These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

GCC and no more refitting in hisec space [Carnyx]

First post
Author
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#101 - 2015-05-31 18:06:51 UTC
Magnus Roden wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Magnus Roden wrote:
Explain to us how a massive inequality in regards to gank ship cost vs gank target ship hull cost (Catalysts vs Freighter, for instance) is somehow balanced.


I know of a megathron that is worth over 10 trillion. Using your logic it would have a tank greater than a combined titan fleet.

Tank based upon cost is a moronic mechanic.


I like how you're avoiding the actual issue. I'm talking hull cost, you know I do, I know that you know I do :)


That is the hull cost.
Magnus Roden
Center for the Advancement of Human Endeavour
#102 - 2015-05-31 18:16:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Magnus Roden
Tippia wrote:
Magnus Roden wrote:
I like how you're avoiding the actual issue. I'm talking hull cost, you know I do, I know that you know I do :)

Doesn't matter. Either cost is a factor or it isn't.
Ok, so you have a 1bn ISK hull and he has a 1M ISK one. He has a 2bn ISK weapon and you have a 0 ISK tank. So he should win, right? After all, he payed infinitely more for his weapon than you did for your tank…

Quote:
"bigger/more expensive isn't necessarily better" is not the same as "there is zero relation between cost and effectiveness".
It means that you can't use cost as an argument for saying that ship A shouldn't be able to kill ship B, which is what you're trying to do.

You have to look at what improvements you're buying with your money. If none of them are in the area of combat survivability, then arguing that you should survive better in combat is pretty nonsensical.

In the mean-time, the fact that, no matter how expensive your ship, a vastly cheaper one can kill it means that there is proper balance and that you haven't arrived in a degenerate apex-ship/P2W design state. You have yet to demonstrate that this in any way presents a problem that needs to be fixed.


Trying to lure into semantics, away from the subject again, are we :)

We are talking about high sec ganks and how the cost of a Catalyst (and other high dps cheap hulls) is in no way balanced compared to what it can do, especially so when in groups dealing with high EHP high hull cost targets. It's too good, it's out of whack. Which is demonstrated by how a gaggle of Catalysts lulz kills (nearly) empty freighters.

One could argue that rebalancing the ships involved would solve the issue but that would create other issues. It's far easier to change it so that ganking has more repercussions (ACTUAL repercussions, not the "we're CCP and we don't really know what we're doing" ones) to a point where lulz ganks become a moot point. Where a tanked Hulk is somewhat safe because unless you REALLY want it dead it's just not worth it, where a freighter can have 4-5 bil onboard and not be an automatic kill.


Increase cost of ganking and increase repercussions of ganking through pod killing, introduce automatic pod killing of, say, -8 upon entering high sec and lowering concord response times. If you want to fight people then either find some folks in null/low who actually fit guns, don't be scared now, or start a wardec (and yes, I realise that wardecs being broken is one of the reasons why ganking was on the up).

Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#103 - 2015-05-31 18:18:49 UTC
Magnus Roden wrote:

We are talking about high sec ganks and how the cost of a Catalyst (and other high dps cheap hulls) is in no way balanced compared to what it can do, especially so when in groups dealing with high EHP high hull cost targets.


No, "we" are not talking about that. You're making that claim, and it's a lie.


Quote:
If you want to fight people then either find some folks in null/low who actually fit guns ,don't be scared now, or start a wardec (and yes, I realise that wardecs being broken is one of the reasons why ganking was on the up).


No. EVE Online is a PvP game, and PvP belongs everywhere, that includes highsec.

If you don't like it, feel free to quit.

"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
#104 - 2015-05-31 18:19:10 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Magnus Roden wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
I know of a megathron that is worth over 10 trillion. Using your logic it would have a tank greater than a combined titan fleet.

Tank based upon cost is a moronic mechanic.

I like how you're avoiding the actual issue. I'm talking hull cost, you know I do, I know that you know I do :)

That is the hull cost.

Not to mention that, if hull cost was all that mattered, then suddenly all that talk about how ganks below a certain cargo value shouldn't happen proves to be nothing but pointless noise. It would mean an empty hauler is as reasonable a target as one filled with EVE's total yearly supply of PLEX — if one happens, the other must also happen because the balance certainly hasn't changed.

Magnus Roden wrote:
Ok, you go GCC in one of those ships you mentioned vs a Raven in high sec. See where that gets you.
The Raven dies, and much faster than a freighter would…
Magnus Roden
Center for the Advancement of Human Endeavour
#105 - 2015-05-31 18:20:49 UTC
You of course know that he/she/it meant a single ship, and I replied in similar manner :)


But nice try.

Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.

Mashie Saldana
French Drop-O-Panache
Snuffed Out
#106 - 2015-05-31 18:21:08 UTC
SamuraiJack wrote:
I've got much better idea.

If you GCC. Concord Pods you. End of hyperdunking.

You are a criminal in highsec. They shouldnt just pop you. They should kill you. You broke the law. Have some ****ing concequences. Hows that for realism.


This man is right.
Magnus Roden
Center for the Advancement of Human Endeavour
#107 - 2015-05-31 18:21:34 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Magnus Roden wrote:

We are talking about high sec ganks and how the cost of a Catalyst (and other high dps cheap hulls) is in no way balanced compared to what it can do, especially so when in groups dealing with high EHP high hull cost targets.


No, "we" are not talking about that. You're making that claim, and it's a lie.


Quote:
If you want to fight people then either find some folks in null/low who actually fit guns ,don't be scared now, or start a wardec (and yes, I realise that wardecs being broken is one of the reasons why ganking was on the up).


No. EVE Online is a PvP game, and PvP belongs everywhere, that includes highsec.

If you don't like it, feel free to quit.


Yes, so start wardecs. I do it all the time.

Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#108 - 2015-05-31 18:21:51 UTC
Magnus Roden wrote:
Trying to lure into semantics, away from the subject again, are we :)
No. Not we. You are. The rest of us are ripping your pathetic excuse for a non-argument into its tiny illogical shreds.

Quote:
We are talking about high sec ganks and how the cost of a Catalyst (and other high dps cheap hulls) is in no way balanced compared to what it can do, especially so when in groups dealing with high EHP high hull cost targets.
No. that's just something you've made up because you have no idea how balancing works. You have yet to prove that there is a problem related to this, and the rest of us keep trying to make you come up with any such proof about… well… any of the nonsensical claims you've made so far.

Quote:
It's far easier to change it so that ganking has more repercussions (ACTUAL repercussions, not the "we're CCP and we don't really know what we're doing" ones)
Yes. It's so easy that it has already happened. You have yet to demonstrate any need why it needs to happen again.

Quote:
Increase cost of ganking and increase repercussions of ganking through pod killing, introduce automatic pod killing of, say, -8 upon entering high sec and lowering concord response times.
Why should any of that happen?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#109 - 2015-05-31 18:23:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Magnus Roden wrote:
You of course know that he/she/it meant a single ship

More than anything, I know that you poisoned the well by introducing the irrelevant GCC limitation to the mix — one that is countered by adding more pilots and therefore irrelevant to the balance discusssion.

Nice try. Do you have an actual argument yet? Can you provide any kind of cogent or coherent reason why ganking should cost more?

Quote:
Yes, so start wardecs. I do it all the time.
So you're arguing that NPC corps should not exist then. Have you really thought through the repercussions of such a massive change?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#110 - 2015-05-31 18:24:19 UTC
Magnus Roden wrote:

Yes, so start wardecs. I do it all the time.


I do. But ganking is an equally viable and reasonable method of engaging enemy targets. Which is as intended.

"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.

Magnus Roden
Center for the Advancement of Human Endeavour
#111 - 2015-05-31 18:24:41 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Magnus Roden wrote:
You of course know that he/she/it meant a single ship

And you understand that you poisoned the well by introducing the irrelevant GCC limitation to the mix — one that is countered by adding more pilots and therefore irrelevant to the balance discusssion.

Nice try. Do you have an actual argument yet?


You mean like the GCC that happens with ganking?

Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.

Magnus Roden
Center for the Advancement of Human Endeavour
#112 - 2015-05-31 18:25:28 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Magnus Roden wrote:

Yes, so start wardecs. I do it all the time.


I do. But ganking is an equally viable and reasonable method of engaging enemy targets. Which is as intended.


Show me where CCP states it to be as intended.

Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#113 - 2015-05-31 18:26:38 UTC
Magnus Roden wrote:
You mean like the GCC that happens with ganking?

I mean the GCCs that are of no consequence or relevance to ganking.

Do you have an actual argument yet?

Quote:
Show me where CCP states it to be as intended.
CONCORD exists. That is all the proof you need.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#114 - 2015-05-31 18:28:21 UTC
Magnus Roden wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Magnus Roden wrote:

Yes, so start wardecs. I do it all the time.


I do. But ganking is an equally viable and reasonable method of engaging enemy targets. Which is as intended.


Show me where CCP states it to be as intended.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4964171#post4964192

"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.

Magnus Roden
Center for the Advancement of Human Endeavour
#115 - 2015-05-31 18:30:12 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Magnus Roden wrote:
You mean like the GCC that happens with ganking?

I mean the GCCs that are of no consequence or relevance to ganking.

Do you have an actual argument yet?

Quote:
Show me where CCP states it to be as intended.
CONCORD exists. That is all the proof you need.


Aha, so according to that logic everything as it is in EVE is exactly as CCP intends it to be. No problems, imbalances, issues, exploits exist. JUST because Concord exists and slaps you on the wrist (Catalyst losses are really expensive and the 15 minute bathroom break isn't handy at all) doesn't mean it's enough or in any way logical.



Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.

Magnus Roden
Center for the Advancement of Human Endeavour
#116 - 2015-05-31 18:31:32 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Magnus Roden wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Magnus Roden wrote:

Yes, so start wardecs. I do it all the time.


I do. But ganking is an equally viable and reasonable method of engaging enemy targets. Which is as intended.


Show me where CCP states it to be as intended.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4964171#post4964192


Now should me where he states that CCP is 100% happy with the current balancing of ganking, concord and everything related.

You just want to keep the current situation, because it suits you.

Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#117 - 2015-05-31 18:35:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Magnus Roden wrote:
Aha, so according to that logic
Non sequitur. You didn't get the logic, as proven by the word “aha”, which you only use when you have been proven wrong and are desperately clawing for some solid ground to get you out of the embarrassing state you've once again found yourself in.

Try this on:

Which of the two is more simple to implement and maintain?

a) valid_target ? keep_firing() : dont_fire();

or

b) All of CONCORD, all of CrimeWatch, faction navies, sec standings etc etc etc.

CONCORD is all the proof you need that ganking is intended to exist.

Quote:
Now should me where he states that CCP is 100% happy with the current balancing of ganking, concord and everything related.
You lost.
Moving the goalposts will not change this.

You still have no argument and still have failed at every conceivable point in every conceivable way to demonstrate any need whatsoever for things to change the way you want them to.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#118 - 2015-05-31 18:37:35 UTC
Magnus Roden wrote:

Now should me where he states that CCP is 100% happy with the current balancing of ganking, concord and everything related.


Keep pressing the dev button below his portrait.

Quote:

You just want to keep the current situation, because it suits you.


And you selfishly want to change it to suit you.

"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.

Magnus Roden
Center for the Advancement of Human Endeavour
#119 - 2015-05-31 18:42:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Magnus Roden
My arguments have been there all the time:

- Concord should pod on GCC because it simply makes sense given the changes in regards to NPCs and SP loss, and because of HTFU

- apparently it's still to easy to gank high EHP ships in high sec as people still gank empty freighters. Risk/reward for freighters is completely whack, it should be possible for one to have a decent amount of value onboard (while tanked) and be decently safe, atm it isn't



Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And you selfishly want to change it to suit you.


It doesn't affect me, I use a tanked MWD Bowhead to move my ships from one wardec area to another (which doesn't happen very often). Weirdly I'm in it for the balance, I realise this is a silly thing to do.

Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#120 - 2015-05-31 18:45:32 UTC
Magnus Roden wrote:

- Concord should pod on GCC because it simply makes sense given the changes in regards to NPCs and SP loss, and because of HTFU


No. If you want that to happen, inflict those consequences yourself.

And using HTFU to argue for more safety is just obscene, by the way. Apply it to yourself before you try to cry about other people, most especially the only profession in highsec that actually has mechanical consequences.

Quote:

- apparently it's still to easy to gank high EHP ships in high sec as people still gank empty freighters.


As before, working as intended. In fact, I would argue that they have made it entirely too hard, since very few people do it these days.

Quote:

Risk/reward for freighters is completely whack, it should be possible for one to have a decent amount of value onboard (while tanked) and be decently safe, atm it isn't


That should not be possible, in any way. You should never be safe in a billion isk ship, no matter where you are.

"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.