Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
john scherer
Video Professor
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 05:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
It is just me or has the advent of the tier-3 BC made highsec suicide ganking of freighters way too inexpensive and easy? So much so that it has become an EvE career path.
The killboards show a huge number of such actions and while I don't think suicide ganking is entirely wrong, the DPS abilities of cheaply fit tier-3 BCs makes it so cheap and easy, shiny payloads are no longer required to justify such actions.
I think a buff of freighter structure or armor points is in order here but that's just me, anyone have thoughts on this? I have placed a few recent highlights below but if you look at the killboards you will see a whole lot for any given day.
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=21129289
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=21117747
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=21101816
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=21093860
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=21089894
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=21088612 |
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
140
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 05:12:00 -
[2] - Quote
In order to make a freighter not worth ganking their ehp would need to be raised to a stupid amount that would make killing freighters outside of ganks more trouble than it's worth. Those kills you posted are carrying 5-8 times the safe load.
Also, kill posting is a banable offense. |
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
429
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 05:40:00 -
[3] - Quote
Without offering an opinion on the thread topic (because 6-7 BC pilots working together to take down a freighter being overpowered seems like something I'd disagree with (cooperation > solo) without a careful analysis of the stats, I'm not staking a position) I'd still like to know why killmails are banned from Features & Ideas. This suprised me.
Especially in this context, when discussing questions of ship balance, and amid a neverending cycle of balancing by ship class, I can't see why the same rules that apply to the Crime & Punishment subforum couldn't be extended here. As long as you're not abusing other players but using a specific instance to reference an idea or proposal, why not allow the discussion to proceed?
It's pretty crazy that in a game about blowing up spaceships you can't reference the spaceships you blow up almost anywhere, no? If it were up to me, and as long as the criticism was constructive, I'd probably allow killmails to be linked in Jita Park proposals too.
What am I missing?
YK "Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
855
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 05:47:00 -
[4] - Quote
Just give Freighters fittings. In order to not make said fittings able to make their cargo too much, give them a base cargo hold of something like.... 200k EHP & 3 additional 'special' cargo holds, two of which can carry anything and the third which carries something appropriate to the race. To differentiate them a little. Or maybe a ship maintenance bay large enough to carry 2 assembled BS or something.
So if you rig them for cargo they might carry a bit more outright cargo than before but less EHP, if you rig for tank a bit less cargo, but a lot more EHP, rig for speed, much faster but lower EHP & lower cargo.
And because the cargo is split between several bays they can break the 1 million mark without being able to carry caps. |
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
108
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 05:53:00 -
[5] - Quote
Don't change freighters at all. SO many freight services in Eve, MWD warping Orca's, Jump Freighters, Blockade runners.... lots of other options to move your stuff. If someone still chooses to load 20b into a freighter.... well.... Eve is a game of Opportunity. The Law is a point of View |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
855
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 06:02:00 -
[6] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:Don't change freighters at all. SO many freight services in Eve, MWD warping Orca's, Jump Freighters, Blockade runners.... lots of other options to move your stuff. If someone still chooses to load 20b into a freighter.... well.... Eve is a game of Opportunity. It's a lot less than 20b to make yourself a viable gank. It's at about 1.5b depending how they gank you or if you have slaves you start getting to dangerous territory, even high sec minerals can put you over, let alone null sec minerals. And the lack of options to change how gankable a freighter is are bad. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
4635
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 06:38:00 -
[7] - Quote
There was a time when freighter ganking was done by battleships... that could be insured.
Then insurance was removed from ships that were killed by CONCORD.
Then Tier 3 Battlecruisers were introduced.
Net result: suicide ganking has a lower set up cost than before... but the loss is now total... meaning that it actually costs more to suicide gank than ever before. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6049
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 07:44:00 -
[8] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:There was a time when freighter ganking was done by battleships... that could be insured.
Then insurance was removed from ships that were killed by CONCORD.
Then Tier 3 Battlecruisers were introduced.
Net result: suicide ganking has a lower set up cost than before... but the loss is now total... meaning that it actually costs more to suicide gank than ever before. So clearly ganking needs to be nerfed even more then. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
855
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 08:29:00 -
[9] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote: So clearly ganking needs to be nerfed even more then.
To a certain extent yes, to a certain extent no. There is an issue with how there isn't a meaningful defence against a gank other than 'don't be there'. There is no easy solution for that one though.
But freighter pilots deserve to get to make meaningful fitting choices rather than carry low value and hope the gankers don't decide it's enough today to be worth it. |
Pipa Porto
1480
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 08:47:00 -
[10] - Quote
john scherer wrote:It is just me or has the advent of the tier-3 BC made highsec suicide ganking of freighters way too inexpensive and easy? So much so that it has become an EvE career path.
The patch that introduced t3 BCs made suicide ganking significantly more expensive. Later patches increased the cost further (increased mineral costs).
So... your entire premise is wrong. Incidentally, Ganking has always been a career in EVE.
Don't fly what you can't protect.
Nevyn Auscent wrote:To a certain extent yes, to a certain extent no. There is an issue with how there isn't a meaningful defence against a gank other than 'don't be there'. There is no easy solution for that one though.
But freighter pilots deserve to get to make meaningful fitting choices rather than carry low value and hope the gankers don't decide it's enough today to be worth it.
There are plenty of meaningful defenses against ganking. Very few of them are possible solo, but that seems pretty balanced given that it takes 10-15 people's coordinated effort to gank an entirely undefended Freighter. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
855
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 09:08:00 -
[11] - Quote
Every 'meaningful defence' boils down to 'don't be there'. Once you are actually there, there is nothing you can do to defend, since you will get concorded for firing first. You can attempt to take retribution on the pods & protect the wreck. So allowing the Freighter to make fitting options is only fair. You just have to make sure those fitting options don't loophole capitals into highsec, which is why I posted above how to prevent that, while still making those fitting options meaningful. |
Sixx Spades
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
165
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 09:33:00 -
[12] - Quote
Oh hey, this thread again. Using a weapon as a deterrent in a diplomatic situation is only viable when you have proven that you have deployed it in the past and are willing to use it in the future. |
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2340
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 09:58:00 -
[13] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:To a certain extent yes, to a certain extent no. There is an issue with how there isn't a meaningful defence against a gank other than 'don't be there'. There is no easy solution for that one though.
But freighter pilots deserve to get to make meaningful fitting choices rather than carry low value and hope the gankers don't decide it's enough today to be worth it. This. Ganking doesn't need to be nerfed, but freighters need to be given options to make steer it's defense and make it more complex than just "X catalysts destroys maxed freighter Y".
The old defense of "but the CARGO BAY?!?!?!?" is utter nonsense. They already showed how you resolve it with mining barges. Just make a "special" bay called a "freight" bay and allow it to carry all types. Tada! cargo expanders don't work.
Then drop the base HP and add slots so that you can specific tank for considerably more EHP that you can currently get, you can omnitank for slightly more than now, but you can only reduce ehp from the current with a passive tank (so no running DC/hardners). They'd just need to tweak each race in the same way they do with other ships to achieve this. This will make freighters that people want to put the effort into making defensible and fly manually into a good position, while making AFK auto freighters easier to destroy. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
858
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 10:09:00 -
[14] - Quote
You don't even need to specifically drop EHP. Leave EHP as it is, and leave a large enough cargo bay for people to consider cargo expanders. Then they drop their own EHP if they want to fit for max cargo. If they fit for speed, it's current EHP, smaller cargo, much better speed. If they fit for tank it's much larger EHP, smaller cargo and probably slower speed even. |
Pipa Porto
1481
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 10:20:00 -
[15] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Every 'meaningful defence' boils down to 'don't be there'. Once you are actually there, there is nothing you can do to defend, since you will get concorded for firing first. You can attempt to take retribution on the pods & protect the wreck.
1. You don't have to fire first. 2. You don't have to fire at all. 3. You seem to think that people still do Alpha based freighter ganks.
Quote:So allowing the Freighter to make fitting options is only fair. You just have to make sure those fitting options don't loophole capitals into highsec, which is why I posted above how to prevent that, while still making those fitting options meaningful.
Don't nerf Freighters, please.
Anyway, why do you have a problem with Freighters being more expensive to gank than ever? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
1648
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 10:28:00 -
[16] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote: So clearly ganking needs to be nerfed even more then.
To a certain extent yes, to a certain extent no. There is an issue with how there isn't a meaningful defence against a gank other than 'don't be there'. There is no easy solution for that one though. But freighter pilots deserve to get to make meaningful fitting choices rather than carry low value and hope the gankers don't decide it's enough today to be worth it.
There are plenty of meaningful defenses against ganks.
If you are hauling 10b of stuff, you should be responsible for having out-of-corp allies in ECM boats and logistics ships providing an escort. Otherwise, you deserve to watch your ship be euthanized. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. An enemy is just a friend that you stab in the front. |
Draconigea
Angry Angels Nachrichtendienst
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 10:34:00 -
[17] - Quote
1. Get a second account or a corpmember with Teamspeak 2. Get any fast frig or a Rapier 3. Fit 2-3 Webbifiers (on the Rapier they will have 40km range, which is great) 4. When the freighter decloaks at the gate, target the freighter and web him 5. Instant Warp (Rapier needs only 1.2 seconds to target the freighter, without moving)
With this fast align time, you can't be scanned and no one would take the risk ganking a empty freighter.
I always fly my freighters like this, even with 20b on board. No Problem at all. So if 6-7 ppl are needed to gank a solo freighters, only two ppl are needed to counter this.... |
Seranova Farreach
593
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 13:08:00 -
[18] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:In order to make a freighter not worth ganking their ehp would need to be raised to a stupid amount that would make killing freighters outside of ganks more trouble than it's worth. Those kills you posted are carrying 5-8 times the safe load.
Also, kill posting is a banable offense. if posting kills is banable why do the killboards exist? _______________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg
|
Seranova Farreach
593
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 13:12:00 -
[19] - Quote
looking at the kills i can guess they used drone assist AND ISBoxxer _______________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg
|
Seranova Farreach
593
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 13:13:00 -
[20] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:Without offering an opinion on the thread topic (because 6-7 BC pilots working together to take down a freighter being overpowered seems like something I'd disagree with (cooperation > solo) without a careful analysis of the stats, I'm not staking a position) I'd still like to know why killmails are banned from Features & Ideas. This suprised me.
Especially in this context, when discussing questions of ship balance, and amid a neverending cycle of balancing by ship class, I can't see why the same rules that apply to the Crime & Punishment subforum couldn't be extended here. As long as you're not abusing other players but using a specific instance to reference an idea or proposal, why not allow the discussion to proceed?
It's pretty crazy that in a game about blowing up spaceships you can't reference the spaceships you blow up almost anywhere, no? If it were up to me, and as long as the criticism was constructive, I'd probably allow killmails to be linked in Jita Park proposals too.
What am I missing?
YK
looking at the damage its highly obvious that its a multiboxer with no life :P _______________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg
|
|
Seranova Farreach
593
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 13:14:00 -
[21] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Every 'meaningful defence' boils down to 'don't be there'. Once you are actually there, there is nothing you can do to defend, since you will get concorded for firing first. You can attempt to take retribution on the pods & protect the wreck. 1. You don't have to fire first. 2. You don't have to fire at all. 3. You seem to think that people still do Alpha based freighter ganks. Quote:So allowing the Freighter to make fitting options is only fair. You just have to make sure those fitting options don't loophole capitals into highsec, which is why I posted above how to prevent that, while still making those fitting options meaningful. Don't nerf Freighters, please. Anyway, why do you have a problem with Freighters being more expensive to gank than ever?
the isk spent to gank a frieghter is extreamly minimal compaired to losses.. like 5 of 6 tier3 BCs still come out on profit ganking just a charon hull with no cargo _______________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg
|
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2340
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 14:12:00 -
[22] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:You don't even need to specifically drop EHP. Leave EHP as it is, and leave a large enough cargo bay for people to consider cargo expanders. Then they drop their own EHP if they want to fit for max cargo. If they fit for speed, it's current EHP, smaller cargo, much better speed. If they fit for tank it's much larger EHP, smaller cargo and probably slower speed even. This would leave it in the position that it has to be a nerf one way or the other, you just get a choice of what your nerf is. Freighters are crap enough without being nerfed. If they removed the cargo element, and that's the bit that should really be static, they could easily balance the modules against the defense and speed, allowing pilots proactively looking to survive to do so and AFK pilots to be at increased risk.
As it currently sits, the only way to not get ganked in a freighter is is the gankers down ant to gank you. It's not like there is any step you can take beyond making yourself less appealing to survive. So from a gameplay perspective, they are terribly designed.
Pipa Porto wrote:Don't nerf Freighters, please. Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies.
This argument is probably the most popular among the "don't change freighters" brigade, yet it's by far the dumbest. It's based on the assumption that if they were to add slots, there's no way they could balance freighters to be the same as they are now, which is utterly ridiculous.
It's pefectly feasible for them to add a freight bay to avoid cargo expanders becoming an issue, then reducing EHP so that a decent omni fit brings you up to the same level as now.
I'd say that allowing choice should be the number one priority for a sandbox game, and currently freighters have none. You get in a freighter and you are at the mercy of the people who target you. Pretty much the only thing that will save your once they've chosen to target you is incompetence on their part. There should be a way for an active pilot to proactively take action to make themselves more difficult to gank. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
1734
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 17:21:00 -
[23] - Quote
As someone who lives in highsec, I just want to say:
GTFO. Highsec is safe enough already. Freighters need things, I'm sure, but being made more gank-proof is not one of them. |
Delhaven
Arkhon Industries Solarmark Coalition
22
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 18:56:00 -
[24] - Quote
Draconigea wrote:1. Get a second account or a corpmember with Teamspeak 2. Get any fast frig or a Rapier 3. Fit 2-3 Webbifiers (on the Rapier they will have 40km range, which is great) 4. When the freighter decloaks at the gate, target the freighter and web him 5. Instant Warp (Rapier needs only 1.2 seconds to target the freighter, without moving)
With this fast align time, you can't be scanned and no one would take the risk ganking a empty freighter.
I always fly my freighters like this, even with 20b on board. No Problem at all. So if 6-7 ppl are needed to gank a solo freighters, only two ppl are needed to counter this....
In Eve, anything that can be fixed by flying with just one other player was never broken in the first place. |
Pipa Porto
1485
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 18:58:00 -
[25] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:the isk spent to gank a frieghter is extreamly minimal compaired to losses.. like 5 of 6 tier3 BCs still come out on profit ganking just a charon hull with no cargo
Where's the profit in a couple million ISK worth of T1 salvage?
Anyway, why do you have a problem with Freighters being more expensive to gank than ever?
Lucas Kell wrote:It's perfectly feasible for them to add a freight bay to avoid cargo expanders becoming an issue, then reducing EHP so that a decent omni fit brings you up to the same level as now.
In other words, you can either get the EHP or the cargo space of a current Freighter, but not both.
How is that not a nerf?
Quote:There should be a way for an active pilot to proactively take action to make themselves more difficult to gank.
There are. Plenty of them. But just as you can't gank a freighter solo, you can't necessarily use the most effective protections for a freighter solo. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Dave Stark
4116
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 19:07:00 -
[26] - Quote
john scherer wrote:It is just me yes. |
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
108
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 22:25:00 -
[27] - Quote
Eve isn't a game designed to be played solo. Very few things in Eve work being done solo. Most of them the community at large call 'Soul-Destroying' or 'Carebearing.' You can Run missions alone, mine alone, do POS stuff alone, and get some solo PVP... but that's the lump sum majority. Almost everything else is designed to be done with a group. Incursions, fleet PVP, mining fleets, large scale industry, ganking... etc. Choosing to fly a freighter through high sec alone isn't so different than choosing to fly a battle cruiser into low sec alone. You may get away with it a few times, but you WILL get caught eventually. Flying expensive ships anywhere in Eve is increasing the likelihood of being attacked and/or ganked. It is sensible that moving large quantities of stuff should ALSO be considered a group activity: Read: If you're gonna fly a freighter full of yours and your corpies stuff, get your corpies to fly logistics or ECM.
A group of Talos's can gank a single freighter pretty easily. A group of Talos's can gank a single battle cruiser pretty easily too. But give the battle cruiser some support, the tables turn pretty quickly. Why should Freighters be held to a different standard? The Law is a point of View |
Fal Dara
The Scope Gallente Federation
109
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 23:20:00 -
[28] - Quote
Being a person who has hauled, and been ganked for it (not since the insurance changes however), i did think about how freighters could be changed to make it a less likley affair.
Truth is, they have a lot of EHP, and as a big ole tub of hauler, they dont need mod slots (they would just be filled with cargo expanders, and easier than ever to gank). So, where does that leave us as for a solution?
1. make them like tech 3's, with 2 subsystems per piece--but 3 pieces instead of 5 (it doesnt need offense, or engineering). They would have a) cargo ...... first sub: cargo, 85% of current. ...... second sub, ship maint bay, whihc is 3/4 of current cargo, and about 35k of normal cargo. b)propusion subs ...... first, current speed and agility, 3% to cargo cap. ...... agaility (5% per level) c) defensive subsystems ...... first, current--BUT, add a ship-specific 50% damage control (like the special edition ship that has the sansha's scanner thing). ...... Second, one that adds 2 rig slots, and say, 200 for fitting them. Could be any rigs. and 4% resists to shields or armor per lvl. you get 30% less base HP.
...... would allow an astounding array of usefulness to freighters, imho. perosnally, i would agility fit the thing to no end. ..... if CCP made the switch, everone would get all the first subs with their current ownership of the ship.
OR!
CCP makes it so when you assemble the ship, a damage control (that you cant remove) is set into the lows, made JUST for that ship--not as powerful as a t2, maybe equal to a t1--but if you want to use it, you HAVE to activate it. This means, if you AFK, you get ganked like normal... and if you dont, you have a better (not perfect) chance of surviving.
i actually just want the second option, and the other was just a dream.
... or you just dont haul more than you should--calculate the cost of them ganking you, and dont go into 'profitable' territory with what you haul (they figure 50% drop rate, remember). |
Sigras
Conglomo
638
|
Posted - 2014.01.04 00:03:00 -
[29] - Quote
IMHO the "safety number" is a bit low.
Assuming it takes 80 million isk per talos, and 6 talos' to take down a freighter, its profitable to gank a freighter hauling nothing but pyerite at current prices.
That seems a bit ridiculous that the second most common material in the universe is worth suicide ganking a ship over . . . |
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
8785
|
Posted - 2014.01.04 00:17:00 -
[30] - Quote
Sigras wrote:That seems a bit ridiculous that the second most common material in the universe is worth suicide ganking a ship over . . .
Tears and giggles are free....and even they make ganking a freighter worth it. Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |