FSD recharge rates havent been changed. A simple heat sink counters all issues (except heat cannons). Torps are a non-issue to anyone with any situational awareness due to trigger time and projectile speed.
FSD recharge rates havent been changed. A simple heat sink counters all issues (except heat cannons). Torps are a non-issue to anyone with any situational awareness due to trigger time and projectile speed.
I think they tweaked the FSD interdictor. It's almost impossible to break and if you submit, it knocks your FSD as if you lost. To be honest, combat logging is still faster than High waking.
Yeah, thats the depressing part. Legit pirates are left in the cold between insane murder hobo's and skillless unshielded traders.
I was talking about heat cannons. I also think that higher rated FSD interdictors have been beefed up. NPC interdictions are a joke but I've never survived a player interdiction.
Not if he's faster than you and you are trying to line up to high wake.
Last edited:
Interdiction was changed (in 2.2?) based on ship mass and SC agility. Basically small agile ships are great at interdicting, huge ships are not. So Haulers escape easily, and Eagles interdict easily. T9s are screwed, as they should be.
There is a weird 'cheat' that breaks submitting to interdiction. Its super-lame and you recognize it instantly. Beyond that it works as it should, FWIW.Rafe Zetter
Banned
So exactly what are you saying Sleut?
Because that reads to me like "bring the right ship and you won't get greifed, if you don't have the right engineered stuffs don't come crying to me that you got ganked by metaengineered ships designed solely for PvP."
Just how many of the saltminers around Maia had ships that were rigged to haul stuff not PvP? And how many were rigged sacrificing cargo capacity in favor of PvP modules?
All the saltminers around Maia are there for a sole reason to sealclub and nothing else, not even to provide escort for their own haulers, because otherwise the CG would be further along than it is.
Let me just remind you of something OPEN WAS NOT DESIGNED TO BE A PVP EXCLUSIVE ZONE. Private groups was not designed to be the refuge away from open.
That attitude you displayed above and echoed by saltminers altered the nature of open and made the PG's the refuge that they are.
Opens reputation is what YOU (collectively) made it.
OPEN IS NOT NULLSEC, or even LOWSEC (the two most dangerous sections of Eve Online). It was designed to be all three. Blame sits where blame is deserved.
Edit - OK I've seen your "do the right stuff and you'll be immune" post - how does that stack against multiple PvP meta ships in a CG zone?
Curious - how many PvP Sealclubbers use heat cannons that can't be easily evaded?
Last edited:
Never, ever do that. You only line up *after* your FSD is recharged, at which point you are set within 1-2 seconds. Way too short a period for a torp to trigger.
Yeah, one of those "cheating" NPCs actually managed to get the hull of my ship down to 51% once back in the Engineers beta, or whenever it was. Hmm, maybe it was after it went live before the "nerf."
Anyway, +1 virtual rep.
Last edited:
All you have to do to keep the "saltminers" in check is go and fight them. Even if you don't win, you'll distract them which will allow cargo ships to get through.
I've been PVP'ing every weekend for months. Sometimes reading these threads I think we are playing different games.
That some people are going to shoot at some people and folks still seem to be genuinely surprised that a) this can happen and b) that this is somehow the commanders problem to police.
a) it happens because the developer chose to make it happen (and they warn that all the things that can happen, can happen, in every single CG mission description) and b) we have incompetent AI that can't reliably stop a stock ship, let alone an engineered one. You can be as angry at commanders as you like, and it makes not one bit of difference.
Ask the developer to rebalance AI to ensure system security is upheld. But you won't, right? Because then they are harder to farm. Heaven forfend endlessly destroying cops to flip systems might have some sort of problematic outcome? Much easier to point fingers. Every time. Because this means there can be a 'bad guy' and maintains the status quo of easily dispatched AI.
Frontier can fix this; they are prevented every time they try, by the very same people complaining about ganking in open. So pick an option; crime is policed, or not. But don't pretend this is instantly solved by more commanders shooting at commanders.
Last edited:
I'd much prefer game mechanics that encourage "good guy" players to buffing the AI.
And these CG's are in Anarchy systems, so no AI anyways.
I wonder what RP-excuse the gankers made up for themselves to justify breaking the efforts towards arming up against the Thargoids. I know they recently started to relate to Hitler, but I'd like to know more. Do they think the Thargoids will somehow reward them for their efforts? Do we have one at Hand here I can interview on this?
Tell you what, if you find me a thargoid translator, I will do my best to interview one.
The test will be if he can decipher everything that the UAs, UPs, and other thargoid stuff transmits.
BTW I was aiming at interviewing a current CG ganker, not a Thargoid. Or did you already went a step further, assuming they actually ARE Thargoids?
If the rumors are true, what's the difference?
Supposedly, thargoids are going to be nigh untouchable by us, and will be able to operate with near impunity. Sounds like your typical "1337 PvPer" to me. And have you read some of the "open is great, come on back" threads? Need a translator there sometimes due to some of the stuff being thrown around.
Last edited:
You may prefer that, but it's ignorant (sorry) of the simple fact that if the game allows people to be "bad", then some are going to be bad, no matter how much the developer encourages being a "good guy". Which is problematic, because if that good guy doesn't shoot commanders too often, but murders security forces all the time to flip systems, are they a "good guy" or is that actually just as amoral?
So if we presume, rightly, that the game will allow amoral actions, regardless of any personal moral standing, or who might be impacted, how do you solve that? Adequate application of the law. Given most people want system security levels to mean something, this makes high sec mean something, but equally, that will make anarchy mean something.
Which also means those who prefer to not be shot at, will stick to systems where that chance is reduced, and where there are adequate consequences for when it does.
Yep. So folks should have some understanding that flying into Anarchy systems is sketchy at best, with a heightened risk to person and ship. Getting salty because in a system that has no de facto security force (just loosely coupled paramilitary factions, for the most part) and why can't people be nice, again ignores the actual situation.
The game presenting amoral choices, where there are some places those amoral choices have lower consequences, isn't a fault of the game. A lot of games provide amoral choices. The only difference here, is people have a preoccupation for expecting everyone else, to solve their problems for them. Rather than understanding that amoral choices have been included by design.
Again, it's important to remember the developer has specifically marked these thargoid related systems as Anarchy. It's purposeful, intended design. So at some point, you might have to consider the notion that the developer may have an amoral design goal, for the game.
Last edited:
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
There are some players who don't want stronger ai but plenty who do. That said no one has yet given a logical reason why the PF would be happy about it's members trying to block a mission to potentially save the whole of humanity. Also imo FD need to write into the CG that those who contest a CG should not be given access to the benefits of a CG for a significant amount of time after. IF players want to be against a CG they should own it. Also once a player is raggedy hostile to the goals of the CG their contributions to it in terms of their reward should be voided. It's not players fighting against a CG which cheesed me off. It's players fighting against it then still expecting to be rewarded and to share in the spoils if if successful. It's pathetic really.
So much true, but FD cannot restrict Access to game Content to specific Players without Prior notice. There should be a warning upon entering the System that there is a CG going on and disrupting it would cause this and that.
In the present CG, those Players could however be chased down by AEGIS Special agents during several days. And I mean chased in the sense of "One wing of agents waiting in every System to interdict them". Starting with the CG System ofc.