EVE General Discussion

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?

Is this a ganker complaining about getting blown up...?

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.

Second 24 you start your molestation of a hulk
Second 42 CONCORD arrived

Looks to be ballpark to me

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Its a joke.