These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[February] Wreck Hitpoint Rebalance

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#201 - 2016-02-07 18:01:04 UTC
Nice change!

It's about time, too. The old wrecks were kind of silly in that respect. A giant titan wreck and a small frigate all the same after death? That was just dumb.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#202 - 2016-02-07 21:18:19 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
If anything ganking nee to be buffed not nerfed even more. You currently have a 99.9% chance of making the trip, in fact the chances are so small you are more likely to be injured in a car accident traveling home to play eve.
But you don't have a 99.9% chance because ganking is hard, risky or costly, you have a 99.9% chance because the amount of hauling done in the game significantly outweighs the amount of ganking being done. Take times like Burn Jita. Red frog significantly reduce how much hauling is done because the simple act of gankers being in the system puts too great a risk on their operation. If the problem was that haulers were difficult to gank, then they would operate as normal, knowing they are safe.

You say that ganking should be buffed because you like ganking and you're a carebear so you naturally want your gameplay to be easy. Unfortunately EVE is not designed to be easy.

baltec1 wrote:
Cry me a river. Its not lost on anyone here that you are currently kicking up a fuss over less risk and cost than gankers face.
Mate, I'm not "kicking up a fuss" over anything, I'm simply pointing out the fact that ganking is significantly easier and more rewarding than anti-ganking, and that this change only makes that more so. Your repeated refusal to prove that anti-ganking is in fact as easy as you claim is further proof of this. I understand that you don't like the idea of other people's content being balanced in such a way that gankers and anti-gankers have to fight on a level playing field, but come on, your rebuttals here are weak. Drop some of that bias and look at it objectively. I gank significantly more than I anti-gank exactly because it's ludicrously easy to do, and anti-ganking is a massive time waste, but I'm willing to point out the massive flaws in the gameplay that push me to that choice.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#203 - 2016-02-08 05:05:00 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Where did I say I wanted Mach bumping removed? Try reading what I wrote and responding to it.
Well bumping cannot be removed - it is an emergent property of the physics engine the game designers selected many years ago. Whining that bumpers have no additional risk than standard risk all ships have is all well and good, but there is no solution. The engine cannot determine the intentionality behind a bump, so if you make bumping "illegal", you will criminalize many incidental ship-to-ship contacts leading to much hilarity on the Jita undock amongst other places.

I am not even completely adverse to replacing bumping with another mechanic, but if you don't want bumping removed, there there is nothing that can be done to help you.
Sgt Ocker wrote:
As for freighters needing an escourt everywhere they go - I agree, but there needs to be a way for that escort to do more than just web off the freighter if it is in danger (Eve is a pvp game, not a "quick lets escape safely" game). You and others seem to be under the illusion bumping should not have any risk attached to it.
I am not under any such illusion. A bumping ship is under the exact same frisk as any other in this game. They can, and are, ganked by other players. Actually, it is quite profitable to do so.

Again, I have no problem with bumping being changed so that escorts can do more to respond than just gank. But that doesn't mean your mischaracterization of bumping as "risk-free" is true. If that was true, that would mean that hauling in an NPC corp is also risk-free since they are equally protected by CONCORD as the bumpers?

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Oh and just for interests sake - The DPS of a bumping mach is irrelevant, they never use it. (you might want to find out how bumping is done before commenting on it)
i know exactly how the mechanics of bumping work. My point was that freighters are the safest ships in the game as they require the most DPS to explode while under the protection of CONCORD. And they are: their massive EHP walls mean bumping is necessary to hold them long enough to get a criminal ganking fleet on top of them which you acknowledge when you said that without bumpers "most ganks would never happen".

Whether it is bumping or something else, there needs to be a way to interdict capital ships in highsec. Maybe that method should have a legal, CONCORD-approved response, but if bumping is removed, an equivalent mechanism will be put in place so criminals can still operate and thus freighters will continue to explode as they do now.

Freighters will continue to explode in highsec as is intended by the designers of this game.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

So you believe CCP will only ever increase the ease with which gankers pursue their activities? Well I suppose if they did change it to a risk vs reward activity they could likely lose a lot of subs from all the nulbears who have ganking alts.
I never said that but suicide gank is a fully intended mechanic. CCP had the opportunity to nerf freighter ganking just a few years ago when they rebalanced the ship class, and they chose not to. They could have given them the ability to fit a DCU to nerf ganking directly or an MJD to counter bumping but they didn't. Any change to bumping will have an equivalent method put in place to allow groups of plays to kill these capital ships.

I'll try to make my suggestion a little clearer for you.

BUMPERS face NO RISK at all from current legitimate game mechanics.
Ganking a bumper is in no way profitable. You kill the Mach, Concord kills you - Where is the profit?
Again you are under the illusion the most valuable ship in a gank fleet (bumpers) should remain invulnerable to legitimate attack while performing their role.

Freighters obviously aren't the safest ships - They can be set up to die by a ship that is invulnerable to legitimate attack, while performing an aggressive act. Any other form of aggressive act gains a suspect, limited engagement or criminal flag - Bumping is an aggressive act that has no legal ramifications.

I don't see why gankers would be so afraid of having to actually fight for the right to kill a ship that is not capable of defending itself. Oh wait, sorry they don't want ganking to be a "Risk vs Reward" (like just about everything else in Eve) activity, they want to use the cheapest ships possible with a known outcome and managed, well defined risk.
How un - Eve is that.

The only Machariel ganked in highsec in the past week, while 24 freighters are ganked in 36 hours - So, is ganking bumpers a "thing"?
What happens when you kill a bumping Mach?

-- - -- - -- - --
Suggestion;
A new type of aggression timer specifically so anyone in fleet with a freighter can freely engage someone passively attacking (bumping) it. Would simply mean, bumping has an associated element of risk that can be managed by force (eve game play) by both sides.
The bumper should face the same inherent risk of getting killed as the freighter he is setting up to die.

Scenario - Freighter pilot hires an antigank fleet (or has corp mates in fleet) to escort him to trade hub. Bump Mach bumps freighter off alignment, Mach becomes vulnerable to attack by freighters fleet mates, Mach calls in assistance to fight those in fleet with freighter, Eve game play (PVP) secured - there is a fight over the safe passage of a freighter.

Not every freighter pilot will bother with a defensive fleet (lazy, believe they'll be safe, too busy with spreadsheets) so the opportunity for risk free bumping still arises as the aggression timer is only visible to the freighter pilot and his fleet, or lack thereof.


Sounds ridiculous right, why should the guy setting up the gank face any legitimate risk?

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.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#204 - 2016-02-08 06:14:04 UTC
Creating such an "bumping aggression flag" is impossible without breaking the CrimeWatch 2.0 safety settings and opening a loophole so bad guys can now flag innocent targets and get CONCORD-free kills by getting targets to bump themselves suspect. If you want bumpers to have more risk, you will have to change the whole highsec capital interdiction mechanics, not add an easily exploitable way to make people go suspect in highsec.

This is completely off-topic, so if you have such an idea, I suggest you raise it in the appropriate forum so it can be discussed properly. Otherwise, I suggest you stop whining and use the existing mechanics to bring risk to the bumpers by exploding them like the gankers choose to do for the haulers under the exact same rule set.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
NorthCrossroad
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#205 - 2016-02-08 07:24:14 UTC
Like the idea, but values for bigger ships still look a bit low.

30k HP is really not that much for a titan, that usually is used in fleet warfare. I'd suggest something like:
- BC - 10k
- Dread - 25k
- SC - 70k
- Titan - 120k
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#206 - 2016-02-08 10:15:37 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
If anything ganking nee to be buffed not nerfed even more. You currently have a 99.9% chance of making the trip, in fact the chances are so small you are more likely to be injured in a car accident traveling home to play eve.
But you don't have a 99.9% chance because ganking is hard, risky or costly, you have a 99.9% chance because the amount of hauling done in the game significantly outweighs the amount of ganking being done. Take times like Burn Jita. Red frog significantly reduce how much hauling is done because the simple act of gankers being in the system puts too great a risk on their operation. If the problem was that haulers were difficult to gank, then they would operate as normal, knowing they are safe.

You say that ganking should be buffed because you like ganking and you're a carebear so you naturally want your gameplay to be easy. Unfortunately EVE is not designed to be easy.

baltec1 wrote:
Cry me a river. Its not lost on anyone here that you are currently kicking up a fuss over less risk and cost than gankers face.
Mate, I'm not "kicking up a fuss" over anything, I'm simply pointing out the fact that ganking is significantly easier and more rewarding than anti-ganking, and that this change only makes that more so. Your repeated refusal to prove that anti-ganking is in fact as easy as you claim is further proof of this. I understand that you don't like the idea of other people's content being balanced in such a way that gankers and anti-gankers have to fight on a level playing field, but come on, your rebuttals here are weak. Drop some of that bias and look at it objectively. I gank significantly more than I anti-gank exactly because it's ludicrously easy to do, and anti-ganking is a massive time waste, but I'm willing to point out the massive flaws in the gameplay that push me to that choice.


You say bumping is super easy and risk free yet when we say you can use to defend freighters it's suddenly too hard and risky. You say ganking is risk free and super easy yet when you are told to gank a wreck it's suddenly too risky and hard.

Not a very compelling argument you have there.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#207 - 2016-02-08 10:57:49 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


You say bumping is super easy and risk free yet when we say you can use to defend freighters it's suddenly too hard and risky. You say ganking is risk free and super easy yet when you are told to gank a wreck it's suddenly too risky and hard.

Not a very compelling argument you have there.
Much like the other argument. It's wrong of us to expect freighter pilots to use a webber, but we should introduce game breaking and loophole enabling changes. Then all of a sudden freighter pilots will be calling in fleets. But if they don't then they apparently deserve the risk.

Which is nothing like what we're suggesting now, is it? RollLol

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#208 - 2016-02-08 11:45:21 UTC
The balance isn't between ganking and anti-ganking.

It's between the gankers and the 'gankee' (e.g. freighter). It takes:

. 1 ship (webber) to reduce gank probability to almost zero, 1 human player can easily manage both webber and freighter
. About a dozen or so ships/players to attempt a successful freighter gank

Seems quite favorable to the freighter to me.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#209 - 2016-02-08 12:41:13 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
BUMPERS face NO RISK at all from current legitimate game mechanics.
Ganking a bumper is in no way profitable. You kill the Mach, Concord kills you - Where is the profit?


You can't gank if it's not profitable? Oh no,CODE.'s been doing it wrong all this time! Also nobody ever fits deadspace MWDs on bumping machs, it's unheard of! And suppose they did, why you'd have to loot the wreck and everyone knows that's impossible!

Oh wait, hadn't this thread turned into mostly whining about looting ganks being supposedly easy and risk free?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#210 - 2016-02-08 14:02:16 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
You say bumping is super easy and risk free yet when we say you can use to defend freighters it's suddenly too hard and risky. You say ganking is risk free and super easy yet when you are told to gank a wreck it's suddenly too risky and hard.

Not a very compelling argument you have there.
I didn't say bumping was "too risky and hard" for anti-gankers, it's simply pointless. It simply leaves the gankers going after a different target while the anti-ganker is bumping a ship they have no intention of ganking.

Ganking a wreck is a guaranteed zero return activity, and getting it done in the half second it takes someone to open the wreck and hammer the take all button is incredibly difficult even without the HP rebalance, leaving the only real option to get rid of the loot as "steal it faster" which is a bad idea when next to a whole group of flash reds. Also, let's face it, if the opposing mechanic to ganking is also ganking, then the game hasn't got much depth.

Again, your rebuttals are weak, because you're ignoring the point I'm making which is that both sides should have good ways of fighting against each other while it's currently very much one sided in favour of the gankers. The reason you can't come up with a compelling counterargument is that you know arguing against the existence of competitive content is dumb.

So why is it you have such an opposition to ganking and anti-ganking being able to directly compete with effort and skill based mechanics? If the anti-gankers put in more effort than the gankers, they should be able to win at the very least half of the time, instead of how it currently is, where the absolute best anti-gankers "win" a tiny fraction of the time and are rewarded with nothing, while gankers can put in basically no effort (most are just F1 monkeys) win most of the time and make a hefty amount of isk in the process, all while using cheap disposable ships on alts.

Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
The balance isn't between ganking and anti-ganking.

It's between the gankers and the 'gankee' (e.g. freighter). It takes:

. 1 ship (webber) to reduce gank probability to almost zero, 1 human player can easily manage both webber and freighter
. About a dozen or so ships/players to attempt a successful freighter gank

Seems quite favorable to the freighter to me.
But it should be between the gankers and the anti-gankers since those are the opposing sides of the mechanic. The target is pretty much passive. It's like taking a moon, it isn't between a group and the POS, it's between two groups fighting over the POS. Also, this change isn't affecting the ability of freighters, it's directly nerfing the ability of anti-gankers to attack the revenue stream of gankers.

A webber doesn't reduce the probably to nearly zero, since there are so many other factors in play. I'd been involved in many a gank against people using webbers, they do happen a fair bit. Even just a fast locking suicide tackle can render the web useless. Using a webber makes other people more favorable targets, sure, but they don't make you immune to ganking.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#211 - 2016-02-08 14:19:48 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Ganking a wreck is a guaranteed zero return activity, and getting it done in the half second it takes someone to open the wreck and hammer the take all button...



We don't do that you know. Well obviously you don't know, but we don't do that. That's a great way to turn a looting freighter into a lossmail.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#212 - 2016-02-08 14:50:35 UTC
Masao Kurata wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Ganking a wreck is a guaranteed zero return activity, and getting it done in the half second it takes someone to open the wreck and hammer the take all button...
We don't do that you know. Well obviously you don't know, but we don't do that. That's a great way to turn a looting freighter into a lossmail.
It's close enough in most instances. The point being made (that you are wildly attempting to avoid) is that it takes such a short amount of time to loot that even with the old HP most attempts to volley the loot failed, and increasing the amount of damage required to destroy the wreck increases the amount of time it takes to destroy, so makes it even less likely to occur.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#213 - 2016-02-08 16:18:30 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
The balance isn't between ganking and anti-ganking.

It's between the gankers and the 'gankee' (e.g. freighter). It takes:

. 1 ship (webber) to reduce gank probability to almost zero, 1 human player can easily manage both webber and freighter
. About a dozen or so ships/players to attempt a successful freighter gank

Seems quite favorable to the freighter to me.
But it should be between the gankers and the anti-gankers since those are the opposing sides of the mechanic. The target is pretty much passive. It's like taking a moon, it isn't between a group and the POS, it's between two groups fighting over the POS. Also, this change isn't affecting the ability of freighters, it's directly nerfing the ability of anti-gankers to attack the revenue stream of gankers.
If the target is pretty much passive he deserves to diaf. :)

But seriously, Shouldn't anti-ganking be like, anti ganking? What's the point of destroying wrecks if the target died anyway?

Or shouldn't anti-gankers loot the wreck themselves and give it back to the victim?


I don't know Lucas, if shooting at wrecks is all they do, anti-ganking is pretty much a failure.

I mean, if I were a freighter pilot I would consider them all but useless.


Why don't they do a real anti-ganking service, instead? Charging freighter pilots like CODE does? I think a dozen or so competent dudes could easily shut off ganking in a system like Uedama with ECM, reps, concord spawning (if it's legit), some spying (ganker fleets are quite open, aren't they?), etc.

Don't mean to take sides here, but to an external observer gankers look like a fun bunch, decently organized and competent. While anti-gankers don't seem to be doing their job at all!

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Cuttlefish Collective
#214 - 2016-02-08 16:33:15 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
[quote=Gully Alex Foyle]The balance isn't between ganking and anti-ganking.

It's between the gankers and the 'gankee' (e.g. freighter). It takes:

. 1 ship (webber) to reduce gank probability to almost zero, 1 human player can easily manage both webber and freighter
. About a dozen or so ships/players to attempt a successful freighter gank

Seems quite favorable to the freighter to me.

Charging freighter pilots like CODE does? I think a dozen or so competent dudes could easily shut off ganking in a system like Uedama with ECM, reps, concord spawning (if it's legit), some spying (ganker fleets are quite open, aren't they?), etc.


They try to rep, ecm, and they still fail... Failing is pretty much the only thing they're good at (oh and whining on the forums) Cool

Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#215 - 2016-02-08 16:39:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
If the target is pretty much passive he deserves to diaf. :)
True enough. But if someone wants to kill the passive player and someone else wants to defend him that should be a level fight.

Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
But seriously, Shouldn't anti-ganking be like, anti ganking? What's the point of destroying wrecks if the target died anyway?

Or shouldn't anti-gankers loot the wreck themselves and give it back to the victim?


I don't know Lucas, if shooting at wrecks is all they do, anti-ganking is pretty much a failure.

I mean, if I were a freighter pilot I would consider them all but useless.
Absolutely. They absolutely should be able to directly compete with the gankers over the loss of the freighter in the first place. They however can't. Ganking mechanics are such that anti-gankers need a miracle just to be on grid with the ganker during the 20 second window the gank occurs, unless the gankers are being shockingly obvious about what they are hitting. Most anti-ganking ships align, warp and target slower than ganking ships.

Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Why don't they do a real anti-ganking service, instead? Charging freighter pilots like CODE does? I think a dozen or so competent dudes could easily shut off ganking in a system like Uedama with ECM, reps, concord spawning (if it's legit), some spying (ganker fleets are quite open, aren't they?), etc.
You should really try it. A dozen or so competent dudes would rapidly realise that they are fighting an impossible battle. The reason that more competent players don't anti-gank is because they know well enough that the mechanics suck and there's little chance of success and a low chance of reward. Even if they do manage to get on grid at the right time, they have reps which are much lower hp/s than the damage coming in and chance based mechanics like ECM. At best they can make the gankers need to throw a few more catalysts in to get it done, and at 2m a pop, that's hardly a problem.

Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Don't mean to take sides here, but to an external observer gankers look like a fun bunch, decently organized and competent. While anti-gankers don't seem to be doing their job at all!
That's exactly how it is, because anyone with an ounce of sense chooses to do ganking or at the very least not bother with anti-ganking. It's one sided gameplay, so naturally it looks one sided.

Dom Arkaral wrote:
They try to rep, ecm, and they still fail... Failing is pretty much the only thing they're good at (oh and whining on the forums) Cool
Thanks for supporting the point I am making.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#216 - 2016-02-08 18:49:59 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Absolutely. They absolutely should be able to directly compete with the gankers over the loss of the freighter in the first place. They however can't. Ganking mechanics are such that anti-gankers need a miracle just to be on grid with the ganker during the 20 second window the gank occurs, unless the gankers are being shockingly obvious about what they are hitting. Most anti-ganking ships align, warp and target slower than ganking ships.


It's not mechanics, it's just that no competent players find the AG cause attractive. Preventing ganks is easy, profiting from other people's ganks is easy, increasing ganker losses is easy. You're just all terrible at EVE.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#217 - 2016-02-08 19:05:06 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:



Why don't they do a real anti-ganking service, instead? Charging freighter pilots like CODE does? I think a dozen or so competent dudes could easily shut off ganking in a system like Uedama with ECM, reps, concord spawning (if it's legit), some spying (ganker fleets are quite open, aren't they?), etc.

Don't mean to take sides here, but to an external observer gankers look like a fun bunch, decently organized and competent. While anti-gankers don't seem to be doing their job at all!


Not gonna happen because the gankee think he should not get ganked in the first place so he won't pay to maybe be defended.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#218 - 2016-02-08 19:08:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Masao Kurata wrote:
It's not mechanics, it's just that no competent players find the AG cause attractive. Preventing ganks is easy, profiting from other people's ganks is easy, increasing ganker losses is easy. You're just all terrible at EVE.
Prove it then, Mr Competent. If it's so easy you should have no problem demonstrating how an anti-gank group should operate competitively and with good rewards.

The reality is though that more competent people don't AG because it's insanely difficult to do and less rewarding that pretty much every other activity. You pretty much have to be nuts to choose that as a playstyle.

Frostys Virpio wrote:
Not gonna happen because the gankee think he should not get ganked in the first place so he won't pay to maybe be defended.
Well the main thing is that they won't pay because there would be a 99.9999999999999% chance it's a scam.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#219 - 2016-02-08 19:44:41 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Prove it then, Mr Competent. If it's so easy you should have no problem demonstrating how an anti-gank group should operate competitively and with good rewards.


Again, red freight has a 99.9% success rate and sell their service very well. There is your evidence that its not only possible to beat gankers but to render them a none issue.
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#220 - 2016-02-08 19:50:35 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Prove it then, Mr Competent. If it's so easy you should have no problem demonstrating how an anti-gank group should operate competitively and with good rewards.


Why should I do your job for you? I'm a ganker and I like most of my fellow gankers. To date none have annoyed me enough to want to ruin their days at the expense of less bears dying.