These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Idea: Repulsor Field Generator

First post
Author
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#41 - 2014-12-08 19:18:44 UTC
Zephris wrote:
So much BS.
I am not complaining about getting ganked. I am trying to stop ganks and none of those things mentioned helped in any of the dozens of freighters ganked in Uedama.
Instaundock does not work at stargates.
Machs bumps freighter as soon as they start to align. Unless you are talking about a web alt in a vindicator with multiple webifiers there is still a window to bump them, and once that happened they will never align again.
"escort" and "logi". That's us, actually. Roll. It's still too easy to gank with AG fleet sitting ON TOP OF THE TARGET as long as gankers can produce more DPS to compensate for the number of AG present.

80% of responses in this thread was crap spewed by gankers to confuse people who doesn't know how many people and how much isk it takes to actually block a gank. That's at least 50% number of gankers, well organized, in expensive ships.

And no the module doesn't effect drones. So there goes your entire "flawed" thing.

Drones are handled the exact same way as ships from a physics engine standpoint. As outlined, this module would have the aforementioned effects on drones. (As an aside, It would be wonderfully comic to see drones flying across the battlefield like that. Horrible imbalanced, but still wonderfully comic.)

As someone who has witnessed the efficient carnage of CODE. freighter gank ops first-hand, I can tell you from experience that the freighters that died were flying solo without web support. (I did a brief stint flying anti-gank ops during Burn Aufay. Mainly to collect bounties, but still.)

As someone who has flown a freighter with web support, I can tell you that a properly fit (i.e. not fit for capacity) freighter will be in warp before they get a chance to get bumped. This was largely true even before the change to freighters that allowed them to fit modules.

Stations aren't a common engagement point for suicide gankers against freighters, but alpa-strike based gankers love to linger there for smaller targets. Proper bookmarks keep those smaller ships safe, as well as freighters.

The tools work. Some don't use them, and others don't use them properly. Those who use the tools properly are generally safe.

And none of this changes CCP's official stance that suicide ganking is not a broken mechanic.


Please understand, I'm a suicide ganker, I'm not someone telling you to HTFU while I collect your tears. I'm trying to help you understand that as long as freighter pilots keep failing to use the tools at their disposal, there is little you can do to help them. Most of the ones who do fly safely and happily deliver their cargoes.

You can't help those who won't help themselves.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Iain Cariaba
#42 - 2014-12-08 20:42:38 UTC
Zephris wrote:
So much BS.
I am not complaining about getting ganked. I am trying to stop ganks and none of those things mentioned helped in any of the dozens of freighters ganked in Uedama.

That pretty much amounts to the same thing.

Zephris wrote:
Instaundock does not work at stargates.
Machs bumps freighter as soon as they start to align. Unless you are talking about a web alt in a vindicator with multiple webifiers there is still a window to bump them, and once that happened they will never align again.

This is because you're doing it wrong. Try a triple webbed cruor with scan res rigs. 20km webs that till pretty much instalock a freighter. Jump cruor in first, burn back towards gate as freighter jumps. Pre-activate webs and click on freighter as it drops gate cloak. Watch freighter warp away sideways, then follow it out. The mach doesn't have time to bump you.

Zephris wrote:
"escort" and "logi". That's us, actually. Roll. It's still too easy to gank with AG fleet sitting ON TOP OF THE TARGET as long as gankers can produce more DPS to compensate for the number of AG present.

Because you sitting, as you put it, ON TOP OF THE TARGET, doesn't allow the gankers to see how many of you there are, allowing them to adjust their numbers accordingly?

Zephris wrote:
80% of responses in this thread was crap spewed by gankers to confuse people who doesn't know how many people and how much isk it takes to actually block a gank. That's at least 50% number of gankers, well organized, in expensive ships.

Nope, only takes one person to stop a gank. I am one person and have not been ganked once since I learned how to prevent it. The only person it takes to stop a gank is the pilot of the freighter or mining barge. Use some sense, and you're safe.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#43 - 2014-12-09 02:45:16 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
it is clear to anyone, ganking has an infulence upon hisec. whether you like it or not.

its not just a conduit for players to get their kicks. the effect of gankers is more than insignificant. the links to the other posters should have shown you that. you tried to say ganking has no effect but it clearly does.

Depends entirely on your interpretation of affecting the game.
If you use the "I killed ships" or the "I caused people to rage quit" or something similar as your definition of affecting the game then you are right.
If you use any common sense monetary way of looking at the affect on the game then you essentially have none, save for a little bit of wealth redistribution.
Zephris
The Eldritch Circle
#44 - 2014-12-09 05:22:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Zephris
That statement about webifiers reeks of forcing all freighter pilot to get another account just so they could repeatably play the game of tagging their own freighter at every align. You know what ? I bet some of them prefer to watch paint dry, or play star citizen.

And it takes like five minute to code a if statement to see if the target is a drone. Done. Why start unnecessary drama ?

A couple word on CCP's official stance.
They said ganking should be possible
But they made NO comment on the balance of gank vs anti-gank.
Allowing you to spam does not imply in any way there should be no counter to spam.
CCP obviously want players to deal with it, and currently it takes a giant fleet to deal with it because it's broken.
It's typical for gankers to intentionally misinterpret CCP's statements to suit their own purposes. Didn't they also win the last alliance tournament and every one afterwards forever ?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#45 - 2014-12-09 06:02:59 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Zephris wrote:
That statement about webifiers reeks of forcing all freighter pilot to get another account just so they could repeatably play the game of tagging their own freighter at every align.


I require 20+ to gank one and here you are bitching about flying with ONE friend.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#46 - 2014-12-09 07:37:54 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
it is clear to anyone, ganking has an infulence upon hisec. whether you like it or not.

its not just a conduit for players to get their kicks. the effect of gankers is more than insignificant. the links to the other posters should have shown you that. you tried to say ganking has no effect but it clearly does.

Depends entirely on your interpretation of affecting the game.
If you use the "I killed ships" or the "I caused people to rage quit" or something similar as your definition of affecting the game then you are right.
If you use any common sense monetary way of looking at the affect on the game then you essentially have none, save for a little bit of wealth redistribution.


Well thats a lie, catalysts sell like hot cakes because of ganking. As do retties.

If they didnt need constant replenishing they would not sell nearly as well. And war decs and AWOXing certainly couldnt make up for it. Hundreds of miners across new eden choose to lower their income for the safety of a skiff. There are in fact at least two players who call others idiots for NOT using a skiff even though they could mine so much more with max yield hulks. Zephris and his friends here claim they spend lots of isk running anti-gank squads.

So its a tad more than 'a little bit of wealth redistribution'.


But its not even just economical influences. There are cultural and social impacts as a result of ganking.

Ganking creates meaningful decisions, it changes player behaviour. Ganking causes players to think outside the box and adapt to survive. Players work together, scouting and webbing, to avoid ganks. Players work together to conduct ganks.

Rhetoric like 'hi-sec is not safe, only relatively safe' and 'null sec is safer than hi-sec' stem from ganking.

The effects of ganking are profound and so embedded in the game that you cant even see them anymore. Hi-sec would be completely different without it.

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

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#47 - 2014-12-09 08:40:42 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Uh hu. Cost to gank 2.5 billion


How does a jump freighter get ganked in Jita? I thought jump freighters undocked and instantly, you know, JUMPED to whatever cyno they have out in lowsec. I mean, that is the entire point of the jump freighter, right? If you don't have a cyno lit, you'd use a regular freighter instead, wouldn't you?


Anyway, people need to stop being dismissive about escorting freighters. Getting a friend to come along and web you into warp is insanely easy. You could even practice having him web you freshly through a gate a few times in higher sec systems before you trip through 0.5 systems, just to make sure you have the system down pat. Practice makes perfect after all.

Can't find a friend/corpmate to help you move 5 billion worth of goods through dangerous territory? You need new friends and a new corp. Your corp should at least be passingly interested in making sure you don't lose your stuff.

Don't want to interact with people to make friends and get your corp to help? Get over it, this is an MMO, interaction is required and imminent.

Your friends/corpmates are hesitant to pull themselves away from their activities to help you? Give them an incentive. Offer up a trivial 1million isk for a successful escort. At least they got something for their trouble. You're flying a ship worth over a billion isk, plus cargo, shell out some isk to make sure that investment is safe.

Hell, let's say your corpmates don't want to spend hours escorting you. Work out a compromise. Have them web you through the most dangerous spots in your trip. You are most likely to get hit in chokepoints/0.5 systems because the gankers have the most time to get you in those parts, so have people meet you there. You might get ganked elsewhere, yes, but if your corp doesn't have all the time in the world to escort you, helping through the most dangerous parts is better than nothing.

Let's say you do have good corpmates willing to escort you, with or without compensation doesn't matter. They're willing to spend the time jump after jump making sure you stay alive (they should anyway, since every person in a corp doing well helps keep the corp healthier anyway, but that's a longer topic). But there's nobody to help you right now? So ship your stuff in a few hours, or do it tomorrow when you have the escort.


TL;DR get your friends to escort you. It's not the monumental obstacle you make it out to be. And if it is, get new friends and a new corp that is willing to take a little time out of their lives to ensure your survival.

If you don't, accept the fact that you're a fat cow worth a lot of money waddling through the valley of the wolves and stop acting surprised at the results.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#48 - 2014-12-09 09:40:24 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:

I do have one request of you gankers though. Stop hiding your activities behind an wall of fabrications about how it is good for the game and the rest of that crap and just flat out admit that you do it "because you want to".
I ask this because nothing you as a ganker can do will have any real affect on the game or the players you gank or the corp/alliance they are a part of. The only exception to this is the players that rage quit over a ganking and to be honest the only ones in that group that I care even a little bit about are the new players.
Putting aside this is demonstrably false - just looking at the catalyst and mining/hauler losses on zKillboad to see a portion of the economic impact - there is a very real purpose to having risk in highsec. To illustrate this, let's try two experiments:

First, log into the SiSi test server and grab a freighter. Load it up with plenty of expensive things, and take a tour of all the trade hubs, AFK if you want. Next, fit up a max-yield hulk and spend the afternoon mining in the belts around Jita. Now, ask yourself did I find this fun? If yes, you really found these activities fun or "relaxing" then the good news is that you can continue to do so on SiSi with no risk of ever being ganked again. Now, if no, you found them boring, ask yourself why is that? I think if you do this honestly you will find that at least in part, it is the risk that someone will try to stop you that makes these activities at all interesting.

After that, let's try another angle. You claim that ganking is not done because "it is good for the game". But if so, then why does CCP allow it all? Isn't it in CCP's best interest to only develop and implement mechanisms that are "good for the game"? But if you look at the game mechanisms, they are built explicitly to allow ganking in highsec. There is a complex mechanism of security status, CONCORD, Crimewatch all of which are designed to alllow gankers to go after untanked and unprotected targets in highsec. CCP could quite readily lock out all offensive module in highsec, or make CONCORD insta-spawn, or lock -10 players out of highsec altogether, but they don't, because CCP too recognizes that gankers are good for the game.

Highsec ganking creates an interesting predator-prey dynamic in the game and forces game decisions on players. Without the risk of a gank, all highsec industrialists would fit maximum yield/tank, and would AFK the economy into the ground.

But as to the OP:
Zephris wrote:
Rationale
CCP wants players to deal with ganking, but tools are lacking. The best way to deal with large number of cheap ships is AOE attack but AOE attack in highsec leads inevitably to Concodoken, if not a ganking scout could simply walk into it intentionally.
Without AOE attacks, anti-ganking operation need to CC individual gankers but Catalysts have two mid spots that can fit cap boosters, ECCM or tracking computers. This means for anti ganking operation to succeed, it would take in average 1 anti-gank for every 2 gankers, and over 10 times the value of ganking fleet in isk.
Which is hardly balanced.
This premise is flawed. There are plenty of tools to avoid gankers which a have been repeatedly described in this thread and elsewhere. An escorted, at-the-keyboard hauler is approaching 100% safe even in the most dangerous systems of highsec. There is not need for additional tools, and this one in particular would have profound affects in game play far beyond providing additional protection to highsec industrialists, including some that could be exploited by the gankers themselves.



Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#49 - 2014-12-09 10:01:20 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
An escorted, at-the-keyboard hauler is approaching 100% safe even in the most dangerous systems of highsec.

Quite frankly, Bull.
If the gankers decide they want you dead, you are dead.

The basic game mechanics simply don't allow you to avoid ganks in the high sec chokes without even more suicidal detours through low sec with freighters.

You can make it a bit harder for them, sure, but at the end of the day their killboard still looks amazingly green, your killboard is pure red, and they've gotten their LOLs making your day worse. And that's assuming you weren't carrying anything worth looting and they just wanted LOLs. Otherwise they have that also.

Is ganking a good part of EVE at a basic level, I think so.
Is the second class treatment of Industrial ships by CCP who refuse to give them real PG, CPU & Fitting options a good thing? No, that's a terrible thing. Obviously Industrials shouldn't be able to fit significant guns or missiles, but they should be able to fit the same kind of non gun/missile fits as any other ship of a similar size.

For normal Industrials, that means Cruisers, (DST's actually get semi reasonable fitting options now at least), for Freighters, that means Carriers. They should have the same kind of slot layouts.... including high slots. And the same kind of PG & CPU. Not the current oh look, 3 slots only, 0 PG, 0 CPU options they get.

Yes, this will require some adjustment to EHP levels to make a normal fit with some T2 tank and some utility like warp speed & agility to be at the same EHP levels. And probably some cargo adjustment to make said normal fit with some cargo expanders also similar cargo. (IF Cargo extenders stacking penalised that would solve a lot of the worries about being able to fit 11 counting rigs to a ship for example as it would be silly after 4 or 5). But it would actually reward people a lot more for good fitting skills on industrials. And make for funny fits used for combat as well.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2014-12-09 10:11:54 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
... And make for funny fits used for combat as well.


A Nerues scaled up to freighter size but with equivalent Nereus slot layout could be very funny indeed ...
Black Pedro
Mine.
#51 - 2014-12-09 10:53:17 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
An escorted, at-the-keyboard hauler is approaching 100% safe even in the most dangerous systems of highsec.

Quite frankly, Bull.
If the gankers decide they want you dead, you are dead.

[truncated]

That is quite the defeatist attitude. Even the most skilled and dedicated ganker cannot take your stuff in the station or be in every chokepoint 24 hours a day. You completely control when and what you risk to them.

Now sure, if you accept a 25B scam courier contract, every ganker and their cousin will be out gunning for you and I would give you less than the near 100% chance I quoted even with a webbing escort. But this how it should be.

Freighter ganking is so rare, just tanking and keeping your cargo to a reasonable limit will keep you safe from most ganks and you will have a greater than 99% chance of your freighter arriving safely even AFK. With a webbing escort, and a quick glance at Dotlan to see if gankers are currently active somewhere on your route, that goes to way above 99.9%. Even if you do land in a system full of bumpers/gankers waiting specifically for you, you have to be quite unlucky to have one of them reach you before your webbing escort gets you into warp. Are these simple things too much to ask a player to do to keep their cargo and ship safe? Maybe some players think that it is.

You are not entitled to fly an industrial into a ganking warzone (I hear Hek is currently burning) unprotected and unescorted and expect it to survive. Take responsibility to find when and where those warzones are active (you have all the tools) and tank your ship and don't overload it (you also have all the tools) to make yourself a less attractive target then the next guy.

Like everything in Eve industrial ships are a series of tradeoffs. There are DST for your medium sized high value cargo which can be tanked like a brick to the point they are essentially ungankable in highsec. There are Jump Freighters for the high value/high volume cargo you need to move around as well which are almost invulnerable if flown correctly. Freighters are best for lower value, bulky cargo. Buffing freighters more so that "if a ganker decides they want it dead" they no longer can would obsolete the other ships and reduce the game choices that players have to make.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#52 - 2014-12-09 11:09:16 UTC
Bulkhead freighter with an escort of five logi boats is impossible to gank.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#53 - 2014-12-09 11:59:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
Jurico Elemenohpe wrote:
Uhh.
If we can have a weapon for kiters so that blaster boats can't get near, can we also have an attraction field so that blaster boats can pull kiters into range?

Nope.
This is obviously for haulers use only and why would anyone care about anything that isn't large volume hauling anyway? Roll
Zephris
The Eldritch Circle
#54 - 2014-12-09 18:31:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Zephris
Quote:
After that, let's try another angle. You claim that ganking is not done because "it is good for the game". But if so, then why does CCP allow it all? Isn't it in CCP's best interest to only develop and implement mechanisms that are "good for the game"? But if you look at the game mechanisms, they are built explicitly to allow ganking in highsec. There is a complex mechanism of security status, CONCORD, Crimewatch all of which are designed to alllow gankers to go after untanked and unprotected targets in highsec. CCP could quite readily lock out all offensive module in highsec, or make CONCORD insta-spawn, or lock -10 players out of highsec altogether, but they don't, because CCP too recognizes that gankers are good for the game.


LOL. You are arguing that CCP want to encourage ganking because it's possible ?
You know missiles used to have no explosion radius and do full damage to frigates ? Raven used to be able to smack them down like nobody's business. Obvious CCP WANTED frigates to be useless because ravens CAN smack them silly.

Oh wait they fixed it.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#55 - 2014-12-09 18:45:13 UTC
Zephris wrote:


LOL. You are arguing that CCP want to encourage ganking because it's possible ?
You know missiles used to have no explosion radius and do full damage to frigates ? Raven used to be able to smack them down like nobody's business. Obvious CCP WANTED frigates to be useless because ravens CAN smack them silly.

Oh wait they fixed it.


Key difference here is that there is nothing to fix with ganking as you already have all the tools you need to counter it.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#56 - 2014-12-09 18:47:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Zephris wrote:
LOL. You are arguing that CCP want to encourage ganking because it's possible ?
You know missiles used to have no explosion radius and do full damage to frigates ? Raven used to be able to smack them down like nobody's business. Obvious CCP WANTED frigates to be useless because ravens CAN smack them silly.

Oh wait they fixed it.
That is exactly what I am arguing. Do you think that all the mechanisms that allow highsec ganking are some sort of 11-year oversight on the part of CCP?

I will refer you to CCP Falcon's recent comments for further validation that highsec ganking is suppose to be in the game. I will just quote the first one but the links to a few of them from that thread are below:

CCP Falcon wrote:
Why should CCP provide protection for your haulage in high sec?

CONCORD offer a level of deterrent just the same as any law enforcement agency, but as with any police for they're reactive and punitive rather than proactive.

If you want your haulage to be safer, bring the guns. If you don't have any guns, sacrifice some of your profit margin and hire someone who has them to escort you.

Welcome to New Eden, you just learned a very valuable lesson in being prepared and covering your back.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4958992#post4958992
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4964171#post4964171
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4964217#post4964217
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4964192#post4964192

http://i.imgur.com/FjItcjq.jpg
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#57 - 2014-12-09 19:21:44 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Zephris wrote:
LOL. You are arguing that CCP want to encourage ganking because it's possible ?
You know missiles used to have no explosion radius and do full damage to frigates ? Raven used to be able to smack them down like nobody's business. Obvious CCP WANTED frigates to be useless because ravens CAN smack them silly.

Oh wait they fixed it.
That is exactly what I am arguing. Do you think that all the mechanisms that allow highsec ganking are some sort of 11-year oversight on the part of CCP?

I will refer you to CCP Falcon's recent comments for further validation that highsec ganking is suppose to be in the game. I will just quote the first one but the links to a few of them from that thread are below:

CCP Falcon wrote:
Why should CCP provide protection for your haulage in high sec?

CONCORD offer a level of deterrent just the same as any law enforcement agency, but as with any police for they're reactive and punitive rather than proactive.

If you want your haulage to be safer, bring the guns. If you don't have any guns, sacrifice some of your profit margin and hire someone who has them to escort you.

Welcome to New Eden, you just learned a very valuable lesson in being prepared and covering your back.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4958992#post4958992
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4964171#post4964171
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4964217#post4964217
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4964192#post4964192



off topic a little, Concord should be changed to discriminate against certain ship every week. One week its amarr the next it HAC's then it minmatar and so on. Reason not all police forces are reactive.

edit: it would be up to the player to figure it out.
Zephris
The Eldritch Circle
#58 - 2014-12-10 01:44:28 UTC
Quote:
Nope, only takes one person to stop a gank. I am one person and have not been ganked once since I learned how to prevent it. The only person it takes to stop a gank is the pilot of the freighter or mining barge. Use some sense, and you're safe.


Typical example of insane troll logic. How does a freighter pilot stops gankers from going after another freighter ? What you are talking about is forcing EVERYONE in highsec, that's over 70% of EVE population, to get enact anti-gank defenses.

Why don't you come out and say you want to force everyone to live in nullsec. what a load of bull LOL.
Paranoid Loyd
#59 - 2014-12-10 01:54:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Paranoid Loyd
Zephris wrote:
to get enact anti-gank defenses.
Eve is not supposed to be safe, this should be SOP if you don't want to lose ships.

CCP Falcon wrote:
EVE is built on the core principle that you are never 100% safe, no matter where you go or what you do.

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#60 - 2014-12-10 02:09:22 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
Why should CCP provide protection for your haulage in high sec?
If you want your haulage to be safer, bring the guns. If you don't have any guns, sacrifice some of your profit margin and hire someone who has them to escort you.


All this proves to me is that CCP Falcon has no clue about how things work in high sec and it is truly sad when the devs we rely on have no clue. Can't bring guns in high sec unless you are willing to have them killed by Concord as well, and once Concord has killed the "guns" then the gankers get their target anyway. If you think you can hire the guns then I suggest you get yourself a freighter and try to hire them then come back here and tell us how it all went.