These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Conflict. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement.... Sabriz for CSM10

First post First post
Author
Zephris
The Eldritch Circle
#101 - 2014-12-14 19:24:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Zephris
How about a rotten egg ?

Quote:
For too long, our proud people have been subjugated to the whims of enslavers, forced to endure relentless suffering and humiliation at the hands of people whose motivations, masked though they may be by florid religious claptrap, remain as base and despicable as those of the playground bully. - Ragnarok Description


That pretty much sums up intention of Gankers. They are playground bullies, and they want their profession - ganking to be the only safe one in highsec.

Ganking is either a profession or a form of griefing. because without the profit ganking reduce to destroying other player's ships and clones for no gain. Griefing is a bannable offense so let's be merciful and consider ganking as a profession.

And it's completely broken: amount of potential profit is order of magnitude greater than the investment. We will consider ganking fair if 20 T1 mining ships turns out 5-10 billion isk every 15 minutes. Consider those gank boat are worth 5-50 mil. and the gankers already know how much of a loot they will have, ganking is less risky than daytrading or mission runing. That industrial Gankers blew up is taking more risk at market fluctuation than the gankers.

As a profession, ganking is the exploitation of highsec mechanics for easy money. You can't get bubbled in highsec, so instant undock always works. There is no AOE in highsec, so spam always works.

Let's use an Occam's Razor here. Do the same people who blow up empty freighters and random shuttle for tears want a better, more enjoyable eve out of good of their heart, or is it more likely they spin this nonsense so they can continue exploiting a broken profession without CCP ever balancing it ?
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#102 - 2014-12-14 20:02:26 UTC
Zephris wrote:
That pretty much sums up intention of Gankers. They are playground bullies


This is a tired and frequently mythbusted claim. Blowing up internet spaceships in a game about blowing up internet spaceships is not bullying.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#103 - 2014-12-14 21:07:19 UTC
I'm away at a conference IRL, but keep the questions coming in. Hope to catch up with them soon.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#104 - 2014-12-15 10:02:57 UTC  |  Edited by: BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Zephris wrote:
...
And it's completely broken: amount of potential profit is order of magnitude greater than the investment. We will consider ganking fair if 20 T1 mining ships turns out 5-10 billion isk every 15 minutes. Consider those gank boat are worth 5-50 mil. and the gankers already know how much of a loot they will have, ganking is less risky than daytrading or mission runing. That industrial Gankers blew up is taking more risk at market fluctuation than the gankers.

As a profession, ganking is the exploitation of highsec mechanics for easy money. You can't get bubbled in highsec, so instant undock always works. There is no AOE in highsec, so spam always works.

Let's use an Occam's Razor here. Do the same people who blow up empty freighters and random shuttle for tears want a better, more enjoyable eve out of good of their heart, or is it more likely they spin this nonsense so they can continue exploiting a broken profession without CCP ever balancing it ?

Wait, wait, wait. 5-10 billion every 15 minutes? What? I'm going to assume you mean million, and even that is generous. Lets ignore ganker srp for a minute and look at margins on barge ganking for solo gankers.

Currently a T2 fit catalyst costs around 8 million isk. 1.5 million of that is the hull + rigs and cannot drop as blue loot. Gankers don't receive insurance so the average loss per gank in a t2 cat is around 4-4.5 million isk. This assumes of course that no one interferes with your attempts to scoop your own loot.

For yellow loot, a reasonably fit retriever might have 10m in modules on it. (I'm using pyfa numbers right now, someone can double check my math with eve central if they want). Strip miners are around 3m a piece, a meta 4 shield extender is similar. DC2 and MLU2's are 300-400 thousand a piece, so 10-11 mill isn't an unreasonable estimate. I can ignore the rigs because again those can't drop, so our average revenue per gank is about 5-5.5 million.

5.5 in yellow loot - 4.5 average loss = 1 mill per 15 minutes, or 4 mill an hour. I don't think there's a lower paying profession in the game than that, but it gets worse.

We've been calculating 1 gank per 15 minutes, but this isn't realistic. The criminal timer lasts 15 minutes, that doesn't include time spent undocking, warping to the target and ganking the target. I also doesn't include all the time spent searching for a target because there's none around when criminal timer wears off. If a ganker manages to consistently hit 3 ganks an hour, they are doing very well, so I think we can safely drop our estimate for the average income of a belt ganker that does not have srp down to 3 mill an hour.

"But Bebop!", you say, "What about all of those Ore Strip miners?"
Well my friend, those are few and far between, but this is a fair point. The real profit in ganking comes from the abnormal fits. The people who think "Yes, I will spend half a bill to get 1% better yield". Still, should the ganking profession be based around the careful miner who mitigates risk, or should it be based around the person who is offering expensive modules up on a silver platter? Also, how many hours might I have to gank to encounter this player? I personally have never hit a barge with this sort of profit on the ship.

I guess now we should look at freighter ganking. Again, I will run all numbers with t2 cats at 8m a piece, but plese keep in mind that profit margins here are even more inconsistent.

A fleet of 20 t2 catalysts costs around 160m due to the cirus industry changes (it used to be around 200m). That fleet also has to be supported by at minimum one scout (also doubling as the warp-in), one bumper, one neutral agressor, an orca pilot, a freighter pilot, and multiple neutral loot scoopers. The fleet has 26 characters working together and can output approximately 326400 damage before concord arrives assuming they are in a pre-pulled 0.5 system (I use a 24 second response time for this calculation instead of 26 because of dps loss for likelyhood of imperfect warp-ins, also, I'm calculating it at 680 dps with is perfect skills without implants due to the likelyhood of pod loss to white knights). This is enough damage to gank anything except a triple bulkheaded providence or obelisk, or some specific armor fits (usually involving slave implants).

Again, we see a loss of 4.5 mill per catalyst multiplied across 20 ships to be about 90 mill total. This of course again assumes that we somehow get all of the blue loot. Actually doing so is fairly rare on crowded gates, but fairly common in deadspace. I think we can safely say actual losses are closer to 110 or 120 million per gank.

Calculating average yellow loot is much much harder. Freighters range wildly in amount carried, but my experience would put an average somewhere around 500m in the cargohold. 1.7 bill is a fairly normal amount for a freighter loss. At 500m in hold, 50% drops (I'm ignoring courier contracts for this, but they do put a strain on consistency), giving us about 250m in loot. Subtracting the costs of the catalysts nets us 125m or so in profits distributed across 25 characters for a total of 5m/person/gank. At three ganks an hour we're still only matching level 3 mission payouts. Finally, this has assumed perfect yellow loot scooping, and no failed ganks. At any given time when we are freighter ganking we'll have 5-10 people trying to stop us. We've been using eccm for a long time now, and it is extremely effective, but we are still contending with attempted smartbombers and burst ospreys. 3 Ospreys negate approximately 4 catalysts worth of dps with extremely low risk to them, so we are constantly playing a numbers game. Currently we have the numbers to continue, but how long can we hold that?

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!

Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#105 - 2014-12-15 10:20:35 UTC
Zephris wrote:


That pretty much sums up intention of Gankers. They are playground bullies, and they want their profession - ganking to be the only safe one in highsec.

Ganking is either a profession or a form of griefing. because without the profit ganking reduce to destroying other player's ships and clones for no gain. Griefing is a bannable offense so let's be merciful and consider ganking as a profession.

And it's completely broken: amount of potential profit is order of magnitude greater than the investment. We will consider ganking fair if 20 T1 mining ships turns out 5-10 billion isk every 15 minutes. Consider those gank boat are worth 5-50 mil. and the gankers already know how much of a loot they will have, ganking is less risky than daytrading or mission runing. That industrial Gankers blew up is taking more risk at market fluctuation than the gankers.

As a profession, ganking is the exploitation of highsec mechanics for easy money. You can't get bubbled in highsec, so instant undock always works. There is no AOE in highsec, so spam always works.

Let's use an Occam's Razor here. Do the same people who blow up empty freighters and random shuttle for tears want a better, more enjoyable eve out of good of their heart, or is it more likely they spin this nonsense so they can continue exploiting a broken profession without CCP ever balancing it ?

There is so much wrong with your assumptions and logic I almost didn't want to repsond to it.

1) ganking is not safe, it is in fact very unsafe compared to almost everything else you can do in highsec. We are aware of this however and act accordingly minimizing what we put on the line. In other words: we don't act like idiots and then complain when acting like idiots loses us hundreds of millions or billions of isk in implants, ships or cargo. Examples: not blinging out your pod as at some point you WILL lose it due to being sloppy, flying into a well placed trap, dc, connection latency.
2) shooting someone without a profit motive is not considered griefing by CCP, at least not to the point where it would be considered harrassment and bannable. The proof of this is in all the petitions filed against gankers without them being banned.
3) ganking in itself is not profitable unless you pick out your targets. If you use t2 catalysts for ganking miners, you're losing money even if you are able to recover your loot (which is often not the case). From ganking miners, I'm breaking even at best.
4) ganking is not less risky than daytrading or mission running in itself. The risk of daytrading or mission running and ganking relies completely on what you are putting on the line and how much effort you put into it. Completely in the player's own hand.
5) spam does not always work because of lag. I once had my pod warping out already only to be rubberbanded back onto grid and going *squish*.
6) You complain that ganking for profit is not fair yet you also seem upset about ganking without a profit motive. Does not compute unless you simply want to remove non-consensual PVP from highsec (or the entire game perhaps) completely or nerf it so far into the ground that ganking will completely ruin your char, your entire account or even all of your owned accounts. Stuff like that has been advocated many times. Account wide sec status drop, not being able to enter highsec anymore ever, removing all docking rights etc etc etc.
Sylphy
TSOE Po1ice
TSOE Consortium
#106 - 2014-12-15 12:30:23 UTC
I've actually read through all of your responses and all I see is constant whining that CODE is doing every single day:

"Wah wah, nerf the income of other parties, wah wah, we need more pilots to join pirate ranks, wah wah, nerf industrialists."

I'm sure you understand that the content you're trying to promote heavily relies on the content you're trying to downtrod ever so heavily.

If and when, you actually "fight" for rebalancing of everything done in high-sec, including non-pirate activities (industry, legal business), then we can talk.

Until such a time comes, you're just a wailing child who envies its neighbour another toy.

The character does not represent the views/opinions of its Corporation or Alliance.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#107 - 2014-12-15 12:55:44 UTC
Sylphy wrote:
If and when, you actually "fight" for rebalancing of everything done in high-sec, including non-pirate activities (industry, legal business), then we can talk.


What rebalancing are you referring to? Can you be more specific as to what you think needs to be fixed in highsec and what you would like a CSM candidate to push for if elected?

Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#108 - 2014-12-15 13:29:30 UTC
Sylphy wrote:
I've actually read through all of your responses and all I see is constant whining that CODE is doing every single day:

"Wah wah, nerf the income of other parties, wah wah, we need more pilots to join pirate ranks, wah wah, nerf industrialists."

That's quite the imagination you have there.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#109 - 2014-12-15 16:39:29 UTC
Sabriz, some time back, CCP Soundwave said he'd like to see Concord eventually replaced with player tools. What do you think of this idea? If you agree with it, do you think the time is right to lobby CCP over it? If you don't think it's time, why not?

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#110 - 2014-12-15 17:49:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
admiral root wrote:
Zephris wrote:
That pretty much sums up intention of Gankers. They are playground bullies


This is a tired and frequently mythbusted claim. Blowing up internet spaceships in a game about blowing up internet spaceships is not bullying.
Neither is throwing a ball at a kid while playing dodgeball, but if a group of you repeatedly pelt the same small kid full pelt while he's obviously not enjoying it, it kinda turns that way.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
Stuff
All of these calculations, and yet the reality still stands that ganking is highly profitable.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#111 - 2014-12-15 19:33:39 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
admiral root wrote:
Zephris wrote:
That pretty much sums up intention of Gankers. They are playground bullies


This is a tired and frequently mythbusted claim. Blowing up internet spaceships in a game about blowing up internet spaceships is not bullying.
Neither is throwing a ball at a kid while playing dodgeball, but if a group of you repeatedly pelt the same small kid full pelt while he's obviously not enjoying it, it kinda turns that way.
That's why CCP has stated that if you go out of your way to make playing impossible for a single player in highsec, it will at some point be considered harassment. If 'the small kid" in EVE however decides to constantly undock in the same **** fit barge in the same part of space and keeps getting blown up, that is not considered harassment by CCP (they will judge on a case by case basis though). From my experience, it is very rare that miners don't wise up to some extent after a gank or two.

Quote:


BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
Stuff
All of these calculations, and yet the reality still stands that ganking is highly profitable.

Would that be the reality that exists primarily in your own mind? Blink

Ganking in itself is simply NOT profitable, it CAN be profitable if you pick your targets right but that requires more effort and time to find said targets, which will really, really hurt your isk/hour ratio. I only gank miners (and everything else that happens to be within a few km if I get the chance) and I can tell you that it does not make you a rich man. I'm always happy if I can loot enough to cover my catalyst.
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#112 - 2014-12-15 21:26:30 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
All of these calculations, and yet the reality still stands that ganking is highly profitable.

The people directly responsible for that profit are those that insist on carrying way too much in ships that are far too weak. As Bebop pointed out, suicide ganking isn't profitable against competent targets, it's the ignorant, the lazy and the greedy that end up losing their ships and providing the big payouts.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein

Black Pedro
Mine.
#113 - 2014-12-15 22:24:15 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
admiral root wrote:

This is a tired and frequently mythbusted claim. Blowing up internet spaceships in a game about blowing up internet spaceships is not bullying.
Neither is throwing a ball at a kid while playing dodgeball, but if a group of you repeatedly pelt the same small kid full pelt while he's obviously not enjoying it, it kinda turns that way.

Come now Lucas, you know that isn't a fair comparison. Gankers typically seek targets of opportunity - players who make a mistake and AFK somewhere they shouldn't, or overload or overfit a ship. Gankers don't sit in front of a station repeatedly podding some new player every time he undocks in a noobship as your allusion implies.

Gank victims have at least 15 minutes to get away from the situation and learn from it, and have plenty of tools to defend themselves from another gank in the future. Painting them as hapless victims without agency is disingenuous, especially as we all voluntarily play a spaceship game with exploding spaceships at its very core.

Lucas Kell wrote:
All of these calculations, and yet the reality still stands that ganking is highly profitable.

Ganking can be highly profitable, like trading, but usually isn't as BeBop laid out in detail. And just like trading, ganking is completely dependent the decisions of other players - in fact if other players play 100% defensively, there is zero profit in ganking.

It is this trade-off of opening yourself to the risk of being ganked for some benefit (increased yield, less hauler trips, autopiloting your pod, etc.) that is a central design pillar of this game. This forces player choice for fits and behaviour and makes the game much more interesting than the simple exercise in min-maxing yield/cargo that it would be in the absence of risk.

I am sure you know all of this already Lucas even if you would prefer Eve to be a more solo-friendly game, but I am not so sure of that is true of several of the other posters in this thread.
Basil Pupkin
Strategic Incompetence
#114 - 2014-12-16 00:18:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Basil Pupkin
I needed a candidate to give an example of absolute worst, rock bottom, lowest of the low. The candidate, who, should he make it to CSM, would surely give people enough reasons to say that CSM is a manure pit.

You guessed correctly, I have found one. A CODE member with eve-killing intentions, there can be no greater disgrace to any community than to have one speaking.

ED: Oh dear, I have found myself agreeing with Lucas Kell. Just how obvious an issue must be for the Pinky and the Brain to have the same opinion on it.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#115 - 2014-12-16 00:43:17 UTC
OK, back after the conference I was at all weekend. I decided not to post anything substantive while at it, and I won't catch up fully for a couple of days.

I seem to have attracted a few detractors here. As I understand it, the unifying thing behind the detractors is that they don't like me because I promote ships getting blown up in every class of space that has resources of nontrivial value (i.e. everywhere except for rookie systems). I both personally blow ships up and encourage others to engage in asymmetric warfare in game, calculating and exploiting the weaknesses of other players.

Although they vary on the details, my detractors want to see areas of space with resources of relatively high value (highsec incursions, L4 SoE missions, Mexallon-rich belts, ice anomalies) in areas of space with minimal or no PVP, and want to see changes that reduce the advantage the attacker has in surprise PVP (at least in highsec).

I've addressed why I think this is a bad idea earlier in this thread.



I'm intending to run an 'ask me anything' session this weekend on the Minerbumping teamspeak. I invite detractors to come and ask hostile questions (as well as inviting supporters to ask questions both sympathetic and curly, and neutrals to ask whatever they want). It will be recorded and posted to Soundcloud - if you'd prefer to ask questions anonymously, I'm happy to facilitate that, EVEmail your question to me from an untraceable alt and I'll have a supporter read the question out.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#116 - 2014-12-16 01:06:12 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
I needed a candidate to give an example of absolute worst, rock bottom, lowest of the low. The candidate, who, should he make it to CSM, would surely give people enough reasons to say that CSM is a manure pit.

Ripard Teg has already come and gone.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.

Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#117 - 2014-12-16 08:27:11 UTC
Sabriz and I might not agree on all things, but he does have the skills and passion for Eve to be a good CSM. He spends a lot of serious time on his campaign and isn't one of those "I want to be a CSM, because its good for my ego" kinda guys.

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

Basil Pupkin
Strategic Incompetence
#118 - 2014-12-16 08:42:05 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
I seem to have attracted a few detractors here. As I understand it, the unifying thing behind the detractors is that they don't like me because I promote ships getting blown up in every class of space that has resources of nontrivial value (i.e. everywhere except for rookie systems). I both personally blow ships up and encourage others to engage in asymmetric warfare in game, calculating and exploiting the weaknesses of other players.

As expected from a failure of a candidate, you couldn't have been further away from truth.
I promote more ships exploding in hisec. More of your cheap ones you never worked for, and less of the expensive ones people had to work for. Making you work for your ships and not just do zero risk ganking would be fine too.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#119 - 2014-12-16 08:44:13 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
I promote more ships exploding in hisec.

Could you please expand on this? How do you "promote" more ships exploding in highsec?
Sylphy
TSOE Po1ice
TSOE Consortium
#120 - 2014-12-16 08:46:16 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Sylphy wrote:
If and when, you actually "fight" for rebalancing of everything done in high-sec, including non-pirate activities (industry, legal business), then we can talk.


What rebalancing are you referring to? Can you be more specific as to what you think needs to be fixed in highsec and what you would like a CSM candidate to push for if elected?


Devaluing the PVE content isn't going to miraculously fix high-sec issues. You don't fix things by nerfbatting everything YOU personally disaagree with. That you personally THINK in your OWN opinion is breaking the economy.
If anything, it'll promote more PvP pirating activities and there'll be a point where it becomes degenerative and malnutricious to new and old players alike. (The hounds outnumber the foxes)

You want less AFK miners and bot-aspiring behaviour - make mining more interesting other than staring at your mining lasers cycle for hours and hours on end while your ore holds are getting full.

I'm totally against a mini-game that takes your mind off of your surroundings (like hacking mini-game which takes half of your screen away), what I'd like more is the rebalancing of asteroids in a way, that there would no longer be so many different types of rock but less, where the most common materials would be on the outside and more valuable ones on the inside. If you left your mining lasers alone, they would be mining the outer layer, which would require no guidance. Getting to the inner layer would require you to make corrections to the angle/penetration/whatever of your lasers to get that valuable hemorphite ore out of a rock.

Also, introduce collision damage. Battleship "bumping" a frigate should result in the frigate being crippled or destroyed. Make collisions with space rocks on an equal scale. You can shave off smaller rocks, bigger ones will cause dmg. With the introduction of manual control it would give a whole new level to being chased and taking them into an asteroid belt (Wing Commander I style) or staying in the middle of rocks to try and avoid falling prey to pirates.

Size should matter. A partisan with a slingshot should not be able to kill a tanker.

The character does not represent the views/opinions of its Corporation or Alliance.