EVE Search - att: CCP. Miners v's Suicide Gankers, a Risk v's Reward imbalance.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

att: CCP. Miners v's Suicide Gankers, a Risk v's Reward imbalance.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tauranon Gallente Wandering Provocateurs Communitas	Posted - 2009.07.18 13:09:00 - [1] Things the miner can do (some or all) to manage ganking. 1 - fit a tank /train level 4 shield tank skills. With a dcu II, shield rigs, (but keeping a rock scanner and 1 mlu II for reasonable productivity), my mining alt hits 21k EHP with even resists (ie no holes). Its not foolproof but reduces the number of people that can organise to pop your hulk a lot. 2 - Prepare SS's etc so you can mine aligned, Once you do this, you bring the hulk warp time down from the horrible 15-20 seconds to insta, or some much shorter interval depending on how close to 75% speed you want to mine at. 3 - Choose belts wisely and watch the scanner (ie belts that don't have undocks or gate-to-gate travellers in range) to see incoming thorax/brutix/destroyer packs. They aren't cloaked so you get 15 secs+ of scanner warning of the approaching ships. 4 - Watch local, (don't mine where watching local is impossible due to numbers), and put -10 standings on known gankers. 5 - Do not fit halada's guide tank setup. Boosters are the wrong fit for highsec (buffer is key). Faction boosters more so, because it improves risk/reward for the ganker a lot.
Tauranon Gallente Wandering Provocateurs Communitas	Posted - 2009.07.19 03:59:00 - [2] Edited by: Tauranon on 19/07/2009 03:59:51 Originally by: Nian Banks How is it that people feel the need to reply when they have not even read the bloody post? I have seen several comments on how to fit a hulk properly, how to not get ganked, and more complaints saying I should L2P and only loosers mine. How about you all suck it up and read the suggestions closely, then comment with some form of intelligence. Because your whole premise is that ganking is irretrievably balanced in the favour of the ganker. It isn't. Vulnerability is a 3 way trade off with yield, attention and fit. If gankers had to hunt low value fitted hulks that tended to go into warp before they even got into the belt, the economics of ganking would be different. Control over that is in the hands of the hulk pilots, not the gankers. Quote: I am glad to sum it up for you all. Insurance is broken, it need changing or near complete removal. Both sides of the coin. Hi, ship prices are supported by insurance prices. Remove insurance, and you remove all support for ship prices. Quote: Tech1 Meta0 Modules need removing from NPC rat drops. Named is not meta0. This causes an absolute hard requirement that for every ship lost, a miner has to spend an equivalent amount of time in belts to replace it. ie every battleship - 5-15 hours, capitals, many many more hours. If there was a way to kill EVE for the average player, that would be it. Quote: If you disagree, give something more than lol l2p or hold your tongue. In truth NAFF off. ah, everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, even without reading their argument.
Tauranon Gallente Wandering Provocateurs Communitas	Posted - 2009.07.19 09:04:00 - [3] Originally by: Morux The point was that it isn't a balanced system. Insurance only supports the T1 side anyhow - it doesn't do crap for T2. So to say that you need good insurance to wage a war against NPC-corp alts is unfounded. The cost of added insurance only pays back around 200% of the invested insurance cost, so it's marginal at best. Who the heck goes around suiciding in T2 ships?? Fly a covetor (so that insurance works for you), or take proper precautions against ganking to defend your hulk (ie so that you lose less hulks than the difference in yields and effort of replacing covetors). Remember that miners earn all the time but gankers only earn when they find and kill the target. That is a big part of the balance equation in suicide ganking, and its a part you completely overlook. Quote: Just because the game physics don't mimic actual "in-space" physics doesn't mean that other parts of the game can be made more realistic. Of the posters in this thread, 5 people responded that insurance is generally broken, 2 others agreed that it could use a second look and 3 thinks it needs to be left alone. So 70% of folks here believe that there is a problem with the mechanics of Eve's insurance system in one way or another. 10 players is not a representative sample of 300,000. As long as people stupidly fit and carelessly fly their expensive t2 ships, then ganking them with t1 cruisers will remain profitable, even with NO insurance.
Tauranon Gallente Wandering Provocateurs Communitas	Posted - 2009.07.21 06:06:00 - [4] Originally by: Malcanis The point being that the last bout of whines resulted in faster CONCORD response times. So now only low-EHP targets can be ganked - like miners. Mission runners are pretty much ungankable now. Unintended consequences... There are so many mission runners, mission runners leave entire fields of cans to flip, their cans have a specific high value/low volume component (salvage), and mission runners are by nature far more likely to aggress. ie this is much less of a problem than than it sounds, unless you want to grief a specific player. For which wardecs, or just plain eating the cost of the gank amongst friends will suffice. Lastly mission runners don't have infeasibly high EHP. My hulk alt is currently fitted for 21k EHP (high for a hulk, but still with rock scanner and 1x MLU II), and my mission battleship is fitted for 54k EHP with a partial resist hole. In a gank, the repper would only cycle once, so its hardly a factor, and faction items are at least as common on mission runners as hulks. If you can do the logistics to put X amount of pilots to kill my hulk, you can do the logistics x2 to put X x2 pilots on my battleship. In some ways its probably less, because you need only 1 scout for either task.
Tauranon Gallente Wandering Provocateurs Communitas	Posted - 2009.07.21 07:00:00 - [5] Originally by: Malcanis[/quote I love the way you say this as if it were obviously true. Hint: it's not. I love the way you pretend its impossible. Hint: it's not.
Tauranon Gallente Wandering Provocateurs Communitas	Posted - 2009.07.21 13:33:00 - [6] Originally by: Malcanis I didn't say it was "impossible". OP implied that it's just as easy to get 10 guys together to do something as it is to get 5. It is trivially obvious that this is not so. Its a ship size change for a 5 guy team ganking hulks in destroyers. (switch destroyers for battlecruisers). No its not as easy, but thats always understandable given the target is a combat profession pilot. Personally I think its not done that often, simply because you can usually find someone who will aggress whilst piloting a mission fitted ship.
Tauranon Gallente Wandering Provocateurs Communitas	Posted - 2009.07.21 14:13:00 - [7] Originally by: Malcanis There is a qualitative difference in using battlecruisers vs destroyers, apart from anything else. no doubt. The upfronts are still very manageable, and I recognise that its not as easy to find a sure win from every attempt. The upper end of payoffs are also better.
Tauranon Gallente Wandering Provocateurs Communitas	Posted - 2009.07.22 04:40:00 - [8] Originally by: Nian Banks I think the qualitative difference isn't the ship class but the pilots, ganking miners in your destroyers takes little skill, ganking combat ships in missions requires you having to actually fight for that kill. I've already put a fairly comprehensive list in this thread of what miners can do to make themselves as hard to gank as a mission runner.
Tauranon Gallente Wandering Provocateurs Communitas	Posted - 2009.07.22 06:28:00 - [9] Originally by: Nian Banks Originally by: raidnkill we rly need someone to get rid of those Chinese Isk-farmers in most belts in high sec! and make their isk-farming company go bankrupt Easy, remove the risk of ganking in high sec and remove tech1 meta0 modules from NPC rat drops. Oh and if ccp was nice, reduce the trit needed in production and increase low sec mineral requirements. :) If you remove meta 0 drops, then every ship lost will need to be replaced by however many hours of mining is required for the class. That is contrary to the design of the insurance mechanic. Its a fundamentally stupid idea, given the likelyhood that a significant minority of players do not ever want to mine, and the majority of players probably don't want to do very much of it.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.