These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

STOP PAYING INSURANCE FOR CONCORD KILLS
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Henriette Malia Alette
Doomheim
#61 - 2011-10-14 20:10:27 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Henriette Malia Alette wrote:
Its not false
Yes it is. Just take a look at the payouts vs. the investment cost.
Quote:
WHAT IS AT RISK for a ganker
That the reward does not cover the net cost, obviously. Not to mention that, if you're too enthusiastic, you might risk not even having a chance to gank at all…



Lets hold onto that image shall we - i just checked.
A new brutix (newly painted and washed) at jita lowest sell: 23 million
A max insured Brutix: 19 Million

So - youre claiming at 4 million is "THE RISK" when earning potentially: xx miillions? (and that is at a hulk gank)... lets - take a few steps back - and go to where ure argument utterly begins failing.

1 scanning scout at gate - the poor industrial sod in a sigl - the newbie that finally bought his 2 first plex - and ure brutix for astounding 23 million.. insured ofc. He loose his sigil, u loose a brutix, u gain - we are on a 50/50 spree - 1 Plex - for what.. 410 million ? - just one out of hundreds of ganks against haulers each day.. wow.. i can see the devistation as ure insurance wont pay u the 4 millions .. it must be keeping u sleepless at nights...

And that dont cover the net cost? O.o - i think we AGAIN can establish - that RISK vs REWARD coming to the gankers "line of griefing", are indeed a fat REWARD, with zero risk...

Thank you for once again proving that ganker-insurance has to go for just getting SOME RISK involved in ganking.
Llanthas
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2011-10-14 20:11:32 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Llanthas wrote:
So we're supposed to feel bad for the ganker
No. We're not supposed to feel bad for anyone. Why would you? And how is that in any way relevant?


Jesus, at least TRY to follow along. The previous point was made that there was no risk of loss to the ganker. You countered by saying that there is a risk of loss because they might not successfully gank the target. I argued that the risk of 20-30 mil for the ganker (offset by insurance, of course), is pitiful compared to the near certain loss of 200+mil for the miner being ganked.

You're not even following your own argument. You're blatently sniping and trolling this thread. It's getting more than a little old. Do your homework and go to bed.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#63 - 2011-10-14 20:15:52 UTC
Llanthas wrote:
Jesus, at least TRY to follow along.
At least try to stay on topic.
Quote:
The previous point was made that there was no risk of loss to the ganker.
Which is false.
It also has nothing to do with whom we are “supposed to feel bad for”.
Quote:
I argued that the risk of 20-30 mil for the ganker (offset by insurance, of course), is pitiful compared to the near certain loss of 200+mil for the miner being ganked.
So what? Its his choice if he want to use that expensive a ship for what he expects to be pitiful rewards and if he expects to lose it so often that it makes any difference.

He can mitigate his risks just as the ganker can. If he chooses not to, then it's his problem.
Quote:
You're not even following your own argument.
How so?
Llanthas
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#64 - 2011-10-14 20:20:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Llanthas
Tippia wrote:
Llanthas wrote:
Jesus, at least TRY to follow along.
At least try to stay on topic.


snipe/troll

Quote:
[Which is false.
It also has nothing to do with whom we are “supposed to feel bad for”.


snipe/.troll

Quote:
So what? Its his choice if he want to use that expensive a ship for what he expects to be pitiful rewards and if he expects to lose it so often that it makes any difference.

He can mitigate his risks just as the ganker can. If he chooses not to, then it's his problem.

Now you've encouraged everyone to stop using higher-level mining equipment. you're on a roll.

Quote:
How so?

Already pointed it out. Many times. Go. To. Bed.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#65 - 2011-10-14 20:24:58 UTC
Henriette Malia Alette wrote:
Lets hold onto that image shall we - i just checked.
A new brutix (newly painted and washed) at jita lowest sell: 23 million
A max insured Brutix: 19 Million
No. Max insured Brutix — Payout 19.1M minus the insurance cost of 5.7M, and that's before we've included the cost of fittings.
Quote:
So - youre claiming at 4 million is "THE RISK" when earning potentially: xx miillions? (and that is at a hulk gank)...
No. I'm claiming that a ~10M investment and the chance of getting no returns on that investment is the risk.
Quote:
lets - take a few steps back - and go to where ure argument utterly begins failing. […] And that dont cover the net cost?
How does the argument fail? Yes, if done right, and if you're lucky to come across an idiot target, and if you're lucky with the drop, and if you're lucky with the gank itself, you might earn money… none of which changes the fact that there is risk to go along with that reward.
Quote:
i think we AGAIN can establish - that RISK vs REWARD coming to the gankers "line of griefing", are indeed a fat REWARD, with zero risk...
Only if you forget what you just wrote, in which you displayed (incorrectly, but still) that there is indeed far more than zero risk.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#66 - 2011-10-14 20:29:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Llanthas wrote:
snipe/troll
In other words: you have no counter-argument. You have no reasoning. You have no proof.

Case closed.
Quote:
Now you've encouraged everyone to stop using higher-level mining equipment.
Only if they think it's not worth it. It's actually a pretty good advice.
Quote:
Already pointed it out. Many times.
No, you didn't and no you haven't, for the simple reason that you've only made the claim once without backing it up (of course, because you are unable to do so). So it is impossible for you to have pointed it out many times. Of course, you've not even pointed it out once, and once again can't provide any kind of proof, reasoning or argument and instead have to resort to the weak (and ultimately failed) hope of being able to shout the problem away.
Llanthas
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#67 - 2011-10-14 20:29:33 UTC
Tippia wrote:
No. Max insured Brutix — Payout 19.1M minus the insurance cost of 5.7M, and that's before we've included the cost of fittings.

Compared to a 300 mil+ investment by the miner.
Quote:
No. I'm claiming that a ~10M investment and the chance of getting no returns on that investment is the risk.

Compared to a 300mil+ investment by the miner who risks getting the fuckin' thing blown up after mining 2 blocks of ice.
Quote:
How does the argument fail? Yes, if done right, and if you're lucky to come across an idiot target, and if you're lucky with the drop, and if you're lucky with the gank itself, you might earn money… none of which changes the fact that there is risk to go along with that reward.

Compared to a 300 mil+ investment by the miner.
Quote:
i think we AGAIN can establish - that RISK vs REWARD coming to the gankers "line of griefing", are indeed a fat REWARD, with zero risk...
Only if you forget what you just wrote, in which you displayed (incorrectly, but still) that there is indeed far more than zero risk.[/quote]
Yes, gankers risk possibly losing money on an idiotic griefing tactic. Compared to a 300 mil+ investment by the miner.

The scale is completely different and not balanced whatsoever. your argument is flawed.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#68 - 2011-10-14 20:32:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Llanthas wrote:
Compared to a 300 mil+ investment by the miner.
So what? Just because the miner has his investment doesn't remove the risk for the ganker.
Quote:
Yes, gankers risk possibly losing money on an idiotic griefing tactic.
Thank you. So you can stop with the idiotic and uninformed “there is no risk” argument because it is 100% false.
Quote:
The scale is completely different and not balanced whatsoever.
If the miner is an idiot, yes. That's his problem — not a problem with ganking. The solution to that is for the miner to play smarter.
Llanthas
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2011-10-14 20:35:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Llanthas
Tippia wrote:
Llanthas wrote:
snipe/troll
In other words: you have no counter-argument. You have no reasoning. You have no proof.

Case closed.

Feel free to read the last 4 pages. I'm not typing it again.

Quote:
]Only if they think it's not worth it. It's actually a pretty good advice.

Which counters your previous point that ganking "moves the economy". Pathetic.

Quote:
Quote:
Already pointed it out. Many times.
No, you didn't and no you haven't, for the simple reason that you've only made the claim once without backing it up (of course, because you are unable to do so). So it is impossible for you to have pointed it out many times. Of course, you've not even pointed it out once, and once again can't provide any kind of proof, reasoning or argument and instead have to resort to the weak (and ultimately failed) hope of being able to shout the problem away.


The problem is trolls. Obviously shouting doesn't work, so I'm done responding to this nonsense. This game mechanic is broken, and a band of idiots wants to exploit it and ruin the fun for everyone in highsec. Your purpose is to snipe or troll every post until we give up. That pushes players out of the game. Which leaves you and 10,000 other screaming idiots popping each others ships for a month until you realize that nobody's sticking around to make more for you. Then the game dies. Excellent strategy for griefing CCP and the entire playerbase. Well done.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#70 - 2011-10-14 20:40:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Llanthas wrote:
Feel free to read the last 4 pages. I'm not typing it again.
I have, and I know, hence the conclusion: you have no counter-argument. You have no reasoning. You have no proof.
Quote:
Which counters your previous point that ganking "moves the economy".
No it doesn't. It just means that he matches his investment with his projected costs and returns, all of which keep the economy moving.
Quote:
The problem is trolls.
Stop being one then, and instead present some arguments, reasoning and proof. In particular, you can start trying to answer the questions that need to answered in order to show that a problem actually exists:

Why should CCP stop 90% of the suicide ganks that currently happen?
Why are the current consequences not enough?
Why should CCP auto-minimize the risks for you?
How do you propose to increase the inherent risks of highsec activities if the risk of ganking is reduced?
Quote:
This game mechanic is broken
Prove it.
Henriette Malia Alette
Doomheim
#71 - 2011-10-14 20:54:09 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Henriette Malia Alette wrote:
Lets hold onto that image shall we - i just checked.
A new brutix (newly painted and washed) at jita lowest sell: 23 million
A max insured Brutix: 19 Million
No. Max insured Brutix — Payout 19.1M minus the insurance cost of 5.7M, and that's before we've included the cost of fittings.
Quote:
So - youre claiming at 4 million is "THE RISK" when earning potentially: xx miillions? (and that is at a hulk gank)...
No. I'm claiming that a ~10M investment and the chance of getting no returns on that investment is the risk.
Quote:
lets - take a few steps back - and go to where ure argument utterly begins failing. […] And that dont cover the net cost?
How does the argument fail? Yes, if done right, and if you're lucky to come across an idiot target, and if you're lucky with the drop, and if you're lucky with the gank itself, you might earn money… none of which changes the fact that there is risk to go along with that reward.
Quote:
i think we AGAIN can establish - that RISK vs REWARD coming to the gankers "line of griefing", are indeed a fat REWARD, with zero risk...
Only if you forget what you just wrote, in which you displayed (incorrectly, but still) that there is indeed far more than zero risk.



So u agree - that 10 mio isk for a possible gain of hundreds of millions are the risk ? - i mean seriously? - 10 million ?

And that is youre sole argument for keeping insurance for ganker-ships ? claiming Risk vs reward ? - u risk 10 mio, to gain hundreds of mio's, a miner risk 200 mio to gain 10 mio/hour - and thats "risk vs reward" ? - the only thing u so far proven is - Risk vs reward is at best a utterly failed argument for ganking - and u still havent managed to put up even 1 good argument for why gankers should have insurance... 90% of all ganks isnt a "oh, i might get a reward", it is a cetainty... ppl get ganked constantly in theyre mission ships, hauling, etc... and u risk 10 mio ? - wow... i can definetly see why CCP should continue keep repaying u the potiental 19 mio u stand at loose,. while blowing away a ship worth hundreds of mio's..

But - lets get down to facts here - ure a ganker - im sure u keep track of costs and losses:
How much has u earned in avg in a day, vs lost ? (PLZ do remember to add the insurance payback u got)

Further more, how many of those ganks would u actually done if u wouldnt get any insurance payback ?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#72 - 2011-10-14 21:06:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Henriette Malia Alette wrote:
So u agree - that 10 mio isk for a possible gain of hundreds of millions are the risk ? - i mean seriously? - 10 million ?
Still no. ~10M investment plus the risk of not finding a suitable target plus the risk of the target surviving plus the risk of the cargo not surviving… and we're not talking about ganking miners at this point, are we, so let's keep the perspectives correct.
Quote:
u risk 10 mio, to gain hundreds of mio's, a miner risk 200 mio to gain 10 mio/hour
No. You risk 10M + the time for all of the above, for a highly random and uncontrollable (net) gain of maybe 10-20M. The miner risks as little as 10M for a steady and very safe 5M/h… If he feels the risks are low enough (and they most certainly are), he can upgrade his rig and earn more, but that is his choice and his risk-vs-reward calculation. It usually pays for itself more than enough to be worth it.

…just like the ganker can choose to risk 200-300M to get a much higher reward (by not going after such a worthless target as a miner). He must also make the same calculation and figure out if it will pay for itself.
Quote:
and u still havent managed to put up even 1 good argument for why gankers should have insurance
Because it encourages ship loss.
Quote:
How much has u earned in avg in a day, vs lost ? (PLZ do remember to add the insurance payback u got)
I wouldn't know. I don't gank. Nor do I ever get ganked. That's how I can tell that the risks for the receiving end are absolutely minute.

From what I understand from the goons, most mining ganks are not made for profit, but for fun. So that's pretty much infinite risk vs. reward…
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#73 - 2011-10-14 21:18:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
Lets talk about risk.....

What are the risks to a hulk sitting in a belt?
NPC rats and Suicide gankers. Even in a 0.5 system, rats pose NO real threat to a hulk.
That leaves suicide gankers.

The argument I keep hearing is that suicide gankers risk so little (a brutix) to kill that hulk. Therefore, the insurance on suicide gankers should be null and void. This way, its much more unprofitable gank the hulk. If this reduces ganking of hulks by 60-90%, that essentially reduces the risks of flying that hulk by 60-90%. If you need less risk, then shouldn't you also get less rewards!

What would be a compromise then? Reduce the mining yield of empire mining by 60-90%?

There are plenty of ways to reduce the risk of loss in this game. One scimi can perma run 2 large shield transporters on 2 hulks simultaneously, thereby allowing them to easily tank 1-2 bruitix's. An industrialist can RISK transporting his stuff in a badger, or he can move it more safely in a BS or Freighter or pay someone to move it for him.

This game is about RISK.... If you undock, you RISK being blown up, no matter where you are!!!! Quit whining at that the game mechanics support this.. EvE has ALWAYS been this way, and its one of EvE's major selling points.

The risks in hi-sec are already pretty low... Get with the program, and take action to minimize your own risks. There are many in-game options to do so. Stopped being such stupid lemmings walking up to the edge of a cliff.
Llanthas
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2011-10-14 21:33:30 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Lets talk about risk.....

What are the risks to a hulk sitting in a belt?
NPC rats and Suicide gankers. Even in a 0.5 system, rats pose NO real threat to a hulk.
That leaves suicide gankers.

The argument I keep hearing is that suicide gankers risk so little (a brutix) to kill that hulk. Therefore, the insurance on suicide gankers should be null and void. This way, its much more unprofitable gank the hulk. If this reduces ganking of hulks by 60-90%, that essentially reduces the risks of flying that hulk by 60-90%. If you need less risk, then shouldn't you also get less rewards!

What would be a compromise then? Reduce the mining yield of empire mining by 60-90%?

There are plenty of ways to reduce the risk of loss in this game. One scimi can perma run 2 large shield transporters on 2 hulks simultaneously, thereby allowing them to easily tank 1-2 bruitix's. An industrialist can RISK transporting his stuff in a badger, or he can move it more safely in a BS or Freighter or pay someone to move it for him.

This game is about RISK.... If you undock, you RISK being blown up, no matter where you are!!!! Quit whining at that the game mechanics support this.. EvE has ALWAYS been this way, and its one of EvE's major selling points.

The risks in hi-sec are already pretty low... Get with the program, and take action to minimize your own risks. There are many in-game options to do so. Stopped being such stupid lemmings walking up to the edge of a cliff.


Eve has not always been this way. I played for 3 years, and put the game down for 2. I recently came back a month ago.

Until I came back, I had never had an incident in high-sec space. In 3 years. Not one.
Recently, I took my old Mackinaw out to mine a little ice and got suicide-ganked inside 5 minutes.
Just to experiment, I took a retriever out a couple days later - ganked in 5 minutes.
Went to run some missions, had a can-flipper come inside the 2nd one I ran.

The high-sec game has RADICALLY changed over the last 2 years, and not for the better. Griefing is now considered the 'norm' rather than the exception. I'm losing patience with this nonsense, and I won't be around long if these jerks are still being rewarded with insurance payouts for losing their ships to CONCORD.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#75 - 2011-10-14 21:36:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Llanthas wrote:
Eve has not always been this way.
True. It used to be much more dangerous.
Quote:
Recently, I took my old Mackinaw out to mine a little ice and got suicide-ganked inside 5 minutes.
…you mean, in the middle of the very well advertised “let's gank a mac”-campaign, which was fully funded by market speculation and against which no amount of insurance change would make any difference? The one everyone knew about and which was trivially easy to avoid? It wasn't that one by any chance?
Quote:
The high-sec game has RADICALLY changed over the last 2 years, and not for the better.
Again, agreed: it is much safer now than it used to be, which is definitely a turn for the worse.
Henriette Malia Alette
Doomheim
#76 - 2011-10-14 21:46:47 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Lets talk about risk.....

What are the risks to a hulk sitting in a belt?
NPC rats and Suicide gankers. Even in a 0.5 system, rats pose NO real threat to a hulk.
That leaves suicide gankers.

The argument I keep hearing is that suicide gankers risk so little (a brutix) to kill that hulk. Therefore, the insurance on suicide gankers should be null and void. This way, its much more unprofitable gank the hulk. If this reduces ganking of hulks by 60-90%, that essentially reduces the risks of flying that hulk by 60-90%. If you need less risk, then shouldn't you also get less rewards!

What would be a compromise then? Reduce the mining yield of empire mining by 60-90%?



LOL - gotta love the desperation.. U mine in a hulk for 200 mio to earn a measly 5 mio hour, those 5 MILLION are ure entire argument, for u bringing a Brutix, and blow him up - a action that costs u 10 mio for a payout that can run up in many millions.
WHERE ARE URE RISK ? U gankers earns MILLIONS risking Virtually nothing - ure entire argument about "a miner mining 5 million should be at RISK more then he already is". Do u actually know what the 3 most dangerious occupations are ?
Cyno, Mining and Hauling - wait.. no gankers on that list.. WHERE ARE URE RISK ? u have none.. a good drop, and ure ship are paid - the entire 10 mio... it takes a hulk 40 ! hours to gain enuff to replace a hulk.. 40.. how long does it take u ganking to replace ure brutix ? woops... argument failed... its time we even the table - no insurance, and concord PODS!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#77 - 2011-10-14 21:54:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Henriette Malia Alette wrote:
LOL - gotta love the desperation..
Why are you getting desperate?
Quote:
U mine in a hulk for 200 mio to earn a measly 5 mio hour
…is it because you're worried that we'll notice you just halved the reward for no adequately explained reason?
Quote:
a action that costs u 10 mio for a payout that can run up in many millions.
“Many” as in ”more than 10”? And why is it that you keep forgetting that he can also run up exactly zero and thus come out with a loss?
Quote:
WHERE ARE URE RISK ?
You mean aside from the ~10M investment plus the risk of not finding a suitable target plus the risk of the target surviving plus the risk of the cargo not surviving? Oh, and the risk of not even surviving long enough to get to the gank…

You also seem to think that the chance of turning a profit means that there is no risk. This is obviously false.
Quote:
U gankers earns MILLIONS risking Virtually nothing
And you base this on…?
Henriette Malia Alette
Doomheim
#78 - 2011-10-14 22:04:07 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Henriette Malia Alette wrote:
So u agree - that 10 mio isk for a possible gain of hundreds of millions are the risk ? - i mean seriously? - 10 million ?
Still no. ~10M investment plus the risk of not finding a suitable target plus the risk of the target surviving plus the risk of the cargo not surviving… and we're not talking about ganking miners at this point, are we, so let's keep the perspectives correct.
Quote:
u risk 10 mio, to gain hundreds of mio's, a miner risk 200 mio to gain 10 mio/hour
No. You risk 10M + the time for all of the above, for a highly random and uncontrollable (net) gain of maybe 10-20M. The miner risks as little as 10M for a steady and very safe 5M/h… If he feels the risks are low enough (and they most certainly are), he can upgrade his rig and earn more, but that is his choice and his risk-vs-reward calculation. It usually pays for itself more than enough to be worth it.

…just like the ganker can choose to risk 200-300M to get a much higher reward (by not going after such a worthless target as a miner). He must also make the same calculation and figure out if it will pay for itself.
Quote:
and u still havent managed to put up even 1 good argument for why gankers should have insurance
Because it encourages ship loss.
Quote:
How much has u earned in avg in a day, vs lost ? (PLZ do remember to add the insurance payback u got)
I wouldn't know. I don't gank. Nor do I ever get ganked. That's how I can tell that the risks for the receiving end are absolutely minute.

From what I understand from the goons, most mining ganks are not made for profit, but for fun. So that's pretty much infinite risk vs. reward…


U said "The miner risks as little as 10M for a steady and very safe 5M/h" - can u please tell me where i can find hulks for 10 mio ? - i mean.. really? - i want a hulk for 10 mio.. actually - let me have 2.. just incase.. "it has to have risk"...
Lets get down the numbers... i mine 1 hour, i risk 200 mio to gain 5.
U gank one time, u risk loosing 10 mio, to gain.. 100s of millions.. erh.. wait.. what ?!? O.o - and lets not go into the entire side-bonus - u get a kill, u get some nice "pts" for it, so - where are ure risk again? - oh right, there are none... i can follow ure argument - really... i can.. "i wanna be able to grief ppl, and get rewarded, with no loss - no risk - bcause they should be at risk.. but not me..".. wait.. huh ? - either there are proportional risk and reward - for anyone, or there isnt...

And then we have the ganking of haulers... mission ships... uhm, wait.. u didnt actually scan him to see if he was worth it, u just wanted to.. uhm.. test if u could.. lock ? Or, are u gonna argument, that there is a risk to attack a mission ship equipped with lets say modules for 1 billion, with a 23 mio ship, which actually only costs you 4 ?? - uhm..

Oh - and Rigs dont boost mining yield, speed or anything else regarding mining - so u cant "gain more" by equipping it with rigs..

For one NOT ganking, i find it amusin ure entire argumentation so far is from a ganking "mindset", but ure not ? - right.. i.. might belive that.. maybe.. some day.. not likely.. no.. sorry..

What regards goons ganking - ure wrong - it is about profit - but not profit of drops, but profit from raising ice prices of the "nations hit" - pretty much as u would gain profit, by selling hulks and then go gank them.. wait.. there no risk in that.. O.o...

And the entire "it encourages ship losses" ? - for.. whom exactly ? - do u really think a miner saves up 200 mio, to buy a hulk, and then goes out happily knowing that if its ganked it served a greater purpose ?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#79 - 2011-10-14 22:16:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Henriette Malia Alette wrote:
U said "The miner risks as little as 10M for a steady and very safe 5M/h" - can u please tell me where i can find hulks for 10 mio ?
Why said anything about them using Hulks? I said he risks as little as 10M. He does that by picking cheaper equipment to balance out what he perceives as a high risk to lose that equipment. If he wants higher rewards, he can start upgrading, and has to balance the (not very) increased risk against the increased rewards, just like everyone else.
Quote:
Lets get down the numbers... i mine 1 hour, i risk 200 mio to gain 5.
Why is it no longer 10M/h?
Quote:
U gank one time, u risk loosing 10 mio, to gain.. 100s of millions.
…and how often does that happen?
Quote:
so - where are ure risk again?
Well, there's the ~10M investment plus the risk of not finding a suitable target plus the risk of the target surviving plus the risk of the cargo not surviving? Oh, and the risk of not even surviving long enough to get to the gank.
Quote:
And then we have the ganking of haulers... mission ships.
What do you mean by “then”? Since we're talking about 100s of millions of dropped loot, we've been talking about those all along. If you want to discuss ganking miners, you need to lop off a zero from that number.
Henriette Malia Alette
Doomheim
#80 - 2011-10-14 22:16:58 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Henriette Malia Alette wrote:
LOL - gotta love the desperation..
Why are you getting desperate?
Quote:
U mine in a hulk for 200 mio to earn a measly 5 mio hour
…is it because you're worried that we'll notice you just halved the reward for no adequately explained reason?

You also seem to think that the chance of turning a profit means that there is no risk. This is obviously false.
Quote:
U gankers earns MILLIONS risking Virtually nothing
And you base this on…?


LOL - desperate no - i thought his argument was desperate..
Then lets say 10 million... a miner works 1 hour to gain 10 million.. how long again is it it takes for u to gain 10 million.. oh right.. seconds..

Obviously false ? - i love how u work on twisting words... no, its not OBVIOUSLY false - it might not be 100% correct, but for it to be OBVIOUSLY FALSE; it would have to be 100% wrong - and its not - and we both know that.. so perhaps we can stop the nitpicking, and move onto the actual argumentation.. if its 5-7 or 10 mio, isnt really a issue - its still a very low % of the actual cost of a hulk. The miner risks 200 mio for a small %, u risk 4 mio for a potential "alot". Oh - and i do find it amusing how u "ignore" the entire scanning.. so no tonly do u know what that hauler is carrying, u also know there is $$$$$$$$$$$$$ PROFIT! - yet - its not enuff - i guess there no substitute for greed hm ?

And i base this on.. uhm.. lets see.. wait for it.. WAAAAAAAAAIT.. battleclinic? - uhm.. the tons of scoreboards there is out there?... wow.. soo much documentation to ignore...