These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

War on Gankers

First post
Author
CODE Agent AC
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#141 - 2015-01-01 21:01:57 UTC
Veer you are wrong. This is a basic pillar of this game. Please go be wrong elsewhere.

The Artist Formerly Known As AC. 

The terminal end of the digestive system. 

The Best CSM Candidate

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#142 - 2015-01-01 21:06:41 UTC
CODE Agent AC wrote:
Veer you are wrong. This is a basic pillar of this game. Please go be wrong elsewhere.


Nah, I'd rather continue to be right, as always, in this game. The code folks wishing me away ain't gonna make it so. Every day highsec PvE players are able to accumulate isk without permits and with minimal risk, is just another day where code keeps on losing. That's why we don't need a "war on gankers" like OP wants...we just need to continue on doing our thing.
Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#143 - 2015-01-01 23:08:53 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
CODE Agent AC wrote:
Veer you are wrong. This is a basic pillar of this game. Please go be wrong elsewhere.


Nah, I'd rather continue to be right, as always, in this game. The code folks wishing me away ain't gonna make it so. Every day highsec PvE players are able to accumulate isk without permits and with minimal risk, is just another day where code keeps on losing. That's why we don't need a "war on gankers" like OP wants...we just need to continue on doing our thing.


Please stop feeding Veers. Isnt it obvious that anyone who thinks they are right 100% of the time is likely just trolling? Even someone who disagrees with an opposing viewpoint can admit they aren't perfect.

He's spent the past several months turning every single thread into his own.

Don't feed!!

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#144 - 2015-01-01 23:11:08 UTC
Leto Thule wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
CODE Agent AC wrote:
Veer you are wrong. This is a basic pillar of this game. Please go be wrong elsewhere.


Nah, I'd rather continue to be right, as always, in this game. The code folks wishing me away ain't gonna make it so. Every day highsec PvE players are able to accumulate isk without permits and with minimal risk, is just another day where code keeps on losing. That's why we don't need a "war on gankers" like OP wants...we just need to continue on doing our thing.


Please stop feeding Veers. Isnt it obvious that anyone who thinks they are right 100% of the time is likely just trolling? Even someone who disagrees with an opposing viewpoint can admit they aren't perfect.

He's spent the past several months turning every single thread into his own.

Don't feed!!


+1...the whole Grrr Veers is getting boring. State your opinion, and feel free to disagree with what others say. But do it respectfully, and in compliance with forum rules, and don't engage in personal attacks.

Stop focusing on the poster, and focus on the IDEAS. And if you can't do that respectfully, just zip it and move on.
Kaely Tanniss
Black Lotus Society.
#145 - 2015-01-01 23:28:45 UTC
Gorila Vengaza wrote:
One last thing.

If I am "a perennial loser who would lead AG to defeat DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY. I mean, code couldn't have paid you to be a more incompetent adversary."

Why don't YOU step up Veers.
Lets see you lead AG to VICTORY. In other words, try putting up or try shutting up. It's wide open veers. Do something other than talk.

Sadly I suspect all Veers will do is bray LOUDLY at more people.

Excuses from Veers incoming!


That sent chills through me...lol..I have been saying the same thing all along..step up or shut up. If you don't have the fortitude to take in game actions, you don't have a right to complain about them. Cool

If I had a nickel for every time someone said women don't play eve, I'd have a bag of nickels to whack the next person who said it..

Kaely Tanniss
Black Lotus Society.
#146 - 2015-01-01 23:31:17 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Gorila Vengaza wrote:
One last thing.

If I am "a perennial loser who would lead AG to defeat DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY. I mean, code couldn't have paid you to be a more incompetent adversary."

Why don't YOU step up Veers.
Lets see you lead AG to VICTORY. In other words, try putting up or try shutting up. It's wide open veers. Do something other than talk.

Sadly I suspect all Veers will do is bray LOUDLY at more people.

Excuses from Veers incoming!


The game mechanics overwhelmingly favor CODE. There is no point in playing whiteknight just to lose over and over again. Until CCP changes the mechanics to make it possible for whiteknights to actually harm CODE, it would be stupid and pointless to try and stop their ganking.

A smart man only acts when the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs, otherwise the status quo ante is preferable. I'm certainly far too competent to spend my valuable time tilting at windmills.


No...a coward only acts when he knows he has the advantage and there isno risk of loss. Since you cannot "die" for real in a game, this says a lot. Your logic is flawed and does not apply to a virtual world.

If I had a nickel for every time someone said women don't play eve, I'd have a bag of nickels to whack the next person who said it..

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#147 - 2015-01-01 23:36:36 UTC
Kaely Tanniss wrote:


No...a coward only acts when he knows he has the advantage and there isno risk of loss. Since you cannot "die" for real in a game, this says a lot. Your logic is flawed and does not apply to a virtual world.


Misconstruing the point. There is nothing to prove in Eve...it is a game. You should do what you enjoy doing. Constantly failing to stop code is not enjoyable. Hence, if there is no chance of success, the proper course is to not try.
Kaely Tanniss
Black Lotus Society.
#148 - 2015-01-02 00:38:57 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Kaely Tanniss wrote:


No...a coward only acts when he knows he has the advantage and there isno risk of loss. Since you cannot "die" for real in a game, this says a lot. Your logic is flawed and does not apply to a virtual world.


Misconstruing the point. There is nothing to prove in Eve...it is a game. You should do what you enjoy doing. Constantly failing to stop code is not enjoyable. Hence, if there is no chance of success, the proper course is to not try.


Exactly...so what's the problem? Besides, if there's nothing to prove...why all the hooplah on the forums?

If I had a nickel for every time someone said women don't play eve, I'd have a bag of nickels to whack the next person who said it..

CODE Agent AC
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#149 - 2015-01-02 01:13:23 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Kaely Tanniss wrote:


No...a coward only acts when he knows he has the advantage and there isno risk of loss. Since you cannot "die" for real in a game, this says a lot. Your logic is flawed and does not apply to a virtual world.


Misconstruing the point. There is nothing to prove in Eve...it is a game. You should do what you enjoy doing. Constantly failing to stop code is not enjoyable. Hence, if there is no chance of success, the proper course is to not try.



I proved in EVE that I am, and always will be, better than you.

The Artist Formerly Known As AC. 

The terminal end of the digestive system. 

The Best CSM Candidate

Ryuu Towryk
Perkone
Caldari State
#150 - 2015-01-02 01:38:02 UTC
CODE Agent AC wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Kaely Tanniss wrote:


No...a coward only acts when he knows he has the advantage and there isno risk of loss. Since you cannot "die" for real in a game, this says a lot. Your logic is flawed and does not apply to a virtual world.


Misconstruing the point. There is nothing to prove in Eve...it is a game. You should do what you enjoy doing. Constantly failing to stop code is not enjoyable. Hence, if there is no chance of success, the proper course is to not try.



I proved in EVE that I am, and always will be, better than you.


Here's a cookie.
Karl Jerr
Herzack Unit
#151 - 2015-01-02 02:12:13 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
The game mechanics overwhelmingly favor CODE. There is no point in playing whiteknight just to lose over and over again. Until CCP changes the mechanics to make it possible for whiteknights to actually harm CODE, it would be stupid and pointless to try and stop their ganking.

A smart man only acts when the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs, otherwise the status quo ante is preferable. I'm certainly far too competent to spend my valuable time tilting at windmills.

In other terms; let's transform Highsec as another low sec and voila! White knights can fight the fair fight w/o a magical Concord.
Simple, thanks to you for your support of the removal of Concord! Pirate
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#152 - 2015-01-02 02:18:26 UTC
Karl Jerr wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
The game mechanics overwhelmingly favor CODE. There is no point in playing whiteknight just to lose over and over again. Until CCP changes the mechanics to make it possible for whiteknights to actually harm CODE, it would be stupid and pointless to try and stop their ganking.

A smart man only acts when the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs, otherwise the status quo ante is preferable. I'm certainly far too competent to spend my valuable time tilting at windmills.

In other terms; let's transform Highsec as another low sec and voila! White knights can fight the fair fight w/o a magical Concord.
Simple, thanks to you for your support of the removal of Concord! Pirate


No...that wouldn't help. The problem is that gankers can blow up expensive PvE ships with cheap gank ships. This lets them shelter themselves from financial risk. Additionally, the consequences for ganking are minimal, loss of gank ship and a 15 minute timeout. Both elements need strengthening. Getting rid of cheap gank ships and imposing real punishments on criminals in highsec.
Karl Jerr
Herzack Unit
#153 - 2015-01-02 02:31:26 UTC
I'm sorry but you cannot reduce options to the players, it's against any logic of gameplay.
JohnnyPew posted a Youtube video recently on a gank by himself vs a (badly) Pve fitted battleship. He was in an Astero.
With your logic the Astero shouldn't even exist, but think the over way; the missioner could have a PVP fitted ship with ECM drones (things he haven't have but he had a lot of light combat drones) but chosen differently.

Our choice our fate.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#154 - 2015-01-02 02:47:54 UTC
Karl Jerr wrote:
I'm sorry but you cannot reduce options to the players, it's against any logic of gameplay.
JohnnyPew posted a Youtube video recently on a gank by himself vs a (badly) Pve fitted battleship. He was in an Astero.
With your logic the Astero shouldn't even exist, but think the over way; the missioner could have a PVP fitted ship with ECM drones (things he haven't have but he had a lot of light combat drones) but chosen differently.

Our choice our fate.


I see....well if options are unlimited, then I would like to be able to blow up Jita 4-4. I'd like to blow up stargates, conquer territory in highsec, invade stations through ground combat. Fact is the game is all about limiting choices. Concord limits choices. Facpo limit choices.

Why should missioners fit for pvp in highsec? I don't. There is a police force, I just need to be not so brain dead as to engage in pvp, and as long as i do that the invincible space police will protect me.
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#155 - 2015-01-02 02:59:33 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:


No...that wouldn't help. The problem is that gankers can blow up expensive PvE ships with cheap gank ships. This lets them shelter themselves from financial risk. Additionally, the consequences for ganking are minimal, loss of gank ship and a 15 minute timeout. Both elements need strengthening. Getting rid of cheap gank ships and imposing real punishments on criminals in highsec.


OK, sigh..........what is the 4,567th tim you have mentioned this.

Im going to bite here and ask you Veers.

How would cheap ships be gotten rid of? Personally i can build a catalyst at the cost of maybe 30,000 isk total investment. I can build faster than a stack of hotcakes can be made. And if i so wish i can sell them at 100k a pop and still turn a decent albiet much slower profit.

So how would you get rid of cheap ships?

2nd.......
What would you consider as real punishments?

How about some constructive ideas coming from you instead of just complaints.
Erica Dusette
Division 13
#156 - 2015-01-02 02:59:44 UTC
Happy new year, Veers.

And to the rest of CODE, for that matter.

Jack Miton > you be nice or you're sleeping on the couch again!

Part-Time Wormhole Pirate Full-Time Supermodel

worмнole dιary + cнaracтer вιoѕвσss

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#157 - 2015-01-02 03:08:57 UTC
Max Deveron wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:


No...that wouldn't help. The problem is that gankers can blow up expensive PvE ships with cheap gank ships. This lets them shelter themselves from financial risk. Additionally, the consequences for ganking are minimal, loss of gank ship and a 15 minute timeout. Both elements need strengthening. Getting rid of cheap gank ships and imposing real punishments on criminals in highsec.


OK, sigh..........what is the 4,567th tim you have mentioned this.

Im going to bite here and ask you Veers.

How would cheap ships be gotten rid of? Personally i can build a catalyst at the cost of maybe 30,000 isk total investment. I can build faster than a stack of hotcakes can be made. And if i so wish i can sell them at 100k a pop and still turn a decent albiet much slower profit.

So how would you get rid of cheap ships?

2nd.......
What would you consider as real punishments?

How about some constructive ideas coming from you instead of just complaints.


1. WoT style penetration factors for guns. Small guns would have minimal impact on bigger ships. So you could make as many cheap gankalysts as you please, but they would be useless against battleships.

2. Sliding scale GCC based on sec status. Current 15 mins for -2 and above, sliding down to 6 hours for a gank done by a -10.
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#158 - 2015-01-02 03:31:42 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:


1. WoT style penetration factors for guns. Small guns would have minimal impact on bigger ships. So you could make as many cheap gankalysts as you please, but they would be useless against battleships.

2. Sliding scale GCC based on sec status. Current 15 mins for -2 and above, sliding down to 6 hours for a gank done by a -10.



uhm ok not sure about the first one....and of course this isnt world of tanks.....its EvE and doing that would make smaller ships even more useless in a real fight (fleet battle of some sort) so not really sure that is a workable idea.

2.) Ok so you believe its easier to have a mandated system of NPC style protection or in this case Admin protection? No that definitely will not work because you then are completely destroying a play style. This is not WOW and never should be like it so chuck that idea in the trash. (At FANFEST ideas like this was given a flat no by numerous Devs as taking things away from the players and they are or at least were pretty unified in not taking away playstyles....modify yes....make them unplayable no)

Personally i would not mind though seeing something more like based on negative sec status the inability to dock up in relevant highsec stations.
A.) Gankers can still do what they do, just 1 system over form up on a neut orca or something (prolly a fleet of orcas in some cases) jump in ship warp to gate then to target....just another step or two that needs to be taken to get around it.
B.) Pods i think are scannable are they not? gives hunters/whiteknights a reason to use their scan ships and what not and try to thwart any plans by the gankers. it provides content for both sides and A+B will force both sides to react and counter react to each other.
C.) Need to dock up....well ratting and security tags were created for a reason and maybe they wold finally get some use this way.
D.) maybe a once upon a time carebear might see the merit finally of picking up a gun and doing justice themselves once able to possibly effectively hunt gankers.
Gorila Vengaza
Ol-Silly Basterds
#159 - 2015-01-02 03:34:58 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Max Deveron wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:


No...that wouldn't help. The problem is that gankers can blow up expensive PvE ships with cheap gank ships. This lets them shelter themselves from financial risk. Additionally, the consequences for ganking are minimal, loss of gank ship and a 15 minute timeout. Both elements need strengthening. Getting rid of cheap gank ships and imposing real punishments on criminals in highsec.


OK, sigh..........what is the 4,567th tim you have mentioned this.

Im going to bite here and ask you Veers.

How would cheap ships be gotten rid of? Personally i can build a catalyst at the cost of maybe 30,000 isk total investment. I can build faster than a stack of hotcakes can be made. And if i so wish i can sell them at 100k a pop and still turn a decent albiet much slower profit.

So how would you get rid of cheap ships?

2nd.......
What would you consider as real punishments?

How about some constructive ideas coming from you instead of just complaints.


1. WoT style penetration factors for guns. Small guns would have minimal impact on bigger ships. So you could make as many cheap gankalysts as you please, but they would be useless against battleships.

2. Sliding scale GCC based on sec status. Current 15 mins for -2 and above, sliding down to 6 hours for a gank done by a -10.



Ok , just wow. With every post he shows more ignorance. Lets talk out of the game for a min. Destroyers useless against Battleships? Um Veers. look at history. Small planes in numbers can be devastating to a battleship. Look at the navel battles of WW2. You honestly do NOT get the game. Its evident you want to turn EVE into a theme park with no risk. You should honestly go play STO and leave us EVE players the hell alone.
Kaely Tanniss
Black Lotus Society.
#160 - 2015-01-02 03:49:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaely Tanniss
Veers Belvar wrote:
Karl Jerr wrote:
I'm sorry but you cannot reduce options to the players, it's against any logic of gameplay.
JohnnyPew posted a Youtube video recently on a gank by himself vs a (badly) Pve fitted battleship. He was in an Astero.
With your logic the Astero shouldn't even exist, but think the over way; the missioner could have a PVP fitted ship with ECM drones (things he haven't have but he had a lot of light combat drones) but chosen differently.

Our choice our fate.


I see....well if options are unlimited, then I would like to be able to blow up Jita 4-4. I'd like to blow up stargates, conquer territory in highsec, invade stations through ground combat. Fact is the game is all about limiting choices. Concord limits choices. Facpo limit choices.

Why should missioners fit for pvp in highsec? I don't. There is a police force, I just need to be not so brain dead as to engage in pvp, and as long as i do that the invincible space police will protect me.


Because that's what you do when you want to survive. You don't go into a rough neighborhood without some kind of protection..unless you are a fool or have a death wish. And yes Veers, hi-sec is a rough neighborhood. Do you even really believe half of what you say...or do you just say it to troll/try to sound inportant. The more and more you post, the more you contradict your own words. We don't need a game style change..we need a player style change..personal responsibility and awareness are the key...if you don't want to take the time or think you don't/shouldn't have to, you will not survive.

If I had a nickel for every time someone said women don't play eve, I'd have a bag of nickels to whack the next person who said it..