| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
1Lt Aldo Raine
The Inglourious Bastards
89
   |
Posted - 2017.03.16 16:01:36 -
[1] - Quote
I'm all about the vigilante anti-ganker ops. (Yeah we gank gankers, it's a lot of fun. )
Last year my team went after freighter wrecks causing much anguish and wailing and gnashing of teeth... until our foes complained about it and the game was changed to give the freighter wrecks more ehp.
It was fun while it lasted, but no complaints from me because, in my opinion the mechanics are more realistic and therefore work better.
Fast forward to today's vigilante: using the ECM Burst frigate to help counter massive gank fleets in high sec. A lot of fun and worth the security hit.
But some people (Jason) have found a work around to counter this, landing a group of 8 or so pods on grid right before the gank fleet lands. Because the pods are aggroed the security status drops a lot. I mean down to near -10.
My point is this:
If the ECM Burst module breaks a target lock, then should items on grid that have no targeting system be aggroed?
Pods have no targeting system. How would their onboard computer systems ever know they were illegally agressed?
Just wanting to keep it real. Thanks for any feedback. o7
Proud member of the High Sec Militia, the combat arm of the Anti-Ganking movement.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
3200
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 16:05:41 -
[2] - Quote
1Lt Aldo Raine wrote:
If the ECM Burst module breaks a target lock, then should items on grid that have no targeting system be aggroed?
AoE is AoE. You hit everything in range, you deal with the consequence of hitting everything in range. |
Astevon
Astral Guardians
Astral Peacekeepers
4
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 17:23:06 -
[3] - Quote
+1 for an idea to fix it that makes sense.
This is another example of how the multiboxing scenario is skewed towards the ganking side in the very asymmetric conflict between gankers and anti-gankers. It is generally much easier to add another ganker and gain high efficiency with little cost in attention/management, compared to adding another anti-ganker (I've tried multiboxing around 8, roughly my limit even though I had 14 accounts). And it becomes ridiculous when guys like Jason Kusion extremely easily fleet warps a bunch of pods around with the dramatic effect of making buying security tags completely unviable for burst jamming anti-gankers. Forcing him to at least fly rookie ships would restore some balance.
I doubt CCP will prioritize this though, as few people are affected by it, and it might be tricky to implement (freighters can't lock anything either, but shuttles can, for some reason..).
Previous Main: Astecus | Creator of the Anti-ganking channel, Anti-ganking.net and AstralServices.net
|
Ajem Hinken
Quaice Industries
47
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 18:16:12 -
[4] - Quote
Astevon wrote:+1 for an idea to fix it that makes sense.
This is another example of how the multiboxing scenario is skewed towards the ganking side in the very asymmetric conflict between gankers and anti-gankers. It is generally much easier to add another ganker and gain high efficiency with little cost in attention/management, compared to adding another anti-ganker (I've tried multiboxing around 8, roughly my limit even though I had 14 accounts). And it becomes ridiculous when guys like Jason Kusion extremely easily fleet warps a bunch of pods around with the dramatic effect of making buying security tags completely unviable for burst jamming anti-gankers. Forcing him to at least fly rookie ships would restore some balance.
I doubt CCP will prioritize this though, as few people are affected by it, and it might be tricky to implement (freighters can't lock anything either, but shuttles can, for some reason..).
Yeah... Standings hits should only apply once per pod in a fleet. Either you fleetjump, or you jump one at a time and spoil it for your prey so that they can GTFO before you can do anything.
Basically, blast one pod in a fleet, and you can blast all the others - your standings and sec won't change. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
243
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 20:00:21 -
[5] - Quote
ECM bursts are an AoE aggressive weapon. Why should the sec status penalty be different from using any other aggressive weapon to attack those ships? If you use a smartbomb and hit all of those pods you're taking all of the sec status hits. All I see here is people whining about having to face the consequences of their actions, with a ridiculous attempt at taking the moral high ground because they're fighting the "evil" gankers.
And no, "I didn't actually hurt it" should not remove the sec status penalty. The penalty is for committing an attack, not for the attack being effective. If you try to tackle a ship with WCS fitted you take the hit (and get the timers) for it even though you can only watch your target warp off before you even activate your guns. |
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
3847
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 20:49:10 -
[6] - Quote
Can the server even tell the difference? An offensive mod is an offensive mod. It gives you a weapon timer, criminal status. It ticks all the boxes. Ecm bursts may have a damage property, its just set to 0.
Anyways, i thought ganking had no consequences and sec status hits didn't stop you from doing anything. Can't you just pay a few measly isk and bump it up with tags?
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Cade Windstalker
1107
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 22:19:04 -
[7] - Quote
"Realism" is not a reason for anything.
Gameplay changes must have gameplay reasons behind them. Someone found a way to counter your trick, find a new trick or a counter to them. |
Ajem Hinken
Quaice Industries
50
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 01:34:58 -
[8] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:"Realism" is not a reason for anything.
Gameplay changes must have gameplay reasons behind them. Someone found a way to counter your trick, find a new trick or a counter to them.
Like ganking gankers before they can gank you. At which point they counter with ganking your ganker gankers, and you counter by ganking their ganker ganker gankers, and then you continue in a similar fashion until you all eat up all the ganking resources in EvE and are forced to worship miners and industrialists or manufacture the goods yourself.
*Dramatization. But you get my point. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
3046
|
Posted - 2017.03.18 09:20:19 -
[9] - Quote
I agree, capsules should not give out security hits for ECM, weapon disruption, or sensor dampening.
Ajem Hinken wrote:Like ganking gankers before they can gank you.
It almost never happens because the gankers have the extreme advantage of surprise. It's far from a level playing field.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Ajem Hinken
Quaice Industries
52
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 00:16:22 -
[10] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I agree, capsules should not give out security hits for ECM, weapon disruption, or sensor dampening. Ajem Hinken wrote:Like ganking gankers before they can gank you. It almost never happens because the gankers have the extreme advantage of surprise. It's far from a level playing field.
So surprise them while they're staging. Get an alt account mole.
:P |
|
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
247
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 00:31:39 -
[11] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I agree, capsules should not give out security hits for ECM, weapon disruption, or sensor dampening.
Why not? If you warp scramble a ship with WCS fitted and it warps off immediately you still take the sec status hit. If you tracking disrupt a ship with no turrets fitted you still take the sec status hit. If you fire at a ship that is well out of range and impossible to hit you still take the sec status hit. Failure to make an effective attack does not change the fact that you used an aggressive module against a target that you do not have permission to engage. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
3047
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 01:05:45 -
[12] - Quote
Ajem Hinken wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:It almost never happens because the gankers have the extreme advantage of surprise. It's far from a level playing field. So surprise them while they're staging. Get an alt account mole.
Show me one example of anyone ever doing that successfully, or do it yourself successfully, or stop acting like it's a viable strategy.
Merin Ryskin wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I agree, capsules should not give out security hits for ECM, weapon disruption, or sensor dampening. Why not? If you warp scramble a ship with WCS fitted and it warps off immediately you still take the sec status hit. If you tracking disrupt a ship with no turrets fitted you still take the sec status hit. If you fire at a ship that is well out of range and impossible to hit you still take the sec status hit. Failure to make an effective attack does not change the fact that you used an aggressive module against a target that you do not have permission to engage.
If you warp scramble a ship, you're committing a hostile act that can hurt them. Even if you don't shoot them, you might hold them in place for someone else to shoot them.
There is no possible way that ECM, sensor dampening, or weapon disruption can hurt a capsule.
Ajem Hinken wrote:Yeah... Standings hits should only apply once per pod in a fleet. Either you fleetjump, or you jump one at a time and spoil it for your prey so that they can GTFO before you can do anything.
Basically, blast one pod in a fleet, and you can blast all the others - your standings and sec won't change.
It is entirely reasonable for a pilot to take multiple standings hits for separate capsule attacks.
Now if it is multiple attacks against the same capsule (during a single aggression timer), the pilot should never take more total standings hit than if the capsule were destroyed in a single shot.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
247
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 01:57:00 -
[13] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:If you warp scramble a ship, you're committing a hostile act that can hurt them. Even if you don't shoot them, you might hold them in place for someone else to shoot them.
Except in the example it can't hurt them, because they have WCS fitted and are immune to your warp disruption attempt. They just warp off like nothing happened, and you take the sec status hit.
Quote:There is no possible way that ECM, sensor dampening, or weapon disruption can hurt a capsule.
There is no possible way that a tracking disruptor used against a ship with no turrets can hurt it, but you still take the sec status penalty if you're foolish enough to use one. Likewise, ECM is an aggressive act, and if you use it against a target that you can not legally attack you will (and should) take the sec status penalty no matter how effective your attack is. Don't like it? Don't use ECM against pods.
Quote:Now if it is multiple attacks against the same capsule (during a single aggression timer), the pilot should never take more total standings hit than if the capsule were destroyed in a single shot.
That's already how it works. You take one sec status hit for the aggression, no matter how many modules you activate against the target. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
3047
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 07:21:59 -
[14] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:Except in the example it can't hurt them, because they have WCS fitted and are immune to your warp disruption attempt. They just warp off like nothing happened, and you take the sec status hit.
There is no possible way that a tracking disruptor used against a ship with no turrets can hurt it, but you still take the sec status penalty if you're foolish enough to use one.
It's not about whether or not the server can decide you couldn't have hurt them. When you activate a warp scrambler on a target, you don't know it has stabs and will warp off. You're intending to hurt the target. Same if you use a tracking disruptor against a missile ship. Your intent was to disrupt their turret tracking. So you realize later that they don't have any turrets. You still get the sec status hit because your moves could have hurt them, if they didn't have warp stabs or if they were using turrets.
Furthermore, if the person fit warp stabs because they expected you to have a scrambler, or if they fit missiles because they expected you to have tracking disruption, they might have compromised their own fit for their own safety, and it's because you were there--or because they were going through an area frequented by criminals like you. That means that warp scrambler or tracking disruptor could still have hurt them even if their ship was fully immune at the time it was hit.
But you don't need to know anything about a capsule's fit to know that it is not hurt by ECM, sensor dampening, or weapon disruption. Your use of the modules changes nothing for the capsule pilot, and they will not and cannot make changes to their preparation based on your choices. It can't hurt them.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
253
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 07:38:42 -
[15] - Quote
You keep missing the point here. The target and your potential module's effect are not relevant. The only thing that matters is that you activated an aggressive module (which ECM clearly is) on a target that you can not legally attack. The fact that you made a poor decision and did this despite having nothing to gain from your act of aggression is irrelevant. The sec status mechanic does not care about intent.
And no, "but I don't know the fit" isn't an excuse. If you see a Kestrel you know that it is armed with missiles and not turrets. It has literally zero turret slots (and doesn't have a drone bay either, so you can't tracking disrupt the drones). There is literally no possible benefit to activating that tracking disruptor. But if you are dumb enough to do it against a Kestrel that you can not legally attack you still take the sec status hit. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
3223
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 16:31:05 -
[16] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
There is no possible way that ECM, sensor dampening, or weapon disruption can hurt a capsule.
It's still a hostile module activation so it should still get the sec status hit. It's the cost of using AoE stuff in OP's case. If you don't want to take a sec status hit, don't hit target you are not supposed to. It's the atatcker's responsability to make sure he does not affect neutral if he does not want to suffer sec hits. Playing with AoE module come with a cost of being indiscriminate. If players are not ok with this, they should just not use it. |
Firnen Bakru
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 18:33:14 -
[17] - Quote
God forbid, you theorycraft something and someone finds a solition to the problem caused by it? |
Jason Kusion
KUSION SPECIAL TEAM
24
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 18:33:30 -
[18] - Quote
So then I put them all in Herons. Your move. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
3226
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 18:38:10 -
[19] - Quote
Jason Kusion wrote:So then I put them all in Herons. Your move.
Or empty gankship hull so if he goes for a targeted solution, it's harder to select the right ones. Or not. What do I know anyway... |
Soldarius
O C C U P Y
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1587
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 14:26:50 -
[20] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:1Lt Aldo Raine wrote:
If the ECM Burst module breaks a target lock, then should items on grid that have no targeting system be aggroed?
AoE is AoE. You hit everything in range, you deal with the consequence of hitting everything in range.
I have to agree with this. AoE is AoE. But I wouldn't complain if this were removed.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
|
|
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
44
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:11:26 -
[21] - Quote
It's a simple matter of changing what qualifies you for the security status hit.
For example, one could alter it so that you don't take a standings hit unless the pod gets popped by a player (and you're on the killmail). Yes they could smartbomb their own pods, but then their alt takes a huge sec hit too which messes up their griefer. They'd probably just set up an alpha toon bank for it though.
I agree in principle that a hostile action alone should not generate a sec status hit. It should absolutely invoke concord as per current concord protocol, but sec status hit should be the result of a kill not the actual aggression. |
1Lt Aldo Raine
The Inglourious Bastards
94
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 19:24:49 -
[22] - Quote
Jason Kusion wrote:So then I put them all in Herons. Your move.
perfect!
Proud member of the High Sec Militia, the combat arm of the Anti-Ganking movement.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
3233
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 19:52:52 -
[23] - Quote
1Lt Aldo Raine wrote:Jason Kusion wrote:So then I put them all in Herons. Your move. perfect!
So you still want your change after it has been proven it is countered by putting the pods in extremely cheap unfitted ships? |
Astevon
Astral Guardians
Astral Peacekeepers
6
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 20:21:34 -
[24] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:1Lt Aldo Raine wrote:Jason Kusion wrote:So then I put them all in Herons. Your move. perfect! So you still want your change after it has been proven it is countered by putting the pods in extremely cheap unfitted ships?
So you don't realize how much this changes the math?
The issue is all about the magnitude of the sec status hit. Without knowing the exact math, I believe hitting 8 ships will only lead to up to almost -1.0 total hit, compared to almost -10.0 from hitting 8 pods. That's like a whopping ~90% reduction in costs of buying security tags.
Previous Main: Astecus | Creator of the Anti-ganking channel, Anti-ganking.net and AstralServices.net
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1583
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 20:28:07 -
[25] - Quote
You want an area of effect weapon to be more 'realistic' by not affecting everything within its area of effect?
I love that word 'realistic'. It's a synonym for 'whatever I think it should be'
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Moonlit Raid
State War Academy
Caldari State
321
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 23:32:40 -
[26] - Quote
1Lt Aldo Raine wrote:
But some people (Jason) have found a work around to counter this, landing a group of 8 or so pods on grid right before the gank fleet lands. Because the pods are aggroed the security status drops a lot. I mean down to near -10.
Smartbomb dessy to clear the field.
If brute force isn't working, you're just not using enough.
Please Note: Any advice given comes with the caveat that nothing will be suitable for every situation.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
3047
|
Posted - 2017.03.21 02:41:40 -
[27] - Quote
Old Pervert wrote:I agree in principle that a hostile action alone should not generate a sec status hit. It should absolutely invoke concord as per current concord protocol, but sec status hit should be the result of a kill not the actual aggression.
I disagree, however it is already partly like this. If you damage a capsule, you have an immediate sec status hit. If it warps off and someone else kills it a few minutes later, you get a second sec status hit due to sharing in the kill. I found that out the hard way once.
Astevon wrote:So you don't realize how much this changes the math?
The issue is all about the magnitude of the sec status hit. Without knowing the exact math, I believe hitting 8 ships will only lead to up to almost -1.0 total hit, compared to almost -10.0 from hitting 8 pods. That's like a whopping ~90% reduction in costs of buying security tags.
I believe it's much less than that for hitting ships.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Astevon
Astral Guardians
Astral Peacekeepers
7
|
Posted - 2017.03.21 15:45:54 -
[28] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I believe it's much less than that for hitting ships.
I just tested on SiSi with 2 toons going criminal, both had 5.0 sec status:
Shooting ship: -2.2465% change and 4.66 status afterwards
Shooting pod: -22.4642% change and 1.63 status afterwards
Looks like shooting a pod is pretty much exactly 10 times as much as shooting a ship, and so the 90% reduction I mentioned was actually spot on.
Previous Main: Astecus | Creator of the Anti-ganking channel, Anti-ganking.net and AstralServices.net
|
Jason Kusion
KUSION SPECIAL TEAM
27
|
Posted - 2017.03.21 22:51:11 -
[29] - Quote
If you don't like the consequences of AoE weapons, then don't use them. There are plenty of single target ECM modules for you to choose from and you won't get a sec status hit for using them. AoE anything in this game is incredibly OP and broken, there is a good reason why you can't burst jam in highsec and I can't bomb the jita undock. Realism has never come before game balance and it would be foolish to think that is going to change anytime soon.
The problem here is you were desperately hoping that burst jamming was the golden solution that would allow you to counter an entire fleet of gankers with a single character. Now that I've found an appropriate response to the tactic, here we are begging CCP to tip the scale yet again. Get creative and figure out a new approach, it worked for me. |
gold for you
insinsinsinsinsinsinsinsinsinsinsinsinsinsinsins
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.21 22:56:17 -
[30] - Quote
in which anti-gankers ask for even more buffs after receiving a ~40% buff to all freighter EHP less than a year ago. |
|
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
3047
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 02:52:30 -
[31] - Quote
gold for you wrote:in which anti-gankers ask for even more buffs after receiving a ~40% buff to all freighter EHP less than a year ago.
Fittings. Fittings was the buff. The buff was choices. Not the potential increase in EHP if you fit the freighter for tank.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Tarn Kugisa
Deaf Eaters
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
557
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 04:09:30 -
[32] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I agree, capsules should not give out security hits for ECM, weapon disruption, or sensor dampening. Why not? If you warp scramble a ship with WCS fitted and it warps off immediately you still take the sec status hit. If you tracking disrupt a ship with no turrets fitted you still take the sec status hit. If you fire at a ship that is well out of range and impossible to hit you still take the sec status hit. Failure to make an effective attack does not change the fact that you used an aggressive module against a target that you do not have permission to engage.
there's a difference between affecting a ship's system that doesn't exist, and affecting a ship's system that doesn't impair it
Be polite.
Be efficient.
Have a plan to troll everyone you meet
--áKuroVolt
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
257
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 04:30:24 -
[33] - Quote
Tarn Kugisa wrote:there's a difference between affecting a ship's system that doesn't exist, and affecting a ship's system that doesn't impair it
A tracking disruptor activated against a ship with no turrets is affecting a system that doesn't exist, and yet you still take the sec status penalty for it if you try to tracking disrupt a Drake that you can't legally attack. The tracking disruptor, like ECM bursts, is classified as an aggressive module and all that matters is whether or not the ship you activate it against is a legal target for you.
The only reason anyone thinks the rules need to change is this bizarre idea that gankers are "bad" and anti-gankers are "good", and so the white knights shouldn't have to pay the same penalties as the rest of us as long as their choice of target is a "bad" player. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
3249
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 15:20:49 -
[34] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:gold for you wrote:in which anti-gankers ask for even more buffs after receiving a ~40% buff to all freighter EHP less than a year ago. Fittings. Fittings was the buff. The buff was choices. Not the potential increase in EHP if you fit the freighter for tank.
They installed a ghetto damage control on all freighter for free recently. That was a direct EHP boost no? |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
3048
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 03:54:43 -
[35] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:gold for you wrote:in which anti-gankers ask for even more buffs after receiving a ~40% buff to all freighter EHP less than a year ago. Fittings. Fittings was the buff. The buff was choices. Not the potential increase in EHP if you fit the freighter for tank. They installed a ghetto damage control on all freighter for free recently. That was a direct EHP boost no?
You're right, I forgot about that one.
Two buffs, one was fitting.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |