These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

A plan to improve the game for both Gankers and Freighters

Author
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#21 - 2016-09-19 03:00:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Pirokobo wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:

See my edit.

Can be manipulated either way.



You're correct that people could create traffic elsewhere off the paths to mess with the averages. However it would take A LOT of traffic.

Now, you could mitigate it by calculating the amount of mass moved... or ignoring alpha traffic for the calculation.

Then put some numbers down.

If your saying it would be a lot of traffic required, then most of highsec will be 0.5, so what are your numbers?

The big disadvantage being that all the current hauling not being done directly between the trade hubs becomes more difficult, making industry more difficult in the process.

Join the haulers channel mailing list and see how much hauling is done all across highsec.

Drop the sec status of many of those systems and freighters won't go there. No freighters, hauling contracts don't get picked up and industry suffers.

So what's your numbers?
Pirokobo
Perkone
Caldari State
#22 - 2016-09-19 03:04:27 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:


If your saying it would be a lot of traffic required, then most of highsec will be 0.5, so what are your numbers?


I'd have to actually simulate it by downloading the API data and running it.

If a CCP member actually shows any interest in this idea, I'll do that work.
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#23 - 2016-09-19 03:06:56 UTC
Pirokobo wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:


If your saying it would be a lot of traffic required, then most of highsec will be 0.5, so what are your numbers?


I'd have to actually simulate it by downloading the API data and running it.

If a CCP member actually shows any interest in this idea, I'll do that work.

So you won't even do the work to show it will work until CCP show interest?

Yeah good luck.

How can anyone judge the worth if it's all just imaginary numbers?
Pirokobo
Perkone
Caldari State
#24 - 2016-09-19 03:22:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Pirokobo
Scipio Artelius wrote:


How can anyone judge the worth if it's all just imaginary numbers?


Right now I'm eyeballing it from dotlan. Jita sees over 50,000 jumps a day. The systems along the major trade routes see at least 10,000 jumps a day.

By comparison, most systems that are not trade routes see low hundreds up to maybe a thousand.

The differences are massive. I haven't done the math to figure out how many standard deviations the trade routes are from the background average of all of new eden, but I'm sure it's at least three sigma.

Now, let's say someone did try creating artificial traffic elsewhere off the path.

They manage, somehow to create as much jump traffic between two systems as jita has to Perimeter. Tens of thousands of jumps.

All they've managed to do is bring two more systems into the calculation for top traffic. Jita and Perimeter are still going to be many standard deviations above the rest, they'll just have created a few more systems that are also ridiculously above the norm.
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#25 - 2016-09-19 03:24:30 UTC
Pirokobo wrote:

THEY DON'T ALL LIVE ON THE BEATEN PATH.


No need to yell.

As you originally proposed it you'll see a bunch of small branches coalesce into big trunks of traffic. The big trunks of traffic will be avoided, and it will be the small branches that the gankers are encouraged to target. Sadly because the traffic is very low in those systems (1-2 jumps per hour, lets say) they don't find many people to gank. Lets say they're 3 jumps away on average from a heavy traffic route, you've got those 3 jumps to find them before the profit point on ganking goes way down.

As I proposed it, small branches of traffic remain small branches. Traffic spreads out more, and a ganker stands a greater likelihood that a freighter will come through their small branch. Those 3 jumps away become moot, you've got until they get to a few systems out where traffic starts to naturally coalesce through lack of different options.
Pirokobo
Perkone
Caldari State
#26 - 2016-09-19 03:27:02 UTC
Old Pervert wrote:


As you originally proposed it you'll see a bunch of small branches coalesce into big trunks of traffic. The big trunks of traffic will be avoided, and it will be the small branches that the gankers are encouraged to target. Sadly because the traffic is very low in those systems (1-2 jumps per hour, lets say) they don't find many people to gank. Lets say they're 3 jumps away on average from a heavy traffic route, you've got those 3 jumps to find them before the profit point on ganking goes way down.


:CLAP:

You have just described EXACTLY what I was aiming to achieve. Bravo.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#27 - 2016-09-19 03:56:01 UTC
This idea is stupid for all the wrong reasons.

>It makes high traffic areas safe making dangerous systems (people avoid them) more dangerous forever concentrating that. It doesn't make for dangerous chokepoints but rather reverses the whole thingmaking systems like haatamo and juunigashi more dangerous than uedama.

Now if you turned this around and maybe excluded trade hubs because that would just make everything wrong you might be on to something but your current math is whacked in the head with a freaking sledgehammer.

I swear these carebears get the most "balanced ideas" balanced for oh it's gota be some equation let me write down some random numbers to make it look valid because science is truth and science is numbers my crap idea has numbers so its automatically right yeah, yeah?

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#28 - 2016-09-19 04:49:46 UTC
Why do we even need to do this?

The chances of being ganked in a freighter stands at 0.2% per 1.5-2 million jumps.
Christopher Mabata
Cynosural Edge
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#29 - 2016-09-19 04:55:21 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Why do we even need to do this?

The chances of being ganked in a freighter stands at 0.2% per 1.5-2 million jumps.


Because apparently for OP and many other haulers this simply lacks their stamp of approval of "Safe Enough" wherein they would probably prefer the number sit around 0.002% per however million jumps they want.

♣ Small Gang PVP, Large Fleet PVP, Black Ops, Incursions, Trade, and Industry ♣ 70% Lethal / 30% Super-Snuggly / 110% No idea what im doing ♣

This Message Brought to you by a sweet and sour bittervet

Sitting Bull Lakota
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#30 - 2016-09-19 09:16:02 UTC
I don't particularly care for reddit.
Maybe I'm just some prejudiced against them for their public statements on political matters. Maybe I don't like the system of rewarding group think.
Maybe I'm not-so-secretly jealous of the attention the devs (one or two higher ups in particular) give to reddit instead of their own forum.
I don't know.

Whatever the case, starting a proposal with a link to reddit and a phrase alluding to its popularity or your intent to "share it here too" seems to drastically lower my interest in the proposal.
But then, I'm just some random on the forums. Why should anyone care if I'm interested?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#31 - 2016-09-19 09:18:00 UTC
Christopher Mabata wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Why do we even need to do this?

The chances of being ganked in a freighter stands at 0.2% per 1.5-2 million jumps.


Because apparently for OP and many other haulers this simply lacks their stamp of approval of "Safe Enough" wherein they would probably prefer the number sit around 0.002% per however million jumps they want.



that's .002 higher than most of them will be happy with
Black Pedro
Mine.
#32 - 2016-09-19 09:40:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Pirokobo wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:

Keep the trade hubs as they are and then change the sec status based on the number of losses in a system. Start high and then drop the sec status as the amount of PvP kills increase. An inverse relationship.


I like where you're going, but there's just one problem.

To avoid JUST Niarja, takes the route from Jita to Amarr from 10 jumps to 46.

It is ALWAYS going to be a choke point. Faylee is correct that there are groups in EVE that can pull off a hit no matter what the security status is, and they will naturally congregate to the best hunting grounds, WHICH ARE THE CHOKE POINTS. And they will bring the security status down, increasing profitability to more groups, who bring it down further.

The security system you described turns ganking in chokepoint systems into a positive feedback loop, when what I was aiming for was to dampen it and force it to spread out more.
This isn't a problem, it's a feature.

The different 'terrain' of space is desired as it necessitates tradeoffs and decisions. It actually forces game play choices on players - do I take the shortest, but more risky route or do I play it safe and go the long way? Your idea attempts to homogenize this and make space for uniform for no particular reason you've articulated other than it would be "better". I don't see how it is better, it just removes player choice and dampens risk for the safest ships in the game even more. If anything, there needs to be more variety in how once chooses to haul to make the profession more interesting. Maybe player-build stargates?

Choke points are suppose to exist. Deal with that by either protecting yourself or avoiding them. -1
Pirokobo
Perkone
Caldari State
#33 - 2016-09-19 11:15:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Pirokobo
Christopher Mabata wrote:
[quote=baltec1]
Because apparently for OP


FYI, I'm not a hauler. I've flown rorqual for pos logistics but never anything using freighter skills.

My interest is that I don't like it that people are able to camp TWO systems in the entire game and fish-in-a-barrel. It keeps Jita as the primary hub simply because there isn't free flow between hubs.

I want to deprive gankers of what I see as gameplay that doesn't encourage active hunting or meta and force them to spread out and meta.
Amonios Zula
Aeon Ascendant
#34 - 2016-09-19 11:20:56 UTC
I would have hoped a floating sec would work in sort of the opposite way.
The more ganks, the more over stretched the police are, the lower the sec goes.
allowing it to reach 0.4 Twisted

and neighboring systems could drop down to 0.5 , you know places near those of high crime are less safe Roll
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#35 - 2016-09-19 13:09:55 UTC
Pirokobo wrote:
Christopher Mabata wrote:
[quote=baltec1]
Because apparently for OP


FYI, I'm not a hauler. I've flown rorqual for pos logistics but never anything using freighter skills.

My interest is that I don't like it that people are able to camp TWO systems in the entire game and fish-in-a-barrel. It keeps Jita as the primary hub simply because there isn't free flow between hubs.

I want to deprive gankers of what I see as gameplay that doesn't encourage active hunting or meta and force them to spread out and meta.


I AM a freighter pilot and gankers go where the targets are. Just like any hunter.

Freighter pilots don't have to go through those systems. They don't have to trade in jita or amarr. They put themselves into the barrel.

Want gankers to spread out their meta? Then spread out the targets. I.e do the complete opposite of your idea. Not only does this spread gankers out but it spreads out trade as well (something lots of people seem to want) and it makes haulers actively play the game rather than pressing 'set destination' and then going afk.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Pirokobo
Perkone
Caldari State
#36 - 2016-09-19 14:24:35 UTC
Amonios Zula wrote:
I would have hoped a floating sec would work in sort of the opposite way.


But that leads to the rediculous situation I described earlier where security gradually climbs in null and low but then jumps way up at the lowsec-highsec border and then declines again as you approach the population centers.

That's just weird.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#37 - 2016-09-19 14:48:09 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
This would be easy to manipulate and players would do it.

To be honest any system that changes sec status based on jumps, kills or whatever can and will be easily manipulated by one side or the other.

If the system is based on kills then the gankers simply log in a bunch of alts and go to town killing each other using free rookie ships driving the sec status down and how do the haulers counter it? I mean killing the gankers to prevent them from killing themselves does not solve the low sec status problem it only makes it worse.

If you base it on jumps then the haulers simply log in a bunch of alts and jump into and out of a system to drive the sec status up and due to the cost of ships lost to Concord there really is no way for the gankers to counter this.
Lucius Regni
1Bitcoin
#38 - 2016-09-19 15:18:26 UTC
Pirokobo wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
If you want to widen this so that proximity is included, then the whole idea is stupid because there is no guarantee with your system that 'density of population' has any match to proximity in relation to lowsec or nullsec.


You've started to illustrate why I worded it the way I did.

Set aside the starter systems. Automatic 1.0 for those; better paid police, whatever explanation you need.


So...

As I see it, ASIDE FROM THE STARTER SYSTEMS, there is no 1.0 space by default. Every system in high security space (aside from starters) has a resting point of .5 for security.

As player population increases (however you want to measure it) security increases. There are more people, ergo there are more eyes on things and more police.

This forces ALL behaviors (ratting, ganking, mining) to balance safety against return (or for gankers, certainty of prey vs profitability). But it dynamically adapts to the players behavior.

This method has some appeal.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#39 - 2016-09-19 15:28:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Arya Regnar
Pirokobo wrote:
Christopher Mabata wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Because apparently for OP


FYI, I'm not a hauler. I've flown rorqual for pos logistics but never anything using freighter skills.

My interest is that I don't like it that people are able to camp TWO systems in the entire game and fish-in-a-barrel. It keeps Jita as the primary hub simply because there isn't free flow between hubs.

I want to deprive gankers of what I see as gameplay that doesn't encourage active hunting or meta and force them to spread out and meta.

WE camp them because they are the only real .5 chokepoints, of course if we have to decide between killing stuff in .6 and .5 we will go for .5, make all the systems around it .5 and then we have a dilemma.
Pirokobo wrote:

Scipio Artelius wrote:


If your saying it would be a lot of traffic required, then most of highsec will be 0.5, so what are your numbers?


I'd have to actually simulate it by downloading the API data and running it.

If a CCP member actually shows any interest in this idea, I'll do that work.

Actually you have jumps per system statistic in the map last I checked. Lazy...
Of course you won't do the footwork, that would mean your math would get proven useless.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.

Pirokobo
Perkone
Caldari State
#40 - 2016-09-19 16:00:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Pirokobo
Arya Regnar wrote:

Actually you have jumps per system statistic in the map last I checked.


Yeah, per system.

But turning that into an average to determine how many standard deviations trade routes are above background requires working with ALL the data.

Right now I'm just doing it visually. I know that the traffic is some rediculous number of standard deviations above norm. I just don't know precisely how many.

Arya Regnar wrote:
We have a dilemma


Which is precisely my goal. The trade routes become safe, but everything right off the routes, the feeder systems, becomes rough neighborhood. A lot more systems become viable for gank piracy, but the traffic density at each is lower.
Previous page123Next page