These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A Message Regarding "Hyperdunking"

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Valterra Craven
#941 - 2015-02-04 16:13:25 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:

Without risk, every hauler would do the simple calculation to find the maximum cargo ship and fit and fly only that. And fly that AFK too.


As opposed to players flying PVP ship fitted for max dps? I'm all for removing autopilot. We should all have to be at the keyboard no?
Black Pedro
Mine.
#942 - 2015-02-04 16:28:09 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:

Without risk, every hauler would do the simple calculation to find the maximum cargo ship and fit and fly only that. And fly that AFK too.

As opposed to players flying PVP ship fitted for max dps? I'm all for removing autopilot. We should all have to be at the keyboard no?

If you are referring to fitting gank ships, you do not always want to fit max DPS. Depending on where and what you are ganking, you need to consider tanking gate guns, align speed to avoid facpo, and whether you need alpha or raw DPS and so forth.

But this is beside the point. Making haulers 100% safe would not only remove fitting choice and tactics for moving safely from haulers, but also remove fitting choice and tactics for ambushing targets from gankers.

The game would be objectively less interesting and therefore less engaging for both players - which is exactly why CCP has explicitly and purposefully enabled suicide ganking in highsec.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Valterra Craven
#943 - 2015-02-04 16:59:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Black Pedro wrote:


But this is beside the point. Making haulers 100% safe would not only remove fitting choice and tactics for moving safely from haulers, but also remove fitting choice and tactics for ambushing targets from gankers.

The game would be objectively less interesting and therefore less engaging for both players - which is exactly why CCP has explicitly and purposefully enabled suicide ganking in highsec.


Haulers would still have fitting options even if ganking were eliminated. Max cargo isn't always the most efficient way to do something. This would be doubly true if autopilot was removed. You could fit for align, or speed, or cargo, though admittedly they likely wouldn't fit for tank, at least not in hi-sec anyway. Besides, if the argument is that most people already don't think about their fits under the current situation, what exactly would change if they actually didn't have to think about their fits?

I don't know about less interesting though. Eve already has a rep for being spreadsheets in space. Regardless, I agree that it would definitely not be the same, much like any change to the game well changes it. Though given that I don't want to make hi-sec gank free, the point is neither here nor there.
Valterra Craven
#944 - 2015-02-04 17:03:18 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:


The forum tactic of replying to a small section of a post instead of the post proper is another example. A person with a carebearist mentality isn't interested in the actual truth of a situation, they are interested in their specific (and selfish) agenda.


And your style is any better? Calling people names etc?

I responded to the only comment you made that I thought needed a response. Everything else was a game of semantics. Whatever you want to call the person who lost something whether it be "victim" or "loser" or anything else is completely irrelevant.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#945 - 2015-02-04 17:08:38 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:

Without risk, every hauler would do the simple calculation to find the maximum cargo ship and fit and fly only that. And fly that AFK too.


As opposed to players flying PVP ship fitted for max dps? I'm all for removing autopilot. We should all have to be at the keyboard no?



There it is again, that...'external focus' on what other people have or are doing.

Whats funny about this is that you are the type to get mad at CODE for attacking people for being afk (ie something that is none of their business) but then make it a habit of being all up in other people's business lol.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#946 - 2015-02-04 17:10:47 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


The forum tactic of replying to a small section of a post instead of the post proper is another example. A person with a carebearist mentality isn't interested in the actual truth of a situation, they are interested in their specific (and selfish) agenda.


And your style is any better? Calling people names etc?

I responded to the only comment you made that I thought needed a response. Everything else was a game of semantics. Whatever you want to call the person who lost something whether it be "victim" or "loser" or anything else is completely irrelevant.


This means you didn't comprehend what I was saying to you (if you think that's all I was saying). Another typical carebearist personality trait (live in your own world, ignore the rest).
Valterra Craven
#947 - 2015-02-04 17:12:09 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:



There it is again, that...'external focus' on what other people have or are doing.



What's funny is that you care what I do. Whether it be in game or on the forums. Again, Pot. Kettle. Black.
Valterra Craven
#948 - 2015-02-04 17:14:24 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:


This means you didn't comprehend what I was saying to you (if you think that's all I was saying). Another typical carebearist personality trait (live in your own world, ignore the rest).


No, it just means what you wrote wasn't worth responding to.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#949 - 2015-02-04 17:16:03 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:



There it is again, that...'external focus' on what other people have or are doing.



What's funny is that you care what I do. Whether it be in game or on the forums. Again, Pot. Kettle. Black.


lol, and exactly who said anything about caring about what you do? You are the one choosing to participate in this open, public discussion are you not?

I'm simply demonstrating the fatal flaws in your line of thinking, and exposing how you aren't interested in the truth but rather in your personal agenda. You can choose to disengage from this discussion, but until you do so, the wrongness of your opinions and general worldview are fair game.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#950 - 2015-02-04 17:18:31 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


This means you didn't comprehend what I was saying to you (if you think that's all I was saying). Another typical carebearist personality trait (live in your own world, ignore the rest).


No, it just means what you wrote wasn't worth responding to.


So you made a value judgement and that's ok. CODE/goons.gankers etc make value judgements all the time, but somehow theirs are wrong but you doing it is ok.

Carebearist personality trait number 3 identified: Double standards.
Valterra Craven
#951 - 2015-02-04 17:23:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Jenn aSide wrote:


lol, and exactly who said anything about caring about what you do?


You did. Otherwise you wouldn't have responded to my posts.

Jenn aSide wrote:

I'm simply demonstrating the fatal flaws in your line of thinking, and exposing how you aren't interested in the truth but rather in your personal agenda. You can choose to disengage from this discussion, but until you do so, the wrongness of your opinions and general worldview are fair game.


Fatal? All of you've demonstrated is that you would rather label people rather than have a serious discussion. You could also choose to attack arguments on merit, but until you do so I'm not going to disengage from this discussion.
Valterra Craven
#952 - 2015-02-04 17:25:53 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:


So you made a value judgement and that's ok. CODE/goons.gankers etc make value judgements all the time, but somehow theirs are wrong but you doing it is ok.

Carebearist personality trait number 3 identified: Double standards.


Again, more labels. I've never argued about Code/Goons in game decisions being wrong. But good try.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#953 - 2015-02-04 17:34:10 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
You could also choose to attack arguments on merit, but until you do so I'm not going to disengage from this discussion.



That's a flat lie, a good half dozen of our peers have been demonstrating the flaws in your arguments. The idea that you are even capable of accepting the fact that what you are saying is wrong is laughable. You can lie to yourself about your perspective and motivations, but you can't lie to anyone else. Well, not and get away with it.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#954 - 2015-02-04 18:53:07 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:

Without risk, every hauler would do the simple calculation to find the maximum cargo ship and fit and fly only that. And fly that AFK too.


As opposed to players flying PVP ship fitted for max dps? I'm all for removing autopilot. We should all have to be at the keyboard no?

The pvp players don't fly afk. Also, they have to decide between payload and defense, just like the haulers. Except the payload in this case is damage.

Valterra Craven wrote:
Besides, if the argument is that most people already don't think about their fits under the current situation, what exactly would change if they actually didn't have to think about their fits?

Are you really saying this? Is this real life?

Is your argument literally "since haulers don't care about their fits now, we can make them invulnerable so they don't have to, and there wouldn't be any difference compared to now!"

wot

Are you just typing these things hoping that some month-old comes along and says "heeey, this guy makes sense!" and throws blind support at you?

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
Valterra Craven
#955 - 2015-02-04 20:02:28 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

That's a flat lie, a good half dozen of our peers have been demonstrating the flaws in your arguments. The idea that you are even capable of accepting the fact that what you are saying is wrong is laughable. You can lie to yourself about your perspective and motivations, but you can't lie to anyone else. Well, not and get away with it.


No, what they've been doing is demonstrating flaws in their mindsets. Given the fact that I've ceded several points to poster over the course of these pages proves that I can accept arguments when they are actually well reasoned. As far as my motivations or perspectives, a I'm not sure how that's relevant, and b I've been pretty clear about what I want to achieve and how I think here.

So to make this really easy I will catalog everything out for you. This is my original post.

Valterra Craven wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Freighters should travel in groups with escorts, or risk being ganked.


Why should that be the logical conclusion? (that freighters should travel in groups or risked being ganked) The problem with this outcome is that it literally makes no sense in the context of space that empire kills happen. Would it make any sense for an area that is controlled by powerful factions such as concord and and the empires to allow the same criminal acts to happen by the same people ad infinitum?

Now before you start in on me about arguments regarding realism having no place in a gaming context, essentially that's what gankers are advocating for here: "You have to travel in packs, you have to fit right, you have to carry the right things in the right quantity." All of that is arguing for "realism". So either we can both proffer the same types of arguments or neither of us can without this being a completely pointless conversation.

The problem as I see it is that while ganking in hi sec does have consequences, they don't fit the crime. Note, that I'm not advocating for 100% safety in hi-sec, I'm not advocating for removal of ganking. What I'm merely saying is that all things being equal, the fact that its possible to make a daily career out of being a ganker no matter how un-favorable or favorable the game's mechanics makes it, doesn't seem right in the context of space we are talking about.

I think a possible measure to add would be for either concord/faction police to have longer "memories" or for concord to start following known criminals around in small numbers no matter where they go in protected space.

The second problem I have with your premise is that transporting in Eve already isn't "fun". (I'm not sure who would make the argument that moving anything around in a freighter is fun, but I'm sure someone is going to try anyway) So again if "realism" should have no part of an internet spaceship game, then why shouldn't fun enter the equation? (Unless we also need to look up what the point/definition of a "game" is). Anyway, does it make any sense that the game mechanics should necessitate group play to do some of the most basic and tedious tasks that should all rights be confined to a single player/character? Because based off your reasoning, needing an escort just to move things around in space is going to make the game pretty boring for more people than it should, and if that's the case, then what is the point of it? This is especially true since the whole point of an escort is to AVOID fights.


There's not been a single poster that's has been able to effectively show why this is unreasonable.
What your "peers" have argued:

Realism has no business in video games! (Then don't make the argument that freighters should have escorts)
I am not qualified to make judgments about the "art of balance" in eve since I am not an artist. (*eyeroll*)
You're a carebear and are just being selfish and don't care about the game! (And?)
This idea isn't necessary based on the current levels of ganking! (which actually would be a legitimate counter IF there was hard data to compare current levels to previous levels. And no I'm not going to troll killboards for data, given that no one else is either)
Education is the real answer! (again no data to back this claim up)
You are saying that people shouldn't have to think about their fits! (no I'm not)
You don't understand the context of what I'm saying! (given that the context is to denigrate other players I understand it just fine)
What you propose would break the game! (Just like jump fatigue broke nullsec?)
Concord cheats! (all npcs "cheat", though I'm all for more realism in all aspects of game play)
Lore! RP! (If you want to argue lore and RP my idea would make more sense in those contexts than any counter would)
Protection should be expensive! (not based on any model that I've ever seen)
CCP already ruled on this and they are fine with the game as is! (Sure, they have, but that doesn't mean they are incapable of changing their minds and I have no problem in trying to convince them otherwise)

Does that about sum up everything? I could have missed something given this 20 page clusterF@#$ since I'm human and I make mistakes. But given that I'm the only one willing to admit or cede anything, I doubt that would mean anything to you.
Valterra Craven
#956 - 2015-02-04 20:08:08 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

The pvp players don't fly afk.


Likely not to their targets no. But EVERYONE afks in this game no matter what your playstyle is. You tell me you have never afked in a ship before and I'm going to call you a liar to your face.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Also, they have to decide between payload and defense, just like the haulers. Except the payload in this case is damage.


Oh? So mag stabs have suddenly decreased your ships role to do its job effectively? Last I checked DPS mods don't decrease your tank, or your speed, or any other penalty besides opportunity costs.


Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Is your argument literally "since haulers don't care about their fits now, we can make them invulnerable so they don't have to, and there wouldn't be any difference compared to now!"


No, my argument is literally not that. My argument is that if haulers don't care about their fits now, no amount of changes to the game is going to change it one way or another.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#957 - 2015-02-04 20:13:35 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:

Does that about sum up everything? I could have missed something given this 20 page clusterF@#$ since I'm human and I make mistakes. But given that I'm the only one willing to admit or cede anything, I doubt that would mean anything to you?





You're right, it doesn't mean anything.

You Don't think people don't know fake, tactical "cede a minor point to defend the larger one" posting when we see it? Do you think no one can see you cherry picking parts of posts to respond to rather than responding to the actual meaning of the post? Do you think ALL of us so stupid that we can't see that your 'opinions' are based on emotion (in this case, a distinct prejudice against CODE, no different than the irrational 'grr goons' bs that came before it) rather than reason?

Come on, you can't think that EVERYONE is insane except you. Or maybe you do, in which case that tells everyone all we need to know lol.

Of course this is GD, we've seen Olympic level rationalizing and mental gymnastics before. we'll unfortunately see it again. Doesn't change the fact that just about everything you've said is wrong.
Valterra Craven
#958 - 2015-02-04 20:19:25 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:

Does that about sum up everything? I could have missed something given this 20 page clusterF@#$ since I'm human and I make mistakes. But given that I'm the only one willing to admit or cede anything, I doubt that would mean anything to you?





You're right, it doesn't mean anything.

You Don't think people don't know fake, tactical "cede a minor point to defend the larger one" posting when we see it? Do you think no one can see you cherry picking parts of posts to respond to rather than responding to the actual meaning of the post? Do you think ALL of us so stupid that we can't see that your 'opinions' are based on emotion (in this case, a distinct prejudice against CODE, no different than the irrational 'grr goons' bs that came before it) rather than reason?

Come on, you can't think that EVERYONE is insane except you. Or maybe you do, in which case that tells everyone all we need to know lol.

Of course this is GD, we've seen Olympic level rationalizing and mental gymnastics before. we'll unfortunately see it again. Doesn't change the fact that just about everything you've said is wrong.




Its funny, every tactic that you've accused me of you have just done in this single post. *slow clap*
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#959 - 2015-02-04 20:33:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Valterra Craven wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

The pvp players don't fly afk.


Likely not to their targets no. But EVERYONE afks in this game no matter what your playstyle is. You tell me you have never afked in a ship before and I'm going to call you a liar to your face.

And if you tell me you've never been perfectly, unconditionally safe from player aggression before, I will do it to yours.

Valterra Craven wrote:
Oh? So mag stabs have suddenly decreased your ships role to do its job effectively? Last I checked DPS mods don't decrease your tank, or your speed, or any other penalty besides opportunity costs.

Because a combat ship isn't limited to fitting for two direct stats: hull HP and cargo capacity. Hauling ships can only practically choose between these two stats (and some minor satellite stats, such as agility), and as such, it makes perfect sense that increasing one stat would offset the other, with a default base value acting as the fulcrum.

If CCP removed the penalties from these modules and adjusted hauler EHP, or the efficiency of these modules down, the effect would be the same. At least this way these modules become a bit more dynamic and interesting to use.

Valterra Craven wrote:
No, my argument is literally not that. My argument is that if haulers don't care about their fits now, no amount of changes to the game is going to change it one way or another.

And your argument is wrong, because haulers care about their fits now, albeit only about one side of the equation: efficiency. This is so, as people have been trying to tell you, because so few ganks happen that most are simply unaware that fitting for defense has practical merit in this game.

Valterra Craven wrote:
Realism has no business in video games! (Then don't make the argument that freighters should have escorts)

Realism isn't the only reason to escort freighters. They may just as well be escorted for in-game reasons.

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
Valterra Craven
#960 - 2015-02-04 21:22:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

And if you tell me you've never been perfectly, unconditionally safe from player aggression before, I will do it to yours.


Does never leaving station count? (Sorry, couldn't resist)

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Because a combat ship isn't limited to fitting for two direct stats: hull HP and cargo capacity. Hauling ships can only practically choose between these two stats (and some minor satellite stats, such as agility), and as such, it makes perfect sense that increasing one stat would offset the other, with a default base value acting as the fulcrum.


What about mining ships? They have a plethora of ship stats to modify but all of their "dps upgrades" have penalties...


Destiny Corrupted wrote:

And your argument is wrong, because haulers care about their fits now, albeit only about one side of the equation: efficiency. This is so, as people have been trying to tell you, because so few ganks happen that most are simply unaware that fitting for defense has practical merit in this game.


Fitting a hauler for defense in hi-sec barely has practical merit now. Why? Because your defenses are going to be entirely irrelevant depending on your cargo. You can fit 3 t2 bulkhead's to your freighter and if you are carrying 10bil in goods you are very likely going to get ganked.

Valterra Craven wrote:

Realism isn't the only reason to escort freighters. They may just as well be escorted for in-game reasons.


Then why aren't any of the NPC hi-sec haulers ever escorted?