| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Needo
Minmatar
Swedish Academy
   |
Posted - 2007.10.04 15:02:00 -
[1]
Sorry, have to get some points off my chest after reading tons of these threads the last months.
Agreed:
* It's fine that its possible to high-sec gank if you want it enough. There must be some limit to high sec trading, otherwise you can get unlimited of profit for no risk.
Disagreed:
* No, I dont think everything is working as inteded. Just because the current game mechanics allow it at this very moment doesn't mean its all good. A lot of **** went down in the past that atleast I dont miss.
* Insurance payouts. Whatever, it doesnt change the core problem anyways, it only adjusts the profit margin so keep it or change it, who cares.
* Concord. Whats really wrong is the whole risk vs reward thing as usual. As it is now, the gankers are not at risk at all. The only variable for gankers is how much of the loot will pop. They sit at a gate, sensor boosters on, everyone knows what they are doing and while they're doing it they are protected by sentry guns and concord. THIS is the core problem. The gankers are protected by concord while they are posing a potential threat to anyone that pass. There should be no safe spots to threat others from. THAT is why a BS cant decloak and insta-fire, and THAT is why there is a delay to docking after you fired at someone. Here the traders/carebears or whatever really have a point. There is no direct counter. The only counter is not to play (i.e. take another route or do multiple runs). That cannot in my world be "working as intended". The counter should be bring some escorts and pew pew the hell out of the ganker. But that's not an option unfortunately.
Suggestions/discussions (after a long post like this I should have some...):
A) Seems the root of this problem, as with some others like macromining, is that people hide in noob-corps. Noone in noob-corp should imo train skills for any higher tier than cruiser 2/indy 1 or similar. Once you leave noob-corp you should never rejoin. Open up noob-corps corp-channel so that anyone can join them (if people want to mentor or keep contact with fellow hatchlings, let them do so from their new corp). Imo this would help alot as it would justify further high-sec-ganking balancing.
B) How to add threat to the campers? Now its not risk vs. rewards, its calculated loss vs. reward. Imo thats the central question. I have no good idea, but I would love if this thread could be a discussion about this! There is no question about that its pro*****ble to high-sec gank. How can CCP introduce some more risk in a balanced and joust way?
Note: I don't mean risk of no profit here, I mean risk of getting killed by other players. Gankers threat other players before they open fire, therefore the gankers should also be subject to threat before they open fire. No safe spots in EVE, right? I've heard that somewhere.
___________________________________________
You are never alone in schizophrenia.
___________________________________________ |
Tarminic
Black Flame Industries
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 15:09:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Needo
A) Seems the root of this problem, as with some others like macromining, is that people hide in noob-corps. Noone in noob-corp should imo train skills for any higher tier than cruiser 2/indy 1 or similar. Once you leave noob-corp you should never rejoin. Open up noob-corps corp-channel so that anyone can join them (if people want to mentor or keep contact with fellow hatchlings, let them do so from their new corp). Imo this would help alot as it would justify further high-sec-ganking balancing.
You know, going after people in n00b corps is really getting old. Why is it a problem if they don't want to join a corporation, don't have the time, or just don't care?
Quote:
B) How to add threat to the campers? Now its not risk vs. rewards, its calculated loss vs. reward. Imo thats the central question. I have no good idea, but I would love if this thread could be a discussion about this! There is no question about that its profitable to high-sec gank. How can CCP introduce some more risk in a balanced and joust way?
Note: I don't mean risk of no profit here, I mean risk of getting killed by other players. Gankers threat other players before they open fire, therefore the gankers should also be subject to threat before they open fire. No safe spots in EVE, right? I've heard that somewhere.
I think it's balanced as very well, currently. I even made an entire formula here to calculate your odds of getting ganked.
------------
Whiners - Unite! | Posting and You
Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist. |
Needo
Minmatar
Swedish Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 15:22:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Needo on 04/10/2007 15:22:59
Originally by: Tarminic
Originally by: Needo
A) Seems the root of this problem, as with some others like macromining, is that people hide in noob-corps. Noone in noob-corp should imo train skills for any higher tier than cruiser 2/indy 1 or similar. Once you leave noob-corp you should never rejoin. Open up noob-corps corp-channel so that anyone can join them (if people want to mentor or keep contact with fellow hatchlings, let them do so from their new corp). Imo this would help alot as it would justify further high-sec-ganking balancing.
You know, going after people in n00b corps is really getting old. Why is it a problem if they don't want to join a corporation, don't have the time, or just don't care?
Quote:
B) How to add threat to the campers? Now its not risk vs. rewards, its calculated loss vs. reward. Imo thats the central question. I have no good idea, but I would love if this thread could be a discussion about this! There is no question about that its profitable to high-sec gank. How can CCP introduce some more risk in a balanced and joust way?
Note: I don't mean risk of no profit here, I mean risk of getting killed by other players. Gankers threat other players before they open fire, therefore the gankers should also be subject to threat before they open fire. No safe spots in EVE, right? I've heard that somewhere.
I think it's balanced as very well, currently. I even made an entire formula here to calculate your odds of getting ganked.
Noobcorps: Ofcourse because they are wardec-proof. Being wardec-proof and still playing high-end stuff cause imbalance.
Risk-formula: I can complement this with my formula for the risk of the gankers to get PvP:ed:
P= a*b*0.01*t
a=0 if ganker in noobcorp, a=1 if ganker in player corp
b=0 if there is no war on the gankers corp, 1 if there is
t=time
If your formula equals this formula we have balance. :)
___________________________________________
You are never alone in schizophrenia.
___________________________________________ |
Tarminic
Black Flame Industries
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 15:28:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Needo
Noobcorps: Ofcourse because they are wardec-proof. Being wardec-proof and still playing high-end stuff cause imbalance.
What imbalance does it cause?
Quote:
Risk-formula: I can complement this with my formula for the risk of the gankers to get PvP:ed:
P= a*b*0.01*t
a=0 if ganker in noobcorp, a=1 if ganker in player corp
b=0 if there is no war on the gankers corp, 1 if there is
t=time
If your formula equals this formula we have balance. :)
According to your formula there is no suicide ganking. 
------------
Whiners - Unite! | Posting and You
Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist. |
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
Sublime.
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 15:30:00 -
[5]
According to MY Formula, there is no spoon.
Eve Risk = Not Board Game Risk =
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Valrandir
Gallente
Slacker Industries
Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 15:41:00 -
[6]
Calculated Risk VS Calculated Reward
If Reward > Risk, engage. Otherwise, pass.
You mention how Concord do not stop a group of pilots who are obviously preparing to pirate a victim. While this might be evident to other pilots, how can Concord make the difference between someone who is about to attack, and someone who is not?
Remember that Concord actions are based on well defined conditions, and not by human reasoning. Smart players will always calculate the risk vs reward and act when it is profitable for them to do so. Smart players will also understand the current game mechanics and use them to their own best advantages.
Insurance fraud and jet can swapping are some example of systems that were put in place to help the civilian pilots against the pirates, and as you can see those smart pirates use those mechanics to their advantages.
This is normal, and to be expected. Adding more and more in-game restrictions will only lead to less freedom, smart pilots will use those to their advantages anyways, it's better to have less restrictings game mechanics and let the players handle things by themselves.
There is a solution to all this, let Concord be controlled by a team of humans, working for CCP and roleplaying Concord and faction police action. With this, instant and 'magical' concord reaction would no longer be, instead we would have a belivable police force, able to make complex judgements and to investigate complex cases.
Still there would be whines, there will be whines no matter what, this is normal.
If your gameplay style make you a possible victim of highsec ganking, the most practical solution for you is to make sure it can't happen to you. By using things such as a scout, warp to zero, a transport ship with armor plates and armor hardeners, and not hauling more with it would cost to gank you, you remove this problem.
In the end, your own security as a pilot in eve depend on your own actions and decisions. Whining and/or asking for even more computer automated restrictions to in-game freedom will not help, since pirates will adapt to those new rules and in the end the same situation will exists.
--------------------------------
This has surpassed the Yarrdware specification and has been dubbed Uberware
- Oveur
|
Needo
Minmatar
Swedish Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 16:12:00 -
[7]
Ofcourse Concord can't act on the campers before they do anything, that's granted. The problem is that noone can, because if they try concord will pop them. That creates a safe haven from which the gankers can threat others and that's against all I have learned about EVE policy.
Some will say that this is ok, but I don't think its a good setup. Not because I feel threatened, hell I hardly own enough to be gankable at all. What I want to be able to do is to serve the gankers some PvP - it would be appropriate since they sit there and harvest haulers.
I have no good idea how to achieve this in a balanced way, but that's what would be great to discuss for once, instead of these old rants about "dont haul afk" and "adapt". Fact is, the only way to "adapt" is not to play, go somewhere else and don't do what you want to do. I.e. the gankers win because they can't be killed.
Perhaps some kind of 15 minute outlaw-flag system that has a chance to be triggered for every cargo-scan if there are concord nearby? Anything that gives an opening....
___________________________________________
You are never alone in schizophrenia.
___________________________________________ |
Tarazed Aquilae
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 16:48:00 -
[8]
YouÆve done a good job of stating the problem but your solution needs work. HereÆs a better way to do it...
ôGanker(s)ö in an NPC corporation destroys ôVictimÆsö ship in Empire space. (Not just shoots at it, but destroys it.)
The ôVictimÆsö corporation/alliance is now considered to have a legitimate Causus Belli against the individuals that fired on the destroyed ship. This would amount to a free 30 day war declaration against the ôGanker(s).ö
The war wouldnÆt be against the entire NPC corporation, just the Gankers. It wouldnÆt be an automatic declaration, the CEO of the VictimÆs corporation would have to activate it for it to go into effect. Since the war would be against individuals the VictimÆs CEO could decide which of the Gankers to declare war on.
None of this applies if the gankers are in a player corporation as the existing system deals with this adequately. None of this applies of the Victim is in an NPC corporation either. If you want protection join a player corp.
This achieves your goals without restricting the behavior of other players.
|
Heikki
Gallente
Wreckless Abandon
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 17:28:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Needo
The only counter is not to play (i.e. take another route or do multiple runs)
Actually I think there are multiple counters, some of which even allow you to take back at the attackers.
Protective ones: tank better, fly faster, use stealth, split valuable loot to multiple trips etc
Ambush: Use surpringly heavy tank (to survive attack long enough), fly bait ship with backup ready to save you (perhaps ejecting valuable loot to friend) etc.
That is, if you find gankers you would like to shoot as you propose, you already should be able to trap them (till they adapt). You might need some friends for that, might need to work for it and might fail even; but that holds for those suicide gankers as well.
-Lasse
|
Needo
Minmatar
Swedish Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 21:11:00 -
[10]
Ok, you could call unexpected good tank some kind of counter perhaps (not for freighters obviously), but still all the initiative lies with the gankers. They are at no risk what so ever until they fire.
The bait strat is however not really feasible. Who would risk 3x the worth of the gankers in order to maybe kill them and gain nothing? I mean, by definition they are not fitted with anything expensive.
___________________________________________
You are never alone in schizophrenia.
___________________________________________ |
Giatshi
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 22:40:00 -
[11]
Suicide-gankers do to have risk....no one might show up worth ganking.They could fall asleep at the keyboard accidentally spilling their juice mommy gave them electrocuting themselves,scaring the cat,which then runs up the wall onto the curtains,at which point mom comes in,the curtain rack breaks hits mom in the head and bam...2 dead ppl and 1 frightened cat.And thats not risk?
|
Saris Dadra
Drifter Unincorporated
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 00:19:00 -
[12]
Suicide Ganking:
Forgoing "Can I have your stuff?" by forcefully taking another players belongings before that player even realizes that they are going to go on the forums and whine about how EVE-Online is unfair and how empire space should be safe.
Most every time I see someone whining about suicide ganking they were asking for it:
"I was AFK hauling 500 million in mods, and when I came back from getting pizza I was in my pod. Suicide ganking is unfair!"
or
"I was in Jita, and I got ganked!!!"
I don't think suicide ganking is a problem. The problem is people don't realize what game they are playing. EvE-Online is not a nice place. Every time I undock I am prepared to lose my ship, my cargo, and my pod. I wouldn't like the game if that wasn't the case. And no I'm not a suicide ganker. |
Veqlargh
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 00:45:00 -
[13]
there is something wrong with the fact that someone can scan your cargo to decide if its worth suicide ganking you. like others have said there isn't much risk vs reward involved because they know what is potentially going to pop out of that ship when it pops. if you ask me activating a mod on someone not in your own PC corp should be considered an aggressive act and concord will act accordingly. risk versus reward....do i think that hauler is carring anything of value? dunno lets find out.
|
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar
Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 00:59:00 -
[14]
I can think of quite a few reasons for "why NOT again"
the topmost being that it makes me want to pod you
Originally by: Akita T
No, it's a trap ! I can tell from some of the modules and from seeing quite a few traps in my time...
|
Captain Plumbo
Caldari
NorCorp Enterprise
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 02:23:00 -
[15]
Why not make cargo scanning chance based? As it is now the gankers know 100% what the target is carrying, and the only chance they take is that some of the loot will pop. Better scanners can have a better chance of detecting more etc. You could even have skills that affect cargo/ship scanning, modules that lessen chance of successful cargo scan with skills associated with them etc.
There could be some sort of 'escort-mode' as well. Ships flying as escort for a freighter/indy could have free aggro against anyone doing a hostile act against the 'escortee'.
Just some thoughts....
|
Price Watcher
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 02:42:00 -
[16]
The cure is a penalty that can't be just shrugged off.
Isk? Don't make me LOL. If it wasn't profitable no-one would be doing it.
Sec status? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Skill point loss. In 1.0 100% of your highest trained skill. 0.7=70%. 0.5=50%.
No penalty in 0.4 and below.
Why skill point loss?
1. It is a real penalty. It would HURT. It would PUNISH.
2. It would not stop anyone from suicide ganking, but it sure would slow them down. The present system means NOTHING.
POST WITH YOUR ALT!
The Shame o' The Galaxy |
Gamesguy
Amarr
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 02:46:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Price Watcher
The cure is a penalty that can't be just shrugged off.
Isk? Don't make me LOL. If it wasn't profitable no-one would be doing it.
Sec status? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Skill point loss. In 1.0 100% of your highest trained skill. 0.7=70%. 0.5=50%.
No penalty in 0.4 and below.
Why skill point loss?
1. It is a real penalty. It would HURT. It would PUNISH.
2. It would not stop anyone from suicide ganking, but it sure would slow them down. The present system means NOTHING.
Lol what an idiot.
You dont call 3 hours of ratting in 0.0 with the best spawns a penalty? It takes that long to get back the sec status for 1 suicide gank.
|
Price Watcher
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 02:49:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Gamesguy
Lol what an idiot.
Thank you very much, Tard.
Originally by: Gamesguy
You dont call 3 hours of ratting in 0.0 with the best spawns a penalty? It takes that long to get back the sec status for 1 suicide gank.
No, I call that a vacation, you tard.
POST WITH YOUR ALT!
The Shame o' The Galaxy |
Gamesguy
Amarr
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 02:52:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Price Watcher
Thank you very much, Tard.
Aww, did the little idiot lose millions while afking in a t1 hauler?
Quote:
No, I call that a vacation, you tard.
Vacation? Ratting is the most mind numbingly boring thing in eve.
|
Price Watcher
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 02:56:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Price Watcher on 05/10/2007 02:56:26
Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: Price Watcher
Thank you very much, Tard.
Aww, did the little idiot lose millions while afking in a t1 hauler?
Quote:
No, I call that a vacation, you tard.
Vacation? Ratting is the most mind numbingly boring thing in eve.
Nope, never lost millions. And you're still a griefing little tard.
When you called me "idiot" you opened the door to a likewise reply. Learn manners. Your mamma forgot to teach you how to live right.
(edit for paragraphs)
POST WITH YOUR ALT!
The Shame o' The Galaxy |
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar
Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 02:59:00 -
[21]
you are both tards
now stfu and bring me some pie 
Originally by: Akita T
No, it's a trap ! I can tell from some of the modules and from seeing quite a few traps in my time...
|
Needo
Minmatar
Swedish Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 08:03:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Saris Dadra
Suicide Ganking:
I don't think suicide ganking is a problem. The problem is people don't realize what game they are playing. EvE-Online is not a nice place. Every time I undock I am prepared to lose my ship, my cargo, and my pod. I wouldn't like the game if that wasn't the case. And no I'm not a suicide ganker.
EVE is a nice place if you sit in a cheap ship and do cargoscans on people you may feel like harvesting while concord protects your ass. That's the whole point! Its not nice for a hauler anywhere and thats fine, but it should be a little harch on the gankers too, otherwise where's the fun? A ganker is threatening other players, therefore he should constantly be at risk to be podded, not just getting a guaranteed calculated loss of his ship to concord (his mates even gets his loot and he gets insurance so its only about a 10% loss actually).
___________________________________________
You are never alone in schizophrenia.
___________________________________________ |
Frug
Zenithal Harvest
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 08:06:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Needo
EVE is a nice place if you sit in a cheap ship and do cargoscans on people you may feel like harvesting while concord protects your ass. That's the whole point! Its not nice for a hauler anywhere and thats fine, but it should be a little harch on the gankers too, otherwise where's the fun? A ganker is threatening other players, therefore he should constantly be at risk to be podded, not just getting a guaranteed calculated loss of his ship to concord (his mates even gets his loot and he gets insurance so its only about a 10% loss actually).
Good luck sitting forever cargoscanning people. I hope that works out for you.
- - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - -
If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO
BOOO!! - Ductoris
Neat look what I found - Kreul
Hey, my marbles |
Needo
Minmatar
Swedish Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 08:33:00 -
[24]
Sure. Point being?
___________________________________________
You are never alone in schizophrenia.
___________________________________________ |
Ridley Scot
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 09:01:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Price Watcher
Originally by: Gamesguy
Lol what an idiot.
Thank you very much, Tard.
Originally by: Gamesguy
You dont call 3 hours of ratting in 0.0 with the best spawns a penalty? It takes that long to get back the sec status for 1 suicide gank.
No, I call that a vacation, you tard.
Dont call him tard, he is just a high sec PVPer and forum troll.
-----------------------------------------------
Stop buying ISK, you are killing the game ! |
Dirk Magnum
Red Light Enterprises
Eastern Star Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 09:03:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 05/10/2007 09:04:13
How's this: make a self-destructing version of the standard freight container. If a freighter carrying one gets popped, the container and everything in it is automatically destroyed. Pirates could still opt to attack you, but they'll be taking the added chance that there won't be any cargo left for them.
However to ensure that there is some kind of drawback to the freighter pilot who uses these containers, the self-destructing variety could take up more space in your hold but hold fewer items than a standard container.
Heck why not introduce self-destructing versions of all container sizes?
|
Big Zulu
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 09:10:00 -
[27]
Posting in a flamefest \o/
|
Needo
Minmatar
Swedish Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 12:47:00 -
[28]
Thanks for the good posts (forgetting the flamekids), there are some good suggestions there. I'll edit some into the first post, lets try to keep staying on topic.
___________________________________________
You are never alone in schizophrenia.
___________________________________________ |
Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr
Do Or Die And Live Or Try
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 13:13:00 -
[29]
You want potential gankers to be at risk all the time.
Well, I have guns fitted onto my ship and i could potentially gank someone at a random gate, so should I be at risk all the time (or anyone else with weapons on their ships)?
Sorry, but concord punishes actions, not potential actions. It will be very hard for an automated system to detect a ganker, unless you ban weapons of any kind in empire.
Increased punishment to the gankers would be good, I'll agree on that  .
|
Skadi Asgaurd
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 13:34:00 -
[30]
Maybe insurance payouts should not be paid if concord shoots you down.
|
Needo
Minmatar
Swedish Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 13:45:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes
You want potential gankers to be at risk all the time.
Well, I have guns fitted onto my ship and i could potentially gank someone at a random gate, so should I be at risk all the time (or anyone else with weapons on their ships)?
Sorry, but concord punishes actions, not potential actions. It will be very hard for an automated system to detect a ganker, unless you ban weapons of any kind in empire.
Increased punishment to the gankers would be good, I'll agree on that .
There are ways to even it out a little imo, some where suggested here.
The only real hook that precedes a gank is the cargo-scan. That could be used somehow, but perhaps its not the best fix. There could be a small chance per cargo-scan that the target gets the option to get killrights on the scanner for example. That way repeated ganking -> buildup of people in the area with killrights = threat.
Another way is to give killrights to the entire corp of the victim vs all aggressors in a successful gank (+ the looter), same result as above.
___________________________________________
You are never alone in schizophrenia.
___________________________________________ |
Gamesguy
Amarr
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 18:06:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Ridley Scot
Originally by: Price Watcher
Originally by: Gamesguy
Lol what an idiot.
Thank you very much, Tard.
Originally by: Gamesguy
You dont call 3 hours of ratting in 0.0 with the best spawns a penalty? It takes that long to get back the sec status for 1 suicide gank.
No, I call that a vacation, you tard.
Dont call him tard, he is just a high sec PVPer and forum troll.
Highsec pvper? I suggest you go look me up on our kb.
|
Gamesguy
Amarr
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 18:09:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Price Watcher
Edited by: Price Watcher on 05/10/2007 02:57:42
Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: Price Watcher
Thank you very much, Tard.
Aww, did the little idiot lose millions while afking in a t1 hauler?
Quote:
No, I call that a vacation, you tard.
Vacation? Ratting is the most mind numbingly boring thing in eve.
Nope, never lost millions. And you're still a griefing little tard.
When you called me "idiot" you opened the door to a likewise reply. Learn manners. Your mama forgot to teach you how to live right.
(edit for paragraphs)
Yep, just another typical idiot whining. When you make absurd posts like "ratting is a vacation" and "SP loss for suicide ganks" you opened the way for flaming.
How about everytime someone gets suicide ganked they lose a million SP in spaceship command for each hundred million isk lost, as they're obviously too stupid to be flying haulers.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |