These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Balancing bumping and looting mechanics

First post
Author
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#101 - 2016-01-27 02:43:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:

- The primary counter to DEFEND someone that's (e:already) being bumped is to become criminal yourself and gank them


Wrong.

That's how you inflict "repercussions" on the ganker.

There are plenty of ways to defend someone who is being bumped and/or ganked. But more importantly, there are numerous strong and effective ways to avoid being bumped or ganked in the first place.

It also provides some player enforced repercussions on the bumper (at the expense of losing status and providing killrights to DEFEND someone)...again though, it seems you're getting confused with these ideas of one activity being exclusive to another.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#102 - 2016-01-27 02:45:32 UTC
KickAss Tivianne wrote:

No gankers really don't have any Risk... loose a 2 million Isk ship. and not have any additional security status drop, or penalty for being a criminal. Same old same old. No Risk.


How dishonest.

It's basically never just one ship, for starters. Secondly, if you can find me a T2 catalyst fit that only costs 2 million isk, then I'd be surprised.

Another thing is that we do have risk, you numbskulls just aren't real players so you don't try and inflict them. Blow up the wreck. Then everything they did is wasted and all they have to show for it is criminal timers.

And even without that, we have to deal with the loot fairy, which is more risk than any PvE activity by itself. Carebears don't have to flip a coin to see if they get any mission rewards. Gankers have that to begin with.

"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.

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#103 - 2016-01-27 02:48:17 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And even without that, we have to deal with the loot fairy, which is more risk than any PvE activity by itself. Carebears don't have to flip a coin to see if they get any mission rewards. Gankers have that to begin with.

PvE'rs aren't aware of RNG based loot drop mechanics?

I think that'll be news to almost everyone that does exploration

And multiplying something by 50% to find out the average loot drop, does not constitute risk.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#104 - 2016-01-27 02:50:32 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:

PvE'rs aren't aware of RNG based loot drop mechanics?


It's absolutely discounted, especially since CCP has nerfed gun mining so much.

The primary rewards for missions are isk and LP, while mining is absolutely consistent.

And your point about exploration does not help your case, since random loot for exploration sites in highsec is one of the things that makes them a wholly unviable income source.

"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.

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#105 - 2016-01-27 02:57:09 UTC
I never said anything about highsec exploration (although it's more profitable than you seem to think)...I know you like to throw around this term 'carebear' but it seems you have a limited knowledge of what being a 'carebear' pertains to and perhaps this is why you're using it incorrectly:

I know people that 'carebear' in wormholes.
Almost everyone in Deklein is 'carebearing' 24/7 in their carriers.

And yet when you say 'carebear' you assume that the term only refers to highsec players? It's like you never get to meet the other kinds.

How cute.

And you think I'm one, even cuter.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#106 - 2016-01-27 03:02:21 UTC
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
No gankers really don't have any Risk... loose a 2 million Isk ship. and not have any additional security status drop, or penalty for being a criminal. Same old same old. No Risk.

Then why not just go and gank them first?

No need to even gank them all. Just enough to make the total damage less than the total HP of the freighter.
KickAss Tivianne
Lohengrin Legion
#107 - 2016-01-27 05:07:47 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
No gankers really don't have any Risk... loose a 2 million Isk ship. and not have any additional security status drop, or penalty for being a criminal. Same old same old. No Risk.

Then why not just go and gank them first?

No need to even gank them all. Just enough to make the total damage less than the total HP of the freighter.


Hey hide at safe spots, however sometimes when they do jump though a gate a 1 gets picked off. From undock they go to an insta-undock spot... then jump around, and then they warp to the bumper, or another neutral warp in ship. So the only time is if they do happen to jump though a gate, you migh tbe able to get 1 out of the 25-30 ships. Not really a game changer. And because you don't know their final destination, you would have to watch all the gates.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#108 - 2016-01-27 05:21:26 UTC
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
No gankers really don't have any Risk... loose a 2 million Isk ship. and not have any additional security status drop, or penalty for being a criminal. Same old same old. No Risk.

Then why not just go and gank them first?

No need to even gank them all. Just enough to make the total damage less than the total HP of the freighter.


Hey hide at safe spots, however sometimes when they do jump though a gate a 1 gets picked off. From undock they go to an insta-undock spot... then jump around, and then they warp to the bumper, or another neutral warp in ship. So the only time is if they do happen to jump though a gate, you migh tbe able to get 1 out of the 25-30 ships. Not really a game changer. And because you don't know their final destination, you would have to watch all the gates.


Logic dictates they are going for the bumped ship.

There are so many ways to protect your cargo from gankers to almost make it one sided. Piracy in highsec has been nerfed so hard over the years that it has almost become extinct. Jet can thief's are gone, profitable mining barge ganking is gone, endless nerfs to ganking have resulted in a much less vibrant and exciting highsec. If anything ganking needs to be buffed not nerfed yet more.
KickAss Tivianne
Lohengrin Legion
#109 - 2016-01-27 05:29:09 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:

No gankers really don't have any Risk... loose a 2 million Isk ship. and not have any additional security status drop, or penalty for being a criminal. Same old same old. No Risk.


How dishonest.

It's basically never just one ship, for starters. Secondly, if you can find me a T2 catalyst fit that only costs 2 million isk, then I'd be surprised.

Another thing is that we do have risk, you numbskulls just aren't real players so you don't try and inflict them. Blow up the wreck. Then everything they did is wasted and all they have to show for it is criminal timers.

And even without that, we have to deal with the loot fairy, which is more risk than any PvE activity by itself. Carebears don't have to flip a coin to see if they get any mission rewards. Gankers have that to begin with.



Correct, I was talking about A ganker. 25-30 ships I've seen approximately in a fleet. RIght now a Cat in Jita is 1.3 Mill Isk. WIth a T1 fit.... about 2.5 Mill? With a T2 fit 5 ish? About? Even throw in a Talos also... Code with the resources of Goons, I doubt they buy them at Jita, they are probably made which lowers the price.

So a ship has to Drop about 150 Million to break even with 30 T2

Im not sure that is really risk. They scan down the ship, they know what it has. They make the choice to gank. Its not really that difficult to do. ANd yes we do loot pop as well. However if your saw my 2nd point on the post, they are looting just after the gank with their criminal cats. then their neutral Mach or if it was a big cargo hold their own hauler picks it up and gets away with no FY because it was "ejected" from the ganker's ship before he blew up from concord. That's why I proposed that who ever picks up the loot from the wreck from the cats also go FY.

KickAss Tivianne
Lohengrin Legion
#110 - 2016-01-27 05:36:51 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
No gankers really don't have any Risk... loose a 2 million Isk ship. and not have any additional security status drop, or penalty for being a criminal. Same old same old. No Risk.

Then why not just go and gank them first?

No need to even gank them all. Just enough to make the total damage less than the total HP of the freighter.


Hey hide at safe spots, however sometimes when they do jump though a gate a 1 gets picked off. From undock they go to an insta-undock spot... then jump around, and then they warp to the bumper, or another neutral warp in ship. So the only time is if they do happen to jump though a gate, you migh tbe able to get 1 out of the 25-30 ships. Not really a game changer. And because you don't know their final destination, you would have to watch all the gates.


Logic dictates they are going for the bumped ship.

There are so many ways to protect your cargo from gankers to almost make it one sided. Piracy in highsec has been nerfed so hard over the years that it has almost become extinct. Jet can thief's are gone, profitable mining barge ganking is gone, endless nerfs to ganking have resulted in a much less vibrant and exciting highsec. If anything ganking needs to be buffed not nerfed yet more.



Okkkkk.... Logic... Well, Which bumped ship? THey have on in Uedama, One in Madirmilire, and one in Niarja. And maybe the other one you had no idea about because you are spread thin. with the existing potential targets. This is another reason why Gankers get the upper hand as with any attacking force, you get to decide when and which target to attack, everyone else has to scramble to respond.

If they have the resources to bump that many people... more power to them... but don't think they should be able to hold their targets there indefinitely, or with out some additional penalty for the -7 to -10 person once they do gank.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#111 - 2016-01-27 05:51:23 UTC
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
No gankers really don't have any Risk... loose a 2 million Isk ship. and not have any additional security status drop, or penalty for being a criminal. Same old same old. No Risk.

Then why not just go and gank them first?

No need to even gank them all. Just enough to make the total damage less than the total HP of the freighter.


Hey hide at safe spots, however sometimes when they do jump though a gate a 1 gets picked off. From undock they go to an insta-undock spot... then jump around, and then they warp to the bumper, or another neutral warp in ship. So the only time is if they do happen to jump though a gate, you migh tbe able to get 1 out of the 25-30 ships. Not really a game changer. And because you don't know their final destination, you would have to watch all the gates.


Logic dictates they are going for the bumped ship.

There are so many ways to protect your cargo from gankers to almost make it one sided. Piracy in highsec has been nerfed so hard over the years that it has almost become extinct. Jet can thief's are gone, profitable mining barge ganking is gone, endless nerfs to ganking have resulted in a much less vibrant and exciting highsec. If anything ganking needs to be buffed not nerfed yet more.



Okkkkk.... Logic... Well, Which bumped ship? THey have on in Uedama, One in Madirmilire, and one in Niarja. And maybe the other one you had no idea about because you are spread thin. with the existing potential targets. This is another reason why Gankers get the upper hand as with any attacking force, you get to decide when and which target to attack, everyone else has to scramble to respond.

If they have the resources to bump that many people... more power to them... but don't think they should be able to hold their targets there indefinitely, or with out some additional penalty for the -7 to -10 person once they do gank.


They can only hold them indefinitely if the target let's them.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#112 - 2016-01-27 05:57:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Logic dictates they are going for the bumped ship.
...

Okkkkk.... Logic... Well, Which bumped ship? THey have on in Uedama, One in Madirmilire, and one in Niarja. And maybe the other one you had no idea about because you are spread thin. with the existing potential targets. This is another reason why Gankers get the upper hand as with any attacking force, you get to decide when and which target to attack, everyone else has to scramble to respond.

If they have the resources to bump that many people... more power to them... but don't think they should be able to hold their targets there indefinitely, or with out some additional penalty for the -7 to -10 person once they do gank.

0.11% of movements by RFF fail and their freighter pilots are making 7500 jumps in highsec per day.

Where are you getting the idea that multiple freighters are being held by bumping at the same time? I'm sure it's happened, but I've never seen anything in gank Intel where multiple freighters are being bumped at the same time, so that doesn't seem like a common occurrence.

Have you actually validated that your views are correct and not just an assumption that makes ganking seem worse than it is.

RFF have 60-80 different freighter pilots active every day and 100-150 different pilots active each week. It's not like they only have a couple of guys who are really good. They have large numbers of freighter pilots making frequent jumps in highsec and yet only 1 in 1000 contracts get failed (1 in every 12000 jumps on average).
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#113 - 2016-01-27 06:35:40 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:

0.11% of movements by RFF fail and their freighter pilots are making 7500 jumps in highsec per day.

Where are you getting the idea that multiple freighters are being held by bumping at the same time? I'm sure it's happened, but I've never seen anything in gank Intel where multiple freighters are being bumped at the same time, so that doesn't seem like a common occurrence.

Have you actually validated that your views are correct and not just an assumption that makes ganking seem worse than it is.

RFF have 60-80 different freighter pilots active every day and 100-150 different pilots active each week. It's not like they only have a couple of guys who are really good. They have large numbers of freighter pilots making frequent jumps in highsec and yet only 1 in 1000 contracts get failed (1 in every 12000 jumps on average).


Sounds like RFF has pilots who are actively keeping themselves safe. If CCP were to nerf Concord in some fashion, that could weed out more incompetent independent pilots and RFF could charge more. Just sayin'.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#114 - 2016-01-27 06:37:35 UTC
KickAss Tivianne wrote:

No gankers really don't have any Risk... loose a 2 million Isk ship. and not have any additional security status drop, or penalty for being a criminal. Same old same old. No Risk.



You are just flat out wrong, a gank fit catalyst these days costs about 8 million ISK, and you need many of them to make a gank work. So either you are ignorant or are being deliberately obtuse to push and agenda....and to be quite honest we all know it is the latter.

Bumping is totally fine as you can avoid it quite simple with even as something as lowly as a noob ship...a single scout can prevent bumping. Webs and other ideas are great, but just a single scout looking through local to spot the bumper is good enough.

Funny how people who always want to "fix bumping" are never in favor of things that might take some work or time such as starting channels in game, maintaining a list of known bumpers. Nope, it always boils down to "CCP please fix as I'm too lazy."

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#115 - 2016-01-27 07:13:28 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Khan Wrenth wrote:

Sounds like RFF has pilots who are actively keeping themselves safe. If CCP were to nerf Concord in some fashion, that could weed out more incompetent independent pilots and RFF could charge more. Just sayin'.


Same with miners. Make barges profitable to gank again and you reward the good ones with higher returns for their efforts, not to mention that the activity itself would be a lot less boring. Make the hulk a viable option and we would likely see a return of jet can mining and all the content that brings with it.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#116 - 2016-01-27 07:53:10 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Sounds like RFF has pilots who are actively keeping themselves safe. If CCP were to nerf Concord in some fashion, that could weed out more incompetent independent pilots and RFF could charge more. Just sayin'.

Let my alt haul it all.

There are a lot of safe haulers around, whether highsec, lowsec or nullsec. RFF are just the biggest, have a great reputation and luckily publish lots of annual figures on their activity, which is very safe and consistent with a lot of non-RFF haulers too.
Sitting Bull Lakota
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#117 - 2016-01-27 09:11:39 UTC
The history of freighter ganking as I see it:
Freighters started carrying upwards of 5b in a single load.
Some players would run a multiboxed "interdiction" operation.
CCP removed multiboxing (a good move, frankly). No more single player gank fleets.
Freighters started carrying upwards of 10b in a single load.
Somebody came up hyperdunking.
CCP removes hyperdunking.
Freighters start carrying upwards of 15b in a single load.
CODE. bumps and kills freighters.
Freighter pilots complain that ganking a freighter in highsec shouldn't be cost effective.
Freighter pilot gets ready to jump into Niarja 20b in cargo.

Here's an analogy:
Joe Blow has been banging his head against a wall.
Joe Blow says "My head hurts."
Joe Blow puts on a helmet and keeps going.
Joe Blow realizes he can bang his head against the wall even harder now.
Joe Blow does.
Joe Blow says "My head hurts."
Joe Blow takes some painkillers and keeps going.

It's election season here in Los Estados Unidos, so here is a relevant analogy!
The USA says "I wish I could grow corn for less than Mexico can."
The USA subsidizes US grown corn and undercuts Mexico's corn price.
Mexico's corn production (and by extension most of it's ag) goes under.
Mexico is facing severe unemployment. Unemployed workers turn to drug trade for money.
The USA buys Mexico's drugs.
Mexico is functionally a failed state.
Mexican citizens flee north to gain employment and escape the narcoterrorism.
The USA says "Boy, this cheap corn sure is good."
The USA says "Boy, there sure are a lot of illegal Mexicans here."
The USA says "Boy, Mexico's looking pretty bad right about now."
The USA thinks for awhile.
The USA says "I know! I'll double down on the corn subsidy and close the border!"
Mexico becomes a drug state.
The USA says "Mmmm! This corn tastes even better dipped in meth!"

Here's to the players who complain about a situation while actively making it worse for themselves.
Say no to greed.

Sidenote:
I really liked that part in the op that proposed making jetcans dropped by suspects give suspect flags.
That used to be how it worked, but then enough miners and missioners complained about losing ships to shenanigans based on that mechanic that it was changed to the model we have now.

We've come full circle, and it makes me happy.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#118 - 2016-01-27 09:24:23 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:

1. Freighters being able to fit an MJD - so at least they can get 100km off and then try to warp before a bump ship reaches them

2. Rita Jita's recent suggestion to give Freighters a capability to counter ship scanning

The first provides some action that a bumped freighter can perform, while the second increases the cost to gank a target since the gankers wouldn't know whether a freighter is fit with bulkheads or cargo expanders, and would have to bring more gank ships to be certain.

Personally, if any change was adopted, I'd just make ship scanning a suspect level offence under crime watch.

I can't personally think of a reason to scan a ship without an idea of being prepared to shoot it or apply cap warfare, so it seems that ship scanning while not directly criminal, is an associated act.

I think that's a slightly better suggestion than Rita Jita's because it still provides choice, whereas countering ship scanning all together just leads to one outcome - more gank ships.

A suspect flag would mean sentry guns for the scanning ship, so they would need to warp off immediately afterwards and remain engageable for the next 15 minutes; while the attentive freighter pilot would have some warning that he may be targeted if they just continue on their trip.
I don't see your first idea doing much as Macheriels have no problem fitting a MJD of their own and could easily follow a freighter. It might raise the skill bar on bumpers a little, but if you had anything of value you would just be suicide-scrammed by a noobship when you start your spool-up leaving nothing to chance.

As for your second idea, I think it is actually a terrible one. If you mean cargo scanning (which I think is what Rita Jita was proposing), preventing pirates from prioritizing their targets removes any incentive to haul responsibly. Flying a freighter with 500M ISK of ore should be safer than one containing 15B ISK of PI materials. If the pirates can't efficiently assess the targets, they would be forced to randomly exploding any target that comes by meaning as a hauler, how much cargo you load has no effect on your chances of successfully making the trip.

As for scanning fits, that would seem to remove a large amount of other intended game play. I mean Passive Targeters were a module specifically added by CCP presumably so the prudent can stealthily scan the fits of their opponents and gain a tactical advantage. I am not sure why freighters are so special that they deserve to be excluded from this part of the game, and I am even less sure the ability to surreptitiously scan a potential opponent's fit should be tossed out to make freighters safer.

If your goal is to increase the costs of ganking, just raise freighter's EHP. If your goal is to create uncertainty for gankers, then vary the CONCORD response times. Simple, and done.

But more generally (and this is not directed to you Scipio), any "fix" to bumping that CCP comes up with is going to still going leave freighters vulnerable. CCP only a few years ago rebalanced freighters and though it not appropriate to give them a MJD or a MWD or enough agility to avoid bumping even though they trivially could. They are not going to wake up tomorrow and rejig everything or release a new module that makes freighters suddenly immune to interdiction in highsec. Any change will specifically allow freighters to be stopped and killed in highsec and the few remaining gankers will keep on dunking them left and right as long as the lazy, careless and clueless keep flying them unsupported and AFK. And the next week, another thread will pop up on this forum claiming that the new mechanic is "not balanced" because someone somewhere was able to lose a capital-class industrial to an organized group of dozens of criminals in highsec.

Such is inevitable in a PvP sandbox game when so many players do not even seem to realize they are playing in a competitive game with other players, some of who are actively looking for ways to take their stuff. They also don't seem to understand this is a video game where of course criminals are going to be allowed to continue to do criminals acts in perpetuity, because the conflict of those crimes is the game. Having "consequences" where if you commit a crime you cannot ever enter highsec again or something equally inane would quickly stop the very game play that CCP is trying to foster with Crimewatch and the other mechanics of highsec. Eve is not a real-life simulation - it is a PvP sandbox game. Just like the fact that criminals cannot ever really kill you or take most of your stuff (which is 100% safe in station), you cannot ever really kill or permanently stop the criminals and this is by design.

This is a game, one part of which is "cops and robbers" in space. Deal with that, or choose another game where such game play is not a feature, but please don't whine to the game developer to remove chunks of the game that that you don't like, especially for reasons as silly as it "lacks realism".

Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#119 - 2016-01-27 10:11:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Black Pedro wrote:
I don't see your first idea doing much as Macheriels have no problem fitting a MJD of their own and could easily follow a freighter.

Yeah that's a good counter point. MJD on a freighter would be pointless.

Quote:
As for your second idea, I think it is actually a terrible one. If you mean cargo scanning (which I think is what Rita Jita was proposing), preventing pirates from prioritizing their targets removes any incentive to haul responsibly. Flying a freighter with 500M ISK of ore should be safer than one containing 15B ISK of PI materials. If the pirates can't efficiently assess the targets, they would be forced to randomly exploding any target that comes by meaning as a hauler, how much cargo you load has no effect on your chances of successfully making the trip.

Yeah, that's also a good counter. My counter to Rita Jita's suggestion was more along the lines that it reduces choice, since gankers would always just plan for the max tanked situation, so there's no real engagement in the gameplay and a reduction on what currently exists.

Quote:
I am not sure why freighters are so special that they deserve to be excluded from this part of the game, and I am even less sure the ability to surreptitiously scan a potential opponent's fit should be tossed out to make freighters safer.

I'm with you on that. I don't think any change is necessary, just that if any change is made, changing bumping is not the place to do it. It's almost an impossible task.

The current counterplay to bumping/ganking for freighters is already sufficient and it isn't a lack of options that is the problem, just some people's lack of using them, which doesn't deserve any protection.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#120 - 2016-01-27 10:19:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Yes, yes its a competitive and consequence laiden game in which:

- Someone can indefinitely (or until downtime) prevent a freighter from warping using just a bumping ship (doesn't even have to be a mach, ONI or SFI with large MWD will suffice) and a disposable aggro alt in a noob ship (!). No consequences for the bumper whatsoever.

- Having negative sec status has very limited practical consequences for a dedicated ganker char and does not limit the ability to perform ganks in hisec in any way, making sec status loss irrelevant (and consequence free)

- Killrights against ganker chars are practically useless

- Looting stuff from a ganked hauler can be made perfectly safe by using a DST or Orca and a disposable alt

Try arguing for removal/change of any of the above mechanics and you get shouted at for being a risk-averse-carebear-emergent-gameplay-hater. Oh, the irony. Roll