These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Shrinking Sandbox - Eve by numbers

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#921 - 2015-05-24 14:05:46 UTC
Cyborg Girl86 wrote:
This entire thread was essentially one big TL;DR for me, so excuse my ignorance on the matter Oops

Basically what I'd like to know is with the SOV changes planned (or already underway, hell if I know anymore lol) is there going to be a change in the way huge fleet battles in Null are going to be undertaken?

I ask because before I decided to break off and become a one-man industry/manufacturing tycoon, I used to be one of those "F1 Monkeys" mentioned in an earlier post. A number in a massive fleet in a massive alliance doing battle against another massive fleet belonging to an equally massive alliance. And tbh, I loved it. Being in massive space battles watching fleets of 100s of ships duke it out is what attracted me to the game in the first place.


If the days of massive space battles are numbered for EVE, then I will be a sad panda Cry

Again sorry if seems like I've been living under a rock for the past year. Massive changes in gameplay for me have kind of left me out of the loop when it comes to Null mechanics.


There will be a lot more focus on smaller gangs but engagements can always spiral out of control and become slugfests.
0bama Barack Hussein
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#922 - 2015-05-24 18:34:03 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Cyborg Girl86 wrote:
This entire thread was essentially one big TL;DR for me, so excuse my ignorance on the matter Oops

Basically what I'd like to know is with the SOV changes planned (or already underway, hell if I know anymore lol) is there going to be a change in the way huge fleet battles in Null are going to be undertaken?

I ask because before I decided to break off and become a one-man industry/manufacturing tycoon, I used to be one of those "F1 Monkeys" mentioned in an earlier post. A number in a massive fleet in a massive alliance doing battle against another massive fleet belonging to an equally massive alliance. And tbh, I loved it. Being in massive space battles watching fleets of 100s of ships duke it out is what attracted me to the game in the first place.


If the days of massive space battles are numbered for EVE, then I will be a sad panda Cry

Again sorry if seems like I've been living under a rock for the past year. Massive changes in gameplay for me have kind of left me out of the loop when it comes to Null mechanics.


There will be a lot more focus on smaller gangs but engagements can always spiral out of control and become slugfests.


As I have understood new June sov, big fights are still possible, but more likely in smaller numbers (hundreds instead of thousands, even divided into multiple locations) as big coalitions send thousand(s) to a constellation (more than one locations in each system).

And well for now it seems there will be no reason to rather send bigger ships than warp core stabbed interceptors with Entosis-link. So they will send thousands of interceptors instead of armada of (sub-) caps.
Valterra Craven
#923 - 2015-05-24 18:40:27 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
People who claim that there's no risk, cost, difficulty or downside to suicide ganking have never managed to satisfactorily explain to me why they can't suicide gankers.


And gankers that say that there is risk, cost, and difficulty or downside to suicide ganking have never managed to satisfactorily explain to anyone why suiciding gankers has any meaning.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#924 - 2015-05-24 22:13:09 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Cyborg Girl86 wrote:
This entire thread was essentially one big TL;DR for me, so excuse my ignorance on the matter Oops

Basically what I'd like to know is with the SOV changes planned (or already underway, hell if I know anymore lol) is there going to be a change in the way huge fleet battles in Null are going to be undertaken?

I ask because before I decided to break off and become a one-man industry/manufacturing tycoon, I used to be one of those "F1 Monkeys" mentioned in an earlier post. A number in a massive fleet in a massive alliance doing battle against another massive fleet belonging to an equally massive alliance. And tbh, I loved it. Being in massive space battles watching fleets of 100s of ships duke it out is what attracted me to the game in the first place.


If the days of massive space battles are numbered for EVE, then I will be a sad panda Cry

Again sorry if seems like I've been living under a rock for the past year. Massive changes in gameplay for me have kind of left me out of the loop when it comes to Null mechanics.


There will be a lot more focus on smaller gangs but engagements can always spiral out of control and become slugfests.

Yes the days of huge battles are over. The coalitions have a sov system that is no threat to them and only need to field as many as needed to stop anyone from becoming a threat to them.

They can even win battles over new sov with smaller fleets ( -500), because the whole sov system favours existing groups, while placing huge barriers for new groups entering the sov arena (which isn't really an arena as such, it is more like a carefully divided up continent controlled by a few player run governments.

Devs could not have made the new sov system more biased to protect the existing groups if they tried.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#925 - 2015-05-24 22:34:05 UTC
Uh you recall that 6 months ago there were in 0.0 just 2 powerblocs and a game reserve in providence?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#926 - 2015-05-24 23:18:35 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
People who claim that there's no risk, cost, difficulty or downside to suicide ganking have never managed to satisfactorily explain to me why they can't suicide gankers.


And gankers that say that there is risk, cost, and difficulty or downside to suicide ganking have never managed to satisfactorily explain to anyone why suiciding gankers has any meaning.

Of course ganking has meaning, in fact it has several.
You might make some isk from whatever you gank (so you can afford your next cheap as shite ship to do the next gank)

You get to wreck someones day with little risk to your self. Risk is very carefully calculated, so is minimized to just above zero.

CCP has a bit of an isk sink.

Best of all they can gank someone and then just use highsec mechanics to protect them if someone they have ganked turns up looking for revenge.
Gankers are a bit like RL bullies - Only brave when they are the only threat.

In response to Malcanis; Eve doesn't have a valid mechanic to counter gankers, shooting them is a criminal activity where you will see higher consequences than they do. Shooting their pods, after, they have ganked something is of little consequence no more than an inconvenience.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#927 - 2015-05-24 23:24:15 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
People who claim that there's no risk, cost, difficulty or downside to suicide ganking have never managed to satisfactorily explain to me why they can't suicide gankers.


And gankers that say that there is risk, cost, and difficulty or downside to suicide ganking have never managed to satisfactorily explain to anyone why suiciding gankers has any meaning.


Actually, they have done so numerous times, you are simply a pathetically legendary pedant and ignored it every time.

"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.
Ivant Sumboodi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#928 - 2015-05-24 23:33:44 UTC
Wait ... wtf? In the future everybody will just be flying interceptors for battles? Is this the next expansion or something?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#929 - 2015-05-24 23:55:09 UTC
Ivant Sumboodi wrote:
Wait ... wtf? In the future everybody will just be flying interceptors for battles? Is this the next expansion or something?

Actually, interceptors with T1 entosis links (they can't fit T2) will be somewhat ineffective on anything other than completely undefended space. Ishtars online is safe for a while longer.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Valterra Craven
#930 - 2015-05-25 01:00:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
People who claim that there's no risk, cost, difficulty or downside to suicide ganking have never managed to satisfactorily explain to me why they can't suicide gankers.


And gankers that say that there is risk, cost, and difficulty or downside to suicide ganking have never managed to satisfactorily explain to anyone why suiciding gankers has any meaning.


Actually, they have done so numerous times, you are simply a pathetically legendary pedant and ignored it every time.


Pedantics don't ignore things. They point out flaws in arguments. There's a difference.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#931 - 2015-05-25 01:05:36 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:

Pedantics don't ignore things. They point out flaws in arguments. There's a difference.


Then what's the word for people who ignore things that don't reinforce their confirmation bias?

Gonna take a crack at it and say... intellectually dishonest. That probably fits you better.

"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
#932 - 2015-05-25 01:10:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Of course ganking has meaning, in fact it has several.
You might make some isk from whatever you gank (so you can afford your next cheap as shite ship to do the next gank)


I'd be interested in learning of a fit that would be expendable enough that you could make a profit sustainably from ganking gankers. Keep in mind profit has to account not only for your ship loss, but also your standings as well.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

You get to wreck someones day with little risk to your self. Risk is very carefully calculated, so is minimized to just above zero.

Again, I'd like to see a fit that you'd have little risk to your self in, but besides that, how does it wreck someones day to lose an asset that they were guaranteed to lose regardless of your actions? Especially one that is bought and paid for by others that are just interested in "tears"?

Sgt Ocker wrote:

CCP has a bit of an isk sink.


Ganking is not an isk sink. Insurance is an isk faucet.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

Best of all they can gank someone and then just use highsec mechanics to protect them if someone they have ganked turns up looking for revenge.
Gankers are a bit like RL bullies - Only brave when they are the only threat.


Have you ever fought a RL bully?
Valterra Craven
#933 - 2015-05-25 01:12:54 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:

Pedantics don't ignore things. They point out flaws in arguments. There's a difference.


Then what's the word for people who ignore things that don't reinforce their confirmation bias?

Gonna take a crack at it and say... intellectually dishonest. That probably fits you better.


Well that would imply A. that I'm intentionally misleading people, or B. that character attacks are relevant in arguments. But I understand how its easier to attack people than provide a reasoned and data driven argument.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#934 - 2015-05-25 01:25:03 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:

Pedantics don't ignore things. They point out flaws in arguments. There's a difference.


Then what's the word for people who ignore things that don't reinforce their confirmation bias?

Gonna take a crack at it and say... intellectually dishonest. That probably fits you better.


Well that would imply A. that I'm intentionally misleading people, or B. that character attacks are relevant in arguments. But I understand how its easier to attack people than provide a reasoned and data driven argument.


That's not a character attack. That's an observation based on your post history. Someone could put the "evidence" you are spouting off about on a sign, and beat you over the head with it, and when you woke up you'd be demanding to see the evidence that you claim hasn't been provided yet.

"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
#935 - 2015-05-25 01:28:39 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

That's not a character attack. That's an observation based on your post history. Someone could put the "evidence" you are spouting off about on a sign, and beat you over the head with it, and when you woke up you'd be demanding to see the evidence that you claim hasn't been provided yet.


If that's your observation of my post history, then either your bias is showing, or you make poor observations. Evidence is only as good as the scrutiny that it is able to withstand. Evidence must not be very good if it cannot withstand much scrutiny.
Cyborg Girl86
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#936 - 2015-05-25 01:44:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Cyborg Girl86
Valterra Craven wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

That's not a character attack. That's an observation based on your post history. Someone could put the "evidence" you are spouting off about on a sign, and beat you over the head with it, and when you woke up you'd be demanding to see the evidence that you claim hasn't been provided yet.


If that's your observation of my post history, then either your bias is showing, or you make poor observations. Evidence is only as good as the scrutiny that it is able to withstand. Evidence must not be very good if it cannot withstand much scrutiny.


Can someone let these two settle their dispute and get them some boxing gloves and mouthguards already? Roll

Sheesh....
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#937 - 2015-05-25 02:08:10 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Of course ganking has meaning, in fact it has several.
You might make some isk from whatever you gank (so you can afford your next cheap as shite ship to do the next gank)


I'd be interested in learning of a fit that would be expendable enough that you could make a profit sustainably from ganking gankers. Keep in mind profit has to account not only for your ship loss, but also your standings as well.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

You get to wreck someones day with little risk to your self. Risk is very carefully calculated, so is minimized to just above zero.

Again, I'd like to see a fit that you'd have little risk to your self in, but besides that, how does it wreck someones day to lose an asset that they were guaranteed to lose regardless of your actions? Especially one that is bought and paid for by others that are just interested in "tears"?

Sgt Ocker wrote:

CCP has a bit of an isk sink.


Ganking is not an isk sink. Insurance is an isk faucet.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

Best of all they can gank someone and then just use highsec mechanics to protect them if someone they have ganked turns up looking for revenge.
Gankers are a bit like RL bullies - Only brave when they are the only threat.


Have you ever fought a RL bully?

You actually managed to turn what I was saying around 100%. How you got that so wrong is beyond me. Nowhere there did I say anything about ganking gankers. Gankers make profit from ganking!!

There is quite a big difference between a "sink" and a "faucet". A faucet puts something in, a sink lets it out. Ganking is an isk "sink" because it removes items from the game. Good for CCP because those items will in most cases have to be replaced, which keeps the economy turning.

"Have you ever fought a RL bully" - As it turns out, yes (not with fists or anything, although i did have to defend myself on a few occasions), nearly every day for close to 30 years. My profession (now retired) put me in contact with would be bullies of all ages from children to adults, male and female, every day..

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Valterra Craven
#938 - 2015-05-25 02:39:13 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

You actually managed to turn what I was saying around 100%. How you got that so wrong is beyond me.


That's easy, context. You quoted my post. The context of my post was addressing the theory of ganking gankers. Therefore, I took everything in your post as a response to that.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

There is quite a big difference between a "sink" and a "faucet". A faucet puts something in, a sink lets it out.


Correct.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

Ganking is an isk "sink" because it removes items from the game.


Incorrect. Items are not isk. Something is only an isk sink if isk is removed from the game. Isk is not removed from the game when a ship is ganked. The gank would be considered an item sink. This is a very important distinction. So while ganks do a play a role in the player economy, you need to understand that because of insurance, ganks are isk faucets.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

"Have you ever fought a RL bully" - As it turns out, yes (not with fists or anything, although i did have to defend myself on a few occasions), nearly every day for close to 30 years. My profession (now retired) put me in contact with would be bullies of all ages from children to adults, male and female, every day..


Now that I understand the context of your post was referring to ganking rather than ganking the ganker, we both agree. Bullies use unequal playing fields to cause havoc. As soon as the playing field is leveled they find a new field. Whether or not ganking is bullying is a topic of discussion I'd rather not engage in because it leads to no where.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#939 - 2015-05-25 08:19:01 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

You actually managed to turn what I was saying around 100%. How you got that so wrong is beyond me.


That's easy, context. You quoted my post. The context of my post was addressing the theory of ganking gankers. Therefore, I took everything in your post as a response to that.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

There is quite a big difference between a "sink" and a "faucet". A faucet puts something in, a sink lets it out.


Correct.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

Ganking is an isk "sink" because it removes items from the game.


Incorrect. Items are not isk. Something is only an isk sink if isk is removed from the game. Isk is not removed from the game when a ship is ganked. The gank would be considered an item sink. This is a very important distinction. So while ganks do a play a role in the player economy, you need to understand that because of insurance, ganks are isk faucets.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

"Have you ever fought a RL bully" - As it turns out, yes (not with fists or anything, although i did have to defend myself on a few occasions), nearly every day for close to 30 years. My profession (now retired) put me in contact with would be bullies of all ages from children to adults, male and female, every day..


Now that I understand the context of your post was referring to ganking rather than ganking the ganker, we both agree. Bullies use unequal playing fields to cause havoc. As soon as the playing field is leveled they find a new field. Whether or not ganking is bullying is a topic of discussion I'd rather not engage in because it leads to no where.

If a freighter gets ganked on its way to or from market with billions of isk worth of modules in its hold - It is removing isk from the game. Modules and materials are not covered by insurance - So every time a T2 freighter carrying billions in isk worth of modules or materials is ganked, it is removing cargo destroyed value plus 4 .5 billion isk (Rhea, insured for max payout) or 6 bil if not insured, from the game. In a player driven economy like ours, gankers create demand that would otherwise not be there.

The reference to bullying was only that, a reference as to how some groups work. I don't consider freighter gankers as bullies but those who specialize in ganking solo miners, I am unsure.


Is ganking good for eve, Yes it is. For many different reasons.
Is it balanced with the risk vs reward concept of Eve, No it isn't.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#940 - 2015-05-25 09:53:36 UTC
You're confusing "ISK" with "value". Or possibly "ISK in my wallet" with "total ISK in the game". Or maybe even both.

When your ganked freighter dies, even if it is uninsured, a hundred or so million ISK suddenly appear in your wallet that didn't exist before. The fact that you personally have seen your total NAV go down by a few hundred million ISK, doesn't change the fact that there are now more ISK in the game economy than there were were before your freighter 'sploded.

That's what an ISK faucet is. Suicide ganking is a large wealth sink: the value of assets removed from the economy will invariably be worth more, perhaps much more than any ISK created, but it's still an ISK faucet.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016