These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Barge Fairy Tale

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1521 - 2012-07-27 22:39:16 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Suqq Madiq wrote:


When you've been told by a CCP dev that you're wrong and you still belabor the point, regurgitating it over and over it makes both you and your argument sound stupid. Get it?


Because this dev hasn't been massivly wrong in the past. The Door ring any bells?

Plus the fact they they are listening to us and changing the stats back to something less overpowered would say they are listening to people like me more than you.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#1522 - 2012-07-27 22:41:42 UTC
Suqq Madiq wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Suqq Madiq wrote:
Profitability is irrelevant.


You can say that all you want but its as wrong now as it was the first time you said it. Trying to use it to escape a point you cannot possibly counter only makes you look stupid.


CCP Soundwave wrote:
Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted.


And,

CCP Soundwave wrote:
Yeah my point is thatI don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender).


When you've been told by a CCP dev that you're wrong and you still belabor the point, regurgitating it over and over it makes both you and your argument sound stupid. Get it?

And guess what, as it stands right now on TQ, unless you use a bunch of rookie ships, ganking is only profitable if your target is a moron/lazy.
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Doomheim
#1523 - 2012-07-27 22:42:57 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:


Learn math before you condescend to me good sir. Very trollish to say the least.

There is no amount of tank that you can fit to stop from being ganked, ever. Its not possible. Alpha > tank = successful gank. There is your explanation and it is iron clad.



The veldnought can be ganked if you bring enough catalysts. However there comes a point where people will not bother to gank something. Fortunatly for miners hulks can reach this level of tank.


You cannot accurately determine something that is subjective to other people.

Thanks for your input however.


This isn't subjective. You can tank a hulk to the point where all but the most bitter will pass it by for easyer, more profitable kills. This is why my haulers and hulks have never died to a gank in 6 years of playing.


What you just described is the epitome of subjective.

The only hulk I have ever had ganked by a dozen destoyers who did not loot, salvage, or profit from it. Maybe you just don't understand that "subjective" means "subject to a third parties opinion". Or maybe you just don't understand that ganking itself does not have to be profitable for people do continue to do it.

Just because you don't die from the plague does not mean that it is not pandemic.
Oona Kasenumi
Doomheim
#1524 - 2012-07-27 22:43:44 UTC
I agree with what little substance there was in the OP for the most part. Mining barges don't need a buff. Fit your ship correctly and don't mine in busy systems.

That said, this 70+ page thread literally soaked with highsec griefer tears is starting to make me see things differently.

Maybe we should just make barges completely invulnerable (only if they fit mining lazors of course; we wouldn't want to make anything unbalanced now would we?).
Suqq Madiq
#1525 - 2012-07-27 22:44:36 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
And guess what, as it stands right now on TQ, unless you use a bunch of rookie ships, ganking is only profitable if your target is a moron/lazy.


Again, this is irrelevant. Ganking wasn't designed to be profitable. That you can profit from it comes down to your ability to wisely choose your targets.
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Doomheim
#1526 - 2012-07-27 22:46:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Soundwave Plays Diablo
Quote:
When you've been told by a CCP dev that you're wrong and you still belabor the point,


Ah sorry..
Pipa Porto
#1527 - 2012-07-27 22:46:09 UTC
Suqq Madiq wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
And guess what, as it stands right now on TQ, unless you use a bunch of rookie ships, ganking is only profitable if your target is a moron/lazy.


Again, this is irrelevant. Ganking wasn't designed to be profitable. That you can profit from it comes down to your ability to wisely choose your targets.


Exactly as it is on TQ right now.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1528 - 2012-07-27 22:46:53 UTC
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:


What you just described is the epitome of subjective.

The only hulk I have ever had ganked by a dozen destoyers who did not loot, salvage, or profit from it. Maybe you just don't understand that "subjective" means "subject to a third parties opinion". Or maybe you just don't understand that ganking itself does not have to be profitable for people do continue to do it.

Just because you don't die from the plague does not mean that it is not pandemic.




I lived through the M0o camps, you have no idea what a gank pandemic is like.
Suqq Madiq
#1529 - 2012-07-27 22:46:58 UTC
Oona Kasenumi wrote:
I agree with what little substance there was in the OP for the most part. Mining barges don't need a buff. Fit your ship correctly and don't mine in busy systems.

That said, this 70+ page thread literally soaked with highsec griefer tears is starting to make me see things differently.

Maybe we should just make barges completely invulnerable (only if they fit mining lazors of course; we wouldn't want to make anything unbalanced now would we?).


Don't be dumb. The tears in this thread are predominantly from the pro-ganker crowd who feels this necessary re-balance is either unnecessary(wrong) or completely over the top(subjective). Nobody believes or has suggested that any ship in EVE should be invulnerable. At least try to comprehend what you're reading before further regurgitating that garbage again.
Suqq Madiq
#1530 - 2012-07-27 22:47:40 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Suqq Madiq wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
And guess what, as it stands right now on TQ, unless you use a bunch of rookie ships, ganking is only profitable if your target is a moron/lazy.


Again, this is irrelevant. Ganking wasn't designed to be profitable. That you can profit from it comes down to your ability to wisely choose your targets.


Exactly as it is on TQ right now.


And exactly as it will remain when the re-balance hits TQ. Thank you for acknowledging that there is no problem here.
Oona Kasenumi
Doomheim
#1531 - 2012-07-27 22:50:10 UTC
Suqq Madiq wrote:
Oona Kasenumi wrote:
I agree with what little substance there was in the OP for the most part. Mining barges don't need a buff. Fit your ship correctly and don't mine in busy systems.

That said, this 70+ page thread literally soaked with highsec griefer tears is starting to make me see things differently.

Maybe we should just make barges completely invulnerable (only if they fit mining lazors of course; we wouldn't want to make anything unbalanced now would we?).


Don't be dumb. The tears in this thread are predominantly from the pro-ganker crowd who feels this necessary re-balance is either unnecessary(wrong) or completely over the top(subjective). Nobody believes or has suggested that any ship in EVE should be invulnerable. At least try to comprehend what you're reading before further regurgitating that garbage again.


Read what I wrote again; specifically the second line: "That said, this 70+ page thread literally soaked with highsec griefer tears is starting to make me see things differently."
Suqq Madiq
#1532 - 2012-07-27 22:53:44 UTC
Oona Kasenumi wrote:
Suqq Madiq wrote:
Oona Kasenumi wrote:
I agree with what little substance there was in the OP for the most part. Mining barges don't need a buff. Fit your ship correctly and don't mine in busy systems.

That said, this 70+ page thread literally soaked with highsec griefer tears is starting to make me see things differently.

Maybe we should just make barges completely invulnerable (only if they fit mining lazors of course; we wouldn't want to make anything unbalanced now would we?).


Don't be dumb. The tears in this thread are predominantly from the pro-ganker crowd who feels this necessary re-balance is either unnecessary(wrong) or completely over the top(subjective). Nobody believes or has suggested that any ship in EVE should be invulnerable. At least try to comprehend what you're reading before further regurgitating that garbage again.


Read what I wrote again; specifically the second line: "That said, this 70+ page thread literally soaked with highsec griefer tears is starting to make me see things differently."


Duly noted and my apologies. But your line about invulnerable ships raises all kinds of red flags. Unless there is some level of sarcasm in it that I didn't detect which I am willing to guess, after nearly 80 pages of this crap, is a definite possibility. P
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#1533 - 2012-07-27 22:57:31 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
So you REALLY go to the final straws and pretend everybody else are so stupid not to understand the meaning of my easy 4-5 lines of text?


Not at all.

Have a deep & thoughtful think about what you said in the quoted text.

Quote:
Do you gank and empty freighter?


The rest of what you said was well structured & added to the present argument.


Ah, so you are hooking on an obvious typo ("and" instead of "an") off someone who is not English spoken. Got it.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Doomheim
#1534 - 2012-07-27 22:58:12 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:

2. You are not reading, or at least not comprehending. I don't give a fat rats ass about the net profit/loss of the gank. The net profit of the person flying the ship does not have to come from the act of ganking. As long as the ganker is able to pay for the ships lost to concord they will be able to sustain ganking indefinitely.


And this can only be done by making a profit on said ganks.


Yes, you are absolutely ******* right. I cant run a mission, buy 10 thrashers for me and 9 of my closest friends, and kill a miner. How stupid of me to think that I could both run a mission and gank a miner. I cannot possibly do 2 things in eve.

I really used to believe you were not just a troll. I simply cannot believe that you don't understand the simple concept I am presenting. So I have to ask, do you really not understand that gankers DO NOT need to profit from ganking itself to be able to sustain the act of ganking indefinitely?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1535 - 2012-07-27 23:05:34 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:


Yes, you are absolutely ******* right. I cant run a mission, buy 10 thrashers for me and 9 of my closest friends, and kill a miner. How stupid of me to think that I could both run a mission and gank a miner. I cannot possibly do 2 things in eve.

I really used to believe you were not just a troll. I simply cannot believe that you don't understand the simple concept I am presenting. So I have to ask, do you really not understand that gankers DO NOT need to profit from ganking itself to be able to sustain the act of ganking indefinitely?


In order to run missions you have to stop ganking. Make a profit on ganking and you can just keep on ganking.

Not even the goons could keep up ganking miners forever at a loss, the funds run out. The burn Jita weekend was great fun but again, that kind of level of killing cannot be sustained at a loss. Go ahead and look at the KBs, you will find just about every single gank victim who died was worth more in loot than the ship that killed him.

This is the very simple fact of ganking, 99% of the time it is done for profit.

If I just want to kill for the fun of killing why would I go for a supertank hulk when I can kill 10 untanked hulks?
Pipa Porto
#1536 - 2012-07-27 23:06:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Suqq Madiq wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Suqq Madiq wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
And guess what, as it stands right now on TQ, unless you use a bunch of rookie ships, ganking is only profitable if your target is a moron/lazy.


Again, this is irrelevant. Ganking wasn't designed to be profitable. That you can profit from it comes down to your ability to wisely choose your targets.


Exactly as it is on TQ right now.


And exactly as it will remain when the re-balance hits TQ. Thank you for acknowledging that there is no problem here.


Not with the original SISI stats. A Midslot tanked Hulk would be able to fit 2 MLUs and enough tank to be unprofitable.

A Retriever and Skiff would be off the charts.

The new set's fine for the Hulk (the Mack doesn't need to be taking so much of the Skiff's tanky limelite). The Hulk is going to be fragile. D-Scan will be the tool to determine profitability, instead of a ship scan. Twisted

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#1537 - 2012-07-27 23:13:29 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:

2. You are not reading, or at least not comprehending. I don't give a fat rats ass about the net profit/loss of the gank. The net profit of the person flying the ship does not have to come from the act of ganking. As long as the ganker is able to pay for the ships lost to concord they will be able to sustain ganking indefinitely.


And this can only be done by making a profit on said ganks.



CCP stated ganking was not intended to be profitable but a valid mechanic to disrupt someone's activity.

This clearly implies something was wrong or just badly implemented and you guys just used/abused/overused this bad implementation mechanic/ships and now have the feeling this is some kind of "deserved" stuff.

Flash news: it isn't

You can still gank, just put the necessary effort to disrupt your target activity. Simple to understand isn't?

brb
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1538 - 2012-07-27 23:16:26 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:

2. You are not reading, or at least not comprehending. I don't give a fat rats ass about the net profit/loss of the gank. The net profit of the person flying the ship does not have to come from the act of ganking. As long as the ganker is able to pay for the ships lost to concord they will be able to sustain ganking indefinitely.


And this can only be done by making a profit on said ganks.



CCP stated ganking was not intended to be profitable but a valid mechanic to disrupt someone's activity.

This clearly implies something was wrong or just badly implemented and you guys just used/abused/overused this bad implementation mechanic/ships and now have the feeling this is some kind of "deserved" stuff.

Flash news: it isn't

You can still gank, just put the necessary effort to disrupt your target activity. Simple to understand isn't?


It wouldnt be profitable if the miners fitted a tank. I bet we would make a profit from ganking any ship with no tank.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#1539 - 2012-07-27 23:17:29 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Suqq Madiq wrote:


When you've been told by a CCP dev that you're wrong and you still belabor the point, regurgitating it over and over it makes both you and your argument sound stupid. Get it?


Because this dev hasn't been massivly wrong in the past. The Door ring any bells?

Plus the fact they they are listening to us and changing the stats back to something less overpowered would say they are listening to people like me more than you.



And if they do that's just a horrible day for Eve, because if you just go away you represent less than 5% of the ganked population, therefore irrelevant for the game, you can move on no one will miss you.

And another flash news: the game will not die because 5% cry babies move on to some other game for a couple months, actually no one gives a crap including majority of null sec players.

brb
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#1540 - 2012-07-27 23:19:37 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:

2. You are not reading, or at least not comprehending. I don't give a fat rats ass about the net profit/loss of the gank. The net profit of the person flying the ship does not have to come from the act of ganking. As long as the ganker is able to pay for the ships lost to concord they will be able to sustain ganking indefinitely.


And this can only be done by making a profit on said ganks.



CCP stated ganking was not intended to be profitable but a valid mechanic to disrupt someone's activity.

This clearly implies something was wrong or just badly implemented and you guys just used/abused/overused this bad implementation mechanic/ships and now have the feeling this is some kind of "deserved" stuff.

Flash news: it isn't

You can still gank, just put the necessary effort to disrupt your target activity. Simple to understand isn't?


It wouldnt be profitable if the miners fitted a tank. I bet we would make a profit from ganking any ship with no tank.


Your point has no meanings when you clearly don't want to recognise the initial point: ganking is not intended to be profitable.

All you do is fake propaganda and crocodile tears, point blank, so cry me a river.

brb