These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

CONCORD response time, how does it REALLY work?

First post
Author
Sheltar Haarmen
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#1 - 2016-10-14 23:57:06 UTC
https://extraimago.com/image/wB7Q

Gank attempt happened in 0.5 system, according to game-mechanics 0.5s have 20s response time if fresh spawn, 26s if CONCORD already spawned somewhere else in a system, yet on attached pic we can see CONCORD arriving 2 sec too early. Question to experienced gankers - what sorcery is this? Does it have to do smth with server ticks?
Paranoid Loyd
#2 - 2016-10-15 00:07:58 UTC
Not sure who told you it was exact, it's roughly 19 seconds, I've got to 22 ticks before and also as low as 16.

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!

Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
Coalition of the Unfortunate
#3 - 2016-10-15 00:25:48 UTC
Is this a ganker complaining about getting blown up...?
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#4 - 2016-10-15 00:44:06 UTC
Sheltar Haarmen wrote:
https://extraimago.com/image/wB7Q

Gank attempt happened in 0.5 system, according to game-mechanics 0.5s have 20s response time if fresh spawn, 26s if CONCORD already spawned somewhere else in a system, yet on attached pic we can see CONCORD arriving 2 sec too early. Question to experienced gankers - what sorcery is this? Does it have to do smth with server ticks?


Obviously the donuts were stale that day.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#5 - 2016-10-15 02:04:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
As Loyd says the time is approximately 19 seconds in a 0.5 (+/- 1 second because server ticks)

The usual reference for Concord time stuff is Tippia's TTK article.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Christopher Mabata
Cynosural Edge
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#6 - 2016-10-15 02:48:03 UTC
Useful advice as well is while it is around 19-20 seconds for the response by average always have the firepower to do it faster than that without going into profit sinking overkill. Helps you to account for non optimal server ticks, possible player interventions, and the like.

♣ 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

Commander Spurty
#7 - 2016-10-15 02:56:25 UTC
Second 24 you start your molestation of a hulk
Second 42 CONCORD arrived

Looks to be ballpark to me

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP

Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2016-10-15 03:01:35 UTC
Sheltar Haarmen wrote:
https://extraimago.com/image/wB7Q

Gank attempt happened in 0.5 system, according to game-mechanics 0.5s have 20s response time if fresh spawn, 26s if CONCORD already spawned somewhere else in a system, yet on attached pic we can see CONCORD arriving 2 sec too early. Question to experienced gankers - what sorcery is this? Does it have to do smth with server ticks?

You are a perfect example of how risk vs reward is broken.

Going after a 200 million isk ship in a 1 million isk destroyer.

it is pathetic that the mechanics are broken this badly.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#9 - 2016-10-15 03:25:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Mark Marconi wrote:
Sheltar Haarmen wrote:
https://extraimago.com/image/wB7Q

Gank attempt happened in 0.5 system, according to game-mechanics 0.5s have 20s response time if fresh spawn, 26s if CONCORD already spawned somewhere else in a system, yet on attached pic we can see CONCORD arriving 2 sec too early. Question to experienced gankers - what sorcery is this? Does it have to do smth with server ticks?

You are a perfect example of how risk vs reward is broken.

Going after a 200 million isk ship in a 1 million isk destroyer.

it is pathetic that the mechanics are broken this badly.
Try a 10 million isk destroyer; regardless isk tanking is a dumb idea, the cost of the tools used to destroy something is irrelevant, nor does it have anything to do with risk and reward.

Besides, who the hell flies a hulk in hisec these days? They're a kill-mail waiting to happen, even more so if he was solo.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2016-10-15 03:38:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Marconi
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Sheltar Haarmen wrote:
https://extraimago.com/image/wB7Q

Gank attempt happened in 0.5 system, according to game-mechanics 0.5s have 20s response time if fresh spawn, 26s if CONCORD already spawned somewhere else in a system, yet on attached pic we can see CONCORD arriving 2 sec too early. Question to experienced gankers - what sorcery is this? Does it have to do smth with server ticks?

You are a perfect example of how risk vs reward is broken.

Going after a 200 million isk ship in a 1 million isk destroyer.

it is pathetic that the mechanics are broken this badly.
Try a 10 million isk destroyer; regardless isk tanking is a dumb idea, the cost of the tools used to destroy something is irrelevant, nor does it have anything to do with risk and reward.

Besides, who the hell flies a hulk in hisec these days? They're a kill-mail waiting to happen, even more so if he was solo.

Except it wouldn't be said Isk based risk vs reward was stupid if CCP invented a 100 million isk ship that was to fast to be hit by a titan and that could destroy it all by itself.

The cost has everything to do with risk vs reward he risked 9.09 million TOTAL, to kill a multi-hundred million ship.
Same as risk vs reward on Freighters, 10 catalysts vs a multi billion payout. The gankers are taking a minuscule risk compared to the rewards, be they epeen or dropped loot.

As I said its pathetically broken, no wonder so few want to be miners these days.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#11 - 2016-10-15 06:18:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Mark Marconi wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Sheltar Haarmen wrote:
https://extraimago.com/image/wB7Q

Gank attempt happened in 0.5 system, according to game-mechanics 0.5s have 20s response time if fresh spawn, 26s if CONCORD already spawned somewhere else in a system, yet on attached pic we can see CONCORD arriving 2 sec too early. Question to experienced gankers - what sorcery is this? Does it have to do smth with server ticks?

You are a perfect example of how risk vs reward is broken.

Going after a 200 million isk ship in a 1 million isk destroyer.

it is pathetic that the mechanics are broken this badly.
Try a 10 million isk destroyer; regardless isk tanking is a dumb idea, the cost of the tools used to destroy something is irrelevant, nor does it have anything to do with risk and reward.

Besides, who the hell flies a hulk in hisec these days? They're a kill-mail waiting to happen, even more so if he was solo.

Except it wouldn't be said Isk based risk vs reward was stupid if CCP invented a 100 million isk ship that was to fast to be hit by a titan and that could destroy it all by itself.

The cost has everything to do with risk vs reward he risked 9.09 million TOTAL, to kill a multi-hundred million ship.
Same as risk vs reward on Freighters, 10 catalysts vs a multi billion payout. The gankers are taking a minuscule risk compared to the rewards, be they epeen or dropped loot.

As I said its pathetically broken, no wonder so few want to be miners these days.
I love how people throwing out this argument conviently forget the fact that the ganker does not get anywhere close to that number on the killmail. If a ganker kills a normally fit hulk, they will be lucky to loot 10M ISK from the wreck. If they loot their own wreck, that means somewhere around 5M ISK profit, probably less on average. Given you probably can only gank 1 or 2 miners per hour including time to scout them (maybe 3 if they line up like ducks at a shooting gallery for you), it is one of the worst paying "professions" in the game. And even a badly fit Skiff is nowhere near profitable under any circumstances but super-bling fit. So much for that reward, eh?

Same with ganking empty freighters. Sure they get a useless 1B+ killmail, but they just lost hundreds of millions of ISK in ships with zero return. At least poor choices by other players mean you can find freighters that are profitable to shoot regularly, but for miners the bling-fit exhumer is so rare, it can't be considered income, more like winning the lottery.

I'm just glad you are not a game designer. You don't have to imagine very hard how boring and unfun a game would be where expensive ships were immune to attack from cheaper ships. Your mining ship generates tens or hundreds of millions of ISK of resources into the universe each play session while that piddly catalyst can do nothing but try to destroy things, or earn a pittance at level 1/2 missions. It seems completely fair that the mining ship would cost more. Risk vs. reward remember? Or does that only apply to the other guy?

EDIT: As to the OP, Tippia experimented with this extensively and it seems correct: http://blog.beyondreality.se/TTK-CONCORD
There maybe a little more variation than ±1 second though as I think there are several things which happen during the spawning and moving of CONCORD and each of them is subject to some variance depending on the proximity of each event to the server tick. In rare cases that might add up in one direction and result in a significantly faster or slower response, but the vast majority of the time it is always with 2 seconds or so of Tippia's numbers in my experience.
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#12 - 2016-10-15 06:34:12 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Sheltar Haarmen wrote:
https://extraimago.com/image/wB7Q

Gank attempt happened in 0.5 system, according to game-mechanics 0.5s have 20s response time if fresh spawn, 26s if CONCORD already spawned somewhere else in a system, yet on attached pic we can see CONCORD arriving 2 sec too early. Question to experienced gankers - what sorcery is this? Does it have to do smth with server ticks?

You are a perfect example of how risk vs reward is broken.

Going after a 200 million isk ship in a 1 million isk destroyer.

it is pathetic that the mechanics are broken this badly.
Try a 10 million isk destroyer; regardless isk tanking is a dumb idea, the cost of the tools used to destroy something is irrelevant, nor does it have anything to do with risk and reward.

Besides, who the hell flies a hulk in hisec these days? They're a kill-mail waiting to happen, even more so if he was solo.

Except it wouldn't be said Isk based risk vs reward was stupid if CCP invented a 100 million isk ship that was to fast to be hit by a titan and that could destroy it all by itself.

The cost has everything to do with risk vs reward he risked 9.09 million TOTAL, to kill a multi-hundred million ship.
Same as risk vs reward on Freighters, 10 catalysts vs a multi billion payout. The gankers are taking a minuscule risk compared to the rewards, be they epeen or dropped loot.

As I said its pathetically broken, no wonder so few want to be miners these days.
I love how people throwing out this argument conviently forget the fact that the ganker does not get anywhere close to that number on the killmail. If a ganker kills a normally fit hulk, they will be lucky to loot 10M ISK from the wreck. If they loot their own wreck, that means somewhere around 5M ISK profit, probably less on average. Given you probably can only gank 1 or 2 miners per hour including time to scout them (maybe 3 if they line up like ducks at a shooting gallery for you), it is one of the worst paying "professions" in the game. And even a badly fit Skiff is nowhere near profitable under any circumstances but super-bling fit. So much for that reward, eh?

Same with ganking empty freighters. Sure they get a useless 1B+ killmail, but they just lost hundreds of millions of ISK in ships with zero return. At least poor choices by other players mean you can find freighters that are profitable to shoot regularly, but for miners the bling-fit exhumer is so rare, it can't be considered income, more like winning the lottery.

I'm just glad you are not a game designer. You don't have to imagine very hard how boring and unfun a game would be where expensive ships were immune to attack from cheaper ships. Your mining ship generates tens or hundreds of millions of ISK of resources into the universe each play session while that piddly catalyst can do nothing but try destroy things, or earn a pittance at level 1/2 missions. It seems completely fair that the mining ship would cost more. Risk vs. reward remember? Or does that only apply to the other guy?

EDIT: As to the OP, Tippia experimented with this extensively and it seems correct: http://blog.beyondreality.se/TTK-CONCORD
There maybe a little more variation than ±1 second though as I think there are several things which happen during the spawning and moving of CONCORD and each of them is subject to some variance depending on the proximity of each event to the server tick. In rare cases that might add up in one direction and result in a significantly faster or slower response, but the vast majority of the time it is always with 2 seconds or so of Tippia's numbers in my experience.

Without responding to all of that. All I will say is that the mechanic is broken.

The miners and freighters are taking all the risk, while the gankers are putting tiny amounts up for risk and reaping the rewards. The mechanic is very broken, freighters and mining ships need more tank or destroyers need to go back to where they were.

Its ridiculous and broken.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#13 - 2016-10-15 06:55:43 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
Without responding to all of that. All I will say is that the mechanic is broken.

The miners and freighters are taking all the risk, while the gankers are putting tiny amounts up for risk and reaping the rewards. The mechanic is very broken, freighters and mining ships need more tank or destroyers need to go back to where they were.

Its ridiculous and broken.
I am not sure you understand how a discussion forum works. Generally, when some raises some points about the topic at hand you do not agree with, you refute them with points of your own that support your own position. You don't just say "You're wrong, I won't say why, but you are still wrong".

But ok, I guess my explanation of how industrial ships are balanced on risk vs. reward is wrong because reasons.

The more interesting question to address is why players like yourself are still whining about the fact their industrial ships are vulnerable to cheaper combat ships thirteen years after this game's release. Industrial ships have always been more vulnerable to combat ships (and cost more), precisely because they are specialized to generate income into the shared game universe. They are earning an income (that is a reward) but for this ability they are put at risk to attack by other players. This has always been how it works, and will always be the way it works until the servers are shutdown. You can't have a ship that mines better, fights better and costs less than an equivalent combat ship or no one would fly anything else.

This is never going to change no matter how many times you repeat that it is "broken". That begs the question, if you think it is so broken, why are still playing this game after all these years when there is no reason to believe it will ever change?

Your expensive industrial ships will always be vulnerable to much cheaper combat ships, as it always has been, as we are all suppose to be vulnerable to each other, not just players richer than ourselves.
Vincent Pelletier
Pelletier Imports and Exports
#14 - 2016-10-15 07:15:23 UTC
The point, and issue, is that a Catalyst does a sick amount of dps which it just shouldn't do. Some of the Dessies are balanced just fine, some are terribly imbalanced and the Cat is one of them.
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#15 - 2016-10-15 07:30:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Shae Tadaruwa
Mark Marconi wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Sheltar Haarmen wrote:
https://extraimago.com/image/wB7Q

Gank attempt happened in 0.5 system, according to game-mechanics 0.5s have 20s response time if fresh spawn, 26s if CONCORD already spawned somewhere else in a system, yet on attached pic we can see CONCORD arriving 2 sec too early. Question to experienced gankers - what sorcery is this? Does it have to do smth with server ticks?

You are a perfect example of how risk vs reward is broken.

Going after a 200 million isk ship in a 1 million isk destroyer.

it is pathetic that the mechanics are broken this badly.
Try a 10 million isk destroyer; regardless isk tanking is a dumb idea, the cost of the tools used to destroy something is irrelevant, nor does it have anything to do with risk and reward.

Besides, who the hell flies a hulk in hisec these days? They're a kill-mail waiting to happen, even more so if he was solo.

Except it wouldn't be said Isk based risk vs reward was stupid if CCP invented a 100 million isk ship that was to fast to be hit by a titan and that could destroy it all by itself.

The cost has everything to do with risk vs reward he risked 9.09 million TOTAL, to kill a multi-hundred million ship.
Same as risk vs reward on Freighters, 10 catalysts vs a multi billion payout. The gankers are taking a minuscule risk compared to the rewards, be they epeen or dropped loot.

As I said its pathetically broken, no wonder so few want to be miners these days.


Carebears only seeing highsec and not seeing that there are differences between killed and killing ships all over the game.

Carriers killed by interceptors for example.

ISK tanking is not a good approach to anything.

However, the OP came here to ask a simple question about mechanics, not so idiots can rant and cry all over the place like you're doing here. If you don't know the answer why not STFU, rather than whining about ganking.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

Black Pedro
Mine.
#16 - 2016-10-15 07:36:26 UTC
Vincent Pelletier wrote:
The point, and issue, is that a Catalyst does a sick amount of dps which it just shouldn't do. Some of the Dessies are balanced just fine, some are terribly imbalanced and the Cat is one of them.

You're quibbling over a rounding error. CCP just buffed freighter EHP 33%. The new Orca is going to get 66% buff to EHP in a few weeks. They are still going to get ganked (well perhaps not the Orca very often if fit for tank). Nothing would fundamentally change if you reduced Catalyst DPS.

Even if CCP nerfs the DPS of the Catalyst 10-20% to put it in line with the other T1 destroyers, it isn't going to change anything other than make no one fly that ship. Aside from the DPS, it is a terrible ship with no range, speed or tank - a true glass cannon.

The reality is that no matter what CCP did, people would be back here complaining that their expensive industrial ship can still be killed by a group of smaller, cheaper combat ships, perhaps now Coercers instead of Catalysts. Nothing is "broken" about this design. It is how it the Eve is suppose to work.
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#17 - 2016-10-15 07:40:40 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
You're quibbling over a rounding error. CCP just buffed freighter EHP 33%. The new Orca is going to get 66% buff to EHP in a few weeks. They are still going to get ganked (well perhaps not the Orca very often if fit for tank). Nothing would fundamentally change if you reduced Catalyst DPS.

Even if CCP nerfs the DPS of the Catalyst 10-20% to put it in line with the other T1 destroyers, it isn't going to change anything other than make no one fly that ship. Aside from the DPS, it is a terrible ship with no range, speed or tank - a true glass cannon.

The reality is that no matter what CCP did, people would be back here complaining that their expensive industrial ship can still be killed by a group of smaller, cheaper combat ships, perhaps now Coercers instead of Catalysts. Nothing is "broken" about this design. It is how it the Eve is suppose to work.

With CCP Fozzie's famous statement that CCP like to pair nerfs and buffs to ganking, based on recent and coming changes, it's due a buff fairly soon.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#18 - 2016-10-15 07:49:05 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Sheltar Haarmen wrote:
https://extraimago.com/image/wB7Q

Gank attempt happened in 0.5 system, according to game-mechanics 0.5s have 20s response time if fresh spawn, 26s if CONCORD already spawned somewhere else in a system, yet on attached pic we can see CONCORD arriving 2 sec too early. Question to experienced gankers - what sorcery is this? Does it have to do smth with server ticks?

You are a perfect example of how risk vs reward is broken.

Going after a 200 million isk ship in a 1 million isk destroyer.

it is pathetic that the mechanics are broken this badly.
Try a 10 million isk destroyer; regardless isk tanking is a dumb idea, the cost of the tools used to destroy something is irrelevant, nor does it have anything to do with risk and reward.

Besides, who the hell flies a hulk in hisec these days? They're a kill-mail waiting to happen, even more so if he was solo.

Except it wouldn't be said Isk based risk vs reward was stupid if CCP invented a 100 million isk ship that was to fast to be hit by a titan and that could destroy it all by itself.

The cost has everything to do with risk vs reward he risked 9.09 million TOTAL, to kill a multi-hundred million ship.
Same as risk vs reward on Freighters, 10 catalysts vs a multi billion payout. The gankers are taking a minuscule risk compared to the rewards, be they epeen or dropped loot.

As I said its pathetically broken, no wonder so few want to be miners these days.


Carebears only seeing highsec and not seeing that there are differences between killed and killing ships all over the game.

Carriers killed by interceptors for example.

ISK tanking is not a good approach to anything.

However, the OP came here to ask a simple question about mechanics, not so idiots can rant and cry all over the place like you're doing here. If you don't know the answer why not STFU, rather than whining about ganking.

Actually I have no problem with Hi-sec ganking. What I have a problem with is the broken risk vs reward that the destroyers have created.

As is the case with this ganker, he/she is a perfect example of that broken mechanic.

As to crying that would not appear to be me... After all the mechanic is clearly broken, I am not the one leaping to the defence of something so ridiculously stupid. A miner spends months saving to buy a hulk, you definitively cannot say the same for gankers in their 9.09 mill ships.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#19 - 2016-10-15 07:53:51 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:

With CCP Fozzie's famous statement that CCP like to pair nerfs and buffs to ganking, based on recent and coming changes, it's due a buff fairly soon.

Yes because the 9+ billion destroyed just by CODE ganking this morning is not enough, let alone the rest of the ganks and its only 7:50am Lol

Its a joke.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#20 - 2016-10-15 09:33:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Shae Tadaruwa
Mark Marconi wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:

With CCP Fozzie's famous statement that CCP like to pair nerfs and buffs to ganking, based on recent and coming changes, it's due a buff fairly soon.

Yes because the 9+ billion destroyed just by CODE ganking this morning is not enough, let alone the rest of the ganks and its only 7:50am Lol

Its a joke.

CODE.'s success is inversely proportional to the IQ of their targets.

If only stupid people stopped flying expensive ships.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

12Next page