EVE Search - High Sec Ganking - CONCORD Balance request

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

High Sec Ganking - CONCORD Balance request

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 492	Posted - 2017.03.01 21:34:44 - [1] - Quote NightmareX wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Naye Nathaniel wrote: Really? So you just admited that you are fine that you can do a lot of ganks "because you are short for a gameplay time" and don't give a ** about players which u ganged and have to work out their 10 b cargo and ship by itself ? BECAUSE if the thing would be ballanced then you will loose your fun? WTF is wrong with you people?! You know people can already nearly eliminate their gameplay by not carrying 10B in cargo and simply using a Webber. No changes are needed except the behaviour of people. So what you are saying is that the freighters can't be used for their intended usage by carrying alot of things? No, he's saying freighters aren't expected to carry high value cargoes, they excel in the transport of vast quantities of low value goods. If you want to carry very large, expensive items such as certain deployables, then escorts become a necessity. Quote:** Why have freighters in the first place if they can't be used for more than what a normal hauler is, just because of alot of value for carrying alot of stuffs is being transported by freighters? Because freighters, much like any other ship in the game excel at a given task but aren't the ultimate solution to all logistical problems. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 492	Posted - 2017.03.01 22:39:01 - [2] - Quote NightmareX wrote: Freighters should be able to carry as much value as they possible can and still have high chances of getting ganked. What you don't seems to understand is that the gankers shouldn't be able to easily continue the same ganking over and over without any more consequences. You will still be able to gank many haulers, freighters or whatever, but not without harsher penalies the more you gank / do ciminal activities in high sec. Do you understand it now? Yes. Question: Why? Why do we need harsher punishments? The deterrents to ganking already puts people off doing it without a reason, so the system we have already enjoys some degree of success. Why should it be changed to make the profession even less attractive? Why should incompetent/lazy/greedy pilots have an even easier time in this game at the expense of pirates and more competent freighter pilots? This is a very important question that despite having lurked and posted in many, many "one more nerf" threads, I've never seen answered. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 492	Posted - 2017.03.01 22:44:20 - [3] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: No, he's saying freighters aren't expected to carry high value cargoes, they excel in the transport of vast quantities of low value goods. If you want to carry very large, expensive items such as certain deployables, then escorts become a necessity. Quote: Why have freighters in the first place if they can't be used for more than what a normal hauler is, just because of alot of value for carrying alot of stuffs is being transported by freighters? Because freighters, much like any other ship in the game excel at a given task but aren't the ultimate solution to all logistical problems. This is a known fact, but how does it relate to the OP suggestions that gankers need to be accountable for their actions as criminals instead of people being able to treat ganking as an infinite isk grab without hardly any resistance at all. 1) Criminals are already accountable for their actions in the form of ship loss, sec status loss, kill rights, permanently free-to-aggress by other capsuleers and chased by FacPo through HiSec space. These penalties have a massive impact on the way criminals are able to operate in HiSec. 2) Piracy is only as profitable as the greed of the victims it feeds upon. Given the above, why does HiSec criminality require harsher penalties? <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.01 23:23:17 - [4] - Quote NightmareX wrote: Yes, you need harsher penalties, because the small penalties you get for the reward of ganking a freighter or any other expensive things you gank is insane. You barely have to make ANY effort at all to gain huge profits for doing ganking all day long. And it's way to easy to just doing it in the infinite loop without having anything to worry about except for having to wait a lil 15 minutes and refit the same ship up again which take like 10 seconds? This is not a mechanical problem, this is a player generated problem. CCP cannot fix this, only the players can. There will always be a portion of the player base who get a little too greedy and attempt to overfill their ships in the hopes of getting bigger rewards for less work. The appropriate response to finding yourself on the wrong side of a profitable gank is to figure out how to make yourself less profitable to gank. If more players did this, HiSec ganking would become much, much more difficult. Quote: And the profession as a criminal / ganker will still be the same after this. All you have to do is make more effort and do more work to be able to continue your ganks / criminal acts. So if you work for your crimes, then you will still be able to gank as much as you do now. It's simple. Yes, I get it. You still haven't adequately stated why these changes would benefit the game. Quote: And what is the point of high sec if it will be considered a guaranteed death trap (totally different from having a risk) to everyone the second someone with some value undocks from a station? It's not. It's extremely difficult to kill someone that has taken the appropriate steps to protect their cargo. Yes, even cargoes that require a freighter are difficult to find, track and take out when the job is done properly. Quote: Figure out the difference from taking a risk to see the instant death when you undock. A competent freighter pilot enjoys somewhere in the region of 99.9% success rate, according to the stats released by Red Frog. A 0.1% chance of failing a contract is hardly guaranteed instant death when you undock. Have you considered the possibility that other freighter pilots are simply better at the profession than you? <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.01 23:31:42 - [5] - Quote NightmareX wrote: ]So, do you have a very good explanation on why freighters can't be used as their intended usage of transporting alot of things worth alot of isk when they are going in an infinite death trap loop once they undock, just because they are carrying things that are worth alot which is their whole point? You've utterly misunderstood the role freighters fill. Thus would explain the mistakes you've made in other posts. Freighters aren't intended to carry high value cargoes. They're intended to carry very large quantities of low value goods. Quote: And do you have a good explanation on why criminals shouldn't get harsher penalties for doing criminal acts / breaking the law more and more in high sec when the criminals isn't being treated as criminals that way? EVE revolves around player conflict. It creates opportunities for players to compete with, sabotage, cooperate and benefit from each other. By reducing opportunities for conflict, you reduce opportunities for players to simply enjoy interacting with each other, not just the pirates. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 00:09:42 - [6] - Quote NightmareX wrote: CCP have all the abilities to fix this. Like I said, the problem is greed. CCP can't stop players from being lazy or greedy. As long as we give in to those temptations and try to push our luck, gankers will be there to capitalise on our mistakes. Quote: And i haven't been talking about making a gank more or lesser profitable. "Because once the criminals starts to get a harder life in high sec the more criminal acts they do with this system, the more you have to work for continuing your ganks in an easy way." Literally the sentence above. More work for ganking means less profit/hr spent ganking. Quote: With this, the criminals has to face the treatment as a criminal and the ones who are ganked can feel that the gankers gets a deserved penalty. This benefits EVE and it makes you think before you do your crimes. How does reducing opportunities for player interaction help a Massively Multiplayer Online game, exactly? Quote: Look over. But you haven't explained why it wouldn't benefit the game except for crying that it will make you work harder for your ganks the more you do it. I don't gank. Maybe spend more time putting together a valid argument and less time attempting to belittle those that disagree with you. Quote: In fact, it should be like that. I'm well aware of your opinion on the matter. Stating it over and over does very little to help see why you think the game should be changed like that. "It is, because all you are saying is that a freighter deserves to be ganked if it carries stuffs worth a certain amount of isk." Not quite. I'm saying a pilot that puts no effort into defending what is his deserves to lose it. If you can find a way to safely transport 10bil ISK in a freighter then I say power to you and congratulations on the vast swathes of wealth you would deservedly acquire. "And carrying alot of stuffs worth alot of isk is their whole point." I've said this twice in this thread already, maybe third time lucky: Freighters excel at carrying vast quantities of low value goods, not high value goods. "[iTheir cargo value shouldn't determinte if they should go into an instant death trap or not." Wait, I thought we [i]weren't talking about the profitability of freighter ganking. So, we are now, right? <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 00:31:59 - [7] - Quote NightmareX wrote: Freighters are used to transport alot of things that might be worth alot. Can be, but better options exist for transporting high value cargo. The freighter is not the be-all-end-all of transport logistics. Quote: it's should be ok to let them get into a death trap just because of that? Who lets them enter the death trap? Might it be the person flying the freighter? I'm thinking it's the person flying the freighter. Quote: And the gankers isn't the ones who decides on how much vaule the freighters are allowed to transport as it's the freighter pilots job of deciding that. It's not a question of what one is "allowed" to do. It's a question of what one can do safely. The magic number that dictates this safe cargo value is dictated by the market, game play mechanics, gankers, freighter pilots. In fact, pretty much everything in EVE will have some degree of impact (albeit some would be minuscule) on this magic safe value. Quote: [Freighters are the biggest transport ships in EVE that is meant to carry alot of items and stuffs that will be worth alot when you considers on how much they can transport. I'm not sure about that. You can quite happily fill a freighter for much, much less than a billion ISK. If the value/m3 starts climbing too high, you'll want to consider using scouts/escorts, or just using smaller, more defensible ships to transport the much more valuable goods. "Again, the value of the cargo shouldn't be the ONLY factor a ganker has to take into consideration when you are ganking something. There should be more penalties and consequences than just losing a worthless peice of ship that costs nothing to replace and only have to wait 15 mins until you can do the same gank over and over forever." You're doing it again. You're stating your opinion but not actually explaining how these changes benefit the game. "Again, my idea doesn't reduces opportunities for conflicts when you just have to work harder for your crimes to be able to gank as easily as you do now today." The harder ganking becomes, the fewer people will engage in it for profit. As of this writing, in the last 24 hours, there has been one, ONE suicide gank on a freighter in HiSec. And you think that suicide ganking of high value targets is so endemic that we need a mechanics change to stymie the activity. Really? You're really advocating this argument right here? "This is a very simple and effective system that should be in EVE, like today." Apparently so. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 00:42:13 - [8] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Have you considered the possibility that other freighter pilots are simply better at the profession than you? Please explain to me why you think Kusion and others have the right in sit in Highsec day in and day out destroying and taking mountains of isk without ever having grind any other part of the game like everyone else. Because his targets couldn't be bothered to protect their mountains of isk. Quote: KUSION alone has 10 trillion isk destroyed vs 31 billion which is just laughable. Yes, it's amazing how many incompetent players inhabit just about any game. Quote: I don't know if CCP let's it go on because it's and it's drain or what but it's unethical game design at best. It's pretty good game design actually. Before I got into EVE I'd convinced myself that world PvP and ganking in general were just terrible game elements. EVE taught me that when implemented correctly, they can create an extremely exciting and fin game. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 00:44:36 - [9] - Quote NightmareX wrote: And like i have said a million times already, this has nothing to do with how many freighters that dies or survives. It has ONLY to do with having a much better criminal system in EVE that makes the criminal really think over the penalties and consequences before they looks at only the value of the cargo before they just ganks away. We're very much aware that you've repeated this sentiment many times. What we're asking is [b]WHY DO YOU THINK THIS CHANGE IS NECESSARY?[b] This is the question you're seriously struggling to answer. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 00:47:32 - [10] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: "[iTheir cargo value shouldn't determinte if they should go into an instant death trap or not.[/i]" Wait, I thought we weren't talking about the profitability of freighter ganking. So, we are now, right? No one cares what the targets are doing. People will always overload and ganking will always be in the game. Agreed. Quote: Please explain why you think its ok for criminals to overstay their welcome in Highsec They're overstaying their welcome in HiSec? You're the authority on who and who isn't welcome in HiSec now? Move over James 315, HiSec has a new saviour, apparently. Quote: EVE is not meant to be easy Agreed. That said, it kind of is; not if you're dumb, though. Quote: if you cant keep your security status in check, you should not be able to treat ganking as your source of income indefinitely. Why? <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 01:00:43 - [11] - Quote NightmareX wrote: So greed should determine if a freighter pilot should be able to do their job or not? Should it? I don't know. I just know that it does. Quote: Ofc, they might not be able to do their job as they might get ganked on their way like it is now. But that shouldn't prevent criminals from gaining harsher penatlies and consequences the more crimes they do in high sec. Obligatory: Why? Quote: Yes, no less ganks will happen as long as you gets your finger out of your ass and works for your criminal actions over just warping back to a station and refit the same ship again and waits 15 mins which isn't what i call for much work for what you gain. You're doing it again. Your proposal has no direct impact on my game. It does however reduce the number of pilots engaging in suicide ganking because you're trying to force them to do more work for the same gain. "And how is it fair that you don't have to work for your criminal actions at all other than just warping back to station and refit a ship and wait 15 mins when everyone else has to work their asses off to do their job?" I wouldn't call clicking autopilot and going AFK "working my ass off". "That's something you say to justify your lame arguments more. Everyone knows that you are a ganker with one or more characters." Do you have any real arguments or are we going the ad hominem route? Quote: I'm stating it over and over as peoples doesn't seems to figure out that my idea has nothing to do with the value of anything, ability to continue to to the ganks and so on. You're trying to force gankers to do more work for the same gains. You're also actively trying to reduce repeat ganking - an activity often seen in large fleets because the group of players is attempting to make the most use of their time in a fleet together. =====>>YOU ARE ALSO NOT EXPLAINING HOW YOUR IDEA WILL BENEFIT THE GAME<<===== <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 01:11:24 - [12] - Quote NightmareX wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Not quite. I'm saying a pilot that puts no effort into defending what is his deserves to lose it. If you can find a way to safely transport 10bil ISK in a freighter then I say power to you and congratulations on the vast swathes of wealth you would deservedly acquire. And how do you think a freighter pilot is supposed to defend themself from a bumping Machariel that can be everywhere considering on how many that are flying it that only uses a couple of seconds to ruin his day and will just keep the freighter or whatever bumped until the gank squad arrives. Intel via in-game and 3rd party resources, scouts, web escorts, military/logi/ECM support, breaking the cargo down into smaller, more manageable chunks, alternate routes including LoSec and the use of jump freighters to traverse if necessary, subcontracting to another freighter if you feel you're not prepared to deal with the risks. Our cup runneth over. Quote: Yes, you can use an alt or a friend to gain some benefits that way for the freighter. But then my question is, why does the freighter pilot has to work his ass off for defending his job / ship when you don't have to work at all to gank him except for warping to the target, press F1, warp back to station and do the same over again after 15 mins? Are you honestly trying to tell me that expecting two people to work together is far too much when attempting to defend against somewhere in the region of TWENTY people working together? Consider the above. Do you think that maybe, just maybe you're a little biased right there? Quote: If they have to work their asses off to defend their stuffs, then we suggest that the criminals also should work their asses off. Not only that, but criminals in high sec that breaks the rules of high sec should be working much much harder than any law abiding citizens that are in high sec. They can be aggressed at any time by other players, plus have to deal with kill rights if they fix their sec status, they're always on the run from FacPo and have at best a window of 24 seconds to kill their targets. You do realise that those above conditions mean that criminals can do literally nothing in HiSec except fly around and gank, right? -"I've said this twice in this thread already, maybe third time lucky: [b]Freighters excel at carrying vast quantities of low value goods, not high value goods" -"And who decides that?" CCP. They're the ones that designed them. "All i'm saying is that no risk = no reward. Alot of risk = alot of reward. That's how EVE is. But it's not that for the gankers." Because the game has greedy pilots overfilling their ships with loot, then going on to fail to keep their loot pinatas safe. Like I said: It's not a mechanical problem, it's a player created problem, specifically players that possess an unfortunate combination of stupidity, greed and sloth. These people will always exist, so profitable ganks will always exist. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 01:19:40 - [13] - Quote NightmareX wrote: Still doesn't change the fact that there should be a criminal system in EVE that treats criminals like criminals and not like 'Oh you was bad and now you are only bad boy for 15 mins' system like we have now. That's not a fact, that's an opinion. I'm of the opinion that the penalties for ganking are overbearing and create a false sense of security amongst the unwary. Quote: The 15 minute Concord timer is way to little of a penalty when you considers the gain you get for doing it. The 15 minute timer is a game mechanic which CCP controls. The gains from piracy are not, which CCP do not control. You can't fix the latter by tweaking the former. Quote: Yes, you lose a ship for ganking, you can be shot for 15 minutes by everyone and you lose some few million isk for ganking in a super cheap Destroyer. But those things has no effects what so ever to reduce the ganks that happens. OK. Go kill someone that deserves some death in HiSec. No? Looks like those deterrents are doing something after all. Quote: If there had been a limit on hoe much you could gank every day, then there wouldn't be an issue, Oh look, it's the root of the One More Nerf argument: "Ganking is fine, I just think there is an issue with..." <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 01:21:59 - [14] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Freighter pilots and what they do have no relation to the OP. The OP suggests that criminals be required to manage their security status properly. This is based on gankers being able to stay invulnerable (by staying in warp) as well as being able to avoid Faction Police indefinitely until their gank is complete. Depending on circumstances, gankers have 2 - 24 seconds to complete their gank from the instant they open fire. Faction police do not impose this limit, CONCORD do and this limit cannot be evaded (doing so is an actionable offence). <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 01:35:52 - [15] - Quote NightmareX wrote: Yes, that's what they do and that's what they are supposed to do to be able to do their job effectively towards customers and so on. Having one ultimate ship that hands down beats any other is really, really bad game design. Every ship in EVE has a role that it excels at. Very few (any?) are capable of doing everything. Quote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Who lets them enter the death trap? Might it be the person flying the freighter? I'm thinking it's the person flying the freighter. The gankers who can just easly gank them The gankers are not the ones flying the freighter. They are not hijacking peoples accounts to fly their ships into fiery death. Every pilot is capable of avoiding death when they use the tools at their disposal. You can't blame the game or the other players when you're not using what has already been given to you. "Again, you are deciding if the ganks are worth it ONLY because of the value and not because of the upcoming penalties you get on top of that. There should be a system that makes you think about the penalties before you do a gank to really see if it will be worth the gank." Obligatory: Why? "Again, the ones who decides how much value you should fly around with it's the pilot of the said ship and not the ones who do ganks. If the freighter pilot decides to do a freighter job for a corp that includes alot of items worth alot of isk that needs to be delivered somewhere, then he should be able to do that without having to limit his job" Wrong. If you take away choice from players, EVE becomes another boring generic grind simulator #218,556. By giving players meaningful choice - in this case between greatest profit and chance of failure, you break down the infamous grind and allow all manner of positive player interactions to take place. "and doing his job poorly" If you're making a profit by getting your goods to their destination safely, you're not doing your job poorly. "just because the gankers doesn't like it" The gankers opinions of other players' activities are irrelevant. "Again, you gankers are denying the freither pilots to do their intended job." Gankers are a major reason why freighter pilots even have jobs. "There are alot of things in EVE that has a value that are also meant to be worth alot." Value is dictated by consensus, not by a single party, including you. "[i]Doesn't mean they should be ganked just because of their value alone." Obligatory: Why? "[i]No, i'm stating the hard facts on how easy it is to do ganking as explained over." EVE has few game play opportunities that can be described as "difficult". Much of what a pilot does involves leisurely clicking a few buttons. The real "challenge" in EVE comes in our more strategic decisions - our ability to assess a situation and react accordingly, rather than our ability to rapidly click on that tiny, fast moving target. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 01:57:06 - [16] - Quote NightmareX wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: The harder ganking becomes, the fewer people will engage in it for profit. As of this writing, in the last 24 hours, there has been one, ONE suicide gank on a freighter in HiSec. And you think that suicide ganking of high value targets is so endemic that we need a mechanics change to stymie the activity. Really? You're really advocating this argument right here? Because you are lazy and because you simply doesn't want to work for your criminal actions. Lazy criminal players shouldn't gain massive profits or gains without taking alot of risks or without doing some work for it. But it's totally fine to set course, autopilot and AFK to victory. Because that's compelling game play that's totally sustainable. Quote: And if the ganking is so rarely happening as you say outside of Burn Jita, then what's the problem then with my idea as you can just continue to do ganking as normal? Because it is unnecessary. Why impose a system that attempts to slow down ganking activity when only a handful of profitable suicide ganks happen per day, anyway? Quote: Yes. And you haven't explained why it would make things worser either, so there you go. A freighter carrying 5bil in goodies attracts ganker attention. His webber escort didn't land webs in time, Mach pilot has bump tackle. (Competent) antigankers arrive, prepared with ECM and counter bumping ships. They might make use of bookmarks and/or fast ships to create warp points on the freighter's current trajectory. The antigankers might be friends of the freighter, they might be asking for payment for their services, they might just be white knights. The freighter falls. A flurry of activity ensues. High alpha antiganker ships attempt to blap the wreck before it gets looted, attempting to deny the gankers their spoils. They may also attempt to ninja loot. simultaneously, a 3rd party (or parties) arrive and attempt their own ninja loot - they don't care about the piracy or the drama, they simply spotted a chance for some easy loot. Services are offered to escort and protect freighters to prevent similar situations. Players share information about the current activity of known prolific gankers and whether or not known hotspots are camped. Alternative services such as JFs are offered (for a fee) to help freighter pilots out. The inevitable destruction of at least some of the loot means gaps in the market remain open, maintaining and possibly opening new trade opportunisties for entrepreneurs. All manner of player interaction can happen at any given gank. The mere possibility of their existence gives rise to player movements to hinder or help people on either side of the fight. These are all examples of player interaction, be it cooperative, competitive, combative or indirect. Adversity drives player interaction. In an MMO, particularly EVE who's strongest selling point is indeed the opportunity to interact with many thousands of other people through a space age dystopia; adversity creates opportunity for us to make friends and make enemies - who can later become our friends. These are awesome things to have in an MMO and player conflict is how EVE does it. It's not only awesome, but it's unique in the MMO genre and every nerf is an attempt to kill it off. It's why I stand against it, because I want more opportunities to interact with other players, not more opportunities to simply ignore them. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 02:13:25 - [17] - Quote NightmareX wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Intel via in-game and 3rd party resources, scouts, web escorts, military/logi/ECM support, breaking the cargo down into smaller, more manageable chunks, alternate routes including LoSec and the use of jump freighters to traverse if necessary, subcontracting to another freighter if you feel you're not prepared to deal with the risks. Our cup runneth over. So again, the freighter pilots has to work their asses off while you as a ganker can just warp into the targets and do your job without any more work than that? Doing any one of those things will massively reduce the odds of failure. Hardly working your ass off. Again, we seem to be talking about frieghters, whose death require somewhere in the region of twenty people working together, scouting, gathering intel and of course, warping in and pressing F1 for the kill. You're attempting to claim that surviving ganks is the most difficult thing in EVE while perpetuating them is the easiest. Not so, they're pretty similar in the effort/difficulty versus reward ratio. Quote: The fact that you think that's fair says all about you. You are a massive ganker that knows how easy and how much you gains by doing it and does everything to defend against, because it makes you work for your actions. You know the fun thing about ad hominem? It's the admission you don't actually have an argument so your best fallback is to attempt to discredit the opposition. I don't gank. This is my only account, this is my main and the only character I use in space. The other two character slots are a trade alt in Jita and Dodixie and I barely use them because I just don't find trading to be all that fun. Quote: As i have said earlier, having an alt with a webber is not going to prevent the freighter from dying if some gankers really want that freighter dead as they will have multiple bumping Machariels pleaced out in every directions that will try to bump the freighters out of allignment in few seconds. How do the gankers know they really want that freighter dead? The contract it's carrying wasn't picked up by that character, it was subcontracted from another. As a result, it's double-wrapped, so can't be scanned. The pilot hasn't blabbed to anyone about what he's carrying or where he's going. So how do the gankers know that the freighter in question is one they just want, really, really bad and how do they know where to go to ensure they can catch it? Quote: Again, you are making no sense as you aren't discussing the actual issue of how easy the criminals can get away with doing ganks. I'm responding to your posts. You're posting some pretty inaccurate stuff and are drawing flawed conclusions as a result. My responses are attempting to clear them up for you. "If you want to have a discussion, then talk about what the case is about. And the case is giving criminals a system that makes them work harder for doing criminal acts. That's all." OK. Why do criminals need to work harder for doing criminal acts? "Being greedy has nothing to do with how criminals should be treated." Correct. So why do you keep trying to argue that criminals are making too much money when the cause of that issue is the greed of the players they kill? "Ofc ganks always will be there. But ganks shouldn't come without penalties or consequences that makes the gankers think about those things before they do a gank." Obligatory: Why? "And lastly. I have explained you in highly details on why criminals should be treated as crininals and not like a '15 minute naughty boy' as you do now." No, you really haven't. I have asked, over and over to explain WHY you have come to the conclusion that criminal behaviour needs to be treated more harshly only for you to answer that criminal behaviour should be treated more harshly. Simply repeating your opinion does nothing to explain why you have it. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 02:17:10 - [18] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Depending on circumstances, gankers have 2 - 24 seconds to complete their gank from the instant they open fire. Faction police do not impose this limit, CONCORD do and this limit cannot be evaded (doing so is an actionable offence). Faction Police are the ones who pursue in system based on security status. The issue arises when you have maxed out your security status and you can still warp around, trailing faction police around in Highsec all day long if you desire. Once you go forth with a gank, CONCORD comes in and wrecks, essentially rendering Faction Police useless against "career gankers" who do nothing else but gank all-day everyday every 15min. They are not prevented for staging right in jita so that they can purchase and manufacture new gank ships without every having to jump one gate with their freighter who travels to 4-4 for materials. Faction Police aren't intended to stop gankers from playing the game. They're there to prevent them from doing anything but flying around and ganking. That's the entirety of their purpose and it's a stupid one. If gankers could reship and attempt to run some missions, for example, then other players would have opportunity to get some revenge for earlier transgressions, causing the ganker potentially substantial loss. The solution to your issue with ganking isn't to buff the likes of FacPo, but to nerf or even remove them. Instead of trying to make mechanical fixes to a non-issue, create opportunities for gankers' victims to actually get some meaningful revenge. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 02:24:41 - [19] - Quote NightmareX wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: That's not a fact, that's an opinion. I'm of the opinion that the penalties for ganking are overbearing and create a false sense of security amongst the unwary. It's a fact that the current system treats you as a criminal as 'you are a naught boy for 15 minutes' and that's pretty much it. Doing a criminal act of ganking should gain you way more penalties than just being a naughty boy for 15 mins. Obligatory: Why? Quote: Hiasa Kite wrote: The 15 minute timer is a game mechanic which CCP controls. The gains from piracy are not, which CCP do not control. You can't fix the latter by tweaking the former. Yes, the Concord timer is something CCP controls. And they also are the ones who are the ones who can change that for the better if there are many ideas on how to improve it, like this topic is meant for in the first place. "You can't fix the latter by tweaking the former." -"OK. Go kill someone that deserves some death in HiSec. No? Looks like those deterrents are doing something after all." -"LOL, you didn't even give me an argument on why i was wrong on that one. Does that mean i'm right that the current penalties has no effects on punishing the gankers enough?" You've missed the point. Ganking penalties don't exist to prevent chain ganking (save for the 15 minute crim timer, ofc), it exists to provide players with a reason NOT to kill that random guy they spotted at the gate. Take a look around next time you're in HiSec. You'll see systems with dozens, hundreds of players happily sitting next to each other not killing each other - or doing much interaction at all, to be frank. You have CONCORD to thank for that, plus the associated punishments for ganking. If they were as ineffective as you claim, the systems of HiSec would be a lot less crowded and a lot more violent. "Ganking is fine which this topic clearly states. But because you are stubborn and can't read, you still haven't figured out that this topic and what i'm saying has nothing to do with the actual ganking in itself, but what kind of penalties and consequences the actual players that DOES a criminal act or ganking should face AFTER the intital ganking has happened." Oh look, it's the root of the One More Nerf argument: "Ganking is fine, I just think there is an issue with..." "Do you even read bro?" Do you? Moreover, do you think about why such a statement is mocked? <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 02:40:19 - [20] - Quote NightmareX wrote: It's the hard facts that losing a cheap Destroyer and only gets a 15 minute waiting timer isn't considered a punishment for the types of objectives they have. "It's the hard facts [...] isn't considered." In. Your. Motherhumping. Opinion. Quote: Not even the fact that everyone can shoot you for 15 minutes Criminals (-5.0 and lower) can be aggressed AT ANY TIME, not just after a gank. Quote: either isn't going to make the ganking in it self ANY harder at all, because no one is going to ever catch you in 99.9% of all times you undock and before you do the actial ganking. The only thing that works against the gankers are the 15 minute Concord timer which again is way to little risk compared to what you gain. And competence. Don't forget competence. A competent pilot seldom dies to ganks. "I have given an idea on a system that you barely have been able to counter argument against." You haven't even established a need for the system to exist. We'll get to the flaws with the system once we establish a need exists, first. "You use a lame and aggressive tone in your discussion here and drags in tons of other things that has nothing to do with the penalties that a criminal should face for doing more and more crimes that is the ONLY thing i'm talking about." Obligatory: Why? "My evidences are in what i'm saying about how criminals should be treated as." That's not evidence, that's opinion. Your inability to tell objective fact from opinion is worrying. "[i]A criminal shouldn't just be a naughty boy for 15 minutes and then be back doing same crimes over and over without facing more penalties." Obligatory: Why? "[i]It's logic that criminals will face harsher penalties the more crimes they do. It's normal practice to do against criminals." Holy skeezballs, he's attempting to rationalise. After 3 pages over the last couple hours maybe we can start conversing. In real life, dear, in real life. This is a computer game, one that is balanced around the possibility of conflict. The OP demands that ganks be way, way more profitable in order to pay for the tags necessary to make the mandatory sec status repairs. Let's say you're repairing sec status for 20mil per gank (I'm not familiar with these prices, so correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure I'm lowballing) and you've called in 20 people for a gank on a freighter. That means the gank costs 400 million across the fleet to pay for its own sec status repair. That means the freighter can now safely carry an extra 800million before becoming profitable to gank - when considering destroyer fleets (but have the lowest cost threshold). The OP's suggestion significantly increases the safety level for freighters because... You know what? We're back at that question again, aren't we? Why? Why is this change necessary? <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 02:41:56 - [21] - Quote NightmareX wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Not bad. you forgot about the drop in sec status becoming being shoot on sight due to it, and all the other things that go with it. I'll give you 2.5/10 for including a partial truth. A drop in sec status wont prevent you in ANY types of form from undocking a new ship and gank someone with a small ship. Sec status doesn't matter in this case. Again, you should work more for your criminal acts. Obligatory: Why? Obligatory: If criminal punishments are so ineffective, why isn't HiSec a much more violent place? Quote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: This is opinion, why is yours so much more important than anybody else's? No, it's a fact that a 15 minute naughty boy timer should be more than just that when you as a ganker don't gain ANY penalties what so ever for what you are doing except for a 15 minute waiting game which isn't a penalty in the first place for you. In your opinion. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 02:49:34 - [22] - Quote NightmareX wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: But it's totally fine to set course, autopilot and AFK to victory. Because that's compelling game play that's totally sustainable. It's fine as it's part of the game. If a freighter pilot do afk traveling or does it actively, shouldn't prevent the gankers for gaining more penalties the more they gank. Again, why are you bringing in things that has nothing to do with the criminal system on how that works against gankers? Are we talking about that or are we talking about being afk or not? You make a flawed argument, I point out said flaw. In this case, you're trying to reinforce your opinion by stating that ganking is easy. The two-part counter being that 1: So is avoiding ganks and 2: Almost everything in EVE can be considered easy. "It's not unnecessary when this only will go against those who do more gankings. Doing criminal acts alot shouldn't come cheap or easily. Do you understand that?" Yes, I understand that. My question is an obligatory: Why? Hiasa Kite wrote: A freighter carrying 5bil in goodies attracts ganker attention. "That's correct. But like i have said, this has nothing to do with what you might find attractive to gank or not. This has only to do with how a system in EVE should treat gankers or criminal players who break the rules of high sec." It's a hypothetical scenario. I'm explaining that loads of player activity erupts from adversity. When the game isn't easy, when we can actually fail at the things we try to do and in our times of need, we turn to others for help. EVE gives us these challenges by way of asymmetric non-consensual player-driven combat. You asked me why I felt nerfs to non-consensual PvP was a bad thing. That was my answer. Why are you asking me these questions then berating me for going off-topic? Moreover, why are you accusing me of even going off-topic when I'm countering the notion that we need a change such as that laid out by the OP? <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 02:50:37 - [23] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: baltec1 wrote: NightmareX wrote: I know how fast that ship is. I fly a Machariel as a daily basis when i'm in PVP ops and so on. Clearly you don't, there is no way a mach can get up to speed before a freighter can be webbed into warp aside from gross incompetence. Yeah NO, freighter pilots should not be required to run a web alt in highsec to be able to not get ganked. CONTROL the rate of criminal behavior in Highsec by any one person is all that is needed. Obligatory: Why? <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 02:52:05 - [24] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Faction Police aren't intended to stop gankers from playing the game. They're there to prevent them from doing anything but flying around and ganking. That's the entirety of their purpose and it's a stupid one. If gankers could reship and attempt to run some missions, for example, then other players would have opportunity to get some revenge for earlier transgressions, causing the ganker potentially substantial loss. The solution to your issue with ganking isn't to buff the likes of FacPo, but to nerf or even remove them. Instead of trying to make mechanical fixes to a non-issue, create opportunities for gankers' victims to actually get some meaningful revenge. No ganker is going to stop to go do some mission running in Highsec ... lol, you are a funny guy. Source? <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 02:53:00 - [25] - Quote NightmareX wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Doing any one of those things will massively reduce the odds of failure. Hardly working your ass off. Again, we seem to be talking about frieghters, whose death require somewhere in the region of twenty people working together, scouting, gathering intel and of course, warping in and pressing F1 for the kill. You're attempting to claim that surviving ganks is the most difficult thing in EVE while perpetuating them is the easiest. Not so, they're pretty similar in the effort/difficulty versus reward ratio. LOL, the fact that you don't know that this system should be there to determine your success rate of doing the actual ganking is the whole point. If you want to have it easy ganking others alot of times, then you should work much more for it. If you don't work for your criminal actions, then you shouldn't expect to get a free pass into high sec easily. Obligatory: Why? <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 02:55:24 - [26] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Hisec has an extremely low crime rate, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that on average gankers account for a couple of hundred players online out of a hisec population that numbers in the 10's of thousands at the same time. I don't know, but I don't think I'm far wrong. That's why the current consequences are enough, they do a good enough job that the vast majority don't want to incur them. Gankers destroy more isk in Highsec alone than all of Black Rise on a given day where there are no major cap battles down in lowsec. Highsec is supposed to be safer than lowsec, yet it is not. If you need your proof, resort to zkill. Any statistician will tell you your data samples are completely different sizes. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 02:56:37 - [27] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: report this guy for continually including random copy and paste text in his posts. Admins will eventually remove him. Are you talking about me or yourself? <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 03:04:56 - [28] - Quote NightmareX wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Obligatory: Why? Because. It's been explained several times already. I'm not gonna spoonfeed you just because you are lazy reading what i have said. Wrong. You have stated your opinion several times already. Here's the basic gist of the conversation so far: YOU: Gankers should be punished more harshly ME: Why have you come to that conclusion and why do you feel it would benefit the game? YOU: (worded slightly differently) Gankers should be punished more harshly ME: Yes, I got that, but why? YOU: (worded slightly differently) Gankers should be punished more harshly ME: Why? YOU: (worded slightly differently) Gankers should be punished more harshly So, are we going to move on with this conversation or are you going to endless repeat your opinion, hoping to sway the denizens of F&I with zero substance? I'll clarify if that helps: A nerf to gankers, be it to force them to pay for sec status repairs or to force them to slow the rate at which thye suicide gank people will impact the overall rate that ganking occurs in HiSec. Some players will take the changes in stride and work harder for their ganks - just as you've proposed. However, there will be many other gankers that aren't willing to do the extra work for the same reward, reducing the overall ganking activity and making HiSec safer to some extent. The question raised by myself and others is: How does reducing the amount of ganking improve EVE Online? How does it make it more enjoyable for its current players (and as just about every suggestion goes) how does it encourage new players to join? <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 03:11:39 - [29] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: More ganking means the game working better for everyone. So buff it. This thread has a winner. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 06:20:49 - [30] - Quote NightmareX wrote: Says the smartass who are ignoring all of my points about the crime system on how it works and how it should be improved. You're not stating why it should be improved. We'll start discussing flaws when a need for such a system is established. Quote: baltec1 wrote: Why is this change needed? Because no risk = no reward & alot of risk = alot of reward. That's how EVE is and should be. Ganking has no risk in it's current form for what you do for the amount of reward you get. Thus it needs to be changed / improved for the better. "And i haven't been talking about making a gank more or lesser profitable." You're complaining that ganking is too profitable for the risk involved. On one hand you claim you're not interested in profitability, then you're trying to tell people you're trying to limit the profitability. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 493	Posted - 2017.03.02 10:53:52 - [31] - Quote Naye Nathaniel wrote: baltec1 wrote: Security standing hit for every target they kill No insurance payout for their ship loss 15 minute timer where if they undock or enter a new ship in space CONCORD will attack and destroy their ship Cost to improve your security status from -10 using tags currently stands at 308,373,365.59 isk U made my day - especially the last what i bolded; So much "punishment" for ganking few freighters per day in 1-2 system (of milions gates hahaha) over and over - and u have to pay what... a penny?... How much u got ISK from ganking a freighters befor you hit a standing which doesn't let u park in a safespot with your ganking fleet? 10 Bilions? What is 300 mil in compare of your 10B; I can't get of feeling that Baltec1 is a massive troll out here; If you're killing freighters, it's not unusual to be doing it alongside twenty other people, all taking sec huts that need repair. So now, the bill is 6bil. Think before you post, you'll save yourself a lot of embarrassment. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 494	Posted - 2017.03.02 16:32:31 - [32] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Naye Nathaniel wrote: "Clever gangers" should "feel" pain of ganging others in high sec than just ticklings... I bet you can't even list the current game mechanics behind ganking Is that really a bet? It's part of the definition of carebear to be utterly clueless about game mechanics isn't it. May as well bet if the sky is blue. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 496	Posted - 2017.03.02 17:45:44 - [33] - Quote Dom Arkaral wrote: baltec1 wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: Naye Nathaniel wrote: "Clever gangers" should "feel" pain of ganging others in high sec than just ticklings... I bet you can't even list the current game mechanics behind ganking Is that really a bet? It's part of the definition of carebear to be utterly clueless about game mechanics isn't it. May as well bet if the sky is blue. I have pointed them out to him several times but he still keeps on saying it It's called the Backfire Effect. The more you prove them wrong, the more they believe they're right (It's an actual thing) I've witnessed the effect, but never thought about it actually being studied. Pretty terrifying, really. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 496	Posted - 2017.03.02 22:25:35 - [34] - Quote OP appears to have given up. He's realised he's lost the argument but he's too proud to admit it, hence he's simply trolling. You can't help but feel a little sorry for the poor tyke. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 499	Posted - 2017.03.02 22:40:45 - [35] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: OP appears to have given up. He's realised he's lost the argument but he's too proud to admit it, hence he's simply trolling. You can't help but feel a little sorry for the poor tyke. No... You are just trolling ... ask a serious question that isnt a wall of text and I'd be happy to address it. And relate it to the OP or im not interested. Why do you feel the change proposed in your OP is necessary? Do note that I'm already aware of your opinion that ganking is too easy. I would like to know how you reach this conclusion. In addition, I'm interested to know how you think that such a change to HiSec criminality would benefit the game, not just the victims. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 499	Posted - 2017.03.03 00:01:14 - [36] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Why do you feel the change proposed in your OP is necessary? Do note that I'm already aware of your opinion that ganking is too easy. I would like to know how you reach this conclusion. In addition, I'm interested to know how you think that such a change to HiSec criminality would benefit the game, not just the victims. Since you understand that ganking is too easy. I said I'm aware of your opinion on the matter, not that I agree with your opinion. Ganking is not too easy. It's roughly on par with most activities within EVE. Quote: Feel free to tell me how the OP doesnt effectively work and provide an alternative or fix and Im not opposed to editing the OP if your point is valid. I have done this for others such as lowsec pvpers who pod. First, we need to establish whether such a fix is even necessary. Once again I must reiterate: I am aware of your opinion. What I want to know is what has led you to this conclusion. Why is actively seeking a target, scanning its cargo and fit to assess profitability, coordinating with a gank fleet, including scouts, DPS and loot ships considered an easier task than plotting a course and either clicking "Jump" or hitting autopilot and going AFK? <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 499	Posted - 2017.03.03 00:02:03 - [37] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Perhaps you could try to explain what "warp invulnerability" is? No? Didn't think so. I have extensively explained this in a previous post. Please find it if you dont understand how targeting works. Smart bombs are a thing. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 504	Posted - 2017.03.03 18:40:31 - [38] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: Im just saying, relatively speaking, its a doddle to avoid ganks and hauling involves little to no risk. You cannot make the case that ganking is easy and lacking in risk and at the same time say its too much work to bring a webber. You just can't. You hit the nail on the head. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 504	Posted - 2017.03.03 19:00:14 - [39] - Quote Imma go with no on the use of cruisers to bump, purely because they just don't have the mass necessary to impact a freighter's trajectory, particularly when they're fighting a battleship's attempts to bump at the same time. Now, using a fast ship to create fleet warp targets on the freighter's trajectory, that's a different matter. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 505	Posted - 2017.03.04 10:59:29 - [40] - Quote Naye Nathaniel wrote: @Jonah Gravenstein @Daichi Yamato So much trolling; Didn't know that wood have ability to write on a keyboard or they hire someone for them to do it? This is the last time when i'm answering for a bullshit what it's came out of your "called brain"; Naye's definition of trolling: Pointing out the flaws in your argument. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 505	Posted - 2017.03.04 11:59:09 - [41] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Naye Nathaniel wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Naye Nathaniel wrote: @Jonah Gravenstein @Daichi Yamato So much trolling; Didn't know that wood have ability to write on a keyboard or they hire someone for them to do it? This is the last time when i'm answering for a bullshit what it's came out of your "called brain"; Naye's definition of trolling: Pointing out the flaws in your argument. Wooot?! hahaha :) yeah so far they didn't point anything, same as you =] that it's called a trolling; I pointed out that most gankers can be shot at freely due to their security status, even if they don't have a criminal or suspect flag. That is a fact, not an opinion; there's a significant difference between them which you, and your friends, have apparently failed to grasp. Now, please explain how making a statement of fact is trolling. He can't and he won't. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 508	Posted - 2017.03.04 18:40:08 - [42] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Naye Nathaniel wrote: Lie is as the gangers sits with sec status above -5 which wont let them gang in space as they are cleared their status for 150 mil already; Roger out; The relevant word was "most", which is not the same as all. Certainly some gankers do pay for tags to repair their sec status, however many do not. Now that we've got that out of the way, where did I tell a lie, and how was I trolling? Well, you disagreed with him and pointed out the flaws in his posts. You stupid troll! <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 508	Posted - 2017.03.04 18:51:37 - [43] - Quote Naye Nathaniel wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Naye Nathaniel wrote: Lie is as the gangers sits with sec status above -5 which wont let them gang in space as they are cleared their status for 150 mil already; Roger out; The relevant word was "most", which is not the same as all. Certainly some gankers do pay for tags to repair their sec status, however many do not. Now that we've got that out of the way, where did I tell a lie, and how was I trolling? Show me a prove that "many do not" - as repairing their status is cheap and ez; It depends on who needs to and who doesn't. Those who simply undock and gank won't bother. Those who sit at gates, blapping the juicy targets before they move on need to fix their sec status. Also, repairing sec status is tedious as it's not just a click of a button, the tags must be turned in by the character in question. Also, isn't the effective cost per gank like 20mil ISK a pop? Serious question, I'm really not sure. Anyone with actual info on that? <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 510	Posted - 2017.03.04 22:21:26 - [44] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: These tornados are not the ones who are ignoring faction police mechanics. Criminals that ignore faction police mechanics are the criminals that die to faction police mechanics. Quote: The problem is the 30-40 man fleet running out of jita V (goons, karmafleet, gimme da loot, etc) that stay invulnerable in warp until the target is reached You're upset that a 30-40 man fleet is effective at taking down one target? Wow. Quote: (the one being bumped and not able to get away) The one that overloaded his freighter. The one that didn't use a scout or any intel system. The one that anti-tanked his freighter. The one without a webbing escort. The one that didn't double-wrap his valuable cargo. The one that no one seems interested to help. Quote: Then within a few seconds of attacking the freighter is wrecked. Fun fact: Many fights in EVE are decided before anyone fires a single shot. This is hardly an exceptional scenario. Quote: There is not much you can do to prevent the freighter loss unless a small AG fleet criminally ganks the bumper before the squad arrives. That's fine. Ganking is both cheap and easy, right? "This logic is useless though because now AG takes security status hits and is viewed as a criminal without even making any profit." That's really stupid. Why not make a profit by charging the freighter pilot a fee to break the tackle? Charge say, 200-300mil ISK which should result in a tidy profit even if you lose a ship/sec status. The freighter pilot saves his billions of ISK in spaceship and loot. Win-win. "The tornado guy's are banking the the way it should be done (managing security status). The fleet gankers are the ones abusing system mechanics." In your opinion. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 510	Posted - 2017.03.04 22:23:38 - [45] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: I was using as a test. It shows that you can not equip a freighter which is fast enough to get away from a bumper. When faced with violence, freighters fare much better with an escort, preferably one with dual webs to get them into warp long before bump tackle can be established. Quote: I even had a mach myself and bumping the aggressive mach away still was not enough to give the freighter enough time to get into warp. What about creating warp points on the trajectory that the bumper(s) is keeping the freighter on? <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 510	Posted - 2017.03.04 22:32:43 - [46] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: @Hiasa Kite I've never seen someone spew out so much random BS. You did not address the point of my post, you just threw out random comments. You seriously need to go to the doctor and get checked out for trollidous. At first I thought you were just stupid. Now I strongly suspect you're a troll. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 510	Posted - 2017.03.04 22:41:36 - [47] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Erich Einstein wrote: I was using as a test. It shows that you can not equip a freighter which is fast enough to get away from a bumper. When faced with violence, freighters fare much better with an escort, preferably one with dual webs to get them into warp long before bump tackle can be established. Quote: I even had a mach myself and bumping the aggressive mach away still was not enough to give the freighter enough time to get into warp. What about creating warp points on the trajectory that the bumper(s) is keeping the freighter on? Hence you can not play the game as a freighter unless you pay twice as much as everyone else in subscription fees. Or team up with someone else. Shocking concept in a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE game, I know. Edit: That said, it's common for freighter pilots to have multiple accounts, anyway on account of the fact that freight is both time consuming and boring. Play one account while the other makes money. Not my cup of tea but I can appreciate why others do it. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 510	Posted - 2017.03.04 22:42:23 - [48] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Dom Arkaral wrote: Erich Einstein wrote: you are a confirmed ganker As is every player who does pvp #burn Another proof that this whole thread is just you trying to get attention hahahahahaha You are seriously stupid ... faction warfare is not considered ganking. In your opinion. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 511	Posted - 2017.03.04 22:53:40 - [49] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: So now you have to split the pathetic contract rewards with someone else. Ok 10 gates. That's 1.5mil for you and 1.5mil for me. Or chance it and go solo. The majority of freighters do just fine, anyway. If they didn't, you wouldn't be settling for a lousy 3mil ISK for a 10 jump courier contract, would you? <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 511	Posted - 2017.03.04 22:55:50 - [50] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Erich Einstein wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Erich Einstein wrote: I even had a mach myself and bumping the aggressive mach away still was not enough to give the freighter enough time to get into warp. Should get rid of that Mach and go for a Rapier, Huginn or web Loki instead. No need to worry about trying to bump the bumper. Just avoid it completely. You completely missed the point I was making. No, I didn't at all. I understood what you were saying, but there's really no excuse for Freighter pilots who end up in a bumped situation. It's totally avoidable to begin with. Yeah, by paying twice as much to play the game. Or teaming up with other people. Not a terrible idea considering how readily such a strategy counters 30-40 (your count) people, eh? <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 511	Posted - 2017.03.04 23:01:36 - [51] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Erich Einstein wrote: So now you have to split the pathetic contract rewards with someone else. Ok 10 gates. That's 1.5mil for you and 1.5mil for me. Or chance it and go solo. The majority of freighters do just fine, anyway. If they didn't, you wouldn't be settling for a lousy 3mil ISK for a 10 jump courier contract, would you? It's like miners, who knows why they do it for just low wages, but they do... There seems to be like, five people who genuinely do it for fun. The rest just seem to be lazy and/or stupid. It's the nature of the problem, really. Some people just settle for lower paying professions simply because they're easy rather than rewarding. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 511	Posted - 2017.03.04 23:02:32 - [52] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Erich Einstein wrote: Who cares about code, they have already been shut down and no longer run any major ops. Just a few miners here and there. It's the goons in jita that are the focus. I need to update my slogan #codeCONTROL to #goonCONTROL so that you guys stop getting confused as to what the issue is hete. Another case of if the data doesn't support your claim, you'll ignore it, even though you can totally go and repeat the analysis and look at whoever you like. You aren't interested in evidence at all; and certainly not in validating whether your own views are true. Sorry ... what were you trying to say here. You fobbed off his data with a rumour CODE. had shut down. It was a ruse and they're as active as they've ever been. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 513	Posted - 2017.03.04 23:09:07 - [53] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Mara Pahrdi wrote: That's actually true. Freighters are capital ships. One could assume that not ganking is the problem here, especially since a serious group is required to kill one +¡n highsec. As a capital ship they are an asset that requires a group to properly field it. And one could raise the question, whether they should be allowed in highsec at all as a capital ship. Preach it sister.... In a very selfish point of view: I wouldn't mind seeing freighters and jump freighters disappearing. They're used far too much as catch-all logistics solutions IMO. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 513	Posted - 2017.03.04 23:21:26 - [54] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Erich Einstein wrote: Mara Pahrdi wrote: That's actually true. Freighters are capital ships. One could assume that not ganking is the problem here, especially since a serious group is required to kill one +¡n highsec. As a capital ship they are an asset that requires a group to properly field it. And one could raise the question, whether they should be allowed in highsec at all as a capital ship. Preach it sister.... In a very selfish point of view: I wouldn't mind seeing freighters and jump freighters disappearing. They're used far too much as catch-all logistics solutions IMO. In your opinion. Got any proof to back that up. It's an opinion. It comes from me and is based purely on my interpretation of the game. I am not pushing this idea on anyone as I'm not even convinced it would be a good thing for the game as a whole - I just see (jump) freighters as something that inhibits my enjoyment of the game and would like to see them changed because of that. That's the difference between you and me. We both have opinions, but I'm not deluded into thinking that just because it seems good at a glance for me that it would be good for the game overall. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 513	Posted - 2017.03.04 23:41:42 - [55] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Jump in-game and follow them around for a day. Then tell me what faction police did besides follow them around the whole time. Yeah, I totally did that once. While in HiSec: They never ran any missions, didn't run exploration sites, didn't camp gates, had to rely on other people to scout targets for them. Faction police are so effective at what they do you simply they're not doing their jobs properly. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 513	Posted - 2017.03.04 23:42:28 - [56] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Dom Arkaral wrote: He asked you to link it, you can't link it because it's not there what are you trying to get out of this attention whoring? I'm not going to waist my time... It's already there. When I post it, you will quickly troll it and it will become one of the "previous posts" again Because it's not evidence. You've not once, throughout this entire thread posted any evidence to support your claim that ganking would benefit from a change such as yours. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 515	Posted - 2017.03.04 23:54:27 - [57] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: He isn't claiming it as fact. That whole section of his post starts "In a very selfish point of view: I wouldn't mind..." What more proof do you want that he thinks that? Why is his opinion what it is. There has to be proof that has lead him to his own opinion. Otherwise hes just crazy. Freighters are extremely effective at moving vast quantities of goods. When used properly they're also very safe, particularly jump freighters. The sheer potency of massive ships that can transport goods through just about any region of space much faster than regular transport ships in complete safety means they dominate the logistics sector. As a player that enjoys small-time f&kery and small trading operations outside the safety of HiSec, that domination denies me a lot of opportunity in my preferred play style. That's where my opinion comes from and why I wouldn't mind seeing JFs go poof* in a cloud of magic dust. That said, the knock on effects could be severe or even disastrous considering many large alliances are very much dependent on JF for their logistic needs. Without adequate replacement, nullsec empires could suffer greatly. I'm not so selfish that I'd make a serious suggestion on the matter because I don't feel my own desire for more profit should outweigh the enjoyment of many thousands of other players. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 516	Posted - 2017.03.05 00:06:45 - [58] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Erich Einstein wrote: Jump in-game and follow them around for a day. Then tell me what faction police did besides follow them around the whole time. Yeah, I totally did that once. While in HiSec: They never ran any missions, didn't run exploration sites, didn't camp gates, had to rely on other people to scout targets for them. Faction police are so effective at what they do you simply they're not doing their jobs properly. And why would a gank team such as karmafleet be interested in anything in highsec but ganking . Same reason why anyone would be interested in anything: Fun and profit. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 516	Posted - 2017.03.05 00:21:37 - [59] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Erich Einstein wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Erich Einstein wrote: Jump in-game and follow them around for a day. Then tell me what faction police did besides follow them around the whole time. Yeah, I totally did that once. While in HiSec: They never ran any missions, didn't run exploration sites, didn't camp gates, had to rely on other people to scout targets for them. Faction police are so effective at what they do you simply they're not doing their jobs properly. And why would a gank team such as karmafleet be interested in anything in highsec but ganking . Same reason why anyone would be interested in anything: Fun and profit. That's what their lowsec goon mains are for. Karma fleet is for insane isk generation so that they don't have to pay subscriptions ever. Don't the ratting figures suggest they make their profit in null by slaughtering NPCs all day e'ry day? I guess there's no reason you can't profit from both. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 518	Posted - 2017.03.05 00:59:05 - [60] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Erich Einstein wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Everything else is a complete distraction and more likely to make them take one look, see the rubbish and leave. So you admit you have been intentionally trashing the thread for the last 20 pages.... If by asking for evidence of what you claim and posting evidence of my own where I can, then I guess so, but I'm not sure I've been taking part for all of the last 20 pages. But, I'd be happy to discuss this objectively and look at what evidence there is to support the claims in the OP. If you can post some (or a link to even one piece of evidence that I haven't been able to find after looking through the whole thread), that would be a good start. At best, he'll repeat his opinion or tell you to go find it yourself, again. So, we'll he troll again or will he add something new to the conversation. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 519	Posted - 2017.03.05 01:17:25 - [61] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: So, we'll he troll again or will he add something new to the conversation. ... and this guy started copy and pasting walls of texts into his posts and has been flagged many times already. Go back and look at his posts 10 to 15 pages ago. Yeah, just check my post history, this thread is pretty much the only one I've been posting in. You'll see me asking for proof, but I'm just constantly fobbed off and trolled. I must admit I've flagged a few of the most egregious troll attempts. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 519	Posted - 2017.03.05 01:20:32 - [62] - Quote If the evidence existed, he would've linked it right in the OP. This thread has gone on for over a thousand posts and nothing has been presented. I think it's safe to say at this point it's just a troll thread. Ugh, and I've posted so much in it. Well, 9/10 OP. You got me. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 519	Posted - 2017.03.05 01:32:42 - [63] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Erich Einstein wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Erich Einstein wrote: Im sorry that you keep insisting I repeat myself just because you joined the thread during its troll stages but if you cant go back and read anything then thats on you. I've already gone back and read the whole thread, but I'm not necessarily the sharpest knife in the drawer, so may have missed it. However, having not been able to find even one piece of evidence, I'm just asking because you say it is there. Even just one link to evidence posted earlier? Even a rough guide to the page number of one piece of evidence is enough. It's been stated several times that it is there, so I'll happily go back and read it. Unfortunately, 'in the first 40 pages' is not much help, possibly because I'm just not smart enough to recognise where it has been posted. Im sorry if you dont understand... not my problem. Well, it kind of is. It's not me you need to ultimately convince. It's CCP. Without evidence, your suggestion is going nowhere fast. Im not concerned about that. CCP knows how to guage the situation themselves. They don't need anyone doing it for them. They just need to see and be aware of the OP and what is suggests. They no doubt already are and have already chalked it up as another "ganking QQ" thread. There's nothing of value in the OP. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 520	Posted - 2017.03.05 01:36:29 - [64] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Erich Einstein wrote: Im not concerned about that. CCP knows how to guage the situation themselves. They don't need anyone doing it for them. They just need to see and be aware of the OP and what is suggests. You're wrong. This has been explained by CCP staff and by members of the CSM in the past. You're case is improved by a solid, objective argument, supported with evidence. Just like us, CCP staff don't want to have to go looking for evidence to support every claim here. In fact, in relation to ganking they have gone and looked for evidence to support it being a problem and concluded that it is not a problem. So, good luck with your thread. At least it has contained you here pretty much. That's a win for the rest of the forum. I envy them. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 520	Posted - 2017.03.05 01:50:28 - [65] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: They no doubt already are and have already chalked it up as another "ganking QQ" thread. There's nothing of value in the OP. Yet the thread remains unlocks, even after all of your trolling attempts to get it shut down. I don't troll. There's plenty of troll posts by yourself, though. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 520	Posted - 2017.03.05 01:52:12 - [66] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Erich Einstein wrote: Im not concerned about that. CCP knows how to guage the situation themselves. They don't need anyone doing it for them. They just need to see and be aware of the OP and what is suggests. You're wrong. This has been explained by CCP staff and by members of the CSM in the past. You're case is improved by a solid, objective argument, supported with evidence. Just like us, CCP staff don't want to have to go looking for evidence to support every claim here. In fact, in relation to ganking they have gone and looked for evidence to support it being a problem and concluded that it is not a problem. So, good luck with your thread. At least it has contained you here pretty much. That's a win for the rest of the forum. I envy them. Hey.... your still here. I thought you figured out I was trolling you or something. 9/10 remember. Like I said... your not going anywhere. "At least it has contained you here pretty much. That's a win for the rest of the forum." I admit I could be wrong, you might not be a troll. But if you're not, God damn you're stupid. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 520	Posted - 2017.03.05 01:52:58 - [67] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Erich Einstein wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Erich Einstein wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: They no doubt already are and have already chalked it up as another "ganking QQ" thread. There's nothing of value in the OP. Yet the thread remains unlocks, even after all of your trolling attempts to get it shut down. It's a containment thread. ISDs have explained before that they leave threads open well beyond their usefulness at times, because discussion here is at least contained to here and doesn't spill over to other areas of the forum. Leaving idiotic idea threads open is ultimately good for the rest of the threads and everyone not interested in certain issues. Not really, I've already commented on other threads about this issue whenever it relates. I link it to social media as well. See under your avatar, your name is a link. It opens a drop down list that lets you check your post history. I stopped at the end of page 15, but not a single post out of this thread. Your last >300 posts in the forum have been in this thread. That's a pretty good example of containment. Once again, the evidence available actually shows you are wrong. Edit: There's only 2 additional pages to your post history past that and not a single post on this issue elsewhere. Lol. Foiled again. "Fake evidence"? <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 525	Posted - 2017.03.05 01:58:15 - [68] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Erich Einstein wrote: @Hiasa Kite I've never seen someone spew out so much random BS. You did not address the point of my post, you just threw out random comments. You seriously need to go to the doctor and get checked out for trollidous. He addressed every point, that you are obstinately refusing to admit it reflects on you. Maybe he literally can't comprehend debate. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 525	Posted - 2017.03.05 02:00:54 - [69] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Erich Einstein wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: They no doubt already are and have already chalked it up as another "ganking QQ" thread. There's nothing of value in the OP. Yet the thread remains unlocks, even after all of your trolling attempts to get it shut down. I don't troll. There's plenty of troll posts by yourself, though. Specifically, your trolls start here. Hiasa_Kite_Troll_Posts Wow, you can link stuff. I honestly thought that was beyond you. Having checked the post, there is no troll present. Maybe you just don't know what a troll is. I'll give you a hint: It's not pointing out the flaws in your posts. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 525	Posted - 2017.03.05 02:24:56 - [70] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Erich Einstein wrote: Specifically, your trolls start here. Hiasa_Kite_Troll_Posts Wow, you can link stuff. I honestly thought that was beyond you. Having checked the post, there is no troll present. Maybe you just don't know what a troll is. I'll give you a hint: It's not pointing out the flaws in your posts. Look at your next ten posts from that point. You see the random paragraphs posted in at the bottom.... nothing but a pissed off troll. Roger dodger. I'll include the post linked for verbosity. Pointing out to NightmareX that freighters aren't actually subject to guaranteed instant death. Explaining to NightmareX that player interaction, both competitive and cooperative represent a major selling point for EVE and thus, shouldn't be nerfed. Continuation of conversation with NightmareX, mocking his claim that his objection to ganking wasn't the profitability. In an earlier post, he claimed that ganking shouldn't be so easy, considering how profitable it is. When challenged with the notion that profitability is dictated by the targets, not the gankers, he claimed he wasn't arguing about profitability. Pointing out that HiSec freighter suicide ganking is already a comparatively rare event. Correcting your suggestion that ganking is "unethical game design". The possibility of being killed while trying to make a profit offers a level of excitement rarely experienced in computer games./[url] Asking for evidence. Asking why ganking should be changed. The NightmareX pendulum has swung back again, he's claiming his idea won't impact the value of anything. He's wrong, it would. He's also not explaining how such a change would benefit the game. [url=https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6856040#post6856040]Pointing out, yet again, that profitability of ganking comes from the targets, not the gankers and not CCP. It always comes from other players making mistakes. [url=https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6856045#post6856045]Mockery of the "one more nerf" stream of ganking nerf requests. Often times, when a player has a problem with ganking, they struggle to simply admit it - honestly, I don't know why. Instead, they insist there's some convoluted system that ganking violates and and as such, should be changed so it can't be profitable, can only be done when profitable, can only be done with RP, without RP, or only done on weekdays. Simply put: They're lying about what they're trying to achieve or they've genuinely deceived themselves. [url=https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6856048#post6856048]Pointing out that CONCORD will ALWAYS shut down a ganker in 2-24 seconds. Admittedly, you mentioned Faction Police, but your reference to a gank threw me and I assumed you were talking about the period between opening fire and CONCORD shutting a ganker down. There, done. I've analysed the next ten posts as you requested. There are no trolls present. The vast majority are helpful and critical, offering insight into some of the mechanics and behaviours associated with ganking. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 526	Posted - 2017.03.05 02:29:58 - [71] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Erich Einstein wrote: Look at your (Hiasa Kite's) next ten posts from that point. You see the random paragraphs posted in at the bottom.... Yep, we'll definitely add how forums work to the list of things that you don't understand. The forum has a quote limit, those "random paragraphs" are an attempt to bypass that limit. The first part of each one is quoting you, and the second is his rebuttal. If you'd have actually read them you'd already know this. Awww f&%k, I didn't realise he was that dumb. Now I'm almost as dumb for thinking he meant the last paragraph in my posts was a troll. Almost. Still more intelligent than a glass of water, at least. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 526	Posted - 2017.03.05 02:32:30 - [72] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: But instead all he does is make shrill posts about Kusion have 9.6 trillion ISK in kills. As if that proves his point. This supports how much isk is being too easily stolen from other hard-working players without any real effort or resistance at all. "Hard working" AFK autopiloting freighter pilots. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 526	Posted - 2017.03.05 02:34:05 - [73] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Erich Einstein wrote: Look at your (Hiasa Kite's) next ten posts from that point. You see the random paragraphs posted in at the bottom.... Yep, we'll definitely add how forums work to the list of things that you don't understand. The forum has a quote limit, those "random paragraphs" are an attempt to bypass that limit. The first part of each one is quoting you, and the second is his rebuttal. If you'd have actually read them you'd already know this. Forum rules require that you attempt to keep it easy to follow and read. You can also see that he posted a wall of text ever minute or so. No one types that fast. Others have posted saying that the trolling is BS as well. My apologies if my choice of formatting is not to your taste. What would you suggest? A different form of formatting or splitting my responses over multiple posts so I don't go over the limit each time? <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 526	Posted - 2017.03.05 02:35:13 - [74] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Forum rules require that you attempt to keep it easy to follow and read. You can also see that he posted a wall of text ever minute or so. No one types that fast. Others have posted saying that the trolling is BS as well. I don't type walls of text. Most of my responses consist of a few sentences, maybe a half dozen paragraphs. Hardly rewriting LOTR. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 529	Posted - 2017.03.05 02:37:48 - [75] - Quote Dark Lord Trump wrote: Erich Einstein wrote: Dark Lord Trump wrote: Then get off your ass and give him some resistance instead of posting here calling everyone who disagrees with you trolls. It's CONCORD's job to blow up the gank ship after a certain period of time. Anything more is the job of the players. Also, they're not very hard-working if they don't bother to take precautions against a gank. We have not been talking about CONCORD for a long time. Get your facts straight. I was under the impression that talking about CONCORD mechanics in a thread about CONCORD mechanics was always permissible. Unless you admit you're derailing your own thread, which would suggest you are a troll. Funny, I flagged that post as trolling and derailment before I'd read this one. <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 529	Posted - 2017.03.05 02:39:40 - [76] - Quote Erich Einstein wrote: Dude no one cares. @scipio Artellus, if you were interested in having a serious conversation, you would be telling this guys to stop posting walls of text. You were the one that asked me to look at the darn things, claiming them to be trolls. I proved you wrong, now "no one cares". Also, that's not a wall of text. <^.^> I'm a cat lol

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.