| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sarah Flynt
170
   |
Posted - 2016.04.28 11:19:37 -
[1] - Quote
Galaxy Pig wrote:I realize that CCP aims to nerf highsec freighter ganking, but do they intend to end it all-together?
I have great news for you: bumping isn't required at all for freighter ganking.
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources
Silent Infinity
171
|
Posted - 2016.04.28 13:44:27 -
[2] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:Sarah Flynt wrote:Galaxy Pig wrote:I realize that CCP aims to nerf highsec freighter ganking, but do they intend to end it all-together? I have great news for you: bumping isn't required at all for freighter ganking. Have you tried freighter ganking? What's that? You didn't? That's what I thought 
Are you saying I'm wrong?
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources
Silent Infinity
175
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 14:16:47 -
[3] - Quote
@Dom Arkaral and Black Pedro:
Anti-ganking members have been asking for a fix to bumping for a very long time, so don't try to use us as some kind of counter argument: it's BS. The channel wasn't created because of freighter ganking and it will certainly not die in case it will ever be removed (which is extremely unlikely and also not wanted by any of us). For a short summery of the motivation behind our channels, see here: http://astralservices.net/?Anti-gankChannels
Let's talk about freighter ganking entirely without bumpers first: You both claim unanimously that you deem it to be "nigh impossible" and yet space wizard HABEPHO and his merry band of space elves do it all the time. How can that possibly be? The reason is quite simple: they aren't outlaws (sec status below -5 for those who don't know what an outlaw is). They accept the fact that ganking in highsec has certain punishments apart from losing your ship and adapt accordingly by either paying the fee for clone soldier tags or ratting their sec status back up. And this is what you actually fear: that the intended consequences suddenly could have a meaning. Currently they're more of a joke for dedicated gank alts and very easy to overcome. To say it in the words of your own camp: "You want to have the cake and eat it too".
But CCP doesn't even plan to remove bumping (yet). They plan to give you a 3 minute window and while there is nothing known about the concrete implementation, yet, I fully expect them to do what they usually do: take the easiest possible route and implement it in a way that the timer gets reset once the freighter gets pointed. So in the end I expect not much to change, apart from having a minor annoyance to deal with on your end. CCP implicitly admitting that bumping has become a problem is at least something, though.
To answer your earlier question: I have a gank alt myself to take out CONCORD protected ganker alts and while I haven't ganked a freighter myself, I'm very well aware of how it works in detail. I've used him with sec status below -5 and thus can tell from own experience that the current consequences are a joke. I've degraded him to a cyno alt by now as I find ganking not terribly challenging.
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources
Silent Infinity
178
|
Posted - 2016.04.30 21:52:14 -
[4] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:not full quoting Apparently we have very different views of what a pirate constitutes. For me it's a role you can play in the game, defined by your actions and a certain state of mind (of your char) but also limited by game mechanics. For you it's apparently either a certain number on your char sheet or the refusal to pay a fee/effort to prevent highsec NPC's from chasing you.
I really don't get why you think you're entitled to an aggression free tackle mechanism for a certain ship class when all other forms of piracy simply accept the fact that they can't do certain things when having a security status below -5. I've yet to hear a single Vexor or Tornado hauler ganker in the trade pipes or at trade hubs to demand such a thing. CCP even gave you clone soldier tags to bribe your sec status up to a desired level, so you don't have to grind it up anymore. Don't pod the target and the security hit is very small. If you also want to pod the target, you've to pay a price for it but that is your choice.
If freighters couldn't be ganked any other way you'd have a point but that is certainly not the case as others demonstrate on a daily basis. Even with a sec status of below -5 it's far from impossible. It's certainly tedious and error prone, depending how good your timing is, but it can be done.
If bumping was a crucial tackle mechanism in other parts of space, you'd have a point but that also doesn't apply anymore: supers just got their e-war immunity removed.
Removing bumping as a way to prevent warp also only affects freighters that are actively flown. Freighters on autopilot still can be bumped as long as you want when they're slowboating to the gate or even on the other side with a suicide scram, which - as you certainly know - disables the autopilot and thus any warp attempt. Isn't that what your camp is telling people all the time: don't fly a freighter AFK and you're safe (which was BS to begin with but without bump tackle it's at least true in certain cases)?
Above are the reasons why it's highly unlikely that any AG member will ever make any serious suggestions to replace bump tackle with something else because we want it completely removed as it's completely unneccessary. Sure, you may hear some people, who haven't really thought it through, say that a bumping ship should simply go suspect but we both know that it would be incredibly hard if not impossible to implement this in a way that doesn't turn the Jita undock into a freighter graveyard.
CCP is giving you a 3 minute window (for now) and you should be happy that they're even so generous because in my opinion it should be removed alltogether as it doesn't make any sense and doesn't fit in with the rest of the highsec aggression mechanics, but ...
... and here comes a big BUT: I also think that the Highsec PVP side in general is in desperate need of a complete rethought as I agree that there are less and less options for you and by that also for the good guys (that's us btw in case you had any ideas :P). Not just the criminal side but also CONCORD approved PVP: Highsec wars were already unfun for the defenders most of the time, now they're even unfun for the attackers, thanks to the removal of onesided watchlisting. There is much more but that's probably for another time to discuss (hi ISD, not trying to derail the thread <3).
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources
Silent Infinity
181
|
Posted - 2016.05.02 15:52:31 -
[5] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:No one demands an aggression free tackle in Highsec. He wants to tackle a freighter over a prolonged time without CONCORD interfering. How else would you call it?
Ima Wreckyou wrote:The way it is proposed now it will still be there, but only for people who have like 6-7 suicide tacklers ready in system. I am sure I already know such a group. Now the mechanic will be an exclusive to us, well done! No doubt about that. And this will not be the last nerf if you continue freighter ganking at the same rate as you did during the last year, especially if you keep ganking empty or low cargo value freighters. When will you finally realize that it's not CCP who is ultimately responsible for all these nerfs but you yourselves? CCP only reacts to developments that they have identified to be unhealthy for their subscriber numbers and primarily highsec has lost a ton of subs (CCP Fozzie said so in an interview at the end of last year where he also mentioned for the first time that they were looking into modifications to bumping, especially wrt. freighters). When other profit-oriented freighter gankers come to us and beg us to put an end to what you're doing, then you know something is seriously wrong.
Same for miner ganking: CCP just announced another major iteration for mining barges. Do you really think the timing is a coincidence? I fully expect another major nerf for your playstyle and if I look at the mining landscape in highsec these days, I certainly don't blame them.
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources
Silent Infinity
182
|
Posted - 2016.05.03 05:04:55 -
[6] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Sarah Flynt wrote:[...]CCP only reacts to developments that they have identified to be unhealthy for their subscriber numbers and primarily highsec has lost a ton of subs (CCP Fozzie said so in an interview at the end of last year where he also mentioned for the first time that they were looking into modifications to bumping, especially wrt. freighters)[...] I am sure you can provide us with the source of the information where Fozzy says we are responsible for the decline in subscribers and the reason why CCP has to repeatedly adjust the game and introduce silly new mechanics.
No, he didn't say that and I didn't say that either. There is no single reason. It's not that easy. The part in parantheses refers to the second part of the previous sentence: "primarily highsec has lost a ton of subs". My appologies, I should have clarified that. The interview was by EN24. Unfortunately the link to the audiofile on their website is dead but it's still on their iTunes channel. It's the one from 15.07.2015, even earlier than I remembered.
Interrestingly after being asked for ganking he repeated what was presented at fanfest 2015: that ganking increases player retention. I hope that wasn't based on what they presented at fanfest, as while being an interresting datapoint which warrants further research, you can't draw this conclusion from the presented data and methology (you couldn't draw the opposite conclusion either if the data was different). Regardless to what data he was referring to: the question this raises is: what has changed since then? Why the sudden change of mind? Why the enormous freighter EHP buff that also affects other parts of space (don't believe for a second that this was some sort of 'quid pro quo' thing wrt. gankers vs. anti-gankers. No game designer works like that)? Why the bumping nerf? Is it to stop the cases of bumping for hours? Unlikely with just a 3 minute window, so it appears to be more likely to be directly targeted at ganking. But why, when it supposedly increases player retention? Any plausible explanation?
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources
Silent Infinity
183
|
Posted - 2016.05.03 16:36:40 -
[7] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:I see, just your imagination again. Feel free to call it whatever you like. At least my conclusion is based on what ends up in the game and not some tinfoil theory.
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Why wouldn't CCP say so if ganking really was bad for player retention? In fact they say the complete opposite! Until the time we have an official statement from a CCP guy that we in fact drive players away with ganking your assumption is not only baseless, pretty much everything CCP said points in the direction of it being completely wrong.
Another point to consider: the fanfest presentation data only covered the first 15 days of a char. As you couldn't train into a freighter in that timespan a year ago, those aren't included at all and the data for freighters might look very different. It's just a theory but at least it would explain this apparent contradiction in what they say and what they're actually doing.
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources
Silent Infinity
184
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 21:34:30 -
[8] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:Can you tell me, how does RFF succeed on such a large scale?
I mean, they only failed 382 contract in 2015, despite completing 139 758?
They also only lost 185 freighter in all areas of space (that's one freighter per 2 days) That's only highsec. Black Frog uses jump freighters. For a highly specialised group that "uses every tool at their disposal to not die to CODE." that number is actually quite high.
Dom Arkaral wrote:Can you tell me how I don't see them crying about CODE. or bumping? Ever heard of the concept of "alts"?
Dom Arkaral wrote:Maybe they take precautions instead of crying rivers to CCP because you guys are idiots. Are you seriously trying to tell us that a highly specialised group should be used as baseline for balancing?
On a further note: insults don't make you look very credible. Consider this discussion to be over from my end if you feel you have to continue to go down that road.
Dom Arkaral wrote:Okayyy here goes the bomb. I'm still waiting for it
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources
Silent Infinity
184
|
Posted - 2016.05.05 09:26:03 -
[9] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:185 is the total of their losses (Red Frog, Black Frog and Blue Frog)
otherwise they would have mentionned that 185 is for RFF only. Look, it's really not that hard: Red Frog and Blue Frog are both highsec only and Black Frog only uses jump freighters outside of highsec. As there were no jump freighters reimbursed, where we indeed could not tell where they were lost, all of those T1 freighter losses must have been in highsec as none of their corps use T1 freighters outside of highsec.
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources
Silent Infinity
184
|
Posted - 2016.05.05 14:02:50 -
[10] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:Sarah Flynt wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:185 is the total of their losses (Red Frog, Black Frog and Blue Frog)
otherwise they would have mentionned that 185 is for RFF only. Look, it's really not that hard: Red Frog and Blue Frog are both highsec only and Black Frog only uses jump freighters outside of highsec. As there were no jump freighters reimbursed, where we indeed could not tell where they were lost, all of those T1 freighter losses must have been in highsec as none of their corps use T1 freighters outside of highsec. Who says they use t1 exclusively in HS? Logic would say so, but there are always more adventurous folks 
White Frog Insurance only covers losses to ganks in continuous highsec (no highsec islands, no duels, no wardec losses) and only under certain conditions: https://sites.google.com/site/redfrogfreightmanual/conditions
The statistic you quoted is only about what White Frog Insurance reimbursed, not even about how many freighters they actually lost.
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources
Silent Infinity
188
|
Posted - 2016.05.05 17:18:27 -
[11] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:My point of them still running efficiently even with CODE. still stands.
There is no ccounter-argument to that, no matter how hard you try. So, your point is that only when the biggest and highly specialised hauling group that "uses every tool at their disposal to not die to CODE.", that already had to implement an insurance program due to risen ganking activity (individual haulers don't have that option) and already had to more than double their fees while citing "considerably risen ganking activity" as one of the reasons, losing ~25% of their customers and ~37% contracts issued to them in the process, becomes unprofitable, only then you're going to admit that there might be something wrong.
Good thing CCP doesn't operate like that, otherwise there would be nobody left to adjust the mechanics for as all other haulers would have stopped long before this would have happened.
Dom Arkaral wrote:And since there is nothing left to argue about here I agree. There really isn't anything left to discuss with you.
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources
Silent Infinity
192
|
Posted - 2016.05.07 18:46:15 -
[12] - Quote
John E Normus wrote:And yet Red Frog is making more isk than ever according to what they've told us at eve-meets in Amsterdam and Germany.
Are they lying to us Sarah? They don't publish their full finances, so that's hard to determine as an outsider. They publish the revenue situation but barely anything on the cost side. The only 2 corps that are relevant for this discussion are Red Frog Freight and Blue Frog Freight as they are their highsec wings (low collateral and high collateral contracts). Black Frog Freight is lowsec/nullsec, so it doesn't matter in our context here.
If you look at the revenue numbers, especially when comparing them to the growth rates of previous years, you see that 2015 put a handbreak on their growth compared to the growth rates of previous years. Blue Frog Freight revenue even declined in 2015 for the first time. Red Frog Freight only showed tiny growth compared to previous years.
Now, with more or less stagnating revenue but vastly increased cost according to their press releases about their massively increased fees, to what conclusion do you come?
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
| |
|