Balancing Hi-Sec Freighter Bump Mechanics

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
41

There are a couple of ways to look at it:

Current situation: A good bumper can maintain the bump until a gank fleet arrives. Time is on the gank fleet side in this case. They can choose when to engage

Proposed situation: An active freighter pilot alone can escape, limiting the time for a gank fleet to arrive and/or preventing ganks where gankers have to wait out their criminal timers from a previous gank

Yet, the counter to bumping for the most part, already exists. Avoiding the bump to begin with is the perfect counter and there are a number of ways to do so. Unfortunately, most freighter pilots don’t make use of the already available tools and want another one.

However, the balance is already heavily in the favour of freighters that properly tank (properly tanked freighters are rare on the gank kills because so many people antitank or fail to tank at all, and present themselves as easier alternatives). To gank a freighter (even an antitanked one) requires multiple characters/players. There is no way that one ganker can gank another player in a freighter solo. The EHP of freighters is too high. It’s not even possible for 2 characters/players to gank a freighter. It takes a fleet.

So an alternative to the view that antitanked/untanked freighters should be given yet another tool to escape, why don’t they actually make use of the existing tools, especially scouts and effective webs, to avoid being bumped all together?

There is often an argument that players shouldn’t be forced to have alts to avoid being ganked. Not too many disagree, yet it seems totally fine that gankers must have a fleet of multiple players/characters in order to engage freighters.

There is something wrong in that view, and worse in a view suggesting that freighters should have further tools to make things harder for gankers, when they aren’t even doing what they can now to make it hard for gankers.

3 Likes
42

Fair enough, my idea was that as long as there are “counter plays”, then the onus is on the victim to do their due diligence or just accept that they had ■■■■ luck on the day.

But the idea that one can be “scrammed” by an enemy that you cannot even fire back, or force off is rather… discomforting. Of course Pedro didn’t make his case particularly appealing by saying that gankers should have all the time in the world, be able to run missions while ganking and still succeed.

43

What available tools does a lone freighter pilot have to defeat a lone bumper?
Your ‘methods’ all rely on having an Alt account right there and then.

And no, you can’t point at the gank fleet for this, because we are talking about bumping. Which is a lone pilot.

There is a significant issue in this portion of the game.

1 Like
44

None.

What tools does a lone bumper have to gank a freighter? Same answer.

What tools does a lone ganker have to engage a freighter? Same answer.

Gameplay around freighters is never a solo activity. Not for gankers, not for bumpers that want to do something other than feel helpless, and not for freighter pilots.

The answer in all cases is don’t be alone. That’s as good for freighter pilots as it is for gankers. Especially those that choose to make themselves attractive targets.

So the counter question is why do solo, antitanked freighter pilots deserve any further assistance when they don’t even do the basics to protect themselves now?

2 Likes
45

But a lone bumper does not ‘have’ to gank a lone freighter. They can instead just bump the freighter for hours ruining the freighters day, while the freighter has no counter-play to this. And no, it’s not relevant how much cargo the freighter has to this. That only affects target selection of which freighter to bump today, not on the question of “Can I bump this freighter all day”. The cargo amount makes no difference to the potential to do so.
It’s terrible game design.

Note, I’m not saying freighters should be gank proof or anything like that, don’t project.
As I posted above, I believe one of the solutions to help the feel around ganking is actually a significantly longer gank timer. Rather than making it a pure DPS sprint over 15 seconds.

46

And a lone freighter pilot can just logoff and then log back in a few minutes later. Nothing a lone bumper can do.

47

When your only argument resolves around ‘Well they can just log off’… You’re basically admitting the entire game design surrounding it is terrible.

1 Like
48

Not at all. Seriously, what good is a lone bumper?

Anyone that get’s bumped by a lone bumper has done something pretty stupidly wrong.

A lone bumper is pretty useless and logging off an back on again a few minutes later is just one approach. The freighter pilot can just laugh. Nothing else is really necessary at all. Logging off isn’t necessary, just expedient.

So why should a lone, antitanked freigher get any more advantage in the game?

49

In that regard, why should a bumper be able to perma-bump a freighter while putting essentially nothing at risk?

1 Like
50

See, that’s not how HTFU works. You don’t get to propose changes that shift the game balance such that your opponent has to spend more resources or effort to attack you and then cry HTFU when they point out your self-interested metagaming. If you want your game easier, do like most and try to find some plausible argument why that would make for a better and more interesting game for everyone, rather than just assert the other guy has it too easy and you need the rules of the game changed to help you.

Bumping isn’t absolutely required to gank something just like a tackle module isn’t absolutely required to explode an opponent in lowsec. It does however allow a ship to be held in space long enough to get a fleet there, something that is very important if the fleet is made up of criminals in highsec. Without bumping, ganking would still exist but be much more expensive.

It’s fine to decide bumping isn’t interesting gameplay and needs a change, but it is totally disingenuous to pretend that ideas like that presented in the OP won’t make freighters even safer in highsec. I see no evidence that is necessary or a good idea, but if that is your goal then, hey, this is the idea to back.

This is the primary reason I prefer other solutions to the complaints to bumping, ones that attempt to maintain some balance.

Suicide ganking was directly nerfed several times over the years with the most striking examples being shortening of the CONCORD response times and the removal of insurance for criminal acts. Further, specific ganking strategies have been declared exploits to increase the cost (boomerang, hyperdunking), and the EHP industrial ships buffed over the years (barges, freighters and most recently the Orca) for whatever reason. There have also been a few changes that were buffs to gankers (new, cheaper high-DPS ships, wreck HP buff) but in general, the cost to commit criminal acts in highsec has only gone up over the years.

That’s probably fine as a general trend since as CCP devalues items in the game by flooding the game with way more wealth than is destroyed, the easier it is to pay the cost of criminal aggression. It does though make being a criminal something for established players with all the resources they need, not a pass-time for new players.

But of all the ships, the freighter is the one industrial ship least in need of another buff. As @Scipio_Artelius says, the EHP of freighters is so hilariously large it already requires a massive fleet of players to engage one and players use bumping to keep such a beast on grid long enough to get a criminal fleet that can’t loiter in space there is a key strategy in taking one down. Removing that weakness is a buff to freighters and a nerf to freighter gankers and will result in less ganking and them being safer.

You can see how overpowered they are just in how common they are in highsec. Freighters are the overwhelming favourite choice to move goods around, suggesting there is no issue with bumping or the ship being too weak or vulnerable. Players still use them, and use them successfully all the time, meaning CCP should spend their limited development resources balancing ships that have a real problem, not pander to whiners who dislike the fact there is a trade-off/vulnerability in the capital-ship class hauler.

51

Surely they have exactly the same risk profile as the freighter?

This is where the argument, which is always very polarised seems to fall apart.

There is somehow a view that freighter pilots deserve to be able to travel across highsec at zero risk, but somehow a bumper should always be engageable.

And under the game mechanics, they are both engageable. Same risk.

So as a direct answer, they don’t deserve to be able to perma-bump at zero risk (no one deserves zero risk), and looping back to the question you asked the counter question to, why do freighter pilots deserve even more tools than they already have available and don’t use?

52

No, the bumper can disengage at will, they aren’t vulnerable to perma bumping due to game mechanics which give them prop mods, fitting options to increase agility etc.
It’s not the same risk at all, and it’s not the same mechanics. And freighter pilots have far fewer tools at their disposal.

1 Like
53

Anyone can gank the bumper (with much fewer characters to do so, than to gank the freighter). They are just as engageable. Go gank them and take responsibility for the stupid situation rather than continue to whine to CCP to help even further.

And it’s complete rubbish that freighter pilots have fewer tools available to them. As a freighter pilot myself, I have far more in my advantage than a bumper does.

1 Like
54

Right, of course. Haulers must change their approach to hauling but gankers are exempted from that reasoning because they are gankers. That makes perfect sense.

Besides, with bumping limited to a certain time frame, hauling would not be easier. It would be harder because gankers are ready to strick in several places and can engage more targets with their already existing numerous alt armies. For you it’s obviously very convenient to ignore this fact.

My I help your failing memory: I have already stated multiple times in multiple threads and in multiple to your disingenuous arguments how limited bumping would make ganking more interesting for gankers and haulers. Not only id the process less tedious and frustrating for haulers as the dozens of minutes to hours of bumping are replaced with quick action and quick ways to respond to an impending gank, the gankers also can strike in more places at once and do not need to travel back to their base for new ships and they have less downtime between ganks. Limited bumping does not make hauling safer, it makes it harder … provided that gankers are actually competent and can gank properly without relying to clutches and special abilities, which is something they accuse haulers of requiring all the time.

It is not disingenuous because it is not going to make haulers safer. See above for the reasons.

The first is obviously irrelevant because you can gank a freighter with just 6 pilots. If you expect to be able to gank a freighter with even fewer people, you are out of your mind. Hence, this is not a nerf to ganking or piracy. Insurance on gank ships is irrelevant as well. Not only is it insignificant on catalysts and only returns a small portion on Taloses, the nowadays popular bombers provide no noteworthy insurance payout at all.

That is not a nerf either because you can prepare targets with cargo expanders, which drop the EHP of freighters below the old EHP values before fitting for freighters was introduced. Hence, not a nerf to ganking either. Only 1 barge and 1 exhumer got high enough EHP values that it makes ganking those less feasible, yet it is still happening. The other 4 barges/exhumers have no EHP to resist a proper gank (although CODE even fails at ganking those sometimes when the target pays attention). A single cheap Catalyst can destroy a barge just fine. No nerf either. T1 Industrials were not buffed beyond what a single Tornado or 2 can’t gank. Even the Nereus can be overwhelmed easily and cannot carry a lot of cargo if it is fitted for full possible tank. The number of daily DST losses shows that they are not hard to crack either, in particular as those dead DST almost always have terrible fitting, which is something gankers count on on all their ganks. No nerfs either.

That is not true either. A Tornado for a T1 hauler gank does not cost the world and is very effective. Alphas can fly those just fine with enough alpha damage to kill off all these dumb whales in their cargo expanded loot pi|ñatas. The income from those is also more than capable of sustaining your ganking. You do not even have to use Tornados, cheaper ships are just as capable of destroying these whales.

We all know that Scipio is a lair when it comes to that and so are you. I have linked several examples which clearly show that 6 pilots are more than enough to overwhelm a freighter. 6 characters is not a “massive fleet”. Using any of Scipio’s arguments to prove your arguments is laughable. You do not even need “massive fleets” to gank tanked freighters as examples like this show, or is Scipio delusional enough to call 11 characters “massive”? Look, you can even gank an untanked freighter with 8 Catalysts, which is even cheaper than the 6 Taloses. You see, incompetent gankers, on the other hand, require double that number to destroy a ship which competent gankers can destroy with far less ISK involved. Bumping does not solve this issue.

For the sake of your credibility, do not listen to Scipio. He has no idea what he is talking about.

See? He is distorting the truth even now. In order to gank a Machariel, you need between 3-5 Taloses. To gank a freighter, you need 6. This is not “much fewer”). Not to mention, that you can bump in cheaper ships than Machariels, which make ganking the bumper even more costly as you need the same number of ships. while it does not impact the bumping.

CCP loves to waste development resources on all kinds of things and no one bats an eye. With this change (be it a module or flat-out timer), they would at least spice up the game a bit for both sides.

55

I don’t ever recall claiming massive fleets are required. Fleets yes. But stupid, antitanked, lazy freighter pilots are far easier to gank than full tanked, smart ones.

That’s why there are so few fully tanked gank victims. They aren’t gankable with 6 characters. In some cases it’s upwards of 20 characters to gank them.

So yeah, there is a huge EHP barrier to overcome for gankers, if only freighter pilots fly smart.

56

I don’t know, but I think 5 is less than 6 right? So what’s distorted?

And is it 6 to gank any freighter? Or just the really poorly tanked ones?

57

I just showed you an example that this is not true and you keep saying this. Maybe you should go back into your dungeon. The sunlight clearly does not do you well.

It is not “much less”. You said much. That’s the important thing here.

58

A fully tanked freighter is gankable with 6 characters. I’ll go look at your examples. I must have missed it.

Edit: Nope. No example linked that I can see. Any help?

59

Just to preempt you: I never said “6”. The example that I linked has 11 characters, which is much less than 20 or “massive”.

Gladly:

60

You can log off and come back try again later. Players can block others from activities and you can tackle other players indefinitely.

Both haulers and gankers have changed tactics over the years.

1 Like