These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Taking the fight to CODE

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
The Butthole Licker
Doomheim
#261 - 2016-08-22 22:53:41 UTC
Chapo Muerte wrote:
The Butthole Licker wrote:


I'm asking CCP to boost retaliation, I know its hard for you yall to grasp.


How do you propose CCP boost retaliation considering you cant even be bothered to chase our throwaway gank ships?

Im not sure on what else you need -

You have T1/T2 Logistics ships available to you to use.

You have ECM ships available for you to use.

You have bumping ships available for you to use.

You have ninja looting ships available for you to use.

You have Damage ships available for you to use.

You have instalocking interceptors available for you to use for when we jump gates.

Please tell us what you want CCP to do that you cant already do yourself.


You are talking about prevention tactics, I'm talking about boosting retaliation after assets are destroyed.

These are two different aspects of gameply. Just because there are mechanics in place to disrupt gankers, does not mean that there should not be mechanics in place to retaliate against gankers after assets are lost.

It is unbalanced gameplay that your opposition can only attack throw away gank ships amounting to very little compared to what CODE destroys.

I dont think I can be any more clear, I dont understand why it is such a struggle for yall to grasp this concept.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#262 - 2016-08-22 22:58:13 UTC
Not every counter has to be a DIRECT counter (see: AFK Cloaking).

I think it's beautiful; fast, agile raiding parties appearing out of thin air and gone before you know it ... just like in SciFi movies!

Whiiieeeee internetttt Spaceship Awaayyyy!
The Butthole Licker
Doomheim
#263 - 2016-08-22 22:58:44 UTC
Le Plebo wrote:
Chapo Muerte wrote:
The Butthole Licker wrote:


I'm asking CCP to boost retaliation, I know its hard for you yall to grasp.


How do you propose CCP boost retaliation considering you cant even be bothered to chase our throwaway gank ships?

Im not sure on what else you need -

You have T1/T2 Logistics ships available to you to use.

You have ECM ships available for you to use.

You have bumping ships available for you to use.

You have ninja looting ships available for you to use.

You have Damage ships available for you to use.

You have instalocking interceptors available for you to use for when we jump gates.

Please tell us what you want CCP to do that you cant already do yourself.


They also have in game chat channels to use.............Oh wait they do that and just complain about what we are doing hoping ccp will intervene


I dont want CCP to intervene, I want the mechanics in place so the EVE community has the ability to retaliate, not just disrupt.

I feel like I'm talking to children.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#264 - 2016-08-22 23:00:58 UTC
Retaliate in EvE style: infiltrate, rob treasury.
The Butthole Licker
Doomheim
#265 - 2016-08-22 23:04:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Gallente Citizen 10441710
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Retaliate in EvE style: infiltrate, rob treasury.



EVE style is both sides having the ability to destroy each others assets. One side losing nothing but throw away gank ships, and the other side losing hundreds of billions in assets is unbalanced.
Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Cuttlefish Collective
#266 - 2016-08-22 23:17:47 UTC
inb4l&b

Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist
The Butthole Licker
Doomheim
#267 - 2016-08-22 23:22:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Gallente Citizen 10441710
Dom Arkaral wrote:
inb4l&b



Petition sent??? lol
Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Cuttlefish Collective
#268 - 2016-08-22 23:43:49 UTC
The Butthole Licker wrote:
Dom Arkaral wrote:
inb4l&b



Petition sent??? lol

no, don't worry, GMs will find this soon enough :)

Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist
Morgan Agrivar
Doomheim
#269 - 2016-08-23 01:02:16 UTC
Shallanna Yassavi wrote:
Morgan Agrivar wrote:
TL;DR: You cannot fight CODE head on, you will lose. You must hurt them where it would affect them the most. Remove naive targets from the field and they have no one to make money off of, pilots will get bored and CODE *could* fall apart. But realize they are masters of adaptation.

Yes and no.

Tutorials discourage creativity. They tell you exactly what to do and how to do it. The new one (opportunities list) tries to get away from all that by suggesting a list of stuff to try with a few short paragraphs next to each one, and not in a particular order. Where it falls short is in explaining how few rules there are, and that you can be attacked by players just about anywhere, including mining in a belt in hisec. And it doesn't touch dscan yet.

Simply telling them how to do something doesn't really prepare them for the uniquely EVE experience of: "Surprise! Your ship is about to get exploded! Figure out a way out of it or die trying! You didn't fly something you couldn't afford to lose, did you?"

I would just like it to be streamlined just a bit and make it just a bit more new player friendly. It is up to players to show them the rest of it but there are just WAY too many bad player corps (especially highsec) that don't teach new players the things they need to know. I know this because of all the corps I wardecced and some of the information I was getting. Wardec and gank protection and awareness are the two biggest things that these corps face and most of the time the CEO is just as much a newbie as those they are trying to recruit. It is sad that these new players get caught in these badly run corps. Cry

I would do like video tutorials but I am horribly, horribly bad at video editing (like zero experience) and I am pretty sure my voice wouldn't be that great to listen to. I am a decent writer but sending people to websites is also not really teaching them. Hands-on learning is best learning in my book.
Chapo Muerte
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#270 - 2016-08-23 01:11:49 UTC
The Butthole Licker wrote:


You are talking about prevention tactics, I'm talking about boosting retaliation after assets are destroyed.

These are two different aspects of gameply. Just because there are mechanics in place to disrupt gankers, does not mean that there should not be mechanics in place to retaliate against gankers after assets are lost.

It is unbalanced gameplay that your opposition can only attack throw away gank ships amounting to very little compared to what CODE destroys.

I dont think I can be any more clear, I dont understand why it is such a struggle for yall to grasp this concept.



What retaliation do you have in mind that involves effort on the capsuleers part?

The Butthole Licker
Doomheim
#271 - 2016-08-23 01:12:59 UTC
Morgan Agrivar wrote:
Shallanna Yassavi wrote:
Morgan Agrivar wrote:
TL;DR: You cannot fight CODE head on, you will lose. You must hurt them where it would affect them the most. Remove naive targets from the field and they have no one to make money off of, pilots will get bored and CODE *could* fall apart. But realize they are masters of adaptation.

Yes and no.

Tutorials discourage creativity. They tell you exactly what to do and how to do it. The new one (opportunities list) tries to get away from all that by suggesting a list of stuff to try with a few short paragraphs next to each one, and not in a particular order. Where it falls short is in explaining how few rules there are, and that you can be attacked by players just about anywhere, including mining in a belt in hisec. And it doesn't touch dscan yet.

Simply telling them how to do something doesn't really prepare them for the uniquely EVE experience of: "Surprise! Your ship is about to get exploded! Figure out a way out of it or die trying! You didn't fly something you couldn't afford to lose, did you?"

I would just like it to be streamlined just a bit and make it just a bit more new player friendly. It is up to players to show them the rest of it but there are just WAY too many bad player corps (especially highsec) that don't teach new players the things they need to know. I know this because of all the corps I wardecced and some of the information I was getting. Wardec and gank protection and awareness are the two biggest things that these corps face and most of the time the CEO is just as much a newbie as those they are trying to recruit. It is sad that these new players get caught in these badly run corps. Cry

I would do like video tutorials but I am horribly, horribly bad at video editing (like zero experience) and I am pretty sure my voice wouldn't be that great to listen to. I am a decent writer but sending people to websites is also not really teaching them. Hands-on learning is best learning in my book.



I do agree with you on this point.
The Butthole Licker
Doomheim
#272 - 2016-08-23 01:18:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Gallente Citizen 10441710
Chapo Muerte wrote:
The Butthole Licker wrote:


You are talking about prevention tactics, I'm talking about boosting retaliation after assets are destroyed.

These are two different aspects of gameply. Just because there are mechanics in place to disrupt gankers, does not mean that there should not be mechanics in place to retaliate against gankers after assets are lost.

It is unbalanced gameplay that your opposition can only attack throw away gank ships amounting to very little compared to what CODE destroys.

I dont think I can be any more clear, I dont understand why it is such a struggle for yall to grasp this concept.



What retaliation do you have in mind that involves effort on the capsuleers part?



For example if you couldnt undock out of npc stations in high sec every 15 minutes with a negative 10 toon. Imagine if you had to use citadels to stage gank operations from in high sec.The EVE community could target the staging citadel, that is one way they could retaliate for the destruction of the dozens of frighters/jump freighters yall kill every week.

I know you dont like the sound of that, because you guys would be at risk for a change.
Jasmine Deer
Perkone
Caldari State
#273 - 2016-08-23 01:36:15 UTC
Chapo Muerte wrote:
[quote=The Butthole Licker]

What retaliation do you have in mind that involves effort on the capsuleers part?



If I see CODE around I retaliate by going someplace else.
Chapo Muerte
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#274 - 2016-08-23 01:36:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Chapo Muerte
The Butthole Licker wrote:
Chapo Muerte wrote:
The Butthole Licker wrote:


You are talking about prevention tactics, I'm talking about boosting retaliation after assets are destroyed.

These are two different aspects of gameply. Just because there are mechanics in place to disrupt gankers, does not mean that there should not be mechanics in place to retaliate against gankers after assets are lost.

It is unbalanced gameplay that your opposition can only attack throw away gank ships amounting to very little compared to what CODE destroys.

I dont think I can be any more clear, I dont understand why it is such a struggle for yall to grasp this concept.



What retaliation do you have in mind that involves effort on the capsuleers part?



For example if you couldnt undock out of npc stations in high sec every 15 minutes with a negative 10 toon. Imagine if you had to use citadels to stage gank operations from in high sec.The EVE community could target the staging citadel, that is one way they could retaliate for the destruction of the dozens of frighters/jump freighters yall kill every week.

I know you dont like the sound of that, because you guys would be at risk for a change.




How would that affect lowsec/nullsec players that don't gank with -10 characters but need to go to jita?

Whats stopping us using the 0.4 system that is next door to uedama? Whats stopping us from just buying tags to be positive and gank and use the NPC corp stations?

Citadels are only like 1.4bil which we could easily make every day to anchor a new citadel every day. And if you did visit us in uedama you would know we have alt corps with our own citadels in the systems we stage/gank out of.

Any other great ideas?
Le Plebo
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#275 - 2016-08-23 01:41:07 UTC
Jasmine Deer wrote:
Chapo Muerte wrote:
[quote=The Butthole Licker]

What retaliation do you have in mind that involves effort on the capsuleers part?



If I see CODE around I retaliate by going someplace else.


LOL
The Butthole Licker
Doomheim
#276 - 2016-08-23 01:54:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Gallente Citizen 10441710
Chapo Muerte wrote:
The Butthole Licker wrote:
Chapo Muerte wrote:
The Butthole Licker wrote:


You are talking about prevention tactics, I'm talking about boosting retaliation after assets are destroyed.

These are two different aspects of gameply. Just because there are mechanics in place to disrupt gankers, does not mean that there should not be mechanics in place to retaliate against gankers after assets are lost.

It is unbalanced gameplay that your opposition can only attack throw away gank ships amounting to very little compared to what CODE destroys.

I dont think I can be any more clear, I dont understand why it is such a struggle for yall to grasp this concept.



What retaliation do you have in mind that involves effort on the capsuleers part?



For example if you couldnt undock out of npc stations in high sec every 15 minutes with a negative 10 toon. Imagine if you had to use citadels to stage gank operations from in high sec.The EVE community could target the staging citadel, that is one way they could retaliate for the destruction of the dozens of frighters/jump freighters yall kill every week.

I know you dont like the sound of that, because you guys would be at risk for a change.




How would that affect lowsec/nullsec players that don't gank with -10 characters but need to go to jita?

Whats stopping us using the 0.4 system that is next door to uedama? Whats stopping us from just buying tags to be positive and gank and use the NPC corp stations?

Citadels are only like 1.4bil which we could easily make every day to anchor a new citadel every day. And if you did visit us in uedama you would know we have alt corps with our own citadels in the systems we stage/gank out of.

Any other great ideas?



If you are -10 you cant freely go into high sec, makes perfect sense.

If you guys were forced to stage out of low sec that would be great.

Tags for sec status should not be allowed, you should have to rat sec status up, that should be the consequence for criminal activity. This way you guys would undock in something other than throw away ships, it should be like that for all gankers.

Even if you anchored a citadel every day, that is still a target for those you attack.

You say that these changes would not affect you guys, but the reality is players would actually be able to retaliate.

Faction police should be removed as well.

You and I both know that under current mechanics the owners of the 12 freighters you guys destroyed in the past few hours are unable to deal the same damage to CODE that was dealt to them. Unbalanced gameply.
Chapo Muerte
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#277 - 2016-08-23 02:03:25 UTC
The Butthole Licker wrote:



If you are -10 you cant freely go into high sec, makes perfect sense.

If you guys were forced to stage out of low sec that would be great.

Tags for sec status should not be allowed, you should have to rat sec status up, that should be the consequence for criminal activity. This way you guys would undock in something other than throw away ships, it should be like that for all gankers.

Even if you anchored a citadel every day, that is still a target for those you attack.

You say that these changes would not affect you guys, but the reality is players would actually be able to retaliate.

Faction police should be removed as well.



Lol. You don't make any sense.

Faction police is there for the negative sec status characters. Removing negative sec status players from highsec removes the need for faction police.

Tags for sec status were added to the game as an option for those players who would rather quit then grind the time to rat their sec status up to be able to fly freely around (or sell their character whatever)

This was implemented to help low sec - null sec characters more then gankers as you seem to think - Link

More information

All im really hearing from you is you want CCP to stop ganking. I suggest you read the 8 golden rules and actually undock and come fight us in uedama instead of expecting CCP to give you your riskfree sandbox.

/thread
pelon pelonete
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#278 - 2016-08-23 02:06:01 UTC
Le Plebo wrote:
Jasmine Deer wrote:
Chapo Muerte wrote:
[quote=The Butthole Licker]

What retaliation do you have in mind that involves effort on the capsuleers part?



If I see CODE around I retaliate by going someplace else.


LOL



Why laugh? its an effective measure and you are informed at that point that the pilot is not AFK.

Indeed he has effectively denied CODE of a kill.

The Butthole Licker
Doomheim
#279 - 2016-08-23 02:10:38 UTC
Chapo Muerte wrote:
The Butthole Licker wrote:



If you are -10 you cant freely go into high sec, makes perfect sense.

If you guys were forced to stage out of low sec that would be great.

Tags for sec status should not be allowed, you should have to rat sec status up, that should be the consequence for criminal activity. This way you guys would undock in something other than throw away ships, it should be like that for all gankers.

Even if you anchored a citadel every day, that is still a target for those you attack.

You say that these changes would not affect you guys, but the reality is players would actually be able to retaliate.

Faction police should be removed as well.



Lol. You don't make any sense.

Faction police is there for the negative sec status characters. Removing negative sec status players from highsec removes the need for faction police.

Tags for sec status were added to the game as an option for those players who would rather quit then grind the time to rat their sec status up to be able to fly freely around (or sell their character whatever)

This was implemented to help low sec - null sec characters more then gankers as you seem to think - Link

More information

All im really hearing from you is you want CCP to stop ganking. I suggest you read the 8 golden rules and actually undock and come fight us in uedama instead of expecting CCP to give you your riskfree sandbox.

/thread


I was a suicide ganker, its an important part of the game and should not be removed. If i had it my way CCP would reverse all of the nerfs and implement mechanics that allow for players to retaliate.

I think -10s to be able to roam around, and stay on grid if they would like to without having to warp out due to faction police.

I know about the tag mechanics, been playing since 2009. Just because something is implemented by CCP does not mean its a good decision.

I want ganking to be easier, but retaliation needs to be buffed as well. The only reason you guys exist, is because you are sheltered by the current mechanics. Its no fun chasing -10s in throw away gank ships around, the EVE community wants to do real damage to CODE.
Le Plebo
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#280 - 2016-08-23 02:10:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Le Plebo
The Butthole Licker wrote:

You and I both know that under current mechanics the owners of the 12 freighters you guys destroyed in the past few hours are unable to deal the same damage to CODE that was dealt to them. Unbalanced gameply.


Why is it that you plebs cant grasp the fact this is an MMORPG

  • MASSIVE
  • MULTIPLAYER
  • ONLINE
  • ROLE
  • PLAYING
  • GAME


If these freighter pilots did any of the following they would of lived

  • Got a permit
  • Flew with a friend for webs
  • Flew with a scout
  • Checked the killboards
  • Checked intel channels
  • Went the long way
  • Fit bulkheads with a descent pod
  • Fit nomads
  • I really could keep going but i wont


But instead their greed got the better of them. So please explain to me why CCP should hand hold these people and you because as im seeing it, you have at a minimum 8 ways to combat this, but are to lazy to do anything about it.