These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Anthar Thebess
#221 - 2016-02-08 20:02:41 UTC
How many freighters are killed by suicide gank fleets outside of +2j from uedama or niarja?
Few per month.
If someone is choosing to move a freighter by a known gank system it is his decision.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#222 - 2016-02-08 21:19:54 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
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.
Except as we've already covered, it doesn't. All it shows is there are vastly more hauler trips than gank attempts. The fact that Red Frog cannot operate as normal during Burn Jita categorically proves that they cannot render gankers a non issue. Why don't you fetch some statistics on how many ganks occur vs how many anti-gank attempts are successful. As your side of this discussion is keen to point out, the only thing AGs are good at is failing, so I think you'll find similar numbers there.

Masao Kurata wrote:
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.
In other words, you can't prove it and your suggestion that competence is the issue is nothing more than a desperate attack. Thanks for playing, try harder next time.

Anthar Thebess wrote:
How many freighters are killed by suicide gank fleets outside of +2j from uedama or niarja?
Few per month.
If someone is choosing to move a freighter by a known gank system it is his decision.
Well technically it's CCPs decision since they specifically designed the flow of highsec to create bottlenecks when moving between faction controlled areas. That still has no impact however on the fact that anti-gankers have very little in the way of balanced mechanics to compare with gankers.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Cuttlefish Collective
#223 - 2016-02-08 21:36:09 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
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.
Except as we've already covered, it doesn't. All it shows is there are vastly more hauler trips than gank attempts. The fact that Red Frog cannot operate as normal during Burn Jita categorically proves that they cannot render gankers a non issue. Why don't you fetch some statistics on how many ganks occur vs how many anti-gank attempts are successful. As your side of this discussion is keen to point out, the only thing AGs are good at is failing, so I think you'll find similar numbers there.

Masao Kurata wrote:
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.
In other words, you can't prove it and your suggestion that competence is the issue is nothing more than a desperate attack. Thanks for playing, try harder next time.

Anthar Thebess wrote:
How many freighters are killed by suicide gank fleets outside of +2j from uedama or niarja?
Few per month.
If someone is choosing to move a freighter by a known gank system it is his decision.
Well technically it's CCPs decision since they specifically designed the flow of highsec to create bottlenecks when moving between faction controlled areas. That still has no impact however on the fact that anti-gankers have very little in the way of balanced mechanics to compare with gankers.


AG can be good, if they can get decent FCS, enough people willing to rep or alpha or whatever

But AG kicks everyone that has a clue about the game, so AG will stay bad

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

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist

Sasha Cohenberg
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
Freighter Friends
#224 - 2016-02-08 21:42:18 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 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.



Alright this one paragraph here shows that you don't know what you're talking about.
Its actually faster to lock and shoot a wreck than it is to click the wreck, and then click loot all
locking takes 1 tick minimum
looting takes more

also yes while ganking a wreck has zero return, the cost is about 1.5 million isk per wreck gank. Maybe throw in some ratting or tags every 50 wreck ganks.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#225 - 2016-02-08 21:42:33 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
How many freighters are killed by suicide gank fleets outside of +2j from uedama or niarja?
Few per month.
If someone is choosing to move a freighter by a known gank system it is his decision.


The tools to anti-gank are also there anyway. Beside the obvious options like webbing the freighter into warp, a freighter with resist amp fitted can use remote armor rep cruiser to "kite" the concord timer and survive for example. People are just not willing to cooperate to do this in an efficient way because "I'm not gonna be the next one to blow up" mean nobody take the risk seriously. Everybody expect someone else to be the poor chap to go boom so they will go freely across.

Information warfare boosted rooks can mess up with talos' targeting for example but people don't want to put the effort in for the very low chance that it will be needed.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#226 - 2016-02-08 22:58:47 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Except as we've already covered, it doesn't.


You putting your fingers in your ears does not change the fact its very very safe for freighters.

Lucas Kell wrote:

All it shows is there are vastly more hauler trips than gank attempts. The fact that Red Frog cannot operate as normal during Burn Jita categorically proves that they cannot render gankers a non issue.


Got any evidence for that bold claim?

Lucas Kell wrote:

Why don't you fetch some statistics on how many ganks occur vs how many anti-gank attempts are successful. As your side of this discussion is keen to point out, the only thing AGs are good at is failing, so I think you'll find similar numbers there.



99.9% rate of delivery, red freight escort their ships not only because its safer flying with a web alt but also faster. In every whine post by AG we see a total lack of knowledge, effort and willpower. You refuse to use any tactic claiming its too risky, expensive or hard to do. Meanwhile gankers are using anti gank tactics and red freight is enjoying massive success.

Answer this, if red freight are able to reduce the risk of ganking to as close to 0 as you can get then why cant you?
Mag's
Azn Empire
#227 - 2016-02-08 23:25:54 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Answer this, if red freight are able to reduce the risk of ganking to as close to 0 as you can get then why cant you?
:EFFORT:

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#228 - 2016-02-08 23:43:27 UTC
Dom Arkaral wrote:
AG can be good, if they can get decent FCS, enough people willing to rep or alpha or whatever

But AG kicks everyone that has a clue about the game, so AG will stay bad
No, they really can't.

Sasha Cohenberg wrote:
Alright this one paragraph here shows that you don't know what you're talking about.
Its actually faster to lock and shoot a wreck than it is to click the wreck, and then click loot all
locking takes 1 tick minimum
looting takes more
Indeed, locking takes a tick, as does the shot landing, as does opening a container and clicking the loot button. So back before this change the two were somewhat similar in speed, as evidenced by the occasional success of the loot gank. Following the change however, insta-locking and wrecking 15k HP in the first tick is unlikely, and certainly at a much higher cost than 1.5m, and likely more than the what, 100m it costs to gank a freighter if we're being overly generous?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#229 - 2016-02-08 23:55:19 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
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.



There is no highsec capital interdiction mechanic - A "Mechanic" implies risk. Bumping is something gankers found to be risk free so use it and CCP lets them continue to use a half made mechanic because it suits them to do so.
If bumping were a legit mechanic, it would be ok but bumping in Eve makes absolutely no sense- If you bump into something that weights 10X more than you at speed, you should take damage but as Devs can't calculate that, a specific (read specific = available to a set group) flag to enable fleet members to attack something that has committed an aggressive act on a freighter in the fleet would mean bumping is no longer a risk free mechanic.

Why should those trying to protect a freighter from gankers have to become gankers to do so? The bumper is committing an act of aggression in highsec, there should be consequences for that

I really don't get how some people can play this game with such pure narrow mindedness.

As for starting a thread - At Pedros suggestion

Oh and Pedro; If you had actually read what I wrote you would see what you imply would be next to impossible to pull off. It would not break the all but ineffective "crime watch 2.0" as only a neutral party hitting a freighter would get flagged, sure an individual could push a ship into a freighter causing it to bump and be flagged but all that would happen is those in fleet with the freighter could legally kill it, Without Concord intervention.

Scenario;
I am in fleet with a freighter, I see you sitting 10K from the freighter as we jump. I bump you into the freighter, you get a timer to my fleet, leaving us free to engage you. No Concord needed - You were forced to get flagged (with a mechanic that has no repercussions) and you either win the "legal" if not slyly gained, engagement or you die.
Hmm interesting, baiting with freighters in highsec.. Anti gankers have a legitimate way to kill bumpers, Oh the horror of it all, the risk free mach bumper is no longer completely risk free)

PS; Nothing is impossible, the concept of - Flagged to a specific group = NO Concord intervention.
Suggestion, sit in a quiet place with a cup of coffee and read what my suggestion entailed, you'll see, while it is exploitable to an extent (although not as exploitable as risk free bumping in Machs), it does not involve Concord at all (it actually creates opportunity for PVP). You need someone to bump a Freighter to initiate a flagged response, that flag is only visible to those in the freighters fleet and the bumpers fleet. The guy who bumped you into the freighter can only freely engage (no concord) if they are in one of those fleets.

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.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#230 - 2016-02-09 00:01:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
baltec1 wrote:
You putting your fingers in your ears does not change the fact its very very safe for freighters.
You providing random unrelated statistics does not change the fact that ganking is far easier and more rewarding than anti-ganking. I'm not really sure why every time you get into a corner you just throw out random statistics and repeatedly point at them, but it really doesn't help your case.

baltec1 wrote:
Got any evidence for that bold claim?
You mean other than the massive warnings stating that on their site every time there's a Burn Jita, or the fact that their queue jumps into Kraken status? I think that's enough to be honest.

baltec1 wrote:
99.9% rate of delivery, red freight escort their ships not only because its safer flying with a web alt but also faster. In every whine post by AG we see a total lack of knowledge, effort and willpower. You refuse to use any tactic claiming its too risky, expensive or hard to do. Meanwhile gankers are using anti gank tactics and red freight is enjoying massive success.
Except again, you are talking about the statistics of hundreds of thousands of freighter runs, all at a relatively low value against a small number of pilots who choose to engage in ganking. With that many trips the percentage will be low, regardless of how out of balance the mechanics are. Again though you're trying to twist the topic not only to the ability of freighter pilots to proactively work to reduce the chances of being selected as a target, but specifically the group best trained in doing so in the entire game.

baltec1 wrote:
Answer this, if red freight are able to reduce the risk of ganking to as close to 0 as you can get then why cant you?
I've never been ganked, this whole discussion has nothing to do with me being ganked, hell it has nothing to do with any freighter being ganked. The conversation is about how gankers have easy, fun and rewarding gameplay, while anti-gankers have incredibly difficult and unrewarding gameplay, and your desire to keep that status quo. Answer this: If EVE is supposed to be a game about being tough, challenging and unforgiving, why are you so afraid of having to put in a bit of effort to fight off an opposing group on a level playing field?

Mag's wrote:
:EFFORT:
Coming from you lot and how desperate you are to ensure you have to put in zero effort to gank and have no opposition, that is laughable. I'm always up for more effort and more challenges, just not to cripple myself with bad mechanics for no reward. Hell, half my posts on this forum are about more dynamic content and making EVE require significantly more input to get anything out of it.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#231 - 2016-02-09 00:38:59 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
likely more than the what, 100m it costs to gank a freighter if we're being overly generous?


Thanks for demonstrating that you have no idea about that either.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#232 - 2016-02-09 00:52:49 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Mag's wrote:
:EFFORT:
Coming from you lot and how desperate you are to ensure you have to put in zero effort to gank and have no opposition, that is laughable. I'm always up for more effort and more challenges, just not to cripple myself with bad mechanics for no reward. Hell, half my posts on this forum are about more dynamic content and making EVE require significantly more input to get anything out of it.
You're not often right and you're wrong again. But thanks for replying. Big smile

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#233 - 2016-02-09 07:22:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
You really are like a dog with a bone - you just can't let your terrible (and off-topic) idea go.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
There is no highsec capital interdiction mechanic - A "Mechanic" implies risk. Bumping is something gankers found to be risk free so use it and CCP lets them continue to use a half made mechanic because it suits them to do so.
If bumping were a legit mechanic, it would be ok but bumping in Eve makes absolutely no sense- If you bump into something that weights 10X more than you at speed, you should take damage but as Devs can't calculate that, a specific (read specific = available to a set group) flag to enable fleet members to attack something that has committed an aggressive act on a freighter in the fleet would mean bumping is no longer a risk free mechanic.
Of course it is a mechanic. CCP even said this directly: "CCP considers the act of bumping a normal game mechanic". Capital ships are intended to be slow and vulnerable, and thus can be bumped as has been the case since they were introduced. Just because you don't like it or can't understand it, does not mean it is not an accepted game mechanic.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Why should those trying to protect a freighter from gankers have to become gankers to do so? The bumper is committing an act of aggression in highsec, there should be consequences for that
Perhaps there should, but with highsec safety being turned up to 11 in the recent past, there is no room for random suspect flags for bumping ships. CrimeWatch 2.0 specifically prevents you from flagging yourself without turning your flag off green, and then committing a deliberate act. Making bumping give flags breaks this.

This is not a difficult concept to understand. You will need to propose another idea, one that doesn't involve giving bad guys a tool to flag targets, if you want highsec freighter tackling to have some mechanical consequences.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
I really don't get how some people can play this game with such pure narrow mindedness.
And I don't get how some people can be so fixated on an idea to address a perceived problem to their little corner of the game, that they miss the wide-ranging, and sometimes game-breaking, effects that idea would have on everyone else.

We get it - you don't like bump-tackling in highsec. Well, I am sorry to say additional, arbitrary flags for incidental or deliberate ship contact is not ever going to happen. CCP is more likely to just nerf/remove bumping by boosting a freighter's agility or adding an escape module than to implement your God-awful flagging idea. But I suspect they won't do that - freighters are still safe enough, probably too safe. They will instead implement a complete change in the interdiction mechanic in highsec, one that allows fights to start and escalate around (eventually) all capital ships in highsec.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#234 - 2016-02-09 07:39:19 UTC
Masao Kurata wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
likely more than the what, 100m it costs to gank a freighter if we're being overly generous?
Thanks for demonstrating that you have no idea about that either.
So you're saying 50-60 catalysts isn't enough to kill a freighter? Look NPC alt, stop being terrible. If you have nothing constructive to say, don't bother.

Mag's wrote:
You're not often right and you're wrong again. But thanks for replying. Big smile
OK, if you say so.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Top Guac
Doomheim
#235 - 2016-02-09 08:28:57 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
If you have nothing constructive to say, don't bother.

To be fair to him, having nothing constructive to say never stops you posting.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#236 - 2016-02-09 09:10:13 UTC
Top Guac wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
If you have nothing constructive to say, don't bother.
To be fair to him, having nothing constructive to say never stops you posting.
You not agreeing with it doesn't make it non-constructive. Believe it or not people can actually hold opposing opinions on a matter and remain somewhat civil, working towards common ground, rather than this strange reaction some people have on here where they go "I disagree SO I HATE YOU!". People like yourself with not much to say beyond not-so-subtle attacks don't really help either.

At the end of the day, my opinion is pretty clear:
- Anti-gankers don't have much hope of stopping ganks, and this change reduces one of the only ways they had to hurt gankers (even if not stopping them).
- A good approach would be a way to make anti-ganking somewhat competitive with ganking, so both side had to put in effort and react to each other with a balanced shot at winning the field, which would negate the impact of this change.

I'd like to say I;m surprised that some of the names here are opposed to actual two-sided PvP content, but in all honesty, I've come to realise that when people claim they like the dark nature of EVE and the fact that non-consensual PvP exists, what they really mean is "I like that the playstyle I choose is stronger than other people's".

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

WhyTry1
Comply Or Die
Pandemic Horde
#237 - 2016-02-09 09:27:13 UTC
but why? no seriously the purpose of this change is.......

people asking for more HP what so you can loot it for longer? Im sorry but this is only buffing freighter bankers, nothing more.
Super/Dreads/Titans get literally looted immediately, so does everything else.

The only reason why you want to delay this to get the larger haul 0 i.e. freighters and transports. The one shot wreck was a good way to stop those people getting the loot, OK one shot too much 150000 sounds OK, still allows them to get some loot, but tbh most people who get freighter ganked in highsec probably don't have a BS fleet with them. So your not helping those, but its another nullsec change.

So screw the highsec guys.

If this is just about freighter/transport ganking then say so don't hide behind it being a general change because it doesn't make much difference.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#238 - 2016-02-09 09:37:07 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
You providing random unrelated statistics does not change the fact that ganking is far easier and more rewarding than anti-ganking.


You say ganking needs nerfed, I provide data from the largest shipping organisation in EVE that shows ganking is nearly none existent. Its entirely relevant, you just don't like that the data shows you to be wrong.

Lucas Kell wrote:
You mean other than the massive warnings stating that on their site every time there's a Burn Jita, or the fact that their queue jumps into Kraken status? I think that's enough to be honest.


A warning put out for a single weekend a year and a blip in demand does not change the fact that 99.9% of deliveries were successful. Try again.

Lucas Kell wrote:
Except again, you are talking about the statistics of hundreds of thousands of freighter runs, all at a relatively low value against a small number of pilots who choose to engage in ganking. With that many trips the percentage will be low, regardless of how out of balance the mechanics are. Again though you're trying to twist the topic not only to the ability of freighter pilots to proactively work to reduce the chances of being selected as a target, but specifically the group best trained in doing so in the entire game.


So now I have too much data? You keep on demanding evidence and now that you have a very large sample you want to brush it away because there are "too many freighter runs". You don't like this data set because it shows you are wrong.

Lucas Kell wrote:
I've never been ganked, this whole discussion has nothing to do with me being ganked, hell it has nothing to do with any freighter being ganked. The conversation is about how gankers have easy, fun and rewarding gameplay, while anti-gankers have incredibly difficult and unrewarding gameplay, and your desire to keep that status quo. Answer this: If EVE is supposed to be a game about being tough, challenging and unforgiving, why are you so afraid of having to put in a bit of effort to fight off an opposing group on a level playing field?



Forgive me but isn't this thread about the wreck HP buff and arn't you bitching about how you can no longer use a rifter to pop the wreck with 40+billion isk of cargo in it anymore? Its a tad contradictory that you keep on saying gankers face no risk then turn around and whine that you dont want to have to risk two nados to gank a wreck.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#239 - 2016-02-09 09:38:50 UTC
WhyTry1 wrote:
but why? no seriously the purpose of this change is.......

people asking for more HP what so you can loot it for longer? Im sorry but this is only buffing freighter bankers, nothing more.
Super/Dreads/Titans get literally looted immediately, so does everything else.

The only reason why you want to delay this to get the larger haul 0 i.e. freighters and transports. The one shot wreck was a good way to stop those people getting the loot, OK one shot too much 150000 sounds OK, still allows them to get some loot, but tbh most people who get freighter ganked in highsec probably don't have a BS fleet with them. So your not helping those, but its another nullsec change.

So screw the highsec guys.

If this is just about freighter/transport ganking then say so don't hide behind it being a general change because it doesn't make much difference.


A lot of titans and supers dont get looted because someone on the other side pops the wreck. Also with the fleet warp changes having wrecks to warp to is going to be very important.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#240 - 2016-02-09 10:29:07 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
[You say ganking needs nerfed
Except I didn't, so what you provided was irrelevant. I stated that anti-ganking as a playstyle needs a buff.

baltec1 wrote:
A warning put out for a single weekend a year and a blip in demand does not change the fact that 99.9% of deliveries were successful. Try again.
No, what it [proves is that your claim that red-frog can treat gankers as a non-issue is categorically false. And it still remain irrelevant for the reason given above.

baltec1 wrote:
So now I have too much data?
No, you have irrelevant data.

baltec1 wrote:
Forgive me but isn't this thread about the wreck HP buff and arn't you bitching about how you can no longer use a rifter to pop the wreck with 40+billion isk of cargo in it anymore? Its a tad contradictory that you keep on saying gankers face no risk then turn around and whine that you dont want to have to risk two nados to gank a wreck.
No, what I'm saying is that prior to this change, anti-gankers had nearly no chance of stopping a gank and a small chance of ganking the wreck, at least making them able to fight gankers margins. This change makes it so they still have nearly no chance of stopping a gank and also nearly no chance of being able to target the wreck and kill it with two nados before it gets looted. It would be nice to know that CCP even recognises anti-ganking as a playstyle and looks to improve that too, rather than arbitrarily slinging in a nerf because gankers have been complaining that they sometimes lose their loot.

And mate, I don't have to risk anything because I don't engage in anti-ganking. I'm competent enough to know that there's absolutely no point in even attempting to fight gankers. The mechanics are just not there for fighting them, there's next to nothing you can do to gankers after the gank (even less now) and there's no reward, so why would I engage in it? Instead I volley frigates and shuttles off the Niarja gate while flipping plex, since those are the easy, rewarding activities, and people like you have convinced me that's all EVE is about, being easy.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.