I have a better one, set training queue for 6-9 month’s pay the subscription log out and just troll the forum. Worth every penny.
1 Like
And yet…
You keep coming back to complain about something you don’t play.
Kindly quit wasting all the cool alt names. 
–Perplexed Gadget
3 Likes
Got a ton of em.
There are a lot of assumptions in this post. You are assuming that vets are farming noobs for no other reason than to get kills. And you are assuming that these vets are good at pvp.
I can tell you now that as a vet with 10+ years, I am not godly, unkillable, or any of those things. My killboard proves that point. I am not mega rich, or living in nullsec, although I have lived in null for a while.
There are those that hunt and kill noobs, there are those that hunt and kill EVERYBODY… and there are those that do not hunt or kill anyone.
Yes there are some that are worth trillions of isk, but that is life. It isnt because they have been around for ever. Some got that way through skill, others through luck, and others through real life money dumping it into the game to sell PLEX.
Most of the “issues” you list are more like excuses, not really issues. To me it goes back to the old saying… HTFU.
2 Likes
I apologize. I did NOT mean to derail a serious … well … a civil discussion about the problem of Bumping.
But, like I said before.
IF these so-called “Simple Steps” were intended by the developers AND these “simple steps” are not being followed or even considered by players THEN competent developers would tweak, buff, nerf, patch until the intended gameplay was brought about.
The fact that CCP does NOT behave like competent developers is an indication that a) Its far too complex a problem for them. b) Just like everything else in the game they NEVER INTENDED these mechanics and therefore can’t tweak them because they have no overall design or guiding development philosophy!
The one and only solution to the problems in EVE Online (ie. Bumping) is to Throw EVE Online in the trash and start over again. from scratch!
This is a load of rubbish. Freighters can be ganked on the gate under gate guns very easily. There is no bumping necessary at all. The absolutely only reason why gankers bump is because their alts need time to log in and travel. That’s the only reason.
That is a load of rubbish, too. You need around 9-12 characters to destroy a cargo expanded freighter if you take bombers, 6-8 if you take Taloses.
(the extreme example. It involved bumping, but evidenced by the lack of pods on the mail (except for the suicide tackle) even these 6 Taloses were enough to kill a freighter.
You apparently even only need around 10-13 chars in Taloses to kill a tanked freighter.
And CODE brings even way too many characters when the freighter is anti-tank fitted, as evidenced here
This is a load of rubbish. Educate yourself before you type something for Steve’s sake. 
2 Likes
Wrong on all points. Try again.
Then maybe you should tank your ship. Maybe not take on so much risk.
Tell me what game that is? Because I am willing to say there is not ONE game out there where the community agrees the devs know what they are doing.
3 Likes
Yes they can be. Of course. However doing so requires more gank ships,because the sentry guns engage immediately.
So bumping out of sentry gun range reduces the number of catalysts required by a couple.
So before you talk a load of ■■■■■■■■, get a clue.
Yes, the gank ship used changes the number of characters needed, and it’s easy to pull out individual situations that differ from the norm.
However, her are some recent stats:
Average of 27 ships in the gank fleet (range of 12-39), and if the gank fleet is catalysts, the size of the fleet needed, to overcome the huge tank Freighters can achieve, is large.
Best thing is tank a freighter, use a webbing alt and don’t overload the cargo with value.
Nothing rubbish about it.
1 Like
first, I used the word “Competent” and did NOT mean to imply that there was a game with 100% player satisfaction!
second, when I say “Competent developers would tweak, nerf, buff, patch until the desired gameplay was brought about” I am, in fact, referring to a very specific game company that does exactly that!
third, there are 2 game companies which take this approach to their games, their games are very successful and while I would NEVER say that I was satisfied with what they do, they are ‘competent’ at what they do.
CCP does NOT “tweak, nerf, buff, patch” until they achieve their desired effect, because CCP isn’t aiming at anything, they have no overall design goals, and no overall design philosophy. If there’s no “balacned, competitive PvP” in their game, they don’t care. If there’s no PVE worth a damn in their game, they don’t care! Because they have NO GOALS, as far as the gameplay is concerned, whatsoever!
Their one and only goal is MONEY. And they can call the result of all their slipshod programming “Emergent Gameplay” and make tons of cash.
Why are you so butthurt if you don’t play and in fact play other games?
Why don’t you go shiptoast on their forums. You won’t be missed.
2 Likes
No, it does not. Sentries have no impact at all on catas or bombers.
~~
And you fell victim to distorted data. CODE and CFC bring too many people almost all the time to destroy a freighter. You do not need 30 Catalysts to destroy a Charon, but CODE brings them anyway. The average numbers are distorted to support arguments like yours.
~~
Not the ship types do not change the number of necessary pilots.
Another example where CODE brought a lot more people than necessary.
1 Like
The data is just the data. CODE. don’t gank in large fleets just to support me in the forum. You’re an idiot for making such a claim.
Haha, what?
Do the basic math. You’ll see the difference in the number of ships required.
That Charon, like other killmails you posted isn’t tanked. It’s expanded, lowering its tank. Don’t be that guy. It’s not hard to see that isn’t an example of the level of tank achievable.
1 Like
No. The data needs to be interpreted correctly. And you do a poor job at doing so, in particular as all my above examples and almost all the kills in the last 3 days demonstrate.
Check the kills. They speak a different language.
1 Like
If you are talking about Miniluv, they have a very high target cargo value, IIRC about 6 billion ISK. Also, Miniluv is a Goon SIG so people sign up, log in and gank. There is no limit of fleet size that I’ve heard of. And with 6 billion in cargo value (or more) that is about 100 million/pilot. Not sure how much Miniluv takes to run their operations, but even taking 50% leaves a nice bit of ISK…and I believe Miniluv hands out the gank ships or they are heavily discounted.
You are confusing what the word “necessary” means. To kill a freighter it might be necessary to bring 15, but bringing 20 or 30 often occurs because people like the activity, the loot, the interaction with others, etc.
1 Like
All of which are expanded/nano’d and not even what I’m talking about in terms of tank achievable.
However, one offs mean very little. They aren’t necessarily representative of anything but themselves and/or best case for the gankers.
Do t be best case for the gankers. Pilots who are deserve what they get.
Exactly, this is the thing. And I am not saying they should not participate. All I am saying is that massive numbers are not necessary to gank and bumping is not necessary to achieve ganks, which other people dispute on basis of massive numbers of pilots on kills.
I linked a tanked freighter as well, which also had the same number of chars on it as an untanked freighter.
1 Like
No you didn’t. That’s just a full of ■■■■ statement:
Obelisk: 3 x cargo expanders
Providence: 3 x cargo expanders
Charon: 1 x intertial stabiliser
Charon: 2 x inertial stabiliser, 1 x nanofiber
Charon: 3 x cargo expanders
Bowhead: 2 x cargo expanders, 1 x inertial stabiliser
Every kill you linked is anti-tanked. The Charon with the 1 interial stabilier, also has 2 x bulkheads, but it still isn’t tanked.
Intertial stabilisers reduce structural HP.
1 Like
Not, they do not. They give more sig radius. You mistake them with Nanofiber Internal Structures. And here I agree: Someone who fits Nanofiber Internal Structures to their freighter really deserves to die. This kind of daftness is really horrible.
WTH? If that is not tanked, what is? 
1 more Bulkhead would not have made a difference.
1 Like