EVE General Discussion

There is, you just don't want it.

There's ganks going on that make no sense and should not happen (hyperdunking being one) because the cost of ganking is in no way related to the ship cost of the target. A few catalysts killing a freighter is silly, a bulky freighter should be able to move more than 2 bil in cargo before it's deemed a target and It makes no sense other than "that's how it's been up till now" and "please don't change it, I'm having too much fun".

Apart from that there's the little thing that has been stated before: New NPC pod, pod is a normal part of the kill. I'd say the time is exactly right to make NPC/Concord pod kill if only for equality. HTFU and all that.

Can you give any examples?
Why shouldn't they happen?
Why shouldn't something as inoffensive yet clever as huperdunking, of all things, not happen?
Why should legitimate gameplay be removed?

That's called balance. It is a good thing.
Why should balance be removed?


How is it silly that a dozen combat ships can kill a single bulk transporter?
Why is it a problem that it is deemed a target at that cargo value?


So basically, you want to turn CONCORD (which is a gameplay-defining mechanic) into a mere NPCs. I can only assume that by this you mean that CONCORD can be beaten, and fairly trivially, with the right amount of preparation; that killed CONCORD will not respawn for a couple of hours; that CONCORD will drop valuable loot; and that CONCORD will not have any easily exploitable trigger conditions such as C-flags.

If that's the case, why should that happen? Why should CONCORD be reduced to an NPC? Why should highsec be removed? Why should people like me not be allowed to travel safely anywhere in space?

If that's not the case, then we're back to the original question that you still are utterly and completely incapable of answering: why should the price of aggression go up, seeing as how you have proven that ganks are ridiculously rare and really only done for profit?

Explain to us how a massive inequality in regards to gank ship cost vs gank target ship hull cost (Catalysts vs Freighter, for instance) is somehow balanced.



It's funny to see you try so hard to change the subject and lure me, and others, into semantics and nonsense. as you always do :)

Nothing what you stated there makes sense or is logical in anyway nor could anything from that be implied from what I stated.

Don't lie, of course cost is used in balance. It's done all the time, just because CCP fails at it at times (like with so many things) that doesn't somehow mean it's not accounted for. It's done by altering the amount/type of components/minerals required and by regulating the scarcity of those items. Stating cost is not factored in balancing is a hilariously terrible, and mistaken, meme. Especially so with T1 hulls.

It's just that you use a different "form" of balance atm, because it suits you, on purpose :)

Cost is a product of balance — it is not something that you can use to balance other factors out. It is not a factor in balance.

If something is better because it is expensive, then the expense is irrelevant because everyone will just go for it because it is better. This is not the same thing as being expensive because it is better, because then you have to ask “what is it that warrants the increased expense”.

EVE uses the latter logic: you buy increasingly marginal improvements for exponential costs (in time, material, SP, bonuses, and everything else), and even then only in one particular niche. A freighter is more expensive because it does its thing — hauling — better than the cheaper versions. Being better at hauling does not make it better at combat; that's not where the money goes. A battlecruiser is more expensive because it does its thing — killing stuff — better than the cheaper version. Being better at killing things does not make it better at, say, moving around.

A destroyer is much much much worse hauler than a freighter and a much worse killer than a BC, so it is also much much cheaper than both. That does not preclude it from being much better in combat than a freighter. The improvements it buys comes in an area where the freighter has bought next to none.

Actually, CCP does it far better than most, with the exception of supercaps (which were balanced on a naïve idea about costing too much to be useful). That's why supercaps have been a balancing headache for close to a decade now.

Cost can work as a balance measure under one very specific circumstance: when there is a strict upper limit to time and resources and you have to budget your expenditures with those maximums in mind. In an infinitely renewable economy, cost cannot balance anything because as a limitation it is always trivial to overcome. That is why RTSes and MOBAs have vastly different designs than persistent MMOs.

…and guess what? Zerg rush.

Truth. Simple truth. Accept it or live in a state of delusion where your arguments will never ever work.

QFT

Officer fit Ibis' would wreck 20man cruiser fleets. Pay To Win, FTW.

"bigger/more expensive isn't necessarily better" is not the same as "there is zero relation between cost and effectiveness". If that were the case then T2/T3 and faction ships could/should cost the same as basic T1 hulls. It's in fact the increased cost (through required materials or scarcity) that makes it more balanced, otherwise no one would ever fly T1 hulls.

Ok, you go GCC in one of those ships you mentioned vs a Raven in high sec. See where that gets you.

There is no issue.