These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

High Sec Hauling/Mining Kills - TY CCP for No Protection

First post First post
Author
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#441 - 2014-08-29 18:43:19 UTC
WTB block posts from entire corp function for the forums.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#442 - 2014-08-29 18:46:09 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
So you're allowed to claim whatever but when I point out reality you want citations going back to the creation of the game.
When you invent some nonsense that goes directly against every known and recorded fact going back to the creation of the game, then yes, I want you to actually support that.

You can't, so now you will refuse to and try to shift the burden onto me.

Quote:
You first.
Nope. You made the claim first, you prove it first, or you are simply wrong by default.

Quote:
Just look at the KBs for those systems and you will see what you ask for.
Ok. So they are laughably rare, laughably easy to avoid, and pathetically ineffective. Yes, that is indeed what I asked for. It didn't support your point though.

Quote:
There's more ganking corps now then ever before.
Prove it.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
Transgress
#443 - 2014-08-29 18:51:18 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
WTB block posts from entire corp function for the forums.

Wts npc ballgags-bear sized (tear resistant).
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#444 - 2014-08-29 18:54:45 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Prove it.


What do you mean by saying that his entire argument is grounded on something he can't possibly know let alone prove? Cool


Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#445 - 2014-08-29 18:58:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
ashley Eoner wrote:
Price increases are deceptive as inflation is not being taken into account.
It's far cheaper to use a couple catalysts then to use the BS of old.
No, it really isn't. You see, you are forgetting the simple fact that battleships were effectively free. Inflation is not even a factor at that point. You are also forgetting the simple fact that a couple of catalysts can't kill what the BS of old could kill.

So you're paying more in order to not be able to kill something any more. Yes, that definitely shows that things have become cheaper.

Quote:
What vastly improved defense?
Ok. If you are this unfamiliar with the changes done to almost all ships over the last two years, you have no argument any more. Surviving something as low-damaging as a rack of 1400s is silly easy these days compared to before the ship buffs. Jeez. Shocked
And that's before we even consider the new and improved methods of taking your defence on the offence…

Quote:
With the addition of freighters I can just contract a gank fleet to any system I plan to hit. I just have to log in fly to the spot and start ganking. No real effort required.
So in other words, nothing has changed in that regard — it certainly hasn't become easier.
Xuixien
Solar Winds Trade Conglomerate
#446 - 2014-08-29 18:59:56 UTC
Since Jan 17, 2007, ZKILL only records 700 or so Freighter losses in Uedama. That's only 100 or so per year. No way to tell how many of those are suicide ganks vs kill rights, war decs, etcetc.

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#447 - 2014-08-29 19:08:46 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
Since Jan 17, 2007, ZKILL only records 700 or so Freighter losses in Uedama. That's only 100 or so per year. No way to tell how many of those are suicide ganks vs kill rights, war decs, etcetc.



That's like 1 Freighter ever 3-4 days? Tha'ts an outrage, CCP must buff freights/nerf gankers to put an end to this travesty of 1/4th a freigher death per day in Uedama!

Either that or 1/4th of an account will be unsubscribed every day in retaliation!

That's right CCP if you don't do something now, the last account with unsub from EVE 43,800 years from now!
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#448 - 2014-08-29 19:20:34 UTC
Tippia wrote:
No. Just no. They work just as well there as they do everywhere else. Gankers, as a rule, can be shot without being concorded as it is, and they have to resort to such fragile ships to get any kind of damage output that, unlike the haulers, they are very easy to volley off the field. There's a reason why high-DPS destroyers are the ganker tool of the trade rather than any kind of volley monster.
Gank destroyers have like 3900 EHP. Combined with their small size, by the time you've locked them up and destroyed them, they've already chucked out a lot of their damage. And no, they can't be shot without concord until they've started firing.

And there's a reason gankers laugh at white knights using guns, it's because they are useless. During Burn Jita, we had war targets on grid for many of our ganks and still didn't get shut down before we'd delivered most of our damage.

Tippia wrote:
That's not what kill rights are for. You are confusing two completely unconnected mechanics: one is the right to not have CONCORD mess with you and another is the ability to enforce a cost on other players.
Kill right right now are completely uselss. Set them too high and there's no point using them (paying 5m to shoot a 2m destroyer just makes gankers laugh a lot), set them too low, and the ganker pays it off to gank a noob ship. If a killright had to achieve the same amount of damage it caused to disappear (or the usual thirty days), they'd not be able to be removed by an alt.

Tippia wrote:
No, it really isn't. Between kill rights, new crimewatch, harsher sec penalties, massively increased costs, and more mechanics to bring the fight to the gankers if they bother you, the consequences have never been higher. Sec tags makes a very minute difference to one of those things and were frankly needed to balance out the massive increases in penalties introduced over the years.
None of those are even remotely consequences. Crimewatch is about the only one that's made a remote difference, but even then, it's more used to bait noobs into opening up a limited engagement. Sec penalties are cleared instantly by tags now and if controlled can be kept at a reasonable level pretty cheaply.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#449 - 2014-08-29 19:25:43 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
So the only people who shouldn't have consequences for their choices are HiSec bears? Got it.
Nowhere did I say they shouldn't have consequences. Gankers do like to whine though about how they don't want any more consequences, when they have next to none, while a bear cant transport 30m in a hauler without running the risk of being ganked.

Xuixien wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
I would love EVE to be a dark and gritty hardcore game, but that's really not what it is.
It is. Maybe you've just gotten used to it.
No, it's really not. You're delusional if you think it is.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#450 - 2014-08-29 19:27:33 UTC
Crimewatch has made it more difficult to loot the wrecks of suicide ganked ships. You also get the same sec hit whether you fail or succeed at a gank, unlike before where your sec hit was less severe if you failed to kill the ship. Also, tags for controlling the -5><0 sec status range are expensive.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#451 - 2014-08-29 19:29:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nowhere did I say they shouldn't have consequences. Gankers do like to whine though about how they don't want any more consequences, when they have next to none, while a bear cant transport 30m in a hauler without running the risk of being ganked.


So how much should CCP ratchet things up (for the umpteenth time) to make things harder for gankers? Suicide ganks are rare now. They've never made things more challenging for the bears, ever.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Xuixien
Solar Winds Trade Conglomerate
#452 - 2014-08-29 19:31:23 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nowhere did I say they shouldn't have consequences.


Your position on the matter is logically inducted via your posts and what you've said. See:

a bear cant transport 30m in a hauler without running the risk of being ganked.

Which they can, BTW, they just have to fit tank. :)

Lucas Kell wrote:
No, it's really not. You're delusional if you think it is.


Present your argument then, or accept being incorrect.

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#453 - 2014-08-29 19:39:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Lucas Kell wrote:
Gank destroyers have like 3900 EHP.
In other words, they can be destroyed pretty much instantly by any kind of aggressive ship. Hell, even many DPS-based ships will simply volley them out of the sky (and yes, with them being gankers and all, odds are very much in favour of them being legal targets). A single Talos will be able to kill off 6–7 of them before CONCORD even shows up — unless that has been compensated for by the gankers (it hasn't, because it costs to much), that gank has now insta-failed.

Quote:
Kill right right now are completely uselss.
…aside from letting you ruin a ganker's day by offering free intel and making it a meaningless waste of money to buy back your sec status. As a result, they can choose between being free targets or being obivous targets.

Quote:
None of those are even remotely consequences.
They are all consequences. Not only that, but they are also all much harsher now than ever before. Just because you are incapable of capitalising on them does not mean they don't exist and don't work. Your incompetence is not a failure of game design or lack of game mechanics.

Quote:
a bear cant transport 30m in a hauler without running the risk of being ganked.
Good. That means there are actual consequences, then. Although, admittedly, the risks of being ganked if he transports that little are so vanishingly small that you might as well consider that consequence as purely theoretical.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#454 - 2014-08-29 19:47:46 UTC
Andski wrote:
So how much should CCP ratchet things up (for the umpteenth time) to make things harder for gankers? Suicide ganks are rare now. They've never made things more challenging for the bears, ever.
For starters I'd make killrights relevant. And to be honest, that might even be enough. Make them stay for either the 30 days or until the a proportion of the amount has been lost to them as what they caused, and they would no longer be able to be removed by alts in rookie ships.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

CCP Falcon
#455 - 2014-08-29 19:50:02 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Straight

Well, that wasn't surprising.

Thanks for confirming Eve Online has turned into Grief Online.


Suicide ganking has always been possible. Nothing's changed for 11 years.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but EVE hasn't changed in this respect.

CCP Falcon || EVE Universe Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon

Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#456 - 2014-08-29 19:56:38 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
Your position on the matter is logically inducted via your posts and what you've said. See:

a bear cant transport 30m in a hauler without running the risk of being ganked.

Which they can, BTW, they just have to fit tank. :)
Erm no, your logic is incorrect. That was merely an example of how low the bar is on bear consequences. And standard haulers generally can't survived 10-15 T1 catalysts, no matter how much you tank them.

Xuixien wrote:
Present your argument then, or accept being incorrect.
L O L. You mean like the argument I presented when I originally said it? Vs what? You saying "Yes it is". 0/10, try harder.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Indahmawar Fazmarai
#457 - 2014-08-29 19:57:25 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
Tam Althor wrote:
Remember CCP Falcon, the level of protection that concord provides players is the same level of job protection you have when the high sec players decide to quit. Will you survive the next 20% layoff when it happens?


I love EVE and the core of what the game stands for. That's why I've been dedicated to it and its community for over 11 years now.

Risk vs Reward is a huge part of that.

Honestly, if that changed, and the game started to soften out and cater to those who want to have their hand held all the way through their gameplay experience, I'd rather not be working on the project regardless of how many subscribers we had, than sell out the core principles that New Eden was built on.


Risk versus reward would mean a lot more if PvPrs risked their non-PvP mains each now and then. Roll

But then, as an EVE player it is your sole fault if you don't play their way and won't go away.
Dave Stark
#458 - 2014-08-29 20:00:12 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
Tam Althor wrote:
Remember CCP Falcon, the level of protection that concord provides players is the same level of job protection you have when the high sec players decide to quit. Will you survive the next 20% layoff when it happens?


I love EVE and the core of what the game stands for. That's why I've been dedicated to it and its community for over 11 years now.

Risk vs Reward is a huge part of that.

Honestly, if that changed, and the game started to soften out and cater to those who want to have their hand held all the way through their gameplay experience, I'd rather not be working on the project regardless of how many subscribers we had, than sell out the core principles that New Eden was built on.


Risk versus reward would mean a lot more if PvPrs risked their non-PvP mains each now and then. Roll

But then, as an EVE player it is your sole fault if you don't play their way and won't go away.


people who whine about people having multiple accounts are priceless.

you essentially want a random person to get punished for the actions of some one who has nothing to do with the entire situation, just because they have more than one account. it's nonsensical.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#459 - 2014-08-29 20:08:35 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
And standard haulers generally can't survived 10-15 T1 catalysts, no matter how much you tank them.
Surviving 10–15 catalysts in a hauler isn't particularly hard, and using 10–15 catalysts means you operate at a loss if the target is carrying 30M worth of goods.
Xuixien
Solar Winds Trade Conglomerate
#460 - 2014-08-29 20:13:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Xuixien
Lucas Kell wrote:
Erm no, your logic is incorrect.


Nope my logic is perfectly fine. You are obviously an anti-greifer, carebear advocate. You whine about how carebears have it soooo hard, and call for more strict consequences to gankers. You never once, as far as I've read, called for harsher consequences for carebears or even advocated that carebears should take even the most rudimentary of steps to protect themselves.

Ergo, your position is fairly obvious to everyone reading.

Lucas Kell wrote:
And standard haulers generally can't survived 10-15 T1 catalysts, no matter how much you tank them.


Even the most obtuse gankers aren't going to spend 100-150 million ISK worth of Catalysts to kill an IttyV carrying 30 mil of Omber.

Lucas Kell wrote:
L O L. You mean like the argument I presented when I originally said it? Vs what? You saying "Yes it is". 0/10, try harder.


So you're not going to present your argument? Mmkay then. Cool

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist