These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Balancing bumping and looting mechanics

First post
Author
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#41 - 2016-01-26 19:53:19 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:


On the other hand, Eve is supposed to have some element of repercussion for your actions but the repercussions are negligible for the players doing the ganking and non-existent for players doing the bumping and carrying stolen property.



The repercussion for the gankers would be, "Wasting hours sitting at a gate failing to ever actually kill anything worthwhile."

Fortunately, there is a nigh endless supply of valiant freighter pilots ready and willing to jump on that grenade. Pirate

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#42 - 2016-01-26 19:58:00 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:

On the other hand, Eve is supposed to have some element of repercussion for your actions but the repercussions are negligible for the players doing the ganking and non-existent for players doing the bumping and carrying stolen property.


Gankers don't have many repercussions?

Because the so called victims refuse to do anything about it. Like any PvP interaction, "consequences" are for the other player to inflict. It doesn't take many Talos to gank a Machariel, especially since the bumping one are absolutely not combat fit. Meanwhile, if anyone pops the freighter's wreck, they have basically ruined the gank post facto.

The repercussions are there. But no one bothers to inflict them.

"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.

Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#43 - 2016-01-26 20:14:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
For every freighter you've seen bumped, you have seen hundreds more pass through unscathed. Its only a relatively small amount of freighters that get ganked and only in a few systems. So if anything, ganking should be made easier. This would actually reward good piloting and making friends...

Those are all great points! I agree! However the bumping mechanic, if you happen to fall into the trap should not keep you in limbo for a long time. Either they have a gank fleet ready in 5-10 min.. and go for it... or let ya go. And if they do kill it... make the punishments for criminals get harder and harder and more expensive to recover from with tags etc...

So you agree that freighter ganking is not really a problem, but needs to be made safer anyway?

Just to put some figures on it, the Red Frog Freight annual report shows how safe moving a freighter really is in highsec:

http://red-frog.org/annual-report-2014.php

In 2014 (2015 Annual Report not published yet), red frog:

- Completed 221,333 contracts in highsec
- Failed 245 contracts in highsec
- Made 2,786,739 jumps in highsec

So only 0.11% of contracts to RFF failed in the whole year and they made near 3 million jumps in highsec. RFF is by far the largest hauling Corp in the game, so those stats are pretty representative overall of the level of risk that Freighters face; and RFF also pass through the choke point systems of Uedama and Niarja.

There is no issue that needs to be resolved. The risk of being bumped and ganked is proportional to the stupidity/laziness of the freighter pilot and they get what they deserve if they don't take precautions.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#44 - 2016-01-26 21:29:07 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Gankers don't have many repercussions?

Because the so called victims refuse to do anything about it. Like any PvP interaction, "consequences" are for the other player to inflict. It doesn't take many Talos to gank a Machariel, especially since the bumping one are absolutely not combat fit.

The repercussions are there. But no one bothers to inflict them.

Your point suggests that people have to become gankers themselves to force repercussions upon the bumpers? And that they'd actually have to become more skilled than the gankers themselves at ganking in hunting a more agile, faster, smaller target that can't be endlessly bumped for an hour.

I don't feel this fits in with any kind of white knight roleplay. Besides which, if enough vigilantes DID decide to act in this way and the machariel losses became high enough then the bumpers would just stop using 'expensive' machs and simply downscale to insurable T1 hulls at which point there really would be no meaningful repercussion for them under the current game rules.

Outside of bumpers, gank alts can freely travel around highsec in pods and shuttles, freely dockup, freely undock (provided they have an instaundock BM and keep moving around the system) and at most put an 80m (already replaced) battlecruiser on the line at a point where they've already factored in it's loss to the activity they're partaking in...and of course, they can just swap to a non criminal alt for the duration of their 15 minute timer.

I like ganking as a part of the game but really it's laughable how easy it is to setup a 30 day gank alt and log it in on request.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#45 - 2016-01-26 21:48:27 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:


I like ganking as a part of the game but really it's laughable how easy it is to setup a 30 day gank alt and log it in on request.


Which, again, is true only because there is a contingent of Lemming-like players who will cheerfully feed themselves to gankers.

If they made even a token effort to defend themselves, this wouldn't be the case. Why don't you take this up with the imbeciles who make ganking so proftable instead of trying to subsidize them?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Brad Neece
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2016-01-26 21:51:11 UTC
Bumping deserves it's place but maybe some suggestions...

1. Active Tactical Ramming Shield Module for bumpers ?
1 per ship. High Slot-Requires Charges......1 Charge per bump.....10 Charges Max depending on the skill level? Can only be reloaded from Depot and Stations.
Bumping can be allowed without this but add in a 25 sec Bumper TImer/Buffer.....1st Bump.....Bumper TImer starts... buffer drops to 75%....another bump within 25 secs, timer resets, buffer to 50% and so on. If Ramming shield NOT active on the final bump...the bumper takes shield damage and becomes suspect. Bump buffer resets, once depleted again its now upgraded to criminal.
Maybe a bonus that once suspect level has been reached, the bumping has dice roll to damage and disable frieghter defenses.

2. Emergency Expanded Defense Shield for freighter
Now this should very limited. And take up a decent amount of cargo space.
More than 50 km from, gate station etc.
Maybe fit 8 charges but only 4 can be used per system.
As each charge is used. ship shield in expanded 1 km for 3-5 secs, blocking other ships from further bumps but depletes shield a certain percentage. If timed correctly, incoming ships within 1 km, with Ramming mod active, the Bump charge surges and mod takes heat damage and dice roll the surge causes 100% damage to mod. Some limitation that the shield has to be 100% to use each charge? Enter some friendly Anti-Gankers for shield reps.
If two or more bumpers join in, bumping timer is already active for another pilot....any further bumpers, start a normal 25 sec timer but buffer starts at 50%. 3rd bumper start 25%. Rare but 4th becomes suspect on the spot. Add a blinking beacon to identify how many timers are active.

If freighter pilot is experienced enough they may be able to time each charge to get themselves free, but will require communication with others and some luck.

These are not perfect, but gankers can get organized and gank well within those 14 bumps.

As far as Looting tactics
With the gank, loot & eject before ship lose tactic. The looted items themselves should be the Suspect trigger, atleast while the original looter is still Suspect for/or Criminal while obtaining them.
If loot is tranferred to a Fleet Hangar...the pilot needs "These items were recently illegally obtained, do you accept the items and consequences that follow, for allowing this transfer to your ship?" IF they accept they go Suspect.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#47 - 2016-01-26 21:52:52 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:


I like ganking as a part of the game but really it's laughable how easy it is to setup a 30 day gank alt and log it in on request.


Which, again, is true only because there is a contingent of Lemming-like players who will cheerfully feed themselves to gankers.

If they made even a token effort to defend themselves, this wouldn't be the case. Why don't you take this up with the imbeciles who make ganking so proftable instead of trying to subsidize them?



This will be tongue in cheek but the gankers are bringning the issue to the gankee in the form of antimater on a daily basis and we have yet to see any improvement...

LolLolLol
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#48 - 2016-01-26 21:56:16 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:

Your point suggests that people have to become gankers themselves to force repercussions upon the bumpers?


"become gankers" nothing, the sec status loss is completely negligible if they don't pod the guy.

And yes, I am suggesting that if they want to kill a ship that isn't flagged, that they have to do exactly what everybody else does and suicide gank it.

Same thing I have to do if I want to kill a freighter, since they're basically never in player corps.

Quote:

And that they'd actually have to become more skilled than the gankers themselves at ganking in hunting a more agile, faster, smaller target that can't be endlessly bumped for an hour.


If by that you mean get within 20km for about twelve seconds, on a target that you know is going to be hanging around within 10km of a gate anyway. Not that high of a bar to jump, if they hate the ebil gankerz as much as they say they do.


Quote:

I don't feel this fits in with any kind of white knight roleplay.


Roll

I don't feel like that matters. They're players, same as everyone else, have access to the same mechanics and are subject to the same restrictions.

The only valid complaint they have is that facpo does their job better than they ever could.


Quote:

Besides which, if enough vigilantes DID decide to act in this way and the machariel losses became high enough then the bumpers would just stop using 'expensive' machs and simply downscale to insurable T1 hulls at which point there really would be no meaningful repercussion for them under the current game rules.


Which means you would have had an effect, since due to their MUCH lower mass they have a lot less effect on a freighter.

You can't say that it's broken just because other people are allowed to react to your actions.


Quote:

Outside of bumpers, gank alts can freely travel around highsec in pods and shuttles, freely dockup, freely undock


Just like everybody else who pays a sub, yeah. What's your point?

"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.

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#49 - 2016-01-26 22:02:22 UTC
Ah yeah, as I said in my first post, I laugh everytime I see the lemmings dying to a gank and bumping *is* pre-emptively avoidable...

That said, imo the types of ganks where the gankers are already milling about in system seem so much more in-keeping with immersion and lore than the current situation where someone in a mach bumps as long as necessary whilst sending out a ping for catalysts and waiting for the calvary to log in - even waiting to see how many pilots they can muster before doing their napkin math, calculating how many should be in battlecruisers and how many in destroyers.

It's this refinement of bumping and ganking combined so that only one active player is needed to make a system 'risky' that seems crass.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#50 - 2016-01-26 22:17:54 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
"become gankers" nothing, the sec status loss is completely negligible if they don't pod the guy.
It's still a loss of security status and giving up kill rights to people who'd be happy to use them. Basically you have to burn an alt to do this in perpetuity or at least stop doing anything in expensive ships until the KR expires. You suffer more repercussions than the people that use disposable alts to do this with.

Quote:
Same thing I have to do if I want to kill a freighter, since they're basically never in player corps.
And I'm perfectly in agreement that people shouldn't be able to hide behind npc corps, that doesn't validate how the current mechanics work or don't work.

Quote:
If by that you mean get within 20km for about twelve seconds, on a target that you know is going to be hanging around within 10km of a gate anyway. Not that high of a bar to jump, if they hate the ebil gankerz as much as they say they do.
Whereas a freighter will be the same distance away from the gate and not as agile...so yes I think you just confirmed that it's easier to get an accurate warp in on and gank a freighter before it aligns away, unlike a machariel with an MWD fitted. I don't consider gankers 'ebil' - just a little lazy and scared of losing the ability to continue with their minimum effort, well oiled routine.

Quote:
I don't feel like that matters. They're players, same as everyone else, have access to the same mechanics and are subject to the same restrictions.
Which says nothing about whether those mechanics are actually any good or not. In features and ideas, generally people are pointing out flaws with current mechanics and suggesting changes. In this thread I disagree with the proposed changes but agree with some of the flaws that have been pointed out.

I'd love to see suicide ganking given a whole rework, including removing some of the ability of webbing freighters directly into warp to increase losses and risk across the board - but I'd also like to see bumping without aggression removed as a pretty lame mechanic.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#51 - 2016-01-26 22:27:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Brad Neece wrote:
1. Active Tactical Ramming Shield Module for bumpers ?
1 per ship. High Slot-Requires Charges......1 Charge per bump.....10 Charges Max depending on the skill level? Can only be reloaded from Depot and Stations.
Bumping can be allowed without this but add in a 25 sec Bumper TImer/Buffer.....1st Bump.....Bumper TImer starts... buffer drops to 75%....another bump within 25 secs, timer resets, buffer to 50% and so on. If Ramming shield NOT active on the final bump...the bumper takes shield damage and becomes suspect. Bump buffer resets, once depleted again its now upgraded to criminal.
Maybe a bonus that once suspect level has been reached, the bumping has dice roll to damage and disable frieghter defenses.

Any system that involves damage or a suspect timer for bumping won't work.

There is a lot of other accidental bumping going on in the game and it would be easy to exploit.

A gank squad could just line themselves up in front of a Freighter that is aligning to the next gate and the Freighter would bump them while aligning out. The Freighter would become the bumper and would go suspect for doing nothing more than aligning.

Then it could be killed with no consequence at all.

Suggestion 2. would never happen, since Freighters would be suspect well before ever getting 50km off gate.

The net result would be that this suggestion would almost totally shutdown the use of Freighters.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#52 - 2016-01-26 22:37:20 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
It's still a loss of security status and giving up kill rights to people who'd be happy to use them.


Ah, so you're unwilling to deal with the exact same mechanical consequences as the gankers do?

If they scare you off, they must be fine then.


Quote:
And I'm perfectly in agreement that people shouldn't be able to hide behind npc corps, that doesn't validate how the current mechanics work or don't work.


Nah, the fact that it's fair and equitable totally does, though. The only reason you see unequal outcomes is because one group of players is bad at the game, and the other is not.

If people wouldn't autopilot, ganking would drop by half overnight. Not one thing needs to be nerfed about a playstyle that basically only exists because haulers are stupid.


Quote:
I don't consider gankers 'ebil' - just a little lazy and scared of losing the ability to continue with their minimum effort, well oiled routine.


Yeah, so we should be nerfed because we're good at the game and have our procedures down.

And as for "effort", you don't get to say a word about that as long as mining and missioning still exist. Ganking is harder, more thoughtful and requires more effort than almost every PvE playstyle in highsec combined.

And hell, that's why ganking exists to begin with. It is 100% avoidable, so the players who fail to put in any effort to defend themselves die. That could not be more working as intended, and I honestly don't care if you think it's "stale" or "boring" or whatever code word you want to use for "it should change because I don't like it", which by the way isn't a reason to change one damned thing about this game.

"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.

Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#53 - 2016-01-26 22:51:26 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
It's still a loss of security status and giving up kill rights to people who'd be happy to use them.


Ah, so you're unwilling to deal with the exact same mechanical consequences as the gankers do?

If they scare you off, they must be fine then.

This is a thing that always makes me laugh.

People who complain about ganking often complain that there are no consequences or that the consequences aren't tough enough.

As soon as its suggested that they do the same thing to the gankers, they complain that they don't want the consequences.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#54 - 2016-01-26 22:58:43 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
It's still a loss of security status and giving up kill rights to people who'd be happy to use them.


Ah, so you're unwilling to deal with the exact same mechanical consequences as the gankers do?

If they scare you off, they must be fine then.

This is a thing that always makes me laugh.

People who complain about ganking often complain that there are no consequences or that the consequences aren't tough enough.

As soon as its suggested that they do the same thing to the gankers, they complain that they don't want the consequences.


"More effort for thee but not for me"

~Every carebear

"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.

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#55 - 2016-01-26 23:01:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
As I already stated...I dont see why you have to become criminal to fight against other people that are assisting criminals themselves.

For Scip and Kaar:

I understand your very blinkered views and attempts to polarise opinion with regards to current ganking mechanics but I'm sorry, I don't subscribe to them (or their opposite):

Ganking is great and part of what makes Eve, Eve, I am still not anti-ganking inspite of your attempts to pigeon hole me as such.

BUT I believe the mechanics need a revamp because:

a) Nothing should be able to transfer so much value across the universe as safely as webbed freighters currently can [when flown properly] - likewise for JFs and other caps being able to land directly in docking range of stations. Capitals should encourage/necessitate group play and not be able to travel with such little risk - conversely, if someone wants to autopilot their empty freighter, it should have enough repercussions that unprofitable ganking isn't so attractive.
b) Escorting a freighter should be more interesting and meaningful gameplay than a second account in a frigate sending a duel request and webbing it into warp every jump (a form of gameplay that is actually easier with an alt rather than a second player).
c) One player shouldn't be able to 'disrupt' a players attempt to warp endlessly without being flagged as a suspect or criminal.
d) A risky, dangerous system to haul through should have a more interesting permanent population than a single player with a machariel sporadically joined by his mates logging in for an actual kill.

Sadly, the game is maybe too old, the code too obfuscated for anything to be changed easily.


Anyways...as I say, you both seem unable to view it as shades of grey and only consider people to be either pro or con ganking when it comes to discussion of the mechanics. That's your loss, not mine.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#56 - 2016-01-26 23:06:54 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
As I already stated...I dont see why you have to become criminal to fight against other people that are assisting criminals themselves.


Because they're not flagged. Their actions is explicitly not hostile.


Quote:

c) One player shouldn't be able to 'disrupt' a players attempt to warp endlessly without being flagged as a suspect or criminal.


It doesn't disrupt anything. Their warp engines are still online, and they are not scrammed.

It does change their alignment, but that's it.


Quote:

d) A risky, dangerous system to haul through should have a more interesting permanent population than a single player with a machariel sporadically joined by his mates logging in for an actual kill.


Yeah, never happening. That currently occurs because of two things.

Facpo being the first, and the 15 min Concord "time out" being the second.

Unless you're willing to part with both of those, you'll never see such gatecamps as you claim you want. It's absolutely not in the cards.

"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.

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#57 - 2016-01-26 23:16:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
Quote:
Because they're not flagged. Their actions is explicitly not hostile.
Because they're not flagged...under the current mechanics you know, those current mechanics that I'm saying need a revamp?

/facepalm

Quote:
Quote:
'disrupt' a players attempt to warp


It doesn't disrupt anything. Their warp engines are still online, and they are not scrammed.

It does change their alignment, but that's it.
Changing their alignment disrupts a player's ATTEMPT TO WARP, it prevents them warping, therefore their attempt to warp has been disrupted. Read the actual words, not what you choose the words to say. I know the engines are fine, there's a reason I used quotation marks around 'disrupt'

Quote:
Quote:
d) A risky, dangerous system to haul through should have a more interesting permanent population than a single player with a machariel sporadically joined by his mates logging in for an actual kill.


Yeah, never happening. That currently occurs because of two things.

Facpo being the first, and the 15 min Concord "time out" being the second.

Unless you're willing to part with both of those, you'll never see such gatecamps as you claim you want. It's absolutely not in the cards.
I never said I wasn't against changing those mechanics - it's why I said it needs a complete revamp, not just little tweaks and fixes.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#58 - 2016-01-26 23:20:24 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Because they're not flagged...under the current mechanics you know, those current mechanics that I'm saying need a revamp?

/facepalm


And the ones I'm saying don't. Bumping into somebody else is a very specifically not hostile act. Not only has CCP said that it's beyond them to change that, since it's the base physics engine of the game, but it also does not fit ANY of Concord's definitions of one either, which require the activation of a module that has a deleterious effect on another player.



Quote:
Changing their alignment disrupts a player's ATTEMPT TO WARP, it prevents them warping, therefore their attempt to warp has been disrupted.


Incorrect. Their attempt to warp is still there, their ship is unable to complete it because they aren't aligned.

Hence webs.


Quote:
I never said I wasn't against changing those mechanics - it's why I said it needs a complete revamp, not just little tweaks and fixes.


And like I said, you really aren't going to get it for technical reasons at the very least. They might as well just make a new game as change things that fundamental to the base game.

Hell, it took them the better part of a decade to fix POSes, and they didn't actually fix it, it's still in the game because they can't fix it, they just made a replacement for it.

"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.

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#59 - 2016-01-26 23:29:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Because they're not flagged...under the current mechanics you know, those current mechanics that I'm saying need a revamp?

/facepalm


And the ones I'm saying don't. Bumping into somebody else is a very specifically not hostile act. Not only has CCP said that it's beyond them to change that, since it's the base physics engine of the game, but it also does not fit ANY of Concord's definitions of one either, which require the activation of a module that has a deleterious effect on another player.
Again, pointing out a flaw in a mechanic doesn't equate with me suggesting a way to fix it and having it said that a faulty mechanic is unfixable doesn't make me change my mind about it being a faulty mechanic.


Quote:
Quote:
Changing their alignment disrupts a player's ATTEMPT TO WARP, it prevents them warping, therefore their attempt to warp has been disrupted.


Incorrect. Their attempt to warp is still there, their ship is unable to complete it because they aren't aligned.

Hence webs.
Please learn to English. You are interfering with their attempt to warp, you are disrupting their efforts, you are impeding their desire to achieve something. Disrupt is not limited in the English lexicon to a module in an internet spaceships game. You are disrupting their attempt to warp. Fact.


Quote:
And like I said, you really aren't going to get it for technical reasons at the very least. They might as well just make a new game as change things that fundamental to the base game.

Hell, it took them the better part of a decade to fix POSes, and they didn't actually fix it, it's still in the game because they can't fix it, they just made a replacement for it.
Yeap and that's why I (and many others) haven't thought of suitable suggestions for fixes, this doesn't mean that I can't point out perceived flaws in the current mechanics though.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#60 - 2016-01-26 23:30:01 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
For Scip and Kaar:

I understand your very blinkered views and attempts to polarise opinion with regards to current ganking mechanics but I'm sorry, I don't subscribe to them (or their opposite):

...

Anyways...as I say, you both seem unable to view it as shades of grey and only consider people to be either pro or con ganking when it comes to discussion of the mechanics. That's your loss, not mine.

Blinkered views?

What are my views?