This was a galactic waste of time and effort…
It is because you have not exactly been honest or decent towards me in my opinion, in fact you have been deeply nasty.
I would point out that a simple no does not suffice because the issue is too complex, there are dependencies. And if you ignore that then it is pretty worthless to demand a yes/no answer.
Decreased…
Again not an easy one, mainly because like many people I am not a fan of the CONCORD mechanic, but then again, when I work through the method to control hisec I am not sure of a better method that meets the KISS standard. I dislike certainty in a game, and the current system is too certain for both sides.
Not sure, I can’t give an answer because ugh…, I hate current this system even if I cannot for the life of me think of a better one. What I can say is if the Freighter could fit a spectrum lock breaker module, that would make using the cheaper Catalyst less problematical in terms of cost per gank add uncertainty and there would be no need to change CONCORD response times.
The CONCORD response time directly ties in with the maximum cargo being 1bn to be worth ganking in a freighter and I have always thought it was too low.
TLDR: Not sure, depends on other things, it is a blunt force way to do it, and too certain for both sides. Sorry can’t give you a yes/no on that one…
Good spot. I fixed it.
Head up my ass today
Don’t be harsh on yourself it can happen to anyone. 
1 Like
Why not just add an invulnerability module, like with rorquals?
Undocking from Jita could automatically activate the three hour invulnerability mode, plenty of time to autopilot across Highsec.
1 Like
Ok so where am I going with this?
Well so far of the recommendations in the original post we are essentially 2 for 2 in you not agreeing with them. But your response when they were posted was………
You must see how that can be taken as you supporting the recommendations the original poster made?
Then you complain when you get included in generalisations about players wanting to end ganking. Is it any wonder when you heap praise on posts making these suggestions?
I knew that this was what you were up to, you are just so damn obvious, it is nothing to do with wanting to end ganking that is your go to defence to keep advantages.
The answer I gave you is this:
So in fact the most important part was detailed first. In terms of the Catalyst being so damn good and cheap.
My main focus is to empower people to be able to go back after the gankers in a group which is why I posted as I did, and why your yes/non answers and what you just posted were just silly and dishonest.
Quoted because I want to keep this noted.
So let me ask you a yes/no question, did putting a time limit on bumping end ganking?
Not exactly sure why. I guess when you are so used to going back and editing your own posts you must just assume everyone else will as well.
Not sure what you expect I’d want to edit though.
It’s a pretty accurate summation of what happens on a regular basis. You jump in…… in full support of whatever anti-gank position is put forward and then when called in it wriggle and wriggle and slowly backtrack.
Just look at the effort you went to just to avoid having to say outright you didn’t agree with the recommendations I asked you about. Anyone with any familiarity with your posting history would know you didn’t agree with those positions. Yet you just couldn’t resist jumping in within minutes of the original poster putting this nonsense up declaring CCP must read and take note.
Edit. Since you are still messing with posts after I’m replying……….
No.
See. That’s how you answer
I think the general “problem” with ganking is, it is inherently unbalanced. The only way to balance it would be to remove it entirely.
What do I mean with unbalanced? Well, on the one hand you have gankers who know what they’re doing, box several/many accounts, fly specialized ganking fits and choose their targets wisely. On the other you have people who put in zero effort to be safe from gankers and basically made themselves a target with generally bad, low-tank fits. And even then some ganks fail for unforseeable reasons or because we decided to take a risky engagement.
I’ve already said it, you see ganking as easy because you don’t see us ignoring dozens of people because they are no good targets by being either unkillable or so cheap that it would literally not be worth our time and the opportunity cost. The best way to antigank is to tell people about ganking and how to protect themself.
It is inherently an unfair fight, because CONCORD demands us to be quick and efficient, and makes a lot of people non-valid targets. Those would be easily killable in lowsec/nullsec, but highsec makes it more difficult for the attackers. We need to be good and make sure our target is bad. Reducing our target pool or making it more expensive to kill targets does not balance ganks, it just hurts both gankers and miners, because the easier it is for miners to survive the more miners there are, driving down their profits.
4 Likes
I said the following:
There is nothing wrong with me saying that certain changes suggested I did not agree with, it is your need to paint it into a black and white yes/no answer.
And yet I was told in no uncertain terms and with the same nasty aggressiveness that I wanted to end ganking when I pushed for this. Sorry mate you just over play your hand all the time.
I actually like this post because there are truths in there that I agree with. After you have tried to rep yet another hauler with no tank you kinda go meh at the whole thing.
That is a sweeping assessment and it is wrong, I know you do target selection, seriously why do you make statements like that.
I operate on not being a suitable target.
I agree with telling people how to protect themselves.
That is because you are killing them in hisec and there are restrictions it is where the targets are so while one of your Catalyst could kill that Freighter on its own in nullsec and lowsec ignoring people coming to its aid, you have a police force in hisec that makes that impossible. But that is where the targets are, so that is the choice.
Anyway o7
That’s not what happened. One dude wrote an INN article about it, and there might have been a few more idiots saying that. But a cursory search across the forums and reddit shows that the overwhelming majority of gankers basically said that that they will deal.
I have no doubt that there were a few idiots/bad faith arguers, but they were definitely a tiny minority. Thus, it is disingenuous to say that “gankers were screaming about it ending ganking.” So, I guess the question is, are you misremembering things, or are intentionally arguing in bad faith yourself? Perhaps you want to paint us being alarmists in order to get people to dismiss our valid concerns.
Of course, there were a ton of posts supporting my assertion. But, I think I’ll just link this one. You might remember it. After all, you gave it a like.
Yes you did. So where in there did you say you didn’t agree with the recommendations.
What you have done is align your view of balance to the posters recommendations. The very fact you are now having to explain what you meant by quoting yourself is exactly the issue.
You are constantly vague. You indicate support for things not because you support them but because you perceive them to be “on your side”. Just look at the whole coaching the homophobe incident.
What’s your point. I don’t recall ever expressing an opinion on bumping. I don’t think I was even playing the game then. Being right about one thing doesn’t mean you are right about everything else.
I mean you are also on record as telling new things layers that gankers are “impossible” to avoid. Are they?
That was what I was accused of continuously on the forums when I talked about ending unlimited bumping and pointing out that it was a poor mechanic. Seriously to try to downplay that is quite frankly insulting.
You are so full of hate, and you say I am vague, yet that example with the Russian, you say I was coaching a homophobe, but isn’t that vague, because I told him not to use a homophobe insult and use something less nasty. But the vague way you said it here indicates that I was coaching him in how to be a more effective homophobe, you make me laugh…
That makes no sense whatsoever…
Man it’s right there. If I had the energy I’d go post the link. But ultimately it’s derailing. But ……
“Don’t say it like that. Say it like this”.
How is that not coaching someone?
Like I said. Your brain doesn’t engage. You just see someone you think is “on your side” and jump in to supporting without thinking.
1 Like
Go on and link it, people will see that I was not coaching him to be a more effective homophobe which you implied, but coached him to be a more effective poster on the Eve forums by using acceptable insults if he felt the need to do so.
Your dishonesty and vagueness is evident.
And I repeat:
Correct. It doesn’t. The dangers of phones correcting text.
I mean you are also on record as telling new players that gankers are “impossible” to avoid. Are they?
Can you be more specific on what was said because your word salad makes no sense. When I mean specific, it was likely that I was detailing certain circumstances and ship use, and as you are yes/no it is just what you see.
Give a single example of me being dishonest or vague.
Above, detailed.