These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lex Gabinia
Res Repetundae
#241 - 2016-07-28 19:59:33 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Lex Gabinia wrote:
What does any of this have to do with the idea of getting a suspect flag for using scanners?

Nothing of course, but there must be messages pushed. Talk is the only thing AG can do. So messages, even completely rubbish, off topic ones, are on the table to be splurged in any thread. Nothing shall deny the conspiracy.


FYI..I've been flying around for the last hour scanning every ship I could get locked. Nobody seems to notice or care.

I did however find a pod next to a wrecked miner. Asked after them in local, got no answer, scooped loot and salvaged their wreck. I was nice enough to contract their loot back to them - even slightly below lowest sale price - no reason to get greedy.
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#242 - 2016-07-28 20:00:49 UTC
Galaxy Chicken wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
I am quite happy to protect myself against people who might decide to use legal action against me, some of you people take this game way to seriously....



*Thinks we all take EVE too seriously*

*Called a lawyer over EVE stuff*

?

Yeah, that bit is hilarious. Someone said something on the Internet......to the lawyer.

I'm still laughing at how crazy that is.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#243 - 2016-07-28 20:04:47 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Lex Gabinia wrote:
What does any of this have to do with the idea of getting a suspect flag for using scanners?

Nothing of course, but there must be messages pushed. Talk is the only thing AG can do. So messages, even completely rubbish, off topic ones, are on the table to be splurged in any thread. Nothing shall deny the conspiracy.


Yeah but Gankers on the CSM push CCP to change the rules when someone does something in game that starts to work against their easy lifestyle...


So...tell us how the Illuminati are involved, or is it the Reptillians?

"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
Galaxy Chicken
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
#244 - 2016-07-28 21:07:44 UTC
Open your eyes people! The illuminati are in cahoots with the reptilians! (all of whom are Endie)
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#245 - 2016-07-28 21:11:24 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


CCP have already said taht Ganking a T2 fit ship is not ment to be profitable, you know that.


CCP said that ganking an unfitted T2 hull should not be profitable.
Dracvlad wrote:

The wrecks had been like that for ages, but as soon as AG start blowing them up you get it changed.



Boomerang exploit had been in the game for almost a decade before it got fixed. Broken mechanics should be getting fixed no?




Boomerang "exploit" was fixed within a week of Herr Wilkus perfecting it and showing how to do it with a Tornado. "Tornado Trifecta" I think it was called. CCP didn't have a problem with 4-5 guys doing it with cats. But when Wilkus showed you can do it solo..... wait a minute... there's a pattern here...

wonder how many arty thrashers it would take to alpha a freighter wreck...

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#246 - 2016-07-28 21:23:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirty Forum Alt
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
wonder how many arty thrashers it would take to alpha a freighter wreck...

~15

You might do it in 10 if you had pilots w/ good gunnery/etc, but 15 would be safer.

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)
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#247 - 2016-07-28 22:30:02 UTC
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
wonder how many arty thrashers it would take to alpha a freighter wreck...

~15

You might do it in 10 if you had pilots w/ good gunnery/etc, but 15 would be safer.
This really should be measured in Ibises; a long time back someone did the math on how many Ibises it would require to gank the Veldnaught in a 0.5.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#248 - 2016-07-28 22:42:29 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
wonder how many arty thrashers it would take to alpha a freighter wreck...

~15

You might do it in 10 if you had pilots w/ good gunnery/etc, but 15 would be safer.
This really should be measured in Ibises; a long time back someone did the math on how many Ibises it would require to gank the Veldnaught in a 0.5.

well that is easy - on a gate w/ concord pre-spawned you get ~2 damage per ibis before they pop. 15k ehp = 7k ibises required.

Veldnaught I'm not sure after the capital rebalances...but total hp divided by 2 and there you go.

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)
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#249 - 2016-07-29 05:54:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


CCP have already said taht Ganking a T2 fit ship is not ment to be profitable, you know that.


CCP said that ganking an unfitted T2 hull should not be profitable.
Dracvlad wrote:

The wrecks had been like that for ages, but as soon as AG start blowing them up you get it changed.



Boomerang exploit had been in the game for almost a decade before it got fixed. Broken mechanics should be getting fixed no?




Boomerang "exploit" was fixed within a week of Herr Wilkus perfecting it and showing how to do it with a Tornado. "Tornado Trifecta" I think it was called. CCP didn't have a problem with 4-5 guys doing it with cats. But when Wilkus showed you can do it solo..... wait a minute... there's a pattern here...

wonder how many arty thrashers it would take to alpha a freighter wreck...


Note that he avoided the point that as soon as the AG players started blowing the wrecks up they got it changed. Should we expect that anything that allows the AG players to do as ganklers do, shoot something in fast ships cheap that have no consequences will always be changed to have to be more expensive ships that are easily counted and above our pay grade to use, or that we are not multi boxing 10 characters.

It is 15,000 EHP, I would suggest 10 Arty Thrashers or 1 Tornado and two arty thrasher off the top of my head, but it is hard to say., but it is above what the AG players can deploy.

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
#250 - 2016-07-29 07:08:55 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.


It was NOT removed, it was made more difficult. Instead of a freighter wreck having the ehp as a frigate wreck the larger wrecks were given more ehp.

"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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#251 - 2016-07-29 07:13:20 UTC
Cory Za wrote:


Why not: just have a pop up message that advises the player.

"Cargo Scanned"

This way it keeps with the danger and fun. Players and concord can scan and you never know who.
You have a choice then to get the heart pumping or not.



Why not just pay attention and be prudent? Or next time you want to move your freighter should I log on to hold your hand?

"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
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#252 - 2016-07-29 07:53:37 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
It was NOT removed, it was made more difficult. Instead of a freighter wreck having the ehp as a frigate wreck the larger wrecks were given more ehp.


It suddenly got pushed through when AG started ganking wrecks, perhaps that was a strange coincidence, but whatever it destroyed what was developing into fun for AG players.

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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#253 - 2016-07-29 10:18:15 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
It was NOT removed, it was made more difficult. Instead of a freighter wreck having the ehp as a frigate wreck the larger wrecks were given more ehp.


It suddenly got pushed through when AG started ganking wrecks, perhaps that was a strange coincidence, but whatever it destroyed what was developing into fun for AG players.


You can still do it, the only difference is you need to actually make an effort and spend some isk.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#254 - 2016-07-29 10:37:57 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
It was NOT removed, it was made more difficult. Instead of a freighter wreck having the ehp as a frigate wreck the larger wrecks were given more ehp.


It suddenly got pushed through when AG started ganking wrecks, perhaps that was a strange coincidence, but whatever it destroyed what was developing into fun for AG players.


You can still do it, the only difference is you need to actually make an effort and spend some isk.


What like the effort you did not make in shooting small stuff shooting wrecks, you made a different effort.

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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#255 - 2016-07-29 13:32:04 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


What like the effort you did not make in shooting small stuff shooting wrecks, you made a different effort.


How many time must I point out the mechanics of this game to you? They could not be shot before they have blown up the wreck due to the game mechanics. This is the Fourth time I have had to tell you this.

Simple fact here is the tactic still works, you just refuse to expend any effort aside from bitching on the forums to get play styles you hate removed.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#256 - 2016-07-29 13:40:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


What like the effort you did not make in shooting small stuff shooting wrecks, you made a different effort.


How many time must I point out the mechanics of this game to you? They could not be shot before they have blown up the wreck due to the game mechanics. This is the Fourth time I have had to tell you this.

Simple fact here is the tactic still works, you just refuse to expend any effort aside from bitching on the forums to get play styles you hate removed.


You had to stop them, get them at the gate, hit them as they undock, hit them as they land and start to target, that is what we are told right, we are fail, just as you are fail. Now I know that a couple of times Gankers did manage to defend the wreck, I also remember when you gankers tried to sccop the loot and the freeighter went suspect and bang it died, all extra effort and risk, but you did not like that did you. It was too hard wasn't it, diddums...

EDIT: I forgot something important, because they had only just started, the happy anti ganker wreck gankers had not yet reached -10, but once they were there you could have shot them, where have I heard that before? Sadly because you stopped it so quickly with your CSM flanking move we never got to test you did we?

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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#257 - 2016-07-29 13:51:58 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:

You had to stop them, get them at the gate, hit them as they undock, hit them as they land and start to target, that is what we are told right, we are fail, just as you are fail.


Name the last time a freighter was suicde ganked in sub 1 mil frigates.


Dracvlad wrote:

Now I know that a couple of times Gankers did manage to defend the wreck


And people die in insta warp interceptors. Bad pilots do not count in balance arguments.
Dracvlad wrote:

EDIT: I forgot something important, because they had only just started, the happy anti ganker wreck gankers had not yet reached -10, but once they were there you could have shot them, where have I heard that before? Sadly because you stopped it so quickly with your CSM flanking move we never got to test you did we?


And we get back to the problem of the game mechanics not allowing you to blow them up before they have shot the wreck.

Again, this tactic still works, you just have to put in isk and effort now.
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#258 - 2016-07-29 14:00:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirty Forum Alt
baltec1 wrote:
[quote=Dracvlad]Again, this tactic still works, you just have to put in isk and effort now.

To be fair, a wreck is now harder to gank than the average mining ship (non skiff/procurer) - since they have to hit it with concord pre-spawned and on a gate.

It essentially takes the same isk investment as ganking a hauler in a 1.0 system - but with a guarantee of 0 isk as a reward. So the gankers/looters do definitely have a significant advantage in this particular scenario after the wreck buff.

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)
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#259 - 2016-07-29 14:06:07 UTC
Ironically I think CCP could rebalance this fairly easily, if they were interested in doing so - and my solution is quite counter-intuitive:

What they need to do to re-balance this equation is to simply alter the CONCORD mechanics so that there is a *fixed* delay in their deployment, based solely on the security status of the system. And make them wait for this predefined period *even if they are already on grid*.

This would give the anti-gankers a fair chance at ganking the wreck - though they would still be at a slight disadvantage due to gate guns, it wouldn't be unreasonable.

It would also have the side-effect of saving mining ship gankers the trouble of pulling concord back out of the belt between ganks - probably saving a few of their pods in the process.

In terms of game lore, they could make CONCORD warp *back out* after enforcing their punishment - which would additionally save server resources not having hundreds of them orbitting random gates anyway.



Honestly I think this would be a win-win for everybody. Am I missing anything?

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
#260 - 2016-07-29 14:09:39 UTC
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
[quote=Dracvlad]Again, this tactic still works, you just have to put in isk and effort now.

To be fair, a wreck is now harder to gank than the average mining ship (non skiff/procurer) - since they have to hit it with concord pre-spawned and on a gate.

It essentially takes the same isk investment as ganking a hauler in a 1.0 system - but with a guarantee of 0 isk as a reward. So the gankers/looters do definitely have a significant advantage in this particular scenario after the wreck buff.


They never used this tactic on miner wrecks anyway. It was purely freighter wrecks.