Player Features and Ideas Discussion

So, I had a whole point by point response written out but that seemed to be getting past the forest and the trees and down into blades of grass and away from the general point here.

Faylee if you're interested I'll post my response but otherwise I'm going to leave it at a general reply to overall points here.

First off, CCP flat out said in the original thread okaying the practice that they were looking at the balance of it so it's a pretty safe assumption that the reason it was removed was because it broke this balance.

The argument against this seems to be "well if they can solo haul stuff I should be able to stop them solo!"

If you want to play in space where a single player can easily stop another player hauling around tons of stuff then you'd be looking for Low or Null Sec. The risk reward paradigm there fits what you're talking about, which is why almost no one hauls like that through Low or Null and why it's so much more expensive to do so.

While it's easier to stop as well that only really applies to the completely solo "version" of the trick. If you add in just a few more people you can easily counter most attempts to stop the gank, and the gank can still be completed with far fewer people and far less ISK invested than a normal gank against a ship of the same tank level.

OP, while you rant about how stupid people have to be to get dunked I would counter that you don't seem to have a clue about how hard it is, even (and really especially) in a large alliance to get an emergency cyno on short notice. It's basically like trying to pluck one cat out of the middle of a herd. The same goes for almost any other sort of help a gank target might try to get. If you do get help that wasn't pre-arranged then it'll be almost entirely down to luck or one of your own alts the *vast* majority of the time, and that in and of itself represents a tiny fraction of times people are ganked.

Compare these cases of yours to the Rorqual, a ship almost exclusively found in Null and in the vicinity of a group's own Null space, and how hard people seem to find it to scramble help to a ship that can be invulnerable for 7 minutes, and that's right next door to a staging system in most cases.

You can lament the stupidity of gank targets all you like, but you might want to learn about the logistics on the other side before declaring that removing something "made no sense".

If OP has found a new way to doing something that meets roughly the above criteria I wouldn't expect it to survive very long unless it's extremely hard to patch out, in which case OP might just manage to get "hyperdunking" declared an exploit, which IMO would actually be kind of bad for the game since the practice as a whole is pretty vaguely defined.

As much as I'm sure some of you are convinced I'm "anti-gank" I'm not, I just believe that an interesting and complex ganking ecosystem where the game becomes one of wits between gankers and gankees is best and I don't think "1.0" Hyperdunking was good for that because of how badly it broke the ISK curve for ganking.

He never said risk vs reward anywhere in that entire reply, he said:



Also I would point out that to a certain extent CCP are very much in the business of balancing risk vs reward as they set the cargo holds and EHP values for Freighters and other haulers and set the mineral build costs and DPS values of ship. They've also stepped in in the past when the risk/reward balance for ganking got out of whack when they removed insurance from CONCORDed ships.

If you disagree with this then I doubt you're ever going to be happy with any action CCP takes regarding the balance of ganking in Eve.

If you're stupid CCP is perfectly fine with other players taking advantage of that, the trick is they want there to be different levels of stupidity that expose the player to different risks. You seem to be under the impression that ganking is simply a case of the player being incredibly stupid every time. That is absolutely not the case.

Those are not quite the same thing, in Eve or anywhere else. If something is too easy to do to another player then that's a problem for the game because one player is getting too much reward from the other player for the effort put in.

You seem to be just fine with gankers being the beneficiaries of skewed reward systems but not other players.

To borrow some of your abundant supply of hyperbole, would you suggest that gankers should be given a button that automatically does damage to a target Freighter if you feed it ISK? No? Too easy maybe?

The rest of your post is ranty hyperbole. No one is suggesting that, and that is in no way related to CCP determining that an interaction of *their* mechanics creates an imbalanced interaction between two players. People are free to make mistakes, but the magnitude of that mistake is determined by how easy it is to capitalize on.

For example, right now I can load a Freighter to the point that it can be profitably ganked, after average drops, by 75 Catalysts. This isn't even that much ISK, because those Catalysts are dirt cheap, but it's very hard to get that many players together. That same freighter requires something like 30 Bombers to gank, which is much easier to pull off, but it can't be done profitably.

That's risk vs reward in action. With Hyperdunking the former sort of gank became possible and profitable for a very small group of players, which is why it was a problem and why CCP removed it.

Why not?

What was broken about it? Sorry, I just need to ask. I too, can be a parrot.

Sounds like bad game management to me. Oh, those players are getting pretty good....hmmm lets nerf that out of existence, I'm sure they'll keep paying us.

"Those players" don't pay subs anyway. At 50B a pop, there's no need to

"fools"
"morons"
"babies"
"idiots"
"vultures"
"shitlords"
"dumbass"
"stupid"
"farcking idiot"
"foolish"
"ignorant"

Love the pointless arguments. Just as I love how you refer to CCP's paying clients.
Keep on going, I am sure they are listening too.

Nice! Irrelevant to the argument, but clever!

Given a choice between the "stupid people deserve to die" argument, and the "ingenuity should be rewarded" argument, the latter is more compelling imho.

You do realise pretty muc ALL PVP games who find something to be overperforming will nerf it right? It's pretty much industry standard to nerf things when to go out of your expected frame because it tend to break things or gameplay for the players no using this. Even if those things are super hard to pull off, they get nerfed.

As for people staying and keeping their sub rolling, we have OP ton confirm they still do pay anyway. Is the potential lost of subs because ganking got nerfed supposed to be a good argument? Because it rank around the same level as lost subs from getting ganked in my mind.