These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Pirate Battleships & Absurd Ganker Arguments

First post
Author
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#121 - 2017-02-24 14:09:50 UTC
lilol' me wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
lilol' me wrote:


and thats EXACTLY the problem..



What is?


people not being able to take those assets when you can drop 1000 dreads and supers..... but i guess its OK for you to have passive income but not others...hmmm sounds like hypocricy

Those people spent a lot of effort to get those 1000 dreads and supers to take and defend their space where this passive income is possible. It is the reward for holding that space. Not sure why you feel entitled to get a passive income as well for zero effort.
Wolfgang Jannesen
Czerka.
What Could Possibly Go Wr0ng
#122 - 2017-02-24 14:15:40 UTC
lilol' me wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
lilol' me wrote:


and thats EXACTLY the problem..




What is?


people not being able to take those assets when you can drop 1000 dreads and supers..... but i guess its OK for you to have passive income but not others...hmmm sounds like hypocricy


All ship losses are your responsibility, you're complaining about the game functioning as intended.
Keno Skir
#123 - 2017-02-24 16:21:40 UTC
lilol' me wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
lilol' me wrote:


and thats EXACTLY the problem..




What is?


people not being able to take those assets when you can drop 1000 dreads and supers..... but i guess its OK for you to have passive income but not others...hmmm sounds like hypocricy


Well, they worked for what they have as a group and as you pointed out, now defend it as a group. For some reason folks who haven't worked for it also expect passive income, which is obviously stupid Pirate
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#124 - 2017-02-24 18:14:42 UTC
lilol' me wrote:


people not being able to take those assets when you can drop 1000 dreads and supers..... but i guess its OK for you to have passive income but not others...hmmm sounds like hypocricy


We are not invincible
Mr Mieyli
Doomheim
#125 - 2017-02-24 18:40:48 UTC
Have to say I've not read the whole thread, but pirate battleships tend to be fairly solid targets. For example a vindicator can put up some serious tank with quite cheap modules. In all this means a lot of ehp and likely not much loot for the gankers, besides the KM.

In contrast, mining ships can be killed with one or two destroyers, freighters tend to be jammed full of expensive cargo, and marauders tend to use shiny modules which can be looted. I'm no ganker but I know which targets I would be going for.

This post brought to you by CCP's alpha forum alt initiative. Playing the eve forums has never come cheaper.

Reiisha
#126 - 2017-02-24 19:06:35 UTC
Suicide ganking and gatecamping are not a problem whatsoever.

The real problem lies in the unlimited use of alts to sidestep all consequences.

However, that is hilariously difficult to even think about fixing and most people are so ensorceled by the alt meta (which has existed since 2003) that they will defend it to the death, despite the massive problems alts bring to the systems currently in place - Let alone that the game has been quasi designed around the use of alts over the years.

You can bet that if gatecampers and suicide gankers couldn't use alts anymore, they'd be hypocritically crying havoc over how unfair the game is to them once they actually have to deal with the consequences of being at -10.

Sadly, this will likely not happen for a long time, given how critical alts are for nullsec - Even if just to keep the game from being too boring (unless there are people who want to play a fulltime cyno character for example).

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#127 - 2017-02-24 20:47:37 UTC
Reiisha wrote:
Suicide ganking and gatecamping are not a problem whatsoever.

The real problem lies in the unlimited use of alts to sidestep all consequences.

However, that is hilariously difficult to even think about fixing and most people are so ensorceled by the alt meta (which has existed since 2003) that they will defend it to the death, despite the massive problems alts bring to the systems currently in place - Let alone that the game has been quasi designed around the use of alts over the years.

You can bet that if gatecampers and suicide gankers couldn't use alts anymore, they'd be hypocritically crying havoc over how unfair the game is to them once they actually have to deal with the consequences of being at -10.

Sadly, this will likely not happen for a long time, given how critical alts are for nullsec - Even if just to keep the game from being too boring (unless there are people who want to play a fulltime cyno character for example).


That would hit miners and mission runners just as hard if not harder.
Cade Windstalker
#128 - 2017-02-24 21:58:00 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Reiisha wrote:
Suicide ganking and gatecamping are not a problem whatsoever.

The real problem lies in the unlimited use of alts to sidestep all consequences.

However, that is hilariously difficult to even think about fixing and most people are so ensorceled by the alt meta (which has existed since 2003) that they will defend it to the death, despite the massive problems alts bring to the systems currently in place - Let alone that the game has been quasi designed around the use of alts over the years.

You can bet that if gatecampers and suicide gankers couldn't use alts anymore, they'd be hypocritically crying havoc over how unfair the game is to them once they actually have to deal with the consequences of being at -10.

Sadly, this will likely not happen for a long time, given how critical alts are for nullsec - Even if just to keep the game from being too boring (unless there are people who want to play a fulltime cyno character for example).


That would hit miners and mission runners just as hard if not harder.


Yeah, going to second this. Removing alts from the game is just a generally bad idea.

Also clearly Reiisha has never heard of exchanging tags for sec status. This would actually impact gankers *less* than almost any other profession since sec status is actually pretty easy to buy back or grind back if you know what you're doing. It's even less costly if you don't bother popping pods, since that's a way larger sec status hit than just blowing up a ship.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#129 - 2017-02-25 06:45:50 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Its a continuing mystery to me why suicide ganking is so over-represented in discussion here, considering its tiny rate of occurrence in EVE.

Its also a mystery to me why some people want to turn HS into a WoW-style Goldshire.

I also dont understand people trying to nerf LS gatecamps, when its pretty much the only thing LS has going for it.
(LS gets the poopy end of the stick on just about everything anyways)

Its pretty simple. Its much too easy. The risk vs reward balance is out of wack.

I have pirated, carebeared, wardecced, mined, mission, done wormholes, null anoms, small, med, fleet pvp and suicide ganked.

Suicide ganking is the only thing that requires almost no effort risk. You can jump in a ship for under 10 mill, sit at station / gate while protected by concord and kill ships many times more valuable than yours.

Gankers like to claim theyre making EvE more hardcore but theyre doing so while exploiting their non-consensual pvp flag and using disposable alts / concord protection to avoid any of EvEs hardcore penalties. I personally know a large number of miners / anom runners who refuse to PvP or undock in Null if any risk is involved who smack talk people theyve just ganked on their code / alliance ganker alts.

There should be no easy mode in EvE but there is and its ganking by a long shot. Its riskier to undock a mining barge or mission ship

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Salvos Rhoska
#130 - 2017-02-25 08:35:46 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
. Removing alts from the game is just a generally bad idea.


Yet in another thread you said making some activities more alt reliant (such as gathering intel in non-Local ID Player Sov), is generally a bad idea.

There is a degree of contradiction there.

Removing alts would be devastating for CCPs bottomline.
Its obviously out of the question.

It thus makes sense to instead encourage use of alts.
Kaeden 3142
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#131 - 2017-02-25 08:37:06 UTC
I guess you can't really blame the market on the oversupply of factions battleships. The economy of eve is one of its strengths in its setting . The tganking does represent one sided fights which does cannibalise on the player community. I would like to see even matches it would make eve like an overwatch and players would be less risk versed.
Salvos Rhoska
#132 - 2017-02-25 08:50:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Infinity Ziona wrote:
.Suicide ganking is the only thing that requires almost no effort risk. You can jump in a ship for under 10 mill, sit at station / gate while protected by concord and kill ships many times more valuable than yours.


I dont disagree with the rest of your post, some parts are not quite the way I see them, but they are only a matter of few degrees from which we perceive the issues.

I however want to draw attention the specific part above.
Suicide Ganking has a very unique and peculiar equity of risk/reward.
As you say, suicide gankers benefit from the same CONCORD protection as their targets.
Yet when they make their attack, they suddenly are hit with a 100% fatal risk from CONCORD.
As to their reward vs that risk, they can fairly accurately estimate their costs/effort vs potential profits.
They can fairly accurately estimate their dps/alpha vs usual standards of EHP.
Sure, the loot drop is random, but it balances out in the long run as a predictable average.

Im sure its been suggested before, but how about making cargo scanning in HS trigger a suspect timer?
Suicide Ganking would still be possible, but it would introduce more risk as they cant be as certain of their potential profits.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#133 - 2017-02-25 08:52:25 UTC
Kaeden 3142 wrote:
I guess you can't really blame the market on the oversupply of factions battleships. The economy of eve is one of its strengths in its setting . The tganking does represent one sided fights which does cannibalise on the player community. I would like to see even matches it would make eve like an overwatch and players would be less risk versed.

EVE is an open world sandbox game with non-consensual PvP at the center. It is not a MOBA. If you want to.play a MOBA, go play overwatch or dota.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#134 - 2017-02-25 09:00:42 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
.Suicide ganking is the only thing that requires almas rd ost no effort risk. You can jump in a ship for under 10 mill, sit at station / gate while protected byisntconcord and kill ships many times more valuable than yours.


I dont disagree with the rest of your post, some parts are not quite the way I see them, but they are only a matter of few degrees from which we perceive the issues.

I however want to draw attention the specific part above.
Suicide Ganking has a very unique and peculiar equity of risk/reward.
As you say, suicide gankers benefit from the same CONCORD protection as their targets.
Yet when they make their attack, they suddenly are hit with a 100% fatal risk from CONCORD.
As to their reward vs that risk, they can fairly accurately estimate their costs/effort vs potential profits.
They can fairly accurately estimate their dps/alpha vs usual standards of EHP.
Sure, the loot drop is random, but it balances out in the long run as a predictable average.

Im sure its been suggested before, but how about making cargo scanning in HS trigger a suspect timer?

The suicide ship is basically ammunition. In accounting terms an expense not an asset. If there was more variability, random rather than definitive delay on Concord thatd be a risk, a gamble, but otherwise no.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Salvos Rhoska
#135 - 2017-02-25 09:13:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
.Suicide ganking is the only thing that requires almas rd ost no effort risk. You can jump in a ship for under 10 mill, sit at station / gate while protected byisntconcord and kill ships many times more valuable than yours.


I dont disagree with the rest of your post, some parts are not quite the way I see them, but they are only a matter of few degrees from which we perceive the issues.

I however want to draw attention the specific part above.
Suicide Ganking has a very unique and peculiar equity of risk/reward.
As you say, suicide gankers benefit from the same CONCORD protection as their targets.
Yet when they make their attack, they suddenly are hit with a 100% fatal risk from CONCORD.
As to their reward vs that risk, they can fairly accurately estimate their costs/effort vs potential profits.
They can fairly accurately estimate their dps/alpha vs usual standards of EHP.
Sure, the loot drop is random, but it balances out in the long run as a predictable average.

Im sure its been suggested before, but how about making cargo scanning in HS trigger a suspect timer?

The suicide ship is basically ammunition. In accounting terms an expense not an asset. If there was more variability, random rather than definitive delay on Concord thatd be a risk, a gamble, but otherwise no.


Well, its an asset, that is expended, as a cost inorder to attempt to generate profit.

If cargo scanning in HS triggered a suspect timer, it would at least warn the potential target as well as others of someone trying to ascertain their value, as well as make the scanning ship a free-for-all target.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#136 - 2017-02-25 09:35:41 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

If cargo scanning in HS triggered a suspect timer, it would at least warn the potential target as well as others of someone trying to ascertain their value, as well as make the scanning ship a free-for-all target.

It would take 10s and another whine post about throw away scan alts would pop up on the forums.

The problem like always is not that one side can't be touched, but that one side is actually interested how the game mechanics work and work out ways to to use them in their favour. In most traditional games that would be called 'game strategy' or simply 'playing the game', carebears in EVE call it 'exploitiation of game mechanics'.

The other side has no interest in doing so and rather comes to the forums to whine for nerfs to the enemy and more isolation. It has always been this way and IZ is one of the biggest whiners since forever. Don't expect a rational discussion.
Salvos Rhoska
#137 - 2017-02-25 09:56:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

If cargo scanning in HS triggered a suspect timer, it would at least warn the potential target as well as others of someone trying to ascertain their value, as well as make the scanning ship a free-for-all target.

It would take 10s and another whine post about throw away scan alts would pop up on the forums.

The problem like always is not that one side can't be touched, but that one side is actually interested how the game mechanics work and work out ways to to use them in their favour. In most traditional games that would be called 'game strategy' or simply 'playing the game', carebears in EVE call it 'exploitiation of game mechanics'.

The other side has no interest in doing so and rather comes to the forums to whine for nerfs to the enemy and more isolation. It has always been this way and IZ is one of the biggest whiners since forever. Don't expect a rational discussion.


Sure, I can understsnd what you mean, but none of that refutes or contradicts my suggestion above.

Its a very soft change. Wouldnt affect mission ship suicide ganking largely at all, as you are more concerned with the modules which are unscannable, rather than cargo contents. Wouldnt make suicide ganking impossible along trade lines either, just less certain of their profits.

Throwaway alts arent really a topic imo, as they occur anyways, and are a matter of player choice, not game mechanics.
Whining isnt an issue either, as it happens anyways, even now.

I think cargo scanning should be considered an invasive action in HS, and hence subject to a suspect timer.
CONCORD wont yet interfere, but other players can, and the target is warned that an attack may be impending, as are other ships in the system.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#138 - 2017-02-25 10:16:47 UTC
They are already warned if they are at the keyboard. If you are targeted by a scanner you get an animation and a sound.

The only thing that would change is that instead of scanning with the scout ship they would bring in an alt in a noobship with a scanner to do the job.

Also most AG will not shoot a suspect in anything with weapons since they have no NPC support

But hey, I don't say don't implement it. I just say it wont change much
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#139 - 2017-02-25 11:06:14 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


Sure, I can understsnd what you mean, but none of that refutes or contradicts my suggestion above.



This is what we call the just one more nerf argument.

Ganking is already the most punished activity in EVE as well as needing to be one of the most organised as far as highsec goes and undoubtedly the most expensive activity in EVE outside of the suicide dreads.
Agent 5B
Venom and Bullet Corporation
#140 - 2017-02-25 11:28:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Agent 5B
Jenn aSide wrote:
IB4L?

A real good example here of someone seeing only what they want, and confusing facts.

He mentions LP for pirate battleships. Not one mention of the fact that CCP increased the escalation chances for anomalies (which means more escalations, which means more pirate battleship BPCs).

And then he displays more ignorance by suggesting that pirate battleships will cost less than T1. Meaning he doesn't understand how the price of something can't dip below the cost of the materials used to build it.... Pirate battleships were way overpriced do to scarcity, they are cheaper now because of CCP increasing escalation chances.

I mean really, how batshit crazy do you have to be to conflate pirate BS prices, ganking, and safety in high sec?


That's correct the price of a pirate faction BS will be relative to the demand and the supply.

If the demand is lower than the price of producing them then the supply ceases to exist until the price rises again.

The supply is limited by the number of BPC that drop from sites and the number of people willing and able to run pirate faction missions to get them.

(In terms of minerals)
That isn't quite correct because the Pirate faction ships can be bought from the LP store without having to provide a T1 battleship in exchange at the bargain price of 80 mil and 800 k LP.

Still I can't see that ever getting to the state where it is cheaper than a T1 battleship though potentially a Mackerel could become cheaper than a Typhoon Fleet issue and probably has at times.