These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

High Sec Hauling/Mining Kills - TY CCP for No Protection

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#621 - 2014-08-31 07:08:53 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
And again our two favorite nullsec supporters appear on the scene to troll and derail any thread that might suggest some kind of reasonable and fair level of protection for players in highsec.


I live in highsec, fluffy.

Now shut it, the grown ups are talking.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#622 - 2014-08-31 07:22:09 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Veers Belvar wrote:
Luckily I haven't lost a ship at all! I simply present again the absurd situation caused by the current game mechanics. "So you find it comprehensible that you and your CODE buddies would show up, try to gank an Orca, get it down to 20% structure, have CONCORD come and kill you and give you an aggression timer...and then do nothing as your buddies sit there for 15 minutes bumping it so it can't escape, with CONCORD at the scene, and then watch as the exact same gankers come right back and finish the job? Seriously? That even conceivably makes sense to you? I refuse to believe that anyone could find that a reasonable game mechanic in highsec."


Copying the same post over and over doesn't make it true. I addressed all of those points.

Laws in different jurisdictions are different. New Eden has different laws than the real world, and New Eden's capsuleer police (CONCORD) have an extremely limited, reactionary role which fits the laws of New Eden.

If you perform an act of illegal aggression in HS, CONCORD destroys your ship, docks you sec status, and gives you a 15min time out. That is their entire function. Their function has nothing to do with protecting anyone, simply with creating cost for illegal aggression in HS.

This is how the game was always intended to work and is how it works now.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#623 - 2014-08-31 07:25:57 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Eh, English is my second language as well, and while you are correct, I believe the basic point still stands.

That being, if you die in highsec, it's most likely because you failed to take adequate steps towards your own defense.

That said, spatial awareness could be referencing understanding of your surroundings, and the resulting knowledge of correct behavior that flows as a result?


Like I said, I'm picking nits (English idiom for fussy fault finding. Comes from the days of having people pick lice off of you instead of bathing).

That definition you proposed is basically the definition of situational awareness.

The word switch doesn't change the fact that Falcon's point is entirely comprehensible.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#624 - 2014-08-31 07:29:04 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

Like I said, I'm picking nits (English idiom for fussy fault finding. Comes from the days of having people pick lice off of you instead of bathing).

That definition you proposed is basically the definition of situational awareness.

The word switch doesn't change the fact that Falcon's point is entirely comprehensible.


I know the phrase, lived in the U.S. for a while now, just get stuff mixed up sometimes, and my grammar is never going to not suck. I also lament the loss of my accent a while back.

But yes, I agree that it's basically not debatable as to the crux of his statement.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#625 - 2014-08-31 08:19:15 UTC
How many times does an actual DEV need to tell these people they are doing it wrong, ffs.
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#626 - 2014-08-31 08:25:35 UTC
You know what's pathetic about all the threads like these? Just a very slight change in wording would fix the whole thing.

If you told the whiners that Concord would rep them if they were still alive when the big C showed up, everyone would be all over it. Just keep your ship alive until C gets there.

The carequeens would be all "Suck it, gankmaggots! Don't f*** with the Jesus! I have goddamn epic tank on my . . . I don't even know what the mining ships are called. Doesn't matter because Concord is REPPING my ass!"

Of course, the situation isn't really very different now, right? Just survive until Concord. That's it! You have one job!

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Xer Jin
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#627 - 2014-08-31 08:33:40 UTC
Aeana K
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#628 - 2014-08-31 08:43:34 UTC
Your anger will pass away after some time, soon. Remember that there is not even a single person in this game that has never done a big mistake. What is important however, is the advice given to you.

1) never fit a BR for tank. That was a bad advice given to you. Fit for agility. Stealth is your tank, as it is already said.

2) Always check the issuer. If you see many fails in his hauler contracts do not take the mission.

3) Always check the cargo. If its value is close to the collateral, it is not a trap. As BRs are scan-proof, no one will touch you (99.9%) if you fly carefully.

4) In the case you accept a contract with low price cargo, fit a fast frigate, and make an ista-undock in the starting station and an insta-dock in the destination station, then return and do the mission. With more than 6AUs/s in your BR, only ceptors can hunt you, but even in this case they cant do much if you cloack-warp carefuly.

5) It is practically impossible to have insta docks and undocks in every station, but have one in all major hubs.

6) make an alt with BR flying skills, in the same account, to subcontract the dengerous curiers. It takes about 2 PLEXs additional time. It was a bad advice to subcontract all the contracts, it takes lots of time.

7) Never fly AFK.

8) **** can happen, and always happens. Do not take the game so seriously. Take a pint, watch a movie, hug your gf, and come back in the game with a smile.

That's my 2 cent
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#629 - 2014-08-31 08:44:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Xer Jin wrote:
FALCON PUNCH!!!

…So…
He punched the guy so hard that the resulting explosion propagated hundreds of thousands of light-years in a matter of seconds.




That's gotta smart.

Aeana K wrote:
1) never fit a BR for tank. That was a bad advice given to you. Fit for agility. Stealth is your tank, as it is already said.
…or fly a Crane or Prowler and do both. P
Derrick Miles
Death Rabbit Ky Oneida
#630 - 2014-08-31 08:56:27 UTC
How is there two threads and 150 pages of the same stuff over and over again?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#631 - 2014-08-31 08:58:06 UTC
Derrick Miles wrote:
How is there two threads and 150 pages of the same stuff over and over again?


Because some people find it easier to butt their heads against their computer screen screaming and frothing at the mouth about how the very developers of this game are wrong, than admit that they themselves might be wrong.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#632 - 2014-08-31 09:33:41 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:


One of my pet concepts is that players should be allowed to use NPC for tasks whose opportunity cost is too high for a human player. Say, bringing NPC anti-gank right when you need it, for a price that compensates the loss inflicted on gankers. Would you spend a 500 millon one-shot NPC anti-gank to laugh at a flight of ganknados? Would you gank if you knew that X is known for using NPC anti-ganks? (These are rhetorical questions, btw)



Hi Indah,

Maybe you've quit this thread already.. lol. I don't blame you in the slightest.


I believe we should consider all the implications of your suggestion.



  • If you can hire a 500m NPC, can't the gankers do the same? A gankfleet already has a CONCORD deterrent for anyone who may want to preemptively attack them. Now they have a protector. Is this wise?

  • How effective should these guys be? How can they possibly *prevent* a fleet of high alpha/high DPS boats from killing you? There is no unit in the game that can currently do that (prevent.. not punish an entire gank squad)

  • Are people going to start bringing these into lowsec/nullsec roams?

  • Aren't you just describing a very powerful Drone? Aren't the Golems a bit on the border of being overpowered? Do you think we should have more powerful Drones than Golems?

  • Wouldn't these NPCs be like Drones except you don't have to skill up in anything for them?

  • Do you think a particularly rich Alliance or Corp could afford more of these NPCs than a lone freighter pilot? Do you know how much money CODE. is sitting on top of? How many of these NPCs could be afforded by 400b ISK?





Use conditions: system security must be above 0.5. Player security status must be above 0.0.
Trigger condition: someone has locked the player, has opened fire on him and has triggered a criminal flag on himself.
Trigger: manual activation.
Environmental effects: 99.9% resists to player. Any player who earns a criminal flag after attacking the player is 100% scrambled. Effects last for 10 seconds.
NPC spawn (RT-1 seconds after activation, where RT = CONCORD response time): FoF mines. One mine is spawned for each agressor and inflicts 150,000 alpha damage on it. The subsequent CONCORD spawn will wipe any survivors.

I think that adresses all your questions. It's a single use defensive device whose effect is to protect the victim (but only in hisec and only if the agressors are perfoming an ilegal attack) and then pins and destroys any agressor until CONCORD comes and finishes the job.

Obviously, a second gang could still finish the victim even with CONCORD present, but then nobody is 100% safe in New Eden...

Special case: the victim is alphaed. That doesn't matter, as the pod still can trigger the response and avenge his loss, then warp out before the 99.9% resists fade. Technically, that would lead to the gankers being killmailed by a pod, which would be a sort of a hilarious honor badge for everyone involved. Lol

(Lore mumbojumbo: sleeping response teams would be stationed around each planet/moon and would be "microcynoed" in by a "ground station" responding to the same lore system that sends in CONCORD)

(Coding of the feature: the foundation woud be the CONCORD code with additional exceptions, but all effects are already ingame. Art assets would imply the mines themselves as the rest of the system would not be displayed)
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#633 - 2014-08-31 09:36:39 UTC
Good heavens no.

This game needs *less* NPC handholding, not more.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#634 - 2014-08-31 09:52:44 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Use conditions: system security must be above 0.5. Player security status must be above 0.0.
Trigger condition: someone has locked the player, has opened fire on him and has triggered a criminal flag on himself.
Trigger: manual activation.
Environmental effects: 99.9% resists to player. Any player who earns a criminal flag after attacking the player is 100% scrambled. Effects last for 10 seconds.
NPC spawn (RT-1 seconds after activation, where RT = CONCORD response time): FoF mines. One mine is spawned for each agressor and inflicts 150,000 alpha damage on it. The subsequent CONCORD spawn will wipe any survivors.

I think that adresses all your questions. It's a single use defensive device whose effect is to protect the victim (but only in hisec and only if the agressors are perfoming an ilegal attack) and then pins and destroys any agressor until CONCORD comes and finishes the job.

Obviously, a second gang could still finish the victim even with CONCORD present, but then nobody is 100% safe in New Eden...

Special case: the victim is alphaed. That doesn't matter, as the pod still can trigger the response and avenge his loss, then warp out before the 99.9% resists fade. Technically, that would lead to the gankers being killmailed by a pod, which would be a sort of a hilarious honor badge for everyone involved. Lol


Ironically I think this would backfire completely and actually make ganking easier. Consider what happens at super high resists, and the likelyhood that this would trigger 100%+ resists. Also, players are already disrupted when gaining a criminal flag. I'm not sure what the point of shutting off ganker microwarpdrives is.

Giving the players access to a 150K damage weapon is idiotic though.

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#635 - 2014-08-31 09:57:08 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

Use conditions: system security must be above 0.5. Player security status must be above 0.0.
Trigger condition: someone has locked the player, has opened fire on him and has triggered a criminal flag on himself.
Trigger: manual activation.
Environmental effects: 99.9% resists to player. Any player who earns a criminal flag after attacking the player is 100% scrambled. Effects last for 10 seconds.
NPC spawn (RT-1 seconds after activation, where RT = CONCORD response time): FoF mines. One mine is spawned for each agressor and inflicts 150,000 alpha damage on it. The subsequent CONCORD spawn will wipe any survivors.


First:
Why should a single pilot have an item that requires no effort whatsoever to use which gives them a guaranteed win against an organized group of 10+ pilots specifically kitted out to beat them? (being at your keyboard isn't "effort" it's "playing the game")

Second:
Gimme an alt (or 5) in a newb ship and I'll be abusing the hell out of this.

Even ignoring the hilarious abuse guaranteed to come from your ridiculous magic invulnerability button, it's entirely unnecessary.

Here are two incredibly effective freighter protection modules (best used in conjunction with each other):
Reinforced Bulkheads II
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I

They have the advantage of already being in the game and not wildly broken. They have the disadvantage of not being useable by someone unwilling to bring a second pilot with them to help defend against a group of 10+ pilots. Of course, a single pilot not being able to successfully defend themselves against an organized group of 10+ pilots is not super surprising. Roll

Here are some fits that make use of them:

[Daredevil, Freighter Protection]

Power Diagnostic System II
Damage Control II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
400mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I

Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
1MN Afterburner II

[Empty High slot]
[Empty High slot]
[Empty High slot]

Small Targeting System Subcontroller II
Small Targeting System Subcontroller I
Small Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II

[Charon, Tank]

Reinforced Bulkheads II
Reinforced Bulkheads II
Reinforced Bulkheads II

NB: I am not saying that these are the *only* fits that use these freighter protection modules, nor that these are the *best* fits that use these freighter protection modules, nor that they are the most cost effective fits that use these freighter protection modules. Simply that these fits use those modules to great effect.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#636 - 2014-08-31 09:58:14 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Good heavens no.

This game needs *less* NPC handholding, not more.


Read my post again and turn off the grrr carebears grrr this time. It is LESS hand-holding than CONCORD as it must be manually triggered.
Cancel Align NOW
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#637 - 2014-08-31 10:02:00 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
If bumping is ever made a CONCORD offense, I will invest in salvage drones and MTUs and camp the Jita undock.


Which is (again) why I suggested that Bumping should not be a CONCORD offense, rather that victims of a (failed) gank attempt should have a 60 second immunity from Bumping once CONCORD arrives on the scene.



This is an interesting suggestion, I have a few questions about the mechanics that I need clarification on:

1. What is your definition of "victim". How would CCP be able to take your definition and apply it to the current mechanics? If a neutral player sees a freighter being ganked on a gate and activates a jamming module on ganker pilot a and then is engaged by ganker pilot b is the nuetral party neutral, an aggressor, or a victim? What if the original ganker was legitimately at war with the freighter pilot?
2. What is your definition of "bump". How would you differentiate between natural and frequently occurring bumps on a station undock during conflict and deliberate attempts to disable warp?
3. How would CCP be able to stop bump abuse? If I had an expensive load to move (say $25bil plus) in a freighter over a small distance, say under 10 jumps, and this mechanism was made available, I would use neutral alts to engage my own freighter to ensure it was unbumpable after each jump.

I do not mean to be harshly critical, however, your proposal displays a limited understanding of the impact of altering simple mechanics, which also implies limited understanding of current mechanics. Looking at the scenario you have suggested you are suggesting that an Orca that has been attacked and whose tank has held through the initial gank attempt runs the risk of being bumped repeatedly by friends of the original ganker for 15 minutes continuously without concord intervention upon which the original attackers will return to reattempt to gank the Orca.

This method of attack, ie a ganking group holds back a percentage of forces from original attack to maintain bumping ability for 15 minutes after the target has survived the initial attack seems very inefficient. It means a deliberate reduction in DPS which increases the odds in the targets favour. It also means increasing the isk cost of the gank by approximately 100%. It also requires an increase in the technical ability of the group conducting the attack.

Why should single pilot who is emplying no defensive strategies utilising other pilots be given a leg up over a larger diverse group who are working in an extremely organised and detailed manner?
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#638 - 2014-08-31 10:02:46 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

Use conditions: system security must be above 0.5. Player security status must be above 0.0.
Trigger condition: someone has locked the player, has opened fire on him and has triggered a criminal flag on himself.
Trigger: manual activation.
Environmental effects: 99.9% resists to player. Any player who earns a criminal flag after attacking the player is 100% scrambled. Effects last for 10 seconds.
NPC spawn (RT-1 seconds after activation, where RT = CONCORD response time): FoF mines. One mine is spawned for each agressor and inflicts 150,000 alpha damage on it. The subsequent CONCORD spawn will wipe any survivors.


First:
Why should a single pilot have an item that requires no effort whatsoever to use which gives them a guaranteed win against an organized group of 10+ pilots specifically kitted out to beat them? (being at your keyboard isn't "effort" it's "playing the game")

Second:
Gimme an alt (or 5) in a newb ship and I'll be abusing the hell out of this.

Even ignoring the hilarious abuse guaranteed to come from your ridiculous magic invulnerability button, it's entirely unnecessary.



Please, tell me how would you abuse the idea, I may have overlooked something. Question
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#639 - 2014-08-31 10:03:11 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Good heavens no.

This game needs *less* NPC handholding, not more.


Read my post again and turn off the grrr carebears grrr this time. It is LESS hand-holding than CONCORD as it must be manually triggered.

That doesn't change anything, CONCORD define npc hand holding.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Cancel Align NOW
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#640 - 2014-08-31 10:05:06 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Good heavens no.

This game needs *less* NPC handholding, not more.


Read my post again and turn off the grrr carebears grrr this time. It is LESS hand-holding than CONCORD as it must be manually triggered.


So ganking of AFK would go unpunished or just punished by Concord?

The abuse options are awesome. A group of 100 pilots could crash the servers.