open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Before you whine, read this:
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 : last (11)

Author Topic

Rawr Cristina
Caldari
Naqam
Posted - 2008.03.28 08:26:00 - [211]
 

Originally by: Darius Brinn
Originally by: Ki An

So you are saying that Concord isn't popping the suicide gankers? You are saying the gankers don't take a sec hit? You are saying they don't get criminally flagged? You are saying the victims don't get kill rights? You are lying or dumb.


I didn't say that. At all, "genius". I have just said that these consequences are not serious, as insurances and loot make up for anything the ganker loses, and industrials cannot transfer kill rights.


People arn't going to suicide gank unless the rewards are likely to outweigh the risks. Making suicide ganking less 'profitable' is only going to make people target more lucrative ships, rather than exhumers.

In short, you're saying that you're perfectly fine with them killing juicy haulers, just not you, personally.

Even if insurance gets nerfed, how long before the remaining people who are profitable to gank whine on the forums about there "not being enough consequences for the ganker" ? That argument is completely flawed and is no more than a front to eliminate risk from hi-sec.

Transferrable killrights on the other hand are possibly the most exploitable thing I've ever heard and I honestly doubt they'd be used in their intended manner, much like jetcan flagging.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.28 10:07:00 - [212]
 

Edited by: Darius Brinn on 28/03/2008 10:16:55
Originally by: Rawr Cristina

People arn't going to suicide gank unless the rewards are likely to outweigh the risks. Making suicide ganking less 'profitable' is only going to make people target more lucrative ships, rather than exhumers.
In short, you're saying that you're perfectly fine with them killing juicy haulers, just not you, personally.


No, not at all. I am fine with them targetting haulers, freighters, exhumers, noob frigates, titans and everything. I'm fine with them ganking me every ten seconds. I don't care. I don't want a watered down version of the EVE I am starting to discover and enjoy.

I merely consider than full insurance payouts for suiciding ships, and moreso for doing it repeatedly, sounds weird. I have not being ganked. Ever. Nor I have been witness to such a thing.

Originally by: Rawr Cristina
Even if insurance gets nerfed, how long before the remaining people who are profitable to gank whine on the forums about there "not being enough consequences for the ganker" ? That argument is completely flawed and is no more than a front to eliminate risk from hi-sec.


Could be. I cannot speak for the rest of the community. I just know that insurance payouts on suiciding multiple times sounds wrong, and even people against modifying it (Akita, for example) proposed ideas I like very much: less payouts for repeating the offense, comes to mind.

Originally by: Rawr Cristina
Transferrable killrights on the other hand are possibly the most exploitable thing I've ever heard and I honestly doubt they'd be used in their intended manner, much like jetcan flagging.


Again, could be. But pure marketing characters feel they don't have enough tools to defend themselves. Free PvP means actually free pew pew. Defending yourself means investing heavily on combat skills, forcing you through a skill pidgeon-hole. Sellers cannot choose to punish pirates economically, or to benefit their enemy's competition. Market PvP is anonymous.

Industrials get screwed by shooting PvP. Pirates cannot be attacked through market PvP.

Shooting rights are fine. But some people cannot shoot worth a damn. If I was a manufacturer who got podded and can't get field revenge, I'd LOVE to be able to make my sell/buy orders invisible to those in the corps I so desire. Just a possibility worth thinking about. Pirates murder and loot, then fly to a station and buy new shiny stuff at premium prices from unexpecting potential preys.

I don't mind suicide gankings. If I ever fly a freighter or an Itty V, I won't be as stupid as to load it full of treasure and blindly jump everywhere without scouting, tanking, or an escort.

I know there ARE ways to minimize the risks. Great ideas posted by many people. Ideas I take good notice of despite not being a hauler at all. Might come useful one day. But... it looks like suicide squads only have to put a few blasterboats together, wait for a suitable prey and press the I-WIN button. They get everything back and lose nothing, really. Even if they fail at the ganking ultimately.

For the last time, I don't want a safer game. I just perceive it is very safe for pirates to gank on High security.

Rawr Cristina
Caldari
Naqam
Posted - 2008.03.28 11:12:00 - [213]
 

Originally by: Darius Brinn
Industrials get screwed by shooting PvP. Pirates cannot be attacked through market PvP.

Shooting rights are fine. But some people cannot shoot worth a damn. If I was a manufacturer who got podded and can't get field revenge, I'd LOVE to be able to make my sell/buy orders invisible to those in the corps I so desire. Just a possibility worth thinking about. Pirates murder and loot, then fly to a station and buy new shiny stuff at premium prices from unexpecting potential preys.


I can't say I agree with the rest of your post, but this has some potential. Being able to decide exactly who can and who can't see your orders would be interesting, imo, as well the the ability to charge premiums to people aligned with particular entities, and give discounts to friendlies.

Alts would render much of that useless, mind you...

Mauslin
Posted - 2008.03.28 11:12:00 - [214]
 

Originally by: Avon
You choose to jettison your hard mined rocks in to the cold void of space, rather than ferry them back to the station in your hold, or get a hauler to pick them up.
Most of the time jettisoning the ore was more profitable, but there was the risk of it getting taken.
You see how that works?
Increased potential reward, increased risk.


That is not what I meant. I don't want jetcan to be safe. I don't want CONCORD to shoot down every ore thief instantly to mine more securely. But what I do want is that THEFT has a consequence as well, beyond the 15 minute aggression countdown. Especially since most ore thiefs are not interested in the ore at all. It will be transferred into another jetcan and eventually blown up...

By adding a risk to THEFT, mining is not becoming easier. There are still enough "gankers" and "pirates" out there that can harm me. But it would add some risk to the other side of the equation, to the thief. Because the thief has no risk whatsoever. In all cases I witnessed or heard about the ganker knew exactly what victim he is chosing. So he is looking for easy prey. Adding a risk to the theft itself would be only logical in my point of view.

Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2008.03.28 11:24:00 - [215]
 

Edited by: Avon on 28/03/2008 11:26:52
Edited by: Avon on 28/03/2008 11:24:39
Originally by: Mauslin
That is not what I meant. I don't want jetcan to be safe. I don't want CONCORD to shoot down every ore thief instantly to mine more securely. But what I do want is that THEFT has a consequence as well, beyond the 15 minute aggression countdown. Especially since most ore thiefs are not interested in the ore at all. It will be transferred into another jetcan and eventually blown up...


O
M
G

You are serious, aren't you?

The risk to the thief is that the miner can, if he so chooses, blow the living crap out of the thief - an option he did not have before can flagging (well, not without being treated like a criminal for it).

The risk is in the hands of the players, *as it should be*, not some automatic game mechanic which comes running to the rescue.

I was against can flagging from the start, not because I was against the concept itself so much as where it would lead - and here we are.

The tools are in place, it is up to the players to use them (or not).

How is the situation worse or less balanced now than it was when an ore thief could stroll up to your can, take your stuff, and stroll away, with no risk, no flag, nothing you could do apart from suicide them?

Rawr Cristina
Caldari
Naqam
Posted - 2008.03.28 11:31:00 - [216]
 

Originally by: Avon

O
M
G

You are serious, aren't you?


me loev Avon long time Razz

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.28 11:32:00 - [217]
 

Originally by: Mauslin
Originally by: Avon
You choose to jettison your hard mined rocks in to the cold void of space, rather than ferry them back to the station in your hold, or get a hauler to pick them up.
Most of the time jettisoning the ore was more profitable, but there was the risk of it getting taken.
You see how that works?
Increased potential reward, increased risk.


That is not what I meant. I don't want jetcan to be safe. I don't want CONCORD to shoot down every ore thief instantly to mine more securely. But what I do want is that THEFT has a consequence as well, beyond the 15 minute aggression countdown. Especially since most ore thiefs are not interested in the ore at all. It will be transferred into another jetcan and eventually blown up...

By adding a risk to THEFT, mining is not becoming easier. There are still enough "gankers" and "pirates" out there that can harm me. But it would add some risk to the other side of the equation, to the thief. Because the thief has no risk whatsoever. In all cases I witnessed or heard about the ganker knew exactly what victim he is chosing. So he is looking for easy prey. Adding a risk to the theft itself would be only logical in my point of view.


Um. The thief is flagged to every member of your corp. That should be risk enough, surely. What more could you reasonably expect? All you have to do is fit a 24Km scram on your hulk and have a corp mate close by who can warp in with a combat ship.

Make a safespot about 2000km from the belt and have your corpie sit there aligned. When the can thief comes into the belt, your corpie should get up to full speed. As soon as you web/scram the miscreant, corpie warps in and you can wtfpwn him. This does not take many skills - your guardian should be in a Blackbird with 4x racial 1x multispec, 2 distort amps (used second best named ECM stuff - it's absurdly cheap) and 5x HML fitted, which takes 2-4 weeks of training from scratch. That, plus the 5 medium drones from your hulk should easily kill any ship used for can-flipping. Once he's dead, quickly loot his wreck and dock up for 16 minutes (play it safe) and drink some beer while you rejoice in corp chat. Enjoy the sweet, delicious tears in local as he realises that he's now nothing more than a statistic on a mining corp's killboard, and he has lost his ship and taken the sec hit for nothing because he will not get to shoot you back.


Oh, but wait. You want someone else to punish him for you, right? For free. On demand.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.28 12:19:00 - [218]
 

Edited by: Darius Brinn on 28/03/2008 12:51:03
Actually, the general thread was more in the line of ganked people not asking for more Concord action, but for NPCs not compensating criminals.

So I think your last argument can be reversed, Malcanis:

Quote:
"Oh, but wait. You want someone else to punish him for you, right? For free. On demand."

to

Quote:
"Oh, but wait. You want someone else to raise your profit ratio, right? For free. On demand"


They don't want more NPC protection/services for themselves. They want less for gankers. Not more intervention than there is now. Less.

So called carebears hug into their NPC priviledges just as tightly as so called pirates hug into theirs. But NPC actions only compensate pirates for their losses. Most of what non-gankers lose is never seen again. It's win-win for pirates...thanks to NPCs services.

The idea of pirates making PROFIT calculations taking into account insurance fraud is actually fun, and not at all what one would expect of people bragging about doing great in über hostile and hardcore environments

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.28 13:30:00 - [219]
 

You realise we were talking about can-baiting, not suicide-ganking?

They're two entirely different topics.

Oh well anyway:

Why should *any* activity have it's "profit ratio" subsidised by insurance? Clearly you don't think suicide ganking should be, but given that suicide ganking is a perfectly legitimate activity, there's no immediately obvious reason to single it out over, say, mission running or 0.0 warfare.

Arguably ganking is more heavily dependent on insurance than hauling, but that's partly because people use cheap (and fragile) ships to haul expensive items. But 0.0 warfare is also utterly dependant on insurance as well. Want to attack a cyno jammed system? Then you must, and I do mean must bring a large battleship fleet - and you can expect heavy losses as well. 30-50 BS lost is by no means exceptional. Now my alliance, and I'm sure it's not exceptional in this, provide PvP battleships at a price that mean they're effectively free after insurance. All we have to provide are the fittings. Does that sound familiar in some way to you? Do you think we're in some way exploiting or griefing if we use free-after-insurance ships to try and take someone's system? If not, why is it acceptable to use "free" ships with "no consequences" (and there really are no consequences in 0.0, because there are no sec hits) to take territory, but not acceptable to use the same mechanism to take someone's cargo?

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.28 13:38:00 - [220]
 

By the way, Darius just a side note.

I see that you've been playing for about 2 months. You have never known any other market conditions than the ones that prevail at the moment, but let me tell you a little something about how things were when I started back in September '06.

A Raven cost about 135M ISK. Other ships were proportionately more expensive.

Think about that for a moment. Kinda changes the economics of ganking, doesn't it? Changes the economics of quite a lot of activities, in fact.

Think about how ship prices could have fallen so much. What, do you suppose, changed in 18 months to make ships about 1/3 cheaper.

Now think about what will happen if the price floor of insurance is removed or lowered - and that's the logical consequence of what you're asking for, never doubt it, by the way.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.28 13:49:00 - [221]
 

Edited by: Darius Brinn on 28/03/2008 13:49:45
Originally by: Malcanis
You realise we were talking about can-baiting, not suicide-ganking?


I thought it was legitimate to carry on with the conversation, as I was quoted. On the can flipping thing, my one and only opinion is that it should not flag flippers. Jettisonned stuff is thrash by definition. CCP could easily make much bigger secure containers.

Originally by: Malcanis
Oh well anyway:

Why should *any* activity have it's "profit ratio" subsidised by insurance? Clearly you don't think suicide ganking should be, but given that suicide ganking is a perfectly legitimate activity, there's no immediately obvious reason to single it out over, say, mission running or 0.0 warfare.


Perfectly well argued. That is why I stand by my opinion that, just like in real life, multiple unfortunate episodes with insurance companies end up meaning you pay up much more for recurring insurance, or directly become an undesirable customer.

Mission runners and ratters losing multiple ships in missions and insurance companies not caring is not exactly right in my book either. It's simply that Concord'ed ships are worse:

Pirates act > NPC punish them > Another NPC gives them back most of their cash > NPC allows them to keep the spoils of their crime. Doesn't seem like Concord is really punishing anything. Their actions are compensated by their later inaction, and other NPCs.

Originally by: Malcanis
Arguably ganking is more heavily dependent on insurance than hauling, but that's partly because people use cheap (and fragile) ships to haul expensive items. But 0.0 warfare is also utterly dependant on insurance as well. Want to attack a cyno jammed system? Then you must, and I do mean must bring a large battleship fleet - and you can expect heavy losses as well. 30-50 BS lost is by no means exceptional. Now my alliance, and I'm sure it's not exceptional in this, provide PvP battleships at a price that mean they're effectively free after insurance. All we have to provide are the fittings. Does that sound familiar in some way to you? Do you think we're in some way exploiting or griefing if we use free-after-insurance ships to try and take someone's system? If not, why is it acceptable to use "free" ships with "no consequences" (and there really are no consequences in 0.0, because there are no sec hits) to take territory, but not acceptable to use the same mechanism to take someone's cargo?


In 0.0 warfare, where lots of BSs blast at each other, both sides get roughly the same percentage of their loses back, per ship lost. Ganking and a battle seem very different to me, because the gankee loses are not insurable, while the pirate's are. Practically in full, but a few T1 modules. Not to mention there is supposed to be a difference between 0.0 and Empire.

Kirgan
Caldari
Old Spice Syndicate
Sailors of the Sacred Spice
Posted - 2008.03.28 13:53:00 - [222]
 

The only useful thing I get from this thread is to stay the hell away from Exile Devaltos’s Coffee.

People are going to whine, trying to make them use common sense first is near impossible. Expecting people to whine only about the same things you do is absurd.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.28 13:57:00 - [223]
 

Well, that's people for you. Most whines accomplish nothing, but at least people vents frustration out. A bit.

In my case, I mine almost exclusively, and I am against canflippers being flagged. I can't even pilot an Iteron I, and I'm against gankers getting insurance payout time after time. Actually, as I close the browser, I automatically stop caring. I am only posting here because I cannot log in and play.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.28 14:08:00 - [224]
 

Originally by: Darius Brinn


In 0.0 warfare, where lots of BSs blast at each other, both sides get roughly the same percentage of their loses back, per ship lost. Ganking and a battle seem very different to me, because the gankee loses are not insurable, while the pirate's are. Practically in full, but a few T1 modules. Not to mention there is supposed to be a difference between 0.0 and Empire.



I hate to sound patronising, but you've rather missed the point. It's my fault, because you've made it clear you don't have much 0.0 experience, and I should have been more explicit.
The ship losses are small compared to the value of a well-placed station system. There's no insurance on those stations at all. A large faction POS with good fittings can very easily run to well over a billion ISK, and it can (and often will) be shot while the owners are not even logged in - insured BS are a primary tool for doing this. There is no insurance on POS either.

In short: Alliance 'A' can use "free" ships to destroy or take very high value assets from Alliance 'B'. Losing a single Promethium or Dysprosium moon makes a freighter gank seem like no more than an irritation in comparison, and a hulk loss is simply laughable.

Now you say that alliance 'B' will "blast" alliance 'A', but I can tell you that this is not always the case. Plenty of Alliance 'B's put up surprisingly minimal resistance - check some COAD threads about KOS, Xelas, DMC and so forth. Large, rich alliances regularly lose hugely valuable assets because they are not prepared to make a defence in proportion to the value of their assets. And a primary tool used in defeating such alliances is the insured battleship.

Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2008.03.28 14:32:00 - [225]
 

Originally by: Darius Brinn
On the can flipping thing, my one and only opinion is that it should not flag flippers. Jettisonned stuff is thrash by definition. CCP could easily make much bigger secure containers.

One mechanic allows an increased reward for an increased risk.
The other allows an increased reward for no additional risk.

Guess which is which, and thus which is balanced.

Nyabinghi
Minmatar
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
Posted - 2008.03.28 14:47:00 - [226]
 

And...Any second now a Dev is gonna post something in his blog about addressing these issues...Yep, aaaany second now...

Faxtarious
Minmatar
Kai-Zen Security
Posted - 2008.03.28 14:49:00 - [227]
 

I'm an eve citizen and I approuve of this message.

PS: can OP get a sticky

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.28 15:56:00 - [228]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Darius Brinn


In 0.0 warfare, where lots of BSs blast at each other, both sides get roughly the same percentage of their loses back, per ship lost. Ganking and a battle seem very different to me, because the gankee loses are not insurable, while the pirate's are. Practically in full, but a few T1 modules. Not to mention there is supposed to be a difference between 0.0 and Empire.



I hate to sound patronising, but you've rather missed the point. It's my fault, because you've made it clear you don't have much 0.0 experience, and I should have been more explicit.
The ship losses are small compared to the value of a well-placed station system. There's no insurance on those stations at all. A large faction POS with good fittings can very easily run to well over a billion ISK, and it can (and often will) be shot while the owners are not even logged in - insured BS are a primary tool for doing this. There is no insurance on POS either.

In short: Alliance 'A' can use "free" ships to destroy or take very high value assets from Alliance 'B'. Losing a single Promethium or Dysprosium moon makes a freighter gank seem like no more than an irritation in comparison, and a hulk loss is simply laughable.

Now you say that alliance 'B' will "blast" alliance 'A', but I can tell you that this is not always the case. Plenty of Alliance 'B's put up surprisingly minimal resistance - check some COAD threads about KOS, Xelas, DMC and so forth. Large, rich alliances regularly lose hugely valuable assets because they are not prepared to make a defence in proportion to the value of their assets. And a primary tool used in defeating such alliances is the insured battleship.


You don't sound patronising at all. It is a concise explanation that I appreciate.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.28 16:27:00 - [229]
 

Originally by: Darius Brinn

You don't sound patronising at all. It is a concise explanation that I appreciate.


Good. I hope the simile is not lost on you. Alliances who disregard the need to spend time and resources on defending themselves will risk losing their space; player who do the same will risk losing their ships. Suicide ganking is merely the mechanism whereby that happens in hi-sec, just as it is (effectively) in kill the cyno jammer ops.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.28 16:46:00 - [230]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Darius Brinn

You don't sound patronising at all. It is a concise explanation that I appreciate.


Good. I hope the simile is not lost on you. Alliances who disregard the need to spend time and resources on defending themselves will risk losing their space; player who do the same will risk losing their ships. Suicide ganking is merely the mechanism whereby that happens in hi-sec, just as it is (effectively) in kill the cyno jammer ops.


But what if we analyze time, isk, skill training time and effort? Doesn't is seem like all pirates have to do is tackle and blast away in disposable stuff losing nothing, while the solutions proposed to haulers include words like "Occator", "Viator", "Nano rigged" and other things also lightyears from what many a gankee can afford? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but a mere 150 millions can pay up for 3 to 5 cheaply fitted Brutix-class battlecruisers. They KNOW they're going to lose them, but will probably make...80% back? More, even? That leaves in this example 30 millions of loss, between 3 to 5 people, right?

Now, remember they're going to lose it ONLY if they find a worthy prey. Aren't 3 to 5 of those ships able to vaporize any Industrial ships? Plus, if the Indy can drop 30 millions between modules and cargo, it will be popped. 30 millions sounds like ridiculously low for a threshold. You might argue that nobody will arrange a few Battlecruisers for 30 millions, but if they end up having a laugh and losing nothing, they might shoot a lowly prey rather than no prey. I am positive that some egos are killboard-dependent and some people cannot go to bed if they don't get the chance to write "YARRRRR!" at least one through corp chat.

I extract much valuable information of this thread, though I'm not exactly satisfied.

Ga'len
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2008.03.28 16:54:00 - [231]
 

Great post, needed to be said.

Every now and again we all have a "Buddhist Moment of Enlightenment" where we make a mistake and we pay for it dearly, either loosing our ship and/or pod. Those who accept that enlightenment and grow from the experience is the kind of player that will do well in EVE. That's where the challenge lies and that's a big part of the fun of this game.

It's something unique to EVE and if you can't see yourself learning and growing as a player, if you spend countless hours whining about loosing a ship because you did not evaluate the situation or you were not paying attention, then you need to go elsewhere.


Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.28 17:14:00 - [232]
 

Edited by: Malcanis on 28/03/2008 17:29:26
Originally by: Darius Brinn


Now, remember they're going to lose it ONLY if they find a worthy prey. Aren't 3 to 5 of those ships able to vaporize any Industrial ships? Plus, if the Indy can drop 30 millions between modules and cargo, it will be popped. 30 millions sounds like ridiculously low for a threshold. You might argue that nobody will arrange a few Battlecruisers for 30 millions, but if they end up having a laugh and losing nothing, they might shoot a lowly prey rather than no prey. I am positive that some egos are killboard-dependent and some people cannot go to bed if they don't get the chance to write "YARRRRR!" at least one through corp chat.

I extract much valuable information of this thread, though I'm not exactly satisfied.


Here's a hint: a lot of people conflate different ganking methods, either from ignorance or due to mendacity.

If some muppet flys around with an unfitted iteron I full of Zydrine, then sure, he can be ganked by 10-day old trial characters. In fact about 6 months ago, during the last wave of suicide ganking tears, this one guy was flying AFK in an unfitted Buzzard with a hold full of blueprints, and came on the forums wailing for sympathy and rule changes because he got nailed by a 7-day old character in a destroyer. I'm sure you can imagine the response he got. But doing stuff like taking out a hulk with just one cruiser takes rather a lot of skillpoints. It is by no means something you can do with a disposable alt. In fact you pretty much need Cruiser 5, Medium whatever turret 5 and pretty good support skills.

Like wise, these freighter ganks you worry about. They are not done by dudes in Kestrels. They are done by guys with high levels in large guns and battleships, as well has heavy drones, and all the support skills those imply. That's why many of us are derisive of the chicken littles who cry doom. Assembling and equipping a couple of dozen highly skilled pilots to wait around in hi-sec for hours for one specific target who may drop no loot is not a trivial undertaking.

Now first off, I hope you can agree that anyone who flies AFK with a valuable cargo deserves no sympathy or consideration whatsoever if he loses it. Thus we need not consider any ganking of AFK ships at all.

So really we have 2 classes of suicide ganks

(1) Ships that can be taken out by trial alts (ie: in ships no larger than destroyers) like noobships, untanked iteron IIIs and the like.

(2) Ships that require serious skillpoints to take down like freighters, properly fitted hulks, blockade runners etc.

In class 1, we have ships with greater or lesser values of cargo.
Weak ships with low-value cargo are only going to be of interest to new players with few assets. Sure, experienced players with gank alts could pop them, but it wouldn't really be worth their while when they know there are much richer prizes out there. So the new player in hi-sec really only has to fear his own kind in this respect, unless he has sold GTC, bought ISK or been given ISK and resources far above the level a player of his experience would normally have. Which leads us too...
Weak ships with high value cargo. Now it is obvious to just about everybody that if you fly a slow, vulnerable ship with a high value cargo, you're asking for trouble. The only game change that will possibly protect these people is to simply disable hi-sec PvP. They're pretty much on the same level as the AFKers.

In Class 2, we have the ships that require "real" characters to gank. Trial alts won't do it - millions of SP in Command and Gunnery are required. Now these dudes don't work cheap, so they have a high expectation of reward: if they're going to wait 3 or 4 hours for a gank, then they'll expect to make at least 100M in profit (since you can get that much from L4 missioning or 0.0 ratting). That means the target has to have about 250M per ganker in cargo or mods. For a freighter, that means a cargo with a value in excess of 1.5B at the very minimum.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.28 17:28:00 - [233]
 

Edited by: Malcanis on 28/03/2008 17:32:24
Now when you're talking about that kind of value is it truly unreasonable to ask the pilot to take significant precautions? I certainly would!
Is the cargo bulky? If not, use a different kind of ship to move it. If you have a couple of billion ISk worth of Zydrine to move, don't for love's sake put it in a freighter! If you can fly a freighter, you are less than 2000 SP away from flying a blockade runner. Put your Zyd in that. If you're moving Faction/Officer mods or implants, which are even less bulky, use a supertanked Drake or Abbadon or Rokh or whatever. If you're willing to spend rather less than the cost of a freighter, you can make a Rokh with over three hundred thousand effective HP, or so EFT tells me.
OK so your cargo is bulky: you're moving a bunch of T2 frigates to market or wherever. well for a start, the ganking gang just got larger; they'll need about half a freighter worth of hauling capacity to haul off their loot. Whatever they can't scoop and scoop fast, they lose. So their profit threshold has skyrocketed. The freighter must be carrying several billion ISk worth of such things to be worth ganking - making a corp or even alliance op with scouts, counter-suicide alts, webbers, command ships, etc even more reasonable to expect.

All the above cases presuppose that the ganker is operating for reasons of profit. For instances like the jihadswarm, they're aren't interested in profit, although possibly some rational objective like interdicting an enemy alliance supply chain masked in the normal goonish modus operandi is involved. In these cases monetary considerations are obviously not primary, although of course they will eventually become relevant.

In all the cases I have listed, denying the ganker insurance is either inappropriate (why protect people who refuse to protect themselves?) or ineffective (what's the point in levying ISK penalties when ISK isn't the motivation?). So the reason players such as Avon and myself oppose a rule change is that it's a very bad precedent to penalise a legitimate in-game profession simply on the basis that some players disapprove of it.

Mission farming arguably has a vastly greater effect on the economy and the game than even ten times the current level of suicide ganking could possibly have, even if it's effects are more subtle and less personal. That's just one example.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.28 18:01:00 - [234]
 

As you say, I have no sympathy for those who do not help themselves. Most valuable thing I must have hauled is a couple of +4 implants, 1 jump, from 1.0 to 0.9, and I was so paranoid that first I checked the map to see if the area was hot in kills, and also previously came out in a shuttle to see if there were any stationed ships at the gates. I have also never used autopilot. Ever, for nothing.

I also despise can flippers, but understand (and endorse) that jettisoned stuff is considered thrash. A Hulk with 6 millions in the lows can haul 15m3, more than half a can. My newbie Retriever has 3251m3 worth of cargohold, enough for a few hundred thousands every 5 minutes (I need less than 2 cycles to fill it up).

I understand and like the risk vs reward balances, like the one Avon explained. Though think of it like this:

-Pirates gank: they make ISK, hauler loses.
-Pirates fail at ganking: they lose unnoticeable amounts of ISK.

So, whether they succeed or not, insurance alone makes it worth it. They never lose. They don't really have to plan, or to think. They can give it as many wild tries as they see fit. They can act a fool and screw it up. Because they're getting it back. One successful hauler killed in ten tries, and their losses come exactly to cero.

It is rather an exercise of study, planning and preparation for the hauler, while the gankers can goof around and perform poorly and nothing happens to them.

You say to haulers "Haul properly and be careful, or PAY the consequences". Gankers don't have to be careful, or successful. They always win, or at least, never lose. There are (according to you) hordes of mediocre gankers not doing their "job" properly. Nothing happens to them. But what happens to a mediocre hauler? He can lose everything in one shot.

All pirates risk, happens to be insured. Almost nothing haulers risk is insured, as a matter of fact.

Gankers don't have to help themselves. Only haulers do.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.28 18:48:00 - [235]
 

Jeez, I went and analysed this so thoroughly for you.

Are you talking about noobs or skilled up pilots?

Noobs? Then I don't care if they didn't lose anything, the hauler shouldn't have been using a ship vulnerable to noobs. Too bad, please come again.

Skilled? Then they take a sec hit and they spend hours of their valuable time for an uncertain reward. They risk miscalculating and not killing the hauler. They risk no suitable target appearing.

Raven Pilot 'A' spends 4 hours ratting: he makes ~100M ISK

Raven Pilot 'B' spends 4 hours on the Jita gate in Perimiter: he makes 0 ISK (likely) or 250M ISK (less likely).

Not all risks are the same. The mistake you are making is to only consider from the instant when the ganker presses F1-F8. You have to consider the operation as a whole.

And to reiterate a point made many, many posts ago: there is no evidence that ganking is actually a serious problem. If it were, then almost no-one would AFK haul valuables - at which point ganking would become highly unprofitable. It's funny how people who moan that "0.0 is safer than hi-sec" do not, in fact, actually move their operations to 0.0

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.28 19:01:00 - [236]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Jeez, I went and analysed this so thoroughly for you.


Hey, I do appreciate it.

Originally by: Malcanis
Are you talking about noobs or skilled up pilots?

Noobs? Then I don't care if they didn't lose anything, the hauler shouldn't have been using a ship vulnerable to noobs. Too bad, please come again.


But...noobs can pilot a T1 fitted Brutix. They can successfully gank ships not particularly vulnerable. They can, actually, vaporize most Hulks, which is not a noob ship.

Originally by: Malcanis
Skilled? Then they take a sec hit and they spend hours of their valuable time for an uncertain reward. They risk miscalculating and not killing the hauler. They risk no suitable target appearing.

Raven Pilot 'A' spends 4 hours ratting: he makes ~100M ISK

Raven Pilot 'B' spends 4 hours on the Jita gate in Perimiter: he makes 0 ISK (likely) or 250M ISK (less likely)

Not all risks are the same. The mistake you are making is to only consider from the instant when the ganker presses F1-F8. You have to consider the operation as a whole.


You are also considering gankers need to spend hours preparing themselves and waiting. Not at all. In a similar scenario, a ganker is doing missions with his Raven, then he spots a prey, calls for backup (or not) and ganks it if he can. They CAN and I'm sure they DO devote themselves to many activities, not merely waiting at a gate.

Originally by: Malcanis
And to reiterate a point made many, many posts ago: there is no evidence that ganking is actually a serious problem. If it were, then almost no-one would AFK haul valuables - at which point ganking would become highly unprofitable. It's funny how people who moan that "0.0 is safer than hi-sec" do not, in fact, actually move their operations to 0.0


Please notice I have acknowledge this several times. I have been saying that it is not my personal problem (yet), nor have I even got to see such phenomenon happening near me. This is (I think) irrelevant.

Selene Lunaglaux
Trit for the Trit Throne
Posted - 2008.03.28 19:34:00 - [237]
 

Edited by: Selene Lunaglaux on 28/03/2008 19:36:59
Originally by: Malcanis
In these cases monetary considerations are obviously not primary, although of course they will eventually become relevant.


Originally by: Malcanis
. . . or ineffective (what's the point in levying ISK penalties when ISK isn't the motivation?).


I agree with nearly everything you've written in your last two posts except for the second quote. The reason denying gankers who aren't motivated by isk insurance is effective is acknowledged by you in the first quote: monetary considerations eventually become relevant. Deny or reduce insurance payments and they become relevant faster.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.28 19:38:00 - [238]
 

Originally by: Darius Brinn
Originally by: Malcanis
Jeez, I went and analysed this so thoroughly for you.


Hey, I do appreciate it.

Originally by: Malcanis
Are you talking about noobs or skilled up pilots?

Noobs? Then I don't care if they didn't lose anything, the hauler shouldn't have been using a ship vulnerable to noobs. Too bad, please come again.


But...noobs can pilot a T1 fitted Brutix. They can successfully gank ships not particularly vulnerable. They can, actually, vaporize most Hulks, which is not a noob ship.

Originally by: Malcanis
Skilled? Then they take a sec hit and they spend hours of their valuable time for an uncertain reward. They risk miscalculating and not killing the hauler. They risk no suitable target appearing.

Raven Pilot 'A' spends 4 hours ratting: he makes ~100M ISK

Raven Pilot 'B' spends 4 hours on the Jita gate in Perimiter: he makes 0 ISK (likely) or 250M ISK (less likely)

Not all risks are the same. The mistake you are making is to only consider from the instant when the ganker presses F1-F8. You have to consider the operation as a whole.


You are also considering gankers need to spend hours preparing themselves and waiting. Not at all. In a similar scenario, a ganker is doing missions with his Raven, then he spots a prey, calls for backup (or not) and ganks it if he can. They CAN and I'm sure they DO devote themselves to many activities, not merely waiting at a gate.

Originally by: Malcanis
And to reiterate a point made many, many posts ago: there is no evidence that ganking is actually a serious problem. If it were, then almost no-one would AFK haul valuables - at which point ganking would become highly unprofitable. It's funny how people who moan that "0.0 is safer than hi-sec" do not, in fact, actually move their operations to 0.0


Please notice I have acknowledge this several times. I have been saying that it is not my personal problem (yet), nor have I even got to see such phenomenon happening near me. This is (I think) irrelevant.


Ganking in mission ravens? Rolling Eyes

LOL! Be serious.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.28 19:45:00 - [239]
 

Edited by: Malcanis on 28/03/2008 19:48:05
Originally by: Selene Lunaglaux
Edited by: Selene Lunaglaux on 28/03/2008 19:36:59
Originally by: Malcanis
In these cases monetary considerations are obviously not primary, although of course they will eventually become relevant.


Originally by: Malcanis
. . . or ineffective (what's the point in levying ISK penalties when ISK isn't the motivation?).


I agree with nearly everything you've written in your last two posts except for the second quote. The reason denying gankers who aren't motivated by isk insurance is effective is acknowledged by you in the first quote: monetary considerations eventually become relevant. Deny or reduce insurance payments and they become relevant faster.


But why should we?

If alliance A knows that alliance B is running all its supply missions with NPC Corp freighter alts, why should alliance A not receive insurance for ships lost ganking those freighters when they would receive insurance for shops lost attacking a cyno jammer belonging to alliance B?

Again, this comes back to thinking that suicide ganking is in some fashion inherently wrong and needs to be discouraged. No it doesn't. It's an intentional mechanism to provide the risk of non-consensual combat in hi-sec. And after the Alliance 'P' nerf, it's just about the only effective mechanism left- which is why it gets singled out for so much attention.

Selene Lunaglaux
Trit for the Trit Throne
Posted - 2008.03.28 19:51:00 - [240]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
But why should we?


A different question from whether it would be effective or not. I am ambivalent and have nothing to add. Perhaps I was a bit nitpicky. :P


Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 : last (11)

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