These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#921 - 2014-09-01 04:51:38 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Expecting CONCORD to respond to false imprisonment (a crime) in highsec does not constitute crying to CCP.


Except that, once again, false imprisonment is not a Criminal Action in EVE. Only activating an offensive module against an illegal target is.

Quote:
is leading to a significant increase in ganks on haulers


[Citation Needed]


Well, your side gave the number of 1.4 freighters killed a day. Look at Loyalanon's killboard - he is on course to eclipse that by himself!

And the point is not to debate whether bumping is currently a crime or not, the point is to debate whether, in this context, it SHOULD be a crime.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#922 - 2014-09-01 04:52:46 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
I just don't understand hyow people can be this weak-kneed in a video game. I mean, look at these people finding any excuse to claim that something is so bad the developers need to intervene to help them.

Did it not ever occur to them that the counter to bumping machs isfriends in smaller ships to bump the machs off course enough to let you warp? I'll bet real life money that these people complaining haven't even tried any solutions, just ran straight to "CCP help me" mode.

And that's stupid. CCP has said they won't help you. CCP designed the game to be harsh and THEN TELLS YOU they did that. Arguing on a forum (which galvanizes the opposition to the dumbing down you people seem to want) is counter-productive. And yet you persist.

Figuring things out, fighting back, outsmarting the people trying to hurt you, these thigns are what this game is about. If you don't want to play a game, then don't, but don't get made at the game for your lack of will or creativity.


Expecting CONCORD to respond to false imprisonment (a crime) in highsec does not constitute crying to CCP. It is simply requesting that the game mechanics be updated so that CONCORD performs its proper role.


Yes it is crying, they've pretty much said no everytime they've talked about this stuff. Even if they hadn't, look at how much opposition the idea gets. Post this idea in the features and ideas forum, or the CSM forums, and you'll get the same response because what you are asking for goes against the nature of the game.

You can waste your time like this if you want, it;s your time, but you could be having actual fun figuring out how to do for yourself what you are asking CCP to do. EVE Online is a video game, it's there to give you a place to experiment and succeed. It's not here to play itself for you.

Quote:

And pointing out that the combination of lack of real consequences for ganking, as well as the exploitation of bumping, is leading to a significant increase in ganks on haulers (the original topic of this thread) is something that CCP should be aware of, as it considers whether the current game mechanics are having their intended impact on highsec.


If you want them to address a 'problem', provide them (and us) proof that there is a problem. Then you might get some support.


Was it "crying" when they decided to add rigs slots to freighters? Or was it instead a reasonable decisions by CCP in response to reasonable complaints on the forums?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#923 - 2014-09-01 04:54:00 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
They should allow the target to escape the bumping, as any law enforcement force would.
This is already the case, and CONCORD is not a law enforcement force.

Quote:
CONCORD is there to punish criminal activity, and being pinned down so that successive waves of gankers can shoot you is clearly criminal in this context.
No, it really isn't.

Quote:
CONCORD response should not depend on the activation of an offensive model
Why not? That is, after all, the only thing that really defines aggressive actions — the one thing CONCORD punishes.

Quote:
the appropriate response is to grant a gank-victim a 60 second window where they are able to warp off regardless of if they are been bumped or not.
This would mean breaking the physics of the game and making them inconsistent under very odd circumstances to achieve something that isn't needed to begin with.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#924 - 2014-09-01 04:55:45 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Was it "crying" when they decided to add rigs slots to freighters? Or was it instead a reasonable decisions by CCP in response to reasonable complaints on the forums?

It started out as people wanting to do something somewhat interesting with their ships, not expecting a nerf to compensate for the most part. If you read the crazy storm of agonized tears that came from that thread when the initial nerfs were shown, you'd understand what most pilots had been expecting. Which was basically just adding slots and nothing more. Straight up buff.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#925 - 2014-09-01 04:55:57 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
They should allow the target to escape the bumping, as any law enforcement force would.
This is already the case, and CONCORD is not a law enforcement force.

Yes it is.

Quote:
CONCORD is there to punish criminal activity, and being pinned down so that successive waves of gankers can shoot you is clearly criminal in this context.
No, it really isn't.

Of course it is.

Quote:
CONCORD response should not depend on the activation of an offensive model
Why not? That is, after all, the only thing that really defines aggressive actions — the one thing CONCORD punishes.

Entrapment is an aggressive action.

Quote:
the appropriate response is to grant a gank-victim a 60 second window where they are able to warp off regardless of if they are been bumped or not.
This would mean breaking the physics of the game and making them inconsistent under very odd circumstances to achieve something that isn't needed to begin with.


Hardly, look at it as CONCORD escorting the gank victim to safety.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#926 - 2014-09-01 04:57:35 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
What I "do get" is that you are not a CCP Dev and will not be determining policy on this matter (you already are on record as being opposed to letting freighters have rig slots). As pointed out already by me....already today Loyalanon (CEO of CODE) has killed two Orcas, a Charon, 3 Obelisks, and a Rhea, all today. Something is seriously broken here, and needs to be fixed.

What's broken and why? And whether or not he's a CCP dev, their policy on the matter exactly echoes what he says.

Quote:
Expecting CONCORD to respond to false imprisonment (a crime)
They already do, you know. This is the fact you keep ignoring because it means that your wishes are without basis or reason.

Quote:
It is simply requesting that the game mechanics be updated so that CONCORD performs its proper role.
It already does. You have yet to provide — using actual facts — any example of them not doing so.

Quote:
A nd pointing out that the combination of lack of real consequences for ganking, as well as the exploitation of bumping, is leading to a significant increase in ganks on haulers
Do you have any evidence to support that claim?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#927 - 2014-09-01 04:58:23 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Hardly, look at it as CONCORD escorting the gank victim to safety.
So you're asking them to completely and fundamentally change what CONCORD is for no good reason? Why on earth should they do that?
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#928 - 2014-09-01 04:58:59 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Was it "crying" when they decided to add rigs slots to freighters? Or was it instead a reasonable decisions by CCP in response to reasonable complaints on the forums?

It started out as people wanting to do something somewhat interesting with their ships, not expecting a nerf to compensate for the most part. If you read the crazy storm of agonized tears that came from that thread when the initial nerfs were shown, you'd understand what most pilots had been expecting. Which was basically just adding slots and nothing more. Straight up buff.


I consider it a significant buff, in that smart haulers can add a lot of ehp (stupid ones will use expanded cargoholds). If they would get rid of the bumping exploit, and make it more painful to have -10 sec status, the absurd increase in freighter ganking would start to decline back to normal.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#929 - 2014-09-01 04:59:51 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Hardly, look at it as CONCORD escorting the gank victim to safety.
So you're asking them to completely and fundamentally change what CONCORD is for no good reason? Why on earth should they do that?


I don't see how intelligently responding to false imprisonment and escorting a victim to safety "fundamentally changes what CONCORD is for."
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#930 - 2014-09-01 05:00:44 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Rowells wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Was it "crying" when they decided to add rigs slots to freighters? Or was it instead a reasonable decisions by CCP in response to reasonable complaints on the forums?

It started out as people wanting to do something somewhat interesting with their ships, not expecting a nerf to compensate for the most part. If you read the crazy storm of agonized tears that came from that thread when the initial nerfs were shown, you'd understand what most pilots had been expecting. Which was basically just adding slots and nothing more. Straight up buff.


I consider it a significant buff, in that smart haulers can add a lot of ehp (stupid ones will use expanded cargoholds). If they would get rid of the bumping exploit, and make it more painful to have -10 sec status, the absurd increase in freighter ganking would start to decline back to normal.

I agree that adding slots was great, however I'm not seeing anywhere where there is a massive increase in ganking, or for that matter ganking, using multiple waves via bumpbing.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#931 - 2014-09-01 05:03:24 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
I don't see how intelligently responding to false imprisonment and escorting a victim to safety "fundamentally changes what CONCORD is for."

CONCORD is not there for your protection.

Quote:
Yes it is.

Of course it is.
This is you making stuff up again, without any basis in reality. You should stop doing that because it means that any argument you base on that ignorant nonsense is itself ignorant and incorrect.

No, CONCORD is not a police force. It's that simple and you have failed spectacularly to demonstrate otherwise.
No, being pinned down very clearly is not a criminal act — the devs themselves say so. Anything you say to the contrary means prove yourself completely clueless about how the game works. The more you keep repeating these lies, the less your argument has any value or coherence.

Quote:
Entrapment is an aggressive action.
…and CONCORD already responds to that. Since you are not familiar with the basic game mechanics involved, you do not know this.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#932 - 2014-09-01 05:03:54 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Rowells wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Was it "crying" when they decided to add rigs slots to freighters? Or was it instead a reasonable decisions by CCP in response to reasonable complaints on the forums?

It started out as people wanting to do something somewhat interesting with their ships, not expecting a nerf to compensate for the most part. If you read the crazy storm of agonized tears that came from that thread when the initial nerfs were shown, you'd understand what most pilots had been expecting. Which was basically just adding slots and nothing more. Straight up buff.


I consider it a significant buff, in that smart haulers can add a lot of ehp (stupid ones will use expanded cargoholds). If they would get rid of the bumping exploit, and make it more painful to have -10 sec status, the absurd increase in freighter ganking would start to decline back to normal.

I agree that adding slots was great, however I'm not seeing anywhere where there is a massive increase in ganking, or for that matter ganking, using multiple waves via bumpbing.


Check out this killboard https://zkillboard.com/character/1941616627/

Remember that on average 1.4 freighters die a day in the ENTIRE EVE UNIVERSE. And this is just one guy.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#933 - 2014-09-01 05:05:02 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
I don't see how intelligently responding to false imprisonment and escorting a victim to safety "fundamentally changes what CONCORD is for."

CONCORD is not there for your protection.

Quote:
Yes it is.

Of course it is.
This is you making stuff up again, without any basis in reality. You should stop doing that because it means that any argument you base on that ignorant nonsense is itself ignorant and incorrect.

No, CONCORD is not a police force. It's that simple and you have failed spectacularly to demonstrate otherwise.
No, being pinned down very clearly is not a criminal act — the devs themselves say so. Anything you say to the contrary means prove yourself completely clueless about how the game works. The more you keep repeating these lies, the less your argument has any value or coherence.

Quote:
Entrapment is an aggressive action.
…and CONCORD already responds to that. Since you are not familiar with the basic game mechanics involved, you do not know this.


Spouting the same talking points over and over does not an argument make, but my point is not to convince you as "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#934 - 2014-09-01 05:05:19 UTC
DJentropy Ovaert wrote:

HTFU. Adapt or die. Beware the falcon punch.


Confirming this is my new signature.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#935 - 2014-09-01 05:07:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Veers Belvar wrote:
Check out this killboard https://zkillboard.com/character/1941616627/

Remember that on average 1.4 freighters die a day in the ENTIRE EVE UNIVERSE. And this is just one guy.

What is that statistic based on?
And where is the evidence of this supposed massive increase in ganking?

Veers Belvar wrote:
Spouting the same talking points over and over does not an argument make
So stop doing it and provide an actual argument instead. Preferably one based on facts rater than stuff you've dreamed up based on hearsay and a deep unfamiliarity of game mechanics.

You keep making all these claims. You can't prove any of them. All of them have been disproven over and over again. So why do you keep repeating the same disproven nonsense; the same lies; and the same fallacies if you know that this does not actually provide you with any kind of coherent argument?
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#936 - 2014-09-01 05:11:31 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Check out this killboard https://zkillboard.com/character/1941616627/

Remember that on average 1.4 freighters die a day in the ENTIRE EVE UNIVERSE. And this is just one guy.

What is that statistic based on?
And where is the evidence of this supposed massive increase in ganking?

Veers Belvar wrote:
Spouting the same talking points over and over does not an argument make
So stop doing it and provide an actual argument instead. Preferably one based on facts rater than stuff you've dreamed up based on hearsay and a deep unfamiliarity of game mechanics.

You keep making all these claims. You can't prove any of them. All of them have been disproven over and over again. So why do you keep repeating the same disproven nonsense; the same lies; and the same fallacies if you know that this does not actually provide you with any kind of coherent argument?


your partner in crime cited it - see https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4974305#post4974305

I make claims that are reasonable and true. You declare them false with neither evidence nor reason, and then cry when I restate my claims. Uncless you actually disprove them (essentially impossible since they are true), I will continue to restate them.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#937 - 2014-09-01 05:15:57 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
…and what is it based on?

Quote:
I make claims that are reasonable and true.
No. You make claims that you have no support for and no reasoning behind. You make claims that are trivially demonstrably false because they contradict actual game mechanics. You make claims that directly contradict dev statements. You make claims that you have no experience with.

Quote:
You declare them false with
Both evidence and reason — neither of which you accept because reality does not match up with your fantasy world. When asked to provide any supporting evidence for your fantasy, you have never been able to produce any and instead just kept repeating the same disproven lies in the hope that they will become true.

Let's repeat that: all of your lies have been disproven already. You continue to restate them anyway, so that is just another one of your lies.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#938 - 2014-09-01 05:18:06 UTC
I just went back and read some of this thread, are these people actually using the terms 'entrapment' and 'false imprisonment'.

As someone in actual Law Enforcement, let me tell you, you don't have the foggiest idea what those terms mean.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#939 - 2014-09-01 05:18:44 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
…and what is it based on?

Quote:
I make claims that are reasonable and true.
No. You make claims that you have no support for and no reasoning behind. You make claims that are trivially demonstrably false because they contradict actual game mechanics. You make claims that directly contradict dev statements. You make claims that you have no experience with.

Quote:
You declare them false with
Both evidence and reason — neither of which you accept because reality does not match up with your fantasy world. When asked to provide any supporting evidence for your fantasy, you have never been able to produce any and instead just kept repeating the same disproven lies in the hope that they will become true.

Let's repeat that: all of your lies have been disproven already. You continue to restate them anyway, so that is just another one of your lies.


Yawn...just lying over and over again does not an argument make. Since you have provided not a shred of evidence so far, I'm not even sure how to reply to you. But do feel free to keep posting whatever delusions you cling to, its quite amusing.

And as for the 1.4 number, why don't you ask your fellow poster instead of asking me?
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#940 - 2014-09-01 05:20:13 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
I just went back and read some of this thread, are these people actually using the terms 'entrapment' and 'false imprisonment'.

As someone in actual Law Enforcement, let me tell you, you don't have the foggiest idea what those terms mean.


Let me assure you that as a licensed attorney in the United States, I know EXACTLY what those terms mean. But thanks for giving me the opinion of someone in "actual law enforcement," because those people tend to be experts at statutory nuance.