These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#181 - 2015-06-01 03:54:19 UTC
Marsha Mallow wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Magnus Roden wrote:
That's weird, I still do it


No you don't, you never have. Even when it did work you needed a silver tongue and you simply do not have that. Ransoms ended being a thing back in 2006 when an influx of idiots took up the activity and the groups with a reputation for honouring them broke up/quit.

Ransoming is still a thing, both in highsec and low. I had 30+ wardecs on my highsec alt alliance, and a lot of them offered to drop the dec for a fee. Pretty sure that counts as ransoming. I didn't pay, but on doing a bit of digging it looked like the established groups who tried it were careful about maintaining a rep for honouring agreements.

A lot of the established lowsec groups I've checked have policies in place for ransoming/honouring 1v1s. Some corps and alliances still state it on their info (even newish ones). The slowdown in reports on people breaking these on C&P looks to be more to do with disengagement from the forums. We ransomed someone a couple of weeks ago for a joke :) But it's technically tricky to do if people are trigger happy, and if you try ransom a pod a lot of people tear out their implants in the meantime.

Haven't read Magnus's earlier remarks, so he may well be talking bollocks. But on this point you appear to be as well.


The money isnt there anymore because people tend to say no like you did. Rental scams, recruitment scams and jita shenanigans are where the isk is these days. It also doesn't help that CCP more or less removed jetcan baiting miners who were the main prey hence the move to the protection racket code uses these days.
Magnus Roden
Center for the Advancement of Human Endeavour
#182 - 2015-06-01 06:45:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Magnus Roden
All that happened is that solo miners, for the most part, stopped jetcanning and just fly back and forth with their increased oreholds. Mining OPs still use cans in many cases as they tend to feel safe these days (can flipping is "dead", remember) and increase their distance from the Orca. Warp in, position yourself between the Orca and Exhumer, watch the Orca frantically pulling in the ore, switch it as it passes you. Done. It's not very difficult if you know what you're doing. Increased defences on the mining ships don't help when it comes to combat but for a well prepared flipper this really isn't a problem.

People stopped can flipping because the engagement is now less controlled (not just corp only) and this scares a lot of people but they won't say that of course, instead they'll mutter some other excuses. Personally I'm not a fan of those crimewatch changes because there's even less need for miners to be in a corp but it doesn't really stop can flipping. Have more scouts, be a bit more careful about which systems you use and simply accept the increased risk.

And that, of course, is the main issue: increased risk. For all the huffing and puffing fierce pvpers and gankers (myself not excluded of course, although in a different manner) do they are no less risk averse than the truest carebear, that's why you hide in hilariously huge coalitions and that is why you create alts to shoot people who don't shoot back. Any other explanation, excuse or "for the betterment of the game" is just smoke and mirrors, perhaps even to yourself.

Can flipping still works fine, it's just less easy than it was before but on the other hand you also have less competition and less miners being used to it. So, you're wrong on that. AND you're wrong on ransoming as well, it still works if you do it right and pick the right targets.

Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
Magnus Roden
Center for the Advancement of Human Endeavour
#183 - 2015-06-01 07:59:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Magnus Roden
Tippia wrote:
Magnus Roden wrote:
I'll agree it looks that way, because "the others" keep regurgitating the same :reasons: and :logic: and try to pummel their adversary into submission by words, semantics and changing of the subject. Ganking is not bad as such, but it is broken.

Prove it.

For bonus points, try proving it without — as you've done on every occasion so far — accidentally pointing to facts that completely disprove your stance.


Correction, that you feverishly WANT to disprove my stance.

Anyway, proof:

Look at the Code killboard, top killers. Apparently the repercussions to ganking are so inconsequential that they can easily do 10+ ganks on a single day, just about every day. This indicates that there really are no restrictions or consequences of note and that makes the concept of ganking a silly one. You will now of course react with "but this is how it works and has been working" but that doesn't mean it makes sense or shouldn't be up for debate.


Look at, for instance, Charon kills. Many of these get ganked while just having some 1-2 bil onboard, if even that, which completely removes the use for the ship. Not all cargo has to be expensive but when you start using its cargo capacity you're probably going to become a target. In that regard it makes no sense (from a gameplay pov) for the whole viability calculation to work in a ganker's favour, it should not be viable to gank a freighter with such low cargo value.

The majority of those aren't tanked but that doesn't mean anything, would the majority finally wake up and start tanking their Charons then you'd simply add a few more Catalysts creating a new equilibrium which would still be out of whack. You don't target tanked ones because they're not viable targets but because the majority doesn't tank and thus you calculated your dps numbers for those.

It's silly.

Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#184 - 2015-06-01 08:47:25 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Steppa Musana wrote:
Okay, the argument is not that CONCORD should pod players because of consequences, its that CONCORD podding players could be a solution to the exploit that is Hyperdunking.
In other words, there is no argument for CONCORD podding players, since there is no exploit and nothing to solve.

Quote:
And yes, it is an exploit
CCP says no. That's the end of it. So you're just flat out wrong on that one.

Quote:
CCP always say "not an exploit" until they find a way to actually fix it.
No. They say it is an exploit when they determine it is an exploit. Then they start looking for ways to program the exploit out of the game. So you're flat out wrong on that one too.

Beyond that, it's trivially easy to see why they determined that hyperdunking is not an exploit: because at no point are any of the key indicators for a CONCORD or aggression-game exploit present. At no point are any game mechanics bypassed. At no point is the obligatory loss avoided. At no point is any punishment deferred, nullified, or otherwise adjusted. At no point is CONCORD made to do something it is not supposed to do. If you think it is an exploit, not only are you objectively wrong, you immediately disqualify yourself from discussing the matter since you have no idea what the word even means.


Before I pose a question regarding your end statement I will state for the record that I believe the 'bumping' mechanic is working as intended and I would not see that changed. I also do not condone those who overfill their freighters or smaller hauling vessels with billiions of ISK in cargo. In addition I do not support hauling while 'AFK', on autopilot, fitting for maximum cargo, or not taking adequate preventative measures to protect your own ship.

You say that 'at no point are any game mechanics bypassed' but I would debate that this is not the case. Would you not agree that the 15 minute combat timer is bypassed by deploying the 'hyperdunking' tactic Question I will admit a while back I discussed this in-game in 'local' channel at a certain location where things were getting extremely heated and CCP had noticed this happening. I and I think others explained the situation to, I think it was CCP Mimic, and she decided at the time as you suggest that it was not an exploit.

To my mind the use of 'hyperdunking' has got out of hand especially in the 'Jita corridor' area. I do not seek to disrupt the freedoms of capsuleers to do as they wish but I do still feel this is an exploit that subverts CONCORD rules in high sec. If the OP is correct about the patch notes for Tuesday then it seems CCP have come around to this and are indirectly curtailing the further use of the 'hyperdunking' tactic.

Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#185 - 2015-06-01 09:13:07 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Magnus Roden wrote:
Piracy is about making profit with your pvp, mission busting, can flipping and wardeccing can make good cash. I've been running 5-7 accounts since 2007 (since I started doing this) all plexed up and paid for with piracy and some combat exploration on the side.



None of those activities are piracy.


Collins English Dictionary:

pirate n. 1. sea robber. 2. person who illegally publishes or sells work owned by someone else. 3. person or company that broadcasts illegally. - v. 4. sell or reproduce (artistic work etc.) illegally. piracy n. piratical adj.

I don't follow nor am I connected in any way whatsoever with Magnus Roden but if you take the term 'sea robber' that probably covers 'mission busting', can flipping and possibly use of the wardec mechanic as well. So certainly the first two actions are piratical in nature. We can go back to the OP now please.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#186 - 2015-06-01 10:48:49 UTC
Bethan Le Troix wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Magnus Roden wrote:
Piracy is about making profit with your pvp, mission busting, can flipping and wardeccing can make good cash. I've been running 5-7 accounts since 2007 (since I started doing this) all plexed up and paid for with piracy and some combat exploration on the side.



None of those activities are piracy.


Collins English Dictionary:

pirate n. 1. sea robber. 2. person who illegally publishes or sells work owned by someone else. 3. person or company that broadcasts illegally. - v. 4. sell or reproduce (artistic work etc.) illegally. piracy n. piratical adj.

I don't follow nor am I connected in any way whatsoever with Magnus Roden but if you take the term 'sea robber' that probably covers 'mission busting', can flipping and possibly use of the wardec mechanic as well. So certainly the first two actions are piratical in nature. We can go back to the OP now please.


'mission busting' and can flipping are baiting a fight and have nothing to do with attacking shipping.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#187 - 2015-06-01 10:59:31 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Magnus Roden wrote:



Look at the Code killboard, top killers. Apparently the repercussions to ganking are so inconsequential that they can easily do 10+ ganks on a single day, just about every day.


Yet again you show just how rare ganking is as an activity if thats all the very best manage.

Magnus Roden wrote:

Look at, for instance, Charon kills. Many of these get ganked while just having some 1-2 bil onboard, if even that, which completely removes the use for the ship.


And almost all of those kills are charons that have chosen to go with anti-tank setups.

Magnus Roden wrote:

The majority of those aren't tanked but that doesn't mean anything



It means that they are profitable to gank with less isk in the hold. So not fitting a tank is a very big deal.
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#188 - 2015-06-01 11:05:05 UTC
SamuraiJack wrote:
I dont consider bumping a ship that has no defenses off grid into an alley and then pewing the crap out of it "gameplay"

Bumping IS an exploit and CCP have banned for it. Any cap ship with lateral movement CANNOT warp. You dont need to tackle it or scram it. The machariels they use to do this are invunerable as you will be concorded for attempting to stop it. Even with a webbing ship helping you move you are at risk as you now have a 15min timer if you log to avoid bumping. (They also use nub alts to suicide "tag" you if you log.)

Given most gankers like to use NPC haulers/bowheads/bumpers the only recourse you have is to suicide gank them in return. Its evasion of the highest order. Little Risk, No way to be Wardecced, "total lulz".

People with balls would put them in a corp and then deal with the wardecs... says alot really...


dude, your ignorance astounds me. learn the game 1st please. What?

Just Add Water
Magnus Roden
Center for the Advancement of Human Endeavour
#189 - 2015-06-01 11:24:57 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
It means that they are profitable to gank with less isk in the hold. So not fitting a tank is a very big deal.


No, it just means they get chosen first. Would the majority fit tank then they'd be targeted, just with a few added Catalysts, and still be viable targets.

Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
Magnus Roden
Center for the Advancement of Human Endeavour
#190 - 2015-06-01 11:28:03 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
'mission busting' and can flipping are baiting a fight and have nothing to do with attacking shipping.


That's weird. I do a lot of that, attacking ships, and I do it for profit. It's not like there's rules set in stone or something that there's just one type of piracy, it's more of a guideline really.

Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#191 - 2015-06-01 11:45:46 UTC
Magnus Roden wrote:


No, it just means they get chosen first. Would the majority fit tank then they'd be targeted, just with a few added Catalysts, and still be viable targets.


And wind up bankrupt because you are paying more than you are making. Not fitting a tank means you are profitable to gank with less in the hold. Its as simple as that.

Magnus Roden wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
'mission busting' and can flipping are baiting a fight and have nothing to do with attacking shipping.


That's weird. I do a lot of that, attacking ships, and I do it for profit. It's not like there's rules set in stone or something that there's just one type of piracy, it's more of a guideline really.


Your kill record: No Character/Corp/Alliance by that name could be found!

Given you utter lack of knowledge I simply don't believe you.
The Slayer
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#192 - 2015-06-01 11:50:36 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.


Just because thats how the American police operate doesn't mean it should be standard operating procedure for all police forces.
Magnus Roden
Center for the Advancement of Human Endeavour
#193 - 2015-06-01 12:19:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Magnus Roden
baltec1 wrote:
And wind up bankrupt because you are paying more than you are making. Not fitting a tank means you are profitable to gank with less in the hold. Its as simple as that.


Apparently it's worthwhile to gank empty freighters or ones with just some 100 mil isk onboard, or at least it's not a big enough cost or nuisance to NOT do it meaning that with a few more catalysts it's worth it to gank a 2 bil cargo tanked one.

Quote:

Your kill record: No Character/Corp/Alliance by that name could be found!

Given you utter lack of knowledge I simply don't believe you.


Just as you hide behind 40k "friends", whom you then won't have to fight, I hide behind posting alts. Nice try though.

Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#194 - 2015-06-01 12:41:31 UTC
Magnus Roden wrote:


Apparently it's worthwhile to gank empty freighters or ones with just some 100 mil isk onboard, or at least it's not a big enough cost or nuisance to NOT do it meaning that with a few more catalysts it's worth it to gank a 2 bil cargo tanked one.


As has been pointed out to you many times already these ganks are rare, not the norm and happen for other reasons such as us hitting enemy hauler alts.


Magnus Roden wrote:

Just as you hide behind 40k "friends", whom you then won't have to fight, I hide behind posting alts. Nice try though.


Until you provide the proof you are just telling lies. The very fact you have zero idea what you are talking about is enough to show that. You are nothing but a highsec bear whining to remove the only threat haulers will ever face.
Amanda Chan
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#195 - 2015-06-01 12:47:01 UTC
The Slayer wrote:
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.


Just because thats how the American police operate doesn't mean it should be standard operating procedure for all police forces.


Hoooooooo shots fired, also it's not just the American police that operate that way.

That said, I'm all for Concord podding....along with deadspace rats, belt rats, every kind of rat. Since CCP is testing this new AI who knows, it may very well update these fuctions/classes to all rats. Imagine warping out of a mission. whew, what? Rats have followed me back to my station?! oh noes! Wait..now they're camping me in said station.....hurrr. *priceless*

Back to the topic at hand. Should people under GCC be allowed to refit? No, Concord is there to punish you. You removing modules to is a midigation/circumventing that punishment. It doesn't matter how large or small of an impact. Game mechanics need to be fixed or can lead to loop holes.

Off to the tangents:

Should high-sec ganking exist? Yes. EVE is built on the foundation of risk/reward. What shouldn't exist? Bumping. There is no risk and only reward for bumping, be it tears, setting up a gank, etc. Personally I think it's very silly that ships slam into one another at 1k+ m/s and just bounce off each other and get sent flying with no damage taken. If I wanna kamikaze a machariel screaming in at 2k+ m/s a second and slam into a freighter. You better believe that freighter should be get rek'd but at the same time should the machariel.

But wait?! How will we gank if we can't bump people while we form up/warp there. Be prepared? When advising people on how to avoid getting bumped and then ganked. You tell them scout ahead, don't travel alone, etc etc. But the same rules don't apply to the ganker who bumps somebody for 30+ minutes while batphoning in a posse.(p.s yes there are ways to save a freighter after getting bumped. although it is much harder without alts/friends)
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#196 - 2015-06-01 12:54:21 UTC
So beside the already too common rambling about ganking being good/bad/broken/fine/..., did anything come up as reasons for this change beside canning expensive items before you go pop?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#197 - 2015-06-01 13:02:50 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
So beside the already too common rambling about ganking being good/bad/broken/fine/..., did anything come up as reasons for this change beside canning expensive items before you go pop?


Even the canning of the mods before you explode is grasping at straws.
Magnus Roden
Center for the Advancement of Human Endeavour
#198 - 2015-06-01 13:04:22 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Magnus Roden wrote:


Apparently it's worthwhile to gank empty freighters or ones with just some 100 mil isk onboard, or at least it's not a big enough cost or nuisance to NOT do it meaning that with a few more catalysts it's worth it to gank a 2 bil cargo tanked one.


As has been pointed out to you many times already these ganks are rare, not the norm and happen for other reasons such as us hitting enemy hauler alts.


Magnus Roden wrote:

Just as you hide behind 40k "friends", whom you then won't have to fight, I hide behind posting alts. Nice try though.


Until you provide the proof you are just telling lies. The very fact you have zero idea what you are talking about is enough to show that. You are nothing but a highsec bear whining to remove the only threat haulers will ever face.


Yeah, they rarely happe.. oh wait, no.

And again, nice try. Btw, why are you so concerned with high sec, don't you have things to fight in 0.0?



Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#199 - 2015-06-01 13:06:50 UTC
Magnus Roden wrote:


And again, nice try. Btw, why are you so concerned with high sec, don't you have things to fight in 0.0?





Unlike you I play in all areas of space.
Magnus Roden
Center for the Advancement of Human Endeavour
#200 - 2015-06-01 13:17:50 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Magnus Roden wrote:


And again, nice try. Btw, why are you so concerned with high sec, don't you have things to fight in 0.0?





Unlike you I play in all areas of space.


Ah yes, so you friend everyone in 0.0 meaning you don't have to fight anyone of consequence and then you go to high sec to shoot people who don't shoot back.

Duly noted.

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