These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Scooping loot using fleeted alts in hisec

Author
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2015-04-07 10:05:23 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
So, I'd like to discuss and hopefully remove a mechanic commonly used in hisec, primarily but necessarily exclusively by gankers, in order to steal loot from wrecks while avoiding any (real) consequences.

For the uninitated, this mechanic requires cooperation between two players (or having 2 active accounts), one of which has to be in a ship with a fleet hanger (deep space transport, orca, etc.) and the other will usually be in some cheap ship/shuttle.

Hauler char will fleet the char in shuttle and open the fleet hanger to fleet members. Then they will both warp to a wreck containing loot. Once on the wreck the character flying shuttle will simply transfer goods from the wreck to the fleet hanger, resulting in him (shuttle char) getting suspect flagged while the hauler character will get no flag whatsoever.

This way it is possible to bypass suspect mechanics for hauler toons and loot in complete security (unless you gank the shuttle character before it starts looting, it will only go suspect once the cargo has been transferred, which doesn't really matter).

IMHO, this mechanic is clearly quite far from Eve's risk vs. reward nature, we all like to refer to every now and then, and I'd love some support for changing it.

What I'd suggest is fairly simple - transfers of this kind should only be possible if both chars have partial safety activated and both get suspect flagged (this would obviously remove any need for the other char, but that's not the point right now).

Feel free to discuss.



Not only gankers use that. MOstly people WITH FRIENDS.. or even other scenarios. For example, I use my highest SP character with AF to run the burner missions that my ALTS collect from the agents (since they cannot complete them), and then scoop the loot without becoming suspect of anything.

There are valid uses of the mechanic.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2015-04-07 10:11:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Black Pedro wrote:
Tell that to the miner who has his Orca destroyed when the new player who just joined his corp goes suspect during the mining op by purposely stealing from a nearby can and uses the hanger right before a T3 cruiser uncloaks nearby. Once you explain to him how he should have known someone could make him suspect even if he was just mining, and that this unintuitive mechanic is necessary to protect AFK freighter pilots, I am sure he will understand.

I'm sorry, but as I said - it's not hilariously exploitable. It can be circumvented, but that does require sitting in an orca with security set to yellow which is something any 'responsible' carebear will not do in the first place. Also, what you are describing are very particular cases which could hardly become the norm.

Quote:
Rare is relative term so it all depends on your definition, but compared to all the ship losses in New Eden, or even just highsec, freighter losses are a tiny fraction. Why institute more, complicated Crimewatch mechanics to fix one tiny edge case. And a "fix" that will reduces content (and lower conflict) to boot?

Why do you think that this would "lower" the content? Are you suggesting that increasing risks for gankers would reduce their wilingness to gank? Are you suggesting that gankers are *gulp* risk averse ShockedShocked???

Quote:
The mechanic isn't wrong, it is just the mechanic.

Logoffski was a mechanic, warping under gcc was a mechanic, garage door cynos is gonna be an ex mechanic soon. They were not wrong, they were just mechanics. Emphasis is on were.

Let me set this straight - I'm not against ganking, on the contrary, I support its existence as a content providing mechanic. However, I don't like completely illogical mechanics - if you argue that concord should not react instantly in ganks since it's not realistic (police in rl parallel) and don't mind for the fact that -10 chars can move through hisec due to same lag in response time, then you have to agree that concord allowing for nabbing the guy who scooped the diamonds off the knocked out lady on the floor while not allowing the same for his mates in the car whom he threw the diamonds to before getting beaten by the crowd is silly.
However, you obviously don't want your little safety net taken away from you. Where's the anti risk averse crowd when you need it, eh?
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2015-04-07 10:15:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Kagura Nikon wrote:

Not only gankers use that. MOstly people WITH FRIENDS.. or even other scenarios. For example, I use my highest SP character with AF to run the burner missions that my ALTS collect from the agents (since they cannot complete them), and then scoop the loot without becoming suspect of anything.

There are valid uses of the mechanic.


How does you scooping loot from your (probably fleeted) alts even relate to this is beyond me (you don't get suspect flagged for scooping fleet loot or/and you can blue your wrecks).

Also, thank you for suggesting I have no friends, since I really do not. None of the folks who aren't gankers or hisec tradehub warriors do. However I make up for that with extensive use of alts, they make me feel warm inside during cold winter nights.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#24 - 2015-04-07 11:04:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
I'm sorry, but as I said - it's not hilariously exploitable. It can be circumvented, but that does require sitting in an orca with security set to yellow which is something any 'responsible' carebear will not do in the first place. Also, what you are describing are very particular cases which could hardly become the norm.

I find the thought of using that loophole quite amusing.

But you have to realize you are adding a tool - a non-obvious loophole in the Crimewatch system - that will be used against carebears and new players that will get people destroyed. Your "receive stolen goods" pop-up idea might mitigate that somewhat as at least then you would require an active action to go suspect, but it is not the most elegant addition to the game, and one that won't solve your basic issue as the flag could easily be avoided by using a jetcan or other container to launder the loot before putting it in the get-away ship.

The better way to do it would be to have some "stolen" flag on the items that anyone who possessed would be considered fair game. Then the game could better track the "intentions" of the loot thieves and keep them suspect no matter what they do to launder the items until they say, dock at a station. The problem is that there no easy way to track that currently and would require far too much developer time for such a niche aspect of the game. Fozzie did say at Fanfest they wanted to increase the ways people could steal from each other, so perhaps at some point in the future something like that could happen but I doubt it is a high priority.

Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Why do you think that this would "lower" the content? Are you suggesting that increasing risks for gankers would reduce their wilingness to gank? Are you suggesting that gankers are *gulp* risk averse ShockedShocked???

Of course. Increasing the risks/costs on gankers will result in less of them doing it. It is not that difficult a concept. We've seen that many times already with the insurance nerfs, EHP buffs and CONCORD response time reductions each time reducing the number of gankers in the game.

Any activity in the game is going to be influenced by how lucrative it is. If gankers made no money at the activity because it was impossible to recover the loot, then they would mostly stop doing it. I'm not saying your idea does this - actually even if implemented I don't think it would have any effect as they would just use an intermediate container to launder the goods at minimal additional risk - but generally ideas proposed to lower the profitability or increase the cost of ganking usually are trying to achieve a reduction in the amount of ganking rather than making the game better.

CCP likes ganking and intends for it to be in the game. If they change their minds there are far easier and effective ways to reduce ganking than playing with looting mechanics.

Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Let me set this straight - I'm not against ganking, on the contrary, I support its existence as a content providing mechanic. However, I don't like completely illogical mechanics - if you argue that concord should not react instantly in ganks since it's not realistic (police in rl parallel) and don't mind for the fact that -10 chars can move through hisec due to same lag in response time, then you have to agree that concord allowing for nabbing the guy who scooped the diamonds off the knocked out lady on the floor while not allowing the same for his mates in the car whom he threw the diamonds to before getting beaten by the crowd is stupid. However, you obviously don't want your little safety net taken away from you. Where's the anti risk averse crowd when you need it, eh?
The mechanic is what it is. You steal some loot you have a 15 minute suspect timer. What happens next is not the concern of CONCORD most simply because the game lacks the ability to track what happens after that initial crime. I can handwave a silly roleplay explanation for that if it makes you feel better, but the reality is that there is no way for the game to tell if any specific item has been stolen or not. So just chalk it up to "emergent gameplay" and deal with it the best you can with the current rule-set like the rest of us.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#25 - 2015-04-07 14:19:24 UTC
I may be completely misundertanding this so forgive me if I am.

-1
No you cannot remove the mechanic that allows fleet members to scoop each others loot legally simply because you think it is bad in the context of a gank situation. There are far to many real reasons why this should not be changed but helping new players is one of the biggest in my book. Run mission, kill all and allow fleet member newb to loot & salvage, we vets get a partner to fly with and help them along the way asd they say it is a win - win situation.

Besides what the entirety of the gank situation in the game needs is a complete and total look at by CCP and for them to make adjustments / changes as they see fit. We do not need another poorly thought out idea patched on top of the current system, especially an idea that has consequences that reach far outside the stated area of concern.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2015-04-07 14:25:27 UTC
My understanding is that they are dragging from the wreck directly to the fleet hanger. The intermediate ship flags, but never actually has the loot, which is immediately and safely laundered into the fleet hanger.

Thus there is never an occasion where the flashy yellow legal target ever can drop the loot.

Should this be inaccurate and they need to buffer via their own hold first, I don't see the problem.

I DO understand the problem with the former, however. It'd be like assigning drones and only the bunny flagging Lol
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#27 - 2015-04-07 14:47:55 UTC
Rather than demand that CCP re-engineer the basic fleet hangar mechanics, why don't you just shoot the wreck before they loot it?

Oh, right. Your rabid risk aversion.

"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.

Daerrol
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#28 - 2015-04-07 14:54:02 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
So, I'd like to discuss and hopefully remove a mechanic commonly used in hisec, primarily but necessarily exclusively by gankers, in order to steal loot from wrecks while avoiding any (real) consequences.

For the uninitated, this mechanic requires cooperation between two players (or having 2 active accounts), one of which has to be in a ship with a fleet hanger (deep space transport, orca, etc.) and the other will usually be in some cheap ship/shuttle.

Hauler char will fleet the char in shuttle and open the fleet hanger to fleet members. Then they will both warp to a wreck containing loot. Once on the wreck the character flying shuttle will simply transfer goods from the wreck to the fleet hanger, resulting in him (shuttle char) getting suspect flagged while the hauler character will get no flag whatsoever.

This way it is possible to bypass suspect mechanics for hauler toons and loot in complete security (unless you gank the shuttle character before it starts looting, it will only go suspect once the cargo has been transferred, which doesn't really matter).

IMHO, this mechanic is clearly quite far from Eve's risk vs. reward nature, we all like to refer to every now and then, and I'd love some support for changing it.

What I'd suggest is fairly simple - transfers of this kind should only be possible if both chars have partial safety activated and both get suspect flagged (this would obviously remove any need for the other char, but that's not the point right now).

Feel free to discuss.

I don't even know where to begin with this. Let's start with having to leave your whole black ops fleet on grid to protect a hauler from rogue interceptor or two in lowsec while it decloaks to pick up the loot from a recent gank.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2015-04-07 15:07:40 UTC
Daerrol wrote:
I don't even know where to begin with this. Let's start with having to leave your whole black ops fleet on grid to protect a hauler from rogue interceptor or two in lowsec while it decloaks to pick up the loot from a recent gank.


Huh??? How the heck is my proposal a problem for a cloak-fitted hauler in lowsec??

What is wrong with these people?
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2015-04-07 15:11:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Rather than demand that CCP re-engineer the basic fleet hangar mechanics, why don't you just shoot the wreck before they loot it?

Oh, right. Your rabid risk aversion.


I wouldn't call a simple if-then re-engineering. As for the risks, you seem to be in the averse bunch on this topic.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#31 - 2015-04-07 15:16:43 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Rather than demand that CCP re-engineer the basic fleet hangar mechanics, why don't you just shoot the wreck before they loot it?

Oh, right. Your rabid risk aversion.


I wouldn't call a simple if-then re-engineering. As for the risks, you seem to be in the averse bunch on this topic.


You mean the people flying around neg ten.

As opposed to the people who want the game recoded (which is not as simple as an if/then statement, by the way) just because they can't be asked to shoot a wreck.

And you think we are the risk averse ones.

The only proper response here is derisive laughter.

"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.

Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2015-04-07 15:21:28 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Rather than demand that CCP re-engineer the basic fleet hangar mechanics, why don't you just shoot the wreck before they loot it?

Oh, right. Your rabid risk aversion.


I wouldn't call a simple if-then re-engineering. As for the risks, you seem to be in the averse bunch on this topic.


You mean the people flying around neg ten.

As opposed to the people who want the game recoded (which is not as simple as an if/then statement, by the way) just because they can't be asked to shoot a wreck.

And you think we are the risk averse ones.

The only proper response here is derisive laughter.


Why would I shoot if I can loot, bro.
Doesn't make it a good mechanic, though.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#33 - 2015-04-07 15:26:51 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:

Why would I shoot if I can loot, bro.
Doesn't make it a good mechanic, though.


It doesn't make it a bad one.

It just doesn't work to your benefit like you think it should.

You already have avenues to accomplish what you want, but since it requires any risk to you at all, you want the existing mechanic changed to be drastically in your favor instead.

It's utterly unconscionable.

"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.

Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2015-04-07 15:36:06 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


It doesn't make it a bad one.

It just doesn't work to your benefit like you think it should.

You already have avenues to accomplish what you want, but since it requires any risk to you at all, you want the existing mechanic changed to be drastically in your favor instead.

It's utterly unconscionable.

There was a discussion about good and bad mechanics up this thread so look that up.
This particular mechanic is working 100% to my benefit, since I can make isk with 0% risk, but - as I already said, that does not make it a good mechanic.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2015-04-07 15:39:39 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

It doesn't make it a bad one.

It just doesn't work to your benefit like you think it should.

You already have avenues to accomplish what you want, but since it requires any risk to you at all, you want the existing mechanic changed to be drastically in your favor instead.

It's utterly unconscionable.


I've got to ask as many people don't see this. Where is the risk in ganking?

My basic understanding is that you wait with a neutral scanning alt (only at risk from being ganked by someone else and then they are only in a cheap ship), bump if necessary with another neutral (same minimal gank risk), and then undock your -10 ganker in a ship you know you are going to lose anyway to club the hauler seal over the head before CONCORD turn up. You then launder the loot into another ship again at minimal gank risk.

I can see this takes organization but I really don't see much risk. Please clarify this for us.

Note: if someone hauls in an undefended ship, especially on autopilot then it is their fault if they are ganked, I have zero problem with this!
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#36 - 2015-04-07 15:46:14 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

I've got to ask as many people don't see this. Where is the risk in ganking?


You're asking the wrong question.

Where is the risk without 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.

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2015-04-07 15:49:37 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

I've got to ask as many people don't see this. Where is the risk in ganking?


You're asking the wrong question.

Where is the risk without it?


No, I'm asking a serious question. Everything should be risk/reward (or rather effort/risk/reward as the 3 things matter not just the two).

There is very minimal perceived risk in ganking as opposed to the large rewards that can be gained from it (even if you are simply generating your own market in selling barges/exhumers). I'm asking if you in your experience of that practice could clarify and quantify the *actual* risk involved.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#38 - 2015-04-07 15:55:43 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

No, I'm asking a serious question. Everything should be risk/reward (or rather effort/risk/reward as the 3 things matter not just the two).

There is very minimal perceived risk in ganking as opposed to the large rewards that can be gained from it (even if you are simply generating your own market in selling barges/exhumers). I'm asking if you in your experience of that practice could clarify and quantify the *actual* risk involved.


The risk in ganking is exactly what our various detractors are willing to inflict upon us.

Risk vs. reward generally applies to income generation activities, PvE mostly. PvP is inherently different, as it relies heavily on interactions between players to generate destruction of assets.

If I am sitting in a mission pocket flagged, and the mission runner does not choose to attack me, am I still alive because my risk level is broken? No, it's because the other player refuses to inflict the available consequences upon me.

The game is not broken because some people insist on only playing half of 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.

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#39 - 2015-04-07 16:00:37 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Rather than demand that CCP re-engineer the basic fleet hangar mechanics, why don't you just shoot the wreck before they loot it?

Oh, right. Your rabid risk aversion.



It's not risk aversion if you can do it with a free noob ship. It's just plain stupidity. If he wants the loot, then he's greedy on top of lazy.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2015-04-07 16:09:19 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


The risk in ganking is exactly what our various detractors are willing to inflict upon us.


This doesn't answer the question or quantify the risk in any way, have you ever considered a career in politics? :D

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Risk vs. reward generally applies to income generation activities, PvE mostly. PvP is inherently different, as it relies heavily on interactions between players to generate destruction of assets.


If you are ganking for profit (hauler ganking or miner destruction for market generation) then it is all about income generation. Most people consider the risk to the ganker in terms of assets (minimal as all cheap ships are used in the process), and also in terms of consequences as the gankers typically sit in NPC corps.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

If I am sitting in a mission pocket flagged, and the mission runner does not choose to attack me, am I still alive because my risk level is broken? No, it's because the other player refuses to inflict the available consequences upon me.

For this to be relevant you have to be in hisec and there is no reason for the mission runner to fire upon you unless you are interfering with their mission (or they don't realize it's a gank trap). They have no reason to engage, but also no recourse to complain should you steal the mission loot/objective and they do nothing about it.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

The game is not broken because some people insist on only playing half of it.

This can equally be applied to those who will only PvP and hold those who PvE in disdain.