EVE General Discussion

Pods can't be empty. And no-one said anything about shooting pods to begin with.

No. CrimeWatch does not work that way.

the problem is that it's not deterring them from blowing up empty freighters.

Why should they be deterred? Plus that wasn't the statement made, you asked for a way to figure out how to punish -10 sec status.

If they are willing to take the cost of their gank ship losses, why should anything deter them from doing it?

Veers is like Gorilla and many before him a type of player we call New Order fanboys. They follow us around wherever we go and try to interrupt our operation. Some of them used to sympathize with the Code or parts of it, but do to some lack of social competence or good humor they never actually realized what it is all about and collided with the actual reality.

Since they are usually not really good at EVE, they don't come up with tactics that would actually stop us. I am absolutely convinced that everyone on the other side of this discussion would come up with a more effective counter in a few minutes than what they have tried so far.

Because they are so unsuccessful ingame they get frustrated and start to blame the game mechanics and CCP for not balancing the game. In their mind it should be possible to disrupt an operation of 20 people with a single player who does not even care about game mechanics. Also CCP should support them, because the fanboys protect the "new players" and the "innocent" and because of that they deserve special support from above.

So instead of actually playing the game they now use the forums and the petition system to fight us. Because they are just bad at the game.

But I guess this people are in every game, I remember back from the FPS games, when we used to play CS at LAN parties and suddenly some guy accused me of "being able to fly" or plain cheating. In reality they where just really really bad at the game and looking for an excuse to hide their own deficiencies. In their mind it was impossible that they where so bad at the game, there had to be another explanation. In my opinion we have a similar case here with Veers and friends.

Oh, no Omar, that can't be the case.

You see, Veers sat in Uedama for two whole hours, so he totally like, knows the score and junk.

While I disagree with your conclusion (bumping freighters is an emergent use of existing mechanics, not broken) I am glad you have come to a resolution in your mind. And as to your suggestions, I believe the game already punishes those at -10 with significant, non-trivial penalties and that the actual loot drops from a target incentivizes gankers to go after non-empty ships.

Your suggestion to make those agressed immune from bumping would be an extension of CONCORD's role and original purpose and thus should be raised properly in Features & Ideas where it can be discussed as a change in game mechanics (and where the unforeseen complications of it in other aspects of the game can be hashed out). However, I would point out that freighter ganks are incredibly rare as a fraction of total ship losses in New Eden, and ones that involve multiple attempts using bumping to keep the target from escaping are only a minority (tiny minority?) of these losses. Do you really think that adding this new ability to CONCORD is a useful use of game developer resources? This new "feature" you propose would only serve to help a handful of AFK haulers escape a gank at the expense of introducing a new mechanic that can possibly be exploited elsewhere in the game, and one that discourages player-to-player conflict through a new mechanism to avoid a fight.

This seems like something CCP isn't likely to make a high priority. Perhaps you should find a new cause to direct your forum warrior energies, one more likely to be embraced by the game developers.

They removed the ROF nerf at about the same time they removed insurance payouts*.

They have also since dramatically increased the potential EHP of the destroyer's gank targets.

In other words, it's more expensive to gank than ever before. Which suggests that the people saying "it should be more expensive to gank" will never be satisfied.

EDIT: I was just reminded of a video that I think sums up the situation pretty well.


*To illustrate just how big a change the removal of insurance was, before Incursion, it was cheaper to lose a Battleship in a gank than it is to lose a T2 destroyer now.

Come on, don't bring facts into this.

lol this "discussion" is still going on ?