Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3138
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 09:18:00 -
[31] - Quote
Christopher Mabata wrote:baltec1 wrote:Why do we even need to do this?
The chances of being ganked in a freighter stands at 0.2% per 1.5-2 million jumps. Because apparently for OP and many other haulers this simply lacks their stamp of approval of "Safe Enough" wherein they would probably prefer the number sit around 0.002% per however million jumps they want.
that's .002 higher than most of them will be happy with
BLOPS Hauler
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2742
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 09:40:57 -
[32] - Quote
Pirokobo wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote: Keep the trade hubs as they are and then change the sec status based on the number of losses in a system. Start high and then drop the sec status as the amount of PvP kills increase. An inverse relationship.
I like where you're going, but there's just one problem. To avoid JUST Niarja, takes the route from Jita to Amarr from 10 jumps to 46. It is ALWAYS going to be a choke point. Faylee is correct that there are groups in EVE that can pull off a hit no matter what the security status is, and they will naturally congregate to the best hunting grounds, WHICH ARE THE CHOKE POINTS. And they will bring the security status down, increasing profitability to more groups, who bring it down further. The security system you described turns ganking in chokepoint systems into a positive feedback loop, when what I was aiming for was to dampen it and force it to spread out more. This isn't a problem, it's a feature.
The different 'terrain' of space is desired as it necessitates tradeoffs and decisions. It actually forces game play choices on players - do I take the shortest, but more risky route or do I play it safe and go the long way? Your idea attempts to homogenize this and make space for uniform for no particular reason other than you've articulated other than it would be "better". I don't see how it is better, it just removes player choice and dampens risk for the safest ships in the game even more. If anything, there needs to be more variety in how once chooses to haul to make the profession more interesting. Maybe player-build stargates?
Choke points are suppose to exist. Deal with that by either protecting yourself or avoiding them. -1
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Pirokobo
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
33
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 11:15:38 -
[33] - Quote
Christopher Mabata wrote:[quote=baltec1] Because apparently for OP
FYI, I'm not a hauler. I've flown rorqual for pos logistics but never anything using freighter skills.
My interest is that I don't like it that people are able to camp TWO systems in the entire game and fish-in-a-barrel. It keeps Jita as the primary hub simply because there isn't free flow between hubs.
I want to deprive gankers of what I see as gameplay that doesn't encourage active hunting or meta and force them to spread out and meta. |
Amonios Zula
Aeon Ascendant
72
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 11:20:56 -
[34] - Quote
I would have hoped a floating sec would work in sort of the opposite way. The more ganks, the more over stretched the police are, the lower the sec goes. allowing it to reach 0.4
and neighboring systems could drop down to 0.5 , you know places near those of high crime are less safe |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3525
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 13:09:55 -
[35] - Quote
Pirokobo wrote:Christopher Mabata wrote:[quote=baltec1] Because apparently for OP FYI, I'm not a hauler. I've flown rorqual for pos logistics but never anything using freighter skills. My interest is that I don't like it that people are able to camp TWO systems in the entire game and fish-in-a-barrel. It keeps Jita as the primary hub simply because there isn't free flow between hubs. I want to deprive gankers of what I see as gameplay that doesn't encourage active hunting or meta and force them to spread out and meta.
I AM a freighter pilot and gankers go where the targets are. Just like any hunter.
Freighter pilots don't have to go through those systems. They don't have to trade in jita or amarr. They put themselves into the barrel.
Want gankers to spread out their meta? Then spread out the targets. I.e do the complete opposite of your idea. Not only does this spread gankers out but it spreads out trade as well (something lots of people seem to want) and it makes haulers actively play the game rather than pressing 'set destination' and then going afk.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Pirokobo
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
33
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 14:24:35 -
[36] - Quote
Amonios Zula wrote:I would have hoped a floating sec would work in sort of the opposite way.
But that leads to the rediculous situation I described earlier where security gradually climbs in null and low but then jumps way up at the lowsec-highsec border and then declines again as you approach the population centers.
That's just weird. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
1000
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 14:48:09 -
[37] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:This would be easy to manipulate and players would do it. To be honest any system that changes sec status based on jumps, kills or whatever can and will be easily manipulated by one side or the other.
If the system is based on kills then the gankers simply log in a bunch of alts and go to town killing each other using free rookie ships driving the sec status down and how do the haulers counter it? I mean killing the gankers to prevent them from killing themselves does not solve the low sec status problem it only makes it worse.
If you base it on jumps then the haulers simply log in a bunch of alts and jump into and out of a system to drive the sec status up and due to the cost of ships lost to Concord there really is no way for the gankers to counter this. |
Lucius Regni
Dutch East Querious Company Asteria Concord.
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 15:18:26 -
[38] - Quote
Pirokobo wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:If you want to widen this so that proximity is included, then the whole idea is stupid because there is no guarantee with your system that 'density of population' has any match to proximity in relation to lowsec or nullsec. You've started to illustrate why I worded it the way I did. Set aside the starter systems. Automatic 1.0 for those; better paid police, whatever explanation you need. So... As I see it, ASIDE FROM THE STARTER SYSTEMS, there is no 1.0 space by default. Every system in high security space (aside from starters) has a resting point of .5 for security. As player population increases (however you want to measure it) security increases. There are more people, ergo there are more eyes on things and more police. This forces ALL behaviors (ratting, ganking, mining) to balance safety against return (or for gankers, certainty of prey vs profitability). But it dynamically adapts to the players behavior. This method has some appeal. |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
1051
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 15:28:27 -
[39] - Quote
Pirokobo wrote:Christopher Mabata wrote:[quote=baltec1] Because apparently for OP FYI, I'm not a hauler. I've flown rorqual for pos logistics but never anything using freighter skills. My interest is that I don't like it that people are able to camp TWO systems in the entire game and fish-in-a-barrel. It keeps Jita as the primary hub simply because there isn't free flow between hubs. I want to deprive gankers of what I see as gameplay that doesn't encourage active hunting or meta and force them to spread out and meta. WE camp them because they are the only real .5 chokepoints, of course if we have to decide between killing stuff in .6 and .5 we will go for .5, make all the systems around it .5 and then we have a dilemma.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Pirokobo
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
38
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 16:00:01 -
[40] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote: Actually you have jumps per system statistic in the map last I checked.
Yeah, per system.
But turning that into an average to determine how many standard deviations trade routes are above background requires working with ALL the data.
Right now I'm just doing it visually. I know that the traffic is some rediculous number of standard deviations above norm. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18097
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 16:33:58 -
[41] - Quote
If the trade lanes stay where they are then changing the sec statuses even to all have 1.0 changes nothing. Gankers are pirates and pirates go where the money flows. All you wind up doing is nerfing ganking a bit more for no real reason. Its not like its a common event. |
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
297
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 16:39:22 -
[42] - Quote
I'm surprised more ganking doesn't take place at the gates just outside of Jita. There are numerous times that ten to twenty freighters are bunched up at the gate into Jita.
The system might be a .8 but with enough ganker boats, maybe around 50, it would be easy to take out a freighter that is remaining idle on the gate. |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
1051
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 16:56:53 -
[43] - Quote
Pirokobo wrote:Arya Regnar wrote: Actually you have jumps per system statistic in the map last I checked.
Yeah, per system. But turning that into an average to determine how many standard deviations trade routes are above background requires working with ALL the data. Right now I'm just doing it visually. I know that the traffic is some rediculous number of standard deviations above norm. I just don't know precisely how many. Arya Regnar wrote:We have a dilemma Which is precisely my goal. The trade routes become safe, but everything right off the routes, the feeder systems, becomes rough neighborhood. A lot more systems become viable for gank piracy, but the traffic density at each is lower. You don't know whatthe hell you are talking about, you will create a full chain that is all 1.0 between all trade hubs with no .5s in between and that is complete bullshit.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Pirokobo
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
38
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 17:08:36 -
[44] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote: you will create a full chain that is all 1.0 between all trade hubs with no .5s in between
Yes. And surrounded by .5 on all sides.
Do you believe that all traffic in new eden is between hubs?
Arya Regnar wrote:and that is complete bullshit.
No more so than a system where gankers can literally sit all day in two systems scanning everything that passes by for a ship that crosses some numerical threshold, like a crooked weigh station on the I-95. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18098
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 17:37:30 -
[45] - Quote
Pirokobo wrote:Arya Regnar wrote: you will create a full chain that is all 1.0 between all trade hubs with no .5s in between
Yes. And surrounded by .5 on all sides. Do you believe that all traffic in new eden is between hubs? Arya Regnar wrote:and that is complete bullshit. No more so than a system where gankers can literally sit all day in two systems scanning everything that passes by for a ship that crosses some numerical threshold, like a crooked weigh station on the I-95.
So don't go through it. |
Pirokobo
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
38
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 17:50:31 -
[46] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
So don't go through it.
I don't fly freighters. If I did, I WOULD be taking the 46 jump route.
I don't care about how hard life is or isn't on the freighter pilots.
What I'm going after is the crooked-weigh-station, fish-in-a-barrel aspect of it. Its too easy, and as a nullsec pilot that irritates me.
If CCP is going to force us to deal with bullshit jump fatigue, then they can do something force freighter gankers to move a bit more too. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18104
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 18:32:51 -
[47] - Quote
Pirokobo wrote:baltec1 wrote:
So don't go through it.
I don't fly freighters. If I did, I WOULD be taking the 46 jump route. I don't care about how hard life is or isn't on the freighter pilots. What I'm going after is the crooked-weigh-station, fish-in-a-barrel aspect of it. Its too easy, and as a nullsec pilot that irritates me. If CCP is going to force us to move less with jump fatigue, then they can do something force freighter gankers to move more.
Your plan won't make gankers or the people they prey on move anywhere though. |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
1051
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 18:36:33 -
[48] - Quote
Pirokobo wrote: Do you believe that all traffic in new eden is between hubs?
70-80% of it. The rest is 70-80% nullsec traffic there is some being moved to poses but those already dont take a lot of .5s because you just do it where it's cheap. with your proposal 90% of all traffic would never pass through .5 systems which is dumb and counters any risk -reward aspects of this game.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Amonios Zula
Aeon Ascendant
72
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 00:43:57 -
[49] - Quote
Pirokobo wrote:Amonios Zula wrote:I would have hoped a floating sec would work in sort of the opposite way. But that leads to the rediculous situation I described earlier where security gradually climbs in null and low but then jumps way up at the lowsec-highsec border and then declines again as you approach the population centers. That's just weird. That would be wierd. But i meant it really for highsec only, so more police actions, ie more strained they are, the lower sec becomes slowing response times until its then lowsec for a time |
Mr Crowley
Bagel and Lox
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 17:32:45 -
[50] - Quote
Pirokobo wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote: Keep the trade hubs as they are and then change the sec status based on the number of losses in a system. Start high and then drop the sec status as the amount of PvP kills increase. An inverse relationship.
I like where you're going, but there's just one problem. To avoid JUST Niarja, takes the route from Jita to Amarr from 10 jumps to 46. It is ALWAYS going to be a choke point. Faylee is correct that there are groups in EVE that can pull off a hit no matter what the security status is, and they will naturally congregate to the best hunting grounds, WHICH ARE THE CHOKE POINTS. And they will bring the security status down, increasing profitability to more groups, who bring it down further. The security system you described turns ganking in chokepoint systems into a positive feedback loop, when what I was aiming for was to dampen it and force it to spread out more.
Its ridiculous that you can jump from trade hub 1 to trade hub 2 in ten jumps. While your ideas have merit the map is the problem. The hubs need to be farther apart with several 0.0 systems in the middle.
You should NEVER feel safe in a freighter. NEVER. I know I never feel safe in mine. |
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
2226
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 18:37:00 -
[51] - Quote
Freighters aside - I like to gank mission runners in .5 systems. With your elite math, mission runners would ALL pretty much be in 1.0 systems. So though you claim it will improve stuff for both sides it would pretty much end the ganking of mission boats for profit.
Your idea wouldn't do what you are claiming it would. It would do the opposite with regards to popping missioning cream puffs.
I'm kind of concluding you're a HS mission runner and that you or one of you buddies got wonked coming home from a mission. Your proposal is all about making busy mission hubs 1.0.
-1 (you lied to us) |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
26886
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 23:35:44 -
[52] - Quote
Pirokobo wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:will simply throw more ships at them. Increasing the price of doing so and thus the point at which it ceases to be profitable. It wouldn't work that way.
The higher the sec status on a trade route, the more likely it is that people will increase the isk value of their loads, because higher sec status implies more "safety"; thus people plying those routes will continue to be profitable to gank despite the increase in sec status.
Concord response time in a 1.0 is approx 5-7 seconds, which is around 12-14 seconds faster than the response time in a 0.5 (19-21 seconds); ganking a ship in a 1.0 over doing it in a 0.5 is a simple matter of doing the math, you bring more DPS (either in terms of more powerful ships, or a larger fleet) to the party.
The only predictable results of the change that you suggest are that - freighters will still get ganked
- people will continue to lose isk to the gankers
- people that get ganked will still cry on the forums about it
- anti ganking groups will still be ineffective
- gankers will still profit, despite having more expenses, because the people that they gank will continue to do the daft things that make it profitable to gank them
TL;DR CCP can't patch stupidity, it'll be business as usual for the gankers.
Civilised behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3597
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 23:55:21 -
[53] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Why do we even need to do this?
The chances of being ganked in a freighter stands at 0.2% per 1.5-2 million jumps. Every time you 'quote' this number without references that jump number goes up. The first time you 'quoted' it it was 0.2% per jump.
At this point I'm going to ask for a CCP citation to support your absurd figures, because 2 million jumps would take about 7.5 years of 24h a day jumping to achieve (Based on an assumption of 2 minutes to warp between gates per system, which is faster than warping in a lot of systems in a freighter).
|
Violet Crumble
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
798
|
Posted - 2016.09.23 02:56:42 -
[54] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:baltec1 wrote:Why do we even need to do this?
The chances of being ganked in a freighter stands at 0.2% per 1.5-2 million jumps. Every time you 'quote' this number without references that jump number goes up. The first time you 'quoted' it it was 0.2% per jump. At this point I'm going to ask for a CCP citation to support your absurd figures, because 2 million jumps would take about 7.5 years of 24h a day jumping to achieve (Based on an assumption of 2 minutes to warp between gates per system, which is faster than warping in a lot of systems in a freighter). It comes from Red Frog Freight's Annual Report from 2015:
139,758 contracts completed, 382 failed.
Total jumps completed: 1,883,479
So assuming the freighters never travel empty ever (ie. wouldn't be empty gank targets), then:
(382 contracts failed / 1883479 completed jumps) as a percentage = 0.0203% per jump
http://red-frog.org/annual-report-2015.php
It's not true that the freighters never travel empty, but this represents a worse case scenario for packages delivered through RFF contracts.
There have been excuses raised to dismiss the volume of freight moved by RFF as being not representative of the risk to any package in highsec, so take from it what you will, but the figure is an accurate conclusion from the data for RFF.
The fact also remains that there are no RFF Freighters. RFF contracts are moved by NPC Corp pilots and player Corp pilots in freighters that are totally indistinguishable from any other package or freighter during transport.
So the risk to RFF packages, measured with so many completed contracts (382 completed on average every single day of the year) is a good measure of the risk of being ganked in a freighter.
Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18161
|
Posted - 2016.09.23 10:04:57 -
[55] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:baltec1 wrote:Why do we even need to do this?
The chances of being ganked in a freighter stands at 0.2% per 1.5-2 million jumps. Every time you 'quote' this number without references that jump number goes up. The first time you 'quoted' it it was 0.2% per jump. At this point I'm going to ask for a CCP citation to support your absurd figures, because 2 million jumps would take about 7.5 years of 24h a day jumping to achieve (Based on an assumption of 2 minutes to warp between gates per system, which is faster than warping in a lot of systems in a freighter).
I used to link it but when you get the same people spouting the same lies over and over you tend to stop bothering with all of the work and just go off memory. Post above is accurate and your numbers match my own freighters long life. |
Redus Taw
Molden Heath Associates
2
|
Posted - 2016.09.24 04:41:31 -
[56] - Quote
I'd say give bonuses that are specific to defensive ganking. Something like, once the freighter is attacked, the freighter receives defensive, drone, and jamming bonuses. Of course all freighters will then need mid slots, drone bandwidth, and a drone bay. What do you guys think? Cheers! |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2773
|
Posted - 2016.09.24 06:38:54 -
[57] - Quote
Redus Taw wrote:I'd say give bonuses that are specific to defensive ganking. Something like, once the freighter is attacked, the freighter receives defensive, drone, and jamming bonuses. Of course all freighters will then need mid slots, drone bandwidth, and a drone bay. What do you guys think? Cheers! They did that already: they are called Deep Space Transports. They have the ability to fit defenses (even weapons) and modules for escape, and have role bonuses that make them highly resistant to ganking when actively piloted.
Frieghters on the other hand are massive, capital ships for hauling bulky cargo, and as a trade-off are given no offensive, or intrinsic defensive bonuses. They are intended to be vulnerable and require support ships. This trade-off in capabilities is very much intended so you, the hauler, have to make a decision on what ship is appropriate for the job. Otherwise, if freighters were the best at everything, they would be the only hauler flown even more so than they are now.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Caleb Seremshur
Black Scorpions Inc Circle-Of-Two
864
|
Posted - 2016.09.24 09:11:46 -
[58] - Quote
ITT: OP doesn't draw the parallels of freighters of space with cargo freighters of the seas.
Conceivably a freighter would have a security crew to prevent piracy and mutinies from proceeding, possess point defenses for the destruction of micro-asteroids and other potential wreckage that may impact the ship, possess a variety of other security features for other niche cases, but...
Frigates and destroyers are military vessels with (comparatively) reinforced shields and armour, they have systems devoted to weaponry, they do not launch boarding crews and they are not equipped to rob the ships they kill in any specific way. Freighters in EVE much like IRL merchant vessels would be woefully underequipped for fighting off any military aggressor trying to kill them. With redundant bulkheads and other practical defenses it would still be merely a matter of putting a couple of decent shots downfield to completely incapacitate a freighter, knocking out the conning tower or engines.
ITT: OP cannot into reasoning that just like IRL defenceless spaceships need to hire help. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |