These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Hyperdunking nerf on sisi, to the battlements!

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#241 - 2015-10-15 11:34:20 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
You can argue about fine print but at one point doing anything to get around CONCORD was an exploit and then it is not.


Not sure if trolling or just trolling. Name one way of "getting around" Concord that CCP are ok with.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#242 - 2015-10-15 12:01:08 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Well the statement made by CCP Falcon is classic justifying himself, which he would not have done if he was not doing a change that was changing policy in the view of many including CCP staff.
What policy change would that be?

Quote:
You can argue about fine print but at one point doing anything to get around CONCORD was an exploit and then it is not.
Anything that involves getting around Concord is still an exploit, nothing has changed in that regard and there are no exceptions to that rule.

Quote:
The blowing up of offline POS modules was at a low level and involved offlined POS modules and not ships, hardly the same.
Is it in space? Does it explode when you shoot it enough?

Quote:
But you can spin it any which way you want, we moved from getting around CONCORD is an exploit to adding a but to that.
The only spinning going on is in your head; the fact of the matter is that there is no but, anything that involves getting around Concord is still an exploit.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#243 - 2015-10-15 12:26:31 UTC
Certainly not trolling, its my point of view, I can understand your point of view and understand that the wording of CCP Falcon's post backs your opinion, fine print and all that, but from my perspective that wording was carefully crafted and that does in fact say a lot about the issue.

So perhaps I should clarify it as being that in my opinion hyperdunking would be an exploit on the original intention of getting around the CONCORD mechanics, it has been deemed not to be an exploit by CCP. But here is the rub, actions often speak louder than words and if this change is real in terms of SISI then you have to step back and wonder if that post was a band aid and that this SISI action is another band aid.

I don't like CONCORD, personally I would deal with this differently, I like the idea of hunter killer NPC's going around with the new AI hunting gankers that were on the run and not able to dock etc, though perhaps a gankers HQ would be interesting gameplay.

The thing is that no matter how you look at it, if what the OP posted is real then their intent is plain to see, though I like many doubt this will hit TQ...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#244 - 2015-10-15 12:46:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Dracvlad wrote:
Certainly not trolling, its my point of view, I can understand your point of view and understand that the wording of CCP Falcon's post backs your opinion, fine print and all that, but from my perspective that wording was carefully crafted and that does in fact say a lot about the issue.
Of course it was carefully worded, it was the culmination of discussion amongst many CCP staff and knowing full well how devious the playerbase can be they have to word exploit/non exploit notifications very carefully, as they have always done.

Quote:
So perhaps I should clarify it as being that in my opinion hyperdunking would be an exploit on the original intention of getting around the CONCORD mechanics, it has been deemed not to be an exploit by CCP.
Every ship a hyperdunker personally uses while under a GCC timer is destroyed by Concord.

With that in mind, pray explain how it's a way of getting around the Concord mechanic that destroys every ship a transgressor uses while under a GCC timer?

Quote:
But here is the rub, actions often speak louder than words and if this change is real in terms of SISI then you have to step back and wonder if that post was a band aid and that this SISI action is another band aid.
If it becomes a reality on TQ then the very few gankers who practice hyperdunking will simply go back to the tried and tested method of joining the existing gank fleets that ply their trade in mayhem in the chokepoints.

Quote:
I don't like CONCORD, personally I would deal with this differently, I like the idea of hunter killer NPC's going around with the new AI hunting gankers that were on the run and not able to dock etc, though perhaps a gankers HQ would be interesting gameplay.
Creating consequences for gankers, above and beyond those already provided by NPCs, is the job of players, it's one of the attractions of playing a sandbox game like Eve where there is minimal interference from non player entities. Introducing more NPCs to do it for you is a bloody terrible idea.

Quote:
The thing is that no matter how you look at it, if what the OP posted is real then their intent is plain to see, though I like many doubt this will hit TQ...
It may, or it may not; if it does the very few gankers that hyperdunk will go back to doing it the old fashioned way, you may even see the number of ganks going up in protest at the change.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Estevan Andrard
Doomheim
#245 - 2015-10-15 14:34:14 UTC
We should remove all bullshitting pvp in hisec an escalate to a full flagged factional war.

If you gank some Caldari States dumb on Matari Space, you get Standing rise. Permission to kill on sight lower than 0 standing with a given empire faction upon jumping its hisec space. Full npc response to crimes against its citizens.

A opening event for that change would be a full conflict by Empire navies after escalation from a conflict when Caldari States uses drones in Federation Space and kill Federation civilians saying they thought they were Drifters. Then Caldari States imply they will invade Matari Space with the excuse of their views on democracy, to which Gallenteas respond by moving huge capitals to Matari Space. Then Concord starts to act as some sort of gag for dissidents on Caldari States views, which enrages Gallenteans, bolsting their war effort. Once Concord block a move on a Caldari criminal to Gallenteans by a Federation Task Force, Federation ponders with the Republic and finally move on Concord itself. Once Concord is eliminated by Federation and Republic forces, these close the bridge between Caldari States and Amarr Empire, escalating in a full War.

That way, maybe players will stop bickering about some puny conflict of "oh, he is not playing the way I want, he doesnt want to pew pew with me".

If the majority of the player base, according to you, like non stop risky pvp, why dont you go fight the plenty of them and leave the poor carebears alone. Unless it is some kind of U8 power sort of thing where in the face of being a disliked minority, you claim to be the most powerful group in the universe.

If con is the opposite of pro, then is Congress the opposite of progress?
Lan Wang
Princess Aiko Hold My Hand
Safety. Net
#246 - 2015-10-15 14:59:42 UTC
carebears aren't poor

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#247 - 2015-10-15 15:04:21 UTC
Estevan Andrard wrote:
We should remove all bullshitting pvp in hisec an escalate to a full flagged factional war.

If you gank some Caldari States dumb on Matari Space, you get Standing rise. Permission to kill on sight lower than 0 standing with a given empire faction upon jumping its hisec space. Full npc response to crimes against its citizens.

A opening event for that change would be a full conflict by Empire navies after escalation from a conflict when Caldari States uses drones in Federation Space and kill Federation civilians saying they thought they were Drifters. Then Caldari States imply they will invade Matari Space with the excuse of their views on democracy, to which Gallenteas respond by moving huge capitals to Matari Space. Then Concord starts to act as some sort of gag for dissidents on Caldari States views, which enrages Gallenteans, bolsting their war effort. Once Concord block a move on a Caldari criminal to Gallenteans by a Federation Task Force, Federation ponders with the Republic and finally move on Concord itself. Once Concord is eliminated by Federation and Republic forces, these close the bridge between Caldari States and Amarr Empire, escalating in a full War.

That way, maybe players will stop bickering about some puny conflict of "oh, he is not playing the way I want, he doesnt want to pew pew with me".

If the majority of the player base, according to you, like non stop risky pvp, why dont you go fight the plenty of them and leave the poor carebears alone. Unless it is some kind of U8 power sort of thing where in the face of being a disliked minority, you claim to be the most powerful group in the universe.

Can we get a TL;DR please, preferably one that makes sense?

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Black Pedro
Mine.
#248 - 2015-10-15 15:07:03 UTC
Estevan Andrard wrote:
If the majority of the player base, according to you, like non stop risky pvp, why dont you go fight the plenty of them and leave the poor carebears alone. Unless it is some kind of U8 power sort of thing where in the face of being a disliked minority, you claim to be the most powerful group in the universe.
Highsec isn't going to save itself.

One of the great advantages of doing the Saviour's work in highsec is that you get all the "non-stop risky PvP" you want. Everytime I undock my ship to gank a "poor" carebear, I get to pit my wits against another player, and am almost guaranteed an explosion, at least of my ship but hopefully that of my rival. There is nothing more satisfying in Eve than watching your enemy, in this case the bot-aspirant carebear, be destroyed at your hand. Winning at PvP is just what we do.

Non-stop PvP is one of the major benefits of signing up with New Order. Our work is not done yet so there are still plenty of targets and PvP to be had in highsec. One day perhaps once we have reached full compliance we will have to go looking for a fight for fun, but for now our elite PvP skills are needed to clean up the mess years of easy ISK has made of highsec.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Estevan Andrard
Doomheim
#249 - 2015-10-15 15:24:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Estevan Andrard
Black Pedro wrote:
Estevan Andrard wrote:
If the majority of the player base, according to you, like non stop risky pvp, why dont you go fight the plenty of them and leave the poor carebears alone. Unless it is some kind of U8 power sort of thing where in the face of being a disliked minority, you claim to be the most powerful group in the universe.
Highsec isn't going to save itself.

One of the great advantages of doing the Saviour's work in highsec is that you get all the "non-stop risky PvP" you want. Everytime I undock my ship to gank a "poor" carebear, I get to pit my wits against another player, and am almost guaranteed an explosion, at least of my ship but hopefully that of my rival. There is nothing more satisfying in Eve than watching your enemy, in this case the bot-aspirant carebear, be destroyed at your hand. Winning at PvP is just what we do.

Non-stop PvP is one of the major benefits of signing up with New Order. Our work is not done yet so there are still plenty of targets and PvP to be had in highsec. One day perhaps once we have reached full compliance we will have to go looking for a fight for fun, but for now our elite PvP skills are needed to clean up the mess years of easy ISK has made of highsec.


Another page on the book "The way I play is the right way to play".

I could not think of something I could care less than see some pixel explosion of a person I barely know and also could not care less about. I like PvP, not destroying moving targets. I like to enter a fight to make myself the favor of enhancing my ability against a player that I respect the strength in a given field I am facing that player on.

I like mining better than the miner I met, I like fighting better the fighter I met, I like earning more than the trader I met. It is just stupid to consider myself something to mine better than a trader, trade better than a miner or fight better than both.

But hey, if you wanna do this sort of thing, go for it. I just consider a person who uses a weapon ship to destroy a ship with no weapons a sort of "pedofile of pvp".

If con is the opposite of pro, then is Congress the opposite of progress?
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#250 - 2015-10-15 15:27:46 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Quote:
I don't like CONCORD, personally I would deal with this differently, I like the idea of hunter killer NPC's going around with the new AI hunting gankers that were on the run and not able to dock etc, though perhaps a gankers HQ would be interesting gameplay.
Creating consequences for gankers, above and beyond those already provided by NPCs, is the job of players, it's one of the attractions of playing a sandbox game like Eve where there is minimal interference from non player entities. Introducing more NPCs to do it for you is a bloody terrible idea.


I would suggest that you read what I said again, I was suggesting replacing CONCORD with something more realistic based on the new AI which someone else raised here, I have always disliked how CONCORD works in this game.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Mag's
Azn Empire
#251 - 2015-10-15 15:48:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Estevan Andrard wrote:
But hey, if you wanna do this sort of thing, go for it. I just consider a person who uses a weapon ship to destroy a ship with no weapons a sort of "pedofile of pvp".
Nice. Real classy. Your mum will be proud. Roll

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Estevan Andrard
Doomheim
#252 - 2015-10-15 16:12:53 UTC
I would like to know when does CCP said that the end game of EVE is for players to do everything.

I've seen they preach the player DRIVEN stuff which differ from player MADE stuff.

But as far as concept wars goes in these forums, I dont really expect your average pvp nut to understand the difference.

So basically Ford Drives my car and Henry Ford assembled it.

If con is the opposite of pro, then is Congress the opposite of progress?
Benson en Efnyssen
ATHANOR AQUISISTIONS
Domain Research and Mining Inst.
#253 - 2015-10-15 16:48:43 UTC
Estevan Andrard wrote:
I would like to know when does CCP said that the end game of EVE is for players to do everything.

I've seen they preach the player DRIVEN stuff which differ from player MADE stuff.

But as far as concept wars goes in these forums, I dont really expect your average pvp nut to understand the difference.

So basically Ford Drives my car and Henry Ford assembled it.


What a well communicated and thought provoking statement, you have given us all something to ponder on.

Please continue.

PS. Don't you drive your own car, did your car come with a cheaffeur?
Black Pedro
Mine.
#254 - 2015-10-15 18:54:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Estevan Andrard wrote:
Another page on the book "The way I play is the right way to play".
Friend, I think you need to take a good long look at yourself in the mirror. I never once said that saving highsec is the right or only way to play. That is just how I choose to play. Exploding carebears and taking their stuff is what I an enjoy doing yet you are the one that seems to be judging my play style as a "wrong way" to play.

Who are you to tell me how to play the game?
Estevan Andrard wrote:
I could not think of something I could care less than see some pixel explosion of a person I barely know and also could not care less about. I like PvP, not destroying moving targets. I like to enter a fight to make myself the favor of enhancing my ability against a player that I respect the strength in a given field I am facing that player on.
You see, I don't like such a fight. I could not think of anything I could care less for than a meaningless, but "fair" fight against someone I don't know for nothing more than space honour. But hunting carebears? That is good game play. Stalking your target, getting your warp-in positioned just so without spooking the mark, and then springing the trap like a mighty tiger ambushing a gazelle is very satisfying. And taking someone's hard earned loot for yourself? Priceless. Way better than grinding it yourself.

You can keep your meaningless "good fights" for I have supped on the delicious tears of the carebear and there is no going back.

Estevan Andrard wrote:
I like mining better than the miner I met, I like fighting better the fighter I met, I like earning more than the trader I met. It is just stupid to consider myself something to mine better than a trader, trade better than a miner or fight better than both.

But hey, if you wanna do this sort of thing, go for it. I just consider a person who uses a weapon ship to destroy a ship with no weapons a sort of "pedofile of pvp".
I will. Not bringing guns is not a viable defensive strategy in this game - do not blame me for choosing to explode people who do not bother to defend themselves.

The New Order has made a claim to highsec. You can scoff and hurl insults all you'd like, but the reality is that we have guns to enforce that claim. Your precious e-honour will not save you; only getting a permit and following the Code will do that.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#255 - 2015-10-15 20:48:40 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Estevan Andrard wrote:
But hey, if you wanna do this sort of thing, go for it. I just consider a person who uses a weapon ship to destroy a ship with no weapons a sort of "pedofile of pvp".
Nice. Real classy. Your mum will be proud. Roll


Another champion of civic virtue associates blowing up internet spaceships with real life acts of sickening behavior. There is not even a goddamn comparison.

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#256 - 2015-10-15 21:15:50 UTC
Estevan Andrard wrote:
pedofile of pvp


Get help, seriously.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
StonerPhReaK
Herb Men
#257 - 2015-10-15 22:19:51 UTC
Pretty soon everything will take a fleet to do. Even undocking! Roll

Signatures wer cooler when we couldn't remove them completely.
Estevan Andrard
Doomheim
#258 - 2015-10-16 00:02:44 UTC
Comparison is to say what one thing equals or differs from another.

To say what I consider being something I see being done is not a comparison, is adequately defined as "name calling" for a reason.

If con is the opposite of pro, then is Congress the opposite of progress?
Mag's
Azn Empire
#259 - 2015-10-16 00:10:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Estevan Andrard wrote:
Comparison is to say what one thing equals or differs from another.

To say what I consider being something I see being done is not a comparison, is adequately defined as "name calling" for a reason.
You consider the shooter of pixels in a game, to be the same as an appalling RL criminal. Please, do tell us more about how your mind works.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#260 - 2015-10-16 00:48:15 UTC
Estevan Andrard wrote:
Comparison is to say what one thing equals or differs from another.

To say what I consider being something I see being done is not a comparison, is adequately defined as "name calling" for a reason.


Please show me where I said comparison. I said associate. Also, I realize in your furious attempt to backpedal and not look like an idiot of the finest caliber, grammar may take a back seat.... However the quoted post reads like a 5th grade level sentence, and makes no sense at all. Please leave our sub forum now.

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