These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

How many more players must we lose to bullying

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#621 - 2017-04-03 06:21:03 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
I focussed on the 182,580 hit pints on that fit based on 22 seconds before CONCORD which with 12 Catalyst came to 700 DPS which is overheating territory.

Anyway the key part is the 182,580 EHP, got that?

Which requires 14 people working together. FOURTEEN: Twelve to gank, one to bump, one to loot, not including scouts.

This is the best possible case scenario in the current balance situation, 0.5 sec space, pre-pulled CONCORD, no gate guns, no interferance from other players, no attempt to escape/call for help by the freighter, a freighter which is as anti-tanked as possible.

Best case scenario.

And you want it nerfed.


Given people are multiboxing this really difficult enterprise its not as really difficult as you're making out. So yes it needs nerfing.


Lulu Lunette wrote:
What was the OP again lol

High sec gobbling.


1. How many people multi-box ganking? Go on...we are all waiting.
2. Basing a criticism that a tiny handful of people do something so a larger subset of players should have their game nerfed...is reasonable? Why not just ban multi-boxing over a certain number? 2, 3, may 4 alts logged in, after that, nope. No...lets go after the guys who have 40 actual people in their 40 man fleet. Yeah, totally reasonable. Roll

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#622 - 2017-04-03 06:36:39 UTC
Dom Arkaral wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Aaron wrote:
I think it's time to get real. A player can take the time to learn about ganking and all the variables that affect it such as hostile fleet size, EHP....and so on.

Plain and simple, you will be targeted if you have freight value of over 1 billion. If you keep the value below 1 billion isk then you won't even have to consider all the variables of a gank situation.

Form some kind of group where you can contact freight pilots to relay this message. The ones that don't listen or bother to investigate anything will be punished because the mechanics are purposely set that way.

This is a clear description of the environment we are in and it has been programmed this way to make us think more about our actions within the game, it prompts us to think things like having an escort to rep our armour for example we can rep until the hostile fleet is concorded.

Stop acting as if there are no counters to freight ganking when there blatantly are.

This is garbage. It was not programmed this way. When freighters came out you needed at least 30 battleships now you only need 12 stealth bombers. When freighters came out there were no tags, you had to grind sec back which was very time consuming. When freighters came out you couldn't do (at the time battleship damage) with cheap frigates.

Bitches will whine that battleships insurance meant using battleships was cheaper but no, even with full insurance you still lost the value of platinum insurance. 30 plat insurances for tier 3 battleships was around the cost of 60 stealth bombers.

Then you factor in the massive jump in isk generation today vs then.

It was never programmed this way, this is all about mudflation and powercreep turning ganking into the easiest form of PvP with the smallest cost (apart from frig v frig) with the least risk and significant payoff. Its out of wack with the rest of EvE. EvE WoW, EvE Light or whatever.




The gankers know this. That's why they gaslight with "ganking keeps getting nerfed" but they pretend they never got the buffs that made is more possible than in the past. They do this deliberately.

It's very transparent now. Are the people behind the game so stupid as to keep falling for it?
Or are they complicit?

I have tried to figure that out - why would an mmo company choose to hobble themselves to a play style that is seen by the wider mmo community as toxic, abusive, full of greifers?

My personal experience of being followed by a player for 4 months straight swearing and calling me a pedophile and worse in local without CCP intervening and then that same person getting me warned by CCP for saying F in local caused me to stop my two boys playing. Wasn't just that either, the language and conversations in market hubs and alliance / corp chat is disgusting and sometimes illegal at least here in Aussie.

I think it comes down to job insecurity at CCP / the fact that CCP has close RL relationships with many players / a number of CCP employees have worked for or do work for CCP and an entrenched culture of EvE is Harsh while being completely blind as to why EvE has failed to continue growing being that same culture.



EVE is known to be very niche and ruthless and harsh
That's why people love it... That's why most play it... And that's why CCP sells the game as is, and not like some dumb other mmo lmao

HTFU or there's always WOW and HelloKittyOnline hahahah



yes very harsh for "criminals" to have every gate and station open to them where they can have a no-aggression warp disruption via an alt done for them while they wait for their timer to expire.

Harsh for your food. Not you. Stop pretending (unless that's the only thing keeping up your self esteem and keeping you from hating yourself)

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#623 - 2017-04-03 06:39:21 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Rubbish.

Tank is largely useless. Tank doubles align time meaning twice as much damage taken. Inertial stabs half it meaning its better to fit stabs. Its better to warp out faster with less tank.


I have a jump freighter here with over a million EHP omni tank. By all means keep on saying that tank is useless.
Quote:

Tags are used prolifically by gankers.


The fact that most are forever -10 says that statement is a lie.
Quote:

You could build a battleship and get back more than build cost with plat insurance but it definitely did not cover plat insurance as well. It also didn't cover the costs of 8 large guns. Please post proof I'm sure there is lots of evidence for such an obvious isk faucet.


The very fact that CCP had to alter the insurance to wipe this out is enough evidence. Also the fact the CCP nerfed ganking so that they could no longer get insurance too.
Quote:

Your last paragraph is pure science fiction :)

Edit:

Freighters released with Exodus in 2005.

There was a small period of time in 2009 where you could make a small profit from producing your own battleships and self destructing them. Some producers did it on a grand scale self destructing battleships they built. It could not be done by none producers and only thousands of battleships would make it worthwhile. They were not fitted.


From CCP referring to the issue
Quote:
The last QEN contained a graph show-
ing the number of ships that were self-destructed, which spiked in exactly this period. This period
is a time when the market price of certain ships fell below the net insurance payout for losing those
ships, making it profitable to insure them and self-destruct them.


[/quote]

You literally posted a quote that backs me up. For someone that always claims to be a 2003 player you seem to have zero knowledge of what happened back then.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#624 - 2017-04-03 06:47:59 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Rubbish.

Tank is largely useless. Tank doubles align time meaning twice as much damage taken. Inertial stabs half it meaning its better to fit stabs. Its better to warp out faster with less tank.


I have a jump freighter here with over a million EHP omni tank. By all means keep on saying that tank is useless.
Quote:

Tags are used prolifically by gankers.


The fact that most are forever -10 says that statement is a lie.
Quote:

You could build a battleship and get back more than build cost with plat insurance but it definitely did not cover plat insurance as well. It also didn't cover the costs of 8 large guns. Please post proof I'm sure there is lots of evidence for such an obvious isk faucet.


The very fact that CCP had to alter the insurance to wipe this out is enough evidence. Also the fact the CCP nerfed ganking so that they could no longer get insurance too.
Quote:

Your last paragraph is pure science fiction :)

Edit:

Freighters released with Exodus in 2005.

There was a small period of time in 2009 where you could make a small profit from producing your own battleships and self destructing them. Some producers did it on a grand scale self destructing battleships they built. It could not be done by none producers and only thousands of battleships would make it worthwhile. They were not fitted.


From CCP referring to the issue
Quote:
The last QEN contained a graph show-
ing the number of ships that were self-destructed, which spiked in exactly this period. This period
is a time when the market price of certain ships fell below the net insurance payout for losing those
ships, making it profitable to insure them and self-destruct them.




You literally posted a quote that backs me up. For someone that always claims to be a 2003 player you seem to have zero knowledge of what happened back then. [/quote]
I posted a quote which makes you look like a cherry picker. For a 6 month period in 2009 you could make a small profit if you took the time to purchase haul mins then manufacture battleships and self destruct them as a result of a miscalculation / bug which was fixed. It had nothing to do with suicide ganking since fitting the ship out would result in a loss. 1 six month period out of 12 years of freighters in high. Not relevant at all to this discussion.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#625 - 2017-04-03 06:51:19 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
I posted a quote which makes you look like a cherry picker.
I don't know about being a cherry picker, but he must be in physical therapy from dragging the goal posts around so much.

Mr Epeen Cool
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#626 - 2017-04-03 06:54:37 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
I posted a quote which makes you look like a cherry picker.
I don't know about being a cherry picker, but he must be in physical therapy from dragging the goal posts around so much.

Mr Epeen Cool


That made me chuckle a lot because it is so true. Shocked

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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#627 - 2017-04-03 07:18:32 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
It wasn't a bug and it went on for several years. Back then the insurance rate was fixed so movements in the mineral market were not taken into account. At that time in EVE there was a huge supply spike in minerals hitting the market which pushed manufacturing prices down. This meant ship prices became incredibly cheap and coupled with massive over supply it resulted in ships being sold for below cost.

I have dug up the numbers so for example

A geddon would sell between 40 and 45 mil. Build cost was 39 mil and you could pick one up for 38 mil in areas.
Cost to insure was 19.975 million.
Payout was 65.250 million.
Plus you had salvage profits to add in towards the end.

So you stood to make a healthy profit on the bare hull.

Cost of the guns and damage mods was also much lower than today so worst case you would wind up effectively losing a few mil per gank. So nowhere near the cost of bombers or tornados that get used today.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#628 - 2017-04-03 07:19:42 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
I posted a quote which makes you look like a cherry picker.
I don't know about being a cherry picker, but he must be in physical therapy from dragging the goal posts around so much.

Mr Epeen Cool


I simply respond. The goalpost moving is entirely done by the people I am responding to.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#629 - 2017-04-03 07:34:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
baltec1 wrote:
It wasn't a bug and it went on for several years. Back then the insurance rate was fixed so movements in the mineral market were not taken into account. At that time in EVE there was a huge supply spike in minerals hitting the market which pushed manufacturing prices down. This meant ship prices became incredibly cheap and coupled with massive over supply it resulted in ships being sold for below cost.

I have dug up the numbers so for example

A geddon would sell between 40 and 45 mil. Build cost was 39 mil and you could pick one up for 38 mil in areas.
Cost to insure was 19.975 million.
Payout was 65.250 million.
Plus you had salvage profits to add in towards the end.

So you stood to make a healthy profit on the bare hull.

Cost of the guns and damage mods was also much lower than today so worst case you would wind up effectively losing a few mil per gank. So nowhere near the cost of bombers or tornados that get used today.

It was for a 6 month period in 2009. Look up the report that quote is from. Clearly states 6 months Nov 2009 June 2010.. Your figures are incorrect as well.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#630 - 2017-04-03 07:46:21 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
It wasn't a bug and it went on for several years. Back then the insurance rate was fixed so movements in the mineral market were not taken into account. At that time in EVE there was a huge supply spike in minerals hitting the market which pushed manufacturing prices down. This meant ship prices became incredibly cheap and coupled with massive over supply it resulted in ships being sold for below cost.

I have dug up the numbers so for example

A geddon would sell between 40 and 45 mil. Build cost was 39 mil and you could pick one up for 38 mil in areas.
Cost to insure was 19.975 million.
Payout was 65.250 million.
Plus you had salvage profits to add in towards the end.

So you stood to make a healthy profit on the bare hull.

Cost of the guns and damage mods was also much lower than today so worst case you would wind up effectively losing a few mil per gank. So nowhere near the cost of bombers or tornados that get used today.

It was for a 6 month period in 2009. Look up the report that quote is from. Clearly states 6 months Nov 2009 June 2010.. Your figures are incorrect as well.


It had been going on since at least 2006.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#631 - 2017-04-03 07:57:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
baltec1 wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
It wasn't a bug and it went on for several years. Back then the insurance rate was fixed so movements in the mineral market were not taken into account. At that time in EVE there was a huge supply spike in minerals hitting the market which pushed manufacturing prices down. This meant ship prices became incredibly cheap and coupled with massive over supply it resulted in ships being sold for below cost.

I have dug up the numbers so for example

A geddon would sell between 40 and 45 mil. Build cost was 39 mil and you could pick one up for 38 mil in areas.
Cost to insure was 19.975 million.
Payout was 65.250 million.
Plus you had salvage profits to add in towards the end.

So you stood to make a healthy profit on the bare hull.

Cost of the guns and damage mods was also much lower than today so worst case you would wind up effectively losing a few mil per gank. So nowhere near the cost of bombers or tornados that get used today.

It was for a 6 month period in 2009. Look up the report that quote is from. Clearly states 6 months Nov 2009 June 2010.. Your figures are incorrect as well.


It had been going on since at least 2006.

No. It only dipped to a net profit (a small one for 6 months) starting in 2009 -2010. When freighters were released in 2005 it was 70% of ship build cost.

From 2005 - no link put in EvE Search itll come right up, I'm on phone
Quote:
Insurance is actually an isk SINK, because if you subtract it from ship cost, you get about 70% with the highest possible one.


That's when they were introduced and what they were balanced around.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#632 - 2017-04-03 08:07:08 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Infinity Ziona wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
It wasn't a bug and it went on for several years. Back then the insurance rate was fixed so movements in the mineral market were not taken into account. At that time in EVE there was a huge supply spike in minerals hitting the market which pushed manufacturing prices down. This meant ship prices became incredibly cheap and coupled with massive over supply it resulted in ships being sold for below cost.

I have dug up the numbers so for example

A geddon would sell between 40 and 45 mil. Build cost was 39 mil and you could pick one up for 38 mil in areas.
Cost to insure was 19.975 million.
Payout was 65.250 million.
Plus you had salvage profits to add in towards the end.

So you stood to make a healthy profit on the bare hull.

Cost of the guns and damage mods was also much lower than today so worst case you would wind up effectively losing a few mil per gank. So nowhere near the cost of bombers or tornados that get used today.

It was for a 6 month period in 2009. Look up the report that quote is from. Clearly states 6 months Nov 2009 June 2010.. Your figures are incorrect as well.


It had been going on since at least 2006.

No. It only dipped to a net profit (a small one for 6 months) starting in 2009 -2010. When freighters were released in 2005 it was 70% of ship build cost.

From 2005 - no link put in EvE Search itll come right up, I'm on phone
Quote:
Insurance is actually an isk SINK, because if you subtract it from ship cost, you get about 70% with the highest possible one.


That's when they were introduced and what they were balanced around.


In 2007 it was common to strip a thorax and insurance fraud it then buy a new one and insure again because you made a profit on the hull.

In 2006 you could make more money self destructing incursus (40 - 50k profit per unit) than running level 1 mission.

Ah found a thread from 2004. 1-4 mil profit from self destructing scorpions.

So it existed since at least 2004.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#633 - 2017-04-03 08:26:53 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


In 2007 it was common to strip a thorax and insurance fraud it then buy a new one and insure again because you made a profit on the hull.

In 2006 you could make more money self destructing incursus (40 - 50k profit per unit) than running level 1 mission.

That's nice but not relevant. I don't think CCP had a crystal ball to balance freighters against incursus in 2007. In 2005 when freighters were released, and prior to that when the devs were balancing them that was not the case. Clearly you've made my point though, mudflation and other changes have caused the cost of ganking freighters to become so cheap its negligible. From requiring 30 battleships, fittings and 30% loss after insurance to 12 SB costing practically nothing in comparison. When you factor in the ease of generating isk these days its even cheaper.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#634 - 2017-04-03 08:30:20 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


In 2007 it was common to strip a thorax and insurance fraud it then buy a new one and insure again because you made a profit on the hull.

In 2006 you could make more money self destructing incursus (40 - 50k profit per unit) than running level 1 mission.

That's nice but not relevant. I don't think CCP had a crystal ball to balance freighters against incursus in 2007. In 2005 when freighters were released, and prior to that when the devs were balancing them that was not the case. Clearly you've made my point though, mudflation and other changes have caused the cost of ganking freighters to become so cheap its negligible. From requiring 30 battleships, fittings and 30% loss after insurance to 12 SB costing practically nothing in comparison. When you factor in the ease of generating isk these days its even cheaper.


When you repeat things after been shown to be wrong you become a liar.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#635 - 2017-04-03 08:45:53 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


In 2007 it was common to strip a thorax and insurance fraud it then buy a new one and insure again because you made a profit on the hull.

In 2006 you could make more money self destructing incursus (40 - 50k profit per unit) than running level 1 mission.

That's nice but not relevant. I don't think CCP had a crystal ball to balance freighters against incursus in 2007. In 2005 when freighters were released, and prior to that when the devs were balancing them that was not the case. Clearly you've made my point though, mudflation and other changes have caused the cost of ganking freighters to become so cheap its negligible. From requiring 30 battleships, fittings and 30% loss after insurance to 12 SB costing practically nothing in comparison. When you factor in the ease of generating isk these days its even cheaper.


When you repeat things after been shown to be wrong you become a liar.

Indeed you do :)

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#636 - 2017-04-03 08:53:10 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


In 2007 it was common to strip a thorax and insurance fraud it then buy a new one and insure again because you made a profit on the hull.

In 2006 you could make more money self destructing incursus (40 - 50k profit per unit) than running level 1 mission.

That's nice but not relevant. I don't think CCP had a crystal ball to balance freighters against incursus in 2007. In 2005 when freighters were released, and prior to that when the devs were balancing them that was not the case. Clearly you've made my point though, mudflation and other changes have caused the cost of ganking freighters to become so cheap its negligible. From requiring 30 battleships, fittings and 30% loss after insurance to 12 SB costing practically nothing in comparison. When you factor in the ease of generating isk these days its even cheaper.


When you repeat things after been shown to be wrong you become a liar.

Indeed you do :)


I'm the only one posting numbers and looking for evidence to back up arguments.

You just said insurance fraud lasted six months till 2010. I have found threads with people talking about it and saying what they were getting dating from 2004 till 2010.

After telling you this you then repeated what you said before. Aka you are now telling a complete lie.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#637 - 2017-04-03 08:58:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Tags are used prolifically by gankers.


You keep asserting this but the gankers themselves keep telling you they don't. And one only need spend five minutes floating around their hotspots and see them all in system with -10 waiting for their next target. Gankers don't bother with tags because why bother? They're just going straight back to -10 the day after anyway. If you have some evidence of any gankers that do use tags, please provide it. Until that happens, the proof you are wrong is all over high sec. Just look for the -10s in local.

Baltec is right. You cling to your assertions like a creationist even when they are easily demonstrated to be false, this one especially. It's just not true that gankers use tags, especially not 'prolifically'. It is true that you are a prolific liar, as you consistently demonstrate.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Mr Mieyli
Doomheim
#638 - 2017-04-03 09:11:31 UTC
The lazy thinking typical of the symbol minded.

Sure not all gankers use tags, as a lot of them are perma -10, as they should be. Eve is about trade offs isn't it? Consequences? What consequences are there for ganking when it's either done on an alt, or tags are used to reverse the effects.

There is no such thing as a ganker, or a carebear, those are labels, labels that let you tell yourself you know how everything works. There are only people, and people react to their experiences. Does highsec in eve provide a good experience currently, if everyone with a brain knows to get the hell out? Imagine trying to learn to ride a bicycle, only to be chased down and beat up by a biker gang, this is eve currently.

This post brought to you by CCP's alpha forum alt initiative. Playing the eve forums has never come cheaper.
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#639 - 2017-04-03 09:20:35 UTC
This thread should be locked. It derailed a long time ago and has turned into a Forum Flame War.

Neither side is going to back down or stop posting for fear of looking like they lost the debate. ISD seriously needs to wake up and start doing the job they volunteered to do..


DMC

'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
Mr Mieyli
Doomheim
#640 - 2017-04-03 09:31:33 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
This thread should be locked. It derailed a long time ago and has turned into a Forum Flame War.

Neither side is going to back down or stop posting for fear of looking like they lost the debate. ISD seriously needs to wake up and start doing the job they volunteered to do..


DMC


Correct, neither side is looking for agreeable facts between the two viewpoints but is instead trying to pick flaws with minor details.


Politics man; this is why I play a game set in space... I should make my own game, with blackjack, and hookers. In fact, forget the game.

This post brought to you by CCP's alpha forum alt initiative. Playing the eve forums has never come cheaper.