These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
Previous page12
 

Bowhead are too tanky

Author
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#21 - 2017-07-08 23:22:41 UTC
@ rivr
If goons are killing everyone but their friends then even more reason to open the field to more players.

@ donna.
I'm not a ganker. Must have said that a hundred times. I'm the guy competing with hundreds of afk freighters. The other thing ive said a hundred times is that players that leave because of ganking aren't going to stick around anyways. The drop in players? Is people that are bored! That is all. There is no increase in ganking that is pushing players out the game. Quite the opposite instead.

I'm even starting to believe the tin foil hattery that ccp are just trying to cash out what they can before the game goes under.

@ Cindy
1- Afk pilots and bads carry less to mitigate the risk. But it wouldn't be a problem for some. And they'd make more money for it. Thats precisely the point I'm trying to make.

2. - The 'economics' of ganking is entirely player driven. It's literally impossible for it to favour anyone. But with a longer response time the efforts of defenders matter more.

3. - Why does that matter? You're really talking out your arse by now. As mentioned, ganking wasn't an intended mechanic, so haulers should never have their tank balanced for it?

4.- whats embarrassing is you should take a trip to uedama and niarja. What you 'KNOW' is bull.

5. - I'm not talking isk. I'm talking materials. Different thing. And hi-sec has ridiculously high production and ridiculously low destruction. It's where the vast majority of players are. It's the prime target for managing production/destruction.

You don't actually know what you're talking about.

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

Cade Windstalker
#22 - 2017-07-09 01:35:02 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Donna, all you need is a webber. Thats it. One escort.

What i want? Lower ehp and/or increased response time of concord. The latter is my favourite as that allows defenders more time as well. What does the freighter get? More money for hauling successfully.


And you're not going to get it because CCP won't design gameplay that requires Alts, which is what this is.
Axure Abbacus
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp
#23 - 2017-07-09 02:11:30 UTC
First question: what's the real interest in this hull? Its a dull lunch box. Its a harder to crack but doe's it really harm Eves game play?

Second question: Who's day is so hard up for kills that a bowhead is really what you are looking to pvp on? looks like there is interest in dropping some Incursion fit hulls without the risk involved in ganking an Incursion fleet.

Third question: Anyone know of a good shawarma place in New Hampshire?

It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.

Kenrailae
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#24 - 2017-07-09 04:22:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenrailae
Daichi Yamato wrote:


Ken, saying it shouldn't be profitable to gank fails to understand that it is neither ccp nor the ganker that sets the reward for the gank. The ONLY person in direct control of how profitable anything is to gank is the hauler. Freighters could have their ehp multiplied by ten tomorrow and i could fill mine with dead space mods and still be profitable to gank. The idea is to put the ehp of haulers in an area that encourages players to make meaningful choices in what they haul, where they haul it and how they haul it.

They can haul more expensive stuff through dangerous areas, but have to do it with a bit of thought.
They can haul expensive stuff afk but have to take it somewhere less profitable.
They can haul stuff afk through dangerous areas but have to sacrifice capacity.




Cade is a useless forum troll and will argue the sky is magenta just to convince himself he knows something. Engaging with him is worse than instasvipuls.


Daichi, this is a horrid response from you though, it's like you didn't even try. OBVIOUSLY if I throw a rattlsnake victory in my obelisk and yolo it across high sec, that skews the results. I wasn't talking about that though, and I don't think most people are. No, we're talking about how it's pretty much worthwhile to gank an empty freighter, because KB green and minmaxed strategies that make the loss worth it, and the moment you put freight in it, it's just isk back in pocket.



I've done a fair share of ganking, but admittedly most of that is in thrashers, caty's and ruptures. 2-3 guys can make a ridiculous amount of isk doing it, and that's before getting into the 'good stuff' of freighters and incursion ships. I don't really care how many people want to argue til their purple in the face, that doesn't change anything. Ganking is out of balance, and these calls to make the few ships that can deal with ganking even a little bit, more helpless are proof positive.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal

Cade Windstalker
#25 - 2017-07-09 04:37:15 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:
Cade is a useless forum troll and will argue the sky is magenta just to convince himself he knows something. Engaging with him is worse than instasvipuls.


I love how you insulted my intelligence and then proceeded to say more or less the same thing I said halfway up the previous page...

Though personally I think you're both wrong and overall ganking isn't in a bad state right now. It's profitable but not so much so that we're literally at the point of people ganking empty freighters for the KB padding, Burn Jita excepting.

Most of what dies is either under-tanked or over-stuffed, and generally speaking it's not worthwhile to gather the people required to gank a big and well tanked ship. If that changes then this will probably need another look.

Also Daichi that industrial surplus argument, or the idea that more stuff *needs* to start dying is ridiculous. There's not data to support it, and Red Frog continues to make plenty of profit as a hauling service, so I really have no idea what you're on about there...
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#26 - 2017-07-09 14:02:35 UTC
Cade, changing concord response times has little to do with Web and alts. It's just to lower the entry level of ganking freighters. Red frog make profit through sheer volume. Like ganking, no one else wants to do it because it's not worth it. But the amount of people making contracts instead of moving their own stuff is small. It's easy and safe enough to move your own stuff pretty much all the time. In an ideal world, it wouldn't be out of the ordinary to contract out big hauls over long distances.

Pretty much every economic report shows production significantly higher than destruction. Suggesting every month the surplus is being added to. Prices are driven down and you can see this right now where some ships are un-profitable to make. It may be ridiculous to you but I'm far from alone in this thinking.

Ken, why would we want to stop something as intangible as green killboard ganking? How would you even stop it? Make freighters cost less than the destroyers it takes to kill them? Isk tank everything? That makes no sense.

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

Cade Windstalker
#27 - 2017-07-09 20:33:06 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Cade, changing concord response times has little to do with Web and alts. It's just to lower the entry level of ganking freighters.


The entry level for ganking in general is already solo-ganks in a Catalyst. There's no need to make a 1b ISK ship easily gankable by a newbie.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
Red frog make profit through sheer volume. Like ganking, no one else wants to do it because it's not worth it. But the amount of people making contracts instead of moving their own stuff is small. It's easy and safe enough to move your own stuff pretty much all the time. In an ideal world, it wouldn't be out of the ordinary to contract out big hauls over long distances.


Individual in Red Frog still make a good profit individually though. If you don't believe me go take a look at their rates. Those same rates haven't significantly changed in years by the way. It's also already not unusual to hire others to move large volumes of stuff long distances.

You either hire Red/Black Frog or in Null it's often done within the Corp or Alliance you belong to.

Really I'm not sure why you think it's unusual for players to do this, considering Red Frog alone flat out posts their contract numbers on their site.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
Pretty much every economic report shows production significantly higher than destruction. Suggesting every month the surplus is being added to. Prices are driven down and you can see this right now where some ships are un-profitable to make. It may be ridiculous to you but I'm far from alone in this thinking.


That's not actually true. Raw mineral value destroyed is generally above the amount mined, it's only been in the last few months that the inverse has been true and that's the fault of the Rorqual: http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/May_2017/0_produced.vs.destroyed.png

Also that doesn't take into account the many things which are produced but you wouldn't expect to ever show up as Destroyed, like ammo or the vast majority of PvE ships.

Also, again, if you look at the mineral price index the general trend over the years has been up not down, barring the last six months of Rorqual ridiculousness.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#28 - 2017-07-10 14:48:16 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
@ rivr
If goons are killing everyone but their friends then even more reason to open the field to more players.

Let me see if I am following your twisted logic.
Goons are ganking everything but their friends so we need to lower the EHP or increase Concord response times to open the field to other players.
So we have a more wide open field for others to play on, the real question is with the Goons killing everything now what would be left on that field for the others?

Daichi Yamato wrote:
@ donna.
I'm not a ganker. Must have said that a hundred times. I'm the guy competing with hundreds of afk freighters. The other thing ive said a hundred times is that players that leave because of ganking aren't going to stick around anyways. The drop in players? Is people that are bored! That is all. There is no increase in ganking that is pushing players out the game. Quite the opposite instead.

I am not convinced by your statement that you are not a ganker, but it matters little because you still promote changes to the game that benefit the gankers and punish the rest of us. If those hundreds of freighters are the problem then perhaps you should become a ganker, make ISK AND eliminate part of the competition all in one easy go that is a win - win situation.

You see I NEVER believed that line of marketing hype BS from fan-fest why?
There was insufficient information given on how the study was done and how they chose the accounts to look at. Most notable in this is the simple question did they actually send out questionnaires or did they simply analyze data from the logs? Given that over the last 38 years I have watched my wife and the attorneys she works with twist data to support a claim let's just say I am a little skeptical about this aspect of the study and the results presented.

It does not fit with the personal experiences of myself and more than a dozen other real life friends that play EvE.

But mostly I do not believe it because the claim does not fit with the changes we see in game. As you stated there have been repeated nerfs to ganking and there have been repeated nerfs to the other non-consensual PvP in the gameas well. If non-consensual PvP does not cause people to leave the game then there is no logic behind and no reason for these repeated nerfs. On the other hand if we simply accept that non-consensual PvP DOES cause players to leave the game then these repeated nerfs make sense as CCP struggles to find a balance between both sides knowing that any changes they make risk losing players on one side or the other.
Cindy the Sewer
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#29 - 2017-07-11 05:32:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Cindy the Sewer
redacted.

Conversation was pointless for both people involved.

Searing destruction of your viewpoint is incoming and no you won't win the discussion or even walk away with anything resembling a win, so bail out early or suffer repeated embarrassments. You have been warned.

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#30 - 2017-07-11 12:50:36 UTC
@ cade
My understanding of that graph is that destruction was measured in value of destroyed items. Not mineral value. Otherwise what was the point of this?
Is there anywhere that it says that destruction is measured in minerals?

@ Donna
Yup. Overloaded and afk freighters die. Freighters that are protected/used smartly die less. Problem?

And i have no doubt that non-consensual pvp makes some people leave. But what I've always said is that these players are going to leave anyways. They are the players that level up their raven and quit. They were always quitting. Even when eve was growing every year, these players were quitting. The problem is when ccp try to retain such players at the expense of their core players. And thats why sub numbers are falling (and have been since crime watch dealt the biggest blow to wardecs and ganking). They've swapped players that would stick around for years for those who last about a month.

Now ccp are apparently grasping at anything to get bits of cash.

Your personal experience is exactly that. Biased by the people you surround yourself with. I've seen entire alliances die out after crime watch and wardec nerfs. Alliances that cultured new bros, showing them how the little guy with no sp could hunt big stupid fish.

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

Cade Windstalker
#31 - 2017-07-11 14:17:08 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
@ cade
My understanding of that graph is that destruction was measured in value of destroyed items. Not mineral value. Otherwise what was the point of this?
Is there anywhere that it says that destruction is measured in minerals?


Well, for one the spike for B-R is only ~2.5t instead of the 11t reported ISK value destroyed in the battle, so that's one good indication.

That Destruction is measured in Mineral Value has always been something of an assumption on my part, but I can't personally find anything one way or the other.

That said, I can't find any indications that the relationship between those two lines, regardless of how they're measured, has ever been anything other than roughly their current state. Considering the game's economy has been healthy for years under this state I'm not sure why you feel that the amount destroyed needs to be significantly increased, or why you think that making Freighter Ganking massively easier is the way to do that since the general reaction of players to a massive increase in risk isn't to rush into the meat grinder, it's to avoid the risky activities. So if you massively increase the risk of flying a Freighter people will stop doing so.
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
#32 - 2017-07-11 20:55:09 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Tried to tell them this when it first came out. Can you believe that the carebears said that even the current amount of tank wasn't high enough. They wanted it to be unprofitable to gank even when it was carrying dead space fit pirate battleships.

All freighters tank too much. Stupidity isn't punished enough and the smart lose out because of it.

Just nerf raw hp. As should have been done with the dc changes.

Tank too much? A ship without any defensive capability that can be ganked wiht 6 Taloses or 12 Bombers tanks too much? I scout my freighters, web my freighters, take detours with my freighters to minimize gank ability and yet I get threatened and bumped by gankers still. I wonder, which stupidity you are talking about that should be punished.

Not to mention that this person complains about a failed gank, I presume, where they selected a target that was actually prepared for the dangers in space, and now the ganker complains that people in otherwise defenseless ships can tank more than 10 Taloses. Seriously, I wonder which stupidity you are talking about...

On the killboard, I see Bowheads dying against 10 Taloses/Nagas/Bombers if they are not fitted correctly or against 26 people (which is too many people as the killmail shows no capsule of any ganker ship) if they are fitted correctly. I don't see a problem having to use at least 10 characters to engage in a criminal activity against an otherwise defenseless targets, especially since all competent ganker groups, the OP's included, have more than enough characters ready every time they gank.



I don't see a problem having to use at least 10 characters to engage in a criminal activity against an otherwise defenseless targets.

Hey there is a stone statue of a Care Bear over there. Maybe you and your band of ten criminals can go Pogue Hone the defenseless thing.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#33 - 2017-07-12 00:24:52 UTC
The graph has weekly integers. I imagine these are weekly averages. Maybe something to do with that or the way something has been measured for that week. Seems weird.

But i have found that destruction is kill board value of losses. Not mineral amount.
Quote:

Destruction values is the lost value of all kill-mails in 2013, i.e. it includes not only what was destroyed but also what dropped. On top of that, since supercapitals don't have a market-price, their production cost was added to the killmail value

Source

I disagree that the market has been healthy all this time. Complaint of the terrible margin on ships is not new. Neither is that of lack of destruction.

Thats not to say i think destruction needs to be higher or even the same as production (our graph misses lots of info out, clearly, like meta mods aren't in production, are faction ships? And dropped items are counted but not destroyed. Trashed items and inactive accounts aren't in there and so on). But yeah i really do think stuff needs to die more. Not only to drive the economy but player engagement too.

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

Empire Raider
Spicy Onion Rings
#34 - 2017-07-15 00:31:14 UTC
A freighter can be saved by a single pilot on the right ship. The same way it can be bumped out of alignment, it can be bumped back into it's warp vector and sent on its merry way.

I may be a ganker, but like everyone else I have freighter pilots -- multiple, in fact -- and never one of them was helpless against a bumper. I just log an alt and rescue it, simple as that.

This is a tactic I've openly tried to teach anti-gankers just to see if they are capable of learning, but for some reason no one seems to be interested. Well, can you blame them? Not once I saw a hauler show proper appreciation for the rescue they receive. Promises of payment are never honored, so they might as well just let them die and try to steal some loot instead.

Those haulers just want to complain that their life is too hard and they are too vulnerable, yet they try to traffic through Niarja and Uedama with ludicrous amounts of ISK in cargo completely ignoring the fact that gankers exist and will try to take that from them.

There is nothing wrong with the ships, the problem are the pilots.
Previous page12