These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Bowhead are too tanky

Author
AndroGon Navy
KILL MODE ACTIVATED
Pandemic Horde
#1 - 2017-07-05 20:57:02 UTC  |  Edited by: AndroGon Navy
The Bowhead is imbalanced tanky for Highsec, considering its insignificant cost, even in a very cheap T2 fit he has 500k+ EHP. And it can be 750k+ In practice, if you try hard.
(Which is Tank-Fit-JF-EHP who costs 8kkk in contrast to 1,3kkk of Bow, and yes JF in this fit has serious penalties to its load capacity)

Bowhead does not have penalties for his effectiveness in a full tank fit (Ship maintenance bay is not cut, agility penalty compensated by using MWD).
And in case you "can't scan" his cargo correctly.

He is imbalanced for Highsec. He needs nerf at least one thing:

1) Either add efficiency penalties in Full-Tank-Fit.
2) Either reduce its ability to tank (for example, remove rig slots).
3) Either add ability to scan ships fits which are in Bow.
4) Either make Price of Bow comparable to its effectiveness.

P.S. Hope I wrote it understandably, cuz English is not my native language.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#2 - 2017-07-05 21:48:18 UTC
Tried to tell them this when it first came out. Can you believe that the carebears said that even the current amount of tank wasn't high enough. They wanted it to be unprofitable to gank even when it was carrying dead space fit pirate battleships.

All freighters tank too much. Stupidity isn't punished enough and the smart lose out because of it.

Just nerf raw hp. As should have been done with the dc changes.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#3 - 2017-07-06 05:52:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Tried to tell them this when it first came out. Can you believe that the carebears said that even the current amount of tank wasn't high enough. They wanted it to be unprofitable to gank even when it was carrying dead space fit pirate battleships.

All freighters tank too much. Stupidity isn't punished enough and the smart lose out because of it.

Just nerf raw hp. As should have been done with the dc changes.

Tank too much? A ship without any defensive capability that can be ganked wiht 6 Taloses or 12 Bombers tanks too much? I scout my freighters, web my freighters, take detours with my freighters to minimize gank ability and yet I get threatened and bumped by gankers still. I wonder, which stupidity you are talking about that should be punished.

Not to mention that this person complains about a failed gank, I presume, where they selected a target that was actually prepared for the dangers in space, and now the ganker complains that people in otherwise defenseless ships can tank more than 10 Taloses. Seriously, I wonder which stupidity you are talking about...

On the killboard, I see Bowheads dying against 10 Taloses/Nagas/Bombers if they are not fitted correctly or against 26 people (which is too many people as the killmail shows no capsule of any ganker ship) if they are fitted correctly. I don't see a problem having to use at least 10 characters to engage in a criminal activity against an otherwise defenseless targets, especially since all competent ganker groups, the OP's included, have more than enough characters ready every time they gank.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

GROUND XERO
I n e r t i a
#4 - 2017-07-06 07:10:15 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Tried to tell them this when it first came out. Can you believe that the carebears said that even the current amount of tank wasn't high enough. They wanted it to be unprofitable to gank even when it was carrying dead space fit pirate battleships.

All freighters tank too much. Stupidity isn't punished enough and the smart lose out because of it.

Just nerf raw hp. As should have been done with the dc changes.

Tank too much? A ship without any defensive capability that can be ganked wiht 6 Taloses or 12 Bombers tanks too much? I scout my freighters, web my freighters, take detours with my freighters to minimize gank ability and yet I get threatened and bumped by gankers still. I wonder, which stupidity you are talking about that should be punished.

Not to mention that this person complains about a failed gank, I presume, where they selected a target that was actually prepared for the dangers in space, and now the ganker complains that people in otherwise defenseless ships can tank more than 10 Taloses. Seriously, I wonder which stupidity you are talking about...

On the killboard, I see Bowheads dying against 10 Taloses/Nagas/Bombers if they are not fitted correctly or against 26 people (which is too many people as the killmail shows no capsule of any ganker ship) if they are fitted correctly. I don't see a problem having to use at least 10 characters to engage in a criminal activity against an otherwise defenseless targets, especially since all competent ganker groups, the OP's included, have more than enough characters ready every time they gank.


this!!!!

NCPL (Necromonger of new Eden) will make EVE great again!

Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#5 - 2017-07-06 07:31:50 UTC
Trolls, a ship is what a play fits it out to be, not every bowhead is fit, not every freighter has its lows full with bulkheads, but while we at it, lets just take slots from every ship and give them 100hp to s/a/h

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith

Axure Abbacus
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2017-07-06 07:55:52 UTC
Careful what you wish for. If it hasn't been nerfed yet CCP may trade HP for combat ability and you will end up with a super orca.

It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.

Cade Windstalker
#7 - 2017-07-06 14:09:03 UTC
Couple of problems with this.

First off, you actually are trading efficiency for tank. You have the option of fitting for faster warp vs tank, most smart players go for the tank. The not-smart ones make up the vast majority of Bowhead losses on zKill.

Second, you can't tell what's actually in a Bowhead by scanning it. You can see the ships but you can't tell how they're fitted, and for what Bowheads are often used for that's *very* often the majority of their cargo. So a player can't mitigate their risk of getting ganked by carrying less in value, the majority of the value is hidden.

Lastly it's still, even with all of that EHP, possible and even probable that the Bowhead you gank will still be profitable, you just need a lot of ships to pull off the gank. Even with the current EHP it's basically impossible to make a Bowhead not profitable to gank when it's fully loaded with anything other than T1 hulls.

For example lets take the current price of a Pirate Battleship hull, which is about 800m conservatively. You can *just barely* fit three Pirate Battleships and a few smaller ships into a Bowhead. That's almost 3b just in hulls. It takes a little more than 1b in bombers to gank a Bowhead. That's ISK efficient even if the *only* thing in the Bowhead is the hulls. No rigs, no modules, nothing. If you bother to do A-type Invulns, faction DCU, and faction Bulkheads you've increased your EHP but you've actually made it easier to gank you efficiently because the EHP added doesn't offset the cost of the modules. The only thing saving the Bowhead from being nothing but gank bait is the fact that it can tank as much as it can, which makes it impractical to gank for most groups and players.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#8 - 2017-07-06 14:51:44 UTC
OP you remind me of my kids when they were little.
Daddy it is to hard to do _______ (you fill in the blank) make it easier so I do not have to work as hard.

Looking from another perspective this is so typical of the high sec PvP / ganker crowd. Your targets get smart and adapt to what you are doing which makes it harder for you to kill them. So just like those carebears here you are asking CCP to change the game to make it easier for you. You will get the same thing from me that your kind always gives those carebears, NO you cannot have changes to the game to make it easier to gank people, get smart, adapt or get out of ganking or get out of the game.

Because I am in that kind of mood this morning let us play along with your idea.
Current evidence as represented by the state of the game tells us that CCP considers the relationship between gankers and their potential targets to be balanced and like all things if you add or remove something from one side you have to add or remove from the other to maintain that balance, considering this what do your propose to add to the Bowhead to maintain the balance?
Do they get weapons to shoot you with?
Do they get reduced align times?
Do we bonus the use of a webbing alt in some way?
Do they get immunity to bumping?
Just some ideas how about yours OP?

Yes, yes I know you do not think things are balanced that is why you are asking for the changes, well as I stated above CCP seems to think things are balanced between gankers and potential targets and ultimately CCP is the only ones that really matter.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#9 - 2017-07-07 00:58:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Tried to tell them this when it first came out. Can you believe that the carebears said that even the current amount of tank wasn't high enough. They wanted it to be unprofitable to gank even when it was carrying dead space fit pirate battleships.

All freighters tank too much. Stupidity isn't punished enough and the smart lose out because of it.

Just nerf raw hp. As should have been done with the dc changes.

Tank too much? A ship without any defensive capability that can be ganked wiht 6 Taloses or 12 Bombers tanks too much? I scout my freighters, web my freighters, take detours with my freighters to minimize gank ability and yet I get threatened and bumped by gankers still. I wonder, which stupidity you are talking about that should be punished.

Not to mention that this person complains about a failed gank, I presume, where they selected a target that was actually prepared for the dangers in space, and now the ganker complains that people in otherwise defenseless ships can tank more than 10 Taloses. Seriously, I wonder which stupidity you are talking about...

On the killboard, I see Bowheads dying against 10 Taloses/Nagas/Bombers if they are not fitted correctly or against 26 people (which is too many people as the killmail shows no capsule of any ganker ship) if they are fitted correctly. I don't see a problem having to use at least 10 characters to engage in a criminal activity against an otherwise defenseless targets, especially since all competent ganker groups, the OP's included, have more than enough characters ready every time they gank.



Any freighter that gets ganked ****** up somewhere somehow. When cargo fit freighters can auto pilot through choke points without being ganked, that is stupidity going un punished. And players like you and i miss out because of it. Miners are missing out becuase of it. Industrialists are missing out because of it. Traders and so on...

10 talos is A LOT. And where you say 'any competent ganker group can get 10 peeps together' what you're really saying is 'the only gankers left are the ones who can get 10 talos for dps, a bumper, scanners and a hauler'

Which is the problem i have with ultra-safe hisec. You have to have a mid size gang to gank even the thinnest of freighters piloted by the dumbest of carebears who is working ALONE. Not good enough.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#10 - 2017-07-07 06:35:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
That's not only stupidity going unpunished, that's screwed up gameplay on part of the gankers because they let their own freighters or freighters that paid move around with AP without attacking them. Instead of punishing them, they punish freighters that actually play actively like I do just because I web and scout.
I don't see how traders, producers, miners or haulers miss out, though. Traders get their stuff delivered to sell the things elsewhere; producers get their stuff delivered to build and sell their end products; miners get their ship replacements deliverd or their minerals/ore hauled to sale/production locations; haulers have lots of business if they are faster than the autopilot people. Not to mention that they can use the AFK autopilot haulers as cover and hope they distract the bumper long enough so that they can warp off.

10 Taloses is not a lot. And it's not "only". Lots of groups can get this done: WHales must die in Niarja/Madir, some group around Eitu does it regularly, CODE obviously, CFC obviously, Russian weekend gank squads, Pandemic Horde occasionally, Pandemic Legion even. Wormhole groups like Hard Knocks Inc did it in the past with just 4 players multiboxing. Every public roam gets hundred characters in fleet easily.

There is no problem at all with having a mid-sized gang of characters (I refuse to see them as players because everything can be done with alts) to gank something as big as a freighter. If a single character could gank them (which actually is possible if you lure them into a duel with your bumper), things would be much worse than they are now.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Xzanos
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2017-07-07 12:42:48 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Tried to tell them this when it first came out. Can you believe that the carebears said that even the current amount of tank wasn't high enough. They wanted it to be unprofitable to gank even when it was carrying dead space fit pirate battleships.

All freighters tank too much. Stupidity isn't punished enough and the smart lose out because of it.

Just nerf raw hp. As should have been done with the dc changes.


Preying on the weak doesn't make you smart, even dumb animals can prey on the weak. This just makes you opportunistic.

*activates thermal hardeners for incoming flame

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#12 - 2017-07-07 14:06:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Donnachadh
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Any freighter that gets ganked ****** up somewhere somehow.

So typically arrogant of you and the rest, so let me tell you the story of a freighter lost in high sec and what was done to try to prevent it. Yes you can look, no it was not this character or the corp he is in, yes this character was involved in the freighter movement side of the situation. The other 15 players involved are all personal friends in real life running nearly 30 characters in game between us. Yes this was an experiment of sorts to see what we could actually do to protect a freighter given a coordinated effort and it was conducted as a part of planning changes to our transportation tactics and strategies. Yes I know this is a topic about the Bowhead but the same basics apply since in basic a gank is a gank. No one has tried to gank one of our Bowheads yet so I have to go with what I have.

Scouts in place on every gate two systems ahead of the freighter with each group of scouts moving ahead once the freighter entered warp. A scout that stayed one system behind the freighter all the way to it's destruction.

Webbing alts moving into position on the outgoing side of the gate as the freighter was in warp to the gate.

Characters in place to check the name and corp affiliations of the characters in local before the freighter gets to the system.

With all of this the freighter was still ganked because the gankers used newer characters (likely skilled up with skill injectors) in NPC corps as scouting, scanning, bumping alts, they even included characters to scram the freighter. So even with all of our precautions we missed them because there was no corp affiliations to track. Actual gank characters spread out, some in stations, some at deep safes, some in the neighboring systems and some in what amounts to a log off trap all positioned so they could come in as waves, even attacking (1 volley usually) after Concord had arrived. I will note that most of the first two waves of attackers were all in NPC corps again with no corp affiliations they were impossible to track and we missed them.

So what you are saying above is that with 15 players, nearly 30 characters and all the precautions we took that freighter died because we f***ed up? I don't think so. Was the situation above rare in the land of freighter ganks, I have no doubt that it was, it is uncommon to see any gank group that well organized or willing to put that many characters into a gank. But you see Daichi that's the problem with this game, CCP must balance things so that the freighter and those dedicated to protecting it have a chance against a group as organized as this one was. The negative for you and the other gankers is that when you are poorly prepared, poorly organized or not willing / able to commit the number of characters required you lose out on the gank. You know what that is as they say game working as intended. Something else, ganking a freighter should be hard and it should require the use of 10 to 15 characters, if you are not willing / able to dedicate that many characters then that is your problem to solve but it is not a problem with the game.

I am not without some compassion for your lot, and if you are willing to discuss some viable changes to the Bowhead / freighters or game mechanics to compensate for the lost EHP then let us have that discussion. On the other hand if all you want is lower EHP to make Bowhead / freighter ganks easier, well you cannot have that.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#13 - 2017-07-07 18:25:06 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:


So what you are saying above is that with 15 players, nearly 30 characters and all the precautions we took that freighter died because we f***ed up? I don't think so.


I do. Sounds like you're confusing effort with results. Saying, "Well, we made a big effort and still failed," doesn't really tell us much about level of competence exercised in executing those efforts.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Cade Windstalker
#14 - 2017-07-07 19:01:55 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:


So what you are saying above is that with 15 players, nearly 30 characters and all the precautions we took that freighter died because we f***ed up? I don't think so.


I do. Sounds like you're confusing effort with results. Saying, "Well, we made a big effort and still failed," doesn't really tell us much about level of competence exercised in executing those efforts.


Yes, but he is correct that you can do absolutely everything perfectly with a Freighter and as long as you actually undock it it's still possible to lose it despite doing everything perfectly towards the completion of your objective. Generally moving cargo from A to B.

This idea that any system in this game is a 100% sure thing to gank or not get ganked is ridiculous.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2017-07-07 19:03:52 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Tried to tell them this when it first came out. Can you believe that the carebears said that even the current amount of tank wasn't high enough. They wanted it to be unprofitable to gank even when it was carrying dead space fit pirate battleships.

All freighters tank too much. Stupidity isn't punished enough and the smart lose out because of it.

Just nerf raw hp. As should have been done with the dc changes.





I think this is the core problem. CCP messed up the balance at one point, and in that window, certain people became accustomed to being able to make a profit off ganking on a day to day basis. The bar of what was balanced and what was not was moved. Now, certain groups view it as their day to day income. In the game world, sure, they can be pirates. But when there is a crime problem (ganking is a crime), police or military responds by upping their presence. CCP can't really do that, so we have this artificially altered bar of what is 'balance.'

Ganking in the past wasn't about day in day out profit. Sure there were profitable ganks, but ganking in the past was about the gank, whether it was just because it was a hulk, or because it was fun, or just to make a statement. It's lost that in this artificial environment where the increase in crime can't really be balanced by an increase in police presence.


Ganking should NOT be a day to day source of income, because the game can't really respond to that at the moment with police mechanics. IF CCP is able to apply the BR Sotiyo test run to Concord, then sure. But as it stands, the goal posts for ganking have been shifted, and need shifted back. Choosing to gank should be about that one guy carrying 30b in a freighter, or that one person smacking in local for hours every day, or that group of miners/missioners who do nothing to protect themselves.... not just because it's profitable.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal

Cade Windstalker
#16 - 2017-07-07 19:31:57 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:
I think this is the core problem. CCP messed up the balance at one point, and in that window, certain people became accustomed to being able to make a profit off ganking on a day to day basis. The bar of what was balanced and what was not was moved. Now, certain groups view it as their day to day income. In the game world, sure, they can be pirates. But when there is a crime problem (ganking is a crime), police or military responds by upping their presence. CCP can't really do that, so we have this artificially altered bar of what is 'balance.'

Ganking in the past wasn't about day in day out profit. Sure there were profitable ganks, but ganking in the past was about the gank, whether it was just because it was a hulk, or because it was fun, or just to make a statement. It's lost that in this artificial environment where the increase in crime can't really be balanced by an increase in police presence.


Ganking should NOT be a day to day source of income, because the game can't really respond to that at the moment with police mechanics. IF CCP is able to apply the BR Sotiyo test run to Concord, then sure. But as it stands, the goal posts for ganking have been shifted, and need shifted back. Choosing to gank should be about that one guy carrying 30b in a freighter, or that one person smacking in local for hours every day, or that group of miners/missioners who do nothing to protect themselves.... not just because it's profitable.


I don't really agree with this, because ganking is still a very profitable activity at least in terms of ISK in and ISK out. Time is another thing, but certainly there seem to be enough people making a good profit ganking that it's worthwhile for them to do.

I think the problem is more the feeling espoused by Daichi and a few others, that absolutely anyone who does what they consider a "stupid thing" should be swiftly and definitely punished for it. Thus punishing "mistakes" should be made easier.

Except that risks don't really work that way. When you undock an undertanked Freighter it's a risk and that risk may or may not pay off. If every risk was instantly punished if it passes a certain threshold people would simply stop taking those risks.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#17 - 2017-07-08 06:13:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Donna, all you need is a webber. Thats it. One escort.

What i want? Lower ehp and/or increased response time of concord. The latter is my favourite as that allows defenders more time as well. What does the freighter get? More money for hauling successfully.



Ken, saying it shouldn't be profitable to gank fails to understand that it is neither ccp nor the ganker that sets the reward for the gank. The ONLY person in direct control of how profitable anything is to gank is the hauler. Freighters could have their ehp multiplied by ten tomorrow and i could fill mine with dead space mods and still be profitable to gank. The idea is to put the ehp of haulers in an area that encourages players to make meaningful choices in what they haul, where they haul it and how they haul it.

They can haul more expensive stuff through dangerous areas, but have to do it with a bit of thought.
They can haul expensive stuff afk but have to take it somewhere less profitable.
They can haul stuff afk through dangerous areas but have to sacrifice capacity.

And so on...

But that doesn't really happen. The vast majority of freighters are afk. The vast majority go to the same few systems. And i seriously doubt they make compromises on their haulage. They don't have to put much thought into anything and can afk through uedama and niarja with only a slight chance of being even noticed. Ganking has been nerfed so much that few ganking groups remain. They were all listed previously in the thread and even half of them are part timers. Ganking added value to hauling and mining, it is quite simply a very good thing for industrialists.


Cade, this threshold you speak of, we're not even close. Think of all the times ganking has been nerfed. Then think of how many players still hauled their stuff ten years ago when ganking was easier and cheaper to do. But now we have a big production/destruction gap, margins are low, mining + hauling has little to no value.

Stuff needs to die more.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#18 - 2017-07-08 08:07:21 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Stuff needs to die more.

Then tell the gankers to gank more AFK haulers but leave the active haulers alone? It is true that there are a lot of autopiloting freighters in Niarja and Uedama (I regularly see a group of 5-7 Fenrirs, since a couple of weeks a group of 4 Charons, too) autopilot through there several times a day. But CFCODE leaves them alone. If gankers were interested in just the ganking like in the old days, there wouldn't be a problem. But they are now also just interested in making a profit, the rest of the allegedly positive aspects don't matter to them anymore.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#19 - 2017-07-08 15:05:38 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
I do. Sounds like you're confusing effort with results. Saying, "Well, we made a big effort and still failed," doesn't really tell us much about level of competence exercised in executing those efforts.

Yet another who assumes we do not know what or how to do these things.
Between low, nul and high sec runs we move more than a dozen freighter loads of stuff around every month and we have done so for years, never lost a freighter until this one specific incident. Are we lucky / unlucky? No doubt that has some part to play but the volume of movements and the number of years we have been doing this tells a different story.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
Donna, all you need is a webber. Thats it. One escort.

So typically arrogant, because you have only every needed one webbing alt does not mean that everyone only needs a single webbing alt for all possible situations.
We travel systems that have very little traffic and very few characters in them because it makes tracking characters easier and it is quicker to see when / if any significant change in the number of characters in the system has occurred. Less than perfect but over the years this has proven to be the most effective way to deal with the situation. The unfortunate aspect of this is that webbing alts are easy to spot since there are so few ships sitting at the gate to counter this we try to time it so the webbing alt arrives shortly before the freighter pilot breaks gate cloak. In this specific case there was a communication breakdown and the webbing alt arrived at the gate way to early, they were spotted and no doubt ID as a webbing alt and died as a result of it. Over the years, and based on the fact that we had never needed that back up webbing alt we got complacent and to be honest stupid and committed to the move without one, lesson learned.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
What i want? Lower ehp and/or increased response time of concord. The latter is my favourite as that allows defenders more time as well. What does the freighter get? More money for hauling successfully.

The usual if they had more time the defenders would come to the aid of their freighters line of crap.
Even when there are combat capable ships at the gate during a gank no one wants to get involved they simply go on about whatever they were doing glad that they were not the target of the gank.
Responding a fleet to aid the freighter from anywhere, even somewhere inside the system would still give the gankers enough time to kill the freighter before the defense force could stop them.
All of this means that to do any good the defense force would have to fly in a fleet with the freighter. And yet if that was to happen the gankers would ignore that freighter and look for an easier target. And given the crushingly boring nature of escorting a freighter and the notoriously low patience level for boring things that most PvP pilots have one wonders if these defense fleet would actually happen.


Daichi Yamato wrote:
But that doesn't really happen. The vast majority of freighters are afk. The vast majority go to the same few systems. And i seriously doubt they make compromises on their haulage. They don't have to put much thought into anything and can afk through uedama and niarja with only a slight chance of being even noticed.

If there are all these AFK freighters for you to gank what is the problem?
An AFK freighter means you have more than enough time to cargo scan as they slow boat to the inbound side of the gate.
An AFK freighter means no webbing alts or warping out to deal with since you can catch them on the inbound side of the gate.
Even if you cannot catch them on the inbound side of the gate AFK means there will be no webbing alts to aide them into warp so a single bumping alt should be all that is needed.
Time for Concord to arrive on scene is a well documented thing.
So in the end this all comes down to the simple elementary level math needed to calculate damage over time needed to kill the target.
Also one wonders, with all of these easy target AFK freighters running amok in EvE why do the few of us that actively pilot our ships have to suffer with lower EHP and / or longer Concord response times simply because it is hard for you to kill those AFK ships?

Daichi Yamato wrote:
Ganking has been nerfed so much that few ganking groups remain. They were all listed previously in the thread and even half of them are part timers. Ganking added value to hauling and mining, it is quite simply a very good thing for industrialists.

Let us look at this in simple form.
CCP has stated that they are OK with ganking even though it was an un-intended game play style.
Even though ganking is supported they have in fact repeatedly nerfed that game play style over the years.
Simple elementary level logic applied here gives us an answer.
CCP has nerfed the ganking game play style to control how much of it is going on.
And they have nerfed it for balance, no silly not game balance I am referring to something far more important, I am referring to the cash flow balance needed for CCP to stay in business.

Yes I am aware of that fan fest presentation, I am also aware that despite that presentation and the way you and others choose to interpret what little information they presented the simple fact remains that CCP continues to nerf all of the non-consensual PvP aspects of this game why? And faced with this evidence what makes you think CCP would even consider reversing past nerfs?
Cindy the Sewer
Radiation Sickness
#20 - 2017-07-08 15:20:13 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Donna, all you need is a webber. Thats it. One escort.

What i want? Lower ehp and/or increased response time of concord. The latter is my favourite as that allows defenders more time as well. What does the freighter get? More money for hauling successfully.



Ken, saying it shouldn't be profitable to gank fails to understand that it is neither ccp nor the ganker that sets the reward for the gank. The ONLY person in direct control of how profitable anything is to gank is the hauler. Freighters could have their ehp multiplied by ten tomorrow and i could fill mine with dead space mods and still be profitable to gank. The idea is to put the ehp of haulers in an area that encourages players to make meaningful choices in what they haul, where they haul it and how they haul it.

They can haul more expensive stuff through dangerous areas, but have to do it with a bit of thought.
They can haul expensive stuff afk but have to take it somewhere less profitable.
They can haul stuff afk through dangerous areas but have to sacrifice capacity.

And so on...

But that doesn't really happen. The vast majority of freighters are afk. The vast majority go to the same few systems. And i seriously doubt they make compromises on their haulage. They don't have to put much thought into anything and can afk through uedama and niarja with only a slight chance of being even noticed. Ganking has been nerfed so much that few ganking groups remain. They were all listed previously in the thread and even half of them are part timers. Ganking added value to hauling and mining, it is quite simply a very good thing for industrialists.


Cade, this threshold you speak of, we're not even close. Think of all the times ganking has been nerfed. Then think of how many players still hauled their stuff ten years ago when ganking was easier and cheaper to do. But now we have a big production/destruction gap, margins are low, mining + hauling has little to no value.

Stuff needs to die more.


1. reducing EHP means the person carries less and less value cargo (barring stupidity) until the ship becomes useless.

2. The economics of ganking haulers so favors the ganker that defending a ship from being ganked is more an act of mercy than any financial net gain for the defenders, the gankers; however, make HUGE amounts of isk for a gank so the economics to get people on grid ganking is also HUGE. The only real and effective defense of a hauler is tanking up and carrying a value cargo below which interests gankers and even then you arent safe from LOLZ ganks.

3. The web mechanic was not an intended form of game play and balancing around it is stupid.

4. The **** most haulers are AFK, you're just making broad and completely baseless accusations about haulers which having been one for some time i KNOW isnt true. Please, dont embarrass yourself with such wild accusations and stick to facts.

5. Yes, stuff needs to die more often but it isnt in highsec it is low, wh, and nullsec where ISK flows like water but rarely does that ISK actually die in amounts anywhere near the level it is being generated. I live in nullsec and if it were not for the requirements for going on roams i would have lost exactly ZERO isk while generating about 3 billion ISK per day. So there is your problem go out there and gank because you have no interference from concord and **** needs to die out there WAY, WAY, WAY more often. Oh wait you want **** served up on a platter in easy mode killing with high profits and a very easy to calculate loss to gain ratio that HEAVILY favors you and you want that "balance, lol?" pushed even more into your favor because getting 20 guys together that want easy kills that generate huge profits must be such a taxing effort to pull off.

Searing destruction of your viewpoint is incoming and no you won't win the discussion or even walk away with anything resembling a win, so bail out early or suffer repeated embarrassments. You have been warned.

12Next page