These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

GCC and no more refitting in hisec space [Carnyx]

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Magnus Roden
Center for the Advancement of Human Endeavour
#41 - 2015-05-31 10:49:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Magnus Roden
So what you're saying that ganking at the moment is quite balanced, that gankers don't just target randoms for the lulz and cost for ganking vs cost for the target isn't at all skewed?

Quote:
It's a hilariously silly argument to think that the target's costs is in any way even remotely relevant to how much it should cost the attacker. ISK-tanking is such a fundamentally erroneous and illogical concept that it beggars belief. It would completely ruin any sense of balancing; it makes no sense from a mechanical standpoint; it makes no sense from a logical standpoint; it makes no sense from a lore standpoint. Every time it has been attempted, it has failed. Every time it has been suggested, its inherent flaws and the massive exploitation potential it forcibly creates have all been blown wide open and made readily apparent. In short: it makes no sense. Ever.



Nice try but no, cost difference being so out of whack is the main issue as to why it's rampant. Easy solutions would be to decrease concord response times increasing required dps or number of gankers, perhaps adapt Concord tactics to actually follow/guard the gank target for a bit and things like... podding.

Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#42 - 2015-05-31 10:57:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Magnus Roden wrote:
So what you're saying that ganking at the moment is quite balanced, that gankers don't just target randoms for the lulz and cost for ganking vs cost for the target isn't at all skewed?

No. What I'm saying is that ganking costs need to go down drastically and ganking be made a whole lot easier so the massive support structure required to make it work is… well… if not completely unnecessary, then at least drastically reduced in scope. The easiest way of doing so is to increase CONCORD response times, because the rest would require fiddling with CrimeWatch flagging again, and that part is in a reasonably good state.

That way, gakning can be done by randoms, rather than a select few easily trackable ganking outfits, and the victims learn to balance their cost against the risks involved and not be so shocked when it turns out that not doing anything to even remotely protect themselves turns out to not offer much in the way of protection.

As for the relation between the respective costs of the parties involved, it is completely irrelevant.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#43 - 2015-05-31 11:12:18 UTC
Magnus Roden wrote:
So what you're saying that ganking at the moment is quite balanced, that gankers don't just target randoms for the lulz and cost for ganking vs cost for the target isn't at all skewed?

Quote:
It's a hilariously silly argument to think that the target's costs is in any way even remotely relevant to how much it should cost the attacker. ISK-tanking is such a fundamentally erroneous and illogical concept that it beggars belief. It would completely ruin any sense of balancing; it makes no sense from a mechanical standpoint; it makes no sense from a logical standpoint; it makes no sense from a lore standpoint. Every time it has been attempted, it has failed. Every time it has been suggested, its inherent flaws and the massive exploitation potential it forcibly creates have all been blown wide open and made readily apparent. In short: it makes no sense. Ever.



Nice try but no, cost difference being so out of whack is the main issue as to why it's rampant. Easy solutions would be to decrease concord response times increasing required dps or number of gankers, perhaps adapt Concord tactics to actually follow/guard the gank target for a bit and things like... podding.


How about, oh I dunno, fitting a tank?
Magnus Roden
Center for the Advancement of Human Endeavour
#44 - 2015-05-31 11:18:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Magnus Roden
Tippia wrote:
Magnus Roden wrote:
So what you're saying that ganking at the moment is quite balanced, that gankers don't just target randoms for the lulz and cost for ganking vs cost for the target isn't at all skewed?

No. What I'm saying is that ganking costs need to go down drastically and ganking be made a whole lot easier so the massive support structure required to make it work is… well… if not completely unnecessary, then at least drastically reduced in scope. The easiest way of doing so is to increase CONCORD response times, because the rest would require fiddling with CrimeWatch flagging again, and that part is in a reasonably good state.

That way, gakning can be done by randoms, rather than a select few easily trackable ganking outfits, and the victims learn to balance their cost against the risks involved and not be so shocked when it turns out that not doing anything to even remotely protect themselves turns out to not offer much in the way of protection.

As for the relation between the respective costs of the parties involved, it is completely irrelevant.


So you're saying ganking isn't easy enough and you want MORE ganking. Thank you for voicing your agenda, especially so when it's a silly one. You've also not given any valid argument why cost is somehow irrelevant other than you frantically trying to cling to the current situation, using :words: to try and cover it up.

Lets just state the obvious here. A call for ganking has nothing to do with "the greater good", "better for the game" or "increase awareness of the victims teaching them risk vs reward". It's a simple result of being so scared to actually fight someone that a ganker's main joins a 40k coalition to hide behind and then whines about how there's, obviously, no one to fight. Thus gets bored and makes a faceless alt to shoot someone who he knows won't shoot back, that's all there is to it. And of course the very few people who profit from barge/exhumer production.

There's nothing wrong with ganking as a concept but it should be so restricted that it's normally not doable unless it's either personal or financially worthwhile (Iteron with 200m in cargo, officer or full DS fit CNR idiot). As it is it's silly and completely out of whack.

Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
Magnus Roden
Center for the Advancement of Human Endeavour
#45 - 2015-05-31 11:21:01 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
How about, oh I dunno, fitting a tank?


I'll fully agree that people have the responsibility to fit a tank to lower the risk but a tanked Hulk is still a target and a tanked freighter is still a target even with low value cargo on board. It's obviously not the solution.

Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2015-05-31 11:25:35 UTC
Magnus, it appears you have never ganked, never been a gank victim, never had a single PVP encounter.

You are free to express your opinion, but it will obviously be irrelevant.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#47 - 2015-05-31 11:34:10 UTC
Magnus Roden wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
How about, oh I dunno, fitting a tank?


I'll fully agree that people have the responsibility to fit a tank to lower the risk but a tanked Hulk is still a target and a tanked freighter is still a target even with low value cargo on board. It's obviously not the solution.


Only tanked freighters with low cargo value are not valid targets. Out of the million trips made by these ships every month only a few dozen at worst die to ganks. It is an insanely rare event.
Magnus Roden
Center for the Advancement of Human Endeavour
#48 - 2015-05-31 11:51:29 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Magnus Roden wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
How about, oh I dunno, fitting a tank?


I'll fully agree that people have the responsibility to fit a tank to lower the risk but a tanked Hulk is still a target and a tanked freighter is still a target even with low value cargo on board. It's obviously not the solution.


Only tanked freighters with low cargo value are not valid targets. Out of the million trips made by these ships every month only a few dozen at worst die to ganks. It is an insanely rare event.


Empty non-tanked freighters are targets, tanked Freighters with 2-3 bil onboard are targets and it's not like 2 bil is a massive amount.

Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#49 - 2015-05-31 11:54:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Magnus Roden wrote:
Nice try but no, cost difference being so out of whack is the main issue as to why it's rampant.
Just one problem: it is not rampant, and the logic is the exact opposite of what you're thinking.

It is not rampant exactly because of all the mechanisms put into place make it difficult and costly to pull off, which is why there has been a trend towards using cheaper ships. They offer slightly better bang for the buck, but at the cost of coordination and lower loot shares.

The cost difference is also a direct result of the fact that the game is well-balanced. Balance does not mean that you have to spend big to kill big — quite the opposite. Balance means that even a small and cheap ship can be used to kill a large and costly one. Anything else would be idiotic. In spite of it having been a well-known fact for a looooong time, CCP attempted to use cost for balancing once, and that gave us supercaps, which have been nothing but a balancing headache ever since (for a very obvious reason: cost balancing simply doesn't work).

If people don't want to be ganked, there is a already a very simple solution to this: fit a tank. Fly intelligently. Don't make yourself a target.

Quote:
So you're saying ganking isn't easy enough and you want MORE ganking.
Yes. Ganking is on so rare that it would appear on an endangered species list.

Just for fun, I looked at how much murdering went on last Sunday (Sundays generally being the most populated and active day in the week). During an entire day, in the two bottleneck systems that are generally considered gank central, a total of…

…drumroll…

2 freighters and 5 industrials were ganked.
1 additional freighter and 5 additional industrials were killed in war actviity.
0 of these were hyperdunked
In all, 129 industrials were lost in all of highsec, at least half of which were due to war activity; that means ~3 indy ganks per hour spread across 1200 systems (as opposed to the good old days, when you'd see that many in Jita alone during prime time). In addition to the freighters lost in the bottleneck systems, 3 more were lost in the rest of highsec, one of which was a war target.

If you think ganking is rampant, there are only three options: you are an idiot with no conception of the meaning of those two words; you are immensely uninformed; you are lying. Pick which one applies to you.

Quote:
You've also not given any valid argument why cost is somehow irrelevant other than you frantically trying to cling to the current situation, using :words: to try and cover it up.
You are confusing me with you.
You are frantically trying to cling to the thoroughly disproven myth that ganking is currently rampant, and you’re trying (and failing) to use :words: to cover up the indisputable fact that ganks are ridiculously rare.

Just because you can’t come up with a cogent or coherent argument against the points being made about cost doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.

Quote:
Lets just state the obvious here.
Ok. The call for increased ganking costs, and ultimately an end to ganking, has nothing to do with “the greater good”, “better for the game”, “balance”, or “increasing cost for gankers”. It has to do with the victims being too incompetent, lazy, stupid, and ignorant to actually fix their own problems and instead clamouring for CCP to save them by outlawing legitimate gameplay.

Quote:
There's nothing wrong with ganking as a concept but it should be so restricted that it's normally not doable
…and this is where you out yourself and your agenda. It must always be doable. Cost cannot change how easily you can kill a ship. Ganks are already immensely rare and almost always done for profit.

The situation you’re describing is already where we are. If you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself or lying. The fact that you think it should somehow be made even rarer, even more costly, proves that your agenda is something completely different from what you say. That skews the answer more towards “lying”.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#50 - 2015-05-31 11:55:08 UTC
Magnus Roden wrote:


Empty non-tanked freighters are targets, tanked Freighters with 2-3 bil onboard are targets and it's not like 2 bil is a massive amount.


So where are the kills?
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#51 - 2015-05-31 12:07:59 UTC
I missed Tippia. This thread makes me feel like it's the good old days again.

Since this thread is already completely off topic, I want to ask a question.

Concord doesn't pod. But drifters do.

What do we make of that? Is something being enforced here? If so, what?

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#52 - 2015-05-31 12:08:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Just looking a the first page of indy kills on zkillboard at the time of writing (50 kills total over ~5 hours), 10 happened in all of highsec. Of those, 3 were war tagets, 1 was suicide-by-cop(!), 5 were actual ganks of the “several hundred millions in a T1 hauler” kind, and 1 is conceivably a low-value gank but with no corresponding CONCORD activity to confirm it.

That's one suicide gank per hour, on average, over 1200 systems, each in line with what Magnus deems acceptable in terms of target value.

Glathull wrote:
Concord doesn't pod. But drifters do.

What do we make of that? Is something being enforced here? If so, what?

Drifters are:
1) A new addition from after the meaning of pod losses was adjusted.
2) An extension of “dangerous NPCs to hunt” — the same class as sleepers or sansha, but with added danger.
3) Free-roaming in a way that neither sleepers or sansha are.
4) Not related to PvP and its balancing, nor a characteristics-defining game mechanic for anything in particular.

Your question is more answered by the second and third point: nothing is being enforced — the podding is just a threat escalation for those who want a more dynamic experience in their ratting than what was previously available. You're playing for keeps, as it were (but only after “the keeps” in question have been suitably reduced).
Hengle Teron
Red Sky Morning
The Amarr Militia.
#53 - 2015-05-31 12:23:34 UTC
Glathull wrote:
I missed Tippia. This thread makes me feel like it's the good old days again.

Since this thread is already completely off topic, I want to ask a question.

Concord doesn't pod. But drifters do.

What do we make of that? Is something being enforced here? If so, what?

Sure, but drifters don't make you unable to warp with their sole presence in the system.
Yang Aurilen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#54 - 2015-05-31 12:28:26 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Magnus Roden wrote:


Empty non-tanked freighters are targets, tanked Freighters with 2-3 bil onboard are targets and it's not like 2 bil is a massive amount.


So where are the kills?



Every time someone says ganking is at an all time high just check their/their alts killboard.Roll

Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!
Magnus Roden
Center for the Advancement of Human Endeavour
#55 - 2015-05-31 13:19:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Magnus Roden
Tippia wrote:
Just for fun, I looked at how much murdering went on last Sunday (Sundays generally being the most populated and active day in the week). During an entire day, in the two bottleneck systems that are generally considered gank central, a total of…

…drumroll…

2 freighters and 5 industrials were ganked.
1 additional freighter and 5 additional industrials were killed in war actviity.
0 of these were hyperdunked
In all, 129 industrials were lost in all of highsec



Ships lost due to ganking on May 30th in Uedama only:

T1 haulers: 11
barge: 3
Orca: 1


Ships lost due to ganking on May 29th in Uedama only:

T1 haulers: 1
barge: 1
Orca: 1
Freighter: 5

Of all those a large portion of the haulers were viable targets in that they could have made a profit. Only 2 of the freighters had cargo onboard exceeding 100 mil. The remaining haulers, barges, orca and other freighters were kills for the lulz. Total cost: a few Catalysts.

Is that a lot compared to the volume of ships flying through, no. Is it silly that orcas, freighters, barges and some T1 haulers apparently get killed for no reason meaning there isn't enough repercussion for doing so for both the act itself as the accumulated downsides to making kills like that, yes.


Quote:
Drifters are:
1) A new addition from after the meaning of pod losses was adjusted.


Aha, so it IS a "the current system suits me just fine so lets not change that". Given that new types of NPC pod and the removal of SP loss on podkill I see no reason as to why other NPC, including Concord, also shouldn't pod.

Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
SamuraiJack
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#56 - 2015-05-31 13:40:14 UTC
Magnus Roden wrote:

Aha, so it IS a "the current system suits me just fine so lets not change that". Given that new types of NPC pod and the removal of SP loss on podkill I see no reason as to why other NPC, including Concord, also shouldn't pod.


^This. Give that man a cookie.

Eve has consequences. You want to be a nasty -10 criminal. You will be shot and killed. As it is the punishments for being a ganker are loss of ship. Hardly a major inconvenience when you have your alt deliver you new ones.


http://miniluv.apoff.com/?a=home < Ganker killboard.

SJ's Chronicles - http://www.fanfiction.net/u/2103579/CLS-SamuraiJack
Carrie-Anne Moss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2015-05-31 14:10:01 UTC
Do you 2 idiots realise if concorded podded, the gankers would just wake up in the station they just ganked from cuz they set it as their home system?

Lol wtf is that gonna solve dudes??

Also takes more than just a f"ew catalysts" to do those ganks.

You 2 are ignorant
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#58 - 2015-05-31 14:13:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Magnus Roden wrote:
Ships lost due to ganking on May 30th in Uedama only:

T1 haulers: 11
barge: 3
Orca: 1

Ships lost due to ganking on May 29th in Uedama only:

T1 haulers: 1
barge: 1
Orca: 1
Freighter: 5

So you agree, then. Pathetically low numbers, trivially easy to avoid, and pretty much universally done for profit.

Quote:
Of all those a large portion of the haulers were viable targets in that they could have made a profit. Only 2 of the freighters had cargo onboard exceeding 100 mil. The remaining haulers, barges, orca and other freighters were kills for the lulz.
Yeah, see, if you're going to try to use killboards as evidence, make sure the evidence (available to all) actually fits what you're saying, or you will be — entirely accurately — be called a liar.

Liar.

The vast majority of the kills of the on both days were done for profit (CODE enfocing their protection racket) or at a profit (T1 haulers carrying cargo in the 100M range and above). There are two low-value indy kills on the 30th that would fit your delusional complaint… except that both are war targets, so they don't. On the 29th, there is one gank that might be questionable — a freighter that only carries 180M worth of pyro — the remaining freighters carry something in the 1b order or above; the non-WT indies carry 100M+ (some even rivalling the freighters in cargo value).

You also seem to have failed to spot the failed ganks — the instances where there is lots of CONCORD activity without a kill to trigger it all.

Quote:
Is that a lot compared to the volume of ships flying through, no.
So you agree, then, ganking is not even close to rampant. See what happens when you start looking at the facts rather than make stuff up because you so dearly wish they were true?

Quote:
Is it silly that orcas, freighters, barges and some T1 haulers apparently get killed for no reason
Good news: that doesn't happen. The orcas and barges are killed for a reason: profit (or, in one case, as part of a war). Specifically, to enforce CODE's protection scheme. The freighters and haulers are killed for a reason: profit (or in five cases, as part of a war). Specifically, because they contain enough valuables to be worth a gank. Universally, the ones that do not contain enough valuables (and even a few that do) are killed because they are legitimate war targets and the pilot is being particularly stupid.

Of course, even if they were killed for no reason, it still wouldn't be particularly silly — the number is simply far far far too low, and ships getting shot in a ship-shooting game would have to include some pretty odd circumstances to be considered silly to begin with.

Quote:
Aha, so it IS a "the current system suits me just fine so lets not change that".
No. It is “this was an adjustment that allowed for a new type of danger to be introduced without making it ridiculously overbearing”. It has no connection to CONCORD and the far too high costs it already incurs. Since there is no reason for CONCORD to pod to serve their purpose, they shouldn't pod — that job is left to the players since the whole system is designed so that they are a (large) part of enforcing the penalties of having a criminal history. It's that simple.

What it is is you failing spectacularly to demonstrate even the slightest shred of a need to increase the costs involved with ganking, and only managing to prove the exact opposite when you try. What it is is you resorting to laughably pathetic ad hominem attacks when you can't think of an actual argument. You see, you have no idea what would or would not suit me. You just proved this beyond any doubt and thereby shot your entire line of fallacious reasoning into the sun.
Carrie-Anne Moss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2015-05-31 14:14:13 UTC
SamuraiJack wrote:
Magnus Roden wrote:

Aha, so it IS a "the current system suits me just fine so lets not change that". Given that new types of NPC pod and the removal of SP loss on podkill I see no reason as to why other NPC, including Concord, also shouldn't pod.


^This. Give that man a cookie.

Eve has consequences. You want to be a nasty -10 criminal. You will be shot and killed. As it is the punishments for being a ganker are loss of ship. Hardly a major inconvenience when you have your alt deliver you new ones.


http://miniluv.apoff.com/?a=home < Ganker killboard.


Everone of those ganks has sips lost for them just not showing on that killboard.
Also gategun kills dont show up on zkill.
The gankers are losing more sips tgan the gankees.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#60 - 2015-05-31 14:14:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
SamuraiJack wrote:
Eve has consequences. You want to be a nasty -10 criminal. You will be shot and killed.
…by players. That's what the -10 does. If players choose not to do that, then it is not the role of NPCs to step in and do what the lazy idiots refuse to do. So what you're demonstrating here is that there is no reason for CONCORD to pod, which, I suspect, was the exact opposite of what you were aiming for.

Quote:
As it is the punishments for being a ganker are loss of ship.
This is incorrect and exposes a fundamental and complete ignorance of how the game works.