| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 25 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sendraks
Deep Core Mining Inc.
   |
Posted - 2007.09.22 11:21:00 -
[391]
 Originally by: Nito Musashi
Risk vs reward lets throw that out there atm the haulers take all the risk what risk do the gankers have? none zero nada.
Wrong.
The gankers do take the risk. They lose the ships the use for ganking.
Right now the gains are good for gankers vs risk, because people fly expensive cargo around in cheap ships. Aside from this being stupid, it means the gankers do not stand to lose much in order to gain their reward.
If people flew their cargo around in appropriate ships with appropriate fittings and flew with due care and attention, gankers would have to expend more vessels to gain a reward. For the average ganker, this isn't going to be worthwhile.
But, so many don't see this. They don't accept (and they should) that they have all the necessary means to greatly reduce the level of hi-sec ganking in the game. Instead, as has become common-place in society, rather than solve the problem themselves they try to get someone else to solve it for them.
The very most CCP should do is remove the insurance payouts for ships destroyed by Concord. However, I think CCP realise the negative effect that this would have on their petition queues and I'm also sure CCP realise, as I and many others do, that such changes wouldn't be necessary if people didn't a) assume high sec was safe and b) carry expensive cargo in crappy ships and c) fail to escort expensive cargo in expensive ships.
|
Sgt Job
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 11:28:00 -
[392]
Originally by: Sendraks
Originally by: Nito Musashi
Risk vs reward lets throw that out there atm the haulers take all the risk what risk do the gankers have? none zero nada.
The gankers do take the risk. They lose the ships the use for ganking.
Would you say that a builder risks his minerals when building a ship or is it the productioncost?
|
SisterBliss
The Red Exhilez
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 11:31:00 -
[393]
Originally by: Ridley Scot
Edited by: Ridley Scot on 22/09/2007 05:03:36
Edited by: Ridley Scot on 22/09/2007 05:02:56
Originally by: Araya Meiteselle
Why in the bloody name of god would you not invite a fleet of remote repping Domi's to escort you ?
I must say this is the best one yet, even better then "avoid certain high sec gates". I could almost see it, haulers flying all over high sec with fleets of Domis following for protection   Is that what we should do as protection from ore thiefs as well?
What is you problem with the sound advice of avoiding get which you have said know get camped. Your journey may now take 3 or 4 jumps more to avoid the trouble spots, its hardy the end of the world.
If you too lazy to take any defensive action then you deserved to get ganked.
|
Zachstar
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 12:10:00 -
[394]
Like I said.. desperation to keep their newfound unbalanced wealth.
They let the insults and the mines fly. Tho I have to admit SOME of you are putting up reasonable arguments for keeping things as they are. Thank you for not dropping to low levels with the defense here.
I am still on the side of simplicity to deal with this matter.
No insurance if killed by Concord.
Concord fires upon and quickly turns to dust any loot caused by the criminal.
After that the problem is solved and the ganks will become fun to watch and hear about again. What a fun way to start a war with 2 (non-alt) corps! A gank that turns many millions of isk into dust! Let the feathers fly!
|
Sendraks
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 12:18:00 -
[395]
Edited by: Sendraks on 22/09/2007 12:20:04
Problem 1)
People in crappy tech 1 haulers with expensive cargo losing their ships to hi-sec gankers. The ganking team usually consists of an expendable dps vessel and a hauler to take the loot away. Tech 1 haulers are easily destroyed by these vessels, not to mention feathers and a mild breeze.
Solutions to 1)
Fly a tech 2 hauler. They are easy to train for and not very expensive. Fitted properly they can tank an assault long enough for Concord to arrive or evade enemy fire completely. If you are unsure how to do this look at the other forums.
Don't fly afk
If attacked, don''t warp to the next gate/station en route, warp to an object that requires least alignement.
Have an escort.
Have a scout.
Problem 2)
Freighters getting ganked in hi-sec. These are big slow vessels and require a lot of dps to take down. Freighters cannot be tanked.
Solution to 2).
Get an escort consisting of both combat and logistics ships. The former kill the attackers, the latter repair the freighter. ALso see other solutions to problem 1.
Conclusion: No method is fool proof, but then Eve is a game where 100% safety is never guaranteed anywhere.
There are no counter-arguments to the above which I have seen, as everything amounts to players who "can't be bothered" to break out of their solo mentality and accept that Eve is a game where teamwork is required.
Asking CCP to fix this is laziness. The solutions are above. They are not hard. This IS the simple solution.
The purpose of Concord is prevent protracted assaults on players in empire, especially new players, by PvPers. Concord does this. Concord serves no other purpose. Don't ask for one.
*Clarification* I do not pirate. Never have. I don't hide behind alts. I am potentially as much a victim to hi-sec gankers as anyone else. However, I choose not to be a victim. I take steps to protect myself. I don't expect CCP to do it for me.
|
Zachstar
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 12:28:00 -
[396]
The way I ask for it to be fixed is NOT NOT NOT lazy or to do anything to dispute your methods of defense.
The blowing up of the loot is just the obvious way to handle the uber profit problem from alts. Why code mountains of code and get a million petitions to prevent alts from getting the loot? When a hit or 2 from a Concord ship takes care of that problem really fast.
I do not want the ganks to be stopped. Just want it to be expensive for them so it becomes and ego/funny thing and not an uber unbalanced exploiting profit system.
|
Kessiaan
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 12:34:00 -
[397]
Edited by: Kessiaan on 22/09/2007 12:36:15
*deleted since the forums ate my post*
|
Zachstar
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 12:36:00 -
[398]
Edited by: Zachstar on 22/09/2007 12:36:31
A quote to get your point across without saying anything? We know what he said and I say it wont fix anything.
Have concord blow up the loot. Of course if you have been experiencing the uber profits from ganking them I see why one would be so eager to defend their unbalanced system.
Concord blow up the loot = Fix outright.
|
John Blackthrone
Caldari
Fnord Works
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 12:38:00 -
[399]
Yes i really hope CCP makes it impossible to sucide gank, maybe it could be changed that it is still possible to sucide gank but you cant loot anything after sucide ganking a player, so no one will sucide gank for profit because every module is destroyed after sucide gank so no loot.
Sucide gank for revange will be still posible but I think that is okay.
|
Daeva Vios
Ardent Adversary
Anvil.
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 12:40:00 -
[400]
CONCORD is there to punish, not protect.
The moment carebears realize the difference is the moment these whine threads end.
Jesus. I don't suicide gank. I've never suicide ganked. I'm not a pirate. Yet, for whatever reason, I was able to figure out that this is a PVP game, and that being able to be attacked in high sec space meant that, eventually, I WOULD BE ATTACKED IN HIGH SEC SPACE.
Yet another whine thread. Please go away.
|
|
|
Zachstar
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 12:41:00 -
[401]
Originally by: John Blackthrone
Yes i really hope CCP makes it impossible to sucide gank, maybe it could be changed that it is still possible to sucide gank but you cant loot anything after sucide ganking a player, so no one will sucide gank for profit because every module is destroyed after sucide gank so no loot.
Sucide gank for revange will be still posible but I think that is okay.
Of course! You want to keep the ganking system so that you can still have the interesting ganks and the risks to the freighters/miners. However the loot profits need to be in lowsec where concord cant reach the loot to blow it.
|
Zachstar
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 12:44:00 -
[402]
Originally by: Daeva Vios
Yet another whine thread. Please go away.
Stop with the insults and junk and maybe it will. You achieve nothing with the usual dictionary of insults and crap.
Leave the words whine and moan out of this conversation please.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
No Joy Corp
Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 12:58:00 -
[403]
Originally by: Bo Bojangles
Have Concord immediately confiscate the surviving loot for pickup by the wronged party at the nearest station.
What police organization wouldn't?
I like it, no official war, no official looting rights.
War declaration is supposed to be the mechanic that makes Hi-sec PvP area, insurance is not. As it stands you can do a lot more harm to a corp without a wardec than you can with one... somehow that strikes me as mildly dumb.
I agree that insurance shouldn't be paid out either but I doubt that changing insurance would actually fix the problem. The freighter pilot with 3 bill in cargo may only be making 50-100mil profit/h for his (carefully planned and market dependent) run but the people who gank him are getting around 2 bill to share between them after covering uninsured losses with no risk and no real planning (I sawd it in jita or I herd it on teh forums doesn't count as clever planning).
|
Sendraks
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 13:01:00 -
[404]
Originally by: Zachstar
The way I ask for it to be fixed is NOT NOT NOT lazy or to do anything to dispute your methods of defense.
Originally by: Zachstar
The way I ask for it to be fixed is NOT NOT NOT lazy or to do anything to dispute your methods of defense.
I'm sorry Zachstar, but I disagree. The end result of what you are asking for is to make Hi-Sec ganking a totally profitless activity. If it is profitless, hardly anyone one will do it, thus removing the problem, thus players will continue to plod around in tech 1 ships loaded with loot without a care in the world......up until the point where they come here because someone caused them to lose a load of expensive cargo.....just for fun. If you see this ending differently, I'd be happy to hear how.
I really don't see it panning out any other way, but I'd be happy to listen to your theories, to whit the change in itself will simply encourage the lazy behaviour which has lead to hi-sec ganking in the first place.
Asking CCP to change code is not a simple solution for CCP. You don't know how complex or simple this would be to do. The simple solution for CCP is to let the players sort themselves out. The simple solution for the players is to let CCP do it, but the rational for that is poor given that the defenses are available in game already.
|
Jade190
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 13:05:00 -
[405]
I think failure beat this thread to death
|
Tari Telrunya
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 13:07:00 -
[406]
I, like most people here have been the victim of suiside ganking.
Was it my fault? Probably, I was autopiloting (although I was sitting at my pc) so I saw it happen :-(
Was I ****ed off that it had happened? Of course! I had a rant to my corp mates how stupid it was that someone in a brutix could suiside gank someone in hi-sec and the insurance payout would mean that they would lose next to nothing.
Will I get over it? I all ready have! I won't be autopiloting a hauler (or any other ship for that matter) anytime soon but thats about it.
Having said that this post in mmorpg.com was quite worrying:
"Played this for a year after release then gave my account away due to time constraints. I recently decided to revisit - but it's almost impossible for anyone just starting to play it now - got 'ganked' 4 times in 3 weeks in so-called 'safe zones'. I can't be doing with wasting my time or having to resort to buying ISK to replace my gear, so I have cancelled my new account and decided to go elsewhere - very disappointed, I wanted to get back into this."
If this really is the case then something needs to be done - there is a thin line between hi-sec ganking and griefing new players. If the same game mechanic can and is being employed to do both then something needs to be done about it! |
Zachstar
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 13:13:00 -
[407]
Originally by: Sendraks
I'm sorry Zachstar, but I disagree. The end result of what you are asking for is to make Hi-Sec ganking a totally profitless activity. If it is profitless, hardly anyone one will do it, thus removing the problem, thus players will continue to plod around in tech 1 ships loaded with loot without a care in the world......up until the point where they come here because someone caused them to lose a load of expensive cargo.....just for fun. If you see this ending differently, I'd be happy to hear how.
It will NOT make it a pointless activity! Can you idmagine the ego points gained from someone doing a gank without all the profit involved? The laughs! the youtube videos! No blowing the loot will only put a small dent in the activity as it is right now and stop the progressive gain.
Afterwards, do you expect them to get anywhere coming to the forums to ask for a change because an ego ganker got them? I hardly think so. They will only get "too bad we already fixed the profit problem, So what happened was realistic enough"
Originally by: Sendraks
I really don't see it panning out any other way, but I'd be happy to listen to your theories, to whit the change in itself will simply encourage the lazy behaviour which has lead to hi-sec ganking in the first place.
I do not think so. Note the ego ganking I mentioned above. The change will only lay off the "gank-4-bank" stuff. Not the "gank-4-lolpwned" stuff. The "gank-4-bank" moves back into 0.4 where there is huge challenge and good pirates.
Originally by: Sendraks
Asking CCP to change code is not a simple solution for CCP. You don't know how complex or simple this would be to do. The simple solution for CCP is to let the players sort themselves out. The simple solution for the players is to let CCP do it, but the rational for that is poor given that the defenses are available in game already.
If the concord target code is that complicated then SOMETHING is wrong. It ought to be a few hundred lines of code to get concord to target the victims loot after they blast the criminal.
|
Daimos Bellurdan
Black Reign
FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 13:20:00 -
[408]
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf
Originally by: Bo Bojangles
Have Concord immediately confiscate the surviving loot for pickup by the wronged party at the nearest station.
What police organization wouldn't?
I like it, no official war, no official looting rights.
War declaration is supposed to be the mechanic that makes Hi-sec PvP area, insurance is not. As it stands you can do a lot more harm to a corp without a wardec than you can with one... somehow that strikes me as mildly dumb.
I agree that insurance shouldn't be paid out either but I doubt that changing insurance would actually fix the problem. The freighter pilot with 3 bill in cargo may only be making 50-100mil profit/h for his (carefully planned and market dependent) run but the people who gank him are getting around 2 bill to share between them after covering uninsured losses with no risk and no real planning (I sawd it in jita or I herd it on teh forums doesn't count as clever planning).
Sorry to say it but there is no place in Eve that is not about pvp. This is a competitive game built around risk vs reward. It has always been that way and I sure hope it will always be that way. What are you guys trying to do? Turn this into a second WoW ? Today it will be nerfing ganking in "secure" (lol) space. Who knows what people will whine about tomorrow. Maybe they will want insurance for POSes or something? The game was designed to be a dark, cold and damp place. People started to play it because it was unforgiving and your own success is dependend on your play style (cleverness etc).
About concord: Concord is out to punish you AFTER you have done a bad deed. Live with it. Concord is not the police but a contracted mercenary force to punish. Understand that there is simply no protection even in >0.5 space.
About insurance: Keep insurance the way it is. If the insurance company does not pay for criminal activities in faction space, why should they do it in lawless 0.0 / lowsec? The insurances in eve do not care about good or bad or morals. They are only out to profit like everyone else from the stupidity of others. Stop trying to draw parallels to our world.
|
Cpt Fina
Blood Corsair's
The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 13:26:00 -
[409]
Originally by: Daimos Bellurdan
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf
Originally by: Bo Bojangles
Have Concord immediately confiscate the surviving loot for pickup by the wronged party at the nearest station.
What police organization wouldn't?
I like it, no official war, no official looting rights.
War declaration is supposed to be the mechanic that makes Hi-sec PvP area, insurance is not. As it stands you can do a lot more harm to a corp without a wardec than you can with one... somehow that strikes me as mildly dumb.
I agree that insurance shouldn't be paid out either but I doubt that changing insurance would actually fix the problem. The freighter pilot with 3 bill in cargo may only be making 50-100mil profit/h for his (carefully planned and market dependent) run but the people who gank him are getting around 2 bill to share between them after covering uninsured losses with no risk and no real planning (I sawd it in jita or I herd it on teh forums doesn't count as clever planning).
Sorry to say it but there is no place in Eve that is not about pvp. This is a competitive game built around risk vs reward. It has always been that way and I sure hope it will always be that way. What are you guys trying to do? Turn this into a second WoW ? Today it will be nerfing ganking in "secure" (lol) space. Who knows what people will whine about tomorrow. Maybe they will want insurance for POSes or something? The game was designed to be a dark, cold and damp place. People started to play it because it was unforgiving and your own success is dependend on your play style (cleverness etc).
About concord: Concord is out to punish you AFTER you have done a bad deed. Live with it. Concord is not the police but a contracted mercenary force to punish. Understand that there is simply no protection even in >0.5 space.
About insurance: Keep insurance the way it is. If the insurance company does not pay for criminal activities in faction space, why should they do it in lawless 0.0 / lowsec? The insurances in eve do not care about good or bad or morals. They are only out to profit like everyone else from the stupidity of others. Stop trying to draw parallels to our world.
You want to keep Eve cold and harsh but yet you don't want to remove the band aid of insurance?
A bit contradictive, eh?
|
Zachstar
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 13:34:00 -
[410]
Originally by: Daimos Bellurdan
Sorry to say it but there is no place in Eve that is not about pvp. This is a competitive game built around risk vs reward. It has always been that way and I sure hope it will always be that way. What are you guys trying to do? Turn this into a second WoW ? Today it will be nerfing ganking in "secure" (lol) space. Who knows what people will whine about tomorrow. Maybe they will want insurance for POSes or something? The game was designed to be a dark, cold and damp place. People started to play it because it was unforgiving and your own success is dependend on your play style (cleverness etc).
Today it will be nerfing an exploit after MUCH talk. Tomorrow will be nerfing another exploit after MUCH talk.
This game needs lines and balance. There is nothing wrong with keeping the pirate profits in lowsec/zerosec while keeping higher ego/laugh rights in hisec.
You can't let exploits grow and get out of control. Or EVE will quickly lose population which affects everyone.
Keep ganking = concord the loot = simple.
Originally by: Daimos Bellurdan
About concord: Concord is out to punish you AFTER you have done a bad deed. Live with it. Concord is not the police but a contracted mercenary force to punish. Understand that there is simply no protection even in >0.5 space.
There is nothing stopping concord from taking out the wreck to "discourage" criminal activity and gangs.
I can live with the fact that Hisec isn't safe! I can't be cool with exploits.
Originally by: Daimos Bellurdan
About insurance: Keep insurance the way it is. If the insurance company does not pay for criminal activities in faction space, why should they do it in lawless 0.0 / lowsec? The insurances in eve do not care about good or bad or morals. They are only out to profit like everyone else from the stupidity of others. Stop trying to draw parallels to our world.
I will drop parallels as much as needed to get simple realism points across.
Insurance companies want profit. What a better way to keep profits than to deny payouts to those who lose their ships to concord! Another simple solution!
|
|
|
Zachstar
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 13:36:00 -
[411]
Originally by: Bo Bojangles
Have Concord immediately confiscate the surviving loot for pickup by the wronged party at the nearest station.
What police organization wouldn't?
Or the police keep it for themselves. Id think just blowing the loot will be fun to watch tho! Better effects and all that.
Of course the loot can simply vanish as concord claims it.. Nah, thats boring!
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
EP0CH
Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 13:41:00 -
[412]
Destroying all the loot will solve nothing, and as it stands even if the mark you're hitting is loaded with valuables the chance remains that nothing of any value will survive.
This renders the idea of the loot "going away" or being destroyed moot. That means we're back to the one and only suggestion with merit here: that insurance is not paid out in the event of a death by CONCORD. That however is a double edged sword, as there is no way to reliably tell when someone accidently fires upon a gate in highsec, or when someone is actually performing nefarious acts. As such, it too is impractical.
So we come back to the idea of this being completely within game mechanics, and that the solutions to this must also be found within the current game mechanics. In this case, that would be:
a) Find another route.
b) Obfuscate your cargo by carrying lots of pointless small items.
c) Fly with a remote repairing escort.
d) Transport valuables in a tough or fast ship
Any of the above will solve the problem without having to endure the taunting associated with crying on the forums about it. Suicide attacks are, as I seem to have to keep repeating, complete within the rules and mechanics of the game. Despite the loathing towards the those involved, it takes patience and planning to orchestrate such endeavours, and you should respect this and take the same approach towards moving valuable goods. Any alliance knows not to move freighters unescorted, and so should you all.
Hardpoint Rigs |
Zachstar
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 13:49:00 -
[413]
I will no longer try to debate with those who come on this topic saying stuff like crying,while,moan etc. You can take your junk elseware.
Just in case anyone isn't understanding.
Concord blowing up the loot to "discourage criminal activity"
Insurance payments withheld and coverage lost when concorded
Are simple and effective ways to move the "Gank-4-Bank" out to lowsec while encouraging the "Gank-4-lolpwned" that still gives all the risk the first gives.
Exploit removed and all solved. Remember Concord cant get the loot in lowsec!
|
Sendraks
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 13:59:00 -
[414]
Originally by: Zachstar
It will NOT make it a pointless activity! Can you idmagine the ego points gained from someone doing a gank without all the profit involved? The laughs! the youtube videos! No blowing the loot will only put a small dent in the activity as it is right now and stop the progressive gain.
Yes, but the reality is the main result of the change is that you will see a huge drop off in hi-sec ganking because it is no longer profitable. The majority of hi-sec ganks are done for profit, remove that and you remove the majority of the ganks. This in turn brings me back to my point is that the solution really is just for the benefit of those players too lazy to protect their cargo properly. Ultimately you cannot get away from the fact that it is so those players who stand to benefit most from such a change.
And I can't stress this enough. I am vehemently against anything that makes life even easier for those lazy players.
Originally by: Zachstar
If the concord target code is that complicated then SOMETHING is wrong. It ought to be a few hundred lines of code to get concord to target the victims loot after they blast the criminal.
I agree. However, the thrust of my point is that this is not the simple solution for CCP, it is only a simple solution for players. As the solutions to the problem exist in game already, the simple solution for CCP is to do nothing.
I am not opposed to the idea of removing insurance payouts for Concord related kills, but I think this will create a lot of work for CCPs petition queues. A sound idea in theory, but one I think will not be good for the playerbase in the long time.
I also think having Concord destroy/confiscate cargo from such attacks is bad for the playerbase as well. Aside from being non-sensical (it is not consistent with the purpose of Concord) it also makes Eve a more sanitised, boring place. Which is never good. And it encourages lazy players to be lazy.
|
The Hooch
Minmatar
Privateers
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 14:00:00 -
[415]
Read below the sig...
Concord punishes people, it does not protect them |
Sorja
E X O D U S
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 14:03:00 -
[416]
Yeah Hooch, excepted people are accountable for their actions, which they are not in EVE.
Broken logic always mean broken game mechanics.
____________________
A gentleman is someone who can play the bagpipe, but who does not. |
Zachstar
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 14:04:00 -
[417]
This tirade against what you call lazy players needs to stop. Choice between lazy players and massive issues from EVE economy and I will always pick allowing the lazyness.
If you take such issue why not get into "Gank-4-lolpwned" and deal damage to the lazys?
|
Kessiaan
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 14:41:00 -
[418]
I can see both sides of the arguement here.
Hi-sec ganking is a problem because risk vs. reward is completely out of whack. Freighter pilots take a huge risk without being able to mitigate it much (they have to get to Jita and no amount of escorts will protect them from a suicide gank for the same reason Concord can't) and the pirates take a very small risk (a few throwaway ships) with almost certain success once a suitable target comes along.
There's a reason freighters keep coming up - it's because the regular haulers can equip a proper tank. They know the suicide gank is coming, the prepare for it, it fails. No problem. Freighters can't equip jack.
Solution? Give freighters a low slot, 5-6 medium slots, and one high slot, and enough cpu / powergrid to run them. Smart freighter pilots can tank through highsec gate camps, pirates can still gank stupid pilots (just like they can get stupid hauler pilots now), and everyone is happy.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
No Joy Corp
Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 14:42:00 -
[419]
Originally by: Daimos Bellurdan
Sorry to say it but there is no place in Eve that is not about pvp. This is a competitive game built around risk vs reward. It has always been that way and I sure hope it will always be that way. What are you guys trying to do? Turn this into a second WoW ? Today it will be nerfing ganking in "secure" (lol) space. Who knows what people will whine about tomorrow. Maybe they will want insurance for POSes or something? The game was designed to be a dark, cold and damp place. People started to play it because it was unforgiving and your own success is dependend on your play style (cleverness etc).
Hi-Sec has always had PvP, it's called the war-dec, where you have 24hrs notice to stop hauling large valuable cargoes and to put the dust cover over your faction CNR. This however is a pone way war-dec (we can shoot you, you can't shoot back) activated immediately. So what, pray tell, is the point of the war-dec if you can harm the enemies prime assets without having to deal with their combat forces?
As for success depending on your "cleverness etc" I fail to see how suicide ganking, blobbing, nano-ships, lo-sec motherships, remote dooms day... etc, etc ,etc, can be defined as clever tactics. Exploiting poor game mechanics before they get fixed has always been the key to quick and easy success in EVE. Clever would be the trader who put the effort in to research the market, establish a trade route and keep his clientelle supplied in the face of fierce competition. That is a dark, cold, and "damp" universe. Not shooting at Freighters from behind what a Warcraft player would call "blue-shielding" where a non-pvp flagged player attacks a PvP flagged player, it's considered the lowest of the low even there.
Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos
a) Find another route.
b) Obfuscate your cargo by carrying lots of pointless small items.
c) Fly with a remote repairing escort.
d) Transport valuables in a tough or fast ship
Any of the above will solve the problem without having to endure the taunting associated with crying on the forums about it. Suicide attacks are, as I seem to have to keep repeating, complete within the rules and mechanics of the game. Despite the loathing towards the those involved, it takes patience and planning to orchestrate such endeavours, and you should respect this and take the same approach towards moving valuable goods. Any alliance knows not to move freighters unescorted, and so should you all.
a) Time is money, also the assaults generally happen at the trade-hubs themselves avoiding them means not trading high volumes which means not using a freighter.
b) I'd consider this both an exploit and an abuse of the database, also it doesn't work.
c) Even a five man escort cannot save a freighter from a gank squad, also each person you bring cuts into your already slim profit margin. Beyond 2 escorts you may as well run missions.
d) How am I going to transport Command ships and HACs in a small fast transport? Also defeats the point of the freighter.
It takes neither patience or planning to pull off a successful freighter gank, gather domi's + newbship, sit at trade hub, scan freighters, gank those that provide more value than loss.
I've done the math elsewhere but in short if a freighter pilot gets ganked once every 100hrs he's in space he's making a loss. An unavoidable loss.
|
Sendraks
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 14:48:00 -
[420]
Originally by: Zachstar
This tirade against what you call lazy players needs to stop. Choice between lazy players and massive issues from EVE economy and I will always pick allowing the lazyness.
Why does it need to stop? Why should such a play style be encouraged?
And do you have any evidence that hi-sec ganking is a massive issue for the eve economy? I certainly don't.
Why should I stop calling them lazy? This is hardly a factually inaccurate statement.
Originally by: Zachstar
If you take such issue why not get into "Gank-4-lolpwned" and deal damage to the lazys?
Why should I? It is not a style of play I enjoy.
Personally I enjoy doing better than the lazy players. They lose their ships and millions of ISK of cargo because they can't be bothered to take simple precautions. I take precautions, I lose nothing, I do better than them.
The game will become a much worse place the moment there is no benefit for being anything other than lazy.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 25 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |