8 to be safe. 7 if you are lucky and all firing in optimal range.
Probably.
110K ehp procurer is under 40-50M isk. 6 catas is minimum to take that down. 6 t2 perfect skill catas is cost of over 60M isk. Not profitable at all - meaning after a while gankers would run out of funds to gank if every target was at least as tough. I am assuming 750dps which is unrealistically high. Not to mention most are not perfectly skilled. 650 is more realistic (but still on the high end) - 7 minimum.
You are looking at 10-11 t1 catas. More economic. But how often do you actually see such fleets? Answer is: almost never, manpower doesn’t come out of thin air. And when such force is assembled there are far better targets. Misfitted DSTs, krabbers (gilas are notorious for the value dropped). When tanked procurer is ganked it is mostly to show it CAN die so that going afk in fulltanked ship is not an answer. But this already means that gankers have to tally up a lot of effort to gank just for show. Be at the keyboard and warpoff in case you notice more than 5 gankers coming into the system at once and you are perfectly safe (or at least as much as possible… there is always option of getting scrammed by cloaky scout)
1 Like
Like I said.
Do you gankers still fit those cheap implants? Or has that gone out of fashion now that more different ship losses vs Concord are showing up on the killboards?
That’s an expensive loss just to get a scram off… wouldn’t it be better to uncloak and bump the ship a bit to stop it aligning?
With the tethering mechanics now available (another theme for another post) you could stop your gank fleet at the nearest citadel… and then warp in to the scout at 0 when the bumped ship is slower again. The target shouldn’t then have the time to warp out?
Pages and pages of non-bling, for example.
https://zkillboard.com/alliance/99002775/reset/group/463/losses/
Because there is no need to select target. Show me how many properly tanked procurers were killed in hs in suicide ganks…
I don’t see many. There is one on 2nd page, killed by CODE. - and it wasn’t even properly tanked.
So to answer your question:
The answer is that the ganks are favoring the unblinged.
2 Likes
Wrong asnwer. Ganks are favoring untanked. And when target is untanked you don’t have to check much - most of the time it pays off anyway (untanked ret is easily killed with 2 t1 catas, just t2 strip miner pays over half the costs on ganker side). And at times you get a jackpot. With such favorable conditions you don’t need to be selective about targets. Just fire away.
Didn’t see many blinged mining barges on the killboard… and what with Ore strip miners out there, Elara Mining Upgrades… bling is definitely not correlated to tank.
Noone in their right mind would fly a tanked retriever. Better to fly a half-tanked Procurer, or with just one or two shield mods.
2 Likes
Seems like you don’t understand at all. Run the numbers on the cost of catalyst. Oh, and don’t use jita prices - use actual price of t1 gank cata. Then you will see that one t2 strip miner covers almost entire gank with 2 t1 catas. Even ventures often drop more than t1 cata costs.
No one said that bling is correlated with tank. But bling is correlated with how much one can spend on ganking while expecting to turn profit. Want ganks to stop? Make them unprofitable. Tools are already here.
Even on minerbumping ppl will say that mining is best done with properly piloted covetor… because properly piloted covetor won’t be caught. But this requires being at the keyboard and actually paying attention. Too much to ask of carebears.
I do understand. I was just answering the question you asked.
The vast majority of gankers (more than 5) that I have spoken to do not fund their ganks from the loot they managed to get from their targets. They have alternative sources of income that are boring, and gank for fun.
Edit:
Roll Alpha capsuleer…
Get concorded by shooting a container (lossmail to establish credibility)
Join ganker channel.
Ask for help/advice.
Complain about costs/ ask about self-sufficiency.
One gains a lot of insight to the mindset of the more sociable gankers…
2 Likes
I do not believe that.
Edit: once again going to bed… so no more response from me until tomorrow evening!
1 Like
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
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?