EVE Search - Freighter griefing problem?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Freighter griefing problem?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.05.01 18:44:00 - [271] Originally by: Ranger 1 They wouldn't have to go everywhere the freighter goes, only into high risk area's (or area's that a scout has determined to be high risk). Perhaps your corp is arranged such that you only do hauls in a given region and most of your mates hang in that region too. In my quest for mats I drive all over the universe. These long hauls are still useful due to the freighter's capacity. I simply do not have enough mates scattered far and wide to call in a guard cover for a few jumps easily. Mostly they have to make the majority of the trip with me. And a 2 billion in cargo freighter could be enough for a suicide gank. That's 600 million in profit for the squad or around 30 mil (give or take) for each member. Not a super huge payday but I could see if they were at the end of their camp with not got anything better yet the freighter with 2 billion in it could be enough.
Ranger 1 Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.05.01 18:47:00 - [272] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Ki An, people killers like you would never listen to the little crafters like us. Maybe because you refuse to acknowledge a problem and see the side of the little people. You people killers have everything in eVe, null sec, low sec and high sec. The little people like us do not have those luxury. If you were to spend weeks flying freighters, I would guess you would change your mind. Keep an open mind. Hmm, perhaps you should take your own advice and actually listen to the people with experience in combat (those you called "killers" in your oh so open minded way).
Johnny ReeRee The ReeRee Brigade	Posted - 2007.05.01 18:48:00 - [273] There should clearly be no insurance payments to people destroyed by Concord. Go ahead and gank -- but don't expect Concord to subsidize you. The whole transport/mining system needs to be rethought. Freighters should be minimally *****ble, and if other adjustments need to be made to allow that, then make them. There should also be a class of hauler in between transport and freighter. Most of the conversation in here about getting scouts and remote reppers is laughably uninformed and impractical.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.05.01 18:49:00 - [274] Originally by: Jonathan Xavier The reason I maintain that remote repping is not a viable counter is because people suggested that a BS with 8 remote reps can mitigate 5 Domi's damage. The problem with that is that a BS can't sustain that kind of rep. Instead you'd need a fleet of 20-40 BSs with 1-2 remote reppers each or a smaller number with 3 (if the cap use makes sense). The point myself and others has been making is that it is unreasonable to force freighter pilots to assemble a fleet that size to simply undock in Jita, Hek or Rens. People also need to consider that freighter ganking can be done for reasons other than personal profit. If an enemy decided to start take down an empty empty freighter, they would inflict 600M isk worth of net financial damage. Someone more savvy in the math of remote reppers and resists and all will have to weigh in with actual numbers but I think the notion is the remote repping battleships need only lay down 1-2 cycles to let the freighter live. Presumably CONCORD is wasting the attackers so you just need to nurse the freighter for a little bit. Of course the freighter will come out battered as hell and face a sizeable repair bill likely which frankly stinks. (I still totally fail to see why remote hull reps are not in game) Again, I am not good at all the math involved to say where the line is drawn to manage to let a freighter survive but some here have suggested 5 battleships with 8 remote reps each could pull it off versus 20 Domis. Also have to wonder how long the drones keep at it (with lag and such)
Ranger 1 Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.05.01 18:51:00 - [275] Originally by: Jonathan Xavier The reason I maintain that remote repping is not a viable counter is because people suggested that a BS with 8 remote reps can mitigate 5 Domi's damage. The problem with that is that a BS can't sustain that kind of rep. Instead you'd need a fleet of 20-40 BSs with 1-2 remote reppers each or a smaller number with 3 (if the cap use makes sense). The point myself and others has been making is that it is unreasonable to force freighter pilots to assemble a fleet that size to simply undock in Jita, Hek or Rens. People also need to consider that freighter ganking can be done for reasons other than personal profit. If an enemy decided to start take down an empty empty freighter, they would inflict 600M isk worth of net financial damage. Repping is EXTREMELY viable, especially when you have that big a pad of shield/armor/and structure to deal with. Remember, you don't have to rep for more than a few cycles before your enemy is destroyed by Concord. So yes, 8 reppers is unsustainable for any period of time... but you don't need that many per ship, nor do you have to perpetually sustain it. Empty freighters taken down by enemies of your corp are completely outside the scope of this thread. ANY ship can be taken down if you are willing to devote the resources to it, but we are discussing if freighter ganks for fun and profit are going to become common place.
Red Knight Gallente The Royal Guard Forces of Freedom	Posted - 2007.05.01 18:53:00 - [276] Solution: 1) CONCORD takes insurance payouts due to suicide gankers and pays the iskies to whomever the gankers had aggressed, or divides it up amongst all players in the area that were agressed. This could be called 'reperations', its damages that the victim - in a court of law - could rightfully claim. 2) Remote hull reppers. They can be just like current hull reppers - slow and inefficient for combat - but even if it takes 2 hours to rep up the freighter, its still worth it to avoid the monster repair bills. I don't think any other mechanics need to be changed. I think its good that nobody is safe. Maybe more changes would be in order if people couldn't return to an NPC corp after they join a PC corp, or if all PCs were forced into dec-able corps after 60 days... With so many freighters in newb corps, there has to be a way to engage them, talk about messed up risk/reward... ------------------------------------------ [orange]Please resize your signature graphic to be smaller than 400 pixels in width, smaller than 120 pixels in height and less than 24,000 bytes in files
Thesas Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2007.05.01 19:00:00 - [277] Try another perspective perhaps. How would Paris react to city delivery trolleys being fire bombed?
Jollyreaper Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2007.05.01 19:26:00 - [278] Originally by: Mrmuttley Edited by: Mrmuttley on 29/04/2007 18:46:47 Suiciding a freighter takes organisation and timing. Escorting one also takes organisation. It is possible to defend against a asuicide gank squad but you have to bring warships and unfortunately some of the universes population seem to have a real aversion to bringing a warship along. Saying a freighter should be able to fit defensive mods to allow it to defen itself is a bit like saying a Supertanker carrying oil from Saudi Arabia to the shores of Europe ought to be able to defend its self from a Royal Navy warship if that warship saw fit to engage it. Nope. If that was a genuine risk then the only defense would be to bring ships with offensive capabilty to the party. Well, real-world comparisons sort of fall apart when putting this into space and the future. Certainly if our tankers were routinely coming under attack by foreign powers, we'd have to do something to change the way things are done. Consider the aircraft carrier, it relies on the escorts for primary defense but close-in weapons are still mounted to catch missiles in their terminal dives. If you want to make comparisons to history, you'd probably want to look at galleons. They are transport ships but also armed for self-defense. As far as the world of EVE is concerned, I would imagine that your safest transport would be a fast one that can outrun enemies. That works for small goods and would be analagous to drug smugglers with their speedboats and airplanes. To protect something as unweildy as a freighter, I would imagine an emphasis put on tank, stabs, and anti-frig weapons. First defense, warp! Second defense, don't get scrambled, run! Third defense, pop the tacklers, break the scram, run! Realistically speaking, commercial transport is always about cutting costs. Commercial sailers always sailed with the minimum possible crew to cut costs. That also meant they were at a disadvantage when fighting boarding actions against pirates but the owners felt that the loss to piracy vs. extra manpower was an acceptable trade-off. If piracy rose to the point when trade was no longer profitable, then a major navy would step in. EVE ain't quite reality so it's impossible to beat the pirates into submission. I don't worry too much in my inty since I don't carry enough to attract pirate attention, especially when sticking to highsec. I'm almost able to fly a freighter so I'm keeping an eye on the threat levels described here. If freighter popping becomes common, I'll only fly runs that are worth the hastle of arranging escort and that will probably be just corp ops. You know what would be really neat? Fireships. A suicide version of a q-ship. Fit the antimatter bomb mods, now your ship is one big flying doomsday device. Go trolling for a gank, get them good and close, then kabloooey! Dunno how realistic a pod survival would be in that situation, maybe it really would be a suicide ship.
Kalixa Hihro	Posted - 2007.05.01 19:31:00 - [279] Edited by: Kalixa Hihro on 01/05/2007 19:29:09 Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Freighters drop loot so they must be able to fit some modules to prevent high-sec griefings. This isn't griefing. You have something, pirates try to take it. It's the natural order of the world of eve. From the great wiki: A griefer is a slang term used to describe a player in an online video game who plays the game simply to cause grief to other players through harassment. --------- The pirates gank you because they want your loot, not simply to cause grief and harass you. Call it anything but griefing, because that's not what it is. Here's what griefing is: *** An act of griefing involves the following three types of actions to be considered grief play:[6] * The unfair use or abuse of a game mechanic that was not intended by the game's developers. * The inability of the victim to exact some means of retribution beyond utilizing similar unintended game mechanics. * The intended purpose of an act of griefing must be to negatively impact the game play of another person. ------------ Since being a pirate is an occupation sanctioned by CCP, and the pirates are not exploiting, it's not griefing. Am I missing something here? Bear in mind, I'm not a pirate. In fact piracy is forbidden in my corp unless it's our enemy, in which case they are a war target. However I hate to see people call a legitimate game play "griefing" because it's entirely wrong and gives people a bad name. If the same group of 10 guys waited for you to log in and constantly badgered you every time you played, just to ruin the fun factor of the game for you, that could loosely be considered griefing. -Kal /----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/ My opinion in no way represents that of my corp or anyone I am associated with, and is probably entirely wrong.
Clorthos Gallente Tau Ceti Global Production Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.05.01 19:35:00 - [280] Originally by: welsh wizard Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Originally by: Ki An Originally by: welsh wizard Originally by: Dark Shikari The problem isn't that freighters can be killed, the problem is that they can't be defended. Would remote repping not work? Apparently it's too much of an effort. /Ki Drop 1.1 billion on a freighter. Put 2 billion in cargo in it and make a 20j run. Then do that daily for two weeks. Get back to me on how often you pull together 5+ mates to guard you. This is a valid point. :/ It's a difficult situation tbh, I'm definitely not of the opinion that hi-sec ganks are exploits. As much as possible should be left to the players imagination without imposing a bunch of rules that are only in place to keep a certain spectrum of players happy. It shouldn't be considered an exploit but perhaps there should be some way other than massive escorts to defend against freighter ganks. What is reasonable though? It is going to promote empire blob warfare, with concord spawning to get involved. The lag will make everything petitionable and prolly kill servers. While I would not call it an exploit it is pushing the limits of what was intended in my opinion. We learned long ago as empire players in haulers to not haul large value items in your itteron 5 without a tank, transports, and afk flying. The Freighter does not have a defense aside from promoting the empire Blob warfare, give it a upgrade that was inline with the rest of the capital ships and let it defend itself via midslots and lowslots and a cpu/pg to effectivly fit it in an appropriate manner. and once again no cargo mods/rigging should be allowed to fit on a freighter so that a capital ship can be moved through empire or space avoiding fuel use.

Klorthos	Posted - 2007.05.01 19:38:00 - [281] Originally by: Ranger 1 Lets say 25 Domi pilots could pull it off. They invest the time necessary to get set up, organized, and find you. 1 billion/25= 40mil apiece. Would you suicide your ship for 40mil taking the loss of ship (- the difference you would get on your insurance you paid for), loss of modules and drones, and loss of standings into account? I don't know very many who would. I foresee a lot of alt recycling, how long does it take to fit a noobtoon in a domi with 1600 plates shield extenders and heavy tech 1 drones?
Hoshi Blackguard Brigade Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.01 19:44:00 - [282] Originally by: Klorthos I foresee a lot of alt recycling, how long does it take to fit a noobtoon in a domi with 1600 plates shield extenders and heavy tech 1 drones? Around 30 days. ---------------------------------------- A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2007.05.01 19:45:00 - [283] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Ki An, people killers like you would never listen to the little crafters like us. Maybe because you refuse to acknowledge a problem and see the side of the little people. You people killers have everything in eVe, null sec, low sec and high sec. The little people like us do not have those luxury. If you were to spend weeks flying freighters, I would guess you would change your mind. Keep an open mind. My god, get some perspective girl... I've actually never killed a person in my entire life. I've assasinated their character and ridiculed many, and have had it done to me, but I've never actually taken a life. That doesn't mean I would hesitate one second if I see your ship on my overview though. I play EvE because it's not real life. Also... do you really think I make isk PvPing? And if not, where do I get my isk? /Ki Remember, kids: Beware: I'm a "viscous pirate"!
Ranger 1 Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.05.01 20:02:00 - [284] Originally by: Hoshi Originally by: Klorthos I foresee a lot of alt recycling, how long does it take to fit a noobtoon in a domi with 1600 plates shield extenders and heavy tech 1 drones? Around 30 days. Assuming this is correct, it's going to take a lot more pilots (of this level of skill) to pull off a successful freighter gank. I was using experienced pilots for my example.
Lord Dynastron Mystical Knights Legionnaire Services Ltd.	Posted - 2007.05.01 20:08:00 - [285] I definitely smell losses (subscriptions) in CCP's future with this high sec 'pop the freighter' era we are embarking upon. There is simply to much uninsured materials up for theft/destruction from people who are not in this game for such losses. You simply cannot expect people to work for weeks/months and loose it all in 5 minutes to reliably maintain their subscriptions. Can you? Would you? You can preach adapt all you want,, but it does not boil down to adapting,, it boils down to subscriptions. Lol,, in a way,, adapting is taking place,, CCP is adapting the game. And, no, the loss of subscriptions from people who want to kill freighters and quit because they cant, will not exceed those of the people who loose freighters and quit. This 'pop the freighter' era (if it gets commonplace) is not healthy for Eve and will be adjusted accordingly by CCP. bookmarks this post for later pointing and nodding
Hank Cousteau	Posted - 2007.05.01 20:09:00 - [286] I think the Freigher pilots need to take the indignant argument of "I spent X amount of money and X amount of skill points, of course I should have this great unbalanced ability blah blah" Works for Recons and Supercapital people. I mean, just sayin... HINT: When you have to use a particular mechanic (drones) and not universal (torpedoes, lasers etc)... it's a good sign it's an exploit of some kind. Also, when the counter is only "repping"... that's pretty lame too. The real world counter to this would be to blast the offending mofos. No one can argue that. You have an incomplete game mechanic, and CCP should be weighing in on what is permissible and what is not whilst they work it out. Freighters should at least have fixed components (low level reppers) and perhaps a nominal afterburner. Give the pilots some butans to press.
Ravenal The Fated	Posted - 2007.05.01 20:47:00 - [287] empire ganking = legitimate game mechanic. This assumes you manage to kill your target before concord jams you good. the fact that drones keep on attacking and doing damage is what is the problem here, that goes against the counter vs the empire ganking mechanic. Its a loophole. Keep everything as it is but add to concord that they disable the aggressors drones somehow. That way you can still kill freighters if you bring a big enough alpha... and possibly beta...etc - if your rof is good. fixed. .
Siege Minmatar Siegecraft Bounty Hunting	Posted - 2007.05.01 20:56:00 - [288] Originally by: Hank Cousteau CCP should be weighing in on what is permissible and what is not whilst they work it out. Didn't CCP make their intentiton known when they decided to make freighters lootable? This fix is suddenly a surprise to people? I mean, they have been working on different methods to make freighters lootable for about a year or so, it's just that they only recently came up with the solution. The writing was on the wall, you didn't read it, and now your panicking over a problem that most likely doesn't exist anyways. The only REAL issue I see is that some pilots got used to the small niche with freighters that gave them invulnerability, which has been something CCP made obvious for months that they wanted to eliminate. But the simple fact remains that this is not going to be a common issue. If it was going to be, then at least one person in this thread would have said "I Lost a Freighter" so far, and nobody has. I simply do not see a couple DOZEN pirates spending a few days each to get their sec status up to come into empire space for a single freighter kill on a regular basis. Then they will get their sec status knocked back down and have to do it all again? Why? It will bore them to tears and probably be LESS profitable for them since it takes most of a week of work for that one kill. And even if they DO pursue that path, you probably won't see it happen more than once a WEEK or so because of the organization and preparation that would have to go into it. Dull, Dull, Dull. Somebody made the reference to the privateer nerf, and I do see a similarity. It's just a bunch of people, many of which who weren't or will not be affected by this, who don't want to make any effort at all to protect themselves and expect a free ride and invulnerability no matter what they do.
SigmaPi Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.01 21:06:00 - [289] I for one want to know where all these hardcore pvpers will be when the "carebears" decide they dont wanna play this game and stop mining and hauling and building ships and generally doing all the things that the "pvpers" dont wanna do? I for one PvP a lot (pm me in-game if you want killboard proof) and I carebear a lot, its how I maintain my ISK. All these people who show so much hate to the carebear who is supplying your ships and mods (probobly some carebear made the domi, the drones, and the plates you used to kill his freighter) are not using their brains. I promise that over half of the stuff you end up using has passed somewhere via a freighter at somepoint in its travel. Probobly more like 100% but, shrug. This game only works becuase there are people who will carebear and do the things you dont want to. I will laugh when you have to mine veldspar in high-sec to build your next battleship. /Siggy
SigmaPi Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.01 21:09:00 - [290] Also, a very simple fix, imo, would be to make drones stop attacking if their parent ship is being concorded (jammed). The fact that it is the drones that kill the freighter and not the ganker's ships is tell-tale that there is a problem. If you cant gank the ship using any other method, then you shouldnt be able to gank with drones. Its a loophole, and I hope it gets closed soon. /Siggy

Gamesguy Amarr E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.05.01 21:45:00 - [291] Originally by: Jonathan Xavier The reason I maintain that remote repping is not a viable counter is because people suggested that a BS with 8 remote reps can mitigate 5 Domi's damage. The problem with that is that a BS can't sustain that kind of rep. Instead you'd need a fleet of 20-40 BSs with 1-2 remote reppers each or a smaller number with 3 (if the cap use makes sense). The point myself and others has been making is that it is unreasonable to force freighter pilots to assemble a fleet that size to simply undock in Jita, Hek or Rens. People also need to consider that freighter ganking can be done for reasons other than personal profit. If an enemy decided to start take down an empty empty freighter, they would inflict 600M isk worth of net financial damage. You dont have to sustain it, you only need to last long enough for concord to kill the offending domis. Taking the outbreak example, they had 20 ships averaging 5k DPS total, for 250dps/ship, taking into acct armor resistance against thermal, thats 163 DPS/ship. Each best named large remote rep will repair about 110/second, 8 of them will negate the damage from more than 5 domis. An apoc with 7 cap power relays, 3 cap rechargers, 1 ab, and 3 ccc rigs with good skills and staggered activation of modules(ie turn 1 rep on each second) will last 6-7 cycles of all 8 large remote reps before it caps out and loses half the reps. Thats 30 seconds of completely negating the attacker's DPS(assuming 1 apoc per 5-6 domis), more than enough time for concord to kill the attackers. Again using the outbreak video as an example. It took them 35 seconds of from the start of the engagement to kill the unescorted ft, and 50 seconds before everyone died to concord. If that ft had 4 of those repping apocs escorting it, it meant that the outbreak domis could only do damage largely unimpeded for about 15 seconds, which is around 75k dmg, minus whatever the apocs managed to rep after cap death(they regen really really fast), not nearly enough to kill a freighter. In addition, this was a .6 system, so concord response was considerably slower than it would be in a .9 system like jita.
Ovale KDM Corp Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.05.01 21:49:00 - [292] Originally by: SigmaPi Also, a very simple fix, imo, would be to make drones stop attacking if their parent ship is being concorded (jammed). The fact that it is the drones that kill the freighter and not the ganker's ships is tell-tale that there is a problem. If you cant gank the ship using any other method, then you shouldnt be able to gank with drones. Its a loophole, and I hope it gets closed soon. /Siggy Agreed. Drones need to be jammed when you are. Concord should also target and destroy them.
Rawthorm Gallente The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.05.01 21:50:00 - [293] Edited by: Rawthorm on 01/05/2007 21:47:08 It's amazing how in 10 pages of bickering, most people loos sight of the ONLY issue here. Drones bypass concord ECM, effectivly curcumventing a cruicial game mechanic. Its an exploit plain and simple, just like divising a way to survive a concord attack would be. If CCP find a way to make concord jam drones and you still gank a freighter the old way then hats off to you.
Tease No Boys Allowed	Posted - 2007.05.01 21:51:00 - [294] ??? What's the problem here? Just gang with a partner who can webify and use it to insta-warp to each gate. Or does that not work anymore? ----------------------------------------- [2003.12.17 06:35:20] Corwin > Orvolle is .4? Doesn't that mean that it's less than .5 ? and isn't .5 what starts the danger level? [2003.12.30 07:15:50] Corwin > Tech 2, IE expanded cargo holds I, MIning lasers 2, etc.... TL2 is being released all around you [2003.12.30 07:21:20] Corwin > tech 2 is released to players. Some players are busy researching the BPs before building stuff. Others are sitting on the BPs making copies to make money off of them that way
Rawthorm Gallente The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.05.01 21:53:00 - [295] Edited by: Rawthorm on 01/05/2007 21:49:49 Originally by: Tease ??? What's the problem here? Just gang with a partner who can webify and use it to insta-warp to each gate. Or does that not work anymore? The point, like those people saying you should have an escort, ect is in my above post. The gank itself isnt the problem, its the method used to gank here that is. Frieghter pilots should not have to muscle up an escort (military or a webbing frig, not that that works quick enough) just because half a dozen people are exploiting a loophole in the game mechanics.
SigmaPi Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.01 21:54:00 - [296] The fact is, there should be no high-sec ganking to begin with. There is a reason concord spams you and jams you when you agress someone. And the reason is not so your drones can go ahead and finish the job.
SigmaPi Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.01 21:55:00 - [297] Originally by: Tease ??? What's the problem here? Just gang with a partner who can webify and use it to insta-warp to each gate. Or does that not work anymore? The web trick no longer works. It is removed in the sisi patch, at least.
Rawthorm Gallente The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.05.01 21:56:00 - [298] Edited by: Rawthorm on 01/05/2007 21:53:20 Originally by: SigmaPi The fact is, there should be no high-sec ganking to begin with. There is a reason concord spams you and jams you when you agress someone. And the reason is not so your drones can go ahead and finish the job. Well if that was the case CCP would simply put in code to stop you shooting another player in high sec at all. In anycase tbh thats a diferent debate and shouldnt detract from this issue, which as you said is the drones.
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.05.01 22:23:00 - [299] Edited by: Laboratus on 01/05/2007 22:20:33 High sec is an aberration to the concept of in in itself. It as not however, secure space. There is not and should not be non-pvp areas in eve. Even high sec supports non concentual pvp, it just has reprecussions. In this thread are numerous suggestions as how to counter the suicide freighter ganks, but they are being brushed off, since they are not trivially easy, but require some thought and consideration and perhaps a bit of coordination. Just like an attack squad of 20+ ppl. It's been talked to death already. In the last 3 pages nothing new. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Jenny Spitfire Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.05.01 23:01:00 - [300] Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 01/05/2007 22:59:01 Originally by: Rawthorm Edited by: Rawthorm on 01/05/2007 21:47:08 It's amazing how in 10 pages of bickering, most people loos sight of the ONLY issue here. Drones bypass concord ECM, effectivly curcumventing a cruicial game mechanic. Its an exploit plain and simple, just like divising a way to survive a concord attack would be. If CCP find a way to make concord jam drones and you still gank a freighter the old way then hats off to you. Crikey! The final nail on the coffin. That is one of the high sec freighter griefing exploit that you have mentioned. Kind of strange that many people killers do not admit it. I am also a Player vs Playerless gamer and I admit the drone exploit in high sec is lame especially when it is used to grief freighters. I wish CCP would do something about it. CCP could also give freighters some defensive slots. --------- Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria! Kali is for KArebearLIng. I 100% agree with Avon. Female EVE gamers? Mail Zajo or visit WGOE.Public in-game.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.