Player Features and Ideas Discussion

What a refreshing thread after all those "icongate" and "eve is dying" ones. Gankers want to gank even easier
It's binary.
NPC not switching to ganker - bad for PvEers.
NPC switching to ganker - bad for ganker.
It's all about ewar.
Pirates in BR regions don't have problem with ganking me. I lost lots of gilas there. All not without a fight.
There is no simple solution here.

sure the initiative is mine and I wouldnt engage someone I think I wouldnt be able to take down. Although I even tried regardless sometimes, you might always have a lucky shot on a moron in expensive hull, absolutely.

But what does my chance to win a particular fight have to do with risk of engagement for my target?
He seeks to evade and has everything in his favor to do so. These are 2 different things, one is chance to get caught and the other is chance to loose. You mix things up.

The value of average ratter ship that time (insurable battleship) was pretty much the same as of uninsurable T2. Do you want to dispute this?


same stuff about risk in a different fashion.

When we are brawling, and a new ships warps on grip, if its more of a threat than the current primary we will switch aggression. We [edit] DON'T have a conversion or wait to see if they are going break out the reps for us for gods sake.

Why shouldn't rats.

I mean how many pages and yet no good reason as to why rats should ignore you, the special snowflake.

The only way for a ratter to win an engagement 99% of the time is to not allow an aggressor on grid. If that hostile is there to hunt you, he likely is prepared to win, and getting tackled is a death sentence. If the hostile is not there to hunt ratters, then the ratter looses only a small amount of time by evading.

There is no point in staying on grid with hostiles in the area.

Everyone in EVE should already know that to undock is to consider your ship lost until it returns. Your risk is equivalent to what you put in space. You cannot claim you are at anything near the same risk as your target when you have less than 100 mil on the line and they have many times that---even if you are guaranteed to explode for just the chance to make them explode. You would need a fail rate roughly equal to the number of times you need to die to make up the difference in ship cost to make that risk even---and you don't even have that now, if you bother to apply a little tactics and intelligence to your hunt. But that's not what invalidates your ideas about risk.

Your argument about risk is invalid because it assumes that ratting and other PvE professions rely on solo gankbears hunting them for balance. It does not. Ratters are hunted all the time, die all the time, and the balance of their profession has other better controls that the Devs can apply than gankbears.

So everything you say boils down to just wanting cheap easy kills because that's how you get your rocks off. It's not about game balance or any other actual relevant factor. It's purely your enjoyment and frag all anything else.

yet again you left out and ignored one my questions, cant you follow simple rules and quote parts of my posting you are replying to?


Yes, if I seek a target I pick relatively easy one, I specialize on a certain type of ship I can kill relatively safely, this is how this game works, absolutely right. But how does stating this obvious fact help in this discussion?
Thats not even quite true, your statement is only valid for max profit pve fits, many times I ran against prepared ratters and was forced to leave the field with no kill or even lost my ship.


What you mean is you shouldnt undock anything you cant afford to lose, right. Thats a very precautious, conservative rule made for noobs starting with eve, just to save them tears and anger from loosing a ship they spend all their ISK on, unaware of some game mechanics.
However, risk is no invention of eve, its a common term and is defined by chance of event multiplied by value of loss - not only value of loss, you cant simply disregard this established basic formula when talking to people about risk, which always implied calculation of chance.
Undocking a ship and sitting on undock with finger over the dock button is not even close to equally risky as going onto a roaming with it, for instance.


I cant and I did not claim anything because we dont have a particular instance to base on.

Ship I used to fly was a 250m bomber. Uninsurable.
Average ratters battleship hull was around 200m, fully insured + 100m fitting at tops, means possible net loss of 150m?
So there we go, even at same risk (which is by far not), I put 100m more at stake than average ratter.
In case I omit expensive fitting, it would be still like 100m vs. 150m at 10-20, 50 times of loss probability from roaming hostile region. What made up for it was the sole sheer amount of ratters in a well populatd area, a good full pool of stupid lazy targets which basically threw all their tiny risks together to make it worthwhile and fun thing for me to do.


what? Stop posting unreadable garbage like that, risk is actually a pretty simple concept to understand. => chance * loss.


which argument do you mean exactly? Yes, "gankbears" are part of the risk for everyone who undocks in this game. How does it relate to which argument at all in what way? I dont understand.
PvE profession does not "rely" on anything, its under certain risk like everything else.

[quw34345ote=Mike Voidstar]
So everything you say boils down to just wanting cheap easy kills because that's how you get your rocks off. It's not about game balance or any other actual relevant factor. It's purely your enjoyment and frag all anything else.[/quote]

everything you say is just because you want ratting safety, for pure enjoyment and easy isk. Thats how you get your rocks off. Its not about game balance or any other actual relevant factor.

you can read up about what risk means on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk


its not "my concept", its a well defined thing.

for you, sitting in a car in front of your garage with ignition off probably means same risk as driving 120mph over a highway with it, according to your understanding of risk.

I think rats should be fickle, but should maintain a definite preference for their original targets as well as those who have redboxed them over targets who have not aggressed them yet, and especially over targets who are attacking their enemies.

That sentence makes no sense in itself if you are easier to kill you are less of a threat.

this mindset is not wrong or stupid and has a very good basis.