These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Has suicide ganking become a problem? Empty freighters being ganked.

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Black Pedro
Mine.
#3841 - 2014-09-03 16:34:07 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Destroyed is the not the same as Dropped.
If that much is destroyed, you can bet that a fair portion is dropped as well.

You keep repeating the lie of non-profit; you keep failing to prove it, further demonstrating the fact that you have to lie to even appear as if you had an argument (which turns out to be irrelevant anyway).


Not enough dropped to cover the losses. Look at CODE's P/L - close to 400 billion raised, but only 10 billion in the treasury. Where is the profit here? The thing is a massive isk loser.


The structure of the SRP means the treasury only can go down. Not only does our saviour overpay for the cost of the ganking equipment, he, in his benevolence, does not require the loot to be donated back to the New Order. In fact, if the agent does sell the loot and donate the ISK back, it would go back in as a new share purchase, and therefore even further increase the apparent loss of the treasury.

But really, why do you view the world only through the lens of what can make you more ISK?

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3842 - 2014-09-03 16:35:56 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Not seeing the analogy...losing a competition is one thing.
And losing a PvP encounter is the exact same thing.


Sure...when its a competition, and the winner actually benefits in winning. Blowing up empty ships, pods, etc....Just to cause grief does not benefit the part doing the killing.


Define benefit.

What's beneficial for you may not be beneficial for others. I know it's difficult for you to comprehend the meaning of 'objective' and sometimes, the objectives of others might seem alien to you, so pay very close attention now, because your continued ignorance, while amusing for us, is harmful only to you.

If I'm a freighter manufacturer, and I'm not selling any freighters, I might realise it's because they're not in demand.

In order to create that demand, I decide to blow a few up.

They can be empty freighters because the cost of the gank fleet is still less than what I'd be selling the victims new freighters for.

Anything they're carrying is spoils of war for the gank fleet.

I know all that's going to go over your head. I know, deep down, that you wanna be angry at everyone and just declare that ganking empty freighters can only ever be for the purpose of griefing, because it helps validate your unjustified hatred and anger and jealousy that you feel for your betters, which is virtually everyone else that's ever played EVE, but at the end of the day, you're a moron that knows nothing about the game, and I can't help you with that. Additionally, CCP have already addressed all of this stating that it's working as intended.

Capiche?


I don't consider the mere infliction of pain on other people to be a "benefit" to anyone. Your economics knowledge is rather poor, but I will address your points regardless. Blowing up a few freighters, especially with the tight margins in the ship building business, will not generate enough economic value to justify the costs of the ganks - not even close. Plus many of the victims will just quit the game, or stop hauling, rather than buy new ships. And I'm not angry at all, none of my ships have been destroyed. I do sympathize though with the numerous players who are subjected to purposeless violence just for the purpose of angering/humiliating them and then putting it on minerbumping.com

And as for being a "moron who knows nothing about the game," I think that adequately describes yourself.


Alas, I knew that you would respond this way. You are DE to a T. Ignorance, Dunning-Kruger and projection topped with arrogance and self-righteousness.

The scenario I outlined above is demonstrable. I have a friend profiting greatly on freighters and other various gank targets right now. He's doing incredibly well for himself. See, the problem with your assertions is, they're coming from your belief that you know something. Worse than that, a belief that you know better. You've been here for a few weeks or months maybe. I've been here since 2012 and almost everyone else telling you why you're a moron has been here longer.

And once again... and this is the important part, so pay close attention.

CCP, who've managed the game since... oh, since it's existed, say "working as intended'.

Do you know better than CCP as well about how they want their game to evolve?

You probably think you do, hence why you're also delusional.

I don't believe, though, that you sympathise with anyone. If that were true, you'd do something about it. It's like you think condemning the 'motives' of other players playing the game entirely legitimately is sufficient to stop it. Truth is, they're all out there right now not even knowing who you are. Few of them spend time on the forums and if I were to mention your name to a bunch of random gankers, they'd just go, "who the **** is that and why should I care?"

Because you're a nobody with zero relevant opinion or influence. To everyone that matters, you're like a grain of dust floating by on the stellar winds, having less effect on the game than an NPC does.

“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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#3843 - 2014-09-03 16:47:04 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Destroyed is the not the same as Dropped.
If that much is destroyed, you can bet that a fair portion is dropped as well.

You keep repeating the lie of non-profit; you keep failing to prove it, further demonstrating the fact that you have to lie to even appear as if you had an argument (which turns out to be irrelevant anyway).


Not enough dropped to cover the losses. Look at CODE's P/L - close to 400 billion raised, but only 10 billion in the treasury. Where is the profit here? The thing is a massive isk loser.


If you look at the total amount of isk the CFC has made over its life and look at our current balance it would also seem like we are operating at a loss.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#3844 - 2014-09-03 17:03:11 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
afkalt wrote:


Not only that, there's a strange viewpoint that things need to be done for a profit.


I think it's a 'cover lie' ie a lie present in an argument with the sole purpose of making a person with an extremest view seem outwardly reasonable. The extremist view being hidden here is the "anti-ganking' sides dislike of (and wish to see the banning of) non-consensual pvp in EVE.

They can't just say "high sec should be pvp free, non-combat ships should be immune to aggression and wars should not exist unless mutually agree'd" and such because they know how radical and wacky that is, so they say "well, if it has to be possible it should ONLY be possible under these circumstances, and see, I'm being reasonable here".

It comes in forms other than "ganking must be profitable in order to be legitimate". I've seen people say that ganking should not be possible except if the ganeker puts up as much money to gank as is being ganked (ie the only way a jump Freighter should be able to be killed is if the gankers bring 7 billion isk worth of ganking ships so ganking isn't profitable).

The two things seem different (ganking not allowed unless profitable vs ganking should not be profitable), but that are actually the exact same thing ie "ganking must have a reason acceptable to ME to be legitimate, and since I will always find it illegitimate, CCP should abolish balance it in a way I like".


This is a rather odd post -

1. I support suicide ganking - highsec would be incredibly boring without it. I just think that there should be proper incentives in place to steer people towards +EV ganks not -EV ganks.
2. I actually think its too hard to kill non-combat ships, and too easy to kill combat ships.
3. I think that a legitimate ganking business should be run at profit - yes. And no, I don't think the isk value of the gank ships need equal the isk value of the target.
4. Also, I support the current wardecc mechanics.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#3845 - 2014-09-03 17:04:20 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Compare the cost involved in blowing up an empty freighter (at least 250 mil, usually significantly more than that) to the profit involved ( some % chance of a new freighter sale, at a paper thing margin).
Ok. So it's very profitable.
You were supposed to prove the opposite.

Was this failure because you still don't understand the concept of profit or something more fundamental?


Operating at a massive loss does not equal very profitable. The totality of empty ship suicide ganking is a not only a net loss to EVE (destroyed modules) but also a net loss to CODE and its backers.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3846 - 2014-09-03 17:06:13 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
EVERYONE ELSE CARES ABOUT ISK AS MUCH AS I DO, AND IF THEY DON'T THEN THEY SHOULD!!!


Delusional as always.

“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
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#3847 - 2014-09-03 17:07:54 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
afkalt wrote:


Not only that, there's a strange viewpoint that things need to be done for a profit.


I think it's a 'cover lie' ie a lie present in an argument with the sole purpose of making a person with an extremest view seem outwardly reasonable. The extremist view being hidden here is the "anti-ganking' sides dislike of (and wish to see the banning of) non-consensual pvp in EVE.

They can't just say "high sec should be pvp free, non-combat ships should be immune to aggression and wars should not exist unless mutually agree'd" and such because they know how radical and wacky that is, so they say "well, if it has to be possible it should ONLY be possible under these circumstances, and see, I'm being reasonable here".

It comes in forms other than "ganking must be profitable in order to be legitimate". I've seen people say that ganking should not be possible except if the ganeker puts up as much money to gank as is being ganked (ie the only way a jump Freighter should be able to be killed is if the gankers bring 7 billion isk worth of ganking ships so ganking isn't profitable).

The two things seem different (ganking not allowed unless profitable vs ganking should not be profitable), but that are actually the exact same thing ie "ganking must have a reason acceptable to ME to be legitimate, and since I will always find it illegitimate, CCP should abolish balance it in a way I like".


This is a rather odd post -

1. I support suicide ganking - highsec would be incredibly boring without it. I just think that there should be proper incentives in place to steer people towards +EV ganks not -EV ganks.
2. I actually think its too hard to kill non-combat ships, and too easy to kill combat ships.
3. I think that a legitimate ganking business should be run at profit - yes. And no, I don't think the isk value of the gank ships need equal the isk value of the target.
4. Also, I support the current wardecc mechanics.


Translation: "see, look, I'm reasonable! Ignore the self serving extremist anti-EVE viewpoint underlying my every post"

Thanks for confirming.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#3848 - 2014-09-03 17:08:57 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Destroyed is the not the same as Dropped.
If that much is destroyed, you can bet that a fair portion is dropped as well.

You keep repeating the lie of non-profit; you keep failing to prove it, further demonstrating the fact that you have to lie to even appear as if you had an argument (which turns out to be irrelevant anyway).


Not enough dropped to cover the losses. Look at CODE's P/L - close to 400 billion raised, but only 10 billion in the treasury. Where is the profit here? The thing is a massive isk loser.


If you look at the total amount of isk the CFC has made over its life and look at our current balance it would also seem like we are operating at a loss.



CFC has used the money to obtain other assets, specifically control over large parts of nullsec. The expected future income stream eclipses the isk expended to obtain it.

Now, the only viable business plan I see for CODE, since their suicide ganking operating will never turn a profit, is to gank enough miners to materially increase the prices of raw materials, due to decreased mining in highsec. Potentially this could benefit their investors from the nullsec power blocks, who hold most of the materials (incidentally I think that mass mining is devaluing all EVE materials and inflating Plex prices, and could use a major nerf. The problem I see with this is that 400 billion isk later they have failed to achieve their objective, and now the focus on other groups - freighters, incursions, etc... makes it even less likely that they can materially reduce the amount of mining in eve.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3849 - 2014-09-03 17:09:35 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Compare the cost involved in blowing up an empty freighter (at least 250 mil, usually significantly more than that) to the profit involved ( some % chance of a new freighter sale, at a paper thing margin).
Ok. So it's very profitable.
You were supposed to prove the opposite.

Was this failure because you still don't understand the concept of profit or something more fundamental?


Operating at a massive loss does not equal very profitable. The totality of empty ship suicide ganking is a not only a net loss to EVE (destroyed modules) but also a net loss to CODE and its backers.


My friend's corp is profiting from manufacturing and selling ships that are targeted for ganking. I've already explained this. There are other corps doing the same. You can ignore it, deny it, whatever you do with that fogged up malnourished grey matter you have, it doesn't change the demonstrable profit one can achieve from ganking for the sake of making sales.

It's called war profiteering. It's actually something that happens in the real world quite often. Any amateur historian could give you a rundown of some classic recent examples, and by recent I mean literally just within the last decade.

“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
Boom McCondor
Doomheim
#3850 - 2014-09-03 17:11:28 UTC
When is the transition from "threadnought" to "thread-tan?" Have we already hit it with this one?
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#3851 - 2014-09-03 17:11:31 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
their suicide ganking operating will never turn a profit


So what? This is a *game*. More to the point, this is a game where we all get to set our own goals. Just because I don't come out ahead on isk doesn't mean what I want to do is wrong.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#3852 - 2014-09-03 17:15:46 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Destroyed is the not the same as Dropped.
If that much is destroyed, you can bet that a fair portion is dropped as well.

You keep repeating the lie of non-profit; you keep failing to prove it, further demonstrating the fact that you have to lie to even appear as if you had an argument (which turns out to be irrelevant anyway).


Not enough dropped to cover the losses. Look at CODE's P/L - close to 400 billion raised, but only 10 billion in the treasury. Where is the profit here? The thing is a massive isk loser.


If you look at the total amount of isk the CFC has made over its life and look at our current balance it would also seem like we are operating at a loss.



CFC has used the money to obtain other assets, specifically control over large parts of nullsec. The expected future income stream eclipses the isk expended to obtain it.

Now, the only viable business plan I see for CODE, since their suicide ganking operating will never turn a profit, is to gank enough miners to materially increase the prices of raw materials, due to decreased mining in highsec. Potentially this could benefit their investors from the nullsec power blocks, who hold most of the materials (incidentally I think that mass mining is devaluing all EVE materials and inflating Plex prices, and could use a major nerf. The problem I see with this is that 400 billion isk later they have failed to achieve their objective, and now the focus on other groups - freighters, incursions, etc... makes it even less likely that they can materially reduce the amount of mining in eve.


How do you know they are not turning a profit? Equally, how did you conclude that this is their goal?
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#3853 - 2014-09-03 17:15:54 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
their suicide ganking operating will never turn a profit


So what? This is a *game*. More to the point, this is a game where we all get to set our own goals. Just because I don't come out ahead on isk doesn't mean what I want to do is wrong.


Yes, and it's also a game where CCP arbitrarily sets the rules. This allows them (much like a RL government) to incentivize behavior that is socially useful, and disincentivize behavior that is not socially useful. So, for example, if CCP decided that mining encouraged social disengagement for Eve, and was susceptible to botting and AFK, and also was contributing to Plex inflation, they might decide to wave their magic wand and nerf in. They could do the same thing with CODE suicide ganking, to the extent that it becomes socially unproductive.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#3854 - 2014-09-03 17:16:25 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
their suicide ganking operating will never turn a profit


So what? This is a *game*. More to the point, this is a game where we all get to set our own goals. Just because I don't come out ahead on isk doesn't mean what I want to do is wrong.


This is why some of us are guessing this guy is really Divine Entervention (or Salvos). The whole "I can't see why anyone would do anything I wouldn't" thing sticks out like a sore thumb and was evident in every DE post (so much so that it rose to the level of 'clinical disorder' lol).

Same thing here, Veers can't grasp the concept that ANYTHING done in a video game that is within the bounds of the EULA is legitimate. Veers wouldn't do anything that isn't profitable therefor all things must be profitable or they are illegitimate.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#3855 - 2014-09-03 17:19:29 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
some of us are guessing this guy is really Divine Entervention (or Salvos).

de was far worse, and salvos tended to be... abusive
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3856 - 2014-09-03 17:19:35 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
admiral root wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
their suicide ganking operating will never turn a profit


So what? This is a *game*. More to the point, this is a game where we all get to set our own goals. Just because I don't come out ahead on isk doesn't mean what I want to do is wrong.


Yes, and it's also a game where CCP arbitrarily sets the rules. This allows them (much like a RL government) to incentivize behavior that is socially useful, and disincentivize behavior that is not socially useful. So, for example, if CCP decided that mining encouraged social disengagement for Eve, and was susceptible to botting and AFK, and also was contributing to Plex inflation, they might decide to wave their magic wand and nerf in. They could do the same thing with CODE suicide ganking, to the extent that it becomes socially unproductive.


You, in your one man corp, which you roll when it gets decced, want to lecture us about what's socially 'useful' or 'productive'?

Can you spell 'delusion'?

I can. Ready? V-E-E-R-S. Delusion.

“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
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#3857 - 2014-09-03 17:20:07 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
admiral root wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
their suicide ganking operating will never turn a profit


So what? This is a *game*. More to the point, this is a game where we all get to set our own goals. Just because I don't come out ahead on isk doesn't mean what I want to do is wrong.


Yes, and it's also a game where CCP arbitrarily sets the rules. This allows them (much like a RL government) to incentivize behavior that is socially useful, and disincentivize behavior that is not socially useful. So, for example, if CCP decided that mining encouraged social disengagement for Eve, and was susceptible to botting and AFK, and also was contributing to Plex inflation, they might decide to wave their magic wand and nerf in. They could do the same thing with CODE suicide ganking, to the extent that it becomes socially unproductive.


Yes, they could do that. They are not going to.

The simple reason is because EVE is a video game with an economy that thrives on and needs destruction. Gankers destroy things things, creating a need for other people to build things (like new freighters) thus keeping the economy moving. Hell, in the grand scheme, the gankers are more valuable to the life and economy of EVE online than people who don't destroy things.

Your prejudice won't let you see the value in actions you personally dislike. That is why prejudice is bad, it's blinding.
Steppa Musana
Doomheim
#3858 - 2014-09-03 17:20:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Steppa Musana
Veers, congrats. The tears you have produced from Jenn, Remiel and others are rather scrumptious.

Getting severely upset to the point of projecting personal attacks due to someone's opinion on a mechanic in a video game. Gotta love the internet!

Hey guys.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3859 - 2014-09-03 17:20:49 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
some of us are guessing this guy is really Divine Entervention (or Salvos).

de was far worse, and salvos tended to be... abusive


Yeah, and this guys getting gradually worse, and revealing more and more of himself. Look at his latest post going into what's 'socially useful' and some of his others about how he abhors 'behaviour that is only intended to harm players'. Come on dude, that's DE to a T.

“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
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#3860 - 2014-09-03 17:21:59 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
some of us are guessing this guy is really Divine Entervention (or Salvos).

de was far worse, and salvos tended to be... abusive


Yes, but it could be a case of the same person having learned to moderate their tone a slight bit, but to disguise their presence and to further his agenda.

I don't know (and without a confession, will never know), but this guy seems awfully 'familiar'.