Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I neither know nor care. The idea of a freighter is that it can haul "alot of stuff" hence the potential for a huge cargo hold. If you need to haul Alot-of-Stuff™ and it is also Worth-Alot™ then the solution is to find ways to mitigate your risk. Break up the cargo into less valuable bundles. Use a Scout. Use a webber. Maybe even have additional escort. And FFS fit a tank. Or all of the preceding.

Further, that CCP sets things up so that player can take on "too much risk" either via greed or ignorance is neither here-nor-there IMO. If that is their solution to create content...well so be it. Go argue with CCP, not me nor anyone else here on the forums. Talk to a sympathetic CSM member, create a ticket, what ever. You could try begging/pleading your case on the forums, but my view is if CCP sets the parameters so a player can take on too much risk...and they do...and somebody comes along and pushes their poop in...well too bad for them.



Yes, and have you looked at the freighters that are ganked? Have you looked at them in an even slightly systematic way? Honest question. My take on it is that many of the ganked freighters have....wait....wait....nope, wait....keep waiting...it is totally not worth is, mother f***ing cargo f***ing expanders and several billion ISK in cargo value. Seriously, what the mother f***ing Hell were these guys thinking? Weaken the tank and overload the thing. And did they have a scout? If so he was terribad.

In other words, CCP gave players a way to haul Lots-o-Stuff and still be relatively safe provided they tanked their ship and didn't put in too much ISK value into the cargo hold and maybe used a scout. But these pilots don't to that.



If it is too easy because the players getting ganked are foolish and imprudent why is it CCP's concern? If I am an idiot with a titan should CCP come and fix things and make me whole again? Why is it suddenly different with a freighter?



Corp thefts are still completely analogous, IMO. If you are imprudent and foolish enough to trust somebody with the Keys-to-the-Kingdom and you turn around and find out that guy has robbed you blind...you were foolish, you were imprudent.

Now if you wish to argue that a freighter should be allowed to carry 5 billion ISK without fear of being ganked and needing an escort...go for it. No really, start a thread asking for it. Here, I'll help.

Here is the equation where if you are hauling 5 billion ISK in cargo will make gankers indifferent between ganking such a freighter and not ganking it:

EHP = CIV*CRT*DPS/(2*GSC)

EHP = Effective Hit Points
CIV = Cargo ISK value
CRT = CONCORD Response Time
DPS = Damage Per Second
GSC = Gank Ship Cost.

So, for 5 billion the EHP of a freighter should be around 3,625,000 assuming gank catalysts or a GSC of 10 million ISK, a CRT of 25 seconds (the CRT with CONCORD being pulled), DPS of 580,. A seven fold increase for the obelisk. Does that sound reasonable to you? Thus, the gank fleet of catalysts will be 250 almost the maximum fleet size.

Please, go start such a thread. I have given you every thing you need in terms of the numbers, equations, etc. All you need to do is provide an argument for why 5 billion ISK in cargo value is the "right number". Go make the argument that freighter should have more EHP and an unfitted titan. If 5 billion is not the right number, then go "find the right number" and argue for it.

You are just introducing the next tier of can baiting, combined with the ability to lock someone down if they don't want to take your bait and not shoot you. You want to gank, gank. You want to wardec, wardec.
But don't go asking for exceptions to the mechanics that let you provoke fights that you have set up to be rigged and then don't allow people to decline to respond without being locked down for hours.

I provided a solution to your issue with 'not being able to point the freighter', since you can point the freighter currently even, it just makes the gank more complicated and doesn't need to. You instead are the one here asking for all your risk to be removed. Suspect status is a laughable risk, even at a trade hub it's normally a laughable risk. The only time it's actually a risk is when you are at an event with hundreds of random people.

They are still capitals. Their fittings are heavily restricted for balance reasons, they can dock in a astrahus because they have to in order to do their job and it doesn't matter if you need capital ship skills or not. They are capital class haulers.




A single ship can tackle dreadnoughts and titans too. Its a corp level asset, they are designed to vulnerable if they are unsupported.



We have a good level of counterplay, all you need is a single friend. That is not much of an ask considering how many people are required to kill one of these ships in highsec.


There is nothing oversized about a cruiser sized mod on a cruiser sized hull. That said the whole barge lineup is a shambles.

Typical of so many in this game, take the easy way and simply say it cannot be done without bothering to take the time to actually think the problem through. Unintended bumps happen at crowded areas like un-docks and gates, your solution is that nothing can be done I disagree. The game already tracks if your ship has bumped into another, or if another ship has bumped into you. It would be easy and add very little server load to simply count the number of times your ship has bumped into the same ship. With this information available the only thing that needs to be decided is how many times is it OK to bump into one other ship and over how much time. For a discussion starter let's go with three bumps over a two minute period this would cover every single unintended bumping situation I have ever experienced. If you bump into that one ship more than three times in a 2 minute period then you get your flag, if not then no flag is added and off you go and the whole process starts anew on the next un-dock or gate.

Another idea is for the game to calculate damage done to both ships based on speed and mass of both during the bump and then simply subtract that amount from the EHP of both ships. No resistances would apply because direct physical contact however any passive or active tank would be accounted for in the usual way. Not a real fan of this because it does nothing to address the one aspect of bumping that really bothers me but it would be a step in the right direction.

Any other thoughts or ideas?



Let's leave those ships on autopilot out of this, anyone that is lazy enough to autopilot something worth ganking gets what they deserve. With that out of the way, I disagree with your statement that bumps are easily avoided and easily countered.
See the section below on multiple accounts it is a part of the rest of these.

Let us start with the avoidance thing.
Latency can be an issue here granted it is not likely to be a very big part but it does play a role and there is nothing a player can do about latency other than to move to another location with better internet and / or closer to the servers.
Probably the biggest reason your are incorrect here is the mobility and maneuverability of the ships involved. If you are the intended target and in a smaller and more nimble ship then you have the advantage and with good piloting have a reasonable chance to escape the situation. On the other hand if you are flying a freighter and come up against a Machariel that is fit for maximum agility you have no (as in zero) chance to avoid the bump simply because your ship is to slow.
Yes spotters and webbers are a thing.

Considering the ships used for bumping high value targets there is only one viable counter and that is the web into warp thing and that has it's own problems most of which are centered on the requirement to have multiple accounts.
Trying to gank the bumper really has virtually no chance of success and it will always end up with ship losses due to Concord. Besides that most ships I have seen used to bump have enough ehp to ignore a small scale attack long enough to accomplish the required task making a small scale attack worthless and a larger scale attack is not always possible.

Trying to bump the bumper likewise is a questionable situation. Countering a bumper by trying to bump them is one of those things that looks good here in the forums but in reality it is very difficult to accomplish. The close proximity required means there is significant risk that you will hit the very ship you are trying to help thus aiding the bumper in their job. Trying to hit the bumper head on to stop their movement is impossible due to the close proximity to other ships involved, you simply do not have the room to maneuver into position. Hitting the bumper from the side has minimal to no impact on the situation as well. When you bump someone from the side you do not eliminate their forward movement you only impart a side movement to their ship so even if you hit the bumper he would still hit the target ship with the same amount of force.


Possibly this is true in your dreams, but not in reality. I know dozens of solo players that fly freighters almost exclusively because they like the whole independent does not have to answer to anyone but themselves aspect of what they do.

Now to that multiple account thing.
In another topic about computer hardware Rivr was lamenting how money allows for a better in game experience and that certainly is true for multiple accounts. And all areas of the game use them and for the same reasons, no one online at the moment, no one with the proper skills, no one in the same area, no on I can trust and the list goes on. Multiple accounts are the single biggest balance nightmare we and CCP have to deal with perhaps it is time that we were all restricted to a single account then everyone would have to rely on friends and corp mates instead of some of us having the luxery of multiple accounts.

baltec 1 in your post quoted above you referred to certain classes of ships as being viewed as corp assets instead of belonging to individual characters. I have not had time to really think about this and all the ways it could affect the game both positive an negative but initially it seems to hold some interesting possibilities.

They are huge, slow and have the agility of an overweight moon. They are exactly like every other capital.



As a man with a phoenix I can safely say I'm not killing a HIC.




Name anything that doesn't get harder the more you are outnumbered.



[Skiff, Skiff fit]

Mining Laser Upgrade II
Mining Laser Upgrade II
Drone Damage Amplifier II

10MN Afterburner II
Thermal Dissipation Field II
EM Ward Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Small Shield Extender II

Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II

Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Medium Ancillary Current Router I


Vespa EC-600 x5
Hammerhead II x5

61k ehp, 670 m/s, cap stable, 280 DPS plus a flight of ECM.

The whole problem starts there. The ship is so effective solo that the whole "it should be escorted for protection" falls flat on it's face. If the ship is designed to not be flown solo, then the game should make this a reality. Not let it fly hundred of jumps if not more on average before it ever really need an escort. You can't say it need an escort and then never really make it true. Is the ship designed around being a corporate asset requiring protection but only 2% of the time? Why is that not stupid design to create such a niche profession of escorting?

Spend countless hours in space being absolutely useless because every time you might be needed, the pirate will not engage and just kill the next loaded freighter in line.

Thanks for the heads up on the botched quote, BTW.

Anyways....RIGHT! That is the purpose of this thread, can there be a replacement or modification to "bumping" or more accurately tackling. Something that can lead to an escalating conflict. Something that might draw somebody in on short notice (e.g. guy sees a freighter get tackled and the tackling ship goes suspect....reship and engage...for fun). Now an escort with guns is an option. Yes, nothing might happen, but so what? Nobody is assured of content....and BTW, this is a weird complaint. You moved 5 billion ISK safely 25 jumps...no contact with the enemy. Congratulations, job done, go have a beer. I thought that was the goal....safely move your stuff.

Edit: And I'm not angry, but frustrated. You want to rehash a thread where the issue of risk was brought up, discussed and pretty much everyone agreed. The high risk of a freighter that is being used imprudently is not really something CCP should address, but that the imprudent players should address...by not being imprudent. That is not crazy at all. The player chooses to take that large risk. How can CCP address a player deciding to take on too much risk?

Here let me put it this way: It is a behavioral issue, not a mechanics issue. The player is the problem, not the mechanics. The player is making a bad decision. You can't fix that via mechanics.

And there is nothing wrong with this so long as such players understand the risk and are fine with it.

The problem is when people argue that the risk should be mitigated by CCP and not the player(s).

such dumb ideas. As if cowardly high sec gankers didn't have it easy enough. Freighters should be made even more ungankable in high sec to push these weenies into real pvp.

completely whacked out risk vs reward in this crap game.

Don't feed the troll.