These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Balancing ships and ammo !

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#161 - 2014-09-14 15:22:46 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
i read that article this morning and thought to myself " i know im going to have to kill someone over this".

i get here and yup, heresy all over my morning read....

that aside
Veers Belvar wrote:

B. Battleships are the ugly duckling of Eve. They are used by mission runners who generally are not worried about getting ganked since it is a pain to scan them down and gank them. They are not seen as much in low/null because of their relatively high cost, and the easy of ganking them with frigs, cruisers, bombers, etc.. etc...

wrong, they are the easiest things in highsec to find with probes, and always worth scanning down, frequently no ganking required.

if thers more than one of us in system we have to call out the sig so we dont all land on grid at the same instant

im not adressing the rest of the thread as its just veers continuing to be wrong for 8 pages.


And yet barely anyone seems to go gank them. In running thousands of missions I've had 3 people show up - all of them the flashy yellow "space trash collectors" who I troll by threatening to shoot, getting them all excited, and then never actually shoot, making them sad. I've never had any real suicide gankers show up, and I think the incidence of such is extremely low.

Well look at you giving the Carebear Stare.


Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#162 - 2014-09-14 15:26:11 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
i read that article this morning and thought to myself " i know im going to have to kill someone over this".

i get here and yup, heresy all over my morning read....

that aside
Veers Belvar wrote:

B. Battleships are the ugly duckling of Eve. They are used by mission runners who generally are not worried about getting ganked since it is a pain to scan them down and gank them. They are not seen as much in low/null because of their relatively high cost, and the easy of ganking them with frigs, cruisers, bombers, etc.. etc...

wrong, they are the easiest things in highsec to find with probes, and always worth scanning down, frequently no ganking required.

if thers more than one of us in system we have to call out the sig so we dont all land on grid at the same instant

im not adressing the rest of the thread as its just veers continuing to be wrong for 8 pages.


And yet barely anyone seems to go gank them. In running thousands of missions I've had 3 people show up - all of them the flashy yellow "space trash collectors" who I troll by threatening to shoot, getting them all excited, and then never actually shoot, making them sad. I've never had any real suicide gankers show up, and I think the incidence of such is extremely low.


Translation: it never happens to me so it must never happen.

A population sample of one in a game of thousands does not a good conclusion make, Beers.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#163 - 2014-09-14 15:33:27 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
i read that article this morning and thought to myself " i know im going to have to kill someone over this".

i get here and yup, heresy all over my morning read....

that aside
Veers Belvar wrote:

B. Battleships are the ugly duckling of Eve. They are used by mission runners who generally are not worried about getting ganked since it is a pain to scan them down and gank them. They are not seen as much in low/null because of their relatively high cost, and the easy of ganking them with frigs, cruisers, bombers, etc.. etc...

wrong, they are the easiest things in highsec to find with probes, and always worth scanning down, frequently no ganking required.

if thers more than one of us in system we have to call out the sig so we dont all land on grid at the same instant

im not adressing the rest of the thread as its just veers continuing to be wrong for 8 pages.


And yet barely anyone seems to go gank them. In running thousands of missions I've had 3 people show up - all of them the flashy yellow "space trash collectors" who I troll by threatening to shoot, getting them all excited, and then never actually shoot, making them sad. I've never had any real suicide gankers show up, and I think the incidence of such is extremely low.


Translation: it never happens to me so it must never happen.

A population sample of one in a game of thousands does not a good conclusion make, Beers.


Random sampling is useful, plus I talk to people and monitor killboards. Mission running is nowhere near as dangerous as it should be - not even close, especially considering how failfit many of the ships are.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#164 - 2014-09-14 15:35:54 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:


Mission running is nowhere near as dangerous as it should be...


And here I was thinking you wanted a nerf to ganking Roll

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#165 - 2014-09-14 15:41:07 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:


Mission running is nowhere near as dangerous as it should be...


And here I was thinking you wanted a nerf to ganking Roll


As should already be clear - I'm not able to be boxed in as pro or anti ganking. What I do want are changes to make it so the gankers are more active where there is profit to be made, and less active when the ganking is at a loss. I think I've already made that pretty clear, and have consistently maintained that position.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#166 - 2014-09-14 15:43:22 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:


Mission running is nowhere near as dangerous as it should be...


And here I was thinking you wanted a nerf to ganking Roll


As should already be clear - I'm not able to be boxed in as pro or anti ganking. What I do want are changes to make it so the gankers are more active where there is profit to be made, and less active when the ganking is at a loss. I think I've already made that pretty clear, and have consistently maintained that position.


You haven't been consistent at all, and aside from that, you've ignored all the incentives for ganking at a 'loss' that we've explained to you numerous times.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#167 - 2014-09-14 16:53:46 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:
Gaming God wrote:

Why not balance the ganking system that is accepted greatly in this game ?

Shooting down a 22 bil marouder ship (That is not alloaght to fight back until it is attakt ) With 5 dystroyers ships that cost 1 mil a peace within in 5 secconds needs to be nerft .

You have to admit there is an balancing problem here or not ?



Was there a reason you weren't dscanning or paying attention to Local?


Do you think more mitigation mechanics should be introduced if you don't bother using existing ones?



Local should D-scan itself. And D-scan should give you warnings when bad people are close to you. There should be a setting that automatically warps you to safe spot when anything bad might happen to you.


And actually, I think my idea of having fun is to just watch bots mine. So leave my bots alone, okay?

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#168 - 2014-09-14 16:56:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Glathull wrote:
Sibyyl wrote:
Gaming God wrote:

Why not balance the ganking system that is accepted greatly in this game ?

Shooting down a 22 bil marouder ship (That is not alloaght to fight back until it is attakt ) With 5 dystroyers ships that cost 1 mil a peace within in 5 secconds needs to be nerft .

You have to admit there is an balancing problem here or not ?



Was there a reason you weren't dscanning or paying attention to Local?


Do you think more mitigation mechanics should be introduced if you don't bother using existing ones?



Local should D-scan itself. And D-scan should give you warnings when bad people are close to you. There should be a setting that automatically warps you to safe spot when anything bad might happen to you.


And actually, I think my idea of having fun is to just watch bots mine. So leave my bots alone, okay?


EVE should just be ENTIRELY revamped into an interactive movie, and ship combat can be made more new-player friendly by putting it on rails, then it's all just point and click....

You know, like Mass Effect 3 meets Space Missions from SWTOR.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#169 - 2014-09-14 16:57:45 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:


Mission running is nowhere near as dangerous as it should be...


And here I was thinking you wanted a nerf to ganking Roll


As should already be clear - I'm not able to be boxed in as pro or anti ganking. What I do want are changes to make it so the gankers are more active where there is profit to be made, and less active when the ganking is at a loss. I think I've already made that pretty clear, and have consistently maintained that position.

Yes you very much can be, you consistently push for Nerfs to highsec PvP only to double back upon yourself when you realize you will be made a fool of should you continue with the line of conversation which, ironically enough, makes you look much worse than actually losing the argument.
You consistently take this stance only to undermine it thi instant it's obvious you are wrong.
Further Argument with you is pointless as

1) you do a care what actually is the case

2) you do a better job of discrediting yourself than I ever could so I'll leave you to it.

I'll be back when I have some innocent bears wreck to hand you but till then , o7

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#170 - 2014-09-14 17:17:26 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:


Mission running is nowhere near as dangerous as it should be...


And here I was thinking you wanted a nerf to ganking Roll


As should already be clear - I'm not able to be boxed in as pro or anti ganking. What I do want are changes to make it so the gankers are more active where there is profit to be made, and less active when the ganking is at a loss. I think I've already made that pretty clear, and have consistently maintained that position.

Yes you very much can be, you consistently push for Nerfs to highsec PvP only to double back upon yourself when you realize you will be made a fool of should you continue with the line of conversation which, ironically enough, makes you look much worse than actually losing the argument.
You consistently take this stance only to undermine it thi instant it's obvious you are wrong.
Further Argument with you is pointless as

1) you do a care what actually is the case

2) you do a better job of discrediting yourself than I ever could so I'll leave you to it.

I'll be back when I have some innocent bears wreck to hand you but till then , o7


Whatever, I have consistently advocated for the same set of solutions. But yes, I find further argument with you pointless. Laters.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#171 - 2014-09-14 17:19:24 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:


Mission running is nowhere near as dangerous as it should be...


And here I was thinking you wanted a nerf to ganking Roll


As should already be clear - I'm not able to be boxed in as pro or anti ganking. What I do want are changes to make it so the gankers are more active where there is profit to be made, and less active when the ganking is at a loss. I think I've already made that pretty clear, and have consistently maintained that position.


You haven't been consistent at all, and aside from that, you've ignored all the incentives for ganking at a 'loss' that we've explained to you numerous times.


Completely false. All that means is that the incentives are not strong enough. If CCP restricted the activity of -10 characters and fixed bumping, CODE would be out of business. That and appropriate incentives to gank high value targets, would go a long way towards fixing highsec. But whatever, further conversation with you is useless. You obviously seem to know what I think better than I do *eyeroll.*
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#172 - 2014-09-14 17:43:39 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:


Mission running is nowhere near as dangerous as it should be...


And here I was thinking you wanted a nerf to ganking Roll


As should already be clear - I'm not able to be boxed in as pro or anti ganking. What I do want are changes to make it so the gankers are more active where there is profit to be made, and less active when the ganking is at a loss. I think I've already made that pretty clear, and have consistently maintained that position.


So let me get this right.

Gankers should only be allowed to gank if making a profit.......

.....but Dessie gank ships should never be able to ever kill a battleships, no matter how many are fielded. Yet it is potentially the most profitable method.


Consistent for sure
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#173 - 2014-09-14 17:47:34 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:


Mission running is nowhere near as dangerous as it should be...


And here I was thinking you wanted a nerf to ganking Roll


As should already be clear - I'm not able to be boxed in as pro or anti ganking. What I do want are changes to make it so the gankers are more active where there is profit to be made, and less active when the ganking is at a loss. I think I've already made that pretty clear, and have consistently maintained that position.


So let me get this right.

Gankers should only be allowed to gank if making a profit.......

.....but Dessie gank ships should never be able to ever kill a battleships, no matter how many are fielded. Yet it is potentially the most profitable method.


Consistent for sure


Uhmmm...no....Simply that game incentives should steer people towards +EV ganks, and discourage them from -EV ganks, which means we would not see -10 sec status gankers shooting at everything that moves. Which has precisely nothing to do with the ability of cheap gank ships to take down expensive battleships. One is about the use of incentives by CCP, the other has to do with the ability of small guns to inflict damage on large combat ships.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#174 - 2014-09-14 17:58:27 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:


Mission running is nowhere near as dangerous as it should be...


And here I was thinking you wanted a nerf to ganking Roll


As should already be clear - I'm not able to be boxed in as pro or anti ganking. What I do want are changes to make it so the gankers are more active where there is profit to be made, and less active when the ganking is at a loss. I think I've already made that pretty clear, and have consistently maintained that position.


So let me get this right.

Gankers should only be allowed to gank if making a profit.......

.....but Dessie gank ships should never be able to ever kill a battleships, no matter how many are fielded. Yet it is potentially the most profitable method.


Consistent for sure


Uhmmm...no....Simply that game incentives should steer people towards +EV ganks, and discourage them from -EV ganks, which means we would not see -10 sec status gankers shooting at everything that moves. Which has precisely nothing to do with the ability of cheap gank ships to take down expensive battleships. One is about the use of incentives by CCP, the other has to do with the ability of small guns to inflict damage on large combat ships.


eh??

What you on about?

You STATED incentive to make profit ganking more common. Yet want to remove the potially biggest profit margin mechanic.

Sounds like a nerf scream to me.....
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#175 - 2014-09-14 18:01:57 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:


eh??

What you on about?

You STATED incentive to make profit ganking more common. Yet want to remove the potially biggest profit margin mechanic.

Sounds like a nerf scream to me.....




No, I want to remove an unrealistic and unwarranted ability for cheap gank ships to kill large combat ships. That has nothing to do with adjusting the risk/reward for ganking ships with a lot of loot to drop v. with little to no loot to drop
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#176 - 2014-09-14 18:17:13 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
malcovas Henderson wrote:


eh??

What you on about?

You STATED incentive to make profit ganking more common. Yet want to remove the potially biggest profit margin mechanic.

Sounds like a nerf scream to me.....




No, I want to remove an unrealistic and unwarranted ability for cheap gank ships to kill large combat ships. That has nothing to do with adjusting the risk/reward for ganking ships with a lot of loot to drop v. with little to no loot to drop


Oh dear.....

So not only do you want gankers to lose their profit margins, But also put restricions on every single Capsualeer to being not able to gank because there'd be no profit in it.

Trammil anyone?
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#177 - 2014-09-14 18:20:14 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:


Oh dear.....

So not only do you want gankers to lose their profit margins, But also put restricions on every single Capsualeer to being not able to gank because there'd be no profit in it.

Trammil anyone?



Huh? The OP is a perfect example of how an elite group of gankers can make a massive profit through careful target selection and excellent execution. How would my ideas stop them exactly? I'm really not sure what you are trying to say.
Paranoid Loyd
#178 - 2014-09-14 18:24:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Paranoid Loyd
Veers Belvar wrote:
I want to remove an unrealistic and unwarranted ability for cheap gank ships to kill large combat ships.


Unrealistic? Ignoring the fact that we are talking about space pixels.

One word, kamikaze

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#179 - 2014-09-14 18:27:56 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
I want to remove an unrealistic and unwarranted ability for cheap gank ships to kill large combat ships.


Unrealistic?

One word, kamikaze


Seriously? Your evidence consists of the wildly unsuccessful kamikaze attacks which didn't involve shooting at the ships, but rather crashing in to them?

How about this hypo - how many people with revolvers would it take to sink an aircraft carrier?
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#180 - 2014-09-14 18:29:17 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Completely false. All that means is that the incentives are not strong enough. If CCP restricted the activity of -10 characters and fixed bumping, CODE would be out of business. That and appropriate incentives to gank high value targets, would go a long way towards fixing highsec. But whatever, further conversation with you is useless. You obviously seem to know what I think better than I do *eyeroll.*

when the 'moderate' carebear saw people in highsec setting and following their own goals in the sandbox game famed for its player-driven metagame, he said to himself 'this is obviously something that needs to be removed'

when he saw players making creative use of game mechanics to achieve their aims within common acceptability, methods endorsed by the game management, in a game and among a playerbase known for its and their tolerance and encouragement of emergent gameplay, he said 'i will campaign that this be nerfed'

truly for the 'moderate' carebear, it's just one more nerf until carebears can't be shot at all