EVE Search - Death of the Boomerang / GCC Rapid-Orca Unfitting Primer

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Death of the Boomerang / GCC Rapid-Orca Unfitting Primer

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Stabs McShiv MINUS4 8	Posted - 2012.03.30 21:17:00 - [31] - Quote Without carebears sfa will happen as the nullsec pvp alliances will just produce the items themselves they are already at a cost advantage to hisec its that they cant be arsed that keeps your profits alive.
Nick Bison Bison Industrial Inc Thundering Herd 94	Posted - 2012.03.30 21:25:00 - [32] - Quote TOS Number 23: You may not exploit any bug in EVE Online to gain an unfair advantage over other players. You may not communicate the existence of any exploitable bug to others directly or through a public forum. Bugs should be reported through the bug reporting tool on our website. So, did the OP just screw himself? Nothing clever at this time.
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux 1320	Posted - 2012.03.30 21:27:00 - [33] - Quote Herr Wilkus, I'm totally down with someone that wants to suicide gank for a living in high sec - almost for whatever reason they choose to do it. But I highly question your single minded devotion to driving an entire class of people out of the game. Can you go further into why you believe this is acceptable social behavior in Eve Online? -Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
Flinx Evenstar Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 45	Posted - 2012.03.30 21:29:00 - [34] - Quote Herr Wilkus wrote: Eh, whats the point of arguing. CCP GMs want to coddle carebears - even if they have to rewrite their own rules to do it. No they don't, they consistently promote the idea you can be killed anywhere, it would be a very simple code change to make it impossible to shoot people in high sec. They will never do that What you have done is bypass the "suicide" part of suicide ganking, if you fail to see what is wrong with that, then I don't think I have enough time to explain it to you
Celeritas 5k Connoisseurs of Candid Coitus 12	Posted - 2012.03.30 21:41:00 - [35] - Quote Props for figuring out the technique and making full use of it, but you're an idiot for posting it on the forums and then whining when it gets banned. It begs the question-- What exactly did you expect? CCP would let every freighter in the game die to solo gankers?
stoicfaux 897	Posted - 2012.03.30 21:49:00 - [36] - Quote People may not like suicide-ganking or the OP's extreme devotion to it, but let's be honest here, the heart of the problem is how artificial and clunky the CONCORD aggression mechanics are. Actions and attitudes like this may encourage CCP to change high-sec "law enforcement" from being a strictly NPC affair, to allowing it to be controlled or influenced by players. Allow the players to improve the security in high sec if they pay for it, such as adding more sentry guns or tweaking sentry guns/faction police to preemptively attack known outlaws. If you're a "known" criminal (i.e. committed an act of aggression in the last X weeks) then the guns/police for that particular faction/corp should just shoot you on sight. Conversely, criminals should be able to destroy sentries/police ships, or avoid police patrols in asteroid belts. Such actions would be harder to do in "safe" citizen upgraded neighborhoods versus blighted/neglected areas of high-sec. Alternately, known criminals should be open to being hunted by players who are members of the Faction Police (think Faction Warfare-ish.) Dammit, if CCP hadn't nerfed the Comet's blinking light, I could now be flying around in Jita in my "Whaaaaaambulance!" Goon Tears: -á25% Alcohol by Volume
stoicfaux 897	Posted - 2012.03.30 21:50:00 - [37] - Quote Celeritas 5k wrote: Props for figuring out the technique and making full use of it, but you're an idiot for posting it on the forums and then whining when it gets banned. It begs the question-- What exactly did you expect? CCP would let every freighter in the game die to solo gankers? He should have sold the idea to the Goons. And then he should have required the Goons to pay him again to remain silent about it. Dammit, if CCP hadn't nerfed the Comet's blinking light, I could now be flying around in Jita in my "Whaaaaaambulance!" Goon Tears: -á25% Alcohol by Volume
FloppieTheBanjoClown The Skunkworks 1242	Posted - 2012.03.30 21:58:00 - [38] - Quote I would side with CCP, except: Mercenary: wardec Carebear: dec scrape Mercenary: This is unfair. CCP: Suck it up. Pirate: gank Carebear: This is unfair. CCP: NEW RULE! This new rule is a prime example of CCP's utter lack of consistency in enforcing the rules and dealing with exploits. We complain about dec scraping and are told to wait for Inferno. Carebears complain about the boomerang and get a new rule to protect them until Inferno patches the tactic into oblivion. My confidence in CCP's ability to not ruin Inferno is waning fast. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you.
Jonah Gravenstein 71	Posted - 2012.03.30 21:59:00 - [39] - Quote stoicfaux wrote: People may not like suicide-ganking or the OP's extreme devotion to it, but let's be honest here, the heart of the problem is how artificial and clunky the CONCORD aggression mechanics are. Actions and attitudes like this may encourage CCP to change high-sec "law enforcement" from being a strictly NPC affair, to allowing it to be controlled or influenced by players. Allow the players to improve the security in high sec if they pay for it, such as adding more sentry guns or tweaking sentry guns/faction police to preemptively attack known outlaws. If you're a "known" criminal (i.e. committed an act of aggression in the last X weeks) then the guns/police for that particular faction/corp should just shoot you on sight. Conversely, criminals should be able to destroy sentries/police ships, or avoid police patrols in asteroid belts. Such actions would be harder to do in "safe" citizen upgraded neighborhoods versus blighted/neglected areas of high-sec. Alternately, known criminals should be open to being hunted by players who are members of the Faction Police (think Faction Warfare-ish.) That's a pretty damn good idea tbh, opens up a whole new layer of white hat/black hat playstyles, also a kind of semi ownership/small holding for systems or even constellations War hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside.
Kessiaan Greater Order Of Destruction Happy Endings 139	Posted - 2012.03.30 22:17:00 - [40] - Quote The OP was asking for it when he bragged about how many freighters he'd solo killed in highsec yesterday (along with a detailed guide) and he knew it, so I'm not going to hop on the bandwagon here. If he wanted to keep killing freighters all he had to do was keep his mouth shut since legal gameplay is never an exploit unless CCP explicitly says it is. tbh it's not a good time to be a highsec bear. Hell half my recent kills are Hulks and other mining ships just because it's so damn easy and practiclly free. Plus two freighter exploits is as many weeks. Plus the upcoming invasion of Jita by the goons. I want to see highsec burn as much as anyone but it's pretty obvious there's some threshold CCP wants the targets to pass (in terms of ISK value) before it becomes profitable to gank them. I wouldn't be surprised if CONCORD surprises us all with their shiny new death ray that pops you X seconds after taking GCC (where X depends on the security level of the system) a lot sooner than we expect. My killboard - http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Kessiaan

Tarryn Nightstorm Hellstar Towing and Recovery 334	Posted - 2012.03.30 22:28:00 - [41] - Quote (Sigh...) It has come to this. But on some levels, I think we all knew it would, sooner or later, and probably sooner than later. The writing has been on the wall for...oh, I would say, at least the last 6-8 months, probably longer. I don't doubt that we'll see instanced mission-spaces before too much longer at this rate. Well, carebears--I mean the wrong kind of carebears, not the old-school "fighting bears" that I "grew up" with once upon a time ago, even the ones who didn't enjoy PvP too much, but still got, and worked with EVE as it was, as it should be--you're getting what you wished for. But you're also getting the consequences. Welcome to EVE, screamy, whiny, over-entitled little crybears, we hope you don't stay too long. In irae, veritas.
Tarryn Nightstorm Hellstar Towing and Recovery 334	Posted - 2012.03.30 22:35:00 - [42] - Quote Thebriwan wrote: There was no rule changed. It was made totally crystal clear years ago that you must die after you ganked someone in high sec. You found a hole in the mechanic and exploited it. And then you talked about it and then it was done so much that CCP has to do something against. Seen that so many times... How is this an exploit, then? You WILL lose the ship to CONCORD, this just delays it, and it only takes a very brief lag-spike or client-stutter to banjax the whole thing. I had thought that the exploit--permabannable, and rightly so, IMHO--was avoiding CONCORD's retribution entirely, but not delaying it by (realistically, anyway) at most, a minute. In irae, veritas.
Caroline Grace Almost Approved 17	Posted - 2012.03.30 22:35:00 - [43] - Quote Thebriwan wrote: There was no rule changed. It was made totally crystal clear years ago that you must die after you ganked someone in high sec. You found a hole in the mechanic and exploited it. And then you talked about it and then it was done so much that CCP has to do something against. Seen that so many times... Million times this. You're doing it wrong, OP. Deal with it.
Marduk Nibiru Physical Chaos 140	Posted - 2012.03.30 22:37:00 - [44] - Quote Herr Wilkus wrote: 1. Carebears whined and CCP listened. Why? Because they outnumber us. This needs to be rectified. 2. Ganking miners with Tornados is no a longer profitable endeavor, but can only be done at a loss. 3. Ganking at a loss, I can not match the limitless resources of large botting/RMT operations, so why even try? Should be entertaining when all that's left paying for EVE are RMT botters..and nobody else even bothers to play. I guess we simply need to adapt to the fact that these guys are an important, protected resource. I thought your tactic was pretty damn brilliant and innovative myself. Oh well. vOv Here's a question... will concord arrive at a gank site if they're busy chasing someone else around?
Vaerah Vahrokha Vahrokh Consulting 458	Posted - 2012.03.30 22:48:00 - [45] - Quote Tarryn Nightstorm wrote: Thebriwan wrote: There was no rule changed. It was made totally crystal clear years ago that you must die after you ganked someone in high sec. You found a hole in the mechanic and exploited it. And then you talked about it and then it was done so much that CCP has to do something against. Seen that so many times... How is this an exploit, then? You WILL lose the ship to CONCORD, this just delays it, and it only takes a very brief lag-spike or client-stutter to banjax the whole thing. I had thought that the exploit--permabannable, and rightly so, IMHO--was avoiding CONCORD's retribution entirely, but not delaying it by (realistically, anyway) at most, a minute. The game is finely balanced. Ships come with a cost, a DPS throughput, a value, a role etc. One of the many facets of ships balance is how they are meant to perform in a suicide gank. A ship costing 2M can cause a 110M+ loss. A disco BS can hop in 10 macks and cause 1B or so loss. A tornado can alpha its good deal of stuff. Its cost is studied to do X damage and Y kill. By artificially grabbing 2-3 runs instead of the intended 1 => concord kill, you are doubling or tripling the amount of damage and kills done while not paying for the opportunity cost. Therefore you are cheating. Therefore CCP forbids this. Auditing \| Collateral holding and insurance \| Consulting \| PLEX for Good Charity Twitter channel
Ban Bindy Bindy Brothers Pottery Association 80	Posted - 2012.03.30 22:50:00 - [46] - Quote This was always an exploit, your earlier thread as much as admitted it, and everybody knew CCP would step in. It's always care bears complaining who achieve this kind of result in the self-absorbed mind of a solipsist like you. Oh what skill you showed in your boomerangs! Crap. Of course you will singlehandedly ruin the game by targeting new players. Yes, you mighty mighty righteous warrior, on with your Crusade. You'll just hasten the time when CCP is forced to protect new players even more. The fix to Concord response is only one of the fixes you will have to deal with in the future. Read the Crimewatch thread from Fanfest and gnash your teeth till they are nothing but gums. "I didn't' get my way so NOBODY can play now."
Vaerah Vahrokha Vahrokh Consulting 458	Posted - 2012.03.30 22:50:00 - [47] - Quote Herr Wilkus wrote: 2. Ganking miners with Tornados is no a longer profitable endeavor, but can only be done at a loss. 3. Ganking at a loss, I can not match the limitless resources of large botting/RMT operations, so why even try? You could do like everyone else and use 1-2 catalysts instead. Auditing \| Collateral holding and insurance \| Consulting \| PLEX for Good Charity Twitter channel
Ban Bindy Bindy Brothers Pottery Association 80	Posted - 2012.03.30 23:01:00 - [48] - Quote You should really be happy that CCP is not nerfing the ship itself. Why does this forum spell correct all the good words?
Gnaw LF 32	Posted - 2012.03.30 23:04:00 - [49] - Quote stoicfaux wrote: People may not like suicide-ganking or the OP's extreme devotion to it, but let's be honest here, the heart of the problem is how artificial and clunky the CONCORD aggression mechanics are. Actions and attitudes like this may encourage CCP to change high-sec "law enforcement" from being a strictly NPC affair, to allowing it to be controlled or influenced by players. Allow the players to improve the security in high sec if they pay for it, such as adding more sentry guns or tweaking sentry guns/faction police to preemptively attack known outlaws. If you're a "known" criminal (i.e. committed an act of aggression in the last X weeks) then the guns/police for that particular faction/corp should just shoot you on sight. Conversely, criminals should be able to destroy sentries/police ships, or avoid police patrols in asteroid belts. Such actions would be harder to do in "safe" citizen upgraded neighborhoods versus blighted/neglected areas of high-sec. Alternately, known criminals should be open to being hunted by players who are members of the Faction Police (think Faction Warfare-ish.) Great idea. Superb actually, I think we should take it one step further and make it so the "law enforcement" is player corp specific. That way the player corporations get to decide if they enforcement will assist only their members or extend to all lawful citizens in the system. This would also add another layer of meaning and goals to wardec, such as a pirate corp or ganking corp coming into the system and waging war against the local corporation to clear out the "enforcement". Or hiring mercs to do it.
supr3m3justic3 Imperium Technologies F0RCEFUL ENTRY 24	Posted - 2012.03.30 23:16:00 - [50] - Quote LOL, maybe they should just create a pve server, so this game can go ahead and die.

stoicfaux 898	Posted - 2012.03.30 23:28:00 - [51] - Quote supr3m3justic3 wrote: LOL, maybe they should just create a pve server, so this game can go ahead and die. No, it just takes a readjustment of carebear attitudes. The current system encourages a "welfare state" mentality in terms of security. Carebears are completely reliant on CONCORD because proactive defense isn't practical, and they have no real input on security, thus high-sec carebears' only option is to think defensively. If carebears were put more in charge of their own security, such as directly paying for or voting on how sentry guns, faction polices, most wanted policies, etc. were managed, then they would starting thinking in PvP terms, namely "Get a posse together, we're going to run that dog out of town!" instead saying "Waaaaaaaaaah! protect me CCP!" It's the old "when it comes to ham and eggs for security, the chicken is involved but the pig is committed" parable. Right now high-sec is full of chickens. High-sec needs more bacon. Dammit, if CCP hadn't nerfed the Comet's blinking light, I could now be flying around in Jita in my "Whaaaaaambulance!" Goon Tears: -á25% Alcohol by Volume
Killer Gandry V I R I I Ineluctable. 195	Posted - 2012.03.30 23:46:00 - [52] - Quote I always love it when a certain group is so darn self righteous and declare their personal playstyle as the only legitimate way to play EVE. If another group doesn't play according to my rules they are either ganking scum or whiny carebears. No need to look at myself. Because let's face it, I am right and all the rest is wrong. CCP fixed a loophole / exploit and all of a sudden those who abused it for some time feel the need to cry their hearts out instead of being very happy they didn't go by the full rule and slap you real hard for using an exploit in the game mechanics. You can still gank hulks just that they plugged a hole where there shouldn't have been a hole in the first place. To the miners, learn to fit a bloody tank. Yes it decreases your Isk per hour quit a bit, but the cost of a hulk loss is also something to calculate in.
Judeau Antara Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 9	Posted - 2012.03.30 23:58:00 - [53] - Quote The OP knew that any evasion of CONCORD is against the rules. He exploited an evasion tactic for quite some time and then posted it on the forums. Honestly, where is the logical jump you made that action would not be taken against this? Carebears whining? You made it a public ordeal, whether someone whined or not has nothing to do with it. You literally told CCP that there was a way to evade CONCORD longer than intended. It is pretty funny seeing all these hi-sec gankers always spouting off their conspiracy theories about how carebear tears change the very flow of the game. Maybe, just maybe, CCP just doesn't like the way certain things work. I mean, christ, there is a reason there are many different areas of the game. Hi-sec, low sec, null, wormholes.....different places for different types of players. Going into carebear territory and then getting upset that it plays to more their style is just ludicrous. If a carebear went into null and then complained that there was no security, what do you think the reaction would be?
Cipher Jones The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars 441	Posted - 2012.03.31 00:09:00 - [54] - Quote Jayrendo Karr wrote: I don't want to be "that guy" But realistically concord should destroy the orca as well for aiding and abetting a criminal. 600 mining barges is a ludicrous amount, if even 100 people destroyed 600 barges a person the impact would be severe. 60,000 barges gone. Like it or not, care-bears build 80% of the things used in eve. Ganking should be allowed but 600 ganks in 3 months by one person is nuts. Every gank should have meaning. If you don't want to lose your ship, gank in low-sec. I'm all for allowing ganks, but it should carry a penalty to match being a public menace. Carebear-one who does something with little risk. OP is a true carebear. You risk nothing, you may lose your ship but it's guaranteed if you gank. A guaranteed loss is not a risk. You don't even risk failure! You are literally guaranteed to kill. You gank miners because if you gank goons or 0.0 alliance type members they will never let it go and guarantee you pay through the nose. Lol, you clearly do not understand the mechanics involved. rembourcer ou vous ne pourez plus miner en paix !!-ánous n'aimons pas les pirate !!-áno rembource mi declare war for you
MatrixSkye Mk2 Republic University Minmatar Republic 224	Posted - 2012.03.31 00:15:00 - [55] - Quote Herr Wilkus, I am deeply sorry that CCP's decision has caused you to break down in tears like this. On the other hand, I have a bucket full of tears to sell you and your alliance. Just don't ask where it came from .
Corina Jarr Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built 629	Posted - 2012.03.31 00:38:00 - [56] - Quote Tarryn Nightstorm wrote: Thebriwan wrote: There was no rule changed. It was made totally crystal clear years ago that you must die after you ganked someone in high sec. You found a hole in the mechanic and exploited it. And then you talked about it and then it was done so much that CCP has to do something against. Seen that so many times... How is this an exploit, then? You WILL lose the ship to CONCORD, this just delays it, and it only takes a very brief lag-spike or client-stutter to banjax the whole thing. I had thought that the exploit--permabannable, and rightly so, IMHO--was avoiding CONCORD's retribution entirely, but not delaying it by (realistically, anyway) at most, a minute. Someone went ahead and showed CCP that not only can you get many kills this way, you can also repeat long enough for the GCC to run out. It is an exploit.
Corina Jarr Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built 629	Posted - 2012.03.31 00:40:00 - [57] - Quote Killer Gandry wrote: To the miners, learn to fit a bloody tank. Yes it decreases your Isk per hour quit a bit, but the cost of a hulk loss is also something to calculate in. Don't even need a tank. Just stay aligned. If a Nado or dessie warps within a few km of you, you can warp out before they are able to try to lock.
Roll Sizzle Beef Space Mutiny 154	Posted - 2012.03.31 00:45:00 - [58] - Quote FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: This new rule is a prime example of CCP's utter lack of consistency in enforcing the rules and dealing with exploits. We complain about dec scraping and are told to wait for Inferno. Carebears complain about the boomerang and get a new rule to protect them until Inferno patches the tactic into oblivion.. Soooo? One deals with hardcoded mechanics that cant be avoided and are to great and widespread to police. And the other is a player driven operation that has to be methodically planned out by the aggressor to occur. New rule warns everyone, and if you do it, its pretty blatant. HTFU and play with more thrashers.
Nyrak Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 8	Posted - 2012.03.31 00:59:00 - [59] - Quote Corina Jarr wrote: Killer Gandry wrote: To the miners, learn to fit a bloody tank. Yes it decreases your Isk per hour quit a bit, but the cost of a hulk loss is also something to calculate in. Don't even need a tank. Just stay aligned. If a Nado or dessie warps within a few km of you, you can warp out before they are able to try to lock. Just to clarify, once you are aligned with something, you can stop your ship? I been trying this tactic recently and it seems as long as I am moving, the warp option kicks in right away. But if I stop, my ship seems to drift a bit so warping off - while not as fast as moving initially, seems to take a moment to realign, get up to speed, then go.
Ajita al Tchar Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 183	Posted - 2012.03.31 01:10:00 - [60] - Quote Nyrak wrote: Corina Jarr wrote: Killer Gandry wrote: To the miners, learn to fit a bloody tank. Yes it decreases your Isk per hour quit a bit, but the cost of a hulk loss is also something to calculate in. Don't even need a tank. Just stay aligned. If a Nado or dessie warps within a few km of you, you can warp out before they are able to try to lock. Just to clarify, once you are aligned with something, you can stop your ship? I been trying this tactic recently and it seems as long as I am moving, the warp option kicks in right away. But if I stop, my ship seems to drift a bit so warping off - while not as fast as moving initially, seems to take a moment to realign, get up to speed, then go. That is correct; passive align (when you stop your ship but the graphic points in the right direction) is bullshit. The only way to instawarp via aligning is to be moving which makes mining... interesting. You can always get a buddy to web you so your 75% speed is like 2m/s but yeah. For ****'s sake people, stop saying "mine aligned" without explaining what you mean because half the people who say that use the wrong definition of align, and half the people who hear it apply their wrong definition of "align" to it as well.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: 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.