open All Channels
seplocked Missions & Complexes
blankseplocked Missions - nowadays impossible with faction equipment ?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 : last (12)

Author Topic

Sendraks
The Spice Weasels Must Flow
Posted - 2008.03.06 15:40:00 - [241]
 

If you;re going to argue this issue from a caldari-centric point of view, then I'll concede the point to Ulstan and Qui-Shon. The population of mission runners in Caldari space is too high for any level 4 kill agent mission system to have a population "too small" to be worht farming by gankers. Bare in mind though that of the 4000 population spread across those hubs, only a portion will be running missions and only a portion of that portion will be running level 4 missions. How many that is, I don't know. I'm sure Ulstan and Qui-Shon will claim the figure is higher, but in reality it is probably between 25-50% and no more. I suspect that estimate is probably too high.

At which point I concede, there is no escaping the threat and nothing the mission runners can do.

Therefore I propose that Caldari space be sealed off from the rest of the EvE universe and a different set of rules applied there for suicide ganking behaviour along the lines suggested.

Meanwhile the rest of the Eve universe, with its plentiful supply of level 4 kill mission agents in hi-sec that hardly anyone uses, continues as is.

How does that sound?

Qui Shon
Posted - 2008.03.06 15:44:00 - [242]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Qui Shon
Heh, I seem to remember something about you preferring to do L4's in a Drake? So from that perspective I'm sure it's hard to see the point. How long does WC take you again, for instance?

Not that much longer compared to a Cruise Raven with equivalent skills.
Worst case scenario, twice as long, but usually just 50% more time.

The difference being I can have a less than 150 mil setup (out of which ship plus rigs is about 80 mil, so that leaves less than 70 mil worth of "gankable for" gear, if even that much) that has no problems tanking the mission.
Sure, you COULD take a 500 mil ship and 2 bil worth of gear that can easily tank the mission and complete it twice as fast.
Assuming you can work your way up 5 bil worth of LPs, ISK bounties and mission time rewards (since loot/salvage takes just as much regardless of how fast you finish the mission, so that would be, what, 10 bil ISK worth of actual revenue) without getting ganked, then yeah, you're better off than I am in my "pathetic little ship".



Hey, I didn't say anything about pathetic. It's just that I couldn't enjoy the game playing it your way, and probably the reverse is also true.

I've been wanting to see how much I can make in a two hour missioning session, which is about the maximum time I can sustain interest, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. It would be interesting to compare with your strategy to get some real numbers on isk / time. Even if isk / time is not paramount to me, it's still a suitable measuring stick.

However, my most expensive fit (which is staying docked for now) does not even break 1 bil, more like 500mil, and a Cruise CNR fit for me wouldn't even break 500mil. I'm not the afk, perma type player, so no gist xl. Navy launchers, navy bcus's, maybe faction booster, but not even deadspace is really needed on a cruise cnr, it's so generous with fitting and needs so little supporting mods to be effetive.

Cruise regular Raven? I didn't try that out much, but I'd say it's way too slow to even consider. A truly dedicated Cruise/Torp CNR or Torp Golem I'm sure are the most effective ships, when counting average times over a large variety of rats and missions, but it seems to me a regular Raven, especially with less then full skills and relevant hardwirings, can't really put up much of a contest. It's just too low on dps, even if it is the right type of dps. A Drake even more so.

Maludor
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.03.06 15:45:00 - [243]
 

Simple solution really. Let Concord Pod Kill. Hardcore should be hardcore.

Ulstan
Posted - 2008.03.06 15:46:00 - [244]
 

Edited by: Ulstan on 06/03/2008 15:46:43
Sendraks, you need to re-read a previous post of mine where I discussed why risk is not dependent on time, and then reread the post right after yours where I go into further details about the math of mission runners.

And yes, mission runners need to be able to run missions for the faction of their choosing. Raising standings is not a trivial endeavor which can be halted and restarted with a different faction. It's a long and arduous process (one which I don't have the patience for) and it would not be reasonable to tell people to just stop half way through and go start over with a different faction.

Quote:
Fair point. But in response all I can say is that all the experienced mission runners out there, of which you are clearly not one, will tell you how damn easy missions are.



You have insulted my honor! Pistols at dawn sir!!

If mission running was risk free, the premier mission running ships, Ravens and CNR's, would suffer less losses than other ships of thier class. In fact, they suffer amongst the highest losses. Therefore, missioning cannot be risk free, mathematically.

I've already identified a serious flaw in your reasoning, that you take what you experience and extrapolate it out to the population as a whole. Just because you have never lost a ship doesn't mean no one has lost a ship.

I've never lost a ship missioning during my entire career in EVE. However, I'm able to distinguish between my play experience and others play experiences. I realize that I'm representative of a teeny tiny insignificant portion of the playerbase. I exhaustively research fits, compare them extensively in EFT, minmax all the important attributes, never fly something I can't afford to lose, never fly something I don't feel appropriately skilled to fly, research each mission before I do it to learn all the triggers, always stay aligned to warp out, shoot the warp scramblers first, etc etc.

Yes, for skilled and well equipped and well experienced players like you and me, we run very little risk in missions.

The vast majority of mission runners are not like this, and do not so extensively utilize out of game resources

For the vast majority of mission runners, mission running is not only risky, but THE riskiest hi sec profession aside from large scale market manipultion or speculation.

I mean, all you have to do is hang out in the local channels of the mission hubs, or the newb corps, or join a carebear corp for a while, or even hell, just read these forums. Look at all the people saying "Man I just got my Raven blown up on this mission" and then it turns out they didn't understand it at all.

Even worse are the people who come along and say "I keep dying on missions I would like some help here is my fit" and lo and behold it's the worst fit ever, with medium shield exteners and armor repairers on the raven.

If missions were boosted to give players like you and me a good chance of losing our ships, they would be absolutely impossible to complete for the vast majority of the playerbase

This is a common phenomenon in all MMO's. Encounters are balanced around the average, not the exceptional, player. Exceptional players who know exactly what they are doing and have the best gear can do things that normal players struggle with easily with no personal risk. But there's not anything you can do to change that and still have a game that is friendly to the mass 'casual' market.

Shinigami
Gallente
Shinra
Posted - 2008.03.06 15:48:00 - [245]
 

Originally by: Sabahl
I make Game-Over look bad for suggesting that all loot from ships killed by PvP action in Empire should be destroyed? Riiiiiight.


I dont know? Maybe because having some guy whining about piracy in a pvp corp doesn't help that corp's image?

Quote:
Oh, and Shini! Why do you think I would have been interested in rejoining Shinra? I don't even know who the hell you are!


Reading comprehension FTL... I said I never asked you. In fact you might have a hard time finding anyone that would ask you to come back. It's not surprising that you don't remember me since I wasn't there long before the merger, but I remember your constant whining as if it happened just yesterday.

Ulstan
Posted - 2008.03.06 15:54:00 - [246]
 

Quote:
Therefore I propose that Caldari space be sealed off from the rest of the EvE universe and a different set of rules applied there for suicide ganking behaviour along the lines suggested.

Meanwhile the rest of the Eve universe, with its plentiful supply of level 4 kill mission agents in hi-sec that hardly anyone uses, continues as is.

How does that sound?


Well I'm in two minds of this. Part of me is selfishly glad that most mission runners sit in caldari space because it leaves other places not as crowded. Less lag for me!

But if the main mission running crowd is just a ripe juicy plum to get suicide ganked if they have any faction mods at all fitted, that just dries up the market and makes exploration no longer very worthwhile, which makes me sad. :(

I'd say the best solution is to either make raising faction take less time, or let people do a one time 'faction transfer'. Then, if caldari space is too crowded, people really don't have an excuse not to go somewhere else. If your'e working on your caldari standing and you're at 9.2 or w/e you still have a looooong way to go but you've already invested so much it would be brutal to ask you to start over from scratch, even if the population of your mission hub has absolutely ballooned out of all proportion to when you started. (I used to do missions in Umokka, for example, when the pop was like 50)

Sendraks
The Spice Weasels Must Flow
Posted - 2008.03.06 16:15:00 - [247]
 

Originally by: Ulstan
Edited by: Ulstan on 06/03/2008 15:46:43
Sendraks, you need to re-read a previous post of mine where I discussed why risk is not dependent on time, and then reread the post right after yours where I go into further details about the math of mission runners.


So are you saying that time in no way factors into risk and you cannot have risks as a result of time critical issues?

Originally by: Ulstan
[And yes, mission runners need to be able to run missions for the faction of their choosing.


We'll have to agree to disagree here, because I don't think that is the case. In game where competition for resources is a major element of the game, letting everyone have equal access to resources rather goes against that.

I'd be prepared to concede on the point that the Caldari could have more kill mission agents, but for that to happen, the Caldari would need more space. The Caldari are supposed to be one of the smallest factions in terms of occupied territory, but a military juggernaut in spite of that.

Originally by: Ulstan
You have insulted my honor! Pistols at dawn sir!!


Reading down your post here and taking what you say in good faith, I fear Sir that this is a duel I will not win.

Originally by: Ulstan
[I've already identified a serious flaw in your reasoning, that you take what you experience and extrapolate it out to the population as a whole. Just because you have never lost a ship doesn't mean no one has lost a ship.


Oh I've lost ships. Not many, but I've lost them. But the ratio of ships lost to missions run is very, very, very small.

Originally by: Ulstan
I've never lost a ship missioning during my entire career in EVE.


In terms of the aforementioned duel, either you're very, very cautious or very very good. Either way, your no losses beats my 5 or 6.

Originally by: Ulstan
However, I'm able to distinguish between my play experience and others play experiences...


You are probably a good deal more careful than I am with mission fits, but I think we tackle missions largely the same way. Which is, I think, the "right" way.

Missions are easy, it doesn't take much research to determine the correct fitting and ammo to complete a mission. That plenty of people don't and lose their ships as a result speaks more of their carlessness than any real risk. If a risk can be avoided with just a few minutes reading, it is not much a of risk, no matter how severe the outcome might be.

Originally by: Ulstan
Yes, for skilled and well equipped and well experienced players like you and me, we run very little risk in missions.


Anyone flying a mission in a faction battleship with faction fittings, should be an experienced mission runner. If they are not, then they've probably either e-bayed the character or the ISK (or GTC'd the ISK). At which point, I have little sympathy for them and they are arguably the ideal target for a ganker.

Originally by: Ulstan
If missions were boosted to give players like you and me a good chance of losing our ships, they would be absolutely impossible to complete for the vast majority of the playerbase


This is true. Though again, this speaks more of carelessness than any real difficulty. You and I can go out and complete a mission in a regular battleship with non-faction fittings, because we bother to check what it is we're up against. Only takes a few seconds to make that check.

If a player doesn't have the skills to fit a ship properly for a mission, then they should do a lower level of mission until they can. Unfortunately, as you well know, many new players shoot straight for getting into a BS and level 4 missions asap thinking that is the solution. Not realising there is more to it than that.

Lack of preparation increases the risks. So I will agree, that missions are the riskiest hi-sec profession if people don't prepare. For people who do prepare, which is anyone with an ounce of common sense, they are much less risky.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.03.06 16:22:00 - [248]
 

Originally by: Qui Shon
I've been wanting to see how much I can make in a two hour missioning session, which is about the maximum time I can sustain interest, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. It would be interesting to compare with your strategy to get some real numbers on isk / time. Even if isk / time is not paramount to me, it's still a suitable measuring stick.

Actually, lately, I've given up on solo mission-running... I have more than enough ISK compared to what I could ever need for the next year (and mostly from "patch-day trading" rather than mission income), so most missions I run are for standings increases rather than ISK.
I also usually run missions with corp-mates, even very "young" ones... there's usually 2 or 3 damage dealers, all tanked below solo levels except one that "goes in first", and there's usually one looter/salvager, if not two... and again, it's not so much for the ISK as it is for the standings... the hold-up is usually in the time it takes to get to next gate or time to next wave rather than anything else (that's why we love missions like "Gone Berserk" so much, for instance... I think the record completion time for it, from warp-in to full kill not just completion trigger was about 6 or 7 minutes).
I haven't looted nor salvaged too many wrecks in the past year, but I've created my fair share of them Wink

Lucre
STK Scientific
Black-Out
Posted - 2008.03.06 16:24:00 - [249]
 

Originally by: Gravecall
From what I can see there are really only 3 possible fixes:
1. Make the payouts a live reflection of the cost of the ship so that many ships are not receiving bigger payouts than they actually cost.
2. Have being concorded void the payout. Seems to be the better and more popular choice. Sure you still won't put a complete end to suicide ganking since if the ship's cargo is valueable enough it may still be worth doing it on, but at least it'll end its current popularity.
3. Disable all aggressive acts in high sec space unless there's a wardec between the 2 corps or unless a theft has allowed it. (pretty sure this ain't gonna happen since it would negate the entire reasoning behind concorde)


1) makes perfect sense and is long overdue. It's not like CCP don't have access to the macro-economic data to set realistic T1 payouts. (Or indeed realistic T2 payouts - with commensurate premiums of course! Why can one insure a 100M BS but not a 100M HAC?)
2) needs to cater for n00bs - I'm sure I'm not the only person who had their one and only cruiser ganked by sentries during their n00b days for doing something dumb! Perhaps only allow one "authority gank" payout per month per character? Or per 3 months?
3) As you say, nah.

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2008.03.06 16:25:00 - [250]
 

Mission runners get derived standings also so most guys running caldary have also some non zero positive Amarr standing. However, moving is not always option as some of mission runners (unlike popular belief seems to be) are not solo players. There is reason for being in that space (be it then being part of alliance/corp based on that area or wish for working specific corp or so on). Moving a whole corporation however is serious mess (POS'es, capitals, hangar contents, etc).

So some mission runners are just using the closest reasonable quality lev 4 agent to the location where they really would like to be. Say max 5 jumps away. If that happens to be mission hub then well ...

As far as proposed solutions go, removal of insurance seems to be the most popular one if CONCORD is involved. However while it eases the pressure somewhat all it does at the end of day is to rise bottom limit a bit under what gank is risky (ie gankers might actually lose isk doing it). Real problem is predictability. Ie. that amount of modules fitted times x0.5 minus gank fit costs and if result is positive then profit. Same problem is btw in missions - they are predictable. You know exactly what will happen if you do this or that.

So I say we need both less predictable suicide ganks (higher propablity of module and cargo loss, variable security hits for hi sec agressions, propablity of CONCORD arriving faster than usual in given security and propability of not reciving insurance payout [it would be boring if it would just be removed, however if it's prtopability based then gankers are actually gambling if they get it or not and streach of unluck can cost em a lot]) and random mission generator (and I mean something more variable than if there is 2 BS + 3 BC in pocket or 3 cheaper BS + 2 BC).

Ulstan
Posted - 2008.03.06 16:29:00 - [251]
 

Quote:
So are you saying that time in no way factors into risk and you cannot have risks as a result of time critical issues?


No, I'm saying that time invested is not in itself a risk. Time spent doing something risky is a risk, but that's because the activity is risky, not because of the time spent.

I don't consider sitting around in complete safety to be a risk, not even if significant time is invested. The time spent mining doesn't make hi sec mining risky, and a player who spends more time mining than another isn't engaged in a more risky career.

Same thing for hi sec exploration or manufacturing or trading. The risk in those cases doesn't depend at all on how much time you spend on them. Whether it takes me 12 hours to track down the 4/10 complex or 1 hour, my risk when running it and my overall risk are exactly the same, in my opinion. I've invested more time in the former case, but I haven't put myself at any greater risk.

Quote:
We'll have to agree to disagree here, because I don't think that is the case. In game where competition for resources is a major element of the game, letting everyone have equal access to resources rather goes against that.



Oh competition for resources is definitely good, but I think no realistic solution should tell people "Go fly for another faction". I mean, some people agonize over what character to make and which 'side' to pilot for and take it all very seriously. Profit seekers may have no trouble moving from Caldari to Amarr space, but for people who try to identify with their character etc, they view themselves as a caldari pilot trying to aid the caldari state enough so that the state gratefully gives them a mark of prestige in the form of a renowned navy raven. Asking these people to pick up and leave and start over doesn't really seem to be to be all that friendly.

Quote:
Anyone flying a mission in a faction battleship with faction fittings, should be an experienced mission runner.



I dunno...I've seen a ton of very bad faction fits. Like one guy was complaining "Why can't I beat L3's in my drake? I have TWO gisti small shield boosters on it and two WCS! Why is my ship dead?"

It's just not very hard to earn money in EVE, no matter what you do. People will always have more money than sense. That's ok though, that's (typically) the demographic buying faction exploration mods. I just want them to keep buying. ;)


Quote:
Lack of preparation increases the risks. So I will agree, that missions are the riskiest hi-sec profession if people don't prepare. For people who do prepare, which is anyone with an ounce of common sense, they are much less risky.



Sounds like an accurate assessment to me. The problem is, the majority of the EVE playerbase is not real good at preparing, let along using out of game resources to prepare with. If missions are going to remain viable for such people, they will continue to be fairly low risk for well prepared players.

Yes, this does smack somewhat of 'catering to the lowest common denominator'.

Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
Posted - 2008.03.06 17:43:00 - [252]
 

Ulstan, on the whole "time isn't risk" thing, I disagree, or at least I don't find the view useful. And not just for this situation, but for understanding other seeming imbalances in EVE like the profitable relative safety of gate camping, trading, Exploration, afk cloaking, and even mission running.

Maybe a different way to look at it, one that won't get us deeper into the semantics pit, is to say that you have to look at time and effort, and not solely risk if you take a narrower view of what it means.

Then I suspect somebody will want to get into trying to weigh these metrics against each other, to which I'll say: we could argue all day about it, but in the end it's not even important that economic activities be -perfectly- balanced in a living, breathing universe, only that everybody is taking -some- effort, -some- time, and -some- risk if they're getting any consistent reward out of it. And also as long as play is open ended--people can change their strategies, their venue, or the manner of their activities, or even switch to the activities they see as more profitable.

Now, I don't happen to think that things are as balanced as they should be. As I mentioned before, I would prefer suiciding ganking be less powerful, and that Wardecs be 99.9% of hisec PvP. But things are also not that far out of whack afaic, at least as long as Wardecs are so easily counterable and hisec mission running so profitable.




Sendraks
The Spice Weasels Must Flow
Posted - 2008.03.06 18:00:00 - [253]
 

I had a response to your post Ulstan, but the forum ated it and I'm in a bit of a rush here. But I've not forgotten you!Very Happy

Qui Shon
Posted - 2008.03.06 18:00:00 - [254]
 

While the following is not about suicide ganks, but rather the gang mechanic exploit, it does point to some possible scale of isk value attainable here. Exceptional perhaps, but very, very possible.

The guys thread is here and you can download his video in it.

He claims, that with one person, three chars(?), over the course of a year, with about 90 days activity, to have caused 500 billion in damage to missionrunners, while making 120 billion for himself. See his thread and video for more accurate info.

And as far as I can tell, every gank depended on the crappy gang mechanic trick, meaning each pilot that got ganked agreed to gang with him or his alts.

In contrast, *everyone* is vulnerable to suicide ganks, just by jumping through a gate or even exiting a station. Even if they are in a remote system with low population. And at present, gankers can do so at no cost to themselves, if they put in a little effort, or at very limited cost, if they put in limited effort.

The insurance mechanic is broken, it's high time to change it.

Ulstan
Posted - 2008.03.06 19:20:00 - [255]
 

Edited by: Ulstan on 06/03/2008 19:25:13
Quote:
Ulstan, on the whole "time isn't risk" thing, I disagree, or at least I don't find the view useful. And not just for this situation, but for understanding other seeming imbalances in EVE like the profitable relative safety of gate camping, trading, Exploration, afk cloaking, and even mission running.


Well I just don't see how you could balance the profitability of various money making endeavors in EVE using the 'time = risk' metric.

The 'risk vs reward' mechanics mean that the more you put at risk, the greater the rewards should be. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

However, if the risk is variable depending on how much time you put into it, that leads to all sorts of trouble.

Using the 'time = risk' we'd have to conclude a miner who mines 10 hours putting more at risk than a miner who mines 4 hours, and therefore should be making more isk per hour than the miner who mined 4 hours. I just don't see any realistic way to do that.

You'd have to do some sort of exponential curve for every activity in EVE, where the longer you did it, the more profitable it became. Like, the first hour you rat in 0.0 you earn 30m, the next hour 40m, the next hour 50m, etc etc, because you're investing time and time = risk and greater risk = greater reward.

I think that the proper way to evaluate it is to consider time and risk two different, yet equally important factors in determining profit.

They don't depend on each other, but each provides a way to adjust the money making potential of certain activities.

So, an activity where you put more of your assets at risk generates more income than an activity where you put basically nothing at risk.

Likewise, a very time consuming activity should generate more profits per hour than a non time consuming activity.

But that's not because time equates to risk. Spending more time doing something risk free doesn't make it more risky, nor should it impact the risk vs reward for that particular activity.

Quote:
Then I suspect somebody will want to get into trying to weigh these metrics against each other, to which I'll say: we could argue all day about it, but in the end it's not even important that economic activities be -perfectly- balanced in a living, breathing universe, only that everybody is taking -some- effort, -some- time, and -some- risk if they're getting any consistent reward out of it. And also as long as play is open ended--people can change their strategies, their venue, or the manner of their activities, or even switch to the activities they see as more profitable.


I think that's a pretty accurate assessment.

Quote:
Now, I don't happen to think that things are as balanced as they should be. As I mentioned before, I would prefer suiciding ganking be less powerful, and that Wardecs be 99.9% of hisec PvP. But things are also not that far out of whack afaic, at least as long as Wardecs are so easily counterable and hisec mission running so profitable.


Yeah, but, everything in hi sec is profitable. If you're not some poor sap trying to make a living out in low sec, I can't see how you could be anything other than rolling in money in this game :p

Sendraks
The Spice Weasels Must Flow
Posted - 2008.03.06 20:03:00 - [256]
 

Originally by: Ulstan
No, I'm saying that time invested is not in itself a risk. Time spent doing something risky is a risk, but that's because the activity is risky, not because of the time spent.


But if you commit time, knowing that you might no reward, then the time itself is wasted. Therefore one of the risks to be factored in is the productivity of your time and whether that time is wasted.

If someone spends 6hrs exploring and gets nothing out of it, that is a lot of gaming time for no reward. The next time they come to explore, that player is going to be thinking whether they're prepared to take the risk that the time spent will yeild a result.

As our time to play Eve is finite, we have to weigh up how we want to use that time. It is a resource and like all resources, there are risks associated with the committment of that resource. Someone can spend 2hrs at a gate waiting for a suitable target to gank and get nothing. Whereas in the same time a mission runner can have made maybe 20-50million ISK.

Originally by: Ulstan
but I think no realistic solution should tell people "Go fly for another faction". I mean, some people agonize over what character to make and which 'side' to pilot for and take it all very seriously.


You'll not be surprised that I think it is a realistic solution, but then you've probably guessed that I'm something of a pragmatist. The Caldari are not supposed to control large portions of space and anyone playing a Caldari character, loyal to the faction, is going to have accept that they live in a small, busy part of space or create justifications for why their character wants to move to quieter space.

Originally by: Ulstan
Profit seekers may have no trouble moving from Caldari to Amarr space,


But if you expand the available space to suit the players, the profit seekers will be the first to fill it until such time as it becomes unprofitable to do so. This game change won't change player beahviour, the new systems will just fill up and the problem will persist.

If CCP doesn't change anything, then people have to adapt and make use of the ample space that already exists in game. People might not want to fly for the Ammar or Thukker Tribe or Khanid, but if they want some peace and quiet, it is an option they should be prepared to entertain. If they are not prepared to entertain available options and only demand choices be added to the game to suit, I really don't see that as a compelling argument for CCP to do anything.

Originally by: Ulstan
I dunno...I've seen a ton of very bad faction fits. Like one guy was complaining "Why can't I beat L3's in my drake? I have TWO gisti small shield boosters on it and two WCS! Why is my ship dead?"


While i agree it is not hard to earn money eve, players with bad faction fittings on ships with low SP characters are either a) good at playing the markets b) have some other lucrative source of income or c) buying ISK from somewhere. Given the cluelessness behind some of the fittings, I'm inclined its likely to be the latter option rather than the former 2. No one with any experience in Eve is unaware of these forums and the wealth of information here. So why pander to these people?

Originally by: Ulstan
Yes, this does smack somewhat of 'catering to the lowest common denominator'.


I know CCP is running a business, but one of the things that sets EvE apart from other MMOs is that it asks more of the player and doesn't hand hold them through the game. If CCP tries to pander too much to the mass market (and some would argue it already has) then all those players who came to Eve because it was different and demanding, will leave. I'm certainly not going to stick around if every "wise" decision I've made over the past 2 years be rendered moot because CCP change the game to benefit the unthinking masses.

Yakia TovilToba
Halliburton Inc.
Posted - 2008.03.06 21:37:00 - [257]
 

Edited by: Yakia TovilToba on 06/03/2008 21:37:27
Originally by: Qui Shon
Originally by: Akita T

It's the truth.
Faction and officer modules are just BLING. E-peen support. Shiny stuff to flaunt.




Heh, I seem to remember something about you preferring to do L4's in a Drake? So from that perspective I'm sure it's hard to see the point. How long does WC take you again, for instance?



That's the point. Usually Akita T makes good posts on the forum but this time she is quite selfish. She flies a nighthawk, which is hard to gank and which does not need expensive modules for a sustainable tank, so she is happy that the cnrs are ganked, she is full with malicious joy, since she never liked that those cnr pilots made more isk than her.
She compares t2 weapons with faction weapons, assuming that everyone trained even cruise missile launcher specialisation to 5 (x8 skill which gives 2% rof bonus) and "forgets" to mention, that faction tanks have room (tank- and cpu wise) to fit more bcus. I'm disappointed with Akita T's posts in this thread.

Back to topic:
Suicide ganking costs CCP money. Not everyone is a pranoid ninja-missionrunner who knows everything about eve and it's dangers. There are people who play this a few hours a week, enjoy a beautiful space-mmorpg, maybe roleplay a bit and prefer not to pvp.
After few months they can afford a mighty navy raven and later equip it with some of the nice modules, since they hear that they can make better isk with that, and it looks better to have caldari navy items, if you work for the caldari navy. While they do their missions and are looking forward to get more of that nice items, they are suddenly ganked.
In high security space. Everything they played for the last months suddenly is away.

Do you really think most of them will continue to pay for the game and try to get everything back in the next months ? Many will simply not extend subscription. Same goes for some miners, who finally got their first exhumer, which is then suddenly destroyed by some 'tards which call themselves "jihadswarm".
They don't understand why this happened, and don't see a reason why this was done to them, since they didn't do anything bad to anyone, were just peaceful miners and enjoyed this aspect of eve. Many won't pay any money for this madness and move to another game.

Eve could have much higher subscription numbers today, without those ganking tards.
They cost subscriptions, they cost money, money which ccp could use to further improve the game. In the end suiciders harm the game itself, the community and the company behind it.

Agil TradeAlt
Posted - 2008.03.06 21:46:00 - [258]
 

Suicide gankins is fine - IF there is a bigger cost attached.

The risk vs reward thing comes into play. Suicide ganking SHOULD stay but the risk needs to be higher.

It needs to be more expensive for the suicide ganker to pull it off. Insurance needs to be removed so suicide gankers dont take the mickey and start ganking everything. Otherwise just remove concord and be done with it. That is all.

Sabahl
Minmatar
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
Posted - 2008.03.06 22:44:00 - [259]
 

Originally by: Shinigami
Originally by: Sabahl
I make Game-Over look bad for suggesting that all loot from ships killed by PvP action in Empire should be destroyed? Riiiiiight.


I dont know? Maybe because having some guy whining about piracy in a pvp corp doesn't help that corp's image?


What makes you think I was whining about piracy? And PvP is only PvP when both Ps are fighting each other, mate.

Originally by: Shinigami
It's not surprising that you don't remember me since I wasn't there long before the merger...


Ahh I see. You're nobody.

Bored of this thread now. Obviously some people get touchy when it's suggested their sources of income should get hit with the nerf stick. Nothing new there. Time to move on.

Shinigami
Gallente
Shinra
Posted - 2008.03.06 23:14:00 - [260]
 

Edited by: Shinigami on 06/03/2008 23:16:13
Edited by: Shinigami on 06/03/2008 23:15:35
Originally by: Sabahl
[What makes you think I was whining about piracy? And PvP is only PvP when both Ps are fighting each other, mate.


You should probably go read/edit the wikipedia entry then. I don't see anything that says a "gank" or non-consensual one sided fight is not pvp. In fact it falls directly under piracy and player killing.

I know this subject might be a bit difficult for you since the majority of your pvp experience is probably in getting ganked.

Originally by: Sabahl

Ahh I see. You're nobody.



Maybe so, but at least nobody attaches "Super Carebear" to my name when mentioned.

Greenbolt
Minmatar
The Suicide Kings
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2008.03.06 23:36:00 - [261]
 

Suicide ganking is only about the isk.
with a bit of careful thought (aka ship scanning and picking the right systems) its the fastest way to make isk fast (Massive trading takes alot of groundwork..maybe owning a T2 BPO is easier/quicker?)

Its pointless carebearism at its best - great isk payout for low risk and little time investment of course you can only do it a few times before you have to go back to 0.0 and work on standings..but you only need to do it a few times to be rich enough not to care as long as you pick your targets correctly.


Shinra..I celebrate your achieving this goal of carebearism and wish you the best of luck in your new career.


Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.03.07 00:31:00 - [262]
 

Originally by: Yakia TovilToba
Usually Akita T makes good posts on the forum but this time she is quite selfish. She flies a nighthawk, which is hard to gank and which does not need expensive modules for a sustainable tank, so she is happy that the cnrs are ganked, she is full with malicious joy, since she never liked that those cnr pilots made more isk than her.

Actually, it's a Drake (I don't have the skills for a NH on TQ, only ever flown one on SiSi), I make more ISK than they do, with less effort, through remote trading.
I have people in my corp that USED to fly huge-ass expensive fits before I got them thinking, some of them still fit a few expensive modules, but nowhere near what they used to (CN stuff is usually as high as anybody bothers going, if even that much).

Quote:
She compares t2 weapons with faction weapons, assuming that everyone trained even cruise missile launcher specialisation to 5 (x8 skill which gives 2% rof bonus) and "forgets" to mention, that faction tanks have room (tank- and cpu wise) to fit more bcus.


Fiting a 3rd BCU hardly gives any significant improvement (and by significant, I mean, noticeable without writing down mission completion times), and a 4th one even less (I think you'd actually need a stopwatch for that).
Also, L3 spec is trivial to acheive, and L4 spec is not that uncommon... the jump in performance you get by training L5 spec is again one of those not-really-justifiable things.

Quote:
Stuff about suicide-gankers costing CCP money because they drive off players through their actions


The suicide gankers from several corps that started targeting mission-runners are doing a "community service" of sorts, just like Goons are with their gank-an-exhumer thingy, wether they realize it or not.

I can only respond to this with a quote from one of the devs... slightly paraphrasing here :

"EVE is not designed to look like a cold, dark and scary place, it's designed to BE a cold, dark and scary place".


Shinigami
Gallente
Shinra
Posted - 2008.03.07 01:41:00 - [263]
 

Originally by: Akita T
The suicide gankers from several corps that started targeting mission-runners are doing a "community service" of sorts, just like Goons are with their gank-an-exhumer thingy, wether they realize it or not.



We just think of it as culling the out of control carebear population.

Qui Shon
Posted - 2008.03.07 01:55:00 - [264]
 

Originally by: Shinigami

We just think of it as culling the out of control carebear population.


More likely you think of it as easy money for no risk, and possibly, if you're pathetic, it inflates your epeen as well.

Beness
Gallente
Deep Space Ventures
Posted - 2008.03.07 03:00:00 - [265]
 

Originally by: Qui Shon
Originally by: Carniflex

Mission runners can actually increase 'risk' for gankers for all modules going pop when they get ganked. Tackiks is relatively easy. Overheat your modules in controlled enviroment until they all are one cykle away from destruction. Lock your overheat settings (so that you wont lose them in mission by overheating by mistake). Now when you get suicided all your fancy modules have already approx 80 % of damage on them so propability that they all go pop is high when you die.




I did a test, which is obviously far from being conclusive. Out of 13 mods ranging from 60 to 100% heat damaged (1 module was already offlined due to heat damage) with most in the 80-90% damage range, 6 modules survived. The 60% damaged module did not survive, but possibly the 100% damaged offlined module did survive. I was daft enough to fit two small shield booster I's, with one at 80% damage and one 100% + offlined, so I'm not sure which one survived; after the explosion one shield booster I was 100% damaged, and was the only module of the six to be so, so I'm guessing it was the already 100% damaged one.

I'll do some more testing later, and if I find it does cause module destruction I'm doing this, even if does look ugly with so much red on the module icons Smile


Does the following work better?
- Overheat until EVERYTHING burns out.
- Repair each module individually. Repair 1 isk of damage on each.
- On gank, stuff blows up!

As I understand, the excess damage from the final blow you receive is spread across the fit and the loot in your cargo. When ganked, jet all your cargo (which should only be ammo anyway). Woot - the ganker squad got some faction ammo. You lost some big stuff, but introduced additional cost on the gankers.

Qui Shon
Posted - 2008.03.07 03:04:00 - [266]
 

Originally by: Akita T

Fiting a 3rd BCU hardly gives any significant improvement (and by significant, I mean, noticeable without writing down mission completion times), and a 4th one even less (I think you'd actually need a stopwatch for that).
Also, L3 spec is trivial to acheive, and L4 spec is not that uncommon... the jump in performance you get by training L5 spec is again one of those not-really-justifiable things.



The point you want.....no, the point I want to reach is where I can onevolley BC's and Cruisers, because this lowers the workload quite a bit, not having to watch each gun/launcher to minimize idle time, as well as completely negating their tank. It is my subjective experience that it does make a noticeable difference. If a third damagemod, or faction module, makes onevollying succeed more often, it's definitely worth it, imo. On my Domi, the third magstab gives about 50dps, on my nightmare, it gives over 100dps. At least the latter is certainly worth it, and I'd consider the former worth it as well, in many situations, even though my Domi can't onevolley much of anything.

A 10% dps increase can, at best, have much more impact then 10% because:
1) negating or reducing the rat tank reduces the dps needed for the rat, reduces it total HP if you will
2) popping all smaller then battleship stuff before they get into orbit drastically reduces time spent on those rats, if you're using guns/torps with large sig res. This is a big timesaver for me. Cruise CNR, well, maybe it doesn't matter so much in that boat.



Unless you're only talking about missiles(?), Large spec skills no matter the level are no trivial matter to get, not for the jack of all trades at least. L4 rail spec would be over 50 days for me, and I have 3mil sp in gunnery presently. I'll have two BS at L5, the third at L4 before a single large weapon spec skill. Plus there's so many useful auxilary skills I want, like Long Range Targetting 5 for instance. I probably won't have any large spec skill before the summer.

Kahega Amielden
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.03.07 03:50:00 - [267]
 

Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 07/03/2008 03:51:01

Quote:
More likely you think of it as easy money for no risk


Kind of like running level 4 missions in an overpopulated mission hub with faction-fitted CNRs

OH ****.

Moogalak
Angels.
Acid.
Posted - 2008.03.07 04:30:00 - [268]
 

Sendraks: Props man. You have become the greatest troll there ever was. Your logic is so flawed, you completley ignore the fact that risk != investment.

Keep thinking your alt posting and troll attempts will stir up controversy. All you are doing is showing others how much of a dipstick your "mission runner" truly is.

Spygirl
Posted - 2008.03.07 04:34:00 - [269]
 

I feel sorry for this poor sod. I bet the average mission runner does, too. Poor sod, only having 2 Estamel's mods, how on Earth did he make it through the day.

KISOGOKU
Posted - 2008.03.07 08:18:00 - [270]
 

QFT , Im thinking akita trying to compete with DS about post count.

Originally by: Yakia TovilToba


That's the point. Usually Akita T makes good posts on the forum but this time she is quite selfish. I'm disappointed with Akita T's posts in this thread.




spygirl if you are thinking 2 estamel passive hardener something important please contract evrythinhg you have to me and go back to play Arrow wow ,it is clear you achieved nothing in eve
Originally by: Spygirl
I feel sorry for Poor sod, only having 2 Estamel's mods, how on Earth did he make it through the day.


another wise reply came from agil ,it is nice to see there are still reasonable ppl in game


Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 : last (12)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only