GO USE A DICTIONARY.
2 Likes
Calm down ganker.
The problem isn’t that it isn’t “interesting”. The problem YOU have is that bumping is used to hold multiple possible targets and anti-ganking has troubles covering all of them.
So instead of coming up with a strategy you meta game for the removal of bumping which in your imagination would force the gankers to kill the freighter directly on the gate. Which would make anti-gankings job a lot easier as they could just sit around the gate, possibly in jump range to easily bug out if targeted by the gankers.
This has nothing to do with “making it interesting” it’s a simple request to shift the mechanics in your favor.
Let’s for a moment forget how pathetic that is and think about the actual consequences of this change.
It should be pretty clear that people will not gank freighters on top of the gate if there is a good chance that anti-ganking can interfere. Ganking is always an investment as you lose your ships and if the probability to fail and/or the risk of losing too much money to interference becomes too high one of two things will happen:
- It will simply stop because it is no longer sustainable
- It will shift to a completely different format where ag is once again challenged to interfere.
If 2 happens, that’s then the point where you go back to the forums to cry for more changes.
But that is actually not the main issue here, it just demonstrates that ag is destined to fail day and night forever and there is no future where they are in a position to successfully stop ganks ever. If you don’t get that you probably don’t understand a thing about this game.
The issue I have with you is that you try to cover your pathetic cries for changes in your favor as if you are just out to make “the game more interesting”. You are not. You are lying. What you actually hope for is that 1 happens and ganking stops because you think it is wrong. There is a reason you align with anti-ganking and for you it was never about fun or overcoming a challenge, it was always about stopping the criminals. Stop pretending this is about “making it interesting”. You are typical white knight who is just too cowardly to admit it.
3 Likes
THIS.
THIS ALL DAY.
3 Likes
That is one of the problems in that it gives too much control to the gankers, I feel that the combat between AG and gankers would be better without this massive advantage.
No it does not make it easier. You need to think it through a bit more. What would definitely happen is more cat and mouse type fleet play.
It is to make it more interesting and to remove a massive advantage that bumping gives gankers. I don’t know why you are making a big deal about it as I have always stated that it gives gankers too great a strategic advantage and have been upfront about that.
It is not pathetic, it is one of the reasons for the change I have suggested.
You mean the multi-boxing types, or would we see more meaningful fun play between active groups working together?
Nope as people will start moving bigger loads and thus if you manage to loot them you gain a lot of ISK.
AG will have to up their game a lot, that is for certain.
You should also note that I would suggest a reduction in freighter EHP to help things along.
You say cry, but for me balance is an active thing, doctrines change in games, but also balance changes in terms of activity. If this scares you then I have to feel a bit sad about your attitude on this game, adapt or die.
AG currently fails more often than not for a number of reasons, the first is the huge advantage given by bumping, the second is that in the main most AG are playing at it with low skilled characters as most do not use their indy mains, the older more skilled players see the disadvantages that AG has and think no way. And of course there is no ISK in it and of course security status hits and killrights have a very negative affect on their activity.
The issue with players like you is that you project your bullshite of 100% safety on players like me that are most definitely not a carebear and do not want 100% safety, this means that most of the time all you can resort to is stupid personal attacks and deflecting on the issues at hand.
I believe that this will actually make things better and more interesting for both sides. To tell me that me that I want ganking to stop is why your side is so dishonest and you cannot ever get beyond your intense rhetoric and hate towards people you define as carebears.
I have detailed patiently what I think and why, you are too dishonest to get it, but thanks for the opportunity to at least ram these points down your throat.
Your post is basically you want 100% safety you dishonest carebear white knight, pathetic…
To ask me to adapt to a change in your favor you are proposing because you and the rest of ag fail to adapt to the current situation how it is implemented in the game is a bit rich.
I don’t have anything else to say to you. You sound like a broken record. Your story of “making it more interesting” is not believable and a pretty pathetic lie. Bye.
2 Likes
You just want to keep your massive advantage, which I can’t blame you for on one hand, but you are incredibly short sighted, just like the people I met in the war dec discord who when I suggested the war HQ said but that means I would have consequences from nullsec alliances. And I said Eve is supposed to be a game of consequences, why should hisec war deckers be immune to it. They war dec the wrong people with the right attitude and boom.
My idea was to allow 5 war decs without a HQ because I wanted to maintain and develop small war deckers and break blanket war deckers which I saw as bad for the game.
I expected the bigger war deckers to unite, but I also expect them to break up in the future, but the 5 war decs without a HQ was designed to strip out some of the war deckers from the big groups to push it along, so PIRAT might be successful in holding up as super PIRAT as TIS called them because it would possibly still enable them to keep war decking some of the bigger alliances. This will be interesting…
The hub and pipe campers are not happy with the coming war dec changes, just like you being fat lazy and complacent with bumping, people like you are what is making this game Farmville.
Faylee Faye understood what I was getting at and he is looking forward to what is happening, he finds it more interesting.
You do not have anything to say on this, because you have no idea at all, I have given you above an example of what I did in terms of war decs and the input that I put up there. I have no idea if they listened to me or not but I certainly had the attention of Brisc at times.
So when I say interesting I can already tell you that changes that I pushed for on war decs are happening and will be interesting and fun, so suck on that.
No, he doesn’t.
1 Like
And you let your hatred get in the way of common sense, due to your personal failings and a propensity to go immediately into insult mode, your opinion on anything is irrelevant.
Calm down miner.
1 Like
Wait, I thought I was just a whiny ganker that didn’t want any challenges in life… but you are saying that Dracvlad is actually a whiny miner, and he’s the one who doesn’t want any challenge? Oh man, he had us all fooled.
2 Likes
We already have that. See, gankers are the cats. Miners are the mice. Now, if the fat mouse is stupid enough to come out of the hole, when 30 cats are sitting right there on the other side… that doesn’t mean we need to change the game mechanics in favor of the mouse, it simply means that stupid mice are going to die.
2 Likes
In this simple sentence you perfectly demonstrate your flawed reasoning. I’m not a freighter ganker and I absolutely don’t care about that business. What I have a problem with is people like you who instead of using the tools provided by the sandbox to achieve a self set goal instead go on the forums to demand changes that favor them.
It also shows that you don’t understand how those kind of emergent professions like freighter ganking work in the first place. I’m pretty sure IF bumping was nerfed then freighter ganking will manifest in another form. But the gankers will ALWAYS have a massive advantage because THEY CHOSE THE TIME AND POINT OF THE ENGAGEMENT and that will never change. If you think you can change that by disrupting the currently used mechanics you are simply wrong.
Let me explain why that is:
If you change those mechanics the whole thing changes and it is almost unpredictable what happens. It may even be interesting yes, but people who think they can predict the outcome are fools, they don’t understand a thing about the sandbox.
There is only one thing that will NEVER change about ganking and wardecs or for that matter most forms of non-consensual PvP in EVE: The attacker will ALWAYS have a massive advantage
It is IMPOSSIBLE to change that as the very “professions” emerge in the niches where such advantages can be generated. If those niches change so will the “profession”. If you remove potential for such niches to exist you remove the very essence that creates content. Either such niches exist and therefor the “professions” emerge or they will simply vanish and THEN you will have a perfect EVE farmvile with nothing ever happening anymore.
This all is exactly WHY I’m so vehemently against this changes. It makes EVE boring, it removes opportunities for content out of shortsightedness and false assumptions about the nature of the sandbox.
The changes they are doing to wardecs have absolutely nothing to do with the things you suggested, but like you they think they can influence the meta with simple tweaks and it will change in a desired way. Again, that is not how things work.
What CCP did with wardecs is the most lazy approach ever to attempt (your version was actually far more advanced even though I still disagree with it having the effect you think) to fix a problem they where not even able to correctly identify. They set out to “make wars more interesting”… seriously, always the same tune, but what actually happens is that the whole business gets completely reformatted, the big guys now cluster even more together and for casual players the feature is now completely crippled and mostly inaccessible. Was that the goal? If so how is this in any way more interesting?! It’s now worse than before in my opinion! But this is what happens if game design is reduced to simple cutting out stuff.
It is probably a bit early to judge, but in my opinion those changes made wardecs worse in almost every possible way. It added nothing new or interesting only restrictions. There would have been a huge opportunity to actually design some game mechanics that maybe give all parties in a war tools to better deal with the situation and then MAYBE something interesting would have happened. But I get the impression that CCP is now done. They didn’t like to bother with those wardec stuff anyway because it is not relevant for the glorious nullsec “endgame” and now they “fixed” it for the next 6 years.
There is nothing wrong in essence with changing game mechanics to shake up the meta, but simply cutting out pieces will not make anything more interesting it will remove opportunity for interesting things to happen.
4 Likes
Gankers don’t have an inherent advantage over freighters. The freighter pilot can haul his cargo anytime he wants. He can dock up and continue the trip later. He can take a longer route. He can break it down into small packages and ship it in faster ships. He can select a new destination altogether. He can fleet up with elite antigankers.
Gankers have to wait for the freighter pilot to get lazy. It is only when the solitary AFK miner sleepily wanders into Uedama, without even bothering to check intel, that gankers start to gain an advantage.
2 Likes
I am talking about freighter bumping. deflection 101 again.
It was pretty evident that you did not have a clue about the balance on this play at all, so why post?
And here is the answer:
You have a feeling and are all emo about it.
A person who has no idea telling someone who has in the past engaged against it and studied exactly what was going on, yes right.
Yeah I laid it out above in terms of how Australian Excellence blew up JF’s, do you read and comprend or are you just so keen to lauch into another round of you are a white knight?
Actually that will not be so easy, because they still have to catch it and stop it with a suicide point and they will have an AG fleet chasing them around.
I have already indicated that it will work as I said by using the example of JF kills.
There is already precedent or examples of how it would develop, people adjust a winning formula, the only things that will change is having to keep Fac police off their backs with tags and of course the play around AG setting up on the key routes and following the ganker fleet around. You are the fool for not understanding that when things change there are often clues on how it changes, for example I knew the mercs would all band together, it was a logical step.
So there is no issue then. You seem a bit emotional to miss that obvious fact.
What will happen is that people will load them whales up again until a group of people say, we should get some of that. That is how a sandbox works.
Nope, it is because change scares you and you can’t face up to the fact that a more balanced play is more interesting to all sides.
You know so little about that obviously.
I never said that their objective was to make wars more interesting, I just said that certain people saw that the changes could make wars more interesting, there is a difference and again shows you inability to read and understand.
CCP’s objective was to stop wars from driving away players, and they had to do it in their view. My point of view was that the blanket non-targeted wars was a major turn off and that was what had to change which is why I wanted five wars without a war HQ.
What, as a casual player I am not affected by war decs at all, I don’t have a structure, so now they can’t do anything to me and the indy I can do is easy enough in NPC structures. For the casual hisec players it is great, however for more intense structure based indy type players in hisec their game play is crippled and inaccessible and that is now playing out, but so what.
Over time people will have to gang together to have indy, but there is a simple issue in terms of hisec structures, their benefit is too low and their defences are too feeble.
It is not as simple as “design some game mechanics” That is your answer to all and you don’t even think through how the players developed in all of that, my point of view is that the war dec system turned into a disaster because of both sets of players and how they acted. The war dec system as a mechanic was actually quite good. This is why you have no idea.
I had my eye on keeping the small focussed war deckers and I do not think that they should have to have a war HQ because in all my deliberations I realised that it was the blanket war decs that were the main issue, hence my suggestion of 5 war decs without a HQ. I will continue to push that at CCP any which way I can.
Bumping to me makes it less interesting and too certain, it is a mechanic that enables stale Farmville spreadsheet type play for a single multi-boxer. It needs to go so more interesting team based play can develop around freighter ganking and that is my point of view.
It would seem, the Freighter-Club are spreading the word across forums. They WANT their agendas to be prioritized over any other type of game play. If you’re a griefer, then automatically, your point of views are to be disdained.
From the Player Features & Ideas, their thread 'Permabumping fix’ apparently are pushing the agendas of needing a new ‘module’ to fix their issue. But when counter proposals are suggested, as you would have guessed, they still WANT MORE. Interested parties, do read (post 80) the counter proposal to their module, based on the OP, and give your reviews.
Cough cough…, griefer. People who gank are not automatically griefers, what are you thinking?
Obviously here, in the context of this thread, @Dracvlad who are the griefers, in your opinion?
You appeared to use the word griefer to appeal to people here who are gankers or ganker aligned, so you should define what you mean by your appeal to griefers.
I think you did not understand a single sentence I wrote. But what did I expect… What a waste oft time…
3 Likes