These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[March] Damage Control Tiericide

First post First post First post
Author
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#261 - 2016-02-13 20:40:55 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

They are representative of how safe you can make it to operate using the current mechanics.


No they are not, they are only representative of themselves. Also, if everyone had a webbing alt you'd simply counter that by using a mandatory scanning/suicide tackle BB, and then we get back to the root of all problems - bumping.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#262 - 2016-02-13 20:41:43 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

They are representative of how safe you can make it to operate using the current mechanics.


To whit, they are representative of how safe you can make it to operate using the current mechanics WHEN SOMEONE ELSE IS DOING THE HAULING YOU WON'T DO.

There is a lot of hauling RFF refuses to do, which is an inherent part of their risk reduction policies.

It's certainly possible to argue that none of that other hauling is necessary, but it's not an argument I have a side on and it wouldn't make things any less contentious in this thread :)
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#263 - 2016-02-13 20:42:02 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
You are abusing stats. Please stop.
... ignorant about basic statistical principles.

Excuse me?

This should be a fun discussion. Have at it.

Not personal views. Put the basic theory out there to support that claim and of course, link that to what I have claimed (which is?).
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#264 - 2016-02-13 20:45:42 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Lena Lazair wrote:
You are abusing stats. Please stop.
... ignorant about basic statistical principles.

Excuse me?

This should be a fun discussion. Have at it.

Not personal views. Put the basic theory out there to support that claim and of course, link that to what I have claimed (which is?).


Representativeness of the sample does not stem from sample size. For starters.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#265 - 2016-02-13 20:45:57 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

They are representative of how safe you can make it to operate using the current mechanics.


No they are not, they are only representative of themselves. Also, if everyone had a webbing alt you'd simply counter that by using a mandatory scanning/suicide tackle BB, and then we get back to the root of all problems - bumping.


Bring facts not your personal opinion.

Here we have the largest freighter organisation in EVE using the current mechanics to make themselves 99.9% safe.

Based upon this evidence it make zero sense to give freighters a 33% buff to structure resists to compensate for the nerfing of a module they cannot even fit.
Dom Arkaral
Slavers Union
#266 - 2016-02-13 20:46:11 UTC
this thread keeps on going in circles

MAKE PROPOSITIONS FFS

I'm out of this cancer thread

Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#267 - 2016-02-13 20:46:59 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

They are representative of how safe you can make it to operate using the current mechanics.


To whit, they are representative of how safe you can make it to operate using the current mechanics WHEN SOMEONE ELSE IS DOING THE HAULING YOU WON'T DO.

There is a lot of hauling RFF refuses to do, which is an inherent part of their risk reduction policies.

It's certainly possible to argue that none of that other hauling is necessary, but it's not an argument I have a side on and it wouldn't make things any less contentious in this thread :)


Ok lets have it, what are you wishing to haul.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#268 - 2016-02-13 20:49:41 UTC
Dom Arkaral wrote:
this thread keeps on going in circles

MAKE PROPOSITIONS FFS

I'm out of this cancer thread


I have.

If CCP want to nerf the DCU then split the mod into 3. Hull, Armour and shield. Don't bother with the 33% buff to all ships, it isn't needed and causes a huge number of problems.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#269 - 2016-02-13 20:50:10 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:

It will always just come back to whether the data meets preconceived ideas, because the ability to objectively look at the issue is clouded by personal feelings about ganking that mean we all have a bias. That's why data is valuable, but also why data will always be dismissed if it doesn't help an individual persons argument.


No, it really doesn't. You can carefully de-bias data in a relatively objective way regardless of your preconceived ideas. Statistics is a strong and complex mathematical discipline for a reason. Unfortunately it also involves objectively recognizing when you simply don't have the data to do what you are trying to do, which is the case here.

Scipio Artelius wrote:

Then add in the Blue Frog Freight statistics and the risk of being ganked that they achieve drops further.


Sure, though no one has. Even then, it doesn't remove the bias. A careful examination of both Red and Blue Frog policies and behaviors in conjunction with a survey of general freighter hauling would be the bare minimum start to trying to figure out where the frog data fits into the big picture. There are lots of contracts even Blue won't fly.

Also, I'll point out that frogs haven't released 2015 annual report data yet, AFAIK. This whole thing is based on data over a year old at this point, and 2015 was a pretty big year of change in the hi-sec freighter ganking world. Even if the frog data was perfectly representative and unbiased, it' *still* doesn't cover recent events.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#270 - 2016-02-13 20:50:23 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

They are representative of how safe you can make it to operate using the current mechanics.


No they are not, they are only representative of themselves. Also, if everyone had a webbing alt you'd simply counter that by using a mandatory scanning/suicide tackle BB, and then we get back to the root of all problems - bumping.


Bring facts not your personal opinion.

Here we have the largest freighter organisation in EVE using the current mechanics to make themselves 99.9% safe.

Based upon this evidence it make zero sense to give freighters a 33% buff to structure resists to compensate for the nerfing of a module they cannot even fit.


What kind of evidence do you want? That webbing freighters can be 100% reliably countered by a single suicide BB and that after the first bump lands webs are useless? Those enough for you?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#271 - 2016-02-13 20:53:06 UTC
So I'm confused it seems people are upset that is going to get a little harder to chew threw freighter hull and other Pape are upset that people are upset about that.


What's wrong with just reducing the total hp from the freighter hull? Unless ccp thinks they need a buff but for some reason thought it would be better not to just come out and day that. .... but I really think the discution about what this means for freighters should be put into a new thread as any conversation on the misusing or how it effects other apps is just getting down out at this point
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#272 - 2016-02-13 20:55:15 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:


What kind of evidence do you want? That webbing freighters can be 100% reliably countered by a single suicide BB and that after the first bump lands webs are useless? Those enough for you?


Gather at least 2,786,739 jumps made by freighters, using all the current tools to protect themselves and see how many get killed.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#273 - 2016-02-13 21:00:19 UTC
I hope CCP realize that 33% resists mean effectively 50% more ehp.

It's not a 33% buff it's 50% buff.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.

Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#274 - 2016-02-13 21:01:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Representativeness of the sample does not stem from sample size. For starters.

Yeah that's a good place to start.

Representativeness of course stems from the qualities you want to measure (ie. It's representative if it accurately reflects the relevant qualities of the entire population). That's the primary consideration. Once that is known, the sample size you take from a population to measure that is absolutely critical to achieving a good analysis.

There may be differences in what is considered an important quality and clearly the RFF (Blue FF to include collateral >1 Billion) is not a measure of risk achieved by the whole hauling population. It's representative of RFF (and Blue and Black if you include those figures) and a good measure of the overall safety that can be achieved by anyone.

The claim in the thread was that 2.8 million jumps in highsec every year is not a representative sample, which is total rubbish. It is a perfectly good sample depending on what you are hoping to achieve from the data.

So RFF for <1 Billion collateral in highsec. Add in Blue FF for > 1Billion collateral in highsec and the level of safety they achieve is as objective as it can get unless you think they publish incorrect data.

Is that the same risk that all haulers achieve? Absolutely not, because other haulers don't necessarily manage risk as well as the RFF group. It is as good a representative data set of the level of risk that can be achieved (for a broad range of collateral amounts), no matter who is hauling.

The data I've been collecting for the last couple of weeks will be ready to publish shortly and since that looks at the risk for the whole hauling community passing through Uedama and Niarja, hopefully it will add some additional data that can be analysed several different ways. It is also a large sample size (though not a 100% sample, such as RFF data).
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#275 - 2016-02-13 21:06:21 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
So I'm confused it seems people are upset that is going to get a little harder to chew threw freighter hull and other Pape are upset that people are upset about that.


What's wrong with just reducing the total hp from the freighter hull? Unless ccp thinks they need a buff but for some reason thought it would be better not to just come out and day that. .... but I really think the discution about what this means for freighters should be put into a new thread as any conversation on the misusing or how it effects other apps is just getting down out at this point


The problem is that a ship like the obelisk is getting 157,000 more ehp on top of its current tank, the anshar is close to a million with this change.

But I agree, a lot of other ships are also getting a buff they simply do not need. The Hecate for example is getting a buff just as questionable as the freighters are getting and adding 33% more tank to ships with no tank doesn't exactly make much sense, especially if they have chosen to not fir a tank to gain in other areas. From personal experience that added hull is going to mean an extra volly of torps from a bomber at the very least and when you have defenders currently landing just as the target is blowing up that extra hull is going to make hunting out in null that much harder and for no logical reason. Equally can anyone post an argument that titans need all of that extra EHP this change would give?

The whole 33% change just doesn't work very well in a lot of situations and with a lot of ships and their fits.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#276 - 2016-02-13 21:08:03 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Freighters cant fit a DCU, they lose nothing when the DCU is nerfed as they cant fit it and never have been able to fit it. It makes no sense to compensate them with 33% omni resists because CCP are nerfing a mod they cant even use.
But if all other ships gain a 33% boost then yes, they lose out because relative to all otehr ships they are worse off. It makes perfect sense for a global ship chance to affect all ships, even if it makes gankers mad because it adds a small amount of additional effort for some ganks. At the end of the day if this was a playstyle you opposed being affected you'd be all for it.

Also, like you've previously said, freighters got nerfed when they rebalanced them before, so they are long overdue for a buff.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
On the contrary, they are a pretty good and representative sample.
Yep, about the same as using statistics of formula 1 drivers to determine how good members of the general population are at racing. Beyond that it's actually likely that by RFF going to extra measures to makes themselves less likely to be chosen as a target, other freighters have a higher chance of being ganked. If RFF were the only people flying freighters you would likely see an increase there too, because nothing they do makes them immune to ganks.

At the end of the day it's impossible to be ungankable both before and after the change.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#277 - 2016-02-13 21:09:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Scipio Artelius wrote:
...

Again, and as you've admited yourself, RFF data is representative of RFF. That aside, and as I've already said, if webbing was to become the norm among freighters, suicide tackle would become too. Look at killboards and you'll be able to find expmples of it used today, and the increase in cost of achieving the intial tackle is really negligable in comparison to profit from ganks.
The problem is bumping.
Also, all of these posts are off topic and will likely get deleted anyway, so I'll stop participating in this discussion.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#278 - 2016-02-13 21:10:19 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
But if all other ships gain a 33% boost then yes, they lose out because relative to all otehr ships they are worse off.


CCP are not increasing firepower so no, they don't lose out at all.
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#279 - 2016-02-13 21:12:43 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
What's wrong with just reducing the total hp from the freighter hull?

For me, that would be an equally crazy outcome from a rebalance of Damage Controls.

If it is straight up about balancing Damage Controls, then it shouldn't have any effect on Freighters at all. It's a totally irrelevant issue for that class of ship.

So to nerf their HP to compensate for a buff to EHP seems just as strange as buffing their EHP to compensate for a DCU nerf to begin with.

I personally wouldn't want to see Freighter statistics nerfed just because of a DCU rebalance.

Quote:
Unless ccp thinks they need a buff but for some reason thought it would be better not to just come out and day that.

In the context of a DCU rebalance, this is the only thing that actually makes sense.

CCP want to buff Freighters and this is the easy way to achieve it. It doesn't necessarily make sense (certainly not to everyone), but seems the obvious reason.

Quote:
.... but I really think the discution about what this means for freighters should be put into a new thread as any conversation on the misusing or how it effects other apps is just getting down out at this point

Ideally, I agree.

Buff Freighters in their own thread and contain what is a very strange aspect of this change in its own place and let discussion about the other aspects, good and bad (eg. whether it's a larger buff for Gallente than oither races) be possible.

At the moment, any other discussion is lost in the freighter aspect of this.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#280 - 2016-02-13 21:13:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
But if all other ships gain a 33% boost then yes, they lose out because relative to all otehr ships they are worse off.


CCP are not increasing firepower so no, they don't lose out at all.


Not to mention freighters could never fit dcu

But I can see why not giving them 33%resists could be confusing to new players joining a year or so from now so reducing base hull hp would be better