These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

High Sec Hauler Ganking
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
teh munK
RED SQUAD
#161 - 2012-08-16 15:41:50 UTC
More carebear whine. Ganking haulers is not as easy as you think. It requires patience and at least 2 toons, if carebears were smarter about their day to.day business they wouldn't get ganked. Oh look you are flying around in an itty with 500m worth of mods. How about you buy a cloaky hauler or a freighter if you are so concerned about getting ganked.

If ccp didnt keep nerfing pirates, we wouldn't need to gank haulers in highsec to make a living.

Tl;Dr HTFU
Kal'Orellian
Kyokushin Corporation
Muh Zkill...
#162 - 2012-08-16 16:29:35 UTC
Well there isn't really anything else i can say.. we can only wait with anticipation for the tiercide changes to industrial.. whenever they may be.

Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#163 - 2012-08-16 16:54:00 UTC
Kal'Orellian wrote:
Well there isn't really anything else i can say.. we can only wait with anticipation for the tiercide changes to industrial.. whenever they may be.



You weren't really saying much to begin with other than "I want to AFK with impunity in high sec with high value cargo in tech I industrials because I point blank refuse to adapt to the situation".

You could always say "Sorry for being ridiculous. My request isn't really necessary now I've had it all explained to me" but I seriously doubt that'll happen. You need to be able to comprehend your own fallibility, be able to consider things from perspectives other than your own and to be able to change your ideas based on assimilated new information to have the humility to do something like that.
Kal'Orellian
Kyokushin Corporation
Muh Zkill...
#164 - 2012-08-17 09:28:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Kal'Orellian
Tchulen wrote:
Kal'Orellian wrote:
Well there isn't really anything else i can say.. we can only wait with anticipation for the tiercide changes to industrial.. whenever they may be.



You weren't really saying much to begin with other than "I want to AFK with impunity in high sec with high value cargo in tech I industrials because I point blank refuse to adapt to the situation".

You could always say "Sorry for being ridiculous. My request isn't really necessary now I've had it all explained to me" but I seriously doubt that'll happen. You need to be able to comprehend your own fallibility, be able to consider things from perspectives other than your own and to be able to change your ideas based on assimilated new information to have the humility to do something like that.


Where have I ever said that I refuse to adapt to the situation? You think I'm flying around in Itty V's all day getting ganked time after time because I refuse to change my play style? Sure I got ganked once, lesson learned and it has not happened since. Just because I want something changed does not mean that I refuse to play with the tools that are avialable. Despite my stating this numerous times it astounds me that you are still using this as some sort of argument against me? Yes I know there are safe hauling options, it's not about my willingness to use them, it's soley about the state of current game mechanics that means I have to use them.

I made a request, which at the end of the day boils down to a T1 hauler with a higher base EHP - to be fair thats not exactly an earth shattering request. If you don't agree with it then fair enough, but what gives you the right to say that my request cannot be voiced, that it's wrong, that I should in some way apologise and be humble for saying something that a few other people disagree with? Seriously, who the hell do you think you are?

Had people in this thread debated this issue in a polite, civil manner then I would have been quite content to walk away, whether people agreed with me or not. Instead I get attitude, hostility, insults and the normal rubbish that people on these forums spew.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#165 - 2012-08-17 10:00:37 UTC
Kal'Orellian wrote:
Where have I ever said that I refuse to adapt to the situation?

Every time you've said "that doesn't let me AFK travel everywhere without making any fitting changes or ship changes whatsoever without getting ganked".

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Kal'Orellian
Kyokushin Corporation
Muh Zkill...
#166 - 2012-08-17 10:31:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Kal'Orellian
In an attempt to be more constructive these are my recommendations for the post-tier hauler changes.

Each race to have 3 T1 industrial options

1. Entry level, base cargo of about 4000m3. Very fast and agile, low EHP.
2. Medium Cargo, 5000m3 base. Higher EHP (BS level), slow and heavy. (no turret/launcher options in case its abused).
3. Large cargo, 6000m3 base, medium speed and agility lower EHP (something like the current Itty V).

Gallente versions would have slightly larger base cargo values. Minmatar version would be slightly faster and more agile at expense of cargo capacity. Amarr ships would have more armour at expense of other attributes. Caldari ships more shields at expense of other attributes. T2 haulers I think should remain largely unchanged, they do the jobs they were intended to well as is.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#167 - 2012-08-17 10:51:14 UTC
Kal'Orellian wrote:
In an attempt to be more constructive these are my recommendations for the post-tier hauler changes.

Each race to have 3 T1 industrial options

1. Entry level, base cargo of about 4000m3. Very fast and agile, low EHP.
2. Medium Cargo, 5000m3 base. Higher EHP (BS level), slow and heavy. (no turret/launcher options in case its abused).
3. Large cargo, 6000m3 base, medium speed and agility lower EHP (something like the current Itty V).

Gallente versions would have slightly larger base cargo values. Minmatar version would be slightly faster and more agile at expense of cargo capacity. Amarr ships would have more armour at expense of other attributes. Caldari ships more shields at expense of other attributes. T2 haulers I think should remain largely unchanged, they do the jobs they were intended to well as is.

As I was saying:
Lord Zim wrote:
Kal'Orellian wrote:
Where have I ever said that I refuse to adapt to the situation?

Every time you've said "that doesn't let me AFK travel everywhere without making any fitting changes or ship changes whatsoever without getting ganked".

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Kal'Orellian
Kyokushin Corporation
Muh Zkill...
#168 - 2012-08-17 10:58:49 UTC
You need to read more carefully before you post. Just because I want changes does not mean I refuse to play with the tools as they are. If that's what you insisting on retorting with then that's your issue.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#169 - 2012-08-17 11:05:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
So you're saying you suddenly want to fit your t1 hauler to withstand more than one tornado, or swap to a T2 variant or some other hauler ship to get the same effect?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Kal'Orellian
Kyokushin Corporation
Muh Zkill...
#170 - 2012-08-17 11:25:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Kal'Orellian
Lord Zim wrote:
So you're saying you suddenly want to fit your t1 hauler to withstand more than one tornado, or swap to a T2 variant or some other hauler ship to get the same effect?


You are confused or now you are the one who is trolling. You know perfectly well what I am requesting, how about trying to make a constructive comment?

Do I want to swap to a T2 hauler for the cargo's I carry, no my opinion has always been that there should be no need to do it. Do I do it, of course I do its called necessity.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#171 - 2012-08-17 11:32:42 UTC
Let's go back a few posts.
Kal'Orellian wrote:
Where have I ever said that I refuse to adapt to the situation?

If you want to fit your T1 hauler to withstand more than one tornado, swap to a T2 variant or other hauling variant which exists in the game, you want to adapt.

If you don't want to fit your T1 hauler to withstand more than one tornado, swap to a T2 variant or other hauling variant which exists in the game, you refuse to adapt.

So which is it?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Kal'Orellian
Kyokushin Corporation
Muh Zkill...
#172 - 2012-08-17 11:34:09 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Let's go back a few posts.
Kal'Orellian wrote:
Where have I ever said that I refuse to adapt to the situation?

If you want to fit your T1 hauler to withstand more than one tornado, swap to a T2 variant or other hauling variant which exists in the game, you want to adapt.

If you don't want to fit your T1 hauler to withstand more than one tornado, swap to a T2 variant or other hauling variant which exists in the game, you refuse to adapt.

So which is it?


Do I want to swap to a T2 hauler for the cargo's I carry, no my opinion has always been that there should be no need to do it. Hence my request for changes. Do I do it, of course I do its called necessity.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#173 - 2012-08-17 11:35:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Which means you refuse to adapt to the situation and need Daddy CCP to hold your hand and make changes for you. vOv

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Kal'Orellian
Kyokushin Corporation
Muh Zkill...
#174 - 2012-08-17 11:37:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Kal'Orellian
If thats your logic then seriously you have some issues. It means I have adapted but would like Daddy CCP to make some changes so I can adapt back Lol
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#175 - 2012-08-17 11:43:36 UTC
Kal'Orellian wrote:

Where have I ever said that I refuse to adapt to the situation? You think I'm flying around in Itty V's all day getting ganked time after time because I refuse to change my play style? Sure I got ganked once, lesson learned and it has not happened since. Just because I want something changed does not mean that I refuse to play with the tools that are avialable. Despite my stating this numerous times it astounds me that you are still using this as some sort of argument against me? Yes I know there are safe hauling options, it's not about my willingness to use them, it's soley about the state of current game mechanics that means I have to use them.


Since Lord Zim answered the first part I'll leave that alone. It's pretty self evident to anyone reading the thread.

I want a module that turns my ship into an invulnerable pink space pig. Is that good for me? Yes. Is that good for the game? No. What you're asking for is unbalancing. Your argument entirely revolved around the cost of a gank. You've had it explained to you that your maths is way out of whack but you merely keep repeating the same incorrect statements. It's been explained to you that what you're asking for is currently the situation and yet you persist in demanding that things are changed because you have an erroneous view of how things are in the game. You have no argument because the premise is incorrect but you refuse to accept this. You just keep on about how your demands need to be satisfied because you want them to be. You have almost no support for your demands, your logic is flawed and you still persist. How can you not see that this is why people are getting frustrated with you and perhaps responding with temper and heat?

Kal'Orellian wrote:
I made a request, which at the end of the day boils down to a T1 hauler with a higher base EHP - to be fair thats not exactly an earth shattering request. If you don't agree with it then fair enough, but what gives you the right to say that my request cannot be voiced, that it's wrong, that I should in some way apologise and be humble for saying something that a few other people disagree with? Seriously, who the hell do you think you are?


Where have I said you can't voice your request? You made a request that was entirely self motivated. Your request has been replied to by many people explaining why your logic and numbers are wrong. You've persisted in ignoring all this information and merely repeating that you demand what you want, not what would be good for the game. You've admitted to being a troll. You've admitted your request was purely self motivated. I'll tell you who I am. I'm someone who plays EvE and doesn't want it irrevocably damaged by selfish whiners who have no real interest in the game as a whole but are consumed by their own personal agendas.

Kal'Orellian wrote:
Had people in this thread debated this issue in a polite, civil manner then I would have been quite content to walk away, whether people agreed with me or not. Instead I get attitude, hostility, insults and the normal rubbish that people on these forums spew.


You don't debate. You demand. To be successful in a debate you need to be able to modify your standpoint and opinion based on new information. You don't. You merely reiterate the same demands refusing to accept either common sense or factual information in order to retain your delusional standpoint. Your claim to walking away is a joke. You've already admitted to trolling your own thread. If you actually read this forum you'd see that regularly those who are united in rejecting your request generally don't agree on much. The reason people are so against your request is because it's unbalanced and completely unnecessary. You're the one who's refusing to see reason. You're the one who's standing alone demanding what you WANT.
Kal'Orellian
Kyokushin Corporation
Muh Zkill...
#176 - 2012-08-17 11:54:40 UTC
I'm not going to argue all the ins and outs of how I have gone about this thread, everything I want to say has been said. Though I will say this one last thing before I truly leave this thread and that is that I have never demanded anything. I have given an opinion on something that I feel is broken, yes it is self motivated but would benefit pretty much every other hauler pilot in eve too (and there are a lot of us) I have made suggestions on how to fix this issue that I percieve to be unbalanced and have asked CCP to look at it. they will either agree or disagree and I'll accept it.

Flame away....
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#177 - 2012-08-17 12:10:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Kal'Orellian wrote:
I have made suggestions on how to fix this issue

which issue? T1 hauler being able to afk haul more than 200mil of cargo and roughly tanked one to afk haul more than 400 mil?
There was none to begin with...
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#178 - 2012-08-17 12:10:50 UTC
Kal'Orellian wrote:
I'm not going to argue all the ins and outs of how I have gone about this thread, everything I want to say has been said. Though I will say this one last thing before I truly leave this thread and that is that I have never demanded anything. I have given an opinion on something that I feel is broken, yes it is self motivated but would benefit pretty much every other hauler pilot in eve too (and there are a lot of us) I have made suggestions on how to fix this issue that I percieve to be unbalanced and have asked CCP to look at it. they will either agree or disagree and I'll accept it.

Flame away....


I'm a hauler pilot as are several other people who've been arguing against your changes. We disagree with you. I don't see many (if any) people agreeing with you and yet you still seem convinced that there are loads of people this would help. Perhaps there are individual people this would help but it wouldn't help the game as a whole. Giving people a module that would make their ship invulnerable would help the individual but it would destroy the game. Acquiescing to selfish requests that would be detrimental to the game as a whole would be the death of EvE as it was for Starwars Galaxies and others.

You seem to miss the point that tech II haulers were introduced to make hauling high value cargos easier and safer. This is their purpose. This is what they're intended for. It is currently balanced. By making tech I haulers able to tank as much as you're stating without fitting a tank you would be making them into their tech II counterparts which would either mean making the tech II ships obsolete or buffing them proportionally which would make them ludicrously over powered.

There is no issue except in your head. Therefore the only thing that needs fixing is the place the issue resides.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#179 - 2012-08-17 12:11:01 UTC
Kal'Orellian wrote:
I have never demanded anything.

Except every time someone said "no, here's why" you just ignored it and kept posting the same "suggestion".

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat