Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Ronnie Rose
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2017.03.25 16:04:27 -
[31] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote: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.
I'm not worried about it anyways. CCP will introduce player owned gate structures soon enough.
Just like they are introducing the PLEX vault and smaller PLEX denominations.
We're not here to change the game, we're here to change YOUR game
|

Jax Bederen
Dark Horse RM
319
|
Posted - 2017.03.25 18:03:09 -
[32] - Quote
Ronnie Rose wrote:Sarah Flynt wrote:I'd remove the "Gank" in the thread title because what you're describing is not exclusive to ganking but applies to all forms of multiboxing where most or all chars do the same activity. The actual problem is that many activities require very little interactivity which makes multiboxing them possible in the first place or even bearable/interresting for many people (think mining e.g.).
So, fixing them would require them to be more interactive which in turn would cost CCP a lot of subs. It would at least be risky for CCP to do that and tbh, I think it's way too late for that. There is a sticky thread elsewhere already just on multiboxing, so I want to avoid this thread getting locked by addressing what I see is exploiting a feature of this game beyond what I think CCP had originally intended. 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.
All the gibberish aside the reason is, because it's easier, because they cant do it well with one ship, they are generally poor at pvp. That simple and they will defend it because they found their "winning formula". CCP wont do anything more about it as it's part of the grand douche design. Really now, this is Eve, you have to expect it and either do your own thing that avoids those situations or leave, complaining will just bring out the same crowd, with the same arguments. Really, dont bother.
|

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3920
|
Posted - 2017.03.25 20:49:52 -
[33] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote: 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.
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.
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.
So yeah. Your arguments against it are both actually good things, or at least neutral things, not bad things. |

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
265
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 02:30:41 -
[34] - 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. |

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3922
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 04:27:44 -
[35] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote: 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.
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.
To reply again. 1. I'm not proposing they get buffed anywhere beyond what a combat ship of their size can get. If even quite that far. But ACTIVE tank changes survivability in a 2 minute fight far more than a 15 second fight. As does having a few pop guns, a prop mod and being able to fit their own tackle. But none of that makes them any better than using a real combat ship for a cyno. Or for combat, but it does allow them to do things like form convoys of industrials and help each other out in a gank.
2. Who said my plan was to make ganking harder? 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. And no, those T2 fit mission runners can't be profitably ganked, because active fit and virtually no value in their drops. Not to mention a ganker is going to want decent return on their value not just 1 million per gank. So yeah, strawman argument. The fact it decreases the number of accounts needed also helps people get involved in ganking, and makes ganking more viable for intercorp competition without needing a war dec if it's just one guy running their mouth.
So yeah, again, you are actually listing good points, and completely misunderstanding my aims. |

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
265
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 05:01:49 -
[36] - 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. |

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3922
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 06:15:49 -
[37] - Quote
100dps active tank * 15 seconds, 1500 EHP. 100dps active tank * 120 seconds. 12,000 EHP. Maths, proving you don't understand a thing.
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. I mean sure they can overkill you to be sure. But then they overkilled.
you also totally have no clue of the theoretical value of modules at which a mission BS is already gankable, and if all they care about is the hatemail, they can gank you right now while being heavily isk positive.
TLDR, It works increasing the gank timer and changing industrials, stop being terrified of combat ships actually having to fight once in a while. |

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
265
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 06:22:54 -
[38] - 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.
|

Tragot Gomndor
Khanid's Damnation
86
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 07:56:06 -
[39] - Quote
1. Have Tank 2. Use Red Frog 3. Buy Jump Freighter 4. ??? 5. Profit
NONONONONONO
TO
CAPS IN HIGHSEC
NO
|

Jason Kusion
KUSION SPECIAL TEAM
35
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 11:18:19 -
[40] - Quote
I'm honored. A whole thread for me? You shouldn't have.
Maybe you should get on my level and multibox your own 24 accounts. I don't know what stupid ship you lost, but I'm willing to bet if you had a 15 character support fleet running alongside it you'd have been just fine. |
|

Ronnie Rose
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 19:22:04 -
[41] - Quote
Tic-toc, tic-toc.
Changes are coming.
We're not here to change the game, we're here to change YOUR game
|

baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18769
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 19:23:24 -
[42] - Quote
Ronnie Rose wrote:Tic-toc, tic-toc.
Changes are coming.
Not this change. |

Ronnie Rose
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 19:38:51 -
[43] - Quote
Jason Kusion wrote:I'm honored. A whole thread for me? You shouldn't have.
Maybe you should get on my level and multibox your own 24 accounts. I don't know what stupid ship you lost, but I'm willing to bet if you had a 15 character support fleet running alongside it you'd have been just fine.
Hey welcome to the thread. I think your play style points to a flawed aspect of EVE, and if other players began adapting to it then alot of folks will be introuble, even Merin with her cloaky covert frieghter. We'd see a lot of hi sec systems effectively get shut down at choke points and it would overwhelm any efforts by AG, for example to contain this style of game play.
I hate being proven right, but I don't mind saying "I told you so" when correct. So, I'm for your continued play style even if to the point people start quitting (which could happen). Then CCP might do something about it.
Then maybe, Merin is right, a solution in search of a problem. After all, I cannot imagine there are many players in your position to garner the resources to pull off what you do every night. So maybe gank multiboxing in hi sec is isolated and the resources to support that play style is unsustainable. But prove me wrong, and I'll be right, and will say "I told you so."

We're not here to change the game, we're here to change YOUR game
|

baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18777
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 19:48:39 -
[44] - Quote
Ronnie Rose wrote:
Merin with her cloaky covert frieghter.
Wat?
Ronnie Rose wrote: We'd see a lot of hi sec systems effectively get shut down at choke points and it would overwhelm any efforts by AG, for example to contain this style of game play.
Not a single system in highsec is ever shut down.
Ronnie Rose wrote: I hate being proven right, but I don't mind saying "I told you so" when correct. So, I'm for your continued play style even if to the point people start quitting (which could happen). Then CCP might do something about it.
Hasn't happened for well over a decade, I wouldn't hold your breath.
|

Ronnie Rose
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 19:52:37 -
[45] - Quote
Ronnie Rose wrote: I hate being proven right, but I don't mind saying "I told you so" when correct. So, I'm for your continued play style even if to the point people start quitting (which could happen). Then CCP might do something about it.
Hasn't happened for well over a decade, I wouldn't hold your breath.
[/quote]
Don't need to, it's already happening. We are mostly old staunch EVE players, and it takes a village to raise a new player. Not much of a chance in that happening when the village gets burned downed every night.
We're not here to change the game, we're here to change YOUR game
|

Bjorn Tyrson
EVE University Ivy League
379
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 19:52:49 -
[46] - Quote
Ronnie Rose wrote:Tic-toc, tic-toc.
Changes are coming.
lolwut.
are you talking about the player built stargates?
you really think this is going to prevent ganking in any way shape or form?
in all likelyhood these things are going to be the replacement for the current cynobridge mechanic (afaik the last mechanic left to be replaced on a Pos before they can be removed) if thats the case then they will also be limited to null sec.
even if they DO allow these things to be anchored and used in HS. it still won't change anything, because they will still be expensive to put up and maintain, and are essentially a gigantic "hey come shoot my things" sign.
your willing to put the time, effort, and isk into setting up a corp, training the skills to anchor the thing, buy the structure, fuel the structure regularly, place it somewhere that its not going to get instantly wardecced. do it all a second time at or near your destination.... and yet you can't be bothered to run a webbing alt or a scout? |

Ronnie Rose
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 19:56:37 -
[47] - Quote
Bjorn Tyrson wrote:Ronnie Rose wrote:Tic-toc, tic-toc.
Changes are coming.
lolwut. are you talking about the player built stargates? you really think this is going to prevent ganking in any way shape or form? in all likelyhood these things are going to be the replacement for the current cynobridge mechanic (afaik the last mechanic left to be replaced on a Pos before they can be removed) if thats the case then they will also be limited to null sec. even if they DO allow these things to be anchored and used in HS. it still won't change anything, because they will still be expensive to put up and maintain, and are essentially a gigantic "hey come shoot my things" sign. your willing to put the time, effort, and isk into setting up a corp, training the skills to anchor the thing, buy the structure, fuel the structure regularly, place it somewhere that its not going to get instantly wardecced. do it all a second time at or near your destination.... and yet you can't be bothered to run a webbing alt or a scout?
Oh, I'm talking about Ascension to make EVE free to play, making PLEX transactions safer, etc. All changes to attract new players and keep them playing EVE.
We're not here to change the game, we're here to change YOUR game
|

Bjorn Tyrson
EVE University Ivy League
379
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 20:00:33 -
[48] - Quote
and what does that have anything to do with the topic at hand? multi-boxed ganking happens, but is much rarer than large fleets of independent gankers. are you suggesting that they all be banned as well?
maybe ccp should institute a rule that there can't be more than x number of players on grid at any one time, set up instanced zones so that you can mine and haul in peace. because from the sounds of it, thats the only solution that would actually appeal to you. |

Ronnie Rose
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 20:11:37 -
[49] - Quote
Bjorn Tyrson wrote:and what does that have anything to do with the topic at hand? multi-boxed ganking happens, but is much rarer than large fleets of independent gankers. are you suggesting that they all be banned as well?
maybe ccp should institute a rule that there can't be more than x number of players on grid at any one time, set up instanced zones so that you can mine and haul in peace. because from the sounds of it, thats the only solution that would actually appeal to you.
If this style of game play causes player attrition CCP will make changes. That's my point. Take it out to low or null sec, not in hi sec. Knock it off and prove me wrong, but keep it up and prove me right.
We're not here to change the game, we're here to change YOUR game
|

baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18777
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 20:22:36 -
[50] - Quote
Ronnie Rose wrote:Bjorn Tyrson wrote:and what does that have anything to do with the topic at hand? multi-boxed ganking happens, but is much rarer than large fleets of independent gankers. are you suggesting that they all be banned as well?
maybe ccp should institute a rule that there can't be more than x number of players on grid at any one time, set up instanced zones so that you can mine and haul in peace. because from the sounds of it, thats the only solution that would actually appeal to you. If this style of game play causes player attrition CCP will make changes. That's my point. Take it out to low or null sec, not in hi sec. Knock it off and prove me wrong, but keep it up and prove me right.
CCP looked into this and found ganking causes people to stay longer than those who are not involved in pvp at all.
|
|

Bjorn Tyrson
EVE University Ivy League
382
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 21:34:49 -
[51] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: CCP looked into this and found ganking causes people to stay longer than those who are not involved in pvp at all.
|

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3922
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 21:40:44 -
[52] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: CCP looked into this and found ganking causes people to stay longer than those who are not involved in pvp at all.
No they didn't. They found that people who stayed longer than a month tended to have engaged in some kind of PvP during their first month more than people who left in their first month. Correlation is not the same as causation. Stop spreading false information.
Besides that I'm quite in agreement that ganking is not bad for the game though. And that CCP are not going to remove it. (even if I feel a longer interaction would make for better enjoyment on both sides) |

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
268
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 23:47:43 -
[53] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Ronnie Rose wrote:Merin with her cloaky covert frieghter. Wat?
Blockade runner. AKA "how to not care about suicide gankers". |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |