These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

High Sec Ganking - CONCORD Balance request

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Naye Nathaniel
COBRA INC
Seventh Sanctum.
#1041 - 2017-03-02 08:18:13 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
NightmareX wrote:
And just because it's a low chance of it happening (with the Phoenix example over), shouldn't prevent the game from working better for everyone when it actually happens. Just because there might be a low chance of something happening, shouldn't prevent CCP from improving small bits of EVE here and there.

Serious question here because trolling BS is a waste of time.

If it "shouldn't prevent the game from working better for everyone", surely everyone also includes gankers?

If the risk is already small (which it is), then why should it be made even smaller and therefore harder for gankers? That doesn't seem like improving things for everyone. It seems more like improving things for only 1 group, which isn't a balanced change.


Simple - if one part of game is broken, then it should be ballanced;
As other parts working fine or need their own threads (which there are many) for ballancing ideas;

And btw u really think that ganking a freighters etc doesn't hit your gameplay?

I do advice u to watch a butterly effect - there u can find an answer;
Specia1 K
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#1042 - 2017-03-02 08:23:02 UTC
No, don't support this. And ffs, get your facts straight about Concord and FacPo...before you post.

-1

Champion of the Knights of the General Discussion

Thunderdome
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
#1043 - 2017-03-02 08:35:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Erich Einstein
Hiasa Kite wrote:
NightmareX wrote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Obligatory: Why?

Because.

It's been explained several times already. I'm not gonna spoonfeed you just because you are lazy reading what i have said.

Wrong. You have stated your opinion several times already. Here's the basic gist of the conversation so far:

YOU: Gankers should be punished more harshly
ME: Why have you come to that conclusion and why do you feel it would benefit the game?
YOU: (worded slightly differently) Gankers should be punished more harshly
ME: Yes, I got that, but why?
YOU: (worded slightly differently) Gankers should be punished more harshly
ME: Why?
YOU: (worded slightly differently) Gankers should be punished more harshly

So, are we going to move on with this conversation or are you going to endless repeat your opinion, hoping to sway the denizens of F&I with zero substance?

I'll clarify if that helps: A nerf to gankers, be it to force them to pay for sec status repairs or to force them to slow the rate at which thye suicide gank people will impact the overall rate that ganking occurs in HiSec. Some players will take the changes in stride and work harder for their ganks - just as you've proposed. However, there will be many other gankers that aren't willing to do the extra work for the same reward, reducing the overall ganking activity and making HiSec safer to some extent.

The question raised by myself and others is: How does reducing the amount of ganking improve EVE Online? How does it make it more enjoyable for its current players (and as just about every suggestion goes) how does it encourage new players to join?


Ask the freighter pilots if it's fun losing freighters and especially jump freighters. Sure there is always a risk, but when you know that freighting pays **** and gankers are not ever prevented from endless ganking, it gets not fun really fast. Now sure, if CCP wants to start handing out free Jump Freighter hulls, then by all means, gank away until your fingers fall off. This will never happen though which is why the rate a which a ganker can gank needs to be controlled.
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
#1044 - 2017-03-02 08:46:55 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:


If the risk is already small (which it is), then why should it be made even smaller and therefore harder for gankers? That doesn't seem like improving things for everyone. It seems more like improving things for only 1 group, which isn't a balanced change.


Please explain to me how you are claiming the risk is small. (Which it is) is not valid at all. I highly doubt you are going to convince anyone of this.
Naye Nathaniel
COBRA INC
Seventh Sanctum.
#1045 - 2017-03-02 09:01:30 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:


If the risk is already small (which it is), then why should it be made even smaller and therefore harder for gankers? That doesn't seem like improving things for everyone. It seems more like improving things for only 1 group, which isn't a balanced change.


Risk is small?
Ask my pants how much **** they got every time when I jump even in orca/dst in uedama gates see that flashing reds all around and blue snowflakes just finishing to kill criminals; ... and another jf/f just died;
Black Pedro
Mine.
#1046 - 2017-03-02 09:10:04 UTC
Erich Einstein wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:


If the risk is already small (which it is), then why should it be made even smaller and therefore harder for gankers? That doesn't seem like improving things for everyone. It seems more like improving things for only 1 group, which isn't a balanced change.


Please explain to me how you are claiming the risk is small. (Which it is) is not valid at all. I highly doubt you are going to convince anyone of this.

He doesn't need to convince me. I know risk is objectively small.

1. CCP Quant's January numbers show 3.1T ISK in total destruction (not just ganked freighters; all destruction) in The Forge, while ~1970T ISK was transported in or out. That's means there is a maximum loss of 0.16% to gankers there and it must, in fact just be a fraction of that due to gankers only making up a portion of that destruction.

2. Red Frog Freight failed 0.11% of their contracts last year. That was for all reasons, not just ganking.

I think flying a freighter with greater than 99.9% safety means the risk of losing one is small. In fact, I am surprised you don't agree. How safe do you think flying a freighter should be? 99.99%? 99.999%?

At what point would you call the risk "small"?



The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
#1047 - 2017-03-02 09:39:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Erich Einstein
Black Pedro wrote:

He doesn't need to convince me. I know risk is objectively small.

1. CCP Quant's January numbers show 3.1T ISK in total destruction (not just ganked freighters; all destruction) in The Forge, while ~1970T ISK was transported in or out. That's means there is a maximum loss of 0.16% to gankers there and it must, in fact just be a fraction of that due to gankers only making up a portion of that destruction.

2. Red Frog Freight failed 0.11% of their contracts last year. That was for all reasons, not just ganking.

I think flying a freighter with greater than 99.9% safety means the risk of losing one is small. In fact, I am surprised you don't agree. How safe do you think flying a freighter should be? 99.99%? 99.999%?

At what point would you call the risk "small"?



The fact that I just saw you post in another thread saying that you are a career ganker ensures me that you don't need convincing either way. Why would it be in your best interest to say the risk is high. Gankers operate on the choke points from jita to amarr, not every gate in the whole region. Stop trying to inflate your numbers with unrelavant data. And this has no bearing on how much gankers are able to walk away with and destroy every 15min of the day in a never-ending loop without ever having to repair their security status. KARMAFleet has destroyed 5trillion in people's hard-earned isk that took some serious grinding while only losing 12 billion in cheap Gank ships was lost. The OP is attempting to limit this highly unbalanced isk grab that gankers are able to get away with in a never-ending loop. It's essentially cheap mode in terms of earning isk in-game.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1048 - 2017-03-02 09:40:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Naye Nathaniel wrote:
Simple - if one part of game is broken, then it should be ballanced;
As other parts working fine or need their own threads (which there are many) for ballancing ideas;

And btw u really think that ganking a freighters etc doesn't hit your gameplay?

I do advice u to watch a butterly effect - there u can find an answer;

I hope it does affect my gameplay. Where did I ever say it doesn't?

That's what I enjoy about EVE. The challenge of everyone v everyone.

But you didn't answer the question. That reply was just a typical whine about only one side needing change, which wasn't what was asked.
Naye Nathaniel
COBRA INC
Seventh Sanctum.
#1049 - 2017-03-02 09:44:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Naye Nathaniel
Black Pedro wrote:
Erich Einstein wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:


If the risk is already small (which it is), then why should it be made even smaller and therefore harder for gankers? That doesn't seem like improving things for everyone. It seems more like improving things for only 1 group, which isn't a balanced change.


Please explain to me how you are claiming the risk is small. (Which it is) is not valid at all. I highly doubt you are going to convince anyone of this.

He doesn't need to convince me. I know risk is objectively small.

1. CCP Quant's January numbers show 3.1T ISK in total destruction (not just ganked freighters; all destruction) in The Forge, while ~1970T ISK was transported in or out. That's means there is a maximum loss of 0.16% to gankers there and it must, in fact just be a fraction of that due to gankers only making up a portion of that destruction.

2. Red Frog Freight failed 0.11% of their contracts last year. That was for all reasons, not just ganking.

I think flying a freighter with greater than 99.9% safety means the risk of losing one is small. In fact, I am surprised you don't agree. How safe do you think flying a freighter should be? 99.99%? 99.999%?

At what point would you call the risk "small"?





Oh yeah it's safe right..

BTW ganking is so much efficient that ppl even work at 11 accounts to gank ships:
Bowhead down
Obelisk down
Charon down

All of that in one single day;

3.2B items dropped;

15 ships destroyed in uedama from a single "player"

If you think it's normal ... go for a treatment.

AND btw - how do you think, how much that freigher pilot earn by a single trip - 100 mil?
That means how many trips he have to do to repay for his ship, 10-20?
How long it'll take - month?
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
#1050 - 2017-03-02 09:48:32 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:


In a balanced change, It can't be that only one side needs to be affected. If change is needed, then if you want to take something away from one side, you need to also offer them something else. That's how a balanced change works (and has been stated in similar terms by CCP Fozzie).


If something is unbalanced, it is because one side is "heavier" than the other. This means to take some away form the "heavy" side and move it to the lighter side until there is balance. I habe no idea what you are even trying to claim with this stayement.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1051 - 2017-03-02 09:49:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Erich Einstein wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:


If the risk is already small (which it is), then why should it be made even smaller and therefore harder for gankers? That doesn't seem like improving things for everyone. It seems more like improving things for only 1 group, which isn't a balanced change.


Please explain to me how you are claiming the risk is small. (Which it is) is not valid at all. I highly doubt you are going to convince anyone of this.

I don't need to convince anyone, the data is freely available. It wasn't my claim. I just agreed with the statement made by NightmareX in this post.

However, there is plenty of evidence available:

http://red-frog.org/annual-report-2015.php

It's all there is see and it's been discussed to death in the forums for the last couple of years.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1052 - 2017-03-02 09:54:36 UTC
Erich Einstein wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:


In a balanced change, It can't be that only one side needs to be affected. If change is needed, then if you want to take something away from one side, you need to also offer them something else. That's how a balanced change works (and has been stated in similar terms by CCP Fozzie).


If something is unbalanced, it is because one side is "heavier" than the other. This means to take some away form the "heavy" side and move it to the lighter side until there is balance. I habe no idea what you are even trying to claim with this stayement.

People are claiming to be calling for 'balance', but they aren't. They are doing the typical, just asking for nerfs to one side.

There has been no convincing evidence to show that things are in a bad place. Nothing that anyone can independently verify. All it's been is opinion and opinion is fine, but it doesn't mean anything. We are all entitled to our opinions.

But if people are going to argue for change, then there needs to be evidence to make an argument for change, not just emotional statements that at their core are hypocritical. They are all based on a view that only some people have a right to choose how they want to play and others don't have an equal right. That's no basis for change.
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
#1053 - 2017-03-02 09:55:24 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Erich Einstein wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:


If the risk is already small (which it is), then why should it be made even smaller and therefore harder for gankers? That doesn't seem like improving things for everyone. It seems more like improving things for only 1 group, which isn't a balanced change.


Please explain to me how you are claiming the risk is small. (Which it is) is not valid at all. I highly doubt you are going to convince anyone of this.

I don't need to convince anyone, the data is freely available. It wasn't my claim. I just agreed with the statement made by NightmareX in this post.

However, there is plenty of evidence available:

http://red-frog.org/annual-report-2015.php

It's all there is see and it's been discussed to death in the forums for the last couple of years.


This has already been discussed and redfrogs reporting of data is not exactly fact. They can report whatever they want to report because their haulers done belong to any particular Corp. This is specifically to avoid war dec mechanics on their haulers. Why would people use redfrog if they reported high loss rates. You have no idea how factual that data really is.
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
#1054 - 2017-03-02 09:59:24 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:


But if people are going to argue for change, then there needs to be evidence to make an argument for change, not just emotional statements that at their core are hypocritical. They are all based on a view that only some people have a right to choose how they want to play and others don't have an equal right. That's no basis for change.


THE fact that you won't even acknowledge the proof given by zkill is just baffling to me.

5 trillion to 12 billion is highly unbalanced no matter how you CUT it, and that's just KarmaFleet.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1055 - 2017-03-02 10:00:01 UTC
Erich Einstein wrote:
This has already been discussed and redfrogs reporting of data is not exactly fact. They can report whatever they want to report because their haulers done belong to any particular Corp. This is specifically to avoid war dec mechanics on their haulers. Why would people use redfrog if they reported high loss rates. You have no idea how factual that data really is.

Then present counter evidence.

If you want to claim the information on contracts presented in their annual reports is a lie, then there also has to be suspicion that it's being dismissed because it doesn't reinforce your own exisiting view.

There's no evidence that the information is incorrect and it's only the hauling characters that are not in red frog. Every hauler has an aly in red frog that accepts the contract and then delivers the package at the other end. The figures on completed contracts are all in red frog records.

I have an alt in red frog. I know how it works.
Naye Nathaniel
COBRA INC
Seventh Sanctum.
#1056 - 2017-03-02 10:00:52 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Naye Nathaniel wrote:
Simple - if one part of game is broken, then it should be ballanced;
As other parts working fine or need their own threads (which there are many) for ballancing ideas;

And btw u really think that ganking a freighters etc doesn't hit your gameplay?

I do advice u to watch a butterly effect - there u can find an answer;

I hope it does affect my gameplay. Where did I ever say it doesn't?

That's what I enjoy about EVE. The challenge of everyone v everyone.

But you didn't answer the question. That reply was just a typical whine about only one side needing change, which wasn't what was asked.


If you don't find the answer u like - I dont care about it;
You got your answer it just doesn't suit you well.
Naye Nathaniel
COBRA INC
Seventh Sanctum.
#1057 - 2017-03-02 10:03:19 UTC
Naye Nathaniel wrote:




BTW ganking is so much efficient that ppl even work at 11 accounts to gank ships:
Bowhead down
Obelisk down
Charon down

All of that in one single day;

3.2B items dropped;

15 ships destroyed in uedama from a single "player"

If you think it's normal ... go for a treatment.

AND btw - how do you think, how much that freigher pilot earn by a single trip - 100 mil?
That means how many trips he have to do to repay for his ship, 10-20?
How long it'll take - month?


@Scipio Artelius

Especially reposting this for you;
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1058 - 2017-03-02 10:03:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Erich Einstein wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:


But if people are going to argue for change, then there needs to be evidence to make an argument for change, not just emotional statements that at their core are hypocritical. They are all based on a view that only some people have a right to choose how they want to play and others don't have an equal right. That's no basis for change.


THE fact that you won't even acknowledge the proof given by zkill is just baffling to me.

5 trillion to 12 billion is highly unbalanced no matter how you CUT it, and that's just KarmaFleet.

Why is it unbalanced? Why is ISK value the measure of what is balanced?

You can't patch stupid. The ISK value lost is 100% player controllable. It's not a game issue and just pointing at zkill isn't itself evidence. It's just a way of telling others to go look at things you think are already true. That isn't an argument.

CCP Fozzie said it best here:

"...we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance..."

To keep things in balance....paired nerfs and buffs to keep things in balance.

But all this thread is, is a call to nerf. No consideration that 'everyone' is equal, despite the statements above. There's no equality in it. It's a view that gank victims have more of a right to their style of play than gankers do, that they have no personal responsibility for their own loss and CCP should protect them.
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
#1059 - 2017-03-02 10:04:07 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Erich Einstein wrote:
This has already been discussed and redfrogs reporting of data is not exactly fact. They can report whatever they want to report because their haulers done belong to any particular Corp. This is specifically to avoid war dec mechanics on their haulers. Why would people use redfrog if they reported high loss rates. You have no idea how factual that data really is.

Then present counter evidence.

If you want to claim the information on contracts presented in their annual reports is a lie, then there also has to be suspicion that it's being dismissed because it doesn't reinforce your own exisiting view.

There's no evidence that the information is incorrect and it's only the hauling characters that are not in red frog. Every hauler has an aly in red frog that accepts the contract and then delivers the package at the other end. The figures on completed contracts are all in red frog records.

I have an alt in red frog. I know how it works.


Sorry that's not how proof works. I only need to provide why it isn't factual and the rest is mute.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1060 - 2017-03-02 10:07:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Erich Einstein wrote:
Sorry that's not how proof works. I only need to provide why it isn't factual and the rest is mute.

Ok, then show that it isn't factual.

Not opinion. Opinions mean nothing. My opinion means nothing. No one else's opinion means anything more.

If you want to provide why it isn't factual, then provide that.