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)
MenanceWhite Amarr Fruit Fellatio	Posted - 2008.02.27 08:51:00 - [31] Once again, when it comes to haulers being suicide gankers - Those are usually the people who think that they're completely safe in highsec and thous uses autopilot while carrying valueable stuff. They deserve it. It's just very hard to lock and cargoscan any hauler with nano/inertstabs that does warp to 0. --- Originally by: Torfi There's alot. That can be done. With.. corpses Originally by: Oveur
Karlemgne Flying Under the Influence Visions of Warfare	Posted - 2008.02.27 08:56:00 - [32] Originally by: Dirk Magnum 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. You win the Karlemgne daily forum asshat award. While I might be sympathetic to your position on high sec ganking of Freighters, your telling Freighter pilots to basically "**" off just because they have a different opinion than yourself is just asshatish. Congrats on being todays winner. -Karlemgne
Admiral Nova Strike Team Nova	Posted - 2008.02.27 09:34:00 - [33] Edited by: Admiral Nova on 27/02/2008 09:35:27 Originally by: Gamesguy Any DST can tank one battleship, and any blockade runner can warp before even an inty can lock them. I watched a 22 day old armageddon pilot bump then smartbomb to death a viator. It took 7 seconds. Originally by: Gamesguy With 2-3 escorts you can make a freighter completely invulnerable. I'm sorry but you can't make anything invulnerable. Quote: 1 guy in a rapier, triple sensor booster(locking time) and a web. This will HUGELY increase your survival but: Quote: 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. Here's what you do. You scan the freighter as he undocks, you bump him and gank him, 14 BS's is enough, not 30, and they can look like part of the scenery in most busy systems, and when undocking the web 'trick' doesn't work. You should fricking know this, your own alliance does this all the time. Nice try though. High sec was never meant to be entirely safe. But it's about risk vs reward here, losing a T1 insured ship to concord is too cheap. Killing some guy in a shuttle with a T2 BPO should be easy, but not a specialised T2 transport ship, with less isk worth of risk than the ship itself is worth let alone any cargo. Even if it drops nothing, in an unoffical war it's still a win.
Ryuu Katsu YTiRi Directorate	Posted - 2008.02.27 09:45:00 - [34] Simply make it so that if you are "concorded" you don't get payed back the insurance. As long as you are no longer on a trial account. This would tip the scale to where gankers would have to scan and make sure they pick a good target, then proceed in killing it in the most financially efficient way. Trial account users would get some time to get used to the whole Concord idea, and what is allowed and not. And seeing as you can't train battleships while on a trial account they wouldn't be able to mis-use that status to gank efficiently. ======================== Real men structure tank.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.27 09:48:00 - [35] Edited by: Gamesguy on 27/02/2008 09:53:05 Originally by: Admiral Nova I watched a 22 day old armageddon pilot bump then smartbomb to death a viator. It took 7 seconds. I'd like to see you bump my viator that warps in 2.6 seconds. Quote: Here's what you do. You scan the freighter as he undocks, you bump him and gank him, 14 BS's is enough, not 30, and they can look like part of the scenery in most busy systems, and when undocking the web 'trick' doesn't work. You should fricking know this, your own alliance does this all the time. Nice try though. Have you ever tried bumping a freighter? It takes more than a few seconds, if someone starts bumping you just redock? In addition, how in the hell are you going to know exactly what station this freighter is undocking from? Seriously, do you just go and follow tri around like a little puppy? Cause you're in every thread where a tri member posts, and you sit in one of our jump bridge systems in a pod or whatever all day, every day. Quote: High sec was never meant to be entirely safe. But it's about risk vs reward here, losing a T1 insured ship to concord is too cheap. Killing some guy in a shuttle with a T2 BPO should be easy, but not a specialised T2 transport ship, with less isk worth of risk than the ship itself is worth let alone any cargo. Even if it drops nothing, in an unoffical war it's still a win. You have no idea what you're talking about? A properly fit blockade runner(ie NOT fitting cargo expanders) is effectively invulnerable outside of 0.0 EDIT: Seriously, get a clue. The last time I bumped a capital it took 20 minutes with 2 nano-domis to bump a chimera 25km out of station undock. The chimera was afk, it would not have been possible if he wasnt.
Jabezhane	Posted - 2008.02.27 11:20:00 - [36] The insurance thing was obviously devised by someone with no real knowledge of how real world insurance works (yes I know its not real-world but bear with me). If when I was a motor claims handler, I had a claim submitted to me from someone in HM Prison Wormwood Scrubs claiming for damage to their car from using it in a ram raid or armed robbery we would have politely told them where to go. To be honest insurance shouldnt pay out if the insured item is destroyed whilst being used for criminal activities. However that would make a big change to the game dynamics and I would hope that it would only apply to highsec. Insurance is a pretty poor setup in Eve anyway.
Vanessa Vasquez Caldari planet eyeQ Ultio Animi Causa	Posted - 2008.02.27 12:14:00 - [37] Originally by: Jabezhane Insurance is a pretty poor setup in Eve anyway. Agreed. It should be a monthly charge and never expire till you cancel or the ship gets destroyed. Like in the real world ... if you loose a ship, you will pay more for your next insurance. If you don't loose a ship for a certain ammount of time, it will decrease.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.27 12:29:00 - [38] Originally by: Jabezhane The insurance thing was obviously devised by someone with no real knowledge of how real world insurance works (yes I know its not real-world but bear with me). If when I was a motor claims handler, I had a claim submitted to me from someone in HM Prison Wormwood Scrubs claiming for damage to their car from using it in a ram raid or armed robbery we would have politely told them where to go. To be honest insurance shouldnt pay out if the insured item is destroyed whilst being used for criminal activities. However that would make a big change to the game dynamics and I would hope that it would only apply to highsec. Insurance is a pretty poor setup in Eve anyway. You obviously no clue about insurance. What real world insurance company would insure a warship that regularly sees combat? Because thats what your missioning raven is, a warship, that regularly goes into combat. In fact the only eve ships that would get insurance are heavilly escorted haulers and freighters, moving in highsec only. Nothing else would get insured.
Zeros Omega Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.02.27 14:14:00 - [39] In my opinion, the problem isnt that freighters and haulers are being ganked. It is the simple fact of what people are moving. It is like fitting ships for pvp. In less you can afford to lose it, it should remain in a station. More in depth about what I am saying: The typical T1 Hauler costs around 800k for the hull, 50k for 2 WCS, 5m for 2-3 Expander T2s. PROBLEM. You just fit, on an 800k hull, more then 8 times it's value in modules. WHY WOULD ANYONE DO THIS?! It's because losing expanders is normal, they are cheap, available, no one really cares. But, what do you do next with your 800k hull, and 5m isk in mods? You put another 1-500m ISK into it with cargo! Now that is stupid. Freighters have about the same principle. Your hull is worth 850m or so, plus the hassle of getting a new one. Then you might put some Freighter Containers in it worth 2m. Totally acceptable. Maybe you use GSC, thats like 30m ISK worth, still it is reasonable. Nothing near the value of the ship. But then!!! you put BILLIONS OF ISK INTO A SHIP HULL WORTH 850m. Here is your problem. Even in real life, you dont put everything worth an excessive amount of money into the same shipment. Learn risk management, learn to put only about 1-1.5 bill worth of cargo into a freighter and make more runs because it is safer to you. Almost no one will suicide gank a freighter with only a billion in cargo when there will always be that idiot carrying 15 navy megas. --- History is written on the sands of Arrakis. A chapter has ended, swept away by the whirlwind. One door has closed, but another has opened. And on the other side... our future...
Skjorta	Posted - 2008.02.27 14:14:00 - [40] So 40 battleships, worth probably more than the freighter can gank it? no ****. Try using reasonable calculations instead of these outlandish numbers to try and desperately defend your point. Lets also not assume that every gank works, I've seen failed ganks where lots of ships were lost for nothing at all. How is that fair to them? Since everything must be fair. There are risks on both sides, just the way it should be imo.
agent apple Spartan Industries Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.27 14:29:00 - [41] The balance should be found exactly where it is right now. One ship can protect multiple freighters.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.02.27 15:19:00 - [42] Originally by: Dirk Magnum 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. You clearly don't understand how Concord works. The suicide gankers need have their target killed before Concord shows up.
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 16:09:00 - [43] 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.
William Alex Viscosity Vanguard.	Posted - 2008.02.27 16:20:00 - [44] Edited by: William Alex on 27/02/2008 16:21:02 Originally by: Dirk Magnum 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. The problem is that with the CURRENT game mechanics the attackers take a pitifuly low amount of loss when attempting a gank, and therefore the required amount of isk you have to be carrying is extremely low before you become a target. They should remove insurance payouts on concorded ships to at least make the scenario carry SOME risk for them. They woudn't throw away their bs on any and everything then and they'd only kill when what they were going for was worth something. EDIT: 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.
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 16:47:00 - [45] 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?
Willow Whisp Sadist Faction	Posted - 2008.02.27 17:27:00 - [46] Originally by: Jabezhane The insurance thing was obviously devised by someone with no real knowledge of how real world insurance works (yes I know its not real-world but bear with me). If when I was a motor claims handler, I had a claim submitted to me from someone in HM Prison Wormwood Scrubs claiming for damage to their car from using it in a ram raid or armed robbery we would have politely told them where to go. To be honest insurance shouldnt pay out if the insured item is destroyed whilst being used for criminal activities. However that would make a big change to the game dynamics and I would hope that it would only apply to highsec. Insurance is a pretty poor setup in Eve anyway. You know, you are absolutely right. I think, in order for any insurance to be valid, that you need to prove there wasn't any agression whatsoever on part of the lost ship. Since we are talking "Realistically" here, then the following should "Fix" insurance so that it follows proper "RL Insurance" procedures. 1) If you have agressed your attacker at all, insurance is void. 2) If CONCORD is summoned when your ship is lost, insurance is void. 3) If you have failed to take appropriate precautions to protect your cargo, insurance is void. 4) If you are involved in risky behavior, insurance is void. That basically covers all the bases, no? Let's look at the clauses the above would cover: * If you are engaged in PvP, and you get killrights on your attacker, then you get insurance, as you didn't agress your attacker. You were a victim here. * If you engage in PvP, but you do not get killrights, then you also loose insurance. Your ship logs indicate that you were engaged in aggressive acts, which voids the insurance. * If you loose your ship to NPCs, because you were firing on them, you loose your insurance. You were engaging in risky behavior. * If you loose your ship to NPCs without firing on them, (e.g. at a belt or at a mission where you aren't a damage dealer), then you get insurance. You were obviously a victim of the evil NPC Pirate Cartels. * If any of the following items are missing from an industrial hull, you loose insurance: Shiled Extender, Armor Plate, Damage Control. You obviously weren't taking proper precautions to secure your cargo. * If the value of your cargo is higher than the value of your ship, then you loose insurance. You obviously weren't taking proper precautions to secure your cargo. * If you loose your ship in low-security space, or lawless space, insurance is voided. You were involved in risky behavior. Am I missing anything here? -- Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes ^^ Woo hoo! Yellow Text!... wait... :(
William Alex Viscosity Vanguard.	Posted - 2008.02.27 18:05:00 - [47] Originally by: Matalino 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? 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.
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 18:48:00 - [48] 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?
William Alex Viscosity Vanguard.	Posted - 2008.02.27 18:59:00 - [49] 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.
Pans Exual Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.02.27 19:08:00 - [50] Please shut up about making eve insurance like real life insurance. It's kind of like how Concord aren't like real life police. This is Eve, deal with it.
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 19:17:00 - [51] 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.
Kevin Mulhol	Posted - 2008.02.27 19:18:00 - [52] Edited by: Kevin Mulhol on 27/02/2008 19:18:12 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?
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 19:24:00 - [53] 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?
Kevin Mulhol	Posted - 2008.02.27 19:32:00 - [54] Originally by: Matalino 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? Dunno really. I haven't used it because I heard it was, but it does work extrememly well.
Gimpb	Posted - 2008.02.27 21:06:00 - [55] Reading through this thread, two things seems obvious... 1. There are many effective freighter protection techniques. 2. Very juicy targets need to be protected, even in high sec. So it sure seems simple to me, solo flying a freighter full of juicy goodness out of jita sounds about like solo mining in low sec. Don't be shocked you got shot. However, if you take the precautions your cargo is worthy of, I have a feeling you're not going to be a suicide gank victim.
Letouk Mernel	Posted - 2008.02.27 21:28:00 - [56] Edited by: Letouk Mernel on 27/02/2008 21:30:25 Why should logistics efforts be irrelevant? Personally, I hate how in this game (and most others) one cannot defend anything. Due to the lack of collision. In RL, fleet of warships surrounding a cargo ship would make that cargo ship pretty safe; certainly the defensive screen will protect the cargo ship as much as it is able to. In EVE the battleships will be ignored, the hauler suicide-ganked, and then the loot removed with no problem, all due to game mechanics. I hate that. EDIT: 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.
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 21:53:00 - [57] 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?
Cipher7	Posted - 2008.02.27 22:02:00 - [58] Just armor/shield rep the freighter. Concord does the rest.
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 22:14:00 - [59] 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.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out	Posted - 2008.02.27 22:39:00 - [60] Originally by: Admiral Nova Edited by: Admiral Nova on 27/02/2008 09:35:27 Originally by: Gamesguy Any DST can tank one battleship, and any blockade runner can warp before even an inty can lock them. I watched a 22 day old armageddon pilot bump then smartbomb to death a viator. It took 7 seconds. Originally by: Gamesguy With 2-3 escorts you can make a freighter completely invulnerable. I'm sorry but you can't make anything invulnerable. Quote: 1 guy in a rapier, triple sensor booster(locking time) and a web. This will HUGELY increase your survival but: Quote: 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. Here's what you do. You scan the freighter as he undocks, you bump him and gank him, 14 BS's is enough, not 30, and they can look like part of the scenery in most busy systems, and when undocking the web 'trick' doesn't work. You should fricking know this, your own alliance does this all the time. Nice try though. High sec was never meant to be entirely safe. But it's about risk vs reward here, losing a T1 insured ship to concord is too cheap. Killing some guy in a shuttle with a T2 BPO should be easy, but not a specialised T2 transport ship, with less isk worth of risk than the ship itself is worth let alone any cargo. Even if it drops nothing, in an unoffical war it's still a win. That Viator pilot must be... inexperienced. Mine warps about as fast as an interceptor. When it gang-warps with a dual agility rig-fitted, nano'd buzzard, it actually arrives before the buzzard. Wait... was the Viator on autopilot? If so LOL what an idiot. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.

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.