These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

pushing for harder punishment on hi sec gankers

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dirk Decibel
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#581 - 2014-09-26 14:41:33 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:


Well in my view, at least, the amount of effort and isk expended to gank a properly tanked ship in highsec should scale with the size of the ship. So it should take more isk and effort to gank a Mach or Vindi than to gank a Maelstrom or Hurricane. I don't think that a gang of cheap Catalysts should be able to get the job done. I would like to see small turrets having minimal impact on large ships - so for example making it virtually impossible for frigs or dessies to gank battleships. Much like you would not see battleships able to kill a titan. It's not about getting rid of suicide ganking, its about making it take a proper amount of isk and effort.

It does scale and it scales very good. That's why properly tanked non-blinged ships rarely get ganked.


Quote:

Yes - Concord do react. But losing your 10 mil catalyst - even for a 2% of chance of killing a 5 bil Machariel is worth it....CONCORD is not imposing a sufficient penalty to force you to actually think before ganking. It's basically automatic and consequence free for you CODE folks.

We do think, again: that's why properly tanked non-blinged ships rarely get ganked.

And again: it's not consequence free, if it was I wouldn't have to make dedicated ganking alts now would I? I would just use my mains with their perfect implants, gank something and run a mission, mine or whatever with that same main under the nose of the victim if there were no consequences 2 minutes later.

We don't do that because we think, we think about consequences and adapt our playing to it. A concept that seems to be completely ignored by you. All you do is ask for the game to be changed drasticly instead of changing your own game...
RomeStar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#582 - 2014-09-26 19:54:13 UTC
its been awhile since we have seen one of these posts hmmmmmm. Creativity -4, originality -7, Spergs -10 bro you sound mad are you mad bro hey bro are you mad bro bro bro hey bro whats wrong bro are you mad bro you look mad bro bro bro.

Signatured removed, CCP Phantom
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#583 - 2014-09-28 00:57:04 UTC
RomeStar wrote:
its been awhile since we have seen one of these posts hmmmmmm. Creativity -4, originality -7, Spergs -10 bro you sound mad are you mad bro hey bro are you mad bro bro bro hey bro whats wrong bro are you mad bro you look mad bro bro bro.


Nah bro, I'm never mad, it's just a game. Some actual constructive posts to respond to with actual content would be nice, or even just some posts exhibiting a basic understanding of the Eve economy...but then the lady doth protest too much and all, right?
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#584 - 2014-09-28 01:03:40 UTC
Renegade Heart wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Renegade Heart wrote:
Maybe you'd be happier Veers if the player-driven economy was replaced with something that ensured that the cost of things scaled with their attributes?

The player-driven economy is one of the games greatest features. Why do you hate it so much? Did you lose at PvP there too? P


I'm not sure you understand how the Eve economy works. The speed of mining, the mineral composition of ships, and the scarcity of materials are all arbitrarily determined by CCP. That 10 catas can kill a Mach is not player determined. The prices of the ships are determined by mineral cost, BPO scarcity, etc.... These are not player determined. And for the record, I'm a PvP expert.


My brain nearly melted when I read this, but after some deep breathing, I have confirmed to myself that I am indeed still conscious and not in a mad dream.

1. The scarcity of materials is largely player-driven. Take the Mach. It's scarcity is determined by the rate at which players get BPCs and build them (or trade LP whatever). Believe it not, and I understand this may be hard to grasp, but even the tritanium supply is determined by... players! Of course, CCP put roids here and there, but they don't force players to mine.

2. That any Machs die at all to anything, is player-driven. Do I really need to say more? Nobody forced you to enter that mission and die to rats. Nobody forced you to fit and fly your Mach such that 10 catalysts would reduce it to a wreck. Players make choices and things happen.

3. Almost all prices are player-driven, apart from some items sold by NPCs. You say that mineral cost is not player driven? Did you know that when you sell minerals, you can change the price? Try it!

4. I don't think anyone is going to believe your claims that you are a PvP expert, sorry Lol



I was going to respond....but I just couldn't bring myself to do it. Next time before you post something like this try to think about why a Mach or Vindi costs more than a Catalyst, and figure out if that is "player driven" or not. As the answer to that demolishes the rest of your arguments, no further comment by me is merited.
Steppa Musana
Doomheim
#585 - 2014-09-28 01:35:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Steppa Musana
Veers youl ove to focus on the rarest and most expensive ships in the game, while completely ignoring how many T1 ships like the Procurer or the Drake are nearly impossible to gank with positive efficiency when tanked correctly. In your world, a pirate cruiser has like 10x the EHP of a T1 cruiser, because :isk: . Somehow, this is balanced.

Let us truly digest your suggestions for a moment. An Astero would be as difficult to kill as some T1 battleships. Roll

Hey guys.
Amonios Zula
Aeon Ascendant
#586 - 2014-09-28 02:11:52 UTC
I'm fine with mega hard punishments on hisec ganks ---------------
*If* they change it so only the starter systems and the career agent systems are above 0.5.
and everything else becomes lowsec PirateBig smile
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#587 - 2014-09-28 02:47:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Veers Belvar wrote:
I was going to respond....but I just couldn't bring myself to do it. Next time before you post something like this try to think about why a Mach or Vindi costs more than a Catalyst, and figure out if that is "player driven" or not. As the answer to that demolishes the rest of your arguments, no further comment by me is merited.
Doesn't know how the economy works, tells us anyway.Roll

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#588 - 2014-09-28 05:24:36 UTC
Steppa Musana wrote:
Veers youl ove to focus on the rarest and most expensive ships in the game, while completely ignoring how many T1 ships like the Procurer or the Drake are nearly impossible to gank with positive efficiency when tanked correctly. In your world, a pirate cruiser has like 10x the EHP of a T1 cruiser, because :isk: . Somehow, this is balanced.

Let us truly digest your suggestions for a moment. An Astero would be as difficult to kill as some T1 battleships. Roll


I'm not sure what you point is. Yes, Drakes and Procurers can be tanked to make ganking unprofitable and Kb negative. Machariels, Nightmares, and Rattlesnakes, the main L4 runners cannot be tanked in such a fashion (more officer tank mods would be nice, maybe deadspace LSE's, etc...).

An Astereo is a unique ship with special bonuses, we would not expect it to be 10 times as tanked as a T1. A Mach is essentially a better Maelstron, ditto for Vindi v. Hyperion, etc... The fact is that while you have lots of faction/deadspace/officer mods to get better gank, your tank options are still limited, and you remain vulnerable to gangs of cheap gank ships.
Renegade Heart
Doomheim
#589 - 2014-09-28 08:42:27 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
I was going to respond....but I just couldn't bring myself to do it. Next time before you post something like this try to think about why a Mach or Vindi costs more than a Catalyst, and figure out if that is "player driven" or not. As the answer to that demolishes the rest of your arguments, no further comment by me is merited.


Such logic. Much wow. Clearly the fact that faction battleships require more player effort to make than destroyers is proof that all my other arguments are invalid. I can see now that there is no player-driven element at all here. CCP merely plops the hulls out of their backsides into the lap of whichever player is most deserving. The actual prices involved are forcibly imposed upon us all by the random whims of server hamsters. If they get enough treats then it brings the prices down. I get it!

You are so logical oh mighty master of New Eden. What more wisdom do you have to share with us? Perhaps some pro pvp tips?
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#590 - 2014-09-28 08:54:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Ralph King-Griffin
Cannibal Kane wrote:
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
And for the record, I'm a PvP expert.


ROFL

The record seems to disagree.

Troll on.


wow.. just wow.



you clicked the solo tab right?

Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
I was going to respond....but I just couldn't bring myself to do it. Next time before you post something like this try to think about why a Mach or Vindi costs more than a Catalyst, and figure out if that is "player driven" or not. As the answer to that demolishes the rest of your arguments, no further comment by me is merited.
Doesn't know how the economy works, tells us anyway.Roll

*cough*

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#591 - 2014-09-28 08:57:30 UTC
Renegade Heart wrote:


Such logic. Much wow. Clearly the fact that faction battleships require more player effort to make than destroyers is proof that all my other arguments are invalid. I can see now that there is no player-driven element at all here. CCP merely plops the hulls out of their backsides into the lap of whichever player is most deserving. The actual prices involved are forcibly imposed upon us all by the random whims of server hamsters. If they get enough treats then it brings the prices down. I get it!

You are so logical oh mighty master of New Eden. What more wisdom do you have to share with us? Perhaps some pro pvp tips?


Oh come on....stop playing it intentionally obtuse. CCP arbitrarily decides how many minerals it will take to build each ship. CCP arbitrarily decides how common BPO drops/purchases will be. There is no player driven element here, it is absolutely under the complete control of CCP. Those factors compel certain ships to be more expensive than other ships. If you would think things through instead of making smarmy remarks this would all be obvious to you.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#592 - 2014-09-28 09:09:12 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Renegade Heart wrote:


Such logic. Much wow. Clearly the fact that faction battleships require more player effort to make than destroyers is proof that all my other arguments are invalid. I can see now that there is no player-driven element at all here. CCP merely plops the hulls out of their backsides into the lap of whichever player is most deserving. The actual prices involved are forcibly imposed upon us all by the random whims of server hamsters. If they get enough treats then it brings the prices down. I get it!

You are so logical oh mighty master of New Eden. What more wisdom do you have to share with us? Perhaps some pro pvp tips?


Oh come on....stop playing it intentionally obtuse. CCP arbitrarily decides how many minerals it will take to build each ship. CCP arbitrarily decides how common BPO drops/purchases will be. There is no player driven element here, it is absolutely under the complete control of CCP. Those factors compel certain ships to be more expensive than other ships. If you would think things through instead of making smarmy remarks this would all be obvious to you.

now that's funny

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Renegade Heart
Doomheim
#593 - 2014-09-28 09:11:07 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Renegade Heart wrote:


Such logic. Much wow. Clearly the fact that faction battleships require more player effort to make than destroyers is proof that all my other arguments are invalid. I can see now that there is no player-driven element at all here. CCP merely plops the hulls out of their backsides into the lap of whichever player is most deserving. The actual prices involved are forcibly imposed upon us all by the random whims of server hamsters. If they get enough treats then it brings the prices down. I get it!

You are so logical oh mighty master of New Eden. What more wisdom do you have to share with us? Perhaps some pro pvp tips?


Oh come on....stop playing it intentionally obtuse. CCP arbitrarily decides how many minerals it will take to build each ship. CCP arbitrarily decides how common BPO drops/purchases will be. There is no player driven element here, it is absolutely under the complete control of CCP. Those factors compel certain ships to be more expensive than other ships. If you would think things through instead of making smarmy remarks this would all be obvious to you.


I bow down before thee. The wisdom you bring to the game is beyond my lowly level of comprehension. Please accept my profuse apologies for this. One day I may be able to live up to your standards.

That CCP decide upon how common blueprint drops/purchases will be is clear to me now. There exists a certain species of server hamster, golden in colour, which does bedazzle mine eyes, and those of my fellow pod pilots, such that we are in no position to do anything but follow him to the station when he spawns before us, and quietly whispers in our ears "YOU WILL BUY THAT BPO". There is no free will.

Furthermore it was the species of fedo/hamster cross, dark green, with reptilian eyes, that drew me to this forum, and persuaded me to post that previous drivel. Again, the will was not my own. The hamedo made me do it. CCP rules!
Valkin Mordirc
#594 - 2014-09-28 09:20:01 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Renegade Heart wrote:


Such logic. Much wow. Clearly the fact that faction battleships require more player effort to make than destroyers is proof that all my other arguments are invalid. I can see now that there is no player-driven element at all here. CCP merely plops the hulls out of their backsides into the lap of whichever player is most deserving. The actual prices involved are forcibly imposed upon us all by the random whims of server hamsters. If they get enough treats then it brings the prices down. I get it!

You are so logical oh mighty master of New Eden. What more wisdom do you have to share with us? Perhaps some pro pvp tips?


Oh come on....stop playing it intentionally obtuse. CCP arbitrarily decides how many minerals it will take to build each ship. CCP arbitrarily decides how common BPO drops/purchases will be. There is no player driven element here, it is absolutely under the complete control of CCP. Those factors compel certain ships to be more expensive than other ships. If you would think things through instead of making smarmy remarks this would all be obvious to you.



BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah....*Takes a deep breath*


BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Oh my god Veers, That almost gave me cancer. The Material does not determine cost. Only the amount needed to make it. But that doesn't factor the actually cost. The Market will decide the cost.
#DeleteTheWeak
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#595 - 2014-09-28 09:25:52 UTC
Valkin Mordirc wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Renegade Heart wrote:


Such logic. Much wow. Clearly the fact that faction battleships require more player effort to make than destroyers is proof that all my other arguments are invalid. I can see now that there is no player-driven element at all here. CCP merely plops the hulls out of their backsides into the lap of whichever player is most deserving. The actual prices involved are forcibly imposed upon us all by the random whims of server hamsters. If they get enough treats then it brings the prices down. I get it!

You are so logical oh mighty master of New Eden. What more wisdom do you have to share with us? Perhaps some pro pvp tips?


Oh come on....stop playing it intentionally obtuse. CCP arbitrarily decides how many minerals it will take to build each ship. CCP arbitrarily decides how common BPO drops/purchases will be. There is no player driven element here, it is absolutely under the complete control of CCP. Those factors compel certain ships to be more expensive than other ships. If you would think things through instead of making smarmy remarks this would all be obvious to you.



BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah....*Takes a deep breath*


BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Oh my god Veers, That almost gave me cancer. The Material does not determine cost. Only the amount needed to make it. But that doesn't factor the actually cost. The Market will decide the cost.


Arbitrage. Enough said. I really don't have time to give 3rd grade Econ lessons, sorry.
Valkin Mordirc
#596 - 2014-09-28 09:27:54 UTC
They give 3rd graders economic lessons? Where do you live? China?


And please. Inform me. Because all I've seen was EVE Tin-Foil so far.
#DeleteTheWeak
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#597 - 2014-09-28 09:32:23 UTC
Valkin Mordirc wrote:
They give 3rd graders economic lessons? Where do you live? China?


And please. Inform me. Because all I've seen was EVE Tin-Foil so far.


Seriously? You don't know what arbitrage is? And you think you can intelligently comment on the Eve economy?

Imagine the "market" decides that a Catalyst should cost the same as a Hurricane. Now you have a buddy, Joe the manufacturer with perfect reprocessing and manufacturing skills, as well as perfect Catalyst and Hurricane blueprints. He will buy canes, reprocess, manufacture and sell catas at a huge profit until the prices adjust to eliminate the arbitrage opportunities. Quite simply CCP's arbitrary mineral specifications COMPEL a certain relationship between ship costs to have the Eve economy in an equilibrium no-arbitrage state. And if you can't figure that one out...well.....join ze Goons or something, cuz I got nothing else for ya.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#598 - 2014-09-28 09:35:19 UTC
Dirk Decibel
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#599 - 2014-09-28 09:52:32 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Steppa Musana wrote:
Veers youl ove to focus on the rarest and most expensive ships in the game, while completely ignoring how many T1 ships like the Procurer or the Drake are nearly impossible to gank with positive efficiency when tanked correctly. In your world, a pirate cruiser has like 10x the EHP of a T1 cruiser, because :isk: . Somehow, this is balanced.

Let us truly digest your suggestions for a moment. An Astero would be as difficult to kill as some T1 battleships. Roll


I'm not sure what you point is. Yes, Drakes and Procurers can be tanked to make ganking unprofitable and Kb negative. Machariels, Nightmares, and Rattlesnakes, the main L4 runners cannot be tanked in such a fashion (more officer tank mods would be nice, maybe deadspace LSE's, etc...).

An Astereo is a unique ship with special bonuses, we would not expect it to be 10 times as tanked as a T1. A Mach is essentially a better Maelstron, ditto for Vindi v. Hyperion, etc... The fact is that while you have lots of faction/deadspace/officer mods to get better gank, your tank options are still limited, and you remain vulnerable to gangs of cheap gank ships.


Then maybe you should not fly them and go run lvl 3 missions in your Drake, I think you can even run lvl 4s in a properly tanked Drake.

You instead choose to run them in a Mach cuz that gives much greater rewards but then start bitching about increased risk...

Valkin Mordirc
#600 - 2014-09-28 09:55:33 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
http://img.pr0gramm.com/2013/11/tvqemkdx.gif



Not empty quoting,


Also I got back read some of more post, This one is probably your best one so far,


I'm a PvP expert.


Hilarious. 

#DeleteTheWeak