These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Countering Bumping ganks in highsec

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#221 - 2015-11-14 13:27:44 UTC
BABARR wrote:

It's maybe YOU you don't want to adapt.


No, it's still the carebears. We've been the only ones who've had to do any "adapting" at all. Their gameplay has stayed the same, and they've howled and cried for a decade to keep it that way. (see the MTU changes, fastest hotfix in the game's history thanks to carebear tears. Nevermind the freighter rebalance, which was planned as a hefty nerf until they flooded the forums with tears)

And that's just it, after all. The carebear side doesn't want to adapt, and they've forced everyone else to adapt for the entire history of the game, because they think they have the right to play the game wrong. Never once have they actually been nerfed.

It's long past time to tell them to suck it up. Play the game right, or get used to dying.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#222 - 2015-11-14 13:30:50 UTC
BABARR wrote:

Crying like little girl when suggesting a change, don't want to be put out his own "confortable zone", ect.


Why should we be nerfed yet again because the same people can't figure out that being afk is a bad idea?

Why should highsec be made even more safe?

Hell, you want to talk about "comfortable zone", while you suggest things to help people who are actively not playing the game? Why is their "comfortable zone" out of bounds for the whole history of the game? Why don't they get to suck it up for just once in the last decade?

I know carebears think they're special snowflakes, but you cannot possibly tell me you are this much of a hypocrite.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
BABARR
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#223 - 2015-11-14 13:37:03 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
BABARR wrote:

Crying like little girl when suggesting a change, don't want to be put out his own "confortable zone", ect.


Why should we be nerfed yet again because the same people can't figure out that being afk is a bad idea?


WOOOT i stop you. Once again, HOW AN AFK PILOT CAN ACTIVATE A DAMAGE CONTROL?

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Why should highsec be made even more safe?


Cause suicide ganker developed strat to make Hsec more dangerous? just a question of balance.


Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
but you cannot possibly tell me you are this much of a hypocrite.


I return you the question. The problem actually is : you kill EMPTY freighter. Don't bargain about carebear or what CCP want.
Killing empty ship just prove it's became too easy and don't cost enought ISK.
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#224 - 2015-11-14 13:51:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmer Jones
Sound input can control things if the player knows enough.

This means that when the game says, for example "autopilot...." It can macro a keystroke with a randomized timer so as not to be caught out as an afk bot. Thus the DCII fires up, no intervention. It would take me less than 30 min. to set up the first time, and no time at all thereafter.

Ed* to head off intentional ignorance, this means afk autopilots would have their DC, and afk use it too

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.
BABARR
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#225 - 2015-11-14 13:54:06 UTC  |  Edited by: BABARR
Zimmer Jones wrote:
Sound input can control things if the player knows enough.

This means that when the game says, for example "autopilot...." It can macro a keystroke with a randomized timer so as not to be caught out as an afk bot. Thus the DCII fires up, no intervention. It would take me less than 30 min. to set up the first time, and no time at all thereafter.


.Big smile
So maybe problem is macro, not the damage control.

btw your bargain about AFKing is just a piece of poop, cause you are bumping freighter afk OR NOT.
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#226 - 2015-11-14 14:08:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmer Jones
Where in my history does it say goon? Try to match numbers and dates. When have I ever championed macros? Never, because I champion hotkeys and atk playstyles, when I mention macros and how easy they are to set up it is always to counter someone saying well afk players can't do x.

As a hauler with a pretty damn good record, I would welcome the extreme nerfs ccp would use to balance the dcii. It wouldn't affect me at all. While I'd fit it is never have to use it, It would be pure show for scanners because I'm a competent pilot,use scouts and webs and fly survival fit freighters.

Try thinking before posting. Your random **** slinging with makes you look desperate. While you're at it wipe the rabid spittle from your lips, your ad hominem attacks are detracting from anything intelligent you might say. Might, I say, because I haven't heard anything intelligent from you yet.

Ed* Oh, now you've edited your post to make it look like you didn't call me a goon. If I were a goon I would be proud to be one, but ATM I'm not and have not been, and my first statement in the post is to call you on being the knee-jerk spaz you post as.

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.
BABARR
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#227 - 2015-11-14 14:24:46 UTC
Zimmer Jones wrote:

Try thinking before posting. Your random **** slinging with makes you look desperate. While you're at it wipe the rabid spittle from your lips, your ad hominem attacks are detracting from anything intelligent you might say. Might, I say, because I haven't heard anything intelligent from you yet


I'am desesperate to see the argument you are able use to keep your buisness. "yes but they can use macro" total dumbass.
Or try to make ppl think you are the white knight who are killing only AFK ppl.
Or try to justify your act by quoting CCP.
I haven't heards anything intelligent from you too. So it's a draw.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#228 - 2015-11-14 15:32:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
BABARR wrote:

ok, you, you really make me laught.
The game can change, CCP can update it.
I started the game when you can tank concord whith remote, and you know what? ccp fixed it.
Mining barge and exhumer were paper tank, and CCP fixed it to have more "tanky" boat now.
Few days ago, CCP fixed the hyperdunking.

The game is not STATIC

Why you fear so much about damage control? Do you think a damage control on a freighter make it INVULNERABLE?
Do you think an AFK pilot can ACTIVATE a damage control????

It's maybe YOU you don't want to adapt.

I think you just cry cause a damage control will just **** up your ratio "isk to lose to kill a freighter"

Did i said criminals should be unable to operate in hsec? NEVER.

You are just a little boy pooping in his pants about a change is not on your way. And try to justify it about "the great history of eve" or CCP"goals" you never know.
Please stop embarassing yourself. Your desperate pleading for the game developer to change the game in your favour is quite unseemly. Your basic argument for changing the game so you have it easier is that CCP should do it because it makes gankers "adapt"? It's a pretty weak argument, even when peppered with phrases like "pooping his pants".

This game is ever-changing. It's about to get more dangerous for carebears once these citadels and other structures come online. But one constant is that players are vulnerable to each other, and that includes freighters. CCP did not see fit to give freighters a DCU just two years ago, so I think it unlikely that you will convince them to do so now even with your compelling "it will make gankers poop their pants" line of reasoning.

I think it is time that you adapt to this ever-changing game instead of begging CCP to isolate you from other players. There are already plenty of ways to keep yourself safe. Your time would be better spent learning how to use them instead of flailing about on these forums insulting your fellow players and debasing yourself by begging CCP to nerf the other players you seem unable to defend yourself from in-game.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Aisha Shimaya
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#229 - 2015-11-14 16:18:46 UTC
What a lot of people don't realize is that the gankers are here to help the little guy :

If it wasn't for them the price of hisec ore would plummel due to swarms of afk hulks relentlesly swallowing every asteroid and ice belts, leaving
If it wasn't for them the big industry tycoon would have it much easyer with their fat freighters having an easy time hauling giant ammount of resources leaving nothing for the little guy.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#230 - 2015-11-14 17:12:18 UTC
BABARR wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
BABARR wrote:

You don't care about the game, you just want your own confortble zone, even if you have to say bullshit on forum to keep it.


Carebears always project. I have yet to find one this rule doesn't apply to.


Trust me, i don't like carebear too, but atm suicide ganker state of minde is REALLY close to carebear.


If you mean they are organized, taking steps to mitigate their risk and focused on achieving their goal....no not really.

Mitigating risk is NOT a bad thing. And if you say it is I bet I could watch you play for a period of time and come up with a fairly nice list of all the things you do to mitigate your risk.

For example, do you use an OOC alt for hauling purposes?
If you are in NS or even LS do you use local to let you know who is there?
In NS and their are hostiles/neuts in system do you warp to a celestial if possible to get a bounce?
Do you use a scout?
Do you use your watchlist to see when known hostiles are online?
When hostiles are in a system you are in and you are docked have you undocked and used the session timer and stopping your ship to check the undock?

If you have done any of these things, congratulations you are now risk averse. Hang your head in shame...not for being risk averse, but for implying being risk averse is something to be ashamed of...i.e. for being a bit...well daft.

BTW, I have done ALL of these things. And I am not embarrassed in least. Am I risk averse? Yes, I do not take unnecessary risks.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#231 - 2015-11-14 17:14:50 UTC
Aisha Shimaya wrote:
What a lot of people don't realize is that the gankers are here to help the little guy :

If it wasn't for them the price of hisec ore would plummel due to swarms of afk hulks relentlesly swallowing every asteroid and ice belts, leaving
If it wasn't for them the big industry tycoon would have it much easyer with their fat freighters having an easy time hauling giant ammount of resources leaving nothing for the little guy.


Ha! Gankers are nothing more than a transaction cost. I love it! Wonderful insight, IMO.

Oh, and if you think I'm being sarcastic I'm not. That is a good way to put it. Gankers raise the cost of transactions. These create interesting results for trading, IMO.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#232 - 2015-11-14 17:35:48 UTC
BABARR wrote:



ok, you, you really make me laught.
The game can change, CCP can update it.
I started the game when you can tank concord whith remote, and you know what? ccp fixed it.
Mining barge and exhumer were paper tank, and CCP fixed it to have more "tanky" boat now.
Few days ago, CCP fixed the hyperdunking.

The game is not STATIC

Why you fear so much about damage control? Do you think a damage control on a freighter make it INVULNERABLE?
Do you think an AFK pilot can ACTIVATE a damage control????

It's maybe YOU you don't want to adapt.

I think you just cry cause a damage control will just **** up your ratio "isk to lose to kill a freighter"

Did i said criminals should be unable to operate in hsec? NEVER.

You are just a little boy pooping in his pants about a change is not on your way. And try to justify it about "the great history of eve" or CCP"goals" you never know.


No, the game is not static, you are correct in that. In fact, I liken it to an evolutionary process. What works stays, what does not is tossed aside. We don't have as much opportunity for the mutation part of evolution given we have a set number of modules, ship slots, ships, etc., but still there are possible combinations people have not tried before so there is some room. And CCP can be seen as a source of mutation (albeit maybe not random) with their tweaks and tiericide and so forth to the game.

As for the damage control it would grant a huge buff to freighters. Just a damage controll II alone nearly doubles the EHP of a freighter. Adding on 2 reinforced bulkheads and you get over 650,00 ehp. That is a huge buff. CCP will never do just that. What they would likely do is first nerf the crap out of the freighters natural ehp then allow you to fit a damage control unit to get somewhere close to where you are now...maybe a bit higher.

Why? Because playing the game via autopilot in an expensive ship filled with expensive Stuff™ in this game is just bad game design.

And what will likely happen? People will likey not fit the reinforced bulkheads (that precious cargo space) fit a damage control unit and maybe resistance plating. They'll think, woot tons more ehp, tons more cargo....CODE., et. al. show up with 43 guys instead of 35 guys and gank the poor slob and eventually the usual suspects are here again complaining that ganking is still a thing.

To be quite honest I'd have alot more respect for these people if they were just honest, for once, and said, "Make ganking in HS illegal, a bannable offense or even not possible via game mechanics."

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#233 - 2015-11-14 17:38:42 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
BABARR wrote:

It's maybe YOU you don't want to adapt.


No, it's still the carebears. We've been the only ones who've had to do any "adapting" at all. Their gameplay has stayed the same, and they've howled and cried for a decade to keep it that way. (see the MTU changes, fastest hotfix in the game's history thanks to carebear tears. Nevermind the freighter rebalance, which was planned as a hefty nerf until they flooded the forums with tears)

And that's just it, after all. The carebear side doesn't want to adapt, and they've forced everyone else to adapt for the entire history of the game, because they think they have the right to play the game wrong. Never once have they actually been nerfed.

It's long past time to tell them to suck it up. Play the game right, or get used to dying.


In fact, they have received a number of buffs. The change to insurance, shortened CONCORD response times, etc. And yet ganking is still here. So, if we have an evolutionary process, as per your comment that the game is not static, it must follow that gankers have adapted to these changes.

In short, you are quite simply wrong.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Darth Squeemus
Doomheim
#234 - 2015-11-14 17:42:12 UTC
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#235 - 2015-11-14 18:07:35 UTC
Here is an idea....

Why not start up a anti-ganking group that is dedicated to shooting bumping machariels? You start an in-game channel, push it on the forums, maybe in game as well. Start a corporation around which the core group of players can be built, let others join in (maybe) and then go hunting these guys.

I hear this complaint time and again from players who just don't seem to get the notion of Eve, "Bumping ships have it too safe."

Well, here is the thing, they don't have much tank. I am looking at a fit on a machariel used by a guy I often see in Uedama and he had a DC II, and a LSE II. That is it. That is the sum total of his tanking mods. The rest are cap related or speed/agility related with a ship and cargo scanner in the mid slots. With all Vs this ship has a tank of 59,153 ehp. A catalyst with good skills will put out 674 DPS, lets be safe and say 575 DPS. To kill this guy if you bring 15 dudes in catalysts you'll have more than enough DPS to gank him before concord arrives. You will lose 120 million ISK, the bumper will lose 460 million ISK, and whatever ISK was in the freighter he was going to bump (if he is actively bumping). I have often seen him sitting stationary on gate in Uedama and surrounding systems.

So, ganking this guy is very, very doable. Much much more so than ganking a tanked out Obelisk with over 360,000 ehp. So with less time and effort you can....wait for it...wait.....wait....increase the risk for the bumper yourself!!!!!

You say, "What!?!?! OMFG, me actually do something instead of begging CCP for weeks even months on end?!?!?"

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Pull up your panties, tighten your belt and go increase the risk for that bumper yourself. No need to wait for CCP, you can implement it right now. You can start buffing up your own killboard too. Making bumping more risky will force the gankers to adapt to your new strategy. Might have to fit more tank at the expense of speed modules making bumping more difficult.

You'll need a ship to provide a warp in, maybe one that can cloak and fit a web. The web is if he is actively bumping and the freighter pilot accepts a dual request from your warp in he can web the freighter to get away. That may come later once you guys build up a reputation.

Evolution in action.

Yeah, none of these carebears have the stones....Roll

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
BABARR
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#236 - 2015-11-14 18:31:16 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:


No, the game is not static, you are correct in that. In fact, I liken it to an evolutionary process. What works stays, what does not is tossed aside. We don't have as much opportunity for the mutation part of evolution given we have a set number of modules, ship slots, ships, etc., but still there are possible combinations people have not tried before so there is some room. And CCP can be seen as a source of mutation (albeit maybe not random) with their tweaks and tiericide and so forth to the game.

As for the damage control it would grant a huge buff to freighters. Just a damage controll II alone nearly doubles the EHP of a freighter. Adding on 2 reinforced bulkheads and you get over 650,00 ehp. That is a huge buff. CCP will never do just that. What they would likely do is first nerf the crap out of the freighters natural ehp then allow you to fit a damage control unit to get somewhere close to where you are now...maybe a bit higher.

Why? Because playing the game via autopilot in an expensive ship filled with expensive Stuff™ in this game is just bad game design.

And what will likely happen? People will likey not fit the reinforced bulkheads (that precious cargo space) fit a damage control unit and maybe resistance plating. They'll think, woot tons more ehp, tons more cargo....CODE., et. al. show up with 43 guys instead of 35 guys and gank the poor slob and eventually the usual suspects are here again complaining that ganking is still a thing.

To be quite honest I'd have alot more respect for these people if they were just honest, for once, and said, "Make ganking in HS illegal, a bannable offense or even not possible via game mechanics."


Happy to see someone here whith a brain.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Why? Because playing the game via autopilot in an expensive ship filled with expensive Stuff™ in this game is just bad game design.

Totaly agree. But i think JF are even more bad game designed.


Teckos Pech wrote:
And what will likely happen? People will likey not fit the reinforced bulkheads (that precious cargo space) fit a damage control unit and maybe resistance plating. They'll think, woot tons more ehp, tons more cargo....CODE., et. al. show up with 43 guys instead of 35 guys and gank the poor slob and eventually the usual suspects are here again complaining that ganking is still a thing.

That the point. 43 talos is still more expansive than 35 = less gank against empty freighter.
And that why i laught when i see little ganker come here crying about this idea, cause it don't make freighter unkillable.


Teckos Pech wrote:
To be quite honest I'd have alot more respect for these people if they were just honest, for once, and said, "Make ganking in HS illegal, a bannable offense or even not possible via game mechanics."

Trust me, i don't want a safe Hsec. I don't even have a single freighter pilot on my many account. And i usually don't liek carebear
Panty Stocking
Doomheim
#237 - 2015-11-14 19:04:05 UTC
Troll-bot detected, best way to counter forum bumps? Scout the thread and web in your response.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#238 - 2015-11-14 19:33:17 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Here is an idea....

Why not start up a anti-ganking group that is dedicated to shooting bumping machariels? You start an in-game channel, push it on the forums, maybe in game as well. Start a corporation around which the core group of players can be built, let others join in (maybe) and then go hunting these guys.

I hear this complaint time and again from players who just don't seem to get the notion of Eve, "Bumping ships have it too safe."

Well, here is the thing, they don't have much tank. I am looking at a fit on a machariel used by a guy I often see in Uedama and he had a DC II, and a LSE II. That is it. That is the sum total of his tanking mods. The rest are cap related or speed/agility related with a ship and cargo scanner in the mid slots. With all Vs this ship has a tank of 59,153 ehp. A catalyst with good skills will put out 674 DPS, lets be safe and say 575 DPS. To kill this guy if you bring 15 dudes in catalysts you'll have more than enough DPS to gank him before concord arrives. You will lose 120 million ISK, the bumper will lose 460 million ISK, and whatever ISK was in the freighter he was going to bump (if he is actively bumping). I have often seen him sitting stationary on gate in Uedama and surrounding systems.

So, ganking this guy is very, very doable. Much much more so than ganking a tanked out Obelisk with over 360,000 ehp. So with less time and effort you can....wait for it...wait.....wait....increase the risk for the bumper yourself!!!!!

You say, "What!?!?! OMFG, me actually do something instead of begging CCP for weeks even months on end?!?!?"

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Pull up your panties, tighten your belt and go increase the risk for that bumper yourself. No need to wait for CCP, you can implement it right now. You can start buffing up your own killboard too. Making bumping more risky will force the gankers to adapt to your new strategy. Might have to fit more tank at the expense of speed modules making bumping more difficult.

You'll need a ship to provide a warp in, maybe one that can cloak and fit a web. The web is if he is actively bumping and the freighter pilot accepts a dual request from your warp in he can web the freighter to get away. That may come later once you guys build up a reputation.

Evolution in action.

Yeah, none of these carebears have the stones....Roll



While true as far as it goes, and a fine idea if one wanted to start hunting random Machs on gates...

You are suggesting that self defense be a concord offense. The freighter is being attacked by a loophole in the interaction of the physics engine and the limitations of the AI script governing Concord.

You are absolutely correct that anyone could run around ganking ships that for whatever reason you suspect are bumping. You can gank anything you want whenever it's in space for no reason at all. But the rules that high sec are supposed to be operating under should not result in self defense causing sec standing loss and Concordokken of your ship(s).

It's a dumb mechanic.
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#239 - 2015-11-14 19:59:43 UTC
Quote:
Punishment for criminals is a joke. Ganking is too easy. There's no risk and no punishment. It takes no skill. etc etc

/general carebear metaquote


Mike Voidstar wrote:
But the rules that high sec are supposed to be operating under should not result in self defense causing sec standing loss and Concordokken of your ship(s).

It's a dumb mechanic.

Only one of these sentiments can be true, not both.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#240 - 2015-11-14 23:18:05 UTC
BABARR wrote:
The problem actually is : you kill EMPTY freighter.


So you think the problem is that we still have any player freedom left.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.