These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Ultimate Guide to Defeating CODE

First post
Author
Pix Severus
Empty You
#81 - 2017-05-24 05:56:26 UTC
This is my guide to defeating CODE.

1) Quit the game due to boredom

Congratulations, you have now successfully defeated CODE. and won EVE at the same time. As a bonus, you have made EVE a nicer place to be for the rest of us.

MTU Hunter: Latest Entry - June 12 2017 - Vocal Local 5

MTU Hunting 101: Comprehensive Guide

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#82 - 2017-05-24 10:44:51 UTC
How many ages hence shall this, our lofty scene be acted over, in states unborn and accents yet unknown?

This is how I feel after reading through most CODE/ganking/anti-ganking threads. It's almost risen to the level of AFK Cloaking in terms of repetition and predictability.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Mobadder Thworst
Doomheim
#83 - 2017-05-24 16:51:55 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Mobadder Thworst wrote:

Same calculation, just with tiny Drone probabilities.

Once I did the math on those I stopped carrying them except on those drone boats where you can't figure another useful drone wave to fill the bay.

I looked at those numbers and weirdly enough, a gank attempt is probably one of the few situations where a flight of ECM drones would be better than hobs. You'd have up to 50% chance of removing one catalyst from the gank with ECM drones but a flight of hobs, even bonused ones wouldn't down a catalyst before it was too late, anyway.


A reasonable consideration, gank avoidance isn't a design criteria I've traditionally used. I see your point though.

My consideration has traditionally been along the lines of "am I willing to give up 100dps for a 60-70% chance of jamming a frigate (and that chance drops dramatically as ship size increases).

I'm also biased against ECM because it stops engagement timers, and for much of what I do I need that timer to close the kill (because I fly tanks ships with no DPS).


Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#84 - 2017-05-24 17:40:50 UTC
Apparently Feacesbook has become the in place to whine about CODE. and wardecs, CODE. whines are currently banned because they happen hourly in one unofficial group and there's quite the thread going on in the same group that mostly consists of "wardecs are flawed, CCP should fix it" and the appropriate responses..

I'll leave it to your imagination what that thread looks like Twisted

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Bellatrix Invicta
Doomheim
#85 - 2017-05-24 18:23:02 UTC
Didn't read this ****.

Best way to beat us? Realize you can't, and then join us.

If you think you've won, think again.

The CODE always wins.

Bing Bangboom
DAMAG Safety Commission
#86 - 2017-05-24 18:46:31 UTC
Alessienne Ellecon wrote:
As CEO of one of the smallest but most dedicated Anti-Ganking corps in EVE, I have made it my mission, my raison d'etre, to giving industrialists a fighting chance to survive and prosper in this fractious universe. After months of carefully studying both human and signal intelligence, engaging in research and development, and numerous instances of trial and error, I have prepared this handy guide to keeping your industrial operations safe from New Eden's greatest nuisances.



The real question, as always, is... why would you want to defeat CODE.?

While it was never true that we just shoot ships that can't shoot back, it IS true that we kill the unprepared, the unthinking, and the unrepentant who disarm themselves from the ability to effectively fight back. If you scan our killboard you will see bad fits, bad actions and just bad attitudes about the nature of the game we are playing. Each death is a player who DESERVED to be killed because of what they themselves decided was an appropriate way to approach an open universe of player versus player.

Should the max fit Retriever be allowed to harvest the riches of James 315 space? Should a max cargo freighter with billions in valuables be able to autopilot between Jita and Amarr? Should a player who, by his own actions, denies the existence of other players in Eve be allowed to create a fantasy world of safety, non-interaction and, of course, the steady flow of riches? According to the Code, no. They should not.

I read this whole thread. I don't see anyone who disagrees with me on this. Even the OP admits that the miner/industrial/targets have to change their behavior to survive. So, what about those who insist they do not?

We kill them. And we will continue to kill them. Besides the fact that defeating us is impossible what benefit would it bring? More AFK, max fit miners raping the asteroid belts?

Yeah, Eve needs more of that.

Highsec is worth fighting for.

By choosing to mine in New Order systems, highsec miners have agreed to follow the New Halaima Code of Conduct.  www.minerbumping.com

Mike Adoulin
Happys Happy Hamster Hunting Club
#87 - 2017-05-24 21:37:08 UTC
Bing Bangboom wrote:
[wisdom.



TLDR Don't be an idiot. Oh, and buy a permit.

Everything in EVE is a trap.

And if it isn't, it's your job to make it a trap...:)

You want to know what immorality in EVE Online looks like? Look no further than Ripard "Jester" Teg.

Chribba is the Chuck Norris of EVE.

Froggy Storm
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#88 - 2017-05-26 16:09:10 UTC
Just once, I'd like to see a member of the AG community thank CODE for their existence. Without an evil antagonist to (and I use this term loosely) organize against, there would be no content for then to play, post, or pontificate about/against.

If you really read into the Code and their back story, the goal was always creating content in Hisec. So as yet again Code always wins.
Jacques d'Orleans
#89 - 2017-05-26 19:01:42 UTC
Hazel TuckerTS wrote:
Hazel TuckerTS wrote:
**** code

FUC_ code


Hazel PeckerTS, because of your constant disrespect of the most honorable agents of CODE. and your heresy against James315 (blessed be his name), you have been handed down this verdict.
Kaely Tanniss
Black Lotus Society.
#90 - 2017-05-29 03:56:39 UTC
..Enter the 1000th "I'm gonna defeat CODE" forum rant... Sorry buddy, not gonna happen. Accept the game for what it is or seek out a game that's more like what you want it to be. Roll

If I had a nickel for every time someone said women don't play eve, I'd have a bag of nickels to whack the next person who said it..

Alessienne Ellecon
Doomheim
#91 - 2017-05-29 05:19:52 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Alessienne Ellecon wrote:
[quote=Mobadder Thworst]If you really think an ECM Procurer is that bad, go find Jean-Marc Lepelletier in Balle or Jasson. Suicide gank him and see how well you go.

It's pretty predictable, really. If they're equipped to take down a procurer, they're equipped to take down an ECM fit procurer.

I've run the maths on this and it's actually much worse than I had thought.

For a catalyst-toting ganker, a best-case scenario would be roughly 700 dps within a 24 second window, granting about 16,800 damage.

Alessienne's T2 ECM fit, with perfect skills, boasts <40kEHP versus the kin/therm damage profile of a standard gankalyst. That fit, versus a catalyst with zero boosts from skills or modules, has a 30% chance to land a successful jam per module, which means an average of 1.2 jams per gank. The odds of all four ECM modules each jamming out a ganker at the same time is less than 1%.

So, worst case scenario: an ECM fit will die to as few as 3 (highly skilled) catalysts. Best, 7 gankers would be needed.

What about a standard shield fit? A totally AFK shield-fit procurer sports over 100kEHP against the kin/therm damage profile while completely AFK. That fit guarantees the need for at least 6, preferably 7 gankers. If you're ATK and get in an overheat as the gank fleet warps in, that tank rockets to 121kEHP, requiring 8 gankers.

So, there ya have it. Worst case scenario: An AFK shield procurer requires 6, preferably 7 gankers versus an AFK/unlucky ECM procurer that requires only 3. Best case scenario: ATK shield procurer requires 8 gankers, guaranteed to survive if they bring 7, versus ECM/lucky procurer against 7 gankers with only a 1% chance of survival if they bring 6.

That's right, an AFK procurer in a worst case scenario is stronger than a lucky ATK ECM procurer. Who knew? Oh wait, I did - as did just about any other competent pilot.

In higher security space, including CONCORD standard spawn (-6 second response delay), the scenarios only favour the procurer even more.

Like I said, the only time you can excuse the ECM fit is while mining outside hisec and to be fair, there are better ways to deal with hostiles in those environments.

Oh, and the shield procurer is much easier to fit, requiring no coprocessors and gets to benefit from a slightly higher mining yield, too.


You're operating under the assumption that CODE agents gank in fleets. Unless there's a really big target like a freighter involved, they usually don't. The vast majority of my ganking experiences have involved no more than one or two ships, regardless of system security. On the rare occasion where a ganker is cunning enough to bring friends or set up a group gate camp, yes, it does become too much for the ECM proc to handle. But in most cases, the ECM proc can blast interference at two ships at once, giving a greater change of a hit. In the event that the cycles fail, the shield tank is there to buy some time until the cycles succeed.

Besides, gankers can really tear up when you defeat them in what looks like a badly fit ship, especially if they're the minmaxer type. Hell, this thread is getting pretty salty by itself with people resorting to mental gymnastics (and ignoring reality) to justify telling me my fits are bad even though they have been used successfully on many occasions. You're idiots.

"CONCORD are the space cops. If you attack someone in a high-security solar system, CONCORD will commit police brutality." - Encyclopedia Dramatica

If EVE is a PvP game, then Anti-Ganking is emergent gameplay.

Alessienne Ellecon
Doomheim
#92 - 2017-05-29 05:33:09 UTC
Bellatrix Invicta wrote:
Didn't read this ****.

Best way to beat us? Realize you can't, and then join us.



calm down ganker

"CONCORD are the space cops. If you attack someone in a high-security solar system, CONCORD will commit police brutality." - Encyclopedia Dramatica

If EVE is a PvP game, then Anti-Ganking is emergent gameplay.

Azov Rassau
The Hornets Cartel
#93 - 2017-05-29 06:43:35 UTC
Alessienne Ellecon wrote:
calm down ganker

Pure gold. A sentence of beauty. How many times I've had to put that in Local after successfully stopping a nearby gank with my ECM Skiff. Cool

Elite PvP

Be the change you want to see in Highsec.

Anti-Ganking Fun: www.gankerjamming.com

Kaely Tanniss
Black Lotus Society.
#94 - 2017-05-29 08:09:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaely Tanniss
Alessienne Ellecon wrote:
Bellatrix Invicta wrote:
Didn't read this ****.

Best way to beat us? Realize you can't, and then join us.



calm down ganker


Would you prefer war decs instead? I suspect you, like most others, would just dec dodge and leave corp. To me, it seems like salt because there's no game mechanic that allows you to avoid gankers. Shooting a target that's gone criminal and concord km whoring is not something to brag about. It may make you feel like you have accomplished something, but you haven't.

I am not a ganker nor have I ever been.. but CODE does offer something to you you should be more appreciative for..content and purpose. What purpose would you have if there were no "bad guy" to make you feel like a hero? Sure, what you do is a fool's errand, but it does give you "purpose", does it not?

Remember..those either unwilling or unable to protect what they have do not deserve to have it.
Kicking an already dying bear does not make you a hunter.Roll

If I had a nickel for every time someone said women don't play eve, I'd have a bag of nickels to whack the next person who said it..

Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#95 - 2017-05-29 10:16:12 UTC
Alessienne Ellecon wrote:
You're operating under the assumption that CODE agents gank in fleets. Unless there's a really big target like a freighter involved, they usually don't. The vast majority of my ganking experiences have involved no more than one or two ships, regardless of system security. On the rare occasion where a ganker is cunning enough to bring friends or set up a group gate camp, yes, it does become too much for the ECM proc to handle.

Exactly. Gankers seldom go for Procurers precisely because they require large numbers of people to kill. If you need to fend off a large fleet, a shield fit does a better job than the ECM fit, hence my post.


Quote:
But in most cases, the ECM proc can blast interference at two ships at once,

One. In most cases it'll drop one. 1.2, to be precise (based on 30% jam possibility).

Quote:
giving a greater change of a hit. In the event that the cycles fail, the shield tank is there to buy some time until the cycles succeed.

Ganks take at most, 24 seconds. ECM cycles are 20 seconds. You won't get another cycle.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#96 - 2017-05-29 11:24:09 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Alessienne Ellecon wrote:
But in most cases, the ECM proc can blast interference at two ships at once,

One. In most cases it'll drop one. 1.2, to be precise (based on 30% jam possibility).

Quote:
giving a greater change of a hit. In the event that the cycles fail, the shield tank is there to buy some time until the cycles succeed.

Ganks take at most, 24 seconds. ECM cycles are 20 seconds. You won't get another cycle.

Hiasa is spot on here.

Math. It's what drives EvE mechanics. Ignore it at your own peril.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Froggy Storm
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#97 - 2017-05-29 11:44:00 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Alessienne Ellecon wrote:
You're operating under the assumption that CODE agents gank in fleets. Unless there's a really big target like a freighter involved, they usually don't. The vast majority of my ganking experiences have involved no more than one or two ships, regardless of system security. On the rare occasion where a ganker is cunning enough to bring friends or set up a group gate camp, yes, it does become too much for the ECM proc to handle.

Exactly. Gankers seldom go for Procurers precisely because they require large numbers of people to kill. If you need to fend off a large fleet, a shield fit does a better job than the ECM fit, hence my post.


Quote:
But in most cases, the ECM proc can blast interference at two ships at once,

One. In most cases it'll drop one. 1.2, to be precise (based on 30% jam possibility).

Quote:
giving a greater change of a hit. In the event that the cycles fail, the shield tank is there to buy some time until the cycles succeed.

Ganks take at most, 24 seconds. ECM cycles are 20 seconds. You won't get another cycle.


Be gone foul troll! You with you facts and maths and knowledge of actual game play. /s

I say let the AG community follow what ever silly doctrines they want. Those who can adapt will and those who can't won't. It isn't as if the Code doesn't actively try to educate the public on how to not be an easy target. One AG snowflake pontificating isn't any different than the wild eyed profit screaming from the median during high traffic. He is as likely to cause accidents to the unwary as to be hit by a bus. A sad bit of tragic reality who's lesson is quickly forgotten.
Alessienne Ellecon
Doomheim
#98 - 2017-05-29 13:34:28 UTC
Azov Rassau wrote:
Alessienne Ellecon wrote:
calm down ganker

Pure gold. A sentence of beauty. How many times I've had to put that in Local after successfully stopping a nearby gank with my ECM Skiff. Cool

Elite PvP


Perfect in every way.

"CONCORD are the space cops. If you attack someone in a high-security solar system, CONCORD will commit police brutality." - Encyclopedia Dramatica

If EVE is a PvP game, then Anti-Ganking is emergent gameplay.

Jdom TheHunter
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#99 - 2017-05-29 20:58:24 UTC
Here's a more simple and effective way to deal with gankers of all sorts. Pay attention and mine in a ship that fits the area. Don't use paper tanks when ganking is the norm. Don't walk away from pc while mining is a good tip. Dock up first as at any time someone can jump in system and easy prey is another win for gankers. Don't cry after getting zapped. It makes them stay around longer and collect more tears. Use ewar to help defend ones self. It works so skill it up. Lastly remember it's a pvp based game so you will get popped at some point. Don't be a crybaby about it, just learn and adapt.

There's more tactics that go into it but those are the basics that will save you from loosing ships and isk.

One last thing, get with a group or have channels that monitors ganking activity and watch them. Intel is always a great heads up on what's going on around you. The more you're engaged in the game the better off you are no matter what you're doing.

That's my 2 cents anyways.
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#100 - 2017-05-30 04:47:12 UTC
I wasn't going to chime in on this thread but I suddenly feel the need to have a question answered.

@OP
If CODE. usually gank in fleets of 3 or less how is a ECM tanked Proc better than a shield tanked Proc (In highsec only)? I ran the Math and I believe you need a minimum of 5-6 destroyers of any type to gank a fully tanked Proc? So again how is this ECM one better in Highsec which is where CODE. operate the vast majority of the time

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin