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 [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
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.
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.02.27 05:25:00 - [2] Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 27/02/2008 05:26:02 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, especially since the attackers are being wasted by Concord while this is going on, the defenders just suck, end of story. There is no set number of defender vs. attacker that is guaranteed to have success; such is counterintuitive to the Eve PvP mechanic overall. This issue is not something that needs to be examined. Just pack a bunch of jammers on your defenders and you won't have any more trouble.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.27 05:25:00 - [3] When logic and proportion Have fallen sloppy dead And the White Knight is talking backwards And the Red Queen's "off with her head!" Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Siriyana Astrum Contract Services Group	Posted - 2008.02.27 05:28:00 - [4] Bring the right tools for the job. Escorting a freighter with a -small- handful of logistics ships (5-6+) would easily thwart a suicide gank attempt. The attackers would be forced to bring a much larger force to attack with. Escorting a freighter with a small handful of pure ECM ships would also easily thwart a sucide gank attempt. Jam half the attackers, CONCORD shows up and kills them before they kill the freighter. There's plenty of ways to do it that don't require you to have huge numbers to defend a freighter against a suicide gank. Fit yourself out for the job at hand. ----- CEO, Astrum Contract Services Group ACSG Open For Recruitment (AU/AsiaPac/Late Night PST)
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.02.27 05:29:00 - [5] logtisics ships? I mean come on really people? I have defending ym share of friehters in high sec. just have everyone fit large shield reps, and never fire a shot. you have 10 bses running 2 large reps each that baby has got 20 reps on her which is 100 dps each for 2000 dps tank.
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.02.27 05:32:00 - [6] Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 27/02/2008 05:32:56 Originally by: MotherMoon logtisics ships? I mean come on really people? I have defending ym share of friehters in high sec. just have everyone fit large shield reps, and never fire a shot. you have 10 bses running 2 large reps each that baby has got 20 reps on her which is 100 dps each for 2000 dps tank. This. If you fly freighters filled with enough stuff to warrant a suicide gank then it's plain irresponsible to not move with an escort. If you are a solo player (or worse, an alt) who does trade runs in a freighter then **** you, you accept the risks when setting off alone.
AndrewRyan	Posted - 2008.02.27 05:34:00 - [7] Screw reps and logistics you wont accomplish anything, your best bet is to follow the Freighter with either a Huginn a Hyena or a Rapier and web it into insta warp so your not hanging around at gates. Originally by: Malcanis Seriously, have you ever actually pressed F1 with something other than an asteroid locked?
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 05:43:00 - [8] 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 - [9] 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?
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.02.27 05:59:00 - [10] Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 27/02/2008 05:59:59 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. Also I am not posting in or viewing in this thread again and since I can take an insult like a pro I don't care what you say about me. I club baby seals for a living anyway.
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 06:12:00 - [11] 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.
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.02.27 06:17:00 - [12] Then what WAS the point of this thread? Sorry I am a compulsive liar who cannot be trusted by anyone, especially romantic partners and Eve forum goers.
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 06:22:00 - [13] 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.
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.02.27 06:28:00 - [14] Ah. Well in all seriousness I don't see why we need to philosophize this subject in any other terms than DPS of one side vs. DPS of the other side. As you said there is no inherent problem of highsec ganking. The only fix I see to any problem that might be raised in this thread is to increase the effective HP of freighters. I don't understand why the T2 jump freighters should have fewer than 1 medium or low slot. Regular freighters should have one slot that supports their racial support type (shield or armor.) Maybe. The T2 variants should have better protection at any rate. Also I really do club baby seals for a living. Since I live in Florida those seals are West Indian Monk Seals. You fools all think that those have been extinct since the days of Columbus's governance of Hispanola (or thereabouts), but you have no idea how wrong you are. WIMS collaborated in the genocide in Kosovo you know so quite frankly my clubbing of them is a service to humanity tbh
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 06:28:00 - [15] 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?
Treelox Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party	Posted - 2008.02.27 06:30:00 - [16] As a freighter pilot, the only thing I would like to see changed with the whole mechanics of high sec "ganking" is the 100% loss of insurance for those who loose their ships to concord. Otherwise I really have no problems with the current balance of mechanics in regards towards high sec freighter/hauler ganking. --
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.02.27 06:33:00 - [17] Yes everyone should be subject to insurance cancellation if they are killed by Concord. That's a subject best left for the Dev forum though.
Cmd Xen	Posted - 2008.02.27 06:38:00 - [18] Originally by: Dirk Magnum Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 27/02/2008 05:59:59 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. Also I am not posting in or viewing in this thread again and since I can take an insult like a pro I don't care what you say about me. I club baby seals for a living anyway. Since he's trolling.. I'm trolling LOL. Funny how he actually does care what people thing and is seeking attention with posts like this LOL. If you notice, he's posted 3 more times since this one... Anyways... I agree with the OPs point of the thread to review the balance. I think it is balanced as is. 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.
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 06:50:00 - [19] 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?
TypoNinja Caldari Void Angels	Posted - 2008.02.27 06:59:00 - [20] suicide ganking (when not doing it for pure jollies) is a cost/benefit ratio right? You bank on getting more loot from the gankee (is that a word? I'm making that a word now) then it costs you when concord shows up. If the general consensus is that its too easy to suicide gank somebody, then removing an insurance payout from ships destroyed by concord would be the easiest way to tip the balance towards the defenders. The cost/benefit ratio skyrockets downwards, then attackers will attempt to make the kill with the absolute minimum force required, meaning successfull defences will become more likely for those who actually bother to defend their freighter. For those who don't, well they'll still die like they deserve to.
Fofalus III ELEMENTS	Posted - 2008.02.27 07:08:00 - [21] The only acceptable solution that maintains game balance is the removal of insurance when concord blows you up. That doesn't change any mechanic of suicide ganking it just makes it far less profitable for the attacker. For everyone saying logistic ships you must not have ever tried. We are talking freighters dieing in less time than 1 rep takes if the attacker is organized enough. This gives the defender 0 chance to defend and thus is an imbalanced mechanic.
Serrano Balthar Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.02.27 07:18:00 - [22] a good command ship pilot give 25% resit to one,10-15 to the other and add 10% of size of armor/shield. it can **** up the attaker :D ----------- Igvar Thorn arn !
Karyuudo Tydraad Caldari Whiskey Pete's Drycleaning Services	Posted - 2008.02.27 07:32:00 - [23] Damnation in gang pumping up effective hp through the roof and a minnie recon to web for rapid warp is all the defence you need.
Cpt Fina Mutually Assured Distraction	Posted - 2008.02.27 07:59:00 - [24] I think that freighters should be able to fit a few modules that prepares it to the intended job just as every other ship in the game can bar shuttles.
Sikozu Prioris Suns Of Korhal deadspace society	Posted - 2008.02.27 08:04:00 - [25] What I find more concerning is that a single lone battleship can suicide any industrial ship without a problem. There is nothing you can do to stop it either. That strikes me as extremely unfair. Lol
Stoggaf Minmatar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.02.27 08:12:00 - [26] Originally by: An Anarchyyt When logic and proportion Have fallen sloppy dead And the White Knight is talking backwards And the Red Queen's "off with her head!" Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head Trust Battlestars to come up with this pubbie crap. :3
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.27 08:23:00 - [27] Originally by: Matalino 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? With 2-3 escorts you can make a freighter completely invulnerable. 1 guy in a rapier, triple sensor booster(locking time) and a web. 1 guy in a uber plated battleship. 1 scout(optional, as the rapier can scout as well). Here's what you do, jump in the scout and the battleship. Have the scout do a 360 scan, if he sees 30 hyperions on scan(even jita gates only have 4-5 bs on them max), dock the freighter/go around. Use the rapier pilot to insta-lock and insta web the freighter every time it jumps through a gate, this will prevent all of the scanning frigs from getting a scan, and thus no one will know the contents of the freighter, not to mention an insta-warping freighter is rather difficult to gank. The battleship is there in case everything goes wrong. Your scout was sleeping and didnt notice the 30 battleships on the gate, and those 30 battleships happened to have 10 alts in vagabonds ready to bump your freighter and another 5 suicide frigates tackling the freighter for the one microsecond before they're vaporized by sentries. In this never gonna happen scenario, the battleship pilot's job is to simply aggress some random guy and be ganked by concord. With concord on the gate already freighter ganks cannot happen.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.27 08:23:00 - [28] Originally by: Sikozu Prioris What I find more concerning is that a single lone battleship can suicide any industrial ship without a problem. There is nothing you can do to stop it either. That strikes me as extremely unfair. Any DST can tank one battleship, and any blockade runner can warp before even an inty can lock them.
Pans Exual Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.02.27 08:32:00 - [29] There hasn't been a freighter suicided since the Concord buff. It's unreasonably difficult to do, nowadays.
Dai Nau Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.27 08:33:00 - [30] did not have to read the thread to know that the op should quit eve

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.