These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Has suicide ganking become a problem? Empty freighters being ganked.

First post First post First post
Author
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#2601 - 2014-08-17 23:18:51 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Nexus Day wrote:
So what would happen in real space?


You must have really hated star wars. OMG, those x-wings have no control surfaces - how the hell are they flying through atmosphere?!?!?!



The force of course.

Silly question :D
Heinrich Erquilenne
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2602 - 2014-08-18 00:00:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Heinrich Erquilenne
Christopher Mabata wrote:
Heinrich Erquilenne wrote:
Arkady Romanov wrote:
Samantha Floyd wrote:
As of right now fitting a max tanked freighter still leaves you as a potential target to be killed.


Good. No undocked ship should be 100% safe from death.


That doesn't mean ships should be 100% not safe to fly. Since eve is a pvp game every ship should be able to do something in a competitive pvp environment on its own, instead of the old "rely on others" which always end up in a boring "rely on alts" thing. Med and high slots + rigs for freighters seems to be a legitimate request to me but that's just me. The freighter pilot should be able to fit a MWD or a cloak just like every single other ship in game. I don't see why carrying stuff should always make you the fat loot pinata some people like because they like easy targets which can't fight back. I would even go as far as adding a small drone bay so that freighter pilots can fit ecm drones.


I dont have such an issue with mid slot freighters, but you have to be sure they cant fit a damage control because at that point youve crossed the line into way too OP. Hence why i also disagree with the cloak idea

1. your not hard to decloak
2. thats almost enough CPU for a damage control unless it gets a reduction to CPU use which makes it a cloaky 9/10

Now as for a small drone bay i have no issues with that either, but realistically ECM drones will jam 1 dude which usually wont stop the gank since ganking is about overkilling the target, not getting exactly what you need to kill it. And carrying things only makes YOU a loot piniata if YOU put the several billion in loot inside the freighter and then take no precautions to keep any of it safe.

You know fitting an actual tank, implants, web it into warp, anti bump ships, logi escort, combat escort. etc.


I was merely talking about the AFK cloak thing at a safe spot somewhere in space when you see something's wrong in the system. It wouldn't be a game changer anyway but it could be a nice toy.

I'm also in favour of damage control on freighters. Why not? A capital ship should require a full gang of well fitted battlecruisers or navy cruisers to take it down. I don't see how making freighters free loot pinatas only costing half a dozen catalysts to take down is fair/fun/[insert your own eve stuff in there]. When a ship is absolutely inept at pvp or at avoiding fights on its own then it's just an incentive to get an army of alts to support it. Again. More alts. More accounts. As if we didn't have enough bots everywhere. And that's not the kind of game i want to play. So if freighters can't run away easily they should at the very least cost quite a lot to kill. I know it's going to hurt some people if they don't get easy ganks but I like cheap ships to blow stuff up and ships must be delivered before anything else. Big smile
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#2603 - 2014-08-18 02:59:49 UTC
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:

couldn't afford the jacket?
Billy McCandless
Zacharia Explorations Group
#2604 - 2014-08-18 07:57:50 UTC
Heinrich Erquilenne wrote:
More alts. More accounts. As if we didn't have enough bots everywhere.


it all moist liek SeeSeePee wnats two make munney

sucpishus

allsew, mi alts our mi best frends

our as i calle them

frends

"Thread locked for being deemed a total loss." - ISD Ezwal

Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#2605 - 2014-08-18 16:19:50 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:

couldn't afford the jacket?

LOL,I had exactly the same thought
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#2606 - 2014-08-18 16:26:44 UTC
Billy McCandless wrote:
rekwest dorking purmishun

This is always a good idea, in any civilized society.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.

Heinrich Erquilenne
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2607 - 2014-08-18 17:39:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Heinrich Erquilenne
Billy McCandless wrote:
Heinrich Erquilenne wrote:
More alts. More accounts. As if we didn't have enough bots everywhere.


it all moist liek SeeSeePee wnats two make munney

sucpishus

allsew, mi alts our mi best frends

our as i calle them

frends


There are good ways to make money. Let's assume that in this case it's making the game a more enjoyable experience, with as many happy players as you can. Somehow i'm not sure bots and an army of alts are an enjoyable experience for people facing them: low ore price for highsec carebears, worthless LPs for mission bears (like me), empty ice belts, no pick-up groups for raids (= incursions) because my army of bots is more submissive, etc. To make the best use of a freighter CCP blackmails you: you either have to use a scout and a webber or you have to ask your corp mates to do boring **** so that you can deliver your crap at jita. Since you don't want people from your corp to run away you have to use alts.

Now if the game isn't profitable without bots then i'd start panicking if I were a CCP executive. I'd start making a lot of drastic changes to make my game attractive again and more about player interaction instead of blackmailing my playerbase so that they start buying more accounts to reach an acceptable level of safety (ie making the ISK losses/income balance <1) to do stuff. I don't know if the game is profitable or not without alts but making freighters flyable without alts, which means makking them viable in a pvp environment, well, that can't hurt for sure.
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
#2608 - 2014-08-18 23:56:23 UTC
Hiyora Akachi wrote:
A change to bump mechanics would make miner ganking that much easier

Imagine, if you will, a simple Mackinaw pilot mining away merrily in a belt. I then land in the belt in [insert ship here] and wait somewhere near him, preferably between him and the station. He can't begin to align to warp out because if he does, he'll bump into me and cause damage to me and then get his ass spanked by CONCORD. I don't even have to lose my ship to gank miners.


Actually no. You forget that we have the magical ability to warp through anything. Suns, planets, whatever. Once you initiate warp you become ethereal.
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
#2609 - 2014-08-19 00:07:22 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Nexus Day wrote:

Recode the entire base game!? I will let the software gurus explain why the entire base game does not have to be recoded to add damage (something that exists in game) to collisions (something that exists in game). And causing that damage to eventually result in a response (something that exists in game).


You are aware that the game uses an old fluidic physics model, yes?

And, I mean, if you have to straight up abdicate your point to "the software gurus" because you can't adequately defend it yourself, you might as well just shut up entirely.

With the game's currently existing physics model, what you want cannot be done for a variety of reasons. That would require recoding basically the entire game.


Wow, and now the "shut up". You must really be frustrated at this point. But unlike some people I try not to talk too much about what I don't know (hint, hint).

And again...no. There is already a cause-effect relationship from bumping. That is why the ship moves when bumped. That is the physics part which would not have to change. You would just add a damage component. This game has a damage component and it could be adapted to bumping. That does not require an entire recoding of the game as we already have collision effects (projectile weapons hitting other ships).

Anyway let's go back to blowing up transports. Mainly untanked transports in hi sec. And let's apply the EvE logic irl. I fully understand tanked transports in Somalia, but in middle America USA? Sorry, I can't get the logic other than people need a kill mail and will do anything for it. Which btw is also EvE logic. The police can't catch you but they can send you a postcard.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2610 - 2014-08-19 00:20:02 UTC
Nexus Day wrote:

Wow, and now the "shut up".


No, it was always the shut up. If you quite literally don't know what you're talking about, it's best to just not talk at all.



Quote:

And again...no. There is already a cause-effect relationship from bumping. That is why the ship moves when bumped. That is the physics part which would not have to change. You would just add a damage component. This game has a damage component and it could be adapted to bumping. That does not require an entire recoding of the game as we already have collision effects (projectile weapons hitting other ships).


If you aren't aware that that's not how it works, you shouldn't speak at all. Do you actually know what a physics engine is? What it does, what it's supposed to do?


Quote:

Anyway let's go back to blowing up transports. Mainly untanked transports in hi sec. And let's apply the EvE logic irl. I fully understand tanked transports in Somalia, but in middle America USA? Sorry, I can't get the logic other than people need a kill mail and will do anything for it. Which btw is also EvE logic. The police can't catch you but they can send you a postcard.


Your maladjusted reasoning predicates on your assumption that highsec is, or was ever intended to be, safe. The "safety" only comes from the unavoidable consequences of aggressive acts. But people can still choose to shoot you.

Everywhere in EVE is Somalia.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#2611 - 2014-08-19 00:53:37 UTC
Nexus Day wrote:
Hiyora Akachi wrote:
A change to bump mechanics would make miner ganking that much easier

Imagine, if you will, a simple Mackinaw pilot mining away merrily in a belt. I then land in the belt in [insert ship here] and wait somewhere near him, preferably between him and the station. He can't begin to align to warp out because if he does, he'll bump into me and cause damage to me and then get his ass spanked by CONCORD. I don't even have to lose my ship to gank miners.


Actually no. You forget that we have the magical ability to warp through anything. Suns, planets, whatever. Once you initiate warp you become ethereal.



But if we truly become ethereal we should be able to collide with other ethereal things including other ships in warp :D
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#2612 - 2014-08-19 01:08:39 UTC
Warping through suns is pretty fun.

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 ?

Charles Muffins
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2613 - 2014-08-19 01:56:53 UTC
Forget alts, CCP just wants untethered access to you SSN and life savings, but at least I'm told I'll get a "rare" frigate. Roll
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#2614 - 2014-08-19 03:46:37 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Warping through suns is pretty fun.



Making a bookmark as you warp through and then warping back to it is also fun.
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Doomheim
#2615 - 2014-08-19 04:33:49 UTC  |  Edited by: NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Nexus Day wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Nexus Day wrote:

Recode the entire base game!? I will let the software gurus explain why the entire base game does not have to be recoded to add damage (something that exists in game) to collisions (something that exists in game). And causing that damage to eventually result in a response (something that exists in game).


You are aware that the game uses an old fluidic physics model, yes?

And, I mean, if you have to straight up abdicate your point to "the software gurus" because you can't adequately defend it yourself, you might as well just shut up entirely.

With the game's currently existing physics model, what you want cannot be done for a variety of reasons. That would require recoding basically the entire game.


Wow, and now the "shut up". You must really be frustrated at this point. But unlike some people I try not to talk too much about what I don't know (hint, hint).

And again...no. There is already a cause-effect relationship from bumping. That is why the ship moves when bumped. That is the physics part which would not have to change. You would just add a damage component. This game has a damage component and it could be adapted to bumping. That does not require an entire recoding of the game as we already have collision effects (projectile weapons hitting other ships).

Anyway let's go back to blowing up transports. Mainly untanked transports in hi sec. And let's apply the EvE logic irl. I fully understand tanked transports in Somalia, but in middle America USA? Sorry, I can't get the logic other than people need a kill mail and will do anything for it. Which btw is also EvE logic. The police can't catch you but they can send you a postcard.


Isn't it obnoxious?


I agree with everything you've said but it seems better to me if they make it so smaller vessels cannot bump larger ones or do away with bumping entirely. Its just ridiculous that this "emergent gameplay" has been accepted by CCP as a means to prevent other players from warping without using warp disruptors and irrespective of warp core stabilizers. It looks ridiculous too, and is not fair gameplay, but CCP still apparently doesn't think its a problem enough to do anything about it. It just goes to show you how separated they are from the concept of fair gameplay in some instances. There are so many things like that that are only not considered a problem only because not a lot of people were doing it.

For instance anyone can scan you down fly into your your level 4 mission, blow up or steal your mission objective and basically screw you over with a enormous standings penalty that could take weeks to recover from, with no penalty or risk of repercussion to the aggressor whatsoever.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#2616 - 2014-08-19 04:36:48 UTC
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
I agree with everything you've said but it seems better to me if they make it so smaller vessels cannot bump larger ones or do away with bumping entirely. Its just ridiculous that this "emergent gameplay" has been accepted by CCP as a means to prevent other players from warping without using warp disruptors and irrespective of warp core stabilizers. It looks ridiculous too, and is not fair gameplay, but CCP still apparently doesn't think its a problem enough to do anything about it. It just goes to show you how separated they are from the concept of fair gameplay. There are so many things like that that are only not considered a problem only because not a lot of people were doing it.


There are counters to being bumped that have been posted many times on the forum.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#2617 - 2014-08-19 04:56:42 UTC
I'll be honest here.

If there was only one thing I could change about the game, it would be the bumping mechanic. It's not just about bumping as an annoying thing to do in high sec.

Ever see a dog fly across the room when a flea jumps on it? No? You can do it virtually with a titan and a frigate.

It's just a dumb mechanic. I know CCP won't do anything about it any time soon, but I can always dream.

Mr Epeen Cool
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2618 - 2014-08-19 05:15:03 UTC
Idk, I think if I had one wish to use on EVE Online, it would definitely be that they would have written their code in such a way as to be compatible with more than just single threading.

Just think of what we could accomplish then.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#2619 - 2014-08-19 06:16:06 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
I'll be honest here.

If there was only one thing I could change about the game, it would be the bumping mechanic. It's not just about bumping as an annoying thing to do in high sec.

Ever see a dog fly across the room when a flea jumps on it? No? You can do it virtually with a titan and a frigate.

It's just a dumb mechanic. I know CCP won't do anything about it any time soon, but I can always dream.

Mr Epeen Cool


Well it might happen if the frigate was doing about 500 times what they actually do in game, bit like a bullet knocking a much large can off a post.

However with the relative velocities compared to the masses in game it is rather silly.

Basically in an oversimplified form, if you work out the ratio of the frigates mass to the target ships mass, that should give you the percentage of the frigates velocity that gets transferred to the target if the frigate stops dead.


Example.

Punisher of mass 1 million kg hits Dominix of mass 100 million kg at 1000m/s.
You should expect after collision the Dominix to move away at 1000/100 = 10 ms
Gavin Dax
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2620 - 2014-08-19 07:37:05 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

No, it was always the shut up. If you quite literally don't know what you're talking about, it's best to just not talk at all.

Nexus Day wrote:

And again...no. There is already a cause-effect relationship from bumping. That is why the ship moves when bumped. That is the physics part which would not have to change. You would just add a damage component. This game has a damage component and it could be adapted to bumping. That does not require an entire recoding of the game as we already have collision effects (projectile weapons hitting other ships).


If you aren't aware that that's not how it works, you shouldn't speak at all. Do you actually know what a physics engine is? What it does, what it's supposed to do?


Collision detection is a major part of any physics engine...