EVE Search - Game Balance - Freighter Ganking

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Game Balance - Freighter Ganking

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 05:22:00 - [1] Some of the comments that are beinging to derail the thread about cargo scanners got me thinking about how the game is balanced regarding suicide ganking of freighters. I am not asking if it should be possible: of course it should be possible. At this point I am not looking for discussion of current game mechanics and peoples opinions of the level of balance. I am interested in looking at the balance at a more fundimental level. How much attacking force in comparison to the defensive escort should it take to suicide gank a freighter? Is it reasonable to expect the game to be balanced such that if the attacking force fields 15 more gank-battleships than the number of defending-escorts the freighter dies? ie 15 vs 5 the freighter lives, but 45 vs 30 the freighter dies. Should there be a proportional factor instead? ie attackers need atleast 15 battleships and atleast 3x the number of defenders: 15 vs 5 the freighter dies, but 45 vs 30 the lives. What is the basic ground work for balance? I would of course be most interested if the dev team made some comment on where they think balance should be found, but I would rather start with were the community thinks the balance should be. Please remember, I am asking where balance should be in an absolute sense with no reference to where it is now.
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 05:43:00 - [2] Originally by: Dirk Magnum The balance is the defenders' gank versus the suicide attackers' tank. It's that simple. If the defenders' can't bring an A-game against the attackers, You propose that the only defense is an effective offense? Originally by: Dirk Magnum especially since the attackers are being wasted by Concord while this is going on, CONCORD is irrelevant until they show up and once they show up game balance dictates that the attacker's offensive ability is immeadately neutralized. Therefore CONCORD's only role is defining the length of time the attackers have to finish the job or fail completely. Any action taken for offense or defense must be completed before CONCORD arrives as their arrival will effectively conclude the engagement. I believe that 30 seconds is fair balancing point in this matter, but I would be open to suggestions. Originally by: Dirk Magnum There is no set number of defender vs. attacker that is guaranteed to have success; such is counterintuitive to the Eve PvP mechanic overall. Absolutely set numbers might be counterintuitive, but rough estimates should not. Given a set piece match, the outcome can be reasonable estimated. With evenly matched ability numbers should carry most of the weight, but should there be a critical-mass such that if the attackers bring that number, there is no realistic way of stopping them? Originally by: Dirk Magnum Just pack a bunch of jammers on your defenders and you won't have any more trouble. If ECM is defined as a solution to suicide ganking, drones must be excluded as an option for ganking because they are immune to ECM. Have I misunderstood your suggestion, or have you failed to concider the interaction of these mechanics?
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 05:49:00 - [3] Originally by: MotherMoon logtisics ships? My estimates on the use of logistics ships is that 1 T2 Logistics cruiser with a full set of 6 reps will be able to rep the damage delt by 1 gank fitted battleship. Using that logic, as long as the defenders are not out numbered by more than 10-20 battleships they will be successful in their bid to defend the freighter. This is where I got the first balancing point I suggested. Is this an agreeable balancing point: with the defenders winning as long as they can field a comparable number of escorts as the attackers field gank ships?
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 06:12:00 - [4] Originally by: Dirk Magnum I didn't read any posts in this thread before posting in it. I don't read threads from people who whine about their ships getting killed because they don't have an adequate defense and they think that their own problems mean CCP needs to redefine a whole game mechanic. Thank you for showing that you are completely ignorant. 1 - I have never flown a freighter let alone lost one. 2 - Had you bothered to read my post (even if you had ignored the others) you would have seen that I am of the opinion that suicide ganking should be possible. 3 - You have wasted a perfectly good opporunity to show how reasonable and realistic current game mechanics are by stating such in an objective way. I am not going to attempt to argue that mechanics need to be changed until we agree on what the result of mechanics should be. I have no problem with a 40 battleship fleet being able to gank any freighter regardless of how large or skilled the defending force might be. If others agree with that then great, if not then I am asking them to state in objective terms what they think should be reasonable in terms of defense. People should say what there stance is for what it is, and don't try to cover it up.
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 06:22:00 - [5] Originally by: Dirk Magnum Then what WAS the point of this thread? To find a what is acceptable as far as game balance. I have no problem with the current mechanics, but some people see to. Neither those who want changes nor those who want things to stay as they are seem to state their position in fundamental terms. The point of this thread is to look at the balance of this mechanic at a fundamental level.
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 06:28:00 - [6] So to restate fundamental freighter gank mechanics - 40 attacking battleships = freighter dies regardless of the defending force - 20 attacking battleships = freighter dies in approx 10 seconds unless the defending force can prevent it within that time Does this seem like a good game balance?
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 06:50:00 - [7] Originally by: Cmd Xen Logistics ships are the best defence as it provides the best method that is the most immune to lag. Defence fleet only has to target the freighter versus the gank fleet. Especially when talking 40+ ships, remote repping a freighter is the most lag immune method. 40 torp Ravens will alpha-strike a freighter. Logistics are pointless. I was looking at how much help a Commandship would be for giving the freighter so resistances, but it only really become a use if the freighter would die after 20 seconds. 20 torp Ravens could finish the job in their second volley - that gives 10 seconds plus flight time. Logisitcs ships would only get 3 or maybe 4 reps in during that time. ECM might help a little more, but an escort fleet would be hard pressed to co-ordinate their jamming so that they lock up as many targets as possible. Otherwise the third volley at T+20 seconds would certainly finish the job, still in time before CONCORD arrives at T+30 seconds. PS - Although I realize this is a sensitive topic to many, I am not try to troll, I would like to know from the pro-gankers, what they think is fair ganking mechanics. Honestly, I can live with the current mechanics, but we might as well formulate a united stance on pro-ganking mechanics as far as what is reasonable and what is not. 1 battleship should not be able to gank a freighter solo, however, I see not problem with 40 battleships being completely unstoppable if you can get them all in range of the freighter. But where do we draw the line. Should 20 battleships be nearly unstopable, 15, 10?
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 16:09:00 - [8] Originally by: Admiral Nova I'm sorry but you can't make anything invulnerable. No, but with proper preparation, you can come pretty close. How the game is balanced now was never supposed to be the point of this thread. So to summarize where game balance for freighter ganking should be: - Defense of a high value freighter should be entirely about scouting. If your scouting efforts fail to detect a gank fleet of +20 battleships, you should expect to lose the freighter. - Logistics support should be irrelevant. - Counter-gank support should be irrelevant. - It should be possible to preemptively summon CONCORD to provide defense if an attack is expected. There should be some form of cost imposed on characters that preemptively summon CONCORD. - Preparation made in the form of an abundance of bookmarks should further reduce the risk of losing a freighter: the use of bookmarks combine with webifying escort(s) should allow the freighter to warp away instantly. Does that seem like a fair summary of where things should be? Remember this question does not directly relate to how things are now. The question at hand is how things should be in an absolute sense. Personally I don't like the last clause. We have already seen the ill effects of instaÆs, and I don't think that game mechanics should be allowed to encourage their use, but some people might disagree with me on that one.
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 16:47:00 - [9] Originally by: William Alex All the gankers constantly keep telling you haulers that this is eve and everything should have some risk. Yet they are the ones who are enjoying the 0 risk right now. Time is money. Currently attackers risk the time that they could spend doing more productive things. If you do not think that it is fair to have the time/effort spent moving items safely equate to the time and effort spent intercepting that shipment, what additional opportunity cost should be imposed? Can you state that opportunity cost in objective terms. Defenders should invest time in scouting and evasion, while attackers should invest time into scouting and evasion and also the recovery of 2 billion in lost ISK?
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 18:48:00 - [10] Originally by: William Alex If the amount of isk you risked assured that it was the 2billion isk+ freighters that were the target only i'd agree with you. So what do other people think? Would it be balanced if defending a freighter required the time and effort of 2-5 people verses the time and effort of 15-20 people on the part of the attackers? Or does there need to be an additional cost on the part of the attackers beyond just the time spent hunting the target and avoiding detection by the defending scouts?
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 19:17:00 - [11] Originally by: William Alex What time spent hunting? It's just a matter of setting up on a gate outside of jita with 10 people and scanning everything that's slowboating. 1 - Slowboating targets have put zero effort into evading a gank, so any effort put into ganking them is greater than the effort spent in avoiding the gank. Seems balanced to me, but I would like to know if others disagree. 2 - Although small in comparison to a "valuable" freighter load, the attackers so suffer a net loss on their destroyed ships and modules. As such they are unlikely to gank empty freighters. The 15 minute Global Criminal flag and lost security standings applied to most of the attacking fleet will further discourage ganking freighters with insignifacant cargo's.
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 19:24:00 - [12] Originally by: Kevin Mulhol Many people have mentioned using webs on a Freighter in order to instawarp it. I thought this was considered an exploit by CCP. Is this true? I don't know if it is, but do you think that it should be?
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 21:53:00 - [13] Originally by: Letouk Mernel Why should logistics efforts be irrelevant? Because that is a choice made in designing the game. It does not need to be the way it is. If logistics support is not irrelavant, then a role for logisitics must be defined. How effective should logistics be in the defense of a freighter? In defense of a commandship they can be impressively effective, but there are alot of differences between a commandship and a freighter. Originally by: Letouk Mernel Oh, and, we're never going to reach a consensus about how it should be, it's just the nature of the internets and forums. We all want different things, and sooner or later this will go down in flames. On top of that, we're not a majority of the playerbase. And on top of that, even with a consensus from a majority of the playerbase, CCP doesn't implement what WE want but rather what they want. While there is little that can be done to stop flames, CCP has (contrary to the more vocal popular belief) shown that they do review constructive assessments of game mechanics. If the community feels that there is a problem with game mechanics then it should be reviewed in a contructive and objective manner. Most of the threads regarding suicide ganking are highly emotional (often the result of a recent loss) and have little to no objective content. I am hoping to guide this thread into an object assessment of suicide gank, primarily of freighters as they have no fitting options, thus an attack on one can be highly predictable, or at least it can be under current mechanics. Here is an opportunity for people to state objectively how they think mechanics should work. If there is a strong objection to the fundamentals of how the mechanic is balanced, then a review of the mechanics might follow. So for example, if it bothers you that logistics has been balanced away from being a factor, what would you suggest that the effect of logistics should obtain?
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 22:14:00 - [14] Originally by: Cipher7 Just armor/shield rep the freighter. Concord does the rest. This is not even close to practical. Current game balance of freighters ensures that this is impractical. (I can explain why if you cannot figure it out for yourself.) A significant overhaul of game balance would be required in order to allow armor/shield rep the freighter to be effective against a suicidial attack. Before an objective appeal for a change to game mechanics can be made, a recommendation must be formed describing how effective logistics support should be. Once a target effectiveness is defined, game mechanics can be reviewed to see what changes would be most effective for reaching the desired effect.
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 23:10:00 - [15] Originally by: Tsanse Kinske Originally by: Matalino - It should be possible to preemptively summon CONCORD to provide defense if an attack is expected. There should be some form of cost imposed on characters that preemptively summon CONCORD This already exists to a large degree. The method is criminally aggressing in hisec; the cost is a ship and a GCC timer. Yes, someone mentioned that idea earlier in this thread, that is why I included it in my list of game mechanics. Honestly I had not thought of that before then, but since it is an option, and the objective of this thread is to look at balance holisticly, I thought that I should include it. There are a few more game mechanics that I will add a bit later after I have sometime to think the effects through. For example, ECM should be irrelavent. I also want to make some comment on how cloaking should be balanced. In making my list of how things should be, I am starting with how things currently are. Once we have a list of should be mechanics, each point can be debated and looked at objectively. For example, the point that logistics should be irrelavent, I have mixed feelings on this concept. I think that they should be irrelavent after a certain point, but I feel that they should have some potential role. However, I have not taken the time to objectively review a better recommendation of how relavant logistics should really be, and until their relavance is defined, it is obsurd to suggest any changes to game balance. So I just accept the fact that logistics are irrelavant for now, and hope that someone else might start an object review of logistics while I am compiling my list of relevant game mechanics.
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.28 01:48:00 - [16] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h To the OP I would not look to numbers of attackers vs. defenders in deciding where a good "balance" lies. There are just too many variables to reliably do that. With non-freighter ganks I would agree that there are too many variables, but with freighters there are such limited options that simplifying assumptions are reasonable. Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Honestly though I would rather see better mechanics to allow for a reasonable defense of the freighter. Despite what many here think are simple methods to protect a freighter most do not work (instawarping does but to me that is making use of a broken game mechanic and not what I would call ideal from the standpoint of game balance). Current game mechanics effectively prevent the use of escorts for anything other than scouting and webbing for insta warp. I agree that it would be nice to some additional uses for escorts, but before we start talking of what could be, I think it wise to figure out what currently is. If nothing comes of proposing changes, I will atleast learn how to defend a freighter as best as practical under current mechanics. I also fully agree that the current insta warp mechanics are broken, particularly the use of bookmarks. However, it is about the only mechanic that is really infavor of the defenders. Without it, the attackers would gain a huge advantage through the use of login traps or cloaks. Originally by: Imperator Jora'h I would think the best way to get a sense of if the balance is something like appropriate would be to compare costs of the hulls needed to do it (maybe add mods but those again are so variable depending what you choose to use not really relevant). So, a freighter costs ~1 billion ISK. What should it cost a gank to take that down? Currently gankers are managing their costs in lost ships (and mods too) after insurance payout at around 400 million. So 40% of the cost of the freighter. I was planning to include this into my next summary of balance. In the previous summary I concidered (and still do concider) the cost of lost ships to be small in comparision to the lost opportunity cost of having the needed pilots tied up for the duration of the opperation. Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Also realize asking haulers to have equivalent guards to the gankers wherever they go is very unreasonable. Just will not happen. Agreed, the defending force is effectively limited to 2-5 characters including the freighter pilot. Such a fleet can likely be expected to be composed mostly of alts, such that only 1-3 players are actually involved, and in most cases it would be a single player with 1-3 characters. I am greatful for you input. I would like to compile this into a comprehesive assessment taking both the freighter's and the gankers' perspective into account.

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.