These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Time for ccp to tinker with the concord timer again

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#21 - 2012-06-09 01:58:32 UTC
SetrakDark wrote:
That was, in effect, my precise argument against it. However, that doesn't make the very fundamental concept of considering the impact on ganking of combat changes "unreasonable", only unjustified.
Fair enough. What makes it unreasonable is that he provides no reason for it.
SetrakDark
Doomheim
#22 - 2012-06-09 02:04:26 UTC
The main point of my original post was to congratulate the OP on not spewing incoherent and inane conspiracies about goon devs and "the manitini", so I take part of the responsibility for using generally neutral terms in a more specific and relative context.
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2012-06-09 02:23:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Mortimer Civeri
SetrakDark wrote:
The main point of my original post was to congratulate the OP on not spewing incoherent and inane conspiracies about goon devs and "the manitini", so I take part of the responsibility for using generally neutral terms in a more specific and relative context.

Oh yes, let's congradulate the OP for not spewing vitriol and wacky tinfoil hattery on these fine fourms, we will just leave off the fact his argument is baseless, ill conceived, tripe.

"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#24 - 2012-06-09 02:25:03 UTC
Mortimer Civeri wrote:
SetrakDark wrote:
The main point of my original post was to congratulate the OP on not spewing incoherent and inane conspiracies about goon devs and "the manitini", so I take part of the responsibility for using generally neutral terms in a more specific and relative context.

Oh yes, let's congradulate the OP for not spewing vitriol and wacky tinfoil hattery on these fine fourms, we will just leave off the fact his argument is baseless, ill conceived, tripe.

Now now, the carebears only want this one small little nerf to ganking...

I'm sure there's nothing at all to it ~~~~

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Miss Yanumano
Cadence Industrial Syndicate
#25 - 2012-06-09 02:26:24 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Mortimer Civeri wrote:
SetrakDark wrote:
The main point of my original post was to congratulate the OP on not spewing incoherent and inane conspiracies about goon devs and "the manitini", so I take part of the responsibility for using generally neutral terms in a more specific and relative context.

Oh yes, let's congradulate the OP for not spewing vitriol and wacky tinfoil hattery on these fine fourms, we will just leave off the fact his argument is baseless, ill conceived, tripe.

Now now, the carebears only want this one small little nerf to ganking...

I'm sure there's nothing at all to it ~~~~


And I'm sure it won't happen again if and when gankers adapt, right?
SetrakDark
Doomheim
#26 - 2012-06-09 02:27:08 UTC
Mortimer Civeri wrote:
Oh yes, let's congradulate the OP for not spewing vitriol and wacky tinfoil hattery on these fine fourms, we will just leave off the fact his argument is baseless, ill conceived, tripe.


hahaha

ok ok, point conceded
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#27 - 2012-06-09 02:33:13 UTC
Miss Yanumano wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Mortimer Civeri wrote:
SetrakDark wrote:
The main point of my original post was to congratulate the OP on not spewing incoherent and inane conspiracies about goon devs and "the manitini", so I take part of the responsibility for using generally neutral terms in a more specific and relative context.

Oh yes, let's congradulate the OP for not spewing vitriol and wacky tinfoil hattery on these fine fourms, we will just leave off the fact his argument is baseless, ill conceived, tripe.

Now now, the carebears only want this one small little nerf to ganking...

I'm sure there's nothing at all to it ~~~~


And I'm sure it won't happen again if and when gankers adapt, right?

They definitely wouldn't just repeat it over and over. I mean, they seem to have done it before, but this time is special.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2012-06-09 02:45:28 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Miss Yanumano wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Mortimer Civeri wrote:
SetrakDark wrote:
The main point of my original post was to congratulate the OP on not spewing incoherent and inane conspiracies about goon devs and "the manitini", so I take part of the responsibility for using generally neutral terms in a more specific and relative context.

Oh yes, let's congradulate the OP for not spewing vitriol and wacky tinfoil hattery on these fine fourms, we will just leave off the fact his argument is baseless, ill conceived, tripe.

Now now, the carebears only want this one small little nerf to ganking...

I'm sure there's nothing at all to it ~~~~


And I'm sure it won't happen again if and when gankers adapt, right?

They definitely wouldn't just repeat it over and over. I mean, they seem to have done it before, but this time is special.

Its all happened before, it will all happen again?

"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#29 - 2012-06-09 02:46:59 UTC
No More Heroes wrote:
Negative ghostrider the pattern is full.

Cool
Makkal Hanaya
Revenent Defence Corperation
#30 - 2012-06-09 03:12:42 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Show me the KM where a catalyst soloed a tanked hulk in 0.5 or higher. Until then, tank your hulk.


I would also like to see this.

Render unto Khanid the things which are Khanid's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Doctor Benway Kado
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#31 - 2012-06-09 03:17:38 UTC
Seriously, last time someone posted that a single destroyer could solo a properly tanked hulk, it turned out by destroyer they meant "faction fitted rattlesnake". I want to see this kill mail. Hell, I'll accept an eft fitting that proves its hypothetically possible.
Torneach
Doomheim
#32 - 2012-06-09 03:22:25 UTC
Derrick Munroe wrote:
Blastcaps Madullier wrote:
CCP adjust the timer upwards to increase Concords response time


I agree, CCP should increase Concord response time so gankers have longer to kill their target.


I noticed this too... OP, what are you asking for?
Blastcaps Madullier
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#33 - 2012-06-09 03:30:11 UTC
Spikeflach wrote:

1. Because they didn't remove the drawbacks thinking "hey lets get rid of the drawback to make ganking easier"

It was more to make destroyers worth something.


agreed, known some corps/alliances null way that like going on suicide roams in thrashers etc, ROF penalty was truthfuly crippling ALL destroyers, plus tinkering with concord timer as said ONLY effects HS and does NOT impact or screw up something else, elsewhere in eve, as anyone knows, start tinkering with code and things can go wrong, start making changes to ships mods etc would then require other rebalances else where in eve, leading to further tinkering and also more chances for things to get screwed.

Spikeflach wrote:

2. Adjusting timers would make the price of ganking rise as it may require a bit more to make a gank worth the effort. As it stands, it takes little effort to train any character to fly a gank destroyer.


vs time investment skill wise, nevermind isk investment of said miners

Tippia wrote:

Why should they make a change that negates a previous change like that?
Why should they touch CONCORD response times to begin with?

why make it easier to gank and not keep it same level as pre incarna?

Tippia wrote:

Why are the Incarna levels the right ones, and not, say, the Trinity levels?

cant comment on trinity as wasn't in eve at time to have experience of the times

Quote:
i've seen solo catalysts gank a tanked hulk, dont believe me, look on eve-kill.net.
Prove it.[/quote]
run the numbers on EFT for T2 gank fitted cata (including rigs) and run the numbers for a tanked hulk and see what you get :)
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#34 - 2012-06-09 03:44:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Blastcaps Madullier wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
i've seen solo catalysts gank a tanked hulk, dont believe me, look on eve-kill.net.
Prove it.

run the numbers on EFT for T2 gank fitted cata (including rigs) and run the numbers for a tanked hulk and see what you get :)

A tanked Hulk has over 25,000 EHP. In a 0.5, CONCORD arrives within 20 seconds (max I've observed was 22). How much dps would a single T2-fit Catalyst need to do in order to gank a single tanked Hulk?

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#35 - 2012-06-09 03:47:19 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Blastcaps Madullier wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
i've seen solo catalysts gank a tanked hulk, dont believe me, look on eve-kill.net.
Prove it.

run the numbers on EFT for T2 gank fitted cata (including rigs) and run the numbers for a tanked hulk and see what you get :)

A tanked Hulk has over 25,000 EHP. In a 0.5, CONCORD arrives within 20 seconds (max I've observed was 22). How much dps would a single T2-fit Catalyst need to do in order to gank a single tanked Hulk?

Sounds like over 1000 DPS then....

Man, I should use them for ratting.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Mr Care Bear
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#36 - 2012-06-09 03:54:40 UTC
Blastcaps Madullier wrote:
when the winter patch details leaked showing the removal of destroyers ROF penalty and seeing the potential of tier 3 BCs i suggested this before.
CCP adjust the timer upwards to increase Concords response time to bring ganking BACK in line with what is was pre incarna
and before anyone QQ's and moans from the ganking community i am NOT saying do away with ganking just bring it back to pre incarna levels, ie tinkering with the concord timer negates the ROF change on destroyers (catalysts for example) but still keeps things within pre incarna levels

and before anyone says "HTFU" or "go tank a hulk" i've seen solo catalysts gank a tanked hulk, dont believe me, look on eve-kill.net.

adjusting the concord timer ONLY effects HS and does NOT necessitate CCP then having to tinker with things else where in eve, ask yourself this would you like it if CCP tinkers with something and it screws something in nullsec or sov up? :)


Sounds good to me though I may be biased Roll
Blastcaps Madullier
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#37 - 2012-06-09 04:00:02 UTC
[quote.

Man, I should use them for ratting.[/quote]

some do for nullsec ratting lol
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade
Ghost Legion.
#38 - 2012-06-09 04:07:54 UTC
If you watch the Crimewatch Fanfest Video, CCP talked about the timers. Taking watch they said, Concord my very well show up 0.1Seconds after GCC happens. Might not shoot anyone, but they might show up.

Grayscale did say something about a deathray following a scam ray. He also said he wanted to keep the differing levels in response times WHERE POSSIBLE.

So while Concord may get better, at arriving at the scene of the crime. They may take just as long to kill focus, so buffer for the win.

Don't ask about Italics, just tilt your head.
ashley Eoner
#39 - 2012-06-09 04:13:29 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Makkal Hanaya wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
Show me the KM where a catalyst soloed a tanked hulk in 0.5 or higher. Until then, tank your hulk.


I would also like to see this.
Oh man a dude in mining chat was linking all kinds of kill mails some involving tanked hulks in .5 space that he killed with a catalyst. It's not our fault you're not smart enough to figure out how to make it work. Spend a little of your own time and you'll eventually figure out how to do it yourself.


EDIT : IT takes a near perfectly skilled pilot with implants to hit +26000 EHP. A moderately skilled pilot with months of fitting skills will more likely be around 24k ehp.

There's a lot of people out there who cannot afford the implants (podded new etc) and haven't quite maxed their defensive fitting yet (takes over half a month just for one level 5).


EDIT 2 : Yes I realized to reach maximum DPS in a catalyst you have to have the proper implant and full skills. It's obvious that a throw away account isn't going to do as well at ganking a full tank.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#40 - 2012-06-09 05:35:32 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
[Oh man a dude in mining chat was linking all kinds of kill mails some involving tanked hulks in .5 space that he killed with a catalyst. It's not our fault you're not smart enough to figure out how to make it work. Spend a little of your own time and you'll eventually figure out how to do it yourself.

I'm totally taken in by this evidence.

"a dude in mining chat"

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?