These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Balancing ships and ammo !

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#101 - 2014-09-14 05:24:51 UTC
Here is a good vindi vid

Despite the end result who can spot the big mistake of the vindi pilot.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#102 - 2014-09-14 05:50:06 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Crumplecorn wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Once you guys execute though, there is no way to stop it. 18 Nados can tear through just about any ship in highsec.
"If you bring the right tool for the job, you can get the job done. That's imbalanced."

These posts of yours are reaching the point of self-parody.


Yawn...the important questions of course is how much it SHOULD cost to get the job done, with the optimal tools. That would determine if a rebalance is warranted.


That's not a question at all because... wait for it....

Player-driven economy is not a balancing factor for PVP. In PVP, the risk/reward balance is created entirely by the players.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#103 - 2014-09-14 05:57:39 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:

Not sure what this means. For a given number of gankers, and a given ehp of the target, and given the security status of the system - there is a minimum isk price to gank before CONCORD shows up. It's literally just a math problem.


And thanks to carebears like you, who argued for infallible, 100% reliable CONCORD, it is a math problem.

Except for the part where you can't tell if he has links, so you have to take that into account. Or what implants he's got.

But anyway, that's what you people get for crying for more safety for the last decade, the real players find a way to turn it around on you. And of course, since your end goal is for PvP to not exist in any way, any time that there is ANY ganking going on at all, you rush to the forums to claim how it's "too much" and there needs to be "just one more" nerf to PvP.

Not any more. You have too damned much safety as it is, since it's damn near impossible to gank someone who actually has a clue how to play this game.

But just because the thumbless monkeys who afk in open space are getting blown up, that does not mean there is a problem. In fact, that's working as intended.

"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.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#104 - 2014-09-14 06:00:59 UTC
You want to know how I know that there is not, nor will there ever be "too much" ganking going on in EVE these days?

Because unlike before, eight guys can't shut down an entire constellation by themselves.

Until stuff like that happens? You people can go chew on a sweat sock for all the good it's going to do you to cry about how your untanked afk boat gets blown up by people who were actually at their keyboards.

"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.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#105 - 2014-09-14 06:04:41 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

Not sure what this means. For a given number of gankers, and a given ehp of the target, and given the security status of the system - there is a minimum isk price to gank before CONCORD shows up. It's literally just a math problem.


And thanks to carebears like you, who argued for infallible, 100% reliable CONCORD, it is a math problem.

Except for the part where you can't tell if he has links, so you have to take that into account. Or what implants he's got.

But anyway, that's what you people get for crying for more safety for the last decade, the real players find a way to turn it around on you. And of course, since your end goal is for PvP to not exist in any way, any time that there is ANY ganking going on at all, you rush to the forums to claim how it's "too much" and there needs to be "just one more" nerf to PvP.

Not any more. You have too damned much safety as it is, since it's damn near impossible to gank someone who actually has a clue how to play this game.

But just because the thumbless monkeys who afk in open space are getting blown up, that does not mean there is a problem. In fact, that's working as intended.


Calm down buddy. I wasn't even playing when the last nerfs were made. And you obviously haven't being paying attention to my views on highsec. I think mining barges and freighters and all other non-combat ships should have a major tank nef and be blowing up more (I happen to think mining should be removed from the game entirely, in fact). I think there aren't enough failfit and undertanked ships getting blown up. I do happen to believe that it should be more difficult and expensive to gank top of the line combat ships. Not sure if that makes me a "carebear" or not. Feel free to examine my killboard for further details.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2014-09-14 06:05:38 UTC
Gaming God wrote:

Why not balance the ganking system that is accepted greatly in this game ?

Shooting down a 22 bil marouder ship (That is not alloaght to fight back until it is attakt ) With 5 dystroyers ships that cost 1 mil a peace within in 5 secconds needs to be nerft .

You have to admit there is an balancing problem here or not ?



Was there a reason you weren't dscanning or paying attention to Local?


Do you think more mitigation mechanics should be introduced if you don't bother using existing ones?

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#107 - 2014-09-14 06:09:11 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
I do happen to believe that it should be more difficult and expensive to gank top of the line combat ships.


If they are fitting and flying correctly, it is next to impossible.

The only thing past that is completely impossible.

"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.
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
When Fleets Collide
#108 - 2014-09-14 06:10:40 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Calm down buddy. I wasn't even playing when the last nerfs were made. And you obviously haven't being paying attention to my views on highsec. I think mining barges and freighters and all other non-combat ships should have a major tank nef and be blowing up more (I happen to think mining should be removed from the game entirely, in fact). I think there aren't enough failfit and undertanked ships getting blown up. I do happen to believe that it should be more difficult and expensive to gank top of the line combat ships. Not sure if that makes me a "carebear" or not. Feel free to examine my killboard for further details.


If there aren't enough failfit ships getting ganked, surely that is due to most players not failfitting their ships?
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#109 - 2014-09-14 06:14:30 UTC
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Calm down buddy. I wasn't even playing when the last nerfs were made. And you obviously haven't being paying attention to my views on highsec. I think mining barges and freighters and all other non-combat ships should have a major tank nef and be blowing up more (I happen to think mining should be removed from the game entirely, in fact). I think there aren't enough failfit and undertanked ships getting blown up. I do happen to believe that it should be more difficult and expensive to gank top of the line combat ships. Not sure if that makes me a "carebear" or not. Feel free to examine my killboard for further details.


If there aren't enough failfit ships getting ganked, surely that is due to most players not failfitting their ships?



Uhm...no....it's because the main gankers, CODE, don't care and are blowing up empty ships. And the other gankers, miniluv, etc... seem to have disappeared. The number of failfit ships in highsec is...well.....astonishing.
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
When Fleets Collide
#110 - 2014-09-14 06:18:06 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Calm down buddy. I wasn't even playing when the last nerfs were made. And you obviously haven't being paying attention to my views on highsec. I think mining barges and freighters and all other non-combat ships should have a major tank nef and be blowing up more (I happen to think mining should be removed from the game entirely, in fact). I think there aren't enough failfit and undertanked ships getting blown up. I do happen to believe that it should be more difficult and expensive to gank top of the line combat ships. Not sure if that makes me a "carebear" or not. Feel free to examine my killboard for further details.


If there aren't enough failfit ships getting ganked, surely that is due to most players not failfitting their ships?



Uhm...no....it's because the main gankers, CODE, don't care and are blowing up empty ships. And the other gankers, miniluv, etc... seem to have disappeared. The number of failfit ships in highsec is...well.....astonishing.


So they're ganking ships that aren't failfit? What's the problem then? You can't force people to do something they don't want to, this isn't a job, it's a game. We're here to have fun.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#111 - 2014-09-14 06:20:37 UTC
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Calm down buddy. I wasn't even playing when the last nerfs were made. And you obviously haven't being paying attention to my views on highsec. I think mining barges and freighters and all other non-combat ships should have a major tank nef and be blowing up more (I happen to think mining should be removed from the game entirely, in fact). I think there aren't enough failfit and undertanked ships getting blown up. I do happen to believe that it should be more difficult and expensive to gank top of the line combat ships. Not sure if that makes me a "carebear" or not. Feel free to examine my killboard for further details.


If there aren't enough failfit ships getting ganked, surely that is due to most players not failfitting their ships?



Uhm...no....it's because the main gankers, CODE, don't care and are blowing up empty ships. And the other gankers, miniluv, etc... seem to have disappeared. The number of failfit ships in highsec is...well.....astonishing.


So they're ganking ships that aren't failfit? What's the problem then? You can't force people to do something they don't want to, this isn't a job, it's a game. We're here to have fun.


I think my point was that it's not lucrative enough right now to gank failfit ships, and is too lucrative (or not costly enough) to gank well fit ships. So I'd like to see more failfits dying, and fewer well fit ships.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#112 - 2014-09-14 06:23:38 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Calm down buddy. I wasn't even playing when the last nerfs were made. And you obviously haven't being paying attention to my views on highsec. I think mining barges and freighters and all other non-combat ships should have a major tank nef and be blowing up more (I happen to think mining should be removed from the game entirely, in fact). I think there aren't enough failfit and undertanked ships getting blown up. I do happen to believe that it should be more difficult and expensive to gank top of the line combat ships. Not sure if that makes me a "carebear" or not. Feel free to examine my killboard for further details.


If there aren't enough failfit ships getting ganked, surely that is due to most players not failfitting their ships?



Uhm...no....it's because the main gankers, CODE, don't care and are blowing up empty ships. And the other gankers, miniluv, etc... seem to have disappeared. The number of failfit ships in highsec is...well.....astonishing.


So they're ganking ships that aren't failfit? What's the problem then? You can't force people to do something they don't want to, this isn't a job, it's a game. We're here to have fun.


I think my point was that it's not lucrative enough right now to gank failfit ships, and is too lucrative (or not costly enough) to gank well fit ships. So I'd like to see more failfits dying, and fewer well fit ships.


As long as people are able to work together and coordinate in numbers, that will never happen. Ever.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#113 - 2014-09-14 06:27:33 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:

I think my point was that it's not lucrative enough right now to gank failfit ships, and is too lucrative (or not costly enough) to gank well fit ships. So I'd like to see more failfits dying, and fewer well fit ships.


CODE already operates at a loss. They have probably the largest, most robust SRP in highsec, and if weren't for generous donors they would not be able to sustain it for long at all.

"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.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#114 - 2014-09-14 06:29:36 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:


And you obviously haven't being paying attention to my views on highsec.



No Veers, we have been paying close attention to your views on hisec. Your posts happen to be quite transparent to your (rather typical) agenda. Observe.


A choice statement from you below. Not sure it's entirely accurate, though.
Quote:

This is completely not true btw. Anti-ganking enourages the use of robust tank, monitoring intel channels, and using smart gameplay to prevent ganking. They also have a good record at spoiling CODE suicide ganking. If you want to spend your time helping people, not hurting them, then anti-ganking is for you.



Your definition of harassment is "Can I haz ur stuffs?". Gosh, with your sort of advocacy I am excited to see what kind of game EVE will turn out to be.
Quote:

After using bumping to trap a freighter, and the pilot choosing to self destruct rather than pay a ransom, the pilot came on the Eve forums to complain about the bumping mechanic and state that he was quitting the game. Instead of the ganker just being happy with the loot and moving, he came to the forum to rub it in with the comment "Can i haz ur stuffs?. The sole purpose is to further antagonize an already upset person for "tear harvesting" purposes.



Apparently you don't just care about expensive mission running ships being ganked. You care about freighters too. Did you forget to mention that?
Quote:

Totally agree with you. The failure to stop the abuse of bumping is ridiculous, and is being utilized by the CODE folks to imprison freighters on a daily basis. This is just screaming out for a fix.



Oh look, your views on hisec. I'm terribly surprised.
Quote:

People live in highsec because they don't want to be forced into PvP without CONCORD intervention. If they wanted regular PvP they would live in low/null.



Here's another look at your stellar hisec and whiner advocacy.


There is no need to disguise your views. Feel free to let loose. We know there are many things about the current mechanics which are frustrating for you, that you would radically change in order to make EVE a warm, welcoming environment for the casual and blissfully unaware player.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
When Fleets Collide
#115 - 2014-09-14 06:29:58 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
I think my point was that it's not lucrative enough right now to gank failfit ships, and is too lucrative (or not costly enough) to gank well fit ships. So I'd like to see more failfits dying, and fewer well fit ships.


What do you mean by lucrative? If you mean dropped module costs, badly fit ships can drop as much as well fit ones. If you mean robbing freighters, you can always gather people around you and start ganking the juicier targets yourself. Be the change you want, and be happy that your competition has chosen to be less competetive.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#116 - 2014-09-14 06:34:33 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:



There is no need to disguise your views. Feel free to let loose. We know there are many things about the current mechanics which are frustrating for you, that you would radically change in order to make EVE a warm, welcoming environment for the casual and blissfully unaware player.



I'm really not sure what you are trying to say...

1. Yes, anti-ganking is great for advice on avoiding ganks.

2. Using bumping to trap a ship for 50 minutes, causing the owner to quit the game...and the rubbing it in with "can I haz your stuff" is exactly the kind of garbage I would like to see less of. Enjoy your kill and shut up. Don't look to elicit emotional reactions.

3. Yes, I think bumping is being used in an abusive way. I would like to see more freighters pop, but from dps, not from trapping due to bumping.

4. Yes, I think wardeccs should not be used to force people into PvP without CONCORD. Go suicide gank them if you want to kill them.

I'm still trying to figure out what any of your posts "prove." Do try and do a better job in the future.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#117 - 2014-09-14 06:35:18 UTC
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
I think my point was that it's not lucrative enough right now to gank failfit ships, and is too lucrative (or not costly enough) to gank well fit ships. So I'd like to see more failfits dying, and fewer well fit ships.


What do you mean by lucrative? If you mean dropped module costs, badly fit ships can drop as much as well fit ones. If you mean robbing freighters, you can always gather people around you and start ganking the juicier targets yourself. Be the change you want, and be happy that your competition has chosen to be less competetive.


By lucrative I mean the EV of the gank.
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
When Fleets Collide
#118 - 2014-09-14 06:37:10 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
I think my point was that it's not lucrative enough right now to gank failfit ships, and is too lucrative (or not costly enough) to gank well fit ships. So I'd like to see more failfits dying, and fewer well fit ships.


What do you mean by lucrative? If you mean dropped module costs, badly fit ships can drop as much as well fit ones. If you mean robbing freighters, you can always gather people around you and start ganking the juicier targets yourself. Be the change you want, and be happy that your competition has chosen to be less competetive.


By lucrative I mean the EV of the gank.


But there's a plenty of +EV badly fit ships, you just got to find them.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#119 - 2014-09-14 06:38:37 UTC
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
I think my point was that it's not lucrative enough right now to gank failfit ships, and is too lucrative (or not costly enough) to gank well fit ships. So I'd like to see more failfits dying, and fewer well fit ships.


What do you mean by lucrative? If you mean dropped module costs, badly fit ships can drop as much as well fit ones. If you mean robbing freighters, you can always gather people around you and start ganking the juicier targets yourself. Be the change you want, and be happy that your competition has chosen to be less competetive.


By lucrative I mean the EV of the gank.


But there's a plenty of +EV badly fit ships, you just got to find them.



Correct. What I've been saying is that the current mechanics don't provide sufficient incentive to find and kill them, and don't provide sufficient disincentive for finding and killing well fit ships.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#120 - 2014-09-14 06:41:04 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:




1. Yes, anti-ganking is great for advice on avoiding ganks.
They're really not though.

Quote:
2. Using bumping to trap a ship for 50 minutes, causing the owner to quit the game...and the rubbing it in with "can I haz your stuff" is exactly the kind of garbage I would like to see less of. Enjoy your kill and shut up. Don't look to elicit emotional reactions.


Nobody quits the game that wasn't already going to anyway, and no one puts a gun to their head to do so. Most people would just 'enjoy their kill and shut up' if the guy that lost didn't throw an epic qq and a raft of insults and vexatious threats after the fact.

Quote:
3. Yes, I think bumping is being used in an abusive way. I would like to see more freighters pop, but from dps, not from trapping due to bumping.
Bumping is legitimate gameplay, and easily avoidable, even in a freighter. You've already decided it's not though, and that you know everything, so I'm not going to tell you how. I'll reserve my advice for people actually interested in learning.

Quote:
4. Yes, I think wardeccs should not be used to force people into PvP without CONCORD. Go suicide gank them if you want to kill them.
The fact that you're hiding behind CONCORD actually reveals the real problem with highsec.

Quote:
I'm still trying to figure out what any of your posts "prove." Do try and do a better job in the future.


To prove something to someone who thinks they know everything already? Nah, Beers, see here's how it works. You're new and don't know what you're talking about, so we really don't have to prove anything to you because even the newbies I know are laughing at you.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104