These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#981 - 2015-02-05 05:24:32 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:

Of course Destiny Corrupted is correct that the chances of getting ganked are so remote, that it probably makes sense just to forgo tank altogether. Freighters are so safe, that the chance of you losing one, even AFK, is low enough probably just to ignore.


You're more likely to get in a real life car accident than ganked in a freighter. Their deaths are exceedingly rare, with very few ship classes having less deaths.

There's also that matter about many of them being "repeat custromers." I'm not kidding.

Valterra Craven wrote:
I'm pretty sure that I've already stated I'd have no problem with more realism. It would be AMAZING to see npcs actually combat each other. (See CCP's "blackboard" idea for NPC AI). But the problem as it stands is that none of those NPCS actually do anything. They aren't attacking anything on gates or stations. And technically if you had read far enough back I did come up with an idea that CCP should remove all missions and agents should just give missions to hunt down people with sec status below 0.0. (To be fair it wasn't a serious idea)

It was a pretty serious idea for the pro-sandbox lobby that originally fielded this idea 6-7 years ago, if not earlier. Of course the carebears cried bloody murder, and to this day it's something that will stir up the mission-running community like nothing else. No, go ahead, try to present it formally. See what happens. I've done it before.

Valterra Craven wrote:
Well the problem is that unlike players, npcs are technically infinite. Its basically why null-sec has issues with population density now. What I mean by that is nullsec systems, even the best ones, typically can't support all that many players because the number of activities available to them is comparatively finite to missions in hi sec which are not.

Since only about 15% of the game's population lives in null, it means that for most of the day, there are actually more 0.0 systems in the game than there are players located in 0.0.

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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#982 - 2015-02-05 05:36:13 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:

Of course Destiny Corrupted is correct that the chances of getting ganked are so remote, that it probably makes sense just to forgo tank altogether. Freighters are so safe, that the chance of you losing one, even AFK, is low enough probably just to ignore.


You're more likely to get in a real life car accident than ganked in a freighter. Their deaths are exceedingly rare, with very few ship classes having less deaths.

There's also that matter about many of them being "repeat custromers." I'm not kidding.


You'll find that's also true about car accidents.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Valterra Craven
#983 - 2015-02-05 16:25:05 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

If I put 10b worth of stuff on my combat ship, I can get ganked just as easily. And yet, I'm not asking for increased CONCORD protection, despite flying ships like that in pvp on a regular basis.


Ok? I'm not asking for more protection for people with 10bil worth of assests in any ship....

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

How many have you ever seen at gates? The only ones I've ever noticed have all been within cover range of station sentry guns.

Do bumping mechanics not work on npcs as well? (I've honestly never tried to bump one, so serious question)
Valterra Craven
#984 - 2015-02-05 16:31:20 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

It was a pretty serious idea for the pro-sandbox lobby that originally fielded this idea 6-7 years ago, if not earlier. Of course the carebears cried bloody murder, and to this day it's something that will stir up the mission-running community like nothing else. No, go ahead, try to present it formally. See what happens. I've done it before.


Well given that its something I've wanted for a long time and I have no problem with it, does that finally mean I can shed the carebear label? (The answer is really irrelevant, because labels do nothing to advance civil discourse). In any case, I think the tide is turning there. The NPC AI has been improving over the course of Eve's life and in my humble opinion its only going to be a matter of time before we get something like Blackboard on a vast majority of NPCs.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Since only about 15% of the game's population lives in null, it means that for most of the day, there are actually more 0.0 systems in the game than there are players located in 0.0.


While likely true, that's besides the point. Not all of Null is created equal and I think that null sec alliances have some merit that not all null sec systems are worth living in or fighting for. Regardless, I do think that if some settled null systems could support higher player densities that over time more people would live there.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#985 - 2015-02-05 16:31:55 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

If I put 10b worth of stuff on my combat ship, I can get ganked just as easily. And yet, I'm not asking for increased CONCORD protection, despite flying ships like that in pvp on a regular basis.


Ok? I'm not asking for more protection for people with 10bil worth of assests in any ship....

You were making a point that at a certain value, being ganked is almost a guarantee. And my point is that it isn't.

Valterra Craven wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
How many have you ever seen at gates? The only ones I've ever noticed have all been within cover range of station sentry guns.

Do bumping mechanics not work on npcs as well? (I've honestly never tried to bump one, so serious question)

They work.

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
#986 - 2015-02-05 17:26:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

You were making a point that at a certain value, being ganked is almost a guarantee. And my point is that it isn't.


Well actually I was trying to make a point about fitting choices. (Though I will readily admit I might not have taken the best tact) If the argument is going to be that getting ganked is so rare, then why does it matter what you fit? In other words why do the arguments:

Carebears are so stupid, they fit badly, education is the key!
We shouldn't make haulers safer and thereby remove the tank fitting option!

Hold any water if the argument is that ganks are already so rare that you'd get hit by lightening before you get ganked?
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#987 - 2015-02-05 17:32:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
It's rare, but fitting choices still play a role. If you only (arbitrary numbers here) have a 1% chance of getting ganked with a cargo fit, and a .5% chance of getting ganked with a bulkhead fit, then you're only decreasing your chance to get ganked by .5%, but are now only half as likely to get ganked.

But a more accurate answer is that fittings shift the ganking formula to almost (nothing in life is ever certain, but you can come close) guarantee that you don't get ganked as long as you don't exceed a certain cargo value. Fittings only start helping once you have that winning lottery number. There's a flip side to this too, of course: you can buy enough lotto tickets to guarantee winning it.

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
#988 - 2015-02-05 17:40:21 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
It's rare, but fitting choices still play a role. If you only (arbitrary numbers here) have a 1% chance of getting ganked with a cargo fit, and a .5% chance of getting ganked with a bulkhead fit, then you're only decreasing your chance to get ganked by .5%, but are now only half as likely to get ganked.

But a more accurate answer is that fittings shift the ganking formula to almost (nothing in life is ever certain, but you can come close) guarantee that you don't get ganked as long as you don't exceed a certain cargo value. Fittings only start helping once you have that winning lottery number. There's a flip side to this too, of course: you can buy enough lotto tickets to guarantee winning it.


Which would be a reasonable argument if every gank was conducted on the basis of profitability.
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#989 - 2015-02-05 17:48:37 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Which would be a reasonable argument if every gank was conducted on the basis of profitability.


Practically all ganks are made for profit:

- Profit from loot
- Profit from increasing freighter sales
- Profit from winning a war because you disrupted the enemies supply line
- Profit from donors who want to read about your organization
Valterra Craven
#990 - 2015-02-05 17:54:59 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Which would be a reasonable argument if every gank was conducted on the basis of profitability.


Practically all ganks are made for profit:

- Profit from loot
- Profit from increasing freighter sales
- Profit from winning a war because you disrupted the enemies supply line
- Profit from donors who want to read about your organization


Ok, totally fine with that, which of those cases does the fit of the target actually matter?
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#991 - 2015-02-05 18:09:41 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Which would be a reasonable argument if every gank was conducted on the basis of profitability.


Practically all ganks are made for profit:

- Profit from loot
- Profit from increasing freighter sales
- Profit from winning a war because you disrupted the enemies supply line
- Profit from donors who want to read about your organization


Ok, totally fine with that, which of those cases does the fit of the target actually matter?


In all cases, of course.
Valterra Craven
#992 - 2015-02-05 19:13:12 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:

In all cases, of course.


If your point is it matters because of things like how much DPS you need to bring, and other such thoughts, yes I agree with you, the fit matters. But my point is that the fit doesn't matter in the motivation for ganking the target for a majority of those reasons.
Paranoid Loyd
#993 - 2015-02-05 19:21:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Paranoid Loyd
Valterra Craven wrote:
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:

In all cases, of course.


If your point is it matters because of things like how much DPS you need to bring, and other such thoughts, yes I agree with you, the fit matters. But my point is that the fit doesn't matter in the motivation for ganking the target for a majority of those reasons.

If you have multiple scanners looking for targets and you scan one with a tank and one that is anti-tanked which one would you choose to kill?

There are way more freighters than gankers, the proper tactics when trying to be safe when complete safety is not really possible is to be the least attractive target.

"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!
Valterra Craven
#994 - 2015-02-05 19:55:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Paranoid Loyd wrote:

If you have multiple scanners looking for targets and you scan one with a tank and one that is anti-tanked which one would you choose to kill?.


Well seems to me that if you are CODE the answer is pretty irrelevant.

https://zkillboard.com/kill
44291340

The values here seem to be well below what the typical threshold are that every one talks about and that one even had tripple bulkheads.

They do seem to have an awful lot of kills that net them zero profit in terms of loot drops (because they are killing empty freighters). I'm trying to find an empty tripple bulkhead fit, but finding one like that would be hard given how silly it would seem to travel max tank with 0 cargo.

The fit on this one is pretty bad, but zero cargo:

https://zkillboard.com/kill
44293086
Black Pedro
Mine.
#995 - 2015-02-05 20:03:26 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:

They do seem to have an awful lot of kills that net them zero profit in terms of loot drops (because they are killing empty freighters). I'm trying to find an empty tripple bulkhead fit, but finding one like that would be hard given how silly it would seem to travel max tank with 0 cargo.

You always should fly empty with max tank because you do not need those low slots for anything else. I always fly with as much tank as my cargo size will allow, and for an empty hold that is triple bulkhead.

No one is going to gank an empty, triple bulkheaded freighter unless you have seriously annoyed them. That is why you don't see them on killboards, not because people would be "silly" to tank their empty ship.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Valterra Craven
#996 - 2015-02-05 20:05:29 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:


No one is going to gank an empty, triple bulkheaded freighter unless you have seriously annoyed them. That is why you don't see them on killboards, not because people would be "silly" to tank their empty ship.


The problem is that anyone ganks empty anything to begin with.
Paranoid Loyd
#997 - 2015-02-05 20:40:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Paranoid Loyd
Valterra Craven wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:


No one is going to gank an empty, triple bulkheaded freighter unless you have seriously annoyed them. That is why you don't see them on killboards, not because people would be "silly" to tank their empty ship.


The problem is that anyone ganks empty anything to begin with.

Why is it a problem? If I want to waste my isk who are you to say how I waste it?

Also, you already acknowledged this as a valid reason:
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:

- Profit from donors who want to read about your organization


Familiarize yourself with this concept and it may become clearer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader

"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!
Valterra Craven
#998 - 2015-02-05 21:05:09 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:


No one is going to gank an empty, triple bulkheaded freighter unless you have seriously annoyed them. That is why you don't see them on killboards, not because people would be "silly" to tank their empty ship.


The problem is that anyone ganks empty anything to begin with.

Why is it a problem? If I want to waste my isk who are you to say how I waste it?

Also, you already acknowledged this as a valid reason:
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:

- Profit from donors who want to read about your organization


Familiarize yourself with this concept and it may become clearer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader


I know what the term loss leader means. My whole point is that I think its currently imbalanced that this option exists in the form it does. Meaning I would like to see the GCC adjusted to act more like the jump fatigue mechanic to make people like CODE actually have to pick and choose who they gank.
Paranoid Loyd
#999 - 2015-02-05 21:13:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Paranoid Loyd
Valterra Craven wrote:
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:


No one is going to gank an empty, triple bulkheaded freighter unless you have seriously annoyed them. That is why you don't see them on killboards, not because people would be "silly" to tank their empty ship.


The problem is that anyone ganks empty anything to begin with.

Why is it a problem? If I want to waste my isk who are you to say how I waste it?

Also, you already acknowledged this as a valid reason:
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:

- Profit from donors who want to read about your organization


Familiarize yourself with this concept and it may become clearer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader


I know what the term loss leader means. My whole point is that I think its currently imbalanced that this option exists in the form it does. Meaning I would like to see the GCC adjusted to act more like the jump fatigue mechanic to make people like CODE actually have to pick and choose who they gank.


If I am killing freighters at a loss while knowing that the profit of those kills will be coming from those who enjoy reading the stories that it creates how can you argue they are not killing for profit?

Indirect profit is still profit.

"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!
Black Pedro
Mine.
#1000 - 2015-02-05 21:15:42 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
I know what the term loss leader means. My whole point is that I think its currently imbalanced that this option exists in the form it does. Meaning I would like to see the GCC adjusted to act more like the jump fatigue mechanic to make people like CODE actually have to pick and choose who they gank.

Then perhaps you should suggest that in the Features and Ideas subforum so we can hash out the pros and cons of your proposal.

Personally however, I think if CODE. chooses to gank at a nominal loss, that is their prerogative. This is suppose to be a sandbox afterall.

But since this thread is intended to discuss hyperdunking, perhaps we can put CODE.'s business plan aside for now?

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?