These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Kronos] Blockade Runner Rebalance

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#341 - 2014-05-22 01:26:51 UTC
[reposted because I previously quoted a rule-breaking oost that was removed by ISD Ezwal]

James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Again, why?
Why do you people want this bonus so bad, this bonus that you don't even need?


Because it's funny seeing Goons complaining that high sec income isn't high enough or safe enough?

Before demanding that I learn to accept your opinion as gospel truth, and suggesting that people who disagree with you are fools, you might want to try being a little more polite on the forums. Also try presenting your opinion as your opinion, and the two of you could learn to perform basic research before making bizarre claims such as "BR never get ganked." This is especially the case when you are accusing other players of failing at basic reading comprehension. Pick the log out of your own eye before picking the splinter out of the other's eye, and all that.

BR do get ganked even though they are unscannable. It is profitable to gank them even though they are unscannable. If the pilot is at the keyboard and actively attempting to avoid ganking, you are not going to catch them and whether or not you can scan their cargo is a moot point. If they are AFK you can gank them easily enough, and the gameplay element comes from the gamble: are they carrying something worthwhile or are they empty? Have a look at Somer.BLINK or any other gambling site: the entire gameplay is that you don't know whether you're going to win or not. People still buy tickets. BR ganking is just the "scratch-and-win lotto" of the ganking world. There's your gameplay.

Your insistence that BRs be scannable does raise other questions though: obviously there are enough BRs passing through your gate camp on autopilot that you feel the need to complain about their unscannable cargo holds. This leads me to believe that you are so risk averse that you aren't even going to buy the scratch-and-win ticket, much less buy a bunch of them to see what the odds actually are. Perhaps you have been living too long with the comfortable reassurance of a go/no go calculator that you can't even conceive a world where people blow stuff up for fun?

As I stated earlier in the thread, I don't see the sense in customs officers being able to scan the cargo holds if players can't. On the other hand, CONCORD does have access to "magic level" technology that allows patrols to arrive instantaneously and their ships have incredible firepower, so a super-cargo-scanner is not out of the question. I also stated that I am fully in support of CCP realising the rumoured feature of having customs officers simply flag a smuggler as suspect, allowing players to apply the punishment. IMHO this will make smuggling an exciting career option: there will now be a purpose to having an instant-lock gang as part of your hi sec gate camp. Of course the smugglers-flagged-as-suspect gameplay doesn't depend on unscannable cargo holds.

Now take my previous statements into account and ask yourself, "does Mara Rinn support unscannable cargo holds or not?" Be careful answering that question since I've already indicated that I am changing my opinion due to your participation in this discussion. Keep calling me names, keep complaining about the unacceptable risk of ganking BRs in the hopes of finding something profitable, and you keep encouraging people to support unscannable cargo holds.

Please help me find reasons to support your perspective.

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Justin Cody
War Firm
#342 - 2014-05-22 02:34:46 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Dehval wrote:
Is there still a reason we have the unscannable cargo on these ships?

A good blockade runner pilot won't be decloaked long enough to be locked, let alone scanned, making the role bonus rather pointless.


There never was any reason in the first place, it's an incredibly annoying penalty for the ships. It essentially prevents you from AFKing around highsec on AP because of the danger from being ganked. It's the worst thought-out "bonus" on any ship I've seen. The active tank ones may be worthless, but at least they're not active damaging to you. Ugh


poor baby doesn't have the ability to click the gate and click the "jump button". If you aren't a troll and based on this being a repeated post without any real ranting... then you're just a lazy player who wants ccp to cater to his whims.

Tell ya what. if I do see your blockade runner in space...I'll gank it free of charge empty or not. Heck I've sat off station in amarr from the ashab warp in with an insta-lock thrasher just waiting for that *one* pod to land out of dock range (despite clicking warp to 0) just to kill that random person who I had nothing against. I was doing it for the tears and possibly an expensive pod.

Since I can't scan pods...well I take my chances don't I? I'm ok with this. You should be too. I lost a 1M isk thrasher and got a kill right as a result (which by the way was later activated on me in dodixie resulting in a ship and pod loss thanks to CCP's still not deployed brain in a box).

Anyhow consider this: "Decisions -> Consequences". You decided to undock (now a target), then you decided separately to autopilot (omg juicy easy picking target). You've made your bed now lie in it.

As to why unscannable? Yes the orca replacement was part of it, but there has been (since before incarna) the idea that there will be the removal of NPC Customs Police in exchange for more player policing using ship scanners to flag someone for pvp due to contraband smuggling. Blockade Runners were supposed to be an answer to that too but since the whole (WIS) thing is still on the soon(tm) train...it (player owned kiosks) hasn't emerged.

So two very important reasons.
Justin Cody
War Firm
#343 - 2014-05-22 02:36:35 UTC
Also its not a penalty...it is a bonus if you understand game design.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#344 - 2014-05-22 03:21:41 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
[reposted because I previously quoted a rule-breaking oost that was removed by ISD Ezwal]

James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Again, why?
Why do you people want this bonus so bad, this bonus that you don't even need?


Because it's funny seeing Goons complaining that high sec income isn't high enough or safe enough?

Nobody said that.

Mara Rinn wrote:
Before demanding that I learn to accept your opinion as gospel truth, and suggesting that people who disagree with you are fools, you might want to try being a little more polite on the forums. Also try presenting your opinion as your opinion, and the two of you could learn to perform basic research before making bizarre claims such as "BR never get ganked."

Nobody said that.

Mara Rinn wrote:
BR do get ganked even though they are unscannable. It is profitable to gank them even though they are unscannable.

Prove it.
It's not overall profitable to gank them because:

  • A fair few people do fly them manually when they're carrying cargo but autopilot them when they're empty
  • You have no means of differentiating between empty BR and BR that's carrying something.
  • Even if it is carrying something, it's still subject to the 50% drop rate that every other ship ever is subject to.


Mara Rinn wrote:
If the pilot is at the keyboard and actively attempting to avoid ganking, you are not going to catch them and whether or not you can scan their cargo is a moot point.

That's the first decent thing you've said.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#345 - 2014-05-22 03:25:23 UTC
Myrthiis wrote:
Well i didn't link anything,but anyone can go on zkillboard>class>blockade runner and see by himself ,there is no gambling in suicide ganking BR the fact that you need t2 cats to do it ,or that the cargo didn't drop as nothing to do with "unscannability".

The only reason you want the characteristic to be removed is only to scan juicy multibillion ones to brag to your friends .There is nothing related to game design or game balance in your propaganda.You just want the whole blanket for yourself Roll

And to finish i didn't ask protection to CCP,they are the one who come first with this design .And until now you fail to give an argument who make sense to remove it ,except your greed for juicy trinket .


But blockade runners can already be unscannable without this.

Ganking a BR is entirely a gamble because there is nothing you can do to see what is in the hold, this is bad gameplay. You are insisting that you should have a safety net for flying these ships badly.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#346 - 2014-05-22 03:29:01 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
If they are AFK you can gank them easily enough, and the gameplay element comes from the gamble: are they carrying something worthwhile or are they empty? Have a look at Somer.BLINK or any other gambling site: the entire gameplay is that you don't know whether you're going to win or not. People still buy tickets. BR ganking is just the "scratch-and-win lotto" of the ganking world. There's your gameplay.

DId you forget that loot doesn't always drop? BR are subject to the same lottery that any other ship is subject to to begin with, scan immunity or not.

Mara Rinn wrote:
Your insistence that BRs be scannable does raise other questions though: obviously there are enough BRs passing through your gate camp on autopilot that you feel the need to complain about their unscannable cargo holds.

No. I don't know how many people autopilot them. I don't pay attention to highsec PVP. I don't pay attention to lowsec PVP. Nobody flies BRs in nullsec except as black ops ammo and fuel trucks, and those BRs don't go through stargates at all.

Mara Rinn wrote:
This leads me to believe that you are so risk averse that you aren't even going to buy the scratch-and-win ticket, much less buy a bunch of them to see what the odds actually are.

Baltec1 did and told you exactly what those odds are.

Stop throwing around terms that you don't understand. "Risk averse" doesn't apply when I choose not to take odds that are entirely not in my favor. If it's not profitable, it's not profitable.

Mara Rinn wrote:
Now take my previous statements into account and ask yourself, "does Mara Rinn support unscannable cargo holds or not?" Be careful answering that question since I've already indicated that I am changing my opinion due to your participation in this discussion. Keep calling me names, keep complaining about the unacceptable risk of ganking BRs in the hopes of finding something profitable, and you keep encouraging people to support unscannable cargo holds.

It's not about MY risk, it's about the fact that you want a system that encourages your laziness. You want safety even for your autopiloted BRs.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#347 - 2014-05-22 03:29:52 UTC
"I can be unscannable by pressing a single button every system I visit, but I want to be unscannable without having to press any buttons at all!"

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Rena'Thras
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#348 - 2014-05-22 07:38:34 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Myrthiis wrote:
Well i didn't link anything,but anyone can go on zkillboard>class>blockade runner and see by himself ,there is no gambling in suicide ganking BR the fact that you need t2 cats to do it ,or that the cargo didn't drop as nothing to do with "unscannability".

The only reason you want the characteristic to be removed is only to scan juicy multibillion ones to brag to your friends .There is nothing related to game design or game balance in your propaganda.You just want the whole blanket for yourself Roll

And to finish i didn't ask protection to CCP,they are the one who come first with this design .And until now you fail to give an argument who make sense to remove it ,except your greed for juicy trinket .


But blockade runners can already be unscannable without this.

Ganking a BR is entirely a gamble because there is nothing you can do to see what is in the hold, this is bad gameplay. You are insisting that you should have a safety net for flying these ships badly.



I'm confused, why is it bad gameplay?

You take a risk, you might get a reward. Sounds like good gameplay to me.

If you can scan them, then you automatically know whether or not to attack. You think about how much your ganking Catalyst fits cost, think about 50% (drop rate?) of the value of the target's cargo is, then if the first number is bigger, you don't attack, if the second number is bigger, you do attack. (Well, to be more accurate, you want the second number to be somewhat bigger so you can make a profit.)

There's no "risk". And don't tell me that the loss of a few ganking Catalysts is a "risk" - you already assumed you were going to lose them, because you WILL lose them if you pull the trigger on ships you can or can't scan. And you aren't flying ganking ships if you aren't already planning to use them, which means lose them, so it's a sunk cost. All you're trying to do is pick targets that will pay out more than your sunk cost so that you recoup your losses and then make some profit.

.

What you're asking for is no-risk ganking.

THAT is what is bad gameplay. The risk you take is that you might get something to make up your losses and you might not.

It's a lot like old real world pirates - sometimes they got the big score, sometimes they accidentally boarded a ship with nothing, sometimes...a ship with armed men that killed them.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. If you aren't willing to attack a ship you can't scan, if you aren't willing to take on a target unless you have a guaranteed payout, maybe you should do something other than gank people...you know, like knitting. Crocheting is relaxing (or so I've heard) and has the risk level you seem interested in. I've also seen people mine Ice or Roids. That may have a little more risk than you're willing to take on, though.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#349 - 2014-05-22 07:52:02 UTC
Rena'Thras wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Myrthiis wrote:
Well i didn't link anything,but anyone can go on zkillboard>class>blockade runner and see by himself ,there is no gambling in suicide ganking BR the fact that you need t2 cats to do it ,or that the cargo didn't drop as nothing to do with "unscannability".

The only reason you want the characteristic to be removed is only to scan juicy multibillion ones to brag to your friends .There is nothing related to game design or game balance in your propaganda.You just want the whole blanket for yourself Roll

And to finish i didn't ask protection to CCP,they are the one who come first with this design .And until now you fail to give an argument who make sense to remove it ,except your greed for juicy trinket .


But blockade runners can already be unscannable without this.

Ganking a BR is entirely a gamble because there is nothing you can do to see what is in the hold, this is bad gameplay. You are insisting that you should have a safety net for flying these ships badly.



I'm confused, why is it bad gameplay?

You take a risk, you might get a reward. Sounds like good gameplay to me.

If you can scan them, then you automatically know whether or not to attack. You think about how much your ganking Catalyst fits cost, think about 50% (drop rate?) of the value of the target's cargo is, then if the first number is bigger, you don't attack, if the second number is bigger, you do attack. (Well, to be more accurate, you want the second number to be somewhat bigger so you can make a profit.)

There's no "risk". And don't tell me that the loss of a few ganking Catalysts is a "risk" - you already assumed you were going to lose them, because you WILL lose them if you pull the trigger on ships you can or can't scan. And you aren't flying ganking ships if you aren't already planning to use them, which means lose them, so it's a sunk cost. All you're trying to do is pick targets that will pay out more than your sunk cost so that you recoup your losses and then make some profit.

.

What you're asking for is no-risk ganking.

THAT is what is bad gameplay. The risk you take is that you might get something to make up your losses and you might not.

It's a lot like old real world pirates - sometimes they got the big score, sometimes they accidentally boarded a ship with nothing, sometimes...a ship with armed men that killed them.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. If you aren't willing to attack a ship you can't scan, if you aren't willing to take on a target unless you have a guaranteed payout, maybe you should do something other than gank people...you know, like knitting. Crocheting is relaxing (or so I've heard) and has the risk level you seem interested in. I've also seen people mine Ice or Roids. That may have a little more risk than you're willing to take on, though.

Here's a fact that you seem to be forgetting.
Blockade runners can warp cloaked.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Rena'Thras
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#350 - 2014-05-22 07:56:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Rena'Thras
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Here's a fact that you seem to be forgetting.
Blockade runners can warp cloaked.


Indeed they can.

What does that change? You're still asking for a target that guarantees you a payout.

Risk and reward is one of two things in the case of ganking:

1) There's a chance your gank will fail.
2) There's a chance your payout is lower than the cost of your gank ship.

1) Won't happen unless you're a fail ganker. Besides which, for the purposes of this discussion, we're assuming you're going to get the kill. Blockade Runner or no, we're talking about you hitting a transport ship with high enough Alpha to guarantee the kill.

So that leaves (2).

.

Or, let me frame it a different way:

Suppose the BR cargo scan immunity goes away.

What is the risk to a ganker choosing to attack the ship now, in your eyes?

.

It isn't loss of your ganking ships - you're already assuming that's going to happen (CONCORD).

It isn't that your gank will fail (that the BR will have high resistances against you or will have target lock breakers to break your scramble on it so it can get away.)

What risk remains to the GANKER if the BR can now be scanned by the ganker and he/she/they know if the BR has valuable target or not?

Risk vs reward only works if there is a risk. If there's no longer a risk to the gankers, ganking becomes a no risk, all reward affair.

And, as you have so aptly stated, that's not good gameplay.

.

So, in your mind, what would the risk be to the ganker if the BRs could be cargo scanned?

.

EDIT:

And, for the record, you didn't answer my question.

My question was:

Why is it bad gameplay for gankers to be taking a risk?

Piracy, after all, isn't for the weak of heart or the risk averse, right? That's what Ice/Roid mining is for.

.

So I've now asked you two questions:

Why is it bad gameplay for gankers to have to take a risk?
What risk remains to gankers if they could scan BR cargo holds?
.

EDIT2:

And this isn't a one-on-one conversation or me attacking you and your preferred gameplay. I'm actually trying to get at the thought process you're using here.

To me, if I want to gank people...well, it's because I want to blow up ships. If I make a profit, that's a bonus, but it isn't necessary. I guess this makes me (technically) a PvPer rather than a ganker.

I suppose there's this idea of ganking for profit, but there should still be a risk (this is Eve, after all.)

And the risk is NOT losing your gank ships (particularly in Highsec), since that's already assumed due to CONCORD. That's a "sunk cost". And we aren't talking about Null, since as you said yourself, no one (heh) uses BRs in Null.

So what is the risk for ganking/piracy?

Maybe if there was a random chance that attacked industrials could instawarp away or that srams would break? Maybe if an industrial could kit out for high resists (so that it would have low cargo, but there's a risk in attacking that you CAN'T kill it and it CAN get away)?

I just don't see the risk for the gankers/pirates anywhere. And if there's no risk and only reward...yeah, I agree, that's bad gameplay.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#351 - 2014-05-22 10:24:09 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
Before demanding that I learn to accept your opinion as gospel truth, and suggesting that people who disagree with you are fools, you might want to try being a little more polite on the forums. Also try presenting your opinion as your opinion, and the two of you could learn to perform basic research before making bizarre claims such as "BR never get ganked."

Nobody said that.


James Amril-Kesh wrote:
You're just asking to keep what you have now, which is a ship that literally won't be ganked ever regardless of if you're flying it like a moron or not.


Okay, you didn't say "BR never get ganked" you said "literally won't be ganked ever."

James Amril-Kesh wrote:
It's not overall profitable to gank them because:


… you're doing it wrong?
… you're smashing everything without paying attention to who is buying what?
… you're not setting up traps?
… you're expecting the game to be changed to support your play style?

In the end, your only argument appears to be that you don't like the extra risk associated with ganking BRs because you can only function when all the answers are known.

I'm not sure that you're picking up what CCP is putting down.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Oxide Ammar
#352 - 2014-05-22 10:46:06 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:

… you're doing it wrong?
… you're smashing everything without paying attention to who is buying what?
… you're not setting up traps?
… you're expecting the game to be changed to support your play style?

In the end, your only argument appears to be that you don't like the extra risk associated with ganking BRs because you can only function when all the answers are known.

I'm not sure that you're picking up what CCP is putting down.


To make it simple, they think cloak is enough to justify defending BR running from gate to gate carrying expensive cargo but they want to smite with god's hammer all "morons and idiots" who auto pilot their BR around but only the ones worth getting punished for being lazy afk from their computers, the rest with empty/worthless cargos can pass through with no punishment....Ugh

Lady Areola Fappington:  Solo PVP isn't dead!  You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#353 - 2014-05-22 12:07:23 UTC
Rena'Thras wrote:




I'm confused, why is it bad gameplay?

You take a risk, you might get a reward. Sounds like good gameplay to me.



It is impossible to see what they are carrying which means every time you gank one you are relying upon luck, It doest add risk it simply turns it into a gamble that you will lose in the long run.

The ship already lets people be easily immune to a ship scanner if you fly it well so it does not need this safety net for people who fly the ship badly. Removing it would not remove the ships ability to avoid ship scanners and we would at least have a chance to grab a scan.

Both sides would get what they want.
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#354 - 2014-05-22 12:38:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Hasikan Miallok
Prowler:
Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 75(+25) / 60(+20) / 40 / 50

Instead of a EM hole it is now best resist? interesting.
Kaito Rei
Jion Keanturi
#355 - 2014-05-22 13:19:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaito Rei
It is somewhat funny to read the whole discussion of 'should they be scannable or not'.

Some Points. In terms of lore it makes absolute sense for them to be unscannable. So if they decide have them be that way, so be it.


If BRs are scannable:
With valueable cargo:
  • A smart pilot will warp to zero and instantly enable the cloak once he appears in the system. he will most likely not be scanned and therefore not be ganked.
  • A not so smart pilot might fly afk, could eventually be scanned and might be ganked.

Without valueable cargo:
  • A smart pilot knows that there is no profit for someone ganking his ship. but there is a calculated risk to flying afk because there are people who just kill **** for the heck of it but, well mostly they seek profit while doing so. He might fly afk.
  • A not so smart pilot will fly afk and he faces the same risk. even if he doesn't know of it.


If BRs are not scannable:
With valueable cargo:
  • A smart pilot will warp to zero and instantly enable the cloak once he appears in the system. He will not be scanned and therefore not be ganked. He will most likely not fly afk.
  • A not so smart pilot might fly afk, cannot be scanned but people might suspect a valueable cargo and gank him anyways.

Without valueable cargo:
  • A smart pilot knows that there is no profit for someone ganking his ship. There is however a risk to flying afk because people might suspect he has valueable cargo even if he doesn't. So if he is ganked he will have a loss even though the ganker has no profit. He will most likely not fly afk.
  • A not so smart pilot might fly afk, cannot be scanned but people might suspect a valueable cargo and gank him anyways.


So basically if they remain unscannable the situation remains about the same as we have now. Smart pilots will not be ganked and not so smart pilots will be ganked.

If they become scannable then most likely the current gank-rates will rise due to the current ganking of blockade runners' risk of not having any cargo. Smart pilots without valueable cargo will not fly afk because they have the same risk of getting ganked as the not so smart pilots with valueable cargo that fly afk.

Unscannable BRs have no upside for smart pilots it only forces them not to fly afk when empty. It has however the benefit for the not so smart afk-flying pilot because the overall risk of being ganked is lower.

For the Ganker the risk-reward factor of executing a gank is so unpredictable that they might stop ganking BRs entirely. Or not. We might never find out...

So far, let me know what you think of this assessment.

Kaito Rei.
Ivan Isovich
Clutter Conglomerate
CAStabouts
#356 - 2014-05-22 14:27:41 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
The velocity bonus doesn't help much, and on all at1 industrials it was awitched to agility which is mountains better on this kind of ship.


Yes, an agility bonus would be more powerful. That doesn't mean it's the best bonus to give the ship.



Agree with Fozzie on this one. Agility would be more powerful out of the gate, but giving it a buff to speed makes it able to 'almost' outrun an interceptor...accounting for the reaction time of the interceptor pilot....and then it would outrun almost everything else. That makes it a fairly powerful upgrade.

I like these changes. They help distinguish the defining characteristics of the different races, too....making the Amarr and Minmatar ships an option.

But, as an additional thought for the Devs: The Viator becomes an obvious choice for a lot of industrial pilots b/c of the base industrials. Skilling to 5 for the Gallente Industrial benefits the huge offerings from that race, and makes the Viator a better choice than the others. Maybe a new set of industrials in the other racial lines would be in order? Either comparable transports for the specialty goods like PI and ore in each race, or (preferably) something entirely new. (A bay for packaged ships--a frigate hauler, perhaps? POS Fuel hold?)
Ivan Isovich
Clutter Conglomerate
CAStabouts
#357 - 2014-05-22 14:44:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Ivan Isovich
Kaito Rei wrote:
It is somewhat funny to read the whole discussion of 'should they be scannable or not'.


I find it funny because I didn't see anyone recently mention the isk-reward difference. A ganker intent on boosting killmails would always win the isk war against even a heavily tanked transport...a ship that's worth at least 100m versus 2-3 catalysts worth 30m. The question of scannable or not is rather irrelevant since they would win whether the hold was empty or not. If it has something juicy in it, then they get a bonus. Any competent BR pilot would never autopilot their ship.

What might be interesting is swapping the unscannable cargo from the covert ops boats to the Deep Space Transports since the covert ops boats will be able to cloak up and essentially be unscannable anyway. Not suggesting this...but something to think about.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#358 - 2014-05-22 14:48:14 UTC
Ivan Isovich wrote:
Kaito Rei wrote:
It is somewhat funny to read the whole discussion of 'should they be scannable or not'.


I find it funny because I didn't see anyone recently mention the isk-reward difference. A ganker intent on boosting killmails would always win the isk war against even a heavily tanked transport...a ship that's worth at least 100m versus 2-3 catalysts worth 30m. The question of scannable or not is rather irrelevant since they would win whether the hold was empty or not. If it has something juicy in it, then they get a bonus. Any competent BR pilot would never autopilot their ship.

What might be interesting is swapping the unscannable cargo from the covert ops boats to the other blockade runners since the covert ops boats will be able to cloak up and essentially be unscannable anyway. Not suggesting this...but something to think about.


I would like it to be put on the DST and be for NPC scanners but not player scanners. This would give the DST a role as the go to ship for smuggling drugs ect.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#359 - 2014-05-22 18:02:06 UTC
Ivan Isovich wrote:
Kaito Rei wrote:
It is somewhat funny to read the whole discussion of 'should they be scannable or not'.


I find it funny because I didn't see anyone recently mention the isk-reward difference. A ganker intent on boosting killmails would always win the isk war against even a heavily tanked transport...a ship that's worth at least 100m versus 2-3 catalysts worth 30m. The question of scannable or not is rather irrelevant since they would win whether the hold was empty or not. If it has something juicy in it, then they get a bonus.

Nobody cares about ISK efficiency. ISK efficiency isn't profit.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#360 - 2014-05-22 18:18:19 UTC
It's ******* ******** that we can't post killmails here. That needs to change.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)