These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Using a DST's fleet hangar to scoop loot needs rebalancing

Author
Lugh Crow-Slave
#41 - 2016-09-18 16:32:11 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Frankly, if we are going to nerf this then it should be in the form of taking away the fleet bay and making it have a normal cargo bay again. DST should never have had this in the first place.


then they just use orcas and this solves nothing
Faylee Freir
Slavers Union
BLACKFLAG.
#42 - 2016-09-18 17:45:08 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Faylee Freir wrote:

Sure thats an option, but I think the DST's fleet hangar has legit usefullness outside of looting gank wrecks. The balancing issues surrounding the DST isnt relevant here when you start bringing up the fact that it can't be scanned or can perform the cloak+mwd trick because even if you opt to rebalance the DST there is still the Orca that you can use.

Yeah I would say thay the easiest way to counter the DST looting would be to get bumps on it or to actuslly gank it yourself but I dont really see those as viable options in this situation. Just because something has a few way it could possibly be countered doesnt mean its practical or that the mechanic isnt flawed.


Gets even easier than that. Simply put your junk in a freight container and nothing but a freighter can loot the wreck.

Sure that could work some of the time. How much ehp do freight containers have? Im not trying to make it impossible for gankers to secure their loot. Im just wanting it to be balanced and make sense.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#43 - 2016-09-19 04:12:46 UTC
Faylee Freir wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Faylee Freir wrote:

Sure thats an option, but I think the DST's fleet hangar has legit usefullness outside of looting gank wrecks. The balancing issues surrounding the DST isnt relevant here when you start bringing up the fact that it can't be scanned or can perform the cloak+mwd trick because even if you opt to rebalance the DST there is still the Orca that you can use.

Yeah I would say thay the easiest way to counter the DST looting would be to get bumps on it or to actuslly gank it yourself but I dont really see those as viable options in this situation. Just because something has a few way it could possibly be countered doesnt mean its practical or that the mechanic isnt flawed.


Gets even easier than that. Simply put your junk in a freight container and nothing but a freighter can loot the wreck.

Sure that could work some of the time. How much ehp do freight containers have? Im not trying to make it impossible for gankers to secure their loot. Im just wanting it to be balanced and make sense.


Something like 500 hp.
Faylee Freir
Slavers Union
BLACKFLAG.
#44 - 2016-09-19 04:29:06 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Faylee Freir wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Faylee Freir wrote:

Sure thats an option, but I think the DST's fleet hangar has legit usefullness outside of looting gank wrecks. The balancing issues surrounding the DST isnt relevant here when you start bringing up the fact that it can't be scanned or can perform the cloak+mwd trick because even if you opt to rebalance the DST there is still the Orca that you can use.

Yeah I would say thay the easiest way to counter the DST looting would be to get bumps on it or to actuslly gank it yourself but I dont really see those as viable options in this situation. Just because something has a few way it could possibly be countered doesnt mean its practical or that the mechanic isnt flawed.


Gets even easier than that. Simply put your junk in a freight container and nothing but a freighter can loot the wreck.

Sure that could work some of the time. How much ehp do freight containers have? Im not trying to make it impossible for gankers to secure their loot. Im just wanting it to be balanced and make sense.


Something like 500 hp.

Well maybe Endie can get CCP to buff container EHP? P
Lugh Crow-Slave
#45 - 2016-09-19 04:31:13 UTC
Faylee Freir wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Faylee Freir wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Faylee Freir wrote:

Sure thats an option, but I think the DST's fleet hangar has legit usefullness outside of looting gank wrecks. The balancing issues surrounding the DST isnt relevant here when you start bringing up the fact that it can't be scanned or can perform the cloak+mwd trick because even if you opt to rebalance the DST there is still the Orca that you can use.

Yeah I would say thay the easiest way to counter the DST looting would be to get bumps on it or to actuslly gank it yourself but I dont really see those as viable options in this situation. Just because something has a few way it could possibly be countered doesnt mean its practical or that the mechanic isnt flawed.


Gets even easier than that. Simply put your junk in a freight container and nothing but a freighter can loot the wreck.

Sure that could work some of the time. How much ehp do freight containers have? Im not trying to make it impossible for gankers to secure their loot. Im just wanting it to be balanced and make sense.


Something like 500 hp.

Well maybe Endie can get CCP to buff container EHP? P


How would that do anything it would be inside a wreck. Beside the freight thing isn't even a real option this isn't just done with freighter loot
Faylee Freir
Slavers Union
BLACKFLAG.
#46 - 2016-09-19 04:38:03 UTC
Quote:
How would that do anything it would be inside a wreck. Beside the freight thing isn't even a real option this isn't just done with freighter loot

Right so I was just poking fun because of how CCP buffed wreck EHP.
Count Szadek
Unbound Reborn
#47 - 2016-09-19 10:25:06 UTC
I did not know this worked - I would suggest to implement the suspect inheritance but with a few other things.

A block from doing it based on security settings (since this also would impact Orca's that may have there corp steal and drop something in) though suspect Orca lol. If the pilot with the fleet hanger has their security setting set - it will let people that are flagged deposit and they will inherent - similar to how logi works. but will block the drop if the security is set to say green.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#48 - 2016-09-19 18:20:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Stick your cargo into a freight container and this can't be pulled.


Also it increases the risk for the gankers. If I put all my stuff in one freight container and then it is 50/50 that it drops.

I thought you had a strong background in economics and statistics? It doesn't increase risk. 50/50 is still 50/50, whether it comes in one chunk or many tiny ones. Gank 10 freighters and it balances out, because every now and then a freight container full of goodies will drop.



Do the math Brokk. If you have 100 things, what is the probability NOTHING drops? Now you have one thing what is the probability NOTHING drops. The two numbers are very, very different.

Here let me be really horribly pedantic:

You have two games.

The first game you can play it 100 times. Each time you play it you get $1 and have a 50/50 chance of winning. Ex ante you'll view this game as having a $50 expected pay off. Further, if you want to know the probability of getting nothing you calculate 0.5^100. That is the probability of getting nothing.

Game 2 you play once. You can win $100 with probability 0.5 and nothing with probability 0.5. Again, ex ante an expected payoff of $50. But the probability of getting nothing is now not 0.5^100, but instead is 0.5.

I would argue given these two choices most people would pick game 1 because there is a greater probability they'll get at least something. Now, if we were to increase the payoff to game 2 to $1,000 people might switch, but only because of the change in payoffs.

Still, most people would see game 2 as being more risk than game 1. Of course if you can play games 1 and 2 indefinitely in the end they become the same.

But, ganking is not really like games 1 and 2 though now is it. I leave it as a homework exercise to explain why and why gankers would usually prefer game 1 over game 2 when the payoffs are the same.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#49 - 2016-09-19 18:31:42 UTC
Faylee Freir wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Faylee Freir wrote:

It doesnt matter who it nerfs or buffs. Its a bad mechanic that needs to be looked at. The fact that gankers primarilly use it doesnt matter. If there were another activity that resulted in potential billions being scooped up in a risk averse manner, i would want that addressed as well.



Rewarding stupid is never a good move. Ever.

How is this change rewarding stupid?


If you make ganking harder...you are making it easier on those getting ganked. Those getting ganked are the stupid ones.

Basic rule of economics, want more of something lower the costs, want less of it raise the costs. Since this would raise the cost of ganking you get less ganking and that makes it easier for people get away with being stupid and putting 15 billion in your freighter like Hectik Merius.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#50 - 2016-09-19 18:38:16 UTC
Faylee Freir wrote:

Well maybe Endie can get CCP to buff container EHP? P


Why would anyone want or need that to happen?

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#51 - 2016-09-19 18:41:15 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Faylee Freir wrote:

Well maybe Endie can get CCP to buff container EHP? P


Why would anyone want or need that to happen?



Because cornspiracy....Blink

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#52 - 2016-09-19 18:44:24 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Stick your cargo into a freight container and this can't be pulled.


Also it increases the risk for the gankers. If I put all my stuff in one freight container and then it is 50/50 that it drops.

I thought you had a strong background in economics and statistics? It doesn't increase risk. 50/50 is still 50/50, whether it comes in one chunk or many tiny ones. Gank 10 freighters and it balances out, because every now and then a freight container full of goodies will drop.



Do the math Brokk. If you have 100 things, what is the probability NOTHING drops? Now you have one thing what is the probability NOTHING drops. The two numbers are very, very different.

Here let me be really horribly pedantic:

You have two games.

The first game you can play it 100 times. Each time you play it you get $1 and have a 50/50 chance of winning. Ex ante you'll view this game as having a $50 expected pay off. Further, if you want to know the probability of getting nothing you calculate 0.5^100. That is the probability of getting nothing.

Game 2 you play once. You can win $100 with probability 0.5 and nothing with probability 0.5. Again, ex ante an expected payoff of $50. But the probability of getting nothing is now not 0.5^100, but instead is 0.5.

I would argue given these two choices most people would pick game 1 because there is a greater probability they'll get at least something. Now, if we were to increase the payoff to game 2 to $1,000 people might switch, but only because of the change in payoffs.

Still, most people would see game 2 as being more risk than game 1. Of course if you can play games 1 and 2 indefinitely in the end they become the same.

But, ganking is not really like games 1 and 2 though now is it. I leave it as a homework exercise to explain why and why gankers would usually prefer game 1 over game 2 when the payoffs are the same.


I like horribly pedantic- I don't like bravo sierra any more than you do ;-)

I actually do quite a bit of this kind of math, and for a few attempt you're quite right you're risking more because one has a guaranteed (sort of) payout whereas the other is a gamble.

Working from the assumption that ganking is a profession, and we're looking at 10-20 freighter ganks over the course of, say, a month, then the result will be quite similar. Because 50% is still 50%.

Also (and I'm not implying you said that- but for the benefit of those struggling with the concept) it's not because you already know the outcome of four consecutive attempts that the chance on the fifth attempt would somehow be different: that chance is still 50%.

Why gankers would prefer the one over the other, I honestly don't know. You tell me. I could see both attractions- one is a "steady paycheck" and the other is like winning the Jackpot every once in awhile. Being on a jackpot killmail certainly has its appeal, does it not?

Answering you question: "If you have 100 things, what is the probability NOTHING drops?" that'd be 1 in 2^100th (I think). If you only have one thing, the chance is 1 out of 2. Still, if it were one stack of PLEX I'd shoot it. 1 in 2 I'm plexing all my accounts for a year. Or not- better luck next time ;-)
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#53 - 2016-09-19 19:20:47 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Stick your cargo into a freight container and this can't be pulled.


Also it increases the risk for the gankers. If I put all my stuff in one freight container and then it is 50/50 that it drops.

I thought you had a strong background in economics and statistics? It doesn't increase risk. 50/50 is still 50/50, whether it comes in one chunk or many tiny ones. Gank 10 freighters and it balances out, because every now and then a freight container full of goodies will drop.



Do the math Brokk. If you have 100 things, what is the probability NOTHING drops? Now you have one thing what is the probability NOTHING drops. The two numbers are very, very different.

Here let me be really horribly pedantic:

You have two games.

The first game you can play it 100 times. Each time you play it you get $1 and have a 50/50 chance of winning. Ex ante you'll view this game as having a $50 expected pay off. Further, if you want to know the probability of getting nothing you calculate 0.5^100. That is the probability of getting nothing.

Game 2 you play once. You can win $100 with probability 0.5 and nothing with probability 0.5. Again, ex ante an expected payoff of $50. But the probability of getting nothing is now not 0.5^100, but instead is 0.5.

I would argue given these two choices most people would pick game 1 because there is a greater probability they'll get at least something. Now, if we were to increase the payoff to game 2 to $1,000 people might switch, but only because of the change in payoffs.

Still, most people would see game 2 as being more risk than game 1. Of course if you can play games 1 and 2 indefinitely in the end they become the same.

But, ganking is not really like games 1 and 2 though now is it. I leave it as a homework exercise to explain why and why gankers would usually prefer game 1 over game 2 when the payoffs are the same.


I like horribly pedantic- I don't like bravo sierra any more than you do ;-)

I actually do quite a bit of this kind of math, and for a few attempt you're quite right you're risking more because one has a guaranteed (sort of) payout whereas the other is a gamble.

Working from the assumption that ganking is a profession, and we're looking at 10-20 freighter ganks over the course of, say, a month, then the result will be quite similar. Because 50% is still 50%.

Also (and I'm not implying you said that- but for the benefit of those struggling with the concept) it's not because you already know the outcome of four consecutive attempts that the chance on the fifth attempt would somehow be different: that chance is still 50%.

Why gankers would prefer the one over the other, I honestly don't know. You tell me. I could see both attractions- one is a "steady paycheck" and the other is like winning the Jackpot every once in awhile. Being on a jackpot killmail certainly has its appeal, does it not?

Answering you question: "If you have 100 things, what is the probability NOTHING drops?" that'd be 1 in 2^100th (I think). If you only have one thing, the chance is 1 out of 2. Still, if it were one stack of PLEX I'd shoot it. 1 in 2 I'm plexing all my accounts for a year. Or not- better luck next time ;-)


Right, a stack of 100 PLEX...of course, we'd all shoot.

But you have two freighters. One has 1 stack of 100 PLEX the other is flown by some guy who just hates stacks so he has 100 individual PLEX.

I hope you'd pick the guy with 100 individual stacks as I would because chances are I'll be plexing my accounts for 50 or so months which is better than 100 with odds 50:50...at least to me.

BTW this is why Dracvlad and Lucas Kell are just flat out wrong. Well not just this, but this is a big part of it.

Suppose further that you have to first put down 500 million you know you will lose with probability 1. Now which freighter do you pick. Your decision will be based on your preference for risk. So there is absolutely risk involved in ganking. The thing is the gankers understand this. Those getting ganked don't.

And in the end I see their posts as highly toxic.

If those players getting ganked do not understand this, then no amount of tinkering with the mechanics will likely yield a result that they'd be satisfied with. There are currently methods to avoid getting ganked in game. But these players are not using them NOW. Why should they start using them or new methods next week, next month or next year? What is going to ensure us of this? I submit there is nothing that can assure us of this outcome. As such, the only thing is to nerf ganking again and again. But that brings up another point.

Eve is not just about mechanics. Eve is about spontaneous order. What we, as players, do with it. That is what makes the game awesome. What are your best memories of Eve? That you can solo L4 When Worlds Collide or the first time you rescued the Damsel in Distress? Was it when you came back to a moon mining tower and saw if full of moon goo? I'm going to guess no. It was probably something involving other players.

They focus on the mechanics and ignore the player interaction. And they focus on nerfing player interaction. But that is what makes this game enjoyable for us.

It is also why I oppose this change. Perhaps if we had not had so many nerfs to ganking and HS PvP it might be reasonable, but right now...stop with all goddamn nerfs. We want people to interact more not less at this point.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Faylee Freir
Slavers Union
BLACKFLAG.
#54 - 2016-09-19 20:25:32 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Faylee Freir wrote:

Well maybe Endie can get CCP to buff container EHP? P


Why would anyone want or need that to happen?


Ask Warr and Boney about how 1 person made their ganking almost completely unfprofitable for a few months back before the wreck ehp buff.
Faylee Freir
Slavers Union
BLACKFLAG.
#55 - 2016-09-20 01:05:55 UTC
Quote:
Right, a stack of 100 PLEX...of course, we'd all shoot.

But you have two freighters. One has 1 stack of 100 PLEX the other is flown by some guy who just hates stacks so he has 100 individual PLEX.

I hope you'd pick the guy with 100 individual stacks as I would because chances are I'll be plexing my accounts for 50 or so months which is better than 100 with odds 50:50...at least to me.

BTW this is why Dracvlad and Lucas Kell are just flat out wrong. Well not just this, but this is a big part of it.

Suppose further that you have to first put down 500 million you know you will lose with probability 1. Now which freighter do you pick. Your decision will be based on your preference for risk. So there is absolutely risk involved in ganking. The thing is the gankers understand this. Those getting ganked don't.

And in the end I see their posts as highly toxic.

If those players getting ganked do not understand this, then no amount of tinkering with the mechanics will likely yield a result that they'd be satisfied with. There are currently methods to avoid getting ganked in game. But these players are not using them NOW. Why should they start using them or new methods next week, next month or next year? What is going to ensure us of this? I submit there is nothing that can assure us of this outcome. As such, the only thing is to nerf ganking again and again. But that brings up another point.

Eve is not just about mechanics. Eve is about spontaneous order. What we, as players, do with it. That is what makes the game awesome. What are your best memories of Eve? That you can solo L4 When Worlds Collide or the first time you rescued the Damsel in Distress? Was it when you came back to a moon mining tower and saw if full of moon goo? I'm going to guess no. It was probably something involving other players.

They focus on the mechanics and ignore the player interaction. And they focus on nerfing player interaction. But that is what makes this game enjoyable for us.

It is also why I oppose this change. Perhaps if we had not had so many nerfs to ganking and HS PvP it might be reasonable, but right now...stop with all goddamn nerfs. We want people to interact more not less at this point.

Who says you have to pick one? This is eve, and you always have choices... In that specific situation I choose to bring in 2 bump machs and gank them both.

Also while I respect your right to an opinion, I think you are making this into something that its not. Nerfing this looting into a fleet hangar does nothing to lessen the amount of opportunities that players have to interact with each other. Actually making them go suspect just as you would have scooped the loot into a regular ships hangar would do just the opposite. It would create yet another chance for a played to interact.

A change like this isnt a huge nerf nor is it something that will break ganking. This isnt just another nerf in the sense that its just an outcry against ganking because its killing eve, chasing away new players, or any of that crap. The thing is that anything floating in a wreck or can is fair game for anyone and shouldnt be considered yours nor is it considered safe until you have docked up. This mechanic is just plain bad and introduces too much risk mitigation for what is being scooped into these fleet hangars.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#56 - 2016-09-20 05:12:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Faylee Freir wrote:

Who says you have to pick one?


Because it is a thought experiment to help you see the issue. I clearly failed at that point.

Moreover, we often face this choice in real life. You have two choices and you only have resources to do one of them...so you have to choose. This is where the notion of opportunity cost comes from.

Quote:
This is eve, and you always have choices... In that specific situation I choose to bring in 2 bump machs and gank them both.


Again, it was a thought experiment to help people see what is going on. But instead you missed the point entirely.

Quote:
Also while I respect your right to an opinion, I think you are making this into something that its not. Nerfing this looting into a fleet hangar does nothing to lessen the amount of opportunities that players have to interact with each other. Actually making them go suspect just as you would have scooped the loot into a regular ships hangar would do just the opposite. It would create yet another chance for a played to interact.


Sure it does. What happens when the DST goes suspect? Seriously, are you thinking through what you are proposing?

Quote:
A change like this isnt a huge nerf nor is it something that will break ganking. This isnt just another nerf in the sense that its just an outcry against ganking because its killing eve, chasing away new players, or any of that crap. The thing is that anything floating in a wreck or can is fair game for anyone and shouldnt be considered yours nor is it considered safe until you have docked up. This mechanic is just plain bad and introduces too much risk mitigation for what is being scooped into these fleet hangars.


Maybe. See, as I have been saying for quite some time now, EVE is about spontaneous order. That is, order comes out of all the interactions between players. And those interactions can and often do have effects and outcomes that are unanticipated. People think, "Oh, this is no big deal, it completely makes sense." Then some completely unintended result pops up and bites people on the ass. That is the thing with spontaneous orders.

Want to know another example of spontaneous order: evolution. What happens when there was wide spread use of antibiotics like penicillin? It eventually lead to Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, aka MRSA. It is a nasty bacterium and people tend to get it in hospitals where it sits like a snake in the grass waiting for its opportunity. And now even our most powerful antibiotics can merely knock it down so your immune system can keep it suppressed, but it sits inside you waiting...and when your immune system becomes compromised (another illness, old age, etc.) out it comes to make your life absolutely wonderful...no, I'm joking it makes thing worse of course. Eventually it will kill you unless something else comes along and does the job first. The point is, you mess with spontaneous order and the outcomes are not easily predictable.

BTW, fun video of how bacteria evolve--i.e. adapt which is what we players do in EVE too,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

Watch that and you should be a little bit scared...not in game, IRL.

We have seen round after round of nerfs to ganking and HS PvP and everyone who supported them were absolutely sure these changes would be good. And then you go look at Eve Offline at the Tranquility graph and one has to wonder...really? If these changes were so good for the game, why is the number of players logged in declining?

Further, because of all these changes we probably can't go back. CODE. and other ganking groups have gotten "too good". To deal with these nerfs they have, like the MRSA bacterium, adapted. If we went back and started giving insurance for dying to CONCORD that would likely be bad. If we reversed changes to freighters, that would likely be bad. If we reversed the changes to CONCORD response times that would likely be bad. So now here we are and people want to keep going with more and more nerfs.

Yeah, maybe ganking organizations will adapt...but are you absolutely sure you want that? Maybe what comes next will be even worse? Have you thought about that in all of your hubris?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Black Pedro
Mine.
#57 - 2016-09-20 09:32:55 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
We have seen round after round of nerfs to ganking and HS PvP and everyone who supported them were absolutely sure these changes would be good. And then you go look at Eve Offline at the Tranquility graph and one has to wonder...really? If these changes were so good for the game, why is the number of players logged in declining?

Further, because of all these changes we probably can't go back. CODE. and other ganking groups have gotten "too good". To deal with these nerfs they have, like the MRSA bacterium, adapted. If we went back and started giving insurance for dying to CONCORD that would likely be bad. If we reversed changes to freighters, that would likely be bad. If we reversed the changes to CONCORD response times that would likely be bad. So now here we are and people want to keep going with more and more nerfs.

Yeah, maybe ganking organizations will adapt...but are you absolutely sure you want that? Maybe what comes next will be even worse? Have you thought about that in all of your hubris?
I substantially agree with this. I mean what did the carebear apologists expect? That ganking would stop? Of course not, the ability to attack anyone anywhere is a fundamental plank of the game. Each nerf to ganking just makes highsec criminality less and less accessible to the average player and more the purview of the larger and dedicated groups (as does each nerf to wardecs). Antagonists will adapt, adjust and play by the new rules, but at the core of the game you are suppose to be vulnerable to them and always will be barring some massive, and probably game-breaking change in the development direction of this game. Unless you turn off aggression entirely, they will just group up and N+1 your nerfs, leading to larger imbalances in player strength on each side of the PvP contest than before the nerf.

Part of the problem is an identity crisis of what highsec is suppose to be. I think the best overall description is it is a safer space, where the core game play of Eve Online can still take place, but with NPC-enforced consequences that are designed to support solo/small group/casual play. The cost imposed by CONCORD prevents indiscriminate violence, and makes it not worth the effort of exploding the small fry, unless of course they shove billions of ISK into a shuttle or freighter, or bling fit some mission or mining ship.

This works to protect most players, but fails at supporting somewhat balanced conflict between players in that space. The higher you raise the bar to attack, the more organized and powerful the attackers have to be, and the bar is so high now that no solo or small group can match the organization or firepower of the large highsec criminal and mercenary groups.

I don't have an answer, but I am pretty sure as you say Teckos there is no going back at this point. The organized aggressor group won't forget what they have learned and will continue to completely outclass the average highsec group no matter how many nerfs you add to the game, unless you lock them out completely. Given that I believe CCP when they say they have no intention of ever doing that, the only hope to restore some balance to the game will come from a complete rework of highsec mechanics, either changing how crime and wardecs work so that smaller groups of players can actually pirate or mercenary again under some new or revamped special highsec aggression mechanics, or go the opposite way and make highsec less safe more like the rest of the game so these criminal/mercenary groups can be preyed upon by the larger fish outside of highsec.

All that said, I do agree with the OP. Clearly the intention of Crimewatch 2.0 was to put looters at risk of attack and that is not happening with the current looting mechanics. The problem is not trivial to solve however, both technically as like the Margin Trading Scam some fixes are not easy to implement with the database structure, and in terms of game design as there a number of other obvious ways to launder stolen goods in space using other containers. Ultimately, I don't think it would matter in any case as the organized groups would just bring more combat or gank ships to overwhelm the couple anti-gankers trying to attack the looter, or more likely, the anti-gankers would still be unable to catch the looting ship which is almost 100% safe if it loots and warps on the same server tick while aligned to a Citadel.

I think it probably best to leave this until the Crimewatch 3.0 redesign and see if something more interesting can be done with the idea of stolen goods.

Faylee Freir
Slavers Union
BLACKFLAG.
#58 - 2016-09-20 09:36:04 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Faylee Freir wrote:

Who says you have to pick one?


Because it is a thought experiment to help you see the issue. I clearly failed at that point.

Moreover, we often face this choice in real life. You have two choices and you only have resources to do one of them...so you have to choose. This is where the notion of opportunity cost comes from.

Quote:
This is eve, and you always have choices... In that specific situation I choose to bring in 2 bump machs and gank them both.


Again, it was a thought experiment to help people see what is going on. But instead you missed the point entirely.

Quote:
Also while I respect your right to an opinion, I think you are making this into something that its not. Nerfing this looting into a fleet hangar does nothing to lessen the amount of opportunities that players have to interact with each other. Actually making them go suspect just as you would have scooped the loot into a regular ships hangar would do just the opposite. It would create yet another chance for a played to interact.


Sure it does. What happens when the DST goes suspect? Seriously, are you thinking through what you are proposing?

Quote:
A change like this isnt a huge nerf nor is it something that will break ganking. This isnt just another nerf in the sense that its just an outcry against ganking because its killing eve, chasing away new players, or any of that crap. The thing is that anything floating in a wreck or can is fair game for anyone and shouldnt be considered yours nor is it considered safe until you have docked up. This mechanic is just plain bad and introduces too much risk mitigation for what is being scooped into these fleet hangars.


Maybe. See, as I have been saying for quite some time now, EVE is about spontaneous order. That is, order comes out of all the interactions between players. And those interactions can and often do have effects and outcomes that are unanticipated. People think, "Oh, this is no big deal, it completely makes sense." Then some completely unintended result pops up and bites people on the ass. That is the thing with spontaneous orders.

Want to know another example of spontaneous order: evolution. What happens when there was wide spread use of antibiotics like penicillin? It eventually lead to Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, aka MRSA. It is a nasty bacterium and people tend to get it in hospitals where it sits like a snake in the grass waiting for its opportunity. And now even our most powerful antibiotics can merely knock it down so your immune system can keep it suppressed, but it sits inside you waiting...and when your immune system becomes compromised (another illness, old age, etc.) out it comes to make your life absolutely wonderful...no, I'm joking it makes thing worse of course. Eventually it will kill you unless something else comes along and does the job first. The point is, you mess with spontaneous order and the outcomes are not easily predictable.

BTW, fun video of how bacteria evolve--i.e. adapt which is what we players do in EVE too,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

Watch that and you should be a little bit scared...not in game, IRL.

We have seen round after round of nerfs to ganking and HS PvP and everyone who supported them were absolutely sure these changes would be good. And then you go look at Eve Offline at the Tranquility graph and one has to wonder...really? If these changes were so good for the game, why is the number of players logged in declining?

Further, because of all these changes we probably can't go back. CODE. and other ganking groups have gotten "too good". To deal with these nerfs they have, like the MRSA bacterium, adapted. If we went back and started giving insurance for dying to CONCORD that would likely be bad. If we reversed changes to freighters, that would likely be bad. If we reversed the changes to CONCORD response times that would likely be bad. So now here we are and people want to keep going with more and more nerfs.

Yeah, maybe ganking organizations will adapt...but are you absolutely sure you want that? Maybe what comes next will be even worse? Have you thought about that in all of your hubris?

No i got your thought experiment, but such a thought provoking example doesnt make sense since any freighter with plex will get ganked upon principle alone.

Also about the dst... Yes thank you for reinforcing my point. People will shoot at a suspect dst because they can. People cant freely engage a dst that is only being used by someone to move gank loot into the fleet hangar. Sire it can be interacted with in other ways but do you think that gankers ganking gankers is a good or viable counter to profitable ganking? I dont, especially when you consider the amount of time, isk, and assets that go into freighter ganking.

Ive seen highsec pvp and gankers have to evolve. Some of what i do is the result of such nerfs and while some are irritating, if everyone takes a moment to step back and look at it from any other perspective than what fits their personal agenda, you will see its called balance. Is CCP perfect? Hell no, and even this sub forum is a joke. Most of the ideas here are absolute trash! Eves players statistics are surely the result of more than some ganking nerfs. I really hope you dont believe this.. Sure dumbing the game down and making it easier is something a lot of players dont want to see and get tired of, but this change isnt that... If anything its putting more risk into seciring the loot. I mean come on, goons pop a freighter with a fortizar inside and instantly scoop 15b into a fleet hangar and waltz out.
Per'mit Me'too Die'tryin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2016-09-20 10:31:38 UTC
I would rather be able to receive a KM for destroying the wreck of a gank with no suspect tag. I would be willing to bet ganker tears taste just as good as those that are ganked. If CCP is unwilling to change the mechanic that allows for this risk aversion using a DTS, then at least make this possible.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#60 - 2016-09-20 17:56:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Faylee Freir wrote:

No i got your thought experiment, but such a thought provoking example doesnt make sense since any freighter with plex will get ganked upon principle alone.

Also about the dst... Yes thank you for reinforcing my point. People will shoot at a suspect dst because they can. People cant freely engage a dst that is only being used by someone to move gank loot into the fleet hangar. Sire it can be interacted with in other ways but do you think that gankers ganking gankers is a good or viable counter to profitable ganking? I dont, especially when you consider the amount of time, isk, and assets that go into freighter ganking.

Ive seen highsec pvp and gankers have to evolve. Some of what i do is the result of such nerfs and while some are irritating, if everyone takes a moment to step back and look at it from any other perspective than what fits their personal agenda, you will see its called balance. Is CCP perfect? Hell no, and even this sub forum is a joke. Most of the ideas here are absolute trash! Eves players statistics are surely the result of more than some ganking nerfs. I really hope you dont believe this.. Sure dumbing the game down and making it easier is something a lot of players dont want to see and get tired of, but this change isnt that... If anything its putting more risk into seciring the loot. I mean come on, goons pop a freighter with a fortizar inside and instantly scoop 15b into a fleet hangar and waltz out.


People can't freely engage an freighter with 8 billion in loot either. Your point?

Oh, and my personal agenda on ganking and loot scooping, none if you think I benefit from this. I have only ganked freighters during Burn Jita/Amarr events and made nothing off them.

And thank you for finally admitting this is a nerf to ganking. Took you long enough...

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online