Player Features and Ideas Discussion

…once every three days, which means he earns 0.014 ISK/h.
Yes. Obviously false. Even you have accidentally enumerated the risks. Just because you can turn a profit does not mean that there are no risks. If you want to use that logic, then guess what? There are no risks for the miners either because they can also turn a profit.
It's an issue if you can't keep your argument straight.
Key word: potential. And I can't help noticing how you keep ignoring the remaining risks…

But he's making such nonsensical arguments claims that it's hard not to want to correct him.

But yes, you're right. Let's have an intelligent debate. To being with, here are some questions for you to answer:

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?

In short: what is the problem?

You mean there are ways of reducing your risks as a miner? Who'd'a thunk it…
Those are included in the price… and even so, no-one is forcing you to use strip miners.
You didn't understand the question: why is it suddenly 5M when you kept talking about making 10M/h before? Are you so desperate to skew the risk/reward that you have to try to sneak in a sudden reduction of the reward by half?
Because it means you risk wasting your time and not getting anything for the effort. Miners can go to the next belt over and keep going at the same pace as always. They have continuously and predictably respawning resources to harvest — gankers do not.

Since you are so keen on measuring the reward for mining in terms of ISK/h, the risk of not having a target is very real and very damaging to the ganker. Sure, your poor little miner might risk his 10M for a measly 5M ISK/h… and the poor little ganker might risk his 10M for a measly 0.014 ISK/h. See the problem?
Same as before.

…which does not contradict my first argument.
…which does not contradict the fact that there is risk. Again, you keep assuming that the ability to turn a profit means there is no risk. This is still obviously false. Going by that line of thinking, there is no risk for miners either so you have nothing to complain about.
Well… you keep it consistent at least, but unfortunately, you also keep it well away from things like “reality” and “logic”.
No, I'm not comparing them. I'm saying that gankers run the risk of not finding a target.
…or “anything else regarding mining.” This one fits the bill for that.

More than you do.
Yes? Your point being? Can I suggest you please look up the Osprey, the Scythe… hell, the Rokh. Now, the fact that you apparently don't know that these ships exist; that you seem to believe that you are being forced to use strip miners; the fact that you are even suggesting that useless piece of **** Procurer tells me that you have absolutely no clue whatsoever about mining. None.
It's a steady number because you set up your route to make it steady. Oh wait. You have no clue about mining so you don't know how to do this, or even that you can do this.
Learn what “risk” means while you're reading up on how mining in EVE works.
Opportunity cost still costs, you know…

Neither do I. You are arguing a topic you know nothing about, as you have so amply proven.

You have no arguments, and you haven't even addressed mine because you have utterly failed to understand them (unsurprisingly, considering how little you know about the game). So no. No you haven't. Not even close.
Yes, so let's talk about that whole “selective quoting” thing and go back and look at what you actually said:

“Rigs dont boost mining yield, speed or anything else regarding mining”

This is false. You are a liar. You are also terminally ignorant and clueless.
There are rigs that boost your mining capability. Most notably cargo rigs, which allow you to spend more time in the belt and less time hauling, should you do it that way.
No. We are far away from having a problem that needs to be solved.

Why do you assume that there must be equal risk vs reward?
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?

In short: what is the problem?

You haven't even been able to show that any kind of problem exists — all you've done so far is show that you don't know anything about the game.

Yes. If you knew anything about mining, you'd be familiar with it.
Do you know why? Because the risks are so low and because the rewards are so high that there is no need to. You see, you still don't understand the concept of “risk” (or the concept of reward). You've also completely missed the point of the argument: miners risk their ships, just like everyone else, but just like everyone else, they can mitigate those risks if they feel the risk/reward ratio is unsatisfactory.

They don't, because it isn't.

That blows a gaping hole in your argument that there is some problem with that ratio.
No, it's not a different story because it means you don't ever do something as silly as suggest it for mining, because it gets outmined by absolutely everything. Suggesting it means you are not well versed in the world of mining.
…setting aside for a moment that that's still a completely unproven claim, the question remains: why is that a problem?

You consistently fail to answer this. You consistently fail to provide any proof that the underlying assumption is correct. You consistently fail to address any of the things that might actually give you some tiny hope of having even a shred of an argument. So, again…

Why do you assume that there must be equal risk vs reward?
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?

In short: what is the problem?

Qoutted: Tippia


I will have agree with Henritte here. If youre risk are 100 million, and youre gain is 1.000 million. It's clearly and proven a claim. A reward that repays the cost tenfold, is by itself a statement.


Why is it not a problem ?
We have been told many times that risk should match reward, often in relation to upcoming hulkageddons, and other similar events. It is infact: the base argumentation for ganking. I am certain you can find many examples reading in previous hulkageddon treads.

If you fly a ship worth 1 million, to gain 1 million, there is a factor of 1:1
If you fly a ship worth 200 million to gain 10 million - its a factor of 20:1
If you fly a ship worth 100 million to gain 1.000 million, its a factor of 1:10.
Assuming the argument of risk vs reward, are a indicator that the greater the reward, the greater the risk should be involved,
the argumentation here is that the ganker should be at greater risk (have a greater cost), as his potiental reward can be huge. (All things taken into consideration - target, drop, load, and so forth). Please bear in mind, that the entire argumentation that there even should be a risk/reward ratio is an argument that was originally put forward during the treads of the first hulkageddon's if i remember right, so - it is not my words. As is, the potiental risk or as i state = cost, should be more equal to the actual possible gain which at present time it is not. So returning to the original poster and thoughts i belive are shared by many in similar situation - the cost for ganking - is to low, compared to any other occupation, where the target's of ganks - be it miner's or hauler's or anything else, have a much greater risk (cost).

Personally i agree with risk (cost) follows reward, and i dont feel that it does at present, when it comes to suicide ganking.



The cost-factor is to low, compared to any other proression aswell as it favors ganking in terms of cost vs reward, opposite of many other professions.


Why should you have a minimized risk (cost) compared to others? This isnt about others - this is about gankers and theyre cost/reward ratio. Why should one have a greater risk of loss, for a small reward, when a ganker, as we currently are debatting have a small risk of loss for a potiental greater reward ? I am not debatting for differences in reward or costs, but the equal factor of all groups.



You discussed miners earlier, a profession that takes long time to train into, atleast in the case you wish to be good and versitile at it, while training to a i belive someone mentioned a Thorax ? - does not require near as much training. As is i belive that reward vs cost is not the only factor to calculate in. Matters of minimum training time, ship costs, with more also plays a role. All things equal, a character able to train into a ship in 1 month, costing 20 million able to earn for this example - 50 millions in 2 hours, should have a greater risk (cost), of a character that spent 3 months training, costing 200 million able to earn for this example - 20 million in 2 hours. Yet it is not the case.

So i ask you the question: why should gankers be excepted for the risk vs reward factor, in a reasonable shape when everyone else according to theyre very own statement is not ?

- LB

…except the lack of proof for those numbers and any kind of statistic on how common they are. There is no data, so where's the proof?
Because it hasn't been shown to be one.
…none of which is proven. That's the whole problem, and why the questions remain: because people just keep saying “there is no risk“ or “the rewards are too high” without backing it up with anything. The ratios you list are pulled out of nowhere and has no connection to reality. No-one has even suggested a sensible risk:reward ratio for mining yet as a point of comparison (and no, your 20:1 is not it — people do not lose one ship for every hour they mine).

Sure, if you're lucky, you manage to gank a T1 frigate carrying 50 PLEXes, but so what? That's a single data point that proves nothing. It's no different than saying that you might score a 500M ISK implant in WC so therefore, all missions need to be nerfed to hell, or that you might come across a faction rat while belt mining, which may drop a BPC worth several hundred million ISK, so therefore mining needs to be nerfed. It doesn't work that way.

And it most certainly is about others. Gankers provide risk for a number of other activities, so reducing the risk of ganking has some pretty wide-spread effects.
No, but it requires far more skill because you have to try to compensate for what other players do; you have to hunt down a worth-while target; you have to evaluate the value of the target; and you have to collect (or build yourself) all the contacts and services surrounding a gank to make any profit from it. Moreover, the Thorax itself might not be hard to train for, but it requires more than just that one skill…
What makes you think they are?

Everything that miners and missioners (i.e., industrialists and/or carebears) do results in a reward set specifically by the developers in terms of game design elements which create production ceilings. Mining Veldspar gives you X units/hour, mining Kernite will give you Y units/hour, running level 4 missions will give you Z ISK and loot/salvage per hour.

Everything that pvpers (i.e., gankers, empire warriors) do results in a reward set specifically by other players. A suicide-ganker will only make as much money as someone else devotes to their hauler's cargo. An empire warrior will only make as much money as the amount of people he can kill who don't devote resources to defense, such as friends in pvp ships, gate scouts, etc.

Why do you so desperately want to remove risk from the game by having the devs change gameplay mechanics, when you can easily mitigate it yourself by not carrying PLEXes in an untanked haulers, or not blindly autopiloting to your missions when there are war targets around?

Even if the game turned out to be such that pvp rewards are much larger than pve rewards (remember, you are responsible for that), what's stopping you from pursuing a life of pvp as well? Once again, this is a choice you made; you have no objective base in demanding that CCP change the game in your image, simply because it would provide you with more comfort.

Also, why can't people like yourself realize that stuff getting blown up is actually good for the game? Your type claims that current game mechanics are causing EVE to bleed members (laughable). If your ideas go through, what do you think will happen to the game's pvper base? What are you going to do after we're gone? Are you just going to continue mining and building barges to see how big a stack you can produce, while using local to chat about your wives and new house additions with other "Dads of Gaming"? Isn't that what Farmville already is?

Good luck enjoying the game if we're not there to give you a purpose.