OHB Are we reviving the Anti-Gankers vs. random code guys war? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAxccK-KgBI
If so, don’t you little code fookers think you can ever be in the presence of the mighty Z.Z. Top. OMB
You say as good as it gets as though it wasn’t an effective tool. But it really is 99.9% effective and costs less than a million isk to deploy. As good as it gets? I’d use the word unbeatable.
Combat escorts will never be useful when a fight is decided in mere seconds.
And if they want to gank you can be removed at less than 1 million also.
So no, it’s not really effective.
And it effectively halves your profits from hauling, not to mention requires dual boxing.
In practice how many webbing alts are ganked?
Mine never has been and for a long time i was using an Atron. In fact i don’t think the gankers ever noticed it until after the freighter was decloaked and insta-warped.
And gankers can tell you how much of an obstacle dualboxing isn’t.
How many people who use webbing alts are also hauling large sums of loot, as opposed to keeping it below the common trigger threshold for a “For profit” gank…
You are pointing at a group of people who are already employing a bunch of measures to keep their risk down, and claiming that this one particular measure is really awesome. It’s not. It’s just the cherry on the top.
Sure, it helps, but if they want to get you, they can get you.
As for dual boxing not being a problem… sure… a very small group of people can tell me it isn’t a problem. I mean I’ll admit I dual box myself occasionally. But Dual boxing should not be an expected part of EVE gameplay. Any area where we are pointing at dual boxing (or greater) as the way to play should be reconsidered, because it should never be the case. For a start it doubles the monthly real life costs required to play EVE.
I meant in terms of what we’re limited to with the combat and criminal system in EVE.
I’d expect someone employing a webber would be carrying more. And have you tried to gank a Atron with a prop mod?
Id also expect those using webbers to be dual boxing as much as gankers to be dual boxing. Game design should not be based on an expectation of dual boxing. But webbing alts isn’t game design, and neither is ganking alts. Anything involving alts is emergent gameplay because no part of the game is designed with alts in mind.
If you really think the game should change because webbers are often alts, then the same could be used for any game play that is often enabled by alts, like ganking, cyno’s and mining…
But what are you going to do? Ban alts?
No, I’m not going to suggest banning alts, that ship sailed long ago, though I think EVE would have been better with 1 account only (Sure maybe allow more characters per account etc, but 1 player 1 character logged in).
But you can look at gameplay where alts are the optimal approach and tweak or change it so that alts aren’t.
Incidentally I agree with you that ganking is also optimal with alt gameplay atm, which is why I want to see Concord timer increased to make it not need so many pilots/alts, alongside changes on the industrial side to make an increased timer not a slaughter as well as less reliance on things like webbing alts.
Don’t take me pointing out that all the ‘protections’ a hauler can used amount to ‘Gank the other guy because you can be lazier and get the same profit’ as me saying that ganking is bad and needs to be removed.
I remember you want the concord timer increased. I do too, if only to buff ganking.
I don’t know if gankers will go back to the smaller fleets they used to use. I think it’s a flood gate thing. Now they’ve achieved this level of power, why reduce it? They’d more likely continue to use the same size fleets and gank tougher targets.
The best i hope for would be that smaller gank groups would emerge and not feel the need to join code or miniluv.
Similar thing with wardecs. Making them easier will unlikely cause big merc groups to break up. At best it would just allow for newer small groups to go it alone.
Ganking does not need a straight buff like this. In terms of stuff blown up, it’s in a pretty good place. In terms of the game experience it’s not though. Simply doubling the timer (as example) with no other changes would result in an outright slaughter of industrial ships.
As for gankers reducing to smaller fleets, I’m pretty sure they would. At least the ones for profit would, why use double the ships you need to for that afk target on autopilot. There is a natural pressure of cost to reduce number of ships. Though sure, some would just overkill their targets instead. That’s all good too.
Wardecs are a different beast because the merger was already happening before any wardec or watchlist changes happened. And because there is no pressure at all for a wardec corp to be smaller. They lose nothing but gain everything by adding new members.
I disagree, with only two groups doing any decent amount of ganking in only a handful of systems, i think ganking is in a bad place, and destruction in hisec is horrifically low.
We desperately need more slaughter imo.
True wardecs are different. Especially compared to making ganking as profitable as possible.
More destruction maybe. But not a sudden turkey shoot of industrials. Which then also reduces the amount destroyed by Concord which counts equally as well for the wheels of industry.
If you change just the timer you smash everyone, those who pay attention as well as those who don’t.
If you do it alongside a change to industrials like I’m suggesting you still will get more fighting going on. Combat ships still become more viable targets, afk industrials will be easy prey but at keyboard industrials become more unpredictable prey.
How dare you!
Originally i didn’t think making combat indies would work. Because escaping is by far the easier path for industrials.
But then they made the new orca and it’s interesting to see people think twice about attacking me when I’m moving one through low…
Speaking about the need to increase or decrease the protection of hi-sec, these systems are one of the most unsafe and should not be misled by new players, that they are safe or even very safe. Just because somebody said it by flying a 5M ISK ship? I believe that there is no need to introduce new generic mechanics in raising or lowering protection of these systems, with one exception - S-Size Structures. If we talk about security, then it is only about economic protection in my understanding. I would say that hi-sec systems need only “point fixes”, mainly to improve playability and content availability. Since it is worth considering that players with different budgets are playing there, including those who make claims in zeros. Medicines are good because they have a balanced dose of trace elements that do not harm living organisms, but you should not allow cats to balance the dose of valerian in medicines.
Security in hi-sec systems is ephemeral. A resource can be called protected while it is inexpensive (1.5B ISK), but as soon as its price exceeds the critical value of 1.5B ISK, its security for each addition billion in protection hyperbolically decreases and vice versa the price of resources used for destructions increases linearly and very easily covers the protection. I consider the last change of WarDec to be balanced from an economic point of view, since it is no longer profitable to attack weak, cheap, unskilled and unprotected goals that had to spend a lot of money (billions) per player for defense, given that you can earn little in hi-sec systems without ALTs in zeros or J-space.
In previous posts, someone was outraged and started arguing with me that I wrote about the need to balance JF. I mentioned that they are not balanced from an economic point of view, comparing them with other similar ships. For the same money you can buy ships more protected that can bring much more profit like: Rorqual, Carriers, Marshal. I wondered… most players do not want to use JFs without an important reason and keep them at the docks. In other words, a JF in hi-sec is like a 10B ISK T-5 Abyssal Cruiser, with a Suspect Timer on. It was disgusting for a 3B ISK Cruiser even. In my opinion, the 3-4B ISK hull price of a JF should be nice. I consider that further improvement into JF protection creates logistical difficulties for gankers, especially during none winter season. These arguments lead to the dilemma: Is it worth playing this content or is it worth developing by CCP such a content at all?
Based on what was posted above, I’d like also a more functional corporation Wallet Divisions – the ability to set a respective Wallet for respective purpose in every UI (which supports only private and default corp Wallets) by one user without the need to change that default Wallet every time. Like an individual Wallet for Rents, Corporation Trading, Corporation Contracts… like banking accounts. This functionality can be counted as a protection. The same for corporation itself. There must be a quota mechanic to change the meta management of a corporation.
The last thing I’d like in hi-sec, is only a S-size Upwel Structure for War-Dec immune Corporations. Obviously, those things must have serious diminishing returns over all parameters, must require a CONCORD certificate and a monthly billing like Renting an Office. They must remain WarDec immune until a corporation will anchor a M- L-size Structure, POCO or POS. It should be interesting to open an own “garage” to completely manage and craft own junk on this level.
As I voted in the OP, overall protection is good as it is. Huge rebalance rework requires the low-sec on both protection and economical levels. But this tread isn’t about it. I performed almost all types of available content in low-sec and nor of them is worth doing based on risk and amount of time spent compared to null-sec and even C2 J-space.
What about FW? Well, I have three main directions to think about and work around:
- Player owned Structures in FW zones;
- Cyno-Jammers in FW zones. Is this a good idea?
- Time and objective granulation of FW content.
You do realize this is a video game, yes?
What in the hell are you talking about?
You do not know what this word means.
A metaphor is a figure of speech that, for rhetorical effect, directly refers to one thing by mentioning another. It may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two ideas.
- something which lasts for a short period of time;
- is the quality of existing only briefly .
Oh, thanks for clearing that up. I’m sure everyone in the thread can now clearly understand whatever the hell it is you were trying to communicate with that wall of nonsense.