These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

- Proposal of Ship Scanning as Hostile Act Resolution -
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#201 - 2016-07-28 16:27:52 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Come to think of it, why not at least have a suspect flag for people scanning. After all, if somebody is going around a parking lot looking into cars, would that behavior not be "suspect"?

I know I known "Hurf blurf this is not real life hurf blurf not another nerf".

These days I don't get wrapped up in "don't they want PVP?" They don't. Heck even RvB turned out to be a kill-farming scam.

I agree. Anyone who looks into cars in parking lots in New Eden should gain a suspect flag.

As for ship scanning though, no. Suspect flag is not needed.




But what about HTFU?

My, how the tune changes. I bet if scanning ships did result in s suspect flag, you'd call that a nerf to ganking.

But but I though you people always win every engagement? I thought you people are the apex feeeders of Eve, the super duper uber leet undefeatable pilots here to break people out of their RL habits of not being paranoid enough about everything?


Your type will never change, and it's the presence of people like you in this game, or this game itself (apparently) that is not going to be missed.

Why would that change ganking?

It's just not a mechanic that's needed.

If having an opinion is somehow an affront to the health of this game or something, then we are all screwed. How does having a view that no suspect flag is needed suddenly make me someone that won't be missed.

I don't personally think any of us will be missed when we leave. The game will go on regardless.

So why is my type, which can only be someone that has an opinion, such a bad thing for the game. Don't you have opinions too?


I did some further research on the wreck EHP change which we discussed on a locked thread, it was confirmed to me that Endie did push for it because AG was ganking wrecks. This is actually a case where the Gankers got the rules changed to block an AG strategy. A number of other CSM null sec players also pushed for it, but Endie pushed for it because it benefited ganking and negated the strategy that AG was starting to do more and more.

So I totally stand by my statement that the wreck EHP was changed to benefit gankers.

EDIT: It gets even more interesting, the EHP buff to freighters was decided after that when CCP realised that the wreck EHP buff was a direct benefit to gankers, CCP Fozzie going as far as saying ,"like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance" Personally I would prefer that they had not changed the wreck EHP and left the freighter tank as was so we could shoot the wrecks and prevent the gankers from gathering the loot.

I would state that was one hell of a buff to ganking, or should I say loot scooping Big smile

EDIT2: Just to make it even more stark, the player you are replying to above was shooting wrecks, just so you know, so what he was doing was directly removed by CCP at the request of a CSM member whose corp was the main beneficiary of ganking in hisec. This stinks big time, it really does stink bad.




Indeed the baby that cries the loudest gets fed the most. And nobody cries louder than the gankers. CODE. exists solely over buttmad after all.

I think sometimes CCP has internal factions and one of them is bent on feeding the crowd that see's HTFU as some sort of religion. Whatever happened to these people IRL, I'm glad it has not happened to me (or I at least saw "it" coming and avoided it).

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#202 - 2016-07-28 16:30:16 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
The Groundskeeper wrote:
He said I was well-respected I'm changing sides I'm with you now Dracvlad of Taishi Combine, proud members of Second-Dawn. Let's take down those filthy gankers with their insistence on shooting things. Have you considered a career in Pandemic Legion?


I am not going to reply to the others, they are hot air.

Of course you are well respected in the game, you play to win and you do and you did with this.

My objective here was not to directly go after you, but to neuter the whining of yet another nerf to ganking, the balance that Fozzie put in for Freighter structure EHP after the wreck EHP change in no way balanced against what AG was doing and which was destroyed by that change. That was my point, also the change was removing an offensive act to adding EHP on the defensive side, thanks guys for the great content.

There was so much wrong with that.




Really not go after him?

Quote:
CCP were grossly incompetent and were manipulated by Endie for his own reasons. The man is a disgrace, can't win in space so he gets the rules changed.


Hmmm...somebody sure did flip-flop. Roll

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#203 - 2016-07-28 16:30:32 UTC
Alas, it could not be avoided. I have a wife and kids. Went downhill from there.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#204 - 2016-07-28 16:33:15 UTC
The Groundskeeper wrote:
It was also, in retrospect, a sensible change in the sphere of suicide ganking: nothing in eve should have no counter




Oh the irony...

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#205 - 2016-07-28 16:48:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
That was a stealth move to this forum from the General Discussion forum, now I really have to start laughing... Shocked

Teckos, of course, I don't like what was done there and made my feeling known because if that was the case it is a disgrace, but my objective is to go after you lot whining about nerfs to everything, not that player as an individual.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#206 - 2016-07-28 16:49:19 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
The Groundskeeper wrote:
It was also, in retrospect, a sensible change in the sphere of suicide ganking: nothing in eve should have no counter




Oh the irony...


But getting a suspect timer is not really a counter. A counter is something that players should be able to do.

If you want a module that when activate counters scanning, I suppose that might not be too bad. But here is the thing, people will just backwards induct to a strategy of ganking ships using such a module. After all, if you are using it you must not want people to see what you are carrying...and that will likely be highly correlated with ISK value.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#207 - 2016-07-28 16:57:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirty Forum Alt
Vortexo VonBrenner wrote:
Quite simply because the wreck EHP issue directly relates to ganking, and having things like ganking possible in the game directly relates to the overall theme on safety in the game. It seemed a pretty direct connection to me *shrug* maybe I'm wrong...

#1 You are the now saying explicitly that Dracvlad is correct and CCP increased wreck EHP as a direct buff to ganking?
#2 Wreck EHP doesn't affect safety. By the time you get to the EHP of the wreck, the safety of the ship that made the wreck is already a moot point. Increasing the wreck EHP is just a direct reward to gankers. If anything it makes their profession safer, so it is an example of CCP pandering to people who want the game to be safe and easy for their own play style.


edit:
#3 Shocking as it may seem to you, Gankers got by just fine ganking AND looting their victims with the old, low wreck ehp... Just because people started competing to deny the loot and modern gankers are lazy doesn't mean EVE needed to change to accommodate them...

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#208 - 2016-07-28 17:28:51 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
The Groundskeeper wrote:
It was also, in retrospect, a sensible change in the sphere of suicide ganking: nothing in eve should have no counter




Oh the irony...


But getting a suspect timer is not really a counter. A counter is something that players should be able to do.

If you want a module that when activate counters scanning, I suppose that might not be too bad. But here is the thing, people will just backwards induct to a strategy of ganking ships using such a module. After all, if you are using it you must not want people to see what you are carrying...and that will likely be highly correlated with ISK value.


Not to mention the fact that counters already exist. Double wrapping cargo, blockade runners, the MWD cloak trick all counter scanners.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#209 - 2016-07-28 17:32:41 UTC
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
Vortexo VonBrenner wrote:
Quite simply because the wreck EHP issue directly relates to ganking, and having things like ganking possible in the game directly relates to the overall theme on safety in the game. It seemed a pretty direct connection to me *shrug* maybe I'm wrong...

#1 You are the now saying explicitly that Dracvlad is correct and CCP increased wreck EHP as a direct buff to ganking?
#2 Wreck EHP doesn't affect safety. By the time you get to the EHP of the wreck, the safety of the ship that made the wreck is already a moot point. Increasing the wreck EHP is just a direct reward to gankers. If anything it makes their profession safer, so it is an example of CCP pandering to people who want the game to be safe and easy for their own play style.


edit:
#3 Shocking as it may seem to you, Gankers got by just fine ganking AND looting their victims with the old, low wreck ehp... Just because people started competing to deny the loot and modern gankers are lazy doesn't mean EVE needed to change to accommodate them...


Ok lets put a pin in this daftness.

They want to nerf ganking by making turning a profit impossible. Instakilling the wreck with anything armed with a peashooter made this possible with no possibility to counter it so naturally they are bitter it has been removed. Wrecks can still be blown up but it now require them to put actual in effort and risk to accomplish. Unsurprisingly they don't do that.
Vortexo VonBrenner
Doomheim
#210 - 2016-07-28 18:01:18 UTC
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
#1 You are the now saying explicitly that Dracvlad is correct and CCP increased wreck EHP as a direct buff to ganking?

Well...that wasn't my intention. If that's how I came across...sorry?
It seems logical to me that the wreckage of a large ship would be tougher to destroy than the wreckage of a small ship. If that is a buff for ganking...oh, well...so be it.



EvE security zones in pictures

EvE quick reference pdf

EvE links
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#211 - 2016-07-28 18:02:40 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
Vortexo VonBrenner wrote:
Quite simply because the wreck EHP issue directly relates to ganking, and having things like ganking possible in the game directly relates to the overall theme on safety in the game. It seemed a pretty direct connection to me *shrug* maybe I'm wrong...

#1 You are the now saying explicitly that Dracvlad is correct and CCP increased wreck EHP as a direct buff to ganking?
#2 Wreck EHP doesn't affect safety. By the time you get to the EHP of the wreck, the safety of the ship that made the wreck is already a moot point. Increasing the wreck EHP is just a direct reward to gankers. If anything it makes their profession safer, so it is an example of CCP pandering to people who want the game to be safe and easy for their own play style.


edit:
#3 Shocking as it may seem to you, Gankers got by just fine ganking AND looting their victims with the old, low wreck ehp... Just because people started competing to deny the loot and modern gankers are lazy doesn't mean EVE needed to change to accommodate them...


Ok lets put a pin in this daftness.

They want to nerf ganking by making turning a profit impossible. Instakilling the wreck with anything armed with a peashooter made this possible with no possibility to counter it so naturally they are bitter it has been removed. Wrecks can still be blown up but it now require them to put actual in effort and risk to accomplish. Unsurprisingly they don't do that.




Ganking is not intended to be profitable. It has even been said so.

Funny you bring up the term "no possibility to counter it". Want to make that the core subject? We can do this all day.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Lex Gabinia
Res Repetundae
#212 - 2016-07-28 18:04:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Lex Gabinia
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:



So like bumping, ganking needs another no-consequence mechanic.

Check.


I'm sorry, I did not realize that scanners were used exclusively for ganking. /sarcasm

You're kind of making my point. Scanners are not used exclusively for ganking so it makes no sense to be flagged suspect for their use.

Wait I have an idea, let's have a popup that asks the player each time they activate the module if this is for ganking purposes. That way we can know their intentions and flag them or not accordingly.
Lex Gabinia
Res Repetundae
#213 - 2016-07-28 18:08:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Lex Gabinia
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:


Ganking is not intended to be profitable. It has even been said so.




Where has this been said? Other than insurance profit I do not recall this being said.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#214 - 2016-07-28 18:10:09 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
Vortexo VonBrenner wrote:
Quite simply because the wreck EHP issue directly relates to ganking, and having things like ganking possible in the game directly relates to the overall theme on safety in the game. It seemed a pretty direct connection to me *shrug* maybe I'm wrong...

#1 You are the now saying explicitly that Dracvlad is correct and CCP increased wreck EHP as a direct buff to ganking?
#2 Wreck EHP doesn't affect safety. By the time you get to the EHP of the wreck, the safety of the ship that made the wreck is already a moot point. Increasing the wreck EHP is just a direct reward to gankers. If anything it makes their profession safer, so it is an example of CCP pandering to people who want the game to be safe and easy for their own play style.


edit:
#3 Shocking as it may seem to you, Gankers got by just fine ganking AND looting their victims with the old, low wreck ehp... Just because people started competing to deny the loot and modern gankers are lazy doesn't mean EVE needed to change to accommodate them...


Ok lets put a pin in this daftness.

They want to nerf ganking by making turning a profit impossible. Instakilling the wreck with anything armed with a peashooter made this possible with no possibility to counter it so naturally they are bitter it has been removed. Wrecks can still be blown up but it now require them to put actual in effort and risk to accomplish. Unsurprisingly they don't do that.




Ganking is not intended to be profitable. It has even been said so.

Funny you bring up the term "no possibility to counter it". Want to make that the core subject? We can do this all day.



Ganking is also not intended to not be profitable, as well, because it's considered to be legitimate gameplay. In order to keep it legitimate, it needs to be potentially profitable, and just like any other activity in EVE, it comes with the risk of being very costly as well. You keep talking as if you have an argument that ganking has no counters as well. This is not true, and can be demonstrated quite easily to not be true, so how about we steer away from this nonsense shall we, and try to apply our critical faculties a little more... idk, critically.

“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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#215 - 2016-07-28 18:16:58 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:


Ganking is not intended to be profitable. It has even been said so.


Piracy is the act of attacking and stealing someone elses **** and selling it to turn a profit, this is what gankers are doing (code being the obvious exception, they are just terrorists).
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Funny you bring up the term "no possibility to counter it". Want to make that the core subject? We can do this all day.



The mechanics made it impossible, feel free to tell me how you think it could be countered and I'll point out that the game operates in 1 second ticks which means no matter what you do their shot will always land. There is simple no time to react let alone send the command before they have blown up the wreck, its the same reason why insta warp cepters are impossible to catch.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#216 - 2016-07-28 18:20:57 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
nah

Just make it so the person scanned has a warning show up on his screen identifying who scanned him.


Already have that.


Where?
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#217 - 2016-07-28 18:23:10 UTC
Lex Gabinia wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:



So like bumping, ganking needs another no-consequence mechanic.

Check.


I'm sorry, I did not realize that scanners were used exclusively for ganking. /sarcasm

You're kind of making my point. Scanners are not used exclusively for ganking so it makes no sense to be flagged suspect for their use.

Wait I have an idea, let's have a popup that asks the player each time they activate the module if this is for ganking purposes. That way we can know their intentions and flag them or not accordingly.



I have used them on CODE. bumping ships. Great way to get an idea of what it would take to gank the bumping ship.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#218 - 2016-07-28 18:26:12 UTC
People have been blowing up titan wrecks loaded with tens of billions of isk in 0.0 space for years - to deny the enemy their loot. I have never yet seen a PL thread whining about this massive loss of profit.

But someone uses the exact same tactic in high sec, against gankers, at more direct loss to themselves due to concord and sec status hits...and suddenly *now* it is broken and needs to be changed?

Why are the gankers special snowflakes whose way of life needs extra protection?


You want a counter? how about you throw in something with smartbombs to defend the wreck by instapopping them as they come in? Or just loot it faster you lazy piece of ****. You have options - but instead of making you think creatively to solve your problem CCP stepped in and made your problem go away.


My posting history speaks for itself. I am no friend of "safe highsec" people, nor of anti-ganking in general....but I am offended by mechanic changes purely to make EVE easier for a specific group because they complained. No matter who it benefits.

As well as with people being hypocrites and expecting everyone *else* to HTFU while they demand favouritism of their own...

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#219 - 2016-07-28 18:27:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Divine Entervention wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
nah

Just make it so the person scanned has a warning show up on his screen identifying who scanned him.


Already have that.


Where?


Your overview. To use a scanner you have to yellow box the target unless you are using a passive targeting array.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Sarah Flynt
Red Cross Mercenaries
Silent Infinity
#220 - 2016-07-28 18:31:06 UTC
The Groundskeeper wrote:
No, I'm Endie. And I can tell you straight up that gankers were one of those I was aware would be positively affected, yes, but they were not the main point.

At least get your story straight as that sounds an awful lot different from what you said on reddit when being called out for it shortly after the CSM X meeting minutes were released. Not a single word about poor SC or Titan wrecks:
Jestertrek wrote:
[Editorial] This more or less confirms Endie pushed the wreck HP change to CCP strictly as a benefit to his own alliance suicide gankers.
EndiePosts wrote:
I was asked by people in an alliance I am no longer in to raise concerns about JF ganking and to pass on details, and I did so, and tried to argue their case.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/47q09h/dev_blog_the_second_csm_x_summit_meeting_minutes/d0f03vy

But anyway: well played. The CSM CCP deserves I guess.

Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !