These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A Message Regarding "Hyperdunking"

First post First post First post
Author
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#241 - 2015-01-28 08:43:05 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
I doubt it. If every ganker in the game left the game would continue as if nothing happened. The forums would probably be considerably less toxic and actual discussion might happen.
You realise, of course, that the self-made victims are by far the least discussion-willing and most toxic part of the equation. They always have been, for the simple reason that they refuse to adapt in any way, and that includes refusing to listen to people explaining the game to them. Instead, they respond with invectives and abuse.

Quote:
I think you misunderstand what their core playerbase is. I mean a huge chunk is nullsec and most people in nullsec couldn't care less what happens to highsec. CCPs own stats show that 4 times the number of people that join for interaction with others actually join for "levelling of the raven", and only while "many" of them leave after a few months, I'd bet that considerably more people would choose to stay than those that would choose to leave, and beside that we know that half of the players like yourself would be to addicted to quit anyway.
Do you have a link to any of this? The core player base of EVE is one that likes sci fi, that likes complexity and having lots of choices, and that likes exploration. Last time I saw any kind of data on the matter, something that could be construed as “levelling the raven” didn't even make it onto the list except maybe hidden in the “other“ category — below the importance of having a Mac client.

Quote:
All in all, if CCP decided to move away from their old ideas in a new direction, all it would cause is people like yourself screaming "the end is nigh!" which happens anyway. It wouldn't actually hurt the game. What do I know though, I've only been here coming up for 10 years, so obviously I have no right to comment on the game I play.
If you've been coming here for 10 years and still haven't figured out some of the basics that you are continuously wrong about, then yes, your right to comment is… questionable. By the way, CCP have moved away from their old ideas in a new direction. Twice. Both times, it very predictably cost them a double-digit percentage of their players.
Wolf Soprano
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#242 - 2015-01-28 08:48:36 UTC
I do love reading threads like these.

They are definitely full of a salt like liquid coming from the eyes.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#243 - 2015-01-28 08:50:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Anthar Thebess wrote:
RIP higsec hauling.

Cost of suicide gank on higsec freighter just dropped to at most 1/10 of current value.
No. The DPS of catalysts did not suddenly go up by an order of magnitude just because the GM team made a sensible reading of the rules. The cost of a gank is the same as ever — in fact, it's most likely slightly higher with this tactic since you need to put more ships on the line.

Lucas Kell wrote:
All of those things are part of the same playstyle.
None of them are awoxing, so no, not really. I mean, they exist in the same space of activities, but by that kind of loose definition of a play style, ganking is part of the hauler play style.

Quote:
Following the change there will no longer be a risk barrier preventing day old noobs being invited into any corp, which is vitally important in getting new players into a group where they can learn the game and find what they want to do which is vitally important for the NPE. If the only downside to that is people like you getting upset because you can't do the easiest form of awoxing, I can live with that.
Here's the thing: that risk never existed. A corp that could actually teach new players anything worthwhile was effectively immune to any ill effects from awoxing. And no, one play style being eradicated is not the only downside. Another one is that more newbies will end up in corps that harm their development because of the incompetence of the leadership since the mechanism for filtering out those griefer corps is now gone.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#244 - 2015-01-28 08:51:29 UTC
I won't lie to you, I'd pretty much given up hope

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#245 - 2015-01-28 08:56:19 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
With the exception of that stuff you listed. Corp thefts and spying chief among them.

That's what exposes it as a false flag, that it actually does nothing to accomplish it's intended purpose.
Those things are already actively guarded by diligently implementing corp security. The problem is that to diligently implement corp security right now, part of that is not accepting noobs as no history is as bad as bad history. Most corps implement a minimum SP barrier to stop that, which is unhelpful to newbies. This change means that now there's no reason not to let them join, just don't give them roles.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Which is apparently tax farm slumlord highsec corps. Yeah, I can't think of a worse way to hurt retention than to allow those people to operate more safely, so they can poison new players with the most boring content in any contemporary MMO.
The vast majority of "tax farm slumlord highsec corps" already openly recruit anyone because they care about tax, not whether or not awoxers shoot the members of their alt corp. This change means that other corps can also recruit openly.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#246 - 2015-01-28 09:03:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Lucas Kell wrote:
Those things are already actively guarded by diligently implementing corp security. The problem is that to diligently implement corp security right now, part of that is not accepting noobs as no history is as bad as bad history. Most corps implement a minimum SP barrier to stop that, which is unhelpful to newbies.
Actually, most corps implement a minimum SP barrier to make sure they don't have to deal with newbies being newbies — they have no interest in teaching them the basics and requiring a couple of months under the wings of a new prospect means they get someone who has a higher chance of being self-sufficient already.

SP barriers don't help against awoxing since awoxing is not a matter of character age. Nor does diligent corp security through mechanics help — what helps is diligent corp security through proper knowledge management. This is why it was rather beneficial from an NPE perspective to have bad corps being filtered out: the ones that relied on the former rather than the latter would be hit and would close up, meaning their lacking ability was willingly kept away from the newbies.

Quote:
The vast majority of "tax farm slumlord highsec corps" already openly recruit anyone because they care about tax, not whether or not awoxers shoot the members of their alt corp. This change means that other corps can also recruit openly.

They always could. The only difference is that more corps now have the potential of being implicit tax slumlords, still with no benefit to the new players.
Anthar Thebess
#247 - 2015-01-28 09:03:26 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:
RIP higsec hauling.

Cost of suicide gank on higsec freighter just dropped to at most 1/10 of current value.
No. The cost of a gank is the same as ever — in fact, it's most likely slightly higher with this tactic since you need to put more ships on the line.


You are wrong.
When you , and 10 of your other friends suicide a freighter then every thing that drop needs to be divided by 11 people.
This made this 1bil rule.
1 bil in cargo 50% burns divide by gankers and you get 40mil per person after counting off ship costs.
Not worth to kill.

New rule.
1 person and alts.
1bil in cargo 50% burns , divide by 1 and reduce by ganking cost is giving you around 450mil per gank.

You see the difference?
40mil cut and 450mil cut on the same ship that dies.

People don't put any more ships in danger.
They just have bowhead, and a freighter to pick up the loot , and a bumping alt , and a suicide alt.
You don't play eve on 1 account.

Even when you need help, and you take a friend to this gank you are still in very good position.
450mil /2 still gives enough isk for gank to happen as you are not only getting ISK , but also tons of fun.


Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#248 - 2015-01-28 09:09:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Anthar Thebess wrote:
You are wrong.
No.
Before, it took X catalysts, a bumper, (preferably) a cleaner, and a hauler to kill and loot a freighter.
With this tactic, it takes X+ catalysts, a delivery vehicle, a bumper, (preferably) a cleaner, and a hauler to kill and loot a freighter.

The added delivery vehicle is perhaps not that much at risk, but you never know when some evil ganker might pass by and say “hey, I'd like to kill me one of those”. So that's already more risk right there, if minimal. Then there's the fact that you don't deliver damage in parallel but in series, meaning more HP to chew through, more ships required to do so, and the potential for some nasty evil white knight to come along and kick that HP back up, again raising the cost.

Quote:
You see the difference?
I know the difference between “cost” and “cut”. You don't. So shush.

Quote:
You don't play eve on 1 account.
Really? That's news to me. So how many accounts do I play EVE on, because it looks like I need to start looking for the other ones.
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#249 - 2015-01-28 09:15:06 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
I think I'll have to start looking for hyperdunkers and start collecting their abandoned ships.


Maybe even better, scan down their shuttle cache.
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#250 - 2015-01-28 09:19:13 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
I think it's still a thing we'll be monitoring.
People are completely correct when they mention this is a game where suicide ganking and non-consentual PvP has been given the thumbs up by developers. That being said, we would still like to see a nice balance between effort and intelligence required on both sides of the coin. Making ganking too easy is not our goal, nor is it the other way around. Where that balance lies, and if hyperdunking has crossed some line, we'll have to see.
There are things we can change if needed.


Well you failed first pass.

However I'm extremely happy that CCP finally gave some approval to solo game play. You've been ******* over the solo players for months now.
Inslander Wessette
Unleashed' Fury
The Initiative.
#251 - 2015-01-28 09:23:14 UTC
So just a query about this .

I am not sure if i'm right . If someone can continue to gank after going criminal . Would this mean that the tactic can be done in any security and a work around to gank someone giving bs to concord .

Or would this work only in 0.5 and 0.6 only ?

KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#252 - 2015-01-28 09:24:06 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
But ganking freighters, that is designed to be solo play?


Of course not. The method discussed here takes at least 3 people (1 Ganker, 1 Bumper, 1 Ship supplier), do you know of a method where you can do it solo?


This is done with three account, not with three people.
Astroid Mistress
420 Enterprises.
#253 - 2015-01-28 09:28:42 UTC
Dear CCP Falcon and fellow pilots.
There is no way to escape this "hyperdunk" tactic once a Machariel has bumped you off alignment if you are in a Freighter.
The only way is to log off the game. How can logging off the game be part of normal gameplay? "Hyperdunking" would not last in low or null-sec due to the more ways you can overcome this tactic but exists in hi-sec making hi-sec more dangerous than low sec? The fact that -10 sec status players can live in hi-sec with a now endless ISK making scheme makes your judgement seem hasty? I think some game mechanics have changed with regard to global criminals and what they can and cannot do especially in terms of flying ships. It is very hard to determine what exactly has changed over the iterations of Eve patches with regard to global criminal and ship flying and Concord response time as it seems you have not fully documented these changes. If this type of gameplay remains I am afraid I will be joining them on this free ride to ISK glory.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#254 - 2015-01-28 09:32:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Tippia wrote:
No. The cost of a gank is the same as ever — in fact, it's most likely slightly higher with this tactic since you need to put more ships on the line.


You are wrong.
When you , and 10 of your other friends suicide a freighter then every thing that drop needs to be divided by 11 people.
This made this 1bil rule.
1 bil in cargo 50% burns divide by gankers and you get 40mil per person after counting off ship costs.
Not worth to kill.

New rule.
1 person and alts.
1bil in cargo 50% burns , divide by 1 and reduce by ganking cost is giving you around 450mil per gank.

You see the difference?
40mil cut and 450mil cut on the same ship that dies.

What are you, baka-stupid or something? Does your brain really not process the difference between having to split a take and the profitability of an activity?

Anthar Thebess wrote:
People don't put any more ships in danger.
They just have bowhead, and a freighter to pick up the loot , and a bumping alt , and a suicide alt.

The fact that you're using an already GCC-flagged character means that CONCORD responds quicker, giving each ship less time to act on the field. This means you need to use more Catalysts, not less.

Astroid Mistress wrote:
It is very hard to determine what exactly has changed over the iterations of Eve patches with regard to global criminal and ship flying and Concord response time as it seems you have not fully documented these changes.

The strength and efficiency of CONCORD has been going up in iterations ever since they day they made it immune to player damage.


Astroid Mistress wrote:
If this type of gameplay remains I am afraid I will be joining them on this free ride to ISK glory.

Good.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#255 - 2015-01-28 09:32:56 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
RIP higsec hauling.

Cost of suicide gank on higsec freighter just dropped to at most 1/10 of current value.
No more need of sharing dropped stuff with any one - makes 500mil freighters worth killing.
Tanked Orca any one?
You build freighters? Start killing empty ones for the cost of few catalist - you will earn much more on each freighter you sell.

The only safer hauling methods will be JF and tons of cyno alts in lowsec around the route or hire escort ships that will guard your freighter! So more work for new players.

I'm happy about this change.
People will finally move to safety of nullsec where you can shoot any one , and you don't need to count on broken CONCORD.

+1 CCP, good policy change.

Now pls focus on nullsec and sov changes.



This change will make life more profitable for highsec haulers that practice sensible #opsec. They can charge more once all the idiots lose their freighters.

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

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#256 - 2015-01-28 09:34:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Inslander Wessette wrote:
So just a query about this .

I am not sure if i'm right . If someone can continue to gank after going criminal . Would this mean that the tactic can be done in any security and a work around to gank someone giving bs to concord .

Or would this work only in 0.5 and 0.6 only ?

It's no different than any other suicide ganking strategy: it works everywhere, but the higher you go, the tighter your margins become and the less time you have actually delivering damage on target. The downtime between each pass is fairly constant, so the higher the sec rating, the lower your ratio of attack vs restock time goes, and the longer the gank will take — longer obviously meaning more opportunity for things to go wrong (not to mention that 0.7 systems and up tend to have more natural avenues of escape or of simply circumnavigating the gank).

It “only works” in 0.5 and 0.6, the same as most ganks really, because above that it just becomes too prolonged, cumbersome, and risky a procedure to be of any value.

Astroid Mistress wrote:
There is no way to escape this "hyperdunk" tactic once a Machariel has bumped you off alignment if you are in a Freighter.
…well, aside from warping off or disabling the ganker, that is. Logging of certainly won't help, but then, that was never a particularly good idea when you're under attack so no difference there either. Log-off escapes were effectively eradicated as part of normal gameplay two years ago.

Quote:
"Hyperdunking" would not last in low or null-sec due to the more ways you can overcome this tactic but exists in hi-sec making hi-sec more dangerous than low sec?
Jollyjabbing doesn't last in low or null for the simple reason that the entire setup — every last detail of it — is 100% unnecessary. You can just kill the target outright and be on your way. It is the vastly higher safety of highsec that requires the entire rigamarole to be effected.

The fact that -10s can live in highsec and make a profit is entirely intentional and carefully thought through. It is horribly bad game design — doubly so in a sandbox — to arbitrarily lock off players from gameplay, or worse entire parts of the game. That's why it is left up to the players to decide how much freedom these characters are allowed.

Quote:
It is very hard to determine what exactly has changed over the iterations of Eve patches with regard to global criminal and ship flying and Concord response time as it seems you have not fully documented these changes.
That's very easy: go look up the CrimeWatch dev blog, and then google for CONCORD response times. It has all been deconstructed down to the last detail. The iteration pattern is also very easy to spot: CONCORD has only ever become faster and strong, and timers more harsh and restrictive.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#257 - 2015-01-28 09:35:59 UTC
Astroid Mistress wrote:

There is no way to escape this "hyperdunk" tactic once a Machariel has bumped you off alignment if you are in a Freighter.


Wrong.


Quote:

The only way is to log off the game.


Also wrong.

Everything else in your post is just you ranting based off of these two falsehoods, so you might as well delete it.

"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.

Arla Sarain
#258 - 2015-01-28 09:42:57 UTC
Bagrat Skalski wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
Since the introduction of the Bowhead freighter, we’ve become aware of a tactic that has been introduced which has become known as “Hyperdunking”. This involves leaving a grid where a criminal action occurs to draw away CONCORD and reshipping to continue shooting at a target. There’s been much discussion among members of the community regarding this tactic, and whether or not it is considered legitimate gameplay.

After meeting with members of the game design and customer support teams and discussing this in depth, we have come to the consensus that due to the fact no rules are being broken and any ship that is involved in a criminal act is being destroyed by CONCORD as intended, that this tactic is simply an unintended but legitimate use of new game mechanics, and is not in breach of the rules. Tactics similar to this have been used with previous hulls before the Bowhead was introduced, and have been considered perfectly legitimate in the past.

With this in mind, at this time we do not consider this tactic to be in breach of the game rules, and as such our customer support team will not be offering reimbursements for hulls lost in this manner.

Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage.


So when can we expect CONCORD podding the criminals?

When can we expect haulers to hire protection? Like play the game and not have CCP play it for them.
Anthar Thebess
#259 - 2015-01-28 09:48:01 UTC
Tippia wrote:
No.
Before, it took X catalysts, a bumper, (preferably) a cleaner, and a hauler to kill and loot a freighter.
With this tactic, it takes X+ catalysts, a delivery vehicle, a bumper, (preferably) a cleaner, and a hauler to kill and loot a freighter.
.


We can argue as much as you can, and we both are right.
For me cost is also time .
Before :
Time of 11 people to prepare every thing and wait for the target.
All people had to be rdy - you where waiting for target.
No one could go afk.

Now it is only 1 person doing it.
You need to go afk - no problem, dock up all ships.

Time is more expensive than isk.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#260 - 2015-01-28 09:55:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Anthar Thebess wrote:
We can argue as much as you can, and we both are right.
Not really, no, since you claimed that the costs will magically go down just because of a GM statement. That is pretty much the opposite of being right.

In reality, costs remain the same or go up ever so slightly because the cost lies in the ships being lost, and that number will only go up.

Quote:
For me cost is also time .
That stays the same too, you know, for pretty much the exact same reason.

Before, you had to deliver, say, 200k damage using 400-DPS ships, meaning you needed 500 damage-seconds for the target to go down. Since you didn't have 500 seconds in one go, you had to cut it up among 20 ships doing it in parallel. You then docked up and had a sandwich while the scooper picked the loot apart and the timers counted down.

Now, you have to deliver, say, 2000k damage using 400-DPS ships, meaning you need 500 damage-seconds for the target to go down. Since you don't have 500 seconds in one go, you have to cut it up among 20 ships doing it in series. You then dock up and have a sandwich while the scooper picks the loot apart and the timer counts down.

500 seconds of work is 500 seconds of work. Again, if anything, the total time spent has gone up because you are far more restricted in the number of viable targets so you have to spend more waste time finding one that will work for you.

Quote:
Time is more expensive than isk.
Time spent having fun on jabber because nothing else of importance is going on is not really a cost.