These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#661 - 2016-02-23 21:51:55 UTC
Crackforbreakfast wrote:
Using a data set which is not valid in regards as to what is in question is beyond stupid, furthermore it has been explained multiple times why RFF is able to keep their ganks down, for example the 1Bil collateral. You can keep on rambling about your RFF data.

Zkill is showing the following: The majority of high-sec freighter kills happen in the pipes, that is what can be concluded from the data at hand. The fact that these systems are camped during high times of activity makes the chance RELATIVELY high to get ganked in a freighter. Especially since the costs of ganking one are so low.

Have fun keyboard warrioring in this thread regardless, and props to CCP for this re-balance.


So after all that, you're just saying that you are more likely to be ganked in uedama and niarja at times gankers are active than the rest of hi-sec? Well no ****. Another incredible contribution by an anti-ganker.

If only there was a way to not travel in those systems whilst not afk...

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#662 - 2016-02-23 22:19:03 UTC
Crackforbreakfast wrote:
Using a data set which is not valid in regards as to what is in question is beyond stupid, furthermore it has been explained multiple times why RFF is able to keep their ganks down, for example the 1Bil collateral. You can keep on rambling about your RFF data.

Zkill is showing the following: The majority of high-sec freighter kills happen in the pipes, that is what can be concluded from the data at hand. The fact that these systems are camped during high times of activity makes the chance RELATIVELY high to get ganked in a freighter. Especially since the costs of ganking one are so low.

Have fun keyboard warrioring in this thread regardless, and props to CCP for this re-balance.


Why is it not valid. You say this as if it is trivially obvious. Are you telling us RFF never go through one of these camped pipes? Ever?

And offering collateral makes the pilots more prudent....which in turn impacts their rate of being ganked. Thank you for proving my point.

Finally, has anyone disputed that ganks usually take place in the pipes through Uedama and Niarja?

And ganking is not low cost. It is relatively low cost. That is, 200 million ISK in catalysts to kill a freighter full of 5 billion ISK of goodies is why ganking is "low cost" the costs for ganking is low relative to the gains. And the reason why the gains are high is because a player put 5 billion ISK in a big fat slow moving ship that has no offensive capabilities without even a single ship for an escort. There is a word for that: idiot.

"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
#663 - 2016-02-24 08:58:27 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Ok I'll do it for you then.

Your ranis fit if you get rid of the DCU II and go with a EANM II you lose several hundred EHP.

Looking at the new Imperium mach you will lose around 10k EHP by doing the same.

Your FYF celestis is 2k ehp worse off if we go with the next best thing which is a 400mm plate.

Your Drake is also worse off without the DCU to the tune of over 10k ehp.
Again though, that's all great to EFT warrior, but the reality is that it will change how the average player chooses their fits. They will be less likely to choose the DC simply because it has less of an extreme effect.


This less of an extreme effect being 0.02% less than today. Feel free to not use the DCU but to say it's going to be less effective than today is just a lie.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#664 - 2016-02-24 09:00:20 UTC
Crackforbreakfast wrote:
Using a data set which is not valid in regards as to what is in question is beyond stupid, furthermore it has been explained multiple times why RFF is able to keep their ganks down, for example the 1Bil collateral. You can keep on rambling about your RFF data.

Zkill is showing the following: The majority of high-sec freighter kills happen in the pipes, that is what can be concluded from the data at hand. The fact that these systems are camped during high times of activity makes the chance RELATIVELY high to get ganked in a freighter. Especially since the costs of ganking one are so low.

Have fun keyboard warrioring in this thread regardless, and props to CCP for this re-balance.


How many freighters pass through your two sample systems unmolested?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#665 - 2016-02-24 19:27:54 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
This less of an extreme effect being 0.02% less than today. Feel free to not use the DCU but to say it's going to be less effective than today is just a lie.
If it's 0.02% less effect then saying it's going to be less effective can't be a lie. Not really sure where you've got the 0.02% from but mate, you're still talking about EFT warrior fits where the only important factor is tank. Someone that removed a DC and decides that with the natural hull resist boost they are tanky enough to instead increase another stat will be the types of players who will drop it.

I'm really not sure what you are hoping to achieve here anyway. Would you say that perhaps CCP should drop of some more of the DCs effects and naturally add those to all ships too? I'm game for that.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Chip Flux
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#666 - 2016-02-24 19:42:29 UTC
Why must we look forward to your changes with trepidation?
Why must you always upset your customers with these horrible changes?

This is now an attack on energy neutralizers and the core gameplay

Just stop the stupid
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#667 - 2016-02-24 21:01:39 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Crackforbreakfast wrote:
Using a data set which is not valid in regards as to what is in question is beyond stupid, furthermore it has been explained multiple times why RFF is able to keep their ganks down, for example the 1Bil collateral. You can keep on rambling about your RFF data.

Zkill is showing the following: The majority of high-sec freighter kills happen in the pipes, that is what can be concluded from the data at hand. The fact that these systems are camped during high times of activity makes the chance RELATIVELY high to get ganked in a freighter. Especially since the costs of ganking one are so low.

Have fun keyboard warrioring in this thread regardless, and props to CCP for this re-balance.


How many freighters pass through your two sample systems unmolested?


He took his ball and went home once he realized he could not answer that question and that it was fundamental to the discussion.

"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

Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#668 - 2016-02-24 21:27:33 UTC
Is it me or will this change act as a nerf to indiscriminate freighter ganking, whilst probably allowing the clever/selective gankers to carry on pretty much as normal (with more needed per gank)?

Also - has anyone yet done the maths on how long a gankalyst will now last against concord? Or are the rumours of concord doing a 5th damage type true?

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#669 - 2016-02-25 05:12:05 UTC
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
Is it me or will this change act as a nerf to indiscriminate freighter ganking, whilst probably allowing the clever/selective gankers to carry on pretty much as normal (with more needed per gank)?

Also - has anyone yet done the maths on how long a gankalyst will now last against concord? Or are the rumours of concord doing a 5th damage type true?


That will likely be the effect. Ganking empty freighters will likely go the way of the dodo, and ganking groups will look for freighters that meet some minimal requirements.

"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

Black Pedro
Mine.
#670 - 2016-02-25 05:51:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Teckos Pech wrote:
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
Is it me or will this change act as a nerf to indiscriminate freighter ganking, whilst probably allowing the clever/selective gankers to carry on pretty much as normal (with more needed per gank)?

Also - has anyone yet done the maths on how long a gankalyst will now last against concord? Or are the rumours of concord doing a 5th damage type true?


That will likely be the effect. Ganking empty freighters will likely go the way of the dodo, and ganking groups will look for freighters that meet some minimal requirements.
I am not sure this will be case. Nobody, even CODE., goes out to hunt empty freighters. A freighter with cargo will always be preferred over an empty one all other things being equal and empty freighters are exploded primarily just because nothing else is available to keep the fleet busy, or because the pilot is red to their coalition in the case of Miniluv. Both reasons are still valid and any increase in cost will be absorbed to keep moral up, or to serve a greater sandbox reason and empty freighters will still explode.

This change will have little effect as long as the large ganking groups still have enough pilots to be over the group size threshold needed to field enough DPS. In fact, with PL now seeming to be experimenting with ganking, and even ganking empty freighters, it appears even more empty freighters might be dying in the near future. All this does is lock out smaller groups even more from choosing to hunt freighters in highsec.

The fundamental problem is you can't balance ganking with EHP beyond a certain point when players can just bring more pilots. All that does is restrict the ability to attack in highsec to the largest groups in the game, and given the wide disparity in group sizes, you end up eventually locking out most players from using the mechanic. How is it fair that Goonswarm can field sufficient pilots to gank your freighters, but your 30-man corp now no longer has enough people to meet this arbitrary DPS number to attack their freighters back? I mean, if you get in a real fight with such a size difference you should be crushed, but you don't even have the ability to try and force a response because of an absurdly high EHP wall.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#671 - 2016-02-25 05:53:36 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
Is it me or will this change act as a nerf to indiscriminate freighter ganking, whilst probably allowing the clever/selective gankers to carry on pretty much as normal (with more needed per gank)?

Also - has anyone yet done the maths on how long a gankalyst will now last against concord? Or are the rumours of concord doing a 5th damage type true?


That will likely be the effect. Ganking empty freighters will likely go the way of the dodo, and ganking groups will look for freighters that meet some minimal requirements.
I am not sure this will be case. Nobody, even CODE., goes out to hunt empty freighters. A freighter with cargo will always be preferred over an empty one all other things being equal and empty freighters are exploded primarily just because nothing else is available to keep the fleet busy, or because the pilot is red to their coalition in the case of Miniluv. Both reasons are still valid and any increase in cost will be absorbed to keep moral up, or to serve a greater sandbox reason and empty freighters will still explode.

This change will have little effect as long as the large ganking groups still have enough pilots to be over the group size threshold needed to field enough DPS. In fact, with PL now seeming to be experimenting with ganking, and even ganking empty freighters, it appears even more empty freighters might be dying in the near future. All this does is lock out smaller groups even more from choosing to hunt freighters in highsec.

The fundamental problem can't balance ganking with EHP beyond a certain point when players can just bring more pilots. All that does is restrict the ability to attack in highsec to the largest groups in the game, and given the wide disparity in group sizes, you end up eventually locking out most players from using the mechanic. How is it fair that Goonswarm can field sufficient pilots to gank your freighters, but your 30-man corp now no longer has enough people to meet this arbitrary DPS number to attack their freighters back? I mean, if you get in a real fight with such a size difference you should be crushed, but you don't even have the ability to try and force a response because of an absurdly high EHP wall.


As somebody who found their empty freighter being bumped by CODE. I have to disagree. They go for ransom in those cases. It may not be common, but it does happen.

"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
#672 - 2016-02-25 06:16:04 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
This less of an extreme effect being 0.02% less than today. Feel free to not use the DCU but to say it's going to be less effective than today is just a lie.
If it's 0.02% less effect then saying it's going to be less effective can't be a lie. Not really sure where you've got the 0.02% from but mate, you're still talking about EFT warrior fits where the only important factor is tank. Someone that removed a DC and decides that with the natural hull resist boost they are tanky enough to instead increase another stat will be the types of players who will drop it.

I'm really not sure what you are hoping to achieve here anyway. Would you say that perhaps CCP should drop of some more of the DCs effects and naturally add those to all ships too? I'm game for that.


These are the ships and fits that YOU currently use. You said you wont be fitting the DCU because they are not as effective, I just showed what you said was wrong. Perhaps if you spent more time looking at this change rather than blindly supporting what you see as a nerf to ganking you would have seen that this change does nothing to lower the importance of the DCU.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#673 - 2016-02-25 06:16:51 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
As somebody who found their empty freighter being bumped by CODE. I have to disagree. They go for ransom in those cases. It may not be common, but it does happen.
Of course, but there is already a huge financial disincentive when they gank an empty freighter. People get blinded by that billion ISK number on the killmail, but if the freighter was empty, the gankers get nothing and lose hundreds of millions in gank ships. So while they will bump any freighter than can catch, they don't usually shoot the empty ones, and rather will try a ransom or just let them go when something with more cargo comes along.

The only time they do shoot them is when they have a restless gank fleet sitting in station and no other target is available. Or if they are Miniluv and they have intel you are working for a red. In both cases, an extra hundred million will be swallowed as the cost of doing business and that empty freighter will still explode.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#674 - 2016-02-25 06:44:16 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
As somebody who found their empty freighter being bumped by CODE. I have to disagree. They go for ransom in those cases. It may not be common, but it does happen.
Of course, but there is already a huge financial disincentive when they gank an empty freighter. People get blinded by that billion ISK number on the killmail, but if the freighter was empty, the gankers get nothing and lose hundreds of millions in gank ships. So while they will bump any freighter than can catch, they don't usually shoot the empty ones, and rather will try a ransom or just let them go when something with more cargo comes along.

The only time they do shoot them is when they have a restless gank fleet sitting in station and no other target is available. Or if they are Miniluv and they have intel you are working for a red. In both cases, an extra hundred million will be swallowed as the cost of doing business and that empty freighter will still explode.


Other way around in my book. The people who gank for profit are hardest hit as this raises the bar for making a profit which means the have to target bigger cargo which means fewer targets for them. CODE operate very differently, the operate on donations and don't pick targets based upon profit. CODE will continue as they do now in the same way they operate in barge ganking which is more like a terrorist organisation.
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#675 - 2016-02-25 07:06:13 UTC
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
Also - has anyone yet done the maths on how long a gankalyst will now last against concord? Or are the rumours of concord doing a 5th damage type true?


Er mate, you know that CONCORD has infinite strength ECM, right? As soon as you're locked by concord, you're out.

(Exception: smartbombing battleships with cap boosters.)
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#676 - 2016-02-25 07:18:19 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
As somebody who found their empty freighter being bumped by CODE. I have to disagree. They go for ransom in those cases. It may not be common, but it does happen.
Of course, but there is already a huge financial disincentive when they gank an empty freighter. People get blinded by that billion ISK number on the killmail, but if the freighter was empty, the gankers get nothing and lose hundreds of millions in gank ships. So while they will bump any freighter than can catch, they don't usually shoot the empty ones, and rather will try a ransom or just let them go when something with more cargo comes along.

The only time they do shoot them is when they have a restless gank fleet sitting in station and no other target is available. Or if they are Miniluv and they have intel you are working for a red. In both cases, an extra hundred million will be swallowed as the cost of doing business and that empty freighter will still explode.


Right, ganking an empty freighter does happen. After this change my guess it will become far, far less common.

"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

Violet Crumble
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#677 - 2016-02-25 07:40:38 UTC
Crackforbreakfast wrote:
... furthermore it has been explained multiple times why RFF is able to keep their ganks down, for example the 1Bil collateral...

Which was also corrected here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6340733#post6340733

The maximum collateral only relates to the size of individual contracts accepted. It has no bearing on how those packages are transported and delivered by individual pilots, who are not actually in RFF. Most are in NPC Corps and carry RFF contracted packages alongside other contracts. It's totally down to how individual pilots minimise risk and pilots transporting RFF contracts pass through Uedama and Niarja safely many times every single day.

There is nothing special about a RFF package that protects it from being lost in a gank. The only thing special is that the pilots don't think we need special treatment. We look after our own safety, just as it should be.

Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#678 - 2016-02-25 07:48:42 UTC
Violet Crumble wrote:
Crackforbreakfast wrote:
... furthermore it has been explained multiple times why RFF is able to keep their ganks down, for example the 1Bil collateral...

Which was also corrected here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6340733#post6340733

The maximum collateral only relates to the size of individual contracts accepted. It has no bearing on how those packages are transported and delivered by individual pilots, who are not actually in RFF. Most are in NPC Corps and carry RFF contracted packages alongside other contracts. It's totally down to how individual pilots minimise risk and pilots transporting RFF contracts pass through Uedama and Niarja safely many times every single day.

There is nothing special about a RFF package that protects it from being lost in a gank. The only thing special is that the pilots don't think we need special treatment. We look after our own safety, just as it should be.


Blah, blah, blah. Please do not distract the dim witted with facts, it merely upsets them and causes them to ask their mom's for more hot pockets.

"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

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#679 - 2016-02-25 08:00:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
baltec1 wrote:
These are the ships and fits that YOU currently use. You said you wont be fitting the DCU because they are not as effective, I just showed what you said was wrong. Perhaps if you spent more time looking at this change rather than blindly supporting what you see as a nerf to ganking you would have seen that this change does nothing to lower the importance of the DCU.
But it will be not as effective. They are reducing all of the DCs stats, therefore it will be less effective than it was. What you are saying is "If your only goal is to maximise defense, then the DC will still be needed" which I'm sure is true, except most people don't build normal ships solely with defense in mind, otherwise noone would ever fit offensive midslots, they'd all add shield tank. With a base increase to hull, many ships will have enough tank that the removal of the DC and replacement with a prop mod or damage/yield mod will be a viable option. Stop looking solely at EHP and perhaps you'd understand this.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#680 - 2016-02-25 08:06:20 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
These are the ships and fits that YOU currently use. You said you wont be fitting the DCU because they are not as effective, I just showed what you said was wrong. Perhaps if you spent more time looking at this change rather than blindly supporting what you see as a nerf to ganking you would have seen that this change does nothing to lower the importance of the DCU.
But it will be not as effective. They are reducing all of the DCs stats, therefore it will be less effective than it was. What you are saying is "If your only goal is to maximise defense, then the DC will still be needed" which I'm sure is true, except most people don't build normal ships solely with defense in mind, otherwise noone would ever fit offensive midslots, they'd all add shield tank. With a base increase to hull, many ships will have enough tank that the removal of the DC and replacement with a prop mod or damage/yield mod will be a viable option. Stop looking solely at EHP and perhaps you'd understand this.



If you replace the DCU on your ranis with a damage mod you reduce your ehp by 1/3.