| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3590
   |
Posted - 2013.11.01 15:05:00 -
[1] - Quote
So basically you want to punish (more so than now) the efforts of multiple people against one because the one person decides to fly something expensive but does want to take precautions?
Security lies in the hands of players. You want security? Adapt and change your habits so that you are less of a target.
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. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3594
|
Posted - 2013.11.02 04:19:00 -
[2] - Quote
Photon Ceray wrote:1- EXPLAIN and make a tutorial about suicide ganking so that poor noobs stop getting shat on for no fault other than not being informed.
This I can get behind... though, how so many people think that suicide ganking won't ever happen in high-sec is absolutely astounding.
We have had events like Hulkageddon and Burn Jita in EVE (the latter of which was actually publicized by legitimate news sites)... And EVE has a well known reputation for terrible things (by gaming standards) happening to people by other people.
Photon Ceray wrote:2- change the mechanics and penalties in a way that a freighter should be able to safely carry at least 4b worth of stuff before it becomes gank worthy.
You only raise the bar for ganking and it will still happen... then people will complain some more that the bar should be raised.
But that's besides the point. Why should a player flying solo (freighter or not) be able to be safe against the efforts of multiple people?
Photon Ceray wrote:3- increase the penalties on suicide ganking dramatically, it's something that should be done only with a lot of consideration and risk, not some childs play that can be done on the whim without any serious consequences.
As mentioned before... there are a few costs and/or risks already involved with ganking.
- Going -10: unless you want to keep spending a couple of hundred million to raise your security status ever few days, you'll be permanently engagable by anyone in the game. This means no more casual shopping for supplies in trade-hubs unless...
-- you get an alt... which costs another subscription (or PLEX).
-- you get a friend to buy and move stuff for you... which becomes costly as friends often charge fees and work on their timetable, not yours.
- Effort: this is a big one. Amassing enough mouth breathers to sit and wait for the right target to be picked out is no small feat. The term "herding cats" is applicable here.
- No guarantees: You can crunch numbers all you want... there are always those few factors that will throw a wrench into the whole operation and make failure a possibility.
Some examples:
--- you can get a bad warp in (because the target is moving)... which results in more than a few people not applying their damage properly and not getting through the target's tank.
--- the target can have warfare boosters (or friendly remote repairs) that you didn't see and/or factor in... which means that his/her tank is stiffer than you calculated and you can't penetrate it all the way (this can be used to great effect on freighters).
--- the gank is successful but because the Random Number Generator (a.k.a. "Loot Fairy") is "grumpy" none of the stuff you want drops... meaning you have to eat the whole cost of the gank.
--- the gank is successful and the loot you want drops... but the target had a friend (or some random opportunistic person) sitting right next to him/her and grabs all the loot before your guys can. You now eat the whole cost of the gank.
--- there is a target that requires multiple people to kill... but not enough of your guys are online (or you don't have enough alts). The gank never happens.
If you think that the above is easy or dismiss it as being "not that bad" then I invite you to try your hand at ganking. The perception people have of it (which is only the end result) is very different from the reality.
Quote:Seriously, a ship that takes 3-4 months to train for, and 4-12 months to get the isk for, can be ganked by catalysts that take 3-4 weeks to train, and 45 minutes to get the isk for,
A capital can be locked down and swarmed by ships not even half its value. A Tech 2 HAC worth 200+ mil can be nuked by a four or five destroyers worth 10 mil a pop.
Cost and skills only confer limited advantages in certain situations... not "I win by being richer/having better skills."
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. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3595
|
Posted - 2013.11.02 05:45:00 -
[3] - Quote
Gigan Amilupar wrote:Edit: Dangit ShahFluffers, once again I find myself replying to a post with a long answer right after you do the same thing. Stop taking my kills 
With this subject there is no such thing as overkill. 
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. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3598
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 01:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
Freedom Equality wrote:If you read the proposed system, under it you would take 10bilion minus the (negligible) cost of the shuttle. It would really not matter.
But it will matter when somebody has 1bil in a 1bil hull....
Why should it matter what ship a person is in? A ship is a ship. An expensive hull is is usually better a specific task (reward) but can fall prey to much less expensive ships outside of this task (risk).
A 30 million ISK Stealth Bomber can easily die to a 1 million ISK frigate.
A 100 million ISK Attack Battlecruiser can also easily die to a 1 million ISK frigate.
A 200+ million ISK battleship can die to a small swarm of 1 million ISK frigates.
A 2.2 billion ISK dreadnought can be locked by a 1 million ISK frigate and not be able to defend itself.
A 60 billion ISK Titan can be locked down by a 200 million ISK HIC and not be able to defend itself.
As you can clearly see... hull and module value not having [too much] relevance towards effectiveness is a major theme in EVE.
And without referring to real life (which has no weight in a game)... why should suicide ganking not be be profitable (or very profitable? Why should people who choose to use more expensive stuff be given preferential treatment?
No one in this game has ANY right to say that what they do should be given more or less protections against others. It's all about what is good for the game as a whole (and unfortunately for you, more ships blowing up is good for the game as it drives demand on the market).
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. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3598
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 01:33:00 -
[5] - Quote
Freedom Equality wrote:Freighters can`t fit any tank.
Yes they can. Warfare links boost resistances.
You can also using the best tank of all: not being there in the first place. All you need is a frigate to web your freighter right as it initiates warp. It will be gone in 5 seconds. I use this method on 4+ billion ISK freighter hauls every week and I have yet to lose the ship.
Freedom Equality wrote:As for mission ships, they die no matter what tank they fit as no battleship survives 10 destroyers.(marauders might after the patch tho)
The metrics do not support this assertion. How many battleships and Marauders are running missions every day? How many die to suicide ganks per month?
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. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3600
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 17:18:00 -
[6] - Quote
Freedom Equality wrote:Ontopic: I will try to answer this without any facts so i don`t get censored again. Many things that are considered bad by society are rare if you measure them by how much of the population they touch percentage wise.
However, we have determined a long time ago that it is worth stopping the said things even if they only touch 1% of the population or less. That is something society agrees is the smart way of doing it.
So when you say "it should not be stopped because it does not yet touch 30% of the total population" i say to you: Humanity has decided you are wrong a long time ago.
By this standard we should do the following to EVE...
- break up corporate monopolies in EVE... because they stomp all over the competition and prevent new businesses from growing.
- stop people from manipulating the market (because it causes unjustified "economic hardship" for those affected).
- stop price gouging and fixing.
- stop all high-sec wars.
- have the NPC empires go out into null-sec and wipe out the players who live there (because they are warlords who potentially threaten the security of empire space).
- have the NPCs or GMs severely punish all players who steal from corps and alliances.
- ban anyone with <= -5.0 security status to access or use anything in empire space (high-sec or low-sec).
- outlaw the sale and use of all weapons in empire space outside of special "shooting zones" and self-defense.
These things are good in RL because they [mostly] prevent potential negative effects on the lives of many, many people.
However... this is a game where there are no "true" negative effects**. You character never dies. You can never be "removed" from the game (unless you violate the EULA and TOS). The only thing you can lose here is time and effort... which, in a grander sense, you are losing anyways because you are playing a game and not something actually productive in the real world.
** when I say "'true' negative effects" I am referencing to things that would affect a person's quality of life and/or physical health. The only things that can ever be hurt in a game, especially an online game, is pride and personal sense of ethics.
Moreover...
- If your pride is getting hurt over a game then it is time for you to step away from the computer and do something to "center" yourself. It's a game. The objective is to be better compared to others... not have the game make you better.
- if your personal sense of ethics and justice are being offended by activities in a game then step away from the computer and do a reality check. Games often do "what if" scenarios where commonly held ethics are scrapped or twisted to create a story or setting for you to exist in. It is not RL. It never will be RL. Get over it.
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. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3600
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 17:41:00 -
[7] - Quote
Freedom Equality wrote:How about raising the bar on profitable Suicide Ganks by the hull value of the ship ganked, not by the low cost of disposable ships?
Why?
Freedom Equality wrote:That would actually make ships like freighters usable as they are intended.
They are specialized bulk transport ships (note that I said "bulk"... not "value" there). They are being used as intended every single day.
Freedom Equality wrote:It would keep suicide ganking a viable option. Just not a get rich option.
Refer to my question one page back.
ShahFluffers wrote:And without referring to real life (which has no weight in a game)... why should suicide ganking not be be profitable (or very profitable)? Why should people who choose to use more expensive stuff be given preferential treatment?
The latter question is especially important.
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. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3600
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 18:44:00 -
[8] - Quote
Freedom Equality wrote:A suicide ganker can pick its target. It stands to lose 15mil if the gank fails.
A freighter loses at least 1 bil for the hull + the cargo.
How can you say there is more risk for the Suicide Ganker? Most ganks are a success.
Citation. Because the metrics pulled from the killboards do not support this assertion
(NOTE: on killboards you are only seeing the successful ganks... not all the ganks that have been attempted. But given that so many freighters and missions ships fly around everyday and only a small amount show up per month it is a very safe assumption that the problem is not endemic the way you think it is).
And the risks of a suicide gank were already explained.
And just to point out... not all "risk" comes in quantifiable dollar/ISK values. "Time wasted" is another risk (as I somewhat alluded to in the post I linked).
Freedom Equality wrote:The Suicide Ganker can decide when and who to attack, has time to figure out if it is worth attacking and can calculate the damage needed. And, in the unlikely event a gank fails, the Suicide Gankers pays 15mil.
It's a two-way street here.
A GOOD freighter pilot knows when he/she might become a potential target before ever undocking.
A GOOD freighter pilot can also calculate how much damage is needed to kill him/her and what would be needed to tip the odds in his/her favor.
A GOOD freighter pilot knows when he/she will need outside support if a high value load needs to be moved.
It's a cat and mouse game. Both sides are always trying to tip things in their favor.
Freedom Equality wrote:Freedom Equality wrote:The freighter pilot pays 1bil-1.5bil for the hull + the cargo value.
In truth, suicide gankers make profit from day one and they never risk losing more than than they won via Suicide Ganking. This didn't answer my question: Why should people who choose to use more expensive stuff be given preferential treatment?NOTE: Nothing in the game is balanced according to value. It's the exact opposite (see: value is derived by "balance" (see: "supply and demand")). [quote=Freedom Equality]The other professions always risk to lose a lot more, not matter how carefully they plan.
What about scammers? Racketeers? AWOXers? Corp thieves? Corp scammers? Spies? Explorers? Planetary Interaction?
Outside of lost time and maybe a few million ISK in ships and/or fees... these professions risk almost nothing for potentially large rewards.
Freedom Equality wrote:
A mechanic needs to be introduced so on occasion, no matter how well a Suicide Gank team is, over a one month period they end up losing ISK. Then we can say they take as much ISK as any other profession.
Does this mean that if people run missions all the time then eventually it will become unprofitable too? Because if you aren't using a "bling-fit" there is no risk with that (seriously... if you die to level 4 mission NPCs that isn't risk... that's stupidity).
Distribution agents? Will those be nuked as well?
What about high-sec PI? Characters sit in NPC corps and just farm planets... pulling in what is essentially a passive income stream that cannot be bombed or otherwise interrupted.
If we want to be fair here... might as well be fair across the board!
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. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3600
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 18:54:00 -
[9] - Quote
Freedom Equality wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:
Does this mean that if people run missions all the time then eventually it will become unprofitable too? Because if you aren't using a "bling-fit" there is no risk with that (seriously... if you die to level 4 mission NPCs that isn't risk... that's stupidity).
Distribution agents? Will those be nuked as well?
What about high-sec PI? Characters sit in NPC corps and just farm planets... pulling in what is essentially a passive income stream that cannot be bombed or otherwise interrupted.
If we want to be fair here... might as well be fair across the board!
If a bling ship is ganked - as a lot of them are - the person running mission will lose a lot of ISK.
Citation.
Otherwise your words (and your entire argument) have no meaning.
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. |
| |
|