These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Boarding ships in space while criminal

Author
Cade Windstalker
#41 - 2016-12-28 14:59:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
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.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#42 - 2016-12-28 21:15:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Cade Windstalker wrote:
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.


I would say that reply by CCP Terminus was just horrible.

The risk vs. reward is none of CCP's business because it is players taking on too much risk and other players taking advantage of it. It is risk arbitrage and not really the purview of game mechanics issue.

Here, here is another (somewhat radical) solution: just have CCP give the stuff back in some random HS station. That is if you get ganked you get fully reimbursed in a HS station (with an all HS route). How about that? Full and complete reimbursement and the gankers get to keep their loot too. In short, lets take away most of the consequences of being a complete dumbass and undocking in Jita with 10 billion in freighter and replace it with making a 25 jump trip (both ways--i.e. 50 jumps round trip) so that the complete farcking idiot has to waste lots of game time moving his stuff. He can move it all at once, but if so he risk getting ganked again and starting all over...or now he can move it 10 trips with far less risk (500 jumps in a tanked freighter...maybe he'll learn a lesson).

Seriously, why is CCP being worried about players being stupid? Why can't I get reimbursed for all my stupidity in game?

"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

Cade Windstalker
#43 - 2016-12-28 22:03:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Teckos Pech wrote:
I would say that reply by CCP Terminus was just horrible.

The risk vs. reward is none of CCP's business because it is players taking on too much risk and other players taking advantage of it. It is risk arbitrage and not really the purview of game mechanics issue.

Here, here is another (somewhat radical) solution: just have CCP give the stuff back in some random HS station. That is if you get ganked you get fully reimbursed in a HS station (with an all HS route). How about that? Full and complete reimbursement and the gankers get to keep their loot too. In short, lets take away most of the consequences of being a complete dumbass and undocking in Jita with 10 billion in freighter and replace it with making a 25 jump trip (both ways--i.e. 50 jumps round trip) so that the complete farcking idiot has to waste lots of game time moving his stuff. He can move it all at once, but if so he risk getting ganked again and starting all over...or now he can move it 10 trips with far less risk (500 jumps in a tanked freighter...maybe he'll learn a lesson).

Seriously, why is CCP being worried about players being stupid? Why can't I get reimbursed for all my stupidity in game?


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

Quote:
That being said, we would still like to see a nice balance between effort and intelligence required on both sides of the coin. Making ganking too easy is not our goal, nor is it the other way around.


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.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#44 - 2016-12-28 22:53:50 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
I would say that reply by CCP Terminus was just horrible.

The risk vs. reward is none of CCP's business because it is players taking on too much risk and other players taking advantage of it. It is risk arbitrage and not really the purview of game mechanics issue.

Here, here is another (somewhat radical) solution: just have CCP give the stuff back in some random HS station. That is if you get ganked you get fully reimbursed in a HS station (with an all HS route). How about that? Full and complete reimbursement and the gankers get to keep their loot too. In short, lets take away most of the consequences of being a complete dumbass and undocking in Jita with 10 billion in freighter and replace it with making a 25 jump trip (both ways--i.e. 50 jumps round trip) so that the complete farcking idiot has to waste lots of game time moving his stuff. He can move it all at once, but if so he risk getting ganked again and starting all over...or now he can move it 10 trips with far less risk (500 jumps in a tanked freighter...maybe he'll learn a lesson).

Seriously, why is CCP being worried about players being stupid? Why can't I get reimbursed for all my stupidity in game?


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

Quote:
That being said, we would still like to see a nice balance between effort and intelligence required on both sides of the coin. Making ganking too easy is not our goal, nor is it the other way around.


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.


What do you think determines risk vs. reward? Intelligence and effort. Those who take on too much risk either did not have the requisite intelligence/knowledge, did not put in enough effort, or both of those. In other words, mitigating one's risk takes intelligence and effort. So yes, he was discussing risk vs. reward, but messed it up badly because it is not CCP's business to hold anyone's hand in the game.

And while CCP is indirectly in the game of determining the level risk a player can take on it is up to the player to act responsible. Or are you seriously suggesting we cut the size of the freighter hold down to 1/4th its size to prevent some players from doing foolish and idiotic things. I mean that would be an option right? Lets make the freighter holds small to help prevent people from overloading their freighters. Lets take away the option of fitting cargo expanders, inertial stabilizers, and nanofibres. In fact, lets just make it so fitting are no longer an option and we'll shift freighter EHP over to the EHP with bulkeads and reduce the cargo space to that when bulkheads are fitted. All because some players are just ignorant or foolish. Obviously players can't handle choice.

Apparently the P in CCP stand for parentalism.

"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

Cade Windstalker
#45 - 2016-12-28 23:31:25 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
What do you think determines risk vs. reward? Intelligence and effort. Those who take on too much risk either did not have the requisite intelligence/knowledge, did not put in enough effort, or both of those. In other words, mitigating one's risk takes intelligence and effort. So yes, he was discussing risk vs. reward, but messed it up badly because it is not CCP's business to hold anyone's hand in the game.

And while CCP is indirectly in the game of determining the level risk a player can take on it is up to the player to act responsible. Or are you seriously suggesting we cut the size of the freighter hold down to 1/4th its size to prevent some players from doing foolish and idiotic things. I mean that would be an option right? Lets make the freighter holds small to help prevent people from overloading their freighters. Lets take away the option of fitting cargo expanders, inertial stabilizers, and nanofibres. In fact, lets just make it so fitting are no longer an option and we'll shift freighter EHP over to the EHP with bulkeads and reduce the cargo space to that when bulkheads are fitted. All because some players are just ignorant or foolish. Obviously players can't handle choice.

Apparently the P in CCP stand for parentalism.


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.
Specia1 K
State War Academy
Caldari State
#46 - 2016-12-29 01:10:04 UTC
Faylee Freir wrote:
Hey CCP. Allow me to board a ship in space while criminal. Im a glutton for punishment.


no
-1

Champion of the Knights of the General Discussion

Thunderdome

Faylee Freir
Slavers Union
BLACKFLAG.
#47 - 2016-12-29 01:17:26 UTC
Specia1 K wrote:
Faylee Freir wrote:
Hey CCP. Allow me to board a ship in space while criminal. Im a glutton for punishment.


no
-1

Why not?
Specia1 K
State War Academy
Caldari State
#48 - 2016-12-29 01:21:59 UTC
Faylee Freir wrote:
Specia1 K wrote:
Faylee Freir wrote:
Hey CCP. Allow me to board a ship in space while criminal. Im a glutton for punishment.


no
-1

Why not?


It was broken. CCP fixed it.
HTFU (as you say)

Champion of the Knights of the General Discussion

Thunderdome

Faylee Freir
Slavers Union
BLACKFLAG.
#49 - 2016-12-29 01:23:51 UTC
Specia1 K wrote:
Faylee Freir wrote:
Specia1 K wrote:
Faylee Freir wrote:
Hey CCP. Allow me to board a ship in space while criminal. Im a glutton for punishment.


no
-1

Why not?


It was broken. CCP fixed it.
HTFU (as you say)

What was broken about it? Sorry, I just need to ask. I too, can be a parrot.
Specia1 K
State War Academy
Caldari State
#50 - 2016-12-29 01:30:44 UTC
Faylee Freir wrote:
Specia1 K wrote:
Faylee Freir wrote:
Specia1 K wrote:
Faylee Freir wrote:
Hey CCP. Allow me to board a ship in space while criminal. Im a glutton for punishment.


no
-1

Why not?


It was broken. CCP fixed it.
HTFU (as you say)

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


Eve rewards things done well. It nerfs those done too well.
Eat the cake you rightly earned. Now put the empty bowl down, that one is gone.
Go fly a Svipul... oh waitBlink

Champion of the Knights of the General Discussion

Thunderdome

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#51 - 2016-12-29 04:25:16 UTC
Specia1 K wrote:

Eve rewards things done well. It nerfs those done too well.
Eat the cake you rightly earned. Now put the empty bowl down, that one is gone.
Go fly a Svipul... oh waitBlink


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. 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

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#52 - 2016-12-29 04:42:23 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


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.


Look the discussion of risk vs. reward was had and guess what....your side lost, well nobody defended it.

The outrageous rewards going to gankers are because some players insist on taking to much risk and creating opportunities for those rewards. The solution requires nothing from CCP. The solution is to, in the words of Dracvlad, "Stop being bad."

"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

Specia1 K
State War Academy
Caldari State
#53 - 2016-12-29 06:02:41 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Specia1 K wrote:

Eve rewards things done well. It nerfs those done too well.
Eat the cake you rightly earned. Now put the empty bowl down, that one is gone.
Go fly a Svipul... oh waitBlink


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. Roll


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

Champion of the Knights of the General Discussion

Thunderdome

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#54 - 2016-12-29 06:12:24 UTC
Specia1 K wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Specia1 K wrote:

Eve rewards things done well. It nerfs those done too well.
Eat the cake you rightly earned. Now put the empty bowl down, that one is gone.
Go fly a Svipul... oh waitBlink


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. Roll


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


Holy crap that was stupid. If they buy PLEX somebody is paying, if they stop buying PLEX then somebody is not paying. 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

Specia1 K
State War Academy
Caldari State
#55 - 2016-12-29 06:36:52 UTC
"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.

Champion of the Knights of the General Discussion

Thunderdome

Faylee Freir
Slavers Union
BLACKFLAG.
#56 - 2016-12-29 09:16:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Faylee Freir
Specia1 K wrote:
"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.

I pay to sub 7 accounts. Which one of the quoted words applies to you?
Specia1 K
State War Academy
Caldari State
#57 - 2016-12-29 11:20:25 UTC
Faylee Freir wrote:
Specia1 K wrote:
"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.

I pay to sub 7 accounts. Which one of the quoted words applies to you?


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.

Champion of the Knights of the General Discussion

Thunderdome

Specia1 K
State War Academy
Caldari State
#58 - 2016-12-29 11:24:13 UTC
Looking at the KBs for many dunks and watching the YT videos (I see you;) I would say that there are many cases of countermeasures that people are using that are ineffective.

Don't make the mistake of calling people stupid for using mechanics that have been drilled into them by prevalent freighter ganking mechanics, ie webs and scouting. You yourself argue that hyperdunking was never common, which make the countermeasures un-intuitive for most freighter pilots. Webs and scouts don't work when you don't even get to your first gate out of Jita.

It's not brain surgery unless you are a rocket scientist...

Champion of the Knights of the General Discussion

Thunderdome

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#59 - 2016-12-29 14:39:09 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Specia1 K wrote:

Eve rewards things done well. It nerfs those done too well.
Eat the cake you rightly earned. Now put the empty bowl down, that one is gone.
Go fly a Svipul... oh waitBlink


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. Roll


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.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#60 - 2016-12-29 14:40:18 UTC
Faylee Freir wrote:
I don't see it as being a broken mechanic.


People though that about remote doomsday too at some point.