Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dirty Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
360
|
Posted - 2016.08.01 17:50:23 -
[61] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Dirty Forum Alt wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Anti-ganking, making stupid okay. Teckos - from your posts one would think I was proposing something to keep idiots alive.... But none of this even begins to come into play until after the initial idiot is dead. They are a non-factor. This is merely about offering a fair chance for revenge and murder - at the *same* cost that the gankers have to pay instead of a bit more than double the cost (based on the numbers you looked up) - and still with the large added logistical hurdles from having to be a reactionary force and not getting to choose the time or place of the counter-gank attempt. AKA: Still significantly harder and riskier than the initial gank - but *closer* to fair. Possibly even doable. Maybe. No I was talking about the Anti-Ganking "movement" in general, not your proposal. I see it as a combo of buff and nerf so...I'm more of less fine with it. Well fair enough - as they stand now I agree the AG movement is fairly useless/impotent. Not sure if it would change or not, but you never know. |
Dirty Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
360
|
Posted - 2016.08.01 17:51:52 -
[62] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dirty Forum Alt wrote:baltec1 wrote:Your plan won't have the impact you want it to have. In which case it is nothing but a slight buff to gankers...so why are they the ones opposing it? Because it fails to meet your goals and can be abused by gankers. This is where the difference in the two camps becomes clear, AG will support anything that hurts gankers no matter what. The bulk of gankers will call out a bad plan even if it would help them because the care about overall game balance. Care to provide some examples of how it would be abused by gankers?
The only possible case I can see is it would let them run ganks slightly faster because they wouldn't have to stop and pull concord - but since they do that by undocking on the criminal flag from the original gank that is still less than a minute saved per gank for them, so not particularly significant.
What am I missing here, how would it be abused?
edit: Additionally, how will it fail to accomplish my goals? If the gankers can kill the original freighter, why could someone not kill their freighter given equal opportunity? What magic will prevent it?
*right now* the only thing preventing it is the presence of concord - with *less than half* the response time as if they had been pulled. Remove that and it is open season. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5055
|
Posted - 2016.08.01 18:05:49 -
[63] - Quote
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Dirty Forum Alt wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Anti-ganking, making stupid okay. Teckos - from your posts one would think I was proposing something to keep idiots alive.... But none of this even begins to come into play until after the initial idiot is dead. They are a non-factor. This is merely about offering a fair chance for revenge and murder - at the *same* cost that the gankers have to pay instead of a bit more than double the cost (based on the numbers you looked up) - and still with the large added logistical hurdles from having to be a reactionary force and not getting to choose the time or place of the counter-gank attempt. AKA: Still significantly harder and riskier than the initial gank - but *closer* to fair. Possibly even doable. Maybe. No I was talking about the Anti-Ganking "movement" in general, not your proposal. I see it as a combo of buff and nerf so...I'm more of less fine with it. Well fair enough - as they stand now I agree the AG movement is fairly useless/impotent. Not sure if it would change or not, but you never know.
My point is it is more than that. If you get ganked in a freighter in HS you were either very imprudent and foolish, or you had some bad luck. My guess is most ganks fall into the first category. As such the AG "movement" is about protecting people from their imprudence and foolishness. Some might learn a lesson from that, or they might be like most of the posters here and complain about the awfulness of ganking.
Now, it is a sandbox so if AG want to "AG" fine. I'm not going to stop them, but I will continue to think they are not doing a good thing.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Dirty Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
360
|
Posted - 2016.08.01 18:46:00 -
[64] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:My point is it is more than that. If you get ganked in a freighter in HS you were either very imprudent and foolish, or you had some bad luck. My guess is most ganks fall into the first category. As such the AG "movement" is about protecting people from their imprudence and foolishness. Some might learn a lesson from that, or they might be like most of the posters here and complain about the awfulness of ganking.
Now, it is a sandbox so if AG want to "AG" fine. I'm not going to stop them, but I will continue to think they are not doing a good thing. I'll be honest I generally think of the anti-gankers as simply another role-playing group within the game. I know that a vocal minority of them tend to come on the forums and demand drastic game changes/etc...but I'm not sure those players are the majority even within the anti-ganking group. In either case, there are lots of weird role-playing groups in this game. I don't have to understand them all, they are still free to go do their own thing. Even when it is annoying.
Similarly, I think of gankers as another role-playing group (or perhaps a group of related role-playing groups, since they aren't all united of course) - because lets face it to do otherwise would be to sink to the level of the raving lunatics who want to execute them in real life for their in-game actions
People should be able to play any role they want - it is an immersive *game*.
As for how this ties into my proposed change...I honestly think the mechanics in this specific instance heavily favour the gankers - to the point that the conflict is over before it even begins. I think this would be a good change because it would give the "anti-gankers" a lucrative motivator to get out there and actually *do* something, instead of just ranting on the forums or talking in their closed channels.
I don't particularly want them to *win* - and if it looked like they were in danger of doing so I might get out there and do some more ganking myself again - but it is unfair to everybody to make the fight so lopsided that it can't even be realistically attempted.
edit: As for the benefit of gankers punishing idiots: EVE has many ways of punishing such players. If they don't die to gankers they'll die to war. If they manage to avoid the wars they'll derp into low-sec, null-sec, or WH space. Or they'll just get ripped off by a scammer or a corp thief. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17767
|
Posted - 2016.08.01 19:46:56 -
[65] - Quote
Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Care to provide some examples of how it would be abused by gankers?
The only possible case I can see is it would let them run ganks slightly faster because they wouldn't have to stop and pull concord - but since they do that by undocking on the criminal flag from the original gank that is still less than a minute saved per gank for them, so not particularly significant.
What am I missing here, how would it be abused?
edit: Additionally, how will it fail to accomplish my goals? If the gankers can kill the original freighter, why could someone not kill their freighter given equal opportunity? What magic will prevent it?
*right now* the only thing preventing it is the presence of concord - with *less than half* the response time as if they had been pulled. Remove that and it is open season.
Do that and gankers can toss two groups at targets in rapid succession. AG will never have the manpower or the willpower to attack a freighter. You will remove a tactic which involved pre spawning concord.
Thats just off the top of my head. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5057
|
Posted - 2016.08.01 20:37:20 -
[66] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Care to provide some examples of how it would be abused by gankers?
The only possible case I can see is it would let them run ganks slightly faster because they wouldn't have to stop and pull concord - but since they do that by undocking on the criminal flag from the original gank that is still less than a minute saved per gank for them, so not particularly significant.
What am I missing here, how would it be abused?
edit: Additionally, how will it fail to accomplish my goals? If the gankers can kill the original freighter, why could someone not kill their freighter given equal opportunity? What magic will prevent it?
*right now* the only thing preventing it is the presence of concord - with *less than half* the response time as if they had been pulled. Remove that and it is open season.
Do that and gankers can toss two groups at targets in rapid succession. AG will never have the manpower or the willpower to attack a freighter. You will remove a tactic which involved pre spawning concord. Thats just off the top of my head.
Yup, was wonder if pre-spawning some CONCORD could be enough to throw off the math behind the gank just enough....
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Dirty Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
360
|
Posted - 2016.08.01 20:43:37 -
[67] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Care to provide some examples of how it would be abused by gankers?
The only possible case I can see is it would let them run ganks slightly faster because they wouldn't have to stop and pull concord - but since they do that by undocking on the criminal flag from the original gank that is still less than a minute saved per gank for them, so not particularly significant.
What am I missing here, how would it be abused?
edit: Additionally, how will it fail to accomplish my goals? If the gankers can kill the original freighter, why could someone not kill their freighter given equal opportunity? What magic will prevent it?
*right now* the only thing preventing it is the presence of concord - with *less than half* the response time as if they had been pulled. Remove that and it is open season.
Do that and gankers can toss two groups at targets in rapid succession. AG will never have the manpower or the willpower to attack a freighter. You will remove a tactic which involved pre spawning concord. Thats just off the top of my head. Gankers can already do 2 targets at the same time or with a 30-60 second delay for the first group to hop in a rookie ship literally anywhere that isn't on grid (can even be boarded from an orca or just in a deep space safe spot if they choose)....so no change there.
As for your "tactic" that I propose to remove - it is really borderline exploiting current mechanics, but sure, I'm removing a "tactic" that gets used 100% of the time, and just building it in to how concord operates for them. This will not impact anything.
And as for AG never having the manpower or willpower to attack a freighter - We will never find out if they are never given the opportunity will we? If they will never do it, why are you so afraid to let them try? |
Dirty Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
360
|
Posted - 2016.08.01 20:49:39 -
[68] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Yup, was wonder if pre-spawning some CONCORD could be enough to throw off the math behind the gank just enough.... Most of them these days bring an extra ship just because there is actually a second or 2 variation in concord response times w/ server lag/whatever sometimes, so it doesn't affect them much, they mainly pre-spawn and/or pull concord early as a safety measure to make 100% sure of their gank.
Some of the solo-gankers do absolutely rely on the extra few seconds from pre-spawning/pulling concord however - and as I do not want to negatively impact these small operators at all I do believe CCP should use the maximum pre-spawned and pulled concord response times - not the "official" response times if concord hasn't already been spawned into the system. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17770
|
Posted - 2016.08.01 21:01:35 -
[69] - Quote
Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Gankers can already do 2 targets at the same time or with a 30-60 second delay for the first group to hop in a rookie ship literally anywhere that isn't on grid (can even be boarded from an orca or just in a deep space safe spot if they choose)....so no change there.
Takes longer than you think.
Dirty Forum Alt wrote: As for your "tactic" that I propose to remove - it is really borderline exploiting current mechanics, but sure, I'm removing a "tactic" that gets used 100% of the time, and just building it in to how concord operates for them. This will not impact anything.
It used to be an exploit, CCP changed their minds so its now a valid tactic.
Dirty Forum Alt wrote: And as for AG never having the manpower or willpower to attack a freighter - We will never find out if they are never given the opportunity will we? If they will never do it, why are you so afraid to let them try?
They can't muster two tornadoes to blap a wreck, them taking out a freighter isn't going to happen. After all if ganking is so risk free and easy to do it begs the question why can they not do it. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5057
|
Posted - 2016.08.01 21:34:05 -
[70] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
They can't muster two tornadoes to blap a wreck, them taking out a freighter isn't going to happen. After all if ganking is so risk free and easy to do it begs the question why can they not do it.
Ding, ding, ding.
We have a winner folks.
A freighter just dropped 4 billion in loot, gank the freighter picking up said loot and you can get, on average, 2 billion in loot.
But ganking is easy.
But ganking is without costs.
But ganking is without...yeah whatever.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
|
Dirty Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
361
|
Posted - 2016.08.01 22:16:04 -
[71] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:baltec1 wrote:
They can't muster two tornadoes to blap a wreck, them taking out a freighter isn't going to happen. After all if ganking is so risk free and easy to do it begs the question why can they not do it.
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner folks. A freighter just dropped 4 billion in loot, gank the freighter picking up said loot and you can get, on average, 2 billion in loot. But ganking is easy. But ganking is without costs. But ganking is without...yeah whatever. #1 I never said ganking was easy. #2 I never said ganking was without cost. #3 If they muster the ships to gank your freighter, they get *MONEY BACK TO PAY FOR THE SHIPS* - just like the regular gankers. Whereas right now they have to spend 250 million isk just to gank your wreck, for a guaranteed return on investment of 0 isk.
We could make it fair the other way - all suicide ganked loot is 100% guaranteed destroyed - you never get any profit again. Lets see how long you can keep ganking under those circumstances. And don't tell me it isn't fair to you - because you've been arguing with me for 2 days now that it is 100% doable and fair.
H Y P O C R I T E S |
Dirty Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
361
|
Posted - 2016.08.01 22:19:33 -
[72] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Takes longer than you think. I've done it - no it doesn't. Unless you suck at it.baltec1 wrote:It used to be an exploit, CCP changed their minds so its now a valid tactic. Still not seeing the game-breaking part of just making it built into concord...baltec1 wrote:They can't muster two tornadoes to blap a wreck, them taking out a freighter isn't going to happen. After all if ganking is so risk free and easy to do it begs the question why can they not do it. See my previous post. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5057
|
Posted - 2016.08.01 22:26:34 -
[73] - Quote
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:baltec1 wrote:
They can't muster two tornadoes to blap a wreck, them taking out a freighter isn't going to happen. After all if ganking is so risk free and easy to do it begs the question why can they not do it.
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner folks. A freighter just dropped 4 billion in loot, gank the freighter picking up said loot and you can get, on average, 2 billion in loot. But ganking is easy. But ganking is without costs. But ganking is without...yeah whatever. #1 I never said ganking was easy. #2 I never said ganking was without cost. #3 If they muster the ships to gank your freighter, they get *MONEY BACK TO PAY FOR THE SHIPS* - just like the regular gankers. Whereas right now they have to spend 250 million isk just to gank your wreck, for a guaranteed return on investment of 0 isk. We could make it fair the other way - all suicide ganked loot is 100% guaranteed destroyed - you never get any profit again. Lets see how long you can keep ganking under those circumstances. And don't tell me it isn't fair to you - because you've been arguing with me for 2 days now that it is 100% doable and fair. H Y P O C R I T E S
No, but that ganking is super easy and super profitable is indeed the narrative of those opposing ganking.
It shows up in every anti-ganking thread sooner or later. You wait, it will come to this thread too.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5057
|
Posted - 2016.08.01 22:36:53 -
[74] - Quote
Also, my point is that ganking is not as easy as every AG Bad claims. Not even convinced it is that profitable either.
I'm actually also fine with not changing anything. AG got a buff with the change to bumping. They got a nerf with the wreck ehp buff. If we go with the neither side is happy, therefore CCP did something right, mission accomplished. If CCP increased CONCORD response times while on grid...I'd be okay with that too.
People complain, AG is not sustainable. Well, neither is my Eve habit. Not by itself. I need an outside source of income to make it sustainable. So go do something to generate ISK and support your AG if that is what you want to do. If it isn't...well...******* stop. Go do what you want too. If AG isn't easy...maybe ganking isn't either.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Dirty Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
361
|
Posted - 2016.08.01 22:37:29 -
[75] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:No, but that ganking is super easy and super profitable is indeed the narrative of those opposing ganking.
It shows up in every anti-ganking thread sooner or later. You wait, it will come to this thread too. It may, it may not - but it hasn't yet, except for you and baltec talking about it.
A large part of *my* point has been that ganking is *not* easy - and will be even *less* easy for anyone attempting to counter-gank a freighter or other looting ship - because the counter-gankers have to be reactive, meaning they can't pick the time or place and they have a very narrow window of time in which to operate.
Even if it caught on it wouldn't happen *often* - just often enough to bring a little bit of risk into the back-end of ganking - where there currently is *no significant risk*.
And honestly that is what ganking is missing right now - *RISK*. Sure it takes a lot of setup, it takes work - but right now ganking is purely a mathematical problem. If you do your math right, the only "risk" you face is that the loot fairy might say **** you and blow up all of the loot....But even that is offset by the other times that the loot fairy shows you love and drops *all* of the loot for you - as well as by the ease of cargo scanning to ensure a very high likelyhood of profitability....thus reducing your risk back to very nearly ZERO.
"Risk Free" should not exist in EVE. Not even for gankers. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5057
|
Posted - 2016.08.01 22:40:28 -
[76] - Quote
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:No, but that ganking is super easy and super profitable is indeed the narrative of those opposing ganking.
It shows up in every anti-ganking thread sooner or later. You wait, it will come to this thread too. It may, it may not - but it hasn't yet, except for you and baltec talking about it. A large part of *my* point has been that ganking is *not* easy - and will be even *less* easy for anyone attempting to counter-gank a freighter or other looting ship - because the counter-gankers have to be reactive, meaning they can't pick the time or place and they have a very narrow window of time in which to operate. Even if it caught on it wouldn't happen *often* - just often enough to bring a little bit of risk into the back-end of ganking - where there currently is *no significant risk*. And honestly that is what ganking is missing right now - *RISK*. Sure it takes a lot of setup, it takes work - but right now ganking is purely a mathematical problem. If you do your math right, the only "risk" you face is that the loot fairy might say **** you and blow up all of the loot....But even that is offset by the other times that the loot fairy shows you love and drops *all* of the loot for you - as well as by the ease of cargo scanning to ensure a very high likelyhood of profitability....thus reducing your risk back to very nearly ZERO. "Risk Free" should not exist in EVE. Not even for gankers.
But where does risk come from in Eve?
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Dirty Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
361
|
Posted - 2016.08.01 22:48:10 -
[77] - Quote
As for the profitability...For-profit gankers rake in quite a bit. Casual gankers (miner-gankers and such) tend to break even at best. It all depends who you target.
But that is the beauty of ganking - you have 100% control over your targets - you can *choose* how much isk you want to make, and stack the deck heavily in your favor to make it happen.
And risk comes from other players - but other players need incentive. And right now, nobody has incentive to bring any real risk into the lives of gankers. I believe that *greed* would be a much better motivator.
You are right though - EVE will be fine if it just continues on as-is. I truly do believe it would be slightly better with my proposed change (or one of the variants proposed early in the thread - I actually quite like the built in self destruct option myself) - but the universe will be quite fine without it. Just like it was fine for over 10 years with wrecks that could be popped by a t1 frigate
This is just 1 small flaw among many - and my proposal for how to fix it *if* CCP is so inclined. I have seen nothing in this thread to make me believe this solution is not viable - but I also don't honestly think CCP is going to listen. More just theory-crafting than anything I suppose (not that I wouldn't love it if they did implement it, just not counting on it at all) |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5058
|
Posted - 2016.08.01 23:00:49 -
[78] - Quote
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:As for the profitability...For-profit gankers rake in quite a bit. Casual gankers (miner-gankers and such) tend to break even at best. It all depends who you target. But that is the beauty of ganking - you have 100% control over your targets - you can *choose* how much isk you want to make, and stack the deck heavily in your favor to make it happen. And risk comes from other players - but other players need incentive. And right now, nobody has incentive to bring any real risk into the lives of gankers. I believe that *greed* would be a much better motivator. You are right though - EVE will be fine if it just continues on as-is. I truly do believe it would be slightly better with my proposed change (or one of the variants proposed early in the thread - I actually quite like the built in self destruct option myself) - but the universe will be quite fine without it. Just like it was fine for over 10 years with wrecks that could be popped by a t1 frigate This is just 1 small flaw among many - and my proposal for how to fix it *if* CCP is so inclined. I have seen nothing in this thread to make me believe this solution is not viable - but I also don't honestly think CCP is going to listen. More just theory-crafting than anything I suppose (not that I wouldn't love it if they did implement it, just not counting on it at all)
And I know for a fact if you are careful you can rake in a ton doing industrial stuff too....I know because that is how I make my ISK.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Dirty Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
361
|
Posted - 2016.08.01 23:14:08 -
[79] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:And I know for a fact if you are careful you can rake in a ton doing industrial stuff too....I know because that is how I make my ISK. Aye, you can - though honestly the last time I dabbled seriously into industry was back when they were doing hulkageddon yearly and I could rake in massive isk by re-supplying idiots with hulks/mackinaws
I truly do not hate ganking - I've had some good friends in EVE who have been professional gankers, and I have done it myself. I just think that they could use some slightly more serious competition in their EVE lives to keep things interesting. |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
533
|
Posted - 2016.08.02 04:26:52 -
[80] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote: But where does risk come from in Eve?
"Socket Closed" LOOOOL |
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5059
|
Posted - 2016.08.02 06:39:06 -
[81] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Teckos Pech wrote: But where does risk come from in Eve?
"Socket Closed" LOOOOL
Quiet you!
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Dirty Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
362
|
Posted - 2016.08.02 11:27:34 -
[82] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Teckos Pech wrote: But where does risk come from in Eve?
"Socket Closed" LOOOOL Quiet you! Indeed - we all know the real risk comes from the occasional game update that deletes the windows boot.ini file... |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |