These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Should Ganking be profitable?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#241 - 2013-03-21 16:34:16 UTC
The only way to ensure that ganking cannot be profitable is to artificially regulate supply and demand so that the ships used in ganking become too expensive...effectively nerfing every other use they might have. That's a lot of blaster and artillery ships being hit with a nerf because some idiots think they should be able to fly expensive untanked ships.

What's more, how does one regulate profitability based on cargo? I've seen billion-isk badger kills. Would we have CCP go so far as to have Concord confiscate loot drops above a certain isk value in order to prevent profit?

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#242 - 2013-03-21 16:37:35 UTC
the npc alt made an attempt to look clever by turning my argument around, but i already addressed that part

see the post it quoted out of context:

Andski wrote:
maybe you don't understand what "losing a ship" entails

hint, it entails losing the ship and everything in it, unless you manage to loot your wreck before someone else does

also last I heard miners don't keep whatever ore they mined when they were suicide ganked, nor do they get anything back

because, well, losses actually matter in this game unlike in whatever wretched themepark you came from

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Theron Vetrus
Doomheim
#243 - 2013-03-21 16:38:03 UTC
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:
Only thing I would like to see is the proifit removed just as DEV Soundwave suggested.


Time and time again in this thread you have been told that you took that quote out of context, most recently just a few posts above this one. Yet you goad other people about not reading your relentless whining.

While I'm sure the easymode pvp is an issue for some, that's not the issue at hand here. Most players who gank miners aren't doing it for profit, and even if they are, the margin is so slim, it's not really worth the hassle to do it for money. The issue is that miners continue to want to PvE by themselves, usually while semi-AFK or totally AFK, not fit tanks on their ships, and then cry because they feel they're being picked on in a PvP game.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Take what you can, give nothing back. Psychotic Monk for CSM8
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#244 - 2013-03-21 16:41:24 UTC
what he wants is for eve online to become a full-respawn, no-loot game with restricted PvP

maybe he should play a full-respawn, no-loot game with restricted PvP

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#245 - 2013-03-21 16:44:05 UTC
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:


So using your words "maybe you don't understand what "losing a ship" entails

hint, it entails losing the ship and everything in it". Then no one should get any salvage. Great idea Goon


And at a stroke you just made all ship pvp unprofitable and wiped out several playstyles.

Congrats you just broke a great chunk of the core of EVE.

Not me, the Goon did. They made ganking retrievers not profitable I am sure they could find a way to do it for other high value ships in hi-sec.

You guys keep trying to find micro fault with every little comment becuase you are afaraid you may loose something. I didnt say it should be done for the whole game. Obviously if you make the effort and kill somone in low/null then you earned your reward.

The problem most of you have with it is you think it takes away your easy mode pvp. You could still gank just like you can a retriever just wouldnt make a profit. I understand you dont want to go to null/low where the playing field might be more level and where people are more prepared for pvp.

Only thing I would like to see is the proifit removed just as DEV Soundwave suggested.


Firstly retrievers are still profitable to kill.

Secondly, ganking has been with us for 10 years. Its intended to be there in high sec because high sec is not ment to be 100% safe. If you want to stop us from getting easy kills then stop being stupid and fit tanks to your ships and stop transporting billions in untanked teron IIIs. Its only easy because the targets make it easy.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#246 - 2013-03-21 16:47:41 UTC
Theron Vetrus wrote:
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

I'm sure he understands perfectly. But as he usually does he's simply discarding everything that doesn't agree with his presupposed conclusions.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#247 - 2013-03-21 16:54:57 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Andski wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Anyone who supports isk tanking probably shouldn't be working for CCP right now.

ISK tanking is fine. If it was nonsense then Titans should not cost billions and yet we find the cost factor makes complete sense. It works on the large scale and on the small scale has it additional detail to it including a few twists. That is all right.


that isn't how it works

Sure it is. Just because I can tag a price of 1 ISK onto a Titan or a trillion ISK onto a frigate does not contradict it. Only idiots sell Titans for 1 ISK or pay a trillion for a frigate, and anyone who believes this contradicts ISK tanking is one of them.


I'm pretty sure you messed something up somewhere in your arguments.

"ISK Tanking" is mostly only relevant in hisec... to the point where a freighter has a "1 bil ISK Tank" -- i.e. you throw stuff that collectively is worth more than a billion into it, and you're suddenly a juicy suicide gank target...


What you describe is not exactly ISK tanking. ISK tanking would be paying to survive (reactive process)

Putting below 1B on a freighter is a proactive and complimentary process, that is you choose not to enable a fat "Target Painter" on your ship.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#248 - 2013-03-21 16:55:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:
They made ganking retrievers not profitable I am sure they could find a way to do it for other high value ships in hi-sec.
Incorrect on the first account and non-sequitur on the second account.

What they did was make something unprofitable slightly more unprofitable (ganking bare hulls), and it had nothing to do with the value of the ship since ship cost is not a factor in balance.

Quote:
Only thing I would like to see is the proifit removed just as DEV Soundwave suggested.
What he suggested turned out to already be true and he was corrected in his misunderstanding of what was going on. Why do you refuse to do the same? At no point did he suggest what you're suggesting.

More to the point: why should it not be possible to rob people of their valuables?

Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
What you describe is not exactly ISK tanking. ISK tanking would be paying to survive (reactive process)

Putting below 1B on a freighter is a proactive and complimentary process, that is you choose not to enable a fat "Target Painter" on your ship.
To be fair, the concept has had both meanings in parallel depending on context this whole time.

Some are advocating “ISK tanking” in the sense that a high ship cost should always mean high survivability for no good reason.
Some are saying that you should “ISK tank” in the sense of making a kill yield so little valuable goods (in relation to what the kill will cost) that it's not worth attacking.
Whitehound
#249 - 2013-03-21 16:58:53 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
I'm pretty sure you messed something up somewhere in your arguments.

"ISK Tanking" is mostly only relevant in hisec... to the point where a freighter has a "1 bil ISK Tank" -- i.e. you throw stuff that collectively is worth more than a billion into it, and you're suddenly a juicy suicide gank target...

No. The expression "ISK Tanking" describes the relationship of a ship's tank and a ship's cost. This relationship is proportional, non-linear and existent. What it is not is non-existent, anti-proportional, linear or random. And it has got nothing to do with sec. status.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#250 - 2013-03-21 17:01:29 UTC
Tippia wrote:
To be fair, the concept has had both meanings in parallel depending on context this whole time.

Some are advocating “ISK tanking” in the sense that a high ship cost should always mean high survivability for no good reason.
Some are saying that you should “ISK tank” in the sense of making a kill yield so little valuable goods (in relation to what the kill will cost) that it's not worth attacking.


Well, imo one can't fit in the same name an effect (true ISK tanking) and the opposide of that effect (making tanking pointless due to too low ISK).

I'd call it "target painter dodging".

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#251 - 2013-03-21 17:23:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
By the way, nobody mentioned my preferred fitting style, I call it "brain tanking".
Back in 2010 I wanted my own "pimpmobile".

Even as new player, I knew about the tiny detail about undocking on a 5-10B+ ship and getting it popped so I wanted to see if it was really so much of an impossible task to have the cake and eat it.

Faction and above mods were still only listed on contracts, I noticed that I could easily use Dread Guristas invuln in place of a CN and would pay 80M instead of 350M+

Then I noticed the most expensive deadspace shield booster costed 1.5B but there was another with identical tanking specs costing 110M. The difference was that the latter required more CPU or PG (I don't recall exactly now, it's years since I have undocked that ship).
Now, by replacing two mods with 2 faction mods costing 25M each I could fit that 110M shield and have the same performance of the 1.5B shield plus the added performance for using those 2 faction mods.

In the end I made up a ship netting me 100M+ per hour doing L4 while it costed below 1B and it'd cost several billions if I just went the "basic carebear-I-buy-the-bling" way.

Have been scanned several times, nobody ever bothered to gank it despite the multiple deadspace and faction mods.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Olf Barrenbur
Guardians of Asceticism
#252 - 2013-03-21 17:35:17 UTC
If you don't like being ganked, fit a tank. Use tech 1 modules. If you are very averse to ganking, fly a tanked procurer/skiff -- I mean why else would they exist? It's not like bringing barges into low-sec is a thing.
Takseen
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#253 - 2013-03-21 18:25:08 UTC
And on freighter ganks, it seems obvious from browsing freighter kills that the ones targetted are the pilots/couriers who just hit Ctrl-A in their station hanger and throw it all into the freighter/courier contract. If they split out the deadspace mods and other low size/high cost modules, the risk of ganking would be much less.
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#254 - 2013-03-21 18:31:11 UTC
Ganking is profitable if you do it right. What's the problem?

Robbers don't target poor people they go after the rich. Use a scan ship, scan the ship and cargo, if it has valuable fittings or cargo, set up to gank it. This is what the gankers in Uedama do. Sometimes the loot fairy will be kind, sometimes not. After all you are basically blowing up the car and hoping the parts/cargo are still salvageable.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#255 - 2013-03-21 18:44:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Velicitia
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


What you describe is not exactly ISK tanking. ISK tanking would be paying to survive (reactive process)

Putting below 1B on a freighter is a proactive and complimentary process, that is you choose not to enable a fat "Target Painter" on your ship.



Fair enough -- I've always thought of "Tanking" as proactive rather than reactive ... Cool

edit -- in the sense that Tippia put it; "making the loot not profitable enough to be worth it". Granted this only applies in hisec. Low/Null is a whole different ballgame, to which this "ISK Tank" does not apply in the slightest.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#256 - 2013-03-21 18:48:14 UTC
Stating that something is overpowered when it is is definitely not the same as "crying about it".
Velicitia
XS Tech
#257 - 2013-03-21 18:55:10 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
I'm pretty sure you messed something up somewhere in your arguments.

"ISK Tanking" is mostly only relevant in hisec... to the point where a freighter has a "1 bil ISK Tank" -- i.e. you throw stuff that collectively is worth more than a billion into it, and you're suddenly a juicy suicide gank target...

No. The expression "ISK Tanking" describes the relationship of a ship's tank and a ship's cost. This relationship is proportional, non-linear and existent. What it is not is non-existent, anti-proportional, linear or random. And it has got nothing to do with sec. status.



I've never seen "ISK Tank' used in a way as to refer to the cost of the ship.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Whitehound
#258 - 2013-03-21 19:00:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Velicitia wrote:
I've never seen "ISK Tank' used in a way as to refer to the cost of the ship.

Here in EVE have I seen it only as such, when players say their ship was expensive and so it should also tank well.

I have seen other forms of it, too. One particular one was in the RPG Sacred, where an armor attribute turned damage into cost. x% of the incoming damage was then absorbed and instead taken as gold out of your stash.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#259 - 2013-03-21 19:03:12 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
I've never seen "ISK Tank' used in a way as to refer to the cost of the ship.

Here in EVE have seen it only as such, when players say their ship was expensive and so it should also tank well.


that's called "being wrong".

Just because I dropped 200m on a cruiser doesn't mean it should tank like a BS.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Whitehound
#260 - 2013-03-21 19:05:27 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
that's called "being wrong".

Just because I dropped 200m on a cruiser doesn't mean it should tank like a BS.

You are not really making a point.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.