These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

[Ship Balance] - Highsec Ganking and Freighters

Author
john scherer
Doomheim
#1 - 2014-01-03 05:03:41 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
It is just me or has the advent of the tier-3 BC made highsec suicide ganking of freighters way too inexpensive and easy? So much so that it has become an EvE career path.

The killboards show a huge number of such actions and while I don't think suicide ganking is entirely wrong, the DPS abilities of cheaply fit tier-3 BCs makes it so cheap and easy, shiny payloads are no longer required to justify such actions.

I think a buff of freighter structure or armor points is in order here but that's just me, anyone have thoughts on this? I have placed a few recent highlights below but if you look at the killboards you will see a whole lot for any given day.


*snip* Posting of kill reports outside of the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited. ISD Ezwal
HiddenPorpoise
Jarlhettur's Drop
United Federation of Conifers
#2 - 2014-01-03 05:12:00 UTC
In order to make a freighter not worth ganking their ehp would need to be raised to a stupid amount that would make killing freighters outside of ganks more trouble than it's worth. Those kills you posted are carrying 5-8 times the safe load.

Also, kill posting is a banable offense.
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#3 - 2014-01-03 05:40:14 UTC
Without offering an opinion on the thread topic (because 6-7 BC pilots working together to take down a freighter being overpowered seems like something I'd disagree with (cooperation > solo) without a careful analysis of the stats, I'm not staking a position) I'd still like to know why killmails are banned from Features & Ideas. This suprised me.

Especially in this context, when discussing questions of ship balance, and amid a neverending cycle of balancing by ship class, I can't see why the same rules that apply to the Crime & Punishment subforum couldn't be extended here. As long as you're not abusing other players but using a specific instance to reference an idea or proposal, why not allow the discussion to proceed?

It's pretty crazy that in a game about blowing up spaceships you can't reference the spaceships you blow up almost anywhere, no? If it were up to me, and as long as the criticism was constructive, I'd probably allow killmails to be linked in Jita Park proposals too.

What am I missing?

YK
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#4 - 2014-01-03 05:47:19 UTC
Just give Freighters fittings. In order to not make said fittings able to make their cargo too much, give them a base cargo hold of something like.... 200k EHP & 3 additional 'special' cargo holds, two of which can carry anything and the third which carries something appropriate to the race. To differentiate them a little.
Or maybe a ship maintenance bay large enough to carry 2 assembled BS or something.

So if you rig them for cargo they might carry a bit more outright cargo than before but less EHP, if you rig for tank a bit less cargo, but a lot more EHP, rig for speed, much faster but lower EHP & lower cargo.

And because the cargo is split between several bays they can break the 1 million mark without being able to carry caps.
Kenrailae
Scrapyard Artificer's
#5 - 2014-01-03 05:53:15 UTC
Don't change freighters at all. SO many freight services in Eve, MWD warping Orca's, Jump Freighters, Blockade runners.... lots of other options to move your stuff. If someone still chooses to load 20b into a freighter.... well.... Eve is a game of Opportunity.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#6 - 2014-01-03 06:02:20 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:
Don't change freighters at all. SO many freight services in Eve, MWD warping Orca's, Jump Freighters, Blockade runners.... lots of other options to move your stuff. If someone still chooses to load 20b into a freighter.... well.... Eve is a game of Opportunity.

It's a lot less than 20b to make yourself a viable gank. It's at about 1.5b depending how they gank you or if you have slaves you start getting to dangerous territory, even high sec minerals can put you over, let alone null sec minerals.
And the lack of options to change how gankable a freighter is are bad.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#7 - 2014-01-03 06:38:42 UTC
There was a time when freighter ganking was done by battleships... that could be insured.

Then insurance was removed from ships that were killed by CONCORD.

Then Tier 3 Battlecruisers were introduced.


Net result: suicide ganking has a lower set up cost than before... but the loss is now total... meaning that it actually costs more to suicide gank than ever before.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#8 - 2014-01-03 07:44:09 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
There was a time when freighter ganking was done by battleships... that could be insured.

Then insurance was removed from ships that were killed by CONCORD.

Then Tier 3 Battlecruisers were introduced.


Net result: suicide ganking has a lower set up cost than before... but the loss is now total... meaning that it actually costs more to suicide gank than ever before.

So clearly ganking needs to be nerfed even more then.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#9 - 2014-01-03 08:29:22 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:

So clearly ganking needs to be nerfed even more then.

To a certain extent yes, to a certain extent no. There is an issue with how there isn't a meaningful defence against a gank other than 'don't be there'. There is no easy solution for that one though.

But freighter pilots deserve to get to make meaningful fitting choices rather than carry low value and hope the gankers don't decide it's enough today to be worth it.
Pipa Porto
#10 - 2014-01-03 08:47:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
john scherer wrote:
It is just me or has the advent of the tier-3 BC made highsec suicide ganking of freighters way too inexpensive and easy? So much so that it has become an EvE career path.



The patch that introduced t3 BCs made suicide ganking significantly more expensive. Later patches increased the cost further (increased mineral costs).

So... your entire premise is wrong. Incidentally, Ganking has always been a career in EVE.

Don't fly what you can't protect.

Nevyn Auscent wrote:
To a certain extent yes, to a certain extent no. There is an issue with how there isn't a meaningful defence against a gank other than 'don't be there'. There is no easy solution for that one though.

But freighter pilots deserve to get to make meaningful fitting choices rather than carry low value and hope the gankers don't decide it's enough today to be worth it.


There are plenty of meaningful defenses against ganking. Very few of them are possible solo, but that seems pretty balanced given that it takes 10-15 people's coordinated effort to gank an entirely undefended Freighter.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#11 - 2014-01-03 09:08:20 UTC
Every 'meaningful defence' boils down to 'don't be there'.
Once you are actually there, there is nothing you can do to defend, since you will get concorded for firing first. You can attempt to take retribution on the pods & protect the wreck.
So allowing the Freighter to make fitting options is only fair. You just have to make sure those fitting options don't loophole capitals into highsec, which is why I posted above how to prevent that, while still making those fitting options meaningful.
Sixx Spades
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2014-01-03 09:33:12 UTC
Oh hey, this thread again.

Using a weapon as a deterrent in a diplomatic situation is only viable when you have proven that you have deployed it in the past and are willing to use it in the future.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#13 - 2014-01-03 09:58:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
To a certain extent yes, to a certain extent no. There is an issue with how there isn't a meaningful defence against a gank other than 'don't be there'. There is no easy solution for that one though.

But freighter pilots deserve to get to make meaningful fitting choices rather than carry low value and hope the gankers don't decide it's enough today to be worth it.
This.
Ganking doesn't need to be nerfed, but freighters need to be given options to make steer it's defense and make it more complex than just "X catalysts destroys maxed freighter Y".

The old defense of "but the CARGO BAY?!?!?!?" is utter nonsense. They already showed how you resolve it with mining barges. Just make a "special" bay called a "freight" bay and allow it to carry all types. Tada! cargo expanders don't work.

Then drop the base HP and add slots so that you can specific tank for considerably more EHP that you can currently get, you can omnitank for slightly more than now, but you can only reduce ehp from the current with a passive tank (so no running DC/hardners). They'd just need to tweak each race in the same way they do with other ships to achieve this. This will make freighters that people want to put the effort into making defensible and fly manually into a good position, while making AFK auto freighters easier to destroy.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#14 - 2014-01-03 10:09:28 UTC
You don't even need to specifically drop EHP.
Leave EHP as it is, and leave a large enough cargo bay for people to consider cargo expanders.
Then they drop their own EHP if they want to fit for max cargo.
If they fit for speed, it's current EHP, smaller cargo, much better speed.
If they fit for tank it's much larger EHP, smaller cargo and probably slower speed even.
Pipa Porto
#15 - 2014-01-03 10:20:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Every 'meaningful defence' boils down to 'don't be there'.
Once you are actually there, there is nothing you can do to defend, since you will get concorded for firing first. You can attempt to take retribution on the pods & protect the wreck.


1. You don't have to fire first.
2. You don't have to fire at all.
3. You seem to think that people still do Alpha based freighter ganks.

Quote:
So allowing the Freighter to make fitting options is only fair. You just have to make sure those fitting options don't loophole capitals into highsec, which is why I posted above how to prevent that, while still making those fitting options meaningful.


Don't nerf Freighters, please.


Anyway, why do you have a problem with Freighters being more expensive to gank than ever?

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#16 - 2014-01-03 10:28:54 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:

So clearly ganking needs to be nerfed even more then.

To a certain extent yes, to a certain extent no. There is an issue with how there isn't a meaningful defence against a gank other than 'don't be there'. There is no easy solution for that one though.

But freighter pilots deserve to get to make meaningful fitting choices rather than carry low value and hope the gankers don't decide it's enough today to be worth it.



There are plenty of meaningful defenses against ganks.

If you are hauling 10b of stuff, you should be responsible for having out-of-corp allies in ECM boats and logistics ships providing an escort. Otherwise, you deserve to watch your ship be euthanized.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Draconigea
Angry Angels Nachrichtendienst
#17 - 2014-01-03 10:34:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Draconigea
1. Get a second account or a corpmember with Teamspeak
2. Get any fast frig or a Rapier
3. Fit 2-3 Webbifiers (on the Rapier they will have 40km range, which is great)
4. When the freighter decloaks at the gate, target the freighter and web him
5. Instant Warp (Rapier needs only 1.2 seconds to target the freighter, without moving)

With this fast align time, you can't be scanned and no one would take the risk ganking a empty freighter.

I always fly my freighters like this, even with 20b on board. No Problem at all.
So if 6-7 ppl are needed to gank a solo freighters, only two ppl are needed to counter this....
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#18 - 2014-01-03 13:08:29 UTC
HiddenPorpoise wrote:
In order to make a freighter not worth ganking their ehp would need to be raised to a stupid amount that would make killing freighters outside of ganks more trouble than it's worth. Those kills you posted are carrying 5-8 times the safe load.

Also, kill posting is a banable offense.

if posting kills is banable why do the killboards exist?

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]

Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#19 - 2014-01-03 13:12:25 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
john scherer wrote:
It is just me or has the advent of the tier-3 BC made highsec suicide ganking of freighters way too inexpensive and easy? So much so that it has become an EvE career path.

The killboards show a huge number of such actions and while I don't think suicide ganking is entirely wrong, the DPS abilities of cheaply fit tier-3 BCs makes it so cheap and easy, shiny payloads are no longer required to justify such actions.

I think a buff of freighter structure or armor points is in order here but that's just me, anyone have thoughts on this? I have placed a few recent highlights below but if you look at the killboards you will see a whole lot for any given day.



*snip* Posting of kill reports outside of the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited. ISD Ezwal




looking at the kills i can guess they used drone assist AND ISBoxxer

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]

Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#20 - 2014-01-03 13:13:15 UTC
Yonis Kador wrote:
Without offering an opinion on the thread topic (because 6-7 BC pilots working together to take down a freighter being overpowered seems like something I'd disagree with (cooperation > solo) without a careful analysis of the stats, I'm not staking a position) I'd still like to know why killmails are banned from Features & Ideas. This suprised me.

Especially in this context, when discussing questions of ship balance, and amid a neverending cycle of balancing by ship class, I can't see why the same rules that apply to the Crime & Punishment subforum couldn't be extended here. As long as you're not abusing other players but using a specific instance to reference an idea or proposal, why not allow the discussion to proceed?

It's pretty crazy that in a game about blowing up spaceships you can't reference the spaceships you blow up almost anywhere, no? If it were up to me, and as long as the criticism was constructive, I'd probably allow killmails to be linked in Jita Park proposals too.

What am I missing?

YK


looking at the damage its highly obvious that its a multiboxer with no life :P

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]

123Next pageLast page