|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
502
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
Yay, we need to compensate. No improvement at all, only compensation for the loss of stats. And the compensation costs even more stats. So wonderful. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
502
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:54:00 -
[2] - Quote
Poke InTheEye wrote:This is really dumb. These changes seem like they are being made just for the sake of change. Seriously, what's the point here?
Make all non-PVP activities less viable and ease the access to low-level PVP. Welcome to EVE Online in the age where you need to appeal to Angry Birds players instead of real players. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
502
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:58:00 -
[3] - Quote
Nightingale Actault wrote:Excellent changes.
Freighter pilots now have to choose between tank, time into warp, or warp speed. If you were filling your cargo full before you were likely doing it wrong anyways creating a giant gank target, and by going max cargo after the changes you are doing the same. Choosing to cut short time from your align or massive combined time from your warp speed is another choice that freighter pilots will need to ask themselves. With the changes to warp speed affecting freighters the way they have, I definitely like the option of choosing a safe amount of materials to transport at a faster warp speed for less total transport time.
Filling your freighter with Tritanium worth 400M makes you a big gank target? Please give me something from your mushrooms. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
502
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
T-N-T wrote:funny thing what only nulli goons and pl doesnt like these changes))others fine with them
I am certainly not fine with this garbage.
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
502
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:26:00 -
[5] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote: and trust me, this really could have been a heavier nerf. They could have made it so u couldnt exceed current capacity amounts. There was little need to buff max capacity on freighters, but they've done it.
I laughed for a second. You get meager 4% more cargo space for over a Billion more ISK and much reduced HP, or you go T1 and have less cargo, less HP and still increased cost for the ship. That is not a buff at all, that's not even a buffy. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
502
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:30:00 -
[6] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Charlemeign wrote:Nice to see another utterly ******** update by ccp. this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted.
I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted.
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
503
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:35:00 -
[7] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote: and trust me, this really could have been a heavier nerf. They could have made it so u couldnt exceed current capacity amounts. There was little need to buff max capacity on freighters, but they've done it.
I laughed for a second. You get meager 4% more cargo space for over a Billion more ISK and much reduced HP, or you go T1 and have less cargo, less HP and still increased cost for the ship. That is not a buff at all, that's not even a buffy. im surprised it took u a second to realise ur wrong and stop laughing. max possible capacity has gone up. more than 4% for T1 freighters. perhaps freighters over all havent been buffed, but in the respects of max capacity, yes, yes they have.
4% is "gone up" for you? No wonder that the current state of the societies is so rotten if we are pleased with and praise such awesome improvements. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
503
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:46:00 -
[8] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Charlemeign wrote:Nice to see another utterly ******** update by ccp. this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted. I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted. No this is exactly what they asked for. What they didn't think about is the nerfs that would have to accompany the rigs. Now, if all of these people against this change had spoken up every time a thread popped up demanding rigs and not kept quite while a handfull of us tried to tell people getting rigs would result in nerfs we might not be in this situation. But we are and so we have to get on with it. Fortunately I have been expecting this for years and this nerf is an indirect buff to ganking
This is not an indirect buff, this is a very open and outright buff to ganking. As if this was the most pressing problem to solve.
And yeah, many people have probably left the drawbacks of rigs out of sight. However, is it really too much to ask for improvements on ships that could need some improvements to make them actually a little bit more gank-proof for a price? Now they are even less gank-proof and require a higher price. I don't see where Risk vs. Reward is balanced in the slightest here. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
503
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:54:00 -
[9] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:This is not an indirect buff, this is a very open and outright buff to ganking. As if this was the most pressing problem to solve. And yeah, many people have probably left the drawbacks of rigs out of sight. However, is it really too much to ask for improvements on ships that could need some improvements to make them actually a little bit better usablef for a price? Now they are even less usable, less gank-proof and require a higher price. I don't see where Risk vs. Reward is balanced in the slightest here. Oh you can get a great deal more tank now, you just have to sacrifice that cargo bay.
Which doesn't make the ship any better at all. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
504
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:13:00 -
[10] - Quote
Buzz Dura wrote:for those who missed some figures...
What about Fenrir and Providence?
|
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
504
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:17:00 -
[11] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Lets be honest, how many of you fully filled your freighters anyway? If you did, what did you haul in them? because its profitable to gank anything over 400,000,000
the extra hull from the hull rigs are going to make ganks a bit harder to pull off, and gank scam hauling contracts just that much easier to spot because theyre going to be bigger than a hull rigged freighter can haul.
I do it all the time. I need the full 918k m-¦ my Providence provides almost every day.
Besides, these changes make it immensely more complex to get a freighter for your courier contracts, because you cannot really find a sweet spot anymore. Until now it was the 860k of a Fenrir or 880k of a Providence in order to allow all freighters to move your stuff. After this patch? Have fun trying to find that sweet spot... (and no, the base cargohold is not that spot.) |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
504
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:23:00 -
[12] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Sigras wrote:Lets be honest, how many of you fully filled your freighters anyway? If you did, what did you haul in them? because its profitable to gank anything over 400,000,000
the extra hull from the hull rigs are going to make ganks a bit harder to pull off, and gank scam hauling contracts just that much easier to spot because theyre going to be bigger than a hull rigged freighter can haul. I do it all the time. I need the full 918k m-¦ my Providence provides almost every day. what the heck do you haul? even tritanium would make you gank worthy! On a completely unrelated note, where are you doing this?
Courier contracts?
You'd like to know, right? Use your money to find me. No effort, no gains. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
516
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:12:00 -
[13] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I see we've reached physically threatening CCP employees. This thread is coming along nicely.
Are you genuinely surprised? Or whatelse do you expect to happen after this kind of "introduction of encouragements and incentives"? Makes me genuinely wonder if Fuzzie already has started digging his bunker.
EVE is real, right. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
516
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:43:00 -
[14] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I see we've reached physically threatening CCP employees. This thread is coming along nicely. Are you genuinely surprised? Or whatelse do you expect to happen after this kind of "introduction of encouragements and incentives" and with this fine (backstabbing, murdering, smacking, stealing and Destroy-Destroy-Destroy-screaming horde of cave dwellers? Makes me genuinely wonder if Fuzzie already has started digging his bunker. EVE is real, right. We probably get what we deserve and in turn CCP gets what they deserve for it. All nicely balanced in my opinion. So, tell me something. Why do all of you people who advocate real life violence in response to actions in a videogame always use the "EVE is real" line? Is that some kind of justification to you, or what?
I can be a very liberal person when it comes to that. "Real" includes not only fluffy-plushy Pony land, but also the rather ... unpleasant sides of humans. Do you (you and CCP) want tell me that we should live our darker sides in EVE while having Hello Kitty in RL? That's delusional.
It's not like I endorse or approve of violence, but how goes this lovely proverb again? What goes around, comes around, right? And if such violence were to happen, there are appropriate tools to deal with in RL. Nicely balanced, don't you think?
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
516
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:56:00 -
[15] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote: I can be a very liberal person when it comes to that. "Real" includes not only fluffy-plushy Pony land, but also the rather ... unpleasant sides of humans. Do you (you and CCP) want tell me that we should live our darker sides in EVE while having Hello Kitty in RL? That's delusional.
I think that adults should leave the game, in the game. And if they can't manage to separate pixels from real life then they should be removed from this community with extreme prejudice. Quote: It's not like I endorse or approve of violence, but how goes this lovely proverb again? What goes around, comes around, right? And if such violence were to happen, there are appropriate tools to deal with in RL. Nicely balanced, don't you think?
I don't think that any action taken in a videogame warrants a real life response. None. No matter how far it may go in the game, taking it to real life is inexcusable.
That is your opinion. However, what do you suggest how we can let CCP constantly feel the same threatening sensation they want to expose us (not PVPers, but those who make PVP happen and don't get rewarded for it)? |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
516
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:59:00 -
[16] - Quote
Laiannah Sahireen wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:[quote=Laiannah Sahireen] Oh and of course lose that almost respectable align time that I had before. Because JFs were clearly evading gatecamps by insta-warping. . ... JFs are evading gatecamps, yes. they evade all forms of pvp.
Uhm ... how long have you not been playing EVE? Or checked a killboard? Or flown a JF, for that matter? |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
517
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 14:15:00 -
[17] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: Its a bad change in terms of JF's and freighters, but for the goal that CCP is aiming at local industry in 0.0 it hits the spot, the problem is that for me is another kick in the nuts.
There has to and there are other way to improve and enable industry and self-sustainability in 00 sec. Ways that require a bit more thinking on CCP's and the player side, but that is too much to ask apparently. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
518
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:07:00 -
[18] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:There has to and there are other way to improve and enable industry and self-sustainability in 00 sec. Ways that require a bit more thinking on CCP's and the player side, but that is too much to ask apparently. Will be interesting to see if Mittens will ask his fellow Goons to venture forth and mine Veldspar in 0.0 for their supercap production, or if they still expect to import compressed ore from HiSec...
Remains to be seen, but one of the CFC posters in this kind of threads (was it Grench?) said, they would not require their members to do this kind of labor. So ... go figure. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
518
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:08:00 -
[19] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:baltec1 wrote:The vast bulk of people will never be ganked. Stop squirming, for your own sake. Completely empty freighters are being ganked in Isanamo at regular intervals 'for the lulz' or RP reasons. For your original statement to be true, then there needs to be 500'000 individual freighter pilots active in space at least once per year, just for a single gank like that. Even that cannot be true. If you have better statistics available than the reference I provided, including hard facts on number of freighter trips made in EVE per year, then I wouldn't mind helping to calculate the exact chance of being ganked per trip. That, or five thousand freighter pilots in space a hundred times a year. And I'm pretty sure it's actually a lot higher than that. Anyway, if you don't want to get ganked in New Order territory, first of all don't go there, but most of all don't autopilot through it.
Neither nor is possible or helps a lot. Their space is "everywhere" and they besiege critical junctions... |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
518
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:50:00 -
[20] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:fair enough WP. so ill point out where u urself explained where the risk is. Walter Hart White wrote: If 300m drops, you are neutral. If anything more, you are in profit. this is risk. u guys may put in the effort to increase the chances of getting a kill and making money. but its not something u can deliver with 100% certainty. This is widely understood, and why assumed u weren't being truthful. sorry
This is not a risk. Who cares about the drop when you gank? You are ISK-efficient regardless on the killboards. The drop is only icing on top of the already delicious cake. |
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
518
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:51:00 -
[21] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Besides the nerf to cargo size and Capital packaged size.
I do not understand the need for any of this!
Keep the rest as they are now, there's nothing wrong with making it harder to gank freighters.
I'd love to hear the reasoning behind these changes!
Generation Angry Bird and Farmville. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
519
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:07:00 -
[22] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:even the kill itself is not a certainty. what if the freighter pilot uses webs as this guy pointed out. If ur measuring the chances of a successful gank from after the point a freighters been bumped, ill admit, the chances of escape are almost 0 (which is why i say dnt get bumped). but even the turrets catalysts and talos's use work on a random number generator. fingers crossed...
Yeah, sure, webbing helps a whole lot. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
519
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 08:15:00 -
[23] - Quote
Aerissa Nolen wrote:I've been working on a web tool to help wrap my head around these changes. Fairly limited right now but gets some basic info across. Works in IGB as well, does not require trust. http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/index.html
That's awesome! |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
520
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:34:00 -
[24] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:I Love Boobies wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Fozzie, I know you guys see these posts, and I know you can't comment on everything, and lastly I know that introducing art assets to the game takes time. However this is my proposal and will likely be far more appeasing to all parties involved than the current changes.
Leave the current freighters as they are.
Make smaller new freighters.
Make them have half the cargo, hit points, align time and build cost and double the warp speed.
Give them 3 rig slots
Win
OR
Leave the current freighters alone
Make ONE new freighter in the ORE line with the above stats and say that ORE needed something with better agility for deep space mining or some mobo jumbo like that. Already in game... it's called an Orca. Because an orca has 500k m3??? 400k smb 50k ore bay 40k fleet hangar whatever your cargo ends up at with skills and fittings... yeah, it does have 500k m3... technically.
Of which you can only use 40k to transport things that are not assembled ships or ore. Yeah, that is certainly a good ship to transport Courier Contracts or quantities of modules, minerals, etc. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
520
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:45:00 -
[25] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: Make smaller new freighters.
I'll say this slowly for you... DEEP SPACE TRANSPORT SHIPS! -OR- ORCA
None is suitable to transport things between 100k and 300k m-¦. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
520
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:56:00 -
[26] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:None is suitable to transport things between 100k and 300k m-¦. Again, JFs fit that role perfectly.
They absolutely don't. JF fill a completely different role. They are rather miss-used as smaller gate-to-gate freighters.
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
522
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:15:00 -
[27] - Quote
NickSuccorso wrote:CCP Fozzie, this change is a great start!
Every freighter pilot here needs to understand that this "re-balance" isn't intended to help freighters in their current role. It is clearly intended to reverse the damage that freighters and jump freighters have done to Eve game play.
Eve needs local production, regional economies, and a reason for people to move into low-sec.
Eve was so much more fun before the introduction of jump bridges and jump freighters. People had to mine and build things locally. That meant there were players in the asteroid belts, hauling things through gates, out in space!
The only major problem with this change is that it isn't enough. CCP Fozzie, it is very important that jump bridges be dealt with as well during this re-balance.
This is noble goals, but what do freighters in High sec have to do with that?
As for the 00 sec and Low sec part, I completely understand and support that kind of development. 00 sec is just as stagnant because players are lazy and feel way to entitled to an easy life, especially in Sov 00. This easy mode should stop. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
522
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:33:00 -
[28] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:B Plague wrote: and seeing as high sec suicide ganks are already super common Highsec suicide ganks on freighters are exceedingly rare.
Can't remember when I laughed as hard the last time.
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
522
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:46:00 -
[29] - Quote
Mag's wrote:This link is meant to prove what exactly?
That freighter ganks in High sec are not "exceedingly rare". |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
522
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:53:00 -
[30] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Oh. So as it didn't, why post it?
We seem to have different standards on the word "exceedingly". I for one rather follow the dictionary's definition in this case.
|
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
524
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:58:00 -
[31] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:That freighter ganks in High sec are not " exceedingly rare". If the number of them killed on an average day can be counted on the fingers of one hand, that qualifies pretty well as rare to an extreme degree. Come back when you're at least well into the double digits.
I am back. :> |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
524
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 22:03:00 -
[32] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Tippia wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:That freighter ganks in High sec are not " exceedingly rare". If the number of them killed on an average day can be counted on the fingers of one hand, that qualifies pretty well as rare to an extreme degree. Come back when you're at least well into the double digits. I am back. :> With yet another link that doesn't help your cause. You are a strange fellow.
She just asked me to come back when I have freighter kills per day in the double digits realm. At this late hour I cannot be bothered to search killboards for the exact numbers on that extended weekend. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
525
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 22:23:00 -
[33] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:now burn jita is an exceedingly rare event Once a year? Not very common and definitely not average. It's also exceedingly easy not to lose a freighter to it.
You would think... |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
527
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:18:00 -
[34] - Quote
Darkblad wrote:Use thisAnd keep in mind that this is not limited to suicide Ganks alone. The total number of (Jump) Freighter kills in Highsec from 23.04.2013 to 24.04.2014 (therefore excluding Burn Jita) is 2,385. A daily average of 6,5. But this one doesn't count.
Thank you and what the hell is that kill? -10 sec status pilot? |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
529
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:20:00 -
[35] - Quote
Cool. The stats are still only able to achieve a compensation instead of an improvement over the current state; however, the compensation is not ridiculously expensive anymore. I can at least live a bit better with that. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
532
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 15:23:00 -
[36] - Quote
Angelique Duchemin wrote:And a big "screw you" to the people who spent isk hoarding capital cargo rigs.
You deserve it for trying to profit on the misery of others. Shed your tears into my bucket, maybe I can use them for some useful stuff.
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
532
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 17:49:00 -
[37] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote: 2) Fitting a ship means making a decision. It's interesting to make difficult decisions and face the consequences. It's not interesting to make clicky-clicky to swap to one of predefined standard fits like "max cargo" or "max speed".
I hope you understand the difference between Fitting and Rigging. All your examples fall in the Rigging part and have little to do with Fitting. They influence and "restrict" your fitting capabilities and that's it. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
532
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 22:38:00 -
[38] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Raddar 13 wrote:The 3 low slots on the freighter seem a lot better than the rigs. If by 'better' you mean more powerful - yes. I don't think 'more powerful freighters' is desirable right now, they are already pretty good at what they do. Providing freighters with flexibility is fine. But providing 'cheap/easy' lowslot flexibility AND a significant stat buff is out of line. Its freighter power creep. Obviously going to be popular with short-sighted carebears that are worried about ganks, but bad in the long run. Power creep on freighters makes AFK logistics in highsec even easier and thus flattens prices everywhere. If freighters were buffed with rigs, a small degree of power-creep is probably OK - simply because capital rigs have a large cost associated with them, are not easy to change, and make freighters significantly more expensive (and risky to lose). In other words, if freighters are going to become 'more powerful' - do it with rigs, not lowslots - because rigs have a significant cost balancing out the enhanced EHP/Cargo/alignment stats.
Troll? And you pay for the increased cost when I have to buy several more freighters to be able to have the proper freighter for a wide range of applications handy in several hubs? Somehow I don't see you pay me 10M/gate for a high sec transport.
Rig prices are ridiculous, in some cases nearly doubling or more than doubling the cost of a freighter, which is just as easy to kill. That's what you call "significant stat buff" and "more powerful"? If people do more AFK Hauling their stuff, more people get killed, with rigs or with low slot modules. That is the short, mid and long term evaluation and outlook of this change. Now the only difference is that with low slot modules we Haulers don't need to pay several billions to "bling" our shooting galley, while people like you pay 1,000 ISK /jump and expect it to be moved pronto.
There is not even the slightest sign of a power creep, because at the end of the day, freighters have not received any improvement. Ever stat increase is payed double with 2 stat decreases. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
532
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 06:47:00 -
[39] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote: Don't accuse me of trolling on this topic though. I'm a ganker, but I have spent far more time flying freighters than any other ship.
What mainly concerns me is this:
Currently I fly a Nomad in highsec. Its EHP is around 330K - such that it would take around 10-13 Taloses to kill it in 0.5 space. Or, 1-1.5 Billion worth of gank-ships need to be risked to kill it. So, I generally never haul much more than 3 Billion ISK in it, less if I decide to autopilot. If I haul more than this, I tend to make sure I have a cyno-alt ready for a quick jump to lowsec.
But it will be retired if these changes go through.
Look at the new Anshar - you are pushing 720K EHP, with a still healthy cargo of 120K m^3. That requires over 25 Taloses, meaning an investment of 2.5 to 3 Billion ISK is required to kill it.
You can stuff around 6 Billion into this new Anshar and autopilot away without worrying about gankers making a single dime at your expense. Realistically you could probably stuff around 8 Billion into it before you'd get a second look, as 2 or 3 Billion split 25 ways is a pretty meager payday for such a large operation.
You really want to tell me that ganking a 6.5B ship with cargo worth 2B+ (in total 8.5B+ ISK worth) is too powerful if you need 3B in gank ships? Really?
I don't know what your unintentened consequences are, but that gankers need to put a little bit more effort into their cause when they want to indulge in illegal activities, is certainly more than welcome. This puts ganking a tiny little bit closer to what Haulers risk every day in their defenseless ships. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
532
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 07:14:00 -
[40] - Quote
Warr Akini wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:You really want to tell me that ganking a 6.5B ship with cargo worth 2B+ (in total 8.5B+ ISK worth) is too powerful if you need 3B in gank ships? Really? I don't know what your unintentened consequences are, but that gankers need to put a little bit more effort into their cause when they want to indulge in illegal activities, is certainly more than welcome. This puts ganking a tiny little bit closer to what Haulers risk every day in their defenseless ships. Your argument rests on a pure dollar-for-dollar consideration, which might be fair in a vacuum but disregards the manpower required - organizing twenty people in highsec for more than five minutes before they get bored is a hell of a challenge, I promise you. RvB and a couple of others have done it well, we've done it alright even outside of Burn Jita, but in the end cost never ends up being the barrier to entry - manpower does. Especially in a game where effort levels are so high to achieve something like a gank.
Bored to hell in High sec sitting in station? Where is the difference to sitting on a Titan in 00 sec/Low sec waiting for the drop? If it bores you to wait in a twenty man fleet for a gank, then you clearly are not fit for ganking. If lack of manpower is your issue, you are clearly not fit for ganking. Why is it that ganking has be an easy, low-risk, low-isk-involving, low manpower involving activity? |
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
537
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 07:47:00 -
[41] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Chick Sauce wrote:The Procurer is not getting a buff, it is getting a nerf. It is losing a mid-slot. More speed and drone bandwidth won't help being suicide ganked while AFK mining in high-sec. The loss of the mid on the procurer was retraced some time ago. Confirmed. I reviewed the Barge thread. All I see are buffs. More speed, faster alignment, more slots, more fitting, smaller crystals, more yield, longer range miners. When they initially did their 2012 'balance' pass on mining barges, we told them repeatedly that the Mackinaw/Retrievers were too good and should be toned down. We were ignored. So now, rather than tone down the Mack - their solution to the imbalance is, predictably - lets buff everything else. Even the already ridiculous Proc and Skiff. Talk about power creep..... When carebear ships are 'rebalanced', its only in one direction. Safer, easier ISK.
When PVP ships are rebalanced, it's only one direction. Faster, easier, non-escapable, non-effort PVP.
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
543
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 06:28:00 -
[42] - Quote
Totally unwanted? I am very sure that this is absolutely not totally unwanted.
If you want to gank, there will be still enough freighters flying around as paper thin, max cargo boats that you can easily gank with 10 Catalysts, even less than it used to be. If you really want to gank a JF with full EHP mods and filled with 6-10+ in loot, do so in Low sec where they jump in or invest the proper amount of Tornados/Talos/Brutix/Vexor. The ISK efficiency on such a gank is still vastly in your favor as you do not need to invest 13B+ in the gank. If you cannot get enough gankers to gank this kind of EHP, it's not the fault of the game, it's your fault for failing to prepare yourself properly.
Now stop complaining and recruit some gankers into your corp so that you can gank 800k EHP in Uedama.
Or instead: Get your brain working on how you can entice more people to go to 00 sec so that this kind of JF don't need to come to High sec in the first place and instead only fly around in 00 sec or Low sec to local trade hubs. You are probably not able to break Jita completely, but you can at least try to diminish its influence. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
543
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 06:50:00 -
[43] - Quote
Oh dear, I misread your unwarranted. Shall I reformulated my post? I can assure you that nothing is going to change, except for the wording in the first line. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
543
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 08:01:00 -
[44] - Quote
I wouldn't call 168k m-¦ cargo space "without loosing[sic] Cargo bay capacity", if you compare it to the previous 344k m-¦. However, it's still pretty impressive HP values there, remains to be seen if this helps to deter ganks or just invites them for a try even more. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
545
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 16:14:00 -
[45] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote: Ridiculous, and shows how little thought Fozzie put into this version.
It only shows how weak gankers seemingly have become.
Besides, CODE does seem to defy all your fears quite successfully in Aufay at the moment.
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
546
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 06:02:00 -
[46] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:And for people that insist on using Catalyst costs as a reasonable example of 'ganker costs' - you must think getting 65 Catalyst pilots together is a trivial thing. Because that is what it would take to kill a new Anshar in 0.5. Costs scale considerably in higher sec from there. And that new Ark-fit goes over 1 Million EHP? That would take about 85-90 Catalysts. Sounds reasonable.
Absolutely. This Ark costs you ~8.8B + possible cargo of lets say, in your numbers, 4B, which makes 12.8B ISK value. 75 Catalyst, on the other hand, cost you between 700M to 900M, not even a 12th of the gank target. Sounds absolutely reasonable to me. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
546
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 11:41:00 -
[47] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote: As far as EHP goes, again, ISK cost of ships are not a balancing factor. Small ships kill big ships all the time. Small numbers of gankers have always been able to blow up individual large valuable targets. But requiring gankers to go from mustering fleets of 75 pilots (up from 30-35 or so) to kill a single JF is ridiculous. Especially considering these numbers are for 0.5 - the most forgiving systems in highsec.
Why is that ridiculous? You need to muster sizable dread fleets to RF or kill a well defended tower in reasonable amounts of time. You need to muster sizable subcap/cap fleets to murder a carrier/super cap. And you complain that you need muster a big fleet and put sizable effort into killing 1 well-defended ship?
Besides, even if you fail to gank the target on the first attempt, you already inflict massive damage to the target in form of immense repair cost, be it time spent with remote hull/armor repair ship or repair shop in stations.
In any possible way (if a gank succeeds or fails) the gankers always win. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
546
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 19:59:00 -
[48] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote: In any possible way (if a gank succeeds or fails) the gankers always win.
First, I've noticed that you, again, failed to respond to my argument about Jump Freighters already are gank-proof due to having a Jump Engine, and therefore do not need massive EHP as well. That is why they cost so much, after all. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
I though you were good enough to find this in my "always win" part. But let me break it down a bit further:
If you take a regular CC for gate-gate travel with a JF and you are forced to jump to a cyno, and even more so after Crius, you pay a lot more ISK than you get reward. Ganker win. Once the gank has started, you cannot even escape because you are warp disrupted. Gank either succeeds and you lose your ship, CC, collateral and maybe even your pod, or gank fails, your ship survives, but you have immense repair cost. Ganker win. If you bring valuable good to a hub and you are being ganked, you lose either your/your alliance members' months of ratting and collecting or in case of a jump back to a cyno, reduce their profits considerably. Ganker win. Or take valuable minerals to transport to your production plant, something that, thanks to CCP's wisdom, is going to happen very often in the future: if you need to jump out, your margins are reduced in the best or gone in the worse case. Ganker win.
Herr Wilkus wrote:A failed (unprofitable) gank occurs for any number of reasons.
-3rd party interference. -mishandling of the gank because of inexperience, or gankers AFK when order to attack given. -JF pilot not asleep and jumped out. Even if the target is destroyed, then there is another pile of failure conditions that can occur. -cargo stolen -cargo didn't drop -cargo blown up by 3rd party -cargo value miscalculated
The situation being created here, however - is that even if a 4-5 Billion ISK freighter does trundle along, (not as common as you think) - it can, with minimal effort be fit to be completely uneconomical to gank. Meaning more cargo is moved more safely and more AFK.
3rd parties are effectively shut out from interference because ganked wrecks are yellow and you, if you gank a freighter, usually need a freighter to pull the stuff out (unless you do loot picking with a can), which makes you go suspect and free-to-shoot for everyone. Your cargo in the wreck is in most cases perfectly safe for you to grab with provided protection from your own group. Blowing up the wreck is a possibility, but you still have the killmail. And that is what the majority of gankers are after.
If you are inexperienced, you simply don't try to gank JF. Inexperience or not, you must be outright ignorant to the reality if you attack a target in the full knowledge that you cannot successfully gank it. You take on targets that you can gank and build up experience, before try to make a fool of yourself on bigger fish.
Herr Wilkus wrote:Result: massive buff for haulers and nerf for gankers. Highsec needed to be even safer? Really?
It is not getting any safer with these changes. A tiny little bit more convenient for haulers, but by far not safer. However, I refuse to accept that activities, which are supposed take place in Low sec and 00 sec, should be even easier to do in High sec than it already is the case. If you want to annoy people, do it where everyone is supposed to live and have this kind of pleasure. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
559
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 11:05:00 -
[49] - Quote
How is using an official, existing since time immemorial game mechanic bot aspirant? By that logic (I guess every activity that doesn't include direct player action is considered such?), using drones, moon harvesters, siphons, manufacturing, and gas mining, sitting in station being busy doing nothing at all as well as a couple more things are all considered "bot aspirant"? |
|
|
|