These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[February] Wreck Hitpoint Rebalance

First post First post
Author
Globby
Never Ignorant Gettin' Goals Accomplished
Gimme Da Loot
#341 - 2016-02-14 19:29:42 UTC
Hey but I'm up to debate with you on teamspeak or something and record it and post it somewhere. That way it's a lot harder to misdirect arguments and run with blatant lies.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#342 - 2016-02-14 20:25:02 UTC
Globby wrote:
You still haven't given me a counter. Give me a counter, anything at all. Please give me a counter play and I'll tell you how fundamentally wrong you are. I've been asking for three posts and you've still yet to post a single one.
I have, and each time you've just gone "NOPE!". The fact that it is frequently countered is proof there is in fact a counter.

Globby wrote:
I want to know your mindset here, because I'm genuinely interested. You either 1) know you're wrong, and you're still just sitting here 'trolling' and pretending to be dense, or 2) you're genuinely ignorant of game mechanics and too dense to accept that you're wrong and you're talking about irrelevancies to conceal this.
It's simple, I don't devote that much time to players like yourself. The simple fact that wreck shooting has been around forever and ganking has not ceased to exist shows that wreck shooting isn't the easy uncounterable mechanic you claim it to be. I'd very much like to see anti-ganking improved in such a way that wreck shooting isn't even close to the best idea too, but since every time anyone raises the idea of gankers having a viable enemy they get trolled repeatedly be the same group of people.

"Hmmm, he said something entirely correct so I'm going to completely ignore what he said and talk about something he didn't say, but I'm going to claim he said to save face."

You and your "crew" get treated as one and the same. Just like how my opinion is judged on being an Imperium member over my actual post content, yours is judged on being part of "ganker tears" group. to be clear though, are you then saying that those points are not ones you would make, so do you agree with all of the following:
- Anti- ganking needs to be improved for better balance against gankers
- Anti-ganking is difficult, competent players attempt it all the time and their failure is not a reflection on their personal skill
- Anti-ganker have no ability to kill gankers in transit
- Ganking someone with a high value of items in their ship with low value ganking ships is fair, but ganking high value wrecks with low value ships is not

"I'm going to make baseless claims based on (probably false) anecdotal evidence and talk about things that are impossible to debate to further conceal my naivety."

But you are doing the exact same thing. For some reason you expect me to simply take what you are saying at face value, like it's gospel, yet my own first hand experience is apparently invalid, as is common sense deductions like gankers managing to get their loot with AGs on grid proving that their mechanic is not an I win button.

"muh bias"

Obvious bias is obvious. vOv

Globby wrote:
Hey but I'm up to debate with you on teamspeak or something and record it and post it somewhere. That way it's a lot harder to misdirect arguments and run with blatant lies.
I can't think of much I want to do less than hang around on teamspeak with you. Sorry friend.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Globby
Never Ignorant Gettin' Goals Accomplished
Gimme Da Loot
#343 - 2016-02-14 21:12:44 UTC
lk wrote:
I can't think of much I want to do less than hang around on teamspeak with you. Sorry friend.



says volumes

also which counter did you say was a counter?
Globby
Never Ignorant Gettin' Goals Accomplished
Gimme Da Loot
#344 - 2016-02-14 21:15:21 UTC
Also if a viable counter is "wait until all wreck shooters are offline" then lmao.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#345 - 2016-02-14 21:20:24 UTC
Globby wrote:
also which counter did you say was a counter?
- Shoot the wreck popper
- Loot the wreck faster
- Choose an alternate target away from the wreck popper
- Infiltrate the anti-ganking group and opt for yourself to shoot the wreck, then don't shoot it.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Globby
Never Ignorant Gettin' Goals Accomplished
Gimme Da Loot
#346 - 2016-02-14 21:26:49 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Globby wrote:

also which counter did you say was a counter?
- Shoot the wreck popper
- Loot the wreck faster
- Choose an alternate target away from the wreck popper
- Infiltrate the anti-ganking group and opt for yourself to shoot the wreck, then don't shoot it.

1) If the wreck shooter plays properly:
You will be able to kill him as he is able to kill the wreck. Both his shot, and your shot will both be fired, and the wreck will still die because he would have been holding his end-warp invulnerability as the freighter died. He is also impossible to probe down because he is bouncing safes until the gank starts to happen. There is a huge window of opportunity for the wreck shooter here and a bunch of maneuverability for him. You can test all these things out for yourself if you don't believe any of it.

2) Go and self destruct a ship and try and loot it right away, you will have a delay of at least a couple of seconds. This delay is more than long enough for a thrasher to shoot the wreck and destroy it. You can test all these things out for yourself if you don't believe any of it.

3) This is an odd one, because the counter is "don't fight it." Imagine applying that theory to anything else in eve and if you argued for it you'd be called a crazy man.

4) This would work like, what once or twice? As if people would fall for it over and over again. It also doesn't matter, as some of the wreck shooters are unaffiliated with AG and are alts with no ties to there main, therefore aren't 'infiltratable'.

Do you have a problem with the above reasoning? I'll tell you, flying a wreck shooter 'perfectly' is actually really easy once you understand game mechanics. All you do is bounce pings and warp to the freighter as the gank starts.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#347 - 2016-02-14 21:47:16 UTC
Globby wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Globby wrote:

also which counter did you say was a counter?
- Shoot the wreck popper
- Loot the wreck faster
- Choose an alternate target away from the wreck popper
- Infiltrate the anti-ganking group and opt for yourself to shoot the wreck, then don't shoot it.

1) If the wreck shooter plays properly:
You will be able to kill him as he is able to kill the wreck. Both his shot, and your shot will both be fired, and the wreck will still die because he would have been holding his end-warp invulnerability as the freighter died. He is also impossible to probe down because he is bouncing safes until the gank starts to happen. There is a huge window of opportunity for the wreck shooter here and a bunch of maneuverability for him. You can test all these things out for yourself if you don't believe any of it.

2) Go and self destruct a ship and try and loot it right away, you will have a delay of at least a couple of seconds. This delay is more than long enough for a thrasher to shoot the wreck and destroy it. You can test all these things out for yourself if you don't believe any of it.

3) This is an odd one, because the counter is "don't fight it." Imagine applying that theory to anything else in eve and if you argued for it you'd be called a crazy man.

4) This would work like, what once or twice? As if people would fall for it over and over again. It also doesn't matter, as some of the wreck shooters are unaffiliated with AG and are alts with no ties to there main, therefore aren't 'infiltratable'.

Do you have a problem with the above reasoning? I'll tell you, flying a wreck shooter 'perfectly' is actually really easy once you understand game mechanics. All you do is bounce pings and warp to the freighter as the gank starts.
But all of these counters are inspired by the counters provided by gankers to gank victims. They tell people to web, which only works if the gankers don't have a suicide tackle as fast or faster than the webber and they tell people to avoid the systems or to not make the run when there are gankers there. Effectively what you're saying that these aren't valid counters because if the other player also puts in a significant amount of effort they can also be successful some of the time and/or because it means not doing what you wanted to do while it's too risky, all while the opposing team stand to gain absolutely nothing even if they are successful while you have already achieved the main success of killing the target.

#3 really sticks out as the strangest response here, considering how many times I've seen freighter pilots being told that they should not jump into a system with gankers present. It comes across like gankers should never have to say "no, this is far too risky, stand down" while other players should still have to make that judgement call.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Globby
Never Ignorant Gettin' Goals Accomplished
Gimme Da Loot
#348 - 2016-02-14 22:03:04 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
But all of these counters are inspired by the counters provided by gankers to gank victims. They tell people to web, which only works if the gankers don't have a suicide tackle as fast or faster than the webber and they tell people to avoid the systems or to not make the run when there are gankers there. Effectively what you're saying that these aren't valid counters because if the other player also puts in a significant amount of effort they can also be successful some of the time and/or because it means not doing what you wanted to do while it's too risky, all while the opposing team stand to gain absolutely nothing even if they are successful while you have already achieved the main success of killing the target.

#3 really sticks out as the strangest response here, considering how many times I've seen freighter pilots being told that they should not jump into a system with gankers present. It comes across like gankers should never have to say "no, this is far too risky, stand down" while other players should still have to make that judgement call.


you literally cannot debate wreck shooting without bringing up other issues, just to distort the argument. you lost, and you bring in irrelevancies. peace
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#349 - 2016-02-14 22:06:46 UTC
Globby wrote:
you literally cannot debate wreck shooting without bringing up other issues, just to distort the argument. you lost, and you bring in irrelevancies. peace
Wut?

Effectively I put forward valid counters, you dismissed them as too hard, I compared them to very similar arguments given by gankers to gank victims and you ragequit the discussion. Certainly doesn't sound like I'm losing this round.

And still that #3 makes me kek.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Globby
Never Ignorant Gettin' Goals Accomplished
Gimme Da Loot
#350 - 2016-02-14 22:28:02 UTC
You're ignoring the fact that this is no gameplay counter to it. If I wanted to stop you from shooting the wreck of this freighter I bumped, me and 20 guys cant stop you if you play properly. We just lose, so we either wait for you to log off or gank the freighter and hope you mess up (which is really hard for a wreck shooter unless really bad) or just take the loss.

>But all of these counters are inspired by the counters provided by gankers to gank victims.
irrelevant to wreck shooting
>They tell people to web, which only works if the gankers don't have a suicide tackle as fast or faster than the webber and they tell people to avoid the systems or to not make the run when there are gankers there.
irrelevant to wreck shooting
>#3 really sticks out as the strangest response here, considering how many times I've seen freighter pilots being told that they should not jump into a system with gankers present.
there are many viable routes, there are many ways to mitigate the risk of getting ganked. There is no way to mitigate the risk of a wreck shooter other than hoping he doesnt notice you or he messes up.

> Effectively what you're saying that these aren't valid counters because if the other player also puts in a significant amount of effort
excuse me? the amount of effort required is extremely low, how hard is it to invest 2 million isk, a 15 minute alt and learn to make pings on gates? the effort required to be 'excellent' is tiny.

>successful some of the time
lol


why do you keep bringing up other stuff that doesnt matter all the time, we're debating wreck shooting to deny loot as a broken mechanic, we're not balancing it off of ganking. that can (and should) be balanced on it's own.
Globby
Never Ignorant Gettin' Goals Accomplished
Gimme Da Loot
#351 - 2016-02-14 22:29:19 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Globby wrote:
you literally cannot debate wreck shooting without bringing up other issues, just to distort the argument. you lost, and you bring in irrelevancies. peace
Wut?

Effectively I put forward valid counters, you dismissed them as too hard, I compared them to very similar arguments given by gankers to gank victims and you ragequit the discussion. Certainly doesn't sound like I'm losing this round.

And still that #3 makes me kek.

nice edit btw

>you dismissed them as too hard
fundamentally impossible against a competent pilot.

>I compared them to very similar arguments given by gankers to gank victims and you ragequit the discussion.
but it's not relevant as there are counters to being bumped, being ganked, and being scanned.
Globby
Never Ignorant Gettin' Goals Accomplished
Gimme Da Loot
#352 - 2016-02-14 22:32:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Globby
I went by, step by step refuting your 'counters' and you completely forget what had happened three posts ago. For some reason, you have to keep relating wreck shooting to ganking as if they're the same thing, and one must be balanced with eachother, which they definitely do not. Wreck shooting is, by itself undeniably broken (that's why CCP actually changed it) and shouldn't be allowed to stay just because it benefits one style of play over another.

e:
ALL OF THIS IS IMPLYING THAT IT'S GONE

It's actually still viable for 40-70 million with 2-3 people, which is, still better than ganking in terms of (isk destroyed)/(isk spent) wrt number of people needed
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#353 - 2016-02-14 23:13:35 UTC
Globby wrote:
You're ignoring the fact that this is no gameplay counter to it. If I wanted to stop you from shooting the wreck of this freighter I bumped, me and 20 guys cant stop you if you play properly.
Sure you can, I listed counters above. Even just inviting me to a fleet, duel of conversation at the moment of destruction would delay me long enough to grab the wreck. More importantly though, if I'm known to be an elite wreck shooter, why are you engaging in the activity knowing full well I'm going to try to volley the wreck? Like during Burn Jita, freighter are jumping in ad getting popped and people are like "WTF are you doing going to Jita with gankers in system". This is no different. What you really want is a way to guarantee your loot, so you don't have to worry about ever losing it and never have to even consider the possibility of someone beating you.

>But all of these counters are inspired by the counters provided by gankers to gank victims.
irrelevant to wreck shooting


It's a pointer the the hyprocricy of the modern ganker.

>#3 really sticks out as the strangest response here, considering how many times I've seen freighter pilots being told that they should not jump into a system with gankers present.
there are many viable routes, there are many ways to mitigate the risk of getting ganked. There is no way to mitigate the risk of a wreck shooter other than hoping he doesnt notice you or he messes up.


Travelling from Amarr to Jita means you have to go through Niarja, Uedama or lowsec. There's no other route. Also, that's entirely the point. There are other systems to gank in. You could simply pick a new target in a new system. But much like the pilot flying though Niarja, you don't want to pick a new target, you want that one. You just want that target with a guaranteed loot bag at the end of it. Tough. That's what risk is.


> Effectively what you're saying that these aren't valid counters because if the other player also puts in a significant amount of effort
excuse me? the amount of effort required is extremely low, how hard is it to invest 2 million isk, a 15 minute alt and learn to make pings on gates? the effort required to be 'excellent' is tiny.
And fly between the pings, and avoid being blapped by the ganker and learn to get the targeting and firing into the first server tick after the wrek appears, and potentially moving to the UK. Yet another of the times you're understating the amount of effort by your opposition.

>successful some of the time
lol


Yes, some of the time. I know for a fact that wreck poppers aren't always successful (in fact I've seen more fail that succeed, but that's beside the point), thus making their success "some of the time".

Globby wrote:
why do you keep bringing up other stuff that doesnt matter all the time, we're debating wreck shooting to deny loot as a broken mechanic, we're not balancing it off of ganking. that can (and should) be balanced on it's own.
Why do you keep dismissing every single thing that opposes your viewpoint as "other stuff"? We are talking about ganking since you keep telling me how one guy shouldn't be able to destroy 20 guys work. If we weren't talking about ganking then we would be talking about one single looter vs one single wreck popper, which used to be the balanced way it was done.

Globby wrote:
I went by, step by step refuting your 'counters' and you completely forget what had happened three posts ago.
You didn't refute anything, you just went "nope" like because it's your opinion that wreck poppers are unstoppable that it is automatically fact. Refuting something requires a basic level of proof, and since we do in fact know for certain that some wreck poppers fail and that some gankers do in fact get their loot, we already know that you can provide no proof that wreck poppers are unstoppable. Effectively what you are saying is "Without killing or distracting the wreck popper, looting the wreck faster, picking a different target or timing our ganking in such a way that anti-gankers aren't around to pop our loot, loot poppers are unstoppable!".

Globby wrote:
IIt's actually still viable for 40-70 million with 2-3 people, which is, still better than ganking in terms of (isk destroyed)/(isk spent) wrt number of people needed
Yes, because coordinating two people firing in a fraction of a second is in no way significantly more difficult than coordinating a single person. I'll give you that it's still viable, but it's certainly not reasonable. I doubt we'll see much of it, so I guess in that way you win, you'll now have like a 99% chance of getting your loot rather than like 70% or whatever it was pre-change.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Globby
Never Ignorant Gettin' Goals Accomplished
Gimme Da Loot
#354 - 2016-02-14 23:40:13 UTC
ya okay you just dont get it

i'm done here you win
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#355 - 2016-02-15 00:29:30 UTC
Woohoo!

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Ms GoodyMaker
DELAINEN SYNDICATE
#356 - 2016-02-16 17:54:16 UTC
Would CCP kindly flip the switch and make all wrecks blue so they can be tractored by anyone? There is absolutely no reason not to do this.

While you are at it, add cargo containers and wrecks to the scannable items table, so they can be scanned down.

Thank you.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#357 - 2016-02-20 02:09:10 UTC
Globby wrote:
ya okay you just dont get it

i'm done here you win


You wont win against him, he has a vested interest in not understanding the game mechanics.
Andrew Indy
Cleaning Crew
#358 - 2016-02-23 01:59:07 UTC
If you don't want a thrasher to kill wrecks why not just bump the freighter like 100KM from the gate and pop anyone who burns towards the freighter in a thrasher. Its not like Gankers don't have Bump Machs already.

I'm assuming that they could combat you out if they really wanted but that would add another layer for the anti gankers to overcome.

Either way i'm fine with the EHP buff on wrecks, if you die in a freighter its a very small consolation that your wreck was popped.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#359 - 2016-02-29 19:53:27 UTC
Sarah Flynt wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Carrier, Dread, Rorqual, Orca, Freighter: 15000 hp
You do realize that this is a massive buff to freighter ganking?

When can we expect a fix for risk free looting in highsec via a fleet hangar/freight container/can and a laundering alt in return?



Shhhh. CCP coddles carebears and hates gankers. Don't you know?

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#360 - 2016-03-09 00:42:56 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Sarah Flynt wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Carrier, Dread, Rorqual, Orca, Freighter: 15000 hp
You do realize that this is a massive buff to freighter ganking?

When can we expect a fix for risk free looting in highsec via a fleet hangar/freight container/can and a laundering alt in return?



Shhhh. CCP coddles carebears and hates gankers. Don't you know?



Enormous freight containers are already impossible to drag through a fleet hanger.