Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [30] 40 50 60 .. 69 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13862
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 11:19:09 -
[871] - Quote
Nya Kittenheart wrote:baltec1 wrote:Nya Kittenheart wrote:Quote:In what world do you live in? You are literally arguing that making two trips is more travel time than six or seven. Another nice tentative to troll and to make the thread derail ....6 trips are indeed faster at 5 au/s or more than 2 trip at 1.37s do the math i'm pretty sure such a veteran as yourself as heard about warpspeed change and their effect on accelerations .... Assuming you are moving 30 jumps to a new spot then we get the sum of 90 jumps for the bowhead fleet vs 390 for manually piloting all the ships. Yes, the bowhead fleet is faster even without using any warp speed tools. On top of the faster speed of the operation you also have the fact that the bowhead fleet is effectivly unkillable thanks to having 200k more ehp than the battleships they carry and if you have a full incursion group moving you will have at least 10 logi in support. Assuming someone would add to the lose of a bow head the cost of full highgrade ascendancy clone the best warspeed reachable is to 2.2 au/s consult this chart for such numbers warspeed chartits simply much faster to move ships by ships and burn back in extremely fast shuttle ... than to do your endless 90 jumps.
Im the last person you should be trying to lecture on the use of warp speed tools. 390 jumps vs 90. Even at base warp speed the bowheads will be faster and in a convoy they sport a defence that cannot be broken by gankers.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Ben Ishikela
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 11:20:20 -
[872] - Quote
Is it only me, seeing that there is some kind of problem to force projection here? Maybe there is not, but let me show you what i mean. There might be the possiblility to: 1. package the carrier. 2. put into bowhead. 3. get to station/pos near the engagement via titan-brigde/jump-bridge 3.1. perform multiple jumps without getting much jump-fatigue (90% redux) 4. assemble the carrier and fit it. 5. undock and jump to engagement.
Possible Solutions (not all of them at once ofc) - remove redux to jump-fatigue on the bowhead. - add a assemble-time that is connected to jump-fatigue - let the bowhead have 3 or more SMAs of size 500.000m3 so a carrier cant fit in it, but multiple BS can. (it seems, that it was intended to carry carriers (bc 1.3mil m3)..... but idk) - add 24h (or less) of cooldown to capitals that prohibits its jumpdrive after it has been assembled. (has to be ship-related. not pilot-related). [maybe add a skill "capital assembly"(needs 'advanced industry' 5), that reduces that cooldown by N hours]
i like that ship.
+1 for "Englert-Sail" (opposite of Higgs-Anchor) [reduction of mass, bad agility, some speed, ....... => very bad align-time + bowhead is jumpable into more wormholes] (...that wormhole part might be very interesting in combination with "thera" and supplying ships to its market.)
Schrodinger's Hot Dropper
Ice for Wormholes
|
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy Caldari State
78
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 11:21:52 -
[873] - Quote
Ben Ishikela wrote:Is it only me, seeing that there is some kind of problem to force projection here? Maybe there is not, but let me show you what i mean. There might be the possiblility to: 1. package the carrier. 2. put into bowhead. 3. get to station/pos near the engagement via titan-brigde/jump-bridge 3.1. perform multiple jumps without getting much jump-fatigue (90% redux) 4. assemble the carrier and fit it. 5. undock and jump to engagement. Possible Solutions (not all of them at once ofc) - remove redux to jump-fatigue on the bowhead. - add a assemble-time that is connected to jump-fatigue - let the bowhead have 3 or more SMAs of size 500.000m3 so a carrier cant fit in it, but multiple BS can. (it seems, that it was intended to carry carriers (bc 1.3mil m3)..... but idk) - add 24h (or less ) of cooldown to capitals that prohibits its jumpdrive after it has been assembled. (has to be ship-related. not pilot-related). [maybe add a skill "capital assembly"(needs 'advanced industry' 5), that reduces that cooldown by N hours]
i like that ship.
+1 for "Englert-Sail" (opposite of Higgs-Anchor) [reduction of mass, bad agility, some speed, ....... => very bad align-time + bowhead is jumpable into more wormholes] (...that wormhole part might be very interesting in combination with "thera" and supplying ships to its market.)
Packaged ships can't be put into Ship Maintenance Bay's. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13862
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 11:22:34 -
[874] - Quote
Ben Ishikela wrote:Is it only me, seeing that there is some kind of problem to force projection here? Maybe there is not, but let me show you what i mean. There might be the possiblility to: 1. package the carrier. 2. put into bowhead. 3. get to station/pos near the engagement via titan-brigde/jump-bridge 3.1. perform multiple jumps without getting much jump-fatigue (90% redux) 4. assemble the carrier and fit it. 5. undock and jump to engagement. Possible Solutions (not all of them at once ofc) - remove redux to jump-fatigue on the bowhead. - add a assemble-time that is connected to jump-fatigue - let the bowhead have 3 or more SMAs of size 500.000m3 so a carrier cant fit in it, but multiple BS can. (it seems, that it was intended to carry carriers (bc 1.3mil m3)..... but idk) - add 24h (or less ) of cooldown to capitals that prohibits its jumpdrive after it has been assembled. (has to be ship-related. not pilot-related). [maybe add a skill "capital assembly"(needs 'advanced industry' 5), that reduces that cooldown by N hours]
i like that ship.
+1 for "Englert-Sail" (opposite of Higgs-Anchor) [reduction of mass, bad agility, some speed, ....... => very bad align-time + bowhead is jumpable into more wormholes] (...that wormhole part might be very interesting in combination with "thera" and supplying ships to its market.)
It cant carry packaged ships
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Dave Stark
7147
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 11:24:16 -
[875] - Quote
Anonymous Forumposter wrote:Dave Stark wrote:too easy. If by easy you mean posting nonsense in an effort to confuse people, Yes. That's an easy thing to do. You're correct.
nothing i've posted is nonsense, though. *shrug* |
Nya Kittenheart
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 11:33:19 -
[876] - Quote
ok let's go ,i'll introduce you to warspeed as apparently you fail to read a chart
BOW HEAD 90 jumps on 50 AU average jump at 2.2 au /S:90 x 63 = 5670 s
3 BS x30 jumps on a 50 AU average jump + Burn back in leopard at 30 au/s (ascendancy clone): (90 x 26) +(90x15) =2370+1350 = 3720 s
It would take twice as much time to move the said BOW HEAD than moving ships individually ...and i dont take into account align time that would just increase the difference.
|
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy Caldari State
78
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 11:35:23 -
[877] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:however if you'd like to quote something that confused you, i'd be glad to explain it to you in the same way i'd explain it to say, a 5 year old. if that would help you?
I'm not going to go back and quote most of the things you've posted pertaining to incursion communities as I value my time more than doing that work for you.
With the majority of what you say in regards to incursion communities drastically contrasting everything I've observed, The method with which you explain them is irrelevant as it's not my capacity to comprehend what you're saying that's the issue it's the content itself.
But let's be honest, You already know all of this, You we're just looking for a way to lash out at me. |
Malou Hashur
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
51
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 11:36:18 -
[878] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Malou Hashur wrote:Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Darirol wrote:why do all those industrial ships have a speed bonus? Because travel speed is one of the most important characteristics for haulers. Capacity, gank resilience and travel speed are basically it. Given the current highsec meta of "GANK ALL THE THINGS", I think many people, myself inluded, see a raw speed bonus as a waste. With Bumper Cars Online, a speed bonus is less than useless - it's actually harmful since it increases the unmodified time it takes you to get into warp. Please consider an agility or (!) hull resistance bonus modifier per level. Another example of the Devs not having a clue how the game is actually played. Ever piloted a capital or orca out of bubbles? Suddenly you love that speed bonus.
Yes, many times. However this will mainly be used in Hisec, so that doesn't really apply.
CCP Philosophy -->> If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it and break something else.
|
Dave Stark
7147
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 11:41:23 -
[879] - Quote
Anonymous Forumposter wrote:Dave Stark wrote:however if you'd like to quote something that confused you, i'd be glad to explain it to you in the same way i'd explain it to say, a 5 year old. if that would help you? I'm not going to go back and quote most of the things you've posted pertaining to incursion communities as I value my time more than doing that work for you. With the majority of what you say in regards to incursion communities drastically contrasting everything I've observed, The method with which you explain them is irrelevant as it's not my capacity to comprehend what you're saying that's the issue it's the content itself. But let's be honest, You already know all of this, You we're just looking for a way to lash out at me.
doesn't really matter what you think you know about incursion communities; how they function is irrelevant.
this is a discussion about the bowhead. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13862
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 11:42:11 -
[880] - Quote
Nya Kittenheart wrote:ok let's go ,i'll introduce you to warspeed as apparently you fail to read a chart
BOW HEAD 90 jumps on 50 AU average jump at 2.2 au /S:90 x 63 = 5670 s
3 BS x30 jumps on a 50 AU average jump + Burn back in leopard at 30 au/s (ascendancy clone): (90 x 26) +(90x15) =2370+1350 = 3720 s
It would take twice as much time to move the said BOW HEAD than moving ships individually ...and i dont take into account align time that would just increase the difference.
You left out the three other ships from your list. Under your new list of just three battleships it would be just one trip of 30 jumps for the bowheads.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1536
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 11:48:32 -
[881] - Quote
Warr Akini wrote:The above being said, it looks as if CCP doesn't actually know what goes through a ganker's mind. If only there was someone who knew the ins and outs of ganking around here... "hurr durr let's gank this empty freighter for ***** and giggles hurr durr."
What exactly do you need to understand? It is difficult to defend against irrational behaviour.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13862
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 11:50:49 -
[882] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Warr Akini wrote:The above being said, it looks as if CCP doesn't actually know what goes through a ganker's mind. If only there was someone who knew the ins and outs of ganking around here... "hurr durr let's gank this empty freighter for ***** and giggles hurr durr." What exactly do you need to understand? It is difficult to defend against irrational behaviour.
Yea... that guy runs a for profit organisation, not code.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Nya Kittenheart
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 11:52:42 -
[883] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Nya Kittenheart wrote:ok let's go ,i'll introduce you to warspeed as apparently you fail to read a chart
BOW HEAD 90 jumps on 50 AU average jump at 2.2 au /S:90 x 63 = 5670 s
3 BS x30 jumps on a 50 AU average jump + Burn back in leopard at 30 au/s (ascendancy clone): (90 x 26) +(90x15) =2370+1350 = 3720 s
It would take twice as much time to move the said BOW HEAD than moving ships individually ...and i dont take into account align time that would just increase the difference.
You left out the three other ships from your list. Under your new list of just three battleships it would be just one trip of 30 jumps for the bowheads. yeah one trip if you have the skill to 5 >35 days training and even in that case he can barely fit 3 different pirate bs + one logi at lvl 4 you fit only 3 BS so be ready to do a second trip more than once. You can turn it however you want moving one by one will still be faster.
|
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy Caldari State
78
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 11:54:17 -
[884] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:doesn't really matter what you think you know about incursion communities; how they function is irrelevant.
this is a discussion about the bowhead.
With the Bowhead poised to have a significant impact on incursioners, it is relevant. |
Dave Stark
7147
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 11:56:05 -
[885] - Quote
Nya Kittenheart wrote:baltec1 wrote:Nya Kittenheart wrote:ok let's go ,i'll introduce you to warspeed as apparently you fail to read a chart
BOW HEAD 90 jumps on 50 AU average jump at 2.2 au /S:90 x 63 = 5670 s
3 BS x30 jumps on a 50 AU average jump + Burn back in leopard at 30 au/s (ascendancy clone): (90 x 26) +(90x15) =2370+1350 = 3720 s
It would take twice as much time to move the said BOW HEAD than moving ships individually ...and i dont take into account align time that would just increase the difference.
You left out the three other ships from your list. Under your new list of just three battleships it would be just one trip of 30 jumps for the bowheads. yeah one trip if you have the skill to 5 >35 days training and even in that case he can barely fit 3 different pirate bs + one logi at lvl 4 you fit only 3 BS so be ready to do a second trip more than once. You can turn it however you want moving one by one will still be faster.
actually, it fits 3 vindicators or nightmares with your skills at IV, maybe even III (too lazy to check, besides IV shouldn't be that long of a train anyway). it won't fit 3 machariels at V anyway but, why are you carrying 3 of the same ship to begin with, if we're talking specifically about incursions?
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1536
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 11:56:51 -
[886] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Zappity wrote:Warr Akini wrote:The above being said, it looks as if CCP doesn't actually know what goes through a ganker's mind. If only there was someone who knew the ins and outs of ganking around here... "hurr durr let's gank this empty freighter for ***** and giggles hurr durr." What exactly do you need to understand? It is difficult to defend against irrational behaviour. Yea... that guy runs a for profit organisation, not code. I understand that. But he is trying to make a profitability argument in a context where profitability has decreasingly less to do with the decision. I have long argued that irrational ganking is cutting the ganker's own throat in the long term because the only response to it is increasing the difficulty to gank. Stupid.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13862
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 11:57:51 -
[887] - Quote
Nya Kittenheart wrote:baltec1 wrote:Nya Kittenheart wrote:ok let's go ,i'll introduce you to warspeed as apparently you fail to read a chart
BOW HEAD 90 jumps on 50 AU average jump at 2.2 au /S:90 x 63 = 5670 s
3 BS x30 jumps on a 50 AU average jump + Burn back in leopard at 30 au/s (ascendancy clone): (90 x 26) +(90x15) =2370+1350 = 3720 s
It would take twice as much time to move the said BOW HEAD than moving ships individually ...and i dont take into account align time that would just increase the difference.
You left out the three other ships from your list. Under your new list of just three battleships it would be just one trip of 30 jumps for the bowheads. yeah one trip if you have the skill to 5 >35 days training and even in that case he can barely fit 3 different pirate bs + one logi at lvl 4 you fit only 3 BS so be ready to do a second trip more than once. You can turn it however you want moving one by one will still be faster.
I just showed you that they are faster. Look at those numbers again, the bowhead fleet is a good deal faster per run than manually piloting the ships.
I assumed that you made an honest mistake and I give you this chance to say as such.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13862
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 12:00:11 -
[888] - Quote
Zappity wrote:baltec1 wrote:Zappity wrote:Warr Akini wrote:The above being said, it looks as if CCP doesn't actually know what goes through a ganker's mind. If only there was someone who knew the ins and outs of ganking around here... "hurr durr let's gank this empty freighter for ***** and giggles hurr durr." What exactly do you need to understand? It is difficult to defend against irrational behaviour. Yea... that guy runs a for profit organisation, not code. I understand that. But he is trying to make a profitability argument in a context where profitability has decreasingly less to do with the decision. I have long argued that irrational ganking is cutting the ganker's own throat in the long term because the only response to it is increasing the difficulty to gank. Stupid.
Code are ganking randomly because of the nerfs to ganking. Nerfing it more will just reduce the activity as a viable way to make isk and make more people just gank randomly in protest.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1536
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 12:05:11 -
[889] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Zappity wrote:baltec1 wrote:Zappity wrote:Warr Akini wrote:The above being said, it looks as if CCP doesn't actually know what goes through a ganker's mind. If only there was someone who knew the ins and outs of ganking around here... "hurr durr let's gank this empty freighter for ***** and giggles hurr durr." What exactly do you need to understand? It is difficult to defend against irrational behaviour. Yea... that guy runs a for profit organisation, not code. I understand that. But he is trying to make a profitability argument in a context where profitability has decreasingly less to do with the decision. I have long argued that irrational ganking is cutting the ganker's own throat in the long term because the only response to it is increasing the difficulty to gank. Stupid. Code are ganking randomly because of the nerfs to ganking. Nerfing it more will just reduce the activity as a viable way to make isk and make more people just gank randomly in protest. And how's that strategy working out? Are any of the nerfs to highsec getting reduced? Or are new freighters getting additional EHP?
It is silly and shortsighted.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 12:07:03 -
[890] - Quote
Zappity wrote:And how's that strategy working out? Are any of the nerfs to highsec getting reduced? Or are new freighters getting additional EHP?
It is silly and shortsighted.
I don't think any argued that CODE we're particularly inspired in their methods. ;)
|
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1536
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 12:09:48 -
[891] - Quote
Anonymous Forumposter wrote:Zappity wrote:And how's that strategy working out? Are any of the nerfs to highsec getting reduced? Or are new freighters getting additional EHP?
It is silly and shortsighted. I don't think any argued that CODE we're particularly inspired in their methods. ;) Yes. Good point. :)
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Dave Stark
7147
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 12:10:00 -
[892] - Quote
Zappity wrote: And how's that strategy working out? Are any of the nerfs to highsec getting reduced? Or are new freighters getting additional EHP?
It is silly and shortsighted.
to be fair, if people don't want empty freighters getting ganked because of a blacklash from a subset of players due to changes that come about from the whining about freighter ganking... perhaps freighter pilots should have just stopped overstuffing their cargo rather than whining on the forums, cos how's that working out for them now 'more' freighters are being ganked so 'easily'?
but that's rhetoric, as this isn't the place for such a discussion. |
Celly S
Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance
329
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 12:12:03 -
[893] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Veers Belvar wrote: Incursions are meant to be run in pirate faction ships. Using T1 hulls renders you unable to win contests and means your rewards are far inferior to blitzing L4s. To the extent this ship was meant to help incursion runners, the relevant metrics involve putting pirate hulls inside.
Edit - meant to as in because of the competitive nature of them in highsec, T1 battleships put you at a hopeless disadvantage and are no the proper doctrine.
no, this is what you think incursions demand, not what they actually demand
I have to agree here, as an incursion FC (not on this toon obviously) I can tell you that a T1 battleship can be used and has been used multiple times by many players. thinking that you must have the best bling to win is not accurate.
does it help in some respects to fly blingy ships?, sure it does, I won't sit here and tell you it doesn't, but it is most definitely NOT required to succeed or to win against the competitiveness of other groups.
we used to run VGs with 10 man fleets in 5 to 6 minutes each, most of our ships were T1 ships with the occasional T3 pilot, we ran assaults, HQs, and even the mom site with the same ships, just different fits for each site and the proper amount of logistics on the field.
o/ Celly Smunt
Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal.
Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular.
Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself.
A sandwich can be a great motivator.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13862
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 12:14:48 -
[894] - Quote
Zappity wrote: And how's that strategy working out? Are any of the nerfs to highsec getting reduced? Or are new freighters getting additional EHP?
It is silly and shortsighted.
What option do they have left? They have seen nerf after nerf several times a year for the last decade. All because people are too dumb to protect themselves.
CODE is entirely the fault of highsec bears pushing to be ever safer.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1536
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 12:28:56 -
[895] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Zappity wrote: And how's that strategy working out? Are any of the nerfs to highsec getting reduced? Or are new freighters getting additional EHP?
It is silly and shortsighted.
What option do they have left? They have seen nerf after nerf several times a year for the last decade. All because people are too dumb to protect themselves. CODE is entirely the fault of highsec bears pushing to be ever safer. They got all of the professional gankers who were after profits nerfed so now you are left with the likes of CODE who dont care about profit. Remember these are the same people who demanded fittings for their frieghters and then kicked up a stink when CCP gave them what they wanted because it turned out to be a nerf. All that after years of gankers telling them it was a terrible idea. I'm not arguing against profitable ganking. I very much like the fact that this can be done. But CODE's unprofitable ganking is a self-fulfilling prophecy that actually works against their stated goals and profitable gankers.
Ganking empty freighters does not encourage 'responsible' transport behaviour. It sends the message that the value of your cargo doesn't actually matter because you will get ganked anyway. And EHP goes up to counter it.
Not the sharpest tools in the shed if they do actually care about highsec risk.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5484
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 12:31:19 -
[896] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote: Flying it doesn't need to be risk free, but it sure as **** shouldn't be MORE risky than any other option.
Actually, yes it should be more risky. It should be more convenient, and the price for that is more risk.
As it currently stands, it is over-tanked and under-sized. One side of the equation claims they wont use it, the other side claims they wont gank it.
Clearly it is pointless in current form - CCP Rise, you're not there yet....
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Dave Stark
7147
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 12:34:22 -
[897] - Quote
Zappity wrote:baltec1 wrote:Zappity wrote: And how's that strategy working out? Are any of the nerfs to highsec getting reduced? Or are new freighters getting additional EHP?
It is silly and shortsighted.
What option do they have left? They have seen nerf after nerf several times a year for the last decade. All because people are too dumb to protect themselves. CODE is entirely the fault of highsec bears pushing to be ever safer. They got all of the professional gankers who were after profits nerfed so now you are left with the likes of CODE who dont care about profit. Remember these are the same people who demanded fittings for their frieghters and then kicked up a stink when CCP gave them what they wanted because it turned out to be a nerf. All that after years of gankers telling them it was a terrible idea. I'm not arguing against profitable ganking. I very much like the fact that this can be done. But CODE's unprofitable ganking is a self-fulfilling prophecy that actually works against their stated goals and profitable gankers. Ganking empty freighters does not encourage 'responsible' transport behaviour. It sends the message that the value of your cargo doesn't actually matter because you will get ganked anyway. And EHP goes up to counter it. Not the sharpest tools in the shed if they do actually care about highsec risk.
you'd have a point if code started ganking everything before the nerfs, not in response to them. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13863
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 12:37:46 -
[898] - Quote
Zappity wrote:baltec1 wrote:Zappity wrote: And how's that strategy working out? Are any of the nerfs to highsec getting reduced? Or are new freighters getting additional EHP?
It is silly and shortsighted.
What option do they have left? They have seen nerf after nerf several times a year for the last decade. All because people are too dumb to protect themselves. CODE is entirely the fault of highsec bears pushing to be ever safer. They got all of the professional gankers who were after profits nerfed so now you are left with the likes of CODE who dont care about profit. Remember these are the same people who demanded fittings for their frieghters and then kicked up a stink when CCP gave them what they wanted because it turned out to be a nerf. All that after years of gankers telling them it was a terrible idea. I'm not arguing against profitable ganking. I very much like the fact that this can be done. But CODE's unprofitable ganking is a self-fulfilling prophecy that actually works against their stated goals and profitable gankers. Ganking empty freighters does not encourage 'responsible' transport behaviour. It sends the message that the value of your cargo doesn't actually matter because you will get ganked anyway. And EHP goes up to counter it. Not the sharpest tools in the shed if they do actually care about highsec risk.
What other option do they have?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
1842
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 12:48:03 -
[899] - Quote
Zappity wrote: But CODE's unprofitable ganking is a self-fulfilling prophecy that actually works against their stated goals and profitable gankers.
Ganking empty freighters does not encourage 'responsible' transport behaviour. It sends the message that the value of your cargo doesn't actually matter because you will get ganked anyway. And EHP goes up to counter it.
Not the sharpest tools in the shed if they do actually care about highsec risk.
Responsible transport behaviour includes webbing your space truck into warp. Short of being incredibly unlucky, you're not going to get bumped or ganked.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. is recruiting highsec PvPers for wardecs | New Order diplomat
"no one hates you, none of us care enough for that".
|
Dradis Aulmais
Ignite Llc. V.L.A.S.T
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 13:14:11 -
[900] - Quote
Mm mm the tears on this thread make me happy. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [30] 40 50 60 .. 69 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |