These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Valterra Craven
#701 - 2015-02-01 18:34:33 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:

As long as FacPo and CONCORD exist in their current form, you'll never have the justice you're looking for.


I agree. If I didn't agree with that premise I wouldn't be in this thread arguing that their current form makes no sense.
Valterra Craven
#702 - 2015-02-01 18:50:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Tippia wrote:
Ever heard of the Horn of Africa? It makes plenty sense.


*Sigh* Ever heard of low sec? Your argument would make plenty of sense in that context. It doesn't make any sense in the context of hi-sec.

Tippia wrote:
It would actually make even more sense then, since it would be trivially easy to never get caught in the first place.


Because it was so trivially easy to avoid concord before those changes were put into place? Last time I checked my Eve history books it wasn't trivially easy to evade them before. A lot of thought and time and effort had to be put into it.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#703 - 2015-02-01 18:53:04 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
David Mandrake wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
[quote=Destiny Corrupted][quote=Veers Belvar]The fact that people are blowing up empty freighters shows how broken the system is. If punishments were raised to a meaningful level, only high value targets would get hit.



Given that there's been several stories of out of corp alts hauling stuff for null power blocks being ganked, as well as a number of nullsec bloc members who have been ganked, I don't think it's entirely that (to be honest, I'd wager that most freighters are carrying stuff for Nullsec bloc members, either for stuff eventually destined for Nullsec, or to assist in their money making).

Additionally, Goons are more than happy to shoot at people from other power blocs and there is some bad feelings between some of the varying blocs. I don't think they'd hold fire just because you're part of a power bloc; if anything I'd think if they found a freighter from my own Alliance they'd be more than happy to explode it in Highsec.

I think the politics in this game and the mechanics are far, far more complicated than you're giving them credit for.


Obviously goons will shoot at anyone not blue to them, and are often happy to shoot up blues as well. Their operations have a minimal impact on folks who are part of a powerbloc, since they have access to alliance SRP and easy isk. The ones who get hurt are the independent PvE highsec "pubbies" who are unable to recover from these losses.


We pay nothing to anyone who loses a freighter or any other ship in highsec.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#704 - 2015-02-01 18:56:14 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


We pay nothing to anyone who loses a freighter or any other ship in highsec.


Well, since you guys are the ones blowing them up no payment is needed. Not to mention that your line members can always go rat in an ishtar for an easy 50 mil an hour...and get discounted plex prices from the alliance.

Point is goon line members can easily replace any highsec losses....independent highsec PvE "pubbies" can't, and are the ones who suffer.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#705 - 2015-02-01 19:00:47 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


We pay nothing to anyone who loses a freighter or any other ship in highsec.


Well, since you guys are the ones blowing them up no payment is needed. Not to mention that your line members can always go rat in an ishtar for an easy 50 mil an hour...and get discounted plex prices from the alliance.

Point is goon line members can easily replace any highsec losses....independent highsec PvE "pubbies" can't, and are the ones who suffer.


They have access to level 4 mission that pay more than null sec anoms. We also do not have "discounted plex prices from the alliance".
Valterra Craven
#706 - 2015-02-01 19:05:18 UTC
David Mandrake wrote:

When you say "logical", what do you mean by that? You've said you're not looking for a lore-based reason - of which there are many that would explain why a .5 or .6 system wouldn't have a huge amount of protection against ganks from the various forces in system (quite frankly they just don't have the resources to effectively combat ganking which is why those systems have been assigned a lower security status; and these ganking groups are being funded by capsuleer alliances and the empires are supposed to be losing their grip on power... so this fits perfectly in to the story).


I fully accept that there are many lore reasons why a .5 or a .6 system wouldn't have a huge amount of protection from ganks. What I'm saying is merely that in a logical context if you have repeat offenders that are continually doing the same activities that the police would call for some kind of back up or have harsher sentences for repeat offenders. It really is that simple.

David Mandrake wrote:

CCP has elected not to do that, because they feel that this sort of gameplay does have a place in this game.


And I'm fine with that. I'm still going to argue that while it does have a place in this game, the current way things work doesn't make sense.


David Mandrake wrote:

I'm not going to campaign that the playstyles are dramatically nerfed, however.


That's fine. However, it seems you are more than willing to campain that the status quo is maintained. Thats your perogative, just like its mine to campaign that they change.

David Mandrake wrote:

You can argue that CCP is in the wrong for allowing people to gank at these chokepoints - and you do have a right to do so - but that's not the argument you've presented thus far (and if you've intended to present that sort of an argument, you've failed to do so well). However at the end of the day much of the community disagrees with you, and simply because you have an opinion on the way the game should be changed doesn't necessarily mean that it's the way the game will or should be changed.


I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to gank at chokepoints, or wherever the heck they want. What I am arguing is that it make no sense that concord's response stays the same for repeat offenders. That being said, I can easily agree that this debate has two very vocal sides. What I won't agree with is that there is some kind of consensus on the issue because there is no empirical data to back up that argument either way.
Valterra Craven
#707 - 2015-02-01 19:06:57 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


Like AFK solo flying fat, slow, vulnerable haulers full of valuable goods along exactly the same route over and over again?


Because that doesn't happen (or will happen in the future with autonomous cars/trucks) in our everyday modern day context?
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#708 - 2015-02-01 19:10:03 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


Like AFK solo flying fat, slow, vulnerable haulers full of valuable goods along exactly the same route over and over again?


Because that doesn't happen (or will happen in the future with autonomous cars/trucks) in our everyday modern day context?
In real life when a hauler gets hit on a regular basis they look into ways of not getting hit, here most of them whine on the forums.

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#709 - 2015-02-01 19:10:29 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:


I fully accept that there are many lore reasons why a .5 or a .6 system wouldn't have a huge amount of protection from ganks. What I'm saying is merely that in a logical context if you have repeat offenders that are continually doing the same activities that the police would call for some kind of back up or have harsher sentences for repeat offenders. It really is that simple.




And in BF games you would not park a carrier right next to the beach or have a shotgun that can snipe people 1km away. Its a game, treat it as such.
Valterra Craven
#710 - 2015-02-01 19:12:15 UTC
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
In real life when a hauler gets hit on a regular basis they look into ways of not getting hit, here most of them whine on the forums.


In real life the advanced police forces like the FBI get involved and put a stop to it. That's what taxes are for. I'm sure that you could come up a with a lore reason that all of those market fees go into paying concord to act in the same manner.
Valterra Craven
#711 - 2015-02-01 19:13:13 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

And in BF games you would not park a carrier right next to the beach or have a shotgun that can snipe people 1km away. Its a game, treat it as such.


I'd make the same arguments for realism there too.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#712 - 2015-02-01 19:15:48 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


We pay nothing to anyone who loses a freighter or any other ship in highsec.


Well, since you guys are the ones blowing them up no payment is needed. Not to mention that your line members can always go rat in an ishtar for an easy 50 mil an hour...and get discounted plex prices from the alliance.

Point is goon line members can easily replace any highsec losses....independent highsec PvE "pubbies" can't, and are the ones who suffer.


They have access to level 4 mission that pay more than null sec anoms. We also do not have "discounted plex prices from the alliance".


The folks getting their empty freighters blown up are not the level 4 mission and incursion runners. They are the simple players who mine and run low level missions. Those are the guys suffering here....the better players are good enough to not get hit by any of this. And the point is that goon line members never have to worry about being unable to plex - your alliance takes care of them...not so for independent pve highsec players who can get blown straight out of the game from ganking.
David Mandrake
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#713 - 2015-02-01 19:24:13 UTC
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


Like AFK solo flying fat, slow, vulnerable haulers full of valuable goods along exactly the same route over and over again?


Because that doesn't happen (or will happen in the future with autonomous cars/trucks) in our everyday modern day context?
In real life when a hauler gets hit on a regular basis they look into ways of not getting hit, here most of them whine on the forums.


I get the feeling that a lot of people also assume that the level of protection should be similar to a highway in a first-world country (and a post that just popped up while I was typing this seems to confirm that). New Eden most certainly isn't one; it's a fragmented remnant of the human race which is still trying to recover from the collapse of the Eve Gate (as the lore seems to indicate that old Terran technology was better than what we have now). It's more like trying to haul goods in a third-world country where the police are highly corrupt (I mean seriously, the wardec fee is basically just a bribe) and ineffective. Capsuleers are offered some protections because we're like the top 1% of the 1% of the 1% but especially given that we're semi-immortal demi-gods we shouldn't be complaining when we die.

Veers Belvar wrote:

The folks getting their empty freighters blown up are not the level 4 mission and incursion runners. They are the simple players who mine and run low level missions. Those are the guys suffering here....the better players are good enough to not get hit by any of this. And the point is that goon line members never have to worry about being unable to plex - your alliance takes care of them...not so for independent pve highsec players who can get blown straight out of the game from ganking.


So, how do they afford to drop that billion ISK on the freighter (plus the other billion or so ISK that they will need for collateral, and the 400 million for Insurance), and why are they flying something they can't afford to replace? If you can't afford to lose a freighter, you should not be flying a freighter. Because either they're able to rather easily get the ISK to replace the freighter (in which case losing it is cost of doing business and it's easily replaced), or they shouldn't be flying it if they can't afford to buy another one.

And don't say "Well they had to pay PLEX to do it." That's how I financed my initial acquisition of an Orca and it's mods, and I sold those to finance my freighter (so indirectly I bought mine through PLEX). I'm not sitting here complaining about the mechanics, and I fully understand I may lose my freighter when I undock it. Although I consider PLEX to be a valid way of getting quick cash in-game, I do *not* consider buying stuff with it to be a valid excuse for not understanding the risks in flying it.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#714 - 2015-02-01 19:33:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
I'd honestly be very OK with having a ship with essentially the cargo capacity of a blockade runner and the DPS/Tank slightly inferior to a T1 battlecruiser (it would need to be quite a bit slower than the average BC) so that people who want to haul goods in a ship that can fight back have the option to do so.

For example: A ship that's basically a Ferox but with a 3000m^3 base cargo capacity, and a base speed of say 90m/s & 2.50 AU/s and maybe about 25% less cap recharge and a little less fitting space.

A ship like that can haul a decent amount of cargo and still laugh off tactics like hyperdunking; it would be much more resistant to Catalyst swarms. Of course it's still vulnerable to alpha, but given enough 1400s, so is any other ship. You can get a lot of EHP out of a Ferox if you really want to. 100k/280 regen is trivial, and that fit has 330 DPS with Ion Blaster IIs.

However, do not delude yourself that I believe this would have the tiniest impact on the AFK Freighter community's endless campaign for "just one more" nerf to ganking. What they want is very clearly for freighters not to be subject to ganking at all. Every time ganking has been nerfed, there has been a small pause for celebration, then the whining for the next "just one last" nerf promptly resumes. So it has been since 2006, and so it will be until suicide ganking is outlawed.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#715 - 2015-02-01 19:37:14 UTC
David Mandrake wrote:


So, how do they afford to drop that billion ISK on the freighter (plus the other billion or so ISK that they will need for collateral, and the 400 million for Insurance), and why are they flying something they can't afford to replace? If you can't afford to lose a freighter, you should not be flying a freighter. Because either they're able to rather easily get the ISK to replace the freighter (in which case losing it is cost of doing business and it's easily replaced), or they shouldn't be flying it if they can't afford to buy another one.

And don't say "Well they had to pay PLEX to do it." That's how I financed my initial acquisition of an Orca and it's mods, and I sold those to finance my freighter (so indirectly I bought mine through PLEX). I'm not sitting here complaining about the mechanics, and I fully understand I may lose my freighter when I undock it. Although I consider PLEX to be a valid way of getting quick cash in-game, I do *not* consider buying stuff with it to be a valid excuse for not understanding the risks in flying it.


They grinded away at mining to afford it...or they plexed. And it got blown up while EMPTY at a huge loss to the gankers - that is not the type of thing you should need to protect against. Make poor decisions and overstuff your freighter? You probably deserve what you get. Have it blown up at a huge loss in highsec so some gankers can giggle and look for tears? Broken law enforcement mechanics.
Valterra Craven
#716 - 2015-02-01 19:42:01 UTC
David Mandrake wrote:

I get the feeling that a lot of people also assume that the level of protection should be similar to a highway in a first-world country (and a post that just popped up while I was typing this seems to confirm that). New Eden most certainly isn't one; it's a fragmented remnant of the human race which is still trying to recover from the collapse of the Eve Gate (as the lore seems to indicate that old Terran technology was better than what we have now).


Given the expansive powers and colonization that the empires have undertaken, current hi sec is in no way remotely relateble to the back story that you are trying to link it too. There is also no indication that what the terrans had back then is in any way stronger to what the world is now. In fact given a lot of the pictures and the fact that the collapse of humanity even happened to begin with suggests otherwise.
David Mandrake
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#717 - 2015-02-01 19:42:56 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
David Mandrake wrote:


So, how do they afford to drop that billion ISK on the freighter (plus the other billion or so ISK that they will need for collateral, and the 400 million for Insurance), and why are they flying something they can't afford to replace? If you can't afford to lose a freighter, you should not be flying a freighter. Because either they're able to rather easily get the ISK to replace the freighter (in which case losing it is cost of doing business and it's easily replaced), or they shouldn't be flying it if they can't afford to buy another one.

And don't say "Well they had to pay PLEX to do it." That's how I financed my initial acquisition of an Orca and it's mods, and I sold those to finance my freighter (so indirectly I bought mine through PLEX). I'm not sitting here complaining about the mechanics, and I fully understand I may lose my freighter when I undock it. Although I consider PLEX to be a valid way of getting quick cash in-game, I do *not* consider buying stuff with it to be a valid excuse for not understanding the risks in flying it.


They grinded away at mining to afford it...or they plexed. And it got blown up while EMPTY at a huge loss to the gankers - that is not the type of thing you should need to protect against. Make poor decisions and overstuff your freighter? You probably deserve what you get. Have it blown up at a huge loss in highsec so some gankers can giggle and look for tears? Broken law enforcement mechanics.


Perhaps if it was such a big loss to them they shouldn't have moved it in to a well-known ganking area, or they should have used a cheaper ship until they could afford to replace it. T1/T2 haulers aren't that expensive compared to a freighter, and a DST can fit a rather serious tank. Most of these kills are in Uedama; and it should be something easy to avoid by now.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#718 - 2015-02-01 19:45:53 UTC
David Mandrake wrote:


Perhaps if it was such a big loss to them they shouldn't have moved it in to a well-known ganking area, or they should have used a cheaper ship until they could afford to replace it. T1/T2 haulers aren't that expensive compared to a freighter, and a DST can fit a rather serious tank. Most of these kills are in Uedama; and it should be something easy to avoid by now.


You should not need to be worry about having an empty ship blow up at a huge loss in highsec.
David Mandrake
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#719 - 2015-02-01 19:48:00 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
David Mandrake wrote:


Perhaps if it was such a big loss to them they shouldn't have moved it in to a well-known ganking area, or they should have used a cheaper ship until they could afford to replace it. T1/T2 haulers aren't that expensive compared to a freighter, and a DST can fit a rather serious tank. Most of these kills are in Uedama; and it should be something easy to avoid by now.


You should not need to be worry about having an empty ship blow up at a huge loss in highsec.


Why?
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#720 - 2015-02-01 19:50:16 UTC
David Mandrake wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
David Mandrake wrote:


Perhaps if it was such a big loss to them they shouldn't have moved it in to a well-known ganking area, or they should have used a cheaper ship until they could afford to replace it. T1/T2 haulers aren't that expensive compared to a freighter, and a DST can fit a rather serious tank. Most of these kills are in Uedama; and it should be something easy to avoid by now.


You should not need to be worry about having an empty ship blow up at a huge loss in highsec.


Why?


Because that should not be a concern in a law abiding area patrolled by a competent police force. That is what makes highsec different than low/null.