These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Uppsy Daisy
State War Academy
Caldari State
#781 - 2016-02-27 14:55:49 UTC
CCP Fozzie, could I ask if you have thought about how these changes affect the already very strong Gallente ship line up, given they always have the largest hull armor of any race?

I'm especially talking about the Tristan,Vexor and Navy Comet - they certainly don't need buffs and this is one.
Violet Crumble
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#782 - 2016-02-27 15:48:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Violet Crumble
Lucas Kell wrote:
Well according to RFF, their average reward per jump is 890k. A jump with align in a fast freighter takes around 2 minutes on average (based on a trip from Amarr to Jita just completed) so their income rate would be 26.7m per hour.

That's the average reward on a per contract basis, so to increase efficiency its normal to haul more than 1 contract at a time.

Until 2011, RFF pilots used to link multiple RFF packages together in a double wrap and then haul 3-4 together, plus any other contracts not of RFF origin. Since 2012, the policy is to not double wrap them, but to let all the packages be freely scanned.

My average is to haul 4 contracts simultaneously (from a range of different sources) and using webs, the average time between jumps is 1 min 5 sec.

My average income when hauling is 120 million per hour, which isn't unusual if you are a dedicated hauler. I'm not all that dedicated and usually stop after a couple of hours. With the right contracts, I regularly make 300-350 million in a couple of hours and then go do other things. Some days it takes lonnger, or I decide to stop at a lower income. Some guys just haul constantly and are making great ISK.

Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#783 - 2016-02-27 16:07:08 UTC
Violet Crumble wrote:
My average income when hauling is 120 million per hour, which isn't unusual if you are a dedicated hauler. I'm not all that dedicated and usually stop after a couple of hours. With the right contracts, I regularly make 300-350 million in a couple of hours and then go do other things. Some days it takes lonnger, or I decide to stop at a lower income. Some guys just haul constantly and are making great ISK.
How many alts does it take to achieve that? Bear in mind a mission blitzer can make 100m isk/hour consistently with a single character.

The important question really is, could you make more isk/character/hour performing a task other than hauling?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Violet Crumble
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#784 - 2016-02-27 16:43:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Violet Crumble
Lucas Kell wrote:
Violet Crumble wrote:
My average income when hauling is 120 million per hour, which isn't unusual if you are a dedicated hauler. I'm not all that dedicated and usually stop after a couple of hours. With the right contracts, I regularly make 300-350 million in a couple of hours and then go do other things. Some days it takes lonnger, or I decide to stop at a lower income. Some guys just haul constantly and are making great ISK.
How many alts does it take to achieve that? Bear in mind a mission blitzer can make 100m isk/hour consistently with a single character.

The important question really is, could you make more isk/character/hour performing a task other than hauling?

1 webbing alt that would exist anyway whether I haul or not because that character also does other things.

The important question is simply am I having fun.

All your talk of opportunity costs and such don't bother me in the slightest. That's just typical Lucas speak to help make stupid arguments. It's a game, not a job.

Your claim that hauling is making less than 30 million per hour is wrong, by a large margin. It's based on a lack of understanding how people actually haul as a profession. No one that hauls effectively makes such poor income.

Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#785 - 2016-02-27 17:30:33 UTC
Violet Crumble wrote:
1 webbing alt that would exist anyway whether I haul or not because that character also does other things.

The important question is simply am I having fun.

All your talk of opportunity costs and such don't bother me in the slightest. That's just typical Lucas speak to help make stupid arguments. It's a game, not a job.

Your claim that hauling is making less than 30 million per hour is wrong, by a large margin. It's based on a lack of understanding how people actually haul as a profession. No one that hauls effectively makes such poor income.
No, I think you misunderstand. I am totally on your side, that it's about what is fun and what is entertaining. Teckos is trying to claim that opportunity cost should be applied to ganking when working out their income and that they should be balanced based on that. I'm pointing out that opportunity cost is irrelevant and that if it wasn't most playstyles would be negative as there's almost always something you could be doing for better isk if you ignored what you enjoyed.

So yes, I fully agree, it's a game, not a job, what is important is having fun and opportunity costs are irrelevant.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#786 - 2016-02-27 18:03:47 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
If we're counting opportunity cost, then highsec hauling is.


If we are going to follow this line of fudging numbers then ganking is in a far worse position.

Lucas Kell wrote:
No it's not, it's am minor change. It's only a massive change if EHP is the only factor in defense, which it's not. EHP is a minor factor in itself.


What world do you live in? 157,000 more EHP on ANYTHING is a massive buff. We are talking about a freighter getting the tank of another freighter added to its already massive tank.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#787 - 2016-02-27 18:16:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
baltec1 wrote:
If we are going to follow this line of fudging numbers then ganking is in a far worse position.
I'm sure if we were fudging numbers they'd be in whatever position you wanted them to be in. let's stick with reality though where opportunity cost is irrelevant and this change is coming no matter how much you cry about having to put in a little more effort.

baltec1 wrote:
What world do you live in? 157,000 more EHP on ANYTHING is a massive buff. We are talking about a freighter getting the tank of another freighter added to its already massive tank.
I'm in the real world, where the EHP of a freighter is a minor factor when ganking them. If they were making freighters enter warp twice as fast, I'd see that as a pretty serious buff. EHP is just an increase in cost, and since it's cheap to begin with, it's not even that costly an increase.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#788 - 2016-02-27 18:35:02 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
I'm sure if we were fudging numbers they'd be in whatever position you wanted them to be in. let's stick with reality though where opportunity cost is irrelevant and this change is coming no matter how much you cry about having to put in a little more effort.


Funny how every argument you have made so far has ended with you saying its irrelevant when it was pointed out you were wrong.
Lucas Kell wrote:

I'm in the real world, where the EHP of a freighter is a minor factor when ganking them. If they were making freighters enter warp twice as fast, I'd see that as a pretty serious buff. EHP is just an increase in cost, and since it's cheap to begin with, it's not even that costly an increase.


To gank an obelisk in 0.6 space will cost 1.25 billion more in talos. That is also not a small number.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#789 - 2016-02-27 18:43:53 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Funny how every argument you have made so far has ended with you saying its irrelevant when it was pointed out you were wrong.
Actually, I pointed out it was irrelevant from the start, and all that's happened is people like yourself have stated that I am wrong (which doesn't mean I actually am). Really it's just a difference of opinion. Regardless, the change is coming so get used to it or get out.

baltec1 wrote:
To gank an obelisk in 0.6 space will cost 1.25 billion more in talos. That is also not a small number.
I'm sure it would cost billions more if you try to gank it with rattlesnakes too, but then again there's catalysts where it will cost less than 100m too. What you're saying is that you can choose to make it more expensive to varying degrees. Choice, in a video game! Great!

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#790 - 2016-02-27 18:52:21 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Lucas Kell wrote:

I'm sure it would cost billions more if you try to gank it with rattlesnakes too, but then again there's catalysts where it will cost less than 100m too. What you're saying is that you can choose to make it more expensive to varying degrees. Choice, in a video game! Great!


You cant gank it with 100 mil of catalysts. Equally expecting people to form up 100 people is unrealistic. Which goes to show that this change in EHP is not a "small change" like you keep on trying to push which I will once again say, is a blatant lie. A lie just like when you said hauling is isk negetive, when you lied about the DCU not being as powerful after this change, when you say there is no defence against ganking and every time to outright refuse to accepty that literally no evidence backs up anything you have said thus far in this thread. You are a pathological lair hell bent on removing an entire playstyle from eve no matter how damaging the change is
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#791 - 2016-02-27 19:30:39 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
You cant gank it with 100 mil of catalysts. Equally expecting people to form up 100 people is unrealistic.
Except I'm not, what I'm saying is that like every other player in the game you have a choice between manpower and asset power.

baltec1 wrote:
Which goes to show that this change in EHP is not a "small change" like you keep on trying to push which I will once again say, is a blatant lie.
Except it is. Normal players have pointed it out, CCP have pointed it out and even some gankers have agreed that it's a minor nuisance at best and that little will change. It's only people like yourself raging at the slight extra effort you'll have to put in.

You my friend need to calm down.

baltec1 wrote:
You are a pathological lair hell bent on removing an entire playstyle from eve no matter how damaging the change is
Oh good lord, the irony. Roll I'm not even remotely pushing for the removal of ganking, I'd just rather see balance and I've made that clear on multiple occasions, so I'm really not the liar here.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#792 - 2016-02-27 19:43:43 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

I'm sure it would cost billions more if you try to gank it with rattlesnakes too, but then again there's catalysts where it will cost less than 100m too. What you're saying is that you can choose to make it more expensive to varying degrees. Choice, in a video game! Great!


You cant gank it with 100 mil of catalysts. Equally expecting people to form up 100 people is unrealistic. Which goes to show that this change in EHP is not a "small change" like you keep on trying to push which I will once again say, is a blatant lie. A lie just like when you said hauling is isk negetive, when you lied about the DCU not being as powerful after this change, when you say there is no defence against ganking and every time to outright refuse to accepty that literally no evidence backs up anything you have said thus far in this thread. You are a pathological lair hell bent on removing an entire playstyle from eve no matter how damaging the change is


Right, these are all "costs", IMO. Trying to ping for 100 people can be a pain. Sure the Imperium can do it, but it also has what...6,000....8,000 RL people in it?

So you spend more time pinging and less time....ganking.

"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
S.N.O.T.
#793 - 2016-02-27 19:48:36 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Right, these are all "costs", IMO. Trying to ping for 100 people can be a pain. Sure the Imperium can do it, but it also has what...6,000....8,000 RL people in it?

So you spend more time pinging and less time....ganking.
Except it won't necessarily take 100 more people (in fact it should never take 100 more people, since even in T1 cats in a 1.0 most gank targets take considerably less than that anyway). Again, it comes down to choice. Add people or add better ships. If you have more people you can save on ships, if you have less people you pay more for better ships. That's just the way EVE works... I know it'd be really nice if instead you could just have easy gameplay with no opposition and still never see even a slight nerf, but that's just not reality.

Adapt or die.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#794 - 2016-02-27 19:52:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:
Except I'm not, what I'm saying is that like every other player in the game you have a choice between manpower and asset power.


Yes, and change the mechanics you change that choice. This change means you need either more people or more fire power. The former means more time getting people into fleet and the latter means passing by targets you might otherwise have hit. Both translate into less ganking if these effects are big enough. And a 30-35% increase in a freighters EHP is a big change. Everyone gets this but you.

Basically what we'll see is a drive towards larger ganking organizations such as Miniluv and CODE. If more organizations form like that we might see a negligible drop in ganking...but those organizations come with costs. So this change is increasing the costs to ganking and reducing the risks for those who would otherwise be ganked.

"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
S.N.O.T.
#795 - 2016-02-27 19:57:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Teckos Pech wrote:
Yes, and change the mechanics you change that choice. This change means you need either more people or more fire power.
Yup, that's the crux of it. Neat eh?

Teckos Pech wrote:
And a 30-35% increase in a freighters EHP is a big change. Everyone gets this but you.
Well no, there's only a couple of you that "get that" and by "get that" I mean get irate over a minor change. Even some existing gankers have been in here saying it's not a particularly big change, and CCP certainly have. I'd be very surprised if there's even a noticeable drop in ganking.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Basically what we'll see is a drive towards larger ganking organizations such as Miniluv and CODE. If more organizations form like that we might see a negligible drop in ganking...but those organizations come with costs. So this change is increasing the costs to ganking and reducing the risks for those who would otherwise be ganked.
Freighter ganking is for big organisations. It''s killing a capital ship illegally in highsec, it's not something that should be easily done by a handful of jokers in terrible ships, it should take a larger organisation. It should also have an opposing side that can actually interfere with it in a meaningful way too, which it doesn't. If mechanics for anti-ganking were better, less passive defense would be needed to balance out the mechanics, but they don't so here we are.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#796 - 2016-02-27 20:02:56 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Right, these are all "costs", IMO. Trying to ping for 100 people can be a pain. Sure the Imperium can do it, but it also has what...6,000....8,000 RL people in it?

So you spend more time pinging and less time....ganking.
Except it won't necessarily take 100 more people (in fact it should never take 100 more people, since even in T1 cats in a 1.0 most gank targets take considerably less than that anyway). Again, it comes down to choice. Add people or add better ships. If you have more people you can save on ships, if you have less people you pay more for better ships. That's just the way EVE works... I know it'd be really nice if instead you could just have easy gameplay with no opposition and still never see even a slight nerf, but that's just not reality.

Adapt or die.


Yes...add more people or better ships...but that is no as simple as you make out to be. Adding people means longer form up times. Adding better ships means you need fatter targets. Both mean less ganking.

Why is it you always assume every change always leads back to the status quo?

And a 30% buff to a ships EHP is not a slight change. Roll

"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
S.N.O.T.
#797 - 2016-02-27 20:08:35 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Yes...add more people or better ships...but that is no as simple as you make out to be. Adding people means longer form up times. Adding better ships means you need fatter targets. Both mean less ganking.
Doubt it. Gankers already have a decent enough margin that they will be able to absorb any changes into their existing target selection. All it really means is they'll have a little less isk flooding in. vOv

Teckos Pech wrote:
Why is it you always assume every change always leads back to the status quo?
I, just likce CCP, simply believe players will adapt and the game will continue on much as if nothing had changed. Basically I don't overreact like you and baltec, I rationally look at the change, conclude that it's not a particularly big deal, makes sense and improves balance, then accept it.

Teckos Pech wrote:
And a 30% buff to a ships EHP is not a slight change. Roll
When you just say it straight out with no context, sure, but when you consider the actual mechanics that go into a freighter avoiding being ganked, the existence of their EHP at all is a very minor factor, so an increase really isn't that big a deal.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Jaantrag
#798 - 2016-02-27 20:10:15 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:


Yes...add more people or better ships...but that is no as simple as you make out to be. Adding people means longer form up times. Adding better ships means you need fatter targets. Both mean less ganking.




ganking been the same for a long time .. was about time for a little change ..


less ganing .. i seriously doupt that ...

EVElopedia < add this to your sig to show u WANT it back

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#799 - 2016-02-27 20:29:56 UTC
Jaantrag wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:


Yes...add more people or better ships...but that is no as simple as you make out to be. Adding people means longer form up times. Adding better ships means you need fatter targets. Both mean less ganking.




ganking been the same for a long time .. was about time for a little change ..


less ganing .. i seriously doupt that ...




If you are ganking for profit, and nearly every ganker does, if you have to spend 1.25 billion more to gank freighters that means You have to chose targets with at the very least 1.25 billion more in the hold. That right there reduces the number of viable targets and thus, less ganks are made.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#800 - 2016-02-27 20:35:17 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Lucas Kell wrote:
Except I'm not, what I'm saying is that like every other player in the game you have a choice between manpower and asset power.


That's not choosing that's having something forced upon you. Every single small group out there is getting hit hard by this change.

Lucas Kell wrote:
Except it is.


Again bullshit. Point out to me in what world 157,000 ehp is a small amount.


Lucas Kell wrote:
]Oh good lord, the irony. Roll I'm not even remotely pushing for the removal of ganking, I'd just rather see balance and I've made that clear on multiple occasions, so I'm really not the liar here.


You saying that and it being true are two very very different things. You are well known round here for your years of nerf calls. Its never going to be enough for you and you have zero interest in balance. As shown by your near total lack of addressing the DCU mod itself.