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
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.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.27 22:42:00 - [61] Originally by: Kevin Mulhol 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. CCP has stated that it is not considered an exploit.
Tsanse Kinske WeMeanYouKnowHarm	Posted - 2008.02.27 22:49:00 - [62] 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. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams, writing about EVE
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.27 23:10:00 - [63] 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.
Terradoct Gallente The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2008.02.27 23:18:00 - [64] Let concord charge every pilot that where involved in destruction of non war\flaged ship. Say 40 BS gank Frighter wich cost say 700mil (default mineral price), after it destruction, ich and every one of 40 pilots will resive bill of 700mil (or any other sum, this can be balanced) in there wallet, that sum will be deducted from there accounts. Exeptions will be made to ally and corp pilots and thouse who are in positve standing with victim. That way you need to bring less ships, frighter will die but not under fire in 1 or 3 valley wich means that frighter escort could defend it untill concord arrivle by using logistic's and\or EW ships. Frighters with escort will be safe only if gankers seek profit in such action, if they here to ruin frighter pilot fun, they can bring as much ships as they wish. The idea is that not only insurence company pay for destruction, but also pilots that suicidgank other person will pay (they will be charged by concord). How much person must pay to concord can be balance so that it will not bankropt pilot but make it to think how and wich frighter gank and how much ships bring.
Tsanse Kinske WeMeanYouKnowHarm	Posted - 2008.02.28 00:04:00 - [65] Originally by: Matalino 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. ... Sorry about that, I misinterpreted the intent of your post. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams, writing about EVE
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.02.28 01:23:00 - [66] 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. 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. Now, particularly since freighters have zero means of self defense on their own I think it would be reasonable for the cost of a successful freighter gank to be close to equal to the freighter cost if not more but let's say about 1 billion ISK to the gankers to pull off. How you manage to get to that cost is open to debate (no insurance payout, increase defense on the freighter, lower the cost of freighters, whatever). 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). Allow guards to share shields so the guards take damage or "pull" the target on the freighter to them or detect a cargo scan on the freighter or something (not saying those are good ideas...just something to let guards be effective guards and not just there to pop your wreck if you get ganked). Also realize asking haulers to have equivalent guards to the gankers wherever they go is very unreasonable. Just will not happen. If you do not believe me (whoever) get yourself a freighter and make daily runs of 20+ jumps and see how many of your corpmates will escort you (I already know the answer to this...almost none but go find out for yourself). If there is one thing combat pilots seem to hate even more than mining it is escorting freighters around. Fine once a month for some hugely valuable haul but not as a daily thing which haulers often do. And if you still think haulers should have 20 guards wherever they go careful for what you wish for and consider how that will add cost to everything built in EVE. A LOT of cost. In short allow ganks but give freighters and some small(ish) guard a reasonable chance at avoiding/foiling the gank. AFK slow boats can still get popped like always and have it coming.
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.02.28 01:48:00 - [67] 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.
Kazaux Aux House of Tempers	Posted - 2008.02.28 03:49:00 - [68] Edited by: Kazaux Aux on 28/02/2008 03:50:56 Hey, why not make it so it takes time to scan a cargohold? 1 second per 100m3 (can be changed, just a number) stuff will only show up if you successfully scan it. If you have a freighter filled with high price items then it will be more easily detected, yet if you only have a few high priced items, it will be less likely to detect and thus making it harder to see if you have anything good. just a thought to make it slightly more balanced but making it still all easily possible. this just makes sense because you couldn't realistically do an instant cargo scan to get every item in its hold
Aindrias Amarr Labteck Corporation LTD. Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2008.02.28 07:23:00 - [69] Suicide Ganking should be just that... Suicide.. ultimately in this game, no one cares if they die.. you just come back.. and this case you may have even made money. So if you suicide someone, you should die, totally and utterly. I know it's not going to happen and people who like to name it "Suicide" will go on with their self-righteousness "WAAAA, lemme do what I want" attitude, but one might dream. Incidently, I haven't lost a freighter to anyone, but some idiot thought it was a good idea to target my Cov Ops ship when I entered Jita. If I die in PvP, I usually lose ISK, not earn it. This is were the game balance gets FUBAR'd. CONCORD provides consequences, not safety, well, no one cares about the consquences, so, I guess that statement is all of useless. If people thought like most normal "people" consequences would equal safety... like... drive too fast on a road, GET CAUGHT, get a speeding ticket.. type stuff, not get 20 of my friends and suicide gank someone and earn money. That sounds like this... Drive too fast and get a bonus for doing it... which is not normal. Yes, I'm literally comparing Suicide Gankers to psychotic criminals who care nothing about social standards or conseqences and the "system" we all play in, not only allows to happen, it encourages it. Heck, you haven't even paid CONCORD off to start a war! Why should you be able to profit by shooting someone in hisec w/o the WAR function when THERE IS THE WAR FUNCTION, which ALLOWS you to shoot in hisec? Yes, people get away with crimes everyday in both Eve and the real world, but if in front of the cops, they shouldn't get paid for it. Maybe go to the low sec space in between nullsec and hisec and gank there.. that makes more sense ffs! READY FOR FLAMES
Kia Rash Minmatar The Phalanx Expeditionary Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.28 15:22:00 - [70] the part of logistics beign useless is a utter lie, a while back we escorted very high value freighter(think it was at 4.6b cargo) trough high sec. we were escorting it in 7 bs's and 1 cs, the bs all had armor reppers and cap mods and could run the reppers infinitly. with the cs also webbing and the bs's repping it looked as a heavy target to hit, but even after we were sure we had to been have scanned a few times(lone frigates at gates and 15-20 bs's in probe range) no one dared to attack. the moral: most peopple dont play this game with eft in theyre minds, we knew that even with us all repping, about 22-25 bs's could take it out, but luckily the gankers didn't. just having escorts will make you a less viable target, even 1 bs could trash your can before anyone can get to it, and most gankers know that.
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Worms Corp	Posted - 2008.02.29 02:33:00 - [71] no insurance for concord gank would definatly be the best solution and it wouldnt be a direct nerf to high sec ganks, it would just make gankers choose a target of more worthy value. i mean a Freighter full of Trit wouldnt cover the value of 15+ battleships. now i dont know who would move 700k m/3 + trit at once but well ya get the point.
deathatlaby	Posted - 2008.02.29 05:03:00 - [72] Edited by: deathatlaby on 29/02/2008 05:03:11 sorry

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.