which is why if you use a blockade runner you use insta-undock bookmarks, insta-docking bookmarks, and you should be good with warp and cloak activation as well. Even still you might still get popped if you are unlucky. So, if you could fit a module to a freighter that made it impossible to scan, my guess is you'd still be putting a "Gank Me" sign on your ship. You can try using insta-undock bookmarks in a freighter, but you might still get locked and scanned. Still it could help. Also try messing up their plans. Undock, warp off, and along your route dock up in a 0.9 system. Go AFK for a random period of time. Go for a walk, stretch, get some food, a bio, a shower, whatever. The longer you take the more likely they'll be to find another target in the mean time. Also, for the love of God Stop. Filling. Your. Freighter. With. 8 billion ISK. Worth. Of. Stuff. Yes, it might mean 8-10 trips to move all that stuff, but if you have 800 million in your hold vs. 8 billion...they are far less likely to gank you over 800 million (of which about 400 million is expected to drop). Also, look at the cargo, if it is some small and expensive modules that are causing the problem and then lots of other low value stuff...try this. 1. Undock in your freighter. 2. Warp to another less used station in system. 3. Dock up. 4. Put the high end stuff in your blockade runner. 5. Undock. 6. Warp to an insta-undock book mark while activating your cloak. 7. Proceed to destination in the blockade runner. 8. As you warp off of every gate, be sure to activate your cloak ASAP. (If necessary practice this.) 9. Hop in a shuttle or ceptor, go back to the trade hub. 10. Get in your freighter and transport the low value bulky stuff. "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
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5027	Posted - 2016.07.27 18:26:33 - [113] - Quote Dammit; double post. "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
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5027	Posted - 2016.07.27 18:30:38 - [114] - Quote zus wrote: Ralph King-Griffin wrote: zus wrote: After this discussion i came to the realization that a scanning suppression signal unit needs to be developed although a unit like this can greatly interfere with ship's sensors it will provide the privacy and ease of mind to those who select to use it Yup, you can rest assured that 100% of gankers that scan you will then fire. Its always good to have things predictable. Edit: Incase you werent aware , blocade runners are cargo scan immune and get ganked on sight , "blocade runner roulet" No, he is correct. I lost a viator that way once. I foolishly warped to zero to Jita 4-4 vs. a bookmark. Got blapped as I landed 2,000m or so away from the station. I then looked the guy up on zkillboard and he had quite a history of blapping blockade runners. Yes, he looses his ship, but it does indeed happen. Similarly, there are people who have complained about being ganked while moving a double wrapped cargo. The gankers are playing a numbers game in that case. So, all they have to do is hit enough such freighters and get that one big pay off to cover all the failures and then some. See, most people are not going to bother double wrapping 50 million units of tritanium. But if they have 6 trillion ISK worth of goodies...then they might double wrap thinking ganking groups will not gank what they can't see. But as we can see...it might very well be worth it. "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
Mara Pahrdi The Order of Anoyia 1160	Posted - 2016.07.27 19:51:23 - [115] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Lets take a few examples of what people call nerfing ganking, CCP decided to change the DCU II to a passive modules, which you do not switch on, so they adjusted the structures on various ships including freighters that could not use it. And the gankers cried nerf. While I wouldn't call it an outright nerf to ganking, it definitley was a huge buff for lazy autopiloting capsuleers. Also for folks that cannot be bothered to press a button after each jump, or when they leave a station. It's about the same category of pilots that needed the safety button to be introduced in the game, because the confirmation of a message, that bad things are about to happen if the pilot continues trying to shoot that specific target, was way too much attention required. I had a good laugh in one of the late ganking threads, when a poster proposed a confirmation window to pop up for some situation. CCP has catered to the inattentive, lazy, easy gameplay during the last years in a way, that is very well comparable to some of the stuff Blizzard has done to WoW in the past. All in the name of gameplay improvement. No wonder, folks can't be bothered to do even basic maths anymore when loading their paper thin space trucks with all their belongings, completely ignoring EVEs rule no 1: You simply don't fly what you don't want to lose. Period. Remove insurance.
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 658	Posted - 2016.07.27 19:55:53 - [116] - Quote Mara Pahrdi wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Lets take a few examples of what people call nerfing ganking, CCP decided to change the DCU II to a passive modules, which you do not switch on, so they adjusted the structures on various ships including freighters that could not use it. And the gankers cried nerf. While I wouldn't call it an outright nerf to ganking, it definitley was a huge buff for lazy autopiloting capsuleers. Also for folks that cannot be bothered to press a button after each jump, or when they leave a station. It's about the same category of pilots that needed the safety button to be introduced in the game, because the confirmation of a message, that bad things are about to happen if the pilot continues trying to shoot that specific target, was way too much attention required. I had a good laugh in one of the late ganking threads, when a poster proposed a confirmation window to pop up for some situation. CCP has catered to the inattentive, lazy, easy gameplay during the last years in a way, that is very well comparable to some of the stuff Blizzard has done to WoW in the past. All in the name of gameplay improvement. No wonder, folks can't be bothered to do even basic maths anymore when loading their paper thin space trucks with all their belongings, completely ignoring EVEs rule no 1: You simply don't fly what you don't want to lose. Period. Why you bother Mara? You know he's jus going to come back with some dumb comment, completely disregarding your view because it doesn't agree with his. Even Fozzie, when announcing the DC rebalance, referred to it as a nerf to ganking.
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 7846	Posted - 2016.07.27 20:02:27 - [117] - Quote Come to think of it, why not at least have a suspect flag for people scanning. After all, if somebody is going around a parking lot looking into cars, would that behavior not be "suspect"? I know I known "Hurf blurf this is not real life hurf blurf not another nerf". These days I don't get wrapped up in "don't they want PVP?" They don't. Heck even RvB turned out to be a kill-farming scam. Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5027	Posted - 2016.07.27 20:13:41 - [118] - Quote Mara Pahrdi wrote: No wonder, folks can't be bothered to do even basic maths anymore when loading their paper thin space trucks with all their belongings, completely ignoring EVEs rule no 1: You simply don't fly what you don't want to lose. Period. This should be on a message for every new account that does not disappear until the person creating that account types it into a field 10 times. "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
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5027	Posted - 2016.07.27 20:18:54 - [119] - Quote Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Come to think of it, why not at least have a suspect flag for people scanning. After all, if somebody is going around a parking lot looking into cars, would that behavior not be "suspect"? I know I known "Hurf blurf this is not real life hurf blurf not another nerf". These days I don't get wrapped up in "don't they want PVP?" They don't. Heck even RvB turned out to be a kill-farming scam. Not to the point where you can shoot them....well...okay, not normally. Looking in a car window is NOT illegal, to continue with your analogy. Sure a cop might come by and ask what you are doing and harass you, but unless you are trespassing it is not illegal. I could be walking to my car and stopping an looking in the window of every car on the way. As for them not wanting PvP...yeah, that is part of the problem. Some people are playing this game not realizing one of its core elements. You can shoot anyone, anywhere, at anytime so long as you accept the consequences. If you do not understand this part of the game....you are going to be in for a rude surprise when somebody decides to accept the consequences and shoot you....maybe even destroy your ship and take whatever drops. Everything working as intended. "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
Mephiztopheleze Laphroaig Inc. 833	Posted - 2016.07.27 22:23:07 - [120] - Quote zus wrote: After this discussion i came to the realization that a scanning suppression signal unit needs to be developed although a unit like this can greatly interfere with ship's sensors it will provide the privacy and ease of mind to those who select to use it we have such a unit. it's called the Blockade Runner T2 Industrial Ship. baltec1 wrote: Ralph King-Griffin wrote: Edit: Incase you werent aware , blocade runners are cargo scan immune and get ganked on sight , "blocade runner roulet" Never understood this change. What is the point of making the cargo hold unscannable on a ship that cant be locked anyway because it warps cloaked. yeah, it is something of a redundant ship bonus. it'd be far more useful on a Deep Space Transport. Occasional Resident Newbie Correspondent for TMC: http://themittani.com/search/site/mephiztopheleze This is my Forum Main. My Combat Alt is sambo Inkura

Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 663	Posted - 2016.07.27 22:55:02 - [121] - Quote Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Come to think of it, why not at least have a suspect flag for people scanning. After all, if somebody is going around a parking lot looking into cars, would that behavior not be "suspect"? I know I known "Hurf blurf this is not real life hurf blurf not another nerf". These days I don't get wrapped up in "don't they want PVP?" They don't. Heck even RvB turned out to be a kill-farming scam. I agree. Anyone who looks into cars in parking lots in New Eden should gain a suspect flag. As for ship scanning though, no. Suspect flag is not needed.
Chopper Rollins Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 1456	Posted - 2016.07.27 23:15:36 - [122] - Quote Nomad Willis wrote: Chopper Rollins wrote: Nomad Willis wrote: ... At least gives you some insight on who is peeking in your "window" There is a scanning effect in space if the scanner has a passive targeting array fitted to avoid yellow box. ...It's impossible to completely hide that you are scanning ships, so that's out, too. Good to know, but undocking from trade hubs tends to be a visual crap show. Half the time there are 10 other ships all dog piled while everyone tries to warp off.... If you insist on or have to move in/out of hubs at busy times then assume you have been scanned. There is no reason, game or lore wise, to make scanning your cargo a hostile act. Moving stuff in smaller, agile ships, instas etc are a hassle, but the price you pay for all huddling around hubs forever. Don't get me started on the number of people who all want to live, pve, indy and trade within 10 jumps of Jita while nearly every null rat and roid spawns/despawns without seeing a player on grid. ANOTHER thread begging for hisec empire huddling to be made safer? Space adventuer gaem, not spaec-creep-around-in-a-defensive-crouch gaem. Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
zus Cyber Naval Command Research and Development 43	Posted - 2016.07.27 23:22:35 - [123] - Quote Mephiztopheleze wrote: zus wrote: After this discussion i came to the realization that a scanning suppression signal unit needs to be developed although a unit like this can greatly interfere with ship's sensors it will provide the privacy and ease of mind to those who select to use it we have such a unit. it's called the Blockade Runner T2 Industrial Ship. baltec1 wrote: Ralph King-Griffin wrote: Edit: Incase you werent aware , blocade runners are cargo scan immune and get ganked on sight , "blocade runner roulet" Never understood this change. What is the point of making the cargo hold unscannable on a ship that cant be locked anyway because it warps cloaked. yeah, it is something of a redundant ship bonus. it'd be far more useful on a Deep Space Transport. you need Industrial 5 and Industry 5 also cost at the 120,000,000 not for the average new players
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 479	Posted - 2016.07.27 23:27:41 - [124] - Quote Can I ask what kind of valuables you expect a new player to ferry around? Can I ask why a new player looking to get into the hauling business has no online friends? Le Me thinks you're using "newbees" as an excuse to push an agenda. A T1 industrial will carry cheap, non-bulky goods like 5000 m3 at a time. They're not worth ganking unless you do something really wrong -- and to prove you're not worth ganking it's probably best to let them scan you. You'll get a free pass if the math check out. Edit: what you're essentially saying in your last post, is that a T1 indy should compete with specialized haulers; u wot mate?? Want to put me out of business??
Dark Lord Trump Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 60	Posted - 2016.07.27 23:36:19 - [125] - Quote zus wrote: Mephiztopheleze wrote: zus wrote: After this discussion i came to the realization that a scanning suppression signal unit needs to be developed although a unit like this can greatly interfere with ship's sensors it will provide the privacy and ease of mind to those who select to use it we have such a unit. it's called the Blockade Runner T2 Industrial Ship. baltec1 wrote: Ralph King-Griffin wrote: Edit: Incase you werent aware , blocade runners are cargo scan immune and get ganked on sight , "blocade runner roulet" Never understood this change. What is the point of making the cargo hold unscannable on a ship that cant be locked anyway because it warps cloaked. yeah, it is something of a redundant ship bonus. it'd be far more useful on a Deep Space Transport. you need Industrial 5 and Industry 5 also cost at the 120,000,000 not for the average new players Then the new player should look elsewhere for a career choice while his hauling skills train. Any serious hauler needs at least a T2 hauler. I'm going to build a big wall that will keep the Gallente out, and they're going to pay for it!
Lex Gabinia Res Repetundae 37	Posted - 2016.07.27 23:51:53 - [126] - Quote Dark Lord Trump wrote: zus wrote: you need Industrial 5 and Industry 5 also cost at the 120,000,000 not for the average new players Then the new player should look elsewhere for a career choice while his hauling skills train. Any serious hauler needs at least a T2 hauler. TRUMP!! How dare you forget that everyone should be able to everything immediately. It's all the rage these days in gaming. Fake Edit: And in 100% safe area without other player interaction as well.
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 7846	Posted - 2016.07.28 00:21:31 - [127] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Come to think of it, why not at least have a suspect flag for people scanning. After all, if somebody is going around a parking lot looking into cars, would that behavior not be "suspect"? I know I known "Hurf blurf this is not real life hurf blurf not another nerf". These days I don't get wrapped up in "don't they want PVP?" They don't. Heck even RvB turned out to be a kill-farming scam. I agree. Anyone who looks into cars in parking lots in New Eden should gain a suspect flag. As for ship scanning though, no. Suspect flag is not needed. But what about HTFU? My, how the tune changes. I bet if scanning ships did result in s suspect flag, you'd call that a nerf to ganking. But but I though you people always win every engagement? I thought you people are the apex feeeders of Eve, the super duper uber leet undefeatable pilots here to break people out of their RL habits of not being paranoid enough about everything? Your type will never change, and it's the presence of people like you in this game, or this game itself (apparently) that is not going to be missed. Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Lex Gabinia Res Repetundae 39	Posted - 2016.07.28 00:49:23 - [128] - Quote Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Come to think of it, why not at least have a suspect flag for people scanning. After all, if somebody is going around a parking lot looking into cars, would that behavior not be "suspect"? I know I known "Hurf blurf this is not real life hurf blurf not another nerf". These days I don't get wrapped up in "don't they want PVP?" They don't. Heck even RvB turned out to be a kill-farming scam. I agree. Anyone who looks into cars in parking lots in New Eden should gain a suspect flag. As for ship scanning though, no. Suspect flag is not needed. But what about HTFU? My, how the tune changes. I bet if scanning ships did result in s suspect flag, you'd call that a nerf to ganking. But but I though you people always win every engagement? I thought you people are the apex feeeders of Eve, the super duper uber leet undefeatable pilots here to break people out of their RL habits of not being paranoid enough about everything? Your type will never change, and it's the presence of people like you in this game, or this game itself (apparently) that is not going to be missed. Let me see if I understand: You should get a suspect timer for scanning because it is used largely by gankers? Currently there is no penalty for using scanner on anything. Add penalty to scanning. I think yes, yes that could be called a nerf to ganking as you are adding a penalty to something without adding a comparable reward. Also it just means that ganks go up because why bother scanning - just kill them all. Great idea.
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 663	Posted - 2016.07.28 02:45:56 - [129] - Quote Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Come to think of it, why not at least have a suspect flag for people scanning. After all, if somebody is going around a parking lot looking into cars, would that behavior not be "suspect"? I know I known "Hurf blurf this is not real life hurf blurf not another nerf". These days I don't get wrapped up in "don't they want PVP?" They don't. Heck even RvB turned out to be a kill-farming scam. I agree. Anyone who looks into cars in parking lots in New Eden should gain a suspect flag. As for ship scanning though, no. Suspect flag is not needed. But what about HTFU? My, how the tune changes. I bet if scanning ships did result in s suspect flag, you'd call that a nerf to ganking. But but I though you people always win every engagement? I thought you people are the apex feeeders of Eve, the super duper uber leet undefeatable pilots here to break people out of their RL habits of not being paranoid enough about everything? Your type will never change, and it's the presence of people like you in this game, or this game itself (apparently) that is not going to be missed. Why would that change ganking? It's just not a mechanic that's needed. If having an opinion is somehow an affront to the health of this game or something, then we are all screwed. How does having a view that no suspect flag is needed suddenly make me someone that won't be missed. I don't personally think any of us will be missed when we leave. The game will go on regardless. So why is my type, which can only be someone that has an opinion, such a bad thing for the game. Don't you have opinions too?
Valkin Mordirc 2223	Posted - 2016.07.28 03:55:01 - [130] - Quote Honestly, Like for reals. If you are arguing for this. You are either far to entrenched on the Anti-Gankers, Highsec is far to exploited side that you are arguing only for the fact that the people that think Highsec is far to safe are here arguing because of a trolling posted an absolutely ******** idea that shouldn't obvously be ignored mainly on the fact that his idea's are absolute trash and troll bait to begin with. Like seriously. No wait. Not seriously. That's my point. `#DeleteTheWeak`

Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7665	Posted - 2016.07.28 04:11:32 - [131] - Quote Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Come to think of it, why not at least have a suspect flag for people scanning. After all, if somebody is going around a parking lot looking into cars, would that behavior not be "suspect"? I know I known "Hurf blurf this is not real life hurf blurf not another nerf". These days I don't get wrapped up in "don't they want PVP?" They don't. Heck even RvB turned out to be a kill-farming scam. I agree. Anyone who looks into cars in parking lots in New Eden should gain a suspect flag. As for ship scanning though, no. Suspect flag is not needed. But what about HTFU? My, how the tune changes. I bet if scanning ships did result in s suspect flag, you'd call that a nerf to ganking. But but I though you people always win every engagement? I thought you people are the apex feeeders of Eve, the super duper uber leet undefeatable pilots here to break people out of their RL habits of not being paranoid enough about everything? Your type will never change, and it's the presence of people like you in this game, or this game itself (apparently) that is not going to be missed. So make people go suspect then. Go for it. See how many carebears actually engage someone with a sus..... oh wait, that would be virtually nobody, just as it always has been since Crimewatch 2.0 first began. Let me tell you what making everyone who ship scans flash yellow would result in. Yes, it would be a nerf to ganking, but not one that couldn't be adapted to. Not even close. Also, you would now have an even easier way to bait, and you'd still have the exact same number of people taking that bait as you do now, almost no one. Seriously, I couldn't tell you the number of hours I've sat around flashing yellow on various undocks not being engaged by anyone at all. This 'change' would solve nothing. It fixes nothing, it breaks nothing, it does nothing. What carebears are actually asking for is a nerf to ganking, and this is what they think will achieve that, but once again without thinking about the wider ramifications. It's short-sighted to assume that a suspect flag being applied to ship/cargo scanning would make a significant difference, so I can only see such a suggestion as a stepping stone towards the real goal, which is in the thread's title, making it an actual hostile act that results in a criminal flag. You know, something on par with actually firing your weapons at a target in high sec illegally. If it went there, then suicide scanning would become a thing. As it is, most people doing scanning already do it in very cheap t1 throwaway frigates with a few scanners fitted and nothing else, so again, it wouldn't even be a problem that scanners couldn't or wouldn't adapt to. A scanning ship costs less than a million isk, and people would still get scanned, and people would still get ganked. But let's put the pure redundancy of such a change aside for a moment, and talk about why this change was suggested in the first place. Because people have an agenda, and that agenda is making high sec a safe space for their 'solo mode' eve online experience. This experience doesn't exist, and never will. So no, mate, it's not the people opposing this change that need to HTFU, it's the people that are for it, because this change would be a direct spit in the face of the HTFU philosophy. At the end of the day, the burden of HTFU falls on the players suggesting the changes to mechanics instead of, I don't know, HTFU'ing and adapting to the existing ones already in place. I will end this essay with a simple question - bruh, do you even scan? 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
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 481	Posted - 2016.07.28 04:14:09 - [132] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Also, you would now have an even easier way to bait, and you'd still have the exact same number of people taking that bait as you do now, almost no one. Seriously, I couldn't tell you the number of hours I've sat around flashing yellow on various undocks not being engaged by anyone at all. Found your problem.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7665	Posted - 2016.07.28 04:16:45 - [133] - Quote A few months ago, I was running my alt in and out of various trade hubs, including Jita and Amarr, and all around various pipes, including through Uedama multiple times, carrying a bunch of plex. Ten, iirc. I even put the call out for people to come gank me for it. I ran around for hours, and got scanned all over the place carrying it. Do you know what? No one ever ganked me. I was hauling it in a DST, with the plex in the cargo hold, not the fleet hangar, so it was entirely scannable. Despite scanning me, apparently no one could think of how to stop and gank me. I wonder what haulers might be able to learn from that lesson? I'll be doing it again, hopefully this coming Christmas, and hopefully someone will gank me, but I'm thinking of livestreaming it this time, or at least getting video of it. Did you know, you can actually here a click-hiss noise when you get cargo scanned, so you know it's happened, and you can take measures to avoid being a victim, like changing your route, arranging an escort, or something along those lines? Seriously, people need to start actually thinking for themselves instead of begging to have their hand held. 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
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7665	Posted - 2016.07.28 04:17:45 - [134] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Also, you would now have an even easier way to bait, and you'd still have the exact same number of people taking that bait as you do now, almost no one. Seriously, I couldn't tell you the number of hours I've sat around flashing yellow on various undocks not being engaged by anyone at all. Found your problem. Elaborate. 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
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 481	Posted - 2016.07.28 04:34:56 - [135] - Quote People don't like to engage on undocks, because: (1) targets more often than not dock up (2) reinforcements can arrive at a moment's notice (they simply have to undock -- no local spike, nothing to scout for; there's a big "unknown" factor there) (3) if you engage and the target docks up, you're still aggressed and you still have a limited engagement. Who knows what will undock next? I suspect undocks being generally overcrowded doesn't help, not in terms of lag/framerate and not in terms of keeping a clear overview of the situation. You won't see anything coming with the normal highsec crowd on DScan. Edit: Oh, and of course the "Neutral Logi". You may or may not have it, but the mere threat of it dissuades would-I-should-I-maybe-try-for-him candidates.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7665	Posted - 2016.07.28 04:41:35 - [136] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: People don't like to engage on undocks, because: (1) targets more often than not dock up (2) reinforcements can arrive at a moment's notice (they simply have to undock -- no local spike, nothing to scout for; there's a big "unknown" factor there) (3) if you engage and the target docks up, you're still aggressed and you still have a limited engagement. Who knows what will undock next? I suspect undocks being generally overcrowded doesn't help, not in terms of lag/framerate and not in terms of keeping a clear overview of the situation. You won't see anything coming with the normal highsec crowd on DScan. Edit: Oh, and of course the "Neutral Logi". You may or may not have it, but the mere threat of it dissuades would-I-should-I-maybe-try-for-him candidates. Yeah, I know all of this. I specified undocks because that's where cargo scans take place. So a ship goes suspect on the undock because it scanned someone, and no one engages, because it's on the undock. I wasn't saying I had a problem with people not taking the bait, that just means they're smart. I was explaining why making scanning ships go suspect won't solve anything. I have many methods of baiting, this one being something I only do when I happen to be suspect, and bored, so I wait on an undock for the timer to end just to see if anything bites. Usually, nothing does. But every now and again, I get someone a little too... let's be generous and call them 'brave'. 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
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 481	Posted - 2016.07.28 04:47:24 - [137] - Quote Of course it won't solve anything because there is nothing to be solved. Strongly beginning to suspect OP is trolling on purpose tbh.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5031	Posted - 2016.07.28 05:58:04 - [138] - Quote Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Come to think of it, why not at least have a suspect flag for people scanning. After all, if somebody is going around a parking lot looking into cars, would that behavior not be "suspect"? I know I known "Hurf blurf this is not real life hurf blurf not another nerf". These days I don't get wrapped up in "don't they want PVP?" They don't. Heck even RvB turned out to be a kill-farming scam. I agree. Anyone who looks into cars in parking lots in New Eden should gain a suspect flag. As for ship scanning though, no. Suspect flag is not needed. But what about HTFU? My, how the tune changes. I bet if scanning ships did result in s suspect flag, you'd call that a nerf to ganking. But but I though you people always win every engagement? I thought you people are the apex feeeders of Eve, the super duper uber leet undefeatable pilots here to break people out of their RL habits of not being paranoid enough about everything? Your type will never change, and it's the presence of people like you in this game, or this game itself (apparently) that is not going to be missed. Yes it would be a nerf to ganking for profit or at least breaking even. Why are you being deliberately obtuse? Here is an idea don't post like a douche. "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
Cory Za 75	Posted - 2016.07.28 07:11:07 - [139] - Quote Why not: just have a pop up message that advises the player. "Cargo Scanned" This way it keeps with the danger and fun. Players and concord can scan and you never know who. You have a choice then to get the heart pumping or not. Gÿ£GÿåGÿP __Unemployed__ Gÿ£GÿåGÿP
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1957	Posted - 2016.07.28 07:21:17 - [140] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Come to think of it, why not at least have a suspect flag for people scanning. After all, if somebody is going around a parking lot looking into cars, would that behavior not be "suspect"? I know I known "Hurf blurf this is not real life hurf blurf not another nerf". These days I don't get wrapped up in "don't they want PVP?" They don't. Heck even RvB turned out to be a kill-farming scam. I agree. Anyone who looks into cars in parking lots in New Eden should gain a suspect flag. As for ship scanning though, no. Suspect flag is not needed. But what about HTFU? My, how the tune changes. I bet if scanning ships did result in s suspect flag, you'd call that a nerf to ganking. But but I though you people always win every engagement? I thought you people are the apex feeeders of Eve, the super duper uber leet undefeatable pilots here to break people out of their RL habits of not being paranoid enough about everything? Your type will never change, and it's the presence of people like you in this game, or this game itself (apparently) that is not going to be missed. Why would that change ganking? It's just not a mechanic that's needed. If having an opinion is somehow an affront to the health of this game or something, then we are all screwed. How does having a view that no suspect flag is needed suddenly make me someone that won't be missed. I don't personally think any of us will be missed when we leave. The game will go on regardless. So why is my type, which can only be someone that has an opinion, such a bad thing for the game. Don't you have opinions too? I did some further research on the wreck EHP change which we discussed on a locked thread, it was confirmed to me that Endie did push for it because AG was ganking wrecks. This is actually a case where the Gankers got the rules changed to block an AG strategy. A number of other CSM null sec players also pushed for it, but Endie pushed for it because it benefited ganking and negated the strategy that AG was starting to do more and more. So I totally stand by my statement that the wreck EHP was changed to benefit gankers. EDIT: It gets even more interesting, the EHP buff to freighters was decided after that when CCP realised it was a direct benefit to gankers, CCP Fozzie going as far as saying ,"like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance" Personally I would prefer that they had not changed the wreck EHP and left the freighter tank as was so we could shoot the wrecks and prevent the gankers from gathering the loot. COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.

Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 663	Posted - 2016.07.28 07:51:21 - [141] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: I did some further research on the wreck EHP change which we discussed on a locked thread, it was confirmed to me that Endie did push for it because AG was ganking wrecks. How convenient. You did some more research that confirmed your opinion to you. I don't believe I would expect anything different. No posting of the evidence that shows it of course, but good that you confirmed your opinion to yourself. Talking about evidence, where's that link to CCP Fozzie that you said you could reference? Still hasn't been produced.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1957	Posted - 2016.07.28 07:52:35 - [142] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Dracvlad wrote: I did some further research on the wreck EHP change which we discussed on a locked thread, it was confirmed to me that Endie did push for it because AG was ganking wrecks. How convenient. You did some more research that confirmed your opinion to you. Genius. No posting of the evidence that shows it of course, but good that you confirmed it to yourself. As if anything else would be expected. You came in fast to try to water down what I said, who ae you exactly, Endie perhaps? COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 663	Posted - 2016.07.28 07:54:57 - [143] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: You came in fast to try to water down what I said, who ae you exactly, Endie perhaps? If I said yes, then I could be banned for impersonation. If I say no, then what does the truth matter. Totally impossible that I just happened to get home from work, jump on the lounge and open up the forum. That would be just crazy talk.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 485	Posted - 2016.07.28 08:00:12 - [144] - Quote This is why we can't have nice things .....
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1957	Posted - 2016.07.28 08:01:37 - [145] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Dracvlad wrote: You came in fast to try to water down what I said, who ae you exactly, Endie perhaps? If I said yes, then I could be banned for impersonation. If I say no, then what does the truth matter. Totally impossible that I just happened to get home from work, jump on the lounge and open up the forum. That would be just crazy talk. You were very quick to try to divert attention from that in the other thread and try to refute it. No idea who you are, only CCP would know. So in a nut shell the AG start to do something to affect gankers, the gankers using one of their CSM members pushes for a change that negates the AG strategy. CCP were grossly incompetent and were manipulated by Endie for his own reasons. The man is a disgrace, can't win in space so he gets the rules changed. COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7669	Posted - 2016.07.28 08:05:25 - [146] - Quote Do you have proof of these assertions, or is this one of those tinfoil hat things where you're going to tell us to "wake up, sheeple, the sky is falling!". 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
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 663	Posted - 2016.07.28 08:07:22 - [147] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: So in a nut shell the AG start to do something to affect gankers, the gankers using one of their CSM members pushes for a change that negates the AG strategy. CCP were grossly incompetent and were manipulated by Endie for his own reasons. The man is a disgrace, can't win in space so he gets the rules changed. That's an opinion, not fact. You have provided no evidence that supports this claim and still haven't provided evidence of previous claims you have made. As long as you express it as an opinion, you are as entitled to that as anyone. But if you go claiming that as fact when there is evidence that shows something different, then you are incorrect, bordering on openly lying.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7669	Posted - 2016.07.28 08:10:28 - [148] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Dracvlad wrote: So in a nut shell the AG start to do something to affect gankers, the gankers using one of their CSM members pushes for a change that negates the AG strategy. CCP were grossly incompetent and were manipulated by Endie for his own reasons. The man is a disgrace, can't win in space so he gets the rules changed. That's an opinion, not fact. You have provided no evidence that supports this claim and still haven't provided evidence of previous claims you have made. As long as you express it as an opinion, you are as entitled to that as anyone. But if you go claiming that as fact when there is evidence that shows something different, then you are incorrect, bordering on openly lying. Not just lying, but slander. This is an extraordinary accusation to make of both the player and CCP, so some extraordinary evidence is going to be required before it's anything more than bullshit. 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 17717	Posted - 2016.07.28 08:11:41 - [149] - Quote Cory Za wrote: Why not: just have a pop up message that advises the player. "Cargo Scanned" This way it keeps with the danger and fun. Players and concord can scan and you never know who. You have a choice then to get the heart pumping or not. You can already see when someone is scanning you.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5034	Posted - 2016.07.28 08:26:43 - [150] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Cory Za wrote: Why not: just have a pop up message that advises the player. "Cargo Scanned" This way it keeps with the danger and fun. Players and concord can scan and you never know who. You have a choice then to get the heart pumping or not. You can already see when someone is scanning you. But, but, but....that takes effort. You know, looking at your overview and seeing who is doing what.... That is simply outrageous! I demand CCP give me something for zero effort! "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

Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 666	Posted - 2016.07.28 08:26:46 - [151] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Not just lying, but slander. This is an extraordinary accusation to make of both the player and CCP, so some extraordinary evidence is going to be required before it's anything more than bullshit. I prefer to think of it more as a 'conspiracy loon' than libel. I don't think Drac means to be libellous, he's just a bit of a nutter.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5034	Posted - 2016.07.28 08:28:42 - [152] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Not just lying, but slander. This is an extraordinary accusation to make of both the player and CCP, so some extraordinary evidence is going to be required before it's anything more than bullshit. I prefer to think of it more as a 'conspiracy loon' than libel. I don't think Drac means to be libellous, he's just a bit of a nutter. Now you did it. Now Drac will use his mental powers to tell us all what you are thinking. That you are in fact a transgendered woman and that you live in Cleveland...I'm not sure which is worse. "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
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17718	Posted - 2016.07.28 08:30:25 - [153] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: But, but, but....that takes effort. You know, looking at your overview and seeing who is doing what.... That is simply outrageous! I demand CCP give me something for zero effort! Come closer and I'll whisper a secret to you.
Galaxy Chicken Free Highsec Industrialists 53	Posted - 2016.07.28 08:36:23 - [154] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Dracvlad wrote: You came in fast to try to water down what I said, who ae you exactly, Endie perhaps? If I said yes, then I could be banned for impersonation. If I say no, then what does the truth matter. Totally impossible that I just happened to get home from work, jump on the lounge and open up the forum. That would be just crazy talk. You were very quick to try to divert attention from that in the other thread and try to refute it. No idea who you are, only CCP would know. So in a nut shell the AG start to do something to affect gankers, the gankers using one of their CSM members pushes for a change that negates the AG strategy. CCP were grossly incompetent and were manipulated by Endie for his own reasons. The man is a disgrace, can't win in space so he gets the rules changed. Work the illuminati lizard people in there and you may just have a youtube video my friend. :)
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1958	Posted - 2016.07.28 08:37:42 - [155] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Not just lying, but slander. This is an extraordinary accusation to make of both the player and CCP, so some extraordinary evidence is going to be required before it's anything more than bullshit. I prefer to think of it more as a 'conspiracy loon' than libel. I don't think Drac means to be libellous, he's just a bit of a nutter. My lawyer says I am totally fine, he just gave me the parameters to work under which I had already worked out. COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 666	Posted - 2016.07.28 08:42:16 - [156] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: My lawyer says I am totally fine, he just gave me the parameters to work under which I had already worked out. That you seem to believe that you have a space lawyer at hand to rule on these things is telling. Nutter confirmed. It's been fun, but we've drifted off topic and into the realm of personal digs, which get boring quite quickly. So I hope you have your medications at hand, and all the best to your mental health. I'll leave this line of discussion for a while. It's not really very constructive.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1958	Posted - 2016.07.28 08:47:14 - [157] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Dracvlad wrote: My lawyer says I am totally fine, he just gave me the parameters to work under which I had already worked out. That you seem to believe that you have a space lawyer at hand to rule on these things is telling. Nutter confirmed. It's been fun, but we've drifted off topic and into the realm of personal digs, which get boring quite quickly. So I hope you have your medications at hand, and all the best to your mental health. I'll leave this line of discussion for a while. It's not really very constructive. If you say so, but when you start to make suggestions that this could be libellous do note that some people are not exactly poor and do have friends. It was a simple matter of picking up the phone explaining it to a lawyer friend and getting advice. As you gankers often say get a friend, I just did. And you run away because you realise its not some poor blue collared pleb that you can bully. COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 666	Posted - 2016.07.28 08:53:27 - [158] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: As you gankers often say get a friend, I just did. And you run away because you realise its not some poor blue collared pleb that you can bully. I'm not a ganker and never have been. Never ganked a ship in 8 years and I don't intend to ever start. Those that want to play that way however, have every bit as much of a right to choose that style of play as I have to choose my style of play and they create additional challenge in the game, which from my perspective is a good thing. As to you being a blue-collar pleb, there isn't such a thing in my opinion. All professions from the most simple to the most critical is important to how society works and no one deserves to be degraded because of the type of work they do. I just don't want to continue the off topic discussion as it isn't constructive or on topic. But, if you feel you need believe you had a victory, then I give it to you Drac. You can be validated that you scared me away from the thread. All the best to you. I'll happy discuss issues on topic, but this is very boring now.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7671	Posted - 2016.07.28 08:55:57 - [159] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Dracvlad wrote: My lawyer says I am totally fine, he just gave me the parameters to work under which I had already worked out. That you seem to believe that you have a space lawyer at hand to rule on these things is telling. Nutter confirmed. It's been fun, but we've drifted off topic and into the realm of personal digs, which get boring quite quickly. So I hope you have your medications at hand, and all the best to your mental health. I'll leave this line of discussion for a while. It's not really very constructive. If you say so, but when you start to make suggestions that this could be libellous do note that some people are not exactly poor and do have friends. It was a simple matter of picking up the phone explaining it to a lawyer friend and getting advice. As you gankers often say get a friend, I just did. And you run away because you realise its not some poor blue collared pleb that you can bully. You seem awfully defensive over a suggestion. I mean, I've had scientologist lawyers (yes, that's a plural) knock on my door at 6am in the morning for something I wrote once about their little cult, and they didn't intimidate me, so if you think you can do better with claims of 'friends' and 'money' over the internet, please feel free to try. On the other hand, "I'm calling my lawyer" isn't a refutation of the claim that you're slandering people. It does, in fact, come across as a sign of guilt. 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
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1958	Posted - 2016.07.28 09:02:30 - [160] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Dracvlad wrote: As you gankers often say get a friend, I just did. And you run away because you realise its not some poor blue collared pleb that you can bully. I'm not a ganker and never have been. Never ganked a ship in 8 years and I don't intend to ever start. Those that want to play that way however, have every bit as much of a right to choose that style of play as I have to choose my style of play and they create additional challenge in the game, which from my perspective is a good thing. As to you being a blue-collar pleb, there isn't such a thing in my opinion. All professions from the most simple to the most critical is important to how society works and no one deserves to be degraded because of the type of work they do. I just don't want to continue the off topic discussion as it isn't constructive or on topic. But, if you feel you need believe you had a victory, then I give it to you Drac. You can be validated that you scared me away from the thread. All the best to you. I'll happy discuss issues on topic, but this is very boring now. You start with personal attacks and digs then run away screaming. You also try to make out that I am being dismissive to blue collar workers or plebs, not at all, I am pointing out that they are easily bullied but I am not. Again a personal attack to take some sort of moral high ground on your part. Of course you don't want to continue this. Ganking is fine, however the balance is wrong, it also does not help when people who oppose it suddenly find their most effective strategy in game removed by people using their representative position at the CSM to influence CCP to make a change that directly benefits them in game. It is quite understood be me that the change to wreck EHP is actually a good one, but the motives behind that change were based on reacting to a strategy carried out by the AG. You can slice it or dice it by attacking me, or making pathetic veild threats of legal action on behalf of what exactly, but at the end of the day someone got the game rules changed to negate a strategy that his enemies were using in game. CCP were incompetent and fell for it and then buffed the EHP of freighters with the DCU II to try to balance off against it which gankers keep screaming is a masive nerf. Well let me put it so you gankers understand it, I would prefer to still have the wrecks easy to blow up rather than the EHP buff from the DCU II. That is simple, so when you people talk about nerfs I will ram this down your throats every which way I can. COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.

Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7672	Posted - 2016.07.28 09:09:36 - [161] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Dracvlad wrote: As you gankers often say get a friend, I just did. And you run away because you realise its not some poor blue collared pleb that you can bully. I'm not a ganker and never have been. Never ganked a ship in 8 years and I don't intend to ever start. Those that want to play that way however, have every bit as much of a right to choose that style of play as I have to choose my style of play and they create additional challenge in the game, which from my perspective is a good thing. As to you being a blue-collar pleb, there isn't such a thing in my opinion. All professions from the most simple to the most critical is important to how society works and no one deserves to be degraded because of the type of work they do. I just don't want to continue the off topic discussion as it isn't constructive or on topic. But, if you feel you need believe you had a victory, then I give it to you Drac. You can be validated that you scared me away from the thread. All the best to you. I'll happy discuss issues on topic, but this is very boring now. You start with personal attacks and digs then run away screaming. You also try to make out that I am being dismissive to blue collar workers or plebs, not at all, I am pointing out that they are easily bullied but I am not. Again a personal attack to take some sort of moral high ground on your part. Of course you don't want to continue this. Ganking is fine, however the balance is wrong, it also does not help when people who oppose it suddenly find their most effective strategy in game removed by people using their representative position at the CSM to influence CCP to make a change that directly benefits them in game. It is quite understood be me that the change to wreck EHP is actually a good one, but the motives behind that change were based on reacting to a strategy carried out by the AG. You can slice it or dice it by attacking me, or making pathetic veild threats of legal action on behalf of what exactly, but at the end of the day someone got the game rules changed to negate a strategy that his enemies were using in game. CCP were incompetent and fell for it and then buffed the EHP of freighters with the DCU II to try to balance off against it which gankers keep screaming is a masive nerf. Well let me put it so you gankers understand it, I would prefer to still have the wrecks easy to blow up rather than the EHP buff from the DCU II. That is simple, so when you people talk about nerfs I will ram this down your throats every which way I can. 1. No one made any threats of legal action against you at all. I accused you of slander. It takes some real mental gymnastics to conflate an accusation with a threat, but at this stage, I'm not surprised at how skillfully you contort your critical faculties. 2. If you really believe that 'blue collar plebs' are easily bullied, or any kind of pleb, then you are in for a rude surprise one of these days. 3. If ehp on wrecks was increased as a result of making DCU's passive, then I've got bad news for you. The original 'requests' to make DCU's passive are over three years old, and always came from carebears. 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
The Groundskeeper Bat Country Pandemic Legion 217	Posted - 2016.07.28 09:09:51 - [162] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Dracvlad wrote: I did some further research on the wreck EHP change which we discussed on a locked thread, it was confirmed to me that Endie did push for it because AG was ganking wrecks. How convenient. You did some more research that confirmed your opinion to you. Genius. No posting of the evidence that shows it of course, but good that you confirmed it to yourself. As if anything else would be expected. You came in fast to try to water down what I said, who ae you exactly, Endie perhaps? 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. The main goal was to give supercap killers the chance to get the rewards for their kills: it was illogical that people who had put at risk dread fleets of small groups of supers in order to take down something like a nyx could see the pay-off from that destroyed in a second or two by a mistaken lock or by a griefing bystander. The change gave them a few seconds to retrieve the dropped loot. Not every CSM commented on this - several were boycotting the CSM or were simply inactive - but nobody objected and several were very supportive. It was a sensible change. It was also, in retrospect, a sensible change in the sphere of suicide ganking: nothing in eve should have no counter, whether that is bumping on one side or wreck-killing on the other. Only self-interested solipsists can willfully fail to understand that. Dracvlad wrote: You also try to make out that I am being dismissive to blue collar workers or plebs, not at all, I am pointing out that they are easily bullied but I am not. Again a personal attack to take some sort of moral high ground on your part. ... You can slice it or dice it by attacking me, or making pathetic veild threats of legal action on behalf of what exactly, but at the end of the day someone got the game rules changed to negate a strategy that his enemies were using in game. CCP were incompetent and fell for it and then buffed the EHP of freighters with the DCU II to try to balance off against it which gankers keep screaming is a masive nerf. Heh ok you're one of those guys.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1958	Posted - 2016.07.28 09:17:06 - [163] - Quote The Groundskeeper wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Dracvlad wrote: I did some further research on the wreck EHP change which we discussed on a locked thread, it was confirmed to me that Endie did push for it because AG was ganking wrecks. How convenient. You did some more research that confirmed your opinion to you. Genius. No posting of the evidence that shows it of course, but good that you confirmed it to yourself. As if anything else would be expected. You came in fast to try to water down what I said, who ae you exactly, Endie perhaps? 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. The main goal was to give supercap killers the chance to get the rewards for their kills: it was illogical that people who had put at risk dread fleets of small groups of supers in order to take down something like a nyx could see the pay-off from that destroyed in a second or two by a mistaken lock or by a griefing bystander. The change gave them a few seconds to retrieve the dropped loot. Not every CSM commented on this - several were boycotting the CSM or were simply inactive - but nobody objected and several were very supportive. It was a sensible change. It was also, in retrospect, a sensible change in the sphere of suicide ganking: nothing in eve should have no counter, whether that is bumping on one side or wreck-killing on the other. Only self-interested solipsists can willfully fail to understand that. So you show your true face at last. Yeah right and Eve is a game of unicorns and rainbows where we all hug each other. EDIT: More than postively affected, you destroyed the most effective counter that the AG movement had by this and you knew exactly what you were doing. EDIT2: A lot of people have respect for you in this game, I have heard plenty of good things about you, but can't you just man up and admit it, hell well played and all that at the meta level. But seriously, lets cut the crap! COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7672	Posted - 2016.07.28 09:26:55 - [164] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: So you show your true face at last. Yeah right and Eve is a game of unicorns and rainbows where we all hug each other. This was literally just meaningless sperging that addressed nothing he said, so we're going to move on... Quote: EDIT: More than postively affected, you destroyed the most effective counter that the AG movement had by this and you knew exactly what you were doing. It's not a counter to ganking though, it's only a counter to looting the gank. And it's not been destroyed at all. Just because you give something more EHP, doesn't mean you can't still wreck it. Gankers have proven this on a daily basis ever since the last round of barge buffs. Quote: EDIT2: A lot of people have respect for you in this game, I have heard plenty of good things about you, but can't you just man up and admit it, hell well played and all that at the meta level. But seriously, lets cut the crap! This is also meaningless dribble. You have yet to actually demonstrate why anything he's said is 'crap', you're just taking pot-shots and hoping you'll land your mark, but unfortunately, it's little more than an ad hominem, and has done nothing to refute his points, or prove him 'guilty' of anything. 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
The Groundskeeper Bat Country Pandemic Legion 217	Posted - 2016.07.28 09:29:38 - [165] - Quote He said I was well-respected I'm changing sides I'm with you now Dracvlad of Taishi Combine, proud members of Second-Dawn. Let's take down those filthy gankers with their insistence on shooting things. Have you considered a career in Pandemic Legion?
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17718	Posted - 2016.07.28 09:32:30 - [166] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: EDIT: More than postively affected, you destroyed the most effective counter that the AG movement had by this and you knew exactly what you were doing. Said tactic had no counter.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1958	Posted - 2016.07.28 09:41:37 - [167] - Quote The Groundskeeper wrote: He said I was well-respected I'm changing sides I'm with you now Dracvlad of Taishi Combine, proud members of Second-Dawn. Let's take down those filthy gankers with their insistence on shooting things. Have you considered a career in Pandemic Legion? I am not going to reply to the others, they are hot air. Of course you are well respected in the game, you play to win and you do and you did with this. My objective here was not to directly go after you, but to neuter the whining of yet another nerf to ganking, the balance that Fozzie put in for Freighter structure EHP after the wreck EHP change in no way balanced against what AG was doing and which was destroyed by that change. That was my point, also the change was removing an offensive act to adding EHP on the defensive side, thanks guys for the great content. There was so much wrong with that. COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1958	Posted - 2016.07.28 09:42:25 - [168] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: EDIT: More than postively affected, you destroyed the most effective counter that the AG movement had by this and you knew exactly what you were doing. Said tactic had no counter. You shot them, but were not very good at it. 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 17719	Posted - 2016.07.28 09:50:03 - [169] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: You shot them, but were not very good at it. Game mechanics meant that their shot always landed before you could kill them.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7672	Posted - 2016.07.28 09:52:44 - [170] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: The Groundskeeper wrote: He said I was well-respected I'm changing sides I'm with you now Dracvlad of Taishi Combine, proud members of Second-Dawn. Let's take down those filthy gankers with their insistence on shooting things. Have you considered a career in Pandemic Legion? I am not going to reply to the others, they made great points that I can't refute. FTFY. What you originally wrote was called 'projection', and it was also 'irony' at the same time, since it was in and of itself hot air. 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

Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1958	Posted - 2016.07.28 09:53:18 - [171] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: You shot them, but were not very good at it. Game mechanics meant that their shot always landed before you could kill them. So you don't like going after fast moving targets that could blow stuff up before you can react, what does this sound like baltec1? 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 17719	Posted - 2016.07.28 09:57:00 - [172] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: So you don't like going after fast moving targets that could blow stuff up before you can react, what does this sound like baltec1? I don't like broken mechanics, hence why I supported no insurance payout for ganking ships and the removal of the boomerang tactic, both of which were big nerfs to ganking.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1958	Posted - 2016.07.28 09:58:51 - [173] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Dracvlad wrote: The Groundskeeper wrote: He said I was well-respected I'm changing sides I'm with you now Dracvlad of Taishi Combine, proud members of Second-Dawn. Let's take down those filthy gankers with their insistence on shooting things. Have you considered a career in Pandemic Legion? I am not going to reply to the others, they made great points that I can't refute. FTFY. What you originally wrote was called 'projection', and it was also 'irony' at the same time, since it was in and of itself hot air. Remiel, you are obviously an intelligent guy and you are someone whose comments I read. I will call them hot air when I think it is. The other day you stood up for freedom of expression against those who are easily offended, you got a big plus in my book for that. That counts for a lot to me, Voltaire said it very well you know. COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1958	Posted - 2016.07.28 10:01:03 - [174] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: So you don't like going after fast moving targets that could blow stuff up before you can react, what does this sound like baltec1? I don't like broken mechanics, hence why I supported no insurance payout for ganking ships and the removal of the boomerang tactic, both of which were big nerfs to ganking. We are talking about the fact that you as gankers could not catch or blow up fast moving targets, which are difficult to stop, so what happens you push for a change that negates that, then try to divert attention on other things. You did stop some wreck ganks, it was actually good developing content, but you could not have AG actually winning could you? EDIT: I do actually support the EHP change to wrecks by the way and am man enough to say so. COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7673	Posted - 2016.07.28 10:07:24 - [175] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Dracvlad wrote: The Groundskeeper wrote: He said I was well-respected I'm changing sides I'm with you now Dracvlad of Taishi Combine, proud members of Second-Dawn. Let's take down those filthy gankers with their insistence on shooting things. Have you considered a career in Pandemic Legion? I am not going to reply to the others, they made great points that I can't refute. FTFY. What you originally wrote was called 'projection', and it was also 'irony' at the same time, since it was in and of itself hot air. Remiel, you are obviously an intelligent guy and you are someone whose comments I read. I will call them hot air when I think it is. The other day you stood up for freedom of expression against those who are easily offended, you got a big plus in my book for that. That counts for a lot to me, Voltaire said it very well you know. First of all, don't patronise me. Secondly, what you think something is has been demonstrated on many occasions to not be what it is. Don't just dismiss what I'm saying because YOU think it's hot air. The difference between me and you, Vladdy boy, is I'm addressing what's being said, while you're doing little more than addressing the people saying it and making character judgements of them. I don't really care where I stand in your 'book', Vladdy. Who the actual **** even are you? I'm not here to make friends, I'm here to dispell and call out absolute bullshit, which is what you're sperging at the moment. 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 17719	Posted - 2016.07.28 10:07:47 - [176] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: So you don't like going after fast moving targets that could blow stuff up before you can react, what does this sound like baltec1? I don't like broken mechanics, hence why I supported no insurance payout for ganking ships and the removal of the boomerang tactic, both of which were big nerfs to ganking. We are talking about the fact that you as gankers could not catch or blow up fast moving targets, which are difficult to stop, so what happens you push for a change that negates that, then try to divert attention on other things. You did stop some wreck ganks, it was actually good developing content, but you could not have AG actually winning could you? EDIT: I do actually support the EHP change to wrecks by the way and am man enough to say so. Again, I am against broken mechanics and that was a broken mechanic not only for ganking but also with super/titan wrecks and destroying tactical warps both of which were much bigger issues than ganking simple due to the number of people impacted.
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 666	Posted - 2016.07.28 10:09:35 - [177] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: I am not going to reply to the others, they are hot air. Well that didn't last. Like, not even 1 second* *may be a slight exaggeration. Could have been 2 seconds.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1959	Posted - 2016.07.28 10:09:57 - [178] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Dracvlad wrote: The Groundskeeper wrote: He said I was well-respected I'm changing sides I'm with you now Dracvlad of Taishi Combine, proud members of Second-Dawn. Let's take down those filthy gankers with their insistence on shooting things. Have you considered a career in Pandemic Legion? I am not going to reply to the others, they made great points that I can't refute. FTFY. What you originally wrote was called 'projection', and it was also 'irony' at the same time, since it was in and of itself hot air. Remiel, you are obviously an intelligent guy and you are someone whose comments I read. I will call them hot air when I think it is. The other day you stood up for freedom of expression against those who are easily offended, you got a big plus in my book for that. That counts for a lot to me, Voltaire said it very well you know. First of all, don't patronise me. Secondly, what you think something is has been demonstrated on many occasions to not be what it is. Don't just dismiss what I'm saying because YOU think it's hot air. The difference between me and you, Vladdy boy, is I'm addressing what's being said, while you're doing little more than addressing the people saying it and making character judgements of them. I don't really care where I stand in your 'book', Vladdy. Who the actual **** even are you? I'm not here to make friends, I'm here to dispell and call out absolute bullshit, which is what you're sperging at the moment. Of course I am patronising you, it is fun to do when people take themselves too seriously. COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1959	Posted - 2016.07.28 10:10:51 - [179] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Dracvlad wrote: I am not going to reply to the others, they are hot air. Well that didn't last. Like, not even 1 second* *may be a slight exaggeration. Could have been 2 seconds. baltec1 gave me too much of a target to shoot at, couldn't resist COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7673	Posted - 2016.07.28 10:22:09 - [180] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Of course I am patronising you, it is fun to do when people take themselves too seriously. You were talking about hot air? Again, you fail to address anything said, you only make quips about the people saying it. However seriously I take myself is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and anything I've said, and most definitely not within your realm of understanding or education, so I suggest you cool down with the disrespectful, inflamatory and antagonistic tirades before I start reporting them. 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

Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1959	Posted - 2016.07.28 10:29:35 - [181] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Of course I am patronising you, it is fun to do when people take themselves too seriously. You were talking about hot air? Again, you fail to address anything said, you only make quips about the people saying it. However seriously I take myself is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and anything I've said, and most definitely not within your realm of understanding or education, so I suggest you cool down with the disrespectful, inflamatory and antagonistic tirades before I start reporting them. So you don't really like freedom of expression then, I am not the one insulting here, I happen to think you are fairly intelligent and I said I read your comments which is true, then I had a little laugh when you reacted to my praise, I have to use something that I learnt from the forums, calm down ganker... COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Divine Entervention Pipebomb Housing Unlimited Against ALL Authorities 841	Posted - 2016.07.28 10:34:14 - [182] - Quote nah Just make it so the person scanned has a warning show up on his screen identifying who scanned him.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7673	Posted - 2016.07.28 10:34:33 - [183] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Of course I am patronising you, it is fun to do when people take themselves too seriously. You were talking about hot air? Again, you fail to address anything said, you only make quips about the people saying it. However seriously I take myself is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and anything I've said, and most definitely not within your realm of understanding or education, so I suggest you cool down with the disrespectful, inflamatory and antagonistic tirades before I start reporting them. So you don't really like freedom of expression then, I am not the one insulting here, I happen to think you are fairly intelligent and I said I read your comments which is true, then I had a little laugh when you reacted to my praise, I have to use something that I learnt from the forums, calm down ganker... Again, you're addressing the person, not what the person is saying. I don't care how intelligent you think I am, I care what responses you have to the points I've made. Which have so far been "lol, you take yourself too seriously", or in other words, no relevant response. You have, however, been incredibly disrespectful. So keep it up, and I will report you. This isn't a free speech issue, this is a 'read the ***** forum rules' issue. Also, I haven't insulted you. Try again. If you're referring to my accusation of slander, that was an observation-based assessment of when you told lies about people. If you're insulted by being accused of slander, then don't slander people, that simple mate. Not to mention your own comments about 'blue collar plebs'. Seriously, start showing some ***** respect. 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
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1959	Posted - 2016.07.28 10:36:59 - [184] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Of course I am patronising you, it is fun to do when people take themselves too seriously. You were talking about hot air? Again, you fail to address anything said, you only make quips about the people saying it. However seriously I take myself is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and anything I've said, and most definitely not within your realm of understanding or education, so I suggest you cool down with the disrespectful, inflamatory and antagonistic tirades before I start reporting them. So you don't really like freedom of expression then, I am not the one insulting here, I happen to think you are fairly intelligent and I said I read your comments which is true, then I had a little laugh when you reacted to my praise, I have to use something that I learnt from the forums, calm down ganker... Again, you're addressing the person, not what the person is saying. I don't care how intelligent you think I am, I care what responses you have to the points I've made. Which have so far been "lol, you take yourself too seriously", or in other words, no relevant response. You have, however, been incredibly disrespectful. So keep it up, and I will report you. This isn't a free speech issue, this is a 'read the ***** forum rules' issue. Also, I haven't insulted you. Try again. If you're referring to my accusation of slander, that was an observation-based assessment of when you told lies about people. If you're insulted by being accused of slander, then don't slander people, that simple mate. Not to mention your own comments about 'blue collar plebs'. Seriously, start showing some ***** respect. Why do I owe you any respect? COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7673	Posted - 2016.07.28 10:39:32 - [185] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Of course I am patronising you, it is fun to do when people take themselves too seriously. You were talking about hot air? Again, you fail to address anything said, you only make quips about the people saying it. However seriously I take myself is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and anything I've said, and most definitely not within your realm of understanding or education, so I suggest you cool down with the disrespectful, inflamatory and antagonistic tirades before I start reporting them. So you don't really like freedom of expression then, I am not the one insulting here, I happen to think you are fairly intelligent and I said I read your comments which is true, then I had a little laugh when you reacted to my praise, I have to use something that I learnt from the forums, calm down ganker... Again, you're addressing the person, not what the person is saying. I don't care how intelligent you think I am, I care what responses you have to the points I've made. Which have so far been "lol, you take yourself too seriously", or in other words, no relevant response. You have, however, been incredibly disrespectful. So keep it up, and I will report you. This isn't a free speech issue, this is a 'read the ***** forum rules' issue. Also, I haven't insulted you. Try again. If you're referring to my accusation of slander, that was an observation-based assessment of when you told lies about people. If you're insulted by being accused of slander, then don't slander people, that simple mate. Not to mention your own comments about 'blue collar plebs'. Seriously, start showing some *** respect. Why do I owe you any respect? Because if you expect other people to show you any, you're gonna have to show some yourself. Right now, that comment about 'blue collar plebs' literally makes you less precious than dirt, so you're gonna have to earn it back. Until then, the only comments from you with any relevance are ones that address issues instead of people, and any that address people will be reported. Also, because the forum rules demand you show me respect. They demand it of me too, but if you're gonna be a knob to others, I don't see why they shouldn't treat you with the contempt you have pretty much asked for by being a *. 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 17719	Posted - 2016.07.28 10:42:17 - [186] - Quote 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.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1959	Posted - 2016.07.28 11:09:57 - [187] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Why do I owe you any respect? Because if you expect other people to show you any, you're gonna have to show some yourself. Right now, that comment about 'blue collar plebs' literally makes you less precious than dirt, so you're gonna have to earn it back. Until then, the only comments from you with any relevance are ones that address issues instead of people, and any that address people will be reported. Also, because the forum rules demand you show me respect. They demand it of me too, but if you're gonna be a knob to others, I don't see why they shouldn't treat you with the contempt you have pretty much asked for by being a ****. You keep going off on a personal issue you have with me, but I don't expect respect, I have to earn it, your respect means very little to me. Your comment on my dig that civil society types think of the working class is because that is where I came from, my father wore wooden cloggs with hobnails when he was a kid, I have the right to express my opinion on the contempt that others especially what we call civil society have on working class people, if you want to take it as something else then that is your right, I know however what I meant by it. You and other ganker aligned posters went off on a little circle jerk aimed at insulting me in the posts in 8., I did not whine or complain or threaten to report it, I just continued on the issue I raised. I told you where I respect you, I also know where I don't respect you, you do not respect me and I am perfectly fine with that. Now I would advise you to calm down and just let it go. COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 667	Posted - 2016.07.28 11:17:23 - [188] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: You and other ganker aligned posters... And people not aligned one way or the other. No circle jerk. Just pointing out BS for being BS.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 26437	Posted - 2016.07.28 11:53:55 - [189] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Dracvlad wrote: You and other ganker aligned posters... And people not aligned one way or the other. No circle jerk. Just pointing out BS for being BS. Oooh you don't want to that, you'll be accused of stalking him; apparently stalking is making one snarky remark that references him in a period of a couple of weeks Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1959	Posted - 2016.07.28 12:01:04 - [190] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Dracvlad wrote: You and other ganker aligned posters... And people not aligned one way or the other. No circle jerk. Just pointing out BS for being BS. Oooh you don't want to that, you'll be accused of stalking him; apparently stalking is making one snarky remark that references him in a period of a couple of weeks Except it is not BS what I raised . My dear stalker you backed off when I called you out on it, then your next post on me was an attack post at a personal level and nothing to do with the discussion. That is why I called you out on it before. By all means talk about the issue I raised on the EHP of wrecks but to make digs without addressing the issue defines what you are doing. COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.

Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 26438	Posted - 2016.07.28 12:21:51 - [191] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Except it is not BS what I raised . My dear stalker you backed off when I called you out on it, I backed off because it was going nowhere and it was in the interests of the thread staying on topic to do so. Quote: then your next post on me was an attack post at a personal level and nothing to do with the discussion. Wrong, it making fun of your propensity of claiming to have done something when it's fairly obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about. If I was attacking you I'd go back to calling you an arse. Quote: That is why I called you out on it before. Except you didn't, I backed off to prevent the thread turning into a pissing match and have done so on several occasions, because I know when to stop. Quote: By all means talk about the issue I raised on the EHP of wrecks but to make digs without addressing the issue defines what you are doing. You didn't raise an issue, you posted some off-topic utter bollocks insinuating that the change to wreck EHP was due to undue influence on CCP by Endie . As I told you before, I'll call out any BS I see, it's not restricted to you; you should ask Remiel about the grief he got from me when he started. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1959	Posted - 2016.07.28 14:54:55 - [192] - Quote The previous post you did was when Dirty Forum Alt used the expression Psychology about another player, not me, you then jumped in and said something along the lines of suggesting I was an expert in Psychology in a mocking tone. I was in that thread, but not involved in that lively debate. For you to jump in and then throw that comment like that shows that you have an issue. I looked at your post shook my head and thought he is back at it again, I will ignore him, then in you come here and start again. Earlier one of your fellow ganker supporters got all upset because I dealt with their hamfisted attempt to scare me with slander rubbish which I dealt with my clarifying with my legal advisor what I can and cannot do in terms of my accusation on the EHP wreck buff. At which point he goes off as if I am threatening him with lawyers and invokes the Scientology religion threat as if I was doing the same, some sort of guilt by association, which I ignored because it was so silly. 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 so best to be sure, but I will never do that myself. It is a game and winning in it by means like that is just silly. You have got into a mocking insulting pattern, so that everytime I post you accuse me of saying I am an expert in something or whatever takes your fancy . This is because in one thread I pointed out that you were going on about fighting and PvP and yet you had not killed anything in terms of PvP. Ever since then you took it very personally and keep making snarky insulting posts like the one above. I suggest you grow up and stop acting like a man child. COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Vortexo VonBrenner Raumfahrer Spiff Rakett Piloot Anslutning 2390	Posted - 2016.07.28 15:22:16 - [193] - Quote LOL...wow. My buddy thinks ol' dracvlad there is a subtle troll because nobody could really say that kind of stuff and mean it...I'm still undecided... EHP of wrecks change lit a fuse, eh? Seems a logical thing to have done to me. If the timing of that change "seems" to some to be suspect, I say - so what if it was? CCP has by it's actions over time shown that it is not interested in making the reef we call EvE into a place where any of us virtualspacefish are ever completely safe. EvE security zones in pictures EvE quick reference pdf A wise man sums up EvE Smoke me a Kipper...
Dirty Forum Alt Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 327	Posted - 2016.07.28 15:32:32 - [194] - Quote Vortexo VonBrenner wrote: LOL...wow. My buddy thinks ol' dracvlad there is a subtle troll because nobody could really say that kind of stuff and mean it...I'm still undecided... EHP of wrecks change lit a fuse, eh? Seems a logical thing to have done to me. If the timing of that change "seems" to some to be suspect, I say - so what if it was? CCP has by it's actions over time shown that it is not interested in making the reef we call EvE into a place where any of us virtualspacefish are ever completely safe. What in the ** does wreck ehp have to do with being "safe"? Do you guys even read your posts sometimes? I mean I'm not even disagreeing with your core point necessarily - the timing on the wreck ehp change may well be a coincidence...but why in the ** did you throw in the comment about safety along with it
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 26440	Posted - 2016.07.28 15:41:13 - [195] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: The previous post you did was when Dirty Forum Alt used the expression Psychology about another player, not me, you then jumped in and said something along the lines of suggesting I was an expert in Psychology in a mocking tone. This is called making fun of you; FYI Dirty Forum Alt was actually referring to basic human psychology, not a particular player's psychology. Quote: I was in that thread, but not involved in that lively debate. No? Dirty Forum Alts post was a direct reply to one of yours in which you replied to one of theirs, so yes you were involved in that particular debate about human psycholgy. Quote: For you to jump in and then throw that comment like that shows that you have an issue. I looked at your post shook my head and thought he is back at it again, I will ignore him, then you come in here and start again. Earlier one of your fellow ganker supporters got all upset because I dealt with their hamfisted attempt to scare me with slander rubbish which I dealt with my clarifying with my legal advisor what I can and cannot do in terms of my accusation on the EHP wreck buff. At which point he goes off as if I am threatening him with lawyers and invokes the Scientology religion threat as if I was doing the same, some sort of guilt by association, which I ignored because it was so silly. 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 so best to be sure, but I will never do that myself. It is a game and winning in it by means like that is just silly. lol, seriously, legal adviser? Quote: You have got into a mocking insulting pattern, so that everytime I post you accuse me of saying I am an expert in something or whatever takes your fancy . This is because in one thread I pointed out that you were going on about fighting and PvP and yet you had not killed anything in terms of PvP. Ever since then you took it very personally and keep making snarky insulting posts like the one above. The first part of this little diatribe is verifiabley false with minimal effort As for the second, I don't care about my lack of killboard, never have, never will; I don't care that you think I have a poor knowledge of mechanics or that I'm a lesser class of player because of it either, because it's relatively easy for me to prove otherwise without lowering myself to the base standard you hold, i.e that of a killboard. I like to make snarky remarks at your expense is because you're predictable, easy to make fun of and it amuses me to do so Quote: I suggest you grow up and stop acting like a man child. I suggest that you take your advice and follow it yourself. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1959	Posted - 2016.07.28 15:43:30 - [196] - Quote Vortexo VonBrenner wrote: LOL...wow. My buddy thinks ol' dracvlad there is a subtle troll because nobody could really say that kind of stuff and mean it...I'm still undecided... EHP of wrecks change lit a fuse, eh? Seems a logical thing to have done to me. If the timing of that change "seems" to some to be suspect, I say - so what if it was? CCP has by it's actions over time shown that it is not interested in making the reef we call EvE into a place where any of us virtualspacefish are ever completely safe. It is not so much the issue of what was done, hell CCP have to make a decision on game balance and doing things that make sense, the EHP of wrecks in itself was a good move and Endie made the case for it and I don't disagree with that point. The important part was that the AG players were just starting to blow up wrecks, some of them myself included were training up ganker alts to fly a certain ship type and some people were starting to do it. This was not the normal passive defence type of play where one tries to rep up a freighter, or blow up or jam the gankers, people were doing something like the gankers, using toons that would be -10. It was offensive action and it was effective, then this change gets pushed through, pushed by the CEO of the corp that was the major ganker corp. The gankers had tried to stop this, they shot at the players blowing up wrecks and webbed them etc., but they were having troubles, because it was the same as us trying to shoot gankers, fast moving frigates warping quickly coming in blasting things getting CONCORDED. AG was playing like the gankers and they did not like it. Afterwards Fozzie realised they had been had so they applied the EHP buff to freighters from the DCU II which could not be used on a freighter. And said it was to balance off against something... The issue is that the AG players were doing a fun offensive action and the gankers could not deal with it, we can both agree with the wreck EHP being silly and all taht but what gets me is that Gankers have been crying about nerfs and using the EHP buff to freighters as if they are hard done by and yet that was a massive balance in their favour and I fed up with their propaganda decided to blast them for it. In doing this I am sadly attacking a player who a lot of people respect and like which is never a good thing, hell I know people who know and like him, but this entire issue needs to be shown up for what it is. CCP were not biased towards ganking here, they were just incompetent. But most of all it is to show that the game balance around ganking is completely skewed, they have the cheek to start going on about this nerf when they are coming out way way on top with this exchange of nerf buff. The AG players have to do passive defence only. You saw in this thread baltec1 being told by me, now you know what it is like trying to kill small fast targets like that. So when these people go off and start whining about nerf's to ganking, this whole sorry episode of vested interest and incompetence should be rammed down their collective throats. COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Vortexo VonBrenner Raumfahrer Spiff Rakett Piloot Anslutning 2390	Posted - 2016.07.28 16:19:18 - [197] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Do you guys even read your posts sometimes? Nah. Reading is for nerds. Dirty Forum Alt wrote: ..but why in the **** did you throw in the comment about safety along with it 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... EvE security zones in pictures EvE quick reference pdf A wise man sums up EvE Smoke me a Kipper...
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 7847	Posted - 2016.07.28 16:19:53 - [198] - Quote Lex Gabinia wrote: Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Come to think of it, why not at least have a suspect flag for people scanning. After all, if somebody is going around a parking lot looking into cars, would that behavior not be "suspect"? I know I known "Hurf blurf this is not real life hurf blurf not another nerf". These days I don't get wrapped up in "don't they want PVP?" They don't. Heck even RvB turned out to be a kill-farming scam. I agree. Anyone who looks into cars in parking lots in New Eden should gain a suspect flag. As for ship scanning though, no. Suspect flag is not needed. But what about HTFU? My, how the tune changes. I bet if scanning ships did result in s suspect flag, you'd call that a nerf to ganking. But but I though you people always win every engagement? I thought you people are the apex feeeders of Eve, the super duper uber leet undefeatable pilots here to break people out of their RL habits of not being paranoid enough about everything? Your type will never change, and it's the presence of people like you in this game, or this game itself (apparently) that is not going to be missed. Let me see if I understand: You should get a suspect timer for scanning because it is used largely by gankers? Currently there is no penalty for using scanner on anything. Add penalty to scanning. I think yes, yes that could be called a nerf to ganking as you are adding a penalty to something without adding a comparable reward. Also it just means that ganks go up because why bother scanning - just kill them all. Great idea. So like bumping, ganking needs another no-consequence mechanic. Check. Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 7847	Posted - 2016.07.28 16:21:51 - [199] - Quote Valkin Mordirc wrote: Honestly, Like for reals. If you are arguing for this. You are either far to entrenched on the Anti-Gankers, Highsec is far to exploited side that you are arguing only for the fact that the people that think Highsec is far to safe are here arguing because of a trolling posted an absolutely ******** idea that shouldn't obvously be ignored mainly on the fact that his idea's are absolute trash and troll bait to begin with. Like seriously. No wait. Not seriously. That's my point. I'll bet you literally can't even right now. Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 7847	Posted - 2016.07.28 16:24:17 - [200] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Come to think of it, why not at least have a suspect flag for people scanning. After all, if somebody is going around a parking lot looking into cars, would that behavior not be "suspect"? I know I known "Hurf blurf this is not real life hurf blurf not another nerf". These days I don't get wrapped up in "don't they want PVP?" They don't. Heck even RvB turned out to be a kill-farming scam. I agree. Anyone who looks into cars in parking lots in New Eden should gain a suspect flag. As for ship scanning though, no. Suspect flag is not needed. But what about HTFU? My, how the tune changes. I bet if scanning ships did result in s suspect flag, you'd call that a nerf to ganking. But but I though you people always win every engagement? I thought you people are the apex feeeders of Eve, the super duper uber leet undefeatable pilots here to break people out of their RL habits of not being paranoid enough about everything? Your type will never change, and it's the presence of people like you in this game, or this game itself (apparently) that is not going to be missed. Yes it would be a nerf to ganking for profit or at least breaking even. Why are you being deliberately obtuse? Here is an idea don't post like a douche. Must be a good idea then. Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 7851	Posted - 2016.07.28 16:27:52 - [201] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Come to think of it, why not at least have a suspect flag for people scanning. After all, if somebody is going around a parking lot looking into cars, would that behavior not be "suspect"? I know I known "Hurf blurf this is not real life hurf blurf not another nerf". These days I don't get wrapped up in "don't they want PVP?" They don't. Heck even RvB turned out to be a kill-farming scam. I agree. Anyone who looks into cars in parking lots in New Eden should gain a suspect flag. As for ship scanning though, no. Suspect flag is not needed. But what about HTFU? My, how the tune changes. I bet if scanning ships did result in s suspect flag, you'd call that a nerf to ganking. But but I though you people always win every engagement? I thought you people are the apex feeeders of Eve, the super duper uber leet undefeatable pilots here to break people out of their RL habits of not being paranoid enough about everything? Your type will never change, and it's the presence of people like you in this game, or this game itself (apparently) that is not going to be missed. Why would that change ganking? It's just not a mechanic that's needed. If having an opinion is somehow an affront to the health of this game or something, then we are all screwed. How does having a view that no suspect flag is needed suddenly make me someone that won't be missed. I don't personally think any of us will be missed when we leave. The game will go on regardless. So why is my type, which can only be someone that has an opinion, such a bad thing for the game. Don't you have opinions too? I did some further research on the wreck EHP change which we discussed on a locked thread, it was confirmed to me that Endie did push for it because AG was ganking wrecks. This is actually a case where the Gankers got the rules changed to block an AG strategy. A number of other CSM null sec players also pushed for it, but Endie pushed for it because it benefited ganking and negated the strategy that AG was starting to do more and more. So I totally stand by my statement that the wreck EHP was changed to benefit gankers. EDIT: It gets even more interesting, the EHP buff to freighters was decided after that when CCP realised that the wreck EHP buff was a direct benefit to gankers, CCP Fozzie going as far as saying ,"like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance" Personally I would prefer that they had not changed the wreck EHP and left the freighter tank as was so we could shoot the wrecks and prevent the gankers from gathering the loot. I would state that was one hell of a buff to ganking, or should I say loot scooping EDIT2: Just to make it even more stark, the player you are replying to above was shooting wrecks, just so you know, so what he was doing was directly removed by CCP at the request of a CSM member whose corp was the main beneficiary of ganking in hisec. This stinks big time, it really does stink bad. Indeed the baby that cries the loudest gets fed the most. And nobody cries louder than the gankers. CODE. exists solely over buttmad after all. I think sometimes CCP has internal factions and one of them is bent on feeding the crowd that see's HTFU as some sort of religion. Whatever happened to these people IRL, I'm glad it has not happened to me (or I at least saw "it" coming and avoided it). Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5035	Posted - 2016.07.28 16:30:16 - [202] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: The Groundskeeper wrote: He said I was well-respected I'm changing sides I'm with you now Dracvlad of Taishi Combine, proud members of Second-Dawn. Let's take down those filthy gankers with their insistence on shooting things. Have you considered a career in Pandemic Legion? I am not going to reply to the others, they are hot air. Of course you are well respected in the game, you play to win and you do and you did with this. My objective here was not to directly go after you, but to neuter the whining of yet another nerf to ganking, the balance that Fozzie put in for Freighter structure EHP after the wreck EHP change in no way balanced against what AG was doing and which was destroyed by that change. That was my point, also the change was removing an offensive act to adding EHP on the defensive side, thanks guys for the great content. There was so much wrong with that. Really not go after him? Quote: CCP were grossly incompetent and were manipulated by Endie for his own reasons. The man is a disgrace, can't win in space so he gets the rules changed. Hmmm...somebody sure did flip-flop. "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
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 493	Posted - 2016.07.28 16:30:32 - [203] - Quote Alas, it could not be avoided. I have a wife and kids. Went downhill from there.
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 7851	Posted - 2016.07.28 16:33:15 - [204] - Quote The Groundskeeper wrote: It was also, in retrospect, a sensible change in the sphere of suicide ganking: nothing in eve should have no counter Oh the irony... Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1979	Posted - 2016.07.28 16:48:52 - [205] - Quote That was a stealth move to this forum from the General Discussion forum, now I really have to start laughing... Teckos, of course, I don't like what was done there and made my feeling known because if that was the case it is a disgrace, but my objective is to go after you lot whining about nerfs to everything, not that player as an individual. COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5036	Posted - 2016.07.28 16:49:19 - [206] - Quote Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: The Groundskeeper wrote: It was also, in retrospect, a sensible change in the sphere of suicide ganking: nothing in eve should have no counter Oh the irony... But getting a suspect timer is not really a counter. A counter is something that players should be able to do. If you want a module that when activate counters scanning, I suppose that might not be too bad. But here is the thing, people will just backwards induct to a strategy of ganking ships using such a module. After all, if you are using it you must not want people to see what you are carrying...and that will likely be highly correlated with ISK value. "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 327	Posted - 2016.07.28 16:57:56 - [207] - Quote 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 acomodate them...
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17723	Posted - 2016.07.28 17:28:51 - [208] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: The Groundskeeper wrote: It was also, in retrospect, a sensible change in the sphere of suicide ganking: nothing in eve should have no counter Oh the irony... But getting a suspect timer is not really a counter. A counter is something that players should be able to do. If you want a module that when activate counters scanning, I suppose that might not be too bad. But here is the thing, people will just backwards induct to a strategy of ganking ships using such a module. After all, if you are using it you must not want people to see what you are carrying...and that will likely be highly correlated with ISK value. Not to mention the fact that counters already exist. Double wrapping cargo, blockade runners, the MWD cloak trick all counter scanners.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17723	Posted - 2016.07.28 17:32:41 - [209] - Quote 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.
Vortexo VonBrenner Raumfahrer Spiff Rakett Piloot Anslutning 2390	Posted - 2016.07.28 18:01:18 - [210] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: #1 You are the now saying explicitly that Dracvlad is correct and CCP increased wreck EHP as a direct buff to ganking? Well...that wasn't my intention. If that's how I came across...sorry? It seems logical to me that the wreckage of a large ship would be tougher to destroy than the wreckage of a small ship. If that is a buff for ganking...oh, well...so be it. EvE security zones in pictures EvE quick reference pdf A wise man sums up EvE Smoke me a Kipper...

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 ?

Lex Gabinia Res Repetundae 46	Posted - 2016.07.28 19:59:33 - [241] - 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. FYI..I've been flying around for the last hour scanning every ship I could get locked. Nobody seems to notice or care. I did however find a pod next to a wrecked miner. Asked after them in local, got no answer, scooped loot and salvaged their wreck. I was nice enough to contract their loot back to them - even slightly below lowest sale price - no reason to get greedy.
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 672	Posted - 2016.07.28 20:00:49 - [242] - Quote Galaxy Chicken wrote: 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 ? Yeah, that bit is hilarious. Someone said something on the Internet......to the lawyer. I'm still laughing at how crazy that is.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5037	Posted - 2016.07.28 20:04:47 - [243] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: 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... So...tell us how the Illuminati are involved, or is it the Reptillians? "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
Galaxy Chicken Free Highsec Industrialists 55	Posted - 2016.07.28 21:07:44 - [244] - Quote Open your eyes people! The illuminati are in cahoots with the reptilians! (all of whom are Endie)
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 7852	Posted - 2016.07.28 21:11:24 - [245] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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? Boomerang "exploit" was fixed within a week of Herr Wilkus perfecting it and showing how to do it with a Tornado. "Tornado Trifecta" I think it was called. CCP didn't have a problem with 4-5 guys doing it with cats. But when Wilkus showed you can do it solo..... wait a minute... there's a pattern here... wonder how many arty thrashers it would take to alpha a freighter wreck... Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Dirty Forum Alt Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 334	Posted - 2016.07.28 21:23:23 - [246] - Quote Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: wonder how many arty thrashers it would take to alpha a freighter wreck... ~15 You might do it in 10 if you had pilots w/ good gunnery/etc, but 15 would be safer.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 26447	Posted - 2016.07.28 22:30:02 - [247] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: wonder how many arty thrashers it would take to alpha a freighter wreck... ~15 You might do it in 10 if you had pilots w/ good gunnery/etc, but 15 would be safer. This really should be measured in Ibises; a long time back someone did the math on how many Ibises it would require to gank the Veldnaught in a 0.5. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Dirty Forum Alt Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 335	Posted - 2016.07.28 22:42:29 - [248] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: wonder how many arty thrashers it would take to alpha a freighter wreck... ~15 You might do it in 10 if you had pilots w/ good gunnery/etc, but 15 would be safer. This really should be measured in Ibises; a long time back someone did the math on how many Ibises it would require to gank the Veldnaught in a 0.5. well that is easy - on a gate w/ concord pre-spawned you get ~2 damage per ibis before they pop. 15k ehp = 7k ibises required. Veldnaught I'm not sure after the capital rebalances...but total hp divided by 2 and there you go.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1986	Posted - 2016.07.29 05:54:16 - [249] - Quote Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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? Boomerang "exploit" was fixed within a week of Herr Wilkus perfecting it and showing how to do it with a Tornado. "Tornado Trifecta" I think it was called. CCP didn't have a problem with 4-5 guys doing it with cats. But when Wilkus showed you can do it solo..... wait a minute... there's a pattern here... wonder how many arty thrashers it would take to alpha a freighter wreck... Note that he avoided the point that as soon as the AG players started blowing the wrecks up they got it changed. Should we expect that anything that allows the AG players to do as ganklers do, shoot something in fast ships cheap that have no consequences will always be changed to have to be more expensive ships that are easily counted and above our pay grade to use, or that we are not multi boxing 10 characters. It is 15,000 EHP, I would suggest 10 Arty Thrashers or 1 Tornado and one arty thrasher off the top of my head, but it is hard to say.. COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5039	Posted - 2016.07.29 07:08:55 - [250] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Come to think of it, why not at least have a suspect flag for people scanning. After all, if somebody is going around a parking lot looking into cars, would that behavior not be "suspect"? I know I known "Hurf blurf this is not real life hurf blurf not another nerf". These days I don't get wrapped up in "don't they want PVP?" They don't. Heck even RvB turned out to be a kill-farming scam. I agree. Anyone who looks into cars in parking lots in New Eden should gain a suspect flag. As for ship scanning though, no. Suspect flag is not needed. But what about HTFU? My, how the tune changes. I bet if scanning ships did result in s suspect flag, you'd call that a nerf to ganking. But but I though you people always win every engagement? I thought you people are the apex feeeders of Eve, the super duper uber leet undefeatable pilots here to break people out of their RL habits of not being paranoid enough about everything? Your type will never change, and it's the presence of people like you in this game, or this game itself (apparently) that is not going to be missed. Why would that change ganking? It's just not a mechanic that's needed. If having an opinion is somehow an affront to the health of this game or something, then we are all screwed. How does having a view that no suspect flag is needed suddenly make me someone that won't be missed. I don't personally think any of us will be missed when we leave. The game will go on regardless. So why is my type, which can only be someone that has an opinion, such a bad thing for the game. Don't you have opinions too? I did some further research on the wreck EHP change which we discussed on a locked thread, it was confirmed to me that Endie did push for it because AG was ganking wrecks. This is actually a case where the Gankers got the rules changed to block an AG strategy. A number of other CSM null sec players also pushed for it, but Endie pushed for it because it benefited ganking and negated the strategy that AG was starting to do more and more. So I totally stand by my statement that the wreck EHP was changed to benefit gankers. EDIT: It gets even more interesting, the EHP buff to freighters was decided after that when CCP realised that the wreck EHP buff was a direct benefit to gankers, CCP Fozzie going as far as saying ,"like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance" Personally I would prefer that they had not changed the wreck EHP and left the freighter tank as was so we could shoot the wrecks and prevent the gankers from gathering the loot. I would state that was one hell of a buff to ganking, or should I say loot scooping EDIT2: Just to make it even more stark, the player you are replying to above was shooting wrecks, just so you know, so what he was doing was directly removed by CCP at the request of a CSM member whose corp was the main beneficiary of ganking in hisec. This stinks big time, it really does stink bad. It was NOT removed, it was made more difficult. Instead of a freighter wreck having the ehp as a frigate wreck the larger wrecks were given more ehp. "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

Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5039	Posted - 2016.07.29 07:13:20 - [251] - Quote Cory Za wrote: Why not: just have a pop up message that advises the player. "Cargo Scanned" This way it keeps with the danger and fun. Players and concord can scan and you never know who. You have a choice then to get the heart pumping or not. Why not just pay attention and be prudent? Or next time you want to move your freighter should I log on to hold your hand? "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 1986	Posted - 2016.07.29 07:53:37 - [252] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: It was NOT removed, it was made more difficult. Instead of a freighter wreck having the ehp as a frigate wreck the larger wrecks were given more ehp. It suddenly got pushed through when AG started ganking wrecks, perhaps that was a strange coincidence, but whatever it destroyed what was developing into fun for AG players. 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 17728	Posted - 2016.07.29 10:18:15 - [253] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: It was NOT removed, it was made more difficult. Instead of a freighter wreck having the ehp as a frigate wreck the larger wrecks were given more ehp. It suddenly got pushed through when AG started ganking wrecks, perhaps that was a strange coincidence, but whatever it destroyed what was developing into fun for AG players. You can still do it, the only difference is you need to actually make an effort and spend some isk.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1990	Posted - 2016.07.29 10:37:57 - [254] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: It was NOT removed, it was made more difficult. Instead of a freighter wreck having the ehp as a frigate wreck the larger wrecks were given more ehp. It suddenly got pushed through when AG started ganking wrecks, perhaps that was a strange coincidence, but whatever it destroyed what was developing into fun for AG players. You can still do it, the only difference is you need to actually make an effort and spend some isk. What like the effort you did not make in shooting small stuff shooting wrecks, you made a different effort. 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 17728	Posted - 2016.07.29 13:32:04 - [255] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: What like the effort you did not make in shooting small stuff shooting wrecks, you made a different effort. How many time must I point out the mechanics of this game to you? They could not be shot before they have blown up the wreck due to the game mechanics. This is the Fourth time I have had to tell you this. Simple fact here is the tactic still works, you just refuse to expend any effort aside from bitching on the forums to get play styles you hate removed.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1991	Posted - 2016.07.29 13:40:22 - [256] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: What like the effort you did not make in shooting small stuff shooting wrecks, you made a different effort. How many time must I point out the mechanics of this game to you? They could not be shot before they have blown up the wreck due to the game mechanics. This is the Fourth time I have had to tell you this. Simple fact here is the tactic still works, you just refuse to expend any effort aside from bitching on the forums to get play styles you hate removed. You had to stop them, get them at the gate, hit them as they undock, hit them as they land and start to target, that is what we are told right, we are fail, just as you are fail. Now I know that a couple of times Gankers did manage to defend the wreck, I also remember when you gankers tried to sccop the loot and the freeighter went suspect and bang it died, all extra effort and risk, but you did not like that did you. It was too hard wasn't it, diddums... EDIT: I forgot something important, because they had only just started, the happy anti ganker wreck gankers had not yet reached -10, but once they were there you could have shot them, where have I heard that before? Sadly because you stopped it so quickly with your CSM flanking move we never got to test you did we? 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 17728	Posted - 2016.07.29 13:51:58 - [257] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: You had to stop them, get them at the gate, hit them as they undock, hit them as they land and start to target, that is what we are told right, we are fail, just as you are fail. Name the last time a freighter was suicde ganked in sub 1 mil frigates. Dracvlad wrote: Now I know that a couple of times Gankers did manage to defend the wreck And people die in insta warp interceptors. Bad pilots do not count in balance arguments. Dracvlad wrote: EDIT: I forgot something important, because they had only just started, the happy anti ganker wreck gankers had not yet reached -10, but once they were there you could have shot them, where have I heard that before? Sadly because you stopped it so quickly with your CSM flanking move we never got to test you did we? And we get back to the problem of the game mechanics not allowing you to blow them up before they have shot the wreck. Again, this tactic still works, you just have to put in isk and effort now.
Dirty Forum Alt Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 341	Posted - 2016.07.29 14:00:39 - [258] - Quote baltec1 wrote: [quote=Dracvlad]Again, this tactic still works, you just have to put in isk and effort now. To be fair, a wreck is now harder to gank than the average mining ship (non skiff/procurer) - since they have to hit it with concord pre-spawned and on a gate. It essentially takes the same isk investment as ganking a hauler in a 1.0 system - but with a guarantee of 0 isk as a reward. So the gankers/looters do definitely have a significant advantage in this particular scenario after the wreck buff.
Dirty Forum Alt Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 341	Posted - 2016.07.29 14:06:07 - [259] - Quote Ironically I think CCP could rebalance this fairly easily, if they were interested in doing so - and my solution is quite counter-intuitive: What they need to do to re-balance this equation is to simply alter the CONCORD mechanics so that there is a fixed delay in their deployment, based solely on the security status of the system. And make them wait for this predefined period even if they are already on grid. This would give the anti-gankers a fair chance at ganking the wreck - though they would still be at a slight disadvantage due to gate guns, it wouldn't be unreasonable. It would also have the side-effect of saving mining ship gankers the trouble of pulling concord back out of the belt between ganks - probably saving a few of their pods in the process. In terms of game lore, they could make CONCORD warp back out after enforcing their punishment - which would additionally save server resources not having hundreds of them orbitting random gates anyway. Honestly I think this would be a win-win for everybody. Am I missing anything?
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17728	Posted - 2016.07.29 14:09:39 - [260] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: baltec1 wrote: [quote=Dracvlad]Again, this tactic still works, you just have to put in isk and effort now. To be fair, a wreck is now harder to gank than the average mining ship (non skiff/procurer) - since they have to hit it with concord pre-spawned and on a gate. It essentially takes the same isk investment as ganking a hauler in a 1.0 system - but with a guarantee of 0 isk as a reward. So the gankers/looters do definitely have a significant advantage in this particular scenario after the wreck buff. They never used this tactic on miner wrecks anyway. It was purely freighter wrecks.

Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1991	Posted - 2016.07.29 14:10:17 - [261] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: You had to stop them, get them at the gate, hit them as they undock, hit them as they land and start to target, that is what we are told right, we are fail, just as you are fail. Name the last time a freighter was suicde ganked in sub 1 mil frigates. Dracvlad wrote: Now I know that a couple of times Gankers did manage to defend the wreck And people die in insta warp interceptors. Bad pilots do not count in balance arguments. Dracvlad wrote: EDIT: I forgot something important, because they had only just started, the happy anti ganker wreck gankers had not yet reached -10, but once they were there you could have shot them, where have I heard that before? Sadly because you stopped it so quickly with your CSM flanking move we never got to test you did we? And we get back to the problem of the game mechanics not allowing you to blow them up before they have shot the wreck. Again, this tactic still works, you just have to put in isk and effort now. We were not allowed to get to this situation with -10 characters because you made your CSM flanking move so quickly, is it our fault that you stopped it so soon with CSM action and did not allow the same cat and mouse game to develop for both sides, instead our people are back to sitting there and taking it. And you lot can run around feeling all smug and superior because you do not have to defend anything. And you put it out of the reach of anti-gankers and you know it, your CSM flanking action destroyed the one bit of enjoyable content where anti gankers had the same mechanics as you. A huge amount of ganks have T1 destroyers in them, and you switched to SB's because we were bumping the Freighters out of the range of the Catalysts. COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1991	Posted - 2016.07.29 14:11:34 - [262] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: baltec1 wrote: [quote=Dracvlad]Again, this tactic still works, you just have to put in isk and effort now. To be fair, a wreck is now harder to gank than the average mining ship (non skiff/procurer) - since they have to hit it with concord pre-spawned and on a gate. It essentially takes the same isk investment as ganking a hauler in a 1.0 system - but with a guarantee of 0 isk as a reward. So the gankers/looters do definitely have a significant advantage in this particular scenario after the wreck buff. They never used this tactic on miner wrecks anyway. It was purely freighter wrecks. Back to your typical trolling, do you ever stop. The one thing that this sorry episode has proved to all Eve players is when the going gets tough the gankers get going to the CSM for mechanic change, so much for your skill and ability... 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 17728	Posted - 2016.07.29 14:21:05 - [263] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Back to your typical trolling, do you ever stop. The one thing that this sorry episode has proved to all Eve players is when the going gets tough the gankers get going to the CSM for mechanic change, so much for your skill and ability... Said the guy unwilling to risk a fraction of the isk used to gank the freighter.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1991	Posted - 2016.07.29 14:24:56 - [264] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Back to your typical trolling, do you ever stop. The one thing that this sorry episode has proved to all Eve players is when the going gets tough the gankers get going to the CSM for mechanic change, so much for your skill and ability... Said the guy unwilling to risk a fraction of the isk used to gank the freighter. Said the guy who destroyed fun content by whining to CCP via their CSM representative and destroyed pixels getting blown up by a mechanic change. 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 17728	Posted - 2016.07.29 14:27:31 - [265] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Said the guy who destroyed fun content by whining to CCP via their CSM representative and destroyed pixels getting blown up by a mechanic change. Content is still there, it just requires more than a sub 1 million isk frigate to pull off on a freighter wreck. And the irony of you calling that on anyone else seems to be completely lost on you.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1991	Posted - 2016.07.29 14:37:22 - [266] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Ironically I think CCP could rebalance this fairly easily, if they were interested in doing so - and my solution is quite counter-intuitive: What they need to do to re-balance this equation is to simply alter the CONCORD mechanics so that there is a fixed delay in their deployment, based solely on the security status of the system. And make them wait for this predefined period even if they are already on grid. This would give the anti-gankers a fair chance at ganking the wreck - though they would still be at a slight disadvantage due to gate guns, it wouldn't be unreasonable. It would also have the side-effect of saving mining ship gankers the trouble of pulling concord back out of the belt between ganks - probably saving a few of their pods in the process. In terms of game lore, they could make CONCORD warp back out after enforcing their punishment - which would additionally save server resources not having hundreds of them orbitting random gates anyway. Honestly I think this would be a win-win for everybody. Am I missing anything? The issue is that we have on one side the Goon and PL supported Gankers, massive wealth, huge number of accounts ability to move about pick their targets, running in fast to warp ships and able to warp in and blap. Against solo or at most two account players who are mostly not very wealthy who have an alt or two that they were applying to help for no payment at all. The issue is that while the gankers will hit freighters and loot scoop if they win, earning a huge amount of ISK, the AG will earn 0 as you pointed out. Also the numbers of AG is fairly low, there is now way we can get 10 to 15 people in toons that are acceptable to go to -10 to gank a single wreck, nor can they afford the Tornado scenario. The wreck was placed above their ability to gank in terms of skills and ships and numbers. The Goon here keeps saying unwilling to gank the wreck but he knows full well what the AG is. I have one anti-ganking gank toon and I just do not have the ability to put him in a Tornado and nor do I have the ability to fund that Tornado to the level that the gankers do. While your suggestion is good, we are talking about structural issues, we have the professional level highly funded hisec alliances in a very organised way making vast amounts of ISK against a small group of militia type people who largely disorganised. CCP just handed total victory to them with this change. And what gets me is that not a single one of the AG toons doing this got anywhere near -10, they stopped it that quickly..., initially I assumed it was fear over the market collapsing if the stuff was just destroyed, but it turned out to be worse, the lazyness of gankers. COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1991	Posted - 2016.07.29 14:44:09 - [267] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Said the guy who destroyed fun content by whining to CCP via their CSM representative and destroyed pixels getting blown up by a mechanic change. Content is still there, it just requires more than a sub 1 million isk frigate to pull off on a freighter wreck. And the irony of you calling that on anyone else seems to be completely lost on you. And I replied to that point above, there is no way that the AG can get 15 characters set up to gank a wreck in Thrashers, also as the income is 0 there is no way to fund Tornado's, you of course know that. So you won by crying to CCP via the CSM. You did not like to be in the same situation as hisec players so you went down the easy route, so much for your skill and ability. COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Dirty Forum Alt Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 341	Posted - 2016.07.29 14:54:02 - [268] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: The issue is that we have on one side the Goon and PL supported Gankers, massive wealth, huge number of accounts ability to move about pick their targets, running in fast to warp ships and able to warp in and blap. Against solo or at most two account players who are mostly not very wealthy who have an alt or two that they were applying to help for no payment at all. The issue is that while the gankers will hit freighters and loot scoop if they win, earning a huge amount of ISK, the AG will earn 0 as you pointed out. Also the numbers of AG is fairly low, there is now way we can get 10 to 15 people in toons that are acceptable to go to -10 to gank a single wreck, nor can they afford the Tornado scenario. The wreck was placed above their ability to gank in terms of skills and ships and numbers. The Goon here keeps saying unwilling to gank the wreck but he knows full well what the AG is. I have one anti-ganking gank toon and I just do not have the ability to put him in a Tornado and nor do I have the ability to fund that Tornado to the level that the gankers do. While your suggestion is good, we are talking about structural issues, we have the professional level highly funded hisec alliances in a very organised way making vast amounts of ISK against a small group of militia type people who largely disorganised. CCP just handed total victory to them with this change. And what gets me is that not a single one of the AG toons doing this got anywhere near -10, they stopped it that quickly..., initially I assumed it was fear over the market collapsing if the stuff was just destroyed, but it turned out to be worse, the lazyness of gankers. I started my own feature/idea thread if you guys would like to discuss it. Please leave the flames/trolling here though - on both sides. I'm serious about this idea - I think it would benefit everybody, at least to some extent. Even if it of course won't solve all the problems magically
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1991	Posted - 2016.07.29 15:05:13 - [269] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Dracvlad wrote: The issue is that we have on one side the Goon and PL supported Gankers, massive wealth, huge number of accounts ability to move about pick their targets, running in fast to warp ships and able to warp in and blap. Against solo or at most two account players who are mostly not very wealthy who have an alt or two that they were applying to help for no payment at all. The issue is that while the gankers will hit freighters and loot scoop if they win, earning a huge amount of ISK, the AG will earn 0 as you pointed out. Also the numbers of AG is fairly low, there is now way we can get 10 to 15 people in toons that are acceptable to go to -10 to gank a single wreck, nor can they afford the Tornado scenario. The wreck was placed above their ability to gank in terms of skills and ships and numbers. The Goon here keeps saying unwilling to gank the wreck but he knows full well what the AG is. I have one anti-ganking gank toon and I just do not have the ability to put him in a Tornado and nor do I have the ability to fund that Tornado to the level that the gankers do. While your suggestion is good, we are talking about structural issues, we have the professional level highly funded hisec alliances in a very organised way making vast amounts of ISK against a small group of militia type people who largely disorganised. CCP just handed total victory to them with this change. And what gets me is that not a single one of the AG toons doing this got anywhere near -10, they stopped it that quickly..., initially I assumed it was fear over the market collapsing if the stuff was just destroyed, but it turned out to be worse, the lazyness of gankers. I started my own feature/idea thread if you guys would like to discuss it. Please leave the flames/trolling here though - on both sides. I'm serious about this idea - I think it would benefit everybody, at least to some extent. Even if it of course won't solve all the problems magically The issue is that what you saw with baltec1 replying to your comment abot the freighter wreck being harder than a mining ship got a reply that was designed to wind you up, by deliberately misunderstanding your post by talking about miner wrecks, he does it all the time. You just cannot have a debate with him, because his intent is to troll you. COHE, the Coalition of Hisec Entities is now in operation, time to make hisec work for people who operate there.
Dirty Forum Alt Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 341	Posted - 2016.07.29 15:11:21 - [270] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: The issue is that what you saw with baltec1 replying to your comment abot the freighter wreck being harder than a mining ship got a reply that was designed to wind you up, by deliberately misunderstanding your post by talking about miner wrecks, he does it all the time. You just cannot have a debate with him, because his intent is to troll you. Oh aye, I'm well aware - which is why I didn't bother to reply to his comment

Galaxy Chicken Free Highsec Industrialists 57	Posted - 2016.07.29 16:59:13 - [271] - Quote Just keep saying it Dracvlad. Maybe someone will believe your tinfoil nonsense if you just keep saying it.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5040	Posted - 2016.07.29 19:01:04 - [272] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Ironically I think CCP could rebalance this fairly easily, if they were interested in doing so - and my solution is quite counter-intuitive: What they need to do to re-balance this equation is to simply alter the CONCORD mechanics so that there is a fixed delay in their deployment, based solely on the security status of the system. And make them wait for this predefined period even if they are already on grid. This would give the anti-gankers a fair chance at ganking the wreck - though they would still be at a slight disadvantage due to gate guns, it wouldn't be unreasonable. It would also have the side-effect of saving mining ship gankers the trouble of pulling concord back out of the belt between ganks - probably saving a few of their pods in the process. In terms of game lore, they could make CONCORD warp back out after enforcing their punishment - which would additionally save server resources not having hundreds of them orbitting random gates anyway. Honestly I think this would be a win-win for everybody. Am I missing anything? The issue is that we have on one side the Goon and PL supported Gankers, massive wealth, huge number of accounts ability to move about pick their targets, running in fast to warp ships and able to warp in and blap. Against solo or at most two account players who are mostly not very wealthy who have an alt or two that they were applying to help for no payment at all. The issue is that while the gankers will hit freighters and loot scoop if they win, earning a huge amount of ISK, the AG will earn 0 as you pointed out. Also the numbers of AG is fairly low, there is now way we can get 10 to 15 people in toons that are acceptable to go to -10 to gank a single wreck, nor can they afford the Tornado scenario. The wreck was placed above their ability to gank in terms of skills and ships and numbers. The Goon here keeps saying unwilling to gank the wreck but he knows full well what the AG is. I have one anti-ganking gank toon and I just do not have the ability to put him in a Tornado and nor do I have the ability to fund that Tornado to the level that the gankers do. While your suggestion is good, we are talking about structural issues, we have the professional level highly funded hisec alliances in a very organised way making vast amounts of ISK against a small group of militia type people who largely disorganised. CCP just handed total victory to them with this change. And what gets me is that not a single one of the AG toons doing this got anywhere near -10, they stopped it that quickly..., initially I assumed it was fear over the market collapsing if the stuff was just destroyed, but it turned out to be worse, the lazyness of gankers. And where have I heard this story before. Oh yeah, when I suggested that AG gank the bumping ship. This was precisely the reaction. "What? We shouldn't have to do that, CCP should solve this problem for us." As for the lack of organization....so what? CODE. and ganking groups have over come that issue. Maybe you should focus on fixing that vs. trying to use it as an excuse. "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 1993	Posted - 2016.07.29 19:51:32 - [273] - Quote Galaxy Chicken wrote: Just keep saying it Dracvlad. Maybe someone will believe your tinfoil nonsense if you just keep saying it. I see you managed to scrape together the ISK or real life cash to get a second account, well done, but you will need a third account or whine harder for the warp to be 5 minutes instead of 3 minutes, that was still the funniest whine by a ganker I have yet seen. 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 61	Posted - 2016.07.29 20:35:33 - [274] - Quote Is english your first language Drac? I find that about 50% of your posts are incoherent on some level.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1996	Posted - 2016.07.30 07:49:11 - [275] - Quote Galaxy Chicken wrote: Is english your first language Drac? I find that about 50% of your posts are incoherent on some level. P.S. You can thank the poor disorganised noobie carebears you're always so worried about for plexing this account for me. You really are trying to hard, your whine on asking for 5 minutes in terms of CCP's still not implemented bumping warp mechanism is up there with the gankers getting a change to wreck EHP. Pure gold both of them, keep whining mate I really enjoy it. 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 17729	Posted - 2016.07.30 11:52:28 - [276] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Galaxy Chicken wrote: Is english your first language Drac? I find that about 50% of your posts are incoherent on some level. P.S. You can thank the poor disorganised noobie carebears you're always so worried about for plexing this account for me. You really are trying to hard, your whine on asking for 5 minutes in terms of CCP's still not implemented bumping warp mechanism is up there with the gankers getting a change to wreck EHP. Pure gold both of them, keep whining mate I really enjoy it. You have done nothing but whine about ganking for the last few years. Nearly every post you make is some sort of bitchfest about ganking.
Galaxy Chicken Free Highsec Industrialists 62	Posted - 2016.07.30 13:21:18 - [277] - Quote And yet the best "ganker tears lol!!1!" He can dig up is a case of me just asking not to be nerfed AS bad.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2020	Posted - 2016.07.30 18:12:56 - [278] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Galaxy Chicken wrote: Is english your first language Drac? I find that about 50% of your posts are incoherent on some level. P.S. You can thank the poor disorganised noobie carebears you're always so worried about for plexing this account for me. You really are trying to hard, your whine on asking for 5 minutes in terms of CCP's still not implemented bumping warp mechanism is up there with the gankers getting a change to wreck EHP. Pure gold both of them, keep whining mate I really enjoy it. You have done nothing but whine about ganking for the last few years. Nearly every post you make is some sort of bitchfest about ganking. I am after game balance dimwit, if that wreck EHP had been talked about with AG players we would have told CCP it would kill it stone dead for reasons I have explained here and on other threads. But you guys are not interested in game balance, you just want to run around shoot stuff use the mechanics for low risk and tell everyone how great you are. What is most amusing to me is the simple fact that Gankers like Mr Chicken here were whining about nerf's to ganking based on the EHP buff to freighters when in fact it in no why did it make up to the nerf to AG in making freighter wrecks jump to 15k from 500. There was a different culture in AG developing which would have had the same fun as you entitled gankers but you could not have that could you. And none of you are men enough to admit it, which I have to say is about the level of what you really are. I happen to like Liek Diarz, he is a good player and he really does work hard, I respect him. But I don't respect whay you did here and I think baltec1 you are one of the ones that is likely to have pushed Endie to do this. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2020	Posted - 2016.07.30 18:27:20 - [279] - Quote Galaxy Chicken wrote: And yet the best "ganker tears lol!!1!" He can dig up is a case of me just asking not to be nerfed AS bad. The funny thing is that you seemed to think I would be upset by CCP Falcon being aligned with you guys, so when you sent that gloating mail to me I had to laugh, I refer to CCP Falcon as the Ganker Community Manager and have been doing so for the last 5 years. So sending this to me: The EVE community manager is on our side. Lolololololololololol Just made me laugh a lot, because it showed how little you know about anything. I was more amused at his need to start closing threads after that post he did, to be blunt I was wetting myself laughing. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5045	Posted - 2016.07.30 19:25:11 - [280] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: I am after game balance dimwit.... Says the guy who was just whining about being insulted. You really are a hypocritical liar aren't you. "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

Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5046	Posted - 2016.07.30 19:27:05 - [281] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: I am after game balance dimwit, if that wreck EHP had been talked about with AG players we would have told CCP it would kill it stone dead for reasons I have explained here and on other threads. And those reasons are that AG are not willing to put serious effort into or ISK at risk in pursuing their objectives whereas those who gank do. Yup, very convincing. "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 2020	Posted - 2016.07.30 19:58:19 - [282] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Dracvlad wrote: I am after game balance dimwit.... Says the guy who was just whining about being insulted. You really are a hypocritical liar aren't you. I find his trolling offensive and have no patience for him. So what? When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2020	Posted - 2016.07.30 20:00:01 - [283] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Dracvlad wrote: I am after game balance dimwit, if that wreck EHP had been talked about with AG players we would have told CCP it would kill it stone dead for reasons I have explained here and on other threads. And those reasons are that AG are not willing to put serious effort into or ISK at risk in pursuing their objectives whereas those who gank do. Yup, very convincing. ISK, not using their mains due to them needing them to operate in hisec, lack of appertite to gank, lack of SP for those alts, its all there. You are not stooping to dimwit level are you? When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5048	Posted - 2016.07.30 20:38:52 - [284] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Dracvlad wrote: I am after game balance dimwit, if that wreck EHP had been talked about with AG players we would have told CCP it would kill it stone dead for reasons I have explained here and on other threads. And those reasons are that AG are not willing to put serious effort into or ISK at risk in pursuing their objectives whereas those who gank do. Yup, very convincing. ISK, not using their mains due to them needing them to operate in hisec, lack of appertite to gank, lack of SP for those alts, its all there. You are not stooping to dimwit level are you? No, I'm pointing out that the AG side does not want to put in the level of effort and risk significant amounts of ISK unlike the other side of the issue. Gankers have put together groups, coms, and pre-position assets, and so forth to engage in ganking. They have basically put lots of effort and ISK into obtaining their objective. Why is it at all unreasonable to think AG should not have to put forth some degree of effort as well. You don't build up an AG corp or alliance. Do you have shared voice comms? Do you pre-position assets so people can go to the system where the gank is going to happen and get what they need there? Do you use any kind of fleet doctrine? Have you thought about spawning CONCORD on those cheap throw away alts you guys created for ganking wrecks? I got into one of the anti-bumping threads and I pointed out that there is not much tank on those machs and that they are damn expensive. Gank those routinely and....well that would be a severe crimp in the ganking process, at least till they found a work around. The response was laughable. It was basically that they should not have to incur a criminal flag, lose sec status, and their ship to stop a ship from bumping another ship...CCP should do all that. So I find the notion that AG would gank wrecks laughable. Sure they'll do it when it is super cheap and they can do it on a toss away alt. But as soon as it requires a bit more effort/ISK and it is "NOPE!" "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
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 26464	Posted - 2016.07.30 20:39:22 - [285] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: ISK Don't be so tight, anybody would think you had short arms and deep pockets inhabited by crocodiles. Quote: not using their mains due to them needing them to operate in hisec, Why can't you operate in hisec? If sec status is a concern, the faction popo won't even think about coming after you until you hit: -2.0 or lower in 1.0 space -2.5 or lower in 0.9 and above -3.0 or lower in 0.8 and above -3.5 or lower in 0.7 and above -4.0 or lower in 0.6 and above -4.5 or lower in 0.5 and above Quote: lack of appertite to gank Your problem, not ours Quote: lack of SP for those alts Deal with it, just like everybody else has to, by balancing the time required for skill training across essential alts for the activities they carry out. Alternatively use SP injectors, much as I dislike them they provide a pretty good solution for people who need to train up an alt without dropping training times on another character, or dropping money on an alt account/ dual character training. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 506	Posted - 2016.07.30 23:13:17 - [286] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Do you pre-position assets so people can go to the system where the gank is going to happen and get what they need there? That's the main issue- AG groups are reacting, which is why they're always late to the party. They could of course police the common ganking systems but so far this level of coordination remains unheard of
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17732	Posted - 2016.07.31 09:46:06 - [287] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Do you pre-position assets so people can go to the system where the gank is going to happen and get what they need there? That's the main issue- AG groups are reacting, which is why they're always late to the party. They could of course police the common ganking systems but so far this level of coordination remains unheard of Its not that they are reactionary its that they are just bad at the game. They would rather beg CCP to remove a gameplay option than think for themselves or even take advantage of the situation. For example, they could set up an escort service using shield logi, or set up an escort service that provides a webbing frigate to get the freighter into warp near instantly. They could charge for these services but they won't get their finger out. They could gank the gankers and turn a profit, they could set up their own freight service and move goods around in supertank ships or a dedicated blockade runner service for those small but very expensive cargo runs but they won't because it involves both work and game knowledge. Rather than add content to the game they want to remove it to make their lives easier.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2043	Posted - 2016.07.31 10:52:13 - [288] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Do you pre-position assets so people can go to the system where the gank is going to happen and get what they need there? That's the main issue- AG groups are reacting, which is why they're always late to the party. They could of course police the common ganking systems but so far this level of coordination remains unheard of Its not that they are reactionary its that they are just bad at the game. They would rather beg CCP to remove a gameplay option than think for themselves or even take advantage of the situation. For example, they could set up an escort service using shield logi, or set up an escort service that provides a webbing frigate to get the freighter into warp near instantly. They could charge for these services but they won't get their finger out. They could gank the gankers and turn a profit, they could set up their own freight service and move goods around in supertank ships or a dedicated blockade runner service for those small but very expensive cargo runs but they won't because it involves both work and game knowledge. Rather than add content to the game they want to remove it to make their lives easier. So says the man whose Corp CEO got the rules changed on the only thing that was making it hard for them, that is being bad at Eve mate. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Coralas Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 30	Posted - 2016.07.31 11:21:01 - [289] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: baltec1 wrote: Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Do you pre-position assets so people can go to the system where the gank is going to happen and get what they need there? That's the main issue- AG groups are reacting, which is why they're always late to the party. They could of course police the common ganking systems but so far this level of coordination remains unheard of Its not that they are reactionary its that they are just bad at the game. They would rather beg CCP to remove a gameplay option than think for themselves or even take advantage of the situation. For example, they could set up an escort service using shield logi, or set up an escort service that provides a webbing frigate to get the freighter into warp near instantly. They could charge for these services but they won't get their finger out. They could gank the gankers and turn a profit, they could set up their own freight service and move goods around in supertank ships or a dedicated blockade runner service for those small but very expensive cargo runs but they won't because it involves both work and game knowledge. Rather than add content to the game they want to remove it to make their lives easier. So says the man whose Corp CEO got the rules changed on the only thing that was making it hard for them, that is being bad at Eve mate. Such terrible ad-hominem posting. This is at least the second time I've seen you do this, in this thread. This is not in anyway a refutation of the points above. Baltec is not his CEO.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17735	Posted - 2016.07.31 11:57:32 - [290] - Quote Coralas wrote: Such terrible ad-hominem posting. This is at least the second time I've seen you do this, in this thread. This is not in anyway a refutation of the points above. Baltec is not his CEO. Its all he has. Nevermind that he has been told and even shown that what he says is untrue, the argument came from a nullsec player who passed it onto Endie who passed it onto CCP along with a large number of other things and CCP acted on it. This change had a much larger impact out in low, null and WH space where wrecks are used as tactical warps and in regards to capital wreck looting. I would also point out Endie is not our corps CEO.

Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 26473	Posted - 2016.07.31 12:33:58 - [291] - Quote Is he still claiming that the wreck EHP change was put in place specifically to allow gankers more time to loot a wreck before somebody shoots it? Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Galaxy Chicken Free Highsec Industrialists 62	Posted - 2016.07.31 13:59:35 - [292] - Quote Lol that guy was trolling Drac by saying he was Endie, but poor vlad bought it hook line and sinker. You probably won't ever convince him that he's not Endie, or that Kanye West isn't a secret illuminati operative. Dracvlad spend a most of his day wondering who everyone REALLY is...
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 511	Posted - 2016.07.31 14:10:08 - [293] - Quote ... while everyone knows it is in fact I who is the real Dracvlad
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2045	Posted - 2016.07.31 14:51:17 - [294] - Quote And yet a few wrecks get ganked by AG players and the rules get changed, funny that... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2045	Posted - 2016.07.31 14:54:43 - [295] - Quote Coralas wrote: Such terrible ad-hominem posting. This is at least the second time I've seen you do this, in this thread. This is not in anyway a refutation of the points above. Baltec is not his CEO. I never said baltec1 was the CEO When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17745	Posted - 2016.07.31 16:33:25 - [296] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: And yet a few wrecks get ganked by AG players and the rules get changed, funny that... For years wrecks were at 500 EHP until the Gankers were affected, funny that... Reddit has Endie replying to Jestertrek there. Offgrid boosting has been around for years but that too is getting removed. I'm willing to bet it happens just as some organisation starts using it too.
Bumblefck Kerensky Initiatives 12685	Posted - 2016.07.31 17:07:35 - [297] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Coralas wrote: Such terrible ad-hominem posting. This is at least the second time I've seen you do this, in this thread. This is not in anyway a refutation of the points above. Baltec is not his CEO. I never said baltec1 was the CEO If backpedalling were an Olympic sport, you'd be up for gold Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi . Bumble's Space Log
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2045	Posted - 2016.07.31 19:11:56 - [298] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: And yet a few wrecks get ganked by AG players and the rules get changed, funny that... For years wrecks were at 500 EHP until the Gankers were affected, funny that... Reddit has Endie replying to Jestertrek there. Offgrid boosting has been around for years but that too is getting removed. I'm willing to bet it happens just as some organisation starts using it too. This has nothing to do with off grid boosting, this has everything to do with CCP being incompetent and Gankers not being able to defend the wrecks on the same basis as people have to defend freighters, getting all upset at having to actually put effort in and getting the rules changed. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2045	Posted - 2016.07.31 19:13:10 - [299] - Quote Bumblefck wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Coralas wrote: Such terrible ad-hominem posting. This is at least the second time I've seen you do this, in this thread. This is not in anyway a refutation of the points above. Baltec is not his CEO. I never said baltec1 was the CEO If backpedalling were an Olympic sport, you'd be up for gold Link to me where I said baltec1 was the CEO of Bat County. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17746	Posted - 2016.08.01 04:22:16 - [300] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: And yet a few wrecks get ganked by AG players and the rules get changed, funny that... For years wrecks were at 500 EHP until the Gankers were affected, funny that... Reddit has Endie replying to Jestertrek there. Offgrid boosting has been around for years but that too is getting removed. I'm willing to bet it happens just as some organisation starts using it too. This has nothing to do with off grid boosting, this has everything to do with CCP being incompetent and Gankers not being able to defend the wrecks on the same basis as people have to defend freighters, getting all upset at having to actually put effort in and getting the rules changed. Said the man bitching about having to use just two tornadoes.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: [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.