| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 75 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Paranoid Loyd
3760
   |
Posted - 2015.02.05 19:21:54 -
[1021] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
In all cases, of course.
If your point is it matters because of things like how much DPS you need to bring, and other such thoughts, yes I agree with you, the fit matters. But my point is that the fit doesn't matter in the motivation for ganking the target for a majority of those reasons.
If you have multiple scanners looking for targets and you scan one with a tank and one that is anti-tanked which one would you choose to kill?
There are way more freighters than gankers, the proper tactics when trying to be safe when complete safety is not really possible is to be the least attractive target.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 19:55:47 -
[1022] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
If you have multiple scanners looking for targets and you scan one with a tank and one that is anti-tanked which one would you choose to kill?.
Well seems to me that if you are CODE the answer is pretty irrelevant.
https://zkillboard.com/kill
44291340
The values here seem to be well below what the typical threshold are that every one talks about and that one even had tripple bulkheads.
They do seem to have an awful lot of kills that net them zero profit in terms of loot drops (because they are killing empty freighters). I'm trying to find an empty tripple bulkhead fit, but finding one like that would be hard given how silly it would seem to travel max tank with 0 cargo.
The fit on this one is pretty bad, but zero cargo:
https://zkillboard.com/kill
44293086 |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
577
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 20:03:26 -
[1023] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
They do seem to have an awful lot of kills that net them zero profit in terms of loot drops (because they are killing empty freighters). I'm trying to find an empty tripple bulkhead fit, but finding one like that would be hard given how silly it would seem to travel max tank with 0 cargo.
You always should fly empty with max tank because you do not need those low slots for anything else. I always fly with as much tank as my cargo size will allow, and for an empty hold that is triple bulkhead.
No one is going to gank an empty, triple bulkheaded freighter unless you have seriously annoyed them. That is why you don't see them on killboards, not because people would be "silly" to tank their empty ship.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 20:05:29 -
[1024] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
No one is going to gank an empty, triple bulkheaded freighter unless you have seriously annoyed them. That is why you don't see them on killboards, not because people would be "silly" to tank their empty ship.
The problem is that anyone ganks empty anything to begin with. |
Paranoid Loyd
3761
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 20:40:08 -
[1025] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
No one is going to gank an empty, triple bulkheaded freighter unless you have seriously annoyed them. That is why you don't see them on killboards, not because people would be "silly" to tank their empty ship.
The problem is that anyone ganks empty anything to begin with.
Why is it a problem? If I want to waste my isk who are you to say how I waste it?
Also, you already acknowledged this as a valid reason:
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
- Profit from donors who want to read about your organization
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 21:05:09 -
[1026] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
No one is going to gank an empty, triple bulkheaded freighter unless you have seriously annoyed them. That is why you don't see them on killboards, not because people would be "silly" to tank their empty ship.
The problem is that anyone ganks empty anything to begin with. Why is it a problem? If I want to waste my isk who are you to say how I waste it? Also, you already acknowledged this as a valid reason: Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
- Profit from donors who want to read about your organization
Familiarize yourself with this concept and it may become clearer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader
I know what the term loss leader means. My whole point is that I think its currently imbalanced that this option exists in the form it does. Meaning I would like to see the GCC adjusted to act more like the jump fatigue mechanic to make people like CODE actually have to pick and choose who they gank.
|
Paranoid Loyd
3761
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 21:13:49 -
[1027] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
No one is going to gank an empty, triple bulkheaded freighter unless you have seriously annoyed them. That is why you don't see them on killboards, not because people would be "silly" to tank their empty ship.
The problem is that anyone ganks empty anything to begin with. Why is it a problem? If I want to waste my isk who are you to say how I waste it? Also, you already acknowledged this as a valid reason: Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
- Profit from donors who want to read about your organization
Familiarize yourself with this concept and it may become clearer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader I know what the term loss leader means. My whole point is that I think its currently imbalanced that this option exists in the form it does. Meaning I would like to see the GCC adjusted to act more like the jump fatigue mechanic to make people like CODE actually have to pick and choose who they gank.
If I am killing freighters at a loss with the proven fact that the profit of those kills will be coming from those who enjoy reading the stories that it creates how can you argue they are not killing for profit?
Indirect profit is still profit.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
577
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 21:15:42 -
[1028] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I know what the term loss leader means. My whole point is that I think its currently imbalanced that this option exists in the form it does. Meaning I would like to see the GCC adjusted to act more like the jump fatigue mechanic to make people like CODE actually have to pick and choose who they gank.
Then perhaps you should suggest that in the Features and Ideas subforum so we can hash out the pros and cons of your proposal.
Personally however, I think if CODE. chooses to gank at a nominal loss, that is their prerogative. This is suppose to be a sandbox afterall.
But since this thread is intended to discuss hyperdunking, perhaps we can put CODE.'s business plan aside for now?
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 22:14:25 -
[1029] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
how can you argue they are not killing for profit?
I'm not. What I am pointing out is that given CODE's current targets that they are rather indiscriminate with what they kill. Besides other posts were pointing out that if we offer more protection for things that fits will become less relevant. And my point is that they are barely relevant now. Why should a travel fit not be relevant for an empty freighter?
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 22:17:18 -
[1030] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
But since this thread is intended to discuss hyperdunking, perhaps we can put CODE.'s business plan aside for now?
If the whole purpose of hyperdunking is to gank a target, how exactly do you discuss it without also being able to discuss the mechanics of ganking? I believe that that they could leave hyperdunking as is now if they added a jump fatigue type mechanic to criminal timers. Not that hard. |
|
|
Paranoid Loyd
3761
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 22:21:12 -
[1031] - Quote
Relevant is a term of relativity. You think it is not relevant while I do, then again I wouldn't even move a freighter solo, and you would. So we are already at an impasse of what is acceptable and what is not.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 22:29:33 -
[1032] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Relevant is a term of relativity. You think it is not relevant while I do, then again I wouldn't even move a freighter solo, and you would. So we are already at an impasse of what is acceptable and what is not.
*Shrug* But don't you know, ganks are so rare... you live up to your namesake well :) |
Paranoid Loyd
3761
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 22:36:56 -
[1033] - Quote
Yes, they are rare, but they also happen. The game is risk mitigation.
If you don't want to lose something you properly protect it. I don't want to lose my freighter, so I properly protect it.
You are arguing that you shouldn't have to properly protect things you don't want to lose.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 22:38:21 -
[1034] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
You are arguing that you shouldn't have to properly protect things you don't want to lose.
No, I'm arguing that the level of protection is absurd.
|
Paranoid Loyd
3761
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 22:43:13 -
[1035] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:
You are arguing that you shouldn't have to properly protect things you don't want to lose.
No, I'm arguing that the level of protection is absurd.
What protection?
The only protection you can rely on is that which you provide or arrange to have provided for you.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11676
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 23:58:15 -
[1036] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:
You are arguing that you shouldn't have to properly protect things you don't want to lose.
No, I'm arguing that the level of protection is absurd.
Yeah, absurdly too good. It is almost impossible to die if you play with more than half your ass.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
577
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 07:24:34 -
[1037] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
If the whole purpose of hyperdunking is to gank a target, how exactly do you discuss it without also being able to discuss the mechanics of ganking? I believe that that they could leave hyperdunking as is now if they added a jump fatigue type mechanic to criminal timers. Not that hard.
Sure, you can discuss whatever you want. But the ruling was to clear up whether a specific type of ganking was an exploit - that is the unfortunately named hyperdunking - not whether ganking at all is an exploit. It has been made clear several times in the CSM minutes, by CCP Falcon and others from CCP that suicide ganking is an intended game mechanic.
As to your solution, you are of course completely wrong. The whole point that enables hyperdunking is that the ganker continues to board ships and apply damage during the criminal timer. If you added a fatigue-like mechanism, or even increased the criminal timers to two weeks, the criminal would still be able to hyperdunk her target under the current mechanics.
Valterra Craven wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:
You are arguing that you shouldn't have to properly protect things you don't want to lose.
No, I'm arguing that the level of protection is absurd.
This is the game. If you undock your reasonably loaded, cargo-expanded freighter and press 'Autopilot' you have a 99.5% chance of arriving safely at your destination. If you triple-bulkhead it and do the same you now have a 99.8% chance. If you set up some insta-docks and undocks, and bring a competent scout/webbing escort, you now have a 99.99+%. Of course this risk depends on what you are carrying, what systems you are traveling, and so forth, but you, the freighter pilot, have to decide how much risk you are willing to take and how much effort you are willing to put in to protect your stuff. This is why CCP has explicitly put suicide ganking in the game - to provide the risk that forces real and interesting choices for haulers moving about highsec.
Freighter ganking is already incredibly rare and you are arguing for NPC-based mechanisms that shift the risk even lower at no addition cost or effort for yourself. How does that make the game more interesting at all? The numbers above already make it completely rational to use the unengaging two-buttons 'Undock' and 'Autopilot' to move everything in highsec. Why should active freighter piloting and the use of other hauling ships be further disincentivized by making AFK freighter hauling even safer?
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
11686
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 10:34:33 -
[1038] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
Freighter ganking is already incredibly rare and you are arguing for NPC-based mechanisms that shift the risk even lower at no additional cost or effort for yourself. How does that make the game more interesting at all? The numbers above already make it completely rational to use the unengaging two-buttons 'Undock' and 'Autopilot' to move everything in highsec. Why should active freighter piloting and the use of other hauling ships be further disincentivized by making AFK freighter hauling even safer?
Because some people think that actively not playing the game should be more viable than actually playing the game.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Khan Wrenth
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
102
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 11:47:52 -
[1039] - Quote
Why do people consider it such a big hassle to get a web or logi friend?
The places you really need escort are the infamous chockepoint systems and their adjacent systems. Just ask one of your corp/alliance mates for 15 minutes of their time to get through there? I don't know, maybe I'm playing EVE wrong, but I frequently have downtime where I can help a corpie. If I'm online and I don't have the time immediately, I can help them when I get back from whatever exploration I'm doing. Do you have to move that cargo right now? If not, see if a corpie can help you whenever he or she is done.
People moving billions in cargo should at the very least have dozens of contacts they can call upon to help them out. Some of them have to be online at any given moment, and at least one isn't doing anything *right now*, or has time in a few minutes.
I honestly don't see how this is a hurdle for anyone.
HTFU.-á Adapt or die.-á Beware the falcon punch.
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 15:47:56 -
[1040] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
Sure, you can discuss whatever you want but there are rules to stay on topic in these forums. The ruling we are discussing in this thread was to clear up whether a specific type of ganking was an exploit - that is the unfortunately named hyperdunking - not whether ganking at all is an exploit. It has been made clear several times in the CSM minutes, by CCP Falcon and others from CCP that suicide ganking is an intended game mechanic.
Well given how crazy CCP ISD are about moderation, you'd think that if those rules were really important to them that this thread would have far fewer replies (because they'd get deleted) or the thread would simply be locked.
Black Pedro wrote:
As to your solution, you are of course completely wrong in regards to hyperdunking, the topic of this thread. The whole point that enables hyperdunking is that the ganker continues to board ships and apply damage during the criminal timer. If you added a fatigue-like mechanism, or even increased the criminal timers to two weeks, the criminal would still be able to hyperdunk her target under the current mechanics.
The solution wasn't to STOP things like hyperdunking, or ganking, or offer more protection. The solution was to try and come up with a way that would give gankers more pause, or force them to think about the targets they gank and if its really worth it to them.
Black Pedro wrote:
This is why CCP has explicitly put suicide ganking in the game - to provide the risk that forces real and interesting choices for haulers moving about highsec.
And I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is that gankers aren't being forced to make the same meaningful choices.
Black Pedro wrote:
Freighter ganking is already incredibly rare and you are arguing for NPC-based mechanisms that shift the risk even lower at no additional cost or effort for yourself. How does that make the game more interesting at all? The numbers above already make it completely rational to use the unengaging two-buttons 'Undock' and 'Autopilot' to move everything in highsec. Why should active freighter piloting and the use of other hauling ships be further disincentivized by making AFK freighter hauling even safer?
Hey, I agree with you, AFK anything shouldn't be a thing. Lets remove autopilot.
|
|
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 15:51:20 -
[1041] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:Why do people consider it such a big hassle to get a web or logi friend?
Logi is likely going to be the way to go in the future for most people as A. as rise has stated CCP believes the default for corps will be friendly fire off and B. alot of people in NPC corps already can't use webs. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
582
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 16:11:22 -
[1042] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
This is why CCP has explicitly put suicide ganking in the game - to provide the risk that forces real and interesting choices for haulers moving about highsec.
And I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is that gankers aren't being forced to make the same meaningful choices.
Of course they are. Each gank of a freighter costs many tens of millions (many gankers in Catalysts vs. cargo expanders) to hundreds of millions or even billions of ISK (fewer gankers in Taloses vs. bulkheads). If that freighter is empty or carrying something not that valuable, there is a significant cost to the gankers. Even if it is full of loot, the loot fairy may be unkind and the gankers get nothing. There is clearly a strong financial incentive to go after ships with significant loot.
The gankers are making choices all the time and have to have a way to make ISK to fund their ganking because if not, and they just kept blindly ganking empty freighters all day, they would quickly run out ships and ISK, and end up sitting in their noob ships having nothing to show for it but a green killboard full of empty freighters.
This is a sandbox game however. If gankers want to absorb the cost and blow up a target at a loss, because they either don't like you, or because they are selling freighters on the side, or because they are selling protection, or because they are paid to by shadowy nullsec entities, what does it matter? How can you even know how they are being funded or how they are choosing targets?
Ok, let's try it this way. Say I tell you that there is a massive Goon conspiracy to blow up empty freighters in order to demoralize highsec citizens (kind of along the lines of Burn Jita) and that they are paying a bounty of 2B ISK for every empty freighter that is destroyed by gankers, but only 500M ISK if you blow up a full one. Do you think we should change the game mechanics to prevent them from doing this?
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
787
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 16:18:55 -
[1043] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
But since this thread is intended to discuss hyperdunking, perhaps we can put CODE.'s business plan aside for now?
If the whole purpose of hyperdunking is to gank a target, how exactly do you discuss it without also being able to discuss the mechanics of ganking? I believe that that they could leave hyperdunking as is now if they added a jump fatigue type mechanic to criminal timers. Not that hard.
This would obviously change nothing at all specifically for Hyperdunking. For regular ganks it would mean that we probably would train the other two chars on the accounts as gankers too and then switch to reduce the fatigue. This would probably even increase the rate of ganks since it would lead to optimization efforts no one cares about today with the 15min timers. And don't even start with "but make it account wide.." I would subscribe so much accounts that I can gank every 2min..
If you still think that "this one little nerf" will change the game and protect your AFK Freighter then you may study all the past nerfs to ganking and how that eliminated us.
BTW, I only became a ganker because of people like you who cry so hard and who try to make the game EVE currently is into a joke. Because James 315 was actually right when he wrote his Manifesto II !
the Code ALWAYS wins
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 16:26:00 -
[1044] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
This would obviously change nothing at all specifically for Hyperdunking. For regular ganks it would mean that we probably would train the other two chars on the accounts as gankers too and then switch to reduce the fatigue. This would probably even increase the rate of ganks since it would lead to optimization efforts no one cares about today with the 15min timers. And don't even start with "but make it account wide.." I would subscribe so much accounts that I can gank every 2min..
I have no problems with anything you just said. In fact, these same arguments were used regarding jump fatigue. If you want to go through all the trouble for having that many alts and that many accounts, be my guest.
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
If you still think that "this one little nerf" will change the game and protect your AFK Freighter then you may study all the past nerfs to ganking and how that eliminated us
A. Don't care about AFK Freighters, B. Not trying to eliminate you. C. I'm familiar with all the past nerfs and how they changed the ganking equation.
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
BTW, I only became a ganker because of people like you who cry so hard and who try to make the game EVE currently is into a joke. Because James 315 was actually right when he wrote his Manifesto II !
You must set the bar for people "crying" pretty low. |
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 16:27:31 -
[1045] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
Ok, let's try it this way. Say I tell you that there is a massive Goon conspiracy to blow up empty freighters in order to demoralize highsec citizens (kind of along the lines of Burn Jita) and that they are paying a bounty of 2B ISK for every empty freighter that is destroyed by gankers, but only 500M ISK if you blow up a full one. Do you think we should change the game mechanics to prevent them from doing this?
No, I don't. |
Paranoid Loyd
3776
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 17:00:57 -
[1046] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: alot of people in NPC corps already can't use webs.
That's funny I see them being used all the time. Maybe you don't understand the mechanics as well as you think.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 21:09:09 -
[1047] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: alot of people in NPC corps already can't use webs. That's funny I see them being used all the time. Maybe you don't understand the mechanics as well as you think you do.
Please, enlighten me?
As far as I'm aware aggression works differently for NPC corps than normal cops, aka NPC corps have Friendly Fire turned off already. If you can prove otherwise I'd be interested to know that. |
Paranoid Loyd
3779
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 21:18:44 -
[1048] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: alot of people in NPC corps already can't use webs. That's funny I see them being used all the time. Maybe you don't understand the mechanics as well as you think you do. Please, enlighten me? As far as I'm aware aggression works differently for NPC corps than normal cops, aka NPC corps have Friendly Fire turned off already. If you can prove otherwise I'd be interested to know that.
Non-corp web warping is achieved by dueling.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Valterra Craven
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 21:31:20 -
[1049] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Non-corp web warping is achieved by dueling.
Hmm, that's an entertaining use of that feature. Learn something new every day! Thank you! |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
476
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 21:59:18 -
[1050] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
But since this thread is intended to discuss hyperdunking, perhaps we can put CODE.'s business plan aside for now?
If the whole purpose of hyperdunking is to gank a target, how exactly do you discuss it without also being able to discuss the mechanics of ganking? I believe that that they could leave hyperdunking as is now if they added a jump fatigue type mechanic to criminal timers. Not that hard. This would obviously change nothing at all specifically for Hyperdunking. For regular ganks it would mean that we probably would train the other two chars on the accounts as gankers too and then switch to reduce the fatigue. This would probably even increase the rate of ganks since it would lead to optimization efforts no one cares about today with the 15min timers. And don't even start with "but make it account wide.." I would subscribe so much accounts that I can gank every 2min.. If you still think that "this one little nerf" will change the game and protect your AFK Freighter then you may study all the past nerfs to ganking and how that eliminated us. BTW, I only became a ganker because of people like you who cry so hard and who try to make the game EVE currently is into a joke. Because James 315 was actually right when he wrote his Manifesto II !
Meh....personally I favor a 6 hour timer for -10s.....that would put a stop to the successive ganks rather abruptly. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 75 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |