These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

High sec cargo gank... Whats the hate? Solutions?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#201 - 2012-11-05 10:06:07 UTC
Dave stark wrote:

ok so it's a boring monday morning, i'll bite.

you're not making those assumptions, you're just interpreting the quote how you want.


Well, I went by the literal meaning of the quote, which is probably not quite actual, but probably very close. Like I said, the full article mentions all those things you mention, and says that they just flat out haven't worked to save the freighter, in practice. Risk probability nonzero, risk value zero, in the formula we know and love.
Dave Stark
#202 - 2012-11-05 10:07:39 UTC
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Dave stark wrote:

ok so it's a boring monday morning, i'll bite.

you're not making those assumptions, you're just interpreting the quote how you want.


Well, I went by the literal meaning of the quote, which is probably not quite actual, but probably very close. Like I said, the full article mentions all those things you mention, and says that they just flat out haven't worked to save the freighter, in practice. Risk probability nonzero, risk value zero, in the formula we know and love.


care to link said article please? i'd like to read it.
Herr Hammer Draken
#203 - 2012-11-05 10:11:06 UTC
Dave stark wrote:


i am willing to wager good isk that if you asked most freighter pilots, the majority wouldn't know what double wrapping is. not unless hauling is their primary activity in eve or they're active on the forums. the regular freighter pilots that don't fly for places like push/red frog etc or frequent the forums are probably the majority (i'd put money on that).

so yes, any thing double wrapped is generally worth ganking. even sending 3 freighters and only one of them having cargo in would just result in 3 freighter ganks. (i'd put good isk on that, too).

however, if you have 66bn isk to haul, i think at that point you're a fool if you try and haul it yourself. the time it takes to haul it safely is too great an opportunity cost to do it yourself, and the risk of hauling it all at once is far, far too high. at that point i'd just outsource it. i'd gladly pay red frog/push to take it 1bn isk at a time, they have a whole fleet of freighters who will do those 66 1bn isk trips in the time it'd take you to do a fraction of those trips. also the cost they ask is arguably nothing in comparison to the fact that you have 66bn isk of assets sitting in a hangar some where.

it doesn't really make sense on any level to try and haul that much stuff yourself.


I agree with most of that. However the ganks tend to be only strong enough to kill one frieghter at a time. So three at once is a viable tactic. Very unlikely that a ganker fleet will have enough ships on hand to kill all three at the same time. Unless in Jita space.

And if they kill the wrong one and its value is zero and it gets posted to a kill board well you know where that is going.

Like I said this is risk based for both parties. If you do not want any risk it can be avoided by breaking the cargo down into smaller chunks. However then do not double wrap it as you will lose some of it if it is double wraped. The assumption being double wraped is worth ganking always until proven wrong by kill mail.

Herr Hammer Draken "The Amarr Prophet"
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#204 - 2012-11-05 10:16:40 UTC
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:
Dave stark wrote:


i am willing to wager good isk that if you asked most freighter pilots, the majority wouldn't know what double wrapping is. not unless hauling is their primary activity in eve or they're active on the forums. the regular freighter pilots that don't fly for places like push/red frog etc or frequent the forums are probably the majority (i'd put money on that).

so yes, any thing double wrapped is generally worth ganking. even sending 3 freighters and only one of them having cargo in would just result in 3 freighter ganks. (i'd put good isk on that, too).

however, if you have 66bn isk to haul, i think at that point you're a fool if you try and haul it yourself. the time it takes to haul it safely is too great an opportunity cost to do it yourself, and the risk of hauling it all at once is far, far too high. at that point i'd just outsource it. i'd gladly pay red frog/push to take it 1bn isk at a time, they have a whole fleet of freighters who will do those 66 1bn isk trips in the time it'd take you to do a fraction of those trips. also the cost they ask is arguably nothing in comparison to the fact that you have 66bn isk of assets sitting in a hangar some where.

it doesn't really make sense on any level to try and haul that much stuff yourself.


I agree with most of that. However the ganks tend to be only strong enough to kill one frieghter at a time. So three at once is a viable tactic. Very unlikely that a ganker fleet will have enough ships on hand to kill all three at the same time. Unless in Jita space.

And if they kill the wrong one and its value is zero and it gets posted to a kill board well you know where that is going.

Like I said this is risk based for both parties. If you do not want any risk it can be avoided by breaking the cargo down into smaller chunks. However then do not double wrap it as you will lose some of it if it is double wraped. The assumption being double wraped is worth ganking always until proven wrong by kill mail.



the irony with double wrapping is that it used to be much more common for <1B cargoes to be double wrapped by the major movers RFF/push, and now they avoid it, which possibly causes a vicious spiral upwards in double wrap killing profitability. I only haul my own goods around, but I've definitely stopped double wrapping.
Dave Stark
#205 - 2012-11-05 10:20:24 UTC
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:
I agree with most of that. However the ganks tend to be only strong enough to kill one frieghter at a time. So three at once is a viable tactic. Very unlikely that a ganker fleet will have enough ships on hand to kill all three at the same time. Unless in Jita space.

And if they kill the wrong one and its value is zero and it gets posted to a kill board well you know where that is going.

Like I said this is risk based for both parties. If you do not want any risk it can be avoided by breaking the cargo down into smaller chunks. However then do not double wrap it as you will lose some of it if it is double wraped. The assumption being double wraped is worth ganking always until proven wrong by kill mail.


i think that depends how lucky you are with who scans you on the gate. if the people that scan you do this sort of thing as their primary income i wouldn't be surprised if they had the required firepower to take down 3 freighters in a row.

i think double wrapping is going to become a double edged sword. it's a gamble for every one involved but as it stands if people are going through the effort of double wrapping it's almost guaranteed that there's something in there that's worth ganking them for. otherwise they'd be safer to not double wrap, let the campers scan them, realise it's not worth ganking them for 3m trit and let them move on.

anyway, is a 1.5bn isk freighter really worth using as a decoy? i'm sure it'd cost a lot less to let rf/push/whoever haul your stuff rather than almost certainly losing a 1.5bn isk freighter to gankers. i'd gladly wait a day to have my stuff moved if it saved me 1bn isk.
Dave Stark
#206 - 2012-11-05 10:43:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Dave stark wrote:

ok so it's a boring monday morning, i'll bite.

you're not making those assumptions, you're just interpreting the quote how you want.


Well, I went by the literal meaning of the quote, which is probably not quite actual, but probably very close. Like I said, the full article mentions all those things you mention, and says that they just flat out haven't worked to save the freighter, in practice. Risk probability nonzero, risk value zero, in the formula we know and love.


thanks for the link, read about half of it, got to the part you quoted and to be honest about it. the way it's worded could be twisted to any side of the argument.

it's almost like saying "there's no risk stealing £1m" which can be true if some one leaves it outside your front door (y'know, like jamming an autopiloting freighter full of officer mods until there's no cargo space left)
where as trying to steal that same cash from somewhere akin to a bank vault is one of the stupidest ideas you'll ever hear.

when he's asked how many people he uses to gank a freighter he says the responses vary when the ping goes out, that means if only 6 people turn up and you're sailing close the wind at 1bn exactly, odds might be in your favour that he wouldn't risk the ships for 1bn, however if more ships turned up or you had more cargo, odds won't be in your favour.
also he says he makes profit from "every gank" that term in itself is very ambiguous. how do you define "every gank"? is that, every successfully popped freighter? well, no **** you make profit from looting a wreckage.
alternatively does "every gank" mean every time they open fire regardless of whether the freighter is popped or not? not to mention from some of the quotes it seems like they sail close to the wind regarding sec status also. which means if a badly timed attack goes wrong you could lose a ship which means the difference between a freighter being popped or a freighter escaping by the skin of it's teeth.

occasionally the risk for the ganker is tiny, however that's because they're about to shoot a ship with 40bn isk in it's cargo bay. now, who's fault is it that the gankers are taking such a small risk? not the gankers, it's the freighter pilot.

at the end of the day, every one playing this game can take actions to minimise risk or maximise profit, the two are never usually done at the same time. people either need to accept smaller profit, or stop crying when they get burnt for taking large risks.

it's an interesting article, no doubt, however i don't think we can draw any real conclusions from it.



edit; having got to the bottom of the article...

Quote:
Q: Is the payout method something along the lines of take market value subtract ship/fitting costs and divide remainder by number of pilots in the gank?

A: We used to value the payout based on what dropped, but it didn't reward the people who were on bad luck drops. So we just switched it to a flat payout all around. Space communism. Everyone gets paid the same, every gank is the same in our eyes.

every gank paying out has nothing to do with the game, risk, or anything like that. it's purely based on how they operate.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#207 - 2012-11-05 11:19:04 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Dave stark wrote:

ok so it's a boring monday morning, i'll bite.

you're not making those assumptions, you're just interpreting the quote how you want.


Well, I went by the literal meaning of the quote, which is probably not quite actual, but probably very close. Like I said, the full article mentions all those things you mention, and says that they just flat out haven't worked to save the freighter, in practice. Risk probability nonzero, risk value zero, in the formula we know and love.


thanks for the link, read about half of it, got to the part you quoted and to be honest about it. the way it's worded could be twisted to any side of the argument.

it's almost like saying "there's no risk stealing £1m" which can be true if some one leaves it outside your front door (y'know, like jamming an autopiloting freighter full of officer mods until there's no cargo space left)
where as trying to steal that same cash from somewhere akin to a bank vault is one of the stupidest ideas you'll ever hear.

when he's asked how many people he uses to gank a freighter he says the responses vary when the ping goes out, that means if only 6 people turn up and you're sailing close the wind at 1bn exactly, odds might be in your favour that he wouldn't risk the ships for 1bn, however if more ships turned up or you had more cargo, odds won't be in your favour.
also he says he makes profit from "every gank" that term in itself is very ambiguous. how do you define "every gank"? is that, every successfully popped freighter? well, no **** you make profit from looting a wreckage.
alternatively does "every gank" mean every time they open fire regardless of whether the freighter is popped or not? not to mention from some of the quotes it seems like they sail close to the wind regarding sec status also. which means if a badly timed attack goes wrong you could lose a ship which means the difference between a freighter being popped or a freighter escaping by the skin of it's teeth.

occasionally the risk for the ganker is tiny, however that's because they're about to shoot a ship with 40bn isk in it's cargo bay. now, who's fault is it that the gankers are taking such a small risk? not the gankers, it's the freighter pilot.

at the end of the day, every one playing this game can take actions to minimise risk or maximise profit, the two are never usually done at the same time. people either need to accept smaller profit, or stop crying when they get burnt for taking large risks.

it's an interesting article, no doubt, however i don't think we can draw any real conclusions from it.



edit; having got to the bottom of the article...

Quote:
Q: Is the payout method something along the lines of take market value subtract ship/fitting costs and divide remainder by number of pilots in the gank?

A: We used to value the payout based on what dropped, but it didn't reward the people who were on bad luck drops. So we just switched it to a flat payout all around. Space communism. Everyone gets paid the same, every gank is the same in our eyes.

every gank paying out has nothing to do with the game, risk, or anything like that. it's purely based on how they operate.


;) and yet doesn't how they operate have everything to do with the game and risk? and miniluv is self-sufficient, or so they claim, so that's another piece of information. There are a ton of real conclusions to be drawn from this article, but it requires reading between the lines.
Akiyo Mayaki
Perkone
Caldari State
#208 - 2012-11-05 11:21:46 UTC
Why is it everyone want the victims to not care?

EVE is all about risk, wouldn't it destroy the game if you wouldn't care if you got ganked?

No
Dave Stark
#209 - 2012-11-05 11:27:17 UTC
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
;) and yet doesn't how they operate have everything to do with the game and risk? and miniluv is self-sufficient, or so they claim, so that's another piece of information. There are a ton of real conclusions to be drawn from this article, but it requires reading between the lines.


not with regards to the point you originally quoted. the context that they always get a payout has more to do with how their corp works rather than how risk/reward works.

at the end of the day, these players do this day in day out and know exactly what kind of target to look for, what kind of cargo is worth their time, and the most efficient way to get the job done. however a bigger factor in this is that people stuff so much crap in their cargo hold they don't even need to be as good as they are to get payouts, people are just handing them isk on a plate.

when people are offering up 10x the cost of your ships in loot, the chance to not come out on top is very slim. that has nothing to do with game mechanics and everything to do with the people, the article even says as much.

Quote:
1.) The ignorant. These people don't check evekill. They don't understand how courier contracts work. They don't know the best way to ship things.

2.) The lazy/dumb. These people just don't give a ****, or are too impatient to do things the correct way. They autopilot. They just dump everything in their freighter. With FW cashouts, these guys are looking to beat the rush to dump things on the market.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#210 - 2012-11-05 11:30:16 UTC
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
There are a ton of real conclusions to be drawn from this article, but it requires reading between the lines.
…and none of them add up to there being no risks.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#211 - 2012-11-05 11:36:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Vanyr Andrard
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
There are a ton of real conclusions to be drawn from this article, but it requires reading between the lines.
…and none of them add up to there being no risks.


Also, none of them add up to 894.2. (Well, the part where they organize the payout so that there are no risks to individuals kinda does add up to "there being no risks [for individuals]", but luckily there aren't 894.2 individuals so we still don't add up to 894.2

"
Dave stark wrote:

when people are offering up 10x the cost of your ships in loot, the chance to not come out on top is very slim. that has nothing to do with game mechanics and everything to do with the people, the article even says as much."


I don't believe I ever said otherwise :)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#212 - 2012-11-05 11:37:33 UTC
Reading between lines to get facts only leads to stupidity.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#213 - 2012-11-05 11:49:43 UTC
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Well, the part where they organize the payout so that there are no risks to individuals kinda does add up to "there being no risks [for individuals]"
No, it adds up to the risks being managed, not to them being non-existent. In fact, it's a direct concession to those risks.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#214 - 2012-11-05 11:50:27 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Filling a hauling ship up with a massive assortment of low volume, low-ISK, crap items (like dancers and spirits) to minimize the odds that something valuable will drop.


lol

wrong, the chance of drop is still 50%.

You go item for item and roll a dice for each item in hold. For 1-3 no drop, for 4-6 its a drop. So if you roll the dice for a particular item its 50% chance, regardless if there are further 3748 items you will roll the dice for.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#215 - 2012-11-05 11:52:11 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Well, the part where they organize the payout so that there are no risks to individuals kinda does add up to "there being no risks [for individuals]"
No, it adds up to the risks being managed, not to them being non-existent. In fact, it's a direct concession to those risks.


Well of course there's always risk for someone in a pvp situation. The pilots of those blown up freighters would surely agree. You seem to be stating the obvious here, in a very argumentative and nonproductive way. Do you have a point you're getting at?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#216 - 2012-11-05 12:01:01 UTC
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Well of course there's always risk for someone in a pvp situation. The pilots of those blown up freighters would surely agree. You seem to be stating the obvious here, in a very argumentative and nonproductive way. Do you have a point you're getting at?
That the obvious goes contrary to many people's claim that there is no risk, and contrary to your claim that we can abandon risk calculations and that the risk value is zero.
Herr Hammer Draken
#217 - 2012-11-05 12:03:24 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
Filling a hauling ship up with a massive assortment of low volume, low-ISK, crap items (like dancers and spirits) to minimize the odds that something valuable will drop.


lol

wrong, the chance of drop is still 50%.

You go item for item and roll a dice for each item in hold. For 1-3 no drop, for 4-6 its a drop. So if you roll the dice for a particular item its 50% chance, regardless if there are further 3748 items you will roll the dice for.


So be risky put all 66 billion in one contract on the frieghter. And that is all that is on the frieghter. 50% chance it drops or nothing drops.

Now for the guy that claims he will only attack a frieghter when he can profit. Will he take a 50% chance to come away with nothing at all and ruin his streak or is the 66 billion in that one contract enough for him to take the chance and gank it.
Then if nothing droped would he admit it, that he lost isk on that gank? We already know for a fact that if the 66 billion does drop it will make the kill mail list.

Herr Hammer Draken "The Amarr Prophet"
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#218 - 2012-11-05 12:03:30 UTC
You're all forgetting the "doing for teh lulz' factor.

Your hauler is only as safe as the most bored ganking team Blink
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#219 - 2012-11-05 12:04:18 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Well of course there's always risk for someone in a pvp situation. The pilots of those blown up freighters would surely agree. You seem to be stating the obvious here, in a very argumentative and nonproductive way. Do you have a point you're getting at?
That the obvious goes contrary to many people's claim that there is no risk, and contrary to your claim that we can abandon risk calculations and that the risk value is zero.


No idea what you're talking about, perhaps you have me confused with someone else?
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#220 - 2012-11-05 12:07:53 UTC
the chance and value of drop alone is what counts, if you do it regularly, it will pay out - maths prevail.
On a single gank, you for sure can loose ISK.