High Sec Candidate

Trying to keep this concise:

What do you believe is the current chance of surviving a gank attempt?

If you believe it is less than 50%, then changing the chance to be at least 50% is an increased chance of survival for gank targets.

If that holds, then on the other side of the encounter, a higher than 50% chance of success is reduced to no more than 50%. That is a reduced chance of success for gankers.

That equates to more safety just on the percentage changes.

In addition, the change seems to propose a RNG base to whether CONCORD responds, so it becomes a lottery whether the more valuable potential ganks, that are enticing for gankers, have success.

Their calculation goes from an N+1 calculation where they can accept the risk as they do now, to not knowing if they’ll be successful or not in getting what they really want.

For a lot of people, that will be pretty discouraging. It makes ganking as a profession, less interesting.

So the proposal is both a lower chance of success and a less attractive career choice for gankers.

I don’t see how it can’t lead to more safety.

For my play style as a hauler, lower risk for us all = increased ability to haul without proper regard for safety. That leads to a more even playing field between the unskilled and skilled and will directly hit the profit that the good haulers can make (eg. Why pay the premium of Red Frog, when i can just drop a contract in the Haulers Channel and it’ll get there anyway).

Changing competition isn’t itself bad. Players will adapt.

However arguing that the net effect wont be an increase in safety seems to be a strange analysis.

1 Like

What’s pathetic is you referring to yourself as a top-tier elite PvP’er.


@Lorelei_Ierendi Sorry for adding to the derailment of this thread.

3 Likes

:baby_bottle::sob::baby_bottle::sob::baby_bottle::sob:

I think you have me blocked but whatever…

CONCORD is a mechanic, it has a defined response time that can be gamed to give extra time by pulling them. This time is pretty precise and is known by the gankers, they get the fits of their target and they can very accurately define what they need to gank the target.

If the OP is suggesting that the random factor means a 1 second to 42 second response I could not support that.

However if it was pulled CONCORD in an 0.5 system which would be 24 seconds with a + or - of 8 seconds either way I could support that.

I am aware that this will create the need to cover the adjustment on the negative side and thus make ganking more expensive and less certain.

There is nothing however wrong in making CONCORD response time more random and the OP does not deserve that hate thrown at him/her for this suggestion and the description of an arbitrary chance based insult thrown at him/her.

If you are concerned about the cost of ganking increasing for freighter ganks well that is one thing, if you are complaining about the chance that one or two catalysts will fail on a Procurer that is another thing. Still this is not a terrible idea and does not deserve the hate and vitriol thrown in the OP direction by people who should know better.

That CONCORD has such a precise response time is not something that I particularly like and find too certain and you are defending the concept that they always have the same response time. But I am also not a fan of CONCORD either. But cannot really think of a better method for hisec.

This is not the point, it is more to do with creating more complexity and a less certain result in other words get away from easy farming, real PvP players would know that and the gankers have of course made their choice to operate in what is defined by CCP as a more highly protected area of the game, so getting upset about that seems a bit whiney and pathetic, especially when you look at the more vocal ones trolling this thread, including a false AG who is meta gaming the AG channel.

What are you peeps talking about?

lol.

So firstly, I would like to thank you for keeping things concise.

I would like to state again, that the CONCORD changes I was proposing are not part of a plan to bring the chances of surviving a gank to 50% (whether sinking or increasing).

I suggested changes to CONCORD in order to make things seem less wooden, to reduce the CONCORD spam-fleets on gates and stations increasing the lag and blocking the overview worse than all those mobile depots in Jita. The CONCORD proposal (from 2015 I think) entered this thread in response to people talking (and disputing) over my stance on Random Numbers and Random Chances as a way to try and adjust the chances of surviving a gank. It is just as clear now (as it was in 2015) that gankers would very quickly adapt to any changes… and (if they are the sort that bother scanning their targets) would bring calculated DPS or (if they are the sort that either build a group of friends (who all want in on the action) or are more relaxed about success/failure) may be tempted to try something that they might not normally try. There is no modifying gank success here.

Some posters in this thread would have you believe that it is 0%, because gankers adapt and use maths.

The CONCORD changes were also not primarily aimed at Freighters and Haulers but rather at others. For Freighters and Haulers there will always be enough targets hauling too much, so that the ganks (plus or minus a Talos or two) would still be profitable.

As I said, the CONCORD change would not, I think, really result in a change in the ganking survival. The idea (from 2015 I think) was not there for that.

No, it would stay an N+1 calculation, as people have already pointed out. The N might be moved, as it was with various mining barge buffs and module buffs (anyone remember when you had to activate Damage Controls?). But it would still be just maths.

It can’t, but the CONCORD change that I thought of back in 2015 was not designed with that in mind.

There would be no significant change in the ganks. The costs to the gankers would not go up that much compared to how much loot they are getting (see some above posts… the ganking ships are cheap in comparison to what they get).

None of the other changes have lead to a net increase in safety. Freighter are not safer now that they can fit Bulkheads. Miners are not safer now that the grid size has been increased.

1 Like

Please don’t feed the trolls.
We almost got some interesting talking going last night.

1 Like

Can you please show where exactly did the OP get any hate for suggesting this? Are you sure she got the hate for suggesting this and not something else? Nah, you wouldn’t lie about this and try to make everyone believe she got the hate for something different than it really was, would you?

Interesting. I didn’t know there is a “false AG” meta gaming the AG channel. I for one am very interested in knowing more about this…

Who is that “false AG”? Actually, what exactly is a “false AG” to begin with? Do you consider yourself a “true AG”, a “false AG”, or neither?

One possibility I’m considering (but I could be wrong), is that a “false AG” might be someone that is actually someone else in disguise… but then I wonder… would how certain you’re he’s that someone else matter or not?

I mean, let’s suppose for a moment you think someone is “60% possibility” someone else… Does that make him a “60% false” AG or a “100% false” AG? This is relevant because the fact that you said “false AG” without specifying how certain you’re he’s indeed “false” would seem to imply you’re 100% sure he’s indeed “false”… or wouldn’t it?

Im finding this topic of discussion really hard to follow. Haven’t got a clue what you guys are talking about.

What is the issue?

Two people who clearly have more history than just this thread are… talking.

EDIT: another evening over. I might have trouble logging in tomorrow, because I have to work all day. I am going to try and work something out… but I’ll definitely be back on Thursday.

1 Like

lol. They did increase safety for those who use it for increasing safety - bulheads and istabs help. But what you see is people mostly going gung-ho with cargo expanders. maybe we should add rigs as fitting option? That way frieghters could be tanked more. [and we all know that people will use rig slots for cargo expanders, in effect shooting themselves in the foot]

I’d actually be in favor of that. Originally they wanted to have freighters with rigs and no other slots… but there was a worry out there about the lack of flexibility.

Bulkheads and Istabs do not really do anything to save freighters. Empty triple Bulkheaded freighters have been ganked. And the istabs alone do not make Freighters quick enough to escape the bumpers.

1 Like

Please stop spreading this disinformation. If you mean to say that istabs or bulkheads don’t make you 100% safe I’ll completely agree. But to claim they “do not really do anything” is disingenuous. Cargo-expanded freighters are over-represented in the killboard stats. Bulkheads DO make you a less lucrative target. Istabs DO increase your chance to avoid being bumped (as well as speed up your travel time in general). Neither make you perfectly safe, but that is a completely unreasonable standard to decide whether something is or is not working.

Freighters don’t need rigs. They have fitting choices and trade-offs as they are. If they aren’t sufficient, or freighters are too weak in general, then just change the base stats of the ship, or the ship and modules, to address that. Personally though, given how many freighters I see in highsec, I believe they are overwhelmingly the preferred choice of highsec hauler and are in no need of a buff or more fitting choices. If anything, the other haulers need some love, or freighters a little bit of the nerf bat, to bring the hauling choices back in-line.

1 Like

I do not regard it as disinformation.

Having bulkheads fit makes the gankers bring more DPS. Having ISTABS fit does nothing, because the freighter is so slow anyway, that the bumper waiting for the target can be on the freighter before it moves.

Ignoring the fact that some freighters get ganked irrespective of the cargo or fit…

the only thing that really influences that target choice seems to be the potential loot. Having bulkheads fit means that you can carry a little bit more loot before it gets worthwhile for the gankers to risk ganking you… but assuming Taloses (one of the more expensive options) it is still only a couple of hundred million extra that you can carry. With the increase in multi-boxing over the last years it is less of a problem to get the necessary number of ships together… and as already covered in this thread… it is only a question of maths.
Once you have the required DPS the freighter will die (Bulkheads or not).

The only thing that would seem to be able to affect the chances of being ganked would be the value of the cargo being carried. If you are not worth ganking your chances of getting ganked are greatly reduced.

2 Likes

I’ve died several times at gates in a claw before it got nerfed, with full set of istabs.

And we all know that bulkheads merely prolong the inevitable.

Nit picking much?

1 Like

Exactly.

2 Likes

Quick question: what ship size does it take to bump a freighter?

Most people seem to use battleships, depending on the modules to increase the relative impact.
Properly fit Vagabonds make one hell of a impact.
Bumping a freighter with a Stabber does not really do much.

2 Likes

ROTFL, vagabonds, that is a nice joke…

500MN OMEN…

And I have survived 6 smartbombing battleships in sub 2s frigate…
No one said you can’t be locked if you are sub 2s.