Thus: I plan to do my utmost to 'encourage' young mining carebears to quit the game via selective, predatory ganking.
Effective immediately, all operations, reports, and petitions against mining botters will cease. No more 'padding' the KB with my new 'artificial friends'. In my view, mining bots are actually beneficial: They flood the market with minerals/ice and significantly depress 'real miner' earnings.

Resources will now be focused exclusively on hunting 'real' miners. I've found that younger miners are more likely to become discouraged after multiple Exhumer losses and will simply cancel their subscription. This will help achieve the goal of reducing carebear influence over EVE - simply by reducing their numbers.

-Using the 'fitting service' on your Orca while GCC is STILL LEGAL.
In my experience, this will allow you plenty of time to 'prep your guns' for unfitting.
You can generally save 90-95% of all the mods on a Tornado this way, and it drives the cost of ganking down to the hull price.
Second post will contain a detailed primer.

Strategic Goal:

You're kind of pathetic TBFH.

I don't have any details (yet) but I would assume with what you have posted so far is that your warping in, blowing up a ship, warping out to somewhere else where you can blow up another ship before CONCORD spawns to take you out. Repeat as many times as you can till CONCORD gets you.

That would qualify as evading CONCORD. You blow up a ship in high sec, you lose your ship. Warping out to attack another ship, avoiding CONCORD response, would be a violation of the rules that CCP have.

You will probably whine more since it looks like it is possible that in the future CCP is going to flag your Orca with a GCC when you go there to swap out modules.

High sec ganking is not suppose to be easy. Get over it.

THB, stop being a pansy and gank the gankers. Battle Hulks are where it's at.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dxawXgeosU

High sec ganking is not suppose to be easy. Get over it.

THB, stop being a pansy and gank the gankers. Battle Hulks are where it's at.

Eh, whats the point of arguing.

CCP GMs want to coddle carebears - even if they have to rewrite their own rules to do it.

I developed the 'Tornado Boomerang' technique shortly after the 'nado was released and I knew it was good - but challenging to do properly and NOT broken. The technique, done right, effectively reversed the effects of the simultaneous 'insurance nerf' that I was seeking to overcome. Used it to my benefit for 3 solid months, killing 635 Exhumers and 1 Orca, solo. Only shared the technique with a few in the ganking community. But I wanted it to see wider use.....

(Disclaimer: Its quite possible that others figured it out independently, but I saw no evidence of that anywhere.)

So I eventually wrote my (immediately locked) primer as a 'test case'. After all, it was merely min-maxing the Tornado into effectiveness by maximizing gank and agility - at the expense of everything else. Wanted to see how CCP would respond to 'innovation' in ganking. They like innovation right? WRONG.

If you discover a good, efficient ganking tactic - you keep it to yourself and tell nobody. Even if it violates no rules, CCP will rewrite the rules based on the 'end result' - not the 'means'. IE: If innovation results in carebears crying, nerfs and rule changes will be incoming. Got it loud and clear, CCP. Thats the last trick I'll openly share with the GMs.

So, where does that leave me?

Tactical Situation:

You are still ALLOWED to warp away - but you are not allowed to shoot more targets after warping.
No way around it - CCP's arbitrary rule change has severely limited the Tornado's ganking utility, especially for efficiently killing widely spaced mining bots in the belts. Really, not much reason to use it over, say, a Catalyst or a Talos now.

But you still have two advantages:

-You are allowed to get your Tornado off-grid to die in a 'safe place'. The Tornado 'drive-by' shooting.
This is important if you are dealing with 'white knights' - looking to pod you and/or loot your wreck.

-Using the 'fitting service' on your Orca while GCC is STILL LEGAL.
In my experience, this will allow you plenty of time to 'prep your guns' for unfitting.
You can generally save 90-95% of all the mods on a Tornado this way, and it drives the cost of ganking down to the hull price.
Second post will contain a detailed primer.

Strategic Goal:

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?

Thus: I plan to do my utmost to 'encourage' young mining carebears to quit the game via selective, predatory ganking.
Effective immediately, all operations, reports, and petitions against mining botters will cease. No more 'padding' the KB with my new 'artificial friends'. In my view, mining bots are actually beneficial: They flood the market with minerals/ice and significantly depress 'real miner' earnings.

Resources will now be focused exclusively on hunting 'real' miners. I've found that younger miners are more likely to become discouraged after multiple Exhumer losses and will simply cancel their subscription. This will help achieve the goal of reducing carebear influence over EVE - simply by reducing their numbers.

Stuff about how he can only kill defenceless targets.

And IB4L?

Do you also reclamate your own tears?

Your not as clever as you think OP, many people realized that this was possible with smaller ships before T3 BCs. However everyone with half a brain also realized that this was avoiding CONCORD and liable to get you banned, hence why no one did it. So if your previous victims decide to petition their loss, you will probably get a ban. Enjoy.

Eh, whats the point of arguing.

CCP GMs want to coddle carebears - even if they have to rewrite their own rules to do it.

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?

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.)

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...

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...

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?

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.

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?

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.)

LOL, maybe they should just create a pve server, so this game can go ahead and die.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

You realize that you have to be going 75% of your max speed to warp right? Staying passively aligned does absolutely nothing towards the amount of time it takes to warp. Staying truly aligned essentially means you are going to drift out of the asteroid belt as you ship will be moving at 75% of max speed.

Dear God yes I know that. And I do apologize for not being specific. I just don't consider "passive aligning" to be anything but stupidity, so I didn't think of it.


Its why you go between two opposite warp points. A max yield Hulk will fill up long before you get far out of range on one go through. At most two.


Of course, if you mine afk, you can't defend yourself in such a manner... but then again, afkers shouldn't expect to be safe.

I developed the 'Tornado Boomerang' technique

You're dumb.

* The warping-from-CONCORD tactic has been around for years and years and years (people just havn't used it on-grid, and there was no Tornados around, but the technique has been there for ages)
* As soon as it was obvious you could do that, using the warping-from-CONCORD tactic was deemed a bannable offense, as you escape the punishment that was intended

Like it or not, care-bears build 80% of the things used in eve.

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

After reading this... I have but one thing to say about the OP/topic/post...it comes from my days in the Army...a buddy of mine would say it to anyone when they could start to gripe, etc...

"WHAAAAAAAAAAAA... ma'pu$$y'urts!... "

Gut up, you want to gank this way - take the loss... man up and take your tornado in and... well grief, since this isn't a Gang Kill, it's a solo-grief kill... and then take Concord on the chin like a man with some stones.

Your lack of willingness to suffer your dues for that KM is as many say... pathetic...

No, it just takes a readjustment of carebear attitudes.

-Focus ganking resources - target and destroy 'real' miners, especially the young ones. [/b]
They are easy to identify. They chat, join real corps, have real names - and mine manually. Addressbook them and kill their assets repeatedly, even at a loss. LEVERAGE your deep pockets against them: it will hurt them FAR more than it hurts you.

-Make it hopeless for them, and make it personal. Turn their early 'sense of wonder and accomplishment' into a futile cycle of one-sided destruction and loss.

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.

You make it personal, you get a ban.

There is a fine line between valid game play and griefing (as in harassing a player to the degree that it violates the EULA/TOS). You just posted that your going to violate the TOS.... again.

Edit: Need to get around to re-editing that vid to make it less fuzzy.

Carebears already have the tools they need to survive high-sec attacks, Tornados or otherwise.
They simply choose not to use them. Sometimes out of ignorance....
....but mainly because that would require effort . (Tanking, being aware, not autopiloting, teamwork beyond filling an Orca, etc).

When I say personal, I don't mean:

"Bobby Joe Carebear" at 456 Jefferson Davis Blvd. in Shreveport. LA.
I'm not going over to his house, FFS. I don't care what he does in real life, in the privacy of his home, with or without animals.
I don't care what race he is. I don't care about his (or her) mental state. Its irrelevant to my concerns.

My concern is only to use legal tactics to encourage him to voluntarily hit the 'unsubscribe' button.
This will save EVE from his poisonous carebear existence.

When I say personal - I mean attack their in-game persona. Identify and record their in-game associations and friends.
Innocently chat with them with an alt - figure out if they are a 'real miner', or just an alt or a bot.
After you kill them, follow them. We have addressbooks and locator agents. Use them.

If they move several jumps to avoid you, follow them and and pop them again. Force them to dock up.
Hire your friends to kill them when you are busy - by placing an 'out of game' ISK bounty on them. (ie: not the broken 'in game' bounty system)

Consider it a 'suicide wardec' that has no Concord fee or expiration date - and it cannot be dec-shielded or 'evaded' by simply dropping into an NPC corp - as most miners tend to do when wardecced. Don't like it? Cry more and louder. That seems to work pretty well for your types. We just act.

Eh, whats the point of arguing.

Thus: I plan to do my utmost to 'encourage' young mining carebears to quit the game via selective, predatory ganking.
Effective immediately, all operations, reports, and petitions against mining botters will cease. No more 'padding' the KB with my new 'artificial friends'. In my view, mining bots are actually beneficial: They flood the market with minerals/ice and significantly depress 'real miner' earnings.

Resources will now be focused exclusively on hunting 'real' miners. I've found that younger miners are more likely to become discouraged after multiple Exhumer losses and will simply cancel their subscription. This will help achieve the goal of reducing carebear influence over EVE - simply by reducing their numbers.

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?

It's like the 'Wilkus-styled Gankers' (WILKIES ?) are playing Doom, and want to be in "God-Mode" when in High Sec. 'Kill all the riff raff, but nothing can touch you.'

Those with the 'playstyle' of Herr Wilkus really are qualified for a rubber room IMHO.

Carebears already have the tools they need to survive high-sec attacks, Tornados or otherwise.
They simply choose not to use them. Sometimes out of ignorance....
....but mainly because that would require effort . (Tanking, being aware, not autopiloting, teamwork beyond filling an Orca,

Eh, whats the point of arguing.

CCP GMs want to coddle carebears - even if they have to rewrite their own rules to do it.

Do you also reclamate your own tears?

I think a large percentage of replies to this thread are coming from people who clearly have either a poor grasp on game mechanics, reality or did not read the OP

Avoiding Concord has always been an exploit. Kind of understood was that the "ganker" would lose his/her stuff. Avoiding loosing stuff is an exploit.

whine more.

Well, for instance this statement.

Avoiding Concord has always been an exploit. But warping away from the site of a gank was never considered 'avoiding Concord.' And it still isn't. (now you just can't shoot after warping) Further, warping away doesn't save your ship - Concord ALWAYS catches you and destroys you. You just shoot as much as you can before that inevitably happens.

Interesting that you use the term 'stuff' very clever - CCP's policy is that you must lose your 'ship'. Not 'stuff'.
You are allowed to keep your mods. Did you know that they often survive Concord death? Amazing.

People need to learn to read.

Oh, and for the other fellow saying that 'saving a freighter from the Boomerang/bump combination was 'impossible'.

Answer: Tornados are GCC - anyone can engage them. Your solution: A single excorting Rifter with a point or two and a MWD. Tornados turn red, you point them, Concord showed up and the attack is thwarted. Easy as that. Care to revise your statement?

Kind of a shame, as it could have been a new business opportunity for bored pilots: High-sec Freighter escorts. Cost of shipping goes up, but thats not a bad thing. Further, there might have been opportunities to 'bribe' the guards to look the other way. Interesting stuff that will never happen, because now we are back to the same old 'brute force' gank. To which there is NO countermeasure except cargo risk management and economics. Kind sad. There was a lot of potential for everyone, not just pirates.

Well, for instance this statement.

Avoiding Concord has always been an exploit. But warping away from the site of a gank was never considered 'avoiding Concord.' And it still isn't. (now you just can't shoot after warping) Further, warping away doesn't save your ship - Concord ALWAYS catches you and destroys you. You just shoot as much as you can before that inevitably happens.

Interesting that you use the term 'stuff' very clever - CCP's policy is that you must lose your 'ship'. Not 'stuff'.
You are allowed to keep your mods. Did you know that they often survive Concord death? Amazing.

People need to learn to read.

Oh, and for the other fellow saying that 'saving a freighter from the Boomerang/bump combination was 'impossible'.

Answer: Tornados are GCC - anyone can engage them. Your solution: A single excorting Rifter with a point or two and a MWD. Tornados turn red, you point them, Concord showed up and the attack is thwarted. Easy as that. Care to revise your statement?

Kind of a shame, as it could have been a new business opportunity for bored pilots: High-sec Freighter escorts. Cost of shipping goes up, but thats not a bad thing. Further, there might have been opportunities to 'bribe' the guards to look the other way. Interesting stuff that will never happen, because now we are back to the same old 'brute force' gank. To which there is NO countermeasure except cargo risk management and economics. Kind sad. There was a lot of potential for everyone, not just pirates. What was that sound? Player interaction potential being snuffed out.

You're kind of pathetic TBFH.

Well, for instance this statement.

Avoiding Concord has always been an exploit. But warping away from the site of a gank was never considered 'avoiding Concord.' And it still isn't. (now you just can't shoot after warping) Further, warping away doesn't save your ship - Concord ALWAYS catches you and destroys you. You just shoot as much as you can before that inevitably happens.

Interesting that you use the term 'stuff' very clever - CCP's policy is that you must lose your 'ship'. Not 'stuff'.
You are allowed to keep your mods. Did you know that they often survive Concord death? Amazing.

People need to learn to read.

Oh, and for the other fellow saying that 'saving a freighter from the Boomerang/bump combination was 'impossible'.

Answer: Tornados are GCC - anyone can engage them. Your solution: A single excorting Rifter with a point or two and a MWD. Tornados turn red, you point them, Concord showed up and the attack is thwarted. Easy as that. Care to revise your statement?

Kind of a shame, as it could have been a new business opportunity for bored pilots: High-sec Freighter escorts. Cost of shipping goes up, but thats not a bad thing. Further, there might have been opportunities to 'bribe' the guards to look the other way. Interesting stuff that will never happen, because now we are back to the same old 'brute force' gank. To which there is NO countermeasure except cargo risk management and economics. Kind sad. There was a lot of potential for everyone, not just pirates. What was that sound? Player interaction potential being snuffed out.

Oh.

I see.

You're an "internet spaceship lawyer". Well, when I did hulkageddon (exhumer is still my "prey of choice, I think) - we lost all our stuffs involved in the gank.

My understanding of the rule was "you gank - you lose your stuff involved in the gank". Ship/etc...

You just need to be told explicitly. It's guys like you that will tie this game down in red tape. Just because CCP didn't take you by the nose and say "this is it, x, y and z" doesn't mean it wasn't intended.

Reading comprehension indeed...

Said it before and I'll say it again:

"Whine more".

No, you don't need to be a lawyer to understand it. You just need average reasoning capability.

stuf

Don't like it? Cry more and louder. That seems to work pretty well for your types. We just act.

So Im curious, does the OP get banned given he showed knowledge of using that exploit and knowledge that it is an exploit?

It *does* impede your ability to avoid risk.

I plan to do my utmost to 'encourage' young mining carebears to quit the game via selective, predatory ganking.

Only if you think a person should go to jail for committing a crime BEFORE it was a crime.

I missed the part where one of his ships survived after 15 min of GCC. Could you please point that out to me?

Watch.. Now that hes posted this hes going to have people stalking and waiting cloaked near his Orca just to bump the Nado out of range to use the fitting services.

Now that I think about it, would that even work?

Boomeranging wasn't an exploit until recently. Why?

Because CCP's 'evasion' policy had to be REWORDED in order to classify it as an exploit.

And Orca unfitting is NOT an exploit - otherwise GM's would have said so - or simply deleted the thread, like they did with the 'freighter kill' threads.

Still it must be pretty good, though. Not only does CCP bend game mechanics to protect carebears - they Sharpie the rulebook as well. Maybe I am in the wrong business and should just start grinding Incursions or Lvl 4's like a moron.

Eh, whats the point of arguing.

CCP GMs want to coddle carebears - even if they have to rewrite their own rules to do it.

[quote=JC Anderson]Stuff.

........
Thus: I plan to do my utmost to 'encourage' young mining carebears to quit the game via selective, predatory ganking.
Effective immediately, all operations, reports, and petitions against mining botters will cease. No more 'padding' the KB with my new 'artificial friends'. In my view, mining bots are actually beneficial: They flood the market with minerals/ice and significantly depress 'real miner' earnings.

Resources will now be focused exclusively on hunting 'real' miners. I've found that younger miners are more likely to become discouraged after multiple Exhumer losses and will simply cancel their subscription. This will help achieve the goal of reducing carebear influence over EVE - simply by reducing their numbers.

Please CCP let me kill really big ships full of nice stuff that have no chance of escape so that I can get rich without putting much work in kthxbai!!

Oh right, the point of dropping your fit in the Orca is to avoid ship loss.... Nice straw man - but it doesn't apply, OP even says you have time to drop your expensive mods...

So yeah, nice straw man.

Not.

Only if you think a person should go to jail for committing a crime BEFORE it was a crime.

Page 6 and he's still frantically trying to defend this point by wielding a dictionary and getting his E-Lawyer up.

I trust the irony of whining and moaning about how he can't gank with impunity or without risk is lost on no one.

At the end of the day, CCP can change their EULA/definitions of exploits as often and as drastically as they please. You know, since they own this game and stuff. If you don't like it, you and everyone that agrees with you - which, as you have observed correctly, seems to be the minority - is free to quit the game at any time

edit: A little too slow, but what can you do.

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?

Quoting myself as it seems some folk haven't had the chance to read the whole thread.
Just reading the OP then jump to the last page and pick up the whining part.

As I see this, OP did this deliberately and is now trying to e-lawyer his upcoming punishment down.

Quoting myself as it seems some folk haven't had the chance to read the whole thread.
Just reading the OP then jump to the last page and pick up the whining part.

As I see this, OP did this deliberately and is now trying to e-lawyer his upcoming punishment down.

I think he confesed to have done it like 600 times in the OP, but maybe we are reading a different thread?

This about CCP changing the rules to satisfy the whines of one group of players, at the expense of another group. This is about the GMs being "too busy" to enforce long-held rules on exploits, yet them adding more rules and then stating that they would make judgement calls based on "the spirit of the law" which puts a chilling effect on emergent gameplay.

Rock on mate!

And you're completely right about mining bots being good for the game. Cheaper minerals means less miners, cheaper ships, cheaper mods ala more missioners/ratters, and potentially more pvpers. Trying to make mining a good profession again is a mistake on CCP's part and tbqh, if they changed all bounties ->alloys right now it would benefit the game immeasurably.

In any case thanks!

i am srry to say that but for your solution for freighter gank you need to play in team, after all it's a multiplayer game. aparently for carebear population anything involving more than 1 player it's bad and need to be nerfed; funny thing they say the griefers are sociopaths and without social life blah blah blah. i wonder who are the really sociopaths here?

[ Americans do not adapt to survive, or change to improve their chances to survive. The political climate of EvE comes from this influence and you can take that from the RL politics as a template: if you can't survive or adapt, then.... COMPLAIN.

Eh, whats the point of arguing.

reducing carebear influence over EVE - simply by reducing their numbers.

kinda the point I was going at

dealing with Concord

So is that an exploit too then? The "dealing wit CONCORD" part I mean

Gee Whiz my last thread about my special tactics got ruled an exploit, I should make more threads about my special tactics!

So is that an exploit too then? The "dealing wit CONCORD" part I mean

Good question Id like to see answered by a blue

We have nt seen one of those in a while in this thread

I developed the 'Tornado Boomerang' technique shortly after the 'nado was released and I knew it was good - but challenging to do properly and NOT broken. The technique, done right, effectively reversed the effects of the simultaneous 'insurance nerf' that I was seeking to overcome. Used it to my benefit for 3 solid months, killing 635 Exhumers and 1 Orca, solo.

The usual rule of "You are never the first" applies here. If you "developed this 3 months ago", that 'd put you at around the beginning of January as your "discovery date".

We were doing this back in December: http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&view=kills&plt_id=374927&m=12&y=2011

Look at the time between kills.

At the time, it was not publicly called an exploit. Once I recieved the "you need to stop doing this or get banned" email from a GM, I quit.

IIRC total count from 2 months of kills was something like 700 mackinaws and 4 orcas?

So, sorry to knock you off your high-horse, but you are not original.

And most likely, neither was I.

Furthermore, quit whining about it and find a new method. When CCP "broke my game" I just went a found different targets to gank, tengus: http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&view=kills&plt_id=374927&m=2&y=2012&scl_id=40

So, HTFU and find a new bag, eh?

(Disclaimer: Its quite possible that others figured it out independently, but I saw no evidence of that anywhere.)

[quote=Lelob]Rock on mate!

Ore/Mine production should be done by mining-bots (or item reprocessing) and not by real players.So anybody who shoots "real" miners (not bots) does the game a favour.
The holy knight isnt the concord rescue ship .... its the suicide ganker who is cleaning Eve from lazy playing style.

Stupid carebears, answer me this:
You claim that the 'Boomerang' was an 'exploit'.
You claim that GCC-unfitting gankships is an 'exploit'.

I never claimed anything was an exploit, CCP did.

COULD be wrong but its CCP thats claiming there was an exploit and it was ruled AS an exploit so whats the question?

@Nova Fox
As far as other tricks go, I learned my lesson. Next time I figure something out, the GMs will have to 'consult the logs' because I won't be telling them anything. Sad - but that is the way it has to be.

Stuff Herr said.

Why do some people wants to push miners out of the game??? push them to quit EVE???
whats in it for them?
why do they want to steal money from CCP?

Eh, whats the point of arguing.

CCP GMs want to coddle carebears - even if they have to rewrite their own rules to do it.

I developed the 'Tornado Boomerang' technique shortly after the 'nado was released and I knew it was good - but challenging to do properly and NOT broken. The technique, done right, effectively reversed the effects of the simultaneous 'insurance nerf' that I was seeking to overcome. Used it to my benefit for 3 solid months, killing 635 Exhumers and 1 Orca, solo. Only shared the technique with a few in the ganking community. But I wanted it to see wider use.....

(Disclaimer: Its quite possible that others figured it out independently, but I saw no evidence of that anywhere.)

So I eventually wrote my (immediately locked) primer as a 'test case'. After all, it was merely min-maxing the Tornado into effectiveness by maximizing gank and agility - at the expense of everything else. Wanted to see how CCP would respond to 'innovation' in ganking. They like innovation right? WRONG.

If you discover a good, efficient ganking tactic - you keep it to yourself and tell nobody. Even if it violates no rules, CCP will rewrite the rules based on the 'end result' - not the 'means'. IE: If innovation results in carebears crying, nerfs and rule changes will be incoming. Got it loud and clear, CCP. Thats the last trick I'll openly share with the GMs.

So, where does that leave me?

Tactical Situation:

Case 1. Warping away from a gank.
- This is not an exploit now, and it never was. You are allowed to get your Tornado off-grid to die in a 'safe place'. The Tornado 'drive-by' shooting. This is important if you are dealing with 'white knights' - looking to pod you and/or loot your wreck.

Case 2. Warping repeatedly (with a very agile ship) for 15 minutes until the GCC expires.
- This has always been an exploit, because your ship doesn't die, and I don't know why people are talking about it.

Case 3. Warping away from a gank, and shooting again, then getting caught and exploded.
-This previously was NOT an exploit, but now it is. (because CCP was washed away in Carebear tears, esp. once freighters started going down) Goonswarm had posted videos of doing exactly this, years ago - using about 15 destroyers. Granted, it was not especially common, but it was possible and did happen. It was public knowledge and nobody was banned....because it wasn't considered an exploit because the Tornado did not yet exist.

Further, using the 'fitting service' on your Orca while GCC is STILL LEGAL.
In my experience, this will allow you plenty of time to 'prep your guns' for unfitting.
You can generally save 90-95% of all the mods on a Tornado this way, and it drives the cost of ganking down to the hull price.
Second post will contain a detailed primer.

Strategic Goal:

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?

Thus: I plan to do my utmost to 'encourage' young mining carebears to quit the game via selective, predatory ganking.
Effective immediately, all operations, reports, and petitions against mining botters will cease. No more 'padding' the KB with my new 'artificial friends'. In my view, mining bots are actually beneficial: They flood the market with minerals/ice and significantly depress 'real miner' earnings.

Resources will now be focused exclusively on hunting 'real' miners. I've found that younger miners are more likely to become discouraged after multiple Exhumer losses and will simply cancel their subscription. This will help achieve the goal of reducing carebear influence over EVE - simply by reducing their numbers.

Question: If you'd go out in a stealth bomber, bomb a hisec target, then warp off and cloak, this is considered an exploit and you are possibly banned for it?

Patch notes for EVE Online: Crucible 1.6.3

Released on Tuesday, April 3, 2012.

Fixes

Miscellaneous

GÇóPilots with a Global Criminal Countdown in high security space will be prevented from warping (if they are in any ship other than a capsule). This is to prevent a tactic declared to be an exploit recently.


I LOL'd