These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Hyperdunking?

First post
Author
DerpimusPrime Aihaken
Free Tank Test
#1 - 2016-04-10 09:19:30 UTC
Could any kind soul explain to me why on earth they removed hyperdunking?

Adding 33% hull resist as well is not making it alot easier to gank.
Dani Gallar
Doomheim
#2 - 2016-04-10 09:56:31 UTC
Because it was considered as a exploit by CCP (and I'd assume quite alot of players), quite simple really.

Was it allowed by the game mechanics ... yes certainly. However that doesn´t mean that CCPisn't within their right to remove it if they feel it breaks the game.

Adding hull resists makes it harder to gank ... and by harder I mean you have to bring more Catalysts to do the gank. To me that doesn´t sound like it's harder, only less profitable.
Salah ad-Din al-Jawahiri
Dreamweb Industries
#3 - 2016-04-10 10:57:14 UTC
DerpimusPrime Aihaken wrote:
Could any kind soul explain to me why on earth they removed hyperdunking?

Adding 33% hull resist as well is not making it alot easier to gank.


1. Because huperdunking allowed a very limited number of players (even a single player) to score expensive kills while using a whole lot of legal, but still unintended game mechanics. Yes, hyperducking took an enormous amount of effort and concentration, and, on the contrary, you need almost zero effort to disrupt it, but, knowing how much people in local care about random freighterbears, it worked regardless. Once the word got out, it was a matter of time before everyone and their mother started practicing it. So CCP allowed it while it was done by the chosen few, but closed down the shop several months later.

I used to hyperduck myself and enjoyed it while it lasted, but I don't think I really hated to see it go. The necessity to commit a certain number of people (or alts) to down a freighter is logical and often presents way more challenge than when you're doing everything yourself, albeit at the cost of increased personal effort.


2. The thing is, highsec has always been like that unwanted foster kid, who is fed and dressed by consciencious parents, but isn't really cared about. I think, the main cause of this is that the developers don't really see the general picture of highsec warfare from the inside, from the viewpoint of a ganker, an anti-ganker, or a wardeccer. Instead, they rely on the feedback from the forums, which doesn't really work when there are two polar camps that are constantly fighting tooth and nail over any change in the game balance, however small it may be.

As a result, the devs and the highsec communities have different perceptions of the same issues. For instance, the said 33% buff came in pair with the buff to wreck hitpoints. Now, the latter affected the rest of EVE as well, but the topic of anti-gankers shooting freighter wrecks was the focal point in this change. It was a nice change for the gankers for sure, but I don't think it was all that crucial: sometimes AG succeeded at ganking the wreck, sometimes not, but overall, it created a whole new layer of interactions between gankers and AG, and their struggling for freighter wrecks was fun to watch and take part in.

So, when the balance team buffed freighter EHP by almost 50% in total, they thought that the wreck buff would balance it out, since they saw it as a very important thing for gankers. However, many gankers perceived this move as something different: "Here, take this candy, and in exchange we're going to **** you in the ***, **** on your face and *** in your mouth". And don't forget, the change didn't only affect freighters, it nerfed all ganking across the board.


Anyway, how can I conclude this? Well, we haven't yet come the the point where nothing at all can be ganked in highsec, but this point is getting pretty damn close. For years, CCP have relied on crutches in highsec, and the Crimewatch system didn't fix that. Crimewatch had its own imperfections and vulnerabilities, and the devs, once again, have used crutches to deal with them. However, on order to really fix the balance, we need to seriously rethink certain crucial game mechanics (yes, bounty hunting, I am talking about you).

You can't make the current system better with simply buffing barge or freighter EHP, saying: "They'll just have to bring more people, and everything will be fine". I think, we already have a kind of consensus that the N+1 logic doesn't make the game more fun. Carebears don't get any smarter from EHP buffs - quite the opposite, more likely; AG don't get any more incentives to prevent ganks - those who do are just a few bitter individuals. More and more AG are turning into ninja looters these days and don't care about the gankees, either. Ideally, they should be encouraged by the bounty hunting system, which has been broken since conception.

CCP also need to be very careful about who they are listening to when implementing changes to highsec warfare. Historically, highsec undesirables have been a minority, barely represented in the CSM and at fanfests. And on EVE-O, both gankers and AG are extremely radical in their views, because, seeing their bitter enemies on the very same forums, they think (and, I guess, they do have a point here) that they have to cry the loudest in order not to see their camp nerfed by CCP. This is why both the "grrr code" and "AG fails non-stop daily" narratives are so strong in the community.

All of this is my personal opinion on the matter and may not necessarily be true.

Agent of the New Order

Live by the Code - die by the Code.

The Voice of Highsec

Black Pedro
Mine.
#4 - 2016-04-10 12:17:47 UTC
Salah ad-Din al-Jawahiri wrote:

The thing is, highsec has always been like that unwanted foster kid, who is fed and dressed by consciencious parents, but isn't really cared about. I think, the main cause of this is that the developers don't really see the general picture of highsec warfare from the inside, from the viewpoint of a ganker, an anti-ganker, or a wardeccer. Instead, they rely on the feedback from the forums, which doesn't really work when there are two polar camps that are constantly fighting tooth and nail over any change in the game balance, however small it may be.
Highsec in general has serious identity issues. At least from my perspective, it is not at all clear to me anymore if CCP intends for highsec to be a safe(r) space for new players, or a fully dangerous space designed to support small group and solo play.

On one hand the very fact that mechanics such as wardecs and ganking exist suggest that highsec is expected to be dangerous like everywhere else, a place where conflict is expected to take place. Yet, CCP seems unwilling to commit to that leaving gaping holes in the design like the ability to trivially shed wardecs, near-invulnerable sources of income like Incursions, and "balancing" ganking to the point that is completely unprofitable to gank smaller industrial ships like miners, and nearing impossible to gank the capital ships. What you get with this schizophrenic approach is that players who understand the mechanics are near 100% safe while new and casual players are the only ones who fall victim to the mechanics, and the bar to be the aggressor is so high that only committed and large entities can attack other players.

Highsec should be completely rethought and both the risks and rewards rebalanced with a unified strategy. Right now, this lack of a coherent view has left highsec adrift. Highsec could use reasons to attack, reasons to defend and reasons to pursue justice against the criminals instead of the lets-make-highsec-dangerous-but-not-too-dangerous that has resulted in no one but the most dedicated players being able to use the mechanics to attack other players.

Salah ad-Din al-Jawahiri wrote:
Well, we haven't yet come the the point where nothing at all can be ganked in highsec, but this point is getting pretty damn close. For years, CCP have relied on crutches in highsec, and the Crimewatch system didn't fix that. Crimewatch had its own imperfections and vulnerabilities, and the devs, once again, have used crutches to deal with them. However, on order to really fix the balance, we need to seriously rethink certain crucial game mechanics (yes, bounty hunting, I am talking about you).

You can't make the current system better with simply buffing barge or freighter EHP, saying: "They'll just have to bring more people, and everything will be fine". I think, we already have a kind of consensus that the N+1 logic doesn't make the game more fun. Carebears don't get any smarter from EHP buffs - quite the opposite, more likely; AG don't get any more incentives to prevent ganks - those who do are just a few bitter individuals. More and more AG are turning into ninja looters these days and don't care about the gankees, either. Ideally, they should be encouraged by the bounty hunting system, which has been broken since conception.
I completely agree. It is absurd that it now requires 20-30 players to play the role of a highwayman in this game. It locks out almost everyone from playing the game as a robber, while ensuring that the ones that do choose to be the villains are in groups so large that no one can seriously fight them. Further, making ganking cost so much sets up carebears for catastrophic losses as they plod along for 6 or 12 months carrying ever-increasing loads with no problems until they one day cross some unseen threshold and loose their 15B ISK freighter with no warning. That seems harsh, even for New Eden.

All the nerfs to ganking have just consolidated the dedicated players into one or two large groups that the average highsec player or corp has no hope of contesting, much like nerfs to wardecs created the large mercenary alliances we have today. These groups carry on stomping the non-professionals who are unable (or at least not committed enough) to use these mechanics themselves because the penalties for ganking and the costs/risks of wardecs are so high.

CCP has recognized the problem with this N+1 game play in nullsec, and their response was the Entosis mechanic which addressed this problem by making attacking easy, but defending even easier. This is a better model for facilitating player-player conflict that supports groups of all sizes, rather than the problems of a massive bar to attack that Dominion sov had, and highsec ganking still has. If you keep raising the number of people needed to attack in an effort to "balance" the game, eventually only a few groups will have the numbers to be the aggressor, and things will just stop happening in this sandbox game. How is it fair Miniluv or Code can gank my freighter with impunity, while my 10-man corp is completely unable to retaliate in kind just because we don't have the numbers? Maybe we wouldn't win in a straight out fight, but we are locked out from even trying to shoot one of their freighters.

This all needs a rethink. At least Citadels are moving in the right direction by being vulnerable to wardecs (unlike the slippery POSes) yet easy to defend. Something similar should be looked at for highsec ganking (perhaps a new interdiction mechanic that would replace bumping?). Further, I agree that a redo of bounty hunting and other law enforcement incentives should be a priority to help make the conflict in highsec more accessible and balanced. More nerfs just exacerbate the N+1 problem and further imbalance any potential good vs. evil content, each time reducing the chance of interesting player-driven stories from being told.
Daniel Ornulf
Grae Universe Enterprise
#5 - 2016-04-10 14:40:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniel Ornulf
I never quite understood the purpose of HiSec. ie. CONCORD is there to prevent/punish one-sided forced engagements but it still allows non-consensual wardecs...

CCP probably wants to add some risk to everything but to be honest, I often feel they misjudged the ...err, devotion of certain players (like multiboxing an entire fleet of catalysts or forming entire alliances for the sole purpose of having 100 active wardecs)
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2016-04-10 16:15:04 UTC
Cause turning on the damage control in every system was annoying.
DerpimusPrime Aihaken
Free Tank Test
#7 - 2016-04-10 17:06:31 UTC
It's just a shame to see hyperdunking go, the most fun time I had in this game was when I was hyperdunking.
Sustrai Aditua
Intandofisa
#8 - 2016-04-10 21:38:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Sustrai Aditua
I seem to recall something being said on this subject...not so long ago:

"Since the introduction of the Bowhead freighter, we’ve become aware of a tactic that has been introduced which has become known as 'Hyperdunking'. This involves leaving a grid where a criminal action occurs to draw away CONCORD and reshipping to continue shooting at a target. There’s been much discussion among members of the community regarding this tactic, and whether or not it is considered legitimate game play.

After meeting with members of the game design and customer support teams and discussing this in depth, we have come to the consensus that due to the fact no rules are being broken and any ship that is involved in a criminal act is being destroyed by CONCORD as intended, that this tactic is simply an unintended but legitimate use of new game mechanics, and is not in breach of the rules. Tactics similar to this have been used with previous hulls before the Bowhead was introduced, and have been considered perfectly legitimate in the past.

With this in mind, at this time we do not consider this tactic to be in breach of the game rules, and as such our customer support team will not be offering reimbursements for hulls lost in this manner.

Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage."

(Don't quote me on this.)

If we get chased by zombies, I'm tripping you.

Anyura
Smart Industries
Intaki-Business Logistics Union
#9 - 2016-04-10 22:45:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Anyura
Cheers, above poster. I was wondering what everyone was blathering about.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#10 - 2016-04-11 02:13:56 UTC
Hyperdunking was hilarious but also a really dumb thing that should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. That's why.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.

Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#11 - 2016-04-11 07:41:17 UTC
Actually, CCP never called out hyperdunking as an exploit, but would eventually make some changes to mechanics that would remove it.


Hyperdunking was hard to set up, and very easy for anti-gankers to mess up. So it went either way.

There was not much fanfare in its demise because even those who could manage it saw it as a lot of work for the same return as a usual "gank cats fleet" operations they normally deploy.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Geronimo McVain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2016-04-11 08:11:19 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Highsec in general has serious identity issues. At least from my perspective, it is not at all clear to me anymore if CCP intends for highsec to be a safe(r) space for new players, or a fully dangerous space designed to support small group and solo play.

On one hand the very fact that mechanics such as wardecs and ganking exist suggest that highsec is expected to be dangerous like everywhere else, a place where conflict is expected to take place. Yet, CCP seems unwilling to commit to that leaving gaping holes in the design like the ability to trivially shed wardecs, near-invulnerable sources of income like Incursions, and "balancing" ganking to the point that is completely unprofitable to gank smaller industrial ships like miners, and nearing impossible to gank the capital ships. What you get with this schizophrenic approach is that players who understand the mechanics are near 100% safe while new and casual players are the only ones who fall victim to the mechanics, and the bar to be the aggressor is so high that only committed and large entities can attack other players.

Highsec should be completely rethought and both the risks and rewards rebalanced with a unified strategy. Right now, this lack of a coherent view has left highsec adrift. Highsec could use reasons to attack, reasons to defend and reasons to pursue justice against the criminals instead of the lets-make-highsec-dangerous-but-not-too-dangerous that has resulted in no one but the most dedicated players being able to use the mechanics to attack other players.

Highsec is exactly what it is intended. It is save and it is a pain to do piracy. That's totally okay because there is low and Null to all these things. Every group has it's realm where they can do as they like. Wardeccs can be avoided as easily as a Wardeccer can dock when a fleet comes in. So it evens out. I would guess that wardecers use an alt to ferry their goods around so why do you complain that others do the same by switching the corp? You are cleverly denying other players the easy chance to gank your freighters or your ships by doing wardeccs in High instead of hunting in Null. Everyone is using the mechanics to avoid combat when the odds are bad, that's clever........on both sides und legit on both too. EVE gives you much more freedom for griefing then any other game but it also offers a lot of ways to avoid it. That's what I would call balance.
A sandbox gives you a lot of opportunities but that doesn't mean that you can do everything you want. as the quote goes: "Freedom is the way to swing your fist anyway you want but it stops where the nose of someone else begins". Even an idiot ferrying 5B Isk in a T1 freighter has some rights because he had earned this obscene amount of money through some hard work so it has a real, not just virtual, value for him. It even has a real value because he paid the playing time with RL money. If you want to chase something for loot do ratting OR hunt players that accept the full danger of piracy in Null.
DerpimusPrime Aihaken
Free Tank Test
#13 - 2016-04-11 15:24:17 UTC
Sustrai Aditua wrote:
I seem to recall something being said on this subject...not so long ago:

"Since the introduction of the Bowhead freighter, we’ve become aware of a tactic that has been introduced which has become known as 'Hyperdunking'. This involves leaving a grid where a criminal action occurs to draw away CONCORD and reshipping to continue shooting at a target. There’s been much discussion among members of the community regarding this tactic, and whether or not it is considered legitimate game play.

After meeting with members of the game design and customer support teams and discussing this in depth, we have come to the consensus that due to the fact no rules are being broken and any ship that is involved in a criminal act is being destroyed by CONCORD as intended, that this tactic is simply an unintended but legitimate use of new game mechanics, and is not in breach of the rules. Tactics similar to this have been used with previous hulls before the Bowhead was introduced, and have been considered perfectly legitimate in the past.

With this in mind, at this time we do not consider this tactic to be in breach of the game rules, and as such our customer support team will not be offering reimbursements for hulls lost in this manner.

Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage."

(Don't quote me on this.)


Im gonna go ahead and quote you, but yeah I remember reading that as well.
Guess carebears is the new market.
Pandora Carrollon
Provi Rapid Response
Apocalypse Now.
#14 - 2016-04-11 15:44:18 UTC
I am unaware of the specifics of how the mechanic interaction works, so I can't really comment on that part of the thread.

However, it's heartening to see some of the more aggressive sorts actually try to understand the less aggressive sorts.

I think HiSec makes more sense when you change perspective of the FOCUS of the different security zones. In fact, all the security zones start to make more sense when you look at them from an intended primary activity of the security zone. Now, we can debate if that 'intent' was intentional from the start or it evolved over time, but so far, it looks like changes being made are intentional to refine the zones into being what they are.

HiSec appears to be a zone where players that are willing to get far lower rewards can play for greater relative safety. This might mean they are newer to the game or just want to get money a slow and steady way. Not everyone wants to be 100% efficient. They just want to break rocks, create things, or play with the market. This is why killing these players in this area is severely restricted. Can it be done, yes, crafty players have figured out how. Should it be easy? No, CCP doesn't want it to be easy because killing ships equipped for industry/mining/transport is just another way to do PVE because those ships can't really fight back... they can only flee.

LoSec seems a haven for Ship to Ship PvP. This is the end game of ISK, where it all goes to get blown up and recycled so that materials and goods coming in from HiSec and NullSec can be battered and blown up in blazes of glory. The sad part is, LoSec isn't hauling the goods right now. We've got the first war the game has seen in years and it's something of a disappointment to many people. I think LoSec needs to be tweaked and made a little more ISK friendly to hammer out serious ship v ship stuff. What makes LoSec weird is it's the gateway to null sec, which is okay, it acts as a buffer between NullSec and HiSec. So, HiSec corps have a challenge to get out to NullSec. Commerce here should be armed to the teeth. Industrials need a ship like the Procurer for transport. A Nereus is okay, but against anything larger than a destroyer... poof, and a destroyer would be dicey.

NullSec is, from my POV, what many EVE players think the entire game should be like. Corporations slugging it out, but sometimes periods of peace let them dominate the markets. Exploration and ISK efficiency like mad, along with constant threat of risk but if you are in your own corporate space... little to low risk... like HiSec. The issue with NullSec is if you aren't with a NullSec corp/alliance, you are just meat for the grinder. Being part of a large group is not everyone's cup of tea, so that is why you get HiSec and LoSec.

HiSec didn't need the buff to the hulls, I'd have rather they buffed the insurance payouts and lowered the entry rates as well as making the insurance paid for monthly like an office space. This would keep players only flying ships they actually use or uninsuring the lesser used ships. They could also change the HiSec podding mechanics to make it unwise to pod a player... sure, mine their ship for profit, but actually kill the pilot and the consequences get dire. Something like a -2 to Sec Status for a HiSec pod kill would do it.

HiSec is fine, it works and even the choke points aren't a problem if you know what you are doing. To newer pilots, yeah, eventually there will be a harsh lesson if they are ignorant of the risks of flying through choke points. I try to have my A game on when going through the Sivala-Uedama-Ikao route...

I do enjoy watching CODE and the Anti-Gankers going at it though, it's pretty intriguing to see the back and forth tactics used.

For the moment, HiSec is fun and works. You have to be a HiSecc'er to know that though, it would clearly look unbalanced to a LoSec or NullSec denizen.
Kamahl Daikun
Perkone
Caldari State
#15 - 2016-04-11 16:46:15 UTC
Dani Gallar wrote:
To me that doesn´t sound like it's harder, only less profitable.


Because CCP hates anything that's profitable.
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#16 - 2016-04-11 16:50:57 UTC
Quote:
17. Redundant and re-posted threads will be locked.

As a courtesy to other forum users, please search to see if there is a thread already open on the topic you wish to discuss. If so, please place your comments there instead. Multiple threads on the same subject clutter up the forums needlessly, causing good feedback and ideas to be lost. Please keep discussions regarding a topic to a single thread.



Closed

ISD Max Trix

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to EVE mails about forum moderation.