yeah that’s crap imo, but thankfully nothing to do with freighters.
2 Likes
10 customers versus 1 customer
Think about 10 frigates versus 1 freighter and 9 logi?
10 v 10.
Only entitled babies think they deserve to win 1 v 10.
1 Like
His point was gankers are lesser humans and therefore don’t really count as people or customers.
1 v 10 gankers is more like 1 v 0 people… 
1 Like
Sure, but I can still agree, from my perspective that targeting new players in newb ships is crap gameplay.
If it’s within the rules, then it’s perfectly ok from an EVE perspective, but distasteful in my view. His point doesn’t change my post.
1 Like
But you wouldn’t be using glass cannons anymore. If you have more time to apply the fatal damage then you can use fewer ships and fit a cheap tank on them to keep them alive long enough to finish the job. If it takes half as many Taloses to get a kill then it’s easy to put some LSEs in the mids and get enough tank to handle token firepower.
A: Make people feel they had a chance to shoot back & maybe win more often.
I don’t see how you make this more than an illusion. The basic equation is still going to be the same: apply X damage within Y seconds before CONCORD arrives, then scoop the loot. Change the details of X and Y and you just change the exact ships that are used, people are still going to arrange suicide ganks that leave no hope of survival or escape as long as targets continue to put excessive value in their cargo holds.
B: Make it less obvious what the perfect gank ships are because things like tank would start to come into play as desirable also.
I think you’re really overestimating how much difference it would make. An industrial ship isn’t going to have combat ship levels of dps (since, if it does, why use a combat ship?) so you’re talking about maybe fitting some T1 basic shield extenders on the gank ships to keep them alive until CONCORD arrives. It’s going to be a fairly small adjustment and if you happen to have a bit of excess tank, well, you still get the kill.
C: Like you said, it would spread ganking more evenly between combat & industrial players which would lighten the pressure on industrialists who currently are pure targets.
I don’t think it would do that. People aren’t going to stop ganking overloaded haulers, they’ll just start ganking mission ships too. And, unlike the current situation where only excessively valuable mission ships are targeted, you’d have random T2 fit ships getting suicide ganked just because it’s so cheap to do so. At that point you might as well remove endgame-level combat PvE from highsec.
1 Like
Hardly anyone is doing this, and it is a bannable offense to do it in the tutorial systems where those newbies spend most of their time.
1 Like
never said gankers were lesser humans, though you seem to think so.
I said that those that intentionally gank noobe players in starter ships I don’t think of gankers, but as a low life.
why?
well a proper ganker/s will attack players that have some level of eve gameplay and experience to fight back or escape. Noobes have next to none of these, and in most cases are by somes standards a one shot kill, not even worth ammo.
And those that use it’s roleplaying as an reason to kill noobes is poor excuse for killing them.
Sure some noobes are dumb and fly into low/null/wormholes, but there are better ways to teach them not to be there than killing them just for fun.
Again, hardly anyone is doing this, and it is a bannable offense to do it in the tutorial systems where those newbies spend most of their time.
Sure some noobes are dumb and fly into low/null/wormholes, but there are better ways to teach them not to be there than killing them just for fun.
Oh, I see, now we’ve moved on from talking about ganking to PvP in general? Sorry, but once you leave highsec it’s kill on sight. That newbie could very well be a scout alt for a major PvP threat and so it dies as soon as it appears.
Also, I disagree that there are better ways of teaching them. A dead ship makes it very clear what the situation is in ways that words alone can not.
1 Like
Killing them if they do so is fine. They’ve put on their big boy pants if they accept the popup notification and anything that happens after that is fair game.
It’s good to teach them after killing them, but there are no special protections for new players that decide to play the full game. It’s hopefully more enjoyable for them that way too.
2 Likes
Because say the timer is 2 minutes. I’m not meaning 5 seconds difference or something
Now the equation is apply a damage in b seconds against a target with c active reps while allowing for d effect of overheat while surviving e damage with f active reps and hoping that h neutral doesn’t jump in during that time.
When time is short enough most of those variables become irrelevant because they are so unlikely. I.E. Neuts intervening.
As time increases those variables matter.
& sure, it won’t have combat ship levels, but what about 2/3rds combat ship levels, that’s still significant.
It just requires stepping outside of the industrial box CCP have drawn and imagining a different scenario.
Edit: To me the question comes down to “Do we want a game of piracy”
If the answer is yes, then we need to draw inspiration from real examples of piracy eras like the Spanish gold galleons who were heavily armed & armoured, often better than the pirates attacking them, but less manoeuvrable.
totally agree
we have some guys that’ll uncloak on top of the noobe and scare the crap out of them, then chat with them about what they want out of the game and give them some free advice.
and yes have others that’ll blow their ship up and then let the pod go, and chat with them to teach what they did wrong.
but everyone has their own way of doing things.
But they’re also much easier to solve. Now that you have 2 minutes instead of 30 seconds or less you don’t need as many gank ships to get the kill and you can afford to fit for tank and sustained dps. And you can probably afford to bring massive overkill while still being able to profitably gank cheaper ships than you can currently target.
The only relevant concern is neutrals getting involved, but given the number of times I’ve flown around busy highsec systems with an active suspect flag and never received even the slightest amount of attention I think that’s a pretty optimistic idea.
Edit: To me the question comes down to “Do we want a game of piracy”
If the answer is yes, then we need to draw inspiration from real examples of piracy eras like the Spanish gold galleons who were heavily armed & armoured, often better than the pirates attacking them, but less manoeuvrable.
The analogy doesn’t really work. Historical pirates couldn’t just bring arbitrarily large numbers of pirate ships to brute force every problem, and so there was a level of defense that could be relevant. In EVE if you make transports into pseudo-warships it’s very easy to counter with proper warships and automatically win.
The only way to get this kind of gameplay is to remove CONCORD entirely. You need to turn the game into lowsec, where it’s worth attacking a target with single small ships because it’s a fight and not a suicide attack.
1 Like
- Who said I wanted to get rid of ganking? I have no issues with the amount of ganking that happens, I have issues with how poor the gameplay around ganking is.
- Rubbish. You get rid of the current meta by making it harder to predict. It’s a GOOD thing if gankers bring fewer ships, it gives targets time to fight back. Sure this might often be an illusion, but an illusion of a chance will keep people interested.
You did, in describing a “game of piracy”. That’s all about having fights, not cold-blooded calculations of ISK vs. HP and deciding if you kill that ship or not. IOW, removing ganks and replacing them with something more interesting. The amount of ship losses may remain the same but you’re still getting rid of ganking in its current form.
Now, I’m not saying this is a bad thing, but it would be a massive and difficult to design/balance change and require completely removing CONCORD in its current form.
Rubbish. You get rid of the current meta by making it harder to predict. It’s a GOOD thing if gankers bring fewer ships, it gives targets time to fight back. Sure this might often be an illusion, but an illusion of a chance will keep people interested.
People aren’t that stupid, if the outcome is still 100% inevitable they aren’t going to be fooled by the fact that their guns show the “module activated” icon for a few seconds before they die.
And no, it isn’t a good thing if gankers bring fewer ships. They’re still going to bring enough ships to guarantee a win, the only thing that changes is now the ISK cost to kill a target is cheaper. For example, let’s say (using purely hypothetical numbers) that it currently takes 4x gank Taloses to bring down a mission battleship. That means that, under your proposal, I can now bring two Taloses and profitably gank a mission ship with half the loot value. I’m still going to win every time because I’m bringing twice the dps I actually need, and it’s still going to be a completely one-sided destruction of a helpless target. The only thing that changes is that a lot more ships become viable targets.
Freighters and jump freighters never had rig slots. When CCP first proposed their dumb “Make choices matter in fittings” approach, they suggested rig slots for freighters. However, this outright dumb proposal was shot down by the community for a variety of reasons, among others that it would fixate freighters in a specific role without any means to change it according to need. This is why we have low slots instead. Rigs for freighters are the worst thing imaginable; worse even than the current low slots which give you a lot of bad choices as well.
In that case these things will never happen because CCP does not like “illusions of choices”.
This is not going to happen. You just need to look at all the shiny combat ships that are getting ganked and that could very easily shoot back. Ganking, regardless whether Concord or more slots are involved, is not about fighting; it is solely about removing the target from existence.
1 Like
You utterly missed the point that the current 15 second ganks do not create meaningful opportunities to shoot back. I mean, at least try and read the points before posting.
Your whole post is basically a request to buff freighters. You just want to make them harder to gank.
Hard no. It’s easy enough to avoid getting ganked in a freighter if you fly them the right way.
Freighters are like big, fat, slow shuttles with massive cargo holds. They aren’t meant to be customizable like regular player ships. The fitting nerd in me would love to see CCP go back to rig slots instead of low slots since that lets you fit equally for armor, shield, or hull tank (whereas the current lows-only configuration shafts shield tanks) while still getting to choose between cargo space or agility instead. But the balance nerd in me understands that, even with the relatively limited stats on rigs, that level of flexibility runs counter to what freighters are meant to be.
1 Like
There is nothing to read or understand. What you dream of is not going to happen. Period. What you dream of can already take place in null sec and low sec and there people apply the same tactics as in high sec ganks: Overwhelming power if you want to remove a target. If you want fights, you already have duels and suspect baiting in high sec.
Quite the contrary, it is a nerf to freighters. These ships would be locked into one specific fitting and had to use expensive rigs to achieve it. If anything, rigs would be a heavy HP and flexibility nerf to freighters.
1 Like
In practice, I agree with everything you just said.
But what the OP wants in principle is a freighter buff. He wants to make them harder to gank. Whether his proposed change would actually achieve that or not wasn’t the point I was making with my comment.
It’s a thread about freighters, wtf are you going on about??