These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The bad mechanics of high sec ganking

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#61 - 2015-10-01 14:47:24 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
You're in HS... You're in harm's way when you undock in that freighter from the get go.


You know what I mean. If you don't have a scout alt and a webbing alt, don't use a freighter. Period. Don't jump into systems where you know gankers will be waiting. And if you can't figure out where gankers will be, don't use a freighter.

Red frog has something like a 99% completion rate. What are they doing that the OP isn't?
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#62 - 2015-10-01 14:47:56 UTC
Why should a freighter be allowed to solo through hi-sec?

If you think its safer to take a freighter through low then stop whining and go through low sec already. There are several routes market to market that will take you round gank systems and through low sec with the added bonus that many of them are shorter routes. If you have the manpower to force your way through a camp then do it!

For those people who are dumb, lazy or socially handicapped, they get the gankers gauntlet.

Effort-> reward.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Christopher Multsanti
Disaster Area
DISASTER Delivery Service
#63 - 2015-10-01 14:55:40 UTC
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Christopher Multsanti wrote:

The point i'm making is that in null sec or low sec you would never ever put your freighter in harms way in the first place. If there is a 40 man gang camping your travel route then you send a friendly fleet to kill them. Once the way is clear then you move your freighter with scouts.


In HS you never ever put your freighter in harms way in the first place too. Why is that super magically different for HS in your mind? How do I have scouts again?


Not all gankers are -10. Not every high sec gank can be seen coming.

Haulers Kill Vagabond!
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#64 - 2015-10-01 14:57:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Why should a freighter be allowed to solo through hi-sec?

If you think its safer to take a freighter through low then stop whining and go through low sec already. There are several routes market to market that will take you round gank systems and through low sec with the added bonus that many of them are shorter routes. If you have the manpower to force your way through a camp then do it!

For those people who are dumb, lazy or socially handicapped, they get the gankers gauntlet.

Effort-> reward.



Again, the problem is that you can't preemptively defend yourself against said gank without having to result to ganking.
I feel it's a broken mechanic if it requires you to commit a criminal act in order to stop a criminal act.
If you know someone is going to kill another person, you don't just wait until they've killed them before you do something about it (unless you're an idiot.)
Even if you're not physically willing or capable to do anything, you can still contact the police in hopes that they can address the issue BEFORE it occurs.

In Eve HS, if you're not willing to commit a criminal act, you cannot preemptively defend against a criminal act.


Edit....
This is like the absurdity of the movie National Treasure, in which they had to steal the Constitution in order to stop someone from stealing the Constitution. Wha??
However, much like HS ganking, it was LOL easy for them to steal said Constitution. Hell, there were two people doing it at the same time in two different ways!!


What's funny though, if you've ever watched a CODE gank, they have gankers to gank counter gankers..
Christopher Multsanti
Disaster Area
DISASTER Delivery Service
#65 - 2015-10-01 14:58:34 UTC
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
You're in HS... You're in harm's way when you undock in that freighter from the get go.


You know what I mean. If you don't have a scout alt and a webbing alt, don't use a freighter. Period. Don't jump into systems where you know gankers will be waiting. And if you can't figure out where gankers will be, don't use a freighter.

Red frog has something like a 99% completion rate. What are they doing that the OP isn't?


I don't fly freighters, I use Blockade runners to move stuff in empire.

Haulers Kill Vagabond!
Woozlez
Hundred Acre Mine Co.
#66 - 2015-10-01 14:59:42 UTC
Look. CCP is profiting from accepting all the people who got banned from every other MMO for griefing and other such jerkish behavior, and turning them into "content." CCP has to find a balance between these people and others who have some sense of honor, and that's what they've done in high sec.

It's life.
Christopher Multsanti
Disaster Area
DISASTER Delivery Service
#67 - 2015-10-01 15:00:50 UTC
Woozlez wrote:
Look. CCP is profiting from accepting all the people who got banned from every other MMO for griefing and other such jerkish behavior, and turning them into "content." CCP has to find a balance between these people and others who have some sense of honor, and that's what they've done in high sec.

It's life.


Troll posts are best posts!

Haulers Kill Vagabond!
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#68 - 2015-10-01 15:02:10 UTC
Christopher Multsanti wrote:

Not all gankers are -10. Not every high sec gank can be seen coming.


There are more ways to check for gankers than looking for -10s....

Again, how exactly does red frog have a 99% success rate in HS if ganking is 'unavoidable'?
Christopher Multsanti
Disaster Area
DISASTER Delivery Service
#69 - 2015-10-01 15:05:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Christopher Multsanti
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Christopher Multsanti wrote:

Not all gankers are -10. Not every high sec gank can be seen coming.


There are more ways to check for gankers than looking for -10s....

Again, how exactly does red frog have a 99% success rate in HS if ganking is 'unavoidable'?


You understand how percentages work yes?

If red frog do 1000 Freighter runs a month then they lose 10 Freighters a month!

Haulers Kill Vagabond!
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#70 - 2015-10-01 15:12:30 UTC
You can pre-empt a gank.

Carry less cargo
Take another route
Choose another destination
Take a Webber
Fit a tank
Courier contract with collateral

The contest between the hauler and ganker happens before the hauler undocks.

Bumping should not make you go suspect. Its implications would be too broad to reliably predict and every possible situation of accidental bumping would have to be considered to make exemptions of the suspect rule. It'd be easier to make bumping frightersan exploit where a human can decide whether an offense has been made or not. But that in itself opens a can of worms.

Bearing in mind that bumping is not a bad mechanic in the first place and is avoidable, best thing to do is leave it as it is.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#71 - 2015-10-01 15:13:59 UTC
Christopher Multsanti wrote:
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Christopher Multsanti wrote:

Not all gankers are -10. Not every high sec gank can be seen coming.


There are more ways to check for gankers than looking for -10s....

Again, how exactly does red frog have a 99% success rate in HS if ganking is 'unavoidable'?


You understand how percentages work yes?

If red frog do 1000 Freighter runs a month then they lose 10 Freighters a month!


Which is why ganking should be made easier.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#72 - 2015-10-01 15:16:41 UTC
Christopher Multsanti wrote:

You understand how percentages work yes?

If red frog do 1000 Freighter runs a month then they lose 10 Freighters a month!


...do you understand how percentages work?
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#73 - 2015-10-01 15:19:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenrailae
The bigger problem is exposure. A freighter, no matter where it's going, has to go there, and has to be in space the whole time. Now granted, a good part of it is while in warp and invulnerable, but still a freighter is in space for x amount of time to get to its destination, and vulnerable through x number of gates. Say a Freighter is going from Dodixie to Jita, that's about 15 jumps. That's 15 instances of being vulnerable both jumping into and coming out of a gate. There are many ways to reduce that risk, and we suggest them all the time, but all in all, that is still 15 instances of being vulnerable on both sides of a gate.


A single gank character, running at optimal speed, can do at best 4 ganks per hour, though 3 is more likely. The rest that time the ganker is in station, completely untouchable from any outside interference. That ganker is then 'at risk' 3 times when he undocks, and 3 times when he lands. I'm working under the assumption of a blank pod. Having implants and wanting to save those implants is choosing to have some additional risk.

Combining all the times a ganker is at risk over an hour that's what, 20 seconds for a .5 system x3(concord response time) and about 7 seconds, if that long, for undocking and entering warp. So 27 seconds, x3, 81 seconds for an hours gameplay? I'll be generous and round it to two minutes of being in space, at risk, for an hours game play as opposed to how long for a freighter?


It's not about nerfing ganking, it's about addressing clunky mechanics.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2015-10-01 15:27:19 UTC
I can't help but call this a troll thread. That being said it is one of the best this month, and last month too.
The art of trolling is almost lost, and this is art. A serious and unpopular topic, a call to rational debate in a framing of minimal absurdity( sorry but the whole no nonconsentual highsec pvp was too obvious a giveaway) on a topic that is usually just a rant topic.

I salute your efforts, they were not wasted and I was entertained. To prove it I'll toss in my regular bad ideas.

That said, ganking mechanics could use some tweaking, as a fair bit is emergent gameplay that could be adopted and adapted. Actual ramming ships for the bumping, and dropping the mass of bs(not to mention scaling ships models properly).

As for catys, well tbh theyre perfect, but I'd like for other dessies to be given a few all buffs, get counter ganking dessies or something.

End of terribad idea, for this post at least

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.
Leto Aramaus
Frog Team Four
Of Essence
#75 - 2015-10-01 15:29:56 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:
The bigger problem is exposure. A freighter, no matter where it's going, has to go there, and has to be in space the whole time. Now granted, a good part of it is while in warp and invulnerable, but still a freighter is in space for x amount of time to get to its destination, and vulnerable through x number of gates. Say a Freighter is going from Dodixie to Jita, that's about 15 jumps. That's 15 instances of being vulnerable both jumping into and coming out of a gate. There are many ways to reduce that risk, and we suggest them all the time, but all in all, that is still 15 instances of being vulnerable on both sides of a gate.


A single gank character, running at optimal speed, can do at best 4 ganks per hour, though 3 is more likely. The rest that time the ganker is in station, completely untouchable from any outside interference. That ganker is then 'at risk' 3 times when he undocks, and 3 times when he lands. I'm working under the assumption of a blank pod. Having implants and wanting to save those implants is choosing to have some additional risk.

Combining all the times a ganker is at risk over an hour that's what, 20 seconds for a .5 system x3(concord response time) and about 7 seconds, if that long, for undocking and entering warp. So 27 seconds, x3, 81 seconds for an hours gameplay? I'll be generous and round it to two minutes of being in space, at risk, for an hours game play as opposed to how long for a freighter?


It's not about nerfing ganking, it's about addressing clunky mechanics.



This is the most non-sensical, irrelevant post I've read in a while.

Ships that travel 15 jumps are in space longer, and therefore at risk longer, than ships that only undock for a few seconds at a time? Wow genius correlation you've discovered here.

What is your point?

-10s shouldn't be allowed to dock in high-sec stations? I'm doing my best to extrapolate a point from your Captain Obvious math up there.

The UI update we deserve
Christopher Multsanti
Disaster Area
DISASTER Delivery Service
#76 - 2015-10-01 15:32:25 UTC
Zimmer Jones wrote:
I can't help but call this a troll thread. That being said it is one of the best this month, and last month too.
The art of trolling is almost lost, and this is art. A serious and unpopular topic, a call to rational debate in a framing of minimal absurdity( sorry but the whole no nonconsentual highsec pvp was too obvious a giveaway) on a topic that is usually just a rant topic.

I salute your efforts, they were not wasted and I was entertained. To prove it I'll toss in my regular bad ideas.

That said, ganking mechanics could use some tweaking, as a fair bit is emergent gameplay that could be adopted and adapted. Actual ramming ships for the bumping, and dropping the mass of bs(not to mention scaling ships models properly).

As for catys, well tbh theyre perfect, but I'd like for other dessies to be given a few all buffs, get counter ganking dessies or something.

End of terribad idea, for this post at least


Why thank you kind sir. /me tips hat

Haulers Kill Vagabond!
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#77 - 2015-10-01 15:36:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenrailae
I would suggest rereading.


The point is exposure. I'm really not sure how you missed that. Oh, right..... you didn't read it. The current mechanics are clunky and old, and need re-addressed.


So re-read it. A freighter, even using all the ways to reduce risk, is spending much more time exposed and vulnerable, than a gank character, who spends the vast majority of his time per hour docked. With the incoming of Citadels, this should be addressed.


EDIT: Perhaps the appropriate middle ground would be to block criminals from docking in high sec stations, forcing them to use citadels and other structures. I'm not going so far as to suggest I know the best way to fix the problem. But there is a definite imbalance in the exposure both 'sides' are presented with, even after all the ways to reduce the risk.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Leto Aramaus
Frog Team Four
Of Essence
#78 - 2015-10-01 15:40:38 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:
I would suggest rereading.


The point is exposure. I'm really not sure how you missed that. Oh, right..... you didn't read it. The current mechanics are clunky and old, and need re-addressed.


So re-read it. A freighter, even using all the ways to reduce risk, is spending much more time exposed and vulnerable, than a gank character, who spends the vast majority of his time per hour docked. With the incoming of Citadels, this should be addressed.



I would suggest quoting, so people know what you're responding to.

I did read every word.

Your reply just stated the exact same thing:

Quote:
A ship that is travelling 15 jumps spends more time in space (and at risk) than a ship that stays docked


No sh*t sherlock.

So I'll ask again... what is your point?

The UI update we deserve
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2015-10-01 15:43:12 UTC
Read.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Leto Aramaus
Frog Team Four
Of Essence
#80 - 2015-10-01 15:45:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Leto Aramaus
Kenrailae wrote:


EDIT: Perhaps the appropriate middle ground would be to block criminals from docking in high sec stations, forcing them to use citadels and other structures. I'm not going so far as to suggest I know the best way to fix the problem. But there is a definite imbalance in the exposure both 'sides' are presented with, even after all the ways to reduce the risk.


Ahhh there it is! So I was right, your point is that you think criminals shouldn't be allowed to dock in high-sec stations.

I agree that criminals (-10 sec status) shouldn't be allowed to dock in CONCORD stations.

But why would The Scope or Caldari Navy care about sec status? These are independent corporations and if you have good standings with them, regardless of your standings with Concord, they're going to let you dock in their stations.

I seriously can't express how funny I found your multi-paragraph word-problem just to say "people who undock are at risk more than people who don't undock".

The UI update we deserve