Balancing Hi-Sec Freighter Bump Mechanics

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
362

Funny you should mention something being nothing more than a distraction.

All of your stuff about how much risk the freighter accepted is just that, because we aren’t discussing a gank. Ganking is fine. If he was what you say he was, he died either way because he was unescorted.

Now, as to your point about a doofus in an Ibis… You are arguing a point nobody made. I’d say a fair point to begin the discussion of what such a module would look like is that it should be available to an Alpha Account, as the entire gank fleet has no need to be anything else.

Even that’s more permissive than the OP, which suggested the module be something for the freighter itself, which by default makes it an Omega account thing, but if we move the discussion forward to it needing to be on an escort ship, then we can also expand our criteria to say the escort need not be omega. I’d be willing to discuss a tech 2 variant that did require omega, but lets move forward with what we have for now.

Since the cargo does not affect any other aspect of a ship’s performance, we can’t assume that this module with only be used, nor should it only be useful, to an extremely valuable ship. We aren’t going to make this so grossly over priced that it would only ever be considered appropriate for such a ship—after all, we aren’t looking to set more targets out there, so making this so valuable that you would pop the escort for the chance of getting the module is a non-starter on balance. The gankers are getting far and away enough profit for their output on this endeavor as is. So that’s cost— not so expensive that it makes the escort worth popping on it’s own.

FIttings… Ok, you don’t feel an Ibis is appropriate. How about something that fits on a cruiser? Battleship? I propose that a starting point for the module be the starting point for bumping ships. A Mach is the top end, so where’s the bottom? I can easily see smaller and more efficient crossing over into Omega territory, and feel like maybe battlecruiser appropriate fittings would be a good place to begin for the basic module. Very tight on a cruiser, not a big deal on a battleship.

So rather than going on about all the things that are outside of the discussion, why not join in the discussion itself in an honest manner?

363

No, it is looking at why a ship is being bumped in the first place. Why should there be a way for such players to get out of the trouble they have gotten themselves in? You keep banging on about the “time frame”, but that is just another load of crap.

Should a player who is wildly imprudent be allowed a second chance at avoiding the consequences of that imprudence? You say “time frame” and my response is “da fuq?”

364

No, it’s not. According to you a ship that is being bumped is overloaded and alone.

The solution under discussion requires an escort ship, so not alone, and not the imprudent guy you keep wanting to drag into this discussion as a smokescreen.

As for Time Frame… lets turn the situation around. Every Bump is a reset of the alignment time for the freighter to get into warp. Why should a wildly Imprudent gank squad be allowed a second, third, fourth, fifth, and so on… chance of avoiding the consequence of their imprudence? They should have had their DPS on station to complete the gank.

The gank fleet made the decision to tackle without having their DPS on hand, they decided that dinner, missioning, or whatever was more important than being prepared and on hand. Why do they deserve get out of stupid cards but the freighter pilot has one chance and one chance only to get it perfect every time?

365

Who says that cash = victory ? Why should it come down to “who paid $15-20 this month” to decide who wins Bumper Cars?

Effort = victory.

Freighter guy paid $15-20 so he could try and make tons of ISK by hauling stuff. Then he tries to solo slow boat his way from A to B with a cargo hold full of valuable loot.

Bump guy had to get a decently sized ship, and fit it properly, in order to actually have enough speed and momentum to juggle the Freighter. Then he hangs out near the trade routes, watching and waiting for someone to come along.

Gank fleet has to invest into a lot of ships, and a lot of guns, and a lot of ammo. So they could be capable of delivering a killing blow to a Freighter before Concord arrives to “save the day”.

Clearly cash money is not the answer to this equation.

What is the answer… is practicing strategies that expensive ships use all over EVE.

Fly with a scout.

You’re mad b/c the Hauler has to PLEX and the Gankers can be Alphas… Well, you can bring an Alpha in a Corvette or a basic Frig with a few Webs on it, and get yourself out of all those situations. Either join the same Corp, or just Duel each other constantly, and you can triple Web the Freighter to the point that any forward speed gets you into warp.

But here’s what you don’t do… you don’t make more and more and more whiny threads on the forums crying about how mistreated you are in game.

366

Not necessarily. A webber can fail. A scout could miss the bumper. That is why if I were going to move 38 billion ISK in cargo value I would not have 1 or even 2 ships to move that kind of cargo value. In facct, I’d do so via a JF, not a freighter.

Yeah, and a single ship is pathetic with the cargo values we tend to see in KMs. And given a fair number are JFs there is even less of a reason. Teleporting right off the Jita 4-4 undock is a powerful mechanic already.

No, the entire argument is just stupid.

They are not imprudent. They are working within the game’s mechanics and behaving in entirely prudent and reasonable manner.

Nice job trying to appropriate my adjectives, but they fall flat.

Bravo Sierra. Gank fleets are not off having dinner. They are waiting for the point where the target is bumped and ready to be ganked…possibly one of many.

Because they aren’t being stupid. They are being prudent and reasonable. And if it takes the fleet 20 minutes to get there and the target gets away…good on him. He got lucky.

367

Ok… I see. Completely reasonable and fair attitude there.

Unprepared Haulers are stupid. Unprepared Gankers are just overworked. Got it.

There you go. A guy who was prepared and flying properly with escorts and taking all reasonable precaution can get caught by bumping… That’s the guy who we are discussing. Why should that guy be held down by a single bumper while the unprepared gank fleet takes what ever time it feels like to form up

Why should that guy’s only real options be to suicide in self defense or hope for an extremely lucky bump?

Move along now please to actually discussing that guy, rather than the other one you keep dragging in that has nothing to do with the discussion.

368

So what? He is still taking on massive risk. Just because he took precautions does not mean he should automatically succeed.

Because he took on a metric fecking ton of risk. Absolutely huge amounts of risk.

When you are moving billions and billions of ISK and your idea of preparedness is some schlub in a webbing ship that costs less than 50 million ISK…yeah, you still screwed up.

That guy is still a moron. That should be the end of it. Why do you champion morons?

369

So now you are moving your goalposts.

Up till that post everything you said pertained to a guy who was alone and anti-tanked.

At no point to the mechanics of the game change depending on what you put in your cargo hold. That includes tackle. All your hurf blurf about the hauler taking on extra risk so should be extra affected by tackle is BS.

370

Tbh I wonder where the killmail behind your endless walls of text is

Because I think it’s hilarious that no one that wasn’t ever ganked (yet still fly freighters) don’t appear to post in threads like these… like ever :joy:

1 Like
371

Your risk is not just a function of things like a scout or webber, but also how much value you put in your cargo hold. The more value the greater the risk. Any idiot should be able to figure this out at this point in the discussion here.

If you put 14 billion ISK in your freighter I would think the gankers are going to try harder than if your freighter has say 500 million ISK. In fact, the latter could probably sail right on through without the bumper even reacting even if you didn’t have a webber.

What in the honest ■■■■?

Are you drunk posting? I have made no such arguments. This is your cockeyed interpretation that is completely unrelated to anything I’ve written.

372

he says that balancing the mechanics on the game should not depend on what is in your cargo.

373

Yes, but I have never said that it should be based on what is in your cargo bay. However, Mike kind of is…indirectly. If you are getting bumped, chances are you put way, way, way too much cargo value in your cargo bay. As such introducing a new module to address that situation is a module that is based on how much cargo value is in your cargo bay.

374

As I understand it, you implied it by saying that someone who “was prepared and flying properly with escorts and taking all reasonable precaution” should give the ganker fleet infinite time to assemble because he is “taking on massive risk”.
After that you said “Your risk is not just a function of things like a scout or webber, but also how much value you put in your cargo hold.” Which means cargo value → risk → ok to have imbalance.

375

You cannot introduce a module to fix lack of experience or poor judgement which is what precludes all of this.

376

Problem is that it only works in one direction.

Hauler has to be perfect at every gate, every time, with his fleet not just on the way but right there with him.

Ganker Fleet can phone it in where they get tackle and then have all night to gather up and take their target down.

We are not discussing the gank. We are discussing the imbalance inherent in being tackled in high security space indefinitely with the only real counters being suicide in self defense or an extremely lucky bump.

This is a problem that only exists in High Sec, because anywhere else the gankers would just use a point. The Hauler escorts could just engage the tackle.

What the discussion was about is a way to get out of tackle in the sometimes hours before the gank fleet shows up. If the gank fleet wasn’t waiting this conversation would not be happening.

Now, OP was off the mark asking for a way out to be on the freighter itself, but in the course of the discussion we moved on to instead putting a counter to indefinite bumping on the escorts.

The argument against keeps redirecting back to unescorted freighters though, as if that particular issue hadn’t already been addressed.

Which brings us to Teckos’s latest steaming pile, that somehow what’s in the cargohold should increase the time the freighter can be held.

When Webs, Scramblers, Disruptors, bubbles, etc… start working better on ships based on the value of what’s in their cargohold, we can discuss the same for using bumping as tackle. Until then, it’s just more deflection out of the scope of the discussion, because gankers can’t talk about this, it might cost them money.

377

Solo player versus

Seems a bit selfish to me, 5, 10 or 20 players work together as a team, probably on comms, and this ONE player is somehow ENTITLED to survive.

1 Like
378

The discussion is about all Freighters. There isn’t a way to separate the careful from the lazy and only allow the careful to use a module. If it’s there, it’s there for everyone.

However, overwhelmingly the module favours the lazy, since they are the ones most likely to be bumped.

The careful pilots already avoid it, however things can always go wrong and even someone careful can get caught. Despite all they did to reduce the risk, the risk is not 0 and nor should it be, and there isn’t a need for changes since the chance of someone careful being bumped is already extremely low. It’s just not an issue that needs resolving.

There is always going to be residual risk for even good freighter pilots, just as there is for everyone in the game.

379

Nice Cherry Pick. Try again:

See, already addressed. Highlighted it for you, as you obviously missed it.

380

Sure there is. We put the means of balancing the situation on the escort ships, and we have just separated out the lone haulers from the ones prepared with a fleet.

Not if they don’t have escorts, because it does not go on the freighter. However, it’s balanced in the case of getting someone to come save the Hauler, because it’s not like the Ganker was there with his fleet either, or this conversation would not be happening.

We should not be rewarding lazy gankers either. If they can’t be bothered to be ready then they don’t deserve the massive profits. With the proposed solution they had a chance at the time of bumping to be ready, and failed. Then they had a chance to beat the arrival of the escort, plus a spool up, and failed. Then they had a chance to use a point to keep the ship in place… and failed yet again.

How much is too much? You want to discuss how lazy the hauler was, but seriously, let’s actually get a little balance in on this.

You say there is no need because it’s a rare circumstance. However, from a gankers standpoint the cost of just one of these incidents is maybe a little hurt feelings because someone got away.

The cost to the Hauler is at least the cost of the hull, and realistically includes the collateral and any profit that would have been made from deliving the load.

So maybe, just maybe, it’s more important than you are willing to admit, because of which side of the argument you have chosen to be on.

381

Wat?

That does not suggest game mechanics change based on cargo value.

Oh, and FYI, back up stream I’ve already noted that bumping a person arguing “bumping a ship for a long period of time” may very well be a discussion worth having…but it isn’t one that necessitates a module this stupid.

Utter nonsense. If you take on massive risk you take on massive risk and when the downside actually bites you on the ass, calling it imbalance is just ridiculous.

Or are you one of those types that believes risk must be balanced?

Exactly this.

Of course, you are taking on substantial risk. Don’t want to “be perfect” don’t take on the risk.

They are not taking on massive risk.

Why does bumping occur? A significant majority of the time because the player took on substantial risk. Now you want to pretend that that decision by the player should not be a factor.

Yes, if you are a prudent and reasonable hauler you don’t need a large escort fleet. A scout will generally suffice. If you are pushing it a bit a webber. But if you put you are this guy,

You took on considerable risk…and when somebody notices you being that risky and takes advantage of it…you’re screwed.

Bravo Sierra. Hours? Please, spare us this lie.

Your escort should be proportional to the risk you are taking. Why is that even being discussed? That guy should have had an escort…a robust escort.

You really should learn to comprehend the written word. What I noted was that a gank group will be more willing to hold a target longer the larger the cargo value. There is nothing in there about mechanics or a mechanics change, that was a complete lie. I am talking about player behavior not mechanics.

This is just you being stupid. Noting how player behavior can be influence by cargo value is not a mechanics argument.

Christ this is stupid.

Agree. If that guy had a with 38 billion in his hold had a more sizable and aggressive fleet with him he would’t need the module. So this module acts as a substitute for player cooperation and prudence. It is just dumb.

I noticed the fairly largish numbers of JFs that were ganked. These guys do not need this module. They already have it built into the ■■■■■■■ ship, it is called a jump engine.

If you have 10 billion ISK in your cargo hold and one escort ship you are actually lazy.

Oh God…this tired trope… Sorry this is just a lie.