These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

GM Response On Bumping

First post First post First post
Author
Agent Trask
Doomheim
#141 - 2013-02-21 04:37:46 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

Before you say "they just won't try to gank me when the Nado is there," let me say that, if that is the case, Mission **************** Accomplished.


[Tornado, Protect Ze Miners]

( fit )





Yea, we would have to gank that instead. That gives one miner time to beat feet.

Join the New Order, buy your permit today, and follow the code.

www.minerbumping.com

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#142 - 2013-02-21 05:03:29 UTC
Agent Trask wrote:
Yea, we would have to gank that instead. That gives one miner time to beat feet.


It's almost certainly much harder to gank a Nado than a Hulk. Especially since not-totally-untanked versions work just as well (I have the SEBO's because someone complained about lock time or something), as do battleship versions (though lock time may be a slight issue).

It also gives every miner he's protecting time to beat feet.


In other words, it is perfectly feasible to fight suicide gankers or to stop them from ganking you. Miners don't do it because, judging by their actual, in game actions, either ganking has never represented a significant enough threat to be worth making any adjustments to counter it (even during HAG), or they're really stupid.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Runeme Shilter
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#143 - 2013-02-21 11:06:56 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

In other words, it is perfectly feasible to fight suicide gankers or to stop them from ganking you. Miners don't do it because, judging by their actual, in game actions, either ganking has never represented a significant enough threat to be worth making any adjustments to counter it (even during HAG), or they're really stupid.


It's the classic "Someone must do something - wait, no, not me, I'm afk mining". It's much easier to just cry on the forums for more nerfs to ganking.
Michael Loney
Skullspace Industries
#144 - 2013-02-21 13:41:27 UTC
Runeme Shilter wrote:

It's the classic "Someone must do something - wait, no, not me, I'm afk mining". It's much easier to just cry on the forums for more nerfs to ganking.



Quite the opposite, I think ganking as it is is fine right now.

I take issue with the relative safety of high-sec ganking in general. There is almost nothing either a casual solo miner or a well oiled 20 man fleet operation can do to fight back against a dedicated ganking group like the New Order. By scanning targets and manipulating CONCORD they will almost never fail.

Either I abandon my Isk making activities and buy combat ships or hire others to protect me. Oh, right, even if I had a Tornado sitting close by that's either another miner who is losing income or a player getting paid to stay at the keyboard and watch me mine in hopes he can prevent me getting ganked.

Think of it like a bully in grade school, he is bigger, badder and willing to go to extremely ridiculous lengths just to pummel you. Only difference is in real life there is a balance to this, a higher authority. For the New Order they have a leader who appointed himself as that authority. Miners are screwed.

Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#145 - 2013-02-21 13:45:14 UTC
Michael Loney wrote:

If you tank well and sacrifice your yield then you are losing money every cycle that you are not ganked. With them pre-scanning your ship it does not matter if you are a hard target, they will bring as much DPS as needed to take you out.


I think that is perfectly accurate, you may as well go for yield over tank as it makes no difference to the outcome. Going with yield will in the long term mitigate the impact of losses sooner and as an individual you shouldn’t be losing a ship every day so it should be a viable strategy. It certainly makes no sense for an individual to have an escort.

For fleet operations the inability to defend an Orca raises some issues. In that case they used at least a dozen ships which are enough to make a defence pointless. Even if there had been some ships to keep the Orca safe it wouldn’t be enough to prevent a fleet of that size from taking out a few barges instead. With such numbers it is cheaper to sacrifice the Orca.

Economically it is always best to have as many people generating income as possible, you can only control the rate and amount of your income so maximise it. The loses you have no control over so you can’t plan for them.
Each ship defending a mining fleet costs you somewhere in the region of 15m/hour in lost income but then those pilots also take a slice of the remaining income so in real terms and for the sake of ease I’ll go with a total of 20m/hour per escort. A single escort is therefore pretty much the equivalent of losing one Hulk for every seven or eight hours of mining (can’t remember the insurance value) and realistically you’d have to be pretty unlucky to lose a ship so often. For a fleet you'd need more than one escort so you would be costing yourself more than a ship per operation by attempting a reasonable defence.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#146 - 2013-02-22 10:33:39 UTC
Michael Loney wrote:
I do not enjoy mining, it is tedious, boring and takes a lot of time to get things done. On the flip side it makes good money while fighting inanimate rocks, this is how I choose to play, this is what I do to afford my PvP. I do not have to worry about what fit to use or what ship they are bringing to the fight. It is easy, and casual.

One point that always seems to be missed in these discussions:

YOU CANNOT FIGHT A GANKER PILOT IN HIGH-SEC

Best case scenario,

1) You war'dec the gankers corp or multiple corps. ( your cost )
2) You locate them in a station. ( again your cost )
3) You camp outside station until the gank fleet undocks. ( your time lost )
4) You manage to lock one or two of them up and maybe even warp scram them. ( even with a 10+ fleet it would be hard )
5) You kill one or two ships ( Planned loss on their side )
6) They dock back up and the gank is aborted, all other pilot warp to 0 and dock.

-- or --

A) If you do not get a lock then they proceed to gank their intended target, you have failed.
B) They undock in much bigger ships than yours and kill you quickly so they re-dock and gank anyway.

With the ganker guides and CONCORD manipulation tactics avaliable online it is very hard to nail down a gank pilot in high sec.

Given the above can someone please tell me how you are going to effect their bottom line?

They are not losing any more ships than they planned on losing. While the war'dec is active you are now the primary target and unless you bring much, much more fire power to the fight, you will lose. t best they will simply move to another system ( either alts or pod running ) and work there until you log off.

James 315 nailed it perfectly, pick a group of players who have almost no combat skills, ships or experience and extort them in an area of space that prevents them from effectively fighting back ( No bubbles, CONCORD, etc )

I am all for following CCP's suggestion and moving but what happens when there is no where left to move? All the years of nerf high-sec whining can stop because a singular group bent ( if CCP needed to clarify, I call it bent ) the rules enough to convert high-sec to low.


Give me a way to REALLY fight the gankers and I will use it, until then respect your fellow pilots who are playing the game YOU love.






No, James picked a group of players who are UNWILLING to fight, not those who are incapable. Your own post demonstrates this, you complain about the cost or ~effort~ it'd take. Boo hoo.

You also miss the easiest solution: Pay us the 10 million mining gratitude and enjoy. You could also hop in a skiff and supertank it, since we basically don't gank those and instead just gently nudge them out of the mining zone with our stabbers.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#147 - 2013-02-22 17:04:18 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Pap Uhotih wrote:
Michael Loney wrote:

If you tank well and sacrifice your yield then you are losing money every cycle that you are not ganked. With them pre-scanning your ship it does not matter if you are a hard target, they will bring as much DPS as needed to take you out.


I think that is perfectly accurate, you may as well go for yield over tank as it makes no difference to the outcome. Going with yield will in the long term mitigate the impact of losses sooner and as an individual you shouldn’t be losing a ship every day so it should be a viable strategy. It certainly makes no sense for an individual to have an escort.


So... you're saying that buying insurance for your car is a bad idea because you're losing money every mile that you don't wreck your car? And that if you do buy insurance you should drive on bald tires to avoid wasting your insurance money.

Ooookay.


Tanked Exhumers do not and never have gotten ganked anywhere near as often as untanked ones. That means that there is a meaningful difference between yield fit and tank fit.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Estella Osoka
Perkone
Caldari State
#148 - 2013-02-22 18:08:46 UTC
Just face facts, if people want to continue bumping, you need to change your tactics.
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#149 - 2013-02-22 19:14:13 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
Just face facts, if people want to continue bumping, you need to change your tactics.

Who is 'you'? Because I can assure you that the New Order feels that no change of tactics is required.
Karynak Idrissil
Silver Dragon Enterprises
#150 - 2013-02-22 19:29:43 UTC
The sheer amount of butthurt in this thread would put san francisco to shame.
Michael Loney
Skullspace Industries
#151 - 2013-02-22 21:51:49 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:


So... you're saying that buying insurance for your car is a bad idea because you're losing money every mile that you don't wreck your car? And that if you do buy insurance you should drive on bald tires to avoid wasting your insurance money.



Not quite, not really close, not at all.

First off you assume tech 2 ship insurance makes a dent in the amount lost.

I pay for car insurance mainly due to outside causes, like someone else hitting me or acts of god ( hail, flood, fire, etc ) It is a bet against the universe.

To make you car analogy better: it would be like adding 1600mm plate to your car so your bumper will stay shiny after being hit. You never intend to hit anything and don't intend for it in advance either. Meanwhile the added cost per mile in fuel will long pay or a new bumper before the plates did any good saving the old one.

Avoiding a gank by fitting tank is not a bad idea, but the loss of income will be more than simply buying a new ship when you do get ganked.

If we all fit tank then the bar will be raised in the game of escalation.

The only way to win is not to play.

Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#152 - 2013-02-22 22:05:48 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

So... you're saying that buying insurance for your car is a bad idea because you're losing money every mile that you don't wreck your car? And that if you do buy insurance you should drive on bald tires to avoid wasting your insurance money.

Ooookay.


Tanked Exhumers do not and never have gotten ganked anywhere near as often as untanked ones. That means that there is a meaningful difference between yield fit and tank fit.


No, you have said that.

I have insurance in the real world because I don’t have the millions it could cost me if I made even a minor mistake. In comparison I could quite happily stomach the loss of the metal box.
In the real world it is possible to lose half the value of vehicle just by buying it and then on top of that you have ongoing depreciation. You are losing money every second that you own a car, as well as every mile you drive it and all totally irrelevant of whether or not it is insured. It is in fact perfectly possible for the cost of the insurance to exceed the value of the car. Cars and car insurance is really a terrible thing to try to relate to a pixel spaceship that exists in the fairly simplistic economy of Eve.


The difference between a tank fit Hulk and a yield fit is about 8% and for ease a miner plays for 4 hrs a day making 15m an hour and loses one ship a month. In that case he loses money by having the yield fit, however if he loses one ship every two months he is in profit, if he can drag it out to one loss every six months then the difference will be about enough to buy a plex. If you get ganked less than once in every 120 hrs of mining then yield wins, for a Hulk.
To take your car insurance idea that’s the equivalent of your insurer not only giving you the value of your car but also giving you more than double that amount on top simply for destroying your car every six months.

Of course if the tanked Hulk is not ignored in the first month then the value of the loss is increased by the value of the lost yield, approaching the full cost of a new Hull in spite of insurance. The original point was that New Order will set out with sufficient fire power to take out their target (as demonstrated on an Orca and a Mack), therefore if they decide to target you it isn’t worth having a tank fit, all that will mean is that you’ve lost more money by reducing your income in the interim.
Jun Inoue
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#153 - 2013-02-23 06:56:25 UTC
Jun Inoue > does bumping someone's ship considered as harrasment?
ISD Athechu > No
ISD Athechu > https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2535377
ISD Athechu > Official GM response
Jun Inoue > but
Jun Inoue > However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment
ISD Athechu > If they are doing it in 1 system
ISD Athechu > and continue to do it in 1 system
ISD Athechu > that is not harassment
ISD Athechu > if you travel 20 jumps away in to another region
ISD Athechu > and they follow you and continue
ISD Athechu > that's harassment
ISD Athechu > https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2536157#post2536157
Jun Inoue > oh ok
ISD Athechu > 2nd paragraph
Jun Inoue > then I think Ill go to jita, and bump freigther there for a day
Estella Osoka
Perkone
Caldari State
#154 - 2013-02-23 12:17:33 UTC
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
Estella Osoka wrote:
Just face facts, if people want to continue bumping, you need to change your tactics.

Who is 'you'? Because I can assure you that the New Order feels that no change of tactics is required.


You = successfully petitioned harrassment bumpers.
Agent Trask
Doomheim
#155 - 2013-02-23 20:36:18 UTC
Jun Inoue wrote:

ISD Athechu > https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2536157#post2536157
Jun Inoue > oh ok
ISD Athechu > 2nd paragraph
Jun Inoue > then I think Ill go to jita, and bump freigther there for a day


Congratulations on choosing honorable PvP over something mind-destroying like mining.

Join the New Order, buy your permit today, and follow the code.

www.minerbumping.com

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#156 - 2013-02-23 22:46:57 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Pap Uhotih wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

So... you're saying that buying insurance for your car is a bad idea because you're losing money every mile that you don't wreck your car? And that if you do buy insurance you should drive on bald tires to avoid wasting your insurance money.

Ooookay.


Tanked Exhumers do not and never have gotten ganked anywhere near as often as untanked ones. That means that there is a meaningful difference between yield fit and tank fit.


No, you have said that.

I have insurance in the real world because I don’t have the millions it could cost me if I made even a minor mistake. In comparison I could quite happily stomach the loss of the metal box.
In the real world it is possible to lose half the value of vehicle just by buying it and then on top of that you have ongoing depreciation. You are losing money every second that you own a car, as well as every mile you drive it and all totally irrelevant of whether or not it is insured. It is in fact perfectly possible for the cost of the insurance to exceed the value of the car. Cars and car insurance is really a terrible thing to try to relate to a pixel spaceship that exists in the fairly simplistic economy of Eve.


Car insurance costs you money as long as you use the car (not every mile, but if you don't use your car at all, you can legally drop your insurance policy). It does nothing to help you unless something bad happens. Then it helps protect you from catastrophic loss.

Tanking your Mining ships costs you money as long as you use the ship. It does nothing to help you unless something bad happens. Then it helps protect you from catastrophic loss.

Saying that tanking your ship to help avoid catastrophic loss is a waste of money every hour you're not being ganked is equivalent to saying that car insurance is a waste of money every hour you're not involved in a car wreck.

Saying that the cost (in lost yield) of tanking your barge to avoid ganks is too high to be worthwhile is a different assertion, and one you can reasonably make. However, you can't then turn around and whine when you get ganked, because not tanking your ship is a choice that you made, and choices have consequences.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#157 - 2013-02-24 14:06:32 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:


Car insurance costs you money as long as you use the car (not every mile, but if you don't use your car at all, you can legally drop your insurance policy). It does nothing to help you unless something bad happens. Then it helps protect you from catastrophic loss.

Tanking your Mining ships costs you money as long as you use the ship. It does nothing to help you unless something bad happens. Then it helps protect you from catastrophic loss.

Saying that tanking your ship to help avoid catastrophic loss is a waste of money every hour you're not being ganked is equivalent to saying that car insurance is a waste of money every hour you're not involved in a car wreck.

Saying that the cost (in lost yield) of tanking your barge to avoid ganks is too high to be worthwhile is a different assertion, and one you can reasonably make. However, you can't then turn around and whine when you get ganked, because not tanking your ship is a choice that you made, and choices have consequences.


Cars do not earn an income and car insurance does not affect that income. With a commercial vehicle where you could claim an income existed the insurance will not have an effect on it. The analogy still does not equate to the fitting of a mining barge where its income will be affected by its ‘insurance’.
If a person had a mining ship and just flew about never mining then the analogy might work but it is lacking an important factor otherwise.

The point being made was that there was no defensive option because if New Order target you then they will gank you. This was backed up with the examples of the Orca and (tanked) Mack. As New Order exists on donations they are not constrained in the same way as a traditional organisation, it doesn’t matter to them if they lose ten ships taking out a Retriever, everything is equally vulnerable so there are no choices to be made.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#158 - 2013-02-24 14:17:28 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Pap Uhotih wrote:
Cars do not earn an income and car insurance does not affect that income. With a commercial vehicle where you could claim an income existed the insurance will not have an effect on it. The analogy still does not equate to the fitting of a mining barge where its income will be affected by its ‘insurance’.
If a person had a mining ship and just flew about never mining then the analogy might work but it is lacking an important factor otherwise.


Cars provide you with Utility which can be measured. The monetary cost of purchasing insurance reduces that utility.
Mining ships provide you with Utility which can be measured (in income). The income cost of tanking it reduces that utility.

That reduction in utility is balanced by the reduced risk of catastrophic loss (either buy paying for that loss or reducing its likelihood).

You were claiming that Tanking is wasteful when not being ganked. That is equivalent to saying that buying insurance is wasteful while not filing a claim.

Quote:
The point being made was that there was no defensive option because if New Order target you then they will gank you. This was backed up with the examples of the Orca and (tanked) Mack. As New Order exists on donations they are not constrained in the same way as a traditional organisation, it doesn’t matter to them if they lose ten ships taking out a Retriever, everything is equally vulnerable so there are no choices to be made.


If you are tanked, you are less likely to be ganked, as it costs more money than it's normally worth to gank you.

If you are ATK, there are strategies that guarantee that you will not be ganked, as you will have warped out or your Nado will have killed the gank party.


Everything is not equally vulnerable. An untanked Mackinaw can fall to a single destroyer. A tanked one cannot. Simply slapping some Invulns on your Mackinaw puts you out of reach of all solo gankers.
How many Skiffs have the New Order ganked compared to the number of Mackinaws? If your claim that everything is equally vulnerable, I would think that I'd see plenty of Skiff and Procurer ganks from miners testing to see if your claim is true and immediately being ganked.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#159 - 2013-02-24 17:38:12 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

Cars provide you with Utility which can be measured. The monetary cost of purchasing insurance reduces that utility.

The benefit or functionality of a car is not proportional to the cost of its insurance. Legal requirements ignored, the car does and offers the same things with or without insurance.

RubyPorto wrote:

You were claiming that Tanking is wasteful when not being ganked. That is equivalent to saying that buying insurance is wasteful while not filing a claim.

You are suggesting that if the price of insurance exceeded the value of the car that it would be a good idea to buy the insurance. An individual does not get ganked often enough for a tank to earn its keep, more so since tanking is not guaranteed to prevent a ganking.

RubyPorto wrote:

If you are tanked, you are less likely to be ganked, as it costs more money than it's normally worth to gank you.

If you are ATK, there are strategies that guarantee that you will not be ganked, as you will have warped out or your Nado will have killed the gank party.

Everything is not equally vulnerable. An untanked Mackinaw can fall to a single destroyer. A tanked one cannot. Simply slapping some Invulns on your Mackinaw puts you out of reach of all solo gankers.
How many Skiffs have the New Order ganked compared to the number of Mackinaws? If your claim that everything is equally vulnerable, I would think that I'd see plenty of Skiff and Procurer ganks from miners testing to see if your claim is true and immediately being ganked.


To a ‘normal’ ganker I agree that it would make sense to shop around for the most vulnerable target. However in this case the discussion concerned new order whose standard tactic is to know the max ehp of the target and then send sufficient DPS, they exist outside the normal ganking economics.

Im curious how the Tornado is supposed to help matters, I did address the costs of guards earlier but essentially it costs you more than 15m/hour to have a guard, that’s the equivalent of losing a Retriever every two hours. If killing the ganking party is more expensive than being ganked why not just be ganked or use the self destruct, it is a cheaper option and you at least get to see an explosion.

I agree that invulns on a Mack should be required by law but they don’t impact on yield, cap can be an issue but you don’t need to cycle lasers whilst you’re being shot at. In normal situations it is definitely the way to go but New Order will take them out if they feel like it.
If you are ATK you have to be looking at the right thing at the right time, it’s easy to miss a ship warping in for a few seconds if you’re reading something in chat. Staying aligned and being way off the warp in is the biggest life safer as you get those extra seconds back.

You do have a point that Skiffs and Procurers can be fairly beefy when you want them to be. However they may as well have been textured with Admiral Ackbars face, most people mining in them (in hi-sec) are such fresh escapees that they are still wearing strait jackets, the rest are up to something. Im not certain but I think an Orca EHP is in the region of a tanked Procurer and a Skiff can be in the region of a Navy Raven? I’m just waiting on some drone skills and then my Procurers going out duelling (and it might actually win a few fights). There yields make them expensive to mine in when compared to more gankable options.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#160 - 2013-02-24 18:02:00 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Pap Uhotih wrote:
You are suggesting that if the price of insurance exceeded the value of the car that it would be a good idea to buy the insurance. An individual does not get ganked often enough for a tank to earn its keep, more so since tanking is not guaranteed to prevent a ganking.


As I said before, if that is the outcome of your cost-benefit analysis, that's fine. It's your choice to put 200m ISK in harms way without any significant impediment to people who you know are trying to kill it. You still do not get to claim that "you are losing money every cycle that you are not ganked" because that is equivalent to the "you are losing money every time you're not in a wreck" insurance argument.

Quote:
To a ‘normal’ ganker I agree that it would make sense to shop around for the most vulnerable target. However in this case the discussion concerned new order whose standard tactic is to know the max ehp of the target and then send sufficient DPS, they exist outside the normal ganking economics.


And an ATK miner can still trivially escape them.

Quote:
Im curious how the Tornado is supposed to help matters, I did address the costs of guards earlier but essentially it costs you more than 15m/hour to have a guard, that’s the equivalent of losing a Retriever every two hours. If killing the ganking party is more expensive than being ganked why not just be ganked or use the self destruct, it is a cheaper option and you at least get to see an explosion.


Not worth it != Doesn't work. The Tornado will likely prevent the gank from succeeding. It's up to you to decide if it's worth it to protect your 200m ISK investment. Just like tanking.

Quote:
If you are ATK you have to be looking at the right thing at the right time, it’s easy to miss a ship warping in for a few seconds if you’re reading something in chat. Staying aligned and being way off the warp in is the biggest life safer as you get those extra seconds back.


You have >10s to notice a mess of catalysts on D-scan and insta-warp off (you have been aligned, right? Webs and fleetwarps work wonders for this).

Quote:
You do have a point that Skiffs and Procurers can be fairly beefy when you want them to be. However they may as well have been textured with Admiral Ackbars face, most people mining in them (in hi-sec) are such fresh escapees that they are still wearing strait jackets, the rest are up to something. Im not certain but I think an Orca EHP is in the region of a tanked Procurer and a Skiff can be in the region of a Navy Raven? I’m just waiting on some drone skills and then my Procurers going out duelling (and it might actually win a few fights). There yields make them expensive to mine in when compared to more gankable options.


Put a dang Tank on your Orca if it has that little EHP.

Yes. You have to make a trade off between survivibility and yield/cargo. Why in the world shouldn't you have to make that tradeoff?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon