These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Balancing High Sec suicide ganking by Hull Value - a realistic approach

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Freedom Equality
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#221 - 2013-11-04 16:39:39 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Freedom Equality wrote:
Astroniomix wrote:
Freedom Equality wrote:


The victim stands to lose 1.5+bil while unable to do much as the Suicide Gankers have time to scan the ship and decide what type of damage to use and how much damage is needed.


Only if the victim is stupid and makes it easy to do.

Also no one is going to gank a 1.5 bill freighter and make a profit.

Really you should just stop playing EVE because everything in your argument is complaining about the core aspects of EVE.

1) dumb people stand to lose a lot from people smarter than them

2) plans work better with more people (and losses don't hurt as much)

And you can drop the "risk reward" bullshit. If you want risk reward then you better get going on nerfing incursions, missions, fw plexing (I've been griding FW plexes for MONTHS and haven't had a single kill or lost a ship at all yet, all while making more money in a week than these gankers make in a month)

Fact is you don't want "risk reward" you've got your panties in a bunch over "muh fewlings" because someone lost their stupid ship.


20x destroyers = 300mil fully fitted for gank. If they get half their fit back(and they usually do) the cost is now 200mil (numbers provided in this thread by Suicide Gankers, so they should know what they are talking about)

Now a freighter hull is 1bil up to 1.5bil. Just the hull. Then some cargo say 1bil and you get a 2bil-2.5bil loss for the victim.

The minimum amount needed for the gank to break even = 400ish mil in the freighter`s cargo. With a 1bil in the freighter cargo the Suicide Gankers risk 10mil per person(after the fit is recovered) while causing the Victim a 2bil-2.5bil ISK loss and gaining 40mil per person.

Battleship ganks take less destroyers(10 are enough) as they have a lot less HP(and no mission ship is buffer tanked) and only manage to get a few boosts off before they explode.

When i said 1.5bil+ i wasn`t talking about freighters alone, a pirate ship fitting some deadspace modules can only be worth 1.5bil, but it can be taken out with 10 destroyers for a nice profit.

All this in Secure Space with the guys doing the infraction earning the most while the victim loses a lot more than all 10 or 20 attackers combined.

But as you can see when the Suicide Gankers see someone trying to add some risk so they might end up losing some ISK and not always make a profit, they come here and say they actually stand to lose the most. What can i say.... LOL.


Yes, if you load up your obelisk with 1 billion in cargo you are increasing your risk of being ganked. Not alot since we are talking about cargo that is just a tad over the break even point. That is, on average if I load up my obelisk with 1 billion in cargo and some gank squad blows it up they can expect to get 500 million isk. And lets break that down, if everyone gets equal shares the ganking pilots will get about 13.25 million isk. The scout and haulers (assuming nobody shoots them) each get 20 million.

And for all those vast riches Roll, you have 25 guys making a coordinated attack plan and carrying it out. Compared to one guy who can't be arsed to even take the most basic of precautions and drop is cargo value down (i.e. make 2 trips of 500 million each) and autopilot his way to wherever while off watching netflix, playing another game, making dinner, etc.

My God...the horror of it all.


What about the mission ships? or the miners? i don`t see any mention of the risk the Suicide Gankers take when killing them.

Also, it is also about how much you risk for your payout.

The Obelisk pilot risks 1bil for the hull + 1 bil for the loot. The mission pilot also risks a lot. And yes we can talk about this as it is High Sec space. I think the difference between the ISK loss per person between the Suicide Ganker and the Victim is too much. Way too much.

Why should you be allowed to get so many 2bil+ kills with so little risk?

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#222 - 2013-11-04 16:40:10 UTC
Freedom Equality wrote:


20x destroyers = 300mil fully fitted for gank. If they get half their fit back(and they usually do) the cost is now 200mil (numbers provided in this thread by Suicide Gankers, so they should know what they are talking about)




You forgot a few ships.

Bumping machs, scouts in scanning frigates, a freighter to scoop the ganked freighters loot...

So, we infact have far more isk invested in ships for our activity than any victim.
Freedom Equality
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#223 - 2013-11-04 16:45:01 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Freedom Equality wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:



OMG this! This, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this.

If you guys would just fit a tank, much of your problems would go away. Heck you don't even have to do this if you really, really don't want too. But at least realize that EVERYTHING in Eve comes with a trade off. Don't fit a tank, more vulnerable to a suicide gank. Do fit a tank, less mining output. Play solo, you are more vulnerable as you wont have friends to help you (provide boosts, maybe logistics support, etc.). Heck even think outside the damn box, fit a skiff with a tank and a scram and then gank the gankers.

I have seen war dec corps paralyze High Sec corps where the war dec corp has 3-10 guys (say 5 on average) and the other corp 25-50 pilots, say an average of 35 pilots. That is a 7:1 ratio, the decced corp could put 2-3x the number of pilots of the field. But the high sec corps don't do any of the following:

1. Wont train skills so everyone can fly a consistent and cogent fleet doctrine.
2. Wont train skills to fit ships correctly (AWU 5 is an awesome skill, pain to train, but when done...awesome).
3. Are almost afraid to lose a ship, hello this is Eve Online, loosing a ship once in a while is mandatory if you log in and undock. Get used to it.
4. Listen to whomever is in charge of you fleet and do what they tell you to do.
5. Have combat ships on-hand.
6. When you get decced meet in a given system. Numbers is ALWAYS a force multiplier.

Then coming and raging on the forums like a bunch of pansies...why you just feed into the war dec corps and suicide gankers. They just think, "This is awesome, look at them complaining and whining!" And here is an idea...gank them right back. They are in catalysts for the love of God. Get in a catalyst and go shoot them!


Show me a good freighter fit please?

Or a Lvl 4 mission BS fit that can tank 10 destroyers shooting it.

The issue here is not that these ships are ganked and killed. The issue is that the people taking them out stand to lose 10-15mil while they stand to gain 50-100mil per person while the victim can lose a couple of Bil ISK with no possible gain.

This thread is not here to STOP Suicide Ganking.

This thread is here to ask CCP to find a way to get the Suicide Gankers to risk more ISK. That can be achieved in many ways, but something needs to happen, either allow the Victims to tanks the damage(but this would mean rebalancing a lot of ships) or just add more consequences for the Suicide Gankers.

Once it is possible for the Suicide Gankers to lose as much as the victim i will stop posting here. You have my word. It would not even be that much per person as it would be spread between 10+ Suicide Gankers. But it would be a start.




For the freighter:

Keep your cargo value at or below 700 million isk. Virtually no risk of a gank.

For the level 4 mission boat:

[Dominix, Ugly Bastard]
Large Armor Repairer II
Capacitor Power Relay II
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Armor EM Hardener II
Armor Thermic Hardener II

F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Targeting Range Script
100MN Afterburner II
Large Micro Jump Drive
Omnidirectional Tracking Link II
Omnidirectional Tracking Link II

Drone Link Augmentor II
Drone Link Augmentor II
Drone Link Augmentor II
Small Tractor Beam I
Small Tractor Beam I
[empty high slot]

Large Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Large Drone Scope Chip I
Large Sentry Damage Augmentor I


Hobgoblin II x5
Warden II x5
Garde II x5

Yes, that wont tank 10 catalysts...but it doesn't have too because that fit is never going to drop enough loot in terms of modules to be worth any gank squads time. In short, my low cost fitting is my tank.

Your thinking is just too damn limited. This is why suicide ganking should be allowed, to teach people to start thinking along lines other than, "How can I fit a tank that can with stand 10 guys in catalysts,". Your fit is such that they wont waste their time with you.


That was my point, the only way to defend yourself is to play dead.(make yourself an undesirable target)

Why should Suicide Ganking prevent people from equipping faction/deadspace modules?

Why should Suicide Ganking be the deciding factor for how much value a freighter can carry?


Do you not think it is too much to have the ENTIRE EVE POPULATION fear equipping deadspace/faction modules in High Sec?


As it stands now, null sec is SAFER than High Sec. And i don`t think that is intended. We will see what CCP says.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#224 - 2013-11-04 16:54:53 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Freedom Equality wrote:

As it stands now, null sec is SAFER than High Sec. And i don`t think that is intended. We will see what CCP says.


There are seven times more ships killed in null than in high sec despite only having 1/3 the population.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#225 - 2013-11-04 16:56:41 UTC
Freedom Equality wrote:


That was my point, the only way to defend yourself is to play dead.(make yourself an undesirable target)

Why should Suicide Ganking prevent people from equipping faction/deadspace modules?

Why should Suicide Ganking be the deciding factor for how much value a freighter can carry?


Welcome to the sandbox. That's why.

Quote:
Do you not think it is too much to have the ENTIRE EVE POPULATION fear equipping deadspace/faction modules in High Sec?

As it stands now, null sec is SAFER than High Sec. And i don`t think that is intended. We will see what CCP says.


Becasue this is a sandbox game. That is what can happen in a sandbox. If you don't like it, I suggest that perhaps you are playing the wrong game. Not trying to be a jerk here. Really. You seem to think that a players actions should not come with any repercussions. That is just not the case in a sandbox game. Just about everything you do will have an impact on other players. Even if you are an industrialist you are going to have an impact on other players with the prices you charge, the raw materials you buy up, etc. The actions that have little or no impact on other players comprise a rather short list and are particularly boring (e.g. spinning in station, sitting cloaked at a safe, etc.).

Now if perhaps you could explain how the changes you advocate would make the sandbox experience better.....

"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
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#226 - 2013-11-04 16:57:52 UTC
Freedom Equality wrote:
As it stands now, null sec is SAFER than High Sec. And i don`t think that is intended. We will see what CCP says.

This is not news.

Knowing you can rat with a blinged out fit in null has been accepted for a long time. Heck, the term ratting carriers refers to actual in game practices, not something considered crazy at all in many places.

Group effort being able to carve out superior playing conditions is an intended mechanic, so long as it actually is balanced.
(simply enough, we need balance to support gameplay as a primary aspect above all else)

Solo play is possible, but group play is rewarded.
This IS an MMO.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#227 - 2013-11-04 17:05:36 UTC
Freedom Equality wrote:


Why should you be allowed to get so many 2bil+ kills with so little risk?



You really need to try a class in probability here.

Any single freighter gank is going to carry with it risk. Your 2 billion isk freighter kill might not drop enough isk to cover the cost of suicide ganking. On average it will (i.e. if you do it ALOT). But on any single instance it could result in a loss.

Of course, the higher the cargo value, then there may be an increased chance of having a profitable drop (that is, if higher cargo value equates to more items)....but then we are talking about people who are taking greater and greater risks. If you put 2 billion isk worth of stuff in your freighter you are really asking for it. 3 billion and you are being really stupid. 4 billion...uninstall for the love of God!

The bottom line is: the more risk you take...the more likely it is you'll suffer a loss. So take risks that are commensurate with what you are willing to lose. That is a generalization of rule 1 in Eve: Don't fly what you can't afford to lose. Generalizing that I'd say: don't risk what you can't afford to lose.

"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
Mag's
Azn Empire
#228 - 2013-11-04 17:20:14 UTC
Still waiting for those numbers and citations requested.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#229 - 2013-11-04 17:22:42 UTC
Freedom Equality wrote:
Why should you be allowed to get so many 2bil+ kills with so little risk?
I thought you said it was no risk?

It seems you are making it up as you post.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Freedom Equality
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#230 - 2013-11-04 17:22:57 UTC
I am not discussing if Suicide Ganking should be allowed. It should be, no doubt.

I am saying Suicide Gankers fly disposable ships while their victims have to fly much higher value ships to get their job done.

Either force the gankers to upgrade to battleships or just impose some kind of mechanic to make them actually risk something.

It is clear that the current mechanic is not enough as we have Suicide Gank corporations saying they are only doing it for profit.

So sure let them gank whatever they want as it is now, but make them able to lose real ISK, not pocket change.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#231 - 2013-11-04 17:26:00 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Freedom Equality wrote:
(stuff)


Did you read his comment? He isn't really agreeing with you. He is pointing out if you are insistent on flying solo you are ALWAYS going to be at risk to groups of players.

So you should be with a group of players too, is what he is saying. Not make punishments for being a suicide ganker more severe.


Actually, my point was that whining a warship (cheap or not) is able to destroy a freighter is pretty stupid, since you can apparently take one over (IRL) with a rowboat and 5 dudes with AK 47s (granted there's not much in the "take over" mechanics for EVE).

You're not exactly going to *sink* the freighter with AKs ... but a few well placed RPGs would ... and those aren't really out of the question for these "pirates" in their $500 rowboat (though, unlike EVE, sinking a vessel IRL pretty much means all the stuff is gone)

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Freedom Equality
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#232 - 2013-11-04 17:28:11 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Freedom Equality wrote:
Why should you be allowed to get so many 2bil+ kills with so little risk?
I thought you said it was no risk?

It seems you are making it up as you post.


:-) You must be really out of ideeas.

You need 1 successful gank to make up for 4 failed ganks. Your victim needs a much longer time to recover.

Speaking in ISK, there is NO risk as you only need a 20% success rate to break even.

Now imagine if level 4 missions had that.... or hauling... where if a freighter makes it safe 20% of the time it can recover.


Stop hiding friend, Suicide Ganking is done because it is very easy and you can`t end up losing ISK as i am sure even a monkey can get a 20% success rate going.


Now ask the people doing PVP in low sec/null sec if they break even killing one target and getting killed 4 times. You already know the answer...

So i say more risk for the PVP Carebears of High Sec, the Suicide Gankers.
Freedom Equality
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#233 - 2013-11-04 17:29:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Freedom Equality
Velicitia wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Freedom Equality wrote:
(stuff)


Did you read his comment? He isn't really agreeing with you. He is pointing out if you are insistent on flying solo you are ALWAYS going to be at risk to groups of players.

So you should be with a group of players too, is what he is saying. Not make punishments for being a suicide ganker more severe.


Actually, my point was that whining a warship (cheap or not) is able to destroy a freighter is pretty stupid, since you can apparently take one over (IRL) with a rowboat and 5 dudes with AK 47s (granted there's not much in the "take over" mechanics for EVE).

You're not exactly going to *sink* the freighter with AKs ... but a few well placed RPGs would ... and those aren't really out of the question for these "pirates" in their $500 rowboat (though, unlike EVE, sinking a vessel IRL pretty much means all the stuff is gone)


That might work too, if any target Suicide Ganked in High Sec drops no loot. Or the loot is confiscated by CONCORD.

This would of course not apply to any kill where CONCORD doesn`t show up.(IE: legit kills, between war targets/kill rights etc)

It was mentioned before and it is a good idea!
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#234 - 2013-11-04 17:31:46 UTC
Freedom Equality wrote:
I am not discussing if Suicide Ganking should be allowed. It should be, no doubt.

I am saying Suicide Gankers fly disposable ships while their victims have to fly much higher value ships to get their job done.


All ships in the game are disposable. No ship is above being killed. None.

Quote:
Either force the gankers to upgrade to battleships or just impose some kind of mechanic to make them actually risk something.

It is clear that the current mechanic is not enough as we have Suicide Gank corporations saying they are only doing it for profit.

So sure let them gank whatever they want as it is now, but make them able to lose real ISK, not pocket change.


Force? You do understand that this is a Sandbox. That means players, by and large, determine how and what they want to do. If 150 of them decide to get together and gank every freighter coming through a gate they can...then...they can.

Not allowing this means the game is no longer a Sandbox.


And let me ask this, why should the suicide gank pilots be forced to increase what they are risking when at the same time the PvE pilot who is not being forced to risk anything gets let off the hook?

"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
#235 - 2013-11-04 17:40:15 UTC
Freedom Equality wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Freedom Equality wrote:
(stuff)


Did you read his comment? He isn't really agreeing with you. He is pointing out if you are insistent on flying solo you are ALWAYS going to be at risk to groups of players.

So you should be with a group of players too, is what he is saying. Not make punishments for being a suicide ganker more severe.


Actually, my point was that whining a warship (cheap or not) is able to destroy a freighter is pretty stupid, since you can apparently take one over (IRL) with a rowboat and 5 dudes with AK 47s (granted there's not much in the "take over" mechanics for EVE).

You're not exactly going to *sink* the freighter with AKs ... but a few well placed RPGs would ... and those aren't really out of the question for these "pirates" in their $500 rowboat (though, unlike EVE, sinking a vessel IRL pretty much means all the stuff is gone)


That might work too, if any target Suicide Ganked in High Sec drops no loot. Or the loot is confiscated by CONCORD.


Concord confiscating the loot drop would effectively stop suicide ganking. So much for your claims you think it should continue.

Same for no loot dropping. It would put an end to suicide ganking.

Again so much for you claims of wanting suicide ganking to be part of the game.

You can drop that fiction now. Roll

Quote:
This would of course not apply to any kill where CONCORD doesn`t show up.(IE: legit kills, between war targets/kill rights etc)

It was mentioned before and it is a good idea!


All kills are legitimate. Some just anticipate the response by Concord and behave accordingly--i.e. pick the lower security systems, use more people if necessary, and so forth.

Suicide ganking is basically a rational response to people take on too much risk.

"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
Freedom Equality
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#236 - 2013-11-04 17:53:24 UTC
Sure. Just make it be unprofitable on occasion. Like on a month to month basis.

I am sure every other profession has bad months, like people in High Sec getting Suicide Ganked, the ratters going to war and losing more ISK than they make and so on.

Even under perfect condition all professions can have a bad month. Except Suicide Ganking. That needs to be fixed.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#237 - 2013-11-04 17:56:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Velicitia
Freedom Equality wrote:
Velicitia wrote:


Actually, my point was that whining a warship (cheap or not) is able to destroy a freighter is pretty stupid, since you can apparently take one over (IRL) with a rowboat and 5 dudes with AK 47s (granted there's not much in the "take over" mechanics for EVE).

You're not exactly going to *sink* the freighter with AKs ... but a few well placed RPGs would ... and those aren't really out of the question for these "pirates" in their $500 rowboat (though, unlike EVE, sinking a vessel IRL pretty much means all the stuff is gone)


That might work too, if any target Suicide Ganked in High Sec drops no loot. Or the loot is confiscated by CONCORD.

This would of course not apply to any kill where CONCORD doesn`t show up.(IE: legit kills, between war targets/kill rights etc)

It was mentioned before and it is a good idea!


Ugh, this is why RL analogies are bad.

RL Pirate -> board ship, take loot, maybe steal hull too (or sink it after taking the loot).

There is no mechanic in EVE (esp in hisec) wherin a pirate can force the "crew" (i.e. another capsuleer) to abandon their freighter. So, the only way to get at the juicy loot inside is to blow it up.

I wouldn't be opposed to "no more loot drops for [hisec] exploding ship piracy" IF AND ONLY IF the pirates had something that would force me to eject. It will take 60 seconds* to hack the target and force the capsuleer out. Furthermore, this module only garners the user a suspect flag

[Clairvoyance]
But then you'd ***** that this module was able to be fitted to frigates (or something) and that the pirates now are "risking" 500k worth of ships to:
1. steal a freighter hull worth a billion isk
2. steal approx. 900k m3 of goods worth an additional billion ISK.
[/Clairvoyance]



*totally made up number.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Velicitia
XS Tech
#238 - 2013-11-04 18:07:24 UTC
Freedom Equality wrote:


Even under perfect condition all professions can have a bad month. Except Suicide Ganking. That needs to be fixed.



funny, under "perfect conditions" I don't think I've ever had a "bad month" at anything.

worst month I had was evac from Delve in '09 ... but then again "BoB not paying their alliance bill" isn't exactly "perfect conditions" now, is it?

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Aldanar Vorlax
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#239 - 2013-11-04 18:07:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Aldanar Vorlax
What I will add to this. Ganking Maruaders will be getting an enforced nerf anyway in Rubicon. The HP increase means it will now take an extra tornado to kill marauders and if destroyer/bombers gangs try to kill one. Bastion up - overload - laugh. So missioning wise anyway it will only be people running with 600mil+ fits that will probably be ganked, maybe even a higher threshold. So I can't argue with the cost anymore or costing not much to gank one anymore. Atleast they can now defend themselves Smile
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#240 - 2013-11-04 18:22:53 UTC
Freedom Equality wrote:
Sure. Just make it be unprofitable on occasion. Like on a month to month basis.

I am sure every other profession has bad months, like people in High Sec getting Suicide Ganked, the ratters going to war and losing more ISK than they make and so on.

Even under perfect condition all professions can have a bad month. Except Suicide Ganking. That needs to be fixed.



Under perfect conditions....nope as another poster noted, I never lost isk in those months.

Funny, I have never lost a JF, freighter, or mission ship to suicide ganking. Aside from Burn Jita I haven't even seen it happen (I know it does, I'm just saying I've never seen it happen).

So why have periodic months where you force losses on suicide ganking.

And lets look at this issue:

PvE pilot has considerable control of the risk they face. They can select their fits after all when doing missions. The freighter pilot can select how high a cargo value to carry. The miner can opt to fit a tank vs. for mining output. But ITT thread the OP is arguing they should not have to face this issue, at all.

On the other hand, the suicide gank squad that has planned and formed a group and done some work, they must face increased risk...so that their target can face less risk.

Do we understand you correctly Freedom Equality?

I know, you'll ignore that question because the answer would be problematic for your position.

"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