EVE Search - Boarding ships in space while criminal

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Boarding ships in space while criminal

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Faylee Freir The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group 338	Posted - 2016.12.24 10:23:22 - [1] - Quote Hey CCP. Allow me to board a ship in space while criminal. Im a glutton for punishment. HTFU
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 5088	Posted - 2016.12.24 13:12:05 - [2] - Quote Look up hyperdunking for why they stopped this.
Faylee Freir The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group 339	Posted - 2016.12.24 13:34:48 - [3] - Quote Danika Princip wrote: Look up hyperdunking for why they stopped this. I am hyperdunking HTFU
Aleksey Chadov Sovereign's Servant 0	Posted - 2016.12.24 13:54:47 - [4] - Quote Hyperdunking is gone. Suck it up already.
Faylee Freir The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group 340	Posted - 2016.12.24 14:29:41 - [5] - Quote Aleksey Chadov wrote: Hyperdunking is gone. Suck it up already. Its not gone. HTFU
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 5088	Posted - 2016.12.24 14:41:08 - [6] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: Danika Princip wrote: Look up hyperdunking for why they stopped this. I am hyperdunking I thought that was deemed an exploit?
Cade Windstalker 644	Posted - 2016.12.24 15:18:24 - [7] - Quote OP is pretty clearly trolling, or they just got back after a long hiatus and tried to do this and are now sad and therefore complaining on the forums.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 4708	Posted - 2016.12.24 15:35:27 - [8] - Quote Danika Princip wrote: Look up hyperdunking for why they stopped this. Because a really niche, cost-ineffective form of suicide ganking that barely ever happened was apparently a huge problem.
Faylee Freir The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group 340	Posted - 2016.12.24 16:02:17 - [9] - Quote Simpleminded fools. How little you know about mechanics. HTFU
Cade Windstalker 645	Posted - 2016.12.24 16:54:11 - [10] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: Danika Princip wrote: Look up hyperdunking for why they stopped this. Because a really niche, cost-ineffective form of suicide ganking that barely ever happened was apparently a huge problem. Actually no, it was very very cost effective, because the single biggest cost for a suicide gank is the number of pilots required to gank a well tanked ship. This negated that nearly completely. Faylee Freir wrote: Simpleminded fools. How little you know about mechanics. Yes, lets insult everyone else in the thread. That's sure to get them on your side . Seriously though, I assume you're talking about keeping someone bumped until you can gank them the rest of the way. That whole interaction is something CCP are looking at changing, so that's not a reason for this to come back. Also even if you're doing that the extra time can be used by a smart pilot to evac some or all of his items. I know someone who managed to get 10bil off a Bowhead before it went splodey-pop to a bomber gank because of the time mechanics like this allowed him.

Faylee Freir The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group 343	Posted - 2016.12.24 18:33:33 - [11] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Vimsy Vortis wrote: Danika Princip wrote: Look up hyperdunking for why they stopped this. Because a really niche, cost-ineffective form of suicide ganking that barely ever happened was apparently a huge problem. Actually no, it was very very cost effective, because the single biggest cost for a suicide gank is the number of pilots required to gank a well tanked ship. This negated that nearly completely. Faylee Freir wrote: Simpleminded fools. How little you know about mechanics. Yes, lets insult everyone else in the thread. That's sure to get them on your side . Seriously though, I assume you're talking about keeping someone bumped until you can gank them the rest of the way. That whole interaction is something CCP are looking at changing, so that's not a reason for this to come back. Also even if you're doing that the extra time can be used by a smart pilot to evac some or all of his items. I know someone who managed to get 10bil off a Bowhead before it went splodey-pop to a bomber gank because of the time mechanics like this allowed him. Yes its cost effective, but so is using catalysts with a load of F1 monkeys and/or using,12-14 bombers with a handful of F1 monkeys. Also a fully tanked freighter or jumpfreighter is a huge deterrance for someone wanting to hyperdunk. No, Im not talking about normal ganks. Hyperdunking in its essence is still very do-able. To show how little you actually know, I will explain why its utterly hilarious why everyone cried about this: All you needed to do to stop a hyperdunk was literally 1 t1 logi or something like a stabber to bump the bowhead away from the freighter. You could also bring an insta-locking svipul to pop the gankers pod. So being that the majority of all hyperdunks happened within a few jumps of a major trade hub, batphoning for you sweet white-knights isnt out of reach. So I will continue to insult those of you that have no idea at all how to hyperdunk, how involved of an activity it was, how insanely easy it was to interrupt by literally 1 person, and how much time and effort it took to bump a freighter off grid. Hyperdunking is still very alive and well to this very day and thats why those of us that know how to bend and manipulate ****** mechanics to our favor will always be in a better spot to determine what is and isnt fair. Not to mention that knowledge and an understanding of mechanics outs you at a huge advantage in this game... I feel qualified to call you a moron. I understand that CCP wont revert this change, and it doesnt bother me. I will continue hyperdunking under CCPs nose when theu thought they have thwarted it. So cheer on, poor whiteknight baby and revel in the fact that at least 1 person is still hyperdunking. HTFU
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2998	Posted - 2016.12.25 05:53:36 - [12] - Quote My hypothesis: OP got ganked, believes he was hyperdunked, is now trying to aggro CCP to fix problem which does not exist. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Cade Windstalker 648	Posted - 2016.12.25 06:24:17 - [13] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: Yes its cost effective, but so is using catalysts with a load of F1 monkeys and/or using,12-14 bombers with a handful of F1 monkeys. Also a fully tanked freighter or jumpfreighter is a huge deterrance for someone wanting to hyperdunk. In practice... not really so much. This was shown by the willingness of people to engage in the practice to a wide enough degree that CCP patched it out. Also since the only real reason to want to board a ship after going GCC was hyperdunking and similar mechanics there's no reason to request this change unless you want that back. Also, as I said, the hardest part of that is getting the 70 or so Catalysts you need to take down a fully tanked ship. Bombers aren't bad, but they're still not as ISK efficient as a larger number of Catalysts can be because the hulls are about 20 times more expensive but only output around 2-3 times the DPS (skills and resists on the target depending). Faylee Freir wrote: No, Im not talking about normal ganks. Hyperdunking in its essence is still very do-able. To show how little you actually know, I will explain why its utterly hilarious why everyone cried about this: All you needed to do to stop a hyperdunk was literally 1 t1 logi or something like a stabber to bump the bowhead away from the freighter. You could also bring an insta-locking svipul to pop the gankers pod. So being that the majority of all hyperdunks happened within a few jumps of a major trade hub, batphoning for you sweet white-knights isnt out of reach. Again, in practice this isn't feasible for a lot of players and wasn't often done. The only way most people are going to be able to respond to something like this is with an alt, and if an alt is the only way to deal with something it's probably a bad mechanic because it creates a distinct and large advantage to a small subset of the active playerbase. Faylee Freir wrote: So I will continue to insult those of you that have no idea at all how to hyperdunk, how involved of an activity it was, how insanely easy it was to interrupt by literally 1 person, and how much time and effort it took to bump a freighter off grid. Hyperdunking is still very alive and well to this very day and thats why those of us that know how to bend and manipulate ****** mechanics to our favor will always be in a better spot to determine what is and isnt fair. Not to mention that knowledge and an understanding of mechanics outs you at a huge advantage in this game... I feel qualified to call you a moron. I understand that CCP wont revert this change, and it doesnt bother me. I will continue hyperdunking under CCPs nose when theu thought they have thwarted it. So cheer on, poor whiteknight baby and revel in the fact that at least 1 person is still hyperdunking. Unless you care to explain what the current state of the mechanics actually are in your view then this thread is pretty much dead since you're just sitting there insulting people and claiming you know best, which pretty obviously isn't the case since you seem to be looking at the game through a gank-shaped peep-hole. That either means you're pretty sure what you're doing is an exploit and could get you banned, or might be declared one and then you can't do it anymore. In either case that's not a terribly strong argument for allowing GCC players to board ships. Neither is "well CCP missed a way we can still do this thing so it should be made easier." Honestly it kind of sounds like you just made this thread to lord your imaginary internet spaceship 1337-ness over others which is... kinda sad actually, lol.
Faylee Freir The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group 348	Posted - 2016.12.25 07:15:09 - [14] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Yes its cost effective, but so is using catalysts with a load of F1 monkeys and/or using,12-14 bombers with a handful of F1 monkeys. Also a fully tanked freighter or jumpfreighter is a huge deterrance for someone wanting to hyperdunk. In practice... not really so much. This was shown by the willingness of people to engage in the practice to a wide enough degree that CCP patched it out. No I can tell you as one of 4 people that were hyperdunking that unless the freighter is carrying 10b+ and youre in a 0.5 its not worth it to go after tanked freighters or jump freighters. Quote: Again, in practice this isn't feasible for a lot of players and wasn't often done. The only way most people are going to be able to respond to something like this is with an alt, and if an alt is the only way to deal with something it's probably a bad mechanic because it creates a distinct and large advantage to a small subset of the active playerbase. Whats not feasible about having support for a capital class ship that is hauling 3-5b+ and is extremely vulnerable? Also operating in Jita and in the pipes theres a lot of anti-gankers and white-knights that knew who the primary ones were that hyperdunked, amd knew how to stop it. Cant tell you how many 9b+ ganks Ive had ruined when I was a few volleys away from popping it only to have a WK or the guys friends show up. Do you have an excuse for the 5 jump freighters I was able to hyperdunk? Im telling you that getting yourself out of a hyperdunk is extremely simple and only the worst fall victim. Quote: Unless you care to explain what the current state of the mechanics actually are in your view then this thread is pretty much dead since you're just sitting there insulting people and claiming you know best, which pretty obviously isn't the case since you seem to be looking at the game through a gank-shaped peep-hole. That either means you're pretty sure what you're doing is an exploit and could get you banned, or might be declared one and then you can't do it anymore. In either case that's not a terribly strong argument for allowing GCC players to board ships. Neither is "well CCP missed a way we can still do this thing so it should be made easier." Mechanics are basically still the same. The only way this would be considered an exploit is if CCP deemed bumping as an exploit. So heres my justification for bringing back boading ships while GCC: - Only a small number of pilots were actively doing it (around 4) - The act of hyperdunking is hilariously easy for anyone to interrupt - Not all freighters or jump freighters were worth the time and energy to dunk - Jump Freighters can easily cyno out if in jump range (and should never really get bumped in the first place) - Regularly involved scooping loot with your own freighter, causing it to go suspect - Was a big investment for a ~chance~ that the loot would drop - Took skill to perform low velocity bumps and multi-task Thats a decent list for starters. HTFU
Rain6637 NulzSec 34627	Posted - 2016.12.25 13:26:05 - [15] - Quote ain't no dunking like a hyperdunking and the hyperdunking don't stop Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 NulzSec 34627	Posted - 2016.12.25 13:28:41 - [16] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Simpleminded fools. How little you know about mechanics. Yes, lets insult everyone else in the thread. That's sure to get them on your side you started it, unless I'm wrong about how the flow of time works http://i.imgur.com/hId6NJ5.png Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Cade Windstalker 659	Posted - 2016.12.25 20:18:48 - [17] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: No I can tell you as one of 4 people that were hyperdunking that unless the freighter is carrying 10b+ and youre in a 0.5 its not worth it to go after tanked freighters or jump freighters. Gee, it's almost like most of the ganking in the game period takes place in .5 systems and there's a .5 chokepoint called Uedama... Faylee Freir wrote: Whats not feasible about having support for a capital class ship that is hauling 3-5b+ and is extremely vulnerable? Also operating in Jita and in the pipes theres a lot of anti-gankers and white-knights that knew who the primary ones were that hyperdunked, amd knew how to stop it. Cant tell you how many 9b+ ganks Ive had ruined when I was a few volleys away from popping it only to have a WK or the guys friends show up. Do you have an excuse for the 5 jump freighters I was able to hyperdunk? Im telling you that getting yourself out of a hyperdunk is extremely simple and only the worst fall victim. First off, Freighters aren't actually capitals. They don't have any of the benefits or restrictions of a true Capital and don't require or benefit from the Capital Ships skill. That's sort of beside the point though, as I said in practice people simply don't support Freighters like that because it's incredibly boring to do for another player. There are certainly random people willing to mess up your gank (hyper or otherwise) but that's hardly reliable, and the same goes for having friends in the vicinity able to help. That's just not something CCP could balance around, and as I said previously the practice of hyperdunking seriously messed up with risk/reward balance of hauling. Faylee Freir wrote: Mechanics are basically still the same. The only way this would be considered an exploit is if CCP deemed bumping as an exploit. So heres my justification for bringing back boading ships while GCC: - Only a small number of pilots were actively doing it (around 4) - The act of hyperdunking is hilariously easy for anyone to interrupt - Not all freighters or jump freighters were worth the time and energy to dunk - Jump Freighters can easily cyno out if in jump range (and should never really get bumped in the first place) - Regularly involved scooping loot with your own freighter, causing it to go suspect - Was a big investment for a ~chance~ that the loot would drop - Took skill to perform low velocity bumps and multi-task Thats a decent list for starters. responses: Volume doesn't mean it wasn't a broken mechanic. We've been over this, normal ganks are pretty hilariously easy to interrupt as well, if you happen to have a Blackbird sitting on the gate, but that doesn't commonly happen (and the BB itself has about a 50/50 shot of just getting ganked if the gankers are paying attention) so this doesn't justify Hyperdunking as a mechanic. So? Your argument here seems to be "well it's not going to mess up all trade so..." This just flat out doesn't matter. For a start, it's situational, and gets back to the "need alt to counter mechanic" argument, since you need a cyno in the right place at the right time. If anything this is actually less practical than having logi on-grid or something cloaked up to pop the pod. This is just a blatant lie. You can scoop most loot a Freighter is likely to be carrying with 100% safety using a DST and another alt in a noob ship. In fact I know for a fact you're aware of this as you made a thread complaining about it several months back. Even if you do scoop the loot with a freighter you're going to either be off-grid from the gate (because bumping) or so far away as to be functionally safe from retaliation as you align, hit loot all, and warp in the space of about 1 second. You and I both know how these economics work. The functional risk for a gank with many loot stacks is tiny, and across multiple probably profitable ganks you can make quite a bit of money. Isn't really much of an argument either. Lots of things in the game take skill, but that doesn't mean they're good for the game and letting a single player gank a Freighter with a hold full of Catalysts was deemed not good for the game. Also, regarding bumping, we're both aware that CCP is and has been looking and bumping mechanics due to the one-sided nature of the interaction and functional inability for a Freighter to get away from a bumper with more than one brain cell. So yeah, I don't find your list particularly compelling. None of it addresses the core problem with hyperdunking, which was that a single player could do something that previously required tons of coordination. That would be roughly equivalent of a single player managing to run Incursions for decent payout, which completely removes the main challenging element of it which is gathering and managing the players... oh wait, that's pretty much what banning input broadcasting was! So yeah, unless you have a reason letting a single player pull this off is somehow fair and balanced I think you have a pretty poor argument for your case here. Also yeah, nothing you've described here is "hyperdunking" since the one thing that made a dunk/gank "hyper" was the ship switching.
Cade Windstalker 659	Posted - 2016.12.25 20:20:40 - [18] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Simpleminded fools. How little you know about mechanics. Yes, lets insult everyone else in the thread. That's sure to get them on your side you started it, unless I'm wrong about how the flow of time works http://i.imgur.com/hId6NJ5.png I was generally snarking, nothing in there was intended as a personal attack. If OP feels insulted by anything in that post then I apologize, it wasn't intended to be mean spirited, I honestly figured they were trolling or back from hiatus.
Faylee Freir The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group 353	Posted - 2016.12.26 14:46:57 - [19] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Gee, it's almost like most of the ganking in the game period takes place in .5 systems and there's a .5 chokepoint called Uedama... Obviously if you're looking to gank, a 0.5 is most desired. Uedama and the pipe were always bad for hyperdunking because of how notorious it was for ganking in general... So you saw a lot more white knights that will start looking for you once they see you in local. Quote: First off, Freighters aren't actually capitals. They don't have any of the benefits or restrictions of a true Capital and don't require or benefit from the Capital Ships skill. They are capital class ships and have been categorized as such by CCP. Whatever arbitrary reason you want to use to make it fit your narrative is fine though. Quote: That's sort of beside the point though, as I said in practice people simply don't support Freighters like that because it's incredibly boring to do for another player. There are certainly random people willing to mess up your gank (hyper or otherwise) but that's hardly reliable, and the same goes for having friends in the vicinity able to help. That's just not something CCP could balance around, and as I said previously the practice of hyperdunking seriously messed up with risk/reward balance of hauling. I agree that essentially being a space trucker isn't the most exciting way to play the game, and that it's a necessity for a lot of things that go on in the game (especially for lowsec and nullsec alliances). I don't think that because the activity of hauling stuff is boring is a good excuse to provide proper support and protection for your chosen career and investments... Especially when the prime targets for hyperdunking are triple expanded freighters hauling more than 3-5b (depending on the system). It's not in the "spirit of eve online" to give these players a pass on an activity they have added immense risk, then state that they shouldn't have to have proper support for these capital class ships. Some of the people looking to mess with hyperdunks were random, but we had quite the following of pilots with real hate-boners that would find us and stop us almost daily. Not to mention there's an entire community that is built around stopping ganks. I will also note that the skill, resources, and pilots required to stop a hyperdunk vs a normal freighter gank is really no comparison. AG try and fail all the time to stop ganks, while anytime a white knight or AG showed up to foil one of my hyperdunks, it was over. Quote: Volume doesn't mean it wasn't a broken mechanic. I don't see it as being a broken mechanic. Quote: We've been over this, normal ganks are pretty hilariously easy to interrupt as well, if you happen to have a Blackbird sitting on the gate, but that doesn't commonly happen (and the BB itself has about a 50/50 shot of just getting ganked if the gankers are paying attention) so this doesn't justify Hyperdunking as a mechanic. As I stated earlier, hyperdunks are infinitely easier to stop than a normal gank. You're just plain wrong about this and a blackbird isn't going to stop a gank. You are aware almost everytime a freighter is ganked they account for logi and jams? The fact that a single pilot in an Osprey can stop a hyperdunk proves my point. HTFU
Faylee Freir The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group 353	Posted - 2016.12.26 14:48:33 - [20] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: So? Your argument here seems to be "well it's not going to mess up all trade so..." My argument was that hyperdunking wasn't some new epidemic of meta that was taking all the trade hubs and pipes by storm. It was literally like 4 people and paled in comparison to other ganking activities. Quote: This just flat out doesn't matter. For a start, it's situational, and gets back to the "need alt to counter mechanic" argument, since you need a cyno in the right place at the right time. If anything this is actually less practical than having logi on-grid or something cloaked up to pop the pod. It does matter, because I dunked 5 jump freighters. You literally have no business owning a JF if you don't have at least 1 cyno alt. Sorry, I know you want to believe that all activities shouldn't require alts, but you'll be hard pressed to find anyone recommend that someone get into a JF without their own cyno alt. Having an emergency cyno ready isn't really a counter, it's just a basic part of owning a JF. Quote: This is just a blatant lie. You can scoop most loot a Freighter is likely to be carrying with 100% safety using a DST and another alt in a noob ship. In fact I know for a fact you're aware of this as you made a thread complaining about it several months back. Even if you do scoop the loot with a freighter you're going to either be off-grid from the gate (because bumping) or so far away as to be functionally safe from retaliation as you align, hit loot all, and warp in the space of about 1 second. Freighters are required for plenty of ganks. I have also had a suspect freighter of mine get tackled and killed. I still hold the same opinion about DST scooping, which is why I'm of the camp that thinks gankers should grow a pair and go suspect in a freighter :) Quote: You and I both know how these economics work. The functional risk for a gank with many loot stacks is tiny, and across multiple probably profitable ganks you can make quite a bit of money. Obviously it's profitable, otherwise the amount of people ganking would be negligible. The loot fairy is fickle though, and RNG has pooped on me enough for it to be something that I worry about. Quote: Isn't really much of an argument either. Lots of things in the game take skill, but that doesn't mean they're good for the game and letting a single player gank a Freighter with a hold full of Catalysts was deemed not good for the game. The circumstances in which a freighter or jump freighter can find himself in position to be a prime candidate for a good dunking is enough to justify a solo or small group activity such as this. I seriously doubt you've seen it performed from start to finish, much less know the fine details that make it a beautiful work of art. HTFU

Faylee Freir The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group 353	Posted - 2016.12.26 14:49:24 - [21] - Quote Quote: Also, regarding bumping, we're both aware that CCP is and has been looking and bumping mechanics due to the one-sided nature of the interaction and functional inability for a Freighter to get away from a bumper with more than one brain cell. Everything has a counter or a direct way or set of methods to prevent certain things from happening, and that includes bumping. Quote: So yeah, I don't find your list particularly compelling. None of it addresses the core problem with hyperdunking, which was that a single player could do something that previously required tons of coordination. That would be roughly equivalent of a single player managing to run Incursions for decent payout, which completely removes the main challenging element of it which is gathering and managing the players... oh wait, that's pretty much what banning input broadcasting was! I've never FC'd a gank fleet, but I would say that the beautiful orchestra that is hyperdunking takes more coordination than a regular freighter gank. In most every gank fleet you have a handful of players that are capable of assisting the FC and making sure that certain things get done. With a hyperdunk, you do it all yourself. It is hyperdunking. Not the exact form that we previously knew, but its definitely hyperdunking. I have a different name for it in mind, but we can settle on calling it, "Hyperdunking 2.0". I plan on making a sweet video of it, and I'll gladly share it :) HTFU
Iain Cariaba 3430	Posted - 2016.12.26 19:40:10 - [22] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: ...letting a single player gank a Freighter with a hold full of Catalysts was deemed not good for the game. I don't know about that. Freighter pilots think it's perfectly okay for a single person to stuff several billions ISK worth of goods into a papier-m+óch+¬ box and have that same single person fly it several light-years to market. If it's okay for a single player to haul the GDP of several small countries, why is it bad for a single player to be able to stop them? Seems like a bit of a double standard there. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. EvE is a PvP game. Stop pretending it isn't. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5635	Posted - 2016.12.26 20:53:03 - [23] - Quote Danika Princip wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Danika Princip wrote: Look up hyperdunking for why they stopped this. I am hyperdunking I thought that was deemed an exploit? Not that I can find. In fact... Quote: Since the introduction of the Bowhead freighter, weGÇÖve become aware of a tactic that has been introduced which has become known as GÇ£HyperdunkingGÇ¥. This involves leaving a grid where a criminal action occurs to draw away CONCORD and reshipping to continue shooting at a target. ThereGÇÖs been much discussion among members of the community regarding this tactic, and whether or not it is considered legitimate gameplay. After meeting with members of the game design and customer support teams and discussing this in depth, we have come to the consensus that due to the fact no rules are being broken and any ship that is involved in a criminal act is being destroyed by CONCORD as intended, that this tactic is simply an unintended but legitimate use of new game mechanics, and is not in breach of the rules. Tactics similar to this have been used with previous hulls before the Bowhead was introduced, and have been considered perfectly legitimate in the past. With this in mind, at this time we do not consider this tactic to be in breach of the game rules, and as such our customer support team will not be offering reimbursements for hulls lost in this manner. Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage.--CCP Falcon "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 5635	Posted - 2016.12.26 20:56:11 - [24] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: ...letting a single player gank a Freighter with a hold full of Catalysts was deemed not good for the game. I don't know about that. Freighter pilots think it's perfectly okay for a single person to stuff several billions ISK worth of goods into a papier-m+óch+¬ box and have that same single person fly it several light-years to market. If it's okay for a single player to haul the GDP of several small countries, why is it bad for a single player to be able to stop them? Seems like a bit of a double standard there. Agreed, just about every point Cade brings up can be applied to ganking in general. And no alts are not necessary, but they might be more efficient if one is going to try and transfer stuff from the bumped ship to a none-bumped ship (you don't have to ping for them to get on line, come from many jumps away, etc.). As for why hyperdunking was patched out I can find no explanation from CCP. So any explanation proposed by anyone, aside from a Dev or somebody else "official", is likely just their own personal views. Edit: And if the OP has found a way to hyperdunk once again, well done. "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
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3794	Posted - 2016.12.26 21:48:56 - [25] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: I thought that was deemed an exploit? That's the first time it was brought up, not the time that they stopped it after it was getting too prolific. So that's an out of date quote. I can't recall if they stated any form of hyper dunking was specifically an exploit or not but given they changed game code to stop it, it's probably an exploit to be able to do it now since you are circumventing a code change.
Ralph King-Griffin Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance 19748	Posted - 2016.12.26 22:24:03 - [26] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: I thought that was deemed an exploit? That's the first time it was brought up, not the time that they stopped it after it was getting too prolific. So that's an out of date quote. I can't recall if they stated any form of hyper dunking was specifically an exploit or not but given they changed game code to stop it, it's probably an exploit to be able to do it now since you are circumventing a code change. they didnt, they just patched out the ability to do it , or thought they did if you take faylee at his word. Murderers of Negotiable Motivations =]\|[=
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5635	Posted - 2016.12.26 22:39:23 - [27] - Quote Ralph King-Griffin wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: I thought that was deemed an exploit? That's the first time it was brought up, not the time that they stopped it after it was getting too prolific. So that's an out of date quote. I can't recall if they stated any form of hyper dunking was specifically an exploit or not but given they changed game code to stop it, it's probably an exploit to be able to do it now since you are circumventing a code change. they didnt, they just patched out the ability to do it , or thought they did if you take faylee at his word. Yes, as far as I can tell there was no explanation for the change. Maybe they felt it was an exploit, IDK, but they never deemed it an exploit and if one can find away to do it without circumventing the code..... "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
Faylee Freir The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group 353	Posted - 2016.12.26 23:19:34 - [28] - Quote There was no explanation or reason for the change from CCP. All we had to,go by was their official statement on it and many many support tickets put in on the subject. Everything was kosher, until it was...not. I was on SISI one day testing something for hyperdunking and got an error message when trying to board a ship as a criminal. See this is how CCP treats those of us push the limits of the game in creative and neat ways. Hyperdunking is not listed as an exploit and is still very possible. HTFU
Morgan Agrivar Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 745	Posted - 2016.12.27 01:17:46 - [29] - Quote I think Japanese women are hawt. Thanks for listening...
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 893	Posted - 2016.12.27 16:23:25 - [30] - Quote Everyone stop feeding the troll please

Faylee Freir The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group 356	Posted - 2016.12.27 17:34:59 - [31] - Quote Sonya Corvinus wrote: Everyone stop feeding the troll please How is this a troll? Im right. HTFU
Nimi Tazinas Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2016.12.28 06:51:06 - [32] - Quote The only thing CCP patched out was the ability of a pilot with a criminal timer to board a ship in space in highsec. It was the right decision and the choice with the least impact on any other playstyles. It didn't affect regular gankers who typically board a ship in a station and then undock to draw Concord. Faylee is crying to get that rescinded, which will never happen. You had a good thing going but got greedy and broke CCP's will to allow it to continue. What was the last straw? A freighter was bumped straight from the Jita 4-4 undock by 2 Machs, then pushed offgrid and then subsequently hyperdunked. A webber ship that came to help was ganked by neutral gankers to avoid interference. Gank ships remained in the area to thwart any possible rescue. The freighter pilot had 0% chance to counter this. Faylee Freir wrote: Hyperdunking is not listed as an exploit and is still very possible. Then there is nothing to "fix". /thread
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5637	Posted - 2016.12.28 07:01:32 - [33] - Quote Nimi Tazinas wrote: The only thing CCP patched out was the ability of a pilot with a criminal timer to board a ship in space in highsec. It was the right decision and the choice with the least impact on any other playstyles. It didn't affect regular gankers who typically board a ship in a station and then undock to draw Concord. Faylee is crying to get that rescinded, which will never happen. You had a good thing going but got greedy and broke CCP's will to allow it to continue. What was the last straw? A freighter was bumped straight from the Jita 4-4 undock by 2 Machs, then pushed offgrid and then subsequently hyperdunked. A webber ship that came to help was ganked by neutral gankers to avoid interference. Gank ships remained in the area to thwart any possible rescue. The freighter pilot had 0% chance to counter this. Faylee Freir wrote: Hyperdunking is not listed as an exploit and is still very possible. Then there is nothing to "fix". /thread So let me get this straight...the person(s) doing this "hyperdunk" were good...so therefore it needed to be patched out? Yeah, that is a totally valid reason. "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
Faylee Freir The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group 358	Posted - 2016.12.28 07:39:36 - [34] - Quote Nimi Tazinas wrote: The only thing CCP patched out was the ability of a pilot with a criminal timer to board a ship in space in highsec. It was the right decision and the choice with the least impact on any other playstyles. It didn't affect regular gankers who typically board a ship in a station and then undock to draw Concord. Faylee is crying to get that rescinded, which will never happen. You had a good thing going but got greedy and broke CCP's will to allow it to continue. What was the last straw? A freighter was bumped straight from the Jita 4-4 undock by 2 Machs, then pushed offgrid and then subsequently hyperdunked. A webber ship that came to help was ganked by neutral gankers to avoid interference. Gank ships remained in the area to thwart any possible rescue. The freighter pilot had 0% chance to counter this. Faylee Freir wrote: Hyperdunking is not listed as an exploit and is still very possible. Then there is nothing to "fix". /thread All it amounted to was a clever use of game mechanics that was previously deemed as kosher by CCP. Sure there was a lot of confusion and whining that resulted from being hyperdunked, but it was a new thing and is infinitely easier to counter than a regular freighter gank. I don't think CCP has issues with single players doing group activity type things as long as it's not being exploited or abused by a solo character. Took a handful of characters that you had to perfectly time and orchestrate in order to execute the objective. So I was being greedy in targeting 3-5b+ anti-tanked freighters and jump freighters? Give me a break. The example you used as the hyperdunk that was the last stray for CCP is dumb. If that's true, then the freighter pilot is an absolute idiot. Once you are being bumped, webs won't save your ship. He could have brought an Osprey or Basilisk and orbited at range with a prop mod and been un-touchable. You say he had 0% chance to counter it, but I just told you exactly how to counter it - bring literally 1 logi. Just a basic alt with **** skills. What's even more hilarious about this was back before the grid changes the Jita 4-4 grid was HUGE. Even when shrinking the grid as much as possible, it still was a huge job to push a freighter that far. So what does that mean? That means that a freighter was being bumped for a LONG, LONG time right in the view of every vulture, whiteknight, and shitlord to see. You're telling me that this person was only able to muster up 1 ship and that it was a webber? Nah, try again. I never said I want hyperdunking "fixed". I said I want to be able to board ships in space while criminal again because the logic behind the change doesn't make sense. You bears just hated it because it's one more way that freighters and innocent babies could get ganked out of their own PURE STUPIDITY. I hyperdunked 5 jump freighters. 5. Five. One of them was in Perimeter, right on the Jita gate. How. Bad. Do. You. Have. To. Be? I hyperdunked a 50b FCON jump freighter. A major nullsec alliance couldn't give that poor idiot an emergency cyno for 50b in players assets he was moving? Go get in a bump mach and sit on the Peri gate in Jita and bump some Jump Freighters. I guarantee that 9/10 of them will almost instantly jump out. I can't believe people felt sorry for these pilots. HTFU
Nimi Tazinas Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2016.12.28 07:56:45 - [35] - Quote http://i.imgur.com/0WOLc3t.gif
Faylee Freir The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group 358	Posted - 2016.12.28 08:09:42 - [36] - Quote Nimi Tazinas wrote: http://i.imgur.com/0WOLc3t.gif Thanks, was getting tears all over my keyboard. Funny that none of the responses in this thread make any sort of sense in reason or logic as to why boarding ships in space while criminal should have been taken away. I will agree, that CCP isn't likely at all to revert the change. So I'll do what Globby couldn't, and keep my mouth shut about my hyperdunking 2.0 so CCP doesn't nerf me again. HTFU
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5637	Posted - 2016.12.28 08:14:01 - [37] - Quote How much did the idiot who got hyperdunk have in his freighter...and was it 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
Faylee Freir The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group 358	Posted - 2016.12.28 09:22:36 - [38] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: How much did the idiot who got hyperdunk have in his freighter...and was it you? I remember dunking 1 person, pushing them off the Jita undock like that but I can't remember who it was or how much. I assume it was me though because me and my partner Soban were really the only ones that did it out of Jita. HTFU
Nimi Tazinas Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2016.12.28 10:09:39 - [39] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: Nimi Tazinas wrote: http://i.imgur.com/0WOLc3t.gif Thanks, was getting tears all over my keyboard. Funny that none of the responses in this thread make any sort of sense in reason or logic as to why boarding ships in space while criminal should have been taken away. I will agree, that CCP isn't likely at all to revert the change. So I'll do what Globby couldn't, and keep my mouth shut about my hyperdunking 2.0 so CCP doesn't nerf me again. It was patched in Parallax. You have your answers already. I am not doing the legwork for you.
Faylee Freir The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group 359	Posted - 2016.12.28 14:37:02 - [40] - Quote Nimi Tazinas wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Nimi Tazinas wrote: http://i.imgur.com/0WOLc3t.gif Thanks, was getting tears all over my keyboard. Funny that none of the responses in this thread make any sort of sense in reason or logic as to why boarding ships in space while criminal should have been taken away. I will agree, that CCP isn't likely at all to revert the change. So I'll do what Globby couldn't, and keep my mouth shut about my hyperdunking 2.0 so CCP doesn't nerf me again. It was patched in Parallax. You have your answers already. I am not doing the legwork for you. Right, I see a quote from CCP Terminus and I think that's funny. Do you think CCP Terminus has ever hyperdunked? Do you think any CCP employee has ever hyperdunked? How would they be able to properly gauge exactly how easy it is? Oh, what about the intelligence part... Right, so what's not smart about learning how to manipulate grid sizes, learning how to keep the freighter bumped slow enough for your bowhead and pod to keep up, learning how to "fix" concord when you mess up a pull, and minmaxing bomber fits to perfection? How can CCP make these assertions and then make a change to the game like this? Yes I know the devs are in charge of making these changes and it's "their game", but this change makes no sense. Yes I can read the writing and see their excuses and justification, but it's wrong. I've never ran incursions or level 5 missions, so do you think that if one day I popped off the pillow and thought that I might have some good changes that it would be a good idea? Probably not. Same thing applies to CCP with an area of the game they obviously have little to no experience with. It's already widely known that CCP's players know more about the game than they do, so yeah. I do get mad when CCP want to make a change to a part of the game they know absolutely nothing about. HTFU

Cade Windstalker 677	Posted - 2016.12.28 14:59:02 - [41] - Quote So, I had a whole point by point response written out but that seemed to be getting past the forest and the trees and down into blades of grass and away from the general point here. Faylee if you're interested I'll post my response but otherwise I'm going to leave it at a general reply to overall points here. First off, CCP flat out said in the original thread okaying the practice that they were looking at the balance of it so it's a pretty safe assumption that the reason it was removed was because it broke this balance. The argument against this seems to be "well if they can solo haul stuff I should be able to stop them solo!" If you want to play in space where a single player can easily stop another player hauling around tons of stuff then you'd be looking for Low or Null Sec. The risk reward paradigm there fits what you're talking about, which is why almost no one hauls like that through Low or Null and why it's so much more expensive to do so. While it's easier to stop as well that only really applies to the completely solo "version" of the trick. If you add in just a few more people you can easily counter most attempts to stop the gank, and the gank can still be completed with far fewer people and far less ISK invested than a normal gank against a ship of the same tank level. OP, while you rant about how stupid people have to be to get dunked I would counter that you don't seem to have a clue about how hard it is, even (and really especially) in a large alliance to get an emergency cyno on short notice. It's basically like trying to pluck one cat out of the middle of a herd. The same goes for almost any other sort of help a gank target might try to get. If you do get help that wasn't pre-arranged then it'll be almost entirely down to luck or one of your own alts the vast majority of the time, and that in and of itself represents a tiny fraction of times people are ganked. Compare these cases of yours to the Rorqual, a ship almost exclusively found in Null and in the vicinity of a group's own Null space, and how hard people seem to find it to scramble help to a ship that can be invulnerable for 7 minutes, and that's right next door to a staging system in most cases. You can lament the stupidity of gank targets all you like, but you might want to learn about the logistics on the other side before declaring that removing something "made no sense". If OP has found a new way to doing something that meets roughly the above criteria I wouldn't expect it to survive very long unless it's extremely hard to patch out, in which case OP might just manage to get "hyperdunking" declared an exploit, which IMO would actually be kind of bad for the game since the practice as a whole is pretty vaguely defined. As much as I'm sure some of you are convinced I'm "anti-gank" I'm not, I just believe that an interesting and complex ganking ecosystem where the game becomes one of wits between gankers and gankees is best and I don't think "1.0" Hyperdunking was good for that because of how badly it broke the ISK curve for ganking.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5643	Posted - 2016.12.28 21:15:58 - [42] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: So, I had a whole point by point response written out but that seemed to be getting past the forest and the trees and down into blades of grass and away from the general point here. Faylee if you're interested I'll post my response but otherwise I'm going to leave it at a general reply to overall points here. First off, CCP flat out said in the original thread okaying the practice that they were looking at the balance of it so it's a pretty safe assumption that the reason it was removed was because it broke this balance. The argument against this seems to be "well if they can solo haul stuff I should be able to stop them solo!" If you want to play in space where a single player can easily stop another player hauling around tons of stuff then you'd be looking for Low or Null Sec. The risk reward paradigm there fits what you're talking about, which is why almost no one hauls like that through Low or Null and why it's so much more expensive to do so. While it's easier to stop as well that only really applies to the completely solo "version" of the trick. If you add in just a few more people you can easily counter most attempts to stop the gank, and the gank can still be completed with far fewer people and far less ISK invested than a normal gank against a ship of the same tank level. OP, while you rant about how stupid people have to be to get dunked I would counter that you don't seem to have a clue about how hard it is, even (and really especially) in a large alliance to get an emergency cyno on short notice. It's basically like trying to pluck one cat out of the middle of a herd. The same goes for almost any other sort of help a gank target might try to get. If you do get help that wasn't pre-arranged then it'll be almost entirely down to luck or one of your own alts the vast majority of the time, and that in and of itself represents a tiny fraction of times people are ganked. Compare these cases of yours to the Rorqual, a ship almost exclusively found in Null and in the vicinity of a group's own Null space, and how hard people seem to find it to scramble help to a ship that can be invulnerable for 7 minutes, and that's right next door to a staging system in most cases. You can lament the stupidity of gank targets all you like, but you might want to learn about the logistics on the other side before declaring that removing something "made no sense". If OP has found a new way to doing something that meets roughly the above criteria I wouldn't expect it to survive very long unless it's extremely hard to patch out, in which case OP might just manage to get "hyperdunking" declared an exploit, which IMO would actually be kind of bad for the game since the practice as a whole is pretty vaguely defined. As much as I'm sure some of you are convinced I'm "anti-gank" I'm not, I just believe that an interesting and complex ganking ecosystem where the game becomes one of wits between gankers and gankees is best and I don't think "1.0" Hyperdunking was good for that because of how badly it broke the ISK curve for ganking. I would say that reply by CCP Terminus was just horrible. The risk vs. reward is none of CCP's business because it is players taking on too much risk and other players taking advantage of it. It is risk arbitrage and not really the purview of game mechanics issue. Here, here is another (somewhat radical) solution: just have CCP give the stuff back in some random HS station. That is if you get ganked you get fully reimbursed in a HS station (with an all HS route). How about that? Full and complete reimbursement and the gankers get to keep their loot too. In short, lets take away most of the consequences of being a complete dumbass and undocking in Jita with 10 billion in freighter and replace it with making a 25 jump trip (both ways--i.e. 50 jumps round trip) so that the complete farcking idiot has to waste lots of game time moving his stuff. He can move it all at once, but if so he risk getting ganked again and starting all over...or now he can move it 10 trips with far less risk (500 jumps in a tanked freighter...maybe he'll learn a lesson). Seriously, why is CCP being worried about players being stupid? Why can't I get reimbursed for all my stupidity in 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
Cade Windstalker 677	Posted - 2016.12.28 22:03:52 - [43] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: I would say that reply by CCP Terminus was just horrible. The risk vs. reward is none of CCP's business because it is players taking on too much risk and other players taking advantage of it. It is risk arbitrage and not really the purview of game mechanics issue. Here, here is another (somewhat radical) solution: just have CCP give the stuff back in some random HS station. That is if you get ganked you get fully reimbursed in a HS station (with an all HS route). How about that? Full and complete reimbursement and the gankers get to keep their loot too. In short, lets take away most of the consequences of being a complete dumbass and undocking in Jita with 10 billion in freighter and replace it with making a 25 jump trip (both ways--i.e. 50 jumps round trip) so that the complete farcking idiot has to waste lots of game time moving his stuff. He can move it all at once, but if so he risk getting ganked again and starting all over...or now he can move it 10 trips with far less risk (500 jumps in a tanked freighter...maybe he'll learn a lesson). Seriously, why is CCP being worried about players being stupid? Why can't I get reimbursed for all my stupidity in game? He never said risk vs reward anywhere in that entire reply, he said: Quote: That being said, we would still like to see a nice balance between effort and intelligence required on both sides of the coin. Making ganking too easy is not our goal, nor is it the other way around. Also I would point out that to a certain extent CCP are very much in the business of balancing risk vs reward as they set the cargo holds and EHP values for Freighters and other haulers and set the mineral build costs and DPS values of ship. They've also stepped in in the past when the risk/reward balance for ganking got out of whack when they removed insurance from CONCORDed ships. If you disagree with this then I doubt you're ever going to be happy with any action CCP takes regarding the balance of ganking in Eve. If you're stupid CCP is perfectly fine with other players taking advantage of that, the trick is they want there to be different levels of stupidity that expose the player to different risks. You seem to be under the impression that ganking is simply a case of the player being incredibly stupid every time. That is absolutely not the case.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5644	Posted - 2016.12.28 22:53:50 - [44] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: I would say that reply by CCP Terminus was just horrible. The risk vs. reward is none of CCP's business because it is players taking on too much risk and other players taking advantage of it. It is risk arbitrage and not really the purview of game mechanics issue. Here, here is another (somewhat radical) solution: just have CCP give the stuff back in some random HS station. That is if you get ganked you get fully reimbursed in a HS station (with an all HS route). How about that? Full and complete reimbursement and the gankers get to keep their loot too. In short, lets take away most of the consequences of being a complete dumbass and undocking in Jita with 10 billion in freighter and replace it with making a 25 jump trip (both ways--i.e. 50 jumps round trip) so that the complete farcking idiot has to waste lots of game time moving his stuff. He can move it all at once, but if so he risk getting ganked again and starting all over...or now he can move it 10 trips with far less risk (500 jumps in a tanked freighter...maybe he'll learn a lesson). Seriously, why is CCP being worried about players being stupid? Why can't I get reimbursed for all my stupidity in game? He never said risk vs reward anywhere in that entire reply, he said: Quote: That being said, we would still like to see a nice balance between effort and intelligence required on both sides of the coin. Making ganking too easy is not our goal, nor is it the other way around. Also I would point out that to a certain extent CCP are very much in the business of balancing risk vs reward as they set the cargo holds and EHP values for Freighters and other haulers and set the mineral build costs and DPS values of ship. They've also stepped in in the past when the risk/reward balance for ganking got out of whack when they removed insurance from CONCORDed ships. If you disagree with this then I doubt you're ever going to be happy with any action CCP takes regarding the balance of ganking in Eve. If you're stupid CCP is perfectly fine with other players taking advantage of that, the trick is they want there to be different levels of stupidity that expose the player to different risks. You seem to be under the impression that ganking is simply a case of the player being incredibly stupid every time. That is absolutely not the case. What do you think determines risk vs. reward? Intelligence and effort. Those who take on too much risk either did not have the requisite intelligence/knowledge, did not put in enough effort, or both of those. In other words, mitigating one's risk takes intelligence and effort. So yes, he was discussing risk vs. reward, but messed it up badly because it is not CCP's business to hold anyone's hand in the game. And while CCP is indirectly in the game of determining the level risk a player can take on it is up to the player to act responsible. Or are you seriously suggesting we cut the size of the freighter hold down to 1/4th its size to prevent some players from doing foolish and idiotic things. I mean that would be an option right? Lets make the freighter holds small to help prevent people from overloading their freighters. Lets take away the option of fitting cargo expanders, inertial stabilizers, and nanofibres. In fact, lets just make it so fitting are no longer an option and we'll shift freighter EHP over to the EHP with bulkeads and reduce the cargo space to that when bulkheads are fitted. All because some players are just ignorant or foolish. Obviously players can't handle choice. Apparently the P in CCP stand for parentalism. "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
Cade Windstalker 677	Posted - 2016.12.28 23:31:25 - [45] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: What do you think determines risk vs. reward? Intelligence and effort. Those who take on too much risk either did not have the requisite intelligence/knowledge, did not put in enough effort, or both of those. In other words, mitigating one's risk takes intelligence and effort. So yes, he was discussing risk vs. reward, but messed it up badly because it is not CCP's business to hold anyone's hand in the game. And while CCP is indirectly in the game of determining the level risk a player can take on it is up to the player to act responsible. Or are you seriously suggesting we cut the size of the freighter hold down to 1/4th its size to prevent some players from doing foolish and idiotic things. I mean that would be an option right? Lets make the freighter holds small to help prevent people from overloading their freighters. Lets take away the option of fitting cargo expanders, inertial stabilizers, and nanofibres. In fact, lets just make it so fitting are no longer an option and we'll shift freighter EHP over to the EHP with bulkeads and reduce the cargo space to that when bulkheads are fitted. All because some players are just ignorant or foolish. Obviously players can't handle choice. Apparently the P in CCP stand for parentalism. Those are not quite the same thing, in Eve or anywhere else. If something is too easy to do to another player then that's a problem for the game because one player is getting too much reward from the other player for the effort put in. You seem to be just fine with gankers being the beneficiaries of skewed reward systems but not other players. To borrow some of your abundant supply of hyperbole, would you suggest that gankers should be given a button that automatically does damage to a target Freighter if you feed it ISK? No? Too easy maybe? The rest of your post is ranty hyperbole. No one is suggesting that, and that is in no way related to CCP determining that an interaction of their mechanics creates an imbalanced interaction between two players. People are free to make mistakes, but the magnitude of that mistake is determined by how easy it is to capitalize on. For example, right now I can load a Freighter to the point that it can be profitably ganked, after average drops, by 75 Catalysts. This isn't even that much ISK, because those Catalysts are dirt cheap, but it's very hard to get that many players together. That same freighter requires something like 30 Bombers to gank, which is much easier to pull off, but it can't be done profitably. That's risk vs reward in action. With Hyperdunking the former sort of gank became possible and profitable for a very small group of players, which is why it was a problem and why CCP removed it.
Specia1 K State War Academy Caldari State 213	Posted - 2016.12.29 01:10:04 - [46] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: Hey CCP. Allow me to board a ship in space while criminal. Im a glutton for punishment. no -1
Faylee Freir The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group 362	Posted - 2016.12.29 01:17:26 - [47] - Quote Specia1 K wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Hey CCP. Allow me to board a ship in space while criminal. Im a glutton for punishment. no -1 Why not? HTFU
Specia1 K State War Academy Caldari State 213	Posted - 2016.12.29 01:21:59 - [48] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: Specia1 K wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Hey CCP. Allow me to board a ship in space while criminal. Im a glutton for punishment. no -1 Why not? It was broken. CCP fixed it. HTFU (as you say)
Faylee Freir The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group 362	Posted - 2016.12.29 01:23:51 - [49] - Quote Specia1 K wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Specia1 K wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Hey CCP. Allow me to board a ship in space while criminal. Im a glutton for punishment. no -1 Why not? It was broken. CCP fixed it. HTFU (as you say) What was broken about it? Sorry, I just need to ask. I too, can be a parrot. HTFU
Specia1 K State War Academy Caldari State 213	Posted - 2016.12.29 01:30:44 - [50] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: Specia1 K wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Specia1 K wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Hey CCP. Allow me to board a ship in space while criminal. Im a glutton for punishment. no -1 Why not? It was broken. CCP fixed it. HTFU (as you say) What was broken about it? Sorry, I just need to ask. I too, can be a parrot. Eve rewards things done well. It nerfs those done too well. Eat the cake you rightly earned. Now put the empty bowl down, that one is gone. Go fly a Svipul... oh wait

Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5645	Posted - 2016.12.29 04:25:16 - [51] - Quote Specia1 K wrote: Eve rewards things done well. It nerfs those done too well. Eat the cake you rightly earned. Now put the empty bowl down, that one is gone. Go fly a Svipul... oh wait Sounds like bad game management to me. Oh, those players are getting pretty good....hmmm lets nerf that out of existence, I'm sure they'll keep paying us. "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 5645	Posted - 2016.12.29 04:42:23 - [52] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Those are not quite the same thing, in Eve or anywhere else. If something is too easy to do to another player then that's a problem for the game because one player is getting too much reward from the other player for the effort put in. You seem to be just fine with gankers being the beneficiaries of skewed reward systems but not other players. To borrow some of your abundant supply of hyperbole, would you suggest that gankers should be given a button that automatically does damage to a target Freighter if you feed it ISK? No? Too easy maybe? The rest of your post is ranty hyperbole. No one is suggesting that, and that is in no way related to CCP determining that an interaction of their mechanics creates an imbalanced interaction between two players. People are free to make mistakes, but the magnitude of that mistake is determined by how easy it is to capitalize on. For example, right now I can load a Freighter to the point that it can be profitably ganked, after average drops, by 75 Catalysts. This isn't even that much ISK, because those Catalysts are dirt cheap, but it's very hard to get that many players together. That same freighter requires something like 30 Bombers to gank, which is much easier to pull off, but it can't be done profitably. That's risk vs reward in action. With Hyperdunking the former sort of gank became possible and profitable for a very small group of players, which is why it was a problem and why CCP removed it. Look the discussion of risk vs. reward was had and guess what....your side lost, well nobody defended it. The outrageous rewards going to gankers are because some players insist on taking to much risk and creating opportunities for those rewards. The solution requires nothing from CCP. The solution is to, in the words of Dracvlad, "Stop being bad." "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
Specia1 K State War Academy Caldari State 213	Posted - 2016.12.29 06:02:41 - [53] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Specia1 K wrote: Eve rewards things done well. It nerfs those done too well. Eat the cake you rightly earned. Now put the empty bowl down, that one is gone. Go fly a Svipul... oh wait Sounds like bad game management to me. Oh, those players are getting pretty good....hmmm lets nerf that out of existence, I'm sure they'll keep paying us. "Those players" don't pay subs anyway. At 50B a pop, there's no need to
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5647	Posted - 2016.12.29 06:12:24 - [54] - Quote Specia1 K wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Specia1 K wrote: Eve rewards things done well. It nerfs those done too well. Eat the cake you rightly earned. Now put the empty bowl down, that one is gone. Go fly a Svipul... oh wait Sounds like bad game management to me. Oh, those players are getting pretty good....hmmm lets nerf that out of existence, I'm sure they'll keep paying us. "Those players" don't pay subs anyway. At 50B a pop, there's no need to Holy crap that was stupid. If they buy PLEX somebody is paying, if they stop buying PLEX then somebody is not paying. "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
Specia1 K State War Academy Caldari State 213	Posted - 2016.12.29 06:36:52 - [55] - Quote "fools" "morons" "babies" "idiots" "vultures" "shitlords" "dumbass" "stupid" "farcking idiot" "foolish" "ignorant" Love the pointless arguments. Just as I love how you refer to CCP's paying clients. Keep on going, I am sure they are listening too.
Faylee Freir The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group 363	Posted - 2016.12.29 09:16:07 - [56] - Quote Specia1 K wrote: "fools" "morons" "babies" "idiots" "vultures" "shitlords" "dumbass" "stupid" "farcking idiot" "foolish" "ignorant" Love the pointless arguments. Just as I love how you refer to CCP's paying clients. Keep on going, I am sure they are listening too. I pay to sub 7 accounts. Which one of the quoted words applies to you? HTFU
Specia1 K State War Academy Caldari State 213	Posted - 2016.12.29 11:20:25 - [57] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: Specia1 K wrote: "fools" "morons" "babies" "idiots" "vultures" "shitlords" "dumbass" "stupid" "farcking idiot" "foolish" "ignorant" Love the pointless arguments. Just as I love how you refer to CCP's paying clients. Keep on going, I am sure they are listening too. I pay to sub 7 accounts. Which one of the quoted words applies to you? Nice! Irrelevant to the argument, but clever! Given a choice between the "stupid people deserve to die" argument, and the "ingenuity should be rewarded" argument, the latter is more compelling imho.
Specia1 K State War Academy Caldari State 213	Posted - 2016.12.29 11:24:13 - [58] - Quote Looking at the KBs for many dunks and watching the YT videos (I see you;) I would say that there are many cases of countermeasures that people are using that are ineffective. Don't make the mistake of calling people stupid for using mechanics that have been drilled into them by prevalent freighter ganking mechanics, ie webs and scouting. You yourself argue that hyperdunking was never common, which make the countermeasures un-intuitive for most freighter pilots. Webs and scouts don't work when you don't even get to your first gate out of Jita. It's not brain surgery unless you are a rocket scientist...
Frostys Virpio Yet another corpdot. 3034	Posted - 2016.12.29 14:39:09 - [59] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Specia1 K wrote: Eve rewards things done well. It nerfs those done too well. Eat the cake you rightly earned. Now put the empty bowl down, that one is gone. Go fly a Svipul... oh wait Sounds like bad game management to me. Oh, those players are getting pretty good....hmmm lets nerf that out of existence, I'm sure they'll keep paying us. You do realise pretty muc ALL PVP games who find something to be overperforming will nerf it right? It's pretty much industry standard to nerf things when to go out of your expected frame because it tend to break things or gameplay for the players no using this. Even if those things are super hard to pull off, they get nerfed. As for people staying and keeping their sub rolling, we have OP ton confirm they still do pay anyway. Is the potential lost of subs because ganking got nerfed supposed to be a good argument? Because it rank around the same level as lost subs from getting ganked in my mind.
Frostys Virpio Yet another corpdot. 3034	Posted - 2016.12.29 14:40:18 - [60] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: I don't see it as being a broken mechanic. People though that about remote doomsday too at some point.

Faylee Freir The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group 363	Posted - 2016.12.29 15:06:06 - [61] - Quote Specia1 K wrote: Nice! Irrelevant to the argument, but clever! Given a choice between the "stupid people deserve to die" argument, and the "ingenuity should be rewarded" argument, the latter is more compelling imho. I was responding to where you put, "paying" in bold... As if I don't pay for my game time. I agree that I found that post lacking in content and depth (and could be considered irrelevant), I was simply responding to it. Specia1 K wrote: Looking at the KBs for many dunks and watching the YT videos (I see you;) I would say that there are many cases of countermeasures that people are using that are ineffective. Don't make the mistake of calling people stupid for using mechanics that have been drilled into them by prevalent freighter ganking mechanics, ie webs and scouting. You yourself argue that hyperdunking was never common, which make the countermeasures un-intuitive for most freighter pilots. Webs and scouts don't work when you don't even get to your first gate out of Jita. It's not brain surgery unless you are a rocket scientist... Webbing a freighter into warp before it's been bumped is probably the best and easiest way to prevent you from getting in this position. It should be common knowledge now for any freighter pilot that once you're bumped, bringing webs isn't going to do anything. Why do people try the same incorrect strategies that produce the same failed results? It's not my fault that players are poorly educated on mechanics and fail to bring a thrasher, bump stabber / machariel, or T1 logi to the party. Webs and scouts don't work if you're bad, there's a big difference here. I want you to explain to me from start to finish, exactly how to hyperdunk. Please don't skimp out on the mechanics, and a big +1 if you can explain concord mechanics in depth. My point is that unless you've sat in the chair and know what you're talking about... you just look like a Muppet. Frostys Virpio wrote: As for people staying and keeping their sub rolling, we have OP ton confirm they still do pay anyway. Is the potential lost of subs because ganking got nerfed supposed to be a good argument? Because it rank around the same level as lost subs from getting ganked in my mind. No, the subs lost from this direct nerf aren't significant. I have had 2 good friends quit in 2016 due to CCP, and they are some of the most mechanically smart players I've ever seen. The funny thing is that I can confirm in a ridiculous amount of cases where a gank victim is given his stuff back by CCP, rewarding the bad. HTFU
Specia1 K State War Academy Caldari State 213	Posted - 2016.12.29 16:13:40 - [62] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: Specia1 K wrote: Nice! Irrelevant to the argument, but clever! Given a choice between the "stupid people deserve to die" argument, and the "ingenuity should be rewarded" argument, the latter is more compelling imho. I was responding to where you put, "paying" in bold... As if I don't pay for my game time. I agree that I found that post lacking in content and depth (and could be considered irrelevant), I was simply responding to it. Specia1 K wrote: Looking at the KBs for many dunks and watching the YT videos (I see you;) I would say that there are many cases of countermeasures that people are using that are ineffective. Don't make the mistake of calling people stupid for using mechanics that have been drilled into them by prevalent freighter ganking mechanics, ie webs and scouting. You yourself argue that hyperdunking was never common, which make the countermeasures un-intuitive for most freighter pilots. Webs and scouts don't work when you don't even get to your first gate out of Jita. It's not brain surgery unless you are a rocket scientist... Webbing a freighter into warp before it's been bumped is probably the best and easiest way to prevent you from getting in this position. It should be common knowledge now for any freighter pilot that once you're bumped, bringing webs isn't going to do anything. Why do people try the same incorrect strategies that produce the same failed results? It's not my fault that players are poorly educated on mechanics and fail to bring a thrasher, bump stabber / machariel, or T1 logi to the party. Webs and scouts don't work if you're bad, there's a big difference here. I want you to explain to me from start to finish, exactly how to hyperdunk. Please don't skimp out on the mechanics, and a big +1 if you can explain concord mechanics in depth. My point is that unless you've sat in the chair and know what you're talking about... you just look like a Muppet. Frostys Virpio wrote: As for people staying and keeping their sub rolling, we have OP ton confirm they still do pay anyway. Is the potential lost of subs because ganking got nerfed supposed to be a good argument? Because it rank around the same level as lost subs from getting ganked in my mind. No, the subs lost from this direct nerf aren't significant. I have had 2 good friends quit in 2016 due to CCP, and they are some of the most mechanically smart players I've ever seen. The funny thing is that I can confirm in a ridiculous amount of cases where a gank victim is given his stuff back by CCP, rewarding the bad. You just can't do it, can you? Have a discussion or debate without name-calling or insulting people? Sigh... I'm out.
Faylee Freir The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group 363	Posted - 2016.12.29 16:25:11 - [63] - Quote Specia1 K wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Specia1 K wrote: Nice! Irrelevant to the argument, but clever! Given a choice between the "stupid people deserve to die" argument, and the "ingenuity should be rewarded" argument, the latter is more compelling imho. I was responding to where you put, "paying" in bold... As if I don't pay for my game time. I agree that I found that post lacking in content and depth (and could be considered irrelevant), I was simply responding to it. Specia1 K wrote: Looking at the KBs for many dunks and watching the YT videos (I see you;) I would say that there are many cases of countermeasures that people are using that are ineffective. Don't make the mistake of calling people stupid for using mechanics that have been drilled into them by prevalent freighter ganking mechanics, ie webs and scouting. You yourself argue that hyperdunking was never common, which make the countermeasures un-intuitive for most freighter pilots. Webs and scouts don't work when you don't even get to your first gate out of Jita. It's not brain surgery unless you are a rocket scientist... Webbing a freighter into warp before it's been bumped is probably the best and easiest way to prevent you from getting in this position. It should be common knowledge now for any freighter pilot that once you're bumped, bringing webs isn't going to do anything. Why do people try the same incorrect strategies that produce the same failed results? It's not my fault that players are poorly educated on mechanics and fail to bring a thrasher, bump stabber / machariel, or T1 logi to the party. Webs and scouts don't work if you're bad, there's a big difference here. I want you to explain to me from start to finish, exactly how to hyperdunk. Please don't skimp out on the mechanics, and a big +1 if you can explain concord mechanics in depth. My point is that unless you've sat in the chair and know what you're talking about... you just look like a Muppet. Frostys Virpio wrote: As for people staying and keeping their sub rolling, we have OP ton confirm they still do pay anyway. Is the potential lost of subs because ganking got nerfed supposed to be a good argument? Because it rank around the same level as lost subs from getting ganked in my mind. No, the subs lost from this direct nerf aren't significant. I have had 2 good friends quit in 2016 due to CCP, and they are some of the most mechanically smart players I've ever seen. The funny thing is that I can confirm in a ridiculous amount of cases where a gank victim is given his stuff back by CCP, rewarding the bad. You just can't do it, can you? Have a discussion or debate without name-calling or insulting people? Sigh... I'm out. Calling bad players bad is just fine, just like calling people that have an uninformed and ignorant opinion on a mechanic change a Muppet. My points have been made several times in this thread only to be argued against by uninformed and ignorant individuals (I won't call you a Muppet). It's hard to debate or have a discussion with Mupp... I mean people like you. Respond to my previous request for you to explain the process and mechanics of hyperdunking so that you can prove to me that you know what you're talking about... Otherwise you're just a Muppet (oops). HTFU


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [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.