These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jaison Savrin
Brave Empire Inc.
Brave United
#61 - 2012-11-03 22:16:47 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Jaison Savrin wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Jaison Savrin wrote:
Gankers just want their risk free money. Just be less efficient/use more freighters until they get bored.


And don't be a liar.

You can't tell us they want risk free money and then tell us you're not saying ganking isn't risk free.


That is exactly what you said!



Poorly worded. Let me rephrase


Gankers want their relatively risk free money.

That's better.

But guess who else?

Miners, they want their "relatively" risk free money.
PvEers, love thier "relatively" risk free money.
I love my "relatively" risk free manufacturing and market money.


However, only a ganker is ever guaranteed a loss.



Yes, all those other activities are relatively risk free. I agree entirely. All I am saying is that ganking is no more risk filled than those activities. Although it does, as you also point out, have a higher operating cost due to the guaranteed loss. I am also not debating that. I just don't like pro-ganking players going around claiming it is anything more than "relatively risk free."
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#62 - 2012-11-03 22:25:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Jaison Savrin wrote:
Tippa... Ugh, you're debate style is really annoying. All you try to do is divert the conversation by asking a question that has no solid bearing on the debate.
Right. So defining risk has no bearing on a conversation on the topic of whether ganking has risks or not. Roll

Yeah, talking about the topic is really diverting away from the fallacy that it has none. I'll give you that.

Quote:
Reducing CONCORD's response would reduce operating costs by making the gankers loose ships 1/100 of the time. It would be a reduction in operating costs. Percentages are hard, am I right?
No. That's not how probability works, nor is it how risk works. By that logic, there are no risks ever. You getting run over in the street tomorrow as you go to work is just a cost of doing busines living…

The beauty of the risk concept is that it lets you combine and (hopfeully) calculate the predicted outcome of a whole slew of events, positive and negative, with a wide variety of likelihoods. If we are looking at just one thing and the likelihood of it happening is 1, all we have is a trivial case — we do not have a “non-risk”. The closest to a non-risk would be if either the cost or the probability was zero, but really, that's just another trivial case that we suppose that we can ignore since it has no effect.

One of the risks gankers face is the destruction of their ships. It is a very very high risk since the odds for CONCORD not showing up are horribly poor… but it's there (and even if it really were 1, it would still be that trivial-case risk). Another risk they have is the drop rate of the items. A third risk is the hit qualities they achieve in the attack. A fourth risk is the HP of the victim, which can fluctuate. Then there are passers-by — planned or otherwise.

All of it — even the things one would assume are foregone conclusions — can be summed up using the same risk calculation. All of them are risks in one form or another.

Oh, and risk being cost × probability is an ISO standard these days… If EVE players define it differently, then that's there problem and they should probably learn what it means before they try to use it as an argument.
Lady Katherine Devonshire
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#63 - 2012-11-03 22:25:53 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
that's pitiful ehp, then again i guess you're paying 1.5bn isk for over 800k of cargo space, not an impregnable floating fortress.


Then give freighters slot options like any normal ship so that they can be, if the captain so chooses.

The sound of the Amarrian heart
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#64 - 2012-11-03 22:25:56 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Jaison Savrin wrote:



Yes, all those other activities are relatively risk free. I agree entirely. All I am saying is that ganking is no more risk filled than those activities. Although it does, as you also point out, have a higher operating cost due to the guaranteed loss. I am also not debating that. I just don't like pro-ganking players going around claiming it is anything more than "relatively risk free."

So miners get GCC, are open to attack from the corp they just stole the rock from and, come winter, are open to attack by anyone too?

Oh and there is a good change that they get nothing from the asteroid.
Dave Stark
#65 - 2012-11-03 22:27:58 UTC
Jaison Savrin wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Jaison Savrin wrote:
Risk may be Cost * probability. I do not know.


so, you're openly admitting you don't know about the topic being discussed.

well...



In business (which Eve is not) Risk may be Cost * probability. I do not know.


Nice try on that. Selectively editing a post to try to prove a point does little more than prove that you do not have a strong basis for your argument and makes you look foolish. If you want to continue to try to disprove my point or change my opinion fine. However, don't make yourself look like an idiot in the process. It brings nothing to the debate of value.


except, eve is business. hauling items is logistics, which is a business. almost every activity in the game is based upon some kind of business model.

hence, you are admitting you haven't got a clue.
Dave Stark
#66 - 2012-11-03 22:29:01 UTC
Lady Katherine Devonshire wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
that's pitiful ehp, then again i guess you're paying 1.5bn isk for over 800k of cargo space, not an impregnable floating fortress.


Then give freighters slot options like any normal ship so that they can be, if the captain so chooses.


sure, as long as we're reducing the cargo capacity while we're at it.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#67 - 2012-11-03 22:34:14 UTC
Lady Katherine Devonshire wrote:
Then give freighters slot options like any normal ship so that they can be, if the captain so chooses.
Just one problem: that would only result in more freighters being lost.

Freighters must be limited to having less than 1M m³ cargo space. Freighters also have the vast bulk of their HP in the form of hull. If you wanted to fit anything that makes it tank significantly better on its own, it'll have to be a lowslot — either a suitcase or bulkheads. Having lowslots means you can fit cargo expanders, which means that the base cargo capacity has to be reduced by ~25% for every lowslot they gain.

This will result in haulers (still, as always) ignoring things like tank and fly with all-expander fits to get back their old cargo capacity, which will have the consequence of further weakening the ships since expanders take away hull HP… you know, those HP that makes the freighter live or die. End result: same freighters as before, now fitted in such a way that they explode more easily. Then we come right back to where we started, with haulers complaining about very rare events and refusing to make use of the options available to them (especially the logical “fit a damage control” since doing so would kill their precious cargo capacity).
Jaison Savrin
Brave Empire Inc.
Brave United
#68 - 2012-11-03 22:44:12 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Jaison Savrin wrote:
Tippa... Ugh, you're debate style is really annoying. All you try to do is divert the conversation by asking a question that has no solid bearing on the debate.
Right. So defining risk has no bearing on a conversation on the topic of whether ganking has risks or not. Roll

Yeah, talking about the topic is really diverting away from the fallacy that it has none. I'll give you that.

Quote:
Reducing CONCORD's response would reduce operating costs by making the gankers loose ships 1/100 of the time. It would be a reduction in operating costs. Percentages are hard, am I right?
No. That's not how probability works, nor is it how risk works. By that logic, there are no risks ever. You getting run over in the street tomorrow as you go to work is just a cost of doing busines living…

The beauty of the risk concept is that it lets you combine and (hopfeully) calculate the predicted outcome of a whole slew of events, positive and negative, with a wide variety of likelihoods. If we are looking at just one thing and the likelihood of it happening is 1, all we have is a trivial case — we do not have a “non-risk”. The closest to a non-risk would be if either the cost or the probability was zero, but really, that's just another trivial case that we suppose that we can ignore since it has no effect.

One of the risks gankers face is the destruction of their ships. It is a very very high risk since the odds for CONCORD not showing up are horribly poor… but it's there (and even if it really were 1, it would still be that trivial-case risk). Another risk they have is the drop rate of the items. A third risk is the hit qualities they achieve in the attack. A fourth risk is the HP of the victim, which can fluctuate. Then there are passers-by — planned or otherwise.

All of it — even the things one would assume are foregone conclusions — can be summed up using the same risk calculation. All of them are risks in one form or another.

Oh, and risk being cost × probability is an ISO standard these days… If EVE players define it differently, then that's there problem and they should probably learn what it means before they try to use it as an argument.



No, you're trying to redefine the argument in an absurd hypothetical in order to make me flaw my logic so you can pick out a single mistake, focus on it, and use your own skills to win the debate. You do it often in many threads. It is an effective style but one I find annoying. Saying CONCORD having a 1% chance to react isn't part of this debate. I am sure that we could find a thread where CONCORD mechanics are the debate but I have no problem with them so I probably wouldn't comment.


As for how the ISO defines risk I can't argue on that. However, EVE is a game. My definition of risk wouldn't suit real world applications just like in the real world people wouldn't be able to blow up cargo ships without more consequence than having their own ships destroyed. Eve doesn't function on real world mechanics so I think it is very difficult to argue that strict real world definitions are the definitions applied to Eve. It is a game after all.


If you and I were talking about a real business that occurs in reality you would have me beat hands down. I wouldn't even debate with you on that. This is Eve though. Life isn't based on lines of code just like Eve isn't based on the whims of fate or random chance. Eve is extremely mathematical as all computer programs. The random factor in Eve is player reaction which has very little bearing on ganking.
Jaison Savrin
Brave Empire Inc.
Brave United
#69 - 2012-11-03 22:53:41 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Jaison Savrin wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Jaison Savrin wrote:
Risk may be Cost * probability. I do not know.


so, you're openly admitting you don't know about the topic being discussed.

well...



In business (which Eve is not) Risk may be Cost * probability. I do not know.


Nice try on that. Selectively editing a post to try to prove a point does little more than prove that you do not have a strong basis for your argument and makes you look foolish. If you want to continue to try to disprove my point or change my opinion fine. However, don't make yourself look like an idiot in the process. It brings nothing to the debate of value.


except, eve is business. hauling items is logistics, which is a business. almost every activity in the game is based upon some kind of business model.

hence, you are admitting you haven't got a clue.



Eve is a game. There are instances where business logic can be applied because of the nature of the free form player driven economy. We aren't debating on the practical applications of business theory to logistics. We're talking about whether ganking is or isn't a relatively risk free activity. I've already admitted that there are ways to mitigate the probability of getting ganked as a freighter pilot. I already apply these to the best of my ability. I'm not saying ganking is bad. I am just saying it is no more risky than other random drop activities. If I were in null sec farming officer spawns with a strong intel network behind me my risk would be about the same. I can find out the best method for finding these officers, I can find out the probability of it dropping, I can do some math, and I can predict the outcome. Just like ganking. Could I be wrong and have wasted time? Sure, that is a very smalle "risk" though. If I am in a pimped ratting ship my ISK investment is about the same though. With a good intel network I have mitigated getting caught to near 0. The only thing ganking has that is a lot more difficult to mitigate is its operating cost. Which I do not define as risk. Even if I did define it so I would argue that is balanced out by the time investment of getting a particular spawn and drop in ratting. To me they are roughly equal in risk.
Dave Stark
#70 - 2012-11-03 22:56:40 UTC
Jaison Savrin wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Jaison Savrin wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Jaison Savrin wrote:
Risk may be Cost * probability. I do not know.


so, you're openly admitting you don't know about the topic being discussed.

well...



In business (which Eve is not) Risk may be Cost * probability. I do not know.


Nice try on that. Selectively editing a post to try to prove a point does little more than prove that you do not have a strong basis for your argument and makes you look foolish. If you want to continue to try to disprove my point or change my opinion fine. However, don't make yourself look like an idiot in the process. It brings nothing to the debate of value.


except, eve is business. hauling items is logistics, which is a business. almost every activity in the game is based upon some kind of business model.

hence, you are admitting you haven't got a clue.



Eve is a game. There are instances where business logic can be applied because of the nature of the free form player driven economy. We aren't debating on the practical applications of business theory to logistics. We're talking about whether ganking is or isn't a relatively risk free activity. I've already admitted that there are ways to mitigate the probability of getting ganked as a freighter pilot. I already apply these to the best of my ability. I'm not saying ganking is bad. I am just saying it is no more risky than other random drop activities. If I were in null sec farming officer spawns with a strong intel network behind me my risk would be about the same. I can find out the best method for finding these officers, I can find out the probability of it dropping, I can do some math, and I can predict the outcome. Just like ganking. Could I be wrong and have wasted time? Sure, that is a very smalle "risk" though. If I am in a pimped ratting ship my ISK investment is about the same though. With a good intel network I have mitigated getting caught to near 0. The only thing ganking has that is a lot more difficult to mitigate is its operating cost. Which I do not define as risk. Even if I did define it so I would argue that is balanced out by the time investment of getting a particular spawn and drop in ratting. To me they are roughly equal in risk.


i'm just going to say "ok"

because **** reading that wall of text.
Ginger Barbarella
#71 - 2012-11-03 22:59:03 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Elliot Vodka wrote:
Solutions dont include learn the game. Thats old and lame. Post something exciting.
If it's stupid but works, it's not stupid. Same thing applies here: if it's old and lame and works, it's not old and lame.

Learning to play the game is the solution. It's a problem haulers create for themselves. It is trivially easy for them to un-create it.


I actually agree with that. And I'm not drunk. P

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#72 - 2012-11-03 23:08:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Jaison Savrin wrote:
No, you're trying to redefine the argument in an absurd hypothetical in order to make me flaw my logic so you can pick out a single mistake, focus on it, and use your own skills to win the debate.
No. I'm trying to clarify that gankers indeed have risks.

There is nothing absurd or hypothetical about it. It's all well-known and very real.

Quote:
Saying CONCORD having a 1% chance to react isn't part of this debate.
No, it's a reductio ad absurdum to show that the notion that 100% probability = no risk doesn't hold water. If it were true that a probability of 1 created a no-risk situation, then any probability different from 1 (and, arguably, 0) would create a situation with risk. A 1% chance would be such a different probability.

Thus, if we hold that 100% = no risk then we must also hold that 1% = infinitely more risk, and that giving CONCORD a 1% chance of appearing would somehow increase the risk for the gankers compared to if the chance is 100%. This conclusion is absurd, thus we reject the premise: a 100% probability does not make it a non-risk.

It's very much part of the debate since that particular absurd argument keep appearing.
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#73 - 2012-11-03 23:12:11 UTC
I recently moved 200b of stuff in a freighter and had no problems because I am not an idiot. People who lose these ships generally do so because they are either lazy or grossly incompetent.

The only solution is to take responsibility for your actions and learn how the game works. CCP cannot fix stupid.

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)
Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#74 - 2012-11-04 01:28:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Soon Shin
One way to make it harder if to take Lots and Lots and Lots of Bookmarks and throw them into your cargohold.

The amount of items will make it so that the scanner takes a very long time to get the results of it.

If your ship gets ganked it creates a hilarious bum rush where everyone has to wait for a long agonizing item for the contents of


the wreck to load.



You can safely carry expensive 5 billion isk in a slaved damnation. Over 600k ehp will greatly discourage from anyone for ever


shooting or even scanning you. Add tracking disruptors in you mids to killmail whore on their ship when they get concorded for an


embarassing loss.
Kaivar Lancer
Doomheim
#75 - 2012-11-04 03:44:15 UTC
Last year I lost 1b worth of loot while traveling in a T1 indy.

Lesson learned.

If you don't want to get ganked while hauling, the best solution I found is to transfer that risk to someone else via hauling contracts.
Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
#76 - 2012-11-04 03:48:24 UTC
By "solution" to the ganking "problem" I assume you mean "gief some arbitrary limitation to compensate for my lack of intelligence and utter incompetence".

It's quiet simple, no one with a shred of a clue gets ganked. These gankees are like those fat people that "have tried everything" except the thing that is actually guaranteed to work, exercise and less eating of junk (read learn the game and stop being dumb).
Fieriy
State War Academy
Caldari State
#77 - 2012-11-04 04:09:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Fieriy
Tippia wrote:
Jaison Savrin wrote:
No, you're trying to redefine the argument in an absurd hypothetical in order to make me flaw my logic so you can pick out a single mistake, focus on it, and use your own skills to win the debate.
No. I'm trying to clarify that gankers indeed have risks.

There is nothing absurd or hypothetical about it. It's all well-known and very real.

Quote:
Saying CONCORD having a 1% chance to react isn't part of this debate.
No, it's a reductio ad absurdum to show that the notion that 100% probability = no risk doesn't hold water. If it were true that a probability of 1 created a no-risk situation, then any probability different from 1 (and, arguably, 0) would create a situation with risk. A 1% chance would be such a different probability.

Thus, if we hold that 100% = no risk then we must also hold that 1% = infinitely more risk, and that giving CONCORD a 1% chance of appearing would somehow increase the risk for the gankers compared to if the chance is 100%. This conclusion is absurd, thus we reject the premise: a 100% probability does not make it a non-risk.

It's very much part of the debate since that particular absurd argument keep appearing.



You're somewhat ignorant of what the word risk means. 100% probability is a guarantee, not a risk. Again, risk assumes a possibility, but not a guarantee.
Melodee619
Heavy Industry Construction and Mining Inc.
#78 - 2012-11-04 04:14:26 UTC
You can only be killed in hs if YOU ARE AT FAULT... Every single time it's down to you. So it doesn't matter how much you carry. If you don't use SS, or set emergency warps off grid,or have SS off the dock, then tough ****. Sadly though CCP seem to be aiming at making HS pvp free.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#79 - 2012-11-04 04:32:23 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Lady Katherine Devonshire wrote:
Then give freighters slot options like any normal ship so that they can be, if the captain so chooses.
Just one problem: that would only result in more freighters being lost.

Freighters must be limited to having less than 1M m³ cargo space. Freighters also have the vast bulk of their HP in the form of hull. If you wanted to fit anything that makes it tank significantly better on its own, it'll have to be a lowslot — either a suitcase or bulkheads. Having lowslots means you can fit cargo expanders, which means that the base cargo capacity has to be reduced by ~25% for every lowslot they gain.

This will result in haulers (still, as always) ignoring things like tank and fly with all-expander fits to get back their old cargo capacity, which will have the consequence of further weakening the ships since expanders take away hull HP… you know, those HP that makes the freighter live or die. End result: same freighters as before, now fitted in such a way that they explode more easily. Then we come right back to where we started, with haulers complaining about very rare events and refusing to make use of the options available to them (especially the logical “fit a damage control” since doing so would kill their precious cargo capacity).



What you say is EXACTLY what people are asking for with freighters. They are asking for the cargo to be nerfed, so that they can choose between cargo & EHP. At which point people who fly an all cargo fit have made a CHOICE to be vulnerable. Even if they then whine afterwards. Currently there is no choice.

As for 'escorts'. Thats a laughable suggestion. If it was low/null and they could engage any potential threat, you (being those suggesting them, not Tippia) might have a point, but if the Rook/etc tries to ECM anyone before they actually fire, the Rook gets blown up by concord. A gank takes 10-15 seconds, any longer and they have failed because Concord has gotten them, so the escorts have to pull off their defensive locks, and disrupt the targets inside that window. While the attackers since they are using the infinite time 'bump the freighter so it can never warp to anywhere so it doesn't matter how many safe spots the freighter has bookmarked' method typically, can pick their engagement whenever they want.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#80 - 2012-11-04 05:30:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
6 months ago I would have agreed that operating costs don't equal risk, after doing some reading on the suicide gank mechanics, operating costs are very much equal to risk given that you're not guarenteed a loot drop. The only reason that suicide ganking freighters is anywhere near close to profitable is that idiots pack them full of high value items and then expect to sail across the galaxy without being shipscanned.

Freighter pilots, offload your risk factor to Red Frog or PushX, they will both move your stuff for you, for a reasonable sum, and pay you if it gets exploded. To them the risk of suicide ganks is an accepted part of what they do, much like the driver of a security truck accepts the risk of being hijacked/robbed every time he makes a delivery or collection.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack