EVE General Discussion

A webbing alt is a great counter to prevent bumping.

Looking at the Loki, Huginn and Rapier, the lock times are here:

https://puu.sh/sX33o/29d57c3fe2.png

In general, as above that gives you at most 1 server tick to lock and start webbing. That will have you in warp 1 tick later. So at most 2 ticks from decloak to an invulnerable state and in warp.

Alternative setup on the Loki (more common) is to use Loki Electronics - Immobility Drivers (for web range bonus) and use a targetting implant and rig. Times are the same.

Since you have total control over when in the minute of jump cloak that you will decloak, there is no reason other than technical issues (eg. lag) that a Freighter with an effective webbing alt should ever be bumped, but don't underestimate lag. **** happens to everyone.

Next to that, there is the counter that a Blackbird (also sebo'd has similarly short lock times) could point the freighter, breaking the warp command and giving the bumper more time to get an initial bump.

Just running that now for the last 3 months:

https://puu.sh/sX1hL/f20db412a4.png

That represents a chance, across all highsec systems over the last 3 months of 0.00326 of having an issue that allows a Blackbird to point you even with a Loki, Huginn or Rapier assisting with webs (actual chance of being ganked in the first place is much, much lower).

However, you can also improve your odds there too. Just looking at Jita -> Amarr, Jita -> Dodixie, Jita -> Rens and Jita -> Hek routes (and reverse) and the last 1000 Blackbird losses:

https://puu.sh/sWZmG/35c1ed6608.png

54 in highsec over the last 76 days, 22 of which were criminal at the time they died and the character names for those 22 criminal blackbirds then listed.

Add those characters to your scout/webbing alt bad/terrible standings and either find them before jumping in (they generally don't fit any sort of cloak), or don't jump in to a system with your Freighter if they are present.

That reduces the risk by another couple of orders of magnitude.

Wut?

The issue is assets at risk, not if he needs to buy a PLEX. I mean really, is it CCP's business to worry which of their customers can or cannot afford to pay for the game via grinding or RL income? Is this some sort of dipshit SJW thread suddenly?

And apparently Dracvlad is a complete innumerate as well...with a reward to loss ratio of around 300% buying a PLEX is not a problem. He makes 8.5-9 billion ISK, he needs to replace a loss which has of what 2 billion? That leaves plenty for buying a PLEX.

Unfortunately for you, I don't gank for profit, so once again we see you are wrong.



Well, so much for your whines about name calling.

And yes, I read your insipid post and it is clear you did not like the way the numbers were working out for you so you started pulling numbers out of your ass so they would more closely align with your prior beliefs as opposed to subjecting your prior beliefs to the numbers you were getting.

As for your sole point...



So you were posting about risk vs. reward and courier contract rewards because.....of bumping?

And again...the only people who find themselves being bumped are the people who were imprudent to begin with....i.e. the ones you are fine getting ganked.

Also, it is what allows for ganking. Remove bumping you remove ganking. Reduce bumping you reduce ganking. Removing or reducing ganking is basically giving a green light to being imprudent...well, it won't be imprudent anymore if it is removed. Without bumping gankers would have to rely on alpha strikes which means the amount hauled before being at risk of being ganked would be much higher. A quick calculation suggests that it would be in the 4.5-5 billion range.

In short, you seem to be the champion of fools. Congratulations on your new title.

Some poor little lost kitten has been sending me abusive mails in game regarding my comments on this issue as if I've insulted his mother. If you're reading this, kiddo, you're more than welcome to reply to me on the forums, right here, in public, instead of sending your cowardly abuse and then blocking me so I can't reply except with an alt. In any event, he's been reported, but he seems to be one of those carebears that enjoys calling people 'toxic' as if he's somehow perfect himself, all the while not realising the hypocrisy inherent in sending me abusive mails in-game. Oh well.

I don't see risk aversion as healthy, and I've explained why, in no uncertain terms. I don't really care if people disagree with that anymore, because I was never arguing about it, only explaining why I was right. If anyone wants to make that an in-game problem with me, please feel free to bring some guns. My mail is now closed to all but those on my contacts list, because I'll not give cowards that pleasure.

The biggest disagreements around things like risk aversion come from behavioral economics. There the issue is mainly loss aversion, that is people appear to treat losses as if they are worse than an equivalent gain. It all stems from various paradoxes relating to expected utility theory. They are not literal paradoxes in the classic sense, just that various experts in expected utility theory can't seem to apply the theory consistently suggesting that it is not a good description of how people actually behave.

My guess is most Eve players are risk averse. Some are loss averse. The loss averse ones, IMO, would be the ones to call for making HS increasingly safer.

If you're talking about me, I want to make something very clear. On these forums, I'm not anyone-aligned. I'm "EVE's best interests as a whole" aligned. I argue for and against many aspects of EVE from as impartial and non-partisan position as possible, with a focus on what EVE is, has been throughout its lifespan, and should be in the future. That's my interest. I have nothing against miners, I have nothing against gankers. As far as I'm concerned, everyone is playing the same game, but for different reasons, and everyone wants something different from it. What they want largely depends on what they think EVE is. I'm trying to help people understand what EVE is to help better calibrate their direction in this game. My goal, on these forums, is always to make EVE better, without changing the gourmet flavour she has to offer.

It wasn't Teckos who sent them, it was some other random, maybe an alt of someone else posting here but not Teckos. Teckos isn't anywhere near salty enough or carebear enough to have been the culprit of that, trust me. Teckos has been quite reasonable. I managed to get through a few of his citations last night and despite the fact that I can easily refute them all, I'm quite done with the argument. I was done when I realise that one's personal (however wrong) definition of terms when used in the context of EVE Online gameplay is their own failure and own problem that will only effect people that already want to believe that same way anyway. Such as people who need excuses for their own risk aversion. All that aside, the argument itself is moot, and Teckos' is not responsible for the mails I received. If he was, which I highly doubt, then he'll receive the appropriate response from the GM's when they handle my ticket, and nothing more needs to be said of it.

For the record, I don't have a personal problem with Teckos. Never did. You should know, I take difference with what is said, not the man or woman who says it. Nor does Teckos seem to have a personal problem with me. Whoever mailed me made it into a huge personal problem.

Thanks.

While I disagree with you risk, overall I think on many topics we agree. The risk issue is more...well of a nit pick issue, as one poster put it we probably would agree on many details but the semantics are causing us to bicker and talk past each other...i.e. neither of us wants HS to become safer.

I am going to quote this because Teckos believes that removing bumping will kill ganking, people please note this, it is very very important to understand especially when people like Teckos accuse people like me of wanting to stop ganking, this is how his mind is working..

Changing bumping will not kill ganking, it changes how they have to do it, it does not enable them to stack up targets for easy kills but makes it more dynamic, fluid and interesting, more of a battle of wits and resources than a spreadsheet like damage calcualtor on the freighter fit, I called freighter ganking stale due to bumping for this very reason, for me this is totally outside of what I see as Eve.

I know a lot of you don't like me, fair does, but think about this it is important...

All these years and the explanation was right here.

That totally explains the insurance industry in one simple post.