These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Jump Freighter Ganking - CCP what you will do against this???

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#261 - 2013-07-03 14:34:49 UTC
Inokuma Yawara wrote:
*sigh*

Isn't the whole point of EVE online that "someone is going to blow you up, so look out"?


THIS

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#262 - 2013-07-03 14:34:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Phish wrote:
Honestly it is a very stupid mechanic. To let a bunch of ships that total less then 30M kill a freighter. There needs to be a way to fight back on the freighters side, so if your AFK your dead but if your active and there you can so something with at least a chance of saving your ship. (a chance, doesn't have to be 100%, but at least 50% would be nice)



Whereas the value of a hull should have an idea of how well it can perform... the value of the ships don't really have anything to do with its' roles (in other fields-edit-).

A sentinel can ewar a helluva lot better than an Abaddon for instance.

My pilgrim I use as a fun hostile territory blockade runner can never freight my pi better than a freighter, but it can transverse my movements better and safer, at the cost of more trips.

Point being... cost doesn't have anything to do with this scenario.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Nox Solitudo
That Random Worker Ant Colony
#263 - 2013-07-03 14:39:33 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

I believe that EvE should be a difficult game. It should take effort to kill a multi-billion isk ship. Being able to kill freighters and other high value targets in high sec in seconds, with a bunch of low skilled alts for giggles devalues EvE. Why put in effort and pay 50 - 500 mill wardecs to hunt targets, or pirate in low or null and hunt targets and in turn be hunted when you can just sit safely and immune in high ganking multi billion isk freighters / jump freighters risk free.


Then do something and don't be vulnerable?

I believe that EVE should be a difficult game. It should be dangerous to transport anything very valuable in a multi-billion isk ship.
Cool
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#264 - 2013-07-03 14:43:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
Well no. By your own my logic a warp bubble should be able to drag into a pos based on the fact when you are in warp you can go through planets.
No, based on your logic, it should be able to drag through a POS, not into it — the shields should keep you out. In the case of overlap, you should arrive just outside the shield.

Also, fixed your attribution error.

Quote:
But it created an unfair advantage and wrongful manipulation of the sandbox tools at our disposal, so CCP did away with that element. Because it wasn't "meant to be used in that way".
Weeeell… It created a situation where one tool completely obliterated one of the key points of another: POS shields were meant to protect the people and stuff inside until the POS was brought down; bubbles circumvented this. Yes, we could get into a semantic argument about the minute differences between “circumvent” and “counter”, but let's not. The counter to POS shields were Dreadnoughts, and they did exactly that: they provided a tool to counter the other side's tool — they did not circumvent it and render it pointless.

Bubbles were not meant to be a circumvention tool for the POS tool, because circumvention is just overall bad — had they merely countered the POS shields in some odd way, it's possible that the tactic could have stayed in.
Maximillian German
Task Force Coalition
#265 - 2013-07-03 15:47:37 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
1. Very highrisk
LMAO no. If it were, they'd be dying all over the place. They aren't.
So we'll put that down as very low to no risk as well.

BALANCE!

They die in high a lot. Undocking and using jumpdrive is safe but piloting them around high is very dangerous due to epeen gankers in cheap dessies.

To the poster before you the gank ship is not put at risk - its purpose is to die.


Your definition of risk is so ****** ******* subjective that it physically pains me to read your idiotic posts.

risk [risk]
noun
1.
exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance


Just because you plan to suicide you ship when you gank, doesn't mean there is no risk. Allow me to count the ways:

1. You lose your ship. Is it intended? yea. Does it expose you the the chance of injury of loss? No ****, of course it does

2. You lose standing. "B-b-but Max", you whine, "can't you avoid letting your standing drop to a level that will harm you?" Why of course I can, but to do so I must invoke the ancient art of 'Planning' to mitigate my risk. More on that later.

3. Someone gains killrights on you that can be activated at any time. This risk follows you around even after the gank. Can't alts mitigate some of this risk? yes, but you would have to once again invoke the ancient art of 'planning'. Plus, the train to get a new character into a freighter ganking ship(brutix, nado, etc) will cost you in plex

4. And finally, there is the very real risk that the target will escape and you will have lost ships for nothing. This, too, can be mitigated via proper planning.

Now, I know many people say that carebears have lost their ability to invoke the ritual of planning, but I say NAY! I believe in you, carebears! I believe that you can find a friend or an alt to create an escape cyno! I believe that you can scout ahead for gank gangs! I BELIEVE that you can web your freighters to get them off of the gate quicker. I believe. I know that gangers have it easy. After all, all they have to do is put together a fleet of bumpers and gankers, and coordinate them such that they run through the entirety of your hp in the span of about 20 seconds. Easy right? Compared to them, yours is a monumental task. Yet I believe in your ingenuity. YOU CAN DO IT CAREBEARS! I BELIEVE IN YOU!
/sarcasm
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#266 - 2013-07-03 15:50:34 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Well no. By your own my logic a warp bubble should be able to drag into a pos based on the fact when you are in warp you can go through planets.
No, based on your logic, it should be able to drag through a POS, not into it — the shields should keep you out. In the case of overlap, you should arrive just outside the shield.

Also, fixed your attribution error.

Quote:
But it created an unfair advantage and wrongful manipulation of the sandbox tools at our disposal, so CCP did away with that element. Because it wasn't "meant to be used in that way".
Weeeell… It created a situation where one tool completely obliterated one of the key points of another: POS shields were meant to protect the people and stuff inside until the POS was brought down; bubbles circumvented this. Yes, we could get into a semantic argument about the minute differences between “circumvent” and “counter”, but let's not. The counter to POS shields were Dreadnoughts, and they did exactly that: they provided a tool to counter the other side's tool — they did not circumvent it and render it pointless.

Bubbles were not meant to be a circumvention tool for the POS tool, because circumvention is just overall bad — had they merely countered the POS shields in some odd way, it's possible that the tactic could have stayed in.



Almost sounds like you don't like the term sandbox...

Hard for you to admit to anything isn't it?

I simply used your own theories against you and you take them seriously.

You don't need to argue, or even worry about semantics, I'm glad they fixed it.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
darmwand
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#267 - 2013-07-03 16:11:59 UTC  |  Edited by: darmwand
I have to admit that I don't care enough to read the whole 14 pages but I would imagine a JF to be pretty much impossible to gank if flown right, i.e. cyno to a low-sec station near your destination and contract the cargo to Black Frog. Of course flying one through ordinary jump gates is very much missing the point of having a JF in the first place.

Also, if you don't think this is "acceptable PvP", what is? The ability to lose your transport ship, mining barge etc. is the "risk" in the whole "risk vs. reward" thing. After all, if there were no risk, why should areas where Jump Freighters make sense come with more / better rewards than high-sec?

"The pen is mightier than the sword if the sword is very short, and the pen is very sharp."
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#268 - 2013-07-03 16:15:20 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Almost sounds like you don't like the term sandbox...
How so?

Quote:
Hard for you to admit to anything isn't it?
Not particularly, no.

Quote:
I simply used your own theories against you and you take them seriously.
…except that it wasn't my theory. I pointed out that POS shields were meant to keep people out and that clever bubble placement circumvented this, which they were not meant to do. You added some oddball theory of your own based on the unconnected fact that you can warp through planets (which isn't particularly strange — you can fly through them too).
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#269 - 2013-07-03 17:04:05 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Phish wrote:
Honestly it is a very stupid mechanic. To let a bunch of ships that total less then 30M kill a freighter. There needs to be a way to fight back on the freighters side, so if your AFK your dead but if your active and there you can so something with at least a chance of saving your ship. (a chance, doesn't have to be 100%, but at least 50% would be nice)



Whereas the value of a hull should have an idea of how well it can perform... the value of the ships don't really have anything to do with its' roles (in other fields-edit-).

A sentinel can ewar a helluva lot better than an Abaddon for instance.

My pilgrim I use as a fun hostile territory blockade runner can never freight my pi better than a freighter, but it can transverse my movements better and safer, at the cost of more trips.

Point being... cost doesn't have anything to do with this scenario.

Cost is a big factor in MMOs because it balances the game. Theres a reason freighters were introduced in game with huge (at the time) EHP. They were expensive ships and so to gank one one needed to sacrifice a large number of expensive battleships. If cost wasnt a factor they would have had 10000 EHP and you could have ganked then with a couple of cruisers.

Since they were introduced changes have made them gankable with a lot less ships than originally intended. Changes have also made their contents scannable where before with containers they couldnt be. The cost has been drastically reduced and an imbalance makes them quite pointless to use to transport valusble bulk cargo - the role they are intended to perform.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#270 - 2013-07-03 17:05:34 UTC
Any chance you can explain how you gank a freighter without risk please?


"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Istyn
Freight Club
#271 - 2013-07-03 17:07:20 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
imbalance makes them quite pointless to use to transport valusble bulk cargo - the role they are intended to perform.


That explains why they're so rare nowadays.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#272 - 2013-07-03 17:11:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Cost is a big factor in MMOs because it balances the game.
…except that cost is not a balancing factor. It is a product of balance, not a factor in it. It might have been in ancient time, back before CCP learned that perennial truth the hard way with Titans, but just because they might have incorrectly believed it was, doesn't mean it actually was.

Quote:
The cost has been drastically reduced and an imbalance makes them quite pointless to use to transport valusble bulk cargo - the role they are intended to perform.
Close, but not quite. Their role is to transport bulk cargo, not valuable cargo. You have Transports to deal with that particular logistical segment. Freighters are excellent for this particular task.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#273 - 2013-07-03 17:13:31 UTC
Maximillian German wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
1. Very highrisk
LMAO no. If it were, they'd be dying all over the place. They aren't.
So we'll put that down as very low to no risk as well.

BALANCE!

They die in high a lot. Undocking and using jumpdrive is safe but piloting them around high is very dangerous due to epeen gankers in cheap dessies.

To the poster before you the gank ship is not put at risk - its purpose is to die.


Your definition of risk is so ****** ******* subjective that it physically pains me to read your idiotic posts.

risk [risk]
noun
1.
exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance


Just because you plan to suicide you ship when you gank, doesn't mean there is no risk. Allow me to count the ways:

1. You lose your ship. Is it intended? yea. Does it expose you the the chance of injury of loss? No ****, of course it does

2. You lose standing. "B-b-but Max", you whine, "can't you avoid letting your standing drop to a level that will harm you?" Why of course I can, but to do so I must invoke the ancient art of 'Planning' to mitigate my risk. More on that later.

3. Someone gains killrights on you that can be activated at any time. This risk follows you around even after the gank. Can't alts mitigate some of this risk? yes, but you would have to once again invoke the ancient art of 'planning'. Plus, the train to get a new character into a freighter ganking ship(brutix, nado, etc) will cost you in plex

4. And finally, there is the very real risk that the target will escape and you will have lost ships for nothing. This, too, can be mitigated via proper planning.

Now, I know many people say that carebears have lost their ability to invoke the ritual of planning, but I say NAY! I believe in you, carebears! I believe that you can find a friend or an alt to create an escape cyno! I believe that you can scout ahead for gank gangs! I BELIEVE that you can web your freighters to get them off of the gate quicker. I believe. I know that gangers have it easy. After all, all they have to do is put together a fleet of bumpers and gankers, and coordinate them such that they run through the entirety of your hp in the span of about 20 seconds. Easy right? Compared to them, yours is a monumental task. Yet I believe in your ingenuity. YOU CAN DO IT CAREBEARS! I BELIEVE IN YOU!
/sarcasm

Yeah before you start calling people idiots you should try using that little thing inside your skull. Your dictionary definition has the word "chance" in it. When you use a tool (the gank ship in this instance) intending to destroy it, and you accept the resulting sec loss as a given then it becomes an expense, not a risk. Risk is the possibility of, not expense of.

By your own definition firing a weapon and expending ammo, or activating an ASB is a risk. Heres a clue, your wrong.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#274 - 2013-07-03 17:15:28 UTC
citation needed on developer intention of need of battleships to gank freighters due to cost of freighter at release, intention of number and type of ships to gank freighter at release, intention of cargo containers to be unscannable (especially since they were either always or have been changed to be scannable)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#275 - 2013-07-03 17:18:07 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
When you use a tool (the gank ship in this instance) intending to destroy it, and you accept the resulting sec loss as a given then it becomes an expense, not a risk. Risk is the possibility of, not expense of.
Expenses are still risks.

Risk is cost × probability. Just because the probability happens to be 1 doesn't mean it's not a risk.

…oh, and the probability isn't 1.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#276 - 2013-07-03 17:23:53 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
citation needed on developer intention of need of battleships to gank freighters due to cost of freighter at release, intention of number and type of ships to gank freighter at release, intention of cargo containers to be unscannable (especially since they were either always or have been changed to be scannable)

No citation needed. You could only gank them with many battleships. EHP has always been a balancing factor. Its why big expensive ships have lots and little inexpensive ships have little.

When freighters were released it was common usage to hide cargo in cans. Cargo containers didn't show contents.

@Tippia - a full freighter with non-faction non-deadspace modules and T1 ships is valuable bulk cargo. Its not that special value of modules that make bulk cargo valuable its the "bulk" part of the cargo that does.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#277 - 2013-07-03 17:28:54 UTC
no i'm pretty sure claims need to be backed up. i'm not only asking for an indication bs were needed but intention of bs to be needed and intention of bs requirement to gank due to respective costs of the ships.

and the fact that cargo containers were changed to be scannable indicates that the unscannability of cargo containers was considered to be unbalanced.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#278 - 2013-07-03 17:31:46 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
When you use a tool (the gank ship in this instance) intending to destroy it, and you accept the resulting sec loss as a given then it becomes an expense, not a risk. Risk is the possibility of, not expense of.
Expenses are still risks.

Risk is cost × probability. Just because the probability happens to be 1 doesn't mean it's not a risk.

…oh, and the probability isn't 1.

A risk is only a risk if it has chance in it. A certainty of loss is not a risk its a choice. If I want to gank player A for giggles and I know I will lose 100 mill doing it but ganking player A is worth the loss then I am not taking a risk. I am losing 100 mill in expenses but obviously ganking player A is worth more to me than 100 mill so I choose to do it. I risk nothing unless I fail to gank player A and lose my 100 mill.

Since these ganks cannot fail, EvE is not chance based except for ECM there is no risk or at least its so negligible its not a factor.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#279 - 2013-07-03 17:34:51 UTC
Quote:
Since these ganks cannot fail,
yes they can Straight
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#280 - 2013-07-03 17:36:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Infinity Ziona wrote:
A risk is only a risk if it has chance in it.
Nope. A risk is any cost (including negative ones) that can have a probaility value attached to it. If that probability happens to come out as 1, it just makes it a very high risk. The only way for it to be no risk is if we equate zero risk (cost = 0 or probability = 0) with “no” risk, but strictly speaking, that's still a risk at a value of zero.

Quote:
Since these ganks cannot fail
…except that they can. So: since these ganks can fail, and since there's even the chance that you won't lose your ship in the process, the probability isn't 1 to begin with, so even with a limited definition of risk where p<1, it's still a risk.

Oh, and if you think that ECM is the only chance-based mechanic in EVE, you've just disqualified yourself from talking about… oh… EVE. Almost all of it. You need to read up a bit first.