You’ll be amazed what people will do if you put them in a bind. Here is an example of some amusement I have seen:
Suspect warps to L4 mission runner, steals loot, salvage, shoots MTU, etc
L4 bear angry and pew pew teh suspect
suspect no stupid, brings logi
bear shoot teh logi too
logi now scram teh bear, too
orca appears
original suspect suddenly comes out in a scary PVP ship
l4 bear panics, is given ransom
pays ransom, but there is another step: eject from teh ship, get a rookie ship, come back
(while he is getting his rookie ship, suspects steal the mission ship, lel)
he comes back, suspect timers are gone, and he CONCORDs himself on teh previous suspects
suspects now have Kill Rights on him
suspects take teh bear’s ship to the station, sell back to him on contract
bear buys ship back because… idk, actually
bear undocks to do more missions
suspects warp to bear’s mission, activate kill right, blap
Never underestimate how stupid people are. Never underestimate how desperate people are. Never underestimate the criminals of highsec \o/ . You don’t need to gank to destroy people’s assets. Sorry OP, there is always a way to find PVP content in highsec.
I actually would
I the player am more filthy casual, just one with a long history who loves this game, a history ofsome carebearing and petty villainy, of the least elite type, yet I do not believe I have ever whined.
Once, in 2004, I attached mining lazers to a t1 hauler and left it on all day while I was at work- following the advice of someone in NPC chat- if only the CODE had existed then, I may not have unsubbed that time? Who knows?
I also love my space barbies and know
That a 5 billion hat like that would be the ultimate killmark
BTW
that is not baiting
that is eve baiting
I have tried similar in the past
to succeed would have been a work of art beyond me at the time
I salute the pilot/s that pulled it off as the apex predators of high sec.
Q. Do people suicide incursion logi chains with pilgrims or similar to cause fail cascade and then scoop all loots once rats have despawned, or is that not possible.
A. Patti doesn’t know, but she knows that something is always possible.
Well not the exact same thing (not NPE but a L1 mission as I recall and not suicide ganking instead killing off an NPC hauler to prevent the market operations of a business entity for your NPC agent who wants to take over their trade area) but thought it’s worth being dropped here as a fun detail:
Ganked a Hulk with 1b pod in an ice belt some time ago and looted the wreckage with my scout in a Venture. The miner was pretty angry but luckily he had his clone in system, so he came back with a faction Domi and started to shoot my Venture. Luckily my Orca was nearby, perfectly hidden between the other Orcas which are pretty common this days, so I switched to a better ship and he starts to smartbomb my drones. warp an alt in, boom, killright. 15min later he is back in the belt with an Orca, boom, another loss, again to CONCORD, because, yes, he had another smartbomb on that Orca and tried to kill the drones again.
Well I can punch them only so much, I explained to him what he did wrong after that and offered to sell the KR to him for cheap and explained how he could get rid of it. But he refused and flew shuttle for a month.
It does not really matter what the rules are of Highsec. Bears are bears and they will remain bears. You just can’t fix stupid.
I’ll reply directly and quote only your last replies, as this thread is growing painfully large. If anyone wants to read up on wha we discussed before, just click the arrow.
The lock times are not sufficient. T1 haulers have around 100 Scan Resolution, 150 with a scripted Sebo. If they shall have the option to defend themselves, they need to have a value more appropriate to their hull size/sig radius, so a base value of 80% of resp. races T1 Cruiser. Right now, even if they start locking the potential ganker directly after decloak, they will be taking a lot of punishment before they even get a target lock. To give them the abilitiy to help themselves while keeping them balanced, a buff to Scan Res would be best. Otherwise you’d have to give them higher base speed and such.
Nope, I didn’t describe any failure on their part. If they fail, they get the punishment. Anyhow if they fly a proper cloak+mwd they won’t be catchable by your everyday ganker. You need a proper gatecamp setup for that (decloak and/or extremely high scan res tackle frigate with logi).
Since this thread is about “suicide ganking” and hence highsec, the goal of tackling something, will probably be to use defensive web/scram to get out of their range and warp off, because you’d might otherwise lose your ship before Concord appears. That being said, this is very unfeasable right now for T1 haulers - Scan Res of a Carrier on a Cruiser sized hull makes lock time take ages etc. So the only smart way for a T1 hauler is to go “safe”, meaning to avoid any and all PVP, which is sad. They can do so by using proper bookmarks for insta-dock and undock, cloak + mwd on gates, that’s it.
I’d rather see them being able to use less boring tactics, because it would be more of a challenge for them and their gankers.
And Freighters have to defend their loot. Not sure what a balanced approach would be, but since changes to CPU/Powergrid would probably just be used to fit a nastier tank, drones are probably the way to go.
I don’t think an NPE can do that. Not with just @Fabulous_Rod, but in general. Becoming a good PvP pilot requires quite a bit of information and learning and is an on-going process, IMO.
@Fabulous_Rod’s problem is he does not seem to want to go through that process and thus insists on the Devs changing the game so he does not have too.
I’d like to correct this statement of yours. I’m not sure if i should? It would be rather lengthy. You’re not wrong from your perspective, but there’s actually far more into this.
Well, it’s been 2 hours YP, and no bites yet. Perhaps you could drop a TL:DR, and if it starts something off, follow it up with the whole shebang?
Or maybe it deserves a thread of its own, where you could start off on the front foot, guns blazing, and give us a proper chance to evaluate your stance.
It’s all up for grabs really, although I’d not have thought anything arising from Fabulous Rod’s tenuous grip on matters EVE, was worth the trouble. Your choice, though.
We are at the point where we simply disagree on the necessity. You aren’t adding any new info, and I’m perfectly happy with the way they work now.
The iteron is untankable, the nereus is tankable. Loads are splittable, there are t2 options for haulers including cloakies that are almost uncatchable in highsec and there are private and public courier contracts, there is also selling the stuff you have in jita and buying it again in amarr if you don’t want to haul it over the chokes (often as not the stuff coming over the chokes is available on either side for the same price, making the trip economically pointless). If you are really risk averse you can find a high-high wormhole.
The game design option that makes least sense to me is to redesign haulers to be better, but still worse than ganking ships.
There is nothing wrong with avoidance or surviving till the response fleet arrives as strategies or tactics.
Except that it will be useless because the ship will still be inferior to what the ganker is flying, so its still going to lose.
Not only does one concept not lead to the other (loot from pvp is a fundamental part of the game, freighters shooting stuff is not), the porpoise will carry 5.5k general purpose stuff and 62k ore, and the orca will carry lots more and both have the drone armament you are proposing, both fit mwds, and both fit cloaks.
So first it is “sufficient” and now suddenly it’s not necessary. Next time you base an entire row of posts on absolutely nothing, let me know before and I’ll decide if I’m in the mood to give a ■■■■ about what you’re happy with or not.
What are you even talkling about? Gankers use the cheapest DPS application that can get the job done. The ships are not superior, they just manage to spit out an extreme amount of damage. In a suicide gank the attacker is working against the time, so it doesn’t matter wether 1v1 on paper their ship is superior. It counts if the attacked has options to act. Right now they don’t have any - apart from avoiding the fight in the first place.
The moment you’ll realize that proposing a cloak+mwd Orca is probably the most uninformed statement in this entire thread… will hopefully be the moment you start taking other peoples arguments in rather than coming up with such stuff. Freighters hauling stuff is a fundamental part of the game. You are against these shiptypes to be able to defend themselves, for non disclosed reasons. Understood. I won’t count it.
I am not so hooked up on the cost of suicide ganking being too low, but more on the options for counter play, at this point the mining ships are in a good situation in that it is bank or tank and you can make yourself unattractive to gank for the scant human resources of CODE by merely using a properly tanked Procurer and Skiff. I think my Skiff fit was 17 Catalysts last time I looked and that would be 187m of ships and fittings potentially to gank it.
For a long time I have pushed for a change to bumping to make more engaging play, I have also suggested that the loss of docking rights should be part of the punishment applied to criminals because I wanted them to have to use citadels which can be interdicted, by pushing the owner to refuse docking and to blowing up their alt corp and own citadels. And I really wish that CCP would go down this road because it would be good content and might change the sad decline of hisec away from one man corps, but alas CCP don’t seem to get it.
You CAN inflict meaningful loss on them. You just can’t do it all at once. And it isn’t all counted in ships lost.
They pay a cost. The suicide ganking character is essentially crippled from operating in high security space in anything larger than a destroyer and from being in space in high sec for more than a short while. The problem isn’t that the character isn’t appropriately affected. It is that the PLAYER isn’t appropriately affected. The player can just hop on another character and continue on with their EVE business. THAT is where the problem is.
Risk is a way to circumvent the need for effort. Gankers don’t take risk. They put in effort, instead. They make a trade-off to avoid needlessly losing ships. And when they do lose a ship, it’s not a failure; it’s a cost, one that they expected to have to pay. The trade-off is time, calculation, evaluation, coordination over multiple characters and/or cooperation with other players.
Haulers and miners are the ones more often taking a RISK in an attempt to reduce the number of trips they have to make, or to make more ISK/hour. But the game is not balanced in their favor. It is balanced in the favor of the person acting, not the person reacting. In order to be effective in a scenario, they have to know what they might face; they have to know what to do when they face it; and, they have to be equipped to do it.
You are calling it “risk”, but what you actually mean is that you would like them to pay a higher cost. Well, how high? And, WHY!?
Yeah, but does it need to provide content for you? Why are mining ships ok but haulers are not? There are options there as well, including, and I think you pointed that out in other threads, uncatchable t2 industrials. It is up to the hauler to manage his risk when selecting a ship and fit for the job.
Freighters are vulnerable to bumping because they big slow capital ships. They are not the default option, they are a deliberate choice and the vulnerability to bumping is the trade-off. There are ways to move a freighter around Highsec, it’s not really difficult and hundreds of Freighters do it every day without getting killed.
About that counter-play to ganking. EVE is a sandbox. Stuff like ganking happens naturally, it is emergent gameplay. CCP did not design Freighter ganking, it is something which just happened because a lot of people are careless about how they move stuff around. The mechanics are there for people to use them and there are methods to counter or interfere with a gank. But the same way CCP did not design Freighter ganking, they did not design anti-ganking. If you want to make ag a valid option, figure it out yourself. It is not up to CCP to provide better content for your self-chosen and made up profession.
And do we really have to talk again about the latest nerf requests around the docking rights? How will that change anything? Gankers are already using Citadels because they are very convenient. The FacPo does not touch you while you are tethered and you don’t have to use insta undock bookmarks which can be scanned down and is a possible way to intercept gankers before they reach the target. And where are the heroes today who remove the ganker Citadels?
Currently it is pointless because you just go back to NPC stations, if CCP was to get their head out of their rear end on this then we can see it develop, emergent gameplay at its best.
What are you on about, I am talking about the freighter pilots options for counter play, in the final analysis he has none.
So the “content” you seek is the ability to completely remove gankers from a system and not the ability to shoot their Citadel?"
As I already mentioned, the hauler has many options for counter play by simply using a ship suitable for the job. Freighters are not the default option and their vulnerability to bumping us a trade-off for their big cargo capacity.
There are correct ways to use a Freighter and people do it every day. Yolo a capital industrial ship solo full of stuff into Uedema and counting on ag to safe the day isn’t the correct one.
Sorry OP, there is always a way to find PVP content in highsec.
