These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

No Eve Player Should Miss This Article
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Erenial
Doomheim
#241 - 2012-08-28 20:59:49 UTC
For all the crap you see posted about this topic, for all the drama, it is absolutely pointless to debate. If you aren't a hisec ganker, NONE of this affects you. so please STFU, undock, and go shoot something.
Methesda
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#242 - 2012-08-28 21:03:21 UTC
Sabrina Solette wrote:
Miners could defend themselves to a point but that point was limited to the skills they have trained and how long they've been playing for the much needed sp.


Thats a silly argument; your statement is true for every type of out-of-station player. You could swap miners, with Mission runners, ratters, FW pilots, PVP'rs, Pirates.

Eve is about the journey.  If you are so focused on making money, that you insist on having the tools to make it be made as autonomous and easy as possible, then you are never going to have as much fun as I will.
Methesda
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#243 - 2012-08-28 21:04:24 UTC
Erenial wrote:
For all the crap you see posted about this topic, for all the drama, it is absolutely pointless to debate. If you aren't a hisec ganker, NONE of this affects you. so please STFU, undock, and go shoot something.


I dont' agree, but I don't think you are really looking to discuss it... so w/e.

Eve is about the journey.  If you are so focused on making money, that you insist on having the tools to make it be made as autonomous and easy as possible, then you are never going to have as much fun as I will.
Sabrina Solette
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#244 - 2012-08-28 21:04:34 UTC
Erenial wrote:
For all the crap you see posted about this topic, for all the drama, it is absolutely pointless to debate. If you aren't a hisec ganker, NONE of this affects you. so please STFU, undock, and go shoot something.



Thank you for your pointless post.

It's not a debate if there's only one side of the argument represented.


Maybe you should follow your own advice.
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#245 - 2012-08-28 21:04:50 UTC
Sabrina Solette wrote:
MIrple wrote:
So buy the miners doing nothing to protect there ships the gankers had to be nerfed. Your response to this is well it was to easy to kill an untanked ship so gankers need to be creative even though the miners refused to do this.

I am not for or against ganking I am just damn tired of people defending the fact that miners refused to do anything and got a change from CCP.

Ganking should be hardered then a t1 dessy yes but FFS put a tank on your ship before you start crying to momma CCP to make the bully stop.

Edit: Also what is hard about mining Ice pretty sure that is easy isk that can make more isk/h then ganking.




I get tired of people saying that miners could defend themselves, but that's not going to stop some people saying it. Miners could defend themselves to a point but that point was limited to the skills they have trained and how long they've been playing for the much needed sp. Before the change, even before t3 BCs, you could survive two volleys from 1 ship if you had tanked the exhumer, so if CONCORD was a bit slow you were in trouble.

The way I see it is suicide pilots grew in response to the isk that could be made at little cost to them. Why so popular because isk is important to some people because they require it to buy PLEX to keep their accounts running.


This right here is the point. You have people getting into exhumers that are unskilled to fly it properly. Its the same as getting into a battleship. You can do this is 15 days but you will not be able to do anything with it. Shield tanking skills are required to fly an Exhumer well but miners didnt train for it. If I sit AFK in an untanked Tech 3 ship and someone comes along and kills me should I demand a buff from CCP as the risk is not worth the reward for shooing an untanked ship?

Exhumers should have been changed but adding EHP should not have been done a simple addition of PG and CPU would have been enough.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#246 - 2012-08-28 21:05:06 UTC
Erenial wrote:
For all the crap you see posted about this topic, for all the drama, it is absolutely pointless to debate. If you aren't a hisec ganker, NONE of this affects you. so please STFU, undock, and go shoot something.

This affects EVERYONE, because we're concerned that CCP is caving to people who want to play the game in safety without any effort and creating an environment where this is possible.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#247 - 2012-08-28 21:07:34 UTC
MIrple wrote:
Exhumers should have been changed but adding EHP should not have been done a simple addition of PG and CPU would have been enough.


If they absolutely had to buff mining ships this would be the way to do it. Don't give them resists that out do HiC's and a massive EHP boost. At least by buffing the PG/CPU you preserve choice.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
#248 - 2012-08-28 21:08:07 UTC
La Nariz wrote:

Sabrina Solette wrote:

The change was a needed one, as suicide ganking was just easy isk.


Citation required, npc alt.


CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Resilience: another point is to give some of them proper EHP not to be one-shot by anything that even remotely sneezes on them.


From this devblog.

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.


From this thread.

Need more citations from the developers?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#249 - 2012-08-28 21:09:41 UTC
Jypsie wrote:
La Nariz wrote:

Sabrina Solette wrote:

The change was a needed one, as suicide ganking was just easy isk.


Citation required, npc alt.


CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Resilience: another point is to give some of them proper EHP not to be one-shot by anything that even remotely sneezes on them.


From this devblog.

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.


From this thread.

Need more citations from the developers?

The developers happen to be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
#250 - 2012-08-28 21:11:25 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

The developers happen to be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time.


Of course they are. Roll
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#251 - 2012-08-28 21:11:42 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
Jypsie wrote:
La Nariz wrote:

Sabrina Solette wrote:

The change was a needed one, as suicide ganking was just easy isk.


Citation required, npc alt.


CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Resilience: another point is to give some of them proper EHP not to be one-shot by anything that even remotely sneezes on them.


From this devblog.

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.


From this thread.

Need more citations from the developers?


Yes actually I need a developer definition of "easy isk" the actual numbers of gankers : miners and the number of miners that actually decided to tank their hulks : the number of miners that did nothing. Also the developer reasoning on why isk cost should be a balancing factor.

E: Especially after they already learned it shouldn't be via the supercaps fiascoes.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#252 - 2012-08-28 21:12:36 UTC
That quote taken from Soundwave has been taken way out of context. If this is the case then freighters never should die unless you bring more to the fight then the ammont of isk they are hauling. 10 bill mission runners shoudn't also die because of the cost of the ship. You CAN NOT one more time CAN NOT use the arguement of isk is tank. Pleas stop doing this.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#253 - 2012-08-28 21:14:53 UTC
My mission Tengu with its gigantic EM hole clearly shouldn't be gankable unless you brought 800m isk at least.
Shooting lasers, EM missiles, or EMP is cheating.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
#254 - 2012-08-28 21:15:50 UTC
MIrple wrote:
That quote taken from Soundwave has been taken way out of context. If this is the case then freighters never should die unless you bring more to the fight then the ammont of isk they are hauling. 10 bill mission runners shoudn't also die because of the cost of the ship. You CAN NOT one more time CAN NOT use the arguement of isk is tank. Pleas stop doing this.


You can infer that the developers believe it was too easy for the mining barges and exhumers to be suicide ganked.

They said it.

They put in the changes to the ships.

People bitching about it are beating a dead horse.

Get over it.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#255 - 2012-08-28 21:16:57 UTC
Matriarch Prime wrote:
I would pop every low standing pilot I saw without question if I had the choice. In my mind, if you flip cans and pop noobs, ninja salvage/loot or suicide gank. I would give you plenty of lead to chew on. On sight. In my mind, high sec is where civilized player play, and none of that nonsense should be allowed.

I think the changes to aggression will help alleviate this concern, but the problem won't be completely gone. I rather that low security standing players step in fear into high security. They fully understand that stepping into high security with low standing means they are at the full mercy of the high sec population. They earned it, they should reap it.

No you wouldn't, because you're a coward. And I don't mean that as a personal attack; it's merely an observation based on your posting tendencies and content.

The fact that you're a coward, and the fact that other players who share your sentiments about ganking are cowards, are exactly the reasons why CCP makes changes to the game wherein the "consequences" for criminal activities are enforced by NPC entities, instead of the players themselves, who already possess an overabundance of mechanics to deal with gankers, thieves, and ninjas, and have indeed possessed the means of prevention and retribution for a long, long time.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Methesda
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#256 - 2012-08-28 21:17:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Methesda
MIrple wrote:
You CAN NOT one more time CAN NOT use the arguement of isk is tank. Pleas stop doing this.


Agreed. The best tank in Eve is 'IQ' tanking. Making it easier on people changes the core of what Eve is.

Have you seen the 'pilots in space' map recently? The situation is becoming dire. Everyone talks about players in Nullsec, but judging by the map, the highsec players outnumber the null sec players by a ridiculous amount.

As for low-sec. Well. LOL.

Eve is about the journey.  If you are so focused on making money, that you insist on having the tools to make it be made as autonomous and easy as possible, then you are never going to have as much fun as I will.
Josef Djugashvilis
#257 - 2012-08-28 21:19:21 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Erenial wrote:
For all the crap you see posted about this topic, for all the drama, it is absolutely pointless to debate. If you aren't a hisec ganker, NONE of this affects you. so please STFU, undock, and go shoot something.

This affects EVERYONE, because we're concerned that CCP is caving to people who want to play the game in safety without any effort and creating an environment where this is possible.



No one is seriously suggesting that any part of Eve, except in stations should be safe - and hopefully that will change in time - all that has really happened is that ganking now costs more.

As the elite pvpers would put it 'adapt'

This is not a signature.
Din Chao
#258 - 2012-08-28 21:20:35 UTC
Jypsie wrote:
MIrple wrote:
That quote taken from Soundwave has been taken way out of context. If this is the case then freighters never should die unless you bring more to the fight then the ammont of isk they are hauling. 10 bill mission runners shoudn't also die because of the cost of the ship. You CAN NOT one more time CAN NOT use the arguement of isk is tank. Pleas stop doing this.


You can infer that the developers believe it was too easy for the mining barges and exhumers to be suicide ganked.

They said it.

They put in the changes to the ships.

People bitching about it are beating a dead horse.

Get over it.

Ah. "Get over it."

I remember being told to "get over it" when SOE introduced CU and NGE...
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#259 - 2012-08-28 21:20:55 UTC
Jypsie wrote:
MIrple wrote:
That quote taken from Soundwave has been taken way out of context. If this is the case then freighters never should die unless you bring more to the fight then the ammont of isk they are hauling. 10 bill mission runners shoudn't also die because of the cost of the ship. You CAN NOT one more time CAN NOT use the arguement of isk is tank. Pleas stop doing this.


You can infer that the developers believe it was too easy for the mining barges and exhumers to be suicide ganked.

They said it.

They put in the changes to the ships.

People bitching about it are beating a dead horse.

Get over it.

I believe it's too easy for my Tengu fit for Guristas to be ganked.
CCP needs to bring native EM resists to at least 75% without any tank mods. Buff the other resists as well. I shouldn't have to tank to make ganking expensive for my adversaries.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#260 - 2012-08-28 21:22:17 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Erenial wrote:
For all the crap you see posted about this topic, for all the drama, it is absolutely pointless to debate. If you aren't a hisec ganker, NONE of this affects you. so please STFU, undock, and go shoot something.

This affects EVERYONE, because we're concerned that CCP is caving to people who want to play the game in safety without any effort and creating an environment where this is possible.



No one is seriously suggesting that any part of Eve, except in stations should be safe - and hopefully that will change in time - all that has really happened is that ganking now costs more.

As the elite pvpers would put it 'adapt'

'Adapt' is exactly what the miners refused to do. Apparently if you refuse to adapt CCP eventually gets tired of your whining and coddles you. That's entirely the point,

Enjoying the rain today? ;)