If the gankers are interested in ganking you for profit, then they have already scanned you and your cargo… they will be waiting for you with the bumper. Being able to align in 20 seconds instead of 40 seconds (as you said) is not going to make any difference when the Machariel (for example) is waiting for you to come through the gate… So you do not win anything by having them fit.
Buffing the current fittings would have unforeseeable knock on effects on other ships that use the same modules.
As has already been said, the EHP is not really relevant, because if the ship / cargo is “worth” ganking, it will be a viable target, and get ganked.
Well, that still doesn’t clarify what you meant by wanting at least a 50% chance to survive a gank.
Because if you mean the victim should have a 50% chance of surviving regardless of how well the ganker does his job and how badly the victim fits and flies his ship, then that implies the introduction of chance based suicide ganking mechanics regardless of whether you had thought of that or not…
And frankly, if you meant something else, you didn’t express it correctly…
Do you stay intentionally vague? Because you know very well that every change to CONCORD timers or even if you add randomness you would just shift the bar of how many ships a ganker is required to bring to secure the kill. Whatever you propose or think about will simply make it more expensive but will never end with a “chance” of getting away 50% of the time. That is simply impossible except if you add some random mechanic that does all the work.
You don’t seem to understand that the battle was lost long before someone started shooting. There is no getting out 50% of the time in such a situation, not in null, not in low and not in highsec. Except if you add a random ex machina who saves the day. That’s why people call you out on that.
That’s what I said: istabs aren’t a great defensive module. But that isn’t their primary purpose - they are they to increase travel speed via faster aligning. There are suppose to be trade-offs in your fitting choices and in freighters it is a simple as tank vs. speed vs. cargo.
This is working as intended. You can get to your destination faster, or have more tank and be a less attractive target to pirates. Choose.
No it won’t. That’s why ships have role bonuses and skill bonuses. CCP can add a “100% effect of fitted istabs” for freighters without affecting other ships if there is need. Even simpler, CCP can just boost base tank, agility or cargo if freighters f they are too low (or high) for some reason.
More fitting choices aren’t needed given freighters can’t fit weapons. The existing trade-offs and choices are more than sufficient for an industrial ship with no combat capability.
How is it EHP not relevant when it is the primary determinant of whether a ship/cargo is a profitable target and thus whether it is worth ganking?
I really don’t get this carebear talking point. EHP is basically all that matters in most case. Well that, and being caught in the first place, which for a freighter given their size and slowness is pretty easy to do. The freighter pilot decides how much tank to fit and how much cargo to carry and thus has almost complete control of whether they are a profitable target or not and thus whether a pirate has a chance to take their stuff for a net gain.
For other ships other defensive strategies are more viable, but still for all of them, in the face of the DPS race that is the basic idea of the highsec safety system, EHP matters a lot. It is probably the biggest factor determining the success or failure of a suicide gank.
But ok, if you make certain fitting and cargo-carrying choices you make yourself a profitable target, and if you let yourself be caught, you will get ganked. Fine. What exactly is wrong with this again?
But the only thing that makes you a less attractive target is carrying cargo that is not worth the cost of ganking your ship.
Nothing.
But the only determining factor is the value of the cargo. It does not matter what modules you fit.
You can fit your freighter how you want, but you wont get taken by pirates unless you are worth it. Bulkheads just let you carry slightly more expensive (but less volume) before you are worth it.
It’s interesting how this one sentence in my opening post provokes such heartfelt responses among people when that sentence is taken away from the rest of the paragraph. In that paragraph I mentioned also some things that I thought might improve the situation (in my opinion). Of course I did not sit down and list out exactly how much of a percentage improvement the situation would be, but then I don’t really understand how someone would expect me to expect that a 50% chance could be achieved over night… especially given what the CSM do.
Oh and Freighter Ganking is not the only ganking I am referring too, either.
So people taking the opening sentence of the paragraph, away from the paragraph, and jumping around on it like kids on the bouncy castle at the funfair…
I am certainly not going to keep on answering questions that I have already, more than once, answered.
But having people that don’t read the posts/threads continually bumping my thread is certainly easier than having to think of new and interesting things to say, or having to take the EVE mails and in game chat onto the forums just to keep the thread active (in case anyone relevant looks at the forums).
No, fitting more tank increases the cost to attack you and makes you a less attractive target.
Again it does. Not only does increasing the cost mean you might be passed over for a juicier target or make yourself such a tough nut to crack it exceeds the ships and pilots your opponent has on hand, the modules you fit affect other aspects of gameplay - namely travel time for istabs and cargo capacity for expanders. Surely you see that is the game right? Fitting choices that give your ships strengths in one area, at the expense of another.
I am open to the argument that tanked freighters are still too easy to attack, or that bulkheads don’t increase the defensive abilities enough for their cost, but to say that these fitting choices make no difference is just wrong and a misrepresentation of how the game works.
Ok, so you are making this argument then, that the bonus of fitting bulkheads does not provide enough of a benefit over the other fitting choices?
Please answer how you want but as this is your thread about the CSM candidacy but I will finish now with the discussion of the basic design of the game and let you get on with your campaigning. Best of luck in the upcoming election!
Yeah, if you start with something that will basically obliterate the chosen playstile of some players then you should not be surprised if those players focus on that and don’t care about some other stuff you write.
I don’t think the CSM has anything to say anyway, so I highly doubt they will listen to your ideas. Whit that said I leave your thread alone. Good luck.
Black Pedro: but to say that these fitting choices make no difference is just wrong and a misrepresentation of how the game works.
No. Maybe it is how the game should work…
Black Pedro: Ok, so you are making this argument then, that the bonus of fitting bulkheads does not provide enough of a benefit over the other fitting choices?
No. I am saying that with respect to being ganked in a freighter, the only thing that matters is how “profitable” you are. With bulkheads that barrier is shifted by a couple of hundred million upwards (assuming Taloses).
With multi-boxing fleets out there bringing the DPS to do the job is not the problem. I would say a Charon carrying 22 Billion ISK in cargo is just as likely to get ganked if it has Cargo Expanders or Bulkheads.
Karak Terel: Yeah, if you start with something that will basically obliterate the chosen playstile of some players then you should not be surprised if those players focus on that and don’t care about some other stuff you write.
I can understand people getting upset about my thoughts.
What I cannot understand is people getting upset about that once sentence… and then coming here and asking me if I want CONCORD ships to Spawn and heal me… when I already explained in the rest of the paragraph some ideas I had that might help bring it about…
I would have been happier if you had talked about the things I mentioned, and how or why they are stupid… but instead people started off on Random Numbers and well… here we are.
So both the above posters expressed a desire to leave my thread. Of course they are welcome to come back and keep talking… but in order to not go harassing them with unwanted quotes and so on… I have just copied and highlighted their text above.
I would like to thank both of them for their well wishes, we all love this game (even if we have different experiences and opinions) and I guess we’ll be seeing you in my thread next year!
Really? You don’t see what in that one sentence sets it so apart from everything else you say in your post?
And you think it has been taken away from the rest of the paragraph? Why? Because the whole paragraph has not always been quoted in its entirety when replying to it?
You’re incredibly vague and imprecise way too often, and that doesn’t help. What does “improve the situation” mean here? Working towards the 50% survival rate goal? Or something else?
Here’s the whole paragraph:
Tell us one, just one, of the things mentioned there that you think has not been taken into consideration by those of us criticising your proposal and would have been relevant to the discussion at hand.
FWIW, I could tell you one of the things mentioned there that would actually work against your goal by far. Can you see what it is and understand why?
Which is fine and not the problem. The problem is when you don’t really answer the questions, but rather just reply to them…
You don’t understand how none of the things you say in that paragraph would work towards the stated 50% survival goal and hence why people might wonder what else it is that you might have in mind? Really?
Have you considered the possibility that it could be that you did something wrong here? If you hadn’t before, does considering that possibility help you understand it now or not?
Also, you realise it was you who asked @Karak_Terrel to ask here because you didn’t want to answer him in the other thread, right?
Well, I for one didn’t criticise your proposal because I was upset. I did because you decided to advertise your thread in the AG channel, saw something in it in my area of expertise that was blatantly wrong, and thought letting you know what it was and why, might actually help you…
It’s now that I’m getting upset about it all… I had a better opinion of you when I came here trying to help, thinking you might have missed something, than I do now that you appear to still be wondering why all of this happened…
also you did well.