These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Watershed moment? The Apostle shrugged
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#61 - 2011-10-30 01:25:47 UTC
I nominate The Apostle as king of the forum trolls...

You earned it man. You earned it.

IdeaRoll

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#62 - 2011-10-30 01:28:57 UTC
Gogela wrote:
I nominate The Apostle as king of the forum trolls...

You earned it man. You earned it.

IdeaRoll


I nominate everyone who posted anything similar to the one i quoted to be first for execution.

I know its internet and i know even kids below 10 plays internet wars, but "troll" what is it ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#63 - 2011-10-30 01:35:39 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
And my OP asks whether it should remain where mining vessels are FOTF (flavour of the forever )
…which is where you go completely off the track and skip off into your own fantasy land. What you're describing is not the reality of the game. You're asking question about how to address a situation that does not exist…
Quote:
…or should Concord be disarmed away from stations and gates bringing MORE targets into a "probable" ganking range.
…and that is just further reinforced by these kinds of statements. More targets are already in that “probable ganking range” — mission runners in particular.
Quote:
My post is a challenge to the gank advocates.
No, it's not. You're asking for something that already exists.
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
Look at it :

Exhumer alone / ganked by 2mil ship soon
Mission runner alone / ganked by tier 3 BC

now

Mission runner and ten friends / probably not worth the effort the ganker have to use to succeed
Exhumer and ten friends / same story as Exhumer alone
Ehm… what do you base this on (and we'll let slide that notion that the buffed destroyers will make mince-meat out of exhumers without any recourse or safety in numbers)? I have a hunch about what you're referring to, but would you mind explaining why, you think, those mission-runner friends will keep the ganker away?
Cherry Nobyl
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#64 - 2011-10-30 01:38:02 UTC
The Apostle wrote:

Yes. Ganking is part of Eve.

And my OP asks whether it should remain where mining vessels are FOTF (flavour of the forever ) and Concord needs to be buffed to provide some kind of levelling or should Concord be disarmed away from stations and gates bringing MORE targets into a "probable" ganking range.

There's a line being followed that missioners (for example) are "gankable" as well. Yes, agreed, ALL vessels are "gankable". But the probability of success is so far seperated between that of a mining vessel versus a PvE vessel that it's ludicrous.

My post is a challenge to the gank advocates.

If ganking unarmed vessels is "neccessary" for good game play, yadda ya, how about we decrease the range and effectiveness of Concord to increase the likelihood of MORE ganks.

To whit. Either ganking is acceptable and EVERYONE should be roundly and fairly gankable.... Or not.

tbh: I'm on the fence with this one.



you make several distinctions that do not actually exist within your argument.

the first is the suggestion of a gank, and the difference between a 'mission' ship and a 'mining' ship. both of which are pve, and both of which can be fit any number of ways to address the task and difficulties at expected. further, the suggestion that a mission ship is any more capable of surviving a 'gank' due to it being 'armed' rather than 'unarmed'.

everyone is 'fairly gankable' in the purest sense of the term. it's simply an applied level of damage within a specific time frame requiring a certain composition to achieve the goal.

the only limiting factor is, perhaps, cost. but as a representative measure it fails.

Paragon Renegade
Sebiestor Tribe
#65 - 2011-10-30 01:43:20 UTC
Cherry Nobyl wrote:
The Apostle wrote:


the first is the suggestion of a gank, and the difference between a 'mission' ship and a 'mining' ship. both of which are pve, and both of which can be fit any number of ways to address the task and difficulties at expected. further, the suggestion that a mission ship is any more capable of surviving a 'gank' due to it being 'armed' rather than 'unarmed'.


Mission ships have powerful tanks and weapons; Exhumers & Barges generally only have drones.

[quote]the only limiting factor is, perhaps, cost. but as a representative measure it fails.



The victim is almost always in the more expensive ship; the attacker blunders in, Breaks his arm over their head and kills them ith little effort.

Risk? None that wasn't expected & compensated for

Rewards? Massive

^Wat

The pie is a tautology
Avon
#66 - 2011-10-30 01:47:22 UTC
Ships gotta go boom

Eve depends on it.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#67 - 2011-10-30 01:49:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Paragon Renegade wrote:
Mission ships have powerful tanks and weapons; Exhumers & Barges generally only have drones.
Mission ships have tanks that are powerful against a particular kind of damage delivery — ganks do not deliver that kind of damage, so that “powerful tank” isn't particularly useful. Exhumers tend to have the right kinds of tank… Their respective weapons follow the same pattern and are therefore ill suited for the same reason, but really, the weapons are not much of a factor (and using them will actually reduce the risk the ganker has to deal with).
Quote:
Risk? None that wasn't expected & compensated for
Rewards? Massive
For ganking mission runners, maybe. For ganking miners, not so much. Oh, and just because it is possible to mitigate the risk doesn't mean that there is no risk — after all, if it did, then the mitigation would not be needed…
The Apostle
Doomheim
#68 - 2011-10-30 01:55:37 UTC
Cherry Nobyl wrote:
Everyone is 'fairly gankable' in the purest sense of the term. it's simply an applied level of damage within a specific time frame requiring a certain composition to achieve the goal.

Lol. You too? So I'll put my 130k buffered Tengu with 85%+ omni-resists and see if you can take me out with your Hulk ganking vessel before Concord turns up. In fact bring what, 10 of them? At least?

This comparitive between a Hulk tank and PvE vessel is not even being honest, let alone correct.

Tell you what, homework for you and Tippia. Gimme the stats on how many mission vessels are ganked versus how many mining vessels are ganked.

Also tell me how many combat vessels are killed (ganked, not Wt'd or canned) in highsec everyday versus mining vessels.

THEN I'll start to believe your BS.

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
The Apostle
Doomheim
#69 - 2011-10-30 01:56:33 UTC
Avon wrote:
Ships gotta go boom

Eve depends on it.

So you'd be happy to see Concord removed from mission space?

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
Avon
#70 - 2011-10-30 02:00:13 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Avon wrote:
Ships gotta go boom

Eve depends on it.

So you'd be happy to see Concord removed from mission space?



Yup.

Wouldn't bother me either way in all honesty.
Paragon Renegade
Sebiestor Tribe
#71 - 2011-10-30 02:06:35 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Mission ships have tanks that are powerful against a particular kind of damage delivery — ganks do not deliver that kind of damage, so that “powerful tank” isn't particularly useful. Exhumers tend to have the right kinds of tank… Their respective weapons follow the same pattern and are therefore ill suited for the same reason, but really, the weapons are not much of a factor (and using them will actually reduce the risk the ganker has to deal with).


Yet, it's still better than the "Tank" on a Mackinaw. Or a Covetor, or Retriever. And things that don't die in seconds, not to mention those that have guns, will always be a tougher target than one without.

Quote:
or ganking mission runners, maybe. For ganking miners, not so much. Oh, and just because it is possible to mitigate the risk doesn't mean that there is no risk — after all, if it did, then the mitigation would not be needed…


I could right now, run five lvl 4's and fit a thrasher. Then I would ask my mates to help me out.

We would swarm some ice belt, spam AC's at an enemy, and it would most likely die. Then we have our industrial alt/friend come up & steal everything that was destroyed/lost, and we have a slavager pick up the pieces.

It's not hard, there's no risk beyond the most superficial and easily mitigated, and essentially the whole situation is a big FU to the person mining.

The pie is a tautology
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#72 - 2011-10-30 02:12:25 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Avon wrote:
Ships gotta go boom

Eve depends on it.
So you'd be happy to see Concord removed from mission space?
Still a non sequitur. Why are you not simply asking for the removal of CONCORD, period? What's so special about mission space that it requires its own rules?
The Apostle wrote:
This comparitive between a Hulk tank and PvE vessel is not even being honest, let alone correct.
A Hulk can put up a 30k EHP tank; the bigger mission ships tend to have 30–60k EHP.
Quote:
Gimme the stats on how many mission vessels are ganked versus how many mining vessels are ganked.
In the last 24h: 153 kills in and around the mission systems in Citadel, vs. ~50 in mining systems (both of which should be compared to 300 kills in high-traffic transit systems).
The Apostle
Doomheim
#73 - 2011-10-30 02:15:36 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Mission ships have tanks that are powerful against a particular kind of damage delivery — ganks do not deliver that kind of damage, so that “powerful tank” isn't particularly useful.

Dial up EFT. Using ONE example only, a Tengu - 130k with 85%+ OMNI resists.

Quote:
Exhumers tend to have the right kinds of tank…

Since when? Most exhumers are setup for the kinds of rats they have in the belts. Buffered or active.

Stop cluttering up this thread with utter nonsense Tippia.

The fact remains that armed vessels are far less likely to be even gank-attempted because the likelihood of success is so low it's not funny. That's WHY they're in highsec!

If they flew in lowsec/0.0 instead, most of the "highsec heroes" who post here quoting , "HTFU", "This is Eve" ad nauseum would DIE.

They know it, I know it and it appears you don't. You're playing ostrich on something that is pretty bloody obvious.

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#74 - 2011-10-30 02:17:52 UTC
Paragon Renegade wrote:
Yet, it's still better than the "Tank" on a Mackinaw. Or a Covetor, or Retriever.
…and yet, it's not enough to stop a ganker. And the guns will not make any difference, and will, as mentioned, only reduce the risk for the ganker.
Quote:
It's not hard, there's no risk beyond the most superficial and easily mitigated, and essentially the whole situation is a big FU to the person mining.
…and again, just because you can mitigate them does not mean that there are no risks. Moreover, the rewards in that case would be far from ”massive”, and the miners can mitigate their risks just like you can, giving a big FU to the gankers.
Alpheias
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#75 - 2011-10-30 02:18:07 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Mission ships have tanks that are powerful against a particular kind of damage delivery — ganks do not deliver that kind of damage, so that “powerful tank” isn't particularly useful.

Dial up EFT. Using ONE example only, a Tengu - 130k with 85%+ OMNI resists.

Quote:
Exhumers tend to have the right kinds of tank…

Since when? Most exhumers are setup for the kinds of rats they have in the belts. Buffered or active.

Stop cluttering up this thread with utter nonsense Tippia.

The fact remains that armed vessels are far less likely to be even gank-attempted because the likelihood of success is so low it's not funny. That's WHY they're in highsec!

If they flew in lowsec/0.0 instead, most of the "highsec heroes" who post here quoting , "HTFU", "This is Eve" ad nauseum would DIE.

They know it, I know it and it appears you don't. You're playing ostrich on something that is pretty bloody obvious.


What is it with your obsession with Goons, Mittens and ostriches?

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.
The Apostle
Doomheim
#76 - 2011-10-30 02:18:35 UTC
Tippia wrote:
In the last 24h: 153 kills in and around the mission systems in Citadel, vs. ~50 in mining systems (both of which should be compared to 300 kills in high-traffic transit systems).

And the "mission ships" (presumably because it's "mission systems") were all ganked? Nice try. lol....

Now you're clutching.

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
The Apostle
Doomheim
#77 - 2011-10-30 02:21:00 UTC
Alpheias wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Mission ships have tanks that are powerful against a particular kind of damage delivery — ganks do not deliver that kind of damage, so that “powerful tank” isn't particularly useful.

Dial up EFT. Using ONE example only, a Tengu - 130k with 85%+ OMNI resists.

Quote:
Exhumers tend to have the right kinds of tank…

Since when? Most exhumers are setup for the kinds of rats they have in the belts. Buffered or active.

Stop cluttering up this thread with utter nonsense Tippia.

The fact remains that armed vessels are far less likely to be even gank-attempted because the likelihood of success is so low it's not funny. That's WHY they're in highsec!

If they flew in lowsec/0.0 instead, most of the "highsec heroes" who post here quoting , "HTFU", "This is Eve" ad nauseum would DIE.

They know it, I know it and it appears you don't. You're playing ostrich on something that is pretty bloody obvious.


What is it with your obsession with Goons, Mittens and ostriches?

Maybe an ostrich is a metaphor for a big lame duck that can't fly properly and is a fat, easy target? Who knows.

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
Alpheias
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#78 - 2011-10-30 02:25:08 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Alpheias wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Mission ships have tanks that are powerful against a particular kind of damage delivery — ganks do not deliver that kind of damage, so that “powerful tank” isn't particularly useful.

Dial up EFT. Using ONE example only, a Tengu - 130k with 85%+ OMNI resists.

Quote:
Exhumers tend to have the right kinds of tank…

Since when? Most exhumers are setup for the kinds of rats they have in the belts. Buffered or active.

Stop cluttering up this thread with utter nonsense Tippia.

The fact remains that armed vessels are far less likely to be even gank-attempted because the likelihood of success is so low it's not funny. That's WHY they're in highsec!

If they flew in lowsec/0.0 instead, most of the "highsec heroes" who post here quoting , "HTFU", "This is Eve" ad nauseum would DIE.

They know it, I know it and it appears you don't. You're playing ostrich on something that is pretty bloody obvious.


What is it with your obsession with Goons, Mittens and ostriches?

Maybe an ostrich is a metaphor for a big lame duck that can't fly properly and is a fat, easy target? Who knows.


Like a miner in a hulk during hulkageddon?

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.
XIRUSPHERE
In Bacon We Trust
#79 - 2011-10-30 02:27:15 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Mission ships have tanks that are powerful against a particular kind of damage delivery — ganks do not deliver that kind of damage, so that “powerful tank” isn't particularly useful.

Dial up EFT. Using ONE example only, a Tengu - 130k with 85%+ OMNI resists.

Quote:
Exhumers tend to have the right kinds of tank…

Since when? Most exhumers are setup for the kinds of rats they have in the belts. Buffered or active.

Stop cluttering up this thread with utter nonsense Tippia.

The fact remains that armed vessels are far less likely to be even gank-attempted because the likelihood of success is so low it's not funny. That's WHY they're in highsec!

If they flew in lowsec/0.0 instead, most of the "highsec heroes" who post here quoting , "HTFU", "This is Eve" ad nauseum would DIE.

They know it, I know it and it appears you don't. You're playing ostrich on something that is pretty bloody obvious.


That buffer tengu don't run missions, mission tengus fit tasty deadspace and officer mods with itty bitty buffers a single tempest can alpha. That's what makes most mission ships easy prey, active tanks and lopsided mission specific resist. You just need a dedicated neut ship and a bit of dps and the rats will finish the rest. Granted it's harder and has a larger investment so the targets tend to be restricted to the best fit to enable returns.

Even passive ships tend to operate around peak recharge, bump the ship past peak and it falls apart in seconds.

The advantage of a bad memory is that one can enjoy the same good things for the first time several times.

One will rarely err if extreme actions be ascribed to vanity, ordinary actions to habit, and mean actions to fear.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#80 - 2011-10-30 02:29:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
The Apostle wrote:
Dial up EFT. Using ONE example only, a Tengu - 130k with 85%+ OMNI resists.
In other words, not a mission-fit ship, so why would I use that to tell anything about the ability to gank mission runners? Mission Tengus, in particular, are notoriously easy to gank since they tend to only sport some 30-40k omni EHP (and will easily dip as low as 20k if fit for a particular mission when hit with the right ammo).
Quote:
Since when?
Since forever. Well, assuming the miners are actually trying to mitigate their risks.
Quote:
The fact remains that armed vessels are far less likely to be even gank-attempted because the likelihood of success is so low it's not funny.
That is not a fact — it's your fabrication with nothing to back it up. Armed or not is not a factor in deciding to gank a ship. What matters is what modules he's carrying.
Quote:
And the "mission ships" (presumably because it's "mission systems") were all ganked?
Yes, moving the goal posts will prove you right. Roll
You asked for stats, and you were given the ones that are available to us players. If you don't like it, go get your own and prove those wrong. In fact, do that regardless, because the onus is on you to prove that miners are being unproportionally targeted for ganks. Good luck.

Again: just because you want to generalise from a special case (miners being abnormally targeted due to an on-going sponsored event) doesn't mean that miners are the constantly besieged poor souls you want them to be.