These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

LOGI Ganking in Inursions
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lttle Femke
Street Birds
#61 - 2011-11-05 11:12:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Lttle Femke
Seems a lot of weeping tears and boastful gankers in the thread as usual, but one thing that seems to be missing, is that the more this form of ganking grows the less people will go to incursions, and the higher chance that eventually it will need to be scrapped by CCP as no longer being supported by enough of the player base, in the same way a lot of mining and ancilliary ships take time out when Hulkageddon is run and that large blobs run nullsec.

If you want the game to grow and improve perhaps you should try to find ways that help CCP improve the game so that Carebears, pirates, PVPers etc can all enjoy the game more not just your selfish little side of things. If you generally **** people off enough they will leave the game and search for a game where they feel their money is better spent, then perhaps EVE won't keep losing subs week after week until it becomes time to close the doors on this great universe if people can work things out more.

Flame if you want, I get tired of people in here trying to explain how right they are with what they do, whoever and whatever they are.
Odemis
Death By Design
#62 - 2011-11-05 23:09:59 UTC
Lttle Femke wrote:
Seems a lot of weeping tears and boastful gankers in the thread as usual, but one thing that seems to be missing, is that the more this form of ganking grows the less people will go to incursions, and the higher chance that eventually it will need to be scrapped by CCP as no longer being supported by enough of the player base, in the same way a lot of mining and ancilliary ships take time out when Hulkageddon is run and that large blobs run nullsec.

If you want the game to grow and improve perhaps you should try to find ways that help CCP improve the game so that Carebears, pirates, PVPers etc can all enjoy the game more not just your selfish little side of things. If you generally **** people off enough they will leave the game and search for a game where they feel their money is better spent, then perhaps EVE won't keep losing subs week after week until it becomes time to close the doors on this great universe if people can work things out more.

Flame if you want, I get tired of people in here trying to explain how right they are with what they do, whoever and whatever they are.



I've been playing this game off and on since 2003 and it has only grown due to this kind of behavior. Forcing people to think outside the realm of the normal video game idiom, "go here click this", is exactly why there are so many subscribers. I hate to say what you've probably already heard 1 million times or more but "This is Eve". Any change in this game that will be used to help the general carebear populous will, in the end, serve the ganker/pirate/pvper.
Caretaking Sunofabitcch Quigglywobbl
Fulmar's Anti-Caldari Club
#63 - 2011-11-07 00:27:35 UTC
I do incursion all the time. Never once has any of these things mentioned posed a problem to me. I don't worry.... don't worry about people with killrights on me, don't worry about tags and I don't worry about potential inc-awoxers.

I of course live the dream... like the other 99.9%of incursion runners.

So, I throw down the gantlet on your pathetic merry band of psy-war station huggers, and say... "Umadbro... Umadbro?"
Hayley Enaka
Bookmark Both Sides
#64 - 2011-11-07 01:22:44 UTC
I say gl hf to all involved, both gankers and incursion runners. I've known from the day I started playing Eve that nothing is safe / risk free, but once you understand these risks you can take action to avoid or reduce them. If I fly around in low or null sec I am well aware that someone out there wants to kill me so I keep dscan open, watch local and all sorts of other things to make myself less vulnerable. Same principle applies here, if you're running incursions be aware that there are people out there who will gank you, only fly in fleets with people/fc's/logi you trust, if something seems suspicious there's probably a good reason for that, and remember that just because you're in highsec doesn't mean you're safe to fly a ship that you can't afford to lose.
Moustached Slimy Worm
Go Petition Blizzard
Safety.
#65 - 2011-11-07 02:37:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Moustached Slimy Worm
Hayley Enaka wrote:
I say gl hf to all involved, both gankers and incursion runners. I've known from the day I started playing Eve that nothing is safe / risk free, but once you understand these risks you can take action to avoid or reduce them. If I fly around in low or null sec I am well aware that someone out there wants to kill me so I keep dscan open, watch local and all sorts of other things to make myself less vulnerable. Same principle applies here, if you're running incursions be aware that there are people out there who will gank you, only fly in fleets with people/fc's/logi you trust, if something seems suspicious there's probably a good reason for that, and remember that just because you're in highsec doesn't mean you're safe to fly a ship that you can't afford to lose.


That's why you're not a carebear. Eve game mechanics should reflect what will make Eve a good and profitable game, not what's logical or moral. For example, insurance pays out CONCORD-incurred losses because combat needs to be encouraged. Removing insurance (as CCP may do) would make Eve a less harsh and dark universe. Similarly, there should not be a pop-up warning if you're remote repair somebody who's canflipped. Even though it makes sense to be consistent because there's warnings for war targets, adding a pop-up for people who've pulled aggro would make less harsh and less of the cut-throat game that we all love.
Nimrod Nemesis
Doomheim
#66 - 2011-11-07 03:50:19 UTC
Moustached Slimy Worm wrote:
Removing insurance (as CCP may do) would make Eve a less hard and dark universe. Similarly, there should not be a pop-up warning if you're remote repair somebody who's canflipped. Even though it makes sense to be consistent because there's warnings for war targets, adding a pop for people who've pulled aggro would make less harsh and less of the cut-throat game that we all love.


That's a lot of entitlement from someone who thinks this game should be harsh.
Moustached Slimy Worm
Go Petition Blizzard
Safety.
#67 - 2011-11-07 07:35:02 UTC
Odemis wrote:
Lttle Femke wrote:
Seems a lot of weeping tears and boastful gankers in the thread as usual, but one thing that seems to be missing, is that the more this form of ganking grows the less people will go to incursions, and the higher chance that eventually it will need to be scrapped by CCP as no longer being supported by enough of the player base, in the same way a lot of mining and ancilliary ships take time out when Hulkageddon is run and that large blobs run nullsec.

If you want the game to grow and improve perhaps you should try to find ways that help CCP improve the game so that Carebears, pirates, PVPers etc can all enjoy the game more not just your selfish little side of things. If you generally **** people off enough they will leave the game and search for a game where they feel their money is better spent, then perhaps EVE won't keep losing subs week after week until it becomes time to close the doors on this great universe if people can work things out more.

Flame if you want, I get tired of people in here trying to explain how right they are with what they do, whoever and whatever they are.



I've been playing this game off and on since 2003 and it has only grown due to this kind of behavior. Forcing people to think outside the realm of the normal video game idiom, "go here click this", is exactly why there are so many subscribers. I hate to say what you've probably already heard 1 million times or more but "This is Eve". Any change in this game that will be used to help the general carebear populous will, in the end, serve the ganker/pirate/pvper.


Eve is a good game because it allows people like us to use our superior cleverness and lack of in-game morals to have a stimulating gaming experience and exploit other people's stupidity
Kara Books
Deal with IT.
#68 - 2011-11-07 11:41:33 UTC
Moustached Slimy Worm wrote:
Ammzi wrote:
Goose99 wrote:


It's a trap. The logi flipped a can. Subscribe to "Public Incursion Blacklist" mailing list, and send toon name to TDF, in case it's not in the list already. In general, armor is safer than shield, due to TDF being more organized.


*cough* bullshit.
Just admit it, armor is "safer" than shield only because armor is so paranoid that they'll ban you if you just sneeze the wrong way...

Just use your logic, just like griefers are.
It's the cat and mouse game here, only thing is. The mouse is earning sooo much more isk <3


The fact that you incursionbears view Eve as an ISK-grinding game (like how most people's real life jobs are), as opposed to a game (which means it's supposed to be fun) is what makes you a carebear who deserves to be griefed.

The war between BTL and Skunkworks is now mutual.

-Moustached Slimy Worm, Diplomat


From A merchants point of view.

The reason slimy worm does this, is because he is making allot of ISK, the reason others join him is because they want to make allot of ISK, the reason he is still the only one making allot of ISK is because every one some how loses ISK and he is still making ISK.
from the glances I had at their killboard, I saw something like 3.6 billion in dropped loot on one day and 1.7b on another, this is profitable, but who is keeping the highsec ISK?

The reason why slimy worm is pushing this so hard and so public is to keep the public from petitioning every single ship loss due to Faulty game mechanics.

If every one was A:
Educated with just a mere look at the slimy worms killboards

B:
petitioned every single ship loss using a mechanic exploit, as an exploit Mustache would disappear and his main character, as I understand from inside info would immediately be flamed as his main char and be barred from running any more fleets.
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#69 - 2011-11-07 15:17:22 UTC
Kara, you seem to be under the impression that what we are doing is an exploit. If that's what you think, you should know that you're incorrect.

Not only are we okay with people petitioning these losses, it brings us joy to think of the associated wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#70 - 2011-11-07 16:43:11 UTC
I'm sure the GMs love seeing our names over and over again.

Kara misunderstands how this started, why it escalated, and pretty much everything about this. The profit wasn't an original consideration, it's just a wonderful bonus.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Kara Books
Deal with IT.
#71 - 2011-11-07 17:31:19 UTC
4-5 people screaming at the top of their lungs now, "ITS NOT AN EXPLOIT ITS NOT AN EXPLOIT"

How many think its "An exploit of game mechanics" ?

Raises hand.

Engrish, learn to read it.
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#72 - 2011-11-07 18:00:50 UTC
The fact of the matter is that if it was an exploit we definatly would have been contacted about it. We get endless threats of petitions and have made a pretty big splash on the forums and have been covered by the ISD and even mentioned on the site that must not be named.

Like any good citizens, if told that it's an exploit by a senior GM we will stop doing it immediatly.

Although not before arguing that this issue is fundamentally tied to the issue of neutral logi.

I can only assume that CCP will make one of two decisions about this:

1) It's a mechanical problem that must be fixed, probably by altering the agression mechanics.

2) The reward for highsec incursions wasn't balanced properly in the first place and this is actually helping them keep that under control.

Either way, it's not up to you to decide if it's an exploit.

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
Kara Books
Deal with IT.
#73 - 2011-11-07 18:30:54 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:
The fact of the matter is that if it was an exploit we definatly would have been contacted about it. We get endless threats of petitions and have made a pretty big splash on the forums and have been covered by the ISD and even mentioned on the site that must not be named.

Like any good citizens, if told that it's an exploit by a senior GM we will stop doing it immediatly.

Although not before arguing that this issue is fundamentally tied to the issue of neutral logi.

I can only assume that CCP will make one of two decisions about this:

1) It's a mechanical problem that must be fixed, probably by altering the agression mechanics.

2) The reward for highsec incursions wasn't balanced properly in the first place and this is actually helping them keep that under control.

Either way, it's not up to you to decide if it's an exploit.


wait so your saying CCP has taken your side and openly admited that they will not fix their little HIGH-SEC delema?

Let me point out the most important factor of this particular PIAR that you you are using to draw support for my CCP needs to nerf your mustach and the VERY VERY questionable, exploit of game mechanics (I cant find to call it anything else),

just because you have failed to entertain me (just because), you will not get any support from any of my alts pretending to be unique players (since every one always posts from just 1 char all the time) for your trying to stop CCP from well, noticing enough to actually fix the broken that you helped us find, so thank you.. and at the same time, you suck at entertainment.

entertain me.
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#74 - 2011-11-07 18:36:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Psychotic Monk
Your pile of words only makes only the loosest form of sense.

And back off the mustache. It's for Movember.

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
Kara Books
Deal with IT.
#75 - 2011-11-07 18:44:43 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:
Your pile of words only makes only the loosest form of sense.

And back off the mustache. It's for Movember.


What is this movement you speak of, this escalation, who hurt you baby, tell me, tell me the whole story from the beginning, tell me now.
Gazmin VanBurin
Boma Bull Corp
#76 - 2011-11-07 20:30:48 UTC
Just to pipe in, there are plenty of in game mechanics that could be "labeled" exploits yet help people against griefers like us. Like making freighters disappear after jumping trough a gate, and dec shields. So this game is hardly one sided, just because we brought to light a particularly lulzy hole in the mechanics doesn’t mean its unbalanced.
Smiling Menace
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#77 - 2011-11-07 21:44:29 UTC
LOL! just LOL! at this thread.

Someone is using the aggro mechanics of the game to their advantage and this is an exploit? Since when?

Easy way to stop this dead, don't use neutral Logi and only fly with your Corp/Alliance. There, problem solved.
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions
#78 - 2011-11-07 22:01:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Mikron Alexarr
Smiling Menace wrote:
LOL! just LOL! at this thread.

Someone is using the aggro mechanics of the game to their advantage and this is an exploit? Since when?

Easy way to stop this dead, don't use neutral Logi and only fly with your Corp/Alliance. There, problem solved.



^

Honestly, you don't need to abuse any mechanics. The aggro model that should be in place (a fleet can defend fleet members regardless of affiliation) is already implemented in the form of corporations and alliances. Any one wanting to mess with skunk and friends can simply fly a full corp fleet, invite a baiter, kill his fleet, and report the toon to the larger intel channel.

Granted, the gankers would get wise really quick, it would make them take all the same precautions we do when running neutral fleets. Ultimately, that sort of thing is detrimental to game play IMO. It shouldn't have to be that complicated to kill someone :P.

All this being said, I think there is an inflation problem brewing, and this particular mechanic does help slow it down. There should ultimately be a balance to both sides of the problem. If only to make the pew pew more fun for both incursion runners and gankers.
Gazmin VanBurin
Boma Bull Corp
#79 - 2011-11-07 22:40:02 UTC
Mikron Alexarr wrote:


Honestly, you don't need to abuse any mechanics. The aggro model that should be in place (a fleet can defend fleet members regardless of affiliation) is already implemented in the form of corporations and alliances. Any one wanting to mess with skunk and friends can simply fly a full corp fleet, invite a baiter, kill his fleet, and report the toon to the larger intel channel.

Granted, the gankers would get wise really quick, it would make them take all the same precautions we do when running neutral fleets. Ultimately, that sort of thing is detrimental to game play IMO. It shouldn't have to be that complicated to kill someone :P.

All this being said, I think there is an inflation problem brewing, and this particular mechanic does help slow it down. There should ultimately be a balance to both sides of the problem. If only to make the pew pew more fun for both incursion runners and gankers.


lol you have no idea what percautions we take, and you also show you have no idea how we are actualy killing the incersioners.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#80 - 2011-11-07 23:29:25 UTC
Kara Books wrote:
4-5 people


Two whole replies, one not even mentioning exploits. I would expect a merchant to be better at counting.

Kara Books wrote:
"ITS NOT AN EXPLOIT ITS NOT AN EXPLOIT"

How many think its "An exploit of game mechanics" ?

Raises hand.


If the game rules were determined by popular vote, Eve would be WoW in space.

GMs haven't ruled it an exploit, therefore it isn't an exploit according to the rules laid down by CCP.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.