These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Kronos] Blockade Runner Rebalance

First post First post
Author
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#421 - 2014-05-23 20:52:17 UTC
You think I want scan immunity removed because I have some vendetta against people who fly BRs and just want them all to blow up regardless?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#422 - 2014-05-23 20:56:51 UTC
I'll put you down as a "maybe."
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#423 - 2014-05-23 21:34:35 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Rena'Thras wrote:


What is the risk to the ganker?



Losing the target while you scan/look at the scan results.
missing tackle on the target.
failing to kill the target.
open to attack from everyone.
someone stealing the cargo.
someone attacking your own transport.
open to attack from the victim.
victim may sell your kill right which may be taken up at any time for several months.
50% chance on every item to not drop.
target is packing ecm
target has an escort.

On top of that we also get;

Sec status loss.
15min downtime where concord will blow up any ship you enter.
Our ship blown up.
Past a point, are open to attack from anyone all the time. Most gankers are always at -10.


Ganking has enough risk. Now, tell me why you think you need this safety net for blockade runners to protect you from your mistakes when ganking ( the only risk you face in highsec) has zero room for mistakes and bad piloting?
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#424 - 2014-05-23 21:35:48 UTC
Swiftstrike1 wrote:
So there's now a legitimate reason to train Transport ships beyond level 1?? Mind blown!

Uh, there already was a reason to do so. 2 more days till five. *goes back to staring at the skill queue*

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#425 - 2014-05-23 21:42:22 UTC
Rena'Thras wrote:
Personally...I don't really care.

The reason BRs got scan immunity in the first place is because the Orca used to have it with the Corp Hangar, and when that became scannable, for whatever reason, CCP wanted a ship to still exist that wasn't scannable. So they went with the BR as their choice for that.

I can't think of any time that it's ever helped me since I have a habit of always being cloaked when I'm flying ANY ship with a Covops cloak. I guess CCP just wants that functionality. They could give it to DSTs instead, too, but that would just make them more attractive targets to some people, and they don't have the BR's agility to counter that.

They do have more tank, requiring a higher investment to gank. I fully support DST's having scan immunity, because the current changes to them just seem lackluster. Blockade runners make no use of the feature.

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#426 - 2014-05-23 22:21:30 UTC
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
Rena'Thras wrote:
Personally...I don't really care.

The reason BRs got scan immunity in the first place is because the Orca used to have it with the Corp Hangar, and when that became scannable, for whatever reason, CCP wanted a ship to still exist that wasn't scannable. So they went with the BR as their choice for that.

I can't think of any time that it's ever helped me since I have a habit of always being cloaked when I'm flying ANY ship with a Covops cloak. I guess CCP just wants that functionality. They could give it to DSTs instead, too, but that would just make them more attractive targets to some people, and they don't have the BR's agility to counter that.

They do have more tank, requiring a higher investment to gank. I fully support DST's having scan immunity, because the current changes to them just seem lackluster. Blockade runners make no use of the feature.


Makes more sense for the dst to have a customs scan immunity but still be scannable to players.
Myrthiis
Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys
#427 - 2014-05-23 22:47:00 UTC
Makes more sense to me ,to give it to both of them Roll
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#428 - 2014-05-23 23:57:04 UTC
Myrthiis wrote:
Makes more sense to me ,to give it to both of them Roll


Then why would you fly a dst over the uncatchable blockade runner?
Myrthiis
Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys
#429 - 2014-05-24 00:42:36 UTC
Roll cargo capacity ,+2 warp core strenght ,and the double amount of tank maybe .
Hafwolf
Git R Done Resources
#430 - 2014-05-24 03:18:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Hafwolf
Simple idea make the anti cargo scanning into a module that can be fitted.
Hafwolf
Git R Done Resources
#431 - 2014-05-24 03:21:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Hafwolf
Simple idea make the anti cargo scanning into a module that can be fitted.



Next time I will try not to post from cell phone. for some reason it sent 2 posts.
Myrthiis
Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys
#432 - 2014-05-24 03:25:45 UTC
Hafwolf wrote:
Simple idea make the anti cargo scanning into a module that can be fitter.

Great idea would have been even better ,if you would have proposed a rig for 50 calibration points to give "immune to cargo scan" to any ship Twisted .
Nah they would cry even louder ,or have a stroke .
Juliandelphki
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#433 - 2014-05-24 07:18:26 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Rena'Thras wrote:


What is the risk to the ganker? = VERY LITTLE



Losing the target while you scan/look at the scan results. = false. If they're on AP (only way to get em) you have several minutes to get scan before they jump out of system. Besides you guys all use neut scanners 1-3 systems ahead.

missing tackle on the target. = false, you alpha your targets no tackle require.

failing to kill the target. = true, this is possible but very unlikely. I can't think of anyone who has failed to kill an AP runner.

open to attack from everyone. = true, only attackable during the attack itself and the 15 mins after. Which mean nothing to the ganker. As serious gankers have insta undocks from their station they're safe until they land on field to shoot their target. Afterwards it's nearly impossable to catch a pod in high sec.

someone stealing the cargo. = true, this is possible. I have only seen stealers in work 5 times in 5 years.

someone attacking your own transport. = good get a taste of your own medicine.

open to attack from the victim. = this only applies if you stay in system to continue ganking. This still fall under the nearly invulnerable method of travel in system mentioned above.

victim may sell your kill right which may be taken up at any time for several months. = Falsification. The Kill rights apply for 6 weeks. not several months. Besides that doesn't stop people from ganking. Its called insta undock bookmark. From there you go onto grid. shoot. dock up. very little time/chance to get you. Only at the gate which anyone can do anytime you're trying to gank. But is the same as the answer directly above and the one further up. this doe not affect the ganker.

50% chance on every item to not drop. = hmm. Well that means 50% change to gain the items. wash, no need to put this up.

target is packing ecm = ECM is highly unlikely to work on a none ECM specific ship. Additionally if the pilot is on AP they won't be there to ECM. Lastly since most ganks go down in 1 shot ECM is invalid because the target only has about .5 seconds to realize they're targeted, target back and apply ecm. By then they're already in a pod.

target has an escort.= possible. Can't say i've ever seen this happen, but it's still a moot point. The escort again cannot do anything to prevent the ship from being 1 shotted. They can only retaliate once the BR is popped.

On top of that we also get;

Sec status loss. = meant nothing before. Means even less now that you can use tags to get sec standing back up. As most gankes are spec'd just for that they're not the main toon on an account.

15min downtime where concord will blow up any ship you enter. = does not apply. I've since gankers go right back out onto the field to perform another gank immediately. The bookmarks make it possible.


Our ship blown up. = natually, hence suicide gank. This is natrually implied in the act itself so why put this up? obviously since losing the ship to concord (who don't pod) is a part of doing business this is already accounted for in your finacing the operation.

Past a point, are open to attack from anyone all the time. Most gankers are always at -10.


Ganking has enough risk. Now, tell me why you think you need this safety net for blockade runners to protect you from your mistakes when ganking ( the only risk you face in highsec) has zero room for mistakes and bad piloting?



To surmise, Ganking has very LITTLE risk. The biggest risk is little to no drop value on your target. Seein the potenetial rewards, this risk is minimal. Tell ya what. let's compromise and go old school. You can get your blockade Runner scann back but can's are now immune (again).

It's better to explain yourself to 12 then to be carried by 6. It is better to ask forgiveness than permission.

Juliandelphki
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#434 - 2014-05-24 07:23:27 UTC
Hafwolf wrote:
Simple idea make the anti cargo scanning into a module that can be fitted.



If this is done then like the other person needs to be a rig or a passive module. it means nothing on auto pilot if it's active. Additionally if the pilot is at the controls they'll be going gate to gate with cloak so they're already immune to scanning, outside the natural ability currently being discussed.

It's better to explain yourself to 12 then to be carried by 6. It is better to ask forgiveness than permission.

John Luke Robertson
Eve Benevolent Society
#435 - 2014-05-24 07:29:22 UTC
Rena'Thras wrote:
Personally...I don't really care.

The reason BRs got scan immunity in the first place is because the Orca used to have it with the Corp Hangar, and when that became scannable, for whatever reason, CCP wanted a ship to still exist that wasn't scannable. So they went with the BR as their choice for that.

I can't think of any time that it's ever helped me since I have a habit of always being cloaked when I'm flying ANY ship with a Covops cloak. I guess CCP just wants that functionality. They could give it to DSTs instead, too, but that would just make them more attractive targets to some people, and they don't have the BR's agility to counter that.

.

Why I'm arguing against it here is because...well, I dislike gankers. And all I see are arguments that make their lives easier and reduce their risk.

Piracy SHOULD be a risky venture. And it seems that the proponents of that lifestyle here seem to believe that their activity should carry the same low risk that mining does. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

But, regardless, CCP didn't bring up the change, right? That just popped up in this thread and has gone on as a discussion for a few pages because it has a couple vocal proponents but really doesn't add to the game and would only serve to make them more profit at less risk - which is probably why they're so adamant it's a good idea.

...whereas, on the other side, are people that are against or neutral to the change for reasons from RP to ship uniqueness to (my own) the belief that ganking shouldn't be made even less risky.



The change on the scanability of the Orca's Fleet Hangar and Ship Maintenance bay is just 1 example of CCP's epic stupidity. Or how about taking away the customization of freighters. I mean after all aren't they just bringing it back now?
Gumpy Bitterhawk
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#436 - 2014-05-24 07:47:41 UTC
Sorry to put it out here again but i hope it wont be looked over. Can the crane recieve some small buff on its powergrid? At current, you need to have the powergrid output skill trained to level 5 just so you can fit a mwd and cloak at the same time (at level 4 you can online the mwd but then you have exactly 0.0 pg left for anything else to online).
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#437 - 2014-05-24 11:11:12 UTC
Liaf like.
Meandering Milieu
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#438 - 2014-05-24 12:36:14 UTC
Juliandelphki wrote:
Hafwolf wrote:
Simple idea make the anti cargo scanning into a module that can be fitted.



If this is done then like the other person needs to be a rig or a passive module. it means nothing on auto pilot if it's active. Additionally if the pilot is at the controls they'll be going gate to gate with cloak so they're already immune to scanning, outside the natural ability currently being discussed.


Lowslot so freighters can fit them
Eodp Ellecon
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#439 - 2014-05-24 14:52:10 UTC
Add the ability of Target Spectrum Breaker to be fitted to the Blockade Runners.

Rationale....it's defensive midslot that can be fitted to Black Ops,,,and you can fit Covert Cynos or Cloaks to BR's, hence it would make sense you could fit a Target Spectrum Breaker to a BR.

Hafwolf
Git R Done Resources
#440 - 2014-05-24 15:26:26 UTC
Juliandelphki wrote:
Hafwolf wrote:
Simple idea make the anti cargo scanning into a module that can be fitted.



If this is done then like the other person needs to be a rig or a passive module. it means nothing on auto pilot if it's active. Additionally if the pilot is at the controls they'll be going gate to gate with cloak so they're already immune to scanning, outside the natural ability currently being discussed.


What I was reading was that people where wanting a way to shut that feature off when auto piloting in high sec with there blockade runners. Reason I suggested a module was if you want that feature you can have it. If you don't then don't fit the module. Also it would be nice if you could fit that on freighters or other types of ships. if you want some privacy of what you are hauling. Yes most people flying blockade runners usually warp and cloak with cargo. So that particular ship really does not need that except for transporting boosters to jita from concord. Yes it would have to be a passive module so that people can autopilot with it.