Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Well look at Lucas. Simply amazing. To Lucas, perfect is apparently a synonym for prudent or smart. This is a usual Lucas tactic (BTW, Lucas does play perfectly, he has said so) to start swapping out words that don't quite mean the same thing his opponents are using.

Here is the claim Lucas: Being more prudent (flying smart) in your freighter will reduce your risk of being ganked.

The evidence is RFF's annual reports. They do fly smart.

Now, you can argue, if you want, that if everyone did this people would still get ganked and that's fine. But you have **** all for data and so we don't know how much ganking would really occur. However, I am skeptical that it would return to it's current levels. Very skeptical. The reason is that it would take more effort and people do not like exerting effort. So, if everyone miraculously did fly smart, there would be less ganking. Probably a lot less.

But, do continue to argue to the contrary Lucas. I'm sure someday you'll be seen as the lone genius you think you are.

Edit: And to be clear, the notion that everyone flies their freighter smart is hilariously unlikely.

Edit II: And Lucas' "hypothetical" is not totally crazy...well okay, in this context it is totally crazy. However, there are instances where prudent individual action can be collectively bad. For example, a bank panic. If people find out that their bank is either insolvent or even illiquid the optimal individual response is, get your money out. However, due to fractional reserve requirements if everyone does that, a large chunk of people won't get their money...at all (assuming not deposit insurance...which has it's own problems in terms of incentives).

However, this situation is different. There is not entity like the bank in the freighter-ganking issue. Now...maybe if CODE. could do something to kill everyone's freighters that are undocked all at the same time....

And I re-read the OP. They are going with a flat 33% resist so...

Pre-patch with a DC II hull resists: 60%.
Post-patch with a DC II hull resists: 59.8%.

So, a 0.2% drop in hull EHP.

Damn: The 66% was a typo, meant 60%.

They aren't just capital ships, they are capital ships around the same price bracket in constant use.

Carriers are used in sections of space where the is no concord protection and where far more people than gankers actively hunt them down. They are also used directly in combat, so you would expect pretty high losses. I wasn't suggesting that they should try to balance their loss levels, I was simply saying that put in context, pulling out the number of freighter deaths per day then saying "that's low" with nothing for it to actually be compared to isn't useful. I could just as readily say "15 freighters die per day, that's really high".

It will be 59.8% vs. 60% now.

So what that people actively hunt them. People also take precautions against that hunting as well. There is no reason to expect loss rates to be the same or for one to have a higher loss rate than the other.

And you absolutely have no basis for saying that such ships are in constant use. That has been the problem with saying "ganking is too frequent" argument. We don't know that because we have no idea on how many freighters are out moving around at any given time or even over a time span.

If people are wrong to say, "15 freighters die per day, that's low." You'd be just as wrong to say it is high. However, for those who say it is low...they are often hanging out in HS where freighter use is very common and may get a reasonable feel for how frequent they are. I know when I go through Uedama I routinely see 4-8 on the gates and I play during a low point in terms of number of players online. So, my personal a priori belief is that the number of freighters ganked relative to the numbers moving about is low. Although feel free to go collect some data on this.

It is not a minor buff. An increase of hull EHP by 50% is not minor.

And I have not proven any point you think you are making. I am saying that your hypothetical is stupid and irrelevant to the discussion, you just aren't nearly as smart as you think you are so you can't see it.

And balance should not be around imprudent players even if they are the norm in a given context. Balance should be, if you are smart you "win", if you are dumb you "lose". Freighter pilots who get ganked are, by and large, dumb. They screwed up catastrophically or they had some serious bad luck.

Back tracking noted.

How about obvious imprudent play? Buff that too I guess.

If you put cargo expanders on your freighter, fill it with 8 billion in cargo, and then head straight into Uedama without even a scout...you are being very imprudent. You are taking risks. When you take risks sometimes you get the bad outcome.

Everything working as intended.

Buffing the EHP for hull across the board for everyone reduces the risk to the guy who filled his freighter with 8 billion in cargo, is not using a scout and blindly jumping into Uedama. It is essentially subsidizing stupid play.

So...why buff playing stupid?

Regarding constant use: how much do I use my freighter and carrier?

Some are used quite often others are not. You have literally no evidence on this. None.

As for PvP...I'm sorry, you were specifically referencing ratting carriers....that is not generally seen as PvP.

As for the cost of ganking you are talking out of your ass. Sure, if we just totaled up the ISK it looks low, but you are overlooking a major cost in there. Opp...oppor...c'mon you can guess it.

But neither do you, and that's the point. You seem to think it's OK for you to make wild sweeping statements based purely on your own experience but others are not.

I was referencing carrier losses in general but pointing out that one use of a carrier can also be for making a profound amount of ISK.

Whatever you say Gevlon. In that case hauling is ISK negative. Pretty much every ISK making activity vastly outstrips the income made from hauling in highsec.

But in all seriousness, just like Gevlon you can;t just go "but opportunity cost!" because that would pretty much limit the game down to being just "incursions online". People choosing to take part in a given activity means they have accepted the value of that activity in isk and/or entertainment, so the fact that they could have chosen to do something else instead doesn't really come into it.

This change will quite clearly be of greater benefit to the imprudent than to the prudent. That is bad as it is basically rewarding the foolish which is antithetical to the game.

The risk to prudent freighter pilots will not change appreciably. The risk to the imprudent will go down. That is bad game design.



Not necessarily. Prior to the buff they might have been killed, after the chances of being ganked will go down. Lower probability, same number of trials...fewer ganks.



Yes, it increases the costs. So you'll get less ganking. Duh. So even if you are the number 1 target in Uedama if they can't get the numbers...well no gank.