These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Steps to survive Freighter bumping from Mach

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#121 - 2014-12-04 02:19:36 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
The gameplay mechanics should be such that it's not viable to repeatedly gank at a huge loss just for entertainment.


Translation:

"The parts of this game that I don't like should not be allowed to be fun."

This is the despicable selfishness of the carebear in full view, folks.


No, translation " law enforcement should impose sufficient costs on criminal activity that it is only done occasionally, and to achieve concrete goals. It should be the rule, not the exception. Travel in empire space should generally be completely safe, except for those who turn themselves into targets (ex. officer mods), and except for some rare acts of random violence."


Literally every single thing you just said is wrong, and does not apply to EVE Online.

You're thinking of Star Trek Online, which actually does cater to antisocial halfwits who don't want to defend themselves. In EVE Online, such people are rightly relegated to being food.

"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.
Tear Jar
New Order Logistics
CODE.
#122 - 2014-12-04 02:37:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Tear Jar
Here is one thing the OP should really consider: If haulers paid any attention to the map statistics, gankers would only get off 1 gank an hour at most.

If you are considering a hauling route through Uedema, then you should check the ships destroyed in the last hour in Uedema. If you see 20+, then don't go there.

This is an extremely easy low effort solution. Others include having yourself or a scout check ahead to see if the area is full of -10 pilots. Or get a friend/alt to web warp you through the system. Or, after being bumped, get a friend/alt 100km+ out in the direction you are being bumped and warp to him. Or have the friend/alt bump the machariel.

There are tons of options. What should never be an option is "fit my billion+ isk industrial ship so it can be immune to the organized effort of over a dozen players with no effort on my part."

Because thats what you are asking for. The gank squad has 10+ gankers, a bumping machariel, a suicide frigate to keep you from safe logging and an FC to coordinate all this. All of these people have to do their job properly or the gank fails.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#123 - 2014-12-04 02:43:46 UTC
Tear Jar wrote:

If you are considering a hauling route through Uedema, then you should check the ships destroyed in the last hour in Uedema. If you see 20+, then don't go there.

This is an extremely easy low effort solution. Others include having yourself or a scout check ahead to see if the area is full of -10 pilots. Or get a friend/alt to web warp you through the system. Or, after being bumped, get a friend/alt 100km+ out in the direction you are being bumped and warp to him. Or have the friend/alt bump the machariel.



This.

There are two or three lowsec routes that bypass Uedama (obviously not the Tama one). Those are your backup if the goods transport is urgent and you can see there is a gank fleet active.

Much as Uedama is a good backup if it is quiet and you can see the lowsec routes are abnormally dangerous.

Scouting is even easier if you look for pilots with 100m in bounties or more as well as -10s.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#124 - 2014-12-04 03:15:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Ascended Lantean wrote:
However, this is systematic player harassment, and the main goal of this is not to make profit, to get a cool kill mail, or to gain something in game, but to make people angry and miserable.

Why people do certain things isn't for you to judge.

Veers Belvar wrote:
It's not the victim's job to defend himself from criminal acts. That's what CONCORD is for. The victim's only job should be to survive long enough for CONCORD to arrive. The problem with bumping is that even though it is an aggressive act, CONCORD doesn't respond. This breaks the paradigm of highsec, and makes hauling unduly dangerous.

While I've made my stance on bumping perfectly clear in the thread, what you've said here is utterly ridiculous. It is the victim's job to protect himself from criminal acts; CONCORD is for punishment, not protection.

Veers Belvar wrote:
Travel in empire space should generally be completely safe

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to having it. But this can never actually happen without destroying the game as we know it.

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
There are two or three lowsec routes that bypass Uedama (obviously not the Tama one). Those are your backup if the goods transport is urgent and you can see there is a gank fleet active.

Generally speaking, if you're going through low-sec with a freighter, you're obviously using a scout. If you're using a scout, you might as well stick to high-sec and use the webbing trick.

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
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#125 - 2014-12-04 03:20:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Veers Belvar
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
It's not the victim's job to defend himself from criminal acts. That's what CONCORD is for. The victim's only job should be to survive long enough for CONCORD to arrive. The problem with bumping is that even though it is an aggressive act, CONCORD doesn't respond. This breaks the paradigm of highsec, and makes hauling unduly dangerous.

While I've made my stance on bumping perfectly clear in the thread, what you've said here is utterly ridiculous. It is the victim's job to protect himself from criminal acts; CONCORD is for punishment, not protection.

Veers Belvar wrote:
Travel in empire space should generally be completely safe

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to having it. But can never actually happen without destroying the game as we know it.



I'm not sure what you are trying to say.....you don't need to "protect" yourself in highsec. You don't need to have any guns. If you survive for 25 or so seconds, the infallible space police come and jam, neut, scram, and then kill anyone who has taken criminal action against you. All you need to do is survive until they show up. That sounds like a pretty effective level of protection to me. When I'm facing a gank attempt, I don't even bother locking and shooting...I'm just trying to get some transversal and overheat everything. CONCORD is a wonderful protection force that shows up within 25 seconds and destroys all aggressors...if only RL police protection could be as effective!

As to your second point...other than the CODE jokers there aren't that many real griefer groups in highsec. The rest pretty much stick to +EV ganking and are in it for the isk. Mission runners have tended to be extremely safe, ditto for incursion runners, etc... It's the haulers who can be bumped who bear the brunt of the ganking, as well as the AFK miners.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#126 - 2014-12-04 03:25:46 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
There are two or three lowsec routes that bypass Uedama (obviously not the Tama one). Those are your backup if the goods transport is urgent and you can see there is a gank fleet active.

Generally speaking, if you're going through low-sec with a freighter, you're obviously using a scout. If you're using a scout, you might as well stick to high-sec and use the webbing trick.



Anyone flying a freighter without a scout anywhere is a fool. Highsec, lowsec, nullsec, WH space - it's not a ship designed for solo play. If a scout isn't available, a blockade runner or deep space transport or interdiction nullified ship is appropriate, depending on the circumstance.

Using a freighter without a scout is as foolish as taking a mission Hyperion into Tama.


Most lowsec systems are safer than Uedama for a freighter pilot with scouting. Gate guns will provide a degree of protection to your Daredevil escort from anything that can lock it.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#127 - 2014-12-04 03:32:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Hasikan Miallok
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Ascended Lantean wrote:
However, this is systematic player harassment, and the main goal of this is not to make profit, to get a cool kill mail, or to gain something in game, but to make people angry and miserable.

Why people do certain things isn't for you to judge.



EVE certainly has the reputation of the game of choice if what you enjoy doing is band up with your mates from school and harass random people until they quit some game or other in tears - and it seems pretty clear a percentage of new players every month join for exactly that reason.

It is unlikely that a large proportion of the people freighter bumping are doing this. It actually looks more like just another example of CODE strutting around like brown shirts and pumping their epeen.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#128 - 2014-12-04 03:35:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Veers Belvar wrote:
I'm not sure what you are trying to say.....you don't need to "protect" yourself in highsec.

Protection takes many forms. It's not a simple act of using violence to deter an attack. Intelligence and avoidance can be protection too. Having to survive those 25 seconds is a requirement to protect yourself. CONCORD only punishes; it doesn't protect. It just so happens that punishment given out by CONCORD results in your enemies no longer being able to attack you.

Veers Belvar wrote:
As to your second point...other than the CODE jokers there aren't that many real griefer groups in highsec. The rest pretty much stick to +EV ganking and are in it for the isk. Mission runners have tended to be extremely safe, ditto for incursion runners, etc... It's the haulers who can be bumped who bear the brunt of the ganking, as well as the AFK miners.

If that was true, there wouldn't be an open faucet of "nerf wars" etc threads on these forums. As it stands right now, the biggest point of contention the majority of the game's population (read: high-sec bears) have with the game is the existence of pvp in high-sec. But that's a discussion for a thread/topic.

Hasikan Miallok wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Ascended Lantean wrote:
However, this is systematic player harassment, and the main goal of this is not to make profit, to get a cool kill mail, or to gain something in game, but to make people angry and miserable.

Why people do certain things isn't for you to judge.

EVE certainly has the reputation of the game of choice if what you enjoy doing is band up with your mates from school and harass random people until they quit some game or other in tears - and it seems pretty clear a percentage of new players every month join for exactly that reason.

How is it "harassment" if it's a legitimate gameplay activity? Like I said, peoples' intentions aren't for you to judge. Well, you have the right to, but no one capable of rational thought is going to view your stance as anything but subjective.

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
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#129 - 2014-12-04 03:40:52 UTC
EVE logic:

A level 4 mission runner does something stupid, and takes on a mission that sends them into lowsec. They don't scout, aren't dilligent, and lose their battleship to someone probing them down and shooting them.

They come to the forums to complain, and everyone says "You were an idiot, you willingly took a non-PVP ship into a dangerous system. HAHAHA, don't let the door hit you on the way out."


Then a freighter pilot does something equally dumb, and flies through Uedama when there have been 77 kills there in the last hour. They don't scout, are not dilligent, and lose their freighter to someone's cunningly planned gank trap.

They come to the forums to complain, and people say totally different things.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#130 - 2014-12-04 03:50:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Veers Belvar
Destiny Corrupted wrote:


Protection takes many forms. It's not a simple act of using violence to deter an attack. Intelligence and avoidance can be protection too. Having to survive those 25 seconds is a requirement to protect yourself. CONCORD only punishes; it doesn't protect. It just so happens that punishment given out by CONCORD results in your enemies no longer being able to attack you.

....

If that was true, there wouldn't be an open faucet of "nerf wars" etc threads on these forums. As it stands right now, the biggest point of contention the majority of the game's population (read: high-sec bears) have with the game is the existence of pvp in high-sec. But that's a discussion for a thread/topic.


You seem confused by what protection is....by CONCORD disabling your aggressors, it is protecting you from them. By punishing THEM CONCORD is protecting YOU. The fact that aggression gets punished is also a form of deterrence...making crime more costly means there is less of it. That is also a form of protection. And that 15 minute GCC timer? Yep, you guessed it, more protection. There is a reason the gankers go do laundry and play minecraft for 15 minutes - because CONCORD has made them incapable of operating in highsec...thereby protecting everyone therein. CONCORD is absolutely and unquestionably protecting the law abiding residents of highsec from the criminals.

The nerf war threads are because wardeccs make PvE corps essentially useless. Not sure how that relates to suicide ganking and bumping.

I have no problem with PvP in highsec....I would like to see much harsher punishments for -10 suicide ganker to rid us of the Uedama ganking carnivals that are so absurd and nonsensical. A 6 hour GCC timer would work wonders.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#131 - 2014-12-04 03:56:23 UTC
If you're not going to take my word for it, that's fine; just ask CCP instead. At least up to this point, the role of CONCORD has always been defined as punitive instead of preventative by the game's own developers. You can interpret it differently if you want, but that won't make you right.

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
Ned Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#132 - 2014-12-04 04:00:41 UTC
If high-sec was supposed to be safe, then the moment you activated an aggressive module on someone your ship would immediately deactivate and self destruct, your security status would be permanently set to -10, and your wallet would be emptied into the "victim" of your aggression.

Since that doesn't happen, we can assume high-sec isn't supposed to be safe.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#133 - 2014-12-04 04:00:56 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
If you're not going to take my word for it, that's fine; just ask CCP instead. At least up to this point, the role of CONCORD has always been defined as punitive instead of preventative by the game's own developers. You can interpret it differently if you want, but that won't make you right.


Obviously CONCORD only prevents crime if it is on grid. But it's actions certainly provide protection in highsec. As CCP has stated, CONCORD, like any law enforcement agency, is reactive, not preventative. So CONCORD does not prevent crime, but it certainly does provide a large measure of protection for law abiding citizens in highsec (and after 25 seconds essentially perfect protection). Protection is not the same as prevention! Does CONCORD prevent all crime from occurring? Certainly not (nor does any RL counterpart, for that matter). Does CONCORD protect law abiding citizens of highsec from the bad people in a whole host of ways? Absolutely.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#134 - 2014-12-04 04:02:57 UTC
Ned Thomas wrote:
If high-sec was supposed to be safe, then the moment you activated an aggressive module on someone your ship would immediately deactivate and self destruct, your security status would be permanently set to -10, and your wallet would be emptied into the "victim" of your aggression.

Since that doesn't happen, we can assume high-sec isn't supposed to be safe.


if high-sec was supposed to be dangerous, then the moment you activated an aggressive module on someone nothing would happen to you, no gate guns would fire, no police would show up, and no GCC timer would be activated.

Since that doesn't happen, we can assume that high-sec isn't supposed to be dangerous.
Ned Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#135 - 2014-12-04 04:11:37 UTC
As for bumping, a solo bumper can only irritate a freighter. It can't kill it. A bumper with friends can kill a solo freighter. A freighter with friends can avoid being a target. In most cases in Eve where a group of players faces off against a single player, the single player is going to lose. The better organized group of players is going to overcome the less organized group.

If you want to strictly speak on a solo bumper vs. a solo freighter, the bumper has an advantage because they can prevent the freighter pilot from doing something, while the freighter pilot cannot prevent the bumper from doing something. The solo bumper cannot kill the solo freighter. Beyond that, we're talking about gang warfare.
Ned Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#136 - 2014-12-04 04:13:02 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Ned Thomas wrote:
If high-sec was supposed to be safe, then the moment you activated an aggressive module on someone your ship would immediately deactivate and self destruct, your security status would be permanently set to -10, and your wallet would be emptied into the "victim" of your aggression.

Since that doesn't happen, we can assume high-sec isn't supposed to be safe.


if high-sec was supposed to be dangerous, then the moment you activated an aggressive module on someone nothing would happen to you, no gate guns would fire, no police would show up, and no GCC timer would be activated.

Since that doesn't happen, we can assume that high-sec isn't supposed to be dangerous.


So it isn't supposed to be dangerous and it isn't supposed to be safe. I don't see a problem here.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#137 - 2014-12-04 04:41:39 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Ned Thomas wrote:
If high-sec was supposed to be safe, then the moment you activated an aggressive module on someone your ship would immediately deactivate and self destruct, your security status would be permanently set to -10, and your wallet would be emptied into the "victim" of your aggression.

Since that doesn't happen, we can assume high-sec isn't supposed to be safe.


if high-sec was supposed to be dangerous, then the moment you activated an aggressive module on someone nothing would happen to you, no gate guns would fire, no police would show up, and no GCC timer would be activated.

Since that doesn't happen, we can assume that high-sec isn't supposed to be dangerous.

That's a terrible assumption to make, then, because danger isn't a black-and-white sort of deal. There can be different degrees of danger; you don't have to either be perfectly safe, or perfectly vulnerable.

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
Ned Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#138 - 2014-12-04 04:44:11 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Ned Thomas wrote:
If high-sec was supposed to be safe, then the moment you activated an aggressive module on someone your ship would immediately deactivate and self destruct, your security status would be permanently set to -10, and your wallet would be emptied into the "victim" of your aggression.

Since that doesn't happen, we can assume high-sec isn't supposed to be safe.


if high-sec was supposed to be dangerous, then the moment you activated an aggressive module on someone nothing would happen to you, no gate guns would fire, no police would show up, and no GCC timer would be activated.

Since that doesn't happen, we can assume that high-sec isn't supposed to be dangerous.

That's a terrible assumption to make, then, because danger isn't a black-and-white sort of deal. There can be different degrees of danger; you don't have to either be perfectly safe, or perfectly vulnerable.


Shhhhhh.....let Veers hang himself here.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#139 - 2014-12-04 04:44:42 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Ned Thomas wrote:
If high-sec was supposed to be safe, then the moment you activated an aggressive module on someone your ship would immediately deactivate and self destruct, your security status would be permanently set to -10, and your wallet would be emptied into the "victim" of your aggression.

Since that doesn't happen, we can assume high-sec isn't supposed to be safe.


if high-sec was supposed to be dangerous, then the moment you activated an aggressive module on someone nothing would happen to you, no gate guns would fire, no police would show up, and no GCC timer would be activated.

Since that doesn't happen, we can assume that high-sec isn't supposed to be dangerous.

That's a terrible assumption to make, then, because danger isn't a black-and-white sort of deal. There can be different degrees of danger; you don't have to either be perfectly safe, or perfectly vulnerable.


You missed the point....Ned made a cute argument to show that highsec is not perfectly safe, the implication is that it is meant to be dangerous. I merely used his argument in reverse.

Highsec is obviously not meant to be perfectly safe, nor is it meant to be perfectly dangerous. It's meant to be as safe as CCP wants it to be, with it's 25 second response time infallible police force.
Ned Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#140 - 2014-12-04 04:48:06 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
It's meant to be as safe as CCP wants it to be, with it's 25 second response time infallible police force.


Just wanted to quote.