These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#841 - 2016-02-04 19:36:08 UTC
I want to reiterate that point.

CCP does not impose risk in the game. At all, as far as I can see. CONCORD does not impose a risk. Risk by definition involves probabilities. And while there is a probability associated with a CONCORD response it is trivial and 1. Further, there is no real way to mitigate the effects of a CONCORD response. If they are coming after you, they will burn your ship down that loss is assured. No matter what.

Risk is something players impose on each other. It is what makes this game interesting and worth play. No risk just makes it a boring simulation game....it would be like playing SIMS in Space or something. Removing or even reducing player generated risk is something CCP should approach with considerable caution.

"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

bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#842 - 2016-02-04 19:46:23 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
''something something hauling is 99.9 % safe....''

gankers freighter wrecks statistically were probably 99.9 % safe from going pop, didn't stop Warr Akini and friends on csm from cryiing to ccp to change wreck hps though did it?

Evidence?

The story I was told about that had more to do with nullsec and lowsec tactics than freighter ganking.


well yes , you can choose to believe that if you wish...

"Sion Kumitomo said on Twitter
The original idea was Warr Akini's, and both then Goonswarm CSM reps pushed it. Other CSM's supported it as well."

Do you have a list of those CSMs?

If you notice, the buff to wreck hp goes across the board, into hulls that you cannot fly in highsec. I'm thinking my version, which comes from those who participate in what Bella refers to as douchery, is probably a bit more accurate than an "I'm a twit" post.


if you think that there is no connection between ag popping hundreds of billions isk of warr and cos ill gotten gains and warr akini pushing for, of all things that could do with a look at in eve , hp increase for wrecks , or believe he did this out of a selfless desire to make the game better for everyone, then i really don't know w[hat to say tbh .... Cool
Iain Cariaba
#843 - 2016-02-04 19:55:06 UTC
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
''something something hauling is 99.9 % safe....''

gankers freighter wrecks statistically were probably 99.9 % safe from going pop, didn't stop Warr Akini and friends on csm from cryiing to ccp to change wreck hps though did it?

Evidence?

The story I was told about that had more to do with nullsec and lowsec tactics than freighter ganking.


well yes , you can choose to believe that if you wish...

"Sion Kumitomo said on Twitter
The original idea was Warr Akini's, and both then Goonswarm CSM reps pushed it. Other CSM's supported it as well."

Do you have a list of those CSMs?

If you notice, the buff to wreck hp goes across the board, into hulls that you cannot fly in highsec. I'm thinking my version, which comes from those who participate in what Bella refers to as douchery, is probably a bit more accurate than an "I'm a twit" post.


if you think that there is no connection between ag popping hundreds of billions isk of warr and cos ill gotten gains and warr akini pushing for, of all things that could do with a look at in eve , hp increase for wrecks , or believe he did this out of a selfless desire to make the game better for everyone, then i really don't know w[hat to say tbh .... Cool

No, I actually do think that. Unlike you, I'm familiar with Goonswarm, flew with them several times. Most of them really are as devoted to this game as I am, and do really want what's best for it. Of course, if I've misinterpreted my impression of Goonswarm, I'm sure the people who post in here that are a part of it will correct me.

Besides, you're talking about a change that has limited scope inside highsec, but a much, much broader impact in other areas. Trying to pawn this off as CCP catering to Goonswarm is disingenuous.

Even if that were true, I don't find it surprising that CCP would listen to the single largest collection of players in the game.
bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#844 - 2016-02-04 20:04:29 UTC


Besides, you're talking about a change that has limited scope inside highsec, but a much, much broader impact in other areas. Trying to pawn this off as CCP catering to Goonswarm is disingenuous.


if you want to call guaranteed freighter wreck looting by miniluv /code of limited scope inside highsec then u just go ahead.


Iain Cariaba
#845 - 2016-02-04 20:06:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Iain Cariaba
bigbud skunkafella wrote:


Besides, you're talking about a change that has limited scope inside highsec, but a much, much broader impact in other areas. Trying to pawn this off as CCP catering to Goonswarm is disingenuous.


if you want to call guaranteed freighter wreck looting by miniluv /code of limited scope inside highsec then u just go ahead.

The only reason it's guaranteed is because AG are too scared to field the half a dozen thrashers to stop them.

Again, the options are there. If they fail to use them, it's entire their fault.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#846 - 2016-02-04 20:10:55 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
bigbud skunkafella wrote:


if you think that there is no connection between ag popping hundreds of billions isk of warr and cos ill gotten gains and warr akini pushing for, of all things that could do with a look at in eve , hp increase for wrecks , or believe he did this out of a selfless desire to make the game better for everyone, then i really don't know w[hat to say tbh .... Cool

No, I actually do think that. Unlike you, I'm familiar with Goonswarm, flew with them several times. Most of them really are as devoted to this game as I am, and do really want what's best for it. Of course, if I've misinterpreted my impression of Goonswarm, I'm sure the people who post in here that are a part of it will correct me.

Besides, you're talking about a change that has limited scope inside highsec, but a much, much broader impact in other areas. Trying to pawn this off as CCP catering to Goonswarm is disingenuous.

Even if that were true, I don't find it surprising that CCP would listen to the single largest collection of players in the game.


I agree with Iain.

In fact, I once thought like you. I drank deep of the kool-aid that Goons want to ruin the game. Then when our alliance CEO mentioned he was voting for the Mittani for CSM I was like, "Hmmm...let me go read what the Mittani is advocating...." I was quite pleasantly surprised. So I voted for him too.

Later we allied with Goons (and TEST at the time) and found out that, yes, Goons are devoted to the game. Yes many revel in being the villains and play it to the hilt, but still they really do like the game.

"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

bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#847 - 2016-02-04 20:13:03 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
bigbud skunkafella wrote:


Besides, you're talking about a change that has limited scope inside highsec, but a much, much broader impact in other areas. Trying to pawn this off as CCP catering to Goonswarm is disingenuous.


if you want to call guaranteed freighter wreck looting by miniluv /code of limited scope inside highsec then u just go ahead.

The only reason it's guaranteed is because AG are too scared to field the half a dozen thrashers to stop them.

Again, the options are there. If they fail to use them, it's entire their fault.



so ag should just reship from their limited numbers of logi/ecm/pew pew ships into thrashers to pop a possibly empty wreck?
Iain Cariaba
#848 - 2016-02-04 20:13:45 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
bigbud skunkafella wrote:


if you think that there is no connection between ag popping hundreds of billions isk of warr and cos ill gotten gains and warr akini pushing for, of all things that could do with a look at in eve , hp increase for wrecks , or believe he did this out of a selfless desire to make the game better for everyone, then i really don't know w[hat to say tbh .... Cool

No, I actually do think that. Unlike you, I'm familiar with Goonswarm, flew with them several times. Most of them really are as devoted to this game as I am, and do really want what's best for it. Of course, if I've misinterpreted my impression of Goonswarm, I'm sure the people who post in here that are a part of it will correct me.

Besides, you're talking about a change that has limited scope inside highsec, but a much, much broader impact in other areas. Trying to pawn this off as CCP catering to Goonswarm is disingenuous.

Even if that were true, I don't find it surprising that CCP would listen to the single largest collection of players in the game.


I agree with Iain.

In fact, I once thought like you. I drank deep of the kool-aid that Goons want to ruin the game. Then when our alliance CEO mentioned he was voting for the Mittani for CSM I was like, "Hmmm...let me go read what the Mittani is advocating...." I was quite pleasantly surprised. So I voted for him too.

Later we allied with Goons (and TEST at the time) and found out that, yes, Goons are devoted to the game. Yes many revel in being the villains and play it to the hilt, but still they really do like the game.

When you truly enjoy being the villain, why would you want to ruin pretty much the only game that really allows you to do so?
Iain Cariaba
#849 - 2016-02-04 20:15:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Iain Cariaba
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
bigbud skunkafella wrote:


Besides, you're talking about a change that has limited scope inside highsec, but a much, much broader impact in other areas. Trying to pawn this off as CCP catering to Goonswarm is disingenuous.


if you want to call guaranteed freighter wreck looting by miniluv /code of limited scope inside highsec then u just go ahead.

The only reason it's guaranteed is because AG are too scared to field the half a dozen thrashers to stop them.

Again, the options are there. If they fail to use them, it's entire their fault.



so ag should just reship from their limited numbers of logi/ecm/pew pew ships into thrashers to pop a possibly empty wreck?

They should be aware enough of the situation to recognize when the anti-gank has failed, and already be reshipping before the freighter pops. Just stage ship near where the ganks usually happen, just like the gankers do.

Or, they could simply stop trying to save people from their own compounded failures and just simply undock in the ships to pop the wreck in the first place.
Mazzara
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#850 - 2016-02-04 20:52:12 UTC
bumping is a cheap risk free way of holding someone in place, and just because ccp is ok with it doesn't make is any less cheap or any less of a mechanic that needs to be fixed.

bumpers grab at straws to justify their exploiting of this weak mechanic, and cry about anything that would change that.

Now don't get me wrong, if you wanna gank feighters in high sec more power to ya, but you should have to use a legit tackle and get the concord hammer like anyone else
No matter how much you scrub, how hot of water you use, you can't wash shame!
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#851 - 2016-02-04 20:57:57 UTC
Mazzara wrote:
bumping is a cheap risk free way of holding someone in place, and just because ccp is ok with it doesn't make is any less cheap or any less of a mechanic that needs to be fixed.



It's not risk free, though. There's the risk that a group of valiant white knights might suicide gank you, for instance.

There's also the risk that nobody stupid enough to allow themselves to be bumped will come along and you'll just sit about wasting your time.

Of course, both of these risks are significantly mitigated by the unwillingness of people to actually do something other than whine and cry like a toddler with a scraped knee. Lol

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#852 - 2016-02-04 21:01:55 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Mazzara wrote:
bumping is a cheap risk free way of holding someone in place, and just because ccp is ok with it doesn't make is any less cheap or any less of a mechanic that needs to be fixed.



It's not risk free, though. There's the risk that a group of valiant white knights might suicide gank you, for instance.

There's also the risk that nobody stupid enough to allow themselves to be bumped will come along and you'll just sit about wasting your time.

Of course, both of these risks are significantly mitigated by the unwillingness of people to actually do something other than whine and cry like a toddler with a scraped knee. Lol

I wouldn't bother.

I think the discussion has become posting on as many alts as possible to make it seem like more people think it's a problem.

In the absence of evidence, what else is there to do?
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#853 - 2016-02-04 21:03:16 UTC
Mazzara wrote:
bumping is a cheap risk free way of holding someone in place, and just because ccp is ok with it doesn't make is any less cheap or any less of a mechanic that needs to be fixed.

bumpers grab at straws to justify their exploiting of this weak mechanic, and cry about anything that would change that.

Now don't get me wrong, if you wanna gank feighters in high sec more power to ya, but you should have to use a legit tackle and get the concord hammer like anyone else


Anyone else can bump too.

"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

bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#854 - 2016-02-04 21:09:14 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
[quote=Iain Cariaba][quote=bigbud skunkafella]



In fact, I once thought like you. I drank deep of the kool-aid that Goons want to ruin the game. Then when our alliance CEO mentioned he was voting for the Mittani for CSM I was like, "Hmmm...let me go read what the Mittani is advocating...." I was quite pleasantly surprised. So I voted for him too.

.


“We don’t want to ruin the game, we want to ruin your game.” ring any bells?

anyway, we're geting off topic .

if we look at bumping in hisec in it's current form logically the ability of a person to obstruct another person by deliberately ramming their ship to prevent them entering warp for a potentially unlimited amount of time with the intent of holding them there until they can be murdered and robbed by a bunch of cutthroat pirates while the relevant authorities take no action makes no sense whatsoever .

a vast majority of genuinely neutral observers would look at this and agree it's akin to the example an opponent of any change to this mechanic made , ie a hijacked truck being rammed off the road by another truck for an hour or more before actually being hijacked and robbed while the authorities did nothing till the actual hijack /robbery took place.

most, if not all opponents in this thread have a direct stake in maintaining the status quo, and have contributed little to the discussion apart from hot air and trolling in an apparent attempt to close the thread.

i have made several suggestions , mostly in an attempt to find a balance that involves more player driven content ie fun , rather than suspect/criminal timers as some have suggested.

if any opponents have anything more substantial to say , hell , even a suggestion themselves for the sake of discussion, please let's hear it .



Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#855 - 2016-02-04 21:13:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
[quote=Iain Cariaba][quote=bigbud skunkafella]



In fact, I once thought like you. I drank deep of the kool-aid that Goons want to ruin the game. Then when our alliance CEO mentioned he was voting for the Mittani for CSM I was like, "Hmmm...let me go read what the Mittani is advocating...." I was quite pleasantly surprised. So I voted for him too.

.


“We don’t want to ruin the game, we want to ruin your game.” ring any bells?

anyway, we're geting off topic .

if we look at bumping in hisec in it's current form logically the ability of a person to obstruct another person by deliberately ramming their ship to prevent them entering warp for a potentially unlimited amount of time with the intent of holding them there until they can be murdered and robbed by a bunch of cutthroat pirates while the relevant authorities take no action makes no sense whatsoever .

a vast majority of genuinely neutral observers would look at this and agree it's akin to the example an opponent of any change to this mechanic made , ie a hijacked truck being rammed off the road by another truck for an hour or more before actually being hijacked and robbed while the authorities did nothing till the actual hijack /robbery took place.

most, if not all opponents in this thread have a direct stake in maintaining the status quo, and have contributed little to the discussion apart from hot air and trolling in an apparent attempt to close the thread.

i have made several suggestions , mostly in an attempt to find a balance that involves more player driven content ie fun , rather than suspect/criminal timers as some have suggested.

if any opponents have anything more substantial to say , hell , even a suggestion themselves for the sake of discussion, please let's hear it .





Yes, it is what happens with the following:

Ganks
War decs
Market PvP
NS wars
AWOXing
Corp thefts
Jita scammers
NS/LS Roams


Pretty much most of the game.

"We aren't here to ruin the game, we are here to ruin your game", means they intend to play the game as CCP intended.

And no, we are totally on topic. That you can't see it is part of your problem.

"Hi, I'm here to ruin your game!" That, in a nutshell, is Eve Online. Bumping is but one small facet.

"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

bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#856 - 2016-02-04 21:17:58 UTC
so nothing to say on the topic, thank you , next ?
Brad Neece
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#857 - 2016-02-04 21:23:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Brad Neece
OK, maybee lastttt.....opinion on the looting. If a transfer from wreck/can to Fleet Hangar would result in a FY.....limit the transfer to the cargo/ore capacity of current ship getting tagged with Suspect? Good or Bad?....Or limit transfer size in general based on that logical fact.

If the Suspect timer, happens because of the act of stealing from a container/wreck.....then that would imply they are physically taking it on board first, THEN moving it to DST?


And yes....gankers can loot wreck right after it drops, but it only happens if the fleet is large enough and CONCORD is still clearing the ganker fleet out, which can be 5 or so seconds AFTER the freighter wreck drops. I'll try to get video up to CONFIRMING this before i claim, it as fact that they have time to do is and the oddness at times that the wreck gets looted with zero Suspect timers shown in local, and the quickness at which the Blue wrecks are picked up.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#858 - 2016-02-04 21:38:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
bigbud skunkafella wrote:

i have made several suggestions , mostly in an attempt to find a balance that involves more player driven content ie fun , rather than suspect/criminal timers as some have suggested.

if any opponents have anything more substantial to say , hell , even a suggestion themselves for the sake of discussion, please let's hear it .
Ok. Radical idea incoming to remove bumping:

Freighters (eventually maybe all capitals) do not generate a criminal flag in highsec if pointed/scrambled, while other aggressive modules still do. However, if you apply a point to a capital, you immediately go suspect. Freighters are then given a super MJD they can fit that warps them 500 km with a reasonably long (3-5 minutes?) spool-up time.

Pros: freighter escorts can clear off the tackler with guns and no CONCORD response
Cons: freighters are subject to harassment by non-committed attackers or tanky tacklers

Discuss.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#859 - 2016-02-04 21:39:03 UTC
Summary:

AG folks want CCP to fix a non-problem so that they can have an easier time anti-ganking.

Everyone else point out the following:

You have options.

1. Don't get bumped. Use a scout, preferably a webbing scout, and you can avoid the problem.
2. Gank the bumping ship.

Neither of these satisfies the AG folks apparently.

When asked how serious a problem is this, there is not much to go on. While there is data on ganks, there is no data on freighters not ganked. So the frequency of ganks is not known. The neither helps nor hurts either side of the argument.

It has been noted that Red Frog fails contracts 0.1% of the time indicating that prudent use of a freighter should greatly mitigate the risk of ganks.

My conclusions:

1. Bumping is fine, there are in game strategies to deal with it.
2. No need to change it.
3. Most suggestions are "mechanical" in that they are not the result of player innovation and contrary to the basic nature of the game.

"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

bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#860 - 2016-02-04 22:05:22 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
bigbud skunkafella wrote:

i have made several suggestions , mostly in an attempt to find a balance that involves more player driven content ie fun , rather than suspect/criminal timers as some have suggested.

if any opponents have anything more substantial to say , hell , even a suggestion themselves for the sake of discussion, please let's hear it .
Ok. Radical idea incoming to remove bumping:

Freighters (eventually maybe all capitals) do not generate a criminal flag in highsec if pointed/scrambled, while other aggressive modules still do. However, if you apply a point to a capital, you immediately go suspect. Freighters are then given a super MJD they can fit that warps them 500 km with a reasonably long (3-5 minutes?) spool-up time.

Pros: freighter escorts can clear off the tackler with guns and no CONCORD response
Cons: freighters are subject to harassment by non-committed attackers or tanky tacklers

Discuss.


thank you, tho i have never advocated removing bumping , just some sort of rebalance to make it less op.

those ideas certainly have merit , it would make some sort of freighter escort essential and create lots of content .

i believe a 100 km limited use mjd would be sufficient tho, a scram /point wouldnt prevent alignment, perhaps this change in conjunction with my suggestion for a limited engagement type option between a freighter+ fleet and bumper would work well. the freighter can be held by a tackler , but a bumper would be vulnerable after a short time if/when the freighter gets his fleet together. a strong escort would be a strong deterrent .