These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

- Proposal of Ship Scanning as Hostile Act Resolution -
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#221 - 2016-07-28 18:33:57 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
nah

Just make it so the person scanned has a warning show up on his screen identifying who scanned him.


Already have that.


Where?


There is a graphic that plays when they scan you that is easily visible and pinpoints their own ship.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#222 - 2016-07-28 18:37:13 UTC
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
People have been blowing up titan wrecks loaded with tens of billions of isk in 0.0 space for years - to deny the enemy their loot. I have never yet seen a PL thread whining about this massive loss of profit.


Its the first thing said every time when someone pops the wreck, its been an issue for over a decade.
Lex Gabinia
Res Repetundae
#223 - 2016-07-28 18:40:59 UTC
Maybe we should have to scan a wreck before it can be looted or shot and then get suspect timers. Would certainly make mission running more interesting. Twisted
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#224 - 2016-07-28 18:43:59 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
People have been blowing up titan wrecks loaded with tens of billions of isk in 0.0 space for years - to deny the enemy their loot. I have never yet seen a PL thread whining about this massive loss of profit.


Its the first thing said every time when someone pops the wreck, its been an issue for over a decade.

And as I said in my first post on the subject - I have no problem with the change itself.

I took offense at the implication that the reason the change was made and was good was that it somehow made high-sec "less safe"....and at the fact that CCP only bothered to fix it when gankers complained to them - rather than because it has been broken in 0.0 for over a decade...

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#225 - 2016-07-28 18:52:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
baltec1 wrote:
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
Vortexo VonBrenner wrote:
Quite simply because the wreck EHP issue directly relates to ganking, and having things like ganking possible in the game directly relates to the overall theme on safety in the game. It seemed a pretty direct connection to me *shrug* maybe I'm wrong...

#1 You are the now saying explicitly that Dracvlad is correct and CCP increased wreck EHP as a direct buff to ganking?
#2 Wreck EHP doesn't affect safety. By the time you get to the EHP of the wreck, the safety of the ship that made the wreck is already a moot point. Increasing the wreck EHP is just a direct reward to gankers. If anything it makes their profession safer, so it is an example of CCP pandering to people who want the game to be safe and easy for their own play style.


edit:
#3 Shocking as it may seem to you, Gankers got by just fine ganking AND looting their victims with the old, low wreck ehp... Just because people started competing to deny the loot and modern gankers are lazy doesn't mean EVE needed to change to accommodate them...


Ok lets put a pin in this daftness.

They want to nerf ganking by making turning a profit impossible. Instakilling the wreck with anything armed with a peashooter made this possible with no possibility to counter it so naturally they are bitter it has been removed. Wrecks can still be blown up but it now require them to put actual in effort and risk to accomplish. Unsurprisingly they don't do that.


CCP have already said taht Ganking a T2 fit ship is not ment to be profitable, you know that.

The wrecks had been like that for ages, but as soon as AG start blowing them up you get it changed. Where was the fights, where was the blowing ships up to stop the wreck from getting destroyed where was risking the freighter and get it out when suspect, where was all that content, screwed by your lazy crying to CCP. For all the times I heard you lot call us fail because we could not kill catalysts and you dare to whine about being unable to kill destroyers doing the exact same thing.

I have also noted CCP's stealth move of this thread to this forum, did you ask for that too?

This will not go away, I will ram this down your complacent entitled throats every time you whine about hisec and ganking being nerfed, all you want is your easy life of guaranteed easy ISK and the rules of having to fight don't apply to Gankers, only to the plebs they prey upon.

You destroyed content for the other side, simple as because they started to threaten your easy ISK and you went and pulled a flanker on CCP. That is the daftness.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#226 - 2016-07-28 18:52:18 UTC
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
People have been blowing up titan wrecks loaded with tens of billions of isk in 0.0 space for years - to deny the enemy their loot. I have never yet seen a PL thread whining about this massive loss of profit.


Its the first thing said every time when someone pops the wreck, its been an issue for over a decade.

And as I said in my first post on the subject - I have no problem with the change itself.

I took offense at the implication that the reason the change was made and was good was that it somehow made high-sec "less safe"....and at the fact that CCP only bothered to fix it when gankers complained to them - rather than because it has been broken in 0.0 for over a decade...


They changed it because it landed on their list of things to do after they started working on our very large list of things to do. The actual argument to get it fixed was indeed made by a player asking for wrecks in null sec to not be so easy to destroy not only to allow them to loot titans but also to get tactical warp ins. Endie took that argument to the CSM but by that point other issues around wrecks had also been brought up including the issues of poping the wreck before gankers could loot it. That it took the anti-gankers over a decade to figure out they could target the wreck and saw this buff to wreck HP land soon after is pure coincidence.

The tactic of blowing up the wreck is still a valid one it just requires more than an ibis armed with a civilian railgun to pull it off.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#227 - 2016-07-28 18:55:20 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


CCP have already said taht Ganking a T2 fit ship is not ment to be profitable, you know that.


CCP said that ganking an unfitted T2 hull should not be profitable.
Dracvlad wrote:

The wrecks had been like that for ages, but as soon as AG start blowing them up you get it changed.



Boomerang exploit had been in the game for almost a decade before it got fixed. Broken mechanics should be getting fixed no?
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#228 - 2016-07-28 18:57:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
baltec1 wrote:
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
People have been blowing up titan wrecks loaded with tens of billions of isk in 0.0 space for years - to deny the enemy their loot. I have never yet seen a PL thread whining about this massive loss of profit.


Its the first thing said every time when someone pops the wreck, its been an issue for over a decade.

And as I said in my first post on the subject - I have no problem with the change itself.

I took offense at the implication that the reason the change was made and was good was that it somehow made high-sec "less safe"....and at the fact that CCP only bothered to fix it when gankers complained to them - rather than because it has been broken in 0.0 for over a decade...


They changed it because it landed on their list of things to do after they started working on our very large list of things to do. The actual argument to get it fixed was indeed made by a player asking for wrecks in null sec to not be so easy to destroy not only to allow them to loot titans but also to get tactical warp ins. Endie took that argument to the CSM but by that point other issues around wrecks had also been brought up including the issues of poping the wreck before gankers could loot it. That it took the anti-gankers over a decade to figure out they could target the wreck and saw this buff to wreck HP land soon after is pure coincidence.

The tactic of blowing up the wreck is still a valid one it just requires more than an ibis armed with a civilian railgun to pull it off.


Again absolute rubbish on your part, you could not destroy a wreck with an ibis. So now you are pushing ISK tank? What next?

You got that pushed up to a level you knew that the small hisec entities and solo players could not do, it needs a Tornado with a perfect hit and at least another destroyer, you know that hisec players who oppose you do not have the means. So you got total security for your activities by doing this, well played, and in doing so you removed the fun for the AG movement, put them back to being a big target to shoot at and have to sit there repping and rubbish like that. Just because you were too lazy to defend the wreck.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#229 - 2016-07-28 19:02:06 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:



You got that pushed up to a level you knew that the small hisec entities and solo players could not do, it needs a Tornado with a perfect hit


So use one.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#230 - 2016-07-28 19:06:00 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:



You got that pushed up to a level you knew that the small hisec entities and solo players could not do, it needs a Tornado with a perfect hit


So use one.



There you go, you had it moved to that level to defend the wreck which you could not do yourself and your answer is go use one, typical baltec1.

The simple fact is that as soon as AG started shooting the wrecks you pushed to have it changed because you are too useless to defend the wreck against people you said were fail. Who is tthe failure, the people who whined to get the rules changed to cover their own weakness which they projected on others.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#231 - 2016-07-28 19:10:49 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


There you go, you had it moved to that level to defend the wreck which you could not do yourself and your answer is go use one, typical baltec1.

The simple fact is that as soon as AG started shooting the wrecks you pushed to have it changed because you are too useless to defend the wreck against people you said were fail. Who is tthe failure, the people who whined to get the rules changed to cover their own weakness which they projected on others.


So I take it you won't risk a torando.
Lex Gabinia
Res Repetundae
#232 - 2016-07-28 19:11:17 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:



You got that pushed up to a level you knew that the small hisec entities and solo players could not do, it needs a Tornado with a perfect hit


So use one.



There you go, you had it moved to that level to defend the wreck which you could not do yourself and your answer is go use one, typical baltec1.

The simple fact is that as soon as AG started shooting the wrecks you pushed to have it changed because you are too useless to defend the wreck against people you said were fail. Who is tthe failure, the people who whined to get the rules changed to cover their own weakness which they projected on others.


What does any of this have to do with the idea of getting a suspect flag for using scanners?

The change happened seems most people like the change for various reasons who the **** cares why it happened years later?
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#233 - 2016-07-28 19:17:00 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:



You got that pushed up to a level you knew that the small hisec entities and solo players could not do, it needs a Tornado with a perfect hit


So use one.



There you go, you had it moved to that level to defend the wreck which you could not do yourself and your answer is go use one, typical baltec1.

The simple fact is that as soon as AG started shooting the wrecks you pushed to have it changed because you are too useless to defend the wreck against people you said were fail. Who is tthe failure, the people who whined to get the rules changed to cover their own weakness which they projected on others.


That is some mighty fine post hoc ergo propter hoc you got there.

Sorry, all you got is the timing. Could be your story is legit, but it also could be Bravo Sierra.

"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
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#234 - 2016-07-28 19:18:51 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


There you go, you had it moved to that level to defend the wreck which you could not do yourself and your answer is go use one, typical baltec1.

The simple fact is that as soon as AG started shooting the wrecks you pushed to have it changed because you are too useless to defend the wreck against people you said were fail. Who is tthe failure, the people who whined to get the rules changed to cover their own weakness which they projected on others.


So I take it you won't risk a torando.


You could not stop a frigate or a destroyer...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#235 - 2016-07-28 19:20:31 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Dracvlad wrote:


You could not stop a frigate.


Because it was impossible. Now gankers stand a chance and you have to actually put some effort and isk into disrupting gankers in this way. Evidently you are not willing to do either.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#236 - 2016-07-28 19:21:53 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


You could not stop a frigate.


Because it was impossible. Now you have to actually put some effort and isk into disrupting gankers. Evidently you are not willing to do either.


No it was not impossible, it is about as impossible as blowing up Catalysts on the way to ganks, you just decided that you had to get the rules changed and did.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#237 - 2016-07-28 19:27:06 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:

No it was not impossible, it is about as impossible as blowing up Catalysts on the way to ganks, you just decided that you had to get the rules changed and did.


Wrecks had 500 HP. Anything could kill them and a frigate could target and pop it before anything could lock the frigate in turn. Its the very same reason why it is impossible to target and shoot an insta warp interceptor, the mechanics simply will not allow it.

The tactic still works, it was not removed, they just stopped you from having such a laughably easy time. If you want to pop wrecks then go do it, nothing is stopping you.
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#238 - 2016-07-28 19:28:34 UTC
Lex Gabinia wrote:
What does any of this have to do with the idea of getting a suspect flag for using scanners?

Nothing of course, but there must be messages pushed. Talk is the only thing AG can do. So messages, even completely rubbish, off topic ones, are on the table to be splurged in any thread. Nothing shall deny the conspiracy.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#239 - 2016-07-28 19:49:43 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Lex Gabinia wrote:
What does any of this have to do with the idea of getting a suspect flag for using scanners?

Nothing of course, but there must be messages pushed. Talk is the only thing AG can do. So messages, even completely rubbish, off topic ones, are on the table to be splurged in any thread. Nothing shall deny the conspiracy.


Yeah but Gankers on the CSM push CCP to change the rules when someone does something in game that starts to work against their easy lifestyle...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Galaxy Chicken
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
#240 - 2016-07-28 19:57:14 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
I am quite happy to protect myself against people who might decide to use legal action against me, some of you people take this game way to seriously....



*Thinks we all take EVE too seriously*

*Called a lawyer over EVE stuff*

?