These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[March] Damage Control Tiericide

First post First post First post
Author
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#361 - 2016-02-14 20:31:57 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
So when you do get around to looking at CrimeWatch/Corporation/Wardec mechanics next for a proper revamp, don't try to balance things by just making it harder to attack. Go with the entosis strategy where attacking is easy, but defending is even easier. Otherwise, players will eventually stop attacking because it is too costly, or even be unable to meet the arbitrary DPS/group size requirements to even attempt to attack, and things will just stop happening in this player-driven, sandbox game.

Make mechanics that support the play of groups of all sizes and defeating this N+1 problem a major goal of your next major re-design of highsec.
I agree with this sentiment. Please note however that by "go with the entosis strategy" this should not be "add entosis links to highsec" as entosis links make everyone cry, even Santa, and he's jolly.

That said, in lieu of overall changes to the mechanics, passive defense buffs are fine.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#362 - 2016-02-14 20:41:46 UTC  |  Edited by: BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Now a quick note on suicide ganking and the impact that these changes will have.

We view ganking as one of many normal game systems that needs tweaking and balancing from time to time. Changes to the balance around ganking doesn't mean we have any intentions on removing it (if we wanted to do that, we easily could through direct methods).

In a lot of ways, keeping balance in this system is much like park rangers maintaining balance between wolf and elk populations. We keep an eye on how the whole ecosystem is developing and make tweaks as nessesary. Sometimes we might protect the corpses of dead elk from vultures so the wolves can feed in peace. Sometimes we might put some light body armor on the elk so that the wolves need to pick their targets more carefully. And I think I've officially taken this analogy too far.

You gankers are a clever bunch and we have no doubt that you'll adapt and do just fine. Our previous changes didn't kill ganking, these changes won't kill ganking and our future changes won't kill ganking either.

We're going to keep making changes that we believe benefit the game as a whole, which needs to remain healthy for both sides of this debate to thrive.


I think that's the problem that everyone on the ganking side of the equation is trying to trying to make the point on. Some of us understand that keeping a balance in the ganking scene is probably important. But this only looks at one facet of ganking (the gankers, rather than the freighters or the anit-gankers), it seems hamfisted and like it goes too far, and it doesn't play to our cleverness-- the only solution is bring more dudes.

Edit: If I were in your shoes, I would think that this isn't a good solution at all for keeping balance in freighter ganking. All we need do is recruit a little harder, source a little more, fit a little more frequency and we're back to where we were before this patch dropped. Because the solution is bring more dudes.

Unless your only thought is that the effort required to gank (12-40 characters) isn't enough. Which I've already posted my thoughts on.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#363 - 2016-02-14 20:52:28 UTC
BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Now a quick note on suicide ganking and the impact that these changes will have.

We view ganking as one of many normal game systems that needs tweaking and balancing from time to time. Changes to the balance around ganking doesn't mean we have any intentions on removing it (if we wanted to do that, we easily could through direct methods).

In a lot of ways, keeping balance in this system is much like park rangers maintaining balance between wolf and elk populations. We keep an eye on how the whole ecosystem is developing and make tweaks as nessesary. Sometimes we might protect the corpses of dead elk from vultures so the wolves can feed in peace. Sometimes we might put some light body armor on the elk so that the wolves need to pick their targets more carefully. And I think I've officially taken this analogy too far.

You gankers are a clever bunch and we have no doubt that you'll adapt and do just fine. Our previous changes didn't kill ganking, these changes won't kill ganking and our future changes won't kill ganking either.

We're going to keep making changes that we believe benefit the game as a whole, which needs to remain healthy for both sides of this debate to thrive.


I think that's the problem that everyone on the ganking side of the equation is trying to trying to make the point on. Some of us understand that keeping a balance in the ganking scene is probably important. But this only looks at one facet of ganking (the gankers, rather than the freighters or the anit-gankers), it seems hamfisted and like it goes too far, and it doesn't play to our cleverness-- the only solution is bring more dudes.

Edit: If I were in your shoes, I would think that this isn't a good solution at all for keeping the balance between freighter ganking at all. All we need do is recruit a little harder, source a little more, fit a little more frequency and we're back to where we were before this patch dropped. Because the solution is bring more dudes.

Unless your only thought is that the effort required to gank (12-40 characters) isn't enough. Which I've already posted my thoughts on.


So, to extend your logic it would be best to remove most of the ehp for freighters so the solo catalyst pilot can have enjoyable gameplay? Yeah, I am putting words in your mouth and doing a strawman. Live with it. The DCU is redone and some balance had to be made to make up for the loss of the ehp it gave, y'all did read the reasoning for this change, right? Now we ALL know that it will be a passive boost and the freighters will be a bit tougher, especially the ones who foolishly use cargo expanders for all three lows.

Before one of you tells me that freighters are already pretty well invincible please peruse zkill and pick a freighter. Then get back to me.

Yes, ganking is a thing in the game but NO it does not have to be made easy and NO it does not have to drive freighter pilots from the game rather than run the Niarja or Uedama gauntlet. When all the elk are dead the wolves will begin to die out, too.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#364 - 2016-02-14 20:58:42 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Max Trix
I have once again remove post for being off topic. Please keep the discussion on the topic of the DCU changes, and the Hull Buffs.

ISD Max Trix

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to EVE mails about forum moderation.

BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#365 - 2016-02-14 21:39:54 UTC
ISD Max Trix wrote:
I have once again remove post for being off topic. Please keep the discussion on the topic of the DCU changes, and the Hull Buffs.


Thanks for nuking the reply I had pending :(

Mike Azariah wrote:
BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Now a quick note on suicide ganking and the impact that these changes will have.

We view ganking as one of many normal game systems that needs tweaking and balancing from time to time. Changes to the balance around ganking doesn't mean we have any intentions on removing it (if we wanted to do that, we easily could through direct methods).

In a lot of ways, keeping balance in this system is much like park rangers maintaining balance between wolf and elk populations. We keep an eye on how the whole ecosystem is developing and make tweaks as nessesary. Sometimes we might protect the corpses of dead elk from vultures so the wolves can feed in peace. Sometimes we might put some light body armor on the elk so that the wolves need to pick their targets more carefully. And I think I've officially taken this analogy too far.

You gankers are a clever bunch and we have no doubt that you'll adapt and do just fine. Our previous changes didn't kill ganking, these changes won't kill ganking and our future changes won't kill ganking either.

We're going to keep making changes that we believe benefit the game as a whole, which needs to remain healthy for both sides of this debate to thrive.


I think that's the problem that everyone on the ganking side of the equation is trying to trying to make the point on. Some of us understand that keeping a balance in the ganking scene is probably important. But this only looks at one facet of ganking (the gankers, rather than the freighters or the anit-gankers), it seems hamfisted and like it goes too far, and it doesn't play to our cleverness-- the only solution is bring more dudes.

Edit: If I were in your shoes, I would think that this isn't a good solution at all for keeping the balance between freighter ganking at all. All we need do is recruit a little harder, source a little more, fit a little more frequency and we're back to where we were before this patch dropped. Because the solution is bring more dudes.

Unless your only thought is that the effort required to gank (12-40 characters) isn't enough. Which I've already posted my thoughts on.


So, to extend your logic it would be best to remove most of the ehp for freighters so the solo catalyst pilot can have enjoyable gameplay? Yeah, I am putting words in your mouth and doing a strawman. Live with it. The DCU is redone and some balance had to be made to make up for the loss of the ehp it gave, y'all did read the reasoning for this change, right? Now we ALL know that it will be a passive boost and the freighters will be a bit tougher, especially the ones who foolishly use cargo expanders for all three lows.

Before one of you tells me that freighters are already pretty well invincible please peruse zkill and pick a freighter. Then get back to me.

Yes, ganking is a thing in the game but NO it does not have to be made easy and NO it does not have to drive freighter pilots from the game rather than run the Niarja or Uedama gauntlet. When all the elk are dead the wolves will begin to die out, too.

m


The discussion isn't very productive when you admittedly take an obtuse stance and tell me to deal with it. Most everyone in the game is okay with the DC (Not Drone Control Unit (DCU)) becoming less necessary, but freighters never experienced the benefits of the DC, so adding that bonus to them doesn't make sense to us. And that's our problem: while it introduces interesting fitting and play options to every ship and playstyle in the game, it doesn't really introduce anything interesting to our play style or our fitting options.

No one is telling you that freighters are invincible. Jump freighters, possible, but not freighters. Indeed, just go look at ZKill.

I think you, like other people, can't wrap your head around the fact that ganking isn't easy. I'm not talking about shooting a miner or f1ing on a freighter fleet, but the scouting, bumping, FCing, supplying, fitting, organizing. There are three ganking organizations in the game (MiniLuv, CODE., Russian Spectres), and the reason that ganking is so common is because each of those organizations has a core of members that dedicate 110% of their play time to ganking. I haven't been to nullsec to kill something in months, though it sounds nice.

We understand about over-fishing and elk are dead too. MiniLuv operated at a loss between September 1st and January 1st due to anti-gankers, wreck shooters and over-fishing. Ganking and big whales come in cycles.

Many line members of MiniLuv suggested a 30% Hull HP increase as opposed to 30% Hull Resist for freighters and jump freighters. It makes the effect more evenly distributed across fits and keeps JFs just slightly more in the 'we can kill you range' not that they aren't already next to impossible to kill.
Alexis Nightwish
#366 - 2016-02-14 21:49:32 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone.

The actual DCU feedback has been a bit challenging to sift out of the ganking debate, but I want to make it clear that the IFFA fitting requirements in the OP are not a typo. It's intentional that the new compact DCU have a slightly higher CPU cost than the previous best named versions. This will indeed require some fits to change, but the intention here is to create a balance enviroment between the different meta levels of damage control as well as making damage controls as a whole less important for many fits. There are plenty of options for saving the CPU from old IFFA and Pseudo fits, including the new compact damage upgrades and forgoing a DCU entirely for another lowslot module and taking full advantage of the new base hull resistances.

We will of course be keeping an eye on how these changes go as we being SISI testing and if we see evidence that the fittings need to change we have the ability to do so. Thanks!
You've raised the CPU cost a lot in this tiericide:
Faint Epsilon scram by 2 (no one will use the other named because the range is too short)
Sebo II by 6
Phased Muon damp by 7
TP formally known as PWNAGE by 4
The IFFA by 3
You've lowered the CPU cost of only one module I can think of, the Fleeting web by 1.

You know, some of us use the DC for the non-stacking penalized armor or shield bonus more than the hull bonus, and some of us use the IFFA on our ships because they're frigates and don't have any CPU to begin with! I don't know why you guys are so infatuated with round numbers all of a sudden. You don't actually have to make everything a multiple of 5. Just lower the cost to 17, and reduce the bonuses a little if needed to justify the fitting reduction.

Telling us to use the garbage compact damage mod or not fit a DC is just a cop out.

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#367 - 2016-02-14 21:50:38 UTC
BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip wrote:
ISD Max Trix wrote:
I have once again remove post for being off topic. Please keep the discussion on the topic of the DCU changes, and the Hull Buffs.


Thanks for nuking the reply I had pending :(

Mike Azariah wrote:
BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Now a quick note on suicide ganking and the impact that these changes will have.

We view ganking as one of many normal game systems that needs tweaking and balancing from time to time. Changes to the balance around ganking doesn't mean we have any intentions on removing it (if we wanted to do that, we easily could through direct methods).

In a lot of ways, keeping balance in this system is much like park rangers maintaining balance between wolf and elk populations. We keep an eye on how the whole ecosystem is developing and make tweaks as nessesary. Sometimes we might protect the corpses of dead elk from vultures so the wolves can feed in peace. Sometimes we might put some light body armor on the elk so that the wolves need to pick their targets more carefully. And I think I've officially taken this analogy too far.

You gankers are a clever bunch and we have no doubt that you'll adapt and do just fine. Our previous changes didn't kill ganking, these changes won't kill ganking and our future changes won't kill ganking either.

We're going to keep making changes that we believe benefit the game as a whole, which needs to remain healthy for both sides of this debate to thrive.


I think that's the problem that everyone on the ganking side of the equation is trying to trying to make the point on. Some of us understand that keeping a balance in the ganking scene is probably important. But this only looks at one facet of ganking (the gankers, rather than the freighters or the anit-gankers), it seems hamfisted and like it goes too far, and it doesn't play to our cleverness-- the only solution is bring more dudes.

Edit: If I were in your shoes, I would think that this isn't a good solution at all for keeping the balance between freighter ganking at all. All we need do is recruit a little harder, source a little more, fit a little more frequency and we're back to where we were before this patch dropped. Because the solution is bring more dudes.

Unless your only thought is that the effort required to gank (12-40 characters) isn't enough. Which I've already posted my thoughts on.


So, to extend your logic it would be best to remove most of the ehp for freighters so the solo catalyst pilot can have enjoyable gameplay? Yeah, I am putting words in your mouth and doing a strawman. Live with it. The DCU is redone and some balance had to be made to make up for the loss of the ehp it gave, y'all did read the reasoning for this change, right? Now we ALL know that it will be a passive boost and the freighters will be a bit tougher, especially the ones who foolishly use cargo expanders for all three lows.

Before one of you tells me that freighters are already pretty well invincible please peruse zkill and pick a freighter. Then get back to me.

Yes, ganking is a thing in the game but NO it does not have to be made easy and NO it does not have to drive freighter pilots from the game rather than run the Niarja or Uedama gauntlet. When all the elk are dead the wolves will begin to die out, too.

m


The discussion isn't very productive when you admittedly take an obtuse stance and tell me to deal with it. Most everyone in the game is okay with the DC (Not Drone Control Unit (DCU)) becoming less necessary, but freighters never experienced the benefits of the DC, so adding that bonus to them doesn't make sense to us. And that's our problem: while it introduces interesting fitting and play options to every ship and playstyle in the game, it doesn't really introduce anything interesting to our play style or our fitting options.

No one is telling you that freighters are invincible. Jump freighters, possible, but not freighters. Indeed, just go look at ZKill.

I think you, like other people, can't wrap your head around the fact that ganking isn't easy. I'm not talking about shooting a miner or f1ing on a freighter fleet, but the scouting, bumping, FCing, supplying, fitting, organizing. There are three ganking organizations in the game (MiniLuv, CODE., Russian Spectres), and the reason that ganking is so common is because each of those organizations has a core of members that dedicate 110% of their play time to ganking. I haven't been to nullsec to kill something in months, though it sounds nice.

We understand about over-fishing and elk are dead too. MiniLuv operated at a loss between September 1st and January 1st due to anti-gankers, wreck shooters and over-fishing. Ganking and big whales come in cycles.

Many line members of MiniLuv suggested a 30% Hull HP increase as opposed to 30% Hull Resist for freighters and jump freighters. It makes the effect more evenly distributed across fits and keeps JFs just slightly more in the 'we can kill you range' not that they aren't already next to impossible to kill.



I have never liked the idea of "Special Snowflakes" when you make a change to every ship, then excluding 4 or 8 isn't really something that you want to do IMO, it just causes confusion.


You can continue the arguments......

I honestly don't care, we will have N+1 when we gank, so it won't matter
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#368 - 2016-02-14 21:59:31 UTC
Kenneth Feld wrote:
I have never liked the idea of "Special Snowflakes" when you make a change to every ship, then excluding 4 or 8 isn't really something that you want to do IMO, it just causes confusion.


There's a really simple way to apply this change to all ships while not affecting ones that couldn't previously fit a damage control (freighters, JFs, shuttles, pods): decrease their base hull HP by 33%.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#369 - 2016-02-14 22:04:37 UTC
Masao Kurata wrote:
There's a really simple way to apply this change to all ships while not affecting ones that couldn't previously fit a damage control (freighters, JFs, shuttles, pods): decrease their base hull HP by 33%.
Except once again, all that is doing is crippling those ships while all other ships are being buffed. Ships who could fit a DC but it was better not to will be getting a resist buff that their fits would never have included (this includes gank ships which will be harder to kill but didn't include a DC prior to the change), while fits that used a DC will get a base resist buff then a free lowslot, either to increase the resist further with a new DC or to improve another aspect of their ship. Your ideas to exclude freighters from the buff and thus give them a nerf relative to other ships comes purely from you wanting to shield your playstyle from an increased effort requirement, not from a desire to improve the game.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#370 - 2016-02-14 22:11:09 UTC
Kenneth Feld wrote:



I have never liked the idea of "Special Snowflakes" when you make a change to every ship, then excluding 4 or 8 isn't really something that you want to do IMO, it just causes confusion.


You can continue the arguments......

I honestly don't care, we will have N+1 when we gank, so it won't matter


The problem with blanket buffs is that ships that have no need to be buffed get buffed too, often resulting in crazy effects. Thats why blanket buffs are always argued against, they cause more problems than they fix.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#371 - 2016-02-14 22:13:03 UTC
Masao Kurata wrote:
Kenneth Feld wrote:
I have never liked the idea of "Special Snowflakes" when you make a change to every ship, then excluding 4 or 8 isn't really something that you want to do IMO, it just causes confusion.


There's a really simple way to apply this change to all ships while not affecting ones that couldn't previously fit a damage control (freighters, JFs, shuttles, pods): decrease their base hull HP by 33%.


That messes with the bulkhead mods.
Crackforbreakfast
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#372 - 2016-02-14 22:13:50 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Kenneth Feld wrote:



I have never liked the idea of "Special Snowflakes" when you make a change to every ship, then excluding 4 or 8 isn't really something that you want to do IMO, it just causes confusion.


You can continue the arguments......

I honestly don't care, we will have N+1 when we gank, so it won't matter


The problem with blanket buffs is that ships that have no need to be buffed get buffed too, often resulting in crazy effects. Thats why blanket buffs are always argued against, they cause more problems than they fix.



Problem for who? Relatively small group of high-sec risk free pirates?
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#373 - 2016-02-14 22:20:55 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Masao Kurata wrote:
There's a really simple way to apply this change to all ships while not affecting ones that couldn't previously fit a damage control (freighters, JFs, shuttles, pods): decrease their base hull HP by 33%.
Except once again, all that is doing is crippling those ships while all other ships are being buffed.


If freighters could shoot other ships, the EHP of other ships (which are currently either fitting damage control both before and after and are thus not getting a buff or are gank ships that don't care about EHP) would be relevant to them. They cannot. Reducing their base hull by the same amount as the resistances they acquire is not nerfing freighters, it is maintaining the status quo.
BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#374 - 2016-02-14 22:21:25 UTC
Kenneth Feld wrote:


I have never liked the idea of "Special Snowflakes" when you make a change to every ship, then excluding 4 or 8 isn't really something that you want to do IMO, it just causes confusion.


You can continue the arguments......

I honestly don't care, we will have N+1 when we gank, so it won't matter


Freighters and jump freighters were already special snowflakes in that regard. There are 5 mods that can be used, adaptive nano postings, inertial stabilizers, nano fibers, bulkheads, overdrive injectors.
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#375 - 2016-02-14 22:22:16 UTC
Crackforbreakfast wrote:
Problem for who? Relatively small group of high-sec risk free pirates?


We have a 100% ship loss rate (without insurance unlike all other ship loss). You can call that "risk free" if you like because our losses are the same whether we succeed or not, but you know it's more than a little disingenous.
BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#376 - 2016-02-14 22:22:56 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Masao Kurata wrote:
There's a really simple way to apply this change to all ships while not affecting ones that couldn't previously fit a damage control (freighters, JFs, shuttles, pods): decrease their base hull HP by 33%.
Except once again, all that is doing is crippling those ships while all other ships are being buffed. Ships who could fit a DC but it was better not to will be getting a resist buff that their fits would never have included (this includes gank ships which will be harder to kill but didn't include a DC prior to the change), while fits that used a DC will get a base resist buff then a free lowslot, either to increase the resist further with a new DC or to improve another aspect of their ship. Your ideas to exclude freighters from the buff and thus give them a nerf relative to other ships comes purely from you wanting to shield your playstyle from an increased effort requirement, not from a desire to improve the game.


You've misread his post. Tweaking the buff to freighters doesn't have any effect on the buff to other ships.
FT Cold
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#377 - 2016-02-14 22:23:28 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
ArmyOfMe wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


But I agree, a lot of other ships are also getting a buff they simply do not need. The Hecate for example is getting a buff .

Again you go with the lying. The only way the individual hecate is getting a buff, is if they didnt have a dc fitted before. But as far as i can tell, most, if not all hecates ive met, have had a dc fitted. So no, they are not getting a buff then.

Oh, and if you think they do, then please show me the math on it, so i can help prove you wrong Blink



It has 800 base structure, the added 33% resists directly to the hull will not stack with its defense bonus which adds another 33%. This destroyer is going to have roughly the same hull ehp of todays stabber before you fit any mods to it.


An otherwise naked hecate in defensive mode is going to go from about 5200 EHP to 6300 ehp without a DC fit, with or without trasnverse bulkheads it's going to be about a 20% increase in ehp for any fit without a DC. You'll still lose about a third of your EHP vs any fit that uses a DC. A pretty reasonable decrease, since the extra module you'd fit in it's place would likely be a third magstab that would suffer from a 57.1% effectiveness stacking penalty and thus would net about 11% more DPS.

For combat ships, this seems like a reasonable trade off to me.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#378 - 2016-02-14 22:24:55 UTC
Masao Kurata wrote:
If freighters could shoot other ships, the EHP of other ships (which are currently either fitting damage control both before and after and are thus not getting a buff or are gank ships that don't care about EHP) would be relevant to them. They cannot. Reducing their base hull by the same amount as the resistances they acquire is not nerfing freighters, it is maintaining the status quo.
Freighters are supposed to be guarded by other ships though, are they not? Gank ships get shot down by the ships guarding the freighters, so their EHP allows them to sustain more damage meaning more damage output before concord arrives. So not only is it a nerf relative to other ships by buffing all other ships, it's a direct nerf to their survivability against the enemies that hunt them.

BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip wrote:
You've misread his post. Tweaking the buff to freighters doesn't have any effect on the buff to other ships.
Sorry, but I think you've misread mine.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#379 - 2016-02-14 22:25:59 UTC
Crackforbreakfast wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Kenneth Feld wrote:



I have never liked the idea of "Special Snowflakes" when you make a change to every ship, then excluding 4 or 8 isn't really something that you want to do IMO, it just causes confusion.


You can continue the arguments......

I honestly don't care, we will have N+1 when we gank, so it won't matter


The problem with blanket buffs is that ships that have no need to be buffed get buffed too, often resulting in crazy effects. Thats why blanket buffs are always argued against, they cause more problems than they fix.



Problem for who? Relatively small group of high-sec risk free pirates?


I've made several good posts on reddit about what risk is, how risk plays into ganking, and how gankers can decrease risk and how adversaries increase risk. I don't think this is the place for that discussion. Regardless, this seems like a poorly thought out piece to bring up, akin to so what or no u. But if this change doesn't increase risk to gankers, what does it accomplish?
Valterra Craven
#380 - 2016-02-14 22:27:26 UTC
Masao Kurata wrote:
Crackforbreakfast wrote:
Problem for who? Relatively small group of high-sec risk free pirates?


We have a 100% ship loss rate (without insurance unlike all other ship loss). You can call that "risk free" if you like because our losses are the same whether we succeed or not, but you know it's more than a little disingenous.


No, you have a 99% ship loss rate. Scouts and Bumpers must be counted too if you are going to call everything even.