These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Mutuality of Freighter Ganking

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mala Zvitorepka
Karthen-Woight
#181 - 2016-12-21 14:01:22 UTC
What do people even haul in freighters? Cheap T1 ships? I find this nearly the only thing that can be sold easily, is high enough volume and low enough value to make sense to be put in a freighter. Most of other stuff is just too valuable to be put there (or you risk ganks). Even stuff at just about 5k/m^3 (say tritanium) makes 3x t2 bulkhead freighter an economically viable target for gank. Barely, at about 2b cargo, but good enough.
Salvos Rhoska
#182 - 2016-12-21 14:20:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

If it were up to me™ NPC corps would periodically wardec each other. After all I think along some point Aliastra would have a beef with Native Fresh Food. Naval NPC starter corps would be permanently at war with each other (Think: FW starter kits).


I second this motion, completely.

Ive posted at length before on introducing more inter- NPC organisation dynamics into EVE, but that is outside the scope of this threads topic. At the least, what Herzog said above above would open "safe" NPC corps to atleast limited engagement.


Returning to topic:

Im ok with one ship bumping one target.
Im ok with several ships bumping one target.
Im not ok with repeated bumping by any one ship, or any number of ships, on any one target, ad infinity.

I think there needs to be somekind of cap on this behavior in terms of interval between bumps, number of bumps total, or duration total, or an intermix of some/all of them.


I have no issue with the changes to wreck EHP, as was ingeniously utilized by AG to deny gank loot for as long as that lasted, with less dps required before. Though material destruction is of primary importance (ie: destroying wreck and loot), wreck destruction de-incentives aggression, thus cascading into even less material destruction overall. CCP made a good call.

But the bumping issue remains outstanding, atleast as far as I outlined above.
Its just silly that a ship can be bumped indefinitely by one ship, let alone multiple ones.
There has to be some limit.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
#183 - 2016-12-21 15:17:30 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Question: Have CCP addressed consequence free bumping in hisec?

Information: This allows the bumper to effectively point a target indefinitely without any consequences for his PvP in hisec, furthermore his acts are protected by CONCORD and can only be stopped by ganking the bumper.

Answer: CCP put forward a fix of forcing a warp after 3 minutes unless the ship is pointed, at which point the timer gets re-set, this fix which can be countered easily with a suicide point has still not been applied and no explanation has been given.


Additional Information on bumping exploits: Bumping has only been declared as an exploit where it allowed people to bump parked Supers and Titans out of POS shields and of course bumping ships away from Citadels.

Conclusion: Some bumps are more equal than others... Lol


When AG started to pop wrecks the gankers brigaded the forums complaining about wreck EHP and it got "fixed" in months.

We're still waiting for that bumping fix.

Now we can argue all day about whose side CCP is on, but that's all you need to know is that when gankers cry, they get their bottle fast and they'll never complain about that nerf. It takes CCP years to fix a mechanic that gankers game to death and then the same people cry.

Many have left this game thinking "so they are just allowed to do that and nothing is done about it? I'm done". Sure they "can't handle Eve" right? Well can Eve handle having only gankers and mercs feeding off each other? Maybe things will get bad enough that they'll let easy targets play for free. Oh wait.


This is so true, it is sad, this game has so much going for it, but it has ended up a bit of a joke in terms of balance for certain game play choices, I don't think that CCP will ever really get it, that wreck EHP was the most blatent example I have yet seen from CCP and it disgusts me greatly, what really got me is the crying by gankers about the DCU change to structure as a big nerf to ganking which Fozzie allowed to benefit freighters to balance off against the wreck EHP nerf for AG. That is the ganker community in a nut shell... I have yet to see any ganker or ganker aligned player admit that it was a major nerf to AG and I don't expect they ever will.


These are some of my favorite Dracvlad tears. The best thing about it is that it's all in his head.

He lives in a strange parallel reality where CCP Fozzie concerns himself with the CODE./AG meta. A reality where DCU changes are meant to balance wreck HP and cats and dogs live together in harmony.
Djsaeu
Doomheim
#184 - 2016-12-21 15:30:43 UTC
You buy or build a Freighter, You decide to use that Freighter to go from one point to another. There is always a risk, tough luck, it is a part of life. Suck it up and drive on.

That's my personal thoughts on that.
Gregorius Goldstein
Queens of the Drone Age
#185 - 2016-12-21 15:45:07 UTC
When I look at the EVE economy reports far more ships should be blown up to close the gap between "build" and "destroyed". EVE is not minecraft.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#186 - 2016-12-21 15:51:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Galaxy Duck wrote:
These are some of my favorite Dracvlad tears. The best thing about it is that it's all in his head.

He lives in a strange parallel reality where CCP Fozzie concerns himself with the CODE./AG meta. A reality where DCU changes are meant to balance wreck HP and cats and dogs live together in harmony.


Do you like my hat, actually CCP are doing some fun things, I rather liked the NPC miners and their new behaviour, pity they scaled it back a bit in hisec but good to see that they have random spawns, now if they could every so often throw pirate BS rats and even better pirate dreads into the hisec belts I would see that as a major improvement.

It is quite telling as Herzog pointed out that CCP reacted very quickly to ganker tears, but the amusing thing for me is that you have won in terms of freighters, I sold mine. We are also noting a fall off in the numbers of freighters and more people using DST's the message is getting home which is a good thing, I expect you will beg to get DST's nerfed at some point. The other part is that people are actually starting to do logistic ops which is why you lot are trying to pretend that webs are all fine and dandy, they are not.

All you have to do is look at how he said it, what could he have possibly meant by game balance..., if he meant something else then please enlighten me. I have had cats and dogs and never had any issues with them getting on, must be you... Shocked

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Bjorn Tyrson
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#187 - 2016-12-21 15:52:31 UTC
Still waiting for any freighter pilot to explain exactly WHAT they think an acceptable level of risk/skill/etc it should take from the gankers in order to be "fair" in taking a freighter..

I mean clearly its not enough to need to organize 30+ pilots to do it... should they have capital level tanks? should it take 50+ 100+... what exactly is "fair"
Gregorius Goldstein
Queens of the Drone Age
#188 - 2016-12-21 16:03:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregorius Goldstein
Bjorn Tyrson wrote:
Still waiting for any freighter pilot to explain exactly WHAT they think an acceptable level of risk/skill/etc it should take from the gankers in order to be "fair" in taking a freighter..

I mean clearly its not enough to need to organize 30+ pilots to do it... should they have capital level tanks? should it take 50+ 100+... what exactly is "fair"


If we assume a 20% margin on the hauled stuff to lose every 10th ship does cut your margin in half and you still had to pay for the new ship with the ISK left. So I assume to lose every 20th to 30th paper tanked and auto-piloted freighter would still get us some salt. OK, OK so let us assume only one out of 50 to 100 haulers got ganked for a fair highsec hauling fun...everyone should be happy? Nope because then everyone had an hauler alt on auto-pilot and the margin would drop.. back to start:

If we assume a 10% margin...

I haul sometimes. Yet I see gankers as freindos.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#189 - 2016-12-21 16:13:15 UTC
Mala Zvitorepka wrote:
Even stuff at just about 5k/m^3 (say tritanium)


Trit's worth 1/10 of that unless something really amazing happened to either the price or volume of trit overnight.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Miriam Beckstein
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#190 - 2016-12-21 16:43:17 UTC
Bjorn Tyrson wrote:
Still waiting for any freighter pilot to explain exactly WHAT they think an acceptable level of risk/skill/etc it should take from the gankers in order to be "fair" in taking a freighter..

I mean clearly its not enough to need to organize 30+ pilots to do it... should they have capital level tanks? should it take 50+ 100+... what exactly is "fair"


Same as it is now, except that it takes a criminal act to keep you stuck on grid. That'd be acceptable level of risk/skill/organisation for me.

Making bumping a criminal act is not feasible. So make it so that bumping won't keep you stuck on grid. I made a suggestion for it in my last post, and I'm still interested to hear what holes can be poked in it.

And I have a very simple question, would the organised gankers still be able to pop every freighter they see carrying 5+ billion in cargo if they couldn't bump, if they had to tackle to keep it on grid?
Miriam Beckstein
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#191 - 2016-12-21 16:51:10 UTC
Beta Maoye wrote:
The profitability of hauling is really not that good for freighter pilots. Let's say a pilot use a freighter that cost 1B to haul cargo that also worth 1B. His total risk is the cost of the ship plus the cost of cargo, which is totally 2B at risk. How much he can make for trading 1B of goods? In most cases, it would be somewhere between 10%-30% of the cost of goods. Let's say on average he make 200M per each trade. For each trip he ventures, his risk/reward ratio is 2B/200M, which is 10 to 1. In other words, he is risking 10 bucks to make 1 buck. If he is ganked just once for each 11 trips, he will break even luckily. Anything worse than that, he will loss in his trading business.
Since the beginning of alpha clone age, high sec is increasingly dangerous for haulers. Alpha clones risk almost nothing to participate in ganking activities. Everyone and his auntie would like to have an alpha just for ganking. Hauling business is terrible in this game. I told newbies not to run trading between stations. I told them they would have more fun to use a free alpha clone to take part in ganking fleet.


You are dramatically overstating the profit with those madeup numbers. And there are non-made up numbers that are easy to find. Red frog charge 17 million to move 1 billion cargo from jita-->amarr. The pilot is risking 2 billion to get 17 million, 0.85%, 117 trips from Jita-->amarr to pay for 1 gank. If you count ~800 mill in insurance and assume the collaterall is only 650 mill, not 1 bill, the profit margin increases to 2%, it takes 50 amarr->jita trips to pay for a single gank.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#192 - 2016-12-21 17:00:11 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Miriam Beckstein wrote:

You are dramatically overstating the profit with those madeup numbers. And there are non-made up numbers that are easy to find. Red frog charge 17 million to move 1 billion cargo from jita-->amarr. The pilot is risking 2 billion to get 17 million, 0.85%, 117 trips from Jita-->amarr to pay for 1 gank. If you count ~800 mill in insurance and assume the collaterall is only 650 mill, not 1 bill, the profit margin increases to 2%, it takes 50 amarr->jita trips to pay for a single gank.



Meanwhile, back in reality, I've never - not once - had a public Jita <-> Amarr courier contract expire untaken, and I'm pretty gentle on the numberpad when I'm filling out that reward box, if you know what I mean. I'm not sure I've ever had one make it 24 hours past issuance, even. Maybe once.

Theorycraft all you want, but the risk/reward ratio has provably been deemed adequate by the general hauling population merely by virtue of the fact that haulers are taking such contracts.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
#193 - 2016-12-21 17:38:01 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Galaxy Duck wrote:
These are some of my favorite Dracvlad tears. The best thing about it is that it's all in his head.

He lives in a strange parallel reality where CCP Fozzie concerns himself with the CODE./AG meta. A reality where DCU changes are meant to balance wreck HP and cats and dogs live together in harmony.


Do you like my hat, actually CCP are doing some fun things, I rather liked the NPC miners and their new behaviour, pity they scaled it back a bit in hisec but good to see that they have random spawns, now if they could every so often throw pirate BS rats and even better pirate dreads into the hisec belts I would see that as a major improvement.

It is quite telling as Herzog pointed out that CCP reacted very quickly to ganker tears, but the amusing thing for me is that you have won in terms of freighters, I sold mine. We are also noting a fall off in the numbers of freighters and more people using DST's the message is getting home which is a good thing, I expect you will beg to get DST's nerfed at some point. The other part is that people are actually starting to do logistic ops which is why you lot are trying to pretend that webs are all fine and dandy, they are not.

All you have to do is look at how he said it, what could he have possibly meant by game balance..., if he meant something else then please enlighten me. I have had cats and dogs and never had any issues with them getting on, must be you... Shocked


You're so afraid of gankers that you sold your freighter? Jeezus man, excuse me while I laugh and cry at the same time.

It seems strange to me that you can concoct these elaborate fantasies about CCP Fozzie, yet be so unimaginative when it comes to coming up with counters to bumping.
Salvos Rhoska
#194 - 2016-12-21 17:39:19 UTC
Gregorius Goldstein wrote:
Nope because then everyone had an hauler alt on auto-pilot and the margin would drop.. back to start:

If we assume a 10% margin...

I haul sometimes. Yet I see gankers as freindos.

Very well said.

This is a vital central point that people have difficulty wrapping their head around.

Instead of only thinking of what ganks might do to you, its crucial to realize gankers are also doing it to your competing haulers too.
Thus removing them/hampering them from competing with you.

Every other freighter that explodes, makes the service YOU provide, more valuable.

Theoretical example:
-If all other freighters where destroyed, you could ask absolutely astronomical prices for your service. Trillions for a small shipment.
-Thus the more freighters are destroyed, the more in demand your service is.

Its remarkable how so many people cant understand this.
We are not used to thinking of these matters in these terms.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#195 - 2016-12-21 17:47:11 UTC
Galaxy Duck wrote:
You're so afraid of gankers that you sold your freighter? Jeezus man, excuse me while I laugh and cry at the same time.

It seems strange to me that you can concoct these elaborate fantasies about CCP Fozzie, yet be so unimaginative when it comes to coming up with counters to bumping.


I found that there was no effective way to mitigate risk once freighter gankers were suicide pointing people who had the smarts to web their freighters into warp, at that point I decided that I was too easy to kill for my refined tastes and went instead for the joys of a DST. I am working on one which has 1m EHP with high grade snakes and 500m worth of modules, kill that one boyz!!!! And I should not ignore the command bursts that I will move with it.... Am I scared nope, just not going to give you the easy kills you like...

You are confusing CCP Fozzie with CCP Falcon, one of them has hair and the other makes CONCORD biscuits...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#196 - 2016-12-21 18:31:00 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Violet Crumble wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Well you don't seem to be very good are you if you are missing that data, those loss mails do exist, but then again you are in a corp that lost a POS to a war dec because your CEO at the time did not know he could anchor the hardeners inside the POS shields..., so I suppose there is a theme of incompetence here...

I have all of the data. As I wrote earlier, I analysed it earlier today on the expectation that you would yet again bring the issue of blackbirds into this.

It isn't an issue, however if you have data that shows it is an issue, then post it. It's your claim, so prove it.

As for POS losses, yeah we are terribad (but I wasn't in the Corp at the time I don't think), though I can't see what that has to do with the issue being discussed here.

Post your data.


You do know that loss mails are not that reliable and that there are certain events that will remove you from the loss mail, so explain to me now just how accurate the loss mails really are so that you can be so certain that your data is correct and that it details all the facts.


Translation: I got no data, and here is me trying to bluff my way out.

"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
#197 - 2016-12-21 18:32:09 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Violet Crumble wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
You do know that loss mails are not that reliable and that there are certain events that will remove you from the loss mail, so explain to me now just how accurate the loss mails really are so that you can be so certain that your data is correct and that it details all the facts.

For example a blackbird was reported and its weapon was wait for it, a blackbird, funny that..., I could go on, but it is a colossal waste of time to base your intel on CREST data, you should expect to be disappointed Shocked

Loss mails not reliable? Let's not go into fantast here (or maybe I can ask for evidence of the unreliability of the killmail server?). The killmail server generates the mails according to the program running for it, but yes, there are circumstances in which ships will not be on lossmails.

However, any killmail that a suicide Blackbird is on, the webbing ship will also be on; otherwise they will both be missing and not included in the data. In terms of estimated percentage, my analysis allowed for a very large 10% of mails not including one or both ships, when in reality, the percentage is likely to be less than 1%.

So whether a Blackbirds weapons are reported as a Blackbird is immaterial. If you take all of the killmails in highsec that a Blackbird appears on, the weapon doesn't matter. You can check for (1) the presence of a webbing ship (both by weapon type and by ship type) and then include any kills that have either (which is the most conservative approach - that favours including the data as a relevant datapoint).

The risk of a Blackbird stopping a properly webbed Freigher/Bowhead/IOrca/Jump Freighter is 0.01% (for kills, not for all Freigher movements, which drops the percentage to almost immeasurable levels).

Post your data.


You are making wild assumptions on the reliability of that data....


Another translation: I still got no data and I'm throwing stuff at the wall hoping something sticks.....

"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
#198 - 2016-12-21 18:33:50 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Violet Crumble wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
You are making wild assumptions on the reliability of that data, ...

No I am not. I know exactly what my assumptions are in my analysis and where errors are present; and have allowed very generous margins to account for them.

If you believe otherwise, then please detail exactly what my assumptions are.

Plus, of course. Post your data.


The unreliability of KM data is well known.


And yet you won't document it.....

And I guess we can just toss out the gankers gank empty freighters argument too, after all KMs are unreliable, those were clearly full freighters and you can't prove otherwise....

Gotta love to bozo logic....

"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
#199 - 2016-12-21 18:41:33 UTC
Gregorius Goldstein wrote:
Bjorn Tyrson wrote:
Still waiting for any freighter pilot to explain exactly WHAT they think an acceptable level of risk/skill/etc it should take from the gankers in order to be "fair" in taking a freighter..

I mean clearly its not enough to need to organize 30+ pilots to do it... should they have capital level tanks? should it take 50+ 100+... what exactly is "fair"


If we assume a 20% margin on the hauled stuff to lose every 10th ship does cut your margin in half and you still had to pay for the new ship with the ISK left. So I assume to lose every 20th to 30th paper tanked and auto-piloted freighter would still get us some salt. OK, OK so let us assume only one out of 50 to 100 haulers got ganked for a fair highsec hauling fun...everyone should be happy? Nope because then everyone had an hauler alt on auto-pilot and the margin would drop.. back to start:

If we assume a 10% margin...

I haul sometimes. Yet I see gankers as freindos.


Here is the problem with this notion that there is some ideal ratio of ganked freighters...how does CCP implement that? A quota, sell ganking licenses (yay more microtransactions?)? You sure as **** cannot implement it by tweaking with tanks, CONCORD response times, etc. If nothing that is what the past should have taught everyone. These attempts to reduce ganking that are indirect always fail.

"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
#200 - 2016-12-21 18:54:15 UTC
Miriam Beckstein wrote:

And I have a very simple question, would the organised gankers still be able to pop every freighter they see carrying 5+ billion in cargo if they couldn't bump, if they had to tackle to keep it on grid?


I thought CCP had changed bumping mechanics, but guess they have not implemented it yet. However, their proposal is to have a ship enter warp after 3 minutes unless the warp engine is disabled. Goons will most likely just have pilots in cheap frigates with a warp scrambler and maybe a MWD just warp in at the 2.5 minute mark and warp scramble you resetting the timer till you enter warp. Thus they could hold you for as long as they had people to do this and were willing to do so.

And can you please be honest, that you want CCP to reduce your risk to overloading your freighter? You keep pitching it as making it more risky for the gankers, but it is in fact you who want risk reduced, but are unwilling to do it yourself.

"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