These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

A plan to improve the game for both Gankers and Freighters

Author
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#41 - 2016-09-19 16:33:58 UTC
If the trade lanes stay where they are then changing the sec statuses even to all have 1.0 changes nothing. Gankers are pirates and pirates go where the money flows. All you wind up doing is nerfing ganking a bit more for no real reason. Its not like its a common event.
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
#42 - 2016-09-19 16:39:22 UTC
I'm surprised more ganking doesn't take place at the gates just outside of Jita. There are numerous times that ten to twenty freighters are bunched up at the gate into Jita.

The system might be a .8 but with enough ganker boats, maybe around 50, it would be easy to take out a freighter that is remaining idle on the gate.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#43 - 2016-09-19 16:56:53 UTC
Pirokobo wrote:
Arya Regnar wrote:

Actually you have jumps per system statistic in the map last I checked.


Yeah, per system.

But turning that into an average to determine how many standard deviations trade routes are above background requires working with ALL the data.

Right now I'm just doing it visually. I know that the traffic is some rediculous number of standard deviations above norm. I just don't know precisely how many.

Arya Regnar wrote:
We have a dilemma


Which is precisely my goal. The trade routes become safe, but everything right off the routes, the feeder systems, becomes rough neighborhood. A lot more systems become viable for gank piracy, but the traffic density at each is lower.

You don't know whatthe hell you are talking about, you will create a full chain that is all 1.0 between all trade hubs with no .5s in between and that is complete bullshit.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.

Pirokobo
Perkone
Caldari State
#44 - 2016-09-19 17:08:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Pirokobo
Arya Regnar wrote:

you will create a full chain that is all 1.0 between all trade hubs with no .5s in between


Yes. And surrounded by .5 on all sides.

Do you believe that all traffic in new eden is between hubs?

Arya Regnar wrote:
and that is complete bullshit.


No more so than a system where gankers can literally sit all day in two systems scanning everything that passes by for a ship that crosses some numerical threshold, like a crooked weigh station on the I-95.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#45 - 2016-09-19 17:37:30 UTC
Pirokobo wrote:
Arya Regnar wrote:

you will create a full chain that is all 1.0 between all trade hubs with no .5s in between


Yes. And surrounded by .5 on all sides.

Do you believe that all traffic in new eden is between hubs?

Arya Regnar wrote:
and that is complete bullshit.


No more so than a system where gankers can literally sit all day in two systems scanning everything that passes by for a ship that crosses some numerical threshold, like a crooked weigh station on the I-95.


So don't go through it.
Pirokobo
Perkone
Caldari State
#46 - 2016-09-19 17:50:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Pirokobo
baltec1 wrote:


So don't go through it.


I don't fly freighters. If I did, I WOULD be taking the 46 jump route.

I don't care about how hard life is or isn't on the freighter pilots.

What I'm going after is the crooked-weigh-station, fish-in-a-barrel aspect of it. Its too easy, and as a nullsec pilot that irritates me.

If CCP is going to force us to move less with jump fatigue, then they can do something force freighter gankers to move more.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#47 - 2016-09-19 18:32:51 UTC
Pirokobo wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


So don't go through it.


I don't fly freighters. If I did, I WOULD be taking the 46 jump route.

I don't care about how hard life is or isn't on the freighter pilots.

What I'm going after is the crooked-weigh-station, fish-in-a-barrel aspect of it. Its too easy, and as a nullsec pilot that irritates me.

If CCP is going to force us to move less with jump fatigue, then they can do something force freighter gankers to move more.


Your plan won't make gankers or the people they prey on move anywhere though.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#48 - 2016-09-19 18:36:33 UTC
Pirokobo wrote:

Do you believe that all traffic in new eden is between hubs?

70-80% of it. The rest is 70-80% nullsec traffic there is some being moved to poses but those already dont take a lot of .5s because you just do it where it's cheap.
with your proposal 90% of all traffic would never pass through .5 systems which is dumb and counters any risk -reward aspects of this game.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.

Amonios Zula
Aeon Ascendant
#49 - 2016-09-20 00:43:57 UTC
Pirokobo wrote:
Amonios Zula wrote:
I would have hoped a floating sec would work in sort of the opposite way.


But that leads to the rediculous situation I described earlier where security gradually climbs in null and low but then jumps way up at the lowsec-highsec border and then declines again as you approach the population centers.

That's just weird.

That would be wierd.
But i meant it really for highsec only, so more police actions, ie more strained they are, the lower sec becomes slowing response times until its then lowsec for a time Twisted
Mr Crowley
Among Shadows
Shadows of Eden
#50 - 2016-09-22 17:32:45 UTC
Pirokobo wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:

Keep the trade hubs as they are and then change the sec status based on the number of losses in a system. Start high and then drop the sec status as the amount of PvP kills increase. An inverse relationship.


I like where you're going, but there's just one problem.

To avoid JUST Niarja, takes the route from Jita to Amarr from 10 jumps to 46.

It is ALWAYS going to be a choke point. Faylee is correct that there are groups in EVE that can pull off a hit no matter what the security status is, and they will naturally congregate to the best hunting grounds, WHICH ARE THE CHOKE POINTS. And they will bring the security status down, increasing profitability to more groups, who bring it down further.

The security system you described turns ganking in chokepoint systems into a positive feedback loop, when what I was aiming for was to dampen it and force it to spread out more.



Its ridiculous that you can jump from trade hub 1 to trade hub 2 in ten jumps. While your ideas have merit the map is the problem. The hubs need to be farther apart with several 0.0 systems in the middle.

You should NEVER feel safe in a freighter. NEVER. I know I never feel safe in mine.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#51 - 2016-09-22 18:37:00 UTC
Freighters aside - I like to gank mission runners in .5 systems. With your elite math, mission runners would ALL pretty much be in 1.0 systems. So though you claim it will improve stuff for both sides it would pretty much end the ganking of mission boats for profit.

Your idea wouldn't do what you are claiming it would. It would do the opposite with regards to popping missioning cream puffs.

I'm kind of concluding you're a HS mission runner and that you or one of you buddies got wonked coming home from a mission. Your proposal is all about making busy mission hubs 1.0.


-1 (you lied to us)
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#52 - 2016-09-22 23:35:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Pirokobo wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
will simply throw more ships at them.


Increasing the price of doing so and thus the point at which it ceases to be profitable.
It wouldn't work that way.

The higher the sec status on a trade route, the more likely it is that people will increase the isk value of their loads, because higher sec status implies more "safety"; thus people plying those routes will continue to be profitable to gank despite the increase in sec status.

Concord response time in a 1.0 is approx 5-7 seconds, which is around 12-14 seconds faster than the response time in a 0.5 (19-21 seconds); ganking a ship in a 1.0 over doing it in a 0.5 is a simple matter of doing the math, you bring more DPS (either in terms of more powerful ships, or a larger fleet) to the party.

The only predictable results of the change that you suggest are that
  • freighters will still get ganked
  • people will continue to lose isk to the gankers
  • people that get ganked will still cry on the forums about it
  • anti ganking groups will still be ineffective
  • gankers will still profit, despite having more expenses, because the people that they gank will continue to do the daft things that make it profitable to gank them


TL;DR CCP can't patch stupidity, it'll be business as usual for the gankers.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#53 - 2016-09-22 23:55:21 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Why do we even need to do this?

The chances of being ganked in a freighter stands at 0.2% per 1.5-2 million jumps.

Every time you 'quote' this number without references that jump number goes up.
The first time you 'quoted' it it was 0.2% per jump.

At this point I'm going to ask for a CCP citation to support your absurd figures, because 2 million jumps would take about 7.5 years of 24h a day jumping to achieve (Based on an assumption of 2 minutes to warp between gates per system, which is faster than warping in a lot of systems in a freighter).
Violet Crumble
Federation Defense Supply
#54 - 2016-09-23 02:56:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Violet Crumble
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Why do we even need to do this?

The chances of being ganked in a freighter stands at 0.2% per 1.5-2 million jumps.

Every time you 'quote' this number without references that jump number goes up.
The first time you 'quoted' it it was 0.2% per jump.

At this point I'm going to ask for a CCP citation to support your absurd figures, because 2 million jumps would take about 7.5 years of 24h a day jumping to achieve (Based on an assumption of 2 minutes to warp between gates per system, which is faster than warping in a lot of systems in a freighter).

It comes from Red Frog Freight's Annual Report from 2015:

139,758 contracts completed, 382 failed. Total jumps completed: 1,883,479

Assuming the freighters never travel empty ever (ie. wouldn't be empty gank targets), then:

(382 contracts failed / 1883479 completed jumps) as a percentage = 0.0203% per jump average

(382 contracts failed / 139758 contract completed) as a percentage = 0.27% per journey, with each journey averaging 13.4 jumps

http://red-frog.org/annual-report-2015.php

It's not true that the freighters never travel empty, but this represents a worse case scenario for packages delivered through RFF contracts.

There have been excuses raised to dismiss the volume of freight moved by RFF as being not representative of the risk to any package in highsec, so take from it what you will, but the figure is an accurate conclusion from the data for RFF.

The fact also remains that there are no RFF Freighters. RFF contracts are moved by NPC Corp pilots and player Corp pilots in freighters that are totally indistinguishable from any other package or freighter during transport.

So the risk to RFF packages, measured with so many completed contracts (382 completed on average every single day of the year) is a good measure of the risk of being ganked in a freighter.

That is a kind of worst case figure also, as freighters do travel empty for some journeys and the 382 is failure by all modes (eg. overtime contract failed, theft, gank)

Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#55 - 2016-09-23 10:04:57 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Why do we even need to do this?

The chances of being ganked in a freighter stands at 0.2% per 1.5-2 million jumps.

Every time you 'quote' this number without references that jump number goes up.
The first time you 'quoted' it it was 0.2% per jump.

At this point I'm going to ask for a CCP citation to support your absurd figures, because 2 million jumps would take about 7.5 years of 24h a day jumping to achieve (Based on an assumption of 2 minutes to warp between gates per system, which is faster than warping in a lot of systems in a freighter).


I used to link it but when you get the same people spouting the same lies over and over you tend to stop bothering with all of the work and just go off memory. Post above is accurate and your numbers match my own freighters long life.
Redus Taw
Hotaru.
Order of Allied Knights
#56 - 2016-09-24 04:41:31 UTC
I'd say give bonuses that are specific to defensive ganking. Something like, once the freighter is attacked, the freighter receives defensive, drone, and jamming bonuses. Of course all freighters will then need mid slots, drone bandwidth, and a drone bay. What do you guys think? Cheers!
Black Pedro
Mine.
#57 - 2016-09-24 06:38:54 UTC
Redus Taw wrote:
I'd say give bonuses that are specific to defensive ganking. Something like, once the freighter is attacked, the freighter receives defensive, drone, and jamming bonuses. Of course all freighters will then need mid slots, drone bandwidth, and a drone bay. What do you guys think? Cheers!

They did that already: they are called Deep Space Transports. They have the ability to fit defenses (even weapons) and modules for escape, and have role bonuses that make them highly resistant to ganking when actively piloted.

Frieghters on the other hand are massive, capital ships for hauling bulky cargo, and as a trade-off are given no offensive, or intrinsic defensive bonuses. They are intended to be vulnerable and require support ships. This trade-off in capabilities is very much intended so you, the hauler, have to make a decision on what ship is appropriate for the job. Otherwise, if freighters were the best at everything, they would be the only hauler flown even more so than they are now.
Caleb Seremshur
Naked Oiled Bodybuilders
Parasitic Legion.
#58 - 2016-09-24 09:11:46 UTC
ITT: OP doesn't draw the parallels of freighters of space with cargo freighters of the seas.

Conceivably a freighter would have a security crew to prevent piracy and mutinies from proceeding, possess point defenses for the destruction of micro-asteroids and other potential wreckage that may impact the ship, possess a variety of other security features for other niche cases, but...

Frigates and destroyers are military vessels with (comparatively) reinforced shields and armour, they have systems devoted to weaponry, they do not launch boarding crews and they are not equipped to rob the ships they kill in any specific way. Freighters in EVE much like IRL merchant vessels would be woefully underequipped for fighting off any military aggressor trying to kill them. With redundant bulkheads and other practical defenses it would still be merely a matter of putting a couple of decent shots downfield to completely incapacitate a freighter, knocking out the conning tower or engines.

ITT: OP cannot into reasoning that just like IRL defenceless spaceships need to hire help.
Previous page123