EVE Search - Ganker Wishlist: Ideas for improving suicide ganking for gankers!

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Ganker Wishlist: Ideas for improving suicide ganking for gankers!

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Buck Futz Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service 23	Posted - 2012.03.25 12:56:00 - [1] - Quote So far most of the ideas I am seeing, "Crimewatch" etc, seem to be just part of a big carebear wet dream. We get to read loads of disingenuous self-serving carebear suggestions on how to 'improve' ganking - all of which involve various ways to make it nearly impossible and/or highly unprofitable. They simply want to be 100% safe instead of just 98% safe like they are today. But MAYBE, just maybe - that's simply because CCP hasn't heard much of anything constructive from the suicide ganking community. Maybe they just need OUR input, on common sense things that can be done to make our profession A) more convenient. B) more accessable to younger gankers C) more profitable. 1. Income for Pod Killers -Killing pods is generally very difficult to do in highsec (without bubbles), and often you have to forcably 'remove' the ship first - before Concord intervenes. Yet despite the tasty implants that lie within, NONE EVER DROP. Pod killers are struck with the harshest of security status penalties. They deserve an income as well. Allow reprocessing of corpses for a 50% drop rate on the implants....with all the talk of RISK vs REWARD - lets have some rewards for podding already. 2. Orca 'Stealth' Cargo Bay nerf - We've seen a ton of Orca nerfs lately. But the most damaging and game-distorting Orca 'bug' of all still remains. Its the effortless profits that come from hauling highly valuable goods in Orcas - almost completely without risk. Every day, goods are moved from one sector of space to another, and earn their pilots billions in profit. The only possible risk? Suicide gankers. Yet gankers aren't allowed to scan Orcas - to see what is concealed within the magic 40K cargo bay. And even if the Orca does get randomly popped (unlikely due to high EHP) - the 'secret' loot is 100% destroyed, without even a record of its destruction on the KM. Lets just say - if I was going to theoretically move multiple T2 BPO's from point A to point B in highsec.....they would be moved in the 'secret compartment' of a heavily tanked Orca with an empty 'normal' cargo bay. Its safer than the fastest blockade runner or fleetest Covert-Ops ship. Safer than the highest EHP Jump Freighter. Because nobody knows what you have behind all the EHP - and they won't get it anyway. The less dim traders out there have figured this out long ago - and this abuse needs to end. 3. Crimewatch seems to be about getting other players involved in law enforcement! Thats Great! Guess that means we can roll back Concord a bit, then. You know, kind of like 2007/2008. When Concord took 30 seconds to show up in 0.5, and sec status penalties were about 1/3 of today. I am all for greater player involvement in enforcing high-sec rules, rewards for 'white hats', a meaningful bounty/sec status reward system. Even the 'suspect' flag can be worked with - (though if it happens, I'd like to see ALL player wrecks set blue - not just for gankers - so a succesful sui-ganker can actually loot a victim without having to picking up aggro from everyone else on the gate. As it is, its already a race with the vultures....) But with all that extra player involvement, we don't need Concord to be quite so lightning prompt, now do we? As it is, annoying pop-ups and normal trans-Atlantic lag (or crappy internet service) eats up a LOT of your 'ganking window'. Reset Concord to 2008-era reponse times, give gankers a bit more 'breathing room' to account for lag-issues and additional risks added by Crimewatch. 4. Return Concord Pop-up Window defaulting to 'YES' from 'No.' -Sorry to say this, CCP but this was a ** move. That window (impossible to shut off in highsec, BTW) is dealt with by the ganking community far more than any other class of player. In just TONIGHTs miner ganking session, I've had to clear it 36 times. Yes, Tab-Enter is FAR more annoying than just hitting Enter, because only have two hands and one is on the mouse. I don't get it - is your aim really to eventually force gankers down the road of hotkey and macro use, just to clear multiple clunky pop-ups? You know, kind of like a sick joke - as miner gankers tend to blow up botters and AFKers more than anything else? Granted, sounds like you are going to have this 'fixed' with Crimewatch safety condoms for carebears. (and kill off the entire 'profession' of baiting and destroying LVL 4 mission runners in the process....well, it was a 4 year run, Suddenly Ninjas, sorry CCP don't want you around no more.....) But I suppose we'll get to that bridge when someone starts coding on something other than a whiteboard. 5. I don't know! What do you think??** I understand that gankers tend to be a pretty adaptable bunch. Generally we just figuring out how to make things work through experimentation and practice. We just aren't used to asking CCP to change the conditions of the game on our behalf - short of asking for clarifications of stealth-nerfs and complaining about the goalposts always being shifted against us. Here is a thread where those who specialize in blowing up and requesitioning 'high-sec assets' can speak up. Mentally challenged carebears and 'leet' PVPers need not chime in. This isn't about PVP. Its about PvC. Because we all know that Carebears aren't players. They aren't even people most of the time.
Buck Futz Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service 23	Posted - 2012.03.25 12:57:00 - [2] - Quote (reserved for other good ideas)
Tanya Powers Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 910	Posted - 2012.03.25 12:57:00 - [3] - Quote Move to low sec. Some of those ideas are for some just picked on other guys ideas on this forum. Content is complete garbage.
J3ssica Alba Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 200	Posted - 2012.03.25 13:03:00 - [4] - Quote 0/10 To the whiners :-áCCP Soundwave "Incursions are not a big issue in terms of isk globally" CCP Recurve "However, Incursions are not the biggest ISK faucet, bounties are"
Usul Atreides Suddenly Freighters 0	Posted - 2012.03.25 13:05:00 - [5] - Quote I certainly think that suicide ganking should be a possible profession - and I say that as a non-ganker who has been ganked in high sec in the past due to his stupidity. The idea of an insta-kill CONCORD raygun is a bit ridiculous. Nothing should ever be 100% safe in high sec. Close to 100%, perhaps, but not completely. This is EVE after all.
Tanya Powers Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 913	Posted - 2012.03.25 13:10:00 - [6] - Quote Usul Atreides wrote: I certainly think that suicide ganking should be a possible profession - and I say that as a non-ganker who has been ganked in high sec in the past due to his stupidity. The idea of an insta-kill CONCORD raygun is a bit ridiculous. Nothing should ever be 100% safe in high sec. Close to 100%, perhaps, but not completely. This is EVE after all. Stop rabble same old stuff about high sec and high sec carebear safety because the only ones that are the safer of all eve and risk averse are all those grieffers, all the tools in high sec protect their elite pvp style while they should be in null/low playing the real game instead of grieffing casuals and newbs.
Usul Atreides Suddenly Freighters 0	Posted - 2012.03.25 13:13:00 - [7] - Quote Tanya Powers wrote: Usul Atreides wrote: I certainly think that suicide ganking should be a possible profession - and I say that as a non-ganker who has been ganked in high sec in the past due to his stupidity. The idea of an insta-kill CONCORD raygun is a bit ridiculous. Nothing should ever be 100% safe in high sec. Close to 100%, perhaps, but not completely. This is EVE after all. Stop rabble same old stuff about high sec and high sec carebear safety because the only ones that are the safer of all eve and risk averse are all those grieffers, all the tools in high sec protect their elite pvp style while they should be in null/low playing the real game instead of grieffing casuals and newbs. Again, in something vaguely resembling English please? But seriously, I don't see how you can tell people what they should be doing or finding fun.
MatrixSkye Mk2 Republic University Minmatar Republic 193	Posted - 2012.03.25 13:20:00 - [8] - Quote Suicide gankers crying about and accusing other professions of being risk-free is surreal to say the least. But then I saw your alliance ticker and your tears made perfect sense.
Grumpy Owly 392	Posted - 2012.03.25 13:22:00 - [9] - Quote 1) Far too much incentivisation for pod killing as a result. And competes directly with an exisiting NPC isk sink. Especially when there is no suggested sink related costs for extracting the implants and should never be even closes as competative as the current exisitng process as it would then be viewed as "the" way to obtain implants as opposed to regular ways. If penalties associated with pod killing can be married with any gain improvements also then it makes the idea of farming them justified. Also by your argument, the profitable exercise of farming easily readily available implants in null sec from blobs becomes a very real challenge to the implant economy as a result. 2) Orca Corporate hanger bays should be accesible to player scans. And also to NPC custom scans. (Please see my sig for an alternative proposal.) 3) With the numerous systems and places for gankers to operate their practice it is simply a naive view that players can police the activity as a result. They simply cannot be in every place a ganking situation will occur at any give time or that every ganker will have an associated layer shadowing their every move in order to challenge them, that's simply a ridiculous argument. Therefore, it is a invalid premise to believe that player can in any way replace the process of Concord. The contra argument of course is the fact that criminals can as a result spend significant time in their activities currently being unchallenged. The changes with new crimewatch mechanics do not prevent suicide ganking either, they only propose to make it more important for criminal activity to be managed better as poor security status would have new implications as preventative or more challenging to the criminal behaviour. Yet at the same time it also introduces more ways of repairing this poor security status. 4) "Safeties" under this proposal, will allow people to remove the current annoying checkbox behaviour. 5) Gankers have had signiifcant improvements aswell as reductions to their activities. E.g. Tier 3 BC's and dessie improvements. Meanwhile they operate in a pretty unchallenged way with their practices. And its comes down to a spreadsheet exercise of target picking being the only real relevance or awareness to the excercise. This moreso relevant when the recognised player policing mechanic aka "bounty hunting" is simply broken or offers an exploitable feature in favour of the criminal. As such my opinion is that it is not the criminal who is hard done by these changes, it is more a move to re-address the balance of risk, culpability and challenge associated with criminal activities at present. Bounty Hunting for CSM7 It's just criminal - Smuggling
Buck Futz Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service 23	Posted - 2012.03.25 13:27:00 - [10] - Quote Thankfully I saved the second post, before Tanya Powers' special brand of re-tarded started shitting up the first page. Not many worthwhile assets in lowsec, sorry. You miss the point, as usual. Blowing up T1 insured, 2M ISK Rifters and 25M ISK Drakes in lowsec is simply a waste of time - when the high-ISK, uninsurable fat targets are in sitting in highsec. Most of these ideas are from Herr Wilkus (or others on C&P), but he/she/it is cool with me posting them. Mainly looking for other good, well thought out ideas, front and center. I'm sure there are other improvements to ganking mechanics could be brought to CCP's attention - ideas that ring in a new golden era of high-sec wanton destruction. I'm an optimist. I believe our brightest days are ahead of us, not behind us.

Professor Alphane Alphane Research Co-operative 309	Posted - 2012.03.25 13:28:00 - [11] - Quote How bout you cut out the middle man just hit self destruct and earn some isk like everyone else? YOU MUST THINK FIRST....
Masikari State War Academy Caldari State 4	Posted - 2012.03.25 13:29:00 - [12] - Quote Tanya Powers wrote: Move to low sec. Some of those ideas are for some just picked on other guys ideas on this forum. Content is complete garbage. This. I can never get my head around Hi-Sec piwates that complain about not being able to take down those that don't want to fight. Although I FULLY agree that is a very necessary evil in Eve, I can't abide folk whining about stuff like this. If you want decent fights, move to the regions of space where fighting is encouraged. One of my toons is in a Merc Corp, and that often takes us into HS for the fights. But I go in fully understanding that the fights will be tricky and difficult with a lot of waiting (even with mechanics of war set in our favour to make it legal), because the other guys DON'T WANT to fight. Think of HS as a shopping arcade, and you are the hooded thug preying on the young and weak. They walk out of a shop carrying an expensive purchase and you pounce on them, knock them down and run off with their goods. But there are the security and police watching you on camera's and they quickly swoop in and take you down for your crimes. You know you've done wrong. You know you've committed an act of crime and you know that if/when you've been caught there are consequences. You were aware of these consequences before you even started. The laws IRL change to suit new circumstances, Eve is no different. Don't talk to me about 'EvE is a PvP game....'. Yes it is, but different areas have different consequences - they have always been there, they always will. And as the gankers adapt, so will new changes. You are aware of this, and if you don't like the laws of HS then move - no one is keeping you there. You want to stay and continue to do what you do, then adapt and overcome. I wish you luck whichever way you choose.
Splid1 Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service 0	Posted - 2012.03.25 13:29:00 - [13] - Quote Suiciding is more of a skill and more intensive than running L4 missions, Incursions or any other "safe" high sec activity. Once you run the Dread Pirate Scarlett L4 and work out all you have to do is alpha her on the 3rd Acceleration gate and you get a 8-9M implant drop and don't have to kill anyone else in the rooms, that is pretty much it. Suiciding is continually being looked at in a negative light but it is no more a dishonest activity that many of the others that go on in EVE and should be looked upon as a legitimate way to play the game. Now, there is obviously some areas that need to be looked at, where suiciding is unbalanced, but if you can kill a pilot carrying goods you should be able to take their goods without suffering the wrath of every single white knight or regular player around the place or suffering any other disproportionate penalty. My personal opinion is that a lot of things won't ever get changed to help suicide gankers, but nerf after nerf after nerf is just an unsustainable way to deal with it.
Professor Alphane Alphane Research Co-operative 309	Posted - 2012.03.25 13:33:00 - [14] - Quote Sorry no suicide ganking was always an exploit of poorly implemented security, CCP stated High sec should be secure but have'nt until know done anything to make it so So Gratz CCP Gankers QQ please YOU MUST THINK FIRST....
Tobiaz Spacerats 61	Posted - 2012.03.25 13:34:00 - [15] - Quote I don't think I've seen anything on crimewatch that really affected suicide-ganking. There's no reason to change much in that aspect. But I agree that Orca hangars should be scannable though. It's very easy to get an Orca's EHP well over 200k so it's not a very profitable ship to suicide-gank (unless you're carrying billions in loot, in which case it's your own bloody fault.). http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif How about fixing image-linking on the forums, CCP? I want to see signatures!
Amarr Mech Hedion University Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2012.03.25 13:40:00 - [16] - Quote Yes, there should be more profit and more gankers out there. Since popping and podding a 250mil ship in a 600k ship and BS alpha in a hull that cost half the price just isn't profitable enough. That way we can drive off all the newer subs since they are the ones that actually spend $ on the game. Great business model you are proposing there.
Large Collidable Object morons. 1223	Posted - 2012.03.25 13:41:00 - [17] - Quote Grumpy Owly wrote: Orca Corporate hanger bays[...] And also to NPC custom scans That was changed quite some time ago iirc... morons- sting like a butterfly and-ápost like a bee.
Professor Alphane Alphane Research Co-operative 309	Posted - 2012.03.25 13:44:00 - [18] - Quote Tobiaz wrote: I don't think I've seen anything on crimewatch that really affected suicide-ganking. There's no reason to change much in that aspect But I agree that Orca hangars should be scannable though. It's very easy to get an Orca's EHP well over 200k so it's not a very profitable ship to suicide-gank (unless you're carrying billions in loot, in which case it's your own bloody fault.) Professor Alphane wrote: Sorry no suicide ganking was always an exploit of poorly implemented security, CCP stated High sec should be secure but have'nt until know done anything to make it so So Gratz CC Gankers QQ please You should look again where ever you pulled that statement from. I think you missed a rabbit Suicide-ganking is one of the oldest professions in EVE and CCP always condoned it. The only measure they've taken is against recycling of alts and forfeiting insurance. More then enough. If carebears are still insisting on making themselves a viable target, it's their own bloody fault. You mean in the early they didn't have the resouces to change it and it grew like a weeds, perhaps... But this is CCP so the official line is always WAI isn't it YOU MUST THINK FIRST....
Sasha Azala Blood and Decay 100	Posted - 2012.03.25 13:44:00 - [19] - Quote Suicide ganking = killing soft targets that don't fight back. You could of course grow a pair and do some real PvP.
Professor Alphane Alphane Research Co-operative 309	Posted - 2012.03.25 13:45:00 - [20] - Quote Sasha Azala wrote: Suicide ganking = killing soft targets that don't fight back. You could of course grow a pair and do some real PvP. But why when they can cry and whine on the forums about how they should be able to rob candy from babies with no real recourse... YOU MUST THINK FIRST....

Roime Shiva Furnace 308	Posted - 2012.03.25 13:45:00 - [21] - Quote Is this a troll or not?
JitaPriceChecker2 State War Academy Caldari State 70	Posted - 2012.03.25 13:50:00 - [22] - Quote Where is risk for suicide gankers ?
Xen Solarus Inner 5phere 26	Posted - 2012.03.25 13:51:00 - [23] - Quote Completely disagree with this thread Gankers are all about risk-free isk, shooting people that they are sure are not going to be shooting back. If you are really into PvP, you should go and do it in low and null, where your supposed to. But then, of course, they shoot back, and you get owned, cause gankers are essentially cowards looking for easy isk, and collecting tears. In an actual PvP engagement, they get Pwned! Ultimately gankers are harming eve's continued player growth, as high-sec is supposed to be safe for newer players to get to grips with eve's massive learning curve, as well as those players that get enjoyment from eve for doing everything BUT PvP. The continued growth of gankers is just threatening this, forcing PvP on those that have no interest, and preventing people from naturally moving to low and null in their own time. All so gankers can get their exploding ships with no risk to their themselves. Bet it makes them feel awesome! The only reason gankers do it is because there is no risk. The bounty system is still broken, and their targets are not PvPers, so there is no risk of retaliation. The only risk to gankers is the possibility that they'll kill a target that has less worth than the ships they lose. And this thread suggests even more ways to elliminate this single risk! Though i don't think CCP will do it, im strongly in favour our improving high-sec security to make the life of gankers more difficult, or better yet, elliminate it completely. Though if the bounty system was fixed, i'd argue that it should be left as it is now, as then at least people would have an avenue of retailation if they are not interested in PvP. And no, im not a carebear. I find i need to add this to prevent people assuming that because of my stance on this topic.
Corina Jarr Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built 622	Posted - 2012.03.25 13:52:00 - [24] - Quote Professor Alphane wrote: Sorry no suicide ganking was always an exploit of poorly implemented security, CCP stated High sec should be secure but have'nt until know done anything to make it so Ganking has never been an exploit. It is a perfectly legitimate way to... convolutedly destroy your ship. And when has CCP ever said that HS should be safe and care free? Also, if they wanted to stop all ganking, it would be easy. Set it up so that it is impossible to shoot a player unless aggression has been given. No more ganking. Anyway, the OP is whining over nothing, as the changes that will end up being added will not make ganking significantly any harder. Unless Concord comes the second aggression occurs (which would be downright moronic), things will stay the way they are.
Sasha Azala Blood and Decay 100	Posted - 2012.03.25 13:55:00 - [25] - Quote Corina Jarr wrote: Professor Alphane wrote: Sorry no suicide ganking was always an exploit of poorly implemented security, CCP stated High sec should be secure but have'nt until know done anything to make it so Ganking has never been an exploit. It is a perfectly legitimate way to... convolutedly destroy your ship. And when has CCP ever said that HS should be safe and care free? Also, if they wanted to stop all ganking, it would be easy. Set it up so that it is impossible to shoot a player unless aggression has been given. No more ganking. Anyway, the OP is whining over nothing, as the changes that will end up being added will not make ganking significantly any harder. Unless Concord comes the second aggression occurs (which would be downright moronic), things will stay the way they are. So I take it you would agree that if anyone breaks the law in high-sec they should be a target for all the white-knights, sounds like a good idea to me.
Professor Alphane Alphane Research Co-operative 309	Posted - 2012.03.25 14:00:00 - [26] - Quote Corina Jarr wrote: Professor Alphane wrote: Sorry no suicide ganking was always an exploit of poorly implemented security, CCP stated High sec should be secure but have'nt until know done anything to make it so Ganking has never been an exploit. It is a perfectly legitimate way to... convolutedly destroy your ship. And when has CCP ever said that HS should be safe and care free? Also, if they wanted to stop all ganking, it would be easy. Set it up so that it is impossible to shoot a player unless aggression has been given. No more ganking. Anyway, the OP is whining over nothing, as the changes that will end up being added will not make ganking significantly any harder. Unless Concord comes the second aggression occurs (which would be downright moronic), things will stay the way they are. Obviously your milage may vary , I just see it as poor development and inability to achieve your aims YOU MUST THINK FIRST....
Corina Jarr Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built 622	Posted - 2012.03.25 14:00:00 - [27] - Quote Sasha Azala wrote: Corina Jarr wrote: Professor Alphane wrote: Sorry no suicide ganking was always an exploit of poorly implemented security, CCP stated High sec should be secure but have'nt until know done anything to make it so Ganking has never been an exploit. It is a perfectly legitimate way to... convolutedly destroy your ship. And when has CCP ever said that HS should be safe and care free? Also, if they wanted to stop all ganking, it would be easy. Set it up so that it is impossible to shoot a player unless aggression has been given. No more ganking. Anyway, the OP is whining over nothing, as the changes that will end up being added will not make ganking significantly any harder. Unless Concord comes the second aggression occurs (which would be downright moronic), things will stay the way they are. So I take it you would agree that if anyone breaks the law in high-sec they should be a target for all the white-knights, sounds like a good idea to me. Depending on how its implemented, it could work out very nicely. Though I do like the can mechanics as they are, but I can adapt if things change.
Buck Futz Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service 23	Posted - 2012.03.25 14:17:00 - [28] - Quote Corina Jarr wrote: Anyway, the OP is whining over nothing, as the changes that will end up being added will not make ganking significantly any harder. Unless Concord comes the second aggression occurs (which would be downright moronic), things will stay the way they are. I am well aware that 'Crimewatch' doesn't hit gankers as hard as methods of high-sec aggression that require 'trickery', like baiting a LVL 4 Mission runner into losing his pimped ISK printing machine. But CCP is planning a major rework of mechanics related to 'criminal' activity, its important to have some good 'pro-ganker' ideas on the table as well. This is an effort to collect some of them in one place....rather than scattered throughout other ganker vs carebear flamefests. As far as 'Risk' for suicide gankers is concerned: Unfortunately, Concord doesn't really allow for a great deal of 'risk'. We know that we are going to lose our ships at the outset, and build them accordingly. I might 'risk' more on ganking ships if I knew there was a chance of survival. Beyond 'ship loss' however, there is a great deal of uncertainty involved. Ganks fail all the time. -You may fail to kill the target, and get a big 'lol' in local, and lose the ship anyway. -The loot you are attempting to steal fails to drop, which costs you ISK and time. -The loot you are attempting to steal is stolen by someone else, which costs you ISK, time and sucks as well. -Your -10 ganking alt (and POD!) can be jammed, scrammed, neuted or popped by any bystander, at any point in the process. And of course, naturally, we generally only punish the carebears that are guilty of gross negligence. -Failing to tank a 250M Exhumer. -Hauling hundreds of millions or billions in a T1 Industrial.....AFK. Most of the carebears, despite posting garbage on here, are probably bright enough to avoid being ganked, simply because they bother to read these forums and (possibly) apply what they learn here to their game. Here is the important bit though: I've killed hundreds of Exhumers. You know what I've noticed about my favorite icebelt hunting grounds? Miners are FEWER.....but those left ARE LEARNING TO TANK! Its amazing. As a result - have to leave many of them alone, as I don't have sufficient firepower to take them solo. Tornado is good, but can't do everything. Further, they are ORGANIZING. Doing everything they can to make my life more difficult, warn the 'non-botting' Exhumers in local, and impede my attacks and looting. And I say, good for them! Its exactly what EVE is about, even in highsec. I'll still smack and local and harvest as many bots as I can, but it keeps me interested because they make it challenging...! Worst thing CCP could do, is just step in and let them all go back to tanking with Cap Recharger II's and mining AFK.
Cauchemare Ritual Suicide Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service 0	Posted - 2012.03.25 14:24:00 - [29] - Quote So here's the thing. Lets put aside the argument of "space d-bags" vs "carebear miners" and focus on the root issue here. Theres this funny little thing called life experiance that people tnd to pickup as they plod along. You do things, you see the results and then you adapt to improve your results. What you don't do is repeat the exact same thing and presume that physics and reality are going to warp and change to magically give you different results. Since the beginning of time, people have rated others by their ability to assess a situation, react and adapt for sucess. Its how you separate mouth breathing goobers from skilled and innovative people that you want on your team. I don't care if you agree or disagree with any particular facet of EvE. Everyone that plays eve has equal opportunity to take their chosen experiance and be more clever than their opponent, to find a new and innovative way to accomplish a task, to get an advantage over others doing the same thing and to profit from what they are doing. What Herr Wilkus is bringing to the forefront here, is that a trend has started by CCP to make the game easier for bad players and making it more difficult for good players to stand out stay ahead of the pack. Regardless of WHAT your side on this issue. It does not benefit ANYONE for EvE to continue to be dumbed down and become easier for bad players to do better without learning anything ever. Sure, we may be the unpopular side of the argument here, and i get that. But today its us, tomorrow its likely to be you thats getting their chosen activity nerfed down because someone found a nice way to turn a profit thats oemone else thinks is unreasonable, and the death of their innovation takes isk and fun right ouy of your pocket. Instead, I call on ALL good players from all paths in EvE who have a lick of sense and pride in their work to turn to these slothful and leechlike terrible players and use CCP's own words... "If your going to follow us to the top, Harden The F--K Up"
Grumpy Owly 393	Posted - 2012.03.25 14:25:00 - [30] - Quote Buck Futz wrote: Here is the important bit though: I've killed hundreds of Exhumers. You know what I've noticed about my favorite icebelt hunting grounds? Miners are FEWER.....but those left ARE LEARNING TO TANK! Its amazing. As a result - have to leave many of them alone, as I don't have sufficient firepower to take them solo. Tornado is good, but can't do everything. Further, they are ORGANIZING. Doing everything they can to make my life more difficult, warn the 'non-botting' Exhumers in local, and impede my attacks and looting. And I say, good for them! Its exactly what EVE is about, even in highsec. I'll still smack and local and harvest as many bots as I can, but it keeps me interested because they make it challenging...! Worst thing CCP could do, is just step in and let them all go back to tanking with Cap Recharger II's and mining AFK. Then I guess Suicide Gankers wont have any complaints about adapting to a situation where they might be at least be equally challenged for their behaviour? Why should they be removed from the adaptation and evolution equation or risk vs reward considerations. You want to prescribe to others how to play yet when the shoe is on the other foot its a complete injustice. I think the stock answer or appropriate responce in these situations "HTFU" or "Adapt or Die"? Bounty Hunting for CSM7 It's just criminal - Smuggling



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: 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.