These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Conflict. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement.... Sabriz for CSM10

First post First post
Author
Josef Djugashvilis
#121 - 2014-12-16 09:12:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
OK, back after the conference I was at all weekend. I decided not to post anything substantive while at it, and I won't catch up fully for a couple of days.

I seem to have attracted a few detractors here. As I understand it, the unifying thing behind the detractors is that they don't like me because I promote ships getting blown up in every class of space that has resources of nontrivial value (i.e. everywhere except for rookie systems). I both personally blow ships up and encourage others to engage in asymmetric warfare in game, calculating and exploiting the weaknesses of other players.

Although they vary on the details, my detractors want to see areas of space with resources of relatively high value (highsec incursions, L4 SoE missions, Mexallon-rich belts, ice anomalies) in areas of space with minimal or no PVP, and want to see changes that reduce the advantage the attacker has in surprise PVP (at least in highsec).

I've addressed why I think this is a bad idea earlier in this thread.



I'm intending to run an 'ask me anything' session this weekend on the Minerbumping teamspeak. I invite detractors to come and ask hostile questions (as well as inviting supporters to ask questions both sympathetic and curly, and neutrals to ask whatever they want). It will be recorded and posted to Soundcloud - if you'd prefer to ask questions anonymously, I'm happy to facilitate that, EVEmail your question to me from an untraceable alt and I'll have a supporter read the question out.


I would not vote vote for you, despite you trying to 'big' yourself up as some sort of purist pvp player.

Go do some real pvp against ships that can fight back.

CODE is weird role playing, but whatever turns you on I guess.

James aged 13 and a bit has an ego to rival that of mittens and you are associated with him in the game.

Code offering to save hi-sec is like the fox offering to guard the chicken coop.

This is not a signature.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#122 - 2014-12-16 09:15:32 UTC
Sylphy wrote:

Devaluing the PVE content isn't going to miraculously fix high-sec issues. You don't fix things by nerfbatting everything YOU personally disaagree with. That you personally THINK in your OWN opinion is breaking the economy.
If anything, it'll promote more PvP pirating activities and there'll be a point where it becomes degenerative and malnutricious to new and old players alike. (The hounds outnumber the foxes)

You want less AFK miners and bot-aspiring behaviour - make mining more interesting other than staring at your mining lasers cycle for hours and hours on end while your ore holds are getting full.

I'm totally against a mini-game that takes your mind off of your surroundings (like hacking mini-game which takes half of your screen away), what I'd like more is the rebalancing of asteroids in a way, that there would no longer be so many different types of rock but less, where the most common materials would be on the outside and more valuable ones on the inside. If you left your mining lasers alone, they would be mining the outer layer, which would require no guidance. Getting to the inner layer would require you to make corrections to the angle/penetration/whatever of your lasers to get that valuable hemorphite ore out of a rock.

Also, introduce collision damage. Battleship "bumping" a frigate should result in the frigate being crippled or destroyed. Make collisions with space rocks on an equal scale. You can shave off smaller rocks, bigger ones will cause dmg. With the introduction of manual control it would give a whole new level to being chased and taking them into an asteroid belt (Wing Commander I style) or staying in the middle of rocks to try and avoid falling prey to pirates.

Size should matter. A partisan with a slingshot should not be able to kill a tanker.

Ok, I am still not clear on what you think needs to be "rebalanced" in highsec. In fact most of your post is just arguing what you think shouldn't be changed. As to mining, I think everyone, including Sabriz (although perhaps you can ask him about this at his AMA on Teamspeak?), would love to have a revamp making mining more engaging as well more rewarding to those that engage in team play and risk taking.

Your last point though makes it clear you think bumping needs to be rebalanced. Your solution is unworkable though as gankers will just start "ganking" by ramming everything with massive ships, with no CONCORD response. And if you make collisions spawn CONCORD, not only will the Jita undock will be a continual field of wrecks, how will you decide who should be CONCORDed? If it is the big ship (or both ships), then gankers will just sacrifice small, worthless ships to get the loot from the CONCORDed big ship, or if it is the small ship, gankers will just ram frigates all day in an agility-fit Mach and let CONCORD blow them up for them.


Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#123 - 2014-12-16 11:02:09 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Code offering to save hi-sec is like the fox offering to guard the chicken coop.
I don't agree with you here, but understand why you are saying this. For most players it's hard to separate evil Eve role play with real life. CSM is real life stuff, CODE is mainly role play. I try to role play an evil annoying war lord and many will probably agree I succeed at it Twisted. But in real life I am totally different. Just like actors in evil movies, arent evil people in real life.

Try to find out if Sabriz can separate the two, before judging him.

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#124 - 2014-12-16 11:11:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Code offering to save hi-sec is like the fox offering to guard the chicken coop.

No, it's more like the stern, responsible farmer offering to guard the chicken coop.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#125 - 2014-12-16 17:20:40 UTC  |  Edited by: admiral root
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Go do some real pvp against ships that can fight back.


If there are players on both sides it meets the definition of PvP and mining ships are certainly capable of packing tank, DPS and tackle.

Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
CODE is weird role playing, but whatever turns you on I guess.


Role-play, sure - this *is* a role-playing game after all. Weird, not so much - we've claimed space as ours and we use force to keep it. We hold sov without those pesky sov mechics that everyone so loves (Yay! *Another* multi-million HP structure to grind - only 3 more to do in this system, chaps!). Our sov claim can be invalidated by other people taking it from us by force.

Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
James aged 13 and a bit has an ego to rival that of mittens and you are associated with him in the game.


I'm sure you can do better than throwing around insults. Please try and be civil.

Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Code offering to save hi-sec is like the fox offering to guard the chicken coop.


That's a terrible analogy, though interesting in that you seem to associate a segment of highsec players with a bunch of chickens. Twisted

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#126 - 2014-12-17 10:00:05 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Code offering to save hi-sec is like the fox offering to guard the chicken coop.
I don't agree with you here, but understand why you are saying this. For most players it's hard to separate evil Eve role play with real life. CSM is real life stuff, CODE is mainly role play. I try to role play an evil annoying war lord and many will probably agree I succeed at it Twisted. But in real life I am totally different. Just like actors in evil movies, arent evil people in real life.

Try to find out if Sabriz can separate the two, before judging him.



To use a roleplaying analogy, in-game I'm chaotic evil.

IRL, I'm chaotic good.

However, when the consequences of chaotic evil behaviour are limited to space pixels (i.e. outside RL), chaotic evil characters make for a much more interesting world.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#127 - 2014-12-17 10:02:16 UTC
What would EVE do without folks like CODE and Marmites... make isk in high-sec so they can pvp?

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

Jerry T Pepridge
Meta Game Analysis and Investment INC.
#128 - 2014-12-17 16:26:12 UTC
No monocle, no vote.

@JerryTPepridge

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#129 - 2014-12-17 18:44:29 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Tora Bushido wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Code offering to save hi-sec is like the fox offering to guard the chicken coop.
I don't agree with you here, but understand why you are saying this. For most players it's hard to separate evil Eve role play with real life. CSM is real life stuff, CODE is mainly role play. I try to role play an evil annoying war lord and many will probably agree I succeed at it Twisted. But in real life I am totally different. Just like actors in evil movies, arent evil people in real life.

Try to find out if Sabriz can separate the two, before judging him.



To use a roleplaying analogy, in-game I'm chaotic evil.

IRL, I'm chaotic good.

However, when the consequences of chaotic evil behaviour are limited to space pixels (i.e. outside RL), chaotic evil characters make for a much more interesting world.


I'd fit into Neutral Evil. I'm mostly Lawful Evil, while occasionally acting against the rules when I see fit.

IRL I'm probably Neutral Good.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Zephris
The Eldritch Circle
#130 - 2014-12-18 01:14:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Zephris
Quote:
Calculating average yellow loot is much much harder. Freighters range wildly in amount carried, but my experience would put an average somewhere around 500m in the cargohold.

I agree with most of that analysis, except this.
The average is meaningless when there are 10-100 fold variations.
You only need a 10 bil gank and you are set for the week and a 50 bil gank buys a plex for everyone involved. So why do you even consider the average case ? Are you saying there isn't even one of these per month ?
You also did not address the risk factor. Ship scanners allow you to make EXACT caculation of how much it cost to gank a ship and within good margin how much it will drop. You can see the antigank fleet in local. Either the AG fleet is big enough to stop the gank (which only cost potential profit, not inuring a loss), or the AG fleet is not big enough to stop the gank (and can only incur a cost increase, but not a loss), what actual risk is there to ganking ?
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#131 - 2014-12-18 03:40:34 UTC
Only a 50bil gank? Well, those occur practically every day.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein

Black Pedro
Mine.
#132 - 2014-12-18 12:47:06 UTC
Zephris wrote:
Quote:
Calculating average yellow loot is much much harder. Freighters range wildly in amount carried, but my experience would put an average somewhere around 500m in the cargohold.

I agree with most of that analysis, except this.
The average is meaningless when there are 10-100 fold variations.
You only need a 10 bil gank and you are set for the week and a 50 bil gank buys a plex for everyone involved. So why do you even consider the average case ? Are you saying there isn't even one of these per month ?
You also did not address the risk factor. Ship scanners allow you to make EXACT caculation of how much it cost to gank a ship and within good margin how much it will drop. You can see the antigank fleet in local. Either the AG fleet is big enough to stop the gank (which only cost potential profit, not inuring a loss), or the AG fleet is not big enough to stop the gank (and can only incur a cost increase, but not a loss), what actual risk is there to ganking ?

You seem really hung up on how much an activity can make. Are you equally concerned that one can make billions of ISK/day market trading?

zKillboard seems a little wonky but you can see here how many 50B ISK ganks there actually are: https://zkillboard.com/kills/10b/

In the last month there have been none (which is as far back as zKillboard is showing), and only a couple over 10b (remember a jump freighter is about 7B ISK empty). The biggest loss in highsec is 24B ISK but that was a war target kill. If you actually look at the loot from these kills, the largest drop after a gank is 5B ISK from a freighter killed a few days ago (although I guess there could have been a slightly higher drop from a freighter that was killed but didn't make the 10b+ list). Your perception of how much gankers are making does not match reality.

None of this matters though. These highsec losses - all of them - were completely preventable if the pilot just kept their cargo to a safe amount. You are not entitled to move 10B, 20B or 50B ISK safely in a single ship. This is how the game has been designed from the beginning. If you overload your ship and don't protect it, you are taking the chance that someone will gank it and take your stuff. This is intended and not a problem or exploit - its a designed feature of the game.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#133 - 2014-12-18 14:01:42 UTC
Zephris wrote:
what actual risk is there to ganking ?


That you will lose your ship (it being a certainty doesn't stop it being a risk), that the loot fairy will stick two fingers up at you, that you get a great loot drop but someone else nicks it, that the gank will fail. Those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are a few more.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Zephris
The Eldritch Circle
#134 - 2014-12-18 22:51:11 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Zephris wrote:
what actual risk is there to ganking ?


That you will lose your ship (it being a certainty doesn't stop it being a risk), that the loot fairy will stick two fingers up at you, that you get a great loot drop but someone else nicks it, that the gank will fail. Those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are a few more.


Risk, It doesn't mean what you think it means.
Risk is the uncertainty about a net loss. There is no risk if you know your ship loss will be covered by the the loot dropped.
Since there is cargo scanner and you know approximately half the stuff will get dropped, your can gank only targets that carries many times more than the ships are worth (not hard, considering the ships are about 100mil for 20, and freighters tend to carry a billion or more). Iosses are extremely unlikely without AG intervention.

Now if freighters are immune to cargo and ship scanners, you'd be right.
Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#135 - 2014-12-18 22:54:49 UTC
Zephris wrote:
admiral root wrote:
Zephris wrote:
what actual risk is there to ganking ?


That you will lose your ship (it being a certainty doesn't stop it being a risk), that the loot fairy will stick two fingers up at you, that you get a great loot drop but someone else nicks it, that the gank will fail. Those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are a few more.


Risk, It doesn't mean what you think it means.
Risk is the uncertainty about a net loss. There is no risk if you know your ship loss will be covered by the the loot dropped.
Since there is cargo scanner and you know approximately half the stuff will get dropped, your can gank only targets that carries many times more than the ships are worth (not hard, considering the ships are about 100mil for 20, and freighters tend to carry a billion or more). Iosses are extremely unlikely without AG intervention.

Now if freighters are immune to cargo and ship scanners, you'd be right.


You are trying to establish that ganking is risk free?

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#136 - 2014-12-18 23:31:36 UTC
A gank ship is ammunition, albeit more expensive ammunition than most. A careful ganker can mitigate their risk to just losing their ammunition without losing their pod and can attack only targets that will probably offer a profit.

You know who else does this? Mission runners. They select missions that look profitable, skip ones that don't suit them, and use ammunition (including drones) but manage to mitigate risk to a point where losing more than ammunition is exceedingly rare.

I know that because I used to be one (and actually I run missions more than anyone might suspect as I always seek to keep my security status high).

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Apol Regyri
Doomheim
#137 - 2014-12-19 03:02:36 UTC
II will not vote for you. You represent everything i hate.

Under a pretext of roleplay, your gang of ganker (CODE) try to apply mafia techniques to take the property of others players in highsec (and often are young players with not a lot of isk). In addition, you (CODE) try to implanting to all the players in highsec the mafia "Pizzo".

I hope that CCP will adjust the Highsec security to make this place more safer for new player. Because CCP lose a lot of subscription to the game because your cowards technic discourage new players.

Remember, animal and humans learn through play. It's important to learn good human values and it's not what you do. You are about to rot this game with your so called "CODE Roleplaying" ganking. It's just a mafia technic! for looser.

Your "CODE" exceed the limit, and it is not fun for the player to be harassed every day.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#138 - 2014-12-19 03:57:39 UTC
Apol Regyri wrote:
II will not vote for you. You represent everything i hate.

Under a pretext of roleplay, your gang of ganker (CODE) try to apply mafia techniques to take the property of others players in highsec (and often are young players with not a lot of isk). In addition, you (CODE) try to implanting to all the players in highsec the mafia "Pizzo".

I hope that CCP will adjust the Highsec security to make this place more safer for new player. Because CCP lose a lot of subscription to the game because your cowards technic discourage new players.

Remember, animal and humans learn through play. It's important to learn good human values and it's not what you do. You are about to rot this game with your so called "CODE Roleplaying" ganking. It's just a mafia technic! for looser.

Your "CODE" exceed the limit, and it is not fun for the player to be harassed every day.


Everything we do is within the rules and is as much part of the game as mission running or ATK mining. A safer high sec won't do anything for new players, BTW, it'll just mean more of them will have officer-fit pimpmobiles before they finally get blown up.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#139 - 2014-12-19 05:29:17 UTC
Apol Regyri wrote:
II will not vote for you. You represent everything i hate.

Under a pretext of roleplay, your gang of ganker (CODE) try to apply mafia techniques to take the property of others players in highsec (and often are young players with not a lot of isk). In addition, you (CODE) try to implanting to all the players in highsec the mafia "Pizzo".

I hope that CCP will adjust the Highsec security to make this place more safer for new player. Because CCP lose a lot of subscription to the game because your cowards technic discourage new players.

Remember, animal and humans learn through play. It's important to learn good human values and it's not what you do. You are about to rot this game with your so called "CODE Roleplaying" ganking. It's just a mafia technic! for looser.

Your "CODE" exceed the limit, and it is not fun for the player to be harassed every day.



New players are completely safe from hostile player interactions in the rookie systems and I would never encourage CCP to change this fact. In fact, I'm in favor of CCP increasing protection from player interaction in those systems by disallowing the use of strip miners so that rookies can always find asteroids for their mining tutorials.

It's the not-so-new players that grind out extreme wealth in near total safety in the rest of highsec by doing things rookies cannot do - strip mine asteroids in Orca fleets, blitz L4 missions and multibox incursions - that make CODE. necessary.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Black Pedro
Mine.
#140 - 2014-12-19 07:23:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Zephris wrote:

Risk, It doesn't mean what you think it means.
Risk is the uncertainty about a net loss. There is no risk if you know your ship loss will be covered by the the loot dropped.
Since there is cargo scanner and you know approximately half the stuff will get dropped, your can gank only targets that carries many times more than the ships are worth (not hard, considering the ships are about 100mil for 20, and freighters tend to carry a billion or more). Iosses are extremely unlikely without AG intervention.

By that definition there is zero risk in mining or missioning as every cost is known for mining (I think just T2 mining crystals) and every mission and the triggers are available on community website removing all surprises. Certainly you are not arguing that ganking is somehow less risky than mining or mission running?

But again you mis-perceive the role of the risk here. It is there to provide incentive for players to balance the yield/cargo of their ship with protection when fitting a ship. Ganking is not there necessarily as a mini-game in-and-of itself. Plenty of tools exist to make yourself 99.999% immune from gankers (certain ships, modules, behaviours) - they just all require a direct tradeoff against yield or some additional effort.

That is just how the game is designed.

Zephris wrote:

Now if freighters are immune to cargo and ship scanners, you'd be right.

Making freighters immune to scanning is a poor choice as it would diminish the purpose of ganking in the game - to provide risk to players overloading and overfitting their ships. If pirates could not look inside, they would have to just destroy ships blindly and there would be no incentive for the haulers to carry less as the risk of loss would be the same no matter what they carried.

Besides, what you suggest is already in the game - Blockade Runners are immune to cargo scans. If you have something valuable to transport you want to remain unscanned, you can use one of them.

If you want to inject uncertainty into ganking I would suggest looking at varying the predictable CONCORD mechanics or through new modules that can provide false information to gankers.