These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Holy hell, the Tornado is a gankers dream.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#81 - 2011-11-21 22:12:33 UTC
Guttripper wrote:
I've always been curious about something - has anyone ever been known to go to the Fanfest, found a particular person that ganked or scammed that person, and then broke that person's nose right there and then in real life revenge?

So you're saying that someone who is deathly terrified of losing some imaginary spacepixel items in a videogame, would have the fortitude to put his real life well-being at risk in a violent act against the person who caused him the loss of said imaginary spacepixels? Does that not in the least bit seem absurd to you?

Anyway, these new battlecruisers are going to be great; exactly what this game needs. I hope that the useless whinebears get nuked completely out of existence. Then my friends and I will have a reason to re-sub dormant industrial alt accounts so that we'd have something to do when we're not pvping. That, and maybe I could actually convince some friends to give EVE a shot, who haven't done so already because they're hesitant to run mandatory mining bots on top of their TF2 hat idlers.

PS: Even if the Tornado is nerfed, suicide-ganking will continue as usual. Suicide-gankers will just resort to using more smaller, cheaper ships. Face it, you bears have no way out. We will adapt while you continue your whining.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#82 - 2011-11-21 22:15:11 UTC
Obsidian Hawk wrote:
dust put a damage control 2 and some tank mods on your hulks. more than likely you will survive.

Though this definitely works, they will never do so; tanking barges means they will make less ISK/hour.

Carebear greed is the one constant that can always be counted on.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#83 - 2011-11-21 22:22:53 UTC
Metal Icarus wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Metal Icarus wrote:
Renan Ruivo wrote:
Metal Icarus wrote:
Make the tier 3 bc's only flyable in low and nullsec. No reason for them to be in highsec anyways. Look at stealth bombers, they have bombs illegal in highsec for a reason. If one tornado can destroy 2 hulks before concords shows up, it is too powerfull to be in griefers hands. (Like a .22 cal mini pistol in a 5 year olds hands)

Its a purpose built ship that should only be used by responsible adults in null/low who will actually use it for its intended purpose.

Just like bombs.

That will make everybody happy... well everyone that matters...


You're new to these parts, aren't you?! P



Yeah, when it comes to highsec i think I have spent a grand total of a about a month of my eve career in highsec. So when it comes to carebears getting ganked I know nothing about it. I am used to people actually having scouts and people having backup in the next system waiting for you to agress.

So yeah, I'm new to highsec, what of it? The precedent has been set with bombs, why not illegalize T3 BC's in highsec?

or could it be... if this would happen.... you would be.....

MAD?


Bombs are area of effect weapons capable of harming far more than a single ship or two per attack, this would be the difference.


That is true, but still. When I first learned about these tier 3 bc's i first thought of how null sov combat will change. With the super cap. nerf coming up along with these ships, it will even the game up a lot in regards to supercaps against sub caps. I guess to me, these ships do not mean so much of ganking, rather the liberation of null from the Red's.

So, pardon me for being willingly ignorant but these tools of destruction exist for a reason and when people use them to create pain for people who cannot fight back, I get a bad taste in my mouth. I have no sympathy for the victim, but I do have malcontent for those who grief.



Let's not lose focus.

While these ships are a very nice tool for the suicide squads, that won't be their primary use... despite what this thread would seem to indicate.

Primary Use: Roaming gangs. These ships are ideal for that purpose, and will be heavily used in that capacity... with a side order of fast locking gate camp firepower.

Secondary Use: Cap ship assault. These ships will be difficult for fighters to hit squarely, and punch well above their weight, while being fairly vulnerable if the Cap ships have a support fleet to defend them.

Use as a gank boat is third on the list. I'm not saying it won't be the tool of choice for suicide ganking, but compared with the numbers that will be used for the other two purposes this use will be minor in comparison.

I do have to point out one thing though, and I know you meant it with sincere intent, but if losing ANY ship in EVE (be it a hulk or a titan) causes someone pain that is a strong indicator that the victim is a little too emotionally invested in their hobby.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Causalitii Eullon
Catalyst Consortium
#84 - 2011-11-21 22:29:09 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Though, this makes me a bit sad for the Tempest.
After years of neglect and suckage, it finally found a role as a prime suicide ganking boat.
Made me so happy to see them suddenly lurking around every high-sec gate, SEBOs pulsing. The highwaymen of old, delivering pain and crushing dreams in an instant.

Who told you tempests suck?? You can make those things fun as hell with a nano fit and ninja boosts.
Brusanan
Sons of Seyllin
Pirate Lords of War
#85 - 2011-11-21 22:33:54 UTC
Forget the Tornado. You are all overlooking the fact that a T2 fit Catalyst will now put out enough damage to solo gank a Hulk.
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#86 - 2011-11-21 22:34:41 UTC
Brusanan wrote:
Forget the Tornado. You are all overlooking the fact that a T2 fit Catalyst will now put out enough damage to solo gank a Hulk.


yep. viz post no. 2
Cynter DeVries
Spheroidal Projections
#87 - 2011-11-21 22:40:37 UTC
Jowen Datloran wrote:
Now, after having laid off 20% of its workforce, CCP plans to lay off 20% of the player base too. True story.




Nah, seriously, maybe it is about time for a revision of the criminal flagging system, from an age long gone, to the benefit of all parties involved.

Aye, the real trouble with Concord is that they're absolute. The only way to defend yourself from a gank is to shoot first, and if you do that, well shame on you, goodbye ship. Hi sec and Concord enforce helplessness more than anything else. You might as well mine in low, null, or WH space where your corpmates are allowed to shoot first.

Cynter's Law of feature suggestion: Thou shalt not suggest NPCs do something players could do instead.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#88 - 2011-11-21 22:43:18 UTC
Cynter DeVries wrote:
Jowen Datloran wrote:
Now, after having laid off 20% of its workforce, CCP plans to lay off 20% of the player base too. True story.




Nah, seriously, maybe it is about time for a revision of the criminal flagging system, from an age long gone, to the benefit of all parties involved.

Aye, the real trouble with Concord is that they're absolute. The only way to defend yourself from a gank is to shoot first, and if you do that, well shame on you, goodbye ship. Hi sec and Concord enforce helplessness more than anything else. You might as well mine in low, null, or WH space where your corpmates are allowed to shoot first.


Then the obvious solution is to remove ConcordQuestionBig smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Brusanan
Sons of Seyllin
Pirate Lords of War
#89 - 2011-11-21 22:44:08 UTC
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
Brusanan wrote:
Forget the Tornado. You are all overlooking the fact that a T2 fit Catalyst will now put out enough damage to solo gank a Hulk.


yep. viz post no. 2

I am not complaining.

Miners are going to hate life when this expansion comes. I can't wait.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#90 - 2011-11-21 22:58:26 UTC
Cynter DeVries wrote:
Aye, the real trouble with Concord is that they're absolute. The only way to defend yourself from a gank is to shoot first, and if you do that, well shame on you, goodbye ship. Hi sec and Concord enforce helplessness more than anything else. You might as well mine in low, null, or WH space where your corpmates are allowed to shoot first.

The majority of barge ganking is done by characters who are already -10.0. This means that they can indeed be shot first. However, because this would require some effort and expenditure on the part of the carebears, you will rarely see this happen. Carebears exist for the sole purpose of maximizing immediate ISK/hour ratios. Hiring a few pvpers to stand guard with insta-lock setups to remote-repair their barges and pop gank Thrashers is a big no-no for them, because it would mean their wallet count would go up slower.

When they get ganked, their wallets will go down anyway, but...Surely that's just a fluke, right? All they have to do to get that problem sorted is file a reimbursement petition and make a tearful post on the forums, right?

...Right?

Twisted

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Cynter DeVries
Spheroidal Projections
#91 - 2011-11-21 23:02:24 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Cynter DeVries wrote:
Jowen Datloran wrote:
Now, after having laid off 20% of its workforce, CCP plans to lay off 20% of the player base too. True story.




Nah, seriously, maybe it is about time for a revision of the criminal flagging system, from an age long gone, to the benefit of all parties involved.

Aye, the real trouble with Concord is that they're absolute. The only way to defend yourself from a gank is to shoot first, and if you do that, well shame on you, goodbye ship. Hi sec and Concord enforce helplessness more than anything else. You might as well mine in low, null, or WH space where your corpmates are allowed to shoot first.


Then the obvious solution is to remove ConcordQuestionBig smile

Smile
Given the current mechanics of the game, yes. Granted for new players you'd have to make it so that they can play in systems where Concord actually has a lock-out mechanism on your guns.

I'd prefer, however, to have some means of throwing a body in the way of an incoming shot, so to speak. Give us some mechanic to interpose my ship between the ganker and my friend in the Hulk. My presence on the field means you have to go through me to get him. There needs to be a way for this to occur without triggering aggression.

The easiest way to do this with existing vectors in the game might be to make e-war not trigger a Concord response. There are all manner of consequences to that where you have jamming stand-offs, and neutral party games (the further fix to that is to consider continued jamming an act of aggression the moment shots are fired, but this quickly gets too complicated). It seems to me that there should be some way of offering passive protection, like projected shields as was suggested in another thread.

Cynter's Law of feature suggestion: Thou shalt not suggest NPCs do something players could do instead.
Cynter DeVries
Spheroidal Projections
#92 - 2011-11-21 23:07:27 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Cynter DeVries wrote:
Aye, the real trouble with Concord is that they're absolute. The only way to defend yourself from a gank is to shoot first, and if you do that, well shame on you, goodbye ship. Hi sec and Concord enforce helplessness more than anything else. You might as well mine in low, null, or WH space where your corpmates are allowed to shoot first.

The majority of barge ganking is done by characters who are already -10.0. This means that they can indeed be shot first. However, because this would require some effort and expenditure on the part of the carebears, you will rarely see this happen. Carebears exist for the sole purpose of maximizing immediate ISK/hour ratios. Hiring a few pvpers to stand guard with insta-lock setups to remote-repair their barges and pop gank Thrashers is a big no-no for them, because it would mean their wallet count would go up slower.

When they get ganked, their wallets will go down anyway, but...Surely that's just a fluke, right? All they have to do to get that problem sorted is file a reimbursement petition and make a tearful post on the forums, right?

...Right?

Twisted

Had forgotten that, thanks for pointing it out. Looking forward to Tornado chasing.

Cynter's Law of feature suggestion: Thou shalt not suggest NPCs do something players could do instead.
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#93 - 2011-11-21 23:52:23 UTC  |  Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Guttripper wrote:
I've always been curious about something - has anyone ever been known to go to the Fanfest, found a particular person that ganked or scammed that person, and then broke that person's nose right there and then in real life revenge?

So you're saying that someone who is deathly terrified of losing some imaginary spacepixel items in a videogame, would have the fortitude to put his real life well-being at risk in a violent act against the person who caused him the loss of said imaginary spacepixels? Does that not in the least bit seem absurd to you?

Careful. That sword of yours can cut both ways. Can I also claim that someone willing to suicide his ship in game has a death wish in real life? Or does this theory of yours only apply to carebears?

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#94 - 2011-11-22 00:03:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Careful. That sword of yours can cut both ways. Can I claim that someone willing to suicide his ship in game has a death wish in real life? Or does your theory only apply to carebears?

To be fair, it's those carebears who insist on in-game behaviour reflecting real-life intentions and motivations, and who keep accusing gankers of being sociopaths. So it wouldn't be much of a stretch to believe that those carebears would indeed do something as stupid (and, contradictory enough, sociopathic) as to let out-of-game behaviour absolutely mirror in-game behaviour, whereas those who insist that it's just a game and that the carebears shouldn't get their panties in a wad, and who can separate that game from reality, are less likely to make such trivial in-game matter spill over into real life…

So yes, it wouldn't be particularly strange if the theory only applied to the carebears in question… Blink
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#95 - 2011-11-22 00:08:37 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Guttripper wrote:
I've always been curious about something - has anyone ever been known to go to the Fanfest, found a particular person that ganked or scammed that person, and then broke that person's nose right there and then in real life revenge?

So you're saying that someone who is deathly terrified of losing some imaginary spacepixel items in a videogame, would have the fortitude to put his real life well-being at risk in a violent act against the person who caused him the loss of said imaginary spacepixels? Does that not in the least bit seem absurd to you?

Careful. That sword of yours can cut both ways. Can I also claim that someone willing to suicide his ship in game has a death wish in real life? Or does this theory of yours only apply to carebears?

My theory is that someone cowardly enough to decry pvp combat in a pvp-combat-oriented game is less likely, not more likely, to risk harm to his own person in real life. Assuming this individual is of sound mind, of course. Granted, my theory is highly flawed, and doesn't take into account the myriad details and quirks that make up a person's psyche.

What's truly troubling, however, is that someone would bring real violence upon another over intangible videogame possessions (once again, assuming they were destroyed via legitimate gameplay mechanics and not, say, password theft).

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#96 - 2011-11-22 00:11:54 UTC  |  Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Tippia wrote:
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Careful. That sword of yours can cut both ways. Can I claim that someone willing to suicide his ship in game has a death wish in real life? Or does your theory only apply to carebears?

To be fair, it's those carebears who insist on in-game behaviour reflecting real-life intentions and motivations, and who keep accusing gankers of being sociopaths. So it wouldn't be much of a stretch to believe that those carebears would indeed do something as stupid (and, contradictory enough, sociopathic), whereas those who insist that it's just a game and that the carebears shouldn't get their panties in a wad, and who can separate that game from reality, are less likely to make such trivial in-game matter spill over into real life…

So yes, it wouldn't be particularly strange if the theory only applied to the carebears in question… Blink

Except that plenty of gankers have orgasms and get frothy at the mouth over "tears". Do these idiots seem well-adjusted to you? If they're just playing a "game" why get so excited over making people mad and quit? Do you find that enjoying making people miserable even if it's by using a game as the tool is considered to be well-adjusted?

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#97 - 2011-11-22 00:14:05 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Guttripper wrote:
I've always been curious about something - has anyone ever been known to go to the Fanfest, found a particular person that ganked or scammed that person, and then broke that person's nose right there and then in real life revenge?

So you're saying that someone who is deathly terrified of losing some imaginary spacepixel items in a videogame, would have the fortitude to put his real life well-being at risk in a violent act against the person who caused him the loss of said imaginary spacepixels? Does that not in the least bit seem absurd to you?

Careful. That sword of yours can cut both ways. Can I also claim that someone willing to suicide his ship in game has a death wish in real life? Or does this theory of yours only apply to carebears?

My theory is that someone cowardly enough to decry pvp combat in a pvp-combat-oriented game is less likely, not more likely, to risk harm to his own person in real life. Assuming this individual is of sound mind, of course. Granted, my theory is highly flawed, and doesn't take into account the myriad details and quirks that make up a person's psyche.

What's truly troubling, however, is that someone would bring real violence upon another over intangible videogame possessions (once again, assuming they were destroyed via legitimate gameplay mechanics and not, say, password theft).

So then we agree that someone that "plays" with the intention of getting people upset likely a sadist in real life. As I said, that sword of yours cuts both ways.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#98 - 2011-11-22 00:16:56 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:

Except that plenty of gankers have orgasms and get frothy at the mouth over "tears". Do they seem well-adjusted to you?
As well adjusted as any monopoly player who fans himself with his wad of cash with a broad smirk on his face.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#99 - 2011-11-22 00:18:05 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Except that plenty of gankers have orgasms and get frothy at the mouth over "tears". Do they seem well-adjusted to you? If these idiots are just playing a "game" why get so excited over making people mad and quit? Using a game as a tool to ruin people's fun is well-adjusted to you?

They quit by their own volition. It is not our intent to make them quit. However, if they do, we will laugh and ridicule them.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#100 - 2011-11-22 00:21:35 UTC  |  Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Tippia wrote:
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:

Except that plenty of gankers have orgasms and get frothy at the mouth over "tears". Do they seem well-adjusted to you?
As well adjusted as any monopoly player who fans himself with his wad of cash with a broad smirk on his face.

Do you know what ill intentions are? Can you figure out how ill intentions make your example irrelevant to mine?

You were so quick to claim carebears likely carry their behavior into real life but so reserved in making the same claim about players that intentionally seek to upset people (ie collect "tears") in a game. Why? :).

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.