EVE Search - This is bull****!

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

This is bull****!

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Melanie Griffin Minmatar	Posted - 2009.01.08 00:47:00 - [1] flying a mammoth on a 2nd pc through 0.6 sec with AP. Cargo worth roughly 130m ISK. Realized that i'm beeing agressed, switch on invu field and booster while i still had some 85% shields. Got ganked by a single brutix with Limited Neutron Blaster I. Yeah yeah, don't fly AP, eve is a rough and harsch ...blah. Sorry folks, but this is just bollux. I though CCP already adressed this problem?
Xtreem Gallente Knockaround Guys Inc.	Posted - 2009.01.08 00:49:00 - [2] they did, concord got beefed alot. fit a passive sheild tank to help or as u said just dont auto pilot with anything worth over 50mil in a hauler
Micheal Dietrich Caldari Terradyne Networks Terradyne Networks Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.08 00:50:00 - [3] Originally by: Melanie Griffin Yeah yeah, don't fly AP, eve is a rough and harsh
Gone'Postal Aztec Industry	Posted - 2009.01.08 00:51:00 - [4] Where is crump with his ubersigs of truth when you need him.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2009.01.08 00:51:00 - [5] Originally by: Melanie Griffin flying a mammoth on a 2nd pc through 0.6 sec with AP. Cargo worth roughly 130m ISK. Realized that i'm beeing agressed, switch on invu field and booster while i still had some 85% shields. Got ganked by a single brutix with Limited Neutron Blaster I. Yeah yeah, don't fly AP, eve is a rough and harsch ...blah. Sorry folks, but this is just bollux. I though CCP already adressed this problem? Pure awesome.
Johli Caldari AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.01.08 00:55:00 - [6] AP is instagank.
WarlockX Amarr Free Trade Corp	Posted - 2009.01.08 00:56:00 - [7] your cargo is worth 13000% of your ship! that's like putting 2,600,000$ in the back seat of your car and telling us your car got broken into.
Micheal Dietrich Caldari Terradyne Networks Terradyne Networks Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.08 00:58:00 - [8] Originally by: Johli AP is instagank. Already Podded
Benco97 Gallente Black Shadow Rangers	Posted - 2009.01.08 01:13:00 - [9] People who do things like this are silly...
Melanie Griffin Minmatar	Posted - 2009.01.08 01:15:00 - [10] right. so, beeing not such a smartass, why don't we just remove concord and autopilot?
Armoured C Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2009.01.08 01:25:00 - [11] Edited by: Armoured C on 08/01/2009 01:25:43 Originally by: Melanie Griffin 130m ISK. found your problem now how expensive s the ship your flying it in i say remove concord and let the problem sort it self out
Melanie Griffin Minmatar	Posted - 2009.01.08 01:36:00 - [12] Originally by: Armoured C Edited by: Armoured C on 08/01/2009 01:25:43 Originally by: Melanie Griffin 130m ISK. found your problem now how expensive s the ship your flying it in I see. So, let me get this straight. That Mammoth costs around one million ISK, right? Am i doomed now to trade items worth less than a million as long as i can't fly a Mastadon? And when i can, i can only trade till some 50m max? Makes ABSOLUTELY sense mate! Well, at least a lot more than to adjust concord and make high sec what high sec should be i say remove concord and let the problem sort it self out
FunzzeR Counter Errorist Unit	Posted - 2009.01.08 01:38:00 - [13] Originally by: Melanie Griffin I see. So, let me get this straight. That Mammoth costs around one million ISK, right? Am i doomed now to trade items worth less than a million as long as i can't fly a Mastadon? And when i can, i can only trade till some 50m max? Makes ABSOLUTELY sense mate! Well, at least a lot more than to adjust concord and make high sec what high sec should be Better idea, smart traders use courier contrants to move stuff. Let someone else take the risks of hauling expensive goods. Nuff said.
Armoured C Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2009.01.08 01:44:00 - [14] oir better use use transports, they have covert op cloaks for a reason or heavy tanking for a reason put i insist that you continue using t1 hauler to ferry such large amounts of crap the guy who took to risk to take you down shall reap the rewards for you stupidity a toast o/ to humanity , and admiral nior
Leaving Eve	Posted - 2009.01.08 01:56:00 - [15] Just in case you think you will be leaving eve, I want to clarify that I am Leaving Eve. I know, lame, but there aren't many tears for me to suckle on tonight.
Qordel Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2009.01.08 01:57:00 - [16] Last month, when the major lag problems started occurring, I had my mammoth fitted with a bunch of rigs and filled with a ton of cargo and I was taking it to 0.4. A simple enough procedure I've done a thousand times with low risk when going manual. As soon as I popped went into the gate, everything hung. The client was fine. The environment simply didn't change. It just sat there for about 90 seconds. Then it flashed from the frozen image of the gate I entered to me in a station having been destroyed and then podded. Mind you, there were NO problems prior to hitting that gate. Things were just fine. It wasn't a busy area. I wasn't having any network problems. Nothing had been occurring before that. I lost a billion ISK worth of implants, cargo and ship. It **ing sucked balls, because I wasn't auto piloting and I wasn't being negligent. ** just happened out of my control. But oh well. I just sucked it up and moved on. -- What's your EVE New Year's Resolution for 2009?
Arkeladin	Posted - 2009.01.08 02:05:00 - [17] Originally by: Melanie Griffin flying a mammoth on a 2nd pc through 0.6 sec with AP. Cargo worth roughly 130m ISK. Realized that i'm beeing agressed, switch on invu field and booster while i still had some 85% shields. Got ganked by a single brutix with Limited Neutron Blaster I. Yeah yeah, don't fly AP, eve is a rough and harsch ...blah. Sorry folks, but this is just bollux. I though CCP already adressed this problem? Okeh, in all seriousness now... 1) CONCORD has NEVER, repeat NEVER "protected" pilots, That's not it's purpose. CONCORD is there to impose a punishment on those who try to gank in highsec - i.e. the loss of their ship. Having insurance int he game, that becomes less of a issue. CCP IS addressing the problem - they have already said they were looking at removing insurance payouts for those who lose their ships to CONCORD. And oh, believe you me when they implement that change the tears from the suicide gankers will flow like wa wide river...a salty, delicious river :) 2) If you're flying a ship with a expensive cargo, you can autopilot if you want - just don't AFK-pilot, as due tot he above you're still a target. the bigger the ship and the larger the cargo, the bigger the bullseye painted on you. That STILL holds true - the recent CONCORD buffs just make sure that the gankers don't waste their time on smaller fry. Mammoths, Itty 5, and such are still viable targets. They're not made to tank, aand there's always the chance that soemone (like you) will come along with a worthwhile cargo...just take cold confort in the fact they didn't get ALL of it. OR, if you know you're dying, self-destruct and spite him, as NOTHING survives self-destruct! Just some thoughts for you
5pinDizzy	Posted - 2009.01.08 02:09:00 - [18] Not directed at the OP, but on the whole as far as the situation goes : 5pindizzy thinks if it was illegal for characters under 2-3 months old to sell GTC's for isk there would probably be a lot less suicide gank whines on the forum
Brea Lafail	Posted - 2009.01.08 02:22:00 - [19] Suicide ganks and login traps are two of the worst things about eve PVP. But they're part of the game. For now.
Armoured C Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2009.01.08 02:26:00 - [20] Edited by: Armoured C on 08/01/2009 02:28:21 Originally by: Arkeladin 1) CONCORD has NEVER, repeat NEVER "protected" pilots, That's not it's purpose. CONCORD is there to impose a punishment on those who try to gank in highsec - i.e. the loss of their ship. Having insurance int he game, that becomes less of a issue. CCP IS addressing the problem - they have already said they were looking at removing insurance payouts for those who lose their ships to CONCORD. And oh, believe you me when they implement that change the tears from the suicide gankers will flow like wa wide river...a salty, delicious river :) i think you will find CCP didnt say that and they said it is not a real buisness but a game mechanic, but looking into alternatives meaning , it will either a, nothing will happen or b it is implemented far far down the line after all the important thing are out the way although i dont suicide gank it is a legitmit way to earn isk in eve and well if you dumb enough to be a target then in all respect you deserve it and to the guy who lost a bill plus worth of stuff your problem is that you went into low sec with out a scout ... you would of noticed that there were red and not have lost it =P but least i hope you learned which i still think the op hasnt yet
Scarlet Pimpdaddy Minmatar	Posted - 2009.01.08 02:27:00 - [21] Don't listen to these guys! The solution to your problem can be found here
Qordel Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2009.01.08 02:28:00 - [22] You should never be entirely safe outiside of maybe 1.0 anyway. Why should it be zero risk in .5 and assloads of risk in .4? Just accept that you have to be on your toes at all times.
Armoured C Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2009.01.08 02:32:00 - [23] Originally by: Qordel You should never be entirely safe outiside of maybe 1.0 anyway. Why should it be zero risk in .5 and assloads of risk in .4? Just accept that you have to be on your toes at all times. agreed we need more suicide gankers please report to jita 4-4 ready for stalking
Sera Ryskin	Posted - 2009.01.08 02:37:00 - [24] Originally by: Melanie Griffin I though CCP already adressed this problem? You assume that there is a problem. There isn't.
Melanie Griffin Minmatar	Posted - 2009.01.08 02:38:00 - [25] @ Amoured C my stupidity? man, get help! @Qordel well, you know, there is no lag in eve. Lost a Mega 3 days ago the same way. jumped out while hostiles still had aggro, couldn't do a thing for about 90 secs and when i finally was able to, i was already in armor and tackled ... @ Arkeladin I know. Concord provides consequences, not safety. Problem is, there are no consequences as well. Can u say insurance? And don't even mention sec status. 2) i did it semi afk on a second pc while playing BF2. Can i be arsed to manually fly 25 jumps through highsec and get bored to death? Can i be arsed not beeing able to fly a T2 ship? Allthough T2 wouldn't help much, it would only require more brutix to blow me up and i would have lost another 50m for the ship, which is of course uninsurable. @ Scarlet I don't think i need a baby just right now ..
Armoured C Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2009.01.08 02:45:00 - [26] Originally by: Melanie Griffin 2) i did it semi afk on a second pc while playing BF2. Can i be arsed to manually fly 25 jumps through highsec and get bored to death? Can i be arsed not beeing able to fly a T2 ship? Allthough T2 wouldn't help much, it would only require more brutix to blow me up and i would have lost another 50m for the ship, which is of course uninsurable. wow your more unclued that i thought, and sound like you didnt learn a lesson, so i will spell this one out to you transport ships blockade runner can use covert op cloaks ( you know the ones which allow you to cloak while warping ) and the other class of transport has +2 warp core strength which means he need at least 2 short range piots ( which have 2 warp strength ) to hold you or 3 normal 25km points on you to stop you. if it is a single brutix which has 4 midslots -1 for the ship scanner probably SB on his ship i highly doubt he has enough points on his ship to catch you get a clue before casting a actual helpful legmit ship class aside >_>
Mickey Simon Noir.	Posted - 2009.01.08 02:49:00 - [27] I'm not sure if you realise this, but the industrials have really ****ty tanks (battle variants are a different story). A frigate has a semi-decent chance of killing one in a few seconds, it's not unstrange that a gank fitted brutix will kill you before concorde shows up. Meanwhile, on the other side of town . . .
Armoured C Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2009.01.08 02:52:00 - [28] oo and transport ship have double Armour and shield with much better resists
Nikita Alterana Gallente The Antikythera Mechanism	Posted - 2009.01.08 03:03:00 - [29] Originally by: Leaving Eve Just in case you think you will be leaving eve, I want to clarify that I am Leaving Eve. I know, lame, but there aren't many tears for me to suckle on tonight. you sir. Deserve a medal.
Dirk Magnum Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2009.01.08 03:06:00 - [30] Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 08/01/2009 03:06:42 Amazingly in before "THIS IS SPARTA!" edit: Gatecamp Thermopylae tbh
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators Chubby Chuppers Chubba Chups	Posted - 2009.01.08 03:24:00 - [31] Originally by: Melanie Griffin i did it semi afk on a second pc while playing BF2. Can i be arsed to manually fly 25 jumps through highsec and get bored to death? You "couldn't be arsed" to be active and thus fly perfectly safely. You basically "couldnt be arsed" to play the game. Unfortunately for you other people "can be arsed" to play the game. And now they got your cargo. Moral of the story = Be Arsed SKUNK Originally by: CCP Navigator People who think I am joking or talking big are going to understand very quickly that there will be order
gfldex Dark-Rising	Posted - 2009.01.08 03:33:00 - [32] Listen to CCP! -- There are countless games in the world. There are at least as many ppl that dont like one or more rules of said games. That never stopped smart game designers from creating good games.
ceaon Gallente Porandor	Posted - 2009.01.08 04:02:00 - [33] Originally by: Melanie Griffin i did it semi afk on a second pc while playing BF2. Can i be arsed to manually fly 25 jumps through highsec and get bored to death? making money(if you trade) while your are not on the keyboard should be considered cheating is like boting ccp should also ban you blah
C601	Posted - 2009.01.08 04:22:00 - [34] Wtb an afk game where I can make billions been afk 24x7 while I play other games.
Adamant Stehl Point of No Return Eradication Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.08 04:38:00 - [35] Originally by: Melanie Griffin I though CCP already adressed this problem? There is nothing to fix Before all else, be armed. Niccolo Machiavelli
yourdoingitwrong	Posted - 2009.01.08 04:40:00 - [36] To The op: You should have been spat!
Captator Universal Securities	Posted - 2009.01.08 05:15:00 - [37] Edited by: Captator on 08/01/2009 05:15:45 Originally by: Dirk Magnum Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 08/01/2009 03:06:42 Amazingly in before "THIS IS SPARTA!" edit: Gatecamp Thermopylae tbh tbh, didn't the spartans do that, it's how they ganked all the persian militia nubs. Sparta, blazing a trail in gatepiracy. edit: relevant content; fit an extender/buffer tank next time, it is simply a case of raw hp vs dps and a timer ticking away with ganks.
Karasuma Akane Dirty Sexy Pilots	Posted - 2009.01.08 06:33:00 - [38] Originally by: Gone'Postal Where is crump with his ubersigs of truth when you need him. Highsec: Safer, Not Safe.
Sagacious Z	Posted - 2009.01.08 06:37:00 - [39] Originally by: Melanie Griffin Sorry folks, but this is just bollux. I though CCP already adressed this problem? I bet CCP thinks like I do. In RL, land convoys often have armed escorts when going through possible hostile territory..... and in EVE, all territory is possible hostile territory. For that amount of cargo, why didn't you hire a bodyguard or two? I like the game the way it is--it forces you to interact and make a decision, such as, do I give up a % of my profit hiring a merc or merc corp to protect my transit, or do I go it alone and risk 100 million plus? The game often involves interaction with players. Trying to do everything solo can be dangerous. The game benefits with this decision tree and this danger, and this danger does off solution offsets.
Gonada Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.08 07:03:00 - [40] ohh the yummy tears :) no sympathy here. if you are smart enough to post on the forums you are smart enough to have read the other 10000000000 gank posts and realize you shouldnt do it that way , lolz Please, jump into traffic
Guilliman R Gallente PRO Space Hunters HUNTER'S BROTHERHOOD	Posted - 2009.01.08 07:03:00 - [41] not long ago I baught several +5 implants, crap load of T2 stuff and two complex (Core-B types no less!) modules for my mission boat (I trade and mission, I like trading!) I flew a semi tanked Iteron V (just filled the mid slots with shield expanders) from jita to my hubs 15-20 odd jumps away. My cargo, well over 1.5Billion. Risk of being ganked factor: Extremely High! My attention level: Extremely High. My fun and excitement factor: Extremely High! Made it back no issues, didn't even get locked once, because I was on my toes and took one two system detour away from a choke point (I learned my lesson in the past, twice.) It's not hard to avoid getting suicided if you use your brains, and spent 5 mins researching your jump route. It's fine, lrn2haul? ___
MilowFV Echo Heavy Industries	Posted - 2009.01.08 07:48:00 - [42] I tend to think sucide gank are one of the better things about eve. Really why were on AP in a hualer with 130 million ISK worth of cargo. Thats why you got killed. I though it was to easy before the change and now it might be about right not that I ve ever gank anyone.
Sakura Nihil Stimulus Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2009.01.08 07:53:00 - [43] Originally by: Melanie Griffin I though CCP already adressed this problem? CCP can't fix stupidity.
Psir	Posted - 2009.01.08 08:13:00 - [44] Edited by: Psir on 08/01/2009 08:13:45 Originally by: Sakura Nihil Originally by: Melanie Griffin I though CCP already adressed this problem? CCP can't fix stupidity. Because flying quite cheap cargo (130mil isn't much, mind you) in a well tanked ship in a high security system surrounded by police and navy ships is stupid? And here I was thinking it was stupid that this Brutix pilot can blow up this person's ship before Concorde can even respond properly, only loosing maybe 4-5 million himself and happily leave in a pod whilst his buddy scoops the loot under the eyes of Concorde. I can see the profit for the Brutix pilot, but where's the risk? Either suicide ganking needs to cost more or be made impossible entirely. I've never liked it as it makes no sense whatsoever, why not try to get people do some real fighting in low and null-sec instead?
Khemul Zula Amarr Keisen Trade League	Posted - 2009.01.08 08:18:00 - [45] Originally by: Psir ...in a well tanked ship... Just quit now. There is no way this can end well for you.
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.01.08 08:22:00 - [46] Originally by: Psir Because flying quite cheap cargo (130mil isn't much, mind you) in a well tanked ship in a high security system surrounded by police and navy ships is stupid? Booster + invuln field on a T1 hauler ≠ "well tanked". It explodes before the booster even finishes its cycle. Quote: I can see the profit for the Brutix pilot, but where's the risk? He might have come up against a target with a tank and lost his (admittedly fairly small) investment. Quote: Either suicide ganking needs to cost more or be made impossible entirely. Why? It's the only way to get at some targets, and it's already very easy to make it cost too much for the ganker. Quote: I've never liked it as it makes no sense whatsoever, why not try to get people do some real fighting in low and null-sec instead? Because high-sec is just high security — not a safe zone. Fighting belongs in highsec just as much as everywhere else (and highsec is where the juicy targets are).
Sakura Nihil Stimulus Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2009.01.08 08:29:00 - [47] Originally by: Psir I've never liked it as it makes no sense whatsoever, why not try to get people do some real fighting in low and null-sec instead? Because this is not WoW in space, with highsec set aside for you carebears to roam freely in. Go play JGE or Infinity when they're released if that's what you're looking for.
Togg Bott Minmatar League of the Tiger and Tentacle	Posted - 2009.01.08 08:32:00 - [48] i regularly haul 300-500 mill worth of goods in a lowly HOARDER. i do it while paying ATTENTION... i warp to zero..click jump...warp...never lost a load yet. i'm sure if someone wants me bad enough..i'll be got...but untill then....learn to play THIS game and yes...this IS my main
Sedious Bloke	Posted - 2009.01.08 08:35:00 - [49] Edited by: Sedious Bloke on 08/01/2009 08:37:31 Originally by: Melanie Griffin flying a mammoth on a 2nd pc through 0.6 sec with AP. Cargo worth roughly 130m ISK. Realized that i'm beeing agressed, switch on invu field and booster while i still had some 85% shields. Got ganked by a single brutix with Limited Neutron Blaster I. Yeah yeah, don't fly AP, eve is a rough and harsch ...blah. Sorry folks, but this is just bollux. I though CCP already adressed this problem? WARP TO ZERO MUCH? %#$ all you have to do is right click the little circle and bammo can't be ganked. Little while ago all you had to do was fit properly to gtfo or scout ahead, people **ed and moaned. Now all you have to do is right click and people are still ***ing and moaning?! I'm glad you died. it's only a shame i didn't kill you myself. good luck on wow in space it's getting closer every day because of morons like you.
Bumbum George	Posted - 2009.01.08 09:03:00 - [50] Originally by: Benco97 People who do things like this are silly... Originally by: Sakura Nihil CCP can't fix stupidity. Originally by: Gonada no sympathy here Originally by: Sedious Bloke I'm glad you died. All of that.
Blaidd Dwrg	Posted - 2009.01.08 09:21:00 - [51] Just a quick noobie question here. In the senario initially destribed by the OP, does the Brutix pilot lose his Brutix? Someone above listed a potential ISK loss of 4 or 5 million for the ganker but if the gank outfitted Brutix is added to the equation the actual cost/risk/benefit analysis for the Brutix almost guarentees that at least one slot was used for a cargo scanner (unless of course he had assistance. Envisioning an alt or corp mate with passive scan [possibly] and cargo scanner who does the intel for the ganker). But back to original game mechanic question: Does the Brutix pilot lose his ship to Concord after the fact. A Brutix isn't cripplingly expensive but it's not cheap either if you're new enough that you haven't latched onto a way to achieve a dependable positive cash flow. I make a score then I absolutely bleed ISK until the next stroke of good fortune. He can't jump and he can't dock immediately. Or does he jump to a safe spot (coupla times?) and just wait out the aggression timer? And does Concord even honor that in the event of a gank in high sec space? Sorry for the interruption, just extremely curious :) Thanks in advance
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.	Posted - 2009.01.08 09:40:00 - [52] Originally by: Melanie Griffin right. so, beeing not such a smartass, why don't we just remove concord and autopilot? Supporting this proposal!
Maria Kalista	Posted - 2009.01.08 09:41:00 - [53] Edited by: Maria Kalista on 08/01/2009 09:43:41 Originally by: Blaidd Dwrg Just a quick noobie question here. The Brutix gets popped for sure by Concord. There is (no longer) any way to get away from your punishment. Just a matter of hitting your target hard & fast before Concord drops in. That is why they call it a 'suicide gank'. You gank but you will lose your (ganking) ship. Edit: i forgot that after you get your money back from insuring your Brutix the total loss for the suicider can be that low. That is why some peeps keep crying about it.
Psir	Posted - 2009.01.08 09:44:00 - [54] Edited by: Psir on 08/01/2009 09:45:30 Edited by: Psir on 08/01/2009 09:45:02 Edited by: Psir on 08/01/2009 09:44:41 Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Psir Because flying quite cheap cargo (130mil isn't much, mind you) in a well tanked ship in a high security system surrounded by police and navy ships is stupid? Booster + invuln field on a T1 hauler ≠ "well tanked". It explodes before the booster even finishes its cycle. Ah, my misstake. Thought he was flying a transport. If so then it's no wonder he got popped. Quote: He might have come up against a target with a tank and lost his (admittedly fairly small) investment. Yea, I bet he was shaking in his boots... Quote: Why? It's the only way to get at some targets, and it's already very easy to make it cost too much for the ganker. Because right now, there's just no risk involved if you play it safe and EVE has always been built around a balance between risk versus profit. It's not PvP, it's lame. Quote: Because high-sec is just high security ù not a safe zone. Fighting belongs in highsec just as much as everywhere else (and highsec is where the juicy targets are). I've never really understood why people should need to feel uneasy in high sec. Yes, currently high sec isn't safe, just safer but why must it be this way? I'd rather just see a nerf to high sec and a boost to lowsec, forcing serious players out of highsec. People weren't always just in high sec in the old days, ye'know. The fact that the juicy targets are in high sec isn't a reason for why suicide ganking should be allowed, rather it just goes to show the flaws of the current system. Why not try and get them into low and no-sec instead and impose some risk to their activities that doesn't suck balls? I'm sorry but suicide ganking is hardly fun, challenging, intelligent or makes alot of sense. It's just another exploit of how the system currently works. Originally by: Sakura Nihil Because this is not WoW in space, with highsec set aside for you carebears to roam freely in. Go play JGE or Infinity when they're released if that's what you're looking for. Oh please, this is getting really old. Stop it with the 'WoW' and 'Hello Kitty Online', it was funny four years ago but ever since it has got somewhat worn from frequent abuse by people like you. No, someone isn't a carebear for suggesting a change that would profit non-combatant players. Not that I was, because I'd also like to nerf high sec and thereby forcing people into low and null-sec for some real PvP and player interaction. If you think this straightforward, easy to use and nearly risk-free method of cashing in on people in highsec is good content, then kudos to you. But it sounds to me that you should be playing a different game then.
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.01.08 09:47:00 - [55] Originally by: Blaidd Dwrg In the senario initially destribed by the OP, does the Brutix pilot lose his Brutix? Yes. Quote: A Brutix isn't cripplingly expensive but it's not cheap either if you're new enough that you haven't latched onto a way to achieve a dependable positive cash flow. I make a score then I absolutely bleed ISK until the next stroke of good fortune. It's cheap enough after insurance is brought into the mix — in essence, you only pay for the cost of the insurance itself and for any modules that don't survive (because if you do this for money, you'll have someone standing by to scoop up the remains from the target and from the attacking ship(s)).
TimMc Gallente Brutal Deliverance OWN Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.08 09:49:00 - [56] Originally by: Togg Bott i regularly haul 300-500 mill worth of goods in a lowly HOARDER. i do it while paying ATTENTION... i warp to zero..click jump...warp...never lost a load yet. i'm sure if someone wants me bad enough..i'll be got...but untill then....learn to play THIS game and yes...this IS my main This. Fly at the controls with a nanobadger (2 istabs and 1 WCS) when hauling anything remotely expensive.
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.01.08 09:51:00 - [57] Originally by: Psir I've never really understood why people should need to feel uneasy in high sec. Yes, currently high sec isn't safe, just safer but why must it be this way? Because that's how EVE works and the unique feature that makes it stand out. It's what makes EVE fun.
Psir	Posted - 2009.01.08 09:55:00 - [58] Originally by: Blaidd Dwrg Just a quick noobie question here. In the senario initially destribed by the OP, does the Brutix pilot lose his Brutix? Someone above listed a potential ISK loss of 4 or 5 million for the ganker but if the gank outfitted Brutix is added to the equation the actual cost/risk/benefit analysis for the Brutix almost guarentees that at least one slot was used for a cargo scanner (unless of course he had assistance. Envisioning an alt or corp mate with passive scan [possibly] and cargo scanner who does the intel for the ganker). But back to original game mechanic question: Does the Brutix pilot lose his ship to Concord after the fact. A Brutix isn't cripplingly expensive but it's not cheap either if you're new enough that you haven't latched onto a way to achieve a dependable positive cash flow. I make a score then I absolutely bleed ISK until the next stroke of good fortune. He can't jump and he can't dock immediately. Or does he jump to a safe spot (coupla times?) and just wait out the aggression timer? And does Concord even honor that in the event of a gank in high sec space? Sorry for the interruption, just extremely curious :) Thanks in advance Yes he looses his Brutix and he'd require another guy to loot as he'll be criminal flagged for 15 mins. Depending on the size of the gank it can be someone in a hauler, whoever scans the target is usually someone sensor boosting to hell for fast lock and scan (not the Brutix). After the gank the pilot usually waits out the timer in a station whilst his buddies loot. T1 battlecruisers (and battleships aswell) are dirt cheap once insurance comes into effect.
Gabrialle Amarr Sanctuary Logistical Industries Inc	Posted - 2009.01.08 09:57:00 - [59] preferred hi-sec hauler:- orca 500mill preferred fitting:- hi's (who cares its a hauler...) mid:- 2xinvul shield II 1xshield booster (largest you can fit) 2.5mill low's:- 2xcargo expander II's 3mill never loosing a cargo? priceless (also made all the investment back on my first haul of implants/minerals/salvage to jita)
NetStaIker Gallente	Posted - 2009.01.08 09:57:00 - [60] Quote: Edit: i forgot that after you get your money back from insuring your Brutix the total loss for the suicider can be that low. That is why some peeps keep crying about it. Ahhh the insurance. Didn't consider that. lol I actually work for an insurance company. Seriously doubt we would pay off on a claim if the loss was incurred as a result of "ganking" someone knowing full well the ship was a loss. Awhile back I was showing my sons the mechanics of a can-flip (lol by putting out a can and waiting until I got flipped). I was in a retriever and went ahead (while telling them not to ever do so), and flagged myself to the thief in order to show them the futility of teh action in general. The guy locks me down, hits me to crippple me then as hoped, opened convo. Asked for 5 mill in order to allow me to leave. I laughed at him and told him to get his kicks as I explained to my boys that considering that the retriever was insured and I make most everything I fly or use. I was only out for about 5 million total even if I purchased on the market at regional prices. 1.5ish for strip miners, another 1.5 for premium insurance. Local hull converters and dactyl scanner. 5 million was a rediculous amount to demand was it not? I'd usually just as soon flush 5 mill down the toilet then give it to someone at gunpoint considering I would be out about the same amount of ISK regardless of what I did. Just trying to wrap my head around the thinking behind all things EVE in general. Thank you to the OP. Actually an informational thread for some of us.
Psir	Posted - 2009.01.08 10:02:00 - [61] Originally by: Tippia Because that's how EVE works and the unique feature that makes it stand out. It's what makes EVE fun. Fun, yes I'm sure OP thought it was fun to get blown up by some guy who made 0 effort whatsoever and yet was able to rob him blind. It's fun to see Concorde look away as the perpetrator happily speeds off in his pod and his buddy loots the remains of OP's spaceship (yea, because that's not illegal?). There's nothing he can do about it, oyea he can place a bounty on them... that'll show them! There's nothing more entertaining than a completely one-sided event that makes no sense and is just another exploit of the game mechanics, I mean, if I were to chose between that and a system where real PvP was actually promoted instead... Sure, the fact that there's great risk in EVE makes it interesting. But suicide ganking is NOT interesting.
Molly Mayhem Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.08 10:19:00 - [62] ITT: Emorage
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.	Posted - 2009.01.08 10:24:00 - [63] Originally by: Psir Originally by: Tippia Because that's how EVE works and the unique feature that makes it stand out. It's what makes EVE fun. Fun, yes I'm sure OP thought it was fun to get blown up by some guy who made 0 effort whatsoever and yet was able to rob him blind. It's fun to see Concorde look away as the perpetrator happily speeds off in his pod and his buddy loots the remains of OP's spaceship (yea, because that's not illegal?). There's nothing he can do about it, oyea he can place a bounty on them... that'll show them! There's nothing more entertaining than a completely one-sided event that makes no sense and is just another exploit of the game mechanics, I mean, if I were to chose between that and a system where real PvP was actually promoted instead... Sure, the fact that there's great risk in EVE makes it interesting. But suicide ganking is NOT interesting. There's "no risk" for the ganker specifically because the OP made it so very easy for him. He gave the ganker all the time in the world to scan the mammoth's defences and calculate that it was worthwhile to do the gank. Had the OP been actively piloting, his chance of being ganked would be ~0. CCP specifically and explicitly advise against going on autopilot with valuable cargoes. The OP ignored this advice. He paid the price.
Destination SkillQueue Are We There Yet	Posted - 2009.01.08 10:31:00 - [64] Originally by: Psir Fun, yes I'm sure OP thought it was fun to get blown up by some guy who made 0 effort whatsoever and yet was able to rob him blind. It's fun to see Concorde look away as the perpetrator happily speeds off in his pod and his buddy loots the remains of OP's spaceship (yea, because that's not illegal?). There's nothing he can do about it, oyea he can place a bounty on them... that'll show them! There's nothing more entertaining than a completely one-sided event that makes no sense and is just another exploit of the game mechanics, I mean, if I were to chose between that and a system where real PvP was actually promoted instead... Sure, the fact that there's great risk in EVE makes it interesting. But suicide ganking is NOT interesting. You can try it yourself and see how little effort it takes. You can do a lot about it. Most of it's thinking and planning beforehand, and you do get killrights against the unlawful destroyers of your ship. You are only a victim, if you can't be bothered to take the simplest of precautions. We know the rules and the mechanics, so you will have a hard time getting much sympathy from us with just whining. Real PvP is not fair and even fight. That's a failure in planning and intelligence. Everyone has the same options available, but some put in more effort, work with others and are better at thinking and planning. It is fair to get more out of the game, if you put more effort in to it. You don't have to put in the effort, but don't be surpriced or complain, when people who did gain advantages over you.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators Chubby Chuppers Chubba Chups	Posted - 2009.01.08 10:35:00 - [65] Originally by: NetStaIker lol I actually work for an insurance company. Seriously doubt we would pay off on a claim if the loss was incurred as a result of "ganking" someone knowing full well the ship was a loss. I wonder if your insurance company would cover someone who lives in a lawless war zone and has lost 50 ships there already(0.0 pilots), or who insists on flying again and again into hordes of gun toting criminals (mission runners) or criminals (low sec outlaws) or people who blow up their own ships (self destructing carrier pilots) or people who fly afk with 1 bill of loot in their cargo (stupid people). So lets not start the old "ITS OBVEOUS INNIT I WUD NOT GET ME INSUR-ENCE FOR IF I RAMRAIDED ME LOCAL NEWSAGENT AND STOLE THE CIGS!" as its totally irrelevant SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators Chubby Chuppers Chubba Chups	Posted - 2009.01.08 10:38:00 - [66] Edited by: Le Skunk on 08/01/2009 10:39:58 Originally by: Psir It's fun to see Concorde look away as the perpetrator happily speeds off in his pod and his buddy loots the remains of OP's spaceship (yea, because that's not illegal?) Its fun to see evil pirate npcs in missions (threat level DEADLY no less!) to squeamish to pod mission runners who lose their ships in a mission, as they dont even bother to loot his wreck allowing the mission runner to return to scoop it all SKUNK Lets have concord podding -10s in hig sec and Gurista/Angel/Serpentis podding mission runners as well! I would be happy to accept that balancing measure :)
NetStaIker Gallente	Posted - 2009.01.08 10:43:00 - [67] Quote: So lets not start the old "ITS OBVEOUS INNIT I WUD NOT GET ME INSUR-ENCE FOR IF I RAMRAIDED ME LOCAL NEWSAGENT AND STOLE THE CIGS!" as its totally irrelevant Chemical imbalance? And you'd be surprised :) for enough money anything can be insured. You're right though it was mearly an offhand comment. Just funny that we can insure our ships and then destroy them purposely and still receive payout.
Darkeen Gallente	Posted - 2009.01.08 11:16:00 - [68] Originally by: Benco97 People who do things like this are silly... Damm straight they are... I thought EVERYONE knew NEVER to AP... I guess now there is one less stupid AP'er in the universe...And he learnt a harsh lesson about what NOT to do... On the up side his story is now mandatory reading in the University of Caille Industrial Skill Books about how NOT to load and fly an Industrial type...
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.	Posted - 2009.01.08 11:27:00 - [69] Originally by: Le Skunk Edited by: Le Skunk on 08/01/2009 10:39:58 Originally by: Psir It's fun to see Concorde look away as the perpetrator happily speeds off in his pod and his buddy loots the remains of OP's spaceship (yea, because that's not illegal?) Its fun to see evil pirate npcs in missions (threat level DEADLY no less!) to squeamish to pod mission runners who lose their ships in a mission, as they dont even bother to loot his wreck allowing the mission runner to return to scoop it all SKUNK Lets have concord podding -10s in hig sec and Gurista/Angel/Serpentis podding mission runners as well! I would be happy to accept that balancing measure :) While we're about it, I propose to establish a new charity to fund webs and warp disruptors for the poor noob pilots in the pirate corps. These hapless, exploited frigate pilots are being sent out without even the basic equipment to do the tackling which is their role. For just 25,000 ISK, you can equip a frigate with the 20km point it so desperately needs to lock down the agressors sent by so-called "Agents" who murder them with impunity! Make a difference. Make the call today: 1-800-SAVE A SERP
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.	Posted - 2009.01.08 11:30:00 - [70] Originally by: NetStaIker Quote: So lets not start the old "ITS OBVEOUS INNIT I WUD NOT GET ME INSUR-ENCE FOR IF I RAMRAIDED ME LOCAL NEWSAGENT AND STOLE THE CIGS!" as its totally irrelevant Chemical imbalance? And you'd be surprised :) for enough money anything can be insured. You're right though it was mearly an offhand comment. Just funny that we can insure our ships and then destroy them purposely and still receive payout. "Real life" insurance companies wouldn't pay out for almost any of the ship losses in EvE. 0.0 or lo-sec? Forget it, regardless of circumstance. Hi-sec? In a war? Forget it. Ratting or missioning? Forget it. Mining in belts below 1.0 where pirates are known to appear? Hahaha NO! Corp theft? Not likely! You blew your ship up because it was insured for more than you could sell it for? Er, no!
Franga Gristle Industries	Posted - 2009.01.08 11:31:00 - [71] pwnt, imvho
Pan Crastus Anti-Metagaming League	Posted - 2009.01.08 11:33:00 - [72] Originally by: WarlockX your cargo is worth 13000% of your ship! that's like putting 2,600,000$ in the back seat of your car and telling us your car got broken into. only when breaking into cars will always get you shot dead by the police within 30 seconds or so.
Eran Laude Gallente The Aduro Protocol	Posted - 2009.01.08 11:36:00 - [73] As many have said, fly transport ships. Top-tier industrials like the Mammoth and Itty V are good for hauling minerals and large amounts of cheap stuff, but if you need it to be safe, get a Deep Space Transport or a Blockade Runner.
Rondo Gunn Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2009.01.08 11:42:00 - [74] Bravo. I mean, really, what?
z0de Gallente The Bastards The Bastards.	Posted - 2009.01.08 11:42:00 - [75] Originally by: Pan Crastus Originally by: WarlockX your cargo is worth 13000% of your ship! that's like putting 2,600,000$ in the back seat of your car and telling us your car got broken into. only when breaking into cars will always get you shot dead by the police within 30 seconds or so. I'd do if they forgot in 15mins and I get to re spawn whilst my friend who didn't technically do anything gets to take the stuff. Oh wait this is a video game.
Mr Merenque	Posted - 2009.01.08 11:44:00 - [76] So much cleverness in one single thread, i'm impressed! Please tell me guys, why is concord in this game in the first place then? I mean, what has driven CCP to do that? They always state EVE is a MMO PVP game! It's just a thought, but could it be that CCP thought new players have to be protected in some way while they get on their toes? New players usually don't fly T2, right? Actually, concord doesn't do ****. There are no consequences, there is no security. Brutix cost 21m in Jita, insurance another 8m and you get 27m from insurance at 100%. Buy another 7 Limited Neutron Blaster for 30k each and you get a clue how much risk that ganker has. If he has a producer and buys his minerals via buy orders, he might even get a profit when his Brutix gets concorded ... If any player can just kill whoever he wants, whereever he wants and whenever he please, then those concord mechanics are fail. Full stop.
Nedward Flanders	Posted - 2009.01.08 11:50:00 - [77] I agree. It's just ridiculous that a guy with netagive sec status enters high sec space, kills people, gets shot down by the police, gets insurance and just come back in new ship to do it again. I would bet that more people get concorded accidentialy for fe. warp scrambling a stargate than real criminals.
Yelan Zhou Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2009.01.08 11:55:00 - [78] Originally by: Mr Merenque So much cleverness in one single thread, i'm impressed! Please tell me guys, why is concord in this game in the first place then? I mean, what has driven CCP to do that? They always state EVE is a MMO PVP game! It's just a thought, but could it be that CCP thought new players have to be protected in some way while they get on their toes? New players usually don't fly T2, right? Actually, concord doesn't do ****. There are no consequences, there is no security. Brutix cost 21m in Jita, insurance another 8m and you get 27m from insurance at 100%. Buy another 7 Limited Neutron Blaster for 30k each and you get a clue how much risk that ganker has. If he has a producer and buys his minerals via buy orders, he might even get a profit when his Brutix gets concorded ... If any player can just kill whoever he wants, whereever he wants and whenever he please, then those concord mechanics are fail. Full stop. Yes, but some effort is needed to do that.Without Concord this Brutix could (in theory) sit on the gate for hours and pop everything. Personaly I haul stuff often and I am always in danger to get suicide ganked. Thats the reason I trained for t2 haulers and fit a tank on them.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.	Posted - 2009.01.08 11:55:00 - [79] Originally by: Mr Merenque If any player can just kill whoever he wants, whereever he wants and whenever he please, then those concord mechanics are fail. Full stop. No, your understanding of what CONCORD are for is fail. CONCORD are NOT there to protect you. You're supposed to protect yourself. As I said above, there was no risk for the ganker when he killed the OP because the OP made things so easy for the ganker. I don't know how to express this concept more clearly. If the OP was actively piloting his hauler, then he'd almost certainly have been perfectly safe. Because he took the risk of going AFK AP, he lost his ship. Gankers are that risk.
Uri Hatzah	Posted - 2009.01.08 11:57:00 - [80] Originally by: Malcanis There's "no risk" for the ganker specifically because the OP made it so very easy for him. He gave the ganker all the time in the world to scan the mammoth's defences and calculate that it was worthwhile to do the gank. Had the OP been actively piloting, his chance of being ganked would be ~0. CCP specifically and explicitly advise against going on autopilot with valuable cargoes. The OP ignored this advice. He paid the price. YEAH! This. Erm, wait... How would a new eve citizen know when his cargo is worth ganking or not? How would a new eve citizen (most prolly indu char) know, which ships can harm his hauler in which security? How would a new eve citizen know that all that sentry guns and concord ships at the gate won't do anything? And most important, why does AP warp you at 15km instead of 0?
Yelan Zhou Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2009.01.08 12:00:00 - [81] Edited by: Yelan Zhou on 08/01/2009 12:01:55 Originally by: Uri Hatzah Originally by: Malcanis There's "no risk" for the ganker specifically because the OP made it so very easy for him. He gave the ganker all the time in the world to scan the mammoth's defences and calculate that it was worthwhile to do the gank. Had the OP been actively piloting, his chance of being ganked would be ~0. CCP specifically and explicitly advise against going on autopilot with valuable cargoes. The OP ignored this advice. He paid the price. YEAH! This. Erm, wait... How would a new eve citizen know when his cargo is worth ganking or not? How would a new eve citizen (most prolly indu char) know, which ships can harm his hauler in which security? How would a new eve citizen know that all that sentry guns and concord ships at the gate won't do anything? And most important, why does AP warp you at 15km instead of 0? Took me one or two days after I started to figure that out, so what? And no, nobody ganked my Tormentor back then. I also lost a hauler to ganking some time ago /shrugs was my fault.I did not pay attention enough.
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.01.08 12:14:00 - [82] Originally by: Gabrialle preferred hi-sec hauler:- orca 500mill hi's (who cares its a hauler...) mid:- 2xinvul shield II 1xshield booster (largest you can fit) 2.5mill low's:- 2xcargo expander II's 3mill I prefer this one, mainly because it's so silly: Highs: whatever Mids: 2x Invuln II, 2x LSE II Lows: 1x DCU II, 1x Reinforced Bulkheads II Rigs: 1x Anti-EM reinforcer, 2x CDFEs. Say hello to 280k omni-EHP and 350+ DPS shield regen. Also, real men hull tank (especially with HUGE base structural HP) since it makes the %-bonus mod, and the DCU immensely effective. The fact that it takes roughly 18 weeks to repair the darned thing is a minor detail… Also, cargo-space is for sissies. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Rashmika Clavain Gallente Revelation Space	Posted - 2009.01.08 12:30:00 - [83] Originally by: Tippia Also, cargo-space is for sissies, as is having a turning circle. Proper space pilots turn around by orbiting the closest planet. I lol'd too
Cpt Lollercakes Warriors of COAD	Posted - 2009.01.08 13:15:00 - [84] Originally by: WarlockX your cargo is worth 13000% of your ship! that's like putting 2,600,000$ in the back seat of your car and telling us your car got broken into. I did this. I r dumb. Broke as well. I did however write an angry letter to chevy, and demand an immediate upgrade to the impala's security. (If your in the UK sub "ford" and "fiesta")
CyberGh0st Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2009.01.08 14:08:00 - [85] While I do find it a bit stupid that pirates get insurance payout when killed by Concord, this is the only small change I would make to the current system. But this would not change anything for the OP, flying AFK with expensive cargo in an easy to kill ship is just your own fault. I just lost my 200 mill worth Hurricane 2 days ago doing a lowsec mission. Did it hurt? Yes! Was it my own fault? Yes! I was feeling too safe, cause I hadnt been killed in more then a month ( did have some enounters with Pirates, but was able to scare them off :p ), so I had been upgrading and improving my Hurricane with rigs and scout artillery and basically the best mods I could find and use :p But now I am sain again, and will use a more PvP oriented and cheaper fit in lowsec. So take this as a learning experience and do what others have suggested to make your transports less risky. Cyberwiz aka CyberGh0st aka Mentakh Active @ EvE Online Favorites : DAoC-SI/SWG Pre CU-NGE/Ryzom Retired @ WoW/LOTRO/WAR/Planetside/Entropia/UO/Lineage/GW/EQ/Jumpgate/Dofus/AoC
Leviathan9 Gallente Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2009.01.08 14:57:00 - [86] Originally by: Le Skunk Originally by: Melanie Griffin i did it semi afk on a second pc while playing BF2. Can i be arsed to manually fly 25 jumps through highsec and get bored to death? You "couldn't be arsed" to be active and thus fly perfectly safely. You basically "couldnt be arsed" to play the game. Unfortunately for you other people "can be arsed" to play the game. And now they got your cargo. Moral of the story = Be Arsed SKUNK QFT. Stop being lazy and play the game, then you wont get ganked on the gate. ---------------------------
Sorted Low Sec Liberators Chubby Chuppers Chubba Chups	Posted - 2009.01.08 14:58:00 - [87] I Lol'd at the OP would read again A++
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.01.08 15:11:00 - [88] Originally by: Tippia The fact that it takes roughly 18 weeks to repair the darned thing is a minor detail… Also, cargo-space is for sissies, as is having a turning circle. Proper space pilots turn around by orbiting the closest planet. In case you don't have good ab skills, slap on a 100mn ab. Activate when you engage warp for 1 cycle. Halves your timee into warp. My Orca is faster in warp than a rokh. ---------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
Tellenta Gallente Invicta. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.01.08 15:21:00 - [89] Originally by: Arkeladin Originally by: Melanie Griffin flying a mammoth on a 2nd pc through 0.6 sec with AP. Cargo worth roughly 130m ISK. Realized that i'm beeing agressed, switch on invu field and booster while i still had some 85% shields. Got ganked by a single brutix with Limited Neutron Blaster I. Yeah yeah, don't fly AP, eve is a rough and harsch ...blah. Sorry folks, but this is just bollux. I though CCP already adressed this problem? Okeh, in all seriousness now... 1) CONCORD has NEVER, repeat NEVER "protected" pilots, That's not it's purpose. CONCORD is there to impose a punishment on those who try to gank in highsec - i.e. the loss of their ship. Having insurance int he game, that becomes less of a issue. CCP IS addressing the problem - they have already said they were looking at removing insurance payouts for those who lose their ships to CONCORD. And oh, believe you me when they implement that change the tears from the suicide gankers will flow like wa wide river...a salty, delicious river :) Actually suicide gankers will just adjust their sights to players like the OP, without the insurance payout the profit for killing someone with 130 million in their cargo is roughly 80 million. Thats a good haul I don't care what you say. Of course that doesn't count what might be lost but if its %50 loss ratio then the ganker still walks away with a groovy 30 million and a bucket of tears. Trust me there are plenty of idiots just like the OP that fly along in improper ships just begging to be relieved of their belongings.
Concorduck Gallente	Posted - 2009.01.08 15:26:00 - [90] OP, if you still have some stuff after the last suicide gank, will you please contract it to me? kthxbai
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.01.08 15:27:00 - [91] Edited by: Tippia on 08/01/2009 15:27:03 Originally by: Batolemaeus In case you don't have good ab skills, slap on a 100mn ab. Activate when you engage warp for 1 cycle. Halves your timee into warp. My Orca is faster in warp than a rokh. But then you'd only have 260k EHP and will obviously be instapopped!! Omgz insanity!!1one!
Tellenta Gallente Invicta. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.01.08 15:27:00 - [92] Originally by: Psir Originally by: Tippia Because that's how EVE works and the unique feature that makes it stand out. It's what makes EVE fun. Fun, yes I'm sure OP thought it was fun to get blown up by some guy who made 0 effort whatsoever and yet was able to rob him blind. It's fun to see Concorde look away as the perpetrator happily speeds off in his pod and his buddy loots the remains of OP's spaceship (yea, because that's not illegal?). There's nothing he can do about it, oyea he can place a bounty on them... that'll show them! There's nothing more entertaining than a completely one-sided event that makes no sense and is just another exploit of the game mechanics, I mean, if I were to chose between that and a system where real PvP was actually promoted instead... Sure, the fact that there's great risk in EVE makes it interesting. But suicide ganking is NOT interesting. If suicide took no effort or patience I would be suicide ganking as well. HOWEVER suicide ganking takes both effort and patience along with a smattering of coordination. This equates to OMFGEFFORT so therefore I say hats off to the suicide ganker you are willing to put more effort into that crap that I ever will.
Zeba Minmatar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.01.08 15:51:00 - [93] Edited by: Zeba on 08/01/2009 15:57:14 Originally by: Melanie Griffin I though CCP already adressed this problem? Yeah they did. Ages ago actually. Its called using the available tools and understanding of the game mechanics to fit your ship out for specific applications. It won't save you from a real suicide op that is actively tracking you and setting you up for the bomb but if a couple of opportunistic bc or bs decides to liberate your cargo then you can lol later as you look over local and read the cries of anguish as they got Concordokken whilst you just cruise on through. [Mammoth, AFK AP Suicide Resistant Buffer Tank] Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II Medium Shield Extender II Medium Shield Extender II Medium Shield Extender II Medium Shield Extender II Invulnerability Field II [empty high slot] [empty high slot] Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer I Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I edit. For even moar lulz passive tanking action swap out the cargo II for pds II if you don't need the extra m3 on a haul. A full rack of them let me tank 5 gank Megas for 34 seconds when I was testing it out on sisi.
Breaker77	Posted - 2009.01.08 16:34:00 - [94] Originally by: Armoured C Edited by: Armoured C on 08/01/2009 02:28:21 Originally by: Arkeladin 1) CONCORD has NEVER, repeat NEVER "protected" pilots, That's not it's purpose. CONCORD is there to impose a punishment on those who try to gank in highsec - i.e. the loss of their ship. Having insurance int he game, that becomes less of a issue. CCP IS addressing the problem - they have already said they were looking at removing insurance payouts for those who lose their ships to CONCORD. And oh, believe you me when they implement that change the tears from the suicide gankers will flow like wa wide river...a salty, delicious river :) i think you will find CCP didnt say that and they said it is not a real buisness but a game mechanic, but looking into alternatives If you are talking about the removal of insurance, yes they did mention it in a dev blog Quote: In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future. It's at the boottom under "But what for the future?"
Sunsh1ne Ac1d Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.01.08 16:47:00 - [95] Originally by: WarlockX your cargo is worth 13000% of your ship! that's like putting 2,600,000$ in the back seat of your car and telling us your car got broken into. this man speaks the truth.
Detrol Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.08 16:59:00 - [96] It's also possible to hide your cargo. One way is to put your stuff in containers and put the containers in a courier contract (yes, you need an alt). When they scan you, they see the containers but not what's in it. REMARK: when you only have containers in your cargo (not in a courier package), the scanner checks the container contents, but not when the container is inside a courier package. Now, a suicide ganker or a group of suicide gankers can see the container and might think you're hiding something valuable. They can't be sure though.. .especially not when a lot of people do this also for rather less expensive items. After a while, they'll start loosing money as they don't get anything valuable from the ganks. Btw, there is a 50 percent chance the courier package pops when you explode. They either gain 0 percent or they gain 100 percent, there's nothing inbetween. How many suicide gankers would attack a hauler where they THINK he might be having something valuable but there is no way to be sure?
Daoi Sith	Posted - 2009.01.08 17:18:00 - [97] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Mr Merenque If any player can just kill whoever he wants, whereever he wants and whenever he please, then those concord mechanics are fail. Full stop. No, your understanding of what CONCORD are for is fail. CONCORD are NOT there to protect you. You're supposed to protect yourself. As I said above, there was no risk for the ganker when he killed the OP because the OP made things so easy for the ganker. I don't know how to express this concept more clearly. If the OP was actively piloting his hauler, then he'd almost certainly have been perfectly safe. Because he took the risk of going AFK AP, he lost his ship. Gankers are that risk. this this and this again
charming wanderer	Posted - 2009.01.08 17:39:00 - [98] Originally by: Detrol It's also possible to hide your cargo. One way is to put your stuff in containers and put the containers in a courier contract... Are you sure it works this way? I have always been able to see everything in the hold whilst scanning cargo regardless of whether its in a packaged container etc (or at least thats what I thought I was seeing?)
Grendelsbane	Posted - 2009.01.08 17:41:00 - [99] Edited by: Grendelsbane on 08/01/2009 17:45:08 Edited by: Grendelsbane on 08/01/2009 17:42:43 OP knew they were a target and did it anyways. Do the math, think about how many cheap battleships or BC's your cargo could buy, minus a little profit margin. That's how much firepower you have to worry about. Quote: Fun, yes I'm sure OP thought it was fun to get blown up by some guy who made 0 effort whatsoever and yet was able to rob him blind. Pure BS. You know what could happen, quit your *****ing. They put a LOT more time and effort into stealing your crap, than you put into moving it or protecting it. Empire space is not your special playground.
Nova Fox Gallente Novafox Shipyards	Posted - 2009.01.08 17:42:00 - [100] Learn your role as prey better. and also Welcome to ≡v≡ Pre Order your Sisters of Eve ship today
Detrol Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.08 23:38:00 - [101] Edited by: Detrol on 08/01/2009 23:41:03 Originally by: charming wanderer Originally by: Detrol It's also possible to hide your cargo. One way is to put your stuff in containers and put the containers in a courier contract... Are you sure it works this way? I have always been able to see everything in the hold whilst scanning cargo regardless of whether its in a packaged container etc (or at least thats what I thought I was seeing?) Try to scan a corpmate with: * stuff in a container * same container in a courier package * same courier package in the cargo of his ship this worked for sure. Tbh, I haven't checked it anymore since QR but before the last patch, the cargo scanner reports 'Container: 1' and nothing about what's in the container. I'm not talking about the typical courier package, it's contents will show up on a scan. It's really about stuff in a container in a courier package.
Vigilant Gallente Vigilant's Vigilante's	Posted - 2009.01.09 14:29:00 - [102] Do you know what I funny about this thread ? People want to go back to warp to 15 km and get rid of WTZ. Let the ganking ensue!
Faife Federation of Freedom Fighters	Posted - 2009.01.09 17:15:00 - [103] Originally by: Leaving Eve Just in case you think you will be leaving eve, I want to clarify that I am Leaving Eve. I know, lame, but there aren't many tears for me to suckle on tonight. that is significantly less awesome if you jump the gun like this good jokes require timing.
Haldeeman Minmatar Infusion.	Posted - 2009.01.09 21:54:00 - [104] Originally by: Melanie Griffin @ Amoured C my stupidity? man, get help! @Qordel well, you know, there is no lag in eve. Lost a Mega 3 days ago the same way. jumped out while hostiles still had aggro, couldn't do a thing for about 90 secs and when i finally was able to, i was already in armor and tackled ... @ Arkeladin I know. Concord provides consequences, not safety. Problem is, there are no consequences as well. Can u say insurance? And don't even mention sec status. 2) i did it semi afk on a second pc while playing BF2. Can i be arsed to manually fly 25 jumps through highsec and get bored to death? Can i be arsed not beeing able to fly a T2 ship? Allthough T2 wouldn't help much, it would only require more brutix to blow me up and i would have lost another 50m for the ship, which is of course uninsurable. @ Scarlet I don't think i need a baby just right now .. /intones in a Master Yoda voice. "That..... is why you fail....." If you 'cant be bothered to manually pilot' the 25 odd jumps and reduce the threat to almost zero - why are you here crying? Its kinda like saying 'i swung an axe at my foot now i am missing a toe - why wasnt i told it would cut me' poor analogy i know but hey - its friday, late and i have had a few jars.
dimex trans2	Posted - 2009.01.09 22:27:00 - [105] I my self has lost 350 million isk this way, it was hard but i have come over it. But i still think that suicide ganking should be possible. My thourth about this: It is called suicide ganking becorse those doing it give up there life for it, or i EVE at least there ship. But when i look in to it i see that with those cheap ships we have today, a ship with cheap fitting will be payed back by the incurence, and there is still some money left to buy a new incurence on there next ship. So then i wont call it suicide ganking any more, but just ganking. My point here is. When some one are killed by concord the incurence should not be payed out. What are your ideas on this? i think that it is more fair. Dimex
Sedious Bloke	Posted - 2009.01.10 00:38:00 - [106] Edited by: Sedious Bloke on 10/01/2009 00:44:06 Originally by: dimex trans2 I Fly crappy t1 indies with my entire life savings in the hold Dimex eyes gloss over as he drifts off into visions of crappy t1 haulers on fire with burning tufts of carebear stuffing floating like clouds in the empty void ever so slightly accented here and there by tears that sparkle like tiny diamonds against the darkness Mmmmm sorry what? Oh right yah cry about jamming or something instead? it's the new black after all p.s. i want to thank you and the op for this thread. i think you just gave me inspiration for my sig and also for the chuckle <3 Also pro tip: these are much more entertaining if you post them in c&p
Surfin's PlunderBunny Minmatar MasterBlasters Inc. CORPVS DELICTI	Posted - 2009.01.10 00:43:00 - [107] I love stupid hauler pilots... totally worth fixing my sec stats for ---------------------- Putting the sensual in nonconsensual
Neesa Corrinne Ore Mongers	Posted - 2009.01.10 01:49:00 - [108] Originally by: Melanie Griffin Yeah yeah, don't fly AP, eve is a rough and harsch ...blah. Sorry folks, but this is just bollux. I though CCP already adressed this problem? Yes. It's NOT a problem. The kiddie games are on Blizzard's web site. Have fun over there, and please don't come back!
Qui Shon	Posted - 2009.01.10 02:13:00 - [109] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Psir Either suicide ganking needs to cost more or be made impossible entirely. Why? It's the only way to get at some targets, and it's already very easy to make it cost too much for the ganker. No, it's not. In fact, it's impossible to make it cost too much for the ganker. Only the ganker him/herself can do that. And CCP of course, if they ever get around to it. Originally by: Malcanis As I said above, there was no risk for the ganker when he killed the OP because the OP made things so easy for the ganker. No, there was no risk for the ganker because of insurance. CCP did do something to reduce the ganks somewhat, but they did the wrong thing. What they should have done, as they promised they would, is add a cost to it. Once again: Remove insurance. All of it if need be. Originally by: Tippia Lows: 1x DCU II, 1x Reinforced Bulkheads II The fact that it takes roughly 18 weeks to repair the darned thing is a minor detail Your buddy or alt can rep that hull in just over 5 minutes actually. Under 5 with the skill trained to 5. Armor much faster, of course.
Dirty Smuggler	Posted - 2009.01.10 06:18:00 - [110] i died to this tonight too. i think its a disgrace and these suicide gankers should 1. not get insurance but also not be able to loot the wrecks. Their entire corp should be flagged and those that did loot the wreck also flagged along with their entire corps. In fact losing insurance payouts is not a harsh enough penalty, this is not pvp its just lame and cowardly.
Zeba Minmatar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.01.10 06:24:00 - [111] Originally by: Dirty Smuggler i died to this tonight too. i think its a disgrace and these suicide gankers should 1. not get insurance but also not be able to loot the wrecks. Their entire corp should be flagged and those that did loot the wreck also flagged along with their entire corps. In fact losing insurance payouts is not a harsh enough penalty, this is not pvp its just lame and cowardly. /me checks the bait dangling off this hook as he passes by. Nah, way too obvious.
Khemul Zula Amarr Keisen Trade League	Posted - 2009.01.10 06:36:00 - [112] Originally by: Zeba Originally by: Dirty Smuggler i died to this tonight too. i think its a disgrace and these suicide gankers should 1. not get insurance but also not be able to loot the wrecks. Their entire corp should be flagged and those that did loot the wreck also flagged along with their entire corps. In fact losing insurance payouts is not a harsh enough penalty, this is not pvp its just lame and cowardly. /me checks the bait dangling off this hook as he passes by. Nah, way too obvious. See, this is why dynamite fishing is still so popular. The problem with bait and hook is that only the dumbs ones get caught. It causes the smart ones who said "WTF?! Theres a hook in there! Why would I try to eat that?!" to carry on their genes to future generations. Dynamite fixes this problem rather nicely. I actually have my suspicions that this is what it was invented for in the first place, even if no one will admit it. What were we talking about again? ------ I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.
Joe Umbra Legion Shadow Empire.	Posted - 2009.01.10 06:50:00 - [113] I shouldn't be reading this thread while Autopiloting?
Zeba Minmatar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.01.10 06:55:00 - [114] Originally by: Joe I shouldn't be reading this thread while Autopiloting? Sure you can. Just set your indy up similar to my mammoth fit and you will be immune to the type of random scan and gank that claimed the op.
Maria Kalista	Posted - 2009.01.10 08:46:00 - [115] Originally by: Khemul Zula See, this is why dynamite fishing is still so popular. The problem with bait and hook is that only the dumbs ones get caught. It causes the smart ones who said "WTF?! Theres a hook in there! Why would I try to eat that?!" to carry on their genes to future generations. Dynamite fixes this problem rather nicely. I actually have my suspicions that this is what it was invented for in the first place, even if no one will admit it. What were we talking about again? You're my hero. Originally by: AkRoYeR ...the beauty of EvE. You have to live on the edge all the time. If you don't stay frosty, you will die! Best game ever!
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.	Posted - 2009.01.10 08:52:00 - [116] Originally by: Qui Shon Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Psir Either suicide ganking needs to cost more or be made impossible entirely. Why? It's the only way to get at some targets, and it's already very easy to make it cost too much for the ganker. No, it's not. In fact, it's impossible to make it cost too much for the ganker. Only the ganker him/herself can do that. And CCP of course, if they ever get around to it. Originally by: Malcanis As I said above, there was no risk for the ganker when he killed the OP because the OP made things so easy for the ganker. No, there was no risk for the ganker because of insurance. CCP did do something to reduce the ganks somewhat, but they did the wrong thing. What they should have done, as they promised they would, is add a cost to it. Once again: Remove insurance. All of it if need be. Originally by: Tippia Lows: 1x DCU II, 1x Reinforced Bulkheads II The fact that it takes roughly 18 weeks to repair the darned thing is a minor detail Your buddy or alt can rep that hull in just over 5 minutes actually. Under 5 with the skill trained to 5. Armor much faster, of course. Why on earth should CCP raise a finger to protect those who won't make even the smallest effort to protect themselves? I, find the the effort of making ISK unexciting. Maybe I should whine and whine and whine to CCP for "fix" this by just giving me a few bill. I mean I want it, that's the same as saying I deserve it, right? I shouldn't have to actually do anything for it, or change anything I do? CCP should just take it from a few rich industrialists or whatever. They have more than enough and I don't like the way they play, so it seems fair that they should pay so I can just do stuff I want. I think I'll also completely invent a promise that CCP never made to justify my childish demands.
Qui Shon	Posted - 2009.01.10 11:50:00 - [117] Originally by: Malcanis Why on earth should CCP raise a finger to protect those who won't make even the smallest effort to protect themselves? What are you on about? That is exactly what they did, by beefing up concord, and I just said it was the wrong thing, in the very text you quoted. What they should do, and what they said they would do, rather then protect the OP, is add a cost to ganking, put some actual "suicide" into suicide ganking, i.e. an actual cost.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.	Posted - 2009.01.10 11:53:00 - [118] Originally by: Qui Shon Originally by: Malcanis Why on earth should CCP raise a finger to protect those who won't make even the smallest effort to protect themselves? What are you on about? That is exactly what they did, by beefing up concord, and I just said it was the wrong thing, in the very text you quoted. What they should do, and what they said they would do, rather then protect the OP, is add a cost to ganking, put some actual "suicide" into suicide ganking, i.e. an actual cost. Well as long as we're making things more "realistic", they should also stop giving CONCORD protection for free. Want protection? You gotta pay, paysan. That's a nice hauler you got there, my friend, be a damb shame if something were to happen and we couldn't get there in time, you know what I mean...?
Qui Shon	Posted - 2009.01.10 12:05:00 - [119] Edited by: Qui Shon on 10/01/2009 12:07:30 While your dialogue is more reminiscent of gangsters then police, perhaps revaling a bit of your mindset , a highsec tax does make sense. Of course, you could just as well suppose they are getting part of various station and market fees. When I started the game, I remember seeing gate fees in my transactions. I guess they were removed to reduce lag, but it does make sense, especially if fees increase the more a gate is used, like corp hangar rental fees do. Also the more "services" the system provides, of course, to provide a divide between no/lo/high.
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.01.10 12:05:00 - [120] Originally by: Qui Shon No, it's not. In fact, it's impossible to make it cost too much for the ganker. Only the ganker him/herself can do that. And CCP of course, if they ever get around to it. No, it's not. Fit a tank, and suddenly he will suffer a 100% loss for attacking you (you survive, so nothing is gained), or he needs to call in a whole bunch of friends, at which point the value of the divvied loot quickly becomes too low to make you a whorthwhile target. Quote: Originally by: Malcanis As I said above, there was no risk for the ganker when he killed the OP because the OP made things so easy for the ganker. No, there was no risk for the ganker because of insurance. No, insurance can never bring it down to "no risk" because it doesn't cover the additional expenses of a gank. It can certainly lower the risk somewhat, but to be 100% risk-free, you need to be sure that the target will pop and that you can cover those expenses with the portion of the cargo that will reasonably survive. In this case, the OP made it a 100% certainty that his ship would explode with minimal effort, thereby removing any risk — insurance or no insurance.
Qui Shon	Posted - 2009.01.10 12:29:00 - [121] Originally by: Tippia No, it's not. Fit a tank, and suddenly he will suffer a 100% loss for attacking you No. You are either not getting it, which I find somewhat hard to believe after all the discussions on the matter, or you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Which, given some of your posts, isn't hard to believe. There is no loss. Even a 100% failed operation, victim going merrily on his way, can still be no loss at all, due to insurance. I can make it happen, I can eliminate cost ENTIRELY! So can the ganker. Or at least I could, last time I checked, and a quick glance at the market shows ship prices being the same or even less, and most module prices are also lower, so suicide efficiency might actually be up. Only the ganker can make it actually cost something, by being lazy and/or stupid. The whole issue is that there IS NO COST. Quote: No, insurance can never bring it down to "no risk" because it doesn't cover the additional expenses of a gank. It can certainly lower the risk somewhat, but to be 100% risk-free, you need to be sure that the target will pop and that you can cover those expenses with the portion of the cargo that will reasonably survive. In this case, the OP made it a 100% certainty that his ship would explode with minimal effort, thereby removing any risk — insurance or no insurance. There are NO additional expenses. Even if we assume lazy/stupid ganker, which we have NO obligation to do, the expenses are pitiful. While this lazy/stupid ganker has CHOSEN to add a cost to his enterprise, and thus has to CHOSEN to, technically, operate with at least some risk, it is still not enough to constitute what I would call a "real" risk. It's pocket change. And it's voluntary.
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.01.10 12:35:00 - [122] Originally by: Qui Shon Even a 100% failed operation, victim going merrily on his way, can still be no loss at all, due to insurance. I can make it happen, I can eliminate cost ENTIRELY! So can the ganker. Or at least I could, last time I checked …so ban all the "my minerals cost nothing" numpties…
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.	Posted - 2009.01.10 15:13:00 - [123] Originally by: Qui Shon Originally by: Tippia No, it's not. Fit a tank, and suddenly he will suffer a 100% loss for attacking you No. You are either not getting it, which I find somewhat hard to believe after all the discussions on the matter, or you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Which, given some of your posts, isn't hard to believe. There is no loss. Even a 100% failed operation, victim going merrily on his way, can still be no loss at all, due to insurance. I can make it happen, I can eliminate cost ENTIRELY! So can the ganker. Or at least I could, last time I checked, and a quick glance at the market shows ship prices being the same or even less, and most module prices are also lower, so suicide efficiency might actually be up. Only the ganker can make it actually cost something, by being lazy and/or stupid. The whole issue is that there IS NO COST. Quote: No, insurance can never bring it down to "no risk" because it doesn't cover the additional expenses of a gank. It can certainly lower the risk somewhat, but to be 100% risk-free, you need to be sure that the target will pop and that you can cover those expenses with the portion of the cargo that will reasonably survive. In this case, the OP made it a 100% certainty that his ship would explode with minimal effort, thereby removing any risk ù insurance or no insurance. There are NO additional expenses. Even if we assume lazy/stupid ganker, which we have NO obligation to do, the expenses are pitiful. While this lazy/stupid ganker has CHOSEN to add a cost to his enterprise, and thus has to CHOSEN to, technically, operate with at least some risk, it is still not enough to constitute what I would call a "real" risk. It's pocket change. And it's voluntary. ITT: the assumption that a gankers time has no value.
Concorduck Gallente	Posted - 2009.01.10 15:29:00 - [124] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Qui Shon Originally by: Tippia No, it's not. Fit a tank, and suddenly he will suffer a 100% loss for attacking you No. You are either not getting it, which I find somewhat hard to believe after all the discussions on the matter, or you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Which, given some of your posts, isn't hard to believe. There is no loss. Even a 100% failed operation, victim going merrily on his way, can still be no loss at all, due to insurance. I can make it happen, I can eliminate cost ENTIRELY! So can the ganker. Or at least I could, last time I checked, and a quick glance at the market shows ship prices being the same or even less, and most module prices are also lower, so suicide efficiency might actually be up. Only the ganker can make it actually cost something, by being lazy and/or stupid. The whole issue is that there IS NO COST. Quote: No, insurance can never bring it down to "no risk" because it doesn't cover the additional expenses of a gank. It can certainly lower the risk somewhat, but to be 100% risk-free, you need to be sure that the target will pop and that you can cover those expenses with the portion of the cargo that will reasonably survive. In this case, the OP made it a 100% certainty that his ship would explode with minimal effort, thereby removing any risk ù insurance or no insurance. There are NO additional expenses. Even if we assume lazy/stupid ganker, which we have NO obligation to do, the expenses are pitiful. While this lazy/stupid ganker has CHOSEN to add a cost to his enterprise, and thus has to CHOSEN to, technically, operate with at least some risk, it is still not enough to constitute what I would call a "real" risk. It's pocket change. And it's voluntary. ITT: the assumption that a gankers time has no value. ITT: recursive assumptions
Sedious Bloke	Posted - 2009.01.10 15:58:00 - [125] Edited by: Sedious Bloke on 10/01/2009 15:59:41 Originally by: Qui Shon Originally by: Tippia WHAAaaaaAAAaa No. You are not getting it, Fit some tank on it then there is no risk and no time spent on your part. The "Gankers" have to go through a lot of trouble to find someone as dumb as you and the op while you guys just have to spend 12 seconds fitting your ships not to explode instantly. This is of course assuming you are just to ***ing lazy to just warp to zero which makes the whole thing moot anyway. please quit eve please? or at least die your noob death with some dignity and learn from it or you know don't and keep giving everyone free stuff shrug* P.S. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
jst tstng	Posted - 2009.01.10 16:06:00 - [126] I gotta try this suicide ganking, it sounds profitable
Mr Ignitious R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.	Posted - 2009.01.10 16:18:00 - [127] Edited by: Mr Ignitious on 10/01/2009 16:19:50 Originally by: jst tstng I gotta try this suicide ganking, it sounds profitable Oh god my friend it is, it IS. Edit: Oh and FYI to the QQ'r, if concord lays the final blow, you dont get insurance. Now stop whining to us when you already got your high sec buffed. Just keep autopiloting through my .6's and .5's and i'll keep takin ur lewtz.
EnslaverOfMinmatar	Posted - 2009.01.10 18:31:00 - [128] Originally by: Leaving Eve Just in case you think you will be leaving eve, I want to clarify that I am Leaving Eve. I know, lame, but there aren't many tears for me to suckle on tonight. ROFLMAO!!! uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ ƃuıpɐǝɹ ǝɹɐ noʎ
Qui Shon	Posted - 2009.01.10 21:10:00 - [129] Originally by: Malcanis ITT: the assumption that a gankers time has no value. Oh christ. Not another one of these. There is NO value to time, in the context of this discussion. If there was, I'd be loosing bucketloads of money every second I'm not trading, since that's the most profitable thing to do. "I'm sure risking a fortune whenever I'm chatting in station, aren't I?" The obvious and only answer is no, I'm not risking a damn thing. Claiming you risk "time spent" against some imaginary expected isk return is ludicrous, downright trollish. Yet when all else fails you or those like you bring it up as a last straw. tsk tsk.
Qui Shon	Posted - 2009.01.10 21:12:00 - [130] Originally by: Mr Ignitious Edit: Oh and FYI to the QQ'r, if concord lays the final blow, you dont get insurance. Bull****.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.	Posted - 2009.01.10 21:24:00 - [131] Originally by: Qui Shon Originally by: Malcanis ITT: the assumption that a gankers time has no value. Oh christ. Not another one of these. There is NO value to time, in the context of this discussion. If there was, I'd be loosing bucketloads of money every second I'm not trading, since that's the most profitable thing to do. "I'm sure risking a fortune whenever I'm chatting in station, aren't I?" The obvious and only answer is no, I'm not risking a damn thing. Claiming you risk "time spent" against some imaginary expected isk return is ludicrous, downright trollish. Yet when all else fails you or those like you bring it up as a last straw. tsk tsk. Yeah whatever. These idiots join a PvP game, then make every effort to make themselves vulnerable and tempting targets, then come here expecting sympathy. The implicit assumption seems to be that there's some kind of moral value in choosing to make oneself helpless and vulnerable, and that it is not just unreasonable but actually repellent to expect people to protect themselves and their property. I know that's a pretty popular philosophy in schools these days, so I suppose younger players have some excuse, however weak, for bringing these unexamined assumptions to the game. But EvE, for better or worse, rightly or wrongly, is based on a very different philosophy. Let me repeat: if you get suicide ganked, then it is almost certainly YOUR FAULT. What with concord buffs and agility buffs and covops-capable blockade runners, the ONLY people who get ganked are AFKers. They ignore the published advice in the knowledge bay, lose game assets as a consequence, and then somehow want us to believe that there is a problem. If I go in to a city park at midnight naked, blindfolded, with a flashing LED adorned hat and carrying transparent plastic bags for of ú20 notes, I will certainly lose a great deal of money and probably get badly hurt. But this would not be because muggers are "overpowered". It would be because I was a **ing idiot. If I were to go crying that it was "so unfair" that I lost all my money and got the crap beaten out of me, I wouldn't expect or get sympathy from anyone. Yet somehow in EvE - which is actively publicised as the MMO equivalent of an LA ghetto - people think that doing the equivalent is normal, sensible and should be without consequences. No, gankers don't experience much risk, any more than the park muggers experience much risk when attacking blindfolded naked guys with bags of cash. They are the risk**. Unless, you know, you take the most minimal steps to avoid that risk, in which case your basically 100% safe and the gankers will while away endless profitless hours on the New Caldari gate until they realise that running level 2s would be 10x better. That's their real risk: that the supply of idiots will decline. Yeah, you're right: not much of a risk, is it?
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.	Posted - 2009.01.10 21:27:00 - [132] Originally by: Qui Shon Originally by: Malcanis ITT: the assumption that a gankers time has no value. Oh christ. Not another one of these. There is NO value to time, in the context of this discussion. If there was, I'd be loosing bucketloads of money every second I'm not trading, since that's the most profitable thing to do. "I'm sure risking a fortune whenever I'm chatting in station, aren't I?" The obvious and only answer is no, I'm not risking a damn thing. Claiming you risk "time spent" against some imaginary expected isk return is ludicrous, downright trollish. Yet when all else fails you or those like you bring it up as a last straw. tsk tsk. Incidentally, if, as you assert, time has no value, and suicide ganking is risk-free and has no consequences, then surely ganking the gankers is a viable counter? I mean it doesn't matter how much time it takes, it won't cost anything (and may even make a small profit), it's perfectly safe, and there are no drawbacks. Go to it. Persuade an avenging carebear army with your flawless logic and cleanse New Eden of this scourge. I will cheer you on.
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.01.10 22:02:00 - [133] Originally by: Malcanis Go to it. Persuade an avenging carebear army with your flawless logic and cleanse New Eden of this scourge. I will cheer you on. Yes! Do it! …I'll bring my salvage ship. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Qui Shon	Posted - 2009.01.10 22:09:00 - [134] Edited by: Qui Shon on 10/01/2009 22:11:46 Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Qui Shon Originally by: Malcanis ITT: the assumption that a gankers time has no value. Oh christ. Not another one of these. There is NO value to time, in the context of this discussion. If there was, I'd be loosing bucketloads of money every second I'm not trading, since that's the most profitable thing to do. "I'm sure risking a fortune whenever I'm chatting in station, aren't I?" The obvious and only answer is no, I'm not risking a damn thing. Claiming you risk "time spent" against some imaginary expected isk return is ludicrous, downright trollish. Yet when all else fails you or those like you bring it up as a last straw. tsk tsk. Incidentally, if, as you assert, time has no value, and suicide ganking is risk-free and has no consequences, then surely ganking the gankers is a viable counter? I mean it doesn't matter how much time it takes, it won't cost anything (and may even make a small profit), it's perfectly safe, and there are no drawbacks. Go to it. Persuade an avenging carebear army with your flawless logic and cleanse New Eden of this scourge. I will cheer you on. If they make the changes I want, I just might take some form of action against gankers. But before they make the changes, it's a waste of time. Yep, with current system it is cost free to do that, if you care enough to make it cost free. However, the intended result, to counter the gankers, is unlikely to be realized as a) they won't care about loosing their gank ship, just get another b) their gankship is going to be a lot harder to take down then a hauler (not impossible, but the ratio of effort spent between ganker and gankee would be reversed from what it normally is.) c) targetting their hauler is certainly feasible, but easier to just steal the loot from under their noses. I understand you don't want suicide ganking removed, and you want to maintain at least some notion of risk for highsec AP:ers. Believe it or not, so do I. But there has to be a cost for both sides, and currently the only one loosing something is the target. The situation before the last change needed tending, because it was getting silly, but like I've said, they went the wrong route. Optimally the last concord changes would be undone so freighters and missionships become feasible targets for reasonably sized groups again, but insurance removed or at least reduced so there is a cost to doing it. That way, gankers can keep on ganking, but if they mess up they will feel it. Not as much as the target of that gank if they succeed of course (or they wouldn't be targetting that hauler in the first place) but something is usually better then nothing. That might also make it worthwhile to devise and act out all sorts of plans to foil the gankers, since THEN, with that change, there'd actually be a way to "hurt" them, financially. Something that currently is not possible.
Ocih Amarr	Posted - 2009.01.10 22:58:00 - [135] Originally by: Melanie Griffin flying a mammoth on a 2nd pc through 0.6 sec with AP. Cargo worth roughly 130m ISK. Realized that i'm beeing agressed, switch on invu field and booster while i still had some 85% shields. Got ganked by a single brutix with Limited Neutron Blaster I. Yeah yeah, don't fly AP, eve is a rough and harsch ...blah. Sorry folks, but this is just bollux. I though CCP already adressed this problem? I can still feel for you but AP is death. We are supposed to surrender our undivided attention to 2 Intell channels, a garrison of support to jump, warp, jump, warp, jump, warp, jump, warp. It makes the game more immersive and rich and.. stuff.. Nobody will attack you if you focus your undivided attention to jump, warp, jump, warp, jump, warp, jump, warp. So yes, it makes it that much more boring by default. On the optimistic side, some day you can go to 0.0 and use jumpdrives.... no wait. They are all jammed to keep out the F1 I-Win fleets. Jump, warp, jump, warp, jump, warp, jump, warp..... PS. now that you lost all your ****, go buy some GTC's.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.	Posted - 2009.01.10 23:06:00 - [136] Jesus. Look, all I'm saying is that suicide ganking should not be balanced around AFKers. If you're going to assert that the risk of a properly fitted, actively pilot being ganked is too high, let's go talk about that. I'm ready to listen. If you want to make it more widely known that ganking is a risk even in hi-sec, which many people don't seem to realise (believe it or not I have met 0.0 PvPers who didn't believe that suicide ganking could happen, or if it did then it was a petitionable exploit) then by all means argue for this. I will support you. However: If you're going at assert that any consideration whatsoever should be given to AFKers, we will simply never agree. You can not make any calculation of risk based on an AFK ship. You might as well say that Harbingers should be nerfed because you can easily kill an AFK Chimera in one, and battlecruisers shouldn't be able to risklessly solo carriers.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.	Posted - 2009.01.10 23:08:00 - [137] Originally by: Qui Shon If they make the changes I want, I just might take some form of action against gankers. But before they make the changes, it's a waste of time. Originally by: Qui Shon There is NO value to time ...
Qui Shon	Posted - 2009.01.10 23:41:00 - [138] Edited by: Qui Shon on 10/01/2009 23:44:22 Originally by: Malcanis Jesus. Look, all I'm saying is that suicide ganking should not be balanced around AFKers. Well, I don't feel as passionately as you about afkers one way or the other, so I don't see why an insurance change is balanced around said afkers. It would be simply balanced because then, and only then, both sides would bring something to the table, and run the risk of walking away with empty pockets. While of course only one party stands to gain from the encounter, but I don't have a problem with that. If such a change results in too few ganks (i.e. your afkers getting it too easy), according to whomever is authorized to make such a call, maybe loosen up concord responses again. Like I said, it would also, for the first time, enable someone to get back at the gankers, and surely someone like you can see how that would be a good thing? Originally by: Malcanis ... Haha. Caught me there, even if it doesn't affect the argument, as it's just wordplay. Yes we use phrases like loose time, waste time, gain time, even though time just is. Cannot be bought, given, stored, wasted or saved. (Please, no gtc wordplay here) Perhaps I should have said, waste of effort (still, no loss so no risk involved) because the expected gain, which would be emotional, not financial, is not possible to realize under the current system. Or to put it another way. If you fly proper suicide ships, you are invulnerable to isk loss. How can you argue for that?
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.	Posted - 2009.01.11 00:43:00 - [139] Edited by: Malcanis on 11/01/2009 00:43:32 Originally by: Qui Shon Or to put it another way. If you fly proper suicide ships, you are invulnerable to isk loss. How can you argue for that? If you fly proper haulers, you are invulnerable to ISK loss. How can you argue against that? Don't carry valuable cargo in ships so crappy that a ship that's so cheaply fitted that it's effectively free can kill you in less than 10 seconds. Or if you must, then don't autopilot, thus reducing your chance of being ganked by 99.99%... but accept that you're still taking a risk in using such a fragile ship. Cheap haulers can be ganked by cheap ships. Want to move BPOs? put them in a Rokh that's tanked to the max with 3x CDFE rigs. I did an EFT calculation a while back that made a Rokh with close to 300k EHP for less than 2B. You can carry a lot of valuable mods in a BS hold. Ganking a ship like that would call for battleships in such number that lag would become significant and results difficult to ensure. Dont forget that skilled gankers in large ships are not available in arbitrary numbers. If I was moving a set of researched BS or capital BPOs, I might use such a ship. Or I might use a Force Recon - A Falcon with 2 agility rigs, 2 WCS and a nano, and 6 mids worth of buffer tank for instance. Or better yet, a Rapier (better resists, much faster). I'd probably use scouts and decoys, and not do dumb stuff like tell a living soul what I was carrying. Good luck ganking that setup with anything but the most competent and well-informed gang. You can do missions or rat or mine in T1 fits - virtually free, as you say - with ~0 risk as well. It'll be slower, so you'll make less ISK/Hr, (but then of course time has no value) so why isn't this a problem for you? Why does one specific method of "riskless" income require uninsurability, when there are so many others? Originally by: Qui Shon Like I said, it would also, for the first time, enable someone to get back at the gankers, and surely someone like you can see how that would be a good thing?" No it doesn't and no it isn't. The AFKer isn't "getting back" at the ganker. He's just passively benefitting from a penalty arbitrarily applied to suicide gankers by the Devs. The nature of ganking doesn't change one bit; all that you're doing is raising the bar on how valuable the cargo in a given hauler must be to make it worthwhile. In effect, you're simply buffing AFK haulers at the expense of gankers. Things like transferrable killrights would enable the gankee to "get back" at the gankers. Insurance nerfs simply penalise a playstyle you dislike, for no better reason than you dislike it. A very slippery slope.
Cassandra Valieries	Posted - 2009.01.11 01:06:00 - [140] Originally by: Melanie Griffin flying a mammoth on a 2nd pc through 0.6 sec with AP. Cargo worth roughly 130m ISK. Realized that i'm beeing agressed, switch on invu field and booster while i still had some 85% shields. Got ganked by a single brutix with Limited Neutron Blaster I. Yeah yeah, don't fly AP, eve is a rough and harsch ...blah. Sorry folks, but this is just bollux. I though CCP already adressed this problem? Your stuff my hangar, thanks Can't be arsed to read through all 5 pages of the thread so I guess I'm not the first asking for it, but give it to me anyways
Qui Shon	Posted - 2009.01.11 02:30:00 - [141] Edited by: Qui Shon on 11/01/2009 02:31:24 Originally by: Malcanis Edited by: Malcanis on 11/01/2009 00:43:32 Originally by: Qui Shon Or to put it another way. If you fly proper suicide ships, you are invulnerable to isk loss. How can you argue for that? If you fly proper haulers, you are invulnerable to ISK loss. How can you argue against that? Argue against it? I'm not arguing against BR's being invulnerable. Or for it, for that matter. If you really don't see it, the issue is that while a properly flown BR may be next to invulnerable (there's always lag) to isk loss, an IMproperly flown suicide gankship (of which there are many types) is invulnerable to iskloss, even if everything goes wrong, or even if they go afk from DT to DT in amamake. (Pod isn't as invlunerable, of course) How you can seriously continue to argue this point is...astonishing. Quote: You can do missions or rat or mine in T1 fits - virtually free, as you say - with ~0 risk as well. It'll be slower, so you'll make less ISK/Hr, (but then of course time has no value) so why isn't this a problem for you? Why does one specific method of "riskless" income require uninsurability, when there are so many others? Duh. Are we really having this discussion on such a low level? Obviously because it's not primarily a "method of income", it's primarily PvP of a very expensive kind for one party, and cheap or free for the other, even if they lose. That one party sees it as their "method of income" is irrelevant. Quote: Originally by: Qui Shon Like I said, it would also, for the first time, enable someone to get back at the gankers, and surely someone like you can see how that would be a good thing?" No it doesn't and no it isn't. The AFKer isn't "getting back" at the ganker. He's just passively benefitting from a penalty arbitrarily applied to suicide gankers by the Devs. The nature of ganking doesn't change one bit; all that you're doing is raising the bar on how valuable the cargo in a given hauler must be to make it worthwhile. In effect, you're simply buffing AFK haulers at the expense of gankers. Things like transferrable killrights would enable the gankee to "get back" at the gankers. Insurance nerfs simply penalise a playstyle you dislike, for no better reason than you dislike it. A very slippery slope. Looks like you don't understand. You cannot "get back" at gankers , i.e. cause them a loss, by attacking their ships, since those ships have no isk value. Killrights do nothing for this. You also cannot "get back" at them by foiling their gank, by staying alive, since they do no take a loss. The change, if it ever comes, certainly isn't arbitrary, and there are very good reasons for it, which have nothing to do with me disliking it. Right now it's a completely one sided affair, where the gankee can only avoid loss and has nothing to gain. By contrast, the ganker cannot take a loss (unless they're lazy or stupid) and can only make a profit.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.	Posted - 2009.01.11 08:24:00 - [142] I said that you would never get me to agree that any players should be penalised to benefit AFKers. I have said everything that I'm going to on this subject.
5econdary Target Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.11 09:49:00 - [143] WOW --->

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one 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.