EVE Search - Using a DST's fleet hangar to scoop gank loot needs rebalancing

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Using a DST's fleet hangar to scoop gank loot needs rebalancing

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Faylee Freir The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group 290	Posted - 2016.09.04 10:26:31 - [1] - Quote The title is self-explanatory, but before anti-gankers just join the band wagon and the gankers grab their tear stained pitch forks; I will go on record and say that I use this tactic. Sorry im not some complainer looking for another nerf, but just good ol' fashioned balance. Allow me to explain the method and strategy. Lets say that gankers have just killed a freighter amd want to scoop the loot, so they are presented with (3) options: Go suspect in a hauler/freighter OR use a DST's fleet hangar to run the loot to safety. The first option is very risky as scooping the loot directly into your cargo hold results in you going suspect, and available for anyone to agress and kill. The second option requires (2) people to perform and is 100% risk free. In order to perform your 100% risk free loot scooping you will have a character in a cheap throwaway ship that will open the gank wreck. Warp a DST in and have the character in the throwaway ship open the flert hangar on the DST. The throwaway ship will drag the contents of the wreck into the fleet hangar, thus making the throwaway ship's pilot go suspect. The DST has no timers and is able to freely warp out barring being suicide ganked itself. The DST can make several trips like this with little to no risk at all to the looter or the gank loot itself. So this is bad because despite what gankers say, there really is no risk throughout the entire ganking process. Sure you can have your bumper ganked, but besides that it really is extremely safe to gank and obtain the loot. This has been further buffed due to the wreck hp changes. Im not saying there arent ways that anti-gankers can prevent bumping/ganking or even methods to be increibly annoying; but the truth is that while FCing a fleet for this is much like herding cats and youre dependant on good drops to stay isk positive... The 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. Now not all loot will fit into a DST and will require gankers to actually go suspect in a freighter, but its not necessary unless the loot wont fit into a DST. I've listened to the coolaid drinkers for a while now and would be interested in a counter to the points ive made. TL;DR: When performing an action that gives suspect timer to the pilot such as moving gank loot into a DST's fleet hangar, the DST pilot should also go suspect. HTFU
FireFrenzy SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart. 675	Posted - 2016.09.04 10:35:05 - [2] - Quote I didnt know it worked this way (i am normally the incursion runner you guys target) but you are right this seems incredibly unintentional and stupid... If you move the loot from the hangar to the internal cargohold will that trigger suspect? since otherwise you can easily cram ~70k m3 into a cargo expanded dst... probably more
Lugh Crow-Slave 2990	Posted - 2016.09.04 10:43:11 - [3] - Quote FireFrenzy wrote: I didnt know it worked this way (i am normally the incursion runner you guys target) but you are right this seems incredibly unintentional and stupid... If you move the loot from the hangar to the internal cargohold will that trigger suspect? since otherwise you can easily cram ~70k m3 into a cargo expanded dst... probably more no the trigger for going suspect is only activated when you take something out of a "flagged wreck" the items themselves are not flagged. having an item put into your cargo from a suspect may be the best way but that punishes all suspects even those who may not be doing this. you definitely can't flag the items from my understanding of the database. Citadel worm hole tax
Faylee Freir The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group 292	Posted - 2016.09.04 13:00:47 - [4] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: FireFrenzy wrote: I didnt know it worked this way (i am normally the incursion runner you guys target) but you are right this seems incredibly unintentional and stupid... If you move the loot from the hangar to the internal cargohold will that trigger suspect? since otherwise you can easily cram ~70k m3 into a cargo expanded dst... probably more no the trigger for going suspect is only activated when you take something out of a "flagged wreck" the items themselves are not flagged. having an item put into your cargo from a suspect may be the best way but that punishes all suspects even those who may not be doing this. you definitely can't flag the items from my understanding of the database. Im a believer in smart balancing so I would like to get some input on this. Its important to take into consideration any form of gameplay that this change effects. You wouldnt need to do anything code wise with the loot I dont imagine. Instead you will make it where if a pilot loots a wreck that isnt his into the fleet hangar of a DST that it forces that DST pilot to inherit the suspect timer. The DST pilot would have to have his safety set to at least yellow because someone will cause that pilot to inherit a suspect timer. The DST has options to enable fleet hangar use for fleet members and/or corp members so having someone troll random DST pilots wouldnt be an issue. A DST pilot that is uninterested in the possibility of going suspect should use a green safety. I cant think of any sort of gsmeplay in the sandbox that this will negatively effect, other than serving to balance the way gankers loot in safety. HTFU
Lugh Crow-Slave 2994	Posted - 2016.09.04 13:19:51 - [5] - Quote they would need to change the code though because you technically cant move from a wreck to a fleet hanger. the game actually moves it from the wreck into your hanger then into the DST this is why you can't do it with a pod. Citadel worm hole tax
Faylee Freir The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group 292	Posted - 2016.09.04 13:47:27 - [6] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: they would need to change the code though because you technically cant move from a wreck to a fleet hanger. the game actually moves it from the wreck into your hanger then into the DST this is why you can't do it with a pod. I am not certain that this is how it works because I can be in a frigate and move 40,000m3 from a gank wreck into a DST's fleet hangar. HTFU
Lugh Crow-Slave 2994	Posted - 2016.09.04 14:00:59 - [7] - Quote yes so long as you have a max space of 0.01(irrc number may be wrong) you can do it because the M3 isn't actually used think of it more like a tube. it is the same thing when trying to move things around in a POS. so even if you only have a 10m3 cargo and 10m3 of it is full you can still do it. but if you have no cargo you can't EDIT: this is ofc just my understanding of why this happens and how it was explained to me but as i am no dev i could be wrong. if they can make it so it will flag the dst this way then i see no issue. im just voicing a concern as to why that may be hard to do Citadel worm hole tax
Sarah Flynt Federation Interstellar Resources Silent Infinity 248	Posted - 2016.09.04 15:05:40 - [8] - Quote I don't think there is much to add to the OP. It's a bug on the conceptual level of crimewatch 2.0 that is being heavily exploited for years. Before DST's gained fleet hangars, Orcas were used for the same purpose. Just be aware that fleet hangars are not the only way around this. As soon as this special case would be fixed, people would just use cans or launched freight containers to launder the loot and we're back at square one. There needs to be a general solution to this. See this thread for just one possible solution. Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5256	Posted - 2016.09.17 18:55:03 - [9] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: The title is self-explanatory, but before anti-gankers just join the band wagon and the gankers grab their tear stained pitch forks; I will go on record and say that I use this tactic. Sorry im not some complainer looking for another nerf, but just good ol' fashioned balance. Allow me to explain the method and strategy. Lets say that gankers have just killed a freighter amd want to scoop the loot, so they are presented with (3) options: Go suspect in a hauler/freighter OR use a DST's fleet hangar to run the loot to safety. The first option is very risky as scooping the loot directly into your cargo hold results in you going suspect, and available for anyone to agress and kill. The second option requires (2) people to perform and is 100% risk free. In order to perform your 100% risk free loot scooping you will have a character in a cheap throwaway ship that will open the gank wreck. Warp a DST in and have the character in the throwaway ship open the flert hangar on the DST. The throwaway ship will drag the contents of the wreck into the fleet hangar, thus making the throwaway ship's pilot go suspect. The DST has no timers and is able to freely warp out barring being suicide ganked itself. The DST can make several trips like this with little to no risk at all to the looter or the gank loot itself. So this is bad because despite what gankers say, there really is no risk throughout the entire ganking process. Sure you can have your bumper ganked, but besides that it really is extremely safe to gank and obtain the loot. This has been further buffed due to the wreck hp changes. Im not saying there arent ways that anti-gankers can prevent bumping/ganking or even methods to be increibly annoying; but the truth is that while FCing a fleet for this is much like herding cats and youre dependant on good drops to stay isk positive... The 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. Now not all loot will fit into a DST and will require gankers to actually go suspect in a freighter, but its not necessary unless the loot wont fit into a DST. I've listened to the coolaid drinkers for a while now and would be interested in a counter to the points ive made. TL;DR: When performing an action that gives suspect timer to the pilot such as moving gank loot into a DST's fleet hangar, the DST pilot should also go suspect. This is not a mechanics issue. This is an issue with players who are imprudent and foolish. Fix that and you fix this problem. "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 775	Posted - 2016.09.17 19:00:25 - [10] - Quote Inheriting the suspect flag looks like the most elegant solution, and very easy to implement. +1 Sir.

Faylee Freir Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group 317	Posted - 2016.09.17 19:27:29 - [11] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: The title is self-explanatory, but before anti-gankers just join the band wagon and the gankers grab their tear stained pitch forks; I will go on record and say that I use this tactic. Sorry im not some complainer looking for another nerf, but just good ol' fashioned balance. Allow me to explain the method and strategy. Lets say that gankers have just killed a freighter amd want to scoop the loot, so they are presented with (3) options: Go suspect in a hauler/freighter OR use a DST's fleet hangar to run the loot to safety. The first option is very risky as scooping the loot directly into your cargo hold results in you going suspect, and available for anyone to agress and kill. The second option requires (2) people to perform and is 100% risk free. In order to perform your 100% risk free loot scooping you will have a character in a cheap throwaway ship that will open the gank wreck. Warp a DST in and have the character in the throwaway ship open the flert hangar on the DST. The throwaway ship will drag the contents of the wreck into the fleet hangar, thus making the throwaway ship's pilot go suspect. The DST has no timers and is able to freely warp out barring being suicide ganked itself. The DST can make several trips like this with little to no risk at all to the looter or the gank loot itself. So this is bad because despite what gankers say, there really is no risk throughout the entire ganking process. Sure you can have your bumper ganked, but besides that it really is extremely safe to gank and obtain the loot. This has been further buffed due to the wreck hp changes. Im not saying there arent ways that anti-gankers can prevent bumping/ganking or even methods to be increibly annoying; but the truth is that while FCing a fleet for this is much like herding cats and youre dependant on good drops to stay isk positive... The 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. Now not all loot will fit into a DST and will require gankers to actually go suspect in a freighter, but its not necessary unless the loot wont fit into a DST. I've listened to the coolaid drinkers for a while now and would be interested in a counter to the points ive made. TL;DR: When performing an action that gives suspect timer to the pilot such as moving gank loot into a DST's fleet hangar, the DST pilot should also go suspect. This is not a mechanics issue. This is an issue with players who are imprudent and foolish. Fix that and you fix this problem. Except that its not an issue with the players. Players in eve's sandbox are well known for finding loopholes and exploiting things until they get patched out. I dont blame them because its fun to sort of play musical chairs with CCP. They fix something do you find a way to achieve the same goal as before... Just with more work. Fix or change the mechanic. You can change players. HTFU
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5256	Posted - 2016.09.17 20:00:53 - [12] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: The title is self-explanatory, but before anti-gankers just join the band wagon and the gankers grab their tear stained pitch forks; I will go on record and say that I use this tactic. Sorry im not some complainer looking for another nerf, but just good ol' fashioned balance. Allow me to explain the method and strategy. Lets say that gankers have just killed a freighter amd want to scoop the loot, so they are presented with (3) options: Go suspect in a hauler/freighter OR use a DST's fleet hangar to run the loot to safety. The first option is very risky as scooping the loot directly into your cargo hold results in you going suspect, and available for anyone to agress and kill. The second option requires (2) people to perform and is 100% risk free. In order to perform your 100% risk free loot scooping you will have a character in a cheap throwaway ship that will open the gank wreck. Warp a DST in and have the character in the throwaway ship open the flert hangar on the DST. The throwaway ship will drag the contents of the wreck into the fleet hangar, thus making the throwaway ship's pilot go suspect. The DST has no timers and is able to freely warp out barring being suicide ganked itself. The DST can make several trips like this with little to no risk at all to the looter or the gank loot itself. So this is bad because despite what gankers say, there really is no risk throughout the entire ganking process. Sure you can have your bumper ganked, but besides that it really is extremely safe to gank and obtain the loot. This has been further buffed due to the wreck hp changes. Im not saying there arent ways that anti-gankers can prevent bumping/ganking or even methods to be increibly annoying; but the truth is that while FCing a fleet for this is much like herding cats and youre dependant on good drops to stay isk positive... The 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. Now not all loot will fit into a DST and will require gankers to actually go suspect in a freighter, but its not necessary unless the loot wont fit into a DST. I've listened to the coolaid drinkers for a while now and would be interested in a counter to the points ive made. TL;DR: When performing an action that gives suspect timer to the pilot such as moving gank loot into a DST's fleet hangar, the DST pilot should also go suspect. This is not a mechanics issue. This is an issue with players who are imprudent and foolish. Fix that and you fix this problem. Except that its not an issue with the players. Players in eve's sandbox are well known for finding loopholes and exploiting things until they get patched out. I dont blame them because its fun to sort of play musical chairs with CCP. They fix something do you find a way to achieve the same goal as before... Just with more work. Fix or change the mechanic. You can change players. But you aren't talking about changing the players, you are putting another layer of insulation between them and their bad decisions with this change. And how far up the chain does this go? Does the freighter that is getting the goods also get the flag? Frankly this is yet another nerf to ganking and an indirect buff to being a moron in game. "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
Lugh Crow-Slave 3133	Posted - 2016.09.17 22:26:03 - [13] - Quote this is not a nerf to ganking its a nerf to looting. Why should you be able to get around crimwatch in this way? BLOPS Hauler
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5258	Posted - 2016.09.17 22:32:33 - [14] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: this is not a nerf to ganking its a nerf to looting. Why should you be able to get around crimwatch in this way? Why not? Why enable people being stupid? And yes, this will nerf ganking indirectly. People who gank freighters don't usually do it for ***** and giggles (sometimes they do to be sure) most do it for profit--i.e. piracy. This is definitely a nerf to that. "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
Lugh Crow-Slave 3133	Posted - 2016.09.17 23:00:18 - [15] - Quote how does this enable people to be stupid? and its not even that big a nerf to the profits you just may actually need to risk the hauler now. BLOPS Hauler
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5258	Posted - 2016.09.18 00:23:46 - [16] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: how does this enable people to be stupid? and its not even that big a nerf to the profits you just may actually need to risk the hauler now. If you make it harder to engage in (HS) piracy, that is lowering the costs of being stupid (overfilling your freighter, not using a scout, trying to move through Niarja when there are 45 CODE. guys in there, etc.). Want more of something: lower the costs of that something. "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 777	Posted - 2016.09.18 00:34:22 - [17] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: If you make it harder to engage in (HS) piracy, that is lowering the costs of being stupid (overfilling your freighter, not using a scout, trying to move through Niarja when there are 45 CODE. guys in there, etc.). But that's not what is being discussed here. The "stupid" target already died -- it already paid the cost associated with his alleged stupidity. What is on trial, is what happens to the loot after that. Looting a wreck and going suspect with hostiles on grid is also stupid; where's the cost for that?
Faylee Freir Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group 318	Posted - 2016.09.18 01:42:11 - [18] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: The title is self-explanatory, but before anti-gankers just join the band wagon and the gankers grab their tear stained pitch forks; I will go on record and say that I use this tactic. Sorry im not some complainer looking for another nerf, but just good ol' fashioned balance. Allow me to explain the method and strategy. Lets say that gankers have just killed a freighter amd want to scoop the loot, so they are presented with (3) options: Go suspect in a hauler/freighter OR use a DST's fleet hangar to run the loot to safety. The first option is very risky as scooping the loot directly into your cargo hold results in you going suspect, and available for anyone to agress and kill. The second option requires (2) people to perform and is 100% risk free. In order to perform your 100% risk free loot scooping you will have a character in a cheap throwaway ship that will open the gank wreck. Warp a DST in and have the character in the throwaway ship open the flert hangar on the DST. The throwaway ship will drag the contents of the wreck into the fleet hangar, thus making the throwaway ship's pilot go suspect. The DST has no timers and is able to freely warp out barring being suicide ganked itself. The DST can make several trips like this with little to no risk at all to the looter or the gank loot itself. So this is bad because despite what gankers say, there really is no risk throughout the entire ganking process. Sure you can have your bumper ganked, but besides that it really is extremely safe to gank and obtain the loot. This has been further buffed due to the wreck hp changes. Im not saying there arent ways that anti-gankers can prevent bumping/ganking or even methods to be increibly annoying; but the truth is that while FCing a fleet for this is much like herding cats and youre dependant on good drops to stay isk positive... The 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. Now not all loot will fit into a DST and will require gankers to actually go suspect in a freighter, but its not necessary unless the loot wont fit into a DST. I've listened to the coolaid drinkers for a while now and would be interested in a counter to the points ive made. TL;DR: When performing an action that gives suspect timer to the pilot such as moving gank loot into a DST's fleet hangar, the DST pilot should also go suspect. This is not a mechanics issue. This is an issue with players who are imprudent and foolish. Fix that and you fix this problem. Except that its not an issue with the players. Players in eve's sandbox are well known for finding loopholes and exploiting things until they get patched out. I dont blame them because its fun to sort of play musical chairs with CCP. They fix something do you find a way to achieve the same goal as before... Just with more work. Fix or change the mechanic. You can change players. But you aren't talking about changing the players, you are putting another layer of insulation between them and their bad decisions with this change. And how far up the chain does this go? Does the freighter that is getting the goods also get the flag? Frankly this is yet another nerf to ganking and an indirect buff to being a moron in game. It doesnt matter who it nerfs or buffs. Its a bad mechanic that needs to be looked at. The fact that gankers primarilly use it doesnt matter. If there were another activity that resulted in potential billions being scooped up in a risk averse manner, i would want that addressed as well. HTFU
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18065	Posted - 2016.09.18 04:39:16 - [19] - Quote Stick your cargo into a freight container and this can't be pulled.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5259	Posted - 2016.09.18 07:35:07 - [20] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: It doesnt matter who it nerfs or buffs. Its a bad mechanic that needs to be looked at. The fact that gankers primarilly use it doesnt matter. If there were another activity that resulted in potential billions being scooped up in a risk averse manner, i would want that addressed as well. Rewarding stupid is never a good move. Ever. "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 5259	Posted - 2016.09.18 07:38:47 - [21] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Stick your cargo into a freight container and this can't be pulled. Also it increases the risk for the gankers. If I put all my stuff in one freight container and then it is 50/50 that it drops. If you are not seeing it suppose I have 100 items. Now the probability that none of it drops is 0.5^100, which is a very small number. With a container, the probability none of it drops is 0.5, a number that is 6.33825E+29 times larger. Again, the issue here is not the mechanics but players who are just imprudent players. Making it easier on morons means all you'll get is more imprudent players. And you change imprudent players by showing how much their imprudence costs them. "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
Lugh Crow-Slave 3133	Posted - 2016.09.18 07:45:41 - [22] - Quote But again this isn't about ganking and freighters. It's about a way to work around the crim watch system. A system that was put in place so that actions would have easily predictable and intuitive consequences. This practice undermines that goal BLOPS Hauler
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5259	Posted - 2016.09.18 07:46:16 - [23] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: But again this isn't about ganking and freighters. It's about a way to work around the crim watch system. A system that was put in place so that actions would have easily predictable and intuitive consequences. This practice undermines that goal These things are interconnected. To pretend they are not is also foolish. This is clearly a nerf to 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
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18067	Posted - 2016.09.18 08:43:09 - [24] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: But again this isn't about ganking and freighters. It's about a way to work around the crim watch system. A system that was put in place so that actions would have easily predictable and intuitive consequences. This practice undermines that goal Ganking is the only reason this is getting whined about.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony 779	Posted - 2016.09.18 11:15:34 - [25] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: baltec1 wrote: Stick your cargo into a freight container and this can't be pulled. Also it increases the risk for the gankers. If I put all my stuff in one freight container and then it is 50/50 that it drops. I thought you had a strong background in economics and statistics? It doesn't increase risk. 50/50 is still 50/50, whether it comes in one chunk or many tiny ones. Gank 10 freighters and it balances out, because every now and then a freight container full of goodies will drop.
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2685	Posted - 2016.09.18 11:30:06 - [26] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: But again this isn't about ganking and freighters. It's about a way to work around the crim watch system. A system that was put in place so that actions would have easily predictable and intuitive consequences. This practice undermines that goal Ganking is the only reason this is getting whined about. Frankly the DST should not have gotten this hold anyway, it should be a normal hold so people can have the option to fit cargo extenders. This I disagree with, because the DST's are simply awesome ships with the current way they can be fit. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18074	Posted - 2016.09.18 11:30:44 - [27] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: baltec1 wrote: Stick your cargo into a freight container and this can't be pulled. Also it increases the risk for the gankers. If I put all my stuff in one freight container and then it is 50/50 that it drops. I thought you had a strong background in economics and statistics? It doesn't increase risk. 50/50 is still 50/50, whether it comes in one chunk or many tiny ones. Gank 10 freighters and it balances out, because every now and then a freight container full of goodies will drop. Way more likely to get paid if the freighter is stuffed with 100 individual stacks than just the one big one.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18074	Posted - 2016.09.18 11:33:20 - [28] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: baltec1 wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: But again this isn't about ganking and freighters. It's about a way to work around the crim watch system. A system that was put in place so that actions would have easily predictable and intuitive consequences. This practice undermines that goal Ganking is the only reason this is getting whined about. Frankly the DST should not have gotten this hold anyway, it should be a normal hold so people can have the option to fit cargo extenders. This I disagree with, because the DST's are simply awesome ships with the current way they can be fit. They took away the choice of cargo or tank. Thats not good in my book as it is effectively CCP saying you are too dumb to make that choice for yourself.
Lugh Crow-Slave 3133	Posted - 2016.09.18 11:46:10 - [29] - Quote baltec1 wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: baltec1 wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: But again this isn't about ganking and freighters. It's about a way to work around the crim watch system. A system that was put in place so that actions would have easily predictable and intuitive consequences. This practice undermines that goal Ganking is the only reason this is getting whined about. Frankly the DST should not have gotten this hold anyway, it should be a normal hold so people can have the option to fit cargo extenders. This I disagree with, because the DST's are simply awesome ships with the current way they can be fit. They took away the choice of cargo or tank. Thats not good in my book as it is effectively CCP saying you are too dumb to make that choice for yourself. Not sure they really did considering there are still people who cargo fit them BLOPS Hauler
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony 781	Posted - 2016.09.18 13:24:02 - [30] - Quote Not to mention there are many more choices than either 'tank' or 'cargo'. Hyperspeed velocity? Agility? Dualprop to burn back when needed? More warpstabs? Perhaps power diagnostics for MOAR TANKK?! Some run with cloak/MWD, some build for tank, some have scanprobes on them; some build active tanks, some go for buffer-- cargo is a choice already made by the very fact we're using a DST. Of course, if cargo expanders would expand your fleet hangar too, it'd open up even more options but that's really besides the point of exploitlooting. Yes, exploit. Receiving no suspect flag where one is due is nothing but following the rule to the letter rather than to its spirit. Another option would be to force the step in-between, eg: place contents in your own cargohold/fleet hangar, then transfer them to someone else's. That would ensure you can't use a ship with 120 m3 cargohold to move thousands of m3 at once. You could still use a cargoexpanded bestower as a throwaway ship but at least it'd offer some counterplay. Fitting options on a DST are totally irrelevant. How/why the ship got ganked in the first place is totally irrelevant. How stupid the pilot is and how the game's dumbing down is irrelevant. This is about moving suspect cargo without suspect flag -- same as our thread about bumping was about applying a point without suspect flag. This incessant sidetracking is the latest and greatest strategy of last resort to get any discussion locked I guess. Back to the basics: a ship that can't hold the cargo is used to load cargo into another ship. The ship going suspect is worthless, the ship holding the cargo which should be suspect flagged is not. Nobody cares about how either is fit. It's about the flag applying to the wrong ship. Either (a) the DST should be the one doing the looting (as the noobship can't hold it), or (b) the DST should go suspect when a suspect ship drops anything in it. Other possibilities exist but that would require some coding. Please explain why in your opinion, current mechanics are fine?

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18074	Posted - 2016.09.18 13:38:25 - [31] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Not sure they really did considering there are still people who cargo fit them They tend to get called plonkers. Adding cargo extenders to a 3k hold when you have a built in 60k hold isn't something most of us are going to do. Its an oddity I have seen happen to a few ships, the blockade runner is a fine example. I have yet to understand why it gets immunity to cargo scanners when it spends the entire time its in space cloaked and thus unscannable.
Faylee Freir Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group 319	Posted - 2016.09.18 14:27:32 - [32] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: It doesnt matter who it nerfs or buffs. Its a bad mechanic that needs to be looked at. The fact that gankers primarilly use it doesnt matter. If there were another activity that resulted in potential billions being scooped up in a risk averse manner, i would want that addressed as well. Rewarding stupid is never a good move. Ever. How is this change rewarding stupid? HTFU
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18074	Posted - 2016.09.18 14:50:32 - [33] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: It doesnt matter who it nerfs or buffs. Its a bad mechanic that needs to be looked at. The fact that gankers primarilly use it doesnt matter. If there were another activity that resulted in potential billions being scooped up in a risk averse manner, i would want that addressed as well. Rewarding stupid is never a good move. Ever. How is this change rewarding stupid? There is already a rather easy way to stop this from happening.
Faylee Freir Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group 319	Posted - 2016.09.18 14:55:44 - [34] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: But again this isn't about ganking and freighters. It's about a way to work around the crim watch system. A system that was put in place so that actions would have easily predictable and intuitive consequences. This practice undermines that goal Ganking is the only reason this is getting whined about. Sure, youre right but I dont see the complaints as unjustified or "just another nerf to ganking" I see this as a fundamental issue in risk vs reward where a system of mechanics is being allowed to be bypassed in order to secure your reward while minimizing the risk in going suspect. I have been heavily involved in ganking myself and have different feelings depending on the specific part being discussed. I dont think im extreme towards either side of the ganking arguments because I know that there are reasonable counters as well as a few things that I find issues with... For example I think that haulers and players have all the necessary tools and information to not get bumped or ganked in the first place. I know that once you get bumped and the gank is likely to happen, there are still ways to escape or make the gank unprofitable, so I consider the actual act of ganking about as balanced as you can make it. Then we move on to looting the wreck where I find that not having to go suspect by looting into a fleet hangar isnt in line with the risk / reward. So this isnt about nerfing ganking specifically because I hate ganking. Thats simply not true becsuse I enjoy ganking. I did hyperdunking when it was at its prime and was able to both do it completely solo and with small groups of people. Its about bringing balance to a part of someones gameplay that is bypassing a set of mechanics put in place. I understand the need and want to preserve any edge or advantage in any of your preferred playstyles of gameplay, because I know plenty of gankers that are very extreme and hypocritical when it comes to balancing and nerfs to PvE and other various carebear things. In the end, everyone has an agenda and I dont fault people for pushing theirs. This is purely about balance though. HTFU
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18074	Posted - 2016.09.18 15:00:27 - [35] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: baltec1 wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: But again this isn't about ganking and freighters. It's about a way to work around the crim watch system. A system that was put in place so that actions would have easily predictable and intuitive consequences. This practice undermines that goal Ganking is the only reason this is getting whined about. Sure, youre right but I dont see the complaints as unjustified or "just another nerf to ganking" I see this as a fundamental issue in risk vs reward where a system of mechanics is being allowed to be bypassed in order to secure your reward while minimizing the risk in going suspect. I have been heavily involved in ganking myself and have different feelings depending on the specific part being discussed. I dont think im extreme towards either side of the ganking arguments because I know that there are reasonable counters as well as a few things that I find issues with... For example I think that haulers and players have all the necessary tools and information to not get bumped or ganked in the first place. I know that once you get bumped and the gank is likely to happen, there are still ways to escape or make the gank unprofitable, so I consider the actual act of ganking about as balanced as you can make it. Then we move on to looting the wreck where I find that not having to go suspect by looting into a fleet hangar isnt in line with the risk / reward. So this isnt about nerfing ganking specifically because I hate ganking. Thats simply not true becsuse I enjoy ganking. I did hyperdunking when it was at its prime and was able to both do it completely solo and with small groups of people. Its about bringing balance to a part of someones gameplay that is bypassing a set of mechanics put in place. I understand the need and want to preserve any edge or advantage in any of your preferred playstyles of gameplay, because I know plenty of gankers that are very extreme and hypocritical when it comes to balancing and nerfs to PvE and other various carebear things. In the end, everyone has an agenda and I dont fault people for pushing theirs. This is purely about balance though. Frankly, if we are going to nerf this then it should be in the form of taking away the fleet bay and making it have a normal cargo bay again. DST should never have had this in the first place.
Faylee Freir Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group 319	Posted - 2016.09.18 15:08:54 - [36] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: baltec1 wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: But again this isn't about ganking and freighters. It's about a way to work around the crim watch system. A system that was put in place so that actions would have easily predictable and intuitive consequences. This practice undermines that goal Ganking is the only reason this is getting whined about. Sure, youre right but I dont see the complaints as unjustified or "just another nerf to ganking" I see this as a fundamental issue in risk vs reward where a system of mechanics is being allowed to be bypassed in order to secure your reward while minimizing the risk in going suspect. I have been heavily involved in ganking myself and have different feelings depending on the specific part being discussed. I dont think im extreme towards either side of the ganking arguments because I know that there are reasonable counters as well as a few things that I find issues with... For example I think that haulers and players have all the necessary tools and information to not get bumped or ganked in the first place. I know that once you get bumped and the gank is likely to happen, there are still ways to escape or make the gank unprofitable, so I consider the actual act of ganking about as balanced as you can make it. Then we move on to looting the wreck where I find that not having to go suspect by looting into a fleet hangar isnt in line with the risk / reward. So this isnt about nerfing ganking specifically because I hate ganking. Thats simply not true becsuse I enjoy ganking. I did hyperdunking when it was at its prime and was able to both do it completely solo and with small groups of people. Its about bringing balance to a part of someones gameplay that is bypassing a set of mechanics put in place. I understand the need and want to preserve any edge or advantage in any of your preferred playstyles of gameplay, because I know plenty of gankers that are very extreme and hypocritical when it comes to balancing and nerfs to PvE and other various carebear things. In the end, everyone has an agenda and I dont fault people for pushing theirs. This is purely about balance though. Frankly, if we are going to nerf this then it should be in the form of taking away the fleet bay and making it have a normal cargo bay again. DST should never have had this in the first place. Sure thats an option, but I think the DST's fleet hangar has legit usefullness outside of looting gank wrecks. The balancing issues surrounding the DST isnt relevant here when you start bringing up the fact that it can't be scanned or can perform the cloak+mwd trick because even if you opt to rebalance the DST there is still the Orca that you can use. Yeah I would say thay the easiest way to counter the DST looting would be to get bumps on it or to actuslly gank it yourself but I dont really see those as viable options in this situation. Just because something has a few way it could possibly be countered doesnt mean its practical or that the mechanic isnt flawed. HTFU
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 832	Posted - 2016.09.18 15:16:09 - [37] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Not sure they really did considering there are still people who cargo fit them They tend to get called plonkers. Adding cargo extenders to a 3k hold when you have a built in 60k hold isn't something most of us are going to do. Its an oddity I have seen happen to a few ships, the blockade runner is a fine example. I have yet to understand why it gets immunity to cargo scanners when it spends the entire time its in space cloaked and thus unscannable. Never did make much sense really. even on gates its warp, hit cloak and hope faster than the fastest target locker. No one scanned these for starters...you either insta locked and dropped them or see them haul ass from the gate. Extras seconds of scan and decision...the BR is already gone basically.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18074	Posted - 2016.09.18 16:02:36 - [38] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: Sure thats an option, but I think the DST's fleet hangar has legit usefullness outside of looting gank wrecks. The balancing issues surrounding the DST isnt relevant here when you start bringing up the fact that it can't be scanned or can perform the cloak+mwd trick because even if you opt to rebalance the DST there is still the Orca that you can use. Yeah I would say thay the easiest way to counter the DST looting would be to get bumps on it or to actuslly gank it yourself but I dont really see those as viable options in this situation. Just because something has a few way it could possibly be countered doesnt mean its practical or that the mechanic isnt flawed. Gets even easier than that. Simply put your junk in a freight container and nothing but a freighter can loot the wreck.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony 781	Posted - 2016.09.18 16:04:24 - [39] - Quote ummm .... freight container? Contracts? Issue.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18074	Posted - 2016.09.18 16:23:24 - [40] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: ummm .... freight container? Contracts? Issue. The people getting ganked tend to not be the likes of red freight

Lugh Crow-Slave 3133	Posted - 2016.09.18 16:32:11 - [41] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Frankly, if we are going to nerf this then it should be in the form of taking away the fleet bay and making it have a normal cargo bay again. DST should never have had this in the first place. then they just use orcas and this solves nothing BLOPS Hauler
Faylee Freir Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group 320	Posted - 2016.09.18 17:45:08 - [42] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Sure thats an option, but I think the DST's fleet hangar has legit usefullness outside of looting gank wrecks. The balancing issues surrounding the DST isnt relevant here when you start bringing up the fact that it can't be scanned or can perform the cloak+mwd trick because even if you opt to rebalance the DST there is still the Orca that you can use. Yeah I would say thay the easiest way to counter the DST looting would be to get bumps on it or to actuslly gank it yourself but I dont really see those as viable options in this situation. Just because something has a few way it could possibly be countered doesnt mean its practical or that the mechanic isnt flawed. Gets even easier than that. Simply put your junk in a freight container and nothing but a freighter can loot the wreck. Sure that could work some of the time. How much ehp do freight containers have? Im not trying to make it impossible for gankers to secure their loot. Im just wanting it to be balanced and make sense. HTFU
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18083	Posted - 2016.09.19 04:12:46 - [43] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: baltec1 wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Sure thats an option, but I think the DST's fleet hangar has legit usefullness outside of looting gank wrecks. The balancing issues surrounding the DST isnt relevant here when you start bringing up the fact that it can't be scanned or can perform the cloak+mwd trick because even if you opt to rebalance the DST there is still the Orca that you can use. Yeah I would say thay the easiest way to counter the DST looting would be to get bumps on it or to actuslly gank it yourself but I dont really see those as viable options in this situation. Just because something has a few way it could possibly be countered doesnt mean its practical or that the mechanic isnt flawed. Gets even easier than that. Simply put your junk in a freight container and nothing but a freighter can loot the wreck. Sure that could work some of the time. How much ehp do freight containers have? Im not trying to make it impossible for gankers to secure their loot. Im just wanting it to be balanced and make sense. Something like 500 hp.
Faylee Freir Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group 320	Posted - 2016.09.19 04:29:06 - [44] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: baltec1 wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Sure thats an option, but I think the DST's fleet hangar has legit usefullness outside of looting gank wrecks. The balancing issues surrounding the DST isnt relevant here when you start bringing up the fact that it can't be scanned or can perform the cloak+mwd trick because even if you opt to rebalance the DST there is still the Orca that you can use. Yeah I would say thay the easiest way to counter the DST looting would be to get bumps on it or to actuslly gank it yourself but I dont really see those as viable options in this situation. Just because something has a few way it could possibly be countered doesnt mean its practical or that the mechanic isnt flawed. Gets even easier than that. Simply put your junk in a freight container and nothing but a freighter can loot the wreck. Sure that could work some of the time. How much ehp do freight containers have? Im not trying to make it impossible for gankers to secure their loot. Im just wanting it to be balanced and make sense. Something like 500 hp. Well maybe Endie can get CCP to buff container EHP? HTFU
Lugh Crow-Slave 3138	Posted - 2016.09.19 04:31:13 - [45] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: baltec1 wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: baltec1 wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Sure thats an option, but I think the DST's fleet hangar has legit usefullness outside of looting gank wrecks. The balancing issues surrounding the DST isnt relevant here when you start bringing up the fact that it can't be scanned or can perform the cloak+mwd trick because even if you opt to rebalance the DST there is still the Orca that you can use. Yeah I would say thay the easiest way to counter the DST looting would be to get bumps on it or to actuslly gank it yourself but I dont really see those as viable options in this situation. Just because something has a few way it could possibly be countered doesnt mean its practical or that the mechanic isnt flawed. Gets even easier than that. Simply put your junk in a freight container and nothing but a freighter can loot the wreck. Sure that could work some of the time. How much ehp do freight containers have? Im not trying to make it impossible for gankers to secure their loot. Im just wanting it to be balanced and make sense. Something like 500 hp. Well maybe Endie can get CCP to buff container EHP? How would that do anything it would be inside a wreck. Beside the freight thing isn't even a real option this isn't just done with freighter loot BLOPS Hauler
Faylee Freir Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group 320	Posted - 2016.09.19 04:38:03 - [46] - Quote Quote: How would that do anything it would be inside a wreck. Beside the freight thing isn't even a real option this isn't just done with freighter loot Right so I was just poking fun because of how CCP buffed wreck EHP. HTFU
Count Szadek Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance 13	Posted - 2016.09.19 10:25:06 - [47] - Quote I did not know this worked - I would suggest to implement the suspect inheritance but with a few other things. A block from doing it based on security settings (since this also would impact Orca's that may have there corp steal and drop something in) though suspect Orca lol. If the pilot with the fleet hanger has their security setting set - it will let people that are flagged deposit and they will inherent - similar to how logi works. but will block the drop if the security is set to say green.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5263	Posted - 2016.09.19 18:20:21 - [48] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: baltec1 wrote: Stick your cargo into a freight container and this can't be pulled. Also it increases the risk for the gankers. If I put all my stuff in one freight container and then it is 50/50 that it drops. I thought you had a strong background in economics and statistics? It doesn't increase risk. 50/50 is still 50/50, whether it comes in one chunk or many tiny ones. Gank 10 freighters and it balances out, because every now and then a freight container full of goodies will drop. Do the math Brokk. If you have 100 things, what is the probability NOTHING drops? Now you have one thing what is the probability NOTHING drops. The two numbers are very, very different. "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 5263	Posted - 2016.09.19 18:31:42 - [49] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: It doesnt matter who it nerfs or buffs. Its a bad mechanic that needs to be looked at. The fact that gankers primarilly use it doesnt matter. If there were another activity that resulted in potential billions being scooped up in a risk averse manner, i would want that addressed as well. Rewarding stupid is never a good move. Ever. How is this change rewarding stupid? If you make ganking harder...you are making it easier on those getting ganked. Those getting ganked are the stupid ones. Basic rule of economics, want more of something lower the costs, want less of it raise the costs. Since this would raise the cost of ganking you get less ganking and that makes it easier for people get away with being stupid and putting 15 billion in your freighter like Hectik Merius. "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
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18105	Posted - 2016.09.19 18:38:16 - [50] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: Well maybe Endie can get CCP to buff container EHP? Why would anyone want or need that to happen?

Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5263	Posted - 2016.09.19 18:41:15 - [51] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Well maybe Endie can get CCP to buff container EHP? Why would anyone want or need that to happen? Because cornspiracy.... "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 786	Posted - 2016.09.19 18:44:24 - [52] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: baltec1 wrote: Stick your cargo into a freight container and this can't be pulled. Also it increases the risk for the gankers. If I put all my stuff in one freight container and then it is 50/50 that it drops. I thought you had a strong background in economics and statistics? It doesn't increase risk. 50/50 is still 50/50, whether it comes in one chunk or many tiny ones. Gank 10 freighters and it balances out, because every now and then a freight container full of goodies will drop. Do the math Brokk. If you have 100 things, what is the probability NOTHING drops? Now you have one thing what is the probability NOTHING drops. The two numbers are very, very different. Here let me be really horribly pedantic: You have two games. The first game you can play it 100 times. Each time you play it you get $1 and have a 50/50 chance of winning. Ex ante you'll view this game as having a $50 expected pay off. Further, if you want to know the probability of getting nothing you calculate 0.5^100. That is the probability of getting nothing. Game 2 you play once. You can win $100 with probability 0.5 and nothing with probability 0.5. Again, ex ante an expected payoff of $50. But the probability of getting nothing is now not 0.5^100, but instead is 0.5. I would argue given these two choices most people would pick game 1 because there is a greater probability they'll get at least something. Now, if we were to increase the payoff to game 2 to $1,000 people might switch, but only because of the change in payoffs. Still, most people would see game 2 as being more risk than game 1. Of course if you can play games 1 and 2 indefinitely in the end they become the same. But, ganking is not really like games 1 and 2 though now is it. I leave it as a homework exercise to explain why and why gankers would usually prefer game 1 over game 2 when the payoffs are the same. I like horribly pedantic- I don't like bravo sierra any more than you do ;-) I actually do quite a bit of this kind of math, and for a few attempt you're quite right you're risking more because one has a guaranteed (sort of) payout whereas the other is a gamble. Working from the assumption that ganking is a profession, and we're looking at 10-20 freighter ganks over the course of, say, a month, then the result will be quite similar. Because 50% is still 50%. Also (and I'm not implying you said that- but for the benefit of those struggling with the concept) it's not because you already know the outcome of four consecutive attempts that the chance on the fifth attempt would somehow be different: that chance is still 50%. Why gankers would prefer the one over the other, I honestly don't know. You tell me. I could see both attractions- one is a "steady paycheck" and the other is like winning the Jackpot every once in awhile. Being on a jackpot killmail certainly has its appeal, does it not? Answering you question: "If you have 100 things, what is the probability NOTHING drops?" that'd be 1 in 2^100th (I think). If you only have one thing, the chance is 1 out of 2. Still, if it were one stack of PLEX I'd shoot it. 1 in 2 I'm plexing all my accounts for a year. Or not- better luck next time ;-)
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5263	Posted - 2016.09.19 19:20:47 - [53] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: baltec1 wrote: Stick your cargo into a freight container and this can't be pulled. Also it increases the risk for the gankers. If I put all my stuff in one freight container and then it is 50/50 that it drops. I thought you had a strong background in economics and statistics? It doesn't increase risk. 50/50 is still 50/50, whether it comes in one chunk or many tiny ones. Gank 10 freighters and it balances out, because every now and then a freight container full of goodies will drop. Do the math Brokk. If you have 100 things, what is the probability NOTHING drops? Now you have one thing what is the probability NOTHING drops. The two numbers are very, very different. Here let me be really horribly pedantic: You have two games. The first game you can play it 100 times. Each time you play it you get $1 and have a 50/50 chance of winning. Ex ante you'll view this game as having a $50 expected pay off. Further, if you want to know the probability of getting nothing you calculate 0.5^100. That is the probability of getting nothing. Game 2 you play once. You can win $100 with probability 0.5 and nothing with probability 0.5. Again, ex ante an expected payoff of $50. But the probability of getting nothing is now not 0.5^100, but instead is 0.5. I would argue given these two choices most people would pick game 1 because there is a greater probability they'll get at least something. Now, if we were to increase the payoff to game 2 to $1,000 people might switch, but only because of the change in payoffs. Still, most people would see game 2 as being more risk than game 1. Of course if you can play games 1 and 2 indefinitely in the end they become the same. But, ganking is not really like games 1 and 2 though now is it. I leave it as a homework exercise to explain why and why gankers would usually prefer game 1 over game 2 when the payoffs are the same. I like horribly pedantic- I don't like bravo sierra any more than you do ;-) I actually do quite a bit of this kind of math, and for a few attempt you're quite right you're risking more because one has a guaranteed (sort of) payout whereas the other is a gamble. Working from the assumption that ganking is a profession, and we're looking at 10-20 freighter ganks over the course of, say, a month, then the result will be quite similar. Because 50% is still 50%. Also (and I'm not implying you said that- but for the benefit of those struggling with the concept) it's not because you already know the outcome of four consecutive attempts that the chance on the fifth attempt would somehow be different: that chance is still 50%. Why gankers would prefer the one over the other, I honestly don't know. You tell me. I could see both attractions- one is a "steady paycheck" and the other is like winning the Jackpot every once in awhile. Being on a jackpot killmail certainly has its appeal, does it not? Answering you question: "If you have 100 things, what is the probability NOTHING drops?" that'd be 1 in 2^100th (I think). If you only have one thing, the chance is 1 out of 2. Still, if it were one stack of PLEX I'd shoot it. 1 in 2 I'm plexing all my accounts for a year. Or not- better luck next time ;-) Right, a stack of 100 PLEX...of course, we'd all shoot. But you have two freighters. One has 1 stack of 100 PLEX the other is flown by some guy who just hates stacks so he has 100 individual PLEX. I hope you'd pick the guy with 100 individual stacks as I would because chances are I'll be plexing my accounts for 50 or so months which is better than 100 with odds 50:50...at least to me. BTW this is why Dracvlad and Lucas Kell are just flat out wrong. Well not just this, but this is a big part of it. Suppose further that you have to first put down 500 million you know you will lose with probability 1. Now which freighter do you pick. Your decision will be based on your preference for risk. So there is absolutely risk involved in ganking. The thing is the gankers understand this. Those getting ganked don't. And in the end I see their posts as highly toxic. If those players getting ganked do not understand this, then no amount of tinkering with the mechanics will likely yield a result that they'd be satisfied with. There are currently methods to avoid getting ganked in game. But these players are not using them NOW. Why should they start using them or new methods next week, next month or next year? What is going to ensure us of this? I submit there is nothing that can assure us of this outcome. As such, the only thing is to nerf ganking again and again. But that brings up another point. Eve is not just about mechanics. Eve is about spontaneous order. What we, as players, do with it. That is what makes the game awesome. What are your best memories of Eve? That you can solo L4 When Worlds Collide or the first time you rescued the Damsel in Distress? Was it when you came back to a moon mining tower and saw if full of moon goo? I'm going to guess no. *It was probably something involving other players.* They focus on the mechanics and ignore the player interaction. And they focus on nerfing player interaction. But that is what makes this game enjoyable for us. It is also why I oppose this change. Perhaps if we had not had so many nerfs to ganking and HS PvP it might be reasonable, but right now...stop with all goddamn nerfs. We want people to interact more not less at this point. "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 320	Posted - 2016.09.19 20:25:32 - [54] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Well maybe Endie can get CCP to buff container EHP? Why would anyone want or need that to happen? Ask Warr and Boney about how 1 person made their ganking almost completely unfprofitable for a few months back before the wreck ehp buff. HTFU
Faylee Freir Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group 320	Posted - 2016.09.20 01:05:55 - [55] - Quote Quote: Right, a stack of 100 PLEX...of course, we'd all shoot. But you have two freighters. One has 1 stack of 100 PLEX the other is flown by some guy who just hates stacks so he has 100 individual PLEX. I hope you'd pick the guy with 100 individual stacks as I would because chances are I'll be plexing my accounts for 50 or so months which is better than 100 with odds 50:50...at least to me. BTW this is why Dracvlad and Lucas Kell are just flat out wrong. Well not just this, but this is a big part of it. Suppose further that you have to first put down 500 million you know you will lose with probability 1. Now which freighter do you pick. Your decision will be based on your preference for risk. So there is absolutely risk involved in ganking. The thing is the gankers understand this. Those getting ganked don't. And in the end I see their posts as highly toxic. If those players getting ganked do not understand this, then no amount of tinkering with the mechanics will likely yield a result that they'd be satisfied with. There are currently methods to avoid getting ganked in game. But these players are not using them NOW. Why should they start using them or new methods next week, next month or next year? What is going to ensure us of this? I submit there is nothing that can assure us of this outcome. As such, the only thing is to nerf ganking again and again. But that brings up another point. Eve is not just about mechanics. Eve is about spontaneous order. What we, as players, do with it. That is what makes the game awesome. What are your best memories of Eve? That you can solo L4 When Worlds Collide or the first time you rescued the Damsel in Distress? Was it when you came back to a moon mining tower and saw if full of moon goo? I'm going to guess no. *It was probably something involving other players.* They focus on the mechanics and ignore the player interaction. And they focus on nerfing player interaction. But that is what makes this game enjoyable for us. It is also why I oppose this change. Perhaps if we had not had so many nerfs to ganking and HS PvP it might be reasonable, but right now...stop with all goddamn nerfs. We want people to interact more not less at this point. Who says you have to pick one? This is eve, and you always have choices... In that specific situation I choose to bring in 2 bump machs and gank them both. Also while I respect your right to an opinion, I think you are making this into something that its not. Nerfing this looting into a fleet hangar does nothing to lessen the amount of opportunities that players have to interact with each other. Actually making them go suspect just as you would have scooped the loot into a regular ships hangar would do just the opposite. It would create yet another chance for a played to interact. A change like this isnt a huge nerf nor is it something that will break ganking. This isnt just another nerf in the sense that its just an outcry against ganking because its killing eve, chasing away new players, or any of that crap. The thing is that anything floating in a wreck or can is fair game for anyone and shouldnt be considered yours nor is it considered safe until you have docked up. This mechanic is just plain bad and introduces too much risk mitigation for what is being scooped into these fleet hangars. HTFU
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5263	Posted - 2016.09.20 05:12:42 - [56] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: Who says you have to pick one? Because it is a thought experiment to help you see the issue. I clearly failed at that point. Moreover, we often face this choice in real life. You have two choices and you only have resources to do one of them...so you have to choose. This is where the notion of opportunity cost comes from. Quote: This is eve, and you always have choices... In that specific situation I choose to bring in 2 bump machs and gank them both. Again, it was a thought experiment to help people see what is going on. But instead you missed the point entirely. Quote: Also while I respect your right to an opinion, I think you are making this into something that its not. Nerfing this looting into a fleet hangar does nothing to lessen the amount of opportunities that players have to interact with each other. Actually making them go suspect just as you would have scooped the loot into a regular ships hangar would do just the opposite. It would create yet another chance for a played to interact. Sure it does. What happens when the DST goes suspect? Seriously, are you thinking through what you are proposing? Quote: A change like this isnt a huge nerf nor is it something that will break ganking. This isnt just another nerf in the sense that its just an outcry against ganking because its killing eve, chasing away new players, or any of that crap. The thing is that anything floating in a wreck or can is fair game for anyone and shouldnt be considered yours nor is it considered safe until you have docked up. This mechanic is just plain bad and introduces too much risk mitigation for what is being scooped into these fleet hangars. Maybe. See, as I have been saying for quite some time now, EVE is about spontaneous order. That is, order comes out of all the interactions between players. And those interactions can and often do have effects and outcomes that are unanticipated. People think, "Oh, this is no big deal, it completely makes sense." Then some completely unintended result pops up and bites people on the ass. That is the thing with spontaneous orders. Want to know another example of spontaneous order: evolution. What happens when there was wide spread use of antibiotics like penicillin? It eventually lead to Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, aka MRSA. It is a nasty bacterium and people tend to get it in hospitals where it sits like a snake in the grass waiting for its opportunity. And now even our most powerful antibiotics can merely knock it down so your immune system can keep it suppressed, but it sits inside you waiting...and when your immune system becomes compromised (another illness, old age, etc.) out it comes to make your life absolutely wonderful...no, I'm joking it makes thing worse of course. Eventually it will kill you unless something else comes along and does the job first. The point is, you mess with spontaneous order and the outcomes are not easily predictable. BTW, fun video of how bacteria evolve--i.e. adapt which is what we players do in EVE too, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8 Watch that and you should be a little bit scared...not in game, IRL. We have seen round after round of nerfs to ganking and HS PvP and everyone who supported them were absolutely sure these changes would be good. And then you go look at Eve Offline at the Tranquility graph and one has to wonder...really? If these changes were so good for the game, why is the number of players logged in declining? Further, because of all these changes we probably can't go back. CODE. and other ganking groups have gotten "too good". To deal with these nerfs they have, like the MRSA bacterium, adapted. If we went back and started giving insurance for dying to CONCORD that would likely be bad. If we reversed changes to freighters, that would likely be bad. If we reversed the changes to CONCORD response times that would likely be bad. So now here we are and people want to keep going with more and more nerfs. Yeah, maybe ganking organizations will adapt...but are you absolutely sure you want that? Maybe what comes next will be even worse? Have you thought about that in all of your hubris? "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
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2754	Posted - 2016.09.20 09:32:55 - [57] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: We have seen round after round of nerfs to ganking and HS PvP and everyone who supported them were absolutely sure these changes would be good. And then you go look at Eve Offline at the Tranquility graph and one has to wonder...really? If these changes were so good for the game, why is the number of players logged in declining? Further, because of all these changes we probably can't go back. CODE. and other ganking groups have gotten "too good". To deal with these nerfs they have, like the MRSA bacterium, adapted. If we went back and started giving insurance for dying to CONCORD that would likely be bad. If we reversed changes to freighters, that would likely be bad. If we reversed the changes to CONCORD response times that would likely be bad. So now here we are and people want to keep going with more and more nerfs. Yeah, maybe ganking organizations will adapt...but are you absolutely sure you want that? Maybe what comes next will be even worse? Have you thought about that in all of your hubris? I substantially agree with this. I mean what did the carebear apologists expect? That ganking would stop? Of course not, the ability to attack anyone anywhere is a fundamental plank of the game. Each nerf to ganking just makes highsec criminality less and less accessible to the average player and more the purview of the larger and dedicated groups (as does each nerf to wardecs). Antagonists will adapt, adjust and play by the new rules, but at the core of the game you are suppose to be vulnerable to them and always will be barring some massive, and probably game-breaking change in the development direction of this game. Unless you turn off aggression entirely, they will just group up and N+1 your nerfs, leading to larger imbalances in player strength on each side of the PvP contest than before the nerf. Part of the problem is an identity crisis of what highsec is suppose to be. I think the best overall description is it is a safer space, where the core game play of Eve Online can still take place, but with NPC-enforced consequences that are designed to support solo/small group/casual play. The cost imposed by CONCORD prevents indiscriminate violence, and makes it not worth the effort of exploding the small fry, unless of course they shove billions of ISK into a shuttle or freighter, or bling fit some mission or mining ship. This works to protect most players, but fails at supporting somewhat balanced conflict between players in that space. The higher you raise the bar to attack, the more organized and powerful the attackers have to be, and the bar is so high now that no solo or small group can match the organization or firepower of the large highsec criminal and mercenary groups. I don't have an answer, but I am pretty sure as you say Teckos there is no going back at this point. The organized aggressor group won't forget what they have learned and will continue to completely outclass the average highsec group no matter how many nerfs you add to the game, unless you lock them out completely. Given that I believe CCP when they say they have no intention of ever doing that, the only hope to restore some balance to the game will come from a complete rework of highsec mechanics, either changing how crime and wardecs work so that smaller groups of players can actually pirate or mercenary again under some new or revamped special highsec aggression mechanics, or go the opposite way and make highsec less safe more like the rest of the game so these criminal/mercenary groups can be preyed upon by the larger fish outside of highsec. All that said, I do agree with the OP. Clearly the intention of Crimewatch 2.0 was to put looters at risk of attack and that is not happening with the current looting mechanics. The problem is not trivial to solve however, both technically as like the Margin Trading Scam some fixes are not easy to implement with the database structure, and in terms of game design as there a number of other obvious ways to launder stolen goods in space using other containers. Ultimately, I don't think it would matter in any case as the organized groups would just bring more combat or gank ships to overwhelm the couple anti-gankers trying to attack the looter, or more likely, the anti-gankers would still be unable to catch the looting ship which is almost 100% safe if it loots and warps on the same server tick while aligned to a Citadel. I think it probably best to leave this until the Crimewatch 3.0 redesign and see if something more interesting can be done with the idea of stolen goods. The 8 Golden Rules of Eve Why Do They Gank?
Faylee Freir Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group 322	Posted - 2016.09.20 09:36:04 - [58] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Who says you have to pick one? Because it is a thought experiment to help you see the issue. I clearly failed at that point. Moreover, we often face this choice in real life. You have two choices and you only have resources to do one of them...so you have to choose. This is where the notion of opportunity cost comes from. Quote: This is eve, and you always have choices... In that specific situation I choose to bring in 2 bump machs and gank them both. Again, it was a thought experiment to help people see what is going on. But instead you missed the point entirely. Quote: Also while I respect your right to an opinion, I think you are making this into something that its not. Nerfing this looting into a fleet hangar does nothing to lessen the amount of opportunities that players have to interact with each other. Actually making them go suspect just as you would have scooped the loot into a regular ships hangar would do just the opposite. It would create yet another chance for a played to interact. Sure it does. What happens when the DST goes suspect? Seriously, are you thinking through what you are proposing? Quote: A change like this isnt a huge nerf nor is it something that will break ganking. This isnt just another nerf in the sense that its just an outcry against ganking because its killing eve, chasing away new players, or any of that crap. The thing is that anything floating in a wreck or can is fair game for anyone and shouldnt be considered yours nor is it considered safe until you have docked up. This mechanic is just plain bad and introduces too much risk mitigation for what is being scooped into these fleet hangars. Maybe. See, as I have been saying for quite some time now, EVE is about spontaneous order. That is, order comes out of all the interactions between players. And those interactions can and often do have effects and outcomes that are unanticipated. People think, "Oh, this is no big deal, it completely makes sense." Then some completely unintended result pops up and bites people on the ass. That is the thing with spontaneous orders. Want to know another example of spontaneous order: evolution. What happens when there was wide spread use of antibiotics like penicillin? It eventually lead to Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, aka MRSA. It is a nasty bacterium and people tend to get it in hospitals where it sits like a snake in the grass waiting for its opportunity. And now even our most powerful antibiotics can merely knock it down so your immune system can keep it suppressed, but it sits inside you waiting...and when your immune system becomes compromised (another illness, old age, etc.) out it comes to make your life absolutely wonderful...no, I'm joking it makes thing worse of course. Eventually it will kill you unless something else comes along and does the job first. The point is, you mess with spontaneous order and the outcomes are not easily predictable. BTW, fun video of how bacteria evolve--i.e. adapt which is what we players do in EVE too, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8 Watch that and you should be a little bit scared...not in game, IRL. We have seen round after round of nerfs to ganking and HS PvP and everyone who supported them were absolutely sure these changes would be good. And then you go look at Eve Offline at the Tranquility graph and one has to wonder...really? If these changes were so good for the game, why is the number of players logged in declining? Further, because of all these changes we probably can't go back. CODE. and other ganking groups have gotten "too good". To deal with these nerfs they have, like the MRSA bacterium, adapted. If we went back and started giving insurance for dying to CONCORD that would likely be bad. If we reversed changes to freighters, that would likely be bad. If we reversed the changes to CONCORD response times that would likely be bad. So now here we are and people want to keep going with more and more nerfs. Yeah, maybe ganking organizations will adapt...but are you absolutely sure you want that? Maybe what comes next will be even worse? Have you thought about that in all of your hubris? No i got your thought experiment, but such a thought provoking example doesnt make sense since any freighter with plex will get ganked upon principle alone. Also about the dst... Yes thank you for reinforcing my point. People will shoot at a suspect dst because they can. People cant freely engage a dst that is only being used by someone to move gank loot into the fleet hangar. Sire it can be interacted with in other ways but do you think that gankers ganking gankers is a good or viable counter to profitable ganking? I dont, especially when you consider the amount of time, isk, and assets that go into freighter ganking. Ive seen highsec pvp and gankers have to evolve. Some of what i do is the result of such nerfs and while some are irritating, if everyone takes a moment to step back and look at it from any other perspective than what fits their personal agenda, you will see its called balance. Is CCP perfect? Hell no, and even this sub forum is a joke. Most of the ideas here are absolute trash! Eves players statistics are surely the result of more than some ganking nerfs. I really hope you dont believe this.. Sure dumbing the game down and making it easier is something a lot of players dont want to see and get tired of, but this change isnt that... If anything its putting more risk into seciring the loot. I mean come on, goons pop a freighter with a fortizar inside and instantly scoop 15b into a fleet hangar and waltz out. HTFU
Per'mit Me'too Die'tryin Aliastra Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.09.20 10:31:38 - [59] - Quote I would rather be able to receive a KM for destroying the wreck of a gank with no suspect tag. I would be willing to bet ganker tears taste just as good as those that are ganked. If CCP is unwilling to change the mechanic that allows for this risk aversion using a DTS, then at least make this possible.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5263	Posted - 2016.09.20 17:56:18 - [60] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: No i got your thought experiment, but such a thought provoking example doesnt make sense since any freighter with plex will get ganked upon principle alone. Also about the dst... Yes thank you for reinforcing my point. People will shoot at a suspect dst because they can. People cant freely engage a dst that is only being used by someone to move gank loot into the fleet hangar. Sire it can be interacted with in other ways but do you think that gankers ganking gankers is a good or viable counter to profitable ganking? I dont, especially when you consider the amount of time, isk, and assets that go into freighter ganking. Ive seen highsec pvp and gankers have to evolve. Some of what i do is the result of such nerfs and while some are irritating, if everyone takes a moment to step back and look at it from any other perspective than what fits their personal agenda, you will see its called balance. Is CCP perfect? Hell no, and even this sub forum is a joke. Most of the ideas here are absolute trash! Eves players statistics are surely the result of more than some ganking nerfs. I really hope you dont believe this.. Sure dumbing the game down and making it easier is something a lot of players dont want to see and get tired of, but this change isnt that... If anything its putting more risk into seciring the loot. I mean come on, goons pop a freighter with a fortizar inside and instantly scoop 15b into a fleet hangar and waltz out. People can't freely engage an freighter with 8 billion in loot either. Your point? Oh, and my personal agenda on ganking and loot scooping, none if you think I benefit from this. I have only ganked freighters during Burn Jita/Amarr events and made nothing off them. And thank you for finally admitting this is a nerf to ganking. Took you long 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

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?

Faylee Freir Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group 329	Posted - 2016.09.22 14:54:18 - [91] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Thats proven false by the amount of freighters that are killed without freight containers. Its not a deterrance at all because theyve only ever lost a small handful of freighters while going suspect.. Even on top of AG they still manage to get them out... Hell ive personally done it too when i was hyperdunking. Looted 50b and went suspect in an expanded Obelisk with no webber and warped away to safet with the help of a MMJD. So no containers arent something they worry about. HTFU
Faylee Freir Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group 329	Posted - 2016.09.22 15:59:55 - [92] - Quote CCP cant and shouldnt ever limit what a hauler can carry in terms of value, but what CCP can do is look at the current level of risk on the gankers side and see that its situational at best. Look at the specific situations where there is significant risk and you will find that its very infrequent. So infrequent that you could say that most of the gankers assume no real risk. I have no issues with the value that is being hauled or how much isk can be made from ganking. This isnt about one more nerf to ganking, and yes I understand that it effects ganking but it also effects neutral looters no associated with any sort of ganking at all. The responses I keep getting back are how its just another nerf, in which poor evidence or examples are given that I continue to debunk and address. This is just as easily a nerf to the guy using his DST to scoop loot from wrecks involved in a wardec. The undisputable fact is that its a broken mechanic that is mostly uncounterable outside of having enough alpha on hand to gank it, and thats not a reasonabke counter at all. HTFU
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5265	Posted - 2016.09.22 16:34:15 - [93] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: 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. So, are we talking just Miniluv or ganking? So Miniluv sets a rule of X billion or more or forget it...and.....? The point still stands with 4 billion the risk of getting ganked goes up. Go gank them. If it is too much trouble, I don't see the problem. Not everything needs a CCP mechanics fix. I suggested we consider a change to contracts to allow more lending in game and holy ** was I shouted down. No, players can do this themselves no need to implement this was the response. The thing I find somewhat objectionable is we all come here because this is a "sandbox game", a game that has spontaneous order, and the first thing almost everyone wants to do is wreck that with changes to mechanics. "I don't like this so it must be stopped" and instead of trying to stop it, you turn around and ask CCP to stop it and don't give a ** about any unintended consequences. I'll even see statements like, "Oh you can start shooting DSTs!" Bullshit. Suppose this change is made, are people going to keep using an expensive ship to scoop loot or are they going to stop? If it is the latter you won't have a DST to shoot. Most people suggest changes to mechanics never ask the following question, "And then what?" So lets consider that question. You apparently gank freighters and scoop loot. Suppose this goes into effect what would you do in response? "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
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18152	Posted - 2016.09.22 16:44:39 - [94] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: Thats proven false by the amount of freighters that are killed without freight containers. Its not a deterrance at all because theyve only ever lost a small handful of freighters while going suspect.. Even on top of AG they still manage to get them out... Hell ive personally done it too when i was hyperdunking. Looted 50b and went suspect in an expanded Obelisk with no webber and warped away to safet with the help of a MMJD. So no containers arent something they worry about. Because you are not using them. Same with web alts, escort logi, scouts, breaking your expensive load into smaller cheap loads and so on. I recall the ice interdictions and all of the bitching by miner over how easy it was to kill them for profit. We are talking multiple threads every day for months on end. The reality was that out of 600 exhumers we killed in the first 2 weeks of the caldari ice interdiction not a single one fitted a tank. If you don't use the tools available then you wont see their benefit. Load your junk into a freight container and force gankers to use a freighter to scoop the loot.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5267	Posted - 2016.09.22 16:44:47 - [95] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: 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 risks 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 determines the rewards for the pirate. To add to what Black Pedro is saying. As I have argued here, and elsewhere this kind of thinking, "Ganking and loot scooping is too easy, the rewards too high, something needs to be done to balance it," is just flat out wrong. It is wrong because what we are seeing is not an inherent result of game mechanics, but of, and I am going to emphasize this, player actions. What we see with ganking is due primarily to, again adding emphasis, player action. A player is very imprudent and other's take advantage of it to their benefit. Working as intended folks. You all know this. It is a feature of this game that if you are imprudent you get punished, if you are prudent you get rewarded. But as in RL it must be so in game...reward the imprudent and punish the prudent. "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 17:01:45 - [96] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: 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. So, are we talking just Miniluv or ganking? So Miniluv sets a rule of X billion or more or forget it...and.....? The point still stands with 4 billion the risk of getting ganked goes up. Go gank them. If it is too much trouble, I don't see the problem. Not everything needs a CCP mechanics fix. I suggested we consider a change to contracts to allow more lending in game and holy ** was I shouted down. No, players can do this themselves no need to implement this was the response. The thing I find somewhat objectionable is we all come here because this is a "sandbox game", a game that has spontaneous order, and the first thing almost everyone wants to do is wreck that with changes to mechanics. "I don't like this so it must be stopped" and instead of trying to stop it, you turn around and ask CCP to stop it and don't give a ** about any unintended consequences. I'll even see statements like, "Oh you can start shooting DSTs!" Bullshit. Suppose this change is made, are people going to keep using an expensive ship to scoop loot or are they going to stop? If it is the latter you won't have a DST to shoot. Most people suggest changes to mechanics never ask the following question, "And then what?" So lets consider that question. You apparently gank freighters and scoop loot. Suppose this goes into effect what would you do in response? Miniluv is the best example of ganking for profit in the current meta. This is about ganking, but Miniluv is the perfect example. This isnt about CCP stepping in to nerf ganking. Once.... Again.... I will..... Repeat.... Myself.... This is a call to CCP to change the way you can circumvent the real consequences of crimwatch by going suspect with a worthless ship, placing loot into a DST thst would normally flag you as suspect. So yes CCP does need to step in because the sandbox will be better balanced from a risk averse form of bypassing crimewatch to loot. So if this change goes through and instead of gankers using DSTs to look, going suspect for you to shoot at... It will still give you something to shoot at because they will use another ship if the choose to. The point is that the ship will go suspect, which is the way it should be. If it was me i would use a DST when the situation arose. The size cargo it can hold is still something that would make it the superior ship, even before you factor in superior stats and not being forced to fit cargo expanders. HTFU
Faylee Freir Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group 329	Posted - 2016.09.22 17:03:39 - [97] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Thats proven false by the amount of freighters that are killed without freight containers. Its not a deterrance at all because theyve only ever lost a small handful of freighters while going suspect.. Even on top of AG they still manage to get them out... Hell ive personally done it too when i was hyperdunking. Looted 50b and went suspect in an expanded Obelisk with no webber and warped away to safet with the help of a MMJD. So no containers arent something they worry about. Because you are not using them. Same with web alts, escort logi, scouts, breaking your expensive load into smaller cheap loads and so on. I recall the ice interdictions and all of the bitching by miner over how easy it was to kill them for profit. We are talking multiple threads every day for months on end. The reality was that out of 600 exhumers we killed in the first 2 weeks of the caldari ice interdiction not a single one fitted a tank. If you don't use the tools available then you wont see their benefit. Load your junk into a freight container and force gankers to use a freighter to scoop the loot. Hello, im a broken record. You obviously arent reading because the existance of containers in a freighter is not a deterrance for gankers. Sure they get screwed every once in a while where all the loot is in a can and the can burns, but it hasnt slowed them down yet. HTFU
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18155	Posted - 2016.09.22 18:10:52 - [98] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: Hello, im a broken record. You obviously arent reading because the existance of containers in a freighter is not a deterrance for gankers. Sure they get screwed every once in a while where all the loot is in a can and the can burns, but it hasnt slowed them down yet. So get promoting then. When people ask for hauling advice tell them to use them. As I said, haulers have tools, that they do not use them is not the fault of the gankers.
Faylee Freir Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group 330	Posted - 2016.09.22 18:50:31 - [99] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Hello, im a broken record. You obviously arent reading because the existance of containers in a freighter is not a deterrance for gankers. Sure they get screwed every once in a while where all the loot is in a can and the can burns, but it hasnt slowed them down yet. So get promoting then. When people ask for hauling advice tell them to use them. As I said, haulers have tools, that they do not use them is not the fault of the gankers. This tool you speak of isnt a tool at all. Containers in a freighter have no effect on protecting the cargo nor does it make the gankers recalculate their strategy. Ive explained this twice now. Do you need to see a physician? HTFU
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5267	Posted - 2016.09.22 18:51:05 - [100] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: Thats proven false by the amount of freighters that are killed without freight containers. Its not a deterrance at all because theyve only ever lost a small handful of freighters while going suspect.. Even on top of AG they still manage to get them out... Hell ive personally done it too when i was hyperdunking. Looted 50b and went suspect in an expanded Obelisk with no webber and warped away to safet with the help of a MMJD. So no containers arent something they worry about. Again, that is not a mechanics issue it is a behavioral issue with players doing the hauling. Players who get ganked with over filled freighters are not simply imprudent they are ignorant of game mechanics. Trying to balance game mechanics due to unsound player actions is foolish and antithetical to the very nature of this game. "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 5267	Posted - 2016.09.22 18:58:15 - [101] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: Miniluv is the best example of ganking for profit in the current meta. This is about ganking, but Miniluv is the perfect example. This isnt about CCP stepping in to nerf ganking. Once.... Again.... I will..... Repeat.... Myself.... This is a call to CCP to change the way you can circumvent the real consequences of crimwatch by going suspect with a worthless ship, placing loot into a DST thst would normally flag you as suspect. So yes CCP does need to step in because the sandbox will be better balanced from a risk averse form of bypassing crimewatch to loot. So if this change goes through and instead of gankers using DSTs to look, going suspect for you to shoot at... It will still give you something to shoot at because they will use another ship if the choose to. The point is that the ship will go suspect, which is the way it should be. If it was me i would use a DST when the situation arose. The size cargo it can hold is still something that would make it the superior ship, even before you factor in superior stats and not being forced to fit cargo expanders. Making something more costly/more difficult is a nerf. That may not be your intent, but that is the effect. Here, let me use a different in game item, the cyno gen module. Was it nerfed with jump fatigue and jump range nerfs? Yes. A cyno is no alot less valuable than it was because people are not going to be jumping in a bunch of ships like they used too. And it is not CCPs business to address the levels of risk players take. You keep using risk averse in ways that makes me think you just don't understand the concept. Risk aversion is a personal thing. For example, I might be more risk averse than you--that is I have less tolerance for endeavors that have a higher probability of a bad outcome. It is subjective and trying to balance a game on that is just nonsense when you get right down to it because everyone will have their own preferences for risk. "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 253	Posted - 2016.09.22 18:59:47 - [102] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: Ive explained this twice now. Do you need to see a physician? You can prove them wrong as much as you want, they'll just repeat the same BS over and over again, completely ignoring what others said. That's how they always try to derail these kind of threads, often garnished with walls of text, so that hopefully nobody really wants to continue reading the thread. Happened countless times before. Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony 792	Posted - 2016.09.22 19:00:42 - [103] - Quote Haulers sure ain't going to prevent it, that is correct. By the time OP's story begins, they've already exploded.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5267	Posted - 2016.09.22 19:01:25 - [104] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: baltec1 wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Thats proven false by the amount of freighters that are killed without freight containers. Its not a deterrance at all because theyve only ever lost a small handful of freighters while going suspect.. Even on top of AG they still manage to get them out... Hell ive personally done it too when i was hyperdunking. Looted 50b and went suspect in an expanded Obelisk with no webber and warped away to safet with the help of a MMJD. So no containers arent something they worry about. Because you are not using them. Same with web alts, escort logi, scouts, breaking your expensive load into smaller cheap loads and so on. I recall the ice interdictions and all of the bitching by miner over how easy it was to kill them for profit. We are talking multiple threads every day for months on end. The reality was that out of 600 exhumers we killed in the first 2 weeks of the caldari ice interdiction not a single one fitted a tank. If you don't use the tools available then you wont see their benefit. Load your junk into a freight container and force gankers to use a freighter to scoop the loot. Hello, im a broken record. You obviously arent reading because the existance of containers in a freighter is not a deterrance for gankers. Sure they get screwed every once in a while where all the loot is in a can and the can burns, but it hasnt slowed them down yet. Why is it CCP's job to put in an additional mechanical deterrence? At which point does it become player responsibility to protect their stuff vs. relying on CCP? "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 5267	Posted - 2016.09.22 19:02:17 - [105] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Haulers sure ain't going to prevent it, that is correct. By the time OP's story begins, they've already exploded. Then that is their problem. Literally...**** 'em if they are going to be imprudent. "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 792	Posted - 2016.09.22 19:11:05 - [106] - Quote So what happens to the Loot Truck afterwards?
Cade Windstalker 556	Posted - 2016.09.22 20:01:20 - [107] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: But you aren't talking about changing the players, you are putting another layer of insulation between them and their bad decisions with this change. And how far up the chain does this go? Does the freighter that is getting the goods also get the flag? Frankly this is yet another nerf to ganking and an indirect buff to being a moron in game. This isn't insulating anything, it's putting the ganker at risk when looting the wreck as opposed to the current system where you can use a noob-ship to loot 40km3 with no risk to the loot or an expensive ship. If you change this then it's possible a clever ganker can still get the loot fairly safely (maybe using a T1 hauler, for example) but that puts a ship with more value at risk, puts the loot at more risk, and probably gives other players more time to respond in hilarious and explosive fashion. In short I think you're only really in favor of letting morons be morons when they're the morons getting ganked, not the ones doing the ganking. When you start forcing them to be clever and quick it gets unpopular...
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5267	Posted - 2016.09.22 20:26:22 - [108] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: But you aren't talking about changing the players, you are putting another layer of insulation between them and their bad decisions with this change. And how far up the chain does this go? Does the freighter that is getting the goods also get the flag? Frankly this is yet another nerf to ganking and an indirect buff to being a moron in game. This isn't insulating anything, it's putting the ganker at risk when looting the wreck as opposed to the current system where you can use a noob-ship to loot 40km3 with no risk to the loot or an expensive ship. If you change this then it's possible a clever ganker can still get the loot fairly safely (maybe using a T1 hauler, for example) but that puts a ship with more value at risk, puts the loot at more risk, and probably gives other players more time to respond in hilarious and explosive fashion. In short I think you're only really in favor of letting morons be morons when they're the morons getting ganked, not the ones doing the ganking. When you start forcing them to be clever and quick it gets unpopular... The gankers are the ones being clever. They have a logistics network to get ships where they need to be, FCs, voice comms, and doctrines and have figured out how to scoop the loot with reduced risk. How is any of that dumb or moronic? The guy putting 6 billion in his freighter without even using a scout now he is dumb. "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
Paranoid Loyd 9579	Posted - 2016.09.22 20:29:01 - [109] - Quote Re: Unfair/Unbalanced The game was fun and thriving when knowledge meant power. This concept has been all but completely removed in a constant effort to balance things. Until we go back towards the original successful model and stop trying so hard to make everything fair and balanced at the cost of fun, we are doomed to failure. If you think making the proposed change will make the game more fun, you seriously need to work on your understanding of the meta and what the result in reality would be. "There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix Fix the Prospect!
Faylee Freir Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group 332	Posted - 2016.09.22 21:03:18 - [110] - Quote I will repeat this again for the people here that seem to have a lack of reading comprehension. This is not intended as a replacement for haulers using their brains before loading 8b+ into a freighter with no support... This idea was never even pitched as such a replacement. This isn't a calling for CCP to fix a mechanic so that gankers won't want to gank freighters because I know very well that it won't stop. I don't want ganking to stop. I enjoy killing freighters and jump freighters myself. If you guys could stop parroting the same stuff that has nothing to do with the points I'm making then you will see that this is purely about the looting mechanic itself. It's a bad mechanic. It allows you to bypass crimewatch. It should be changed. HTFU

Paranoid Loyd 9579	Posted - 2016.09.22 21:06:54 - [111] - Quote Just trying to get you to see the forest through the trees. You keep pointing out this is just about this one issue. That is the definition of not seeing the forest through the trees. "There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix Fix the Prospect!
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18158	Posted - 2016.09.22 21:23:40 - [112] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: This tool you speak of isnt a tool at all. Containers in a freighter have no effect on protecting the cargo nor does it make the gankers recalculate their strategy. Ive explained this twice now. Do you need to see a physician? There are two freighters, both have 4 bil in the hold but one of them is lugging their cargo in freight containers. Gankers can only go for one target so they go for the better target. The freighter with the freight containers gets away with it because the gankers can't filter his cargo through a DST. Again, you have the tools to make yourself safer.
Faylee Freir Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group 333	Posted - 2016.09.22 21:32:21 - [113] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: This tool you speak of isnt a tool at all. Containers in a freighter have no effect on protecting the cargo nor does it make the gankers recalculate their strategy. Ive explained this twice now. Do you need to see a physician? There are two freighters, both have 4 bil in the hold but one of them is lugging their cargo in freight containers. Gankers can only go for one target so they go for the better target. The freighter with the freight containers gets away with it because the gankers can't filter his cargo through a DST. Again, you have the tools to make yourself safer. Jokes on you because the gankers can go for both. Keep the freighters bumped and throw the first fleet at the one without the container, then wait 15m and go for the next. HTFU
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5267	Posted - 2016.09.22 22:01:09 - [114] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: I will repeat this again for the people here that seem to have a lack of reading comprehension. This is not intended as a replacement for haulers using their brains before loading 8b+ into a freighter with no support... This idea was never even pitched as such a replacement. This isn't a calling for CCP to fix a mechanic so that gankers won't want to gank freighters because I know very well that it won't stop. I don't want ganking to stop. I enjoy killing freighters and jump freighters myself. If you guys could stop parroting the same stuff that has nothing to do with the points I'm making then you will see that this is purely about the looting mechanic itself. It's a bad mechanic. It allows you to bypass crimewatch. It should be changed. Just because that is your intent does not mean that won't be the effect. Removal of the watchlist was not intended to kill focused HS wardecs...but it did. "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 5267	Posted - 2016.09.22 22:03:35 - [115] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: baltec1 wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: This tool you speak of isnt a tool at all. Containers in a freighter have no effect on protecting the cargo nor does it make the gankers recalculate their strategy. Ive explained this twice now. Do you need to see a physician? There are two freighters, both have 4 bil in the hold but one of them is lugging their cargo in freight containers. Gankers can only go for one target so they go for the better target. The freighter with the freight containers gets away with it because the gankers can't filter his cargo through a DST. Again, you have the tools to make yourself safer. Jokes on you because the gankers can go for both. Keep the freighters bumped and throw the first fleet at the one without the container, then wait 15m and go for the next. So assume a can opener....okay, gotcha. "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 5267	Posted - 2016.09.22 22:05:26 - [116] - Quote Paranoid Loyd wrote: Just trying to get you to see the forest through the trees. You keep pointing out this is just about this one issue. That is the definition of not seeing the forest through the trees. I did not say that ganking will stop. It will most certainly make some people stop, but tell me this. Are you currently utilizing the mechanic? If it does get removed how will you change your tactics to scoop? I would love to see the answer to this. No really. So pretend this change is made, and your next freighter gank you scoop the loot by..... "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 333	Posted - 2016.09.22 22:08:54 - [117] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Paranoid Loyd wrote: Just trying to get you to see the forest through the trees. You keep pointing out this is just about this one issue. That is the definition of not seeing the forest through the trees. I did not say that ganking will stop. It will most certainly make some people stop, but tell me this. Are you currently utilizing the mechanic? If it does get removed how will you change your tactics to scoop? I would love to see the answer to this. No really. So pretend this change is made, and your next freighter gank you scoop the loot by..... When I spent months hyperdunking I would go suspect in my freighter to secure the loot. If I still did this I would still use a freighter to go suspect or I would use a T1/T2 hauler. HTFU
Paranoid Loyd 9580	Posted - 2016.09.22 22:31:32 - [118] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Paranoid Loyd wrote: Just trying to get you to see the forest through the trees. You keep pointing out this is just about this one issue. That is the definition of not seeing the forest through the trees. I did not say that ganking will stop. It will most certainly make some people stop, but tell me this. Are you currently utilizing the mechanic? If it does get removed how will you change your tactics to scoop? I would love to see the answer to this. No really. So pretend this change is made, and your next freighter gank you scoop the loot by..... When I spent months hyperdunking I would go suspect in my freighter to secure the loot. If I still did this I would still use a freighter to go suspect or I would use a T1/T2 hauler. Right, and if you are properly doing this what are the chances of you getting caught? Also, you stopped ganking after they removed hyperdunking? If you enjoy it in it's current form why are you not doing it? "There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix Fix the Prospect!
Faylee Freir Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group 333	Posted - 2016.09.22 22:36:55 - [119] - Quote Paranoid Loyd wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Paranoid Loyd wrote: Just trying to get you to see the forest through the trees. You keep pointing out this is just about this one issue. That is the definition of not seeing the forest through the trees. I did not say that ganking will stop. It will most certainly make some people stop, but tell me this. Are you currently utilizing the mechanic? If it does get removed how will you change your tactics to scoop? I would love to see the answer to this. No really. So pretend this change is made, and your next freighter gank you scoop the loot by..... When I spent months hyperdunking I would go suspect in my freighter to secure the loot. If I still did this I would still use a freighter to go suspect or I would use a T1/T2 hauler. Right, and if you are properly doing this what are the chances of you getting caught? Also, you stopped ganking after they removed hyperdunking? If you enjoy it in it's current form why are you not doing it? I was caught once. I haven't stopped ganking. HTFU
Paranoid Loyd 9580	Posted - 2016.09.22 22:49:37 - [120] - Quote I didn't ask if you were caught, not that I believe you. I asked while ignoring what you have classified as an unbalanced mechanic, if you properly utilize the mechanics that are available to you and don't screw up, what are the chances of getting caught? The answer is slim to none (if it's any other answer you're not doing it right), I've not used the "unbalanced" mechanic at all while scooping 1/4tril+ over the past few years because quite frankly it's not necessary. So what exactly are you solving here besides making it harder for everyone whether they understand the mechanics or not? Do you really think after this change the gankers that do endure it will just be sitting there suspect for you to catch? "There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix Fix the Prospect!

Faylee Freir Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group 333	Posted - 2016.09.22 23:11:41 - [121] - Quote Paranoid Loyd wrote: I didn't ask if you were caught, not that I believe you. I asked while ignoring what you have classified as an unbalanced mechanic, if you properly utilize the mechanics that are available to you and don't screw up, what are the chances of getting caught? The answer is slim to none (if it's any other answer you're not doing it right), I've not used the "unbalanced" mechanic at all while scooping 1/4tril+ over the past few years because quite frankly it's not necessary. So what exactly are you solving here besides making it harder for everyone whether they understand the mechanics or not? Do you really think after this change the gankers that do endure it will just be sitting there suspect for you to catch? Here's the lossmail: https://zkillboard.com/kill/48857464/ Yeah sure there are current mechanics that are fair, balanced, and right and those get used... but this is a mechanic that also gets used. Sure it's an option and it's not necessary in every case, but it's a method used to increase the likely hood of the gank being profitable. No, don't be silly. They won't just sit there as a suspect waiting for someone to tackle them... The point is that all gank loot should be secured by going suspect and when you don't have to use a freighter to do it, your DST's fleet hangar shouldn't be an easy out as a work around crimewatch. HTFU
Paranoid Loyd 9581	Posted - 2016.09.22 23:31:02 - [122] - Quote Ok, keep ignoring the point i'm trying to make and just keep saying it should be fair and balanced, damn the consequences. "There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix Fix the Prospect!
Faylee Freir Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group 333	Posted - 2016.09.23 00:23:39 - [123] - Quote Paranoid Loyd wrote: Ok, keep ignoring the point i'm trying to make and just keep saying it should be fair and balanced, damn the consequences. Quote: So what exactly are you solving here besides making it harder for everyone whether they understand the mechanics or not? Proper looting mechanics. Who cares if not everyone understand or knows how to loot into a DST. HTFU
Paranoid Loyd 9581	Posted - 2016.09.23 01:55:31 - [124] - Quote Thanks for confirming it's just about winning the argument, not what is best for the game. "There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix Fix the Prospect!
Faylee Freir Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group 333	Posted - 2016.09.23 02:08:19 - [125] - Quote Paranoid Loyd wrote: Thanks for confirming it's just about winning the argument, not what is best for the game. Bad mechanic is bad, sorry. The good news is that CCP is likely to think the same after a few members of CSM discuss this matter with them. HTFU
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5267	Posted - 2016.09.23 03:58:01 - [126] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: Paranoid Loyd wrote: I didn't ask if you were caught, not that I believe you. I asked while ignoring what you have classified as an unbalanced mechanic, if you properly utilize the mechanics that are available to you and don't screw up, what are the chances of getting caught? The answer is slim to none (if it's any other answer you're not doing it right), I've not used the "unbalanced" mechanic at all while scooping 1/4tril+ over the past few years because quite frankly it's not necessary. So what exactly are you solving here besides making it harder for everyone whether they understand the mechanics or not? Do you really think after this change the gankers that do endure it will just be sitting there suspect for you to catch? Here's the lossmail: https://zkillboard.com/kill/48857464/ Yeah sure there are current mechanics that are fair, balanced, and right and those get used... but this is a mechanic that also gets used. Sure it's an option and it's not necessary in every case, but it's a method used to increase the likely hood of the gank being profitable. No, don't be silly. They won't just sit there as a suspect waiting for someone to tackle them... The point is that all gank loot should be secured by going suspect and when you don't have to use a freighter to do it, your DST's fleet hangar shouldn't be an easy out as a work around crimewatch. And you don't think this will lead to less 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 333	Posted - 2016.09.23 04:56:06 - [127] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Paranoid Loyd wrote: I didn't ask if you were caught, not that I believe you. I asked while ignoring what you have classified as an unbalanced mechanic, if you properly utilize the mechanics that are available to you and don't screw up, what are the chances of getting caught? The answer is slim to none (if it's any other answer you're not doing it right), I've not used the "unbalanced" mechanic at all while scooping 1/4tril+ over the past few years because quite frankly it's not necessary. So what exactly are you solving here besides making it harder for everyone whether they understand the mechanics or not? Do you really think after this change the gankers that do endure it will just be sitting there suspect for you to catch? Here's the lossmail: https://zkillboard.com/kill/48857464/ Yeah sure there are current mechanics that are fair, balanced, and right and those get used... but this is a mechanic that also gets used. Sure it's an option and it's not necessary in every case, but it's a method used to increase the likely hood of the gank being profitable. No, don't be silly. They won't just sit there as a suspect waiting for someone to tackle them... The point is that all gank loot should be secured by going suspect and when you don't have to use a freighter to do it, your DST's fleet hangar shouldn't be an easy out as a work around crimewatch. And you don't think this will lead to less ganking? Nope. Even if it does, according to you less ganking = more whales = happy gankers HTFU
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5267	Posted - 2016.09.23 05:34:52 - [128] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Paranoid Loyd wrote: I didn't ask if you were caught, not that I believe you. I asked while ignoring what you have classified as an unbalanced mechanic, if you properly utilize the mechanics that are available to you and don't screw up, what are the chances of getting caught? The answer is slim to none (if it's any other answer you're not doing it right), I've not used the "unbalanced" mechanic at all while scooping 1/4tril+ over the past few years because quite frankly it's not necessary. So what exactly are you solving here besides making it harder for everyone whether they understand the mechanics or not? Do you really think after this change the gankers that do endure it will just be sitting there suspect for you to catch? Here's the lossmail: https://zkillboard.com/kill/48857464/ Yeah sure there are current mechanics that are fair, balanced, and right and those get used... but this is a mechanic that also gets used. Sure it's an option and it's not necessary in every case, but it's a method used to increase the likely hood of the gank being profitable. No, don't be silly. They won't just sit there as a suspect waiting for someone to tackle them... The point is that all gank loot should be secured by going suspect and when you don't have to use a freighter to do it, your DST's fleet hangar shouldn't be an easy out as a work around crimewatch. And you don't think this will lead to less ganking? Nope. Even if it does, according to you less ganking = more whales = happy gankers Again, raise the cost of something get less of it. So you are wrong on that we'll get less ganking. And no it won't mean more whales. What it means is that the bar for ganking for profit will go up meaning gankers will pass by freighters they would have previously ganked. "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 793	Posted - 2016.09.23 05:40:18 - [129] - Quote Then that is their problem. Literally...**** 'em if they are going to be imprudent.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5267	Posted - 2016.09.23 05:51:10 - [130] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Then that is their problem. Literally...**** 'em if they are going to be imprudent. Brokk, it is better when you don't post in such a dumb fashion. They won't be ganking less because they are imprudent, but because they are prudent....and the imprudent will let off the hook. "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 333	Posted - 2016.09.23 06:10:39 - [131] - Quote This is already in the works. Seems like CCP values the CSM's opinion on matters such as these. HTFU
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 2854	Posted - 2016.09.23 06:57:36 - [132] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: This is already in the works. Seems like CCP values the CSM's opinion on matters such as these. Please provide some source for this. the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18161	Posted - 2016.09.23 09:39:57 - [133] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: I will repeat this again for the people here that seem to have a lack of reading comprehension. This is not intended as a replacement for haulers using their brains before loading 8b+ into a freighter with no support... This idea was never even pitched as such a replacement. This isn't a calling for CCP to fix a mechanic so that gankers won't want to gank freighters because I know very well that it won't stop. I don't want ganking to stop. I enjoy killing freighters and jump freighters myself. If you guys could stop parroting the same stuff that has nothing to do with the points I'm making then you will see that this is purely about the looting mechanic itself. It's a bad mechanic. It allows you to bypass crimewatch. It should be changed. Just because that is your intent does not mean that won't be the effect. Removal of the watchlist was not intended to kill focused HS wardecs...but it did. Its a hypothetical exercise. If you have two freighters with the same fittings, same piloting and the same amount of isk in the hold but one of them has its cargo in freight containers then the one with freight containers is less likely to be the one targeted because its harder to loot. Again, we have the equipment in game to stop DST filtering. Its cheap, easy to find and easy to use.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony 793	Posted - 2016.09.23 13:43:52 - [134] - Quote Agreed on the containers- I hadn't yet realized this until this thread and I'll be sure to use them even more than I do now. (I've always used them, just not consciously for this purpose). As for Teckos ...... dude, I knew it was dumb alright- then again, it was your own quote. The moment you start posting something on topic in this thread I'll stop counter-trolling you. Deal?
Cade Windstalker 558	Posted - 2016.09.23 14:27:33 - [135] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: The gankers are the ones being clever. They have a logistics network to get ships where they need to be, FCs, voice comms, and doctrines and have figured out how to scoop the loot with reduced risk. How is any of that dumb or moronic? The guy putting 6 billion in his freighter without even using a scout now he is dumb. It's really not particularly hard or clever to get a bunch of catalysts to a system in High Sec. I can do it with an alt with about 2 days of training, maybe less. Voice Comms are about the lowest common denominator for organization in Eve, and while I'll credit some people for figuring out the ships that can be used to gank different targets effectively the vast majority of players are just copying the work of a few. Figuring out how to loot a ship without losing something seems like a reasonable challenge, as opposed to circumventing the intent of the Suspect flag you get from looting a ship, which is that you have to risk something to steal from another player. Currently that doesn't exist. None of this is going to seriously impact gankers or people stupid enough to stuff their freighter full to the gills with valuable cargo. I can already think of at least 2 ways to loot in relative safety here. That doesn't mean this isn't a reasonable change though.
Paranoid Loyd 9585	Posted - 2016.09.23 15:26:35 - [136] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: Paranoid Loyd wrote: Thanks for confirming it's just about winning the argument, not what is best for the game. Bad mechanic is bad, sorry. The good news is that CCP is likely to think the same after a few members of CSM discuss this matter with them. In case you haven't noticed, I've never agreed or disagreed with whether or not it's bad mechanic, again you are completely missing the point. "There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix Fix the Prospect!
Faylee Freir Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group 333	Posted - 2016.09.23 15:29:53 - [137] - Quote Paranoid Loyd wrote: Faylee Freir wrote: Paranoid Loyd wrote: Thanks for confirming it's just about winning the argument, not what is best for the game. Bad mechanic is bad, sorry. The good news is that CCP is likely to think the same after a few members of CSM discuss this matter with them. In case you haven't noticed, I've never agreed or disagreed with whether or not it's bad mechanic, again you are completely missing the point. You don't encourage CCP to continuously better their game by weeding out bad mechanics and implementing good changes? Instead you argue to preserve these bad mechanics because "one more nerf"?. It's alright though. CCP has been made fully aware and intends on changing this :) HTFU
Paranoid Loyd 9585	Posted - 2016.09.23 15:43:39 - [138] - Quote I guess it's a perception of what's better. I don't feel the path the game is on right now is making it better. You keep harping on this one mechanic. It's a mentality on a conceptual level that I speak of. I feel the root of the mentality is the feeling that everything should always be fair and balanced. "There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix Fix the Prospect!
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony 793	Posted - 2016.09.23 16:07:42 - [139] - Quote Fair and balanced is hard to achieve, and whether we should strive towards this is a good question indeed. The case raised is borderline exploit though. I too don't want to cater to carebears, I don't believe all things should be equal and I'm known for flying sub-par ships as a hobby (truth! It makes the roflstomp so much more enjoyable doing it in "trash tier" vessles ahahahaaa). Here, I see the opportunity for more flashy yellow thingies to shoot and this is something we need more of. It's literally the only situation the flag is made for, short of deliberately going yellow to trick people into a fight. It's its only reason to be, and circumventing that seems flat out wrong. As far as I'm concerned, it's nothing but a bugfix. It does not impact fairness nor balance in the slightest; fear not.
Salah ad-Din al-Jawahiri New Order Logistics CODE. 533	Posted - 2016.09.23 17:02:55 - [140] - Quote I didn't want to respond to this thread at all, because, judging by the emotional colouring of some of your posts ("the gankers grab their tear stained pitch forks", etc., etc.), you've grown biased against freighter gankers for some reason. Whether it was caused by a personal conflict of some kind or the fact that hyperdunking was removed a year ago, it looks like you do want to have freighter ganking nerfed, because wanting to remove a tool that freighter fleets rely on without offering a viable alternative is, indeed, a nerf. I won't argue against the fact that the Crimewatch system is imperfect. It has a number of loopholes that players can exploit, and CCP have so far taken the most simple measures to set a better balance within the system. However, even if a game mechanic is a crutch, or if it is illogical, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's bad for the game. For instance, it's been more or less agreed on that freighter bumping should be limited, but it's hard to come up with a complete alternative for it, so it stays for now. Same with DST looting. You said you used to loot with a freighter directly - but, my dear, that was happening while you were hyperdunking, which was an activity that could be disrupted by a single white knight, so the hyperdunker would always keep a very low profile to prevent anyone from intervening. When we say "freighter fleets", we imagine local full of flashy reds and anti-gankers swarming around bumped freighters. If what you and many other players have been suggesting is applied without an alternative, the looting process will fall into the opposite extreme: the looter goes yellow and gets gang-raped, and the gankers' fleet can do nothing about it, no matter how strong its support wing is. I'm not against having to risk freighters or DSTs per se, but, if gankers need to expose their expensive toys, they've got to have a way to protect them, too. I think that a relatively simple solution would be to expand the existing suspect mechanic: the looter stays a suspect for all players, as he does now, but if you fire at him, you become a legal target for both the suspect and his corp members. This could both give gankers the necessary means to protect their looters and incentivize their support characters to stay in player-made corps, which, in turn, makes them exposed to wardecs. As a result, all the sides involved have to step up their game at the same time. If complimented by changes in other highsec mechanics, like bounty hunting and wardecs, it could result in an interesting new system. Balance is not about game mechanics being "good" or "logical" or "risky", it's about having counters available against other players' actions.

Faylee Freir Commonwealth Mercenaries Vendetta Mercenary Group 333	Posted - 2016.09.23 17:04:18 - [141] - Quote Paranoid Loyd wrote: I guess it's a perception of what's better. I don't feel the path the game is on right now is making it better. You keep harping on this one mechanic. It's a mentality on a conceptual level that I speak of. I feel the root of the problem is the mentality that everything should always be fair and balanced. Right well the idea of complete and fair balance is not realistic, especially in a game like eve online. I don't think that it's wrong or silly of us to pick some things that stick out to us and find ways to make them better. See this is where you have me wrong because I'm not after complete balance or fairness. This is literally one thing that sticks out to me in an area of the game that I'm involved with. I don't go around making suggestions on how to "fix" nullsec things or incursions, because I'm not qualified nor do I have the absolute insight to form my own opinions. HTFU
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 2855	Posted - 2016.09.23 17:04:53 - [142] - Quote The only thing you will get out of this is a bunch of new threads crying about the next mechanic we use to get the same effect. What you will not get is more yellow haulers. Ironically the next thing will probably be the mechanic which killed can flipping :-) the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5269	Posted - 2016.09.23 17:09:12 - [143] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Agreed on the containers- I hadn't yet realized this until this thread and I'll be sure to use them even more than I do now. (I've always used them, just not consciously for this purpose). As for Teckos ...... dude, I knew it was dumb alright- then again, it was your own quote. The moment you start posting something on topic in this thread I'll stop counter-trolling you. Deal? I get the topic and the point, but it is a bad one. As baltec1 points out we already have a ways to mitigate this. Are they perfect? No. But again, why should we ask CCP for a hard mechanical fix to something most players can do? And this will raise the bar in terms of ganking for profits. So, we'll get less ganking and more freighters used by imprudent and foolish players will now no longer face risk. Does freighter ganking need another nerf? This is basically another "one more nerf and it will be balanced" thread. "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 5269	Posted - 2016.09.23 17:16:56 - [144] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: The gankers are the ones being clever. They have a logistics network to get ships where they need to be, FCs, voice comms, and doctrines and have figured out how to scoop the loot with reduced risk. How is any of that dumb or moronic? The guy putting 6 billion in his freighter without even using a scout now he is dumb. It's really not particularly hard or clever to get a bunch of catalysts to a system in High Sec. I can do it with an alt with about 2 days of training, maybe less. Voice Comms are about the lowest common denominator for organization in Eve, and while I'll credit some people for figuring out the ships that can be used to gank different targets effectively the vast majority of players are just copying the work of a few. Figuring out how to loot a ship without losing something seems like a reasonable challenge, as opposed to circumventing the intent of the Suspect flag you get from looting a ship, which is that you have to risk something to steal from another player. Currently that doesn't exist. None of this is going to seriously impact gankers or people stupid enough to stuff their freighter full to the gills with valuable cargo. I can already think of at least 2 ways to loot in relative safety here. That doesn't mean this isn't a reasonable change though. Ignoring your arrogant dismissal of other people's work in game to run a corporation or alliance well..... Let us assume you are correct. This has literally no impact on ganking. As has been pointed out you will not have more things to shoot. This becomes a meaningless change. So we will waste Dev time and effort on something that will have no impact. Good job. "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
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 2857	Posted - 2016.09.26 19:22:14 - [145] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: It's alright though. CCP has been made fully aware and intends on changing this :) So you are basically in full troll mode now. Otherwise you would have mentioned/linked your source by now the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Shallanna Yassavi Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 417	Posted - 2016.09.26 20:01:53 - [146] - Quote Salah ad-Din al-Jawahiri wrote: I didn't want to respond to this thread at all, because, judging by the emotional colouring of some of your posts ("the gankers grab their tear stained pitch forks", etc., etc.), you've grown biased against freighter gankers for some reason. Whether it was caused by a personal conflict of some kind or the fact that hyperdunking was removed a year ago, it looks like you do want to have freighter ganking nerfed, because wanting to remove a tool that freighter fleets rely on without offering a viable alternative is, indeed, a nerf. I won't argue against the fact that the Crimewatch system is imperfect. It has a number of loopholes that players can exploit, and CCP have so far taken the most simple measures to set a better balance within the system. However, even if a game mechanic is a crutch, or if it is illogical, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's bad for the game. For instance, it's been more or less agreed on that freighter bumping should be limited, but it's hard to come up with a complete alternative for it, so it stays for now. Same with DST looting. You said you used to loot with a freighter directly - but, my dear, that was happening while you were hyperdunking, which was an activity that could be disrupted by a single white knight, so the hyperdunker would always keep a very low profile to prevent anyone from intervening. When we say "freighter fleets", we imagine local full of flashy reds and anti-gankers swarming around bumped freighters. If what you and many other players have been suggesting is applied without an alternative, the looting process will fall into the opposite extreme: the looter goes yellow and gets gang-raped, and the gankers' fleet can do nothing about it, no matter how strong its support wing is. I'm not against having to risk freighters or DSTs per se, but, if gankers need to expose their expensive toys, they've got to have a way to protect them, too. I think that a relatively simple solution would be to expand the existing suspect mechanic: the looter stays a suspect for all players, as he does now, but if you fire at him, you become a legal target for both the suspect and his corp members. This could both give gankers the necessary means to protect their looters and incentivize their support characters to stay in player-made corps, which, in turn, makes them exposed to wardecs. As a result, all the sides involved have to step up their game at the same time. If complimented by changes in other highsec mechanics, like bounty hunting and wardecs, it could result in an interesting new system. Balance is not about game mechanics being "good" or "logical" or "risky", it's about having counters available against other players' actions. Collateral damage: anything flashy yellow can be bait for a fleet. If shooting the flashy yellow thing is how you turn flashy green to a fleet, people are going to be even less inclined to shoot the flashy yellow thing when flying alone. It would be nice to make gankers bring shinier things than cats and stealth bombers to a fight. They'd have to if they wanted to defend their flashy yellow prizes. Disposable cats are terribad when the fight runs longer than 10 seconds and there's a possibility of incoming damage. A signature :o
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5278	Posted - 2016.09.26 20:20:00 - [147] - Quote Shallanna Yassavi wrote: It would be nice to make gankers bring shinier things than cats and stealth bombers to a fight. They'd have to if they wanted to defend their flashy yellow prizes. Disposable cats are terribad when the fight runs longer than 10 seconds and there's a possibility of incoming damage. Not going to happen given that CONCORD will, with absolute certainty, burn down whatever you bring. Change the CONCORD mechanics and then that might happen. But the direction of CONCORD changes has not been in this direction. You'd have more luck trying to **** up a rope. "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
Shallanna Yassavi Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 417	Posted - 2016.09.27 02:52:41 - [148] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Shallanna Yassavi wrote: It would be nice to make gankers bring shinier things than cats and stealth bombers to a fight. They'd have to if they wanted to defend their flashy yellow prizes. Disposable cats are terribad when the fight runs longer than 10 seconds and there's a possibility of incoming damage. Not going to happen given that CONCORD will, with absolute certainty, burn down whatever you bring. Change the CONCORD mechanics and then that might happen. But the direction of CONCORD changes has not been in this direction. You'd have more luck trying to **** up a rope. CONCORD will burn down whatever touches the freighter in the gank. CONCORD won't burn whatever escort is brought for the flashy yellow hauler with the stolen loot. Edit: that is, if shooting a flashy yellow got a limited engagement with everyone in the flashy yellow guy's fleet. A signature :o
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5278	Posted - 2016.09.27 03:33:04 - [149] - Quote Shallanna Yassavi wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Shallanna Yassavi wrote: It would be nice to make gankers bring shinier things than cats and stealth bombers to a fight. They'd have to if they wanted to defend their flashy yellow prizes. Disposable cats are terribad when the fight runs longer than 10 seconds and there's a possibility of incoming damage. Not going to happen given that CONCORD will, with absolute certainty, burn down whatever you bring. Change the CONCORD mechanics and then that might happen. But the direction of CONCORD changes has not been in this direction. You'd have more luck trying to **** up a rope. CONCORD will burn down whatever touches the freighter in the gank. CONCORD won't burn whatever escort is brought for the flashy yellow hauler with the stolen loot. Edit: that is, if shooting a flashy yellow got a limited engagement with everyone in the flashy yellow guy's fleet. Please tell me how the hauler getting a suspect timer would result in two fleets fighting. "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
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2976	Posted - 2016.09.27 04:30:45 - [150] - Quote I think the obvious solution is: If looting makes you suspect, you can't toss it directly into the DST unless the DST is already suspect. If the DST pilot wants to loot it directly, they can do it and go suspect if their safety is off. Now of course you can pull the loot first into a "throwaway" ship and then put it in the DST, but if only a DST can hold it then what are you using, a throwaway DST? If it's all in small parts, you could put some in the throwaway ship, then transfer to DST, then another load, and so on, trying to get through it before the throwaway ship is popped. Alternatively, you can just fit the DST with warp stabs and a MJD and try to get away before they break your tank. Plenty of options available, but no more circumventing the system. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 688	Posted - 2016.09.27 06:25:55 - [151] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: I think the obvious solution is: If looting makes you suspect, you can't toss it directly into the DST unless the DST is already suspect. If the DST pilot wants to loot it directly, they can do it and go suspect if their safety is off. Now of course you can pull the loot first into a "throwaway" ship and then put it in the DST, but if only a DST can hold it then what are you using, a throwaway DST? If it's all in small parts, you could put some in the throwaway ship, then transfer to DST, then another load, and so on, trying to get through it before the throwaway ship is popped. Alternatively, you can just fit the DST with warp stabs and a MJD and try to get away before they break your tank. Plenty of options available, but no more circumventing the system. The obvious solution has failed right off the bat. The already-mentioned workaround for that is simply dropping loot into a cargo pod. Now the DST simply takes the loot from the cargo pod. Let's suppose for a moment, that you were aiming for "can't transfer loot unless you have sufficient room in your own cargo space to first take the loot, THEN place it in the cargo pod". Fair enough. Ity V can get 40k cargo, which means anything not already in a huge freight container (50k size/capacity) is already subject to looting through this workaround. And guess what...the freighter's workaround for that is...put everything in an enormous freight container...which is already available and viable in-game. And has already been proposed, to boot. I think that every single idea that has ever come up to make looting more difficult, has been a ****-tornado of needlessly over-complicated rewrites of the code, endless loopholes, and unfeasible tasks (items cannot have an owner). So let me make this really simple for this thread and every other potential thread that will inevitably come along... STOP TRYING TO TWEAK LOOTING MECHANICS . IT DOES NOT AND CANNOT WORK. Furthermore, I think there are some individuals that need a quick lesson about this game. Nothing in this game is yours. You own nothing except the SPs in your head. The items in your cargo hold, hanger, or ship array, ARE NOT YOURS. YOU DO NOT OWN THEM. They are in a container you have control over. But, THEY ARE NOT YOURS. There is a very distinct and important difference there. That's why there's no such thing as "stealing" in this game. That's why nothing is ever flagged as "yours", and why "stolen item flag" cannot be carried across multiple ships. They haven't stolen a thing, because you possessed nothing to begin with. They're flagged for an act of removal of items from a container, not for possessing items that you used to have in your cargo hold. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2776	Posted - 2016.09.27 06:33:52 - [152] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: I think the obvious solution is: If looting makes you suspect, you can't toss it directly into the DST unless the DST is already suspect. If the DST pilot wants to loot it directly, they can do it and go suspect if their safety is off. Now of course you can pull the loot first into a "throwaway" ship and then put it in the DST, but if only a DST can hold it then what are you using, a throwaway DST? If it's all in small parts, you could put some in the throwaway ship, then transfer to DST, then another load, and so on, trying to get through it before the throwaway ship is popped. Alternatively, you can just fit the DST with warp stabs and a MJD and try to get away before they break your tank. Plenty of options available, but no more circumventing the system. Then you 'launder' the loot into a jetcan with the noobship and scoop it with the DST. Or you skip that entirely and put it into a Mobile Depot and come back 15 minutes later. Or as you say you just scoop it into a stabbed DST directly and warp while aligned or MJD away. And even if, by some chance the DST pilot screws up and get pointed, all that happens is another hauler gets destroyed with no chance of escalation or a real fight as Salah pointed out. I am sure CCP has or will look at it (and they should) but upon examining all angles they will back off and leave it alone until some future time when they are revamping all of Crimewatch. Just like CCP Rise did when his team looked at fixing the Margin Trading scam yet in the end left it alone. Like that issue, there is no simple solution for this that isn't trivially circumvented (or will break something else) and will produce the desired conflict this mechanic is intended to promote. It just isn't worth the energy to fix in isolation. The 8 Golden Rules of Eve Why Do They Gank?
Shallanna Yassavi Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 417	Posted - 2016.09.27 07:56:57 - [153] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Shallanna Yassavi wrote: CONCORD will burn down whatever touches the freighter in the gank. CONCORD won't burn whatever escort is brought for the flashy yellow hauler with the stolen loot. Edit: that is, if shooting a flashy yellow got a limited engagement with everyone in the flashy yellow guy's fleet. Please tell me how the hauler getting a suspect timer would result in two fleets fighting. Salah's proposal was to create a limited engagement between the members of a fleet and whoever shot their flashy yellow guy. Throw enough firepower at flashy yellow DST to kill it -> flashy yellow DST needs protection. Protection is allowed to shoot back at the threat(s) because the threat(s) are now flashy green thanks to a limited engagement. I believe that's what we call the makings of a fleet fight. Or the gank fleet could have a second set of gank alts for that. A signature :o
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony 817	Posted - 2016.09.27 09:34:15 - [154] - Quote Shallanna Yassavi wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Shallanna Yassavi wrote: CONCORD will burn down whatever touches the freighter in the gank. CONCORD won't burn whatever escort is brought for the flashy yellow hauler with the stolen loot. Edit: that is, if shooting a flashy yellow got a limited engagement with everyone in the flashy yellow guy's fleet. Please tell me how the hauler getting a suspect timer would result in two fleets fighting. Salah's proposal was to create a limited engagement between the members of a fleet and whoever shot their flashy yellow guy. Throw enough firepower at flashy yellow DST to kill it -> flashy yellow DST needs protection. Protection is allowed to shoot back at the threat(s) because the threat(s) are now flashy green thanks to a limited engagement. I believe that's what we call the makings of a fleet fight. Or the gank fleet could have a second set of gank alts for that. That'd be bad. We had that once, and turned out more often than not the 'bait suspect' was in fleet with everyone in system ;-)
elitatwo Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance 1421	Posted - 2016.09.27 13:03:07 - [155] - Quote If it looks like bait, smells like bait, moves like bait.. Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Salah ad-Din al-Jawahiri New Order Logistics CODE. 542	Posted - 2016.09.27 13:04:53 - [156] - Quote Shallanna Yassavi wrote: Collateral damage: anything flashy yellow can be bait for a fleet. If shooting the flashy yellow thing is how you turn flashy green to a fleet, people are going to be even less inclined to shoot the flashy yellow thing when flying alone. It would be nice to make gankers bring shinier things than cats and stealth bombers to a fight. They'd have to if they wanted to defend their flashy yellow prizes. Disposable cats are terribad when the fight runs longer than 10 seconds and there's a possibility of incoming damage. Pay attention: I didn't write "limited engagement with the fleet". I wrote "limited engagement with the yellow target's corp". Big difference.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5278	Posted - 2016.09.27 17:28:04 - [157] - Quote Shallanna Yassavi wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Shallanna Yassavi wrote: CONCORD will burn down whatever touches the freighter in the gank. CONCORD won't burn whatever escort is brought for the flashy yellow hauler with the stolen loot. Edit: that is, if shooting a flashy yellow got a limited engagement with everyone in the flashy yellow guy's fleet. Please tell me how the hauler getting a suspect timer would result in two fleets fighting. Salah's proposal was to create a limited engagement between the members of a fleet and whoever shot their flashy yellow guy. Throw enough firepower at flashy yellow DST to kill it -> flashy yellow DST needs protection. Protection is allowed to shoot back at the threat(s) because the threat(s) are now flashy green thanks to a limited engagement. I believe that's what we call the makings of a fleet fight. Or the gank fleet could have a second set of gank alts for that. Yeah, I don't think this could be abused ever. "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


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.