These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Steps to survive Freighter bumping from Mach

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#241 - 2014-12-04 16:55:15 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:
Sibyyl wrote:
Syn Shi wrote:

Who cares, the ship is cheap and easily replaceable. I could do this for years. Again...where is the risk?


The risk is that you actually get smart and do something as a reaction.

You're right. Preying on people who don't learn is risk free.




That didn't take long for the insults to come when you had no answer.


That was an easy win.


You must already have a rather unflattering preconceived self-image if you took that as an insult.

“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
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#242 - 2014-12-04 16:57:59 UTC
Here is the topic: Steps to survive Freighter bumping from Mach

The goal posts were moved by the we like using the broken mechanic side a few pages back.
Lister Dax
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#243 - 2014-12-04 17:02:40 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:
Here is the topic: Steps to survive Freighter bumping from Mach

The goal posts were moved by the we like using the broken mechanic side a few pages back.




What's broken? CCP has said bumping is fine as long as it's not purely to hold someone for a prolonged period of time.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#244 - 2014-12-04 17:03:32 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:
Here is the topic: Steps to survive Freighter bumping from Mach

The goal posts were moved by the we like using the broken mechanic side a few pages back.




Asking how to survive a mechanic doesn't imply (or prove) the mechanic is broken.

If you are going to accuse someone of moving goal posts, don't do it yourself.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#245 - 2014-12-04 18:16:45 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:


1. An argument is not proof. How would removing/reducing non-consensual PvP in highsec "destroy" the game?


The markets for freighters, barges and the like would collapse.


Veers Belvar wrote:

2. Your examples of wealth "creation" are examples of wealth transfer, not creation. Looting, theft, etc... these don't create wealth. They simply reallocate it from one party to the next. The only way to actually CREATE wealth in Eve is by engaging with NPCs, contra World of Tanks.


Ship and mod construction requires ship destruction. Piracy gameplay requires the ability to take stuff from others.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#246 - 2014-12-04 18:34:19 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:


1. An argument is not proof. How would removing/reducing non-consensual PvP in highsec "destroy" the game?


The markets for freighters, barges and the like would collapse.


Veers Belvar wrote:

2. Your examples of wealth "creation" are examples of wealth transfer, not creation. Looting, theft, etc... these don't create wealth. They simply reallocate it from one party to the next. The only way to actually CREATE wealth in Eve is by engaging with NPCs, contra World of Tanks.


Ship and mod construction requires ship destruction. Piracy gameplay requires the ability to take stuff from others.



1. doubtful. Lot's of new players constantly need these. Ditto for existing players looking to upgrade. And don't forget nullsec mining. Tally the total number of these ships killed in highsec....you really think that is materially impacting the market? If so, wouldn't we expect a price significantly above mineral supply?

2. Not really. New players need ships, so do existing players looking for new ships. Anyhow, we would still have loads of destruction in low/null. And piracy would still exist there too.

It's hard to argue with a straight face that suicide ganking in highsec materially impacts the Eve economy. The amount of damage caused is dwarfed by a single significant nullsec engagement. How many months of suicide ganking would you need to equal a single BR-5?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#247 - 2014-12-04 18:42:56 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Veers Belvar wrote:


1. doubtful. Lot's of new players constantly need these. Ditto for existing players looking to upgrade. And don't forget nullsec mining. Tally the total number of these ships killed in highsec....you really think that is materially impacting the market? If so, wouldn't we expect a price significantly above mineral supply?


Market would see several hundred to a thousand fewer barges sell every month with your change. Freighters operate almost exclusivly in high sec and would see at the very least a 60% drop in repeat sales. There is never enough players entering the game to replace these losses, the markets will be badly impacted.

Veers Belvar wrote:

2. Not really. New players need ships, so do existing players looking for new ships. Anyhow, we would still have loads of destruction in low/null. And piracy would still exist there too.

It's hard to argue with a straight face that suicide ganking in highsec materially impacts the Eve economy. The amount of damage caused is dwarfed by a single significant nullsec engagement. How many months of suicide ganking would you need to equal a single BR-5?


How may freighters took part in that battle?

Your idiotic ideas are very harmful to EVE as ship destruction underpins the entire market and when you start removing the biggest areas of demand from markets that rely upon highsec losses heavily you end up with dead markets.

Piracy also heavily relys upon high sec for the vest bulk of its content as that is where the targets are.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#248 - 2014-12-04 19:03:18 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


Market would see several hundred to a thousand fewer barges sell every month with your change. Freighters operate almost exclusivly in high sec and would see at the very least a 60% drop in repeat sales. There is never enough players entering the game to replace these losses, the markets will be badly impacted.


How may freighters took part in that battle?

Your idiotic ideas are very harmful to EVE as ship destruction underpins the entire market and when you start removing the biggest areas of demand from markets that rely upon highsec losses heavily you end up with dead markets.

Piracy also heavily relys upon high sec for the vest bulk of its content as that is where the targets are.



Barges are a tiny fraction of the economy. Ditto for freighters. How many freighters blow up already? Do we really care if these ships get cheaper? I mean, bad for a few folks who build barges....bad for a few gankers....good for some barge owners....overall impact to the game - minimal.

We have more than enough ship destruction in nullsec. This crazy idea that highsec ship destruction is somehow integral to the game is pretty insane. Is this another Goon talking point?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#249 - 2014-12-04 19:16:31 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:



Barges are a tiny fraction of the economy. Ditto for freighters. How many freighters blow up already? Do we really care if these ships get cheaper? I mean, bad for a few folks who build barges....bad for a few gankers....good for some barge owners....overall impact to the game - minimal.


Yes we do care if your changes destroys the content for a lot of other people just so you can go earn isk risk free.
Veers Belvar wrote:

We have more than enough ship destruction in nullsec. This crazy idea that highsec ship destruction is somehow integral to the game is pretty insane. Is this another Goon talking point?


Nope, just another topic in which you selfishly demand things without thinking about how it will be bad for the game.


Looking at this another way, if ganking causes so little damage why have you been bitching about it for the last year?
Cancel Align NOW
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#250 - 2014-12-04 19:31:33 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:


How would removing/reducing non-consensual PvP in highsec "destroy" the game?




2 months ago you claimed you supported suicide ganking in high security space. You claimed there simply needed a small balance alteration. Over time you have increasingly argued against that stance, increasingly toward a remove non-consensual pvp from high security stance.

You have never supported any pvp aspect of the game. You have deliberately and intentionally been dishonest with your stance in numerous threads. You fail to understand that Eve is a sandbox where player vs player interaction is encouraged, whether that be mining out a belt to force your opposition to move; crashing the price of ishtars to drive other t2 inventors out of the market; alt spamming missions to create a glut of SOE LP to drive down prices of scanning gear to purchase in large quantities cheaply and gain market share.

Everything in Eve is Player vs Player. Removing one portion of PVP while allowing other forms of PVP to remain untouched alters game balance.

By the way here is what CCP think about what Eve Online should be:
Quote:
"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.

That's a sentiment that I hear a lot around the office, because we are all invested in what makes New Eden so compelling - The dark, gritty, hard reality beneath the pretty ships and nebulas.

EVE is built on the core principle that you are never 100% safe, no matter where you go or what you do. When you interact with another player, you roll the dice on whether they're going to screw you over or not. That's a massive part of the social engineering behind the very basic underpinnings of the EVE Universe.


Here goes a the bit you seem to repeatedly miss:

Quote:
EVE is built on the core principle that you are never 100% safe, no matter where you go or what you do. When you interact with another player, you roll the dice on whether they're going to screw you over or not. That's a massive part of the social engineering behind the very basic underpinnings of the EVE Universe.


CCP do not want Eve Online to have safe zones: No where is 100% safe.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#251 - 2014-12-04 19:57:03 UTC
Cancel Align NOW wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:


How would removing/reducing non-consensual PvP in highsec "destroy" the game?




2 months ago you claimed you supported suicide ganking in high security space. You claimed there simply needed a small balance alteration. Over time you have increasingly argued against that stance, increasingly toward a remove non-consensual pvp from high security stance.

You have never supported any pvp aspect of the game. You have deliberately and intentionally been dishonest with your stance in numerous threads. You fail to understand that Eve is a sandbox where player vs player interaction is encouraged, whether that be mining out a belt to force your opposition to move; crashing the price of ishtars to drive other t2 inventors out of the market; alt spamming missions to create a glut of SOE LP to drive down prices of scanning gear to purchase in large quantities cheaply and gain market share.

Everything in Eve is Player vs Player. Removing one portion of PVP while allowing other forms of PVP to remain untouched alters game balance.

By the way here is what CCP think about what Eve Online should be:
Quote:
"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.

That's a sentiment that I hear a lot around the office, because we are all invested in what makes New Eden so compelling - The dark, gritty, hard reality beneath the pretty ships and nebulas.

EVE is built on the core principle that you are never 100% safe, no matter where you go or what you do. When you interact with another player, you roll the dice on whether they're going to screw you over or not. That's a massive part of the social engineering behind the very basic underpinnings of the EVE Universe.


Here goes a the bit you seem to repeatedly miss:

Quote:
EVE is built on the core principle that you are never 100% safe, no matter where you go or what you do. When you interact with another player, you roll the dice on whether they're going to screw you over or not. That's a massive part of the social engineering behind the very basic underpinnings of the EVE Universe.


CCP do not want Eve Online to have safe zones: No where is 100% safe.


Do you read? I don't support removing suicide ganking from highsec. I do think it's impact on the game is wildly overstated. It's useful for blowing up new/casual players, and pretty useless against competent players. I do think a crackdown is needed on -10 gankers who face no real consequences.

How have I opposed PvP interaction? Have I tried to ban trading and manufacturing? I support the player driven market, a form of PvP. Incursions are PvP, due to limited sites, and contests, and I support that.

It's nice that you link that statement. Here is a clue. EVE IS ALREADY SUPER SAFE FOR COMPETENT PLAYERS.

AFK carrier ratting - Dekklein - super safe. Running L4 missions - super safe.

The only people who aren't safe in highsec are new/casual players. The competent vets already exist in a state of near complete safety. And ditto for sov nul.
Paranoid Loyd
#252 - 2014-12-04 20:05:20 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
EVE IS ALREADY SUPER SAFE FOR COMPETENT PLAYERS.
So what are you arguing for? You feel the incompetent should be protected?

"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
#253 - 2014-12-04 20:09:06 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
EVE IS ALREADY SUPER SAFE FOR COMPETENT PLAYERS.
So what are you arguing for? You feel the incompetent should be protected?


No, I'd like to see mechanics in place to steer gankers towards high value targets instead of sitting in Uedama and blowing up empty ships every 15 minutes. Or instead of hunting down AFK miners and AFK haulers with minimal consequences.
Paranoid Loyd
#254 - 2014-12-04 20:15:04 UTC
Through all of your shiptoasting you have still failed to demonstrate why it is necessary to make the changes besides "that's how you'd like it to be".

"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!
Lister Dax
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#255 - 2014-12-04 20:15:38 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
EVE IS ALREADY SUPER SAFE FOR COMPETENT PLAYERS.
So what are you arguing for? You feel the incompetent should be protected?


No, I'd like to see mechanics in place to steer gankers towards high value targets instead of sitting in Uedama and blowing up empty ships every 15 minutes. Or instead of hunting down AFK miners and AFK haulers with minimal consequences.


So you support AFK play?
Commentus Nolen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#256 - 2014-12-04 20:23:02 UTC
Okay, back on topic, almost new player here. I went out and got some webifiers and tried them on my Orca.

Question: How do I use them on fleet members without being in duel mode?

I did try to find the information online.

Constructive answers most welcome.

Thank you.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#257 - 2014-12-04 20:25:45 UTC
Lister Dax wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
EVE IS ALREADY SUPER SAFE FOR COMPETENT PLAYERS.
So what are you arguing for? You feel the incompetent should be protected?


No, I'd like to see mechanics in place to steer gankers towards high value targets instead of sitting in Uedama and blowing up empty ships every 15 minutes. Or instead of hunting down AFK miners and AFK haulers with minimal consequences.


So you support AFK play?


Don't really have a problem with it. Think that you shouldn't be able to earn isk doing it...mining needs an interactive mini game. I don't mind autopiloting AFK because what is the point of forcing people to be at keyboard?
Paranoid Loyd
#258 - 2014-12-04 20:44:41 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
What is the point of forcing people to be at keyboard?
To protect their assets.

"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!
Lister Dax
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#259 - 2014-12-04 20:54:36 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Lister Dax wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
EVE IS ALREADY SUPER SAFE FOR COMPETENT PLAYERS.
So what are you arguing for? You feel the incompetent should be protected?


No, I'd like to see mechanics in place to steer gankers towards high value targets instead of sitting in Uedama and blowing up empty ships every 15 minutes. Or instead of hunting down AFK miners and AFK haulers with minimal consequences.


So you support AFK play?


Don't really have a problem with it. Think that you shouldn't be able to earn isk doing it...mining needs an interactive mini game. I don't mind autopiloting AFK because what is the point of forcing people to be at keyboard?


So miners shouldn't make ISK afk but haulers can?

I can't understand the argument that you say someone shouldn't be at their keyboard to play the game....
Cancel Align NOW
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#260 - 2014-12-04 20:59:41 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:


How would removing/reducing non-consensual PvP in highsec "destroy" the game?




Veers Belvar wrote:


How have I opposed PvP interaction? Have I tried to ban trading and manufacturing? I support the player driven market, a form of PvP. Incursions are PvP, due to limited sites, and contests, and I support that.



Join the dots folks.