These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

QotD: How do you measure profitability of highsec ganking?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2014-10-01 15:18:42 UTC
La Rynx wrote:
Thank you, i decide on my own what i will petition.
In Sokhars case i did before Ripard postet on his blog.

However.

RubyPorto wrote:
Statements like "Next time follow the Code as described at minerbumping.com" are the furtherance of the extortion racket, and probably not harassment (wording dependent, of course).


And i am not talking about that.
I am talking about 2 hour session, easy to follow since pictures of the convos where posted.
There is more, but i do not report and do not care minor cases.

Another question:
postal secrecy, does it exist in eve?


The human body has 7 trillion nerves...

I applaud the posters that manage to get on every one of yours.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#62 - 2014-10-01 15:23:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Veers Belvar
Charax Bouclier wrote:


Veers, I think that is an interesting post and I hope ISD folks allow this thread to continue for a bit as I would like some clarification.

Say someone ganks others without regard to a "legitimate purpose" and doesn't taunt the victim and the victim gets upset. Do you consider that harrassment?

Same question, but let's say the ganker enjoys seeing his victims lose their ships and is amused when theyy complain about being ganked but doesn't provoke more tears by word of mouth and simply blows stuff up. Is that harrassment?

I am curious if the intent of the ganker figures prominently in your assessment or is it simply observable actions?


It's pretty impossible to know real intent....so I tend to focus on actions.

1) At least in my view, is clearly fine. People are entitled to play Eve just to try and burn things down and cause mayhem, just like they are entitled to mass wardecc highsec corps, to pad killboards, etc.....

2) This is closer, but still fine in my view. When people blow up empty ships with no real killboard value, I strongly suspect they are doing it in the hopes of getting rage/tears, but as long as they don't actively start baiting for it, there is no conclusive evidence, and I think you have to give the benefit of the doubt that they are getting in-game value from it, maybe just the entertainment value of blowing things up.

Now this doesn't mean I agree with the ability of -10 sec status gankers to just blow up ship after ship every 15 minutes without stronger action by CONCORD....but at least in my view merely performing in game actions (whether its ganking, awoxing, scamming, etc...), even if those actions are likely to cause upset, is not a EULA violation/harassment or whatever.

To me it gets problematic when the situation gets escalated to back and forth chat or coms, especially when one party is clearly losing control (as opposed to a song ransom of a CCP Dev when everyone is entertained).

Now personally I think that some of the people ganking are specifically looking for the tears/anger, and are going to do their best to actively elicit them, and that's where I think the crackdown is (and should be), not on the actual in-game actions.


Edit - I think a big factor is also why there is such a movement to target "carebears" in highsec, as opposed to killing the people who are looking for a fight in low/null. Is it because

1. They don't tank ships properly and ganking is good isk (legit)
2. It's really easy to kill them (legit)
3. They fly blingy ships that look good on a KB (legit)

or is it

4. They are "carebears" and wan't to avoid PvP, and grrr.... we are going to force them to realize that Eve is a PvP game even in highsec (borderline)
5. Since they live in highsec, try to avoid PvP, and think they are protected by the law, they are much more likely to have an angry metldown when you blow their ship up and will then rage all over local, providing great entertainment value (in my view, not legit - but hard to enforce unless there is active baiting)
Monja Diste
Upde Harris Industries
#63 - 2014-10-01 15:39:22 UTC
its measured using the TPFT scale

Tears Per Forum Thread

if this is high then you have been profitable in your ganking endeavours. If low then you get a C minus, must try harder...................
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#64 - 2014-10-01 15:59:14 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:


It's pretty impossible to know real intent....so I tend to focus on actions.

1) At least in my view, is clearly fine. People are entitled to play Eve just to try and burn things down and cause mayhem, just like they are entitled to mass wardecc highsec corps, to pad killboards, etc.....

2) This is closer, but still fine in my view. When people blow up empty ships with no real killboard value, I strongly suspect they are doing it in the hopes of getting rage/tears, but as long as they don't actively start baiting for it, there is no conclusive evidence, and I think you have to give the benefit of the doubt that they are getting in-game value from it, maybe just the entertainment value of blowing things up.

Now this doesn't mean I agree with the ability of -10 sec status gankers to just blow up ship after ship every 15 minutes without stronger action by CONCORD....but at least in my view merely performing in game actions (whether its ganking, awoxing, scamming, etc...), even if those actions are likely to cause upset, is not a EULA violation/harassment or whatever.

To me it gets problematic when the situation gets escalated to back and forth chat or coms, especially when one party is clearly losing control (as opposed to a song ransom of a CCP Dev when everyone is entertained).

Now personally I think that some of the people ganking are specifically looking for the tears/anger, and are going to do their best to actively elicit them, and that's where I think the crackdown is (and should be), not on the actual in-game actions.


Edit - I think a big factor is also why there is such a movement to target "carebears" in highsec, as opposed to killing the people who are looking for a fight in low/null. Is it because

1. They don't tank ships properly and ganking is good isk (legit)
2. It's really easy to kill them (legit)
3. They fly blingy ships that look good on a KB (legit)

or is it

4. They are "carebears" and wan't to avoid PvP, and grrr.... we are going to force them to realize that Eve is a PvP game even in highsec (borderline)
5. Since they live in highsec, try to avoid PvP, and think they are protected by the law, they are much more likely to have an angry metldown when you blow their ship up and will then rage all over local, providing great entertainment value (in my view, not legit - but hard to enforce unless there is active baiting)


Spending so much time and energy worrying about what someone else "intends" when they are playing a video game is a sure indication that you should probably be more worried about your own out of game 'situation'.

Your posts always reminds me of 'goon hate'. i've spent most of the last 7 years in groups that shot Goons (IT Alliance, Raiden, NCDot, hell TEST started shooting goons while I was a member) and never once did i feel the need to crap post about goons.

Same here, I've spent 7 years avoiding ganks, learning how to not get ganked and haven't been ganked. Not once have i flet the need to post a screed about gankers. Perhaps I was to busy playing the game to worry about it....
Charax Bouclier
Silvershield Universal
#65 - 2014-10-01 16:53:37 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Charax Bouclier wrote:


Veers, I think that is an interesting post and I hope ISD folks allow this thread to continue for a bit as I would like some clarification.

Say someone ganks others without regard to a "legitimate purpose" and doesn't taunt the victim and the victim gets upset. Do you consider that harrassment?

Same question, but let's say the ganker enjoys seeing his victims lose their ships and is amused when theyy complain about being ganked but doesn't provoke more tears by word of mouth and simply blows stuff up. Is that harrassment?

I am curious if the intent of the ganker figures prominently in your assessment or is it simply observable actions?


It's pretty impossible to know real intent....so I tend to focus on actions.

1) At least in my view, is clearly fine. People are entitled to play Eve just to try and burn things down and cause mayhem, just like they are entitled to mass wardecc highsec corps, to pad killboards, etc.....

2) This is closer, but still fine in my view. When people blow up empty ships with no real killboard value, I strongly suspect they are doing it in the hopes of getting rage/tears, but as long as they don't actively start baiting for it, there is no conclusive evidence, and I think you have to give the benefit of the doubt that they are getting in-game value from it, maybe just the entertainment value of blowing things up.

Now this doesn't mean I agree with the ability of -10 sec status gankers to just blow up ship after ship every 15 minutes without stronger action by CONCORD....but at least in my view merely performing in game actions (whether its ganking, awoxing, scamming, etc...), even if those actions are likely to cause upset, is not a EULA violation/harassment or whatever.

To me it gets problematic when the situation gets escalated to back and forth chat or coms, especially when one party is clearly losing control (as opposed to a song ransom of a CCP Dev when everyone is entertained).

Now personally I think that some of the people ganking are specifically looking for the tears/anger, and are going to do their best to actively elicit them, and that's where I think the crackdown is (and should be), not on the actual in-game actions.


Edit - I think a big factor is also why there is such a movement to target "carebears" in highsec, as opposed to killing the people who are looking for a fight in low/null. Is it because

1. They don't tank ships properly and ganking is good isk (legit)
2. It's really easy to kill them (legit)
3. They fly blingy ships that look good on a KB (legit)

or is it

4. They are "carebears" and wan't to avoid PvP, and grrr.... we are going to force them to realize that Eve is a PvP game even in highsec (borderline)
5. Since they live in highsec, try to avoid PvP, and think they are protected by the law, they are much more likely to have an angry metldown when you blow their ship up and will then rage all over local, providing great entertainment value (in my view, not legit - but hard to enforce unless there is active baiting)


Re: 4

If the carebears want to avoid PvP, they can use the tankiest ship for their class to provide discouragement, but of course, that comes at a cost of lesser productivity. They can also hire out escorts if there is still a concern. Anything that forces others to be less productive makes me relatively more productive. Really, high sec is how it is defined... high security, not absolute security. For others to not push against the security status would destroy the intent of what high sec is.

Re: 5

I view it as an education process to teach them the difference on expectations of what high security means versus absolute security. It is...unfortunate...that such a learning process prompts an emotional meltdown.
Inxentas Ultramar
Ultramar Independent Contracting
#66 - 2014-10-01 16:53:48 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Or you could actually try to help other people enjoy the game instead of looking for tears...imagine that.

This game is designed around the idea that someone can always ruin your day, some of us enjoy it...imagine that.

You can do both. I help new but bright people extract tears from other people. Imagine THAT! Pirate
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#67 - 2014-10-01 16:59:06 UTC
Charax Bouclier wrote:


Re: 5

I view it as an education process to teach them the difference on expectations of what high security means versus absolute security. It is...unfortunate...that such a learning process prompts an emotional meltdown.


What I find unfortunate is that such a learning process has to take place for some people in the 1st place. Even after it does, some people react to it the wrong way.

The right way to react is to say "wow, didn't know that could happen, I better be smarter next time so that there is no next time". What we usually get, however is "this is BS, I pay for this game and the game makers shouldn't let this happen to me, off to the petition system and/or the forums I go to falsely threaten to quit unless they change this game to prevent this kind of thing!!!!".
Charax Bouclier
Silvershield Universal
#68 - 2014-10-01 17:06:47 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Charax Bouclier wrote:


Re: 5

I view it as an education process to teach them the difference on expectations of what high security means versus absolute security. It is...unfortunate...that such a learning process prompts an emotional meltdown.


What I find unfortunate is that such a learning process has to take place for some people in the 1st place. Even after it does, some people react to it the wrong way.

The right way to react is to say "wow, didn't know that could happen, I better be smarter next time so that there is no next time". What we usually get, however is "this is BS, I pay for this game and the game makers shouldn't let this happen to me, off to the petition system and/or the forums I go to falsely threaten to quit unless they change this game to prevent this kind of thing!!!!".


I think it is good that James 315 is representing one side of this discussion against the pressure that carebears exert on the developers that you make reference to. I find his manifesto very enlightening, which many of us should rally behind to maintain the integrity of what high sec really should be.

Perhaps CODE can enlist Veers as a consultant to see if these lessons can be applied as humanely as possible.
Tear Jar
New Order Logistics
CODE.
#69 - 2014-10-01 18:36:54 UTC
Charax Bouclier wrote:
Income - Cost = Profitability

I think the "cost" and "income" is open to interpretation. I'll offer up a few concepts and you're free to agree or disagree with them, and replace them with your own.

Cost

1. The value of your ship that gets CONCORDed
2. Opportunity Cost of doing alternate ISK-making activities

Income

1. What you can salvage from the wreck
2. Intrinsic pleasure of augmenting your kill statistics
3. Hearty chuckles from rage mails/whispers/local
4. EVE-O forum threads/posts about you and your corp's disreputable behavior

Certainly, some variables will be valued differently by each person. How would you algebraically weight the above variables (including variables that you come up with, if applicable) to compute whether a highsec gank was truly profitable?


Generally, I try to maintain a modest profit while having fun.
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#70 - 2014-10-01 18:38:08 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
I've spent 7 years avoiding ganks, learning how to not get ganked and haven't been ganked. Not once have i flet the need to post a screed about gankers. Perhaps I was to busy playing the game to worry about it....


Not as long as you, but the rest is the same.
Still since the sokhar / e1 incident, code and the secties of new order (not the gankers per se) are an entitiy that i can despise wholeheartly. And i like to tell them what kind of sad little people they are. Call it my kind of EvE Metagaming.

Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
Wolf Incaelum
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#71 - 2014-10-01 19:24:00 UTC
S'Way wrote:
Only thing I measure is "will I have the dps to pop the target before CONCORD saves them".

If you gank just for Isk profit you miss out on fun killmails such as that random pod with 3bil of implants in it. I rarely even bother with looting wrecks (unless the mail shows something nice).
Isk is easy to come by (just buy a PLEX and sell it), the fun in making spaceships explode is all that matters.


Not everyone has enough RL money to "just buy a PLEX and sell it" every time they need ISK. For some of us, ganking is actually a profession. Those of us who do it for the ISK actually get quite irritated with the ones like you who just do it for ***** and giggles. But that's only if you come into our hunting grounds and start taking all of our kills. We don't like it when some jerk off comes fluttering through in some ridiculously expensive, over-fit ship over and over again, killing all of our targets.

We don't like it because what happens is we miss out on the loot (which is where the profit is) because either you looted it all or you left it there for the owner to come back and reclaim everything before we've had a chance to pick it up. Not to mention that it causes the miners to actually become vigilant and tank their barges properly. If things get bad enough, they start coming out in Procs and Skiffs, which are a ***** to pop and almost always have a very low yield for dropped goodies. That assuming they'll come out to play AT ALL at that point... X A lot of times they decide to just dock up and play with their private parts for a few hours until all the boogiemen go away. Alas, I suppose that's just part of the "anyone can come ruin your day" aspect of Eve. Yes, even we pirates fall victim to other players. But I can't deny that it's a beautiful thing. Truly, NO ONE is safe, even those of us who create the lack of total safety.

ANARCHYFOREVAAARRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#72 - 2014-10-01 19:34:09 UTC
La Rynx wrote:
Thank you, i decide on my own what i will petition.
In Sokhars case i did before Ripard postet on his blog.

However.

RubyPorto wrote:
Statements like "Next time follow the Code as described at minerbumping.com" are the furtherance of the extortion racket, and probably not harassment (wording dependent, of course).


And i am not talking about that.
I am talking about 2 hour session, easy to follow since pictures of the convos where posted.
There is more, but i do not report and do not care minor cases.

Another question:
postal secrecy, does it exist in eve?


We're not talking about the Bonus Room issue here, so what's your point?

Veers is claiming a number of things that he (characteristically) is unwilling to provide evidence for:
1) Gankers gank for no legitimate in-game purpose
2) Gankers harass their targets to produce tears
3) Gankers are bad people for doing their in-game activity
4) Verbal abuse isn't really agaist the rules if you're really mad because of someone's legitimate in-game activity
and several others.

No part of this thread is about the bonus room issue. So far as I know, Erotica1 wasn't a member of Code. nor were his bonus room scams part of Code. operations, so bringing him up seems like simply attempting to pin me to an indefensible argument that I never made.

There's a twisted version of postal secrecy concerning communications between GMs and Player where, in order to protect the player's privacy, the player cannot post communications.
CCP can look at all your EVE mail whenever they want.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Wolf Incaelum
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#73 - 2014-10-01 19:46:16 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Or you could actually try to help other people enjoy the game instead of looking for tears...imagine that.


In a dog eat dog world, attitudes like this tend to belong to the dogs getting eaten rather than the dogs doing the eating. The Eve world very accurately reflects the real world. You want to get ahead in the world? Take up a profession where you screw people over and get paid to do it. It's called capitalism.

ANARCHYFOREVAAARRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#74 - 2014-10-01 19:55:21 UTC
Charax Bouclier wrote:
How would you algebraically weight the above variables (including variables that you come up with, if applicable) to compute whether a highsec gank was truly profitable?


I wouldn't, because it's far too complicated even for the most serious of internet spreadsheet games. Ganking is about pew-pew-pew-pew-BOOOOOM, with the occasional side order of splat as pods get taken out by white knights.

I compute whether a gank was profitable by this simple means: was it fun? Y/N

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#75 - 2014-10-01 20:04:25 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Veers Belvar wrote:
To me it gets problematic when the situation gets escalated to back and forth chat or coms, especially when one party is clearly losing control


So, if I respond (in a EULA compliant manner) to someone who verbally attacks me, I'm suddenly to blame? Have you met a victim you haven't wanted to blame yet?

Anyway, if you're losing control in a game, there's a big red X in the top right corner of your screen that makes everything all better while you regain the baseline level of control we expect from functioning members of society.

Quote:
(as opposed to a song ransom of a CCP Dev when everyone is entertained).

Veers Belvar wrote:
It's pretty impossible to know real intent....so I tend to focus on actions.


How is inviting someone to voice comms to get them to do a singing ransom in exchange for their stuff different from inviting them to voice comms to get them to do a singing ransom just because one ransomee gets mad? The actions are identical.

Quote:
I think a big factor is also why there is such a movement to target "carebears" in highsec, as opposed to killing the people who are looking for a fight in low/null. Is it because

1. They don't tank ships properly and ganking is good isk (legit)
2. It's really easy to kill them (legit)
3. They fly blingy ships that look good on a KB (legit)

or is it

4. They are "carebears" and wan't to avoid PvP, and grrr.... we are going to force them to realize that Eve is a PvP game even in highsec (borderline)
5. Since they live in highsec, try to avoid PvP, and think they are protected by the law, they are much more likely to have an angry metldown when you blow their ship up and will then rage all over local, providing great entertainment value (in my view, not legit - but hard to enforce unless there is active baiting)


What happened to:
Veers Belvar wrote:
It's pretty impossible to know real intent....so I tend to focus on actions.


That entire last paragraph is you railing against the intent you assign to other people's actions.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2014-10-01 22:12:54 UTC
La Rynx wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
I've spent 7 years avoiding ganks, learning how to not get ganked and haven't been ganked. Not once have i flet the need to post a screed about gankers. Perhaps I was to busy playing the game to worry about it....


Not as long as you, but the rest is the same.
Still since the sokhar / e1 incident, code and the secties of new order (not the gankers per se) are an entitiy that i can despise wholeheartly. And i like to tell them what kind of sad little people they are. Call it my kind of EvE Metagaming.


That's called 'guilt by association', and demonstrates your complete inability to show credit where credit is due, which is why no one is going to give one half a **** how sad you think they are. For me personally, your reaction tells me I'm doing it right.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Renegade Heart
Doomheim
#77 - 2014-10-01 22:32:39 UTC
dat gank though Twisted

just a game lol

no need to bully people

and veers you make some really bad assumptions sometimes
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#78 - 2014-10-01 22:45:00 UTC
Renegade Heart wrote:
dat gank though Twisted

just a game lol

no need to bully people

and veers you make some really bad assumptions sometimes


Obvious facts =/= assumptions.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#79 - 2014-10-01 22:50:53 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:


How is inviting someone to voice comms to get them to do a singing ransom in exchange for their stuff different from inviting them to voice comms to get them to do a singing ransom just because one ransomee gets mad? The actions are identical.

Quote:
I think a big factor is also why there is such a movement to target "carebears" in highsec, as opposed to killing the people who are looking for a fight in low/null. Is it because

1. They don't tank ships properly and ganking is good isk (legit)
2. It's really easy to kill them (legit)
3. They fly blingy ships that look good on a KB (legit)

or is it

4. They are "carebears" and wan't to avoid PvP, and grrr.... we are going to force them to realize that Eve is a PvP game even in highsec (borderline)
5. Since they live in highsec, try to avoid PvP, and think they are protected by the law, they are much more likely to have an angry metldown when you blow their ship up and will then rage all over local, providing great entertainment value (in my view, not legit - but hard to enforce unless there is active baiting)


What happened to:
Veers Belvar wrote:
It's pretty impossible to know real intent....so I tend to focus on actions.


That entire last paragraph is you railing against the intent you assign to other people's actions.


Just quickly, because as per usual you completely missed the point.

I don't know why gankers gank, I suspect it is for one of the 5 reasons I mentioned. I don't really care about use mindreading techniques to figure out if it was for a legit reason or not. That's why I focus on actions. And if you invite someone to voice coms (even if you initially you claim to have had noble intentions) and then spend the next hour goading them into more and more anger while giggling to your buddies and enjoying the scene, that tells me you are motivated by reason #5. And if you gank someone and then plaster local with mocking chat, and get the person angrier and angrier while exalting in the scene, that tells me you are motivated by #5. And again, ask the gankers themselves, they will freely admit that a lot of what they are doing is enjoying TEARS.

So I don't need to mindread - I just focus on actions, and that tells me whether something bad is happening. Thankfully CCP seem to have taken the same approach.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#80 - 2014-10-01 22:57:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Veers Belvar wrote:
Thankfully CCP seem to have taken the same approach.


No they haven't.

What you just described was every hotdrop or hellcamp in low/nul ever. Psychological warfare is a real thing in EVE, you know. The angrier and more emotional your enemy, the more likely they are to screw up to your in-game advantage. Oh, that 'reason' wasn't on your list? Of course it wasn't, you can't think outside the little box you've stuffed yourself inside of.

Once again, Veers, no one has missed your point. You just failed to make a viable one. Nobody cares how you interpret their actions.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104