| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cidanel Afuran
Static-Noise
Upholders
553
   |
Posted - 2016.01.06 16:19:56 -
[31] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Make your own intel channel then?
What? I'm not complaining. I don't live in HS or null right now, and I have intel channels. I'm just saying sov null in any decent sized group is generally safer than HS in the current game.
That's not a bad thing. Large null groups worked hard to build their empires, they should get the rewards from that level of organization. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
4281
|
Posted - 2016.01.06 16:56:17 -
[32] - Quote
Cidanel Afuran wrote:Tabyll Altol wrote:Interesting theory but from own experience there was no concord spawn to protect me any time in 0.0, but every time in highsec. But 0.0 is the safer part :D nice joke.
To the idea against it, there are plenty ways to reduce the risk beeing ganked in the game like e.g. a procurer with therm/Kin tank fit can tank around 100k damage. Use the existing ways.
-1 Anyone in sov null as intel channels telling them when someone who isn't blue is coming from a dozen systems out. That is infinitely safer than HS CONCORD doesn't protect anyone.
Literally this is true; CONCORD does not protectGÇöi.e. is not proactive, but instead is reactive. But the CONCORD response/punishment can provide an incentive not to gank. Of course, if you have a fat enough wallet so that losing a gank catalyst is not that expensive and you find ganking enjoyable that incentive may not work. That we have high sec ganking where the profit is low suggests that this is indeed the case.
Still, the idea in this game is that, generally speakingGÇöi.e. with limited exceptions (I can think of one)GÇöyou are at risk when you are undocked. That level of risk is contextual and not the same everywhere. In a 1.0 system the incentive from CONCORD is pretty strong in that it would require a much larger number of gank ships. And that comes with two types of GÇ£costGÇ¥. The first is obvious, more ships = more ISK lost. Since the gain is not increasing this makes ganking in 1.0 systems more prohibitive than lower sec status HS systems. The other costs could be called coordination costs. Organizing 25 guys is more GÇ£costlyGÇ¥ than 10. That is, trying to get 25 guys online and in fleet and ready to go in a 1.0 system will be more of hassle than 10 guys. And with 10 guys you could roll out much sooner and be ganking in a 0.5 or 0.6 system. It is really a type of opportunity cost. To opt for the 25 guys to gank in 1.0 you pass up the opportunity to gank with 10 guys now in a 0.6 system.
And as for mining being a solo activityGǪsorry that is by choice. Let me repeat that, that is by choice. Players make this choice. And that means you have less options when it comes to protecting yourself against ganking. For example, if everyone in fleet has been putting ganking groups red and everyone is keeping somewhat of an eye on local, having 6 guys do this will be more effective and efficient than 1. Being on comms can help facilitate communication. If you actually fit a tank on your ships and you use procurers and skiffs youGÇÖll be less gankable than not using such ships. If you have 6 guys in fleet and 5 of them bring shield repping drones and 1 guy the dps drones to kill HS belt ratsGǪyouGÇÖll be less gankable. There are things you can do to spread the workload and the risk. Even at a most basic level if there are 6 guys in the belt and a gank squad comes in and assuming equivalent tanks (for simplicity sake) the individual risk of ganking has fallen to 1/6.
Any mechanics change that provides a hard stop against ganking is just bad. The overall view, IMO, in this game is that players should do ThingsGäó, not have the game do ThingsGäó.
As for this particular idea I think it will be largely ineffective relative to how the OP sees it, and possibly have perverse effects. First off, a gank squad will designate a ship as a bumper when ganking miners. Now escape is not going to be possible with this device as breaking a lock will not stop bumping. Given the suggested parameters the gank squad will just wait it out once the ship is being bumped. Further, in the past attempts to nerf ganking have simply lead to more efficient ganking methods.
EVE is a game. As such we should be thinking of these discussions in the context of game theory. In game theory players have GÇ£reaction functionsGÇ¥. A reaction function is where each player formulates their best game play (generically known as strategies) given that the other players are doing exactly the same thing. If you change a component of the game, you will almost surely change other playerGÇÖs strategies. If you introduce a change that does not change players strategies then it is a useless change and a drain on Dev time and CCP resources. Further, many player suggestions make a fatal assumption: they make a ceterius paribus assumption:
Quote: Ceteris paribus or caeteris paribus is a Latin phrase meaning "with other things the same" or "all or other things being equal or held constant" or "all other things being equal" or "all else being equal".
That is, assuming the gankers do not change their strategy and we implement X mechanic it will GÇ£solveGÇ¥ the ganking problem. But we know that gankers can change their strategies. If the group of players the change is aimed at either has no impact in terms of outcomes or does not change strategies, then such a change should be considered not worthwhile.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
4282
|
Posted - 2016.01.06 20:02:29 -
[33] - Quote
Cidanel Afuran wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Make your own intel channel then? What? I'm not complaining. I don't live in HS or null right now, and I have intel channels. I'm just saying sov null in any decent sized group is generally safer than HS in the current game. That's not a bad thing. Large null groups worked hard to build their empires, they should get the rewards from that level of organization.
I think Frostys meant people should form their own intel channels. IGÇÖve wondered this myself, why not have miners make a channel reporting on ganking activity. I guess one problem would be people misusing it, but a corp channel if you are a corporation of miners and limit it to corporation members.
My general impression in threads about bumping, ganking, etc. is that many people want the easy/simple solution and they donGÇÖt think through the ramifications and limit any thought on the change to how it effects their game play and nobody elseGÇÖs.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Cidanel Afuran
Static-Noise
Upholders
555
|
Posted - 2016.01.06 20:13:49 -
[34] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:I think Frostys meant people should form their own intel channels. IGÇÖve wondered this myself, why not have miners make a channel reporting on ganking activity. I guess one problem would be people misusing it, but a corp channel if you are a corporation of miners and limit it to corporation members.
My general impression in threads about bumping, ganking, etc. is that many people want the easy/simple solution and they donGÇÖt think through the ramifications and limit any thought on the change to how it effects their game play and nobody elseGÇÖs.
Oh, got it. I definitely misread that. Apologies Frostys.
Yeah, HS PvE-ers making their own intel channels is a really good idea, providing you are selective about letting in people you trust. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2173
|
Posted - 2016.01.06 22:48:32 -
[35] - Quote
Someone said I was "out of touch with how things work in high sec" or something to that effect, when I mentioned running a mining op with sixty characters working together in relative safety in 0.0. I guess I am out of touch with high sec, because I just do not understand why anyone would solo mine in high sec for peanuts when they could solo mine or mine as part of a group in 0.0 for much greater profits and arguably less risk (due to the appropriate risk mitigation techniques good 0.0 groups have adopted). Getting into a 0.0 corporation is not that hard. Moving to their space is relatively easy. The skills required are essentially the same.
The definition of insanity is doing things the same way over and over again and expecting a different result. If high sec is so dangerous for miners, maybe you should look elsewhere?
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
3450
|
Posted - 2016.01.06 23:16:06 -
[36] - Quote
DrysonBennington wrote:Since mining is usually a solo occupation.
It's really not. In fact, mining and most other industrial activities benefit greatly from being part of a well-organized group.
As for the rest of it: most miners wouldn't have the time to activate their modules, and freighters are already held down via bumping. It would be useless (plus a mid slot on freighters is a terrible idea)
Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
4284
|
Posted - 2016.01.06 23:38:48 -
[37] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:DrysonBennington wrote:Since mining is usually a solo occupation. It's really not. In fact, mining and most other industrial activities benefit greatly from being part of a well-organized group. As for the rest of it: most miners wouldn't have the time to activate their modules, and freighters are already held down via bumping. It would be useless (plus a mid slot on freighters is a terrible idea)
Economies of scale are an amazing thing....
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
254
|
Posted - 2016.01.06 23:38:58 -
[38] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:
I think it should disable tank on the ship though.
That would be agreeable.
|
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
254
|
Posted - 2016.01.06 23:47:05 -
[39] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:DrysonBennington wrote:Since mining is usually a solo occupation. It's really not. In fact, mining and most other industrial activities benefit greatly from being part of a well-organized group. As for the rest of it: most miners wouldn't have the time to activate their modules, and freighters are already held down via bumping. It would be useless (plus a mid slot on freighters is a terrible idea) Economies of scale are an amazing thing....
Its only a terrible idea because it takes away from High Sector Gankers ability to get cheap thrills and kills in High Sector because they can't deal with the fact that while ganking in low or null pirates might come in and do exactly the same thing to them that they are doing in High Sector.
In High Sector a group should not have the ability to exploit the system ganking ships sitting in a station for 15 minutes and then return to gank again.
AFK Mining is preference and those who think otherwise are in fact severely delusional people who think that someone mining should not be doing anything else other than mining because basically such minded people think that everyone should be sitting in front of the screen at all times instead of having the ability to walk away and accomplish other chores or tasks.
None of your arguments are relevant except in the realm of delusion.
|
Iain Cariaba
2290
|
Posted - 2016.01.07 00:05:45 -
[40] - Quote
DrysonBennington wrote:In High Sector a group should not have the ability to exploit the system ganking ships sitting in a station for 15 minutes and then return to gank again.
They're not 'exploiting the system.' Ganking is intended game play, and the fact that you're still butthurt over it does not make it any less inrended.
DrysonBennington wrote:AFK Mining is preference and those who think otherwise are in fact severely delusional people who think that someone mining should not be doing anything else other than mining because basically such minded people think that everyone should be sitting in front of the screen at all times instead of having the ability to walk away and accomplish other chores or tasks.
So you should be entitled to log on and farm isk indefinitely with absolutely no risk simply because you don't feel you should actually have to actively play to benefit from your game time? Hint, we're not the delusional people here.
DrysonBennington wrote:None of your arguments are relevant except in the realm of delusion.
And your argument that is essentially nothing more than 'grr CODE." is relevant?
...oh, wait. You were serious...
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |