These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

freighters

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lolar55
Banana Toaster
#201 - 2012-11-18 17:05:43 UTC
Ever heard of freighter with few logistics and few jammers for support around being ganked in high sec?Cuz i sure haven't.If you got to put 19b in your turtle the least you can do is have escort/webbing/mercs to help you.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#202 - 2012-11-18 17:06:16 UTC
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Oopsy Bear wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
So, in other words, the only way to "fix this exploit" is to completely remove any and all bumping in the game?


Bumping should be allowed, it should just make more sense. A frigate going 5km/s should explode into scrap when it flies directly into a freighter. Contrast this with what actually occurs in game right now.


Now picture the undock at Jita 4-4 as small ships come flying out and bumping into larger ones... or as ships are warping in to bookmarked points at the undock. Just picture the chaos... the death and destruction ;) that is, if you are suggesting collision damage, there are a wide range of physics issues that would have to be tended to to implement these ships "exploding into scrap" and it's just not cost effective when there are already means available to players to avoid being bumped. Such as not being AFK, or on AP.


Ah yes, the jita undock strawman argument, brought out every single time someone suggests collision damage. If someone actually says "just implement collision damage, it's just 3 lines of code", then yes, that's a reasonably reply. If the person you're responding to doesn't say something like that, then assuming that the implementation of collision damage won't in some fashion address the jita 4-4 undock, when just that has been mentioned over 656 quintillion times on the forums, is so naive as to definitively fall into the strawman fallacy category.


People need to stop misusing fallacies. Seriously, I'm sick of it - if collision damage was on, it wouldn't just affect the Jita undock, it would affect all kinds of manoeuvring.

It's not naive, and it's not a strawman - it addresses the issue directly. A strawman would not address the issue, but would be some tangential argument about how your face looks funny so you couldn't possibly know what you are talking about.

And since when does naivety = strawman?

Seriously, go study up on your fallacies. Using Jita as an EXAMPLE of a myriad of physics complications that would have to be sorted out (not just 3 lines of code) addresses the issue of collision damage directly and is in no way a strawman.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#203 - 2012-11-18 17:06:30 UTC
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
Ah yes, the jita undock strawman argument, brought out every single time someone suggests collision damage. If someone actually says "just implement collision damage, it's just 3 lines of code", then yes, that's a reasonable reply. If the person you're responding to doesn't say something like that, then assuming that the implementation of collision damage won't in some fashion address the jita 4-4 undock, when just that has been mentioned over 656 quintillion times on the forums, is so naive as to definitively fall into the strawman fallacy category.

if (ship.type != freighter && ship.type != jumpfreighter)
RunBumpCalculations();

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

RIP Vile Rat
Fabulous Rod
Darkfall Corp
#204 - 2012-11-18 17:07:05 UTC
ridiculous that crap like this is allowed to continue. Part of why the "pvp" in this game is considered to be such a joke.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#205 - 2012-11-18 17:08:03 UTC
So which freighter kill was yours, then?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Mag's
Azn Empire
#206 - 2012-11-18 17:08:39 UTC
Fabulous Rod wrote:
ridiculous that crap like this is allowed to continue. Part of why the "pvp" in this game is considered to be such a joke.
So you're saying nearly all of Eve is a joke?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#207 - 2012-11-18 17:08:56 UTC
Fabulous Rod wrote:
ridiculous that crap like this is allowed to continue. Part of why the "pvp" in this game is considered to be such a joke.


Does your avatar seriously have a Justin Bieber haircut???

See, that was a joke.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#208 - 2012-11-18 17:09:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Oopsy Bear wrote:
So if my extreme of the ship exploding is stupid then why isn't the extreme of what happens now just as stupid?
Because it neatly solves the problem of having ships collide without causing mayhem and destruction and having to assign blame as far as who hit whom (which would have to trigger a number of mechanics and be very open to all kinds of nasty exploitation, if not outright exploits).

Bumping lets everyone have that but without the losses that would ensue. So the real question is: what would it solve if ships suddenly started exploding rather than push each other around, and what makes that problem so immense that it's worth fixing in spite of all the complications and new nasty exploitations that would arise from such a change?
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#209 - 2012-11-18 17:11:15 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Bumping lets everyone have that but without the losses that would ensue.

BUT MY FREIGHTER!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111eleventyoneoneone

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

RIP Vile Rat
Shae Vizl'a
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#210 - 2012-11-18 17:15:39 UTC
Freighters need a Corporate Hangar. Huge 100000m3 maybe and reduce the cargo capacity by the same number.

[u]English is not my natural language.[/u]
Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#211 - 2012-11-18 17:17:17 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:



It's not naive, and it's not a strawman - it addresses the issue directly. A strawman would not address the issue, but would be some tangential argument about how your face looks funny so you couldn't possibly know what you are talking about.

And since when does naivety = strawman?

Seriously, go study up on your fallacies. Using Jita as an EXAMPLE of a myriad of physics complications that would have to be sorted out (not just 3 lines of code) addresses the issue of collision damage directly and is in no way a strawman.



Remiel Pollard wrote:

Link me the post where I've ignored your actual position and substituted a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. That's a strawman.


If you replace someone's argument with a version of that argument which makes a naive assumption, then you've substituted a distorted version of their position. This matches the definition, given by you, exactly. Now, you've edited that original post since I read it first to remove that feature, so I'll delete my response...but adding a naive assumption to someone's argument is not only a strawman argument, but the most common strawman around.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#212 - 2012-11-18 17:18:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Shae Vizl'a wrote:
Freighters need a Corporate Hangar. Huge 100000m3 maybe and reduce the cargo capacity by the same number.
Well, that would certainly make freighter ganks easier after CrimeWatch 2.0 kicks in.

Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
If you replace someone's argument with a version of that argument which makes a naive assumption, then you've substituted a distorted version of their position. This matches the definition, given by you, exactly. Now, you've edited that original post since I read it first to remove that feature, so I'll delete my response...but adding a naive assumption to someone's argument is not only a strawman argument, but the most common strawman around.
Regardless, the Jita-undock argument is still not a strawman — it's just a simple counter to highlight a basic (and universally unanswered) flaw in the notion that collision damage would be a swell idea to implement in EVE.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#213 - 2012-11-18 17:22:42 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
How long does it take for the gankers to show up after your freighter has been bumped?
Less than a minute? Because that's exactly how long it takes for your freighter to disappear, assuming you haven't been webbing it (and of course you haven't been).



Rigghhhhtttt......

Current goon tactics:

1. Have pilot in Ibis point freighter as soon as it decloaks, removing any chance freighter has to log off.
2. Before the freighter can align, have cruisers fit with 100 MN MwD's continually bump the freighter out to 200 km from gate.
At that point, Concord takes a significant time to respond when the freighter is attacked.
3. Have far less Talos than required at a gate gank freighter,since the Talos gets in 4-5 cycles before being Concorded.


This tactic will work even if the freighter pilot has a friend in a Rapier webbing him at every gate, since it just means more throwaway Ibis pilots are needed to keep the freighter pointed until the high speed cruiser bumpers can make contact.

Ibis 1 points, dies in few seconds.
Ibis 2 points just before Ibis 1 is Concorded, extending the time the freighter can't warp.
Ibis 3 points just before Ibis 2 is Concorded, extending the time the freighter can't warp, and enough time now for a Fleet Stabber moving in excess of 10 km/s to hammer the freighter, and that is all she wrote baby.

Oh, and post Retribution, this tactic STILL works.
By moving the freighter kill out to 200km, any random response from passersby is negated, unless they happen to have a warp in point extremely close to the spot the goons pushed the freighter.

It gets so much better also given the current and future game mechanics.
a. The Ibis pilots are hours old, and completely throwaway.
b. The bumping cruiser pilots never aggress, and therefore are untouchable, unless someone wants to suicide gank them, which is incredibly unlikely.
c. The Talos pilots warp in to the kill site once the freighter is at a suitable distance, get Concorded, and the pods warp out in seconds before anyone can react. That means they can sit in space at a safe spot or warp between a few for 15 minutes (scanning down a pod warping between safes is impossible, and just head out to a friendly Orca parked at a safespot, grab a new Talos in seconds, and repeat the process. Sec status of -10 does not impinge on high sec ganking today, and will be equally meaningess Dec 5th.

The ONLY way these asshats can be stopped, is if you had a squad of white knights, armed with kill rights of all the gankers, parked in system, waiting for the gankers to start bumping a freighter. They would have to follow the freighter out to the point that it was to be ganked, and hope that in the seconds it takes the gankers to wipe out a freighter once the warp in, the white knights can activate the kill rights and kill the gankers before they kill the freighter.

But even that does not work, because very quickly the goons et al will simply employ decoy bumpers and draw the white knights away from designated target and kill a freighter on another gate. The white knights can't cover 2 gates at once, let alone 4 or 5.

Theoretically, the cfc / hbc have enough pilots to permanently interdict ALL freighter traffic in and out of Jita, or Amarr, or Dodixie, or any other trade hub, and they have already proven that with Burn Jita.

I doubt they would do that, since CCP would then come down on them and change the game mechanics.
I imagine that CCP and the griefer alliances have agreed on some suitable level of carnage that won't elicit a CCP response.

Plus, if all traffic was stopped, it would prove the lie that high sec is safe.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#214 - 2012-11-18 17:24:20 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Plus, if all traffic was stopped, it would prove the lie that high sec is safe.

No, it is safe, it just isn't perfect safety.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#215 - 2012-11-18 17:25:20 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Shae Vizl'a wrote:
Freighters need a Corporate Hangar. Huge 100000m3 maybe and reduce the cargo capacity by the same number.
Well, that would certainly make freighter ganks easier after CrimeWatch 2.0 kicks in.

Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
If you replace someone's argument with a version of that argument which makes a naive assumption, then you've substituted a distorted version of their position. This matches the definition, given by you, exactly. Now, you've edited that original post since I read it first to remove that feature, so I'll delete my response...but adding a naive assumption to someone's argument is not only a strawman argument, but the most common strawman around.
Regardless, the Jita-undock argument is still not a strawman — it's just a simple counter to highlight a basic (and universally unanswered) flaw in the notion that collision damage would be a swell idea to implement in EVE.

You can add in JBs, gates, fleet warps, cynos, mission gates etc etc etc

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

RIP Vile Rat
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#216 - 2012-11-18 17:28:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
1. Have pilot in Ibis point freighter as soon as it decloaks, removing any chance freighter has to log off.
2. Before the freighter can align, have cruisers fit with 100 MN MwD's continually bump the freighter out to 200 km from gate.
At that point, Concord takes a significant time to respond when the freighter is attacked.
Yes. Having CONCORD on the same grid really slows down their response time… Roll

Quote:
Plus, if all traffic was stopped, it would prove the lie that high sec is safe.
“Prove the lie”?! If you could prove it, it would be true, so then it wouldn't be a lie, now would it?

Anyway, yes, it's a lie that highsec is safe. After all, it was never intended to be, so I can't really understand why anyone, after all this time, would ever believe that it is — much less why they'd tell other people that it is.
Lolar55
Banana Toaster
#217 - 2012-11-18 17:32:46 UTC
So much whine and not enough logistic ships.Maybe its time to learn logistics 5 bros.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#218 - 2012-11-18 17:33:21 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
1. Have pilot in Ibis point freighter as soon as it decloaks, removing any chance freighter has to log off.
2. Before the freighter can align, have cruisers fit with 100 MN MwD's continually bump the freighter out to 200 km from gate.
At that point, Concord takes a significant time to respond when the freighter is attacked.
Yes. Having CONCORD on the same grid really slows down their response time… Roll


I can't believe I am responding to you, given I promised myself I would never get involved in your dis-information tactics again, but if the goons are using this tactic, then yeah, it does.
Sara Mars
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#219 - 2012-11-18 17:34:56 UTC
Confirming EVE needs to be renamed "Whine Online"
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#220 - 2012-11-18 17:34:59 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I can't believe I am responding to you, given I promised myself I would never get involved in your dis-information tactics again, but if the goons are using this tactic, then yeah, it does.
Maybe you should go and test it…