These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Balancing High Sec suicide ganking by Hull Value - a realistic approach

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2013-11-01 17:02:20 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
While I don't have any particular suggestions one way or the other, I do want to say that it's always struck me as odd that after all the training for a freighter and all the expense of buying one you can't actually carry anything significant in it unless you have a multple scouts, some webbers, 8-10 logi and a little bit of divine intervention.

Freighters being nothing more than 1b-ISK dump trucks seems somehow... wrong. Oh well, that's just EVE I suppose.


You'd only need 1 scout and 1 webber to be 95% safe. Compare that to the 15-25 people needed to scout, gank and loot your freighter and it looks very much in favor of the freighter pilot.
Freedom Equality
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2013-11-01 17:03:57 UTC
For jump freighters the numbers will differ i`m guessing, CCP will sort it all out.

We are discussing the idea here, the numbers will be tweaked by CCP if this is implemented.

But i think we clearly need some kind of fine. Right now we have freighters that cost 1.5bil afraid to carry more than 1 bil as they will get suicide ganked.

Not to mention smaller ships or mission ships that are afraid to use deadspace modules.

We clearly need a fine, that is my opinion.

How big should it be, i`ll let CCP decide, i will not mind if they change the values.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#23 - 2013-11-01 17:13:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
No. Freighter suicide ganks are still rare and pilots have options already to reduce risk. Stop asking for hand holding mechanics, when you seemingly don't want to use the options CCP allow already.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#24 - 2013-11-01 17:13:38 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
While I don't have any particular suggestions one way or the other, I do want to say that it's always struck me as odd that after all the training for a freighter and all the expense of buying one you can't actually carry anything significant in it unless you have a multple scouts, some webbers, 8-10 logi and a little bit of divine intervention.

Freighters being nothing more than 1b-ISK dump trucks seems somehow... wrong. Oh well, that's just EVE I suppose.



you can try an old trick of not flying during peak hours for solo runs.

rushing to a trade hub like jita smack dab in the middle of say USTZ primetime can be not such a good idea. Generally a time when the camps are manned more heavily.

or do not use shortest route. You see gankers do the same thing most pilots do. If they want to go from rens to jita they type jita in map, see the route and follow it. If a nice .5 on the way they setup camp knowing they have a longer clock till concord shows up. Solution: don't follow this route and you avoid the gate camp.

This is why many empire peeps would probably do better in eve after a bit of time out of empire. In low sec and 0.0 you learn quick shortest route tends to lead to gate camps. Simple solution to this problem is add some twists to the path and come in through the gate not camped or bypasses that system entirely. 10 minutes more of travel time or 1 dead ship.....what hurts you more is something a player needs to decide.
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#25 - 2013-11-01 17:43:16 UTC
Freedom Equality wrote:
50% is 50%. If he has 400mil worth of modules on a 1bil ship it means 200 mil worth of loot will drop. And the 200 mil that drop will make the 10 people ganking that ship turn up a profit.

Lets see...
Target has 20 modules 1 of which is 350mil shield booster, other modules are T2 1-2 mil each. If you kill it you get 10 modules worth of loot (on average), but Shield booster is not 1 of them (blame loot fairy). That means that gang of 10 killed a target to get 10-20mil worth of modules and lost 150mil (-recovered modules) worth of catalysts. Where is your math now?

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.
Freedom Equality
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2013-11-01 17:59:33 UTC
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
Freedom Equality wrote:
50% is 50%. If he has 400mil worth of modules on a 1bil ship it means 200 mil worth of loot will drop. And the 200 mil that drop will make the 10 people ganking that ship turn up a profit.

Lets see...
Target has 20 modules 1 of which is 350mil shield booster, other modules are T2 1-2 mil each. If you kill it you get 10 modules worth of loot (on average), but Shield booster is not 1 of them (blame loot fairy). That means that gang of 10 killed a target to get 10-20mil worth of modules and lost 150mil (-recovered modules) worth of catalysts. Where is your math now?


That is my point, ganking a 1 bil hull for a 50% chance to get a 350mil module should get you in the red ALL THE TIME.

Want to gank something, pick on a target with a deadspace invulnerability field or two. That gets you potentially 3b worth of loot. Not to mention other modules it might have.

Don`t want to wait for such a target a decide to gank everyone? Well you should be able to do it, at a cost.
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2013-11-01 18:08:22 UTC
Freedom Equality wrote:
Don`t want to wait for such a target a decide to gank everyone? Well you should be able to do it, at a cost.


Why? Looking at eve-kill, suicide ganks are a rare occurrence (understandably so, after all the nerfs this profession has encountered) - why do you want to reduce it even further?
Freedom Equality
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#28 - 2013-11-01 18:17:52 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Freedom Equality wrote:
Don`t want to wait for such a target a decide to gank everyone? Well you should be able to do it, at a cost.


Why? Looking at eve-kill, suicide ganks are a rare occurrence (understandably so, after all the nerfs this profession has encountered) - why do you want to reduce it even further?


Because people are using disposable ships and lose almost no ISK to gank unsuspecting targets that have no way to defend themselves. The gankers take NO risk while killing ships that are worth 10x times what the gankers bring.

EVE is about risk. There is no risk for the gankers they are just trading crappy destroyers they don`t mind losing to kill ships worth 1+bil for just the hull, not to mention cargo/fit.

Right now the person getting ganked is taking all the risk and losing the most.
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#29 - 2013-11-01 18:23:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Freedom Equality wrote:

That is my point, ganking a 1 bil hull for a 50% chance to get a 350mil module should get you in the red ALL THE TIME.

Why should i go negative if target failed at protecting / properly tanking their ship? Why should i pay for others' mistakes? Also have you tried to to gather 10-man suicide gang for possible 5-10mil profit with a good chance to go negative or gank fail?

Example: properly tanked Mackinaw cannot be ganked by single cata (in 0.5 system with CONCORD-spawned) and if you get 2 catas - it becomes unprofitable. So why do you want to make ****-fit dumb miners immune to gank? It is balanced as is. If you dont want to be ganked while you mine - get a Skiff.

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2013-11-01 18:30:32 UTC
Freedom Equality wrote:
Because people are using disposable ships and lose almost no ISK to gank unsuspecting targets that have no way to defend themselves. The gankers take NO risk while killing ships that are worth 10x times what the gankers bring.


If that were true, you'd see a lot more suicide ganks of freighters and mission runners. Ganking is extremely rare, there is no need to further decrease the viability of this profession.

Quote:
EVE is about risk. There is no risk for the gankers they are just trading crappy destroyers they don`t mind losing to kill ships worth 1+bil for just the hull, not to mention cargo/fit.

Right now the person getting ganked is taking all the risk and losing the most.


Wait, what? Ganking is hardly a risk-free profession:

- Not all ganks succeed
- Due to looting mechanics, every single person in eve (well, on that grid) can prevent the gankers from scooping the loot.
- When using catalysts to gank, gankers are extremely vulnerable to hostile ECM. A single griffin can jam out 2-3 catalysts.
- A criminal (gankers) or suspect (looter) flag means one can get podded by everybody in Eve.
- Gankers have to keep their security status up, either by ratting or by paying somebody to hunt for tags (if they don't they are fair game for everybody)

If you decide to fly around with a blinged out mission-ship, you should take necessary action to protect your assets (logistics, ECM, scouts, ...)
Freedom Equality
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#31 - 2013-11-01 18:39:52 UTC
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
Freedom Equality wrote:

That is my point, ganking a 1 bil hull for a 50% chance to get a 350mil module should get you in the red ALL THE TIME.

Why should i go negative if target failed at protecting / properly tanking their ship? Why should i pay for others' mistakes? Also have you tried to to gather 10-man suicide gang for possible 5-10mil profit with a good chance to go negative or gank fail?


There is no way for the target to protect/tank his ship as no BS fit for level 4 missions outlasts 10-12 destroyers shooting it. The only way for the target to defend himself is to stay docked.

I have even seen 10 multibox characters(all had the same last name) do it.

This is just a talk about players getting killed in real PVP and then hiding in the High Sec areas preying on haulers/ships not fit for pvp with no chance of failure. That is far from actual PVP.

Forcing them to pick their targets is not really asking all that much. Everyone here is complaining that not EVERY suicide gank will make ISK.

Well what about the people not making money out of hauling/missioning/mining because of suicide gankers? I bet there are more of them than there are suicide gankers.

I don`t know how to say this, but just the fact that you come here saying you will not profit from EVERY suicide gank pretty much means right now there is no risk to it.

So all i am asking CCP is to make things more risky for the gankers.

Another way would be to just have CONCORD show up randomly, sometimes in 15-20 seconds sometimes in just 2-3 seconds even in 0.5. That would be risk for the gankers. And that might stop them from time to time.

I`ll also add that to the original post as a suggestion.
Freedom Equality
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2013-11-01 18:48:13 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Freedom Equality wrote:
Because people are using disposable ships and lose almost no ISK to gank unsuspecting targets that have no way to defend themselves. The gankers take NO risk while killing ships that are worth 10x times what the gankers bring.


If that were true, you'd see a lot more suicide ganks of freighters and mission runners. Ganking is extremely rare, there is no need to further decrease the viability of this profession.

Quote:
EVE is about risk. There is no risk for the gankers they are just trading crappy destroyers they don`t mind losing to kill ships worth 1+bil for just the hull, not to mention cargo/fit.

Right now the person getting ganked is taking all the risk and losing the most.


Wait, what? Ganking is hardly a risk-free profession:

- Not all ganks succeed
- Due to looting mechanics, every single person in eve (well, on that grid) can prevent the gankers from scooping the loot.
- When using catalysts to gank, gankers are extremely vulnerable to hostile ECM. A single griffin can jam out 2-3 catalysts.
- A criminal (gankers) or suspect (looter) flag means one can get podded by everybody in Eve.
- Gankers have to keep their security status up, either by ratting or by paying somebody to hunt for tags (if they don't they are fair game for everybody)

If you decide to fly around with a blinged out mission-ship, you should take necessary action to protect your assets (logistics, ECM, scouts, ...)



Yes i am sure it is perfectly reasonable for somebody doing missions/mining/hauling to micro manage 3-4 alts(and pay for them) to guard his main.

Get real miners/people doing missions/haulers have no ECM.
Also when they gank something there is always a ganker with a hauler scooping up the loot for hauler ganks. As for miners/people doing missions, there is no chance anyone else will get the loot, as those people are not close to other people.

There is no risk for the gankers, you just calculate how much damage you need and bring it. You don`t even need to calculate it yourself, it has been done a simple search will show you.

But it is about time gankers get some risk added, just like everyone else.
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2013-11-01 18:48:48 UTC
Freedom Equality wrote:
There is no way for the target to protect/tank his ship as no BS fit for level 4 missions outlasts 10-12 destroyers shooting it. The only way for the target to defend himself is to stay docked.


I know, this is a very surprising suggestion, but: How about you bring friends? Just like the ganker has to?

Quote:
This is just a talk about players getting killed in real PVP and then hiding in the High Sec areas preying on haulers/ships not fit for pvp with no chance of failure. That is far from actual PVP.


We get it, you don't like suicide gankers. That's fine. But ganking is very much a Player versus Player activity. Unless you say that the gank targets are botters and not actual players.

Quote:
Forcing them to pick their targets is not really asking all that much. Everyone here is complaining that not EVERY suicide gank will make ISK.

Well what about the people not making money out of hauling/missioning/mining because of suicide gankers? I bet there are more of them than there are suicide gankers.


Just like a ganker has to factor in failed ganks, 0 loot drops or inability to pick up the drop, a mission runner should factor in a risk of being ganked. Since there is very very little ganking going on in Eve, many mission runners (rightfully) think that it won't happen to them. That's hardly the fault of the gankers.

Quote:
So all i am asking CCP is to make things more risky for the gankers.


You know that there have been many many nerfs to ganking already?
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2013-11-01 18:53:20 UTC
Freedom Equality wrote:
Yes i am sure it is perfectly reasonable for somebody doing missions/mining/hauling to micro manage 3-4 alts(and pay for them) to guard his main.

Get real miners/people doing missions/haulers have no ECM.


So just because miners/mission runners/haulers are too dumb to utilize game mechanics to protect themselves you want to change those game mechanics? Can I get a titan that's immune to any tackling because I like to solo with it?

Quote:
Also when they gank something there is always a ganker with a hauler scooping up the loot for hauler ganks. As for miners/people doing missions, there is no chance anyone else will get the loot, as those people are not close to other people.


This is a MMO. Don't play alone and then come whining on the forums when you face a superior force.

Quote:
There is no risk for the gankers, you just calculate how much damage you need and bring it. You don`t even need to calculate it yourself, it has been done a simple search will show you.

But it is about time gankers get some risk added, just like everyone else.


Again, there are already possibilities to avoid getting ganked. Just use them. Ganking has been nerfed so often already.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#35 - 2013-11-01 18:55:21 UTC
Assuming anything needs to change with ganking at all (hint, it doesn't, but I'm playing along today), I vote we get rid of KMs for ganks. No more ganking for killboard padding.

Profitable cargo ganking remains as-is, but no more empty JFs or blingy mission boats getting popped just to make someone's KB look pretty. Not that it'll stop all ganking for lulz, but there you go. This idea is genius.
Freedom Equality
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2013-11-01 18:55:27 UTC
The ganker just get a group going and withing minutes ganks someone then a new ships and another victim and so on.

You can not expect that a miner or a guy doing missions will keep 10 people around him at all times waiting for the gankers.

Also, as i just said, if you do the math a gank can not fail.
Freedom Equality
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#37 - 2013-11-01 18:56:27 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
Assuming anything needs to change with ganking at all (hint, it doesn't, but I'm playing along today), I vote we get rid of KMs for ganks. No more ganking for killboard padding.

Profitable cargo ganking remains as-is, but no more empty JFs or blingy mission boats getting popped just to make someone's KB look pretty. Not that it'll stop all ganking for lulz, but there you go. This idea is genius.



This might work too, i am quoting this in the first post, as i think it might just work.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#38 - 2013-11-01 19:17:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
This gets old....


could we have a red frog representative or other reputable hauling corp chime in and tell us how soon till they faliscade because all that collateral they are paying out on ganks is breaking the wallet.

And op I don't know if you went on before about this in another thread or some other guy....but could I see this mythical killmail where like 10 dessies killed a freighter? I say bs and its a war dec kill or pilot did something to get flagged himself at some point. But if valid evidence shows I am wrong well then I am wrong. At least the pilots name if mods catch the link and pull it. I can find a name on kb somewhere.
Freedom Equality
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2013-11-01 19:23:26 UTC
I was talking about 10 destroyers killing a marauder, not a freighter.

This is not just for freighter ganks, i think those are the most rare.
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2013-11-01 19:25:35 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
Assuming anything needs to change with ganking at all (hint, it doesn't, but I'm playing along today), I vote we get rid of KMs for ganks. No more ganking for killboard padding.

Profitable cargo ganking remains as-is, but no more empty JFs or blingy mission boats getting popped just to make someone's KB look pretty. Not that it'll stop all ganking for lulz, but there you go. This idea is genius.


Yes, gankers clearly only kill to pad their killboards, not for the (possible) profit. Totally genius. I'd show you the beauty that is the GSF killboard, but can't due to it being offline. That's how much I gank for my KB stats.