These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Should High sec go away?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sarrgon
Avalonians United
#161 - 2015-08-13 20:29:10 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Sarrgon wrote:
So I just looked at Uedema, 898 kills in the past 24 hours, seen a charon that just got ganked by goons. Bowhead that get popped by Code, looks like via a war dec. i see TONS of concord kills on various ships. No clue what systems you are looking at but not the same ones i am it seems.

I'm looking at the systems that have a long distinguished history of being gank havens. More than that, I'm looking at actual ganks rather than just some information-free number.

Aside from all the warring going on, the reason you're seeing that many kills is exactly because of how hard ganking has become. In total, it's less than one gank and hour — in fact, it seems closer to one every other hour — but each of them results in a dozen or two kills being recorded. They're that many because that's the ludicrous amount of firepower you need to bring in order to execute a gank.

Quote:
And I am not saying that any space should be 100% safe, but high sec should be safer IMO
It already is safer. If anything, as the numbers you dug up show, it needs to be made a whole lot less safe.


This is like you are trying to convince me the sky should be red and needs to be red and is red but when I look at it all i see if blue. Ganking systems change as people change what they do to be safer, I was in a system out in the middle of no where and seen 24 kills in the past 24 hours with some ganking some miners. Granted most of them kills where cats, but super cheap gank ships for a slap on the wrist and probably gets off on the tears they generate, yeah nothing is wrong with high sec.
Paranoid Loyd
#162 - 2015-08-13 20:35:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Paranoid Loyd
Sarrgon wrote:
This is like you are trying to convince me the sky should be red and needs to be red and is red but when I look at it all i see if blue.
No, it's like he did his homework and knows what he is talking about and has an informed opinion and you are using your personal experience and misperception to state uninformed opinions.

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#163 - 2015-08-13 20:41:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Sarrgon wrote:
This is like you are trying to convince me the sky should be red and needs to be red and is red but when I look at it all i see if blue.
No. This is like I'm trying to tell you to look at the sky when trying to figure out what colour it is, and then calling you silly because you picked the inside of a sandstorm as your observation point.

Quote:
Ganking systems change as people change what they do to be safer
People haven't changed what they do to be safer. Quite the opposite: as they've whined their way into being more mechanically protected (because they're too stupid and incompetent to protect themselves), they've made use of that extra protection to be even more incompetent and do even less to be safe.

The victims have become more and more stupid as the gankers have had to come up with increasingly more elaborate strategies to get a kill in the face of pointless security buffs. It's about time those buffs are rolled back and some sensibility is restored.

Quote:
I was in a system out in the middle of no where and seen 24 kills in the past 24 hours with some ganking some miners.
Which system is that? Oh, and I hope you realise that ganking has never been as expensive as it is right now. That's why your pick of a sandstorm is such a bad idea.

Meanwhile, there simply is no disputing that ganks are pathetically rare, especially if you look at the supposed gank hubs such as Uedama and Niarja.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#164 - 2015-08-13 20:42:09 UTC
Sarrgon wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Sarrgon wrote:
So I just looked at Uedema, 898 kills in the past 24 hours, seen a charon that just got ganked by goons. Bowhead that get popped by Code, looks like via a war dec. i see TONS of concord kills on various ships. No clue what systems you are looking at but not the same ones i am it seems.

I'm looking at the systems that have a long distinguished history of being gank havens. More than that, I'm looking at actual ganks rather than just some information-free number.

Aside from all the warring going on, the reason you're seeing that many kills is exactly because of how hard ganking has become. In total, it's less than one gank and hour — in fact, it seems closer to one every other hour — but each of them results in a dozen or two kills being recorded. They're that many because that's the ludicrous amount of firepower you need to bring in order to execute a gank.

Quote:
And I am not saying that any space should be 100% safe, but high sec should be safer IMO
It already is safer. If anything, as the numbers you dug up show, it needs to be made a whole lot less safe.


This is like you are trying to convince me the sky should be red and needs to be red and is red but when I look at it all i see if blue. Ganking systems change as people change what they do to be safer, I was in a system out in the middle of no where and seen 24 kills in the past 24 hours with some ganking some miners. Granted most of them kills where cats, but super cheap gank ships for a slap on the wrist and probably gets off on the tears they generate, yeah nothing is wrong with high sec.


well it seems like you should run some comparison testing.

Let's compare the fatality rates of 1000 freighters run through the 11 Jumps between Amarr Prime and Jita and the 11 jumps between Doril and G-0

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#165 - 2015-08-13 20:43:28 UTC
BTW I don't have a freighter just now so if you could start making the runs and making notes that would be appreciated. I'm burning my hauler alt as fast as I can and will be right with you

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#166 - 2015-08-13 20:45:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Sarrgon wrote:
So I just looked at Uedema, 898 kills in the past 24 hours, seen a charon that just got ganked by goons. Bowhead that get popped by Code, looks like via a war dec. i see TONS of concord kills on various ships. No clue what systems you are looking at but not the same ones i am it seems.

I'm looking at the systems that have a long distinguished history of being gank havens. More than that, I'm looking at actual ganks rather than just some information-free number.

Aside from all the warring going on, the reason you're seeing that many kills is exactly because of how hard ganking has become. In total, it's less than one gank and hour — in fact, it seems closer to one every other hour — but each of them results in a dozen or two kills being recorded. They're that many because that's the ludicrous amount of firepower you need to bring in order to execute a gank.

Quote:
And I am not saying that any space should be 100% safe, but high sec should be safer IMO
It already is safer. If anything, as the numbers you dug up show, it needs to be made a whole lot less safe.

Frankly Uedama was extremely quiet during the time period you looked at it. Ganks in the pipeline areas have an ebb and flow to them with some days being absolutely slow while others seemingly endlessly ganked.

The deltole area is a pale shadow of the activity you see in Uedama so it's not surprising that there's few ganks there too.

I'm not sure if the slow days in the pipelines are because the gankers are busy in real life or if it's because they disperse some to gank random miners.

Ganking pretty much has never been easier or cheaper. You have access to dirt cheap high dps ships and high alpha ships (thanks to the destroyer buffs and the introduction of attack BCs). So regardless of the sec rating of the system or the situation of the gank you have a ship that can do it in an effective manner.

Hypderdunking is legal and allows one person to gank fully tanked freighters with just a little preparation. This is in stark contrast to CCP's stance on prior "tricks" like boomeranging and such.

Personally I"m fine with how things stand for now.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#167 - 2015-08-13 20:54:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Kinete Jenius wrote:
Frankly Uedama was extremely quiet during the time period you looked at it. Ganks in the pipeline areas have an ebb and flow to them with some days being absolutely slow while others seemingly endlessly ganked.
Nah. Even on the worst of days, when the gankers are out in force, it's less than one an hour. “Endless ganking” was what you saw in the olden days when you could just sit on the Jita undock and earn a fortune from stolen gank goods.

Quote:
Ganking pretty much has never been easier or cheaper.
It used to be free, or even inherently profitable, and it used to be done by a large number of groups because it didn't require much in the way of preparation or manpower. Now it costs a bundle, requires a ton of people, forces you to employ all kinds of strategies to make the gank be “safe”, and as a consequence, is only really done by a small handful of highly specialised groups.

Beyond the actual mechanic al reasons why you're wrong, you also have to look at the absurdity of the logic: if it was so easy and cheap, how come so few are doing it?

Quote:
Hypderdunking is legal and allows one person to gank fully tanked freighters with just a little preparation. This is in stark contrast to CCP's stance on prior "tricks" like boomeranging and such.
You're confusing contrast with absolute consistency. Boomeranging was an exploit because it avoided CONCORD retribution — something that has always been an exploit. Hyperdunking is legal exactly because it doesn't do that.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#168 - 2015-08-13 21:12:28 UTC
Kinete Jenius wrote:

Ganking pretty much has never been easier or cheaper. You have access to dirt cheap high dps ships and high alpha ships (thanks to the destroyer buffs and the introduction of attack BCs). So regardless of the sec rating of the system or the situation of the gank you have a ship that can do it in an effective manner.

Hypderdunking is legal and allows one person to gank fully tanked freighters with just a little preparation. This is in stark contrast to CCP's stance on prior "tricks" like boomeranging and such.

Personally I"m fine with how things stand for now.

This is just not true. Before the insurance nerf, people used to gank in battleships, sometimes even making money on the insurance alone. Heck, back In the golden age of ganking you could tank CONCORD.

Ganking is still probably closer to the historic lows than not. In 2012 Dr. Eyjo said Exhumer ganking was at an all time low, and highsec has only gotten safer since then.

Data from zKillboard show little increase in CONCORD response since the end of 2012 when the data became reliably delivered by API. The small increase in the last year or so is probably explained by the preference for freighter ganking which requires many more ships than the miner ganking that was the fashion before.

As for hyperdunking, it is something that has gone on for years, albeit usually against POS modules. It changes nothing about the cost equation of ganking - at best it reduces the number of players needed for a gank. Certainly, it is easily countered by practically any effort by the target - even a single friend in a pod can thwart the hyperdunk by stealing the gank ships.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#169 - 2015-08-13 21:18:00 UTC
Avvy wrote:

So a fairly pointless exercise then. A bit like comparing a carrot with a banana.


But anyway, if you want to follow the reasoning read posts 121, 123, 125 and 132.

Also ref 151


Edit:

25 PvP players spread around the universe and 25 PvE players also spread around the universe.

The PvP players having to wait or search for targets.

The PvE players chain running security missions.

Who do you think will get the most kills?

Before answering your scenario, why is it relevant? There were never any statistics or comparisons based on number of kills that I am aware of in which there was any expected parity between the 2. For good reason I would imagine.

The issue here seems to be your attempts to present a simple majority of kills as the determining factor CCP used to classify players with no evidence to support that. None of your posts actually give anything resembling proof such a method was used.

I agree that it is a flawed metrc, I just don't see the relevance to the stats CCP provided without proof it was used.

And for the groups CCP was trying to classify players into the metric I described would work fine IMHO. The PvP'er who doesn't PvP, which is the only type "missed" per your objections, is like the PvE'er who doesn't shoot rats or run sites.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#170 - 2015-08-13 21:32:49 UTC
This Sargon guy is so insane, he must be an Infinity Ziona disciple or something. Offense intended.

Ganking was nerfed too hard, so now gankers have to bring way more firepower, which means that way more of them die to Concord.

But! Since way more deaths are being recorded per actual gank, somehow that means that we need to nerf ganking again?!

Roll

Hey, Sargon! Lemme know what gameplay you enjoy, so I can ask CCP for mechanical consequences applied to that, because I don't like it. After all, if you're okay with suggesting adding penalties to other people's playstyles(in particular the only one that has any to begin with), you'd be an utterly dishonest hypocrite if you weren't okay with them doing the same.

"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.
Hal Morsh
Doomheim
#171 - 2015-08-13 21:34:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Hal Morsh
I don't know if CCP plans on removing Concord, but adding ways for people to put their risk towards someone else's reward is always welcome. Like tractor units did.

If only they hadn't removed exploration can theft.

Oh, I perfectly understand, Hal Morsh — a mission like this requires courage, skill, and heroism… qualities you are clearly lacking. Have you forgotten you're one of the bloody immortals!?
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#172 - 2015-08-13 21:41:45 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Ganking was nerfed too hard, so now gankers have to bring way more firepower, which means that way more of them die to Concord.


And then those gankers die again pulling Concord. If a 10-man fleet kills a single freighter there's a minimum of 21 kills on the board as a result.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#173 - 2015-08-13 21:44:26 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Ganking was nerfed too hard, so now gankers have to bring way more firepower, which means that way more of them die to Concord.


And then those gankers die again pulling Concord. If a 10-man fleet kills a single freighter there's a minimum of 21 kills on the board as a result.


But clearly, all those deaths mean that highsec just isn't safe enough. Roll

"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.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#174 - 2015-08-13 21:46:37 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
admiral root wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Ganking was nerfed too hard, so now gankers have to bring way more firepower, which means that way more of them die to Concord.


And then those gankers die again pulling Concord. If a 10-man fleet kills a single freighter there's a minimum of 21 kills on the board as a result.


But clearly, all those deaths mean that highsec just isn't safe enough. Roll


Won't somebody think of the children?!

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#175 - 2015-08-13 21:50:31 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
admiral root wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Ganking was nerfed too hard, so now gankers have to bring way more firepower, which means that way more of them die to Concord.


And then those gankers die again pulling Concord. If a 10-man fleet kills a single freighter there's a minimum of 21 kills on the board as a result.


But clearly, all those deaths mean that highsec just isn't safe enough. Roll


Won't somebody think of the children?!


Moral panic! False flag for my own gain! Baseless accusations of mental illness! Attempted denigration of any opposition! Loud noises! Cat pics!

"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.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#176 - 2015-08-13 21:53:59 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Moral panic! False flag for my own gain! Baseless accusations of mental illness! Attempted denigration of any opposition! Loud noises! Cat pics!
Cat pics are a valid response to all things P

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#177 - 2015-08-13 21:54:11 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Won't somebody think of the children?!

I'm sure somebody does, but that old perv should probably be locked away for everyone's safety — especially his own.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#178 - 2015-08-13 21:54:43 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Moral panic! False flag for my own gain! Baseless accusations of mental illness! Attempted denigration of any opposition! Loud noises! Cat pics!
Cat pics are a valid response to all things P


Of course you'd say that. You're the king of memes. I still laugh when I think about some of the memes you put in the thread in my sig.

"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.
Avvy
Doomheim
#179 - 2015-08-13 21:54:54 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Before answering your scenario,



I agree that it is a flawed metrc,



You don't need to answer it as we both know what the answer would be.

That was the point to show that it was flawed.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#180 - 2015-08-13 22:02:18 UTC
Avvy wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Before answering your scenario,



I agree that it is a flawed metrc,



You don't need to answer it as we both know what the answer would be.

That was the point to show that it was flawed.

Your response doesn't answer the request for proof it was used. We have some stats from CCP, to which you objected to a portion stating PvP was difficult to account for and from the looks of it presented this flawed metric on your own. Hence the question, where was it supposedly used?