These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Give with one hand, take away with the other

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#81 - 2011-10-23 15:55:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Kengutsi Akira
Kengutsi Akira wrote:
Bronden Neopatus wrote:
fair play.


Theres your first mistake


There is karma if you wanna call it that, the suicide gankers lose their ship too.

Oops double post

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
Yao Ying
Life. Universe. Everything.
#82 - 2011-10-23 16:44:05 UTC
Bronden Neopatus wrote:
Also lately PvP have been handed a treat that will ruin many people's living... namely implants in killmails, which mean that now there will be a serious reason to pod everyone, with or without a ransom.


You're assuming that most of the pvp base doesn't already pod anything and everything they can. (Protip: They do.)
Nor Tzestu
Dos Pollos Hermanos
Ghosts from the Abyss
#83 - 2011-10-23 20:47:03 UTC
Tippia wrote:


It's very simple: people keep claiming that ganking has no risk, without considering what it is that creates this situation. What generates “no risk” for gankers is that they mitigate those risks and they accept a drastic reduction of income. They ensure that the target is weak enough; that it carries enough to conceivably turn a profit; that the ship they use gets maximum oomph for the money (because no, insurance does not cover the cost). And then they wait… and wait… and wait for something that fits the profile. While waiting, they're losing income.

So the question is: why is it to blasphemous to suggest that the self-proclaimed victims do the same? Why can't they accept a loss of income just like the gankers do? Why can't they mitigate their risks by carrying sensible loads and protecting them and scouting for possible targets? It's not that ganking has no risk and hauling/mining/whatever has all the risk — it's that one party choose to mitigate their risks and accept a reduction if efficiency whereas the other chooses not to (and then refuses to blame themselves for the choices they made — it has to be someone else's fault). Stop suffering from such epic grades of entitlement-itis and start doing what the “other side“ is doing! They're doing it for a reason, you know…


Your entirement argument is flawed based on the assumption that both sides have an equal opportunity to mitigate their risks and costs. News flash it's not. It's not even close. Firstly many ships that are gank targets are simply unable to mount a credible defense. If you don't believe this then please post your fit for your tanky retriever. I'd love to see one that can survive a suicide gank from 2 week old character in a fail fit brutix. It has nothing to do with entitlement-itis or whatever nonsense you wish to label it. It is simple game mechanics. Most of the easily gankable targets in game are simply unable to field any form of defense that can't be worked over in short order by 2 brutix BC's. Your position that suicide ganking isn't risk free is laughable. Risk from what? A smartbombing hulk? Spare me. It's risk free in a practical sense and you know it. That's why they do it. Sure it can occasionally be profitable, even sometimes wildly so. And for all intents and purposes is as risk free as a level 4 mission.

The real fix is to simply remove insurance as a whole from the game. It is useless for the most part and simply isn't needed in game anymore. I could care less who "uses" it and to what end. Make losses matter and stop holding everyone's hand. Stuff gets blown up, deal with it.
Elson Tamar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#84 - 2011-10-23 20:55:07 UTC
By the way im all for suicde ganking as other than wardecs its the only way to assasinate or push up blueice prices, which is cool and epic and a well funded group will have no problem with it, ie the goons will still have their op on the go, which while irritating, is very cool. The people working for them will still make money etc, i just feel that giving you isk for a risky thing, ie suicde ganking seems against the whole risk reward hard coreness of eve.

I also think that there is use for incarna, suicde gankers could have their avatar arrested and then watch as the spend special time with a cell mate.......Twisted
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#85 - 2011-10-23 23:13:02 UTC
Nor Tzestu wrote:
Your entirement argument is flawed based on the assumption that both sides have an equal opportunity to mitigate their risks and costs. News flash it's not. It's not even close.
Sure they do. First of all, that retriever automatically means you've mitigated your risks: your costs are way down as are your probabilities simply because you are no longer an interesting target.
Quote:
It has nothing to do with entitlement-itis or whatever nonsense you wish to label it.
…except that as all these threads have shown, it has everything to do with it. People have quite explicitly explained how they don't want to cut into their earning efficiency to protect their investment (which is as false as false economies get). They refuse to employ the simple and effective counters that exist because it cuts into their profits.
Quote:
Most of the easily gankable targets in game are simply unable to field any form of defense that can't be worked over in short order by 2 brutix BC's.
The inherently easily gankable targets are also inherently uninteresting targets unless their pilots do something stupid, such as turning them into loot piñatas. They can trivially mitigate their risks by not being stupid. The commonly ganked targets, on the other hand, can protect themselves quite nicely, even more so if you actually take the time to fly them. Not only do they still have the option of not being stupid — they can also be clever and mitigate it further by applying the additional options these ships offer.
Quote:
Your position that suicide ganking isn't risk free is laughable. Risk from what?
So you have no idea what my position is, then, seeing as how you haven't actually read it. Ensured loss of ship, potential waste of time, chance of target survival, chance of poor drops, chance of being killed before even being in position (especially if you've made a career out of it).
Quote:
It's risk free in a practical sense and you know it. That's why they do it. Sure it can occasionally be profitable
Good work disproving your own point. Occasional indeed, which means it's not risk free. You're just confused about the cases when the risk is still there, but they choose to ignore it and eat the loss because it's fun. Oh and “because it's risk-free” is not why they're doing it either. Once more, you ignore that very important factor I just mentioned…

By the way, none of what you just said explained why insurance should be removed from ganks…
What is it you are trying to “fix”? What's the problem you're trying to solve?
If you don't care about how it's used, why do you care so much that it's used?
Wacktopia
Fleet-Up.com
Keep It Simple Software Group
#86 - 2011-10-23 23:55:07 UTC
Bronden Neopatus wrote:
Also lately PvP have been handed a treat that will ruin many people's living... namely implants in killmails, which mean that now there will be a serious reason to pod everyone, with or without a ransom. Good-bye piracy, btw.


^ Stupid statement of the decade ftw.

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com
John Caesse
Just Post Inc.
#87 - 2011-10-23 23:57:19 UTC
Oh noes, more PVP ships in a PVP game... whatever shall we do.
Cassina Lemour
Staner Industries
#88 - 2011-10-24 09:08:50 UTC
Mag's wrote:

wouldn't the same need to apply to both sides equally? (The point you missed.)


Yes, 'both sides' should face economic reality, risk vs reward. It is not missed it is the very core of my post. At the moment the gankee takes all the risk/loss, and the ganker gets the reward. That is fundamentally borked.

Mag's wrote:

Why don't they have to accept some cost v reward? Why shouldn't they fit their ships or be active when transporting cargo, in order to mitigate the chance of being ganked? Surely the same economic argument should apply?


Re-read my post again, it states exactly the opposite. The 'victims' have to accept the loss. I argue that gankers should face the very same risk vs reward requirement. A system requiring that suicide ganking be economically viable doesn't eliminate the risk.
Secondly, their 'fit' or going afk has a very direct implications for their risk.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#89 - 2011-10-24 09:15:35 UTC
Cassina Lemour wrote:
At the moment the gankee takes all the risk/loss, and the ganker gets the reward. That is fundamentally borked.
It's also fundamentally incorrect. The gankee takes the risk, as does the ganker. They're not the same risks and they're spread out differently, with different methods of mitigation and with different rewards at the other end.
Quote:
The 'victims' have to accept the loss. I argue that gankers should face the very same risk vs reward requirement.[/quote}They do. People just don't see it because the gankers are good at mitigating their risks (which comes at a cost that the victims don't see) and because the image of what they gain is skewed by the big-headline heists.
[quote]A system requiring that suicide ganking be economically viable doesn't eliminate the risk.
Actually, that's exactly what it does. If it's economically viable, then you've ensured that the losses no longer matter. The risk is gone.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#90 - 2011-10-24 09:19:22 UTC  |  Edited by: March rabbit
Tippia wrote:

Quote:
Most of the easily gankable targets in game are simply unable to field any form of defense that can't be worked over in short order by 2 brutix BC's.

The inherently easily gankable targets are also inherently uninteresting targets unless their pilots do something stupid, such as turning them into loot piñatas. They can trivially mitigate their risks by not being stupid. The commonly ganked targets, on the other hand, can protect themselves quite nicely, even more so if you actually take the time to fly them. Not only do they still have the option of not being stupid — they can also be clever and mitigate it further by applying the additional options these ships offer.


you still have your logic module broken? Even if you took only part of original post to quote you failed to response. Shocked

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#91 - 2011-10-24 09:41:10 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
you still have your logic module broken?
No. Why?

I was talking about the ability to mitigate risk. He countered by saying that low-end targets can't defend themselves. I pointed out that being a low-end target inherently means you've mitigated your risk, and that if you're a high-end target, that fact alone opens up other options for risk mitigation beyond what you could do as a low-end target in addition to the same risk-mitigation methods of that target (which are still available to you).

So what part did you have problem understanding?