I do, in fact, know. I appreciate your consideration in enlightening me, however 
If you would like to have better AG-gameplay, the first step would be to re-design FactionPolice / CONCORD which instantly end every engagement before it even can evolve. There can be no good AntiGanking-Gameplay while there is a fixed and absolutely predictable time limit that hardly allows to lock and fire more than a few rounds.
Then you could consider changes (modules / mechanics) that allow the target to survive longer, even long enough for AntiGankers to push back the ganking attempt if present. Or intercepting gankers before the gank or whatever. From Lock-Breakers to Emergency Damage Controls to Remote Resistance Projectors or whatever… But just adding ever more tank and counterplay to the last options the gankers have left (AlphaStrike or Mass-DPS) is not a solution that offers Antiganking gameplay any perspective.
1 Like
Okay. So, you want to get rid of concord then? Because concord is the reason for this.
Yeah, that sound reasonable on paper, but breaks down when you begin to consider people new to ganking and small independent operators. Whales are are rare, and often require large fleets/expensive ships to take down. So, saying that gankers shouldn’t be able to profit from “random barges or haulers”, is similar to arguing that CCP should do away with abyssal tiers 1-5, and the ability to do them solo in a cruiser. There are, of course, gankers that can work with that, but it’s definitely going to make it a lot harder for a lot of people to participate. So, now I have to wonder. Have you merely failed to consider the consequences of your ideas, or are you intentionally trying to present ideas that seem reasonable to the uniformed and/or unsympathetic, that in actuality do a lot of damage to the activity.
Second, I take issue with how you’re trying to frame ganking. For as long as I have been playing this game, gankers have been scouting targets, picking their ships appropriately, and being selective with their targets. So, don’t try to act like they can just shoot at whatever with no effort, and still make a profit.
1 Like
Y’know, I believe Eve Online has never had the former in your “either/or”. For example, when passive moon mining got nuked way back when, the players who were used to PVP alliances that skipped PVE didn’t suddenly go “oh, let’s grind PVE sites to make our ISK to fund our PVP”, they just left instead. If PVP had actually been profitable back then, there wouldn’t have been a need for them to leave.
(This isn’t in defense of passive moon mining btw, this is a rebuttal against some idealized “The only PVP-ers that deserve to be sustainable are the ones that can consistently keep winning” – which is problematic for newbros that want to get skin in the game, as “by definition” of this mentality they deserve less time for PVP and more PVE time funding their initial plethora of losses.)
1 Like
I have made it quite clear that the current break even of 1bn in regards to freighter cargo is too low, and that is an important driver for me in suggesting that. It is deliberate that I want to reduce the impact of Catalysts fleets, I have made no secret of that fact.
On the plus side as cargo gets increased then more big juicy whales would appear to sate even the most whiney ganker.
As for your concord comment I have already said that I am not a fan of concord, but in reality I could not think of a better system. The issue with AG play is the lack of hunting possibilities, tethering removed a lot of hunting, gankers poo poo it but it was fun PvP for the people doing it, now they no longer AG.
AG fleets don’t happen because as soon as you engage you cannot be repped and there is no point to do fleets.
People scooping via noob ships directly into DST’s. If CCP made it so that the items had to be in the cargo of the ship before placing it in the DST then there would be real risk.
I could go on and on if you want me too.
Which is why they’d gank unscannable haulers, because they were being selective with their targets and had to believe they could make a profit off it, or ganking pods? Please. We both know it’s because that catalyst or thrasher was dirt cheap and the risk/reward analysis weighed way in favor of ‘Well maybe it’s good’ vs ‘well maybe there’s nothing in there worth shooting.’ The 15 minute criminal timer was/is a bigger turn off than the cost of the gank ship, because if you’re criminal and that good target DOES come around, you can’t shoot it.
Don’t misunderstand, if you want to gank for the possible KM, okay, go for it. Shoot, I learned the hard way years and years ago on an indy alt and yes, I was frustrated at the time, but I learned, and improved my gameplay. Like, 2015 or so years and years ago. But, then you’re gonna need to balance that in your spreadsheet somewhere that you spent that cat on a gank that turned out to be an empty Viator. But, hey, you got a nice KM.
Where do I sign up for this? CCPLEASE. Abyssals are one of the biggest crimes CCP has perpetrated onto Eve.
I agree, and there isn’t necessarily a good answer to this. It’s the ole’ N+1 problem that Eve has always struggled with, where it’s always better to have more mans than less, and always harder for smaller, independent operations to compete with larger. But this is also part of the place the imbalance occurred in that it was better for groups like Goons or CODE to get 200 dudes together for a ganking event of sorts than have their guys who wanna gank just running around and doing what they could, when they could. AAAAnnnnnddd then Fozzie nerfed barges into the ground so that even running dedicated links, logi, etc, it was still hard to keep things like a covetor or retriever alive. That’s been fixed to a degree, but yes, it was a thing, let’s not forget.
Also agree, and addressed in part to Aiko. Concord’s static nature is a problem. There is definitely a good reason to consider removing Concord in part, especially if CCP is unable - or unwilling - to update the code for a more dynamic system.
Neither. If you choose to get into ganking, hey, cool. But you’re making a choice, and committing to it. Same as if you choose to go -10. It’s not easy, not supposed to be, but it is an option. I want ganking to return to where it was when it was a choice and not a reasonably predictable, profitable career path. Maybe not quite on the same tier as dropping dreads as a small alliance on a larger alliances moon POS to reinforce it was way back in yesteryear - especially pre-jump fatigue, but also not, to reference Vokan’s metric, judged by difficulty - or lack thereof - by how many PD samples you can send off while waiting for the scout to find the next thing to shoot. And hey, as said above, if that means significant re-working of Concord, show me where to sign up for that, too.
As an aside, there is nothing more heartbreaking than being true -10 and having to kill a rat that scrambled you on a gate and losing it. In hindsight, I think I shoulda just SD’d the hurricane lol.
Bandwagon fallicy.
I suppose if everyone in the industry smokes cigarettes, than we should too.
Also, those mmo’s suck. If you want to play them, by all means. But don’t be a goofus and expect that this game should be a clone of those.
2 Likes
And why is that too low? The gankers need serious cooperation to bring that thing down, we are talking about at least 40-50 accounts here. Scouts, Scanner, Looters, Tackler, Damagedealers… And the freighter pilot should be able to just float AFK through that with billions in his cargo? Why can’t he just bring a webbing alt to prevent his cargo being scanned? Why can’t he just split up the cargo into two runs? Why not use the various intel tools to do his run when there are no gankfleets around? Like the with the miners, its pure lazyness, ignorance and stubbornness. And the gankers should not be able to punch that with like 50 (!!!) ships? Why?
3 Likes
Use Taloses and not Catalysts.
Last time I checked most freighters are killed with Catalysts still. But well, talking about Taloses, the gankers use less accs but more money (and a lot more skillpoints per char required to max-out a Talos in damage than a Cat…). Question still stays: Why should one afk-guy just “counter” all this effort with just sending his freighter full of billions afk from Amarr to Jita and relying on a huge passive eHP buffer?
1 Like
15 Catalysts can take down a cargo expanded Charon, not 40. 32 Can blow up a T2 Bulkhead fit Charon.
I am also suggested a module that needs to be fitted and activated, so it can’t be AFK, that you are spitting out AFK at me means you are getting emotional about it.
I think that a break even point of 4bn is fine for freighters and I want to adjust it for that. You seem to think that it needs 40 accounts and I think it needs to have some of the gankers in Taloses instead.
The good news is that it doesn’t matter what Dracvlad thinks.
CCP will not even read this.
1 Like
I am absolutely not emotional about it. I talk about the current situation and in that freighters simply have no active defense mechanisms. Besides that, everyone who use a cargo-expanded freighter to transport a billion ISK just deserves to die in a fire. How stupid has one to be to do that? We can expect to fit tank if you want to protect your stuff?
I am on your side desiring complete freighter re-design that allows for variable fits with active modules, because I think that freighters are seriously bad designed currently. They are capital ships after all and should have a fitting design that reflects that. Every T1 hauler has more options, thats just stupid.
However I am not on your side with that 4b value break even. If you want to transport these amounts, go cooperate. Organize chars to protect you, web you, scout for you. Or ship the stuff via contract, so it is done by somebody who knows his job.
1 Like
Oh great, so you obviously used an ordinary member of the gank fleet as a reference. When I obviously meant the mastermind or multiboxer-ganker.
Ordinary an actual player member of the gank fleet is just F1 monkey just like ordinary member of the fleet in nullsec. No I mean, for example go with -10 gank char and try to find and kill some pod. Prefferably with implants on him, ie. avoid killing players younger than 1 year, players who recently lost pod.
Or just try do PD while roaming with catalyst hunting t3d on anoms. Or even better try roam and hunt astero/covops doing relic/data in highsec.
Or scan every ship arriving from perimeter on Jita with your Tornado and then loot it.
They should add more lowslots for quintuple expanded freighters.
1 Like
Unfortunately, that is probably what would happen. If you give the Providence 8 Low Slots (because Amarr…), Rigs, enough CPU for a Damage Control and several hardeners, people would just get ganked with 8 cargo expanders, 8 inertias or any combination of that. And then complaining that ganking is too easy.
2 Likes
It is a statements like that which are purely emotional, why does someone carrying 115m units of Trit deserve to die in a fire?
Good, great to hear that.
In my opinion it is too low, and makes people waste too much time moving stuff around.
The 15 Catalysts cost 11m each, a lot of the time the gankers scoop half the guns, but even if they lose all of them we are talking about 165m in cost, so using the 50% drop rate that would be a break even point of 330m. That is stupidly low. If they managed to pick up half the guns then ganking a Charon carrying 115m units of Trit would be profitable.
And this is why I keep saying it is too low, the break even point is actually 330m
That again is the emotion of people like Aiko(s), who just wants to defend her easy farming, I am all for people making fitting choices and stuff and fits to have meaning about them and need to be activated by people ATK. Anyway I think I have explained it enough.
Because he made an incredibly stupid decision and does not deserve protection if others want to benefit from it. you know “die in a fire” is just a saying? I can assure you I am absolutely not emotional about it, but believe what you want.
What I really do not understand is: why you want to make it easier for people who do not care single bit for their safety nor have any interest to use any of the tools available to them? You are not helping anyone who is actually playing the game even halfway seriously. You are just helping those who send their freighter for 20 jumps before going to the gym or work or whatever and then expecting it to be in Jita when they come back. But they are not playing the game in between. They are not even on screen most of the time. You can tell that by seeing them warp on autopilot, getting podded after the kill (with guns!) and not responding to chat- or fleetinvites 3 systems before they are ganked. Why do you want to help these people, I don’t get it. Because, all others don’t really need help. PushX and the Frogs barely get ganked and tbh my own Industrial Alts are not ganked at all even while moving several billions around regulary. So please, why support a lazy, uncaring afk-style of gameplay?
But did it, 115m units of Trit worth 346m, I think it is a perfectly logical decision to expand the ship to carry that.
But I am not supporting AFK play at all, that is your interpretation of it. Why do you think I suggested a lock breaker module that needs to be activated?
Right, and we can both pick the upper and lower ends of either argument to try and justify or invalidate each others position.
Yes, there are F1 monkeys. Yes, most members of a gank fleet sit and wait 15 minutes between undocking. Yes, FCs, scouts, etc and multiboxers do the lions share of the work.
So, let’s cut the crap. A handful of people in both situations do most the work, most the rest are just there for the content. They’re the ones doing PD while waiting to be told what to do. YOU brought PD up lol.