These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

A Message Regarding "Hyperdunking"

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#841 - 2015-02-02 18:31:01 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Tippia wrote:
aside from suggesting that people are too stupid to analyse and adapt to their environment and therefore need more NPC-created protection.


We'll agree to disagree on what I'm actually asking for.



You have asked for exactly that every time anyone has asked what you want.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#842 - 2015-02-02 18:38:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Valterra Craven wrote:
Saying that numbers are a certain way is different than actually providing links to them. See unlike you I'm willing to back up what I've done.
Again, just because you skip the links does not mean you haven't been provided them, and just because you have half-arsed some misinterpreted numbers does not mean you can actually back anything up.

Quote:
Where did I narrow it down to just freighters
When you said that you want to “cut down on the ganks that happen in the 1.2 to 2bil range of freighters”.

Quote:
That works both ways you know.
The difference is that I have actual mechanics, maths, killboards, and CCP statements on my side — all of which you've been provided.
Valterra Craven
#843 - 2015-02-02 18:40:30 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:

Over the last few days I've been investigating the plausibility of being a profit-making anti-ganker.


I've actually thought some about this too. (It would be cool to have a rep a bounty hunter etc) And I think there are more problems than you mentioned with this idea. On top of the ones you highlighted I can think of two more: the size differential of potential targets and the fact that they can just dock up when they see you coming.

My endevour would not be to try and "save" people, or ask them to pay me for protection, but in this idea that its actually possible to "dispense justice". It would be incredibly boring to try and hunt people like CODE for the sheer fact that no one is going to want to camp them in stations all day (hey a big reason I got out of null sec). And even if you did get a kill on them, it wouldn't be worth your time. Yes, you would likely be "net positive" on the kill, but how much time would you have wasted on it?

Now my real question: Is it possible to have zbillboard filter kills by hi-sec that weren't war targets without manually trying to figure that out ship by ship?
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#844 - 2015-02-02 18:45:21 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Oh, and CODE is not relevant. Again, you are asking for safety for haulers. If all you have as a reason for this increase is “because CODE”, then you have no reason. They, and their minute impact on the overall hauler traffic in EVE, are not a reason to make sweeping balance changes to an entire group of ships or to core mechanics.

I'm going to expand on this point on CODE's irrelevance - because it turns out this is a pretty major point.

Over the last few days I've been invistigating the plausibility of being a profit-making anti-ganker. Specifically, breaking bump-tackles through the use of counter-bumping, tactical bookmarks and webbing freighters into warp. While the strategy looked trickier than first envisioned, it seemed viable. The biggest drawback was in fact the lack of ganking activity.

I checked the killboards for HiSec freighter ganks (suicide ganks, not war tallies) and at the time I looked, the last 3 days had seen two ganks in the whole of HiSec. Both of which were by Globby and his hyperdunking method against what were almost certainly AFK freighters (one was empty and both kills were accompanied with pod kills).

By far and away the most likely source of content for me was indeed CODE freighter ganking fleets. Going back over a week on the killboards, I can see 3 freighter killing events. All other freighter kills were so infrequent that it was infeasible for me to be in the right place at the right time. The only place where it looked like I could make a meaningful impact and profit was Uedama during these specific events. Even then, I would be met with freighter pilots that simply wouldn't pay me to save them not to mention the significant portion that would be straight up AFK.

This are insurmountable obstacles facing my attempts to save freighters from certain death and they all stem from the fact that freighter ganking simply doesn't happen enough!


If you listen to the anti-gank crowd, you'd think they happen all the time and simply undocking an ibis with 1 trit in it's hold in high sec is certain death. How dare you inject fact into their fantasies?
Valterra Craven
#845 - 2015-02-02 18:47:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Tippia wrote:
Again, just because you skip the links does not mean you haven't been provided them


I went back 5 pages and looked at all your posts. I didn't see one of them that contained a hyperlink to anything. Please feel free to show me the post number that contains this information so I can go back in review it. (I'm still not sure it even exists)

Tippia wrote:
When you said that you want to “cut down on the ganks that happen in the 1.2 to 2bil range of freighters”.


Providing a real use case does not mean that that one use case encompasses everything I wanted to accomplish.
Valterra Craven
#846 - 2015-02-02 18:48:52 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

If you listen to the anti-gank crowd, you'd think they happen all the time and simply undocking an ibis with 1 trit in it's hold in high sec is certain death. How dare you inject fact into their fantasies?


There do seem to be a lot ibis deaths on zkillboard... (yes I know I'm being disingenuous)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#847 - 2015-02-02 18:51:52 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
I went pack 5 pages and looked at all your posts. I didn't see one of them that contained a hyperlink to anything.
That's because you skipped reading the many posts where this information was provided to you.

Quote:
Providing a real use case does not mean that that one use case encompasses everything I wanted to accomplish.
That's why I initially described the class as much larger, but you weren't too happy with that obvious expansion.
Regardless, you are still asking the same thing: more safety for a group of ships that doesn't need it, for no good reason, and NPCs taking over the jobs that are meant to be done by players.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#848 - 2015-02-02 18:52:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Valterra Craven wrote:
Course on the flip side asking for more of them won't affect the protection in the slightest either. I'm happy to agree with you on that point.

Over the past decade, dedicated gankers have already proven that they will continue to gank, and in fact in greater amounts, despite of an ever-increasing amount of obstacles in their way. The only way you'll be able to curb ganking is by making it mechanically impossible.

However, despite the fact that more consequences won't curb dedicated ganking, you need to realize that these additional consequences affect the game as a whole, most often negatively, and in unexpected ways.

Veers Belvar wrote:
Actually gankers could kill more frequently than every 15 minutes by using chains of alts....they could even gank continuously.....

And haulers could minimize their risks by using chains of alts to ferry goods from one place to another, thereby minimizing the value of each load to such an extent that ganking them would be nonsensical.

What's your point?

Valterra Craven wrote:
Ok so lets put this in game context. CCP removed gankers getting insurance payouts for their ship losses. What you are saying is that this made concord more effective at protecting people in hi-sec. The problem is that his conclusion makes no sense because it in no way made concord more effective and in no way changed how much protection people in hi-sec received. The only outcome of this added consequence was that it changed the equation as to what is and is not profitable to gank. Therefore it is entirely possible to conclude that added consequences do not necessarily always translate to more protection.

It definitely did change the amount of protection that people in high-sec received. By increasing the cost of ganking, it made it less likely that those carrying smaller amounts would get ganked. That's very much equivalent to more protection. A parallel, if you need it, can be made by saying that removing unemployment benefits from convicted criminals would lead to a reduction in crime. This protects the public, because there's less crime.

You don't need to adjust active mechanics in order to change the amount of protection. You could, for example, make it so that ganked targets drop only 10% of their loot on average. This would protect high-sec haulers without making CONCORD more effective.

Valterra Craven wrote:
Only if all gankers cared about profitability. The problem is that CODE exists and they frequently kill things that are not profitable to kill which would mean that concord is not any more effective at its job then it was before the insurance change.

They kill for the honor of James 315. They sacrifice their own blood for the purity of his name. What's the problem here?

Jenn aSide wrote:
Why play video games at all if you need to be hand held rather than seeing things as a fun challenge to be overcome?

A new generation of gamer was born after autosave on the XBox replaced gambling your quarters on fighting game matches with other people at the local arcade.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#849 - 2015-02-02 19:02:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Hiasa Kite
Valterra Craven wrote:
On top of the ones you highlighted I can think of two more: the size differential of potential targets and the fact that they can just dock up when they see you coming.

"Over the last few days I've been invistigating the plausibility of being a profit-making anti-ganker. Specifically, breaking bump-tackles through the use of counter-bumping, tactical bookmarks and webbing freighters into warp."

Shooting wasn't involved. None of the ships/fittings I considered even equipping guns. It was all about agility, speed and tank.

e: And webs.

Quote:
Now my real question: Is it possible to have zbillboard filter kills by hi-sec that weren't war targets without manually trying to figure that out ship by ship?

Not that I can see. The only bet is to XQUERY the results on the freighter kills with your own filters.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Valterra Craven
#850 - 2015-02-02 19:09:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Tippia wrote:
That's because you skipped reading the many posts where this information was provided to you.


The only post that I believe that even tried to provide data was #817

But again, the problem with the data presented is that its very specific.

This is what I saw in the CSM report on page 104:

"For reasons that are left as an exercise to the reader, Exhumers are now blowing up at historically low
rates."

To that I'd say: "duh". They increased the tankability of mining barges. Therefore they blew up less. How does this report relate to how fast CODE can gank today? Answer it doesn't.

The point that no one seems to be able to concretely prove should be a very simple one if CCP would just release some dang numbers.

What did the frequency of ganks look like in all of hi sec that didn't include war targets two months after the insurance change?
What does the frequency of ganks look like today in all hi sec that doesn't include war targets?

They are very basic questions that CCP should be able to not only answer, but even break down by ship type and loss numbers. The real question is why haven't they? It seems to me that doing so would help to quell threads like these that happen on regular basis. If the numbers show what I think they do, well then I'd have evidence to point to. If they didn't, then I'd still think CODE were greifers, but I'd have no numerical values to stand on.

Tippia wrote:
more safety for a group of ships that doesn't need it, for no good reason, and NPCs taking over the jobs that are meant to be done by players.


We'll agree to disagree.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#851 - 2015-02-02 19:16:37 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:




They are very basic questions that CCP should be able to not only answer, but even break down by ship type and loss numbers.


We have all the data to do that ourselves.
Valterra Craven
#852 - 2015-02-02 19:17:54 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Over the past decade, dedicated gankers have already proven that they will continue to gank.


Which is kinda my point with my statement that I don't buy that all gankers do it for profitability.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

It definitely did change the amount of protection that people in high-sec received. By increasing the cost of ganking, it made it less likely that those carrying smaller amounts would get ganked. That's very much equivalent to more protection. A parallel, if you need it, can be made by saying that removing unemployment benefits from convicted criminals would lead to a reduction in crime. This protects the public, because there's less crime.


Here, I will make this simple, on this particular topic what we are arguing about is basically semantics and nuances. Did the insurance payout change make some people less likely to be ganked? Yes. Did it increase the amount of protection they got? No. Concord was not made faster, it didn't rep victims, and it didn't alter the mechanics of when they lost a ship.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

They kill for the honor of James 315. They sacrifice their own blood for the purity of his name. What's the problem here?

The rate at which they are able to do so.
Valterra Craven
#853 - 2015-02-02 19:18:57 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:




They are very basic questions that CCP should be able to not only answer, but even break down by ship type and loss numbers.


We have all the data to do that ourselves.


Did not the great Tippia point out that the killboard data from 2013 was incomplete thus making that task impossible? If you can tell me how to go about doing this, I'm all ears.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#854 - 2015-02-02 19:19:25 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

A new generation of gamer was born after autosave on the XBox replaced gambling your quarters on fighting game matches with other people at the local arcade.


This sums it up nicely. EVE is effectively the dark souls of the MMO world, full of sadists and unsavory types. If you come here expecting what you get with every other game out there then you are in for a shock.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#855 - 2015-02-02 19:21:40 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Half? Where do you live? I live in America. The marginal tax rate is no where near half of my income or anyone else's. In fact, even if you tacked on sales taxes its only another couple percent of the 8 percent tax that I pay to the Fed every year. On top of that the full 10-12% of taxes I do pay of my income in no way shape or form 100% goes to paying for my safety. I'm sorry but I'm going to need to see some real data of what real modern day protection actually costs, cuse otherwise you are pulling numbers out of your butt.

And yet, the amount you do pay is currently infinitely greater than the amount paid in EVE.

Valterra Craven wrote:
At least I'm willing to try and do some research and leg work and the stuff I say and back what up I say and don't resort to be a butt munch until the last possible second.

Then you'd become a ganker/outlaw, at least for a while.

Valterra Craven wrote:
Oh, if its not very difficult to educate people about ganking and it is the only conceivable and useful solution, then why has it failed? Surely the word would have gotten out by now and surely the people hauling 10 bil worth of stuff through udema yeterday would have known better. I mean its not like newbros have the money to even have 10 bil worth of stuff to haul, nor would they even be able to afford cap ships in the first place...

I have many times tried to educate prior victims of ganks/scams/war losses about what they did wrong and how to avoid making the same mistakes in the future. The majority of responses were either in the form of ignoring me entirely ("k m8 thx o/"), or actually being hostile to me with insults/threats ("rofl fu scrub i kno wut i doing"). These people then went on to repeat the same mistakes.

So actually, yeah, Tippia's a little wrong on this, because many of these "victims" are beyond redemption, and education is a hopeless endeavor. And these are not the players around whom the game should be balanced.

Unless you want to destroy it.

Briar Thrain wrote:
Hyperdunking is an exploit of game mechanics regardless of it's legality. If the majority of players agreed that they don't want it in the game I would hope that CCP would listen to that.

Also, I think the idea of CONCORD going after criminal pods is a no-brainer. Or perhaps they could transport the criminal pods to a detention center or the middle of Thera? That would be hilarious Big smile

sum gr8 idaes all around m8 pls run 4 csm k i vote 4 u all tiem

Valterra Craven wrote:
Do you have links to this research? Did CODE exist in the form that it does today?

Please, have you seen CODE today? It's like three guys and a Hatsune Miku body pillow sitting around a dollhouse tea table and arguing about whose MLP t-shirt has the best art style. Just because they're super-motivated, doesn't mean that they're an epidemic.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Valterra Craven
#856 - 2015-02-02 19:34:49 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

And yet, the amount you do pay is currently infinitely greater than the amount paid in EVE.


Infinitely? Exaggerate much? If you look at the current US Budget roughly 22% of it is spent on "defense". http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_pie

Now that roughly equates to military spending, which isn't really what we're talking about here.

If you drill down into protection roughly 1% is spent there on various things such as police and fire. So no, not only do we not spend infinitely more for protection in real life than we do compared to eve, I'd say they were roughly similar if the market taxes were to be lore adjusted to go to concord.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Then you'd become a ganker/outlaw, at least for a while.


How so?


Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Unless you want to destroy it.


Well I'm not going to exaggerate here either. I don't think CODE's activities are destroying EVE anymore than I think expanding the timers a bit more would destroy EVE, no more than I think having more stupid people would destroy EVE. That being said I also don't think CODE's negative effects are 0 or near 0. In the end money is money.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Please, have you seen CODE today? It's like three guys and a Hatsune Miku body pillow sitting around a dollhouse tea table and arguing about whose MLP t-shirt has the best art style. Just because they're super-motivated, doesn't mean that they're an epidemic.


With all due respect, I disagree with your assessment based on the number of kills that got yesterday.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#857 - 2015-02-02 19:52:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Valterra Craven wrote:
(For the record while what I'm asking for would make SOME people safer, asking for exponentially increasing criminal timers based on activity does not in anyway involve NPCs)

So having a GCC doesn't involve NPCs? What?

Valterra Craven wrote:
Are you going to categorically state that empire ganking has cost CCP no subscribers? Didn't think so.

The concept of nonconsensual pvp itself costs CCP probably around 95% of the players who ever try the game. What's the point? That we should try to increase CCP's subs at the expense of the core integrity of the game? I'm not sure that's a sound strategy.

Valterra Craven wrote:
Again, you think I am asking for safety for haulers, but the problem is that what I'm actually asking for would make other players safer that are not flying haulers. Haulers are a part of the equitation, but they are not the sum total of it.

Even more safety? Why?

Valterra Craven wrote:
No, my suggestion of increasing timers would be more effective for ALL ganks.

So now miners and mission-runners, who are already extremely safe with all of the various protections in place, become even safer? It's already futile to dec them because they can easily bail, and now you want them to have increased protection from ganking too?

Valterra Craven wrote:
The rate at which they are able to do so.

That would be the rate made mechanically possible by the game. They're not breaking any rules, if you think that the rate is too high, that's just your opinion, and not a factual observation.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#858 - 2015-02-02 19:56:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Valterra Craven wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

And yet, the amount you do pay is currently infinitely greater than the amount paid in EVE.


Infinitely? Exaggerate much? If you look at the current US Budget roughly 22% of it is spent on "defense". http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_pie

Now that roughly equates to military spending, which isn't really what we're talking about here.

If you drill down into protection roughly 1% is spent there on various things such as police and fire. So no, not only do we not spend infinitely more for protection in real life than we do compared to eve, I'd say they were roughly similar if the market taxes were to be lore adjusted to go to concord.

Even if we paid only .01% of our real-life incomes for protection (and we pay much more, because the armed forces have to be included in the calculation), that would still be infinitely more than what anyone has paid in EVE over the past 12 years. Don't try to shoehorn the market tax as some kind of excuse. Market tax is affected by your standings to the corporation that owns the station that you're conducting business in, so CONCORD has zero involvement with it.

In fact, it seems to me that the people paying for your protection in EVE are also the war-deccin' sociopaths that are driving all the poor rookies away from the game. A double-whammy against your argument.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Valterra Craven
#859 - 2015-02-02 20:03:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

So having a GCC doesn't involve NPCs? What?


It doesn't if the ganker stays shipless... (yes I know the reason is that there are NPCS "forcing" them to stay shipless)

Destiny Corrupted wrote:
That we should try to increase CCP's subs at the expensive of the core integrity of the game? I'm not sure that's a sound strategy.


*Shrug* so we should risk losing some of the subscribers we have now, for what is as stated by you guys an incredibly low amount of ganks?

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

So now miners and mission-runners, who are already extremely safe with all of the various protections in place, become even safer? It's already futile to dec them because they can easily bail, and now you want them to have increased protection from ganking too?
"Extremely Safe" is subjective. I AFKed in an empty shuttle once to get from point A to B. Someone still shot at me. Apparently being able to put a bounty on anyone for any reason was a "good idea".

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

That would be the rate made mechanically possible by the game. They're not breaking any rules, if you think that the rate is too high, that's just your opinion, and not a factual observation.


Considering I already said that I thought the rate was too high was my opinion, I'm not sure what your point is.
Valterra Craven
#860 - 2015-02-02 20:09:30 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

(and we pay much more, because the armed forces have to be included in the calculation),


Considering concord doesn't protect people from war decs, no "defense" should not be included.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

that would still be infinitely more than what anyone has paid in EVE over the past 12 years. Don't try to shoehorn the market tax as some kind of excuse. Market tax is affected by your standings to the corporation that owns the station that you're conducting business in, so CONCORD has zero involvement with it.


Well if your argument is we pay infinitely more for it in real than eve because we pay zero for it in Eve, I could see your point.

But given that this isn't a free to play, and given the way CCP has set up the game mechanics that I do pay for, even without market taxes its still not zero (I would not play eve if high sec did not exist).

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

In fact, it seems to me that the people paying for your protection in EVE are also the war-deccin' sociopaths that are driving all the poor rookies away from the game. A double-whammy against your argument.


Given that a lot of rookies stay in NPC corps, I don't see that as believable (I've got a 40mil toon in SWA just because they have so many players there)