These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Has Hatred gone too far CCP?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ayame Tao
#81 - 2012-06-02 12:57:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Ayame Tao
*edited* my reading comprehension needs work

Nothing to see here...
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#82 - 2012-06-02 13:00:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Ok Tippia, what's missing is the rule about not being an as*hole to fellow gamers and generally playing the game not for what it is but to get kicks out of causing misery to others.

If you can find a rule which says "you shall not be an ******* to a random person in eve", then please do produce a link. Otherwise, the game's 9+ years old, I kind of think maybe that'd be an indication that being an ******* to a random person in eve isn't disallowed. vOv

Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Lets remember the motto "we don't want to ruin the game just your game" takes a certain type of person to subscribe to that with pride. Only thing is in following it they are ruining a part of the game.

Nope. We're making sure it is exactly what it says on the box: a cold universe.

Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Most hi secers, in my opinion ( I could be wrong) don't want to see it completely safe, I don't, but they would like to see a bit more balance.

I guess that's why there are so many people whining about how .9 and 1 sec systems should be non-PVP zones etc?

Talon SilverHawk wrote:
I think the another problem is null sec is boring for some big alliance players as there isn't anyone to fight on that scale.

And partially the SOV system sucking dicks through a straw.

Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Another issue is the numbers that are now suicide ganking in hi sec, it used to be the province of a smaller group of players, now everyone and there mother is getting into it, it's almost an epidemic.

I wouldn't be too surprised if there were a few tweaks being done to make the act of being a ganker which reaches towards -10 sec status a bit more work soon enough, but I'd be surprised if they'd do much more than that.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#83 - 2012-06-02 13:06:51 UTC
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Ok Tippia, what's missing is the rule about not being an as*hole to fellow gamers and generally playing the game not for what it is but to get kicks out of causing misery to others.
But that's just the thing: it's a multiplayer sandbox with three core components — combat, industry, and the market — all being entirely based on PvP competition and feeding on and from each other. Causing misery for others is kind of the foundation to make that whole world turn.

Ruling that out would kind of break things…

Quote:
I think the another problem is null sec is boring for some big alliance players as there isn't anyone to fight on that scale.
Maybe. They're lobbying to change that, though, but ironically, those attempts are being decried by the highsec4lyfe contingent as CCP being too focused on nullsec. Lol

Quote:
Another issue is the numbers that are now suicide ganking in hi sec, it used to be the province of a smaller group of players, now everyone and there mother is getting into it, it's almost an epidemic.
Meh. We'll see. That particular claim has been heard pretty much constantly ever since I started player (and probably long before that). I'll wait until the numbers are in.

Ituhata Saken wrote:
pretty sure there's a rather steep curve the closer you get to 100% resists on shields the harder additional mods are stack penalized.
Eeech… weeeeell… no, kind of, but no.
Things do not get stacking penalised harder the closer you get to 100%; the stacking penalty is fixed and dependent on the number of modules involved. The reason it never gets to 100%, even without those penalties, is because you're counting “portion of remaining damage not applied”, and unless that portion is 100% to begin with, it can never add up to 100%.
Ituhata Saken
Killboard Padding Services
#84 - 2012-06-02 13:16:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Ituhata Saken
Tippia wrote:

Ituhata Saken wrote:
pretty sure there's a rather steep curve the closer you get to 100% resists on shields the harder additional mods are stack penalized.
Eeech… weeeeell… no, kind of, but no.
Things do not get stacking penalised harder the closer you get to 100%; the stacking penalty is fixed and dependent on the number of modules involved. The reason it never gets to 100%, even without those penalties, is because you're counting “portion of remaining damage not applied”, and unless that portion is 100% to begin with, it can never add up to 100%.


All I know is, at some point it was a waste of mod space to try to add another hardener and better to add a buffer mod. Lol

Quote:
Quote:

I think the another problem is null sec is boring for some big alliance players as there isn't anyone to fight on that scale.

Maybe. They're lobbying to change that, though, but ironically, those attempts are being decried by the highsec4lyfe contingent as CCP being too focused on nullsec.


Hopefully they're working on sov mechanics, I understand somewhat the need for timers to accomodate the worldwide primetime issue and to give the sovereign alliance time to defend their territory, but so many things.... having to babysit SBU's for hours until they are online so they can't be flipped is especially annoying, not to mention the tcu ihub station timers that have to be grinded and the whole process takes entirely too long with entirely too much effort on both sides.

Personally, I think you should be able to take a fully upgraded system inside a week if the enemy offers zero resistance.

So close...
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#85 - 2012-06-02 13:32:10 UTC
Ituhata Saken wrote:
All I know is, at some point it was a waste of mod space to try to add another hardener and better to add a buffer mod. Lol
Well, yes. Usually, it's 4+ — that fourth mod (for any single stat) is marginal at best, and beyond that the improvements become ridiculously tiny. Even so, there are cases when there are no reasonable buffer mod to fit because they don't add much on top of the existing stats or because you're limited by fitting space.

The Hulk actually illustrates these points fairly well: the only buffer mods you can fit are small shield extenders and PDU (or… well, a single PDU), and as luck would have it, that leaves three midslots for hardeners — the standard number for “most you can use an not start wasting slots” — and a lowslot for a suitcase (which cheats by not having any stacking penalties).
Gul'gotha Derv'ash
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2012-06-02 13:39:58 UTC
I would say the best thing miners could do is stop mining and force prices up. Maybe then the gankers would realize they need the miners to keep their PvP ships cheap.

Oh wait, isn't that what the Goons want so they can make their pets mine more and cause huge inflation in the mineral prices. Maybe that is why they are running a perma-hulkageddon...
Quartzlight Evenstar Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Operations
#87 - 2012-06-02 13:43:17 UTC
Gul'gotha Derv'ash wrote:


Oh wait, isn't that what the Goons want so they can make their pets mine more and cause huge inflation in the mineral prices. Maybe that is why they are running a perma-hulkageddon...



No. They announced their goal as "to kill your game". They are running Permageddon only in order to see if they can actually put a company out of business.

Sorry, that's where the logic leads.

***
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#88 - 2012-06-02 13:44:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Quartzlight Evenstar Icefluxor wrote:
Gul'gotha Derv'ash wrote:


Oh wait, isn't that what the Goons want so they can make their pets mine more and cause huge inflation in the mineral prices. Maybe that is why they are running a perma-hulkageddon...



No. They announced their goal as "to kill your game". They are running Permageddon only in order to see if they can actually put a company out of business.

Sorry, that's where the logic leads.

Repeat after me: there's a difference between ruining the game, and ruining your game.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Leto Atraities
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#89 - 2012-06-02 13:52:40 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Denidil wrote:
Step 1: give hulk's much better buffer tanks


yes you can do this by fitting a Damage Control II, Micro Auxiliary Power Core II, Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction, two Adaptive Invulnerability Field IIs, an EM or thermic hardener and two Medium Core Defense Field Extender Is



all of y'all should be ashamed of yourselves. have you all forgot to never trust a goon?

same goes for this bull**** fit you've been peddling of late. why you no EFT warrior to make sure it all fit yo? it still needs a 4% PG implant or an ACR rig. your choice!

so that's TWO fitting mods/implant just to squeeze on a meager medium shield extender. why is that? especially when frigates can fit a medium shield extender only needing 1 MAPC!

i don't care about about hulkageddon or whatever i just care about being just a little bit fair with things. in pvp it is generally considered fail if you use 2 fitting mods on your ship. so why must people who fly hulks accept any less?
Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#90 - 2012-06-02 13:56:10 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Quartzlight Evenstar Icefluxor wrote:
Gul'gotha Derv'ash wrote:


Oh wait, isn't that what the Goons want so they can make their pets mine more and cause huge inflation in the mineral prices. Maybe that is why they are running a perma-hulkageddon...



No. They announced their goal as "to kill your game". They are running Permageddon only in order to see if they can actually put a company out of business.

Sorry, that's where the logic leads.

Repeat after me: there's a difference between ruining the game, and ruining your game.


Agree its the difference between being an Idiot and being a total c*nt Lol

Tal


Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#91 - 2012-06-02 13:58:48 UTC
Leto Atraities wrote:
so that's TWO fitting mods/implant just to squeeze on a meager medium shield extender. why is that?
Because it's a small price to pay to make resource extraction vehicle have more tank than a heavy assault cruiser.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#92 - 2012-06-02 14:05:48 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Leto Atraities wrote:
so that's TWO fitting mods/implant just to squeeze on a meager medium shield extender. why is that?
Because it's a small price to pay to make resource extraction vehicle have more tank than a heavy assault cruiser.



Hem, no it isn't. If I really want to tank some heavy assault cruiser even the crappiest one you can get out of it over 50K and still use ship bonus to apply decent dps.

brb
Leto Atraities
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#93 - 2012-06-02 14:08:42 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Leto Atraities wrote:
so that's TWO fitting mods/implant just to squeeze on a meager medium shield extender. why is that?
Because it's a small price to pay to make resource extraction vehicle have more tank than a heavy assault cruiser.


exactly what assault cruiser are you speaking of? because i know of none. all the cruisers i've ever seen ALWAYS sports a large shield extender.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#94 - 2012-06-02 14:13:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Hem, no it isn't. If I really want to tank some heavy assault cruiser even the crappiest one you can get out of it over 50K and still use ship bonus to apply decent dps.
…much like this resource extraction vehicle can get over 40k and still use ship bonuses to gain decent yield.

The point you overlooked is that we're talking about something that is meant to sit in a belt and suck on rocks compared to a front-line combat ship. The fact that the former can put up a tank that is comparable to the latter means that it's not really lacking in the tanking department. Yes, it'll cost a little to get it that high, but that seems quite reasonable considering what kind of ship we're talking about here.

Leto Atraities wrote:
exactly what assault cruiser are you speaking of?
Vagas and Diemosts, most certainly. The Eagle will struggle with it if you want to retain a useful fit, as will the Cerb. The Ishtar will juuust sneak by (but requires more than a single LSE to do so). The Zealot and Munnin will run into fitting issues, and the Sac manages because it has this neat tanking bonus.
Leto Atraities
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#95 - 2012-06-02 14:15:50 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Hem, no it isn't. If I really want to tank some heavy assault cruiser even the crappiest one you can get out of it over 50K and still use ship bonus to apply decent dps.
…much like this resource extraction vehicle can get over 40k and still use ship bonuses to gain decent yield.

The point you overlooked is that we're talking about something that is meant to sit in a belt and suck on rocks compared to a front-line combat ship. The fact that the former can put up a tank that is comparable to the latter means that it's not really lacking in the tanking department. Yes, it'll cost a little to get it that high, but that seems quite reasonable considering what kind of ship we're talking about here.


that's just your opinion. i think otherwise.
Josef Djugashvilis
#96 - 2012-06-02 14:19:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
Richard Desturned wrote:
Denidil wrote:
Step 1: give hulk's much better buffer tanks


yes you can do this by fitting a Damage Control II, Micro Auxiliary Power Core II, Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction, two Adaptive Invulnerability Field IIs, an EM or thermic hardener and two Medium Core Defense Field Extender Is


I do not mine, but I am curious about this.

Would a 'properly fitted' Hulk be 'unganakable' or could the gankers just bring more gank ships to the party and gank the hardened Hulk?

This is not a signature.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#97 - 2012-06-02 14:25:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Would a 'properly fitted' Hulk be 'unganakable' or could the gankers just bring more gank ships to the party and gank the hardened Hulk?
They already have to, and no ship is ungankable (aside from ones that aren't allowed in combat to begin with, quite possibly for that very reason).

Leto Atraities wrote:
that's just your opinion. i think otherwise.
How much damage can SCVs, Probes, and Drones take in Starcraft?
James 315
Experimental Fun Times Corp RELOADED
CODE.
#98 - 2012-06-02 14:29:39 UTC
Reina Supremus wrote:
This level of hate is bad for the community and should not be tolerated.

I'm not going to place blame on the miners for this hate-fest because you guys are the ones that zealously promoted the hate to begin with.

So it's not enough that you want to control our game, violating the "sandbox" principle by telling us we can't suicide gank. But now you actually want to tell us how we're supposed to feel? You want to "nerf" our emotions?

Carebear of carebears. X

MinerBumping.com
Leto Atraities
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#99 - 2012-06-02 14:30:57 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Would a 'properly fitted' Hulk be 'unganakable' or could the gankers just bring more gank ships to the party and gank the hardened Hulk?
They already have to, and no ship is ungankable (aside from ones that aren't allowed in combat to begin with, quite possibly for that very reason).



aren't allowed? LOL what tha hell is that? so you mean to tell me that i used to be dreaming when i saw bestower pvp clips on youtube? or even hulks for that matter?

just because it's not the ideal pvp ship doesn't mean you can't use it as such.
Darth Tickles
Doomheim
#100 - 2012-06-02 14:32:41 UTC
James 315 wrote:
So it's not enough that you want to control our game, violating the "sandbox" principle by telling us we can't suicide gank. But now you actually want to tell us how we're supposed to feel? You want to "nerf" our emotions?


Just another element of the carebear entitlement mentality.

"Mommy makes my booboos go away, why can't CCP?"