These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#261 - 2016-07-29 14:10:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
baltec1 wrote:
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.


We were not allowed to get to this situation with -10 characters because you made your CSM flanking move so quickly, is it our fault that you stopped it so soon with CSM action and did not allow the same cat and mouse game to develop for both sides, instead our people are back to sitting there and taking it. And you lot can run around feeling all smug and superior because you do not have to defend anything.

And you put it out of the reach of anti-gankers and you know it, your CSM flanking action destroyed the one bit of enjoyable content where anti gankers had the same mechanics as you.

A huge amount of ganks have T1 destroyers in them, and you switched to SB's because we were bumping the Freighters out of the range of the Catalysts.

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
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#262 - 2016-07-29 14:11:34 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
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.


Back to your typical trolling, do you ever stop. The one thing that this sorry episode has proved to all Eve players is when the going gets tough the gankers get going to the CSM for mechanic change, so much for your skill and ability...

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
#263 - 2016-07-29 14:21:05 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


Back to your typical trolling, do you ever stop. The one thing that this sorry episode has proved to all Eve players is when the going gets tough the gankers get going to the CSM for mechanic change, so much for your skill and ability...


Said the guy unwilling to risk a fraction of the isk used to gank the freighter.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#264 - 2016-07-29 14:24:56 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


Back to your typical trolling, do you ever stop. The one thing that this sorry episode has proved to all Eve players is when the going gets tough the gankers get going to the CSM for mechanic change, so much for your skill and ability...


Said the guy unwilling to risk a fraction of the isk used to gank the freighter.


Said the guy who destroyed fun content by whining to CCP via their CSM representative and destroyed pixels getting blown up by a mechanic change.

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
#265 - 2016-07-29 14:27:31 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Dracvlad wrote:


Said the guy who destroyed fun content by whining to CCP via their CSM representative and destroyed pixels getting blown up by a mechanic change.


Content is still there, it just requires more than a sub 1 million isk frigate to pull off on a freighter wreck. And the irony of you calling that on anyone else seems to be completely lost on you.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#266 - 2016-07-29 14:37:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
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 issue is that we have on one side the Goon and PL supported Gankers, massive wealth, huge number of accounts ability to move about pick their targets, running in fast to warp ships and able to warp in and blap.

Against solo or at most two account players who are mostly not very wealthy who have an alt or two that they were applying to help for no payment at all. The issue is that while the gankers will hit freighters and loot scoop if they win, earning a huge amount of ISK, the AG will earn 0 as you pointed out. Also the numbers of AG is fairly low, there is now way we can get 10 to 15 people in toons that are acceptable to go to -10 to gank a single wreck, nor can they afford the Tornado scenario.

The wreck was placed above their ability to gank in terms of skills and ships and numbers. The Goon here keeps saying unwilling to gank the wreck but he knows full well what the AG is. I have one anti-ganking gank toon and I just do not have the ability to put him in a Tornado and nor do I have the ability to fund that Tornado to the level that the gankers do.

While your suggestion is good, we are talking about structural issues, we have the professional level highly funded hisec alliances in a very organised way making vast amounts of ISK against a small group of militia type people who largely disorganised. CCP just handed total victory to them with this change.

And what gets me is that not a single one of the AG toons doing this got anywhere near -10, they stopped it that quickly..., initially I assumed it was fear over the market collapsing if the stuff was just destroyed, but it turned out to be worse, the lazyness of gankers.

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
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#267 - 2016-07-29 14:44:09 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


Said the guy who destroyed fun content by whining to CCP via their CSM representative and destroyed pixels getting blown up by a mechanic change.


Content is still there, it just requires more than a sub 1 million isk frigate to pull off on a freighter wreck. And the irony of you calling that on anyone else seems to be completely lost on you.


And I replied to that point above, there is no way that the AG can get 15 characters set up to gank a wreck in Thrashers, also as the income is 0 there is no way to fund Tornado's, you of course know that. So you won by crying to CCP via the CSM. You did not like to be in the same situation as hisec players so you went down the easy route, so much for your skill and ability.

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
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#268 - 2016-07-29 14:54:02 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
The issue is that we have on one side the Goon and PL supported Gankers, massive wealth, huge number of accounts ability to move about pick their targets, running in fast to warp ships and able to warp in and blap.

Against solo or at most two account players who are mostly not very wealthy who have an alt or two that they were applying to help for no payment at all. The issue is that while the gankers will hit freighters and loot scoop if they win, earning a huge amount of ISK, the AG will earn 0 as you pointed out. Also the numbers of AG is fairly low, there is now way we can get 10 to 15 people in toons that are acceptable to go to -10 to gank a single wreck, nor can they afford the Tornado scenario.

The wreck was placed above their ability to gank in terms of skills and ships and numbers. The Goon here keeps saying unwilling to gank the wreck but he knows full well what the AG is. I have one anti-ganking gank toon and I just do not have the ability to put him in a Tornado and nor do I have the ability to fund that Tornado to the level that the gankers do.

While your suggestion is good, we are talking about structural issues, we have the professional level highly funded hisec alliances in a very organised way making vast amounts of ISK against a small group of militia type people who largely disorganised. CCP just handed total victory to them with this change.

And what gets me is that not a single one of the AG toons doing this got anywhere near -10, they stopped it that quickly..., initially I assumed it was fear over the market collapsing if the stuff was just destroyed, but it turned out to be worse, the lazyness of gankers.

I started my own feature/idea thread if you guys would like to discuss it.

Please leave the flames/trolling here though - on both sides. I'm serious about this idea - I think it would benefit everybody, at least to some extent. Even if it of course won't solve all the problems magically P

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
#269 - 2016-07-29 15:05:13 UTC
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
The issue is that we have on one side the Goon and PL supported Gankers, massive wealth, huge number of accounts ability to move about pick their targets, running in fast to warp ships and able to warp in and blap.

Against solo or at most two account players who are mostly not very wealthy who have an alt or two that they were applying to help for no payment at all. The issue is that while the gankers will hit freighters and loot scoop if they win, earning a huge amount of ISK, the AG will earn 0 as you pointed out. Also the numbers of AG is fairly low, there is now way we can get 10 to 15 people in toons that are acceptable to go to -10 to gank a single wreck, nor can they afford the Tornado scenario.

The wreck was placed above their ability to gank in terms of skills and ships and numbers. The Goon here keeps saying unwilling to gank the wreck but he knows full well what the AG is. I have one anti-ganking gank toon and I just do not have the ability to put him in a Tornado and nor do I have the ability to fund that Tornado to the level that the gankers do.

While your suggestion is good, we are talking about structural issues, we have the professional level highly funded hisec alliances in a very organised way making vast amounts of ISK against a small group of militia type people who largely disorganised. CCP just handed total victory to them with this change.

And what gets me is that not a single one of the AG toons doing this got anywhere near -10, they stopped it that quickly..., initially I assumed it was fear over the market collapsing if the stuff was just destroyed, but it turned out to be worse, the lazyness of gankers.

I started my own feature/idea thread if you guys would like to discuss it.

Please leave the flames/trolling here though - on both sides. I'm serious about this idea - I think it would benefit everybody, at least to some extent. Even if it of course won't solve all the problems magically P


The issue is that what you saw with baltec1 replying to your comment abot the freighter wreck being harder than a mining ship got a reply that was designed to wind you up, by deliberately misunderstanding your post by talking about miner wrecks, he does it all the time. You just cannot have a debate with him, because his intent is to troll you.

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
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#270 - 2016-07-29 15:11:21 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
The issue is that what you saw with baltec1 replying to your comment abot the freighter wreck being harder than a mining ship got a reply that was designed to wind you up, by deliberately misunderstanding your post by talking about miner wrecks, he does it all the time. You just cannot have a debate with him, because his intent is to troll you.

Oh aye, I'm well aware - which is why I didn't bother to reply to his comment P

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)
Galaxy Chicken
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
#271 - 2016-07-29 16:59:13 UTC
Just keep saying it Dracvlad.

Maybe someone will believe your tinfoil nonsense if you just keep saying it.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#272 - 2016-07-29 19:01:04 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
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 issue is that we have on one side the Goon and PL supported Gankers, massive wealth, huge number of accounts ability to move about pick their targets, running in fast to warp ships and able to warp in and blap.

Against solo or at most two account players who are mostly not very wealthy who have an alt or two that they were applying to help for no payment at all. The issue is that while the gankers will hit freighters and loot scoop if they win, earning a huge amount of ISK, the AG will earn 0 as you pointed out. Also the numbers of AG is fairly low, there is now way we can get 10 to 15 people in toons that are acceptable to go to -10 to gank a single wreck, nor can they afford the Tornado scenario.

The wreck was placed above their ability to gank in terms of skills and ships and numbers. The Goon here keeps saying unwilling to gank the wreck but he knows full well what the AG is. I have one anti-ganking gank toon and I just do not have the ability to put him in a Tornado and nor do I have the ability to fund that Tornado to the level that the gankers do.

While your suggestion is good, we are talking about structural issues, we have the professional level highly funded hisec alliances in a very organised way making vast amounts of ISK against a small group of militia type people who largely disorganised. CCP just handed total victory to them with this change.

And what gets me is that not a single one of the AG toons doing this got anywhere near -10, they stopped it that quickly..., initially I assumed it was fear over the market collapsing if the stuff was just destroyed, but it turned out to be worse, the lazyness of gankers.


And where have I heard this story before. Oh yeah, when I suggested that AG gank the bumping ship. This was precisely the reaction. "What? We shouldn't have to do that, CCP should solve this problem for us."

As for the lack of organization....so what? CODE. and ganking groups have over come that issue. Maybe you should focus on fixing that vs. trying to use it as an excuse.

"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
#273 - 2016-07-29 19:51:32 UTC
Galaxy Chicken wrote:
Just keep saying it Dracvlad.

Maybe someone will believe your tinfoil nonsense if you just keep saying it.


I see you managed to scrape together the ISK or real life cash to get a second account, well done, but you will need a third account or whine harder for the warp to be 5 minutes instead of 3 minutes, that was still the funniest whine by a ganker I have yet seen. Big smile

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
Galaxy Chicken
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
#274 - 2016-07-29 20:35:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Galaxy Chicken
Is english your first language Drac?

I find that about 50% of your posts are incoherent on some level.



P.S. You can thank the poor disorganised noobie carebears you're always so worried about for plexing this account for me.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#275 - 2016-07-30 07:49:11 UTC
Galaxy Chicken wrote:
Is english your first language Drac?

I find that about 50% of your posts are incoherent on some level.



P.S. You can thank the poor disorganised noobie carebears you're always so worried about for plexing this account for me.


You really are trying to hard, your whine on asking for 5 minutes in terms of CCP's still not implemented bumping warp mechanism is up there with the gankers getting a change to wreck EHP. Pure gold both of them, keep whining mate I really enjoy it.

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
#276 - 2016-07-30 11:52:28 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Galaxy Chicken wrote:
Is english your first language Drac?

I find that about 50% of your posts are incoherent on some level.



P.S. You can thank the poor disorganised noobie carebears you're always so worried about for plexing this account for me.


You really are trying to hard, your whine on asking for 5 minutes in terms of CCP's still not implemented bumping warp mechanism is up there with the gankers getting a change to wreck EHP. Pure gold both of them, keep whining mate I really enjoy it.



You have done nothing but whine about ganking for the last few years. Nearly every post you make is some sort of bitchfest about ganking.
Galaxy Chicken
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
#277 - 2016-07-30 13:21:18 UTC
And yet the best "ganker tears lol!!1!" He can dig up is a case of me just asking not to be nerfed AS bad.

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#278 - 2016-07-30 18:12:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Galaxy Chicken wrote:
Is english your first language Drac?

I find that about 50% of your posts are incoherent on some level.



P.S. You can thank the poor disorganised noobie carebears you're always so worried about for plexing this account for me.


You really are trying to hard, your whine on asking for 5 minutes in terms of CCP's still not implemented bumping warp mechanism is up there with the gankers getting a change to wreck EHP. Pure gold both of them, keep whining mate I really enjoy it.



You have done nothing but whine about ganking for the last few years. Nearly every post you make is some sort of bitchfest about ganking.


I am after game balance dimwit, if that wreck EHP had been talked about with AG players we would have told CCP it would kill it stone dead for reasons I have explained here and on other threads. But you guys are not interested in game balance, you just want to run around shoot stuff use the mechanics for low risk and tell everyone how great you are.

What is most amusing to me is the simple fact that Gankers like Mr Chicken here were whining about nerf's to ganking based on the EHP buff to freighters when in fact it in no why did it make up for the nerf to AG in making freighter wrecks jump to 15k from 500. There was a different culture in AG developing which would have had the same fun as you entitled gankers but you could not have that could you.

And none of you are men enough to admit it, which I have to say is about the level of what you really are.

I happen to like Liek Diarz, he is a good player and he really does work hard, I respect him. But I don't respect what you did here and I think baltec1 you are one of the ones that is likely to have pushed Endie to do this.

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
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#279 - 2016-07-30 18:27:20 UTC
Galaxy Chicken wrote:
And yet the best "ganker tears lol!!1!" He can dig up is a case of me just asking not to be nerfed AS bad.



The funny thing is that you seemed to think I would be upset by CCP Falcon being aligned with you guys, so when you sent that gloating mail to me I had to laugh, I refer to CCP Falcon as the Ganker Community Manager and have been doing so for the last 5 years.

So sending this to me:

The EVE community manager is on our side.
Lolololololololololol

Just made me laugh a lot, because it showed how little you know about anything.

I was more amused at his need to start closing threads after that post he did, to be blunt I was wetting myself laughing. Lol

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
#280 - 2016-07-30 19:25:11 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


I am after game balance dimwit....


Says the guy who was just whining about being insulted. You really are a hypocritical liar aren't you.

"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