These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Buff Ganking--Nevermind, Nerfed Again

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#641 - 2012-10-07 22:38:53 UTC
who's going on now, the npc corp poster who thinks concord is tankable or the npc corp poster who thinks 100% ship value insurance would be good for EVE because miners choose not to tank their ships?
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#642 - 2012-10-07 22:39:00 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
A miner pulling for personal accountability in a buff ganking thread after what miners have been/are being given is pretty much the funniest thing I have ever seen!

I'm not a miner.

I was.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#643 - 2012-10-07 22:41:57 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
A miner pulling for personal accountability in a buff ganking thread after what miners have been/are being given is pretty much the funniest thing I have ever seen!

I'm not a miner.

I was.

Miner/NPC Corp Sockpuppet

Makes no difference.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#644 - 2012-10-07 22:45:45 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
Except to those who actively mitigate their risks.

There is such a thing in place, it's called downgrading to the T1 variant if you can't take the heat.

Touval Lysander wrote:
Seriously. So we can't have a system where players are responsible for their losses? Constant losses doesn't stop you flying and dying, just means insurance would remain as irrelevant as it is now.

What the hell are you talking about, "as irrelevant as it is now"? It's not irrelevant, in fact it's a pretty sizeable isk faucet, it just isn't a sizeable isk faucet due to T2 and T3 ships, and they weren't designed to be either. Losing T2 and T3 ships are supposed to hurt, if you can't deal with it, fly the t1 barges and take a hit to the yield. vOv

Touval Lysander wrote:
If you repeatedly fly and die in shiney you don't get paid out? So?

Meaning those who die often might as well not give a flying **** about insurance if "rating" were a thing, and those who don't die "as often" are those who live in hisec, or never undock. Which means we might as well just do away with the whole insurance system and be done with it in that case.

Touval Lysander wrote:
And really, having an insurance system that might ultimately pay next to nothing - changes nothing to what we already have.

Only if you fly T2 or T3. T1 payouts are pretty sizeable. I guess you've "conveniently forgotten" that aspect.

Touval Lysander wrote:
The sky is blue Zim.

I'm going to keep telling you that you're wrong when you're wrong. You want me to agree with you on "the sky being blue", then stop being wrong.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#645 - 2012-10-07 22:51:34 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
who's going on now, the npc corp poster who thinks concord is tankable or the npc corp poster who thinks 100% ship value insurance would be good for EVE because miners choose not to tank their ships?

You're better than that.

Firstly, this is combined with reducing un-gankability.

Secondly, a miner that repeatedly loses his ship being stupid will pay ever-increasing premiums, reduction in payout and/or being un-insurable. (Good bot reduction almost immediately)

It's self-educational for the smarter player at best and removes 3rd party responsibility to intervene on behalf of the stupid.

Risk reduction may also include not mining, relocation etc. Tanking is and should remain optional. Shift the FAULT of the financial loss to the ganker and the gankee.

Bad PvP, PvE ship choices come back to the pilot. They learn or lose. You wanna throw your T2 ship away repeatedly, you don't get paid. What changes there?

It MAY have an effect on reckless T1 losses so, errr..... dont fly what you can't afford to lose.

For truth..... Does keeping our rating #1 make us better drivers?

Yep. Theres negatives. Always will be, but even storm clouds can have silver linings.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#646 - 2012-10-07 22:55:47 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
who's going on now, the npc corp poster who thinks concord is tankable or the npc corp poster who thinks 100% ship value insurance would be good for EVE because miners choose not to tank their ships?

You're better than that.

Firstly, this is combined with reducing un-gankability.

Secondly, a miner that repeatedly loses his ship being stupid will pay ever-increasing premiums, reduction in payout and/or being un-insurable. (Good bot reduction almost immediately)

It's self-educational for the smarter player at best and removes 3rd party responsibility to intervene on behalf of the stupid.

Risk reduction may also include not mining, relocation etc. Tanking is and should remain optional. Shift the FAULT of the financial loss to the ganker and the gankee.

Bad PvP, PvE ship choices come back to the pilot. They learn or lose. You wanna throw your T2 ship away repeatedly, you don't get paid. What changes there?

It MAY have an effect on reckless T1 losses so, errr..... dont fly what you can't afford to lose.

For truth..... Does keeping our rating #1 make us better drivers?

Yep. Theres negatives. Always will be, but even storm clouds can have silver linings.

Look, if you think insurance is broken, that's fine. You can make a thread about it.

This is the Buff Ganking thread, because it's in dire need of a buff. Regardless of what you believe about insurance.

Thank you for posting.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#647 - 2012-10-07 22:59:43 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
A miner pulling for personal accountability in a buff ganking thread after what miners have been/are being given is pretty much the funniest thing I have ever seen!

I'm not a miner.

I was.

Miner/NPC Corp Sockpuppet

Makes no difference.

Ganker/CFC Sockpuppet

Makes no difference.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#648 - 2012-10-07 23:01:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
Touval Lysander wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
A miner pulling for personal accountability in a buff ganking thread after what miners have been/are being given is pretty much the funniest thing I have ever seen!

I'm not a miner.

I was.

Miner/NPC Corp Sockpuppet

Makes no difference.

Ganker/CFC Sockpuppet

Makes no difference.

No you're right. The only thing that makes a difference is that my arguments are consistent and factual, while yours are riddled with muppet-like randomness and misinformation-based theorycraft.

Thanks for agreeing with me though. Blink

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#649 - 2012-10-07 23:01:45 UTC
NickyYo wrote:
And so it should be nerfed, theres no skill in buff ganking, just cowardness and easy kills..
PVP will be

very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very,

INTERESTING!!
When pvpers are forced to actualy tank and gank a ship!


I was wondering when you'd get back from your ban.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#650 - 2012-10-07 23:09:30 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:

Look, if you think insurance is broken, that's fine. You can make a thread about it.

This is the Buff Ganking thread, because it's in dire need of a buff. Regardless of what you believe about insurance.

Thank you for posting.

Reiterated for clarity:
Quote:
Firstly, this is combined with reducing un-gankability.


Are you daft? I'm advocating making ganking profitable.

- I don't want CCP waving the magic wand to mitigate risk for stupid.
- I want smart miners to also be able to protect themselves - by themselves - for themselves.

You need to accept that the miner angst was because they made a 200m loss while you made almost zero loss due to insurance.

Stupid miners WOULD be penalised - by THEIR hand - not yours.

Spot the distinction.

I'm addressing POTENTIAL solutions to make the action of ganking FAIR FOR BOTH PARTIES without the need of external intervention.

As easily as bad practise SHOULD be penalised, good practise SHOULD be rewarded.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#651 - 2012-10-07 23:12:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
Touval Lysander wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:

Look, if you think insurance is broken, that's fine. You can make a thread about it.

This is the Buff Ganking thread, because it's in dire need of a buff. Regardless of what you believe about insurance.

Thank you for posting.

Reiterated for clarity:
Quote:
Firstly, this is combined with reducing un-gankability.


Are you daft? I'm advocating making ganking profitable.

- I don't want CCP waving the magic wand to mitigate risk for stupid.
- I want smart miners to also be able to protect themselves - by themselves - for themselves.

You need to accept that the miner angst was because they made a 200m loss while you made almost zero loss due to insurance.

Stupid miners WOULD be penalised - by THEIR hand - not yours.

Spot the distinction.

I'm addressing POTENTIAL solutions to make the action of ganking FAIR FOR BOTH PARTIES without the need of external intervention.

As easily as bad practise SHOULD be penalised, good practise SHOULD be rewarded.

I believe you continue to be the one who is daft if you believe that gankers were getting insurance payouts from ganking miners during the time leading up to the "mining buff." That was nerfed quite a while ago.

The insurance system's functionality or lack thereof is largely independent of the need for buffs to ganking in the present Eve client.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#652 - 2012-10-07 23:13:36 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
A miner pulling for personal accountability in a buff ganking thread after what miners have been/are being given is pretty much the funniest thing I have ever seen!

I'm not a miner.

I was.

Miner/NPC Corp Sockpuppet

Makes no difference.

Ganker/CFC Sockpuppet

Makes no difference.

No you're right. The only thing that makes a difference is that my arguments are consistent and factual, while yours are riddled with muppet-like randomness and misinformation-based theorycraft.

Thanks for agreeing with me though. Blink

Interestingly enough Darth.

I was a Ganker/CFC Sockpuppet.

But I thrive on independent thought and action and got booted from FA (along with Junkyard) for calling Zagdull a moron and ended up as a Testie.

That didn't help either so I left.

True story bro.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#653 - 2012-10-07 23:17:10 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
Interestingly enough Darth.

I was a Ganker/CFC Sockpuppet.

But I thrive on independent thought and action and got booted from FA (along with Junkyard) for calling Zagdull a moron and ended up as a Testie.

That didn't help either so I left.

True story bro.

Come visit me in Fade sometime then bro. We can dance around the campfire and trade mining adventure stories over smores.

That's how relevant your past affiliations are to this thread's validity.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#654 - 2012-10-07 23:18:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Touval Lysander wrote:
- I don't want CCP waving the magic wand to mitigate risk for stupid.

So you're in favour of a reversal of the mining barge/exhumer changes, then, since that's exactly what those changes are doing.

Touval Lysander wrote:
- I want smart miners to also be able to protect themselves - by themselves - for themselves.

Pity the miners and CCP aren't in agreement with you.

Touval Lysander wrote:
You need to accept that the miner angst was because they made a 200m loss while you made almost zero loss due to insurance.

Nothing was stopping them from using the T1 variant instead, or oh I dunno, tanking their ships.

Also, suicide ganking was nerfed by removing insurance payouts when concord is on the killmail, so vOv

Touval Lysander wrote:
As easily as bad practise SHOULD be penalised, good practise SHOULD be rewarded.

If they'd tanked their ships, they'd more often than not have survived, or at the very least made the gank unprofitable, thus ensuring a swifter end to the hulkageddon. They didn't, and they got penalized for it.

Then CCP came along and decided that instead of them being penalized for practicing bad practices, they should instead be rewarded with persisting in practicing bad practices.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#655 - 2012-10-07 23:20:42 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
I believe you continue to be the one who is daft if you believe that gankers were getting insurance payouts from ganking miners during the time leading up to the "mining buff." That was nerfed quite a while ago.

The insurance system's functionality or lack thereof is largely independent of the need for buffs to ganking in the present Eve client.

I'm well aware of that. The reason for the insurance nerf wasn't because of ganking though and made no difference - in fact ganking increased afterwards so insurance was never the gankers motivation - accepted and agreed.

I'm outlining why the MINER went mental about getting smashed @ 200m a pop. I'm looking at the CAUSE of the miner buff and addressing how it could (and might still) have been fixed without intervention.

You're asking for a reversal.

I'm asking for a reversal - with conditions to remove the ability for a miner to go "mental" again.

Think man, think.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#656 - 2012-10-07 23:23:09 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
I believe you continue to be the one who is daft if you believe that gankers were getting insurance payouts from ganking miners during the time leading up to the "mining buff." That was nerfed quite a while ago.

The insurance system's functionality or lack thereof is largely independent of the need for buffs to ganking in the present Eve client.

I'm well aware of that. The reason for the insurance nerf wasn't because of ganking though and made no difference - in fact ganking increased afterwards so insurance was never the gankers motivation - accepted and agreed.

I'm outlining why the MINER went mental about getting smashed @ 200m a pop. I'm looking at the CAUSE of the miner buff and addressing how it could (and might still) have been fixed without intervention.

You're asking for a reversal.

I'm asking for a reversal - with conditions to remove the ability for a miner to go "mental" again.

Think man, think.

Muppet-like randomness and misinformation-based theorycraft.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#657 - 2012-10-07 23:23:25 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
I'm asking for a reversal - with conditions to remove the ability for a miner to go "mental" again.

No. What you want is to make the act of flying T2 ships hurt less. That's not going to happen.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#658 - 2012-10-07 23:26:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
Lord Zim wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
I'm asking for a reversal - with conditions to remove the ability for a miner to go "mental" again.

No. What you want is to make the act of flying T2 ships hurt less. That's not going to happen.

Also, let's not forget miners always had the option to tank their ships or to mine aligned.

We know from the KM data that they didn't do the former.

We know from the prolific quantities of KM data that they didn't do the latter.

They went mental because, at the end of the day, they were mental if they thought they could just keep banging their head against the wall indefinitely.

Eventually, CCP had to intervene. Not out of mercy, but because apparently they thought the wall couldn't take it anymore.

So there you go.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#659 - 2012-10-07 23:36:26 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

Touval Lysander wrote:

And really, having an insurance system that might ultimately pay next to nothing - changes nothing to what we already have.

Only if you fly T2 or T3. T1 payouts are pretty sizeable. I guess you've "conveniently forgotten" that aspect.


Touval Lysander wrote:
The sky is blue Zim.

Lord Zim wrote:

I'm going to keep telling you that you're wrong when you're wrong. You want me to agree with you on "the sky being blue", then stop being wrong.

Zimmy, Zimmy. Because you don't agree with me doesn't make me wrong. It simply means we do not agree.

Well aware of T1 insurance and limited on T2. That's what CAUSED the problem in the first place. I never saw Tengus or Golems used in ganking - did you?

And really. Show me a fleet doctrine with T2/T3 in SRP. Are there any except for the richest maybe - even then - unsustainable?

If T2/T3 were fully insurable, more pilots would fly them = more high value targets on the grid.

And - repeated losses in high value ships would curtail flying shiney when you SHOULD be flying rusty so it's educational and limiting against wannabes.

Pilots who SHOULD and CAN be flying shiney would be rewarded for taking the risk. The reward is insurance cover in case you get it wrong and flying T2 when you should will also reduce the risk of losing your ship in the first place. Get it?

A Hulky losing his ship every day can either afford to lose it or he has to modify his behaviour - by his own hand. He's covered and rewarded for flying well - he's penalised fo being a moron.

Result = more high value exhumers on the grid prepared to risk more (eg: lowsec).

The dumb will still die (especially bots).

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#660 - 2012-10-07 23:45:11 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
I'm asking for a reversal - with conditions to remove the ability for a miner to go "mental" again.

No. What you want is to make the act of flying T2 ships hurt less. That's not going to happen.

Also, let's not forget miners always had the option to tank their ships or to mine aligned.

We know from the KM data that they didn't do the former.

We know from the prolific quantities of KM data that they didn't do the latter.

They went mental because, at the end of the day, they were mental if they thought they could just keep banging their head against the wall indefinitely.

Eventually, CCP had to intervene. Not out of mercy, but because apparently they thought the wall couldn't take it anymore.

So there you go.

And it's always been said that if they HAD tanked - ganking would STILL have been unprofitable. BOTH responses achieved the same outcome. It's faffing labouring on that point.

And really, CCP had to have acted for a very real and tangible reason. I can't imagine them waving the magic wand to protect a miner - so soon after giving shiney new gankmobiles. It's absolutely counter to their philosophy.

I'm convinced subs went down - perhaps temporarily - or something. Helmar had a bad-hair day? I don't know.

That reason - whatever it was - was serious enough that it may never be reversed.

I'm TRYING to come at buffing the gank from a different POV. Seriously. But it's gotta be done RIGHT.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."