These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Should High sec go away?

Author
Avvy
Doomheim
#181 - 2015-08-13 22:10:07 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Avvy wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Before answering your scenario,



I agree that it is a flawed metrc,



You don't need to answer it as we both know what the answer would be.

That was the point to show that it was flawed.

Your response doesn't answer the request for proof it was used. We have some stats from CCP, to which you objected to a portion stating PvP was difficult to account for and from the looks of it presented this flawed metric on your own. Hence the question, where was it supposedly used?



The kills came from what you said here below, because in PvE what else would you do with a ship you aggressed.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Also, no, the metric wasn't PvP, but rather being the aggressor, as in actually initiating ship to ship combat as far as player classification goes. That requires a ship be aggressed.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#182 - 2015-08-13 22:42:35 UTC
Tippia wrote:


Aside from all the warring going on, the reason you're seeing that many kills is exactly because of how hard ganking has become. In total, it's less than one gank and hour — in fact, it seems closer to one every other hour — but each of them results in a dozen or two kills being recorded. They're that many because that's the ludicrous amount of firepower you need to bring in order to execute a gank.

So in your opinion how FEW 10 mil isk destroyers with no defenses should it take to destroy a 6 billion isk ship with the best defenses it can fit?

"ludicrous amount of firepower" - You are kidding right?

IF CCP doubled the EHP on your chosen sitting ducks, you would still gank them - If CCP reduced EHP by 50% you would still complain it is too hard.


CCP has removed all risk from ganking and you still complain.
** Is it any wonder people laugh at gankers with their "we are entitled" attitudes.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#183 - 2015-08-13 22:47:58 UTC
Avvy wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Avvy wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Before answering your scenario,



I agree that it is a flawed metrc,



You don't need to answer it as we both know what the answer would be.

That was the point to show that it was flawed.

Your response doesn't answer the request for proof it was used. We have some stats from CCP, to which you objected to a portion stating PvP was difficult to account for and from the looks of it presented this flawed metric on your own. Hence the question, where was it supposedly used?



The kills came from what you said here below, because in PvE what else would you do with a ship you aggressed.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Also, no, the metric wasn't PvP, but rather being the aggressor, as in actually initiating ship to ship combat as far as player classification goes. That requires a ship be aggressed.


That never stated nor implied a direct 1 to 1 count be used, and was stated far after you brought up the subject of this activity miscount. So we still have no reference to where this actual classification of players occurred much less using this method.
Avvy
Doomheim
#184 - 2015-08-13 22:54:35 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

That never stated nor implied a direct 1 to 1 count be used, and was stated far after you brought up the subject of this activity miscount. So we still have no reference to where this actual classification of players occurred much less using this method.


You'll have to find someone else to troll now, as this discussion is terminated with you.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#185 - 2015-08-13 22:55:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Sgt Ocker wrote:
So in your opinion how FEW 10 mil isk destroyers with no defenses should it take to destroy a 6 billion isk ship with the best defenses it can fit?
Somewhere in the 5–10 range seems reasonable for a single large target.

Quote:
"ludicrous amount of firepower" - You are kidding right?
Not really, no. You have something in the region of 10–30 combat ships, depending on the type, to kill a single target, and even then it rather relies on the target being very stupid in its fitting and flying choices. That's pretty ludicrous.

Quote:
CCP has removed all risk from ganking and you still complain.
You're confusing ganking with hauling, and yes, the haulers still keep complaining even though they have never been safer. It's an endless stream of “just one more nerf” that will not end until they cannot be attacked at all.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#186 - 2015-08-13 22:56:10 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

So in your opinion how FEW 10 mil isk destroyers with no defenses should it take to destroy a 6 billion isk ship with the best defenses it can fit?


Hell, if you ask me, jump freighters should not be allowed in highsec at all. Besides that, cost is not a balancing factor, and suggesting it should be doesn't even border on insanity, it straight pole vaults over the border.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#187 - 2015-08-13 23:05:36 UTC
Avvy wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

That never stated nor implied a direct 1 to 1 count be used, and was stated far after you brought up the subject of this activity miscount. So we still have no reference to where this actual classification of players occurred much less using this method.


You'll have to find someone else to troll now, as this discussion is terminated with you.

So you never actually had a reason to believe stat gathering that was done by CCP was inaccurate, nor the statements made based upon it. Good to know.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#188 - 2015-08-13 23:59:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Sgt Ocker wrote:
So in your opinion how FEW 10 mil isk destroyers with no defenses should it take to destroy a 6 billion isk ship with the best defenses it can fit?
Value tanking is not an option, in real life or in Eve.

Quote:
"ludicrous amount of firepower" - You are kidding right?
15 or more Catalysts pushing circa 600 DPS each (total of 9k+ DPS) isn't a ludicrous amount of firepower?

Quote:
IF CCP doubled the EHP on your chosen sitting ducks, you would still gank them - If CCP reduced EHP by 50% you would still complain it is too hard.
If CCP doubled the EHP of the "sitting ducks" they would still get ganked, and it would require twice the amount of resources to do it; people like you would still complain that it's too easy to gank regardless. Gankers on the other hand wouldn't complain if EHP was halved, they'd just gank more people with less resources.

Quote:
CCP has removed all risk from ganking and you still complain.
Do you know what the word risk means? The chance of failure is a risk, the chance of the loot fairy keeping all the shiny loot and leaving all the crap is a risk, the chance of somebody interfering with them is a risk, etc, etc.

Quote:
** Is it any wonder people laugh at gankers with their "we are entitled" attitudes.
I don't see gankers shouting about being entitled to anything but that which they pay for, ie access to the servers, I do see their victims shouting "we are entitled to be safe in a PvP game"

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Joshua Calvert
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#189 - 2015-08-14 00:03:39 UTC
Risk sounds a bit like isk.

Makes you think.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#190 - 2015-08-14 02:32:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
So in your opinion how FEW 10 mil isk destroyers with no defenses should it take to destroy a 6 billion isk ship with the best defenses it can fit?
Value tanking is not an option, in real life or in Eve.

Try reading the post I responded to, then delete all your replies to my post - because none actually address what I posted.

Oh and seriously, value tanking works well, when "profit" is the motivator.

Ganking is quite well balanced when it is for profit. Of course when ganking is used as a pass time it is less balanced, as it should be.
The groups who gank for profit are very professional in how they go about it, isk is their driver.
If anyone who had the urge could go ganking it would mean the mechanics are not working and need to be balanced. Ganking has become an Eve "profession" and like everything else in eve, when you want to specialize in a profession you have to put in the time and effort to be successful.

Ganking is in the exact place it should be compared to the rest of Eve. You will only get out of it what you are prepared to put in. If ganking was, as has been suggested here, "too hard", no-one would be doing it.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#191 - 2015-08-14 02:35:05 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Try reading the post I responded to, then delete all your replies to my post - because none actually address what I posted.

His answers fit your post perfectly.
Petinator Holmes
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#192 - 2015-08-14 02:51:53 UTC
This has definitely been a popcorn worthy thread. Ganking in high sec is a pain.. it will always has been part of the game, and always will be. As people have said, there is nowhere in EVE that you should be completely safe from PvP.

That being said, as so many people like to say when a "carebear" comes to the forum complaining about being ganked in highsec, this is a PvP Sandbox game.

As a 75% PvE/ 25% PvPer, I am going to use this same line to all of the PvPers that seem to be moaning in this thread.. this is a SANDBOX game.. if players don't want to play the game how you want them to play the game, TOO BAD FOR YOU.

Even CCP can wipe their hands of the blame to a fair degree too.. they gave us a sandbox to play with.. the nullsec/low sec mega alliances and corporations that have done nothing but crap in their part of the sandbox, and are now more active on the forum complaining about lack of content, than carebears on the forum complaining about high sec camping.

With the douchebaggery, blue donut null space, blops and hotdrops, compulsory requirements for corp/alliance activities as well as ship doctrine and skill point requirements to join said corps.. why would any casual player want to be part of this?

I am seeing a lot of PvPers on this thread and a number of other threads having a cry because they have crapped in their part of the EVE sandbox and are upset that noone wants to play in their crappy part of the sandbox.

I have seen some suggestions about spreading out high sec more so that they are small islands in a sea of lowsec/nullsec chaos. It's a good idea in theory, however, this would not force the PvE players to PvP.. it would just condense the PvE population into these small islands of relative security (Never 100% safe which is as it should be)

I have to admit though, all of these PvP tears because people aren't playing the game how they want them to, are absolutely delicious Big smile
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#193 - 2015-08-14 02:52:46 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Try reading the post I responded to, then delete all your replies to my post - because none actually address what I posted.

His answers fit your post perfectly.

But don't address what I responded to.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#194 - 2015-08-14 02:59:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Try reading the post I responded to, then delete all your replies to my post - because none actually address what I posted.

His answers fit your post perfectly.

But don't address what I responded to.

…because he was responding to your post, not mine, and his response fits what you posted. So suggesting that he should delete his answers only suggests that you can't really respond satisfactorily.
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#195 - 2015-08-14 03:20:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Kinete Jenius
Tippia wrote:
Kinete Jenius wrote:
Frankly Uedama was extremely quiet during the time period you looked at it. Ganks in the pipeline areas have an ebb and flow to them with some days being absolutely slow while others seemingly endlessly ganked.
Nah. Even on the worst of days, when the gankers are out in force, it's less than one an hour. “Endless ganking” was what you saw in the olden days when you could just sit on the Jita undock and earn a fortune from stolen gank goods.

Quote:
Ganking pretty much has never been easier or cheaper.
It used to be free, or even inherently profitable, and it used to be done by a large number of groups because it didn't require much in the way of preparation or manpower. Now it costs a bundle, requires a ton of people, forces you to employ all kinds of strategies to make the gank be “safe”, and as a consequence, is only really done by a small handful of highly specialised groups.

Beyond the actual mechanic al reasons why you're wrong, you also have to look at the absurdity of the logic: if it was so easy and cheap, how come so few are doing it?

Quote:
Hypderdunking is legal and allows one person to gank fully tanked freighters with just a little preparation. This is in stark contrast to CCP's stance on prior "tricks" like boomeranging and such.
You're confusing contrast with absolute consistency. Boomeranging was an exploit because it avoided CONCORD retribution — something that has always been an exploit. Hyperdunking is legal exactly because it doesn't do that.

By definition if they are out there in force it's far more then one an hour. When they are serious it's one every 15 minutes or so due to limits imposed by the criminal mechanics.

People still endlessly gank in Jita. I know this because I'm friends with some of them.

Ganking is inherently profitable. I have friends who have sat on a gate just randomly ganking people and they ALWAYS end up making profit. IF they bother to scan the profit is just bigger.

You're living in the past where you actually needed people to gank tanked targets. Now to gank a +350,000 EHP ship you just need a couple accounts and some time to setup ships. Once you're setup you can pull the trigger at any time. You really should look into hyperdunking sometime.

I have gank alts on all my accounts and I have ganked with them. I've mostly ganked pvp fitted ships but there's been a few out of corp WT industrial in there. I can drop 7600 dps (no implants with t2 modules) for under 80m on a person. That's so cheap it's amazing.

Well in boomerranging you did eventually suffer at the hands of Concord. We could go into other similar exploits that CCP has ruled as being illegal but there's no point as CCP is the one with the final say.



EDIT : If you're spending over 8m for fitted catalysts you're getting ripped off. I noticed someone saying 10m per destroyer and that's just price gouging.
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#196 - 2015-08-14 03:30:49 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
This is just not true. Before the insurance nerf, people used to gank in battleships, sometimes even making money on the insurance alone. Heck, back In the golden age of ganking you could tank CONCORD.

Ganking is still probably closer to the historic lows than not. In 2012 Dr. Eyjo said Exhumer ganking was at an all time low, and highsec has only gotten safer since then.

Data from zKillboard show little increase in CONCORD response since the end of 2012 when the data became reliably delivered by API. The small increase in the last year or so is probably explained by the preference for freighter ganking which requires many more ships than the miner ganking that was the fashion before.

As for hyperdunking, it is something that has gone on for years, albeit usually against POS modules. It changes nothing about the cost equation of ganking - at best it reduces the number of players needed for a gank. Certainly, it is easily countered by practically any effort by the target - even a single friend in a pod can thwart the hyperdunk by stealing the gank ships.

If you do the math you'll see that tornados have just as much alpha as the gank battleships of old. Talos have FAR more dps then you could achieve with the gank battleships of old (easily +1300 without implants). Even accounting for the insurance change the actual cost is around the same as the days of old while having superior performance.


The rest of your post had nothing to do with what I said.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#197 - 2015-08-14 06:02:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Try reading the post I responded to, then delete all your replies to my post - because none actually address what I posted.
Excuse me?

There's only 3 instances where you get to dictate what I post on the forums.

1. When you're paying my sub
2. When you're a member of the ISD team
3. When you're a CCP employee

Until you meet one of the above criteria you can take a long walk out of an airlock without a pressure suit. My post was indeed relevant to what you posted, the fact that you don't like it is neither here nor there.

The fact that I removed the parts of your post that were contributed by Tippia should have made it blatantly obvious that I was addressing your post, not his.

Quote:
Oh and seriously, value tanking works well, when "profit" is the motivator.
Really? Please enlighten the rest of us as to how that works.

Quote:
Ganking is quite well balanced when it is for profit. Of course when ganking is used as a pass time it is less balanced, as it should be.
The groups who gank for profit are very professional in how they go about it, isk is their driver.
That would be 99+% of gankers then, if they weren't professional in their efforts then more of their efforts would fail. Incidentally profit isn't always fiscal.

Quote:
If anyone who had the urge could go ganking it would mean the mechanics are not working and need to be balanced. Ganking has become an Eve "profession" and like everything else in eve, when you want to specialize in a profession you have to put in the time and effort to be successful.
You mean like gankers do?

Quote:
Ganking is in the exact place it should be compared to the rest of Eve. You will only get out of it what you are prepared to put in. If ganking was, as has been suggested here, "too hard", no-one would be doing it.
So why all the angst over the playstyle of others when you've just stated that you believe their playstyle is exactly where it should be when compared to other playstyles?

You've just contradicted the post that I replied to btw, you previously stated that there is no risk in ganking and took umbrage when I pointed out exactly how wrong you were. Make up your mind and stop vacillating.

Nobody is saying that ganking is too hard, they're saying that it's considerably harder than it used to be.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Black Pedro
Mine.
#198 - 2015-08-14 06:24:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Kinete Jenius wrote:
If you do the math you'll see that tornados have just as much alpha as the gank battleships of old. Talos have FAR more dps then you could achieve with the gank battleships of old (easily +1300 without implants). Even accounting for the insurance change the actual cost is around the same as the days of old while having superior performance.

There were brief times in this game (during market changes) where you could self-destruct a battleship and make a profit on the insurance. Gankers during those times would actually get paid more than the cost of their hull for each gank. It was like a gank reimbursement from James 315, but from CCP!

No matter how cheap you think a Tornado is, it does not cost a negative amount of ISK.

Kinete Jenius wrote:

The rest of your post had nothing to do with what I said.

You said "Ganking pretty much has never been easier or cheaper." The rest of my post points out in detail how ganking is occurring near historic lows. If it has never been easier or cheaper, why are less people doing it?
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#199 - 2015-08-14 06:49:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Kinete Jenius wrote:
By definition if they are out there in force it's far more then one an hour. When they are serious it's one every 15 minutes or so due to limits imposed by the criminal mechanics.
When averaged out over a 24 hour period it comes to about one an hour, and that's rounded up. Taking yesterday (13th August) as an example, according to zkill there was a total of 28 "freighter" kills universe wide (zkill classes Orcas as freighters). Those 28 kills break down as follows
  • Freighter deaths (inc Orcas) in hisec - 21
  • Orca deaths in hisec - 3 leaving 18 actual freighters
  • Freighter deaths (inc Orcas) not in hisec - 7
  • Orca deaths not in hisec - 4 leaving 3 actual freighters

  • 18 actual freighters died in hisec over the 24hr period that made up the 13th August, even if we include the Orcas that's less than one an hour. I haven't bothered to check how many of those were ganks as opposed to wars, there was no need to.

    Quote:
    Ganking is inherently profitable. I have friends who have sat on a gate just randomly ganking people and they ALWAYS end up making profit. IF they bother to scan the profit is just bigger.
    It's called playing the odds, there is no guaranteed profit; the idiots that stuff their ships full of isk make up for the times when gankers gank something and take a loss either because the target was empty or the loot fairy was being particularly vindictive.

    Quote:
    You're living in the past where you actually needed people to gank tanked targets. Now to gank a +350,000 EHP ship you just need a couple accounts and some time to setup ships. Once you're setup you can pull the trigger at any time. You really should look into hyperdunking sometime.
    You should look into how ridiculously easy it is to disrupt a hyperdunk using a basic knowledge of game mechanics.

    Quote:
    I have gank alts on all my accounts and I have ganked with them. I've mostly ganked pvp fitted ships but there's been a few out of corp WT industrial in there. I can drop 7600 dps (no implants with t2 modules) for under 80m on a person. That's so cheap it's amazing.
    Expense isn't always measured fiscally, how many pilots do you need to drop that 7600 DPS on a ship? If you're using Catalysts it's a minimum of 10 which given the 15 minute GCC is a minimum of 2.5 man hours; on a side note destroying a war target is not ganking Shocked

    Quote:
    Well in boomerranging you did eventually suffer at the hands of Concord. We could go into other similar exploits that CCP has ruled as being illegal but there's no point as CCP is the one with the final say.
    With boomeranging you got to destroy multiple targets before Concord caught up to you, that is why it was an exploit.

    In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

    New Player FAQ

    Feyd's Survival Pack

    Tippia
    Sunshine and Lollipops
    #200 - 2015-08-14 07:34:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
    Kinete Jenius wrote:
    By definition if they are out there in force it's far more then one an hour. When they are serious it's one every 15 minutes or so due to limits imposed by the criminal mechanics.
    …but that's not what's happening, and if ganking was actually commonplace, you should be able to trivially find instances where it happened more often than 15 minutes. There are restrictions on how those mechanical limits apply that allow that to happen — guess what they are?

    Quote:
    Ganking is inherently profitable
    No. There is automatic loss but no automatic return. It used to be that ganks — indeed any ship loss — would automatically pay out more than you lost, often even with fittings included; this is no longer the case. No matter how cheaply you think you can do it, it is still infinitely more expensive than it was. The only way for ganking to be profitable these days is if the target decides it should be. This is nothing the gankers can control and it is yet another reason why we're seeing less than one happen per hour: a viable target actually has to make itself available at the right time and place, or the effort to set up the gank is wasted.

    Quote:
    You're living in the past where you actually needed people to gank tanked targets. Now to gank a +350,000 EHP ship you just need a couple accounts and some time to setup ships. Once you're setup you can pull the trigger at any time. You really should look into hyperdunking sometime.
    Maybe you shold look into hyperdunking and its outlawed cousin, especially if you think that it is in any way, shape, or form more effective or less costly or requires less preparation. It's a gimmick strategy that is easer than all other ones to evade, counter, or just outright survive.

    And again, this hugely inefficient strategy has been ruled legal because it relies on the mechanisms that were evaded by boomeranging — an evasion that automatically labelled boomeranging an exploit and which allowed it to do a whole lot more damage for a whole lot less than hyperdunking will ever do. The ruling is consistent; it also makes no real difference in how costly or difficult a gank is to pull off.

    Quote:
    If you do the math you'll see that tornados have just as much alpha as the gank battleships of old. Talos have FAR more dps then you could achieve with the gank battleships of old (easily +1300 without implants).
    Eh, not really no. That's kind of the point: the ABCs simply allow you to bring the same battleship-sized firepower package as before, but at a higher cost than before the insurance changes.