These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Death of the Boomerang / GCC Rapid-Orca Unfitting Primer

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#41 - 2012-03-30 22:28:07 UTC
(Sigh...)

It has come to this.

But on some levels, I think we all knew it would, sooner or later, and probably sooner than later. The writing has been on the wall for...oh, I would say, at least the last 6-8 months, probably longer. I don't doubt that we'll see instanced mission-spaces before too much longer at this rate.

Well, carebears--I mean the wrong kind of carebears, not the old-school "fighting bears" that I "grew up" with once upon a time ago, even the ones who didn't enjoy PvP too much, but still got, and worked with EVE as it was, as it should be--you're getting what you wished for.

But you're also getting the consequences.

Welcome to EVE, screamy, whiny, over-entitled little crybears, we hope you don't stay too long.

Star Wars: the Old Republic may not be EVE. But I'll take the sound of dual blaster-pistols over "NURVV CLAOKING NAOW!!!11oneone!!" any day of the week.
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#42 - 2012-03-30 22:35:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Tarryn Nightstorm
Thebriwan wrote:
There was no rule changed.

It was made totally crystal clear years ago that you must die after you ganked someone in high sec.

You found a hole in the mechanic and exploited it.
And then you talked about it and then it was done so much that CCP has to do something against.

Seen that so many times...



How is this an exploit, then?

You WILL lose the ship to CONCORD, this just delays it, and it only takes a very brief lag-spike or client-stutter to banjax the whole thing.

I had thought that the exploit--permabannable, and rightly so, IMHO--was avoiding CONCORD's retribution entirely, but not delaying it by (realistically, anyway) at most, a minute.

Star Wars: the Old Republic may not be EVE. But I'll take the sound of dual blaster-pistols over "NURVV CLAOKING NAOW!!!11oneone!!" any day of the week.
Caroline Grace
Retrostellar Boulevard
#43 - 2012-03-30 22:35:53 UTC
Thebriwan wrote:
There was no rule changed.

It was made totally crystal clear years ago that you must die after you ganked someone in high sec.

You found a hole in the mechanic and exploited it.
And then you talked about it and then it was done so much that CCP has to do something against.

Seen that so many times...



Million times this.


You're doing it wrong, OP. Deal with it.

I'm Caroline Grace, and this is my favorite musical on the Citadel.
Marduk Nibiru
Chaos Delivery Systems
#44 - 2012-03-30 22:37:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Marduk Nibiru
Herr Wilkus wrote:

1. Carebears whined and CCP listened. Why? Because they outnumber us. This needs to be rectified.
2. Ganking miners with Tornados is no a longer profitable endeavor, but can only be done at a loss.
3. Ganking at a loss, I can not match the limitless resources of large botting/RMT operations, so why even try?


Should be entertaining when all that's left paying for EVE are RMT botters..and nobody else even bothers to play.

I guess we simply need to adapt to the fact that these guys are an important, protected resource.

I thought your tactic was pretty damn brilliant and innovative myself. Oh well. vOv

Here's a question... will concord arrive at a gank site if they're busy chasing someone else around?
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#45 - 2012-03-30 22:48:13 UTC
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:
Thebriwan wrote:
There was no rule changed.

It was made totally crystal clear years ago that you must die after you ganked someone in high sec.

You found a hole in the mechanic and exploited it.
And then you talked about it and then it was done so much that CCP has to do something against.

Seen that so many times...



How is this an exploit, then?

You WILL lose the ship to CONCORD, this just delays it, and it only takes a very brief lag-spike or client-stutter to banjax the whole thing.

I had thought that the exploit--permabannable, and rightly so, IMHO--was avoiding CONCORD's retribution entirely, but not delaying it by (realistically, anyway) at most, a minute.


The game is finely balanced.

Ships come with a cost, a DPS throughput, a value, a role etc.

One of the many facets of ships balance is how they are meant to perform in a suicide gank.

A ship costing 2M can cause a 110M+ loss.
A disco BS can hop in 10 macks and cause 1B or so loss.
A tornado can alpha its good deal of stuff. Its cost is studied to do X damage and Y kill.

By artificially grabbing 2-3 runs instead of the intended 1 => concord kill, you are doubling or tripling the amount of damage and kills done while not paying for the opportunity cost.
Therefore you are cheating.
Therefore CCP forbids this.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
True Reign
#46 - 2012-03-30 22:50:01 UTC
This was always an exploit, your earlier thread as much as admitted it, and everybody knew CCP would step in. It's always care bears complaining who achieve this kind of result in the self-absorbed mind of a solipsist like you. Oh what skill you showed in your boomerangs! Crap.

Of course you will singlehandedly ruin the game by targeting new players. Yes, you mighty mighty righteous warrior, on with your Crusade. You'll just hasten the time when CCP is forced to protect new players even more.

The fix to Concord response is only one of the fixes you will have to deal with in the future. Read the Crimewatch thread from Fanfest and gnash your teeth till they are nothing but gums.

"I didn't' get my way so NOBODY can play now."
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#47 - 2012-03-30 22:50:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Herr Wilkus wrote:

2. Ganking miners with Tornados is no a longer profitable endeavor, but can only be done at a loss.
3. Ganking at a loss, I can not match the limitless resources of large botting/RMT operations, so why even try?


You could do like everyone else and use 1-2 catalysts instead.
You get from 1 to 2 x 16M pieces just in salvage, not counting the mods.
Unprofitable? No, just lazy.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
True Reign
#48 - 2012-03-30 23:01:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Ban Bindy
You should really be happy that CCP is not nerfing the ship itself.

Why does this forum spell correct all the good words?
Gnaw LF
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#49 - 2012-03-30 23:04:26 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
People may not like suicide-ganking or the OP's extreme devotion to it, but let's be honest here, the heart of the problem is how artificial and clunky the CONCORD aggression mechanics are.

Actions and attitudes like this may encourage CCP to change high-sec "law enforcement" from being a strictly NPC affair, to allowing it to be controlled or influenced by players. Allow the players to improve the security in high sec if they pay for it, such as adding more sentry guns or tweaking sentry guns/faction police to preemptively attack known outlaws. If you're a "known" criminal (i.e. committed an act of aggression in the last X weeks) then the guns/police for that particular faction/corp should just shoot you on sight.

Conversely, criminals should be able to destroy sentries/police ships, or avoid police patrols in asteroid belts. Such actions would be harder to do in "safe" citizen upgraded neighborhoods versus blighted/neglected areas of high-sec.


Alternately, known criminals should be open to being hunted by players who are members of the Faction Police (think Faction Warfare-ish.)




Great idea. Superb actually, I think we should take it one step further and make it so the "law enforcement" is player corp specific. That way the player corporations get to decide if they enforcement will assist only their members or extend to all lawful citizens in the system. This would also add another layer of meaning and goals to wardec, such as a pirate corp or ganking corp coming into the system and waging war against the local corporation to clear out the "enforcement". Or hiring mercs to do it.
supr3m3justic3
Perkone
Caldari State
#50 - 2012-03-30 23:16:20 UTC
LOL, maybe they should just create a pve server, so this game can go ahead and die.
stoicfaux
#51 - 2012-03-30 23:28:21 UTC
supr3m3justic3 wrote:
LOL, maybe they should just create a pve server, so this game can go ahead and die.

No, it just takes a readjustment of carebear attitudes.

The current system encourages a "welfare state" mentality in terms of security. Carebears are completely reliant on CONCORD because proactive defense isn't practical, and they have no real input on security, thus high-sec carebears' only option is to think *defensively*. If carebears were put more in charge of their own security, such as directly paying for or voting on how sentry guns, faction polices, most wanted policies, etc. were managed, then they would starting thinking in PvP terms, namely "Get a posse together, we're going to run that dog out of town!" instead saying "Waaaaaaaaaah! protect me CCP!"

It's the old "when it comes to ham and eggs for security, the chicken is involved but the pig is committed" parable. Right now high-sec is full of chickens. High-sec needs more bacon.


Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Killer Gandry
The Concilium Enterprises
#52 - 2012-03-30 23:46:57 UTC
I always love it when a certain group is so darn self righteous and declare their personal playstyle as the only legitimate way to play EVE.

If another group doesn't play according to my rules they are either ganking scum or whiny carebears.

No need to look at myself. Because let's face it, I am right and all the rest is wrong.
CCP fixed a loophole / exploit and all of a sudden those who abused it for some time feel the need to cry their hearts out instead of being very happy they didn't go by the full rule and slap you real hard for using an exploit in the game mechanics.

You can still gank hulks just that they plugged a hole where there shouldn't have been a hole in the first place.

To the miners, learn to fit a bloody tank. Yes it decreases your Isk per hour quit a bit, but the cost of a hulk loss is also something to calculate in.
Judeau Antara
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2012-03-30 23:58:20 UTC
The OP knew that any evasion of CONCORD is against the rules. He exploited an evasion tactic for quite some time and then posted it on the forums.

Honestly, where is the logical jump you made that action would not be taken against this? Carebears whining? You made it a public ordeal, whether someone whined or not has nothing to do with it. You literally told CCP that there was a way to evade CONCORD longer than intended.

It is pretty funny seeing all these hi-sec gankers always spouting off their conspiracy theories about how carebear tears change the very flow of the game. Maybe, just maybe, CCP just doesn't like the way certain things work.

I mean, christ, there is a reason there are many different areas of the game. Hi-sec, low sec, null, wormholes.....different places for different types of players. Going into carebear territory and then getting upset that it plays to more their style is just ludicrous. If a carebear went into null and then complained that there was no security, what do you think the reaction would be?
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#54 - 2012-03-31 00:09:26 UTC
Jayrendo Karr wrote:
I don't want to be "that guy"
But realistically concord should destroy the orca as well for aiding and abetting a criminal.
600 mining barges is a ludicrous amount, if even 100 people destroyed 600 barges a person the impact would be severe.
60,000 barges gone. Like it or not, care-bears build 80% of the things used in eve.
Ganking should be allowed but 600 ganks in 3 months by one person is nuts. Every gank should have meaning. If you don't want to lose your ship, gank in low-sec.

I'm all for allowing ganks, but it should carry a penalty to match being a public menace.



Carebear-one who does something with little risk.

OP is a true carebear. You risk nothing, you may lose your ship but it's guaranteed if you gank. A guaranteed loss is not a risk.
You don't even risk failure! You are literally guaranteed to kill. You gank miners because if you gank goons or 0.0 alliance type members they will never let it go and guarantee you pay through the nose.


Lol, you clearly do not understand the mechanics involved.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#55 - 2012-03-31 00:15:10 UTC
Herr Wilkus,

I am deeply sorry that CCP's decision has caused you to break down in tears like this.

On the other hand, I have a bucket full of tears to sell you and your alliance.

Just don't ask where it came from Bear.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#56 - 2012-03-31 00:38:14 UTC
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:
Thebriwan wrote:
There was no rule changed.

It was made totally crystal clear years ago that you must die after you ganked someone in high sec.

You found a hole in the mechanic and exploited it.
And then you talked about it and then it was done so much that CCP has to do something against.

Seen that so many times...



How is this an exploit, then?

You WILL lose the ship to CONCORD, this just delays it, and it only takes a very brief lag-spike or client-stutter to banjax the whole thing.

I had thought that the exploit--permabannable, and rightly so, IMHO--was avoiding CONCORD's retribution entirely, but not delaying it by (realistically, anyway) at most, a minute.

Someone went ahead and showed CCP that not only can you get many kills this way, you can also repeat long enough for the GCC to run out.


It is an exploit.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#57 - 2012-03-31 00:40:34 UTC
Killer Gandry wrote:


To the miners, learn to fit a bloody tank. Yes it decreases your Isk per hour quit a bit, but the cost of a hulk loss is also something to calculate in.



Don't even need a tank. Just stay aligned. If a Nado or dessie warps within a few km of you, you can warp out before they are able to try to lock.
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
#58 - 2012-03-31 00:45:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Roll Sizzle Beef
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:

This new rule is a prime example of CCP's utter lack of consistency in enforcing the rules and dealing with exploits. We complain about dec scraping and are told to wait for Inferno. Carebears complain about the boomerang and get a new rule to protect them until Inferno patches the tactic into oblivion..


Soooo? One deals with hardcoded mechanics that cant be avoided and are too great and widespread to police. And the other is a player driven operation that has to be methodically planned out by the aggressor to occur.
New rule warns everyone, and if you do it, its pretty blatant.
HTFU and play with more thrashers.
Nyrak
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2012-03-31 00:59:44 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
Killer Gandry wrote:


To the miners, learn to fit a bloody tank. Yes it decreases your Isk per hour quit a bit, but the cost of a hulk loss is also something to calculate in.


Don't even need a tank. Just stay aligned. If a Nado or dessie warps within a few km of you, you can warp out before they are able to try to lock.

Just to clarify, once you are aligned with something, you can stop your ship? I been trying this tactic recently and it seems as long as I am moving, the warp option kicks in right away. But if I stop, my ship seems to drift a bit so warping off - while not as fast as moving initially, seems to take a moment to realign, get up to speed, then go.
Ajita al Tchar
Doomheim
#60 - 2012-03-31 01:10:04 UTC
Nyrak wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
Killer Gandry wrote:


To the miners, learn to fit a bloody tank. Yes it decreases your Isk per hour quit a bit, but the cost of a hulk loss is also something to calculate in.


Don't even need a tank. Just stay aligned. If a Nado or dessie warps within a few km of you, you can warp out before they are able to try to lock.

Just to clarify, once you are aligned with something, you can stop your ship? I been trying this tactic recently and it seems as long as I am moving, the warp option kicks in right away. But if I stop, my ship seems to drift a bit so warping off - while not as fast as moving initially, seems to take a moment to realign, get up to speed, then go.


That is correct; passive align (when you stop your ship but the graphic points in the right direction) is bullshit. The only way to instawarp via aligning is to be moving which makes mining... interesting. You can always get a buddy to web you so your 75% speed is like 2m/s but yeah. For ****'s sake people, stop saying "mine aligned" without explaining what you mean because half the people who say that use the wrong definition of align, and half the people who hear it apply their wrong definition of "align" to it as well.