|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
261
   |
Posted - 2017.03.24 05:09:50 -
[1] - Quote
Solution in need of a problem. Ganking is already trivially easy to avoid, and using alt accounts has always been and will always continue to be part of the game. If you're getting ganked try not sucking at EVE instead of whining for nerfs to protect you. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
261
|
Posted - 2017.03.25 00:15:35 -
[2] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Or, you know, just use an alt in a duel to web the ship so it enters warp almost instantly, with no sec status hit, lost ship, ect...
But that would require effort! Much better to just ban suicide ganking. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
262
|
Posted - 2017.03.25 04:55:21 -
[3] - Quote
Ronnie Rose wrote: what I see is exploiting a feature of this game beyond what I think CCP had originally intended.
You see incorrectly. Both suicide ganking and the use of alts have been in the game since the beginning. The only "issue" here is that stupid and/or lazy players are not immune to ganking. IOW, everything working as it should.
Quote:So far, no one has really come up with reasons on why ganking with an excessive number of mutlboxed should be left unaddressed when I can give several on why it should be addressed.
That's because your whole idea is a solution in need of a problem. You haven't provided a convincing argument that a problem exists in the first place. You haven't even defined what "excessive" means, or why we should consider that number "excessive" instead of "normal". And the only benefit you've managed to come up with in defense of your idea is that stupid people will get ganked less often, which most of us consider a bad thing. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
262
|
Posted - 2017.03.25 09:50:38 -
[4] - Quote
Ronnie Rose wrote:But in hi sec its a problem especially when used in systems that are bottlenecks and the result is when trade gets restricted.
Why is trade being restricted a bad thing? Trade is not some kind of inherent right that you have in EVE, it's a thing you have to earn by defeating the people who want to stop you. Sometimes that's your rival traders on the market, sometimes it's the people who want to kill you because you put too much ISK into a fragile ship. A smart trader encourages ganking in bottleneck systems because it means that their stupid and/or competition gets killed before they can deliver their goods to the market, while they take an alternate route/haul in a blockade runner/etc and make a profit.
Quote:but that single player who runs 8, 10 or 15 catalysts and basically shuts down the whole system for hours on end and for days.
If you're letting the system get shut down then the problem is YOU. Stop being bad at the game and letting one player shut down everything you're trying to do. Adapt or die, don't whine on the forums because you can't autopilot everywhere with zero risk.
Quote:Go to Uedema and spend a few hours there for a couple of days to find out for yourself.
Been there, done that, didn't care. That nice covert ops cloak on my blockade runner makes hauling stuff through there no big deal.
PS: there are routes into Jita that don't go through Uedama. Perhaps you should set your routes manually instead of just letting the autopilot take the fastest route and going AFK until you arrive? |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
262
|
Posted - 2017.03.25 09:59:44 -
[5] - Quote
Ronnie Rose wrote:I think it all goes back to the original problem with EVE and that is the gate system.
Just what problem is that? Gates create choke points that players are forced to pass through, which means there are opportunities for interaction. The fact that you can't AFK autopilot a freighter packed full of high-value cargo through the gate system and expect to survive doesn't mean that there's a problem. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
262
|
Posted - 2017.03.25 10:04:37 -
[6] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:However the solution is as I posted above, not a change to multiboxing rules or possibilities, but extending the gank timer which means simply pressing 2 buttons and waiting 15 seconds is not all that is involved in a gank, but actually several minutes of fight.
I.E. More interaction, more decisions, better game play (normally)
This is not a viable solution, at all. You can't just magically make ganking take longer without any consequences. If you buff freighter/transport HP you make those ships much harder to kill everywhere else (for example, when caught on a gate in 0.0 where none of those timers are relevant but reinforcements might be nearby). And by extending the time before CONCORD kills the ganker you make it much easier to gank combat ships. Suddenly those mission boats that aren't currently profitable to gank become much more appealing targets since it's a lot cheaper to kill them. And you can't buff HP on combat ships to counter the longer CONCORD delay without completely destroying balance everywhere besides suicide ganking. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
265
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 02:30:41 -
[7] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:1. Freighters on a Null gate, BWAHAHAAHA. Also, and? Why is this a bad thing. It causes a good fight rather than a gank, Isn't that what people want. Though really it's still going to just be a gank in 99% of cases.
It's just a hypothetical example (where I didn't say "freighter" specifically), the only point of it being in 0.0 is that CONCORD and sentry fire are not relevant. Feel free to replace it with any alternative: attacking a mining op, etc. The point is that massively increasing ship HP has balance effects far beyond just suicide ganking. For example, your new buffed-HP transports might become ideal cyno ships because of their sheer durability.
Quote:2. Combat ships being more at risk of a gank, why is this a bad thing? It makes the transition into low sec more fluid since people are used to the idea they might have to fight, and well, Combat ships can fight back. Also pretty much the only ships worth ganking will be the ones that are already profitable to gank. And there are gankers who operate vs combat ships already.
It's a bad thing because your plan, which is intended to make ganking harder, makes ganking significantly easier. Right now most combat ships are immune to ganking unless you load them down with high-end faction modules. To kill a T2-fit mission ship before CONCORD arrives requires too many gank ships to make a profit. But if CONCORD is slow enough for your proposal to work suddenly you can profitably gank those cheap-fit ships. You effectively shut down all PvE content above level 2-3 missions in T1 fit newbie cruisers because pretty much any ship can be profitably ganked. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
265
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 05:01:49 -
[8] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: 1. I'm not proposing they get buffed anywhere beyond what a combat ship of their size can get.
Yes you are. I don't think you really understand what you're proposing. To turn a 15 second gank into a 2 minute gank you need about 8x the EHP. That means turning the ~2,000 raw HP of an Iteron MkV into ~17,000 HP. Contrast that with the ~12,000 HP of a Megathron. You're giving battleship level HP to a basic T1 cargo hauler, which is simply ridiculous.
Quote:But ACTIVE tank changes survivability in a 2 minute fight far more than a 15 second fight.
Active tank isn't really relevant here. Unless you do something insane like giving them battleship-level active tank modules and the capacitor to run them for more than one cycle your active tank isn't going to even come close to keeping up with the incoming damage of the gank ship(s). So that means
Quote:But none of that makes them any better than using a real combat ship for a cyno.
Again, I don't think you understand what you're talking about here. You're proposing T1 hauler that tanks like a battleship at the price of a T1 frigate. Of course that's going to become a great cyno ship because of the sheer tank per ISK it offers. The fact that people are eager to engage "defenseless" industrial ships is just a nice bonus.
Quote:My goal is to make ganking require more attention to each account used, to increase interaction and change it from being a simple maths exercise to actually being a fight.
You're never going to accomplish this goal. Unless you make transport ships capable of fighting like real combat ships (which is absolutely insane) all you're doing is changing the numbers in the math exercise. You add up how much the newly buffed ship can tank, then bring enough gank ships to deliver that damage before CONCORD arrives.
Quote:And no, those T2 fit mission runners can't be profitably ganked, because active fit and virtually no value in their drops.
Wrong again. Remember, you just multiplied the effectiveness of gank ships by 8x against everything but haulers and barges. That's a huge difference in the minimum value required for a target to be profitable. Maybe a literal T2 fit battleship isn't going to be that appealing, but even a single low-end faction module certainly will be. And with that kind of buff in effectiveness the "shoot first, see what's in the wreck later" approach becomes a lot more appealing, which means lots of people dying just to see if the ganker can get lucky.
Then of course there's the people who suicide gank just to collect the hatemail. Congratulations, you've massively increased the number of targets they can kill. And you can guarantee they're going to take full advantage of it. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
265
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 06:22:54 -
[9] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:100dps active tank * 15 seconds, 1500 EHP.
100dps active tank * 120 seconds. 12,000 EHP.
Maths, proving you don't understand a thing.
Lolwut? Sustained 100 HP/second shield regen is battleship-level tank. Talking about putting that on a T1 hauler is absolutely ****ing insane.
Unless you're trying to pull a bait and switch here, where I quoted raw HP values and you're quoting EHP after resistances?
Quote:Also you don't have to *8 the EHP anyway. Because gankers will bring less to the table in order to be efficient, which means you aren't taking as much DPS, which means your active tank actually works better.
IOW: "let me assume that gankers will do something that lets you survive, instead of continuing to bring the ships required to guarantee your death". You can't assume that gankers will act in a way that benefits their targets.
Quote:you also totally have no clue of the theoretical value of modules at which a mission BS is already gankable,
Ok, post the numbers then. At what value of modules is it currently profitable to gank a mission battleship?
Quote:and if all they care about is the hatemail, they can gank you right now while being heavily isk positive.
And the point is that your proposal makes this situation much, much worse. Now the suicide ganker can gank several times as many ships in the same amount of time, rapidly approaching the point where they're ganking every newbie in a T1 cruiser passing by just because they've killed everything else.
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
268
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 23:47:43 -
[10] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Ronnie Rose wrote:Merin with her cloaky covert frieghter. Wat?
Blockade runner. AKA "how to not care about suicide gankers". |
|
|
|
|
| |
|