These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Mutuality of Freighter Ganking

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#201 - 2016-12-21 19:02:42 UTC
Galaxy Duck wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Galaxy Duck wrote:
These are some of my favorite Dracvlad tears. The best thing about it is that it's all in his head.

He lives in a strange parallel reality where CCP Fozzie concerns himself with the CODE./AG meta. A reality where DCU changes are meant to balance wreck HP and cats and dogs live together in harmony.


Do you like my hat, actually CCP are doing some fun things, I rather liked the NPC miners and their new behaviour, pity they scaled it back a bit in hisec but good to see that they have random spawns, now if they could every so often throw pirate BS rats and even better pirate dreads into the hisec belts I would see that as a major improvement.

It is quite telling as Herzog pointed out that CCP reacted very quickly to ganker tears, but the amusing thing for me is that you have won in terms of freighters, I sold mine. We are also noting a fall off in the numbers of freighters and more people using DST's the message is getting home which is a good thing, I expect you will beg to get DST's nerfed at some point. The other part is that people are actually starting to do logistic ops which is why you lot are trying to pretend that webs are all fine and dandy, they are not.

All you have to do is look at how he said it, what could he have possibly meant by game balance..., if he meant something else then please enlighten me. I have had cats and dogs and never had any issues with them getting on, must be you... Shocked


You're so afraid of gankers that you sold your freighter? Jeezus man, excuse me while I laugh and cry at the same time.

It seems strange to me that you can concoct these elaborate fantasies about CCP Fozzie, yet be so unimaginative when it comes to coming up with counters to bumping.


Well to be fair to guys like Dracvlad, I've been seriously contemplating selling my freighter too. But then again it is because my JF works just fine, even tanked (i.e. with a fairly small cargo hold, relatively speaking) or my blockade runners does the trick....so it is just sitting there collecting dust. Then again....its value has gone up over time....but it has been something I've thought about.

And yeah, it is indirectly due to ganking activities. IMO, they have increased over time and so I moved over to using the JF and blockade runner. The higher EHP of the JF and the cloak/speed of the blockade runner and the value of the loads I haul made that a sensible risk mitigation move.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#202 - 2016-12-21 19:06:39 UTC
I am thinking about selling a corpmate's freighter after he derped it through an extremely convenient direct-hs WH because it's not like anyone else would have wanted to use that, anyway. X

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#203 - 2016-12-21 19:18:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Miriam Beckstein wrote:

You are dramatically overstating the profit with those madeup numbers. And there are non-made up numbers that are easy to find. Red frog charge 17 million to move 1 billion cargo from jita-->amarr. The pilot is risking 2 billion to get 17 million, 0.85%, 117 trips from Jita-->amarr to pay for 1 gank. If you count ~800 mill in insurance and assume the collaterall is only 650 mill, not 1 bill, the profit margin increases to 2%, it takes 50 amarr->jita trips to pay for a single gank.



Meanwhile, back in reality, I've never - not once - had a public Jita <-> Amarr courier contract expire untaken, and I'm pretty gentle on the numberpad when I'm filling out that reward box, if you know what I mean. I'm not sure I've ever had one make it 24 hours past issuance, even. Maybe once.

Theorycraft all you want, but the risk/reward ratio has provably been deemed adequate by the general hauling population merely by virtue of the fact that haulers are taking such contracts.


And RFFs numbers indicate that they fail contracts what...0.2% of the time. So, using that 117 trips, the chances of being ganked is just under 21%.

Another way to look at is as follows, the expected loss on any given trip is 2 billion*.002 = 4 million.

The expected gain is 17 million.

In other words the expected returns are over 400% the expected loss.

But there is too much risk apparently for RFF. Roll

And yet another way to express it....

The hapless RFF pilot should expect to make around 557 trips between Jita and Amarr for every gank he sufferes, earning 9,471,428,571.43 ISK in the process.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Miriam Beckstein
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#204 - 2016-12-21 19:26:28 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Miriam Beckstein wrote:

You are dramatically overstating the profit with those madeup numbers. And there are non-made up numbers that are easy to find. Red frog charge 17 million to move 1 billion cargo from jita-->amarr. The pilot is risking 2 billion to get 17 million, 0.85%, 117 trips from Jita-->amarr to pay for 1 gank. If you count ~800 mill in insurance and assume the collaterall is only 650 mill, not 1 bill, the profit margin increases to 2%, it takes 50 amarr->jita trips to pay for a single gank.



Meanwhile, back in reality, I've never - not once - had a public Jita <-> Amarr courier contract expire untaken, and I'm pretty gentle on the numberpad when I'm filling out that reward box, if you know what I mean. I'm not sure I've ever had one make it 24 hours past issuance, even. Maybe once.

Theorycraft all you want, but the risk/reward ratio has provably been deemed adequate by the general hauling population merely by virtue of the fact that haulers are taking such contracts.


Yeah, I know. Just pointing out that '10 trips pays for 1 gank' as espoused by the last guy is relying on a very fictional level of profit. The red frog fees of 17 million for those 9 jumps is also a fictional level when it comes to public hauling contracts, so feel free to revise the profit down even further, until you're looking at 200 trips per gank to turn a profit. If someone thinks they can get their risk of being ganked down to 1 in 500 trips, then by all means take a freighter-sized hauling contract on that route for 2 million.

The risk/reward ratio of the general hauling population is too weighted towards risk for me. Makes it harder to turn a profit hauling if there's enough silly people to snap up even the low reward contracts, there's no incentive for the customers to offer a reward that matches the risk. Only way I can explain it is too many haulers assume there isn't any risk. Which would also explain why they get so upset when 'no risk' turns into lost freighter.
Miriam Beckstein
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#205 - 2016-12-21 19:44:51 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
[quote=Miriam Beckstein]
And can you please be honest, that you want CCP to reduce your risk to overloading your freighter? You keep pitching it as making it more risky for the gankers, but it is in fact you who want risk reduced, but are unwilling to do it yourself.


I don't fly overloaded freighters, I've never been ganked.

This is not about making life safer for me. Actually fix the bumping mechanics, and nothing will change for my own personal gameplay. I'll still be paranoid if I fly a hauler, I'll still scout the popular gank systems, I'll still restrict my cargo value to a certain amount. Any mistake I make now that gets me ganked will still get me ganked if bumping mechanics change.

And same goes for everyone else. Changing bumping won't make an overloaded freighter significantly safer. It'll only make them very slightly safer, probably. And only for those who don't overload, because the only thing I could see actually changing is the cost per gank to the gankers, because they might need a couple more ships or get a couple less seconds before concord, making for a slightly higher threshold before they attack.

It's just about the very simple idea that being stuck on a highsec grid indefinitely shouldn't be allowed to happen. That keeping someone on a highsec grid is only used for criminal actions that get you concorded, and therefore the act of keeping someone on grid should only be achievable by criminal actions.
Salvos Rhoska
#206 - 2016-12-21 19:45:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
This is nonsense.

If freighting was un-worthwhile/too risky, the monolithic eclipsing entity that is Jita would not exist.

Freight travels across dozens of systems inorder to end up there, as purveyed by any number of different haulers in links, and all the way back again, filled with material.

Clearly, material does transit safely and profitably to and from Jita, from and/to the furthest reaches of space, in staggering quantity compared to attrition/risk, or Jita would not exist.

If what you say was true, there would be roughly equivalent volume trade hubs throughout space, rather than the Jita situation.

It can be argued that Jita exists exactly because of risk, and that it is safer to route such a huge proportion of material in/out through one center, so as to provide protection in numbers (like a school of fish/you exploded not me). But this argument fails in that the further from Jita you get, as in/out transit lines differentiate to their myriad destinations/origins in exponential complexity.

I can agree bumping requires a limitation as outlined in my previous post.
But the presumption that hauling is too risky or unprofitable, is nonsense.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#207 - 2016-12-21 19:52:57 UTC
Miriam Beckstein wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
[quote=Miriam Beckstein]
And can you please be honest, that you want CCP to reduce your risk to overloading your freighter? You keep pitching it as making it more risky for the gankers, but it is in fact you who want risk reduced, but are unwilling to do it yourself.


I don't fly overloaded freighters, I've never been ganked.

This is not about making life safer for me. Actually fix the bumping mechanics, and nothing will change for my own personal gameplay. I'll still be paranoid if I fly a hauler, I'll still scout the popular gank systems, I'll still restrict my cargo value to a certain amount. Any mistake I make now that gets me ganked will still get me ganked if bumping mechanics change.

And same goes for everyone else. Changing bumping won't make an overloaded freighter significantly safer. It'll only make them very slightly safer, probably. And only for those who don't overload, because the only thing I could see actually changing is the cost per gank to the gankers, because they might need a couple more ships or get a couple less seconds before concord, making for a slightly higher threshold before they attack.

It's just about the very simple idea that being stuck on a highsec grid indefinitely shouldn't be allowed to happen. That keeping someone on a highsec grid is only used for criminal actions that get you concorded, and therefore the act of keeping someone on grid should only be achievable by criminal actions.


So...you want things to be less risky for other people who are imprudent and foolish and take on too much risk....so you can be made worse off....?


Salvos is right, that is nonsense.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#208 - 2016-12-21 19:56:28 UTC
Miriam Beckstein wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Miriam Beckstein wrote:

You are dramatically overstating the profit with those madeup numbers. And there are non-made up numbers that are easy to find. Red frog charge 17 million to move 1 billion cargo from jita-->amarr. The pilot is risking 2 billion to get 17 million, 0.85%, 117 trips from Jita-->amarr to pay for 1 gank. If you count ~800 mill in insurance and assume the collaterall is only 650 mill, not 1 bill, the profit margin increases to 2%, it takes 50 amarr->jita trips to pay for a single gank.



Meanwhile, back in reality, I've never - not once - had a public Jita <-> Amarr courier contract expire untaken, and I'm pretty gentle on the numberpad when I'm filling out that reward box, if you know what I mean. I'm not sure I've ever had one make it 24 hours past issuance, even. Maybe once.

Theorycraft all you want, but the risk/reward ratio has provably been deemed adequate by the general hauling population merely by virtue of the fact that haulers are taking such contracts.


Yeah, I know. Just pointing out that '10 trips pays for 1 gank' as espoused by the last guy is relying on a very fictional level of profit. The red frog fees of 17 million for those 9 jumps is also a fictional level when it comes to public hauling contracts, so feel free to revise the profit down even further, until you're looking at 200 trips per gank to turn a profit. If someone thinks they can get their risk of being ganked down to 1 in 500 trips, then by all means take a freighter-sized hauling contract on that route for 2 million.

The risk/reward ratio of the general hauling population is too weighted towards risk for me. Makes it harder to turn a profit hauling if there's enough silly people to snap up even the low reward contracts, there's no incentive for the customers to offer a reward that matches the risk. Only way I can explain it is too many haulers assume there isn't any risk. Which would also explain why they get so upset when 'no risk' turns into lost freighter.


Translation....I don't like your made up numbers so I'll make up my own numbers. I'll keep making up numbers till the risk is equal to the reward and then I can say, "See! Hauling is not profitable!"

[end translation]

Can you please stop moving your goal posts.

Roll

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#209 - 2016-12-21 20:09:04 UTC
Okay, so trying to keep the same goal posts. Roll

Assumptions:

Freighter cost: 1 billion
Cargo value: 1 billion
Collateral: 1 billion

Total: 3 billion.

Revenue for moving 1 billion in cargo from Jita to Amarr: 17 million

How many trips are needed to earn 3 billion ISK--i.e. pay for a gank.

So, using the above numbers and rounding up...

Trips to pay for a gank: 177
Gank rate is 0.002 so, in general we can expect a freighter pilot to make 500 trips before he is ganked.

Over those 500 trips the freighter pilot will ear 8.5 billion ISK. He will lose 3 billion ISK and his reward to loss ratio is 2.833 that is rewards are 283% the losses.

Yes, hauling is soooooo risky.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#210 - 2016-12-21 20:32:48 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Okay, so trying to keep the same goal posts. Roll

Assumptions:

Freighter cost: 1 billion
Cargo value: 1 billion
Collateral: 1 billion

Total: 3 billion.

Revenue for moving 1 billion in cargo from Jita to Amarr: 17 million

How many trips are needed to earn 3 billion ISK--i.e. pay for a gank.

So, using the above numbers and rounding up...

Trips to pay for a gank: 177
Gank rate is 0.002 so, in general we can expect a freighter pilot to make 500 trips before he is ganked.

Over those 500 trips the freighter pilot will ear 8.5 billion ISK. He will lose 3 billion ISK and his reward to loss ratio is 2.833 that is rewards are 283% the losses.

Yes, hauling is soooooo risky.


Some of those number looks wrong to me. If your collateral is at risk for example, then your cargo isn't as it's covered by it. That effectively reduce what you can lose if your freighter goes pop.

The player doing the freighting will also collect insurance on his loss for a % of the hull value. Even if he spend 0 ISK on insurance, he get a non negligible part of the lost value back in raw ISK.

The risk reward ration is even better than those number present unless there are tons of undocumented freighters going pop.
Avaelica Kuershin
Paper Cats
#211 - 2016-12-21 20:56:31 UTC
With this talk of bumping, how easy is it to avoid / evade a bump if your scout has dual webs on a bonused ship? Is there any chance of being bumped in that situation?
(Just wondering whether to bother getting a freighter for my hauler)
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#212 - 2016-12-21 21:01:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Okay, so trying to keep the same goal posts. Roll

Assumptions:

Freighter cost: 1 billion
Cargo value: 1 billion
Collateral: 1 billion

Total: 3 billion.

Revenue for moving 1 billion in cargo from Jita to Amarr: 17 million

How many trips are needed to earn 3 billion ISK--i.e. pay for a gank.

So, using the above numbers and rounding up...

Trips to pay for a gank: 177
Gank rate is 0.002 so, in general we can expect a freighter pilot to make 500 trips before he is ganked.

Over those 500 trips the freighter pilot will ear 8.5 billion ISK. He will lose 3 billion ISK and his reward to loss ratio is 2.833 that is rewards are 283% the losses.

Yes, hauling is soooooo risky.


Some of those number looks wrong to me. If your collateral is at risk for example, then your cargo isn't as it's covered by it. That effectively reduce what you can lose if your freighter goes pop.

The player doing the freighting will also collect insurance on his loss for a % of the hull value. Even if he spend 0 ISK on insurance, he get a non negligible part of the lost value back in raw ISK.

The risk reward ration is even better than those number present unless there are tons of undocumented freighters going pop.


I find it very amusing when people do such assessments strictly on turnover..., as if that player was not buying a plex for an account or funding other activities, of course if he is just there to pay for lost freighters for fun kill mails for gankers then it is a win win situation for both, somehow I doubt that... Shocked

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#213 - 2016-12-21 21:05:07 UTC
Avaelica Kuershin wrote:
With this talk of bumping, how easy is it to avoid / evade a bump if your scout has dual webs on a bonused ship? Is there any chance of being bumped in that situation?
(Just wondering whether to bother getting a freighter for my hauler)


I used a twin faction web Loki with full bonuses for my freighter, if I did everything correctly then they had no chance to get on my freighter, the only way apart from them having a blackbird to suicide point the freighter is if I had a lag spike and or they were very close to where I spawned on the gate due to bad luck.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Salvos Rhoska
#214 - 2016-12-21 21:15:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
The cost to a hauler from one gank, can be admittedly crippling.

But the risk of being ganked, atleast according to current data and situation, is negligible.
Furthermore, there are precautions that can be taken to ward against the success of an attempted gank, or even the occurrence of one.

Haulers are prey, inherently. They are combat incapable. Escape, evasion, preparation are their only options.
However as prey, haulers also benefit from the school of fish/herd phenomenon where prey greatly outnumber their predators, in that usually only the weak (or the brave) are culled (often by predators which outnumber that single individual) and that when that one falls, the others can escape whilst the predators are busy with itl

Basic National Geographic nature documentary 101.

In this sense, I am conducive to bumping changes as I outlined before.
But purely from the principle that indefinite bumping of any one target by one or more ships, is silly.
Ive never seen a lion bumping its prey indefinitely across the Savannah from one side to the other.
There has to be some limit.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Miriam Beckstein
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#215 - 2016-12-21 21:20:36 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
So...you want things to be less risky for other people who are imprudent and foolish and take on too much risk....so you can be made worse off....?


Unlike you, I'm able to separate what I think is good design from what I think is in my own personal interest.

Quote:
Translation....I don't like your made up numbers so I'll make up my own numbers. I'll keep making up numbers till the risk is equal to the reward and then I can say, "See! Hauling is not profitable!"

[end translation]

Can you please stop moving your goal posts.

Roll


You are genuinely a moron, aren't you?

Do you even bother to read what you're responding to?

What goalposts have moved?

Is it just strawmen all the way down?

Whether hauling is profitable or not is irrelevant to my point. If hauling meets my own criteria for risk v reward v fun, then I'll do some hauling. If it doesn't, I won't. Most of the public contracts don't pay enough for me to be willing to take the risk. But there are clearly enough pilots less risk-averse than I am who are willing to take it. That's fine.

Fly 6 billion of cargo in a freighter with 200k ehp, you deserve to be ganked. Fly 800 million of cargo in a freighter with 400k ehp, ganking you shouldn't be profitable. As long as the risk v reward and gank profitability calculation falls somewhere in the middle of that, I think it's fine.

I have no vested interest in exactly where it lands in that range. I have no interest in ganking, I have limited interest in hauling. Hauling gets cheaper, great. I'll make more isk getting others to haul my stuff. Hauling gets more expensive, great. I'll make more isk hauling stuff myself.

So again, the only goalpost involved, the only point I'm making, the bit that you keep ignoring in favour of trolling about all your other rubbish, is this:

Miriam Beckstein wrote:
It's just about the very simple idea that being stuck on a highsec grid indefinitely shouldn't be allowed to happen. That keeping someone on a highsec grid is only used for criminal actions that get you concorded, and therefore the act of keeping someone on grid should only be achievable by criminal actions.


That's it. Gankers can still gank, haulers can still mitigate risk, it just removes the unfair component of ganking, while allowing fair ganking to continue unabated. Simple enough even for you to understand, if you choose to.
Aaron
Eternal Frontier
#216 - 2016-12-21 21:43:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Aaron
17 million for Red Frog to haul 1 billion cargo value jita to amarr? That's very cheap imo.

So hauling 40b cargo value will cost 680m, seems like a reasonable insurance payment to ensure the goods get to their destination safely.

The arguments and debates going on here are pointless, There are options to avoid getting into a bump/gank situation. I think the people saying bumping and ganking isn't balanced should be left to argue with themselves because you are never going to get through to them and they'll waste lots of time trying to remove flour from bread after it's baked.

Fear no one, live life, be free, accept the truth, do not judge others, defend yourself, fight hard till the end, meditate on problems and be prosperous. Things to exist by. -- RAIN Arthie
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#217 - 2016-12-21 22:00:10 UTC
I am just imagining Red frog cutting a completed Keepstar into small bits, I find it rather amusing.

As for bumping, I think I have a repetitive statement to make:

Consequence free PvP in hisec is against the spirit of Eve
Consequence free PvP in hisec is against the spirit of Eve
Consequence free PvP in hisec is against the spirit of Eve
Consequence free PvP in hisec is against the spirit of Eve
Consequence free PvP in hisec is against the spirit of Eve
Consequence free PvP in hisec is against the spirit of Eve
Consequence free PvP in hisec is against the spirit of Eve
Consequence free PvP in hisec is against the spirit of Eve

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Salvos Rhoska
#218 - 2016-12-21 22:02:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Aaron wrote:
17 million for Red Frog to haul 1 billion cargo value jita to amarr? That's very cheap imo.


Exactly.

And the reason it is so cheap, is due to:
-Red Frog taking sufficient precautions to ensure delivery. Ive never once had a contract lapse to collateral by them.
They are like clockwork, almost an NPC entity in-terms of almost immediate and perfect performance.
-Hauling is so safe that proliferate competition forces the price down.
-Inversely, cos Im a cynical bastard, Red Frog has an interest in keeping rates down, so as to dissuade competitors whom cannot match their low rates + high level of organisation and precautions, in order to compete for their hauling market share.

People are confusing the potentially devastating loss of isk to an individual hauler from a successful gank, with the rate of its occurrence.

These are two different elements of risk, both of which can be mitigated.
Yes, getting wrecked will destroy your budget. But the chance of it happening is remote.
And you can do things to prevent that happening in the first place.

Dont be a target.
Take precautions.
Gankers will instead target the weak, stupid or foolhardy that dont.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Aaron
Eternal Frontier
#219 - 2016-12-21 22:34:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Aaron
Dracvlad wrote:
I am just imagining Red frog cutting a completed Keepstar into small bits, I find it rather amusing.

As for bumping, I think I have a repetitive statement to make:

Consequence free PvP in hisec is against the spirit of Eve
Consequence free PvP in hisec is against the spirit of Eve
Consequence free PvP in hisec is against the spirit of Eve
Consequence free PvP in hisec is against the spirit of Eve
Consequence free PvP in hisec is against the spirit of Eve
Consequence free PvP in hisec is against the spirit of Eve
Consequence free PvP in hisec is against the spirit of Eve
Consequence free PvP in hisec is against the spirit of Eve


Is that a do-rag on your head? have you turned into a break-dancing gangster in the time I haven't spoken to. The hat and the stance make you look like u just finished break-dancing.

Man Parish - Hip Hop Be Bop

Fear no one, live life, be free, accept the truth, do not judge others, defend yourself, fight hard till the end, meditate on problems and be prosperous. Things to exist by. -- RAIN Arthie
Aaron
Eternal Frontier
#220 - 2016-12-21 22:44:10 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Aaron wrote:
17 million for Red Frog to haul 1 billion cargo value jita to amarr? That's very cheap imo.


Exactly.

And the reason it is so cheap, is due to:
-Red Frog taking sufficient precautions to ensure delivery. Ive never once had a contract lapse to collateral by them.
They are like clockwork, almost an NPC entity in-terms of almost immediate and perfect performance.
-Hauling is so safe that proliferate competition forces the price down.
-Inversely, cos Im a cynical bastard, Red Frog has an interest in keeping rates down, so as to dissuade competitors whom cannot match their low rates + high level of organisation and precautions, in order to compete for their hauling market share.

People are confusing the potentially devastating loss of isk to an individual hauler from a successful gank, with the rate of its occurrence.

These are two different elements of risk, both of which can be mitigated.
Yes, getting wrecked will destroy your budget. But the chance of it happening is remote.
And you can do things to prevent that happening in the first place.

Dont be a target.
Take precautions.
Gankers will instead target the weak, stupid or foolhardy that dont.


Indeed, People gotta get with it. close your eyes and repeat "Eve Online is Game of Thrones in space" repeat it 1000 times till you get it. What you'll find is that you'll stop doing things like put 40 billion cargo value in your hauler. And you'll start understanding that if you overfill your freight you're making yourself a target.

Fear no one, live life, be free, accept the truth, do not judge others, defend yourself, fight hard till the end, meditate on problems and be prosperous. Things to exist by. -- RAIN Arthie