Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5263
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 18:29:41 -
[61] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
snipping for space.
If we were not where we are now, I'd likely agree with this. But I'll add this, if you gank a guy with 8 billion worth of cargo and (on average) you are moving the 4 billion that dropped to a freighter, that freighter is now at risk of being ganked....if the other side were to actually....you know, gank.
Part of the problem is asymmetry in behavior. I believe that such asymmetry will be very hard to address via mechanics changes. Because no matter the changes to mechanics it seems to me the other side is unlikely to start ganking....just as they are unlikely to start playing prudently.
"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
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
789
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 19:36:13 -
[62] - Quote
Part of the problem is your ability to sidetrack. Sure, ganking it is an option. So let's remove suspect flags altogether because ganking is always an option -- the fact of the matter is there ought to be a suspect flag. Nobody debates you *might* be able to counter-gank the DST even though, you know, concord's on grid and all .....
The suspect flag is the topic at hand.
Suspect. Flag.
Nothing else. DST. Yellow loot. Suspect flag. Try to comprehend (but I'm sure you do -- you strike me as a smart kid. You know damn well what you're doing here don't you? For the record, so do I, lad, so do I.)
S u s p e c t F l a g. Wiggle your way out of this one.
Ship with suspect loot should be suspect and freely engagable. We shouldn't need an anti-gank-gank squad; it's supposed to be flashing yellow. People, bystanders, you, me, are supposed to be able to shoot it and let's not pretend we've forgotten about plenty of lowslots plus two built-in warpstabs, you're not even going to stop that DST solo. And you know that too.
So here's a question. I always though we all wanted more things to shoot at. I thought you hated stupid. Now here's your chance to shoot a fat juicy DST stupid enough to go suspect with hostiles on grid and you want none of it. What gives? This is about simple mechanics and a chance to get more engaging play / counterplay, more targets, more highsec content and yet here you are, rooting for the status-quo.
You don't even have to reply on the forums- shoot me a mail if you like. I'd just like to understand why all of a sudden you're frantically posting for more security, more concord protection for your DST. We don't want nor need no more concord now, do we?? I am very puzzled by your reaction. It goes against everything you usually post ... we thought you'd be pleased with more suspects to blow to smitherines? I sure would love to blow up some DSTs near Niarja, get some elite PvP juice going...
Y U NO WANT DIZ? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5263
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 21:03:00 -
[63] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Nothing else. DST. Yellow loot. Suspect flag. Try to comprehend (but I'm sure you do -- you strike me as a smart kid. You know damn well what you're doing here don't you? For the record, so do I, lad, so do I.)
No, I think you really don't know.
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:So here's a question. I always though we all wanted more things to shoot at. I thought you hated stupid. Now here's your chance to shoot a fat juicy DST stupid enough to go suspect with hostiles on grid and you want none of it. What gives? This is about simple mechanics and a chance to get more engaging play / counterplay, more targets, more highsec content and yet here you are, rooting for the status-quo.
That is what you think....
"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
|
Faylee Freir
Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group
323
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 21:32:00 -
[64] - Quote
Its a nerf to risk averse loot scooping.
HTFU
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5263
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 04:22:26 -
[65] - Quote
Faylee Freir wrote:Its a nerf to risk averse loot scooping.
Since just about everyone is risk averse.
Seriously do you think you aren't risk averse? Bwahahahahahahahaha...gasp...bwahahahahaha.
"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
|
Faylee Freir
Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group
329
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 10:41:04 -
[66] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Faylee Freir wrote:Its a nerf to risk averse loot scooping. Since just about everyone is risk averse. Seriously do you think you aren't risk averse? Bwahahahahahahahaha...gasp...bwahahahahaha. No I didn't say that, but I'm not scooping billions in loot daily.
HTFU
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2851
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 17:12:40 -
[67] - Quote
Hello OP
Can you explain some more how risk/reward is out of wack if you sacrifice 30+ ships to CONCORD to kill a Freighter and then get the loot, yet if you pay 50mil for a wardec and don't lose any ships at all it is somehow no issue if you can just scoop the loot without anyone going suspect at all. Makes it sound a bit like the typical "one more nerf"-thread.
Anyway, +1 from me for two reasons: - It's an AG idea and they are always great and have no issues at all. I see not way to abuse this, seriously - We can finally move on with this never ending threads about fleet hangars and get some novel tears about mobile depos
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Faylee Freir
Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group
329
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 19:17:12 -
[68] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Hello OP
Can you explain some more how risk/reward is out of wack if you sacrifice 30+ ships to CONCORD to kill a Freighter and then get the loot, yet if you pay 50mil for a wardec and don't lose any ships at all it is somehow no issue if you can just scoop the loot without anyone going suspect at all. Makes it sound a bit like the typical "one more nerf"-thread.
Anyway, +1 from me for two reasons: - It's an AG idea and they are always great and have no issues at all. I see not way to abuse this, seriously - We can finally move on with this never ending threads about fleet hangars and get some novel tears about mobile depos I dont think that the entirety of ganking has its risk/reward out of wack, but only a few parts of the process. Some of these are optional parts of the process that provide an immense amount of protection to the ganker. Lets assume for a moment that the value of cargo that can be transported is limitless in nature because its quite possible that someone could stuff 1 trillion or more into their holds. So ganking is a great activity because obtaining wild amounts of wealth can be done with 1 person and his looting alt. So the reward and the motive for ganking is there so lets look at the risk or effort part of the equation.
Ive done plenty of ganking so I know what goes into it. While ive never FC'd a freighter gank fleet I know that the coordination and the work that goes into killing one, especially with AG on field can be a lot at times. As someone that is a great bumper and someo,e that was heavily invested in hyperdunking (both as a group and 100% solo) I feel qualified enough to discuss a suggestion such as this.
So as far as freighter ganking is concerned, if you have 30 ships to sacrifice the investment isnt all that risky. With good target selection, even with using catalysts a failed gank isnt going to impact your operations in the least. Sure there are times where you have less people so taloses or bombers but thats just part of it. Apart from the luck of the drops almost all risk that gankers take on can be mitigated and/or controlled. So you brought up wardecs... The only difference is that concord has been paid to look the other way for the duration of the war. So when a war target is killed the wreck and its contents now belong to the killer(s). In a gank the loot doesnt belong to you, was made vulnerable through a criminal action, and is then able to be transported safelt in a fleet hangar. If you want to make a thread about wars and compare it to other risk averse activities be my guest. Im not denying that some parts of wars have their own bits of risk averseness, but this isnt a pointing fingers and comparison thread. This is about a mechanic that is lop sided and needs rebalancin, so its not a one more nerf thread. Sure gankers use it a ton with freighter ganking, but is easily abused by anyone looking to scoop loot in a risk free fashion.
- Im not part of the ag "community" - Im not too worried about mobile depots because of their range and cargo limitations. They also have an onlining timer, which allows,enough time for someone to go suspect and scoop the wreck for themselves.
HTFU
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2852
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 20:41:22 -
[69] - Quote
Faylee Freir wrote: I dont think that the entirety of ganking has its risk/reward out of wack, but only a few parts of the process. Some of these are optional parts of the process that provide an immense amount of protection to the ganker. Lets assume for a moment that the value of cargo that can be transported is limitless in nature because its quite possible that someone could stuff 1 trillion or more into their holds. So ganking is a great activity because obtaining wild amounts of wealth can be done with 1 person and his looting alt. So the reward and the motive for ganking is there so lets look at the risk or effort part of the equation.
Risk/reward is something which is balanced where resources/ISK is spawned into the game world. The NPC's, or the whole game mechanics of the space are balanced against the loot the NPCs or sites are dropping, etc. It is however not possible to balance this in a player driven activity. On the contrary, and this is a point people like you just don't get.. The more safe a carebear feels because more and more Highsec aggression mechanics get nerfed into oblivion the more confidently he will fill his anti-tanked freighter with even more stuff. Years ago freighters using billions of ISK where a rare occurrence while ganking was flourishing, no one in their right minds would stuff 20bil into a Freigher and hit the autopilot button. Today this is a common thing and Freighers got so fat they became a lucrative target again for big corporations/alliances. This will always balance itself.
The more secure the more people are needed and once the whales are fat enough they will start to die in numbers again.
The only thing you are doing is limiting the access to this fat whales to bigger organisations.
Faylee Freir wrote: So as far as freighter ganking is concerned, if you have 30 ships to sacrifice the investment isnt all that risky. With good target selection, even with using catalysts a failed gank isnt going to impact your operations in the least. Sure there are times where you have less people so taloses or bombers but thats just part of it. Apart from the luck of the drops almost all risk that gankers take on can be mitigated and/or controlled. So you brought up wardecs... The only difference is that concord has been paid to look the other way for the duration of the war. So when a war target is killed the wreck and its contents now belong to the killer(s). In a gank the loot doesnt belong to you, was made vulnerable through a criminal action, and is then able to be transported safelt in a fleet hangar. If you want to make a thread about wars and compare it to other risk averse activities be my guest. Im not denying that some parts of wars have their own bits of risk averseness, but this isnt a pointing fingers and comparison thread. This is about a mechanic that is lop sided and needs rebalancin, so its not a one more nerf thread. Sure gankers use it a ton with freighter ganking, but is easily abused by anyone looking to scoop loot in a risk free fashion.
I would say the two activities are absolutely comparable. You state the reason for this nerf is the risk/reward for freighter ganking is out of wack. Yet if we compare it to wardecs where you can kill a ship with nothing than just a one time payment of 50mil ISK and a very limited group of players who can actually interfere with your activity it seams that ganking is a lot less in need of balancing in comparison.
I am not against wardecs and I totally don't want to nerf them on the contrary. I just want to display your hypocrisy and how you single out ganking for yet another nerf while the same "problem" you construct is even worse in your "business".
If you address the issue this way (risk/reward) we have to compare it with wardecs, everything else would make no sense at all.
And about the DST issue.. AG came with this idea before and believe me all the solutions so far have holes you don't want to put into this game. If you think what you get is a bunch of yellow ganker freighers you can shoot you don't know how this game works. However expect some yellow miner Orcas along the way. A mechanic which will make it possible to make someone else suspect will be used as such by people who care about game mechanics against the lazy carebears who will have no clue what just happened.
But as I said, +1 from me. I would really love if they implement one of this screwed up ideas just to show you what happens.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5264
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 21:27:26 -
[70] - Quote
Faylee Freir wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Faylee Freir wrote:Its a nerf to risk averse loot scooping. Since just about everyone is risk averse. Seriously do you think you aren't risk averse? Bwahahahahahahahaha...gasp...bwahahahahaha. No I didn't say that, but I'm not scooping billions in loot daily.
So? Seriously why is this a problem CCP needs to address? You'd scoop nothing if it weren't for players being imprudent.
Is that your narrative?
"CCP, there are these foolish and imprudent players, and me and my friends in game are scooping billions because they are foolish and imprudent so....nerf me!"
"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
|
|
Faylee Freir
Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group
329
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 21:48:58 -
[71] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Risk/reward is something which is balanced where resources/ISK is spawned into the game world. The NPC's, or the whole game mechanics of the space are balanced against the loot the NPCs or sites are dropping, etc. It is however not possible to balance this in a player driven activity. On the contrary, and this is a point people like you just don't get.. The more safe a carebear feels because more and more Highsec aggression mechanics get nerfed into oblivion the more confidently he will fill his anti-tanked freighter with even more stuff. Years ago freighters using billions of ISK where a rare occurrence while ganking was flourishing, no one in their right minds would stuff 20bil into a Freigher and hit the autopilot button. Today this is a common thing and Freighers got so fat they became a lucrative target again for big corporations/alliances. This will always balance itself.
The more secure the more people are needed and once the whales are fat enough they will start to die in numbers again.
The only thing you are doing is limiting the access to this fat whales to bigger organisations. I really have no idea why you're talking about nerfing freighter ganking. This doesn't impair, resist, or prevent freighter ganking in any way whatsoever. This change doesn't make carebears any more or less safe because freighters and other targets of opportunity will still die.
I agree that you can't find real balance in a pvp activity, specifically in one that involves players that are generally MUCH more prepared than others and have superior knowledge of mechanics. I'm not proposing any change that gives players that are stupid or dumb enough to get ganked, power to change that result. This is purely about how there's something wrong with looting into a DST, circumventing crimewatch.
I also slightly disagree with your comments about how players take more risks with their cargo now since they feel safer. Yeah while some changes might make them feel safer, I think the majority of the ISK is coming from how making isk has been made easier and more accessable. Go back years ago and the amount of isk that the average players has currently would be ludicrous. So players that are ignorant of game mechanics or are lazy / bad load their stuff in freighters and haulers and die. I don't CCP has increased players confidence so much to the point where putting 20b in a freighter is a safe, good idea.
Quote:I would say the two activities are absolutely comparable. You state the reason for this nerf is the risk/reward for freighter ganking is out of wack. Yet if we compare it to wardecs where you can kill a ship with nothing than just a one time payment of 50mil ISK and a very limited group of players who can actually interfere with your activity it seams that ganking is a lot less in need of balancing in comparison.
I am not against wardecs and I totally don't want to nerf them on the contrary. I just want to display your hypocrisy and how you single out ganking for yet another nerf while the same "problem" you construct is even worse in your "business".
If you address the issue this way (risk/reward) we have to compare it with wardecs, everything else would make no sense at all.
And about the DST issue.. AG came with this idea before and believe me all the solutions so far have holes you don't want to put into this game. If you think what you get is a bunch of yellow ganker freighers you can shoot you don't know how this game works. However expect some yellow miner Orcas along the way. A mechanic which will make it possible to make someone else suspect will be used as such by people who care about game mechanics against the lazy carebears who will have no clue what just happened.
But as I said, +1 from me. I would really love if they implement one of this screwed up ideas just to show you what happens. Ganking is a lot different than war decs because wars are limited to how much isk you have to spend on wars and how many wars you have. Ganks can effect anyone and everyone (unless you don't undock) and you don't even have to be profitable for it to happen. I don't have actual numbers, but I'm willing to bet that at least 90% of wars that are put in are not profitable in any way, and that's partially because of current game mechanics.
There are also ways for 3rd parties to get involved against you in the war through the assist system, where with ganking you can have a neutral machariel alt and bump for hours if you wanted to. I'm not saying that I'm against ganking. With this DST change, ganks will still happen just as much. All it's going to do is force all players to not be able to circumvent crimewatch and use a legitimate form of loot scooping.
I still believe that the key to preventing ganks starts with the player docked up in station. Freighters are capital class ships and should be supported as such. Bumping is an incredibly good tool, but is not foolproof. I do not fall into this carebear category that you are painting as an attempt to polarize me from any form of ganking or ganking community.
Gankers already go suspect in freighters if the cargo is too big for any conventional means, what are you talking about? Right so you're talking about putting loot into an Orca's fleet hangar and making him go suspect. Sure the easy solution to this is to keep the orca with a green safety, but you know just like I do that there will be idiots. If CCP wanted to protect Orcas against that then they would do something crazy like you can't interact with a fleet hangar while you're suspect. Wow, how quickly this turned around. How many tears do you suspect that would generate?
All I'm saying is that this isn't about nerfing ganking. Sure it might nerf gankers in the fact that they can no longer use a ****** throwaway alt to scoop billions of loot into a DST's fleet hangar.
HTFU
|
Faylee Freir
Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group
329
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 21:51:41 -
[72] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Faylee Freir wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Faylee Freir wrote:Its a nerf to risk averse loot scooping. Since just about everyone is risk averse. Seriously do you think you aren't risk averse? Bwahahahahahahahaha...gasp...bwahahahahaha. No I didn't say that, but I'm not scooping billions in loot daily. So? Seriously why is this a problem CCP needs to address? You'd scoop nothing if it weren't for players being imprudent. Is that your narrative? "CCP, there are these foolish and imprudent players, and me and my friends in game are scooping billions because they are foolish and imprudent so....nerf me!" I don't have any issues with the potential amount of isk that a player or group of players can scoop. All I'm saying is that it's a bad mechanic that needs rebalancing.
It's a bad mechanic because the only REAL risk that gankers take on is the amount of isk they invest in a gank, which even has ways for that risk to be mitigated or lessened.
HTFU
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18133
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 21:58:43 -
[73] - Quote
Faylee Freir wrote: All I'm saying is that this isn't about nerfing ganking. Sure it might nerf gankers in the fact that they can no longer use a ****** throwaway alt to scoop billions of loot into a DST's fleet hangar.
If freighters use freight containers then this tactic won't work anyway. We already have a counter to this. |
Faylee Freir
Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group
329
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 22:06:42 -
[74] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Faylee Freir wrote: All I'm saying is that this isn't about nerfing ganking. Sure it might nerf gankers in the fact that they can no longer use a ****** throwaway alt to scoop billions of loot into a DST's fleet hangar.
If freighters use freight containers then this tactic won't work anyway. We already have a counter to this. Sure if the freighter uses a freight container then you have to put a freighter at risk to secure the loot. So looking back at ganks in hisec, the number of freighters that are using freight containers is hilariously low... too low for you to use that as an excuse of actual examples of common risk in ganking.
Yeah it happens, but its much more common for the loot to fit inside of a DST with a trip or two.
HTFU
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18133
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 22:11:28 -
[75] - Quote
Faylee Freir wrote:baltec1 wrote:Faylee Freir wrote: All I'm saying is that this isn't about nerfing ganking. Sure it might nerf gankers in the fact that they can no longer use a ****** throwaway alt to scoop billions of loot into a DST's fleet hangar.
If freighters use freight containers then this tactic won't work anyway. We already have a counter to this. Sure if the freighter uses a freight container then you have to put a freighter at risk to secure the loot. So looking back at ganks in hisec, the number of freighters that are using freight containers is hilariously low... too low for you to use that as an excuse of actual examples of common risk in ganking. Yeah it happens, but its much more common for the loot to fit inside of a DST with a trip or two.
Doesn't matter if its getting used, point is its there already and super easy and cheap to do. That people choose not to use it is up to them. Frankly, why should this not be the responsibility of the haulers? Why should CCP yet again step in if haulers are not willing to do it themselves? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5264
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 22:53:08 -
[76] - Quote
Faylee Freir wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Faylee Freir wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Faylee Freir wrote:Its a nerf to risk averse loot scooping. Since just about everyone is risk averse. Seriously do you think you aren't risk averse? Bwahahahahahahahaha...gasp...bwahahahahaha. No I didn't say that, but I'm not scooping billions in loot daily. So? Seriously why is this a problem CCP needs to address? You'd scoop nothing if it weren't for players being imprudent. Is that your narrative? "CCP, there are these foolish and imprudent players, and me and my friends in game are scooping billions because they are foolish and imprudent so....nerf me!" I don't have any issues with the potential amount of isk that a player or group of players can scoop. All I'm saying is that it's a bad mechanic that needs rebalancing. It's a bad mechanic because the only REAL risk that gankers take on is the amount of isk they invest in a gank, which even has ways for that risk to be mitigated or lessened.
It has the same risks as an over stuffed freighter.
"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
|
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources Silent Infinity
251
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 23:48:13 -
[77] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Faylee Freir wrote: All I'm saying is that this isn't about nerfing ganking. Sure it might nerf gankers in the fact that they can no longer use a ****** throwaway alt to scoop billions of loot into a DST's fleet hangar.
If freighters use freight containers then this tactic won't work anyway. We already have a counter to this. Thanks for pointing that out. Next time I haul contract packages around, I'll make sure to put them in giant freight containers.
Oh wait ... you can't. But of course you already knew that.
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5264
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 00:16:17 -
[78] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:baltec1 wrote:Faylee Freir wrote: All I'm saying is that this isn't about nerfing ganking. Sure it might nerf gankers in the fact that they can no longer use a ****** throwaway alt to scoop billions of loot into a DST's fleet hangar.
If freighters use freight containers then this tactic won't work anyway. We already have a counter to this. Thanks for pointing that out. Next time I haul contract packages around, I'll make sure to put them in giant freight containers. Oh wait ... you can't. But of course you already knew that.
Do you routinely haul 8 billion in contract packages?
"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
|
Faylee Freir
Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group
329
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 00:17:34 -
[79] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Faylee Freir wrote:baltec1 wrote:Faylee Freir wrote: All I'm saying is that this isn't about nerfing ganking. Sure it might nerf gankers in the fact that they can no longer use a ****** throwaway alt to scoop billions of loot into a DST's fleet hangar.
If freighters use freight containers then this tactic won't work anyway. We already have a counter to this. Sure if the freighter uses a freight container then you have to put a freighter at risk to secure the loot. So looking back at ganks in hisec, the number of freighters that are using freight containers is hilariously low... too low for you to use that as an excuse of actual examples of common risk in ganking. Yeah it happens, but its much more common for the loot to fit inside of a DST with a trip or two. Doesn't matter if its getting used, point is its there already and super easy and cheap to do. That people choose not to use it is up to them. Frankly, why should this not be the responsibility of the haulers? Why should CCP yet again step in if haulers are not willing to do it themselves? Thanks for reinforcing my point. People dont use them because they arent a necessety for hauling stuff around. People shouldnt be pressure into using them just so they can force gankers to go suspect in a freighter in order to secure loot. In your opinion wjat is the point of using these containers?
HTFU
|
Faylee Freir
Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group
329
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 00:36:18 -
[80] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:It has the same risks as an over stuffed freighter. Except it doesn't. You used 8b just now as an example, and a gank fleet doesn't cost anywhere near 8b. 8b is also around the threshold that miniluv uses to guage if something is worth ganking.
So that's an example of how a player or an organization can mitigate risk and reduce loss. Sure the loot fairy is fickle at times but you can't honestly say that a gank fleet assumes the same or more risk than a stupid, bad, and / or ignorant hauler carrying 8b.
HTFU
|
|
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources Silent Infinity
251
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 01:01:35 -
[81] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Do you routinely haul 8 billion in contract packages? I don't see how my personal hauling habits have anything to do with the fact that you can't put contract packages into freight containers, thus making them not a counter at all. Even if that was the case, you can't use the only effective ones (giant and enormous) in non-freighter sized haulers, thus making the whole argument null and void.
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5264
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 03:48:34 -
[82] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Do you routinely haul 8 billion in contract packages? I don't see how my personal hauling habits have anything to do with the fact that you can't put contract packages into freight containers, thus making them not a counter at all. Even if that was the case, you can't use the only effective ones (giant and enormous) in non-freighter sized haulers, thus making the whole argument null and void.
My point is unless you are being imprudent this is a non-issue for you. Now, if you are being deliberately imprudent and hauling large value cargo...well...then yeah, I can see how this would concern, but I'd argue you should change your behavior and such behavior should not receive and indirect buff.
"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
|
Faylee Freir
Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group
329
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 04:03:26 -
[83] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Sarah Flynt wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Do you routinely haul 8 billion in contract packages? I don't see how my personal hauling habits have anything to do with the fact that you can't put contract packages into freight containers, thus making them not a counter at all. Even if that was the case, you can't use the only effective ones (giant and enormous) in non-freighter sized haulers, thus making the whole argument null and void. My point is unless you are being imprudent this is a non-issue for you. Now, if you are being deliberately imprudent and hauling large value cargo...well...then yeah, I can see how this would concern, but I'd argue you should change your behavior and such behavior should not receive and indirect buff. This is in no way a buff to haulers. Let me repeat myself... Gankers wont stop ganking. They will be forced to use regular methods of ganking.
HTFU
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5264
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 04:04:25 -
[84] - Quote
Faylee Freir wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:It has the same risks as an over stuffed freighter. Except it doesn't. You used 8b just now as an example, and a gank fleet doesn't cost anywhere near 8b. 8b is also around the threshold that miniluv uses to guage if something is worth ganking. So that's an example of how a player or an organization can mitigate risk and reduce loss. Sure the loot fairy is fickle at times but you can't honestly say that a gank fleet assumes the same or more risk than a stupid, bad, and / or ignorant hauler carrying 8b.
4 billion can still be worth the gank and Goons have started ganking with stealth bombers so yeah, they are looking for the biggest whales.
And I am not saying a gank fleet is assuming as much risk, but if you think they should then you are just flat out wrong.
"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
5264
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 04:07:32 -
[85] - Quote
Faylee Freir wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Sarah Flynt wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Do you routinely haul 8 billion in contract packages? I don't see how my personal hauling habits have anything to do with the fact that you can't put contract packages into freight containers, thus making them not a counter at all. Even if that was the case, you can't use the only effective ones (giant and enormous) in non-freighter sized haulers, thus making the whole argument null and void. My point is unless you are being imprudent this is a non-issue for you. Now, if you are being deliberately imprudent and hauling large value cargo...well...then yeah, I can see how this would concern, but I'd argue you should change your behavior and such behavior should not receive and indirect buff. This is in no way a buff to haulers. Let me repeat myself... Gankers wont stop ganking. They will be forced to use regular methods of ganking.
This is very basic economics, should be thoroughly and totally non-controversial, want less of something increase the costs. Your proposal will likely raise the costs of ganking. So less of it...thus an indirect buff to imprudent hauling.
Of course, maybe there is a solution that is even cheaper and nobody has found it yet, but that strikes me as unlikely given the number of people involved, but who knows....in which case then we'll get even more ganking.
"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
|
Faylee Freir
Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group
329
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 04:26:34 -
[86] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Faylee Freir wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:It has the same risks as an over stuffed freighter. Except it doesn't. You used 8b just now as an example, and a gank fleet doesn't cost anywhere near 8b. 8b is also around the threshold that miniluv uses to guage if something is worth ganking. So that's an example of how a player or an organization can mitigate risk and reduce loss. Sure the loot fairy is fickle at times but you can't honestly say that a gank fleet assumes the same or more risk than a stupid, bad, and / or ignorant hauler carrying 8b. 4 billion can still be worth the gank and Goons have started ganking with stealth bombers so yeah, they are looking for the biggest whales. And I am not saying a gank fleet is assuming as much risk, but if you think they should then you are just flat out wrong. I can tell you from personal experience that miniluv will not form for some 4b freighter you have bumped unless its red or has some interesting cargo.
HTFU
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18140
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 09:43:10 -
[87] - Quote
Faylee Freir wrote: Thanks for reinforcing my point. People dont use them because they arent a necessety for hauling stuff around. People shouldnt be pressure into using them just so they can force gankers to go suspect in a freighter in order to secure loot. In your opinion wjat is the point of using these containers?
This is the problem with a lot of haulers, they don't think they should have to do anything when it comes to their own security. If haulers did actually do this then this issue of yours would be gone. |
Faylee Freir
Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group
329
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 11:38:06 -
[88] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Faylee Freir wrote: Thanks for reinforcing my point. People dont use them because they arent a necessety for hauling stuff around. People shouldnt be pressure into using them just so they can force gankers to go suspect in a freighter in order to secure loot. In your opinion wjat is the point of using these containers?
This is the problem with a lot of haulers, they don't think they should have to do anything when it comes to their own security. If haulers did actually do this then this issue of yours would be gone. I agree that haulers have the sole responsibility for making sure they are taking the proper precautions such as scouting, using intel channels, webbing frigates, and more.
You just dont make sense because using containers doesnt make you less likely to get ganked. Its not a method of defense or deterrance.
HTFU
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18145
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 11:43:29 -
[89] - Quote
Faylee Freir wrote:baltec1 wrote:Faylee Freir wrote: Thanks for reinforcing my point. People dont use them because they arent a necessety for hauling stuff around. People shouldnt be pressure into using them just so they can force gankers to go suspect in a freighter in order to secure loot. In your opinion wjat is the point of using these containers?
This is the problem with a lot of haulers, they don't think they should have to do anything when it comes to their own security. If haulers did actually do this then this issue of yours would be gone. I agree that haulers have the sole responsibility for making sure they are taking the proper precautions such as scouting, using intel channels, webbing frigates, and more. You just dont make sense because using containers doesnt make you less likely to get ganked. Its not a method of defense or deterrance.
It would increase safety as gankers would want to target the people who allow them to use this trick. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2767
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 12:44:09 -
[90] - Quote
Faylee Freir wrote:I really have no idea why you're talking about nerfing freighter ganking. This doesn't impair, resist, or prevent freighter ganking in any way whatsoever. This change doesn't make carebears any more or less safe because freighters and other targets of opportunity will still die. The point Ima is making is that your premises are flawed. The reason you state for your change is that "[t]he actual ganking and scooping process is far too easy and the potential reward (especially when being picky with targets and having a decent threshold for gsnks like Miniluv does) is very out of balance when you look at the overall risk of ganking stsrting with the first bump, to the final scopping of the loot." The reality is that CCP cannot balance these risk as they are completely determined by the actions of players. Once CCP sets the basic rules of how piracy is done in highsec, it is the potential victim that completely determine the rewards for the pirate.
If CCP chooses to raise the bar to gank a freighter, like they have done multiple times over the years, does ganking stop? No, it doesn't as haulers will just adapt to the current situation and increase the value of their cargo. This is just basic game theory which all of us do consciously or subconsciously all the time when we play the game. If the perceived risk of doing something, like hauling, goes down more people will shove more ISK into the hauler giving a similar amount of targets for the pirates.
From a purely rational assessment of risk/effort vs. reward, we are way beyond the point in hauling where everyone should just haul everything AFK all the time (under a reasonable ISK limit of course). The New Order does its best to inject some risk to all freighters, but the chance of you losing an empty or sub-billion ISK freighter to a gank is not worth considering (unless you are breaking one of the golden rules and flying something you cannot afford to lose). You are much better off to spend your time AFKing them around while you watch a movie which is a failure of game design but beyond the scope of this thread.
Implementing this because you think gankers get too much reward is flawed and a waste of time. As a thought experiment let's say CCP implemented an 'NPC anti-ganker' that showed-up 50% the time and doomsdayed the ganking fleet's hauler and the loot (maybe they could give them names of some the failed anti-gankers that left the game?). All that would happen is that Miniluv would change their calculation and instead of shooting freighters that have X B ISK in cargo, they would now shoot freighters with 2X B ISK (probably a little more than 2 times) in cargo. Immediately, this would be a straight out nerf, and cut ganking of freighters significantly, but over time haulers would adapt to the safety noticing that they can put more and more cargo into their ships without problem, until one day they cross this unseen new threshold and lose twice as much to the same gankers and we are back to the same place with carebears claiming things are "unbalanced", with the gankers killing even more ISK per gank.
CCP cannot balance this as carebears will eventually react to any buff in safety by hauling more, and arguably each time they raise the difficulty to attack a freighter, they make the situation worse. Perhaps as you say inflation means that the bar to attack does need to go up over time to allow haulers to carry more, but we are well into the range of absurdity where it takes dozens of people to attack a simple hauler in this game, and ships carrying > 10 or 20B ISK are ganked routinely.
Now, all that said, I did say before I agree with your proposal. Implementing this in in effort to "balance" risk vs. reward for highsec pirates as you want to do is foolish and doomed to failure, but implementing this as part of an effort to generate more content is something I think worthwhile. The problem is implementing this in a way that does generate more conflict and content is intractable, or at least a major undertaking involving a significant amount of work both 'under the hood' for the game to track stolen goods better, and on a game design level to prevent looters from just using another method to launder the goods. The reality is that freighter ganking is a niche activity, responsible for only a tiny fraction of the content, and is not likely to see the development time necessary to fix all the other ways players can loot safely while ensuring no exploitable holes to make innocents inadvertently go suspect.
Honestly, the whole highsec criminality mechanics need a complete rethink. So much could be done to build game play around crime, smuggling, stolen goods, bounty hunting and so forth, but most of it is hampered by players hiding behind CONCORD which prevents so much escalation. Maybe highsec is going to always be doomed as a content-poor space where player interaction is stifled by over-powered NPCs, but I'd like to think there is a better way CCP might someday get around to figuring out.
Anyways, the TL;DR of all this I think with this 'nerf freighter ganking' idea you are exhibiting traits of what James 315 refers to as one of "The Jealous", with perhaps a bit of "The Knee-Jerker" thrown in. Just because something interesting is happening and some people are profiting from it does not automatically mean there needs to be a nerf. I do agree with you in principle looting mechanics could be redesigned to support more of a chance of escalation of conflict, but it is not a simple problem to solve and one fraught with opening holes for players to trick other players into going suspect. You however have not presented a simple idea to improve this mechanic, nor even a good reason why it does need to be fixed so I predict CCP to not ever move on this.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |