These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A Message Regarding "Hyperdunking"

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Paranoid Loyd
#141 - 2015-01-27 22:44:17 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Common Lucas you are better than this. Which is it solo or 3?
That entirely depends on your definition of solo. I would generally take "solo" to mean 1 physical player.

The point is you can't hyperdunk solo. So why should you be able to fly your freighter solo?

"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!
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#142 - 2015-01-27 22:44:31 UTC
Not only is justice delightfully served, with a side of carebear tears...

But Tippia is back! Hooray!

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#143 - 2015-01-27 22:47:07 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
I've never been involved in a single hyperdunk. I do, however, understand the mechanics well.
I supports ganking, and CODE, and lets face it your entire CSM platform is based around trying to push the game to support your playstyle over any other, so it really doesn't surprise me that you agree with this change, even though it's practically a reversal of previous concord exploit, just with extra ships being lost.

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
A freighter pilot + an alt in an interceptor have tactics available to counter the bowhead, Machariel + the few Catalyst alts needed for an effective hyperdunk. A freighter pilot with about 6 alts in (ship redacted for #OPSEC reasons) can counter it even more effectively. If a GM or CCP employee wants these tactics explained, EVEmail me and I'll clarify them to you.
I'm sure with some good skills and a lot of luck can indeed counter a gank, that still doesn't mean that the amount of isk, effort and skill to avoid the gank is balanced with the amount of isk, effort and skill to execute it. You'll happily march in favour of any change which makes your playstyle more viable with no regard for how it affects opposing styles of play.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#144 - 2015-01-27 22:47:22 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
It's called balance. It's something different than "If you do PvP, you're good to go; If you dare to PvE, you're ****** and pay for it".


Don't you even dare suggest such a thing, because it would be a lie. Real EVE PVE players aren't powerless victimhood pansies that complain about "oh whoa is me CCP don't like my play style". We are right there in the arena with the PVP jocks doing our thing, THINKING, acting, winning (wining for us is stacking wealth while "pvp players" shake their fists in the air because they can't hold us long enough to kill us).

So again, don't you dare pretend to speak for the (real) EVE PVE community. We aren't in the surrender business like the fake pve forum whine crowd likes to claim we are.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#145 - 2015-01-27 22:49:03 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
It's called balance. It's something different than "If you do PvP, you're good to go; If you dare to PvE, you're ****** and pay for it".


Don't you even dare suggest such a thing, because it would be a lie. Real EVE PVE players aren't powerless victimhood pansies that complain about "oh whoa is me CCP don't like my play style". We are right there in the arena with the PVP jocks doing our thing, THINKING, acting, winning (wining for us is stacking wealth while "pvp players" shake their fists in the air because they can't hold us long enough to kill us).

So again, don't you dare pretend to speak for the (real) EVE PVE community. We aren't in the surrender business like the fake pve forum whine crowd likes to claim we are.

I can't press like hard enough.

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#146 - 2015-01-27 22:50:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
Lucas Kell wrote:
Again, that's victim blame. The fact is that on average miners are profitable to gank. If they weren't you'd find another target to gank.
Because they choose to be. The pertinent word is choose, they have a choice. I choose to tank my barges, they choose not to. They alone are responsible for the choices they make.

Quote:
If no target were, you'd ask for changes to make them profitable. It still doesn't change the fact that it's easy to gank very profitably. Whether or not you want to blame the miners of the mechanics is irrelevant.
Gankers aren't the ones constantly screaming for change, they're the ones that keep adapting to it. As for the profitability of ganking, if there were no profitable targets, that would mean that CCP had removed the possibility of people making foolish choices; not a good thing for CCP, Eve, or people that enjoy Eve.

Quote:
I honestly don;t believe that with so many gankers in it primarily for showing their killboards off. Fact is that the ships it takes to take down a freighter are shockingly cheap in comparison with the freighter. I know that value doesn't affect how much it should take to drop the ship, but it should have at least a little bit of an impact on it.
That's like complaining that a $500 RPG round or a $300 IED can take out an armoured vehicle costing upwards of $100,000.

Even in the real world "cash-tanking" doesn't work.

Quote:
It may be considered propaganda, but it doesn't make it any less true. It is a waste of time to try to fight a ganker, and there really is nothing you can do to a ganker to affect them. They're just like any other throwaway alt in that way.
Looks like the propaganda is working as intended tbh, you've certainly bought into it.

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#147 - 2015-01-27 22:52:41 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
I'm sure with some good skills and a lot of luck can indeed counter a gank, that still doesn't mean that the amount of isk, effort and skill to avoid the gank is balanced with the amount of isk, effort and skill to execute it.


Ganks are trivially avoided with a T1 frigate equipped with two webs.

It doesn't get much lower of an investment than that to avoid getting ganked. And I might add that a swarm of catalysts, an Orca/Bowhead, and a pile of shuttles for sprinkles costs a hell of a lot more than a single T1 frigate.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
#148 - 2015-01-27 22:54:41 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
it's practically a reversal of previous concord exploit, just with extra ships being lost.
"It's a reveral of avoiding losing your ship, just with losing your ship."

Witty Image - Stream

Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#149 - 2015-01-27 22:55:13 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Don't you even dare suggest such a thing, because it would be a lie. Real EVE PVE players aren't powerless victimhood pansies that complain about "oh whoa is me CCP don't like my play style". We are right there in the arena with the PVP jocks doing our thing, THINKING, acting, winning (wining for us is stacking wealth while "pvp players" shake their fists in the air because they can't hold us long enough to kill us).

So again, don't you dare pretend to speak for the (real) EVE PVE community. We aren't in the surrender business like the fake pve forum whine crowd likes to claim we are.
As are most players who perform PVE, most just don't have quite the amount of love for CODE as you do. You like to talk about how super amazing you are at PVE and how you don't need to go on forums and blah, blah, blah *patting own back ad infinitum* but that doesn't automatically make every concern invalid. I get it, you like it as it is. Other's don't. You aren't automatically more right, and other people's opinions are as valid as your own.

At the end of the day CCP rely on feedback to know where to make changes that benefit the community as a whole. Many of us are willing to have reasonable discussions about these things. You coming along insulting people and talking about the "crying" and the "whining pansies" is non-constructive trolling, nothing more. It's not useful to anyone.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#150 - 2015-01-27 22:56:01 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
But ganking freighters, that is designed to be solo play?


Of course not. The method discussed here takes at least 3 people (1 Ganker, 1 Bumper, 1 Ship supplier), do you know of a method where you can do it solo?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#151 - 2015-01-27 22:58:16 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
But ganking freighters, that is designed to be solo play?


Of course not. The method discussed here takes at least 3 people (1 Ganker, 1 Bumper, 1 Ship supplier), do you know of a method where you can do it solo?


I encountered such a thing once, but it involves facpo and forgetful PL jump freighter pilots.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Herpp Derpp
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#152 - 2015-01-27 22:59:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Herpp Derpp
Lucas Kell wrote:
Sure, there's ways to preemptively help avoid a gank (though no guarantees), I'm not really sure how warping to a celestial really helps when being bumped though, since the bumping generally means you can't warp. And the realism is that even if you were to logi a freighter to the point it couldn't be ganked, they can still just continue to bump it for pretty much ever. A half awake bumper can keep a freighter in place for hours.


To answer: occasionally an incompetent bumper may bump you away from a gate and towards a celestial. Doesn't happen too often, but I know that mistake has been made before.

But don't attack just one of my anecdotal examples, attack the idea behind them. Or is part of your defense regarding this change based on bumping? That's a different thread.

To be clear, the point I was trying to make is effort = reward. Just need to put in more effort than the other guy.

Edit: Reading everything else you wrote, I don't believe your defense is partly or even remotely bumping. My effort point still stands though.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#153 - 2015-01-27 23:00:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Lucas Kell wrote:
Sure, there's ways to preemptively help avoid a gank (though no guarantees), I'm not really sure how warping to a celestial really helps when being bumped though, since the bumping generally means you can't warp.
Bumping does not inhibit you from warping — just from moving in a particular direction. Warping to a celestial (or other warpable target) that is in line with your newfound travel vector helps because… well… you've warped off.

Quote:
And the realism is that even if you were to logi a freighter to the point it couldn't be ganked, they can still just continue to bump it for pretty much ever.
…and that is where the entire hypothetical threat abandons all pretences of realism because no ganker will do that. They will just pick a softer target rather than waste forever on one that can't be killed.

Quote:
But ganking freighters, that is designed to be solo play?
Good news: it isn't. It requires at least three pilots to do it at all, and most likely at least another one to pick good targets.

Quote:
I supports ganking, and CODE
…by consistently arguing for more and more measures aimed specifically at eradicating both? Yeah, no. You can't possible expect anyone to believe that IMMENSE pile of bull manure you just unloaded.

By the way, asking you questions that you can't answer, thereby exposing your ignorance, prejudice, and complete disregard for balance does not equate to trolling. Your refusal to try to at least provide an answer is an answer in and of itself, and not the one you want to provide.
Paranoid Loyd
#154 - 2015-01-27 23:00:11 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
But ganking freighters, that is designed to be solo play?


Of course not. The method discussed here takes at least 3 people (1 Ganker, 1 Bumper, 1 Ship supplier), do you know of a method where you can do it solo?


I encountered such a thing once, but it involves facpo and forgetful PL jump freighter pilots.

One could imagine a well timed duel request just before the webbing alt's duel request might be able to do it as well. Twisted

"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!
Aleksi Bocharov
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#155 - 2015-01-27 23:01:44 UTC
How is it avoiding CONCORD and avoiding the timer? Your ship(s) still die to CONCORD and if anything you're extending the timer.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#156 - 2015-01-27 23:03:23 UTC
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Because they choose to be. The pertinent word is choose, they have a choice. I choose to tank my barges, they choose not to. They are to blame for the choices they make.
*Slams head on desk* I give up. You're not going to understand that whether it's by choice or not is irrelevant, the end result is the same. If CCP were able to patch players, I'd ask them to patch miners to make them play more effectively to avoid being ganked. As they can't, the only way to alter the balance is to steer the game though mechanics. If you don't get it that time, you never will, so I'm done with repeating myself.

Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Gankers aren't the ones constantly screaming for change, they're the ones that keep adapting to it. As for the profitability of ganking, if there were no profitable targets, that would mean that CCP had removed the possibility of people making foolish choices; not a good thing for CCP, or people that enjoy Eve.
Uhhh, except they do ask for changes. Some even scream. The only reason fewer do so now is because it's so much in the gankers favour it's hard to find more to ask for.

Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
That's like complaining that a $500 RPG round or a $300 IED can take out an armoured vehicle costing upwards of $100,000.
Indeed, and games could be just as unbalanced as real life but generally people find it more fun when players are given a relatively level playing field.

Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Looks like the propaganda is working as intended tbh, you've certainly bought into it.
Roll

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#157 - 2015-01-27 23:03:31 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
But ganking freighters, that is designed to be solo play?


Of course not. The method discussed here takes at least 3 people (1 Ganker, 1 Bumper, 1 Ship supplier), do you know of a method where you can do it solo?


I encountered such a thing once, but it involves facpo and forgetful PL jump freighter pilots.

One could imagine a well timed duel request just before the webbing alt's duel request might be able to do it as well. Twisted


"An all syrup super squishie? ...such a thing has never been done!"

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#158 - 2015-01-27 23:03:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Lucas Kell wrote:
At the end of the day CCP rely on feedback to know where to make changes that benefit the community as a whole. Many of us are willing to have reasonable discussions about these things.
So why do you refuse to have one? Why do you instead choose to insult other players and dismiss their arguments out of hand without anything that even remotely resembles a proper, coherent, or well-reasoned argument based on the reality of the game?

Quote:
I give up. You're not going to understand that whether it's by choice or not is irrelevant, the end result is the same. If CCP were able to patch players, I'd ask them to patch miners to make them play more effectively to avoid being ganked. As they can't, the only way to alter the balance is to steer the game though mechanics.
Wrong. The correct answer is “as they can't, it is obviously not a balancing problem so there is nothing to steer and no need to alter any mechanics”. That's the thing you refuse to acknowledge: the possibility that there is no problem — just bad player choices, and that there is nothing to fix.

Quote:
Uhhh, except they do ask for changes. Some even scream.
Do you have any examples of this?

Quote:
Indeed, and games could be just as unbalanced as real life but generally people find it more fun when players are given a relatively level playing field.
So you're for more buffs to the gankers (or nerfs to haulers), then: so that the level field in terms of effort and planning are relatively level.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#159 - 2015-01-27 23:07:26 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
If CCP were able to patch players, I'd ask them to patch miners to make them play more effectively to avoid being ganked. As they can't, the only way to alter the balance is to steer the game though mechanics. If you don't get it that time, you never will, so I'm done with repeating myself.


I don't think you get it.

The correct response is to let them die.

Failure to use the existing tools does not equate to a need for a mechanic change. And if they won't change their attitudes and their lazy playstyles, then they exist solely to be food for someone else.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Aleksi Bocharov
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#160 - 2015-01-27 23:10:42 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
I don't disagree, but then the gankers should also have to put some bloody effort in.
There it is. the underlying emotion based 'reasoning' behind an unreasonable worldview. "But, but, the other guy should have to work as hard as I think I am too!!!! It's not FAIR!!!" This thinking is at the core all every single anti ganking, scamming and afk-cloking post ever posted. Kind of a screwed up video game egalitarianism.
Of course they should have to work for it. I'm fed up of listening to CODE players going on and on and on about how easy the carebears have it while ganking is insanely easy, nearly risk free and without consequence. Now it's officially easy to solo gank basically any ship. Excuse me if I thought this is EVE Online where the game is supposed to take a modicum of effort.


Suicide ganking is not without consequence. You lose your ship, you lose security status, and you get killrights on yourself.