These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

NPC Hi Sec Blue Community
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Salvos Rhoska
#101 - 2017-03-07 15:30:31 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
But whining because we get extremely safe options to screw you over because you whined really hard to get really safe options is a bit silly if you ask me.

I encourage everyone here to read this very intently, and understand what it reveals.

"we get extremely safe options to screw you over"

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Amojin
Doomheim
#102 - 2017-03-07 15:32:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Amojin
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
But whining because we get extremely safe options to screw you over because you whined really hard to get really safe options is a bit silly if you ask me.

I encourage everyone here to read this very intently, and understand what it reveals.

"we get extremely safe options to screw you over"


You probably don't want us to do that. She's pointing out the irony that the very safety YOU asked for is now being used against you. This is a standard tactic in any kind of conflict. Take the enemy's strengths, and turn it into a weakness or a bottleneck, if at all possible.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#103 - 2017-03-07 15:35:27 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I know, recognised and understood your NPC corp point.

However, that also feeds into my point above.
Gankers too can enjoy NPC corp un-wardeccability.
And since they earn their proceeds through loot off destroyed targets, the tax rate in corps is irrelevant.
The same is true for traders and miners, the NPC corp tax rate doesn't apply to them, they pay refining taxes and SCC taxes both of which can be reduced with skills.

Quote:
But what profit is there in ganking gankers?

At most, you invest the same as they invested, and receive some small pittance of their cheap modules in return.
Depending on flags and security status you also get to keep your original investment.

Quote:
Gank ships are inherently cheap targets, unlike the targets gankers prey upon.

There is very little/zero profit in ganking gank ships.
A T2 Catalyst will drop between 2 and 5M on average (dependent on loot fairy), working somewhere like Uedama there's certainly the possibility of making a halfway decent profit from killing and looting gankers, based on volume alone.

Quote:
Surely you have to admit this?
I don't have to do anything, IMHO ganking gankers is a potentially profitable venture.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#104 - 2017-03-07 15:35:38 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

You are a perpetual whiner.
Look at your own post history.
If anything is said against your interests, you whine against it.

Whine, whine, whine against this and that is all you do.

The only thing I do on this forums is to defend EVE against the real whiners who want to change this game into a hello kitty online clone because they are seriously bad at it but rather blame the game than adapt.

I'm not the one who comes here and asks to throw the basic concepts of the game under the bus for my personal benefit.

I don't have a problem with changes to the game as long as they make the game more interesting. I have a problem with suggestions to make this game more boring and transform it into a single player mining and trucking simulator. And I do this for one reason only: Because I actually like EVE, so much I play it for 10 years now and I really hate it if some WOW drop out comes around and thinks he has the idea how to change the game to match it more with his screwed expectation after he played it for two weeks.

If you call that whining, ok, I'm fine with that.

Evil RatKid
Salvos Rhoska
#105 - 2017-03-07 15:39:32 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
IMHO ganking gankers is a potentially profitable venture.

Please explain and elaborate.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Salvos Rhoska
#106 - 2017-03-07 15:44:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
If you call that whining, ok, I'm fine with that.

So far youve only whined in one liners.

This is the longest and most honest post Ive ever seen from you.
Prove your point, here, now.

What would you want changed in EVE towards your vision of how it should be?

PS: "Nothing" is not a valid or honest answer. All of us want change, one way or another, particularly towards our own bias.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#107 - 2017-03-07 15:46:33 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
But whining because we get extremely safe options to screw you over because you whined really hard to get really safe options is a bit silly if you ask me.

I encourage everyone here to read this very intently, and understand what it reveals.

"we get extremely safe options to screw you over"

Did you miss the part where I mentioned that we did not ask for this? It's actually the people who then complain that they can't simply kill the bumper who complained in the first place until CONCORD got so strong that it is impossible to gank them in an easy way.

I said this before and I say it here again.

This is never about ganker versus miner or PvPer vs PvEer or whatever artificial conflict groups you try to create here.

This is ALWAYS about people who care about game mechanics and play this as a competitive game and people who don't and rather complain to CCP because they feel entitled to win without making an effort to adapt to the game at all.

This is not something you can win or change with any game mechanic changes. Because as you can see with the CONCORD mechanics, we will get those changes too and we will understand them better that those whiners and use them for stuff they did not intend.

Evil RatKid
Salvos Rhoska
#108 - 2017-03-07 15:56:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
But whining because we get extremely safe options to screw you over because you whined really hard to get really safe options is a bit silly if you ask me.

I encourage everyone here to read this very intently, and understand what it reveals.

"we get extremely safe options to screw you over"

Did you miss the part where I mentioned that we did not ask for this? It's actually the people who then complain that they can't simply kill the bumper who complained in the first place until CONCORD got so strong that it is impossible to gank them in an easy way.


The bumped target CANT simply kill the bumper, due to CONCORD.

Your argument makes no sense.
You have it ass-backwards.

Bumping does not kill the ship,it causes no damage.
Its a separate mechanic to actually attacking and destroying the ship.

Bumping has zero effect on CONCORD response to subsequent aggressive action.

Your point makes no sense.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Amojin
Doomheim
#109 - 2017-03-07 16:01:49 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

Your argument makes no sense.
You have it ass-backwards.


No, she doesn't. Game mechanics changes are not racist. They're completely impartial. If you ask for a change to the 'walls' of our box, it changes for everyone, not just you.

That can, and will be, exploited, and this is fair.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#110 - 2017-03-07 16:02:44 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
If you call that whining, ok, I'm fine with that.

So far youve only whined in one liners.

This is the longest and most honest post Ive ever seen from you.
Prove your point, here, now.

What would you want changed in EVE towards your vision of how it should be?

PS: "Nothing" is not a valid or honest answer. All of us want change, one way or another, particularly towards our own bias.

I'm ok with every change which actually brings content, more stuff to build, more stuff to shoot. Also all changes which bring conflict drivers and allow for more conflict in general.

I'm against all changes which isolate players from each other and dis-incentivize conflict.

Pretty obvious.

Evil RatKid
Salvos Rhoska
#111 - 2017-03-07 16:05:30 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
If you call that whining, ok, I'm fine with that.

So far youve only whined in one liners.

This is the longest and most honest post Ive ever seen from you.
Prove your point, here, now.

What would you want changed in EVE towards your vision of how it should be?

PS: "Nothing" is not a valid or honest answer. All of us want change, one way or another, particularly towards our own bias.

I'm ok with every change which actually brings content, more stuff to build, more stuff to shoot. Also all changes which bring conflict drivers and allow for more conflict in general.

I'm against all changes which isolate players from each other and dis-incentivize conflict.

Pretty obvious.


So you would be ok with changes which increase opportunity to aggress gankers in HS?

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#112 - 2017-03-07 16:06:25 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
But whining because we get extremely safe options to screw you over because you whined really hard to get really safe options is a bit silly if you ask me.

I encourage everyone here to read this very intently, and understand what it reveals.

"we get extremely safe options to screw you over"

Did you miss the part where I mentioned that we did not ask for this? It's actually the people who then complain that they can't simply kill the bumper who complained in the first place until CONCORD got so strong that it is impossible to gank them in an easy way.


The bumped target CANT simply kill the bumper, due to CONCORD.

Your argument makes no sense.
You have it ass-backwards.

Bumping does not kill the ship,it causes no damage.
Its a separate mechanic to actually attacking and destroying the ship.

Bumping has zero effect on CONCORD response to subsequent aggressive action.

Your point makes no sense.

Maybe you should read it again. The point is not really difficult and I think everyone can understand it.

Evil RatKid
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#113 - 2017-03-07 16:06:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
But whining because we get extremely safe options to screw you over because you whined really hard to get really safe options is a bit silly if you ask me.

I encourage everyone here to read this very intently, and understand what it reveals.

"we get extremely safe options to screw you over"

Did you miss the part where I mentioned that we did not ask for this? It's actually the people who then complain that they can't simply kill the bumper who complained in the first place until CONCORD got so strong that it is impossible to gank them in an easy way.

I said this before and I say it here again.

This is never about ganker versus miner or PvPer vs PvEer or whatever artificial conflict groups you try to create here.

This is ALWAYS about people who care about game mechanics and play this as a competitive game and people who don't and rather complain to CCP because they feel entitled to win without making an effort to adapt to the game at all.

This is not something you can win or change with any game mechanic changes. Because as you can see with the CONCORD mechanics, we will get those changes too and we will understand them better that those whiners and use them for stuff they did not intend.


Now posting in a CODE justification thread, sigh. Bumping has always been in the game, it has always been no consequence, just another load of bullshite for you to make a silly point with. People always try to use mechanics for their benefit and whine when it is used against them, take for example war deckers who were out of corp then ejected from ship rejoined their corp and then pointed someone, it was great stuff when used against war targets, but it was bad stuff when a war target used it to save his Paladin and some idiot who had his safety on red got CONCORDED. These things happen., but the issue is always when using such mechanics that it gives you such an advantage that it is insurmountable for realistic counter play, which is the happy place you lot are in. You of course want your cake and you gorge yourself on it, fair enough.

We all know the loot trick you pull with DST's but does CCP have any other choice in terms of the corp or fleet hanger capability, not at all, anyway cry nerf on anything, it is what you do...

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
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#114 - 2017-03-07 16:12:48 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
So you would be ok with changes which increase opportunity to aggress gankers in HS?

We are almost all operating at -10, so you can shoot us on sight not sure how much more opportunity than always is required for you.

Evil RatKid
Amojin
Doomheim
#115 - 2017-03-07 16:17:16 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
So you would be ok with changes which increase opportunity to aggress gankers in HS?

We are almost all operating at -10, so you can shoot us on sight not sure how much more opportunity than always is required for you.


Let's not exaggerate too much, eh? A lot of them are not operating with a security status that low, at least the ones he's talking about if he's mining. We usually do have to wait for them to start flashing yellow before we can just summarily execute them.

If they were all at -10 like you say, Concorde would never intervene, and you would have gained no advantage from the protective changes. Probably a lot of them run missions just enough to raise their status back up just enough.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#116 - 2017-03-07 16:27:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Amojin wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
We are almost all operating at -10, so you can shoot us on sight not sure how much more opportunity than always is required for you.


Let's not exaggerate too much, eh? A lot of them are not operating with a security status that low, at least the ones he's talking about if he's mining. We usually do have to wait for them to start flashing yellow before we can just summarily execute them.

If they were all at -10 like you say, Concorde would never intervene, and you would have gained no advantage from the protective changes. Probably a lot of them run missions just enough to raise their status back up just enough.
I'll just leave this here; in a later post Scipio does the same for the hisec shenanigans of Goons.

Scipio Artelius wrote:
I just pulled the last 2500 ganks by CODE.

Total ganks analysed: 2543
Total CODE. members involved: 112

% of CODE. members as outlaw when ganking: 78.6% (88 of 112)
% of CODE. members not outlaw when ganking: 21.4%

% of outlaw ganks: 93.7% (2382 of 2543)
% of not outlaw ganks: 6.3% (161 of 2543)

The CODE. attackers on gank killmails are outlaw 93.7% of the time.

You can repeat the analysis yourself if you like. Here's the data (A total of about 4000 killmails as not all CODE. kills are ganks)::
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1nitFwBo5aARjRfZTlmd3dETUk

This result is consistent across months of checking data. >90% of CODE. attackers that appear on killmails are outlaw.

CODE. of course aren't the only gankers in existence, just the most active.

____________________________________________

And here are the names:

NameSec Status # Ganks
Zane Arnolles -10 32
Aaaarrgg -10 138
Skiff Poddington -10 46
Kiara Successfuel -10 13
Kirigi -10 28
Milkmypigeon -10 15
Kibbera -10 76
Count Ragnar Danneskjold -10 25
Koiji -10 28
Agent Hex -10 2
Captain Cortar -10 24
Ralliana -10 2
Jeremiah Kusion -10 47
Yabba Dabba Do -10 10
ST0NER SMURFETTE -10 1
Brutal Anna -10 8
Keraina Talie-Kuo -10 77
Perlo Tissant -10 8
Mack Poddington -10 44
Knackered Old Goat -10 2
Guybertini -10 58
Jackson Kusion -10 46
ST0NER SMURF -10 1
Ima Wreckyou -10 4
Ngoq TlhamChu' ChutEnforce -10 7
PostOp Transexual -10 13
Kanji Kan -10 28
Luna Nightblood -10 1
Alt 00 -10 29
Photon Death -10 57
Plasma Death -10 61
Mildron Klinker -10 90
Salah ad-Din al-Jawahiri -10 26
Andrea Ellecon -10 3
Mark Eting -10 8
Pod-Goo Repoman -10 9
Lament von Gankenheim -10 2
Jack Van Impe -10 3
Joseph Kusion -10 47
Lillie Naari -10 28
Tender Sometimes -10 8
NotTheSmartestCookie -10 42
Hulk Poddington -10 45
Molly Klinker -10 82
GR13Fy -10 17
Alexander Kirenski -10 10
Fiddly Pop -10 43
Jason Kusion -10 54
V-ktor Dolus -10 2
Joel Kusion -10 50
Joshua Kusion -10 49
Hide Yo Hulks -10 5
Spine Ripper -10 11
Justin Kusion -10 50
Charlie Nelson Reilly -10 3
Krominal -10 43
Vilinensis Octoria -10 2
Liek DarZ -10 64
Jake Kusion -10 50
Lawrence Lawton -10 51
Brigantine M2 -10 5
Pod-Goo RepoWoman -10 62
Johnathan Kusion -10 46
Jana Grebb -10 20
DEVILISH ST0NER SMURF -10 1
Eleni Helios -10 15
Tisiphone Dira -10 57
Alt Proxy -10 21
Jayden Kusion -10 50
Rick Therapist -10 13
Gavril Ilizarov -10 5
Lichelle Marie -9.9 34
Agrona Martin -9.8 5
Baby Lemba -9.8 13
Lemba -9.7 10
Kill-Chan -9.6 13
Cautiously Pessimistic -9.5 37
I Can't Even -9.4 3
Booka Shade -8.9 3
Ron Chi -8.9 2
Marshall Mathars -6.9 1
Zombiepilot -6.9 3
achterlijke -6.7 9
Zopiclone -6.6 42
007 JBond -6.6 53
Duratan Muhahaha -6 6
Savin Aulmais -5.5 1
Nitetime Video -5 24
Sasha Nemtsov -4.9 2
William Morgane -4.5 2
Dude Magic -4.5 12
Marina Gankalot -4.1 6
Calrizzan -3.7 15
Lisa Tancos -3.7 7
Pod-Goo Repairman -3.2 6
Starshade -3 1
Tax Collector Discotime -2.9 8
Edward T'each -2.8 1
Snigie Audanie -2.7 23
Pod Destroyer Molly -2.3 6
Aaaarrggs Scout Alt -1.9 1
Super Perforator -1.9 17
Tax Collector Emile -1.8 1
Semtex Attor -1.7 6
Halifax Novacane -1.5 6
Tax Collector Richard -0.5 13
Jason Seitz -0.2 3
Ruby Daniella -0.2 2
Taxman Daniel -0.1 9
FightMeNow 0 3
Carebears' Nightmare 0.3 9
Dom Arkaral 4.9 2

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Amojin
Doomheim
#117 - 2017-03-07 16:29:39 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
I'll just leave this here; in a later post he does the same for the hisec shenanigans of Goons.


What? You've completely lost me, here. That WAS my latest post, well, aside from this one, now, which will become my latest post.

What, exactly, are you accusing me of?
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#118 - 2017-03-07 16:32:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
poor phrasing/sentence placement, my bad, has been altered

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#119 - 2017-03-07 17:06:13 UTC
Amojin wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
So you would be ok with changes which increase opportunity to aggress gankers in HS?

We are almost all operating at -10, so you can shoot us on sight not sure how much more opportunity than always is required for you.


Let's not exaggerate too much, eh? A lot of them are not operating with a security status that low, at least the ones he's talking about if he's mining. We usually do have to wait for them to start flashing yellow before we can just summarily execute them.

If they were all at -10 like you say, Concorde would never intervene, and you would have gained no advantage from the protective changes. Probably a lot of them run missions just enough to raise their status back up just enough.

He talked about increasing opportunities to aggress gankers not looters, bumpers or scouts. Those toons usually have positive sec status and profit from the same CONCORD "protection" the freighter or miner did.

Evil RatKid
Amojin
Doomheim
#120 - 2017-03-07 17:14:28 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
He talked about increasing opportunities to aggress gankers not looters, bumpers or scouts. Those toons usually have positive sec status and profit from the same CONCORD "protection" the freighter or miner did.


Then this?

Ima Wreckyou wrote:

We are almost all operating at -10, so you can shoot us on sight not sure how much more opportunity than always is required for you.


Is absolutely meaningless as an argument. Just a red herring for the foxes to chase, or does a point remain?