These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[March] Damage Control Tiericide

First post First post First post
Author
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#601 - 2016-02-23 12:40:06 UTC
You demonstrably can avoid all risk. The web alt jumps first. If you see a bumper on gate or on dscan and you jump anyway then hell mend you.

Dumb people != risk
Ylmar
Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure
#602 - 2016-02-23 12:44:36 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
What's it like being that wrong?

I don't know, you tell me. Until you hear an official statement from a Red Frog director, any sentence starting with "Red Frog says" is a moot point.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#603 - 2016-02-23 12:44:51 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:


In addition, they take a hell of a lot more precautions than just a single web ship, they also fit a tank, they actively pilot, they pick their flight times to avoid gank events and they restrict the collateral to low limits.


When the risk stands at less than 0.1% over 2.7 million jumps it kinda is 100%. Right now your argument is no nono they don't count because they know what they are doing.

Also please post these ships and their fittings which you will no longer be using a DCU on.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#604 - 2016-02-23 12:46:07 UTC
Ylmar wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
What's it like being that wrong?

I don't know, you tell me. Until you hear an official statement from a Red Frog director, any sentence starting with "Red Frog says" is a moot point.


I get it from their annual reports.
Ylmar
Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure
#605 - 2016-02-23 12:51:37 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
I get it from their annual reports.

...and we've completed a full circle once again. Now if only this thread still contained all original messages.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#606 - 2016-02-23 12:55:23 UTC
Ylmar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
I get it from their annual reports.

...and we've completed a full circle once again. Now if only this thread still contained all original messages.


Then perhaps you should quit "forgetting" so I don't have to keep on repeating myself to you.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#607 - 2016-02-23 12:58:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
You demonstrably can avoid all risk. The web alt jumps first. If you see a bumper on gate or on dscan and you jump anyway then hell mend you.

Dumb people != risk
And then you see no bumper, so you jump through, get instalock suicide pointed then the bumper arrives on grid in seconds.

Look, there's no such thing as being immune to ganking. The funny thing is, most people on your side of the fence used to cheer about how this was the case and how it should remain the case. Now they are going to make it marginally more costly, yet still incredibly viable to gank and all of a sudden that's not the case.

baltec1 wrote:
When the risk stands at less than 0.1% over 2.7 million jumps it kinda is 100%. Right now your argument is no nono they don't count because they know what they are doing.
But it's not 100%, is it? If someone were to say "I'll pay you $1 to perform task X, there's a 0.1% chance you will instantly die" most people wouldn't do it.

No, my point is that you are applying the statistics of the group that is most versed in gank avoidance to the general population, ignoring the fact that they are avoiding a lot of their ganking by simply being less likely to be chosen against a member of the general population. If red frog did exactly what they do now, but there were no other freighters, their loss statistics would sharply rise, since they aren't immune to ganking, they are simply less favoured targets. In short, you're cherry picking biased stats.

The reality is that this change will barely affect ganking, it will still be viable, it will still be profitable and it will still require a pretty low amount of effort from most of it's participants. Get over it.

baltec1 wrote:
Also please post these ships and their fittings which you will no longer be using a DCU on.
CBA, not even at home. Just rest assured that I'll remove it from some ships. mainly ships that can afford to lose a bit of tank for a bit more speed, since removing the DC will be considerably less of a devastating blow to the ships stats. Just because you will still rely on it doesn't mean everyone will. It really depends on how much you value other ship stats. People who were right on the borderline between adding the DC vs another module will now choose the other module.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#608 - 2016-02-23 12:58:37 UTC
Ylmar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
I get it from their annual reports.

...and we've completed a full circle once again. Now if only this thread still contained all original messages.



So are you telling us you believe this is all fabricated?

http://red-frog.org/annual-report-2014.php
Ylmar
Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure
#609 - 2016-02-23 13:02:51 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Then perhaps you should quit "forgetting" so I don't have to keep on repeating myself to you.

Repetition sure is a well known rethorical device, but it does not generate truth. Blink
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#610 - 2016-02-23 13:03:53 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
You demonstrably can avoid all risk. The web alt jumps first. If you see a bumper on gate or on dscan and you jump anyway then hell mend you.

Dumb people != risk
And then you see no bumper, so you jump through, get instalock suicide pointed then the bumper arrives on grid in seconds.

Look, there's no such thing as being immune to ganking. The funny thing is, most people on your side of the fence used to cheer about how this was the case and how it should remain the case. Now they are going to make it marginally more costly, yest still incredibly viable to gank and all of a sudden that's not the case.


Contrived much? Lol Also bullshit, by the way, an interceptor can't even cover 15+ AU that fast, never mind a bumping machariel, which then needs to get up to speed and actually bump. Plus you could always, you know, web said impossible machariel even if it could land.

The people who die are those who do not take precautions, end of story. Careful pilots just don't die until they get complacent.



Ylmar
Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure
#611 - 2016-02-23 13:07:31 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
So are you telling us you believe this is all fabricated?

I did no such thing. I am telling you that nobody but a Red Frog Freight director can make official statements of the "Red Frog says" kind. I can understand that gankers are currently clutching at straws, but nobody except RF leadership speaks for RF.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#612 - 2016-02-23 13:08:07 UTC
Ylmar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Then perhaps you should quit "forgetting" so I don't have to keep on repeating myself to you.

Repetition sure is a well known rethorical device, but it does not generate truth. Blink


That comes from the facts I posted, the ones you continue to desperately ignore while providing none of your own.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#613 - 2016-02-23 13:10:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Ylmar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
I get it from their annual reports.

...and we've completed a full circle once again. Now if only this thread still contained all original messages.


So are you telling us you believe this is all fabricated?

http://red-frog.org/annual-report-2014.php
This was covered above. Those stats don't show 100% safety, and they take far more precautions than just a single webber. For example, a 50b isk collateral freight job won't be accepted.

Those stats do in fact categorically disprove what baltec is claiming they prove.

Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Contrived much? Lol Also bullshit, by the way, an interceptor can't even cover 15+ AU that fast, never mind a bumping machariel, which then needs to get up to speed and actually bump. Plus you could always, you know, web said impossible machariel even if it could land.

The people who die are those who do not take precautions, end of story. Careful pilots just don't die until they get complacent.
Except of course having watched you jump from the other side of the gate, and having the machariel aligned and much closer than 15 AU away, they can certainly be on you inside the time a suicide tackle gives them. Once you've initiated the jump, they can already be on their way, since you are already committed to entering the system.

Sure, you might suicide web the machariel, but then what if they have 2? What if they have another bumper at the next gate now that you are running without web support? The point is, that you can keep wildly increasing the amount of defensive measures taken by the hypothetical freighter pilot but they will still never reach 100% safety.

In addition, EHP has absolutely no bearing on whether or not a freighter can be caught, thus this change makes no difference so your entire point is moot as well as wrong.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#614 - 2016-02-23 13:13:42 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
they will still never reach 100% safety.

In this post, Lucas Kell finally understands EvE
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#615 - 2016-02-23 13:16:31 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
they will still never reach 100% safety.
In this post, Lucas Kell finally understands EvE
I've always understood EVE, though do not that while a freighter cannot achieve 100% safety, that doesn't mean 100% safety is always achievable. Most of my trade alts for example are 100% safe. Certain correctly fitted ships are 100% safe in highsec too, just not freighters.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Darth Terona
Horde Vanguard.
Pandemic Horde
#616 - 2016-02-23 13:16:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Terona
im not seeing the up side of removing damage controls from my fits..

(those ships that cannot fit dcu)
you mean freighters.


(The impact is Freighters, but we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance, and after the February Wreck HP change these ships can handle a bit more tank without the "predator and prey" environment being thrown out of whack.)

ok.. so you changed wreck hp so it harder to deny gankers their loot.. and you want to compensate this by increasing the freighters hull resists to 30% across the board..

no problem.

so..

for one aspect of the game.. your shaking up the entire meta... (not really.. everyone is going to fit dcu anyway.)

solution.
Give freighters a 7% hull resist per freighter level.
leave DCU alone.
yea its stale.. yea its a requirement on most pvp ships.
yea after these changes, it will still be required...

you are poking all of us for the sake of some freighter pilots..
just fix the issue at hand.


or??!!! this isnt about freighters and it's just what you want to do!
GREAT!

dont pretend its to help freighters then...
were smart.
we can figure out who benifits most from your changes probably faster than you can.
id bet my life savings on it actually.


That all being said. Im looking forward to the change.

almost missed this pont.
(but we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance,)

if only you paid that much attention to the rest of your game :)
jk.
Ylmar
Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure
#617 - 2016-02-23 13:18:41 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
That comes from the facts I posted, the ones you continue to desperately ignore while providing none of your own.

Don't worry, I feel no desperation at all. I am quite content with the changes CCP Fozzie and team have planned. As for commenting on your personal interpretation of statistics, we've been through this before. Alas, the messages got "misplaced", and I have the feeling our follow-ups are not long for this world either.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#618 - 2016-02-23 13:24:54 UTC
Darth Terona wrote:

That all being said. Im looking forward to the change.


The only change is going be on ships that either didn't fit the mod and ships that cant. Which no matter how you look at it is by far the oddest change to date. It fails meet the goal set as all the ships that fit the mod are still going to want to fit it.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#619 - 2016-02-23 13:26:47 UTC
Ylmar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
That comes from the facts I posted, the ones you continue to desperately ignore while providing none of your own.

Don't worry, I feel no desperation at all. I am quite content with the changes CCP Fozzie and team have planned. As for commenting on your personal interpretation of statistics, we've been through this before. Alas, the messages got "misplaced", and I have the feeling our follow-ups are not long for this world either.


Not desperate but continually drags the thread off topic. Sure thing bud, if you are not to add anything then kindly leave.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#620 - 2016-02-23 13:28:54 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Ylmar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
I get it from their annual reports.

...and we've completed a full circle once again. Now if only this thread still contained all original messages.


So are you telling us you believe this is all fabricated?

http://red-frog.org/annual-report-2014.php
This was covered above. Those stats don't show 100% safety, and they take far more precautions than just a single webber. For example, a 50b isk collateral freight job won't be accepted.

Those stats do in fact categorically disprove what baltec is claiming they prove.

Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Contrived much? Lol Also bullshit, by the way, an interceptor can't even cover 15+ AU that fast, never mind a bumping machariel, which then needs to get up to speed and actually bump. Plus you could always, you know, web said impossible machariel even if it could land.

The people who die are those who do not take precautions, end of story. Careful pilots just don't die until they get complacent.
Except of course having watched you jump from the other side of the gate, and having the machariel aligned and much closer than 15 AU away, they can certainly be on you inside the time a suicide tackle gives them. Once you've initiated the jump, they can already be on their way, since you are already committed to entering the system.

Sure, you might suicide web the machariel, but then what if they have 2? What if they have another bumper at the next gate now that you are running without web support? The point is, that you can keep wildly increasing the amount of defensive measures taken by the hypothetical freighter pilot but they will still never reach 100% safety.

In addition, EHP has absolutely no bearing on whether or not a freighter can be caught, thus this change makes no difference so your entire point is moot as well as wrong.



Oh so you missed that part where I said you dscan with the scout. I feel like you missed that.