| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Tauranon
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
    |
Posted - 2007.12.17 02:45:00 -
[91]
 Originally by: Ulstan
Edited by: Ulstan on 16/12/2007 05:05:56
Edited by: Ulstan on 16/12/2007 04:05:08
Quote:
Missions are easy. LPstore rewards are easy. Money can be made from LP. Thats it.
I agree with all those. Missions aren't really much harder than any other way of making money in EVE, all of which are mindnumbingly tedious and easy, aside from the market arena.
I just disagree with the manifestly false "missioning is risk free" nonsense :p
Quote:
That doesn't stop missions being a riskless ISK printing
Missioning is not a riskless ISK printing machine for the majority of the EVE population, as shown by the evidence we have available. And that is all that matters.
Quote:
Ad hominem argument. Try stick to the topic, and not the messenger.
 That is not an ad hominem argument. I imagine you heard the term somewhere and thought it sounded important and decided to misuse it. That is illustrating that the 'risk free for the most powerful' mechanic is widespread among all MMO's. And here you are whining and *****ing about it as though it's totally unprecedented.
DO NOT MISQUOTE your replies. The paragraph does not match the reply. Your credibility falls badly when you misquote.
look up the definition of ad hominem, and then actually compare it to what you wrote. There was no statistic or fact in the paragraph, it revolved about calling people who disagreed with you sheep. Ad hominem argument.
Quote:
Quote:
Its totally relevant. Ravens that die in 0.0, are not running missions. They distort your numbers.
Do they distort them upwards or downwards? The answer is downwards, and that is why we can ignore it.
Quote:
The lifespan of a battleship matters. You don't have stats for that.
Lifespan is no more than a function of the production and attrition rates, which we have. I don't
know why you keep bringing this up.
Because the stats are for SIX MONTHS. There were 80,000 RAVENS lost, but there are only 40,000 CALDARI BATTLESHIPS IN SERVICE. At most there are likely 30,000 Ravens in service at any one point. that means that each Raven has a service life of over 2 months, on average. If you presume (as I do), that the service life a PVP raven is shorter than the service life of a highsec mission Raven, then it could in fact be that the service life of mission Ravens is as high as 4 months. How many missions can you run in 4 months. HOW MANY RAVENS CAN YOU BUY WITH 4 MONTHS OF MISSION RETURNS @ 20 MIL+ per mission. HOW MANY TIMES WILL YOU GET PODDED IF YOU DIE IN A MISSION TO AN NPC ? Like I said, my dominix has earned 1.2bil in direct results, without counting LPs, on a 120mil fit. If I lost it, I could have 10 replacements. That is RISKLESS.
I'm dissapointed that you need things spelled out, most other readers would have got it first time.
|
Tauranon
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2007.12.17 03:34:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Tsanse Kinske
The one ship that doesn't really fit my hypothesis afaict is the CNR. Not because it isn't a juicy fat overripe pig of a target, but because I've never, ever seen one outside of hisec. That does leave wars and suicide ganks outside of missions, but it seems very doubtful to me this would account for most of their attrition. But it is just the one ship type, and I hope you'll forgive me if that I don't find this sole piece of data very convincing on its own. Not when the alternative is to posit something radical and teetering on laughable like "PvP is safer than hisec mission running."
Because the CNR is a gank target. People will kill CNRs for the killmail, which gives pilots an extra motivation to do so, and people will also kill them on the presumption that they have faction fits.
You could presume then that mission running in an CNR is more dangerous than mission running in a regular Raven, but then the overall numbers of CNRs are small, and the choice to use such an expensive ship with a long payback time, is strictly a users anyway, its a risk they make themselves, that wasn't inherently in the mission in the first place.
Again see my domi's stats, 120mil fit, 1.2bil earned. Theoretical loss of a domi in a mission would reduce my overall profit rates by 10%, and my implants are safe because NPCs don't pod. Its still effectively a riskless endeavour because you profit significantly even in the face of pilot incompetance. Losing a regular Raven every half a bil, would still see that pilots profit rate at 70% of my lossless rate.
|
Tauranon
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2007.12.17 04:20:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Ulstan
Quote:
You have no stats for this
Yes I do. see linked dev blog. What you mean is, that I have no stats that you like :)
Quote:
The pool of active Ravens is smaller than the total losses of Ravens over 6 months. that is fact. The upper boundary is (40,000 as per blog), and the losses are 80,000. Any presumptions you seek to make on losses not accounting for that, are going to be WRONG.
Missed this earlier. But all I can say is... WTF? You have *no idea* what the blog is talking about, do you? I mean, seriously...what on earth is going through your mind right now?
Recognise these MADE up stats ?
Quote:
So, we have 50k ravens produced for PvP. Let's assign them the loss rate of some commonly used and easily killed t2 ships for PvP: about 50%.
So that's 25k dead ravens.
Now let's see, that means the remaining 50k ravens used for PvE would have to suffer about 100% attrition rate to make up the numbers.
Hint, you wrote them. These are unsupported assumptions on your behalf.
Now look at the blog.
This stat is lifted directly from the BLOG YOU LINKED. ITS YOUR STAT.
Class / Ammar / Caldari / Gallente / Minmatar
battleship 18,440 / 40,183 / 31,317 / 14719
That is the total number of Caldari BS's in service at any one time, is 40,000. There are never 100,000 ravens in service. Which means that over 6 months, in order for there to be any ravens left at all, each lost Raven needed to have been replaced at least twice.
This is not difficult to understand. Your interpretation of the 80% statistic is fundamentally wrong.
Now I could also make imaginary numbers up to try explain that actual behavior, but there is no point. From the Blog.
"Prices for the Raven have been stable at the same time at about 90 - 100 million ISK per unit. The market for Ravens is therefore expected to continue to be stable though prices might start increasing if production does not pick up over the next few weeks. "
In other words, Raven production is closely matched to the Raven loss rate, therefore its unlikely that the pool of active Ravens has changed much over the last 6 months.
Lets look at killboards shall we.
Triumverate. Last week (week 50).
Battleship 234 99
Heavy assault 73 82
First issue. 1 of about 20 large alliances is accounting for 300 BS's per week. Here are some shaky maths that might interest you. 300x 6months = 8000 BS's accounted for by ONE alliance. I say its shaky because last week might have been busy etc. But there are also far more than 1 alliance of Tri's size, and many of those alliances are known to field BS fleets, and BS's as support for cap fleets. Its not unreasonable to imagine that over that 6 months, that the major alliances accounted for 40,000 BSs. (the KBs would contain many more, but crossreferencing the kills would reduce the number). Examination of the boards shows a lot of documented Raven kills, and shows pilots with multiple Raven losses, both important issues.
Once you add on pirate KBs, which being nearer to empire might contain higher Raven percentages, then the documented Raven loss could easily reach 25k or beyond. let alone undocumented.
Second issue. BS's are killed at twice the frequency of HACs. I made the point (which you ignored), that HACs are survivors. PVP is also not entirely consensual, and the Raven would be a common victim in those circumstances.
Battlecruiser 177 17 (tri killboard)
you can see how badly the battlecruiser fares (its an easily found victim for an alliance with roaming gangs). This sort of thing would hurt Drake statistics badly.
Again this points to a problem with your analysis, in that the most effective PVPers kill a lot of BSs and a lot of BCs, without losing that many HACs. PVP is not always consensual, and whether or not the Vaga is a popular craft to FLY in PVP, the Raven and the Drake remain popular TARGETS.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2007.12.17 04:23:00 -
[94]
Quote:
My semi-educated guess is that disproportionate amounts of these ships are lost elsewhere than hisec missions. That these ships are often targeted specifically by people looking to destroy them
They get destroyed along with everyone else in low sec . In high sec, people can't target them, except for suicide ganking, and I consider suicide ganking part of the built in risk for mission runners, although, granted, this will mostly apply to faction fit CNR's.
Quote:
and that these ships are less capable of surviving attacks by virtue of their very poor speeds, agility, and general lack of ability to survive PvP encounters.
? While in PvP fit, they are no more unlikely to survive than any other ship. Indeed, the drake is *more* likely to survive than other ships, because it's renowned for it's incredibly strong tank. Far from seeking drakes out, people are likely to ignore them on the fields of battle. Yet Drakes also have a very high attrition rate.
If they are in missioning fit, they are almost by definition out missioning in high sec, because we've been told there is basically no low sec missioning industry time and time again by the people that actually live and PvP in low sec. (And the low sec population numbers confirm this).
Mission running ships are no more vulnerable to death in PvP than non mission running ships when they also aren't mission running, and in one case, somewhat less vulnerable.
When they are mission running, they are in high sec, and thus vulnerable only to suicide ganking.
I find it very unlikely they get destroyed at a disproportionately high rate than other ships do in low sec. Indeed, the reverse is more likely to be true. For one thing, missioners tend to stick to high sec, and as these ships are most likely used for missioning, you are less likely to see these ships in low sec than other ships, particularly because they have a reputation as being poor for ganking.
Quote:
And also that disproportionate amounts of these ships which are lost in missions solely to NPCs end up reimbursed, compared to ships lost in PvP encounters.
Were you the person who brought up the re-imbursed point before? I'm not scouring kill boards here, I'm going off of CCP's official loss figures. Obviously if they know a ship wasn't really destroyed but was instead re-imbursed, they wouldn't include it in their totals.
Also, I've had more ships re-imbursed from deaths in PvP combat than deaths in missions, so I'm not even sure where this point comes from. I find it rather odd :p
Quote:
I don't ask you to cede any of these suppositions as true, but if they were correct, couldn't they explain the numbers we're given in the econ blog?
Certainly! If all raven pilots ritually self destructed their ships every second weekend, that could also explain the numbers in the econ blog. I don't consider that theory particularly likely, however. ;)
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2007.12.17 04:37:00 -
[95]
Edited by: Ulstan on 17/12/2007 04:43:42
Edited by: Ulstan on 17/12/2007 04:43:13
Quote:
But it is just the one ship type, and I hope you'll forgive me if that I don't find this sole piece of data very convincing on its own. Not when the alternative is to posit something radical and teetering on laughable like "PvP is safer than hisec mission running."
I find it highly convincing, since it's the closest we'll get to pure high sec mission running losses. It's not like there are any other figures that contradict the CNR results, either. It's more like there are three pieces of evidence all pointing the same way, and this one happens to be the most solid.
Anyway, no one is positing that mission running is safer than PvP, and I don't think the data supports it. One could probably claim that mission running is more risky than all other ship activities averaged together, but that would hardly be surprising.
Anyway, just the fact that the figures indicate it's close show how completely far we are from a situation where mission running is 'risk free'.
Quote:
I'd like to point out that I don't personally believe nor think it important to prove that hisec mission running is "risk-free", which is absurd in any case. Rather that it's something much more difficult to quantify: "lower risk, lower effort, and lower competition for better rewards relative to other roughly comparable PvE activities, such as losec or 0.0 missions, ratting, or Exploration."
Hey, I am completely on board with the idea that Exploration in all regions is badly in need of buffing, and that 0.0 ratting should be made, not more lucrative, but more available? As in, we need more systems with a good 'true' low security rating. The good 0.0 ratting missions are better rewards than missioning, but there aren't enough of them out there.
0.0 ratting in areas your alliance controls isn't really all that dangerous, either. I'm quite happy to discuss all the pros and cons of the various ways of making money in EVE, I just don't care to see people, in despite of the evidence to the contrary, assert that mission running is some kind of risk free isk printing machine. There is *no* evidence to support that, and quite a bit from the dev blog to contradict it. This is definitely a case of people mistaking their anecdotes or gut feeling for actual data. If you look through this thread you'll see people saying things like "I've never lost a ship to missioning so therefore it is risk free"
I think high sec missioning *is* lower risk than low sec anything (which is why people do it) and of comparable risk to ratting in alliance held 0.0 areas, but of course takes far less effort to do. (No politics, no need to travel out to 0.0, etc). I think the rewards for good 0.0 ratting is better, there's just not enough of it to go around.
The real disconnect exists in any low sec activity. Low sec mission running would be one of the most foolish and dangerous things you could do, which is why no one does it. Same goes for low sec ratting in many systems. While rewards in 0.0 are often where they need to be, rewards in low sec are almost uniformly less good than in high sec.
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2007.12.17 04:57:00 -
[96]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
As it is, Empire L4 missions already arguably pay out too much compared to what you can earn in 0.0, and adding a consistent and easy source of faction modules to the mix would push things further in that direction. So yes, if you actually want to get lots of faction modules, by all means go to 0.0!  The same general logic was applied to the new content for the smaller factions - they're not intended to be uber modules/implants which everyone and their dog wants, they're intended to be interesting and unique "niche" items that the comparatively small numbers of people running missions for those factions can cash in their LPs for and sell on to the small number of people who really want that extra capability.
<3 you, no really <3 you
|
Carniflex
Caldari
Fallout Research
Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2007.12.17 07:43:00 -
[97]
About hi sec missionrunning vs. 0.0 belt ratting dangers.
In my personal experience hi sec mission running has bigger loss rate. I started out as alliance soldier in pvp active alliance and lost 1 raven in NPC hunting by pure unluck jumping into wrong bookmark when hostiles entered the system and ending up in exactly the same spot where their scout had jumped. I was 1 year in that alliance. In PvP ops I used Scorpion or smaller ships (mostly smaller ships and I did lose many of them over the year, but this story is about PvE encounters). Approx 6 months of that time we were in active war.
I lost 3 ravens (and one scorpion plus some battlecruisers, but we are talking about ravens currently) to hi sec missions during next year of mission running in hi sec. Just part of the butchers bill for learning the ropes. Yes, I did read up before jumping in and I was not total n00b.
If you are vigilant 0.0 belt hunting is less dangerous than missions. Align to safespot, fit cloak, keep always one eye on local chat and take note of chatter in local intel channels and you are safe. 0.0 belt NPC's do not pose any threat whatever to you even if you are able barely float around in your Raven hull and are barely able to fit your weapon systems. Same qualifications will get you killed faster than you can say WTF in most level 4 missions. It's even safer after the last patch as now you can use carrier to move your battleship thus eliminating one of the major dangers to battleships in 0.0 - travel thru pipe. Ofcource there is other dangers in 0.0, but one must be stupid when he uses his PvE fitted ship for PvP, or takes his ratting ship out for pvp (well stupid or desperate, it does happen in last stand situations in do or die style, but those are not that common). There is some other ships in caldary lineup that are more effective in fleet warfare than Raven  , like, uh, Scorpion and Rokh. Raven is reasonaly good for PvP also, it just takes specific tackiks and that kind of pvp is usually not your regular 100 man blob.
 |
Hoshi
Blackguard Brigade
|
Posted - 2007.12.17 12:40:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Ulstan
It actually is included in my math, since I didn't rule out any raven losses in any way, shape, or form.
No doubt many ratting ships, of all varieties, are killed in 0.0. In certain regions it is no doubt essentially as dangerous as going PvP'ing. However, Ravens are clearly not going to be lost at a higher rate than other 0.0 ratting ships, and of course, unlike missioning, ravens are not *the* 0.0 ratting ship of choice. Missiles are uniquely suited to missions, whereas other ships often make far superior 0.0 ratting choices.
Although as pointed out, trying to figure out the breakdowns is not even necessary. If missioning were risk free, popular missioning ships would be lost at significantly lower rate than ships not used heavily for missioning.
If what you say is true, that 0.0 ratting carries a 100% attrition rate, and that missioning is risk free, then ravens would be sitting at their already given 80% attrition rate while almost every other battleship would be sitting at almost 100% attrition rate, because instead of many of them being used for missioning, and thus dragging down their average due to the risk free nature of missioning, all they do is the far more dangerous 0.0 ratting or PvP'ing.
However, as this is nowhere near the numbers given us in the devblog, we can conclude that 0.0 ratting is nowhere near a 100% attrition rate. I'm certainly willing to grant that it's dangerous, in certain areas and times it no doubt probably approaches the PvP loss rate (because it turns into PvP when you get jumped) which is about 50% or less, except for two interceptors.
First of all ravens ARE the 0.0 npcing ship of choice.
You are doing to much averaging, placing ships with different loss potential is the same group.
When it comes to 0.0 npcing losses (and these are really pvp losses, ie the ships are not being killed by the npcs but by passing players) they will NOT be the same for all ships used for npcing, for example drakes will be lost much less because a) They are a less interesting target, b) they align faster and have an easier time getting away. Other ships show other characteristics, a domi for example would have a much easier time protecting itself against a passing hac than a raven.
Also we don't actually know the attrition rate of most other popular 0.0 npcing or missioning ships, because both build and loss numbers are not high enough to place them on the top 10 list. Same for pvp ships, we only know attrition rate on a small subset of them, ie the top 20 produced onces, which are with 3 expections frigates/destroyer sized ships. You can NOT draw any conclusion on for example commandship attrition rates from those numbers.
But you can see one very interesting trend from the t2 ship losses, those ships actually used to engage in pvp (like the ishkur, jaguar, wolf, saber, vagabond, all of the interceptors) have a higher loss rate than those used so more for pve (hawk, cerb).
This would of course be completely opposite your conclusions.
As someone once said, there is lies, damned lies, and statistics. You are drawing way too many conclusions for way too little data.
----------------------------------------
A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations |
Ezra
Gallente
Calista Industries
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.12.17 13:33:00 -
[99]
What I want to know is:
Why is it that when an artificial NPC lower limit on LP value (Nexus Chip NPC buy orders) was removed, the same artifical lower limit on tag value (NPC buy orders for tags) were not removed?
Right now, tags are artificially kept up in price, while the LPs are not. Since many LP offers depends on tags, this will cause a significant negative effect on LP value. (Lots of spare LPs with no bottom on the value, very few tags with a hard bottom on the value.)
Tags are in short supply for mission offers because:
1) Tags have infinite NPC demand at a particular price, which fixes a minimum value on them
2) Unlike missions, which will boost standing with one faction at the expense of standing with another, killing faction ships for tags will only decrease your standing with that faction. If you want people to accept these missions, standing changes for killing a faction's ships needs to behave like standing gain from storyline missions - Lose standing with some factions, but gain it with others. The "pure standing loss with no standing gain" mechanics of tag missions cause many people to avoid them like the plague as "faction killer" missions.
------------
Ezra Cornell
|
Ukradka Loota
|
Posted - 2007.12.17 16:53:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Ukradka Loota on 17/12/2007 16:54:39
LP stores just need some sort of auto-balancing mechanism which they lack for now. E.g. price drops 10% in isk+LP+tags if there is no or very few purchases during the week/month/whatever, and rises 10% if there is too many purchases.
Having pre-set prices in a dynamic world just does not work. Unless you do it just for the sake of stuffing LP-store shelves full...
Quote:
1) Tags have infinite NPC demand at a particular price, which fixes a minimum value on them
Oh, and this!
|
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2007.12.17 20:37:00 -
[101]
Edited by: Ulstan on 17/12/2007 20:39:38
Quote:
First of all ravens ARE the 0.0 npcing ship of choice.
Eh? Do you have any sort of statistic to back that up?
The reasons why a Raven is great for missions (versatile damage types, many rats at all ranges) don't apply for 0.0 belt ratting. You know who you are fighting and at what distances. The forums I frequent, at least, very typically recommend other ships than the Raven for 0.0 ratting, while the raven seems to be the near universal consensus for L4 missioning (if the person can fly caldari - otherwise they get told dominix)
Quote:
You are doing to much averaging
No, I'm really not. I'm deliberately trying to look at overall losses, so nothing is being averaged that shouldn't be. First I was told that I was excluding too many losses, now I'm being told that I'm including too many losses. I think you folks need to get your story straight :)
Quote:
But you can see one very interesting trend from the t2 ship losses, those ships actually used to engage in pvp (like the ishkur, jaguar, wolf, saber, vagabond, all of the interceptors) have a higher loss rate than those used so more for pve (hawk, cerb).
This would of course be completely opposite your conclusions.
No it wouldn't. I make no conclusions whatsoever regarding the relatiosn of risk posed by PvP'ing and 0.0 ratting.
I'm concerned only with the losses suffered by L4 missioning ships, and all other ships in Eve. If missioning were risk free, then these ships would suffer dramatically lower loss rates overall than all other ships, because instead of going out and doing whatever other more dangerous activities these other ships are engaged in, they are busy running the risk free missions in high sec, where no one can kill them.
This does not happen, and therefore we can conclude that missioning is not risk free. (Aside from making a plethora of baseless and absurd assumptions, in which case Occam's razor comes into play on my side and annhilates these elaborate card houses of conjecture.)
Quote:
As someone once said, there is lies, damned lies, and statistics. You are drawing way too many conclusions for way too little data.
I am drawing a single conclusion and the dev blog contains all the data that I need to support such a conclusion.
If you're looking to levy complaints about conclusions drawn in the absence of data, I suggest you turn your gaze towards the 'missioning is risk free' crowd.
I still have yet to see a single piece of data suggesting that missioning is risk free. So far all we have is evidence to the contrary, which the 'missioning is risk free!' crowd tries to desperately deny.
|
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.12.17 21:12:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Ulstan
Quote:
and that these ships are less capable of surviving attacks by virtue of their very poor speeds, agility, and general lack of ability to survive PvP encounters.
? While in PvP fit, they are no more unlikely to survive than any other ship. Indeed, the drake is *more* likely to survive than other ships, because it's renowned for it's incredibly strong tank.
In a world of 1 on 1s, you might be correct. This isn't that world. Speed, agility, and a low profile are the ways to survive in most situations.
Quote:
If they are in missioning fit, they are almost by definition out missioning in high sec, because we've been told there is basically no low sec missioning industry time and time again by the people that actually live and PvP in low sec.
Once again, you're very happy to accept anecdotal information when it support you, even when it comes from a source as suspect as pirate whine threads.
Quote:
Mission running ships are no more vulnerable to death in PvP than non mission running ships when they also aren't mission running, and in one case, somewhat less vulnerable.
See above.
Quote:
I find it very unlikely they get destroyed at a disproportionately high rate than other ships do in low sec. Indeed, the reverse is more likely to be true. For one thing, missioners tend to stick to high sec, and as these ships are most likely used for missioning, you are less likely to see these ships in low sec than other ships, particularly because they have a reputation as being poor for ganking.
Poor as a ganker's ship? Or poor as a target? If the former, I don't see how it helps -your- position, though it does help mine. If the latter, you're ill-informed.
Quote:
And also that disproportionate amounts of these ships which are lost in missions solely to NPCs end up reimbursed, compared to ships lost in PvP encounters. Quote:
Were you the person who brought up the re-imbursed point before? I'm not scouring kill boards here, I'm going off of CCP's official loss figures. Obviously if they know a ship wasn't really destroyed but was instead re-imbursed, they wouldn't include it in their totals.
Obviously? Unless you know the question has been asked and answered, I don't think it's obvious at all. And frankly, the assumption doesn't seem in line with the standards of argument you're demanding of other people.
Quote:
Also, I've had more ships re-imbursed from deaths in PvP combat than deaths in missions, so I'm not even sure where this point comes from. I find it rather odd :p
I've never asked for a ship to be reimbursed, so I have no direct experience with it. From reading what other people have said about it, it seems that pure PvE ship losses are far more likely to be reimbursed, the apparent policy reasoning being that reimbursing such a loss doesn't take anything away from other players.
* * *
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.12.17 21:15:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Ulstan
Edited by: Ulstan on 17/12/2007 04:43:42
Edited by: Ulstan on 17/12/2007 04:43:13
Quote:
But it is just the one ship type, and I hope you'll forgive me if that I don't find this sole piece of data very convincing on its own. Not when the alternative is to posit something radical and teetering on laughable like "PvP is safer than hisec mission running."
I find it highly convincing, since it's the closest we'll get to pure high sec mission running losses. It's not like there are any other figures that contradict the CNR results, either. It's more like there are three pieces of evidence all pointing the same way, and this one happens to be the most solid.
Anyway, no one is positing that mission running is safer than PvP, and I don't think the data supports it. One could probably claim that mission running is more risky than all other ship activities averaged together, but that would hardly be surprising.
...
Good, there's at least a few things on which we can agree. \o/
* * *
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.12.17 21:20:00 -
[104]
Oh, and on the popular ratting ships question, I see more Ravens than anything else by far.
* * *
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2007.12.17 21:32:00 -
[105]
Edited by: Ulstan on 17/12/2007 21:33:35
A fun exercise for those who are addicted to trying to look at the breakdowns, despite the fact that we have to make many assumptions to arrive at them.
Let's take the absolute highest non-raven attrition rate we've seen, 80% for Crows, and then be completely ******* insane and assume that battleshisp suffer an even *higher* attrition rate in PvP. Assume that the average attrition rate for PvP for battleships (excluding the insta primaried scorpion) is 90%.
Now let's assume that the Raven, far from following the normal distribution given in the dev blog(http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/pdf/QEN_2007Q3.pdf) of 80% high sec, 20% low sec or 0.0, is actually (completely contrary to what we observe and would expect ) over represented in null sec and under represented in high sec. Let's say fully half of all ravens produced (About 50,000) are sent to 0.0. Then 90% of them are blown up.
This would mean that single every man woman and child in 0.0 could have had a raven shot out from underneath him in those 8 months, just to give you a scale of how ludicrously we're over estimating here. I know, I'm asking you to make two suspension of disbelief assumptions in a row here, but bear with me.
(We'll consider 0.0 ratting to have the same attrition rate as PvP (since the only way you die is if you get jumped) and no one high sec rats in a raven, they do missions instead).
Now, the exercise is this: come up with an attrition rate for high sec missioning that can be justified as 'risk free' and also leads to the average raven attrition rate being 80%.
Good luck! Hopefully this will drive home how utterly incompatible these numbers are with the 'missioning is risk free' nonsense even when making mind bogglingly absurd assumptions in order to jack up the proportion of ravens NOT lost to missioning as high as possible.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2007.12.17 21:51:00 -
[106]
Quote:
In a world of 1 on 1s, you might be correct. This isn't that world. Speed, agility, and a low profile are the ways to survive in most situations.
Actually I think that the fact we do *not* live in 1 on 1 world makes individual ship strengths/stats worthless.
If a battleship gets jumped by a gang, he's going to die. Therefore all battleships would die at the same rate, that rate being equal to how often they are found. If it was a series of 1 on 1 duels then individual ship stats might come into play.
Moreover, any ratting raven has 100% invulnerability if he just warps off to a safespot and then cloaks as soon as hostiles enter local, if all the complaints about 'macro ratters' are any indication.
Quote:
Once again, you're very happy to accept anecdotal information when it support you, even when it comes from a source as suspect as pirate whine threads.
No, not just pirate whine threads. See the devblog I linked above. Bear in mind that this *is* just a snapshot, and thus inherently far less useful than any sort of tracking over time. We can use it, in the absence of any other information for ball park figures.
433,000 characters.
377,740 in high sec.
56,290 in low sec.
4,200 'pirates' with low negative security ratings.
Now, given that a significant number of people in low sec are there for pirating, and that people are much less likely to mission in low sec as compared to high sec, we see that the ratio of high sec mission runners to low sec mission runners is going to be very high: If someone is twice as likely to mission in high sec as low sec (we have no data on this exact figure, mind you, but I'm willing to bet it's at least 4 times) then we're looking at a ratio of about 16:1.
That means that low sec losses would have an almost negligible influence on the overall missioning rate loss. If I get bored enough maybe I'll crunch out some numbers assuming that 5% of mission runners are in low sec and that 90% of them get KO'ed. (The latter number, at least, I do not feel is an overestimate)
On a more general note, I'm happy to give some weight to anecdotal information when it comes from multiple persons and is widely accepted by many people, as long as we have no data out there to contradict it. I use anecodatal data from multiple people only when I can't get my hands on real data.
This stands in stark contrast to one person saying "I've never lost a ship, therefore, despite all the evidence, missioning is risk free".
Quote:
Poor as a ganker's ship? Or poor as a target? If the former, I don't see how it helps -your- position, though it does help mine. If the latter, you're ill-informed.
I'm not sure what to say here, except that the Raven is viewed as a poor choice in fleet combat, a horrible 1v1 ganker (but post torp change it suddenly becomes good) and a poor choice in small gangs, due to the previously terrible agility/mass ratios.
This is all anecdotal evidence, but since we don't have hard numbers on this, I'll have to rely on the anecdotal evidence that Ravens were not a popular PvP ship choice in 0.0.
As far as the Drake goes, it's actually not terrible in small gangs, but is extremely unlikely to be sought out and killed because of it's renowned tank.
For these reasons, there's really no grounds for supposing that either Ravens or Drakes get destroyed at a disproportionately higher rate in PvP than do other ships. Not too mention, the ratio of PvP vs missioning ships is probably lower for these two ships than any other ship in the game (aside from CNR).
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2007.12.17 21:58:00 -
[107]
Quote:
And frankly, the assumption doesn't seem in line with the standards of argument you're demanding of other people.
You are right. We won't assume that. Those numbers *could* include reimbursements.
Quote:
I've never asked for a ship to be reimbursed, so I have no direct experience with it. From reading what other people have said about it, it seems that pure PvE ship losses are far more likely to be reimbursed, the apparent policy reasoning being that reimbursing such a loss doesn't take anything away from other players.
As someone who *has* had ships reimbursed, I have completely the opposite experience, and the people I talk too have the opposite experience as well. Losing a ship due to lag in a fleet battle often gets a reimbursement, but losing a ship because you shot your teammate in a mission gets met with stony indifference.
However, despite my feeling that PvP losses are more likely to be reimbursed than missioning losses, I think it's better to just ignore the tiny number of reimbursed ships which CCP has possibly not counted anyway. If for no other reason, than that the ships still died in the first place, and trying to balance an ecounter around the whims of GM's replacing your ships is a horrible, horrible idea.
Quote:
Oh, and on the popular ratting ships question, I see more Ravens than anything else by far.
Not me though :p Bear in mind this could well depend on what region you are in, because certain rats are just hands down killed faster by other ships than Ravens if the damage types match up.
This attempt of yours (and others) to pick holes in the data presented by CCP as to why it doesn't mean what it seems to mean is definitely diverting, but it would be a lot more exciting if you could present evidence of your own that missioning is risk free.
|
Hoshi
Blackguard Brigade
|
Posted - 2007.12.17 22:16:00 -
[108]
Edited by: Hoshi on 17/12/2007 22:18:18
Originally by: Ulstan
Eh? Do you have any sort of statistic to back that up?
The reasons why a Raven is great for missions (versatile damage types, many rats at all ranges) don't apply for 0.0 belt ratting. You know who you are fighting and at what distances. The forums I frequent, at least, very typically recommend other ships than the Raven for 0.0 ratting, while the raven seems to be the near universal consensus for L4 missioning (if the person can fly caldari - otherwise they get told dominix)
I live in 0.0, I just look at what both my friends and foes use, it can be argued if raven is the best ncping ship but it by far the most common. Also note that I have lived in several different parts of 0.0 and in all parts ravens have been the most common. Only part I have not lived in is sansha/blood which I guess could have a lower raven population.
Quote:
Quote:
But you can see one very interesting trend from the t2 ship losses, those ships actually used to engage in pvp (like the ishkur, jaguar, wolf, saber, vagabond, all of the interceptors) have a higher loss rate than those used so more for pve (hawk, cerb).
This would of course be completely opposite your conclusions.
No it wouldn't. I make no conclusions whatsoever regarding the relatiosn of risk posed by PvP'ing and 0.0 ratting.
I said nothing about 0.0 ratting here, just pve. The cerb is a common mission running ship not 0.0 ratting, so is the hawk. Both these show less than 50% loss rate while common pvp ships like vagabond and ishkur (to take ships of the same respective class but other use) show more than 50%. So your initital statment about the dangers of mission running seems less than true.
Quote:
I'm concerned only with the losses suffered by L4 missioning ships, and all other ships in Eve. If missioning were risk free, then these ships would suffer dramatically lower loss rates overall than all other ships, because instead of going out and doing whatever other more dangerous activities these other ships are engaged in, they are busy running the risk free missions in high sec, where no one can kill them.
This does not happen, and therefore we can conclude that missioning is not risk free. (Aside from making a plethora of baseless and absurd assumptions, in which case Occam's razor comes into play on my side and annhilates these elaborate card houses of conjecture.)
See above, the cerb, level 4 mission running ship is suffering less losses than other ships on avg. So I can easily make the conclusion that mission running isn't so dangerous. Of course it's more complex than that but it's that kind of conclusion you are making.
Quote:
I am drawing a single conclusion and the dev blog contains all the data that I need to support such a conclusion.
If you're looking to levy complaints about conclusions drawn in the absence of data, I suggest you turn your gaze towards the 'missioning is risk free' crowd.
I still have yet to see a single piece of data suggesting that missioning is risk free. So far all we have is evidence to the contrary, which the 'missioning is risk free!' crowd tries to desperately deny.
Again you DON'T have loss data on most ships, you only have it on a very small subsection which almost only include frigates. Both the dominix and myrmidon, both very popular pvp ships are in the most losses but none in the most made. They might be suffering close to 100% loss rates for all we know, and if say that both 0.0 ratting and pvp ravens have close to 100% loss rate then mission running loss rates are suddenly much lower. Maybe as low as 30-40%.
I am not in the "missioning is risk free" crowd, hey I have even lost ships doing missions myself but what I am trying to show here is that the numbers from the devblog does not prove the point in EITHER direction, there just isn't enough information for that.
----------------------------------------
A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations |
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2007.12.17 22:30:00 -
[109]
Quote:
I said nothing about 0.0 ratting here, just pve. The cerb is a common mission running ship not 0.0 ratting, so is the hawk.
What? No.
These are nowhere near in the same league as the raven/drake/CNR for mission running, and the cerb at least is a popular PvP ship.
Moreover, people use AF's more for belt ratting than missioning. I don't know where you are getting these concepts.
Quote:
Both these show less than 50% loss rate while common pvp ships like vagabond and ishkur (to take ships of the same respective class but other use) show more than 50%. So your initital statment about the dangers of mission running seems less than true.
Cerberus and hawk are not popular mission running ships. Even if they were, if missioning were risk free, *all* mission running ships would have a significantly lower loss rate than non missioning ships, which is not the case. Furthermore, my only statement about mission running is that it is not risk free. Even if we assume that Cerberuses (only) mission, the difference between the cerberuses attrition rate and the vagabonds attrition rate are so small that it would simply lend more credence to the viewpoint that missioning is not risk free.
If missioning were risk free, then missioning ships would suffer dramatically lower loss rates overall than all other ships, because instead of going out and doing whatever other more dangerous activities these other ships are engaged in, the missioning ships are busy running the risk free missions in high sec, where no one can kill them.
The facts directly contradict this, and therefore we can conclude that missioning is not risk free.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2007.12.17 22:41:00 -
[110]
Edited by: Ulstan on 17/12/2007 22:44:37
Quote:
Again you DON'T have loss data on most ships
I don't need it on all ships, just *some* others. If missioning were risk free, mission running ships would suffer dramatically lower losses than all other combat ships.
Quote:
you only have it on a very small subsection which almost only include frigates.
But don't you see how this only strengthens my argument? Including frigates and interceptors and interdictors, the 'expendable' assets in PvP, is a good way to make sure we are getting the highest 'other ship loss rate' numbers possible.
Quote:
Both the dominix and myrmidon, both very popular pvp ships are in the most losses but none in the most made. They might be suffering close to 100% loss rates for all we know, and if say that both 0.0 ratting and pvp ravens have close to 100% loss rate then mission running loss rates are suddenly much lower. Maybe as low as 30-40%.
This is a completely reasonable assumption and I have no arguments with it. Although, as outlined in my rough math sketch above, the missioning loss rate would be slightly higher, even over estimating the battleship losses and overestimating how many ravens are used for PvP as opposed to missioning. But still, a 40%-50% figure is entirely reasonable.
Quote:
I am not in the "missioning is risk free" crowd, hey I have even lost ships doing missions myself but what I am trying to show here is that the numbers from the devblog does not prove the point in EITHER direction, there just isn't enough information for that.
They directly contradict the 'missioning is risk free' hypothesis. You'd agree with that, surely? There is plenty of information to show how ludicrous such an assertion is. You are right that we have nowhere near enough information to assign a number to how dangerous missioning (or anything else really) is.
Now if there were separate facts showing that actually, high sec missioning *is* risk free then we'd be more unsure, but so far, everything points to missioning *not* being risk free.
I mean, just anecdotally, do none of you have alts that hang out in the missioning/noob chat channels? It's almost heartbreaking to hear the constant litany of "I just got my first battleship and ran an L4 mission and I got warp scrambled andI blew up now I am broke again  ". This doesn't prove anything of course, but I hate to think of these poor guys trying to mission if we made L4's even harder. They seem to be quite brutal enough for a huge section of the playerbase O.o
|
|
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.12.17 23:51:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Ulstan
the 'missioning is risk free' crowd.
Let's save ourselves some effort and recognize this for the delusion it is, shall we? Nobody reasonable is seriously saying such a thing. Particularly not in this thread, where I'm not sure even one person is taking that position, which would be quite a small crowd. I find it distasteful that you're still using it as your point of contention despite what anybody else says about it. I think a good description of this tactic would be "beating a dead strawman".
It's not even relevant to the thread's topic, if anybody remembers it. I believe we got onto this subject when Touranon said that Empire LP store items should not be outright better/more economical than modules originating in 0.0. A reasonable basis for such a design decision doesn't have to be "hisec missions are 100% risk-free," it can be "hisec missions are relatively easy for the rewards" or "0.0 is a gigantic pain in the ass for mission running" or "CCP is weighting 0.0 rewards because that's their prized, group oriented, EPIC CONTENT area and it gets good press, nyah nyah nyah."
Any weakness of the LP store does leave losec mission runners in the cold, as has been pointed out a few times, but what else is new.
* * *
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2007.12.18 02:09:00 -
[112]
Quote:
Let's save ourselves some effort and recognize this for the delusion it is, shall we? Nobody reasonable is seriously saying such a thing.
Well, you, are right. Only one person in this thread is holding this position, Taurnon, who said:
Quote:
highsec mission running is riskless to non-braindead players
Which of course Carniflex I pointed out was false based on the evidence in the dev blog , and then the thread escalated from there.
But you're right: saying that mission running isn't riskless is like shooting fish in a barrel, and a rather tedious and boring position to take. I should recognize, as you say, that it's beating a strawman and just ignore the people who seem to think it is riskless and move on having made my point.
A far more interesting discussion is evaluating the pros and cons of the different pve endeavors in EVE.
Quote:
that Empire LP store items should not be outright better/more economical than modules originating in 0.0.
I agree that they don't need to be better, I am just saying they need to be worth buying, in the same way that all modules in EVE should be worth buying. If you can get someone else that is at once both cheaper and better, then there is a problem. There are many ways to rectify the situation, rather than simply making LP store items better *and* cheaper than faction fittings. They could be worse and much cheaper, or less powerful but better fittings and still cheaper (think best named) or better and more expensive. It wouldn't even have to be an across the board decision.
The other thing I find silly about the LP store is that low level items (rocket launchers, 75mm gatling guns) are ridiculously expensive/time intensive to get. By the time anyone got these you'd be well beyond using them. LP stores aren't supposed to be "Pimp my PvP ride once I'm done PvE'ing" but rather an ongoing little perk to reward people who run missions for them a lot.
The inadequacy of most LP stores doesn't really impact me, since I am running for a corporation with multiple high value items, but I feel sorry for the guys running missions for corps that don't have such luck, and who unexpectedly had their nexus chips yanked away with absolutely no warning. Still, I find their glaring shortcomings detract from the completeness of the game.
Quote:
Any weakness of the LP store does leave losec mission runners in the cold, as has been pointed out a few times, but what else is new.
Heh. Low sec mission running. Gotta be one of the most criminally insane things one can do, as it's about the least efficient way of making ISK and perhaps the best way to get your ship shot out from underneath you. It's still a lot more *fun* than just normal mission grinding, just that you tend to come out not making money :p (Even if you don't lose your ship, you spend a lot of time warping away from missions as you see the scan probes come in or a vagabond or munnin suddenly shows up on the scanner)
|
Hoshi
Blackguard Brigade
|
Posted - 2007.12.18 09:42:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Ulstan
But don't you see how this only strengthens my argument? Including frigates and interceptors and interdictors, the 'expendable' assets in PvP, is a good way to make sure we are getting the highest 'other ship loss rate' numbers possible.
Here is where you start drawing conclusions that you just can't draw.
The low loss % compared to numbers built can easily be explained by the simple fact that frigates (both t1 and t2) are so much easier to build, it wouldn't surprise me the least if there are huge unused stockpiles of frigates around that remains unused because people ended up building more than they could ever use. These numbers will highly dilute your statistics.
The simple fact that ALL none frigate sized ships with 2 exceptions (hulk and cerberus) show higher loss rates than the frigates on avg support this conclusion.
Think there where someone earlier in this thread that suggested a better way by using the data of what ship people where in at the DT that was in an earlier devblog and compare that lost ships, you won't get correct loss % but the relations between ships should be good.
As for the cerberus, once upon a time before invention it costs more than the vagabond, this was not because it was a great pvp ship (almost none used it for pvp back then and very few use it now). It was because it was one of the primary mission running ships of choice. Since then it has mostly been replaced by the drake/nighthawk but it still remains a popular level 4 mission ship.
And I never said hawk was a level 4 mission ship, try reading the text again. You sometimes seem to draw as many faulty conclusions from other peoples posts as you do from the devblog :)
----------------------------------------
A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations |
FT Diomedes
Gallente
Ductus Exemplo
|
Posted - 2007.12.18 13:36:00 -
[114]
I cannot believe this conversation is still going on. With that said, Ravens are ridiculously popular in 0.0. People use them all the time for PvP and they are definitely the ratting ship of choice. It gets really annoying on TS when someone new to 0.0 comes down and says "What ship should I use for ratting?" The entire channel chimes in unison "Get a Raven." CNRs are not that common, but mostly due to the difficulties involved in getting them down to 0.0 and replacing them when they are lost.
------------
Improvize. Adapt. Overcome. |
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2007.12.18 15:33:00 -
[115]
Quote:
Think there where someone earlier in this thread that suggested a better way by using the data of what ship people where in at the DT that was in an earlier devblog and compare that lost ships, you won't get correct loss % but the relations between ships should be good.
If you seriously think a single snapshot at some random point in time is a better indicator than information aggregated over a series of months, then I don't know that there's any point in trying to discuss this further as we're clearly approaching this problem with wholly contradictory base assumptions.
I believe there is no possible way to interpret these facts as supporting the 'missioning is risk free' nonsense, and plenty to conclusively contradict such a claim. We both seem to agree that missioning is less risky than many other activities, but not risk free, so essentially we're arguing over statistics methodologies.
Quote:
And I never said hawk was a level 4 mission ship, try reading the text again.
If you don't think the hawk is a level 4 mission running ship, why bring it up in a conversation *exclusively* about level 4 mission running? o.0
Besides, the hawk is a terrible ship, I'm surprised anyone flies it at all. I'd suppose that most versions are just sitting in hangars gathering dust.
|
Hoshi
Blackguard Brigade
|
Posted - 2007.12.18 22:03:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Ulstan
If you seriously think a single snapshot at some random point in time is a better indicator than information aggregated over a series of months, then I don't know that there's any point in trying to discuss this further as we're clearly approaching this problem with wholly contradictory base assumptions.
A snapshot of relevant data is MUCH better indicator than a months of irrelevant data.
The loss data is a very relevant data but the production data is not. Loss numbers in relations to the actual numbers of ships in daily playing is what matters.
Quote:
I believe there is no possible way to interpret these facts as supporting the 'missioning is risk free' nonsense, and plenty to conclusively contradict such a claim. We both seem to agree that missioning is less risky than many other activities, but not risk free, so essentially we're arguing over statistics methodologies.
I argue that there are not facts what so ever to support either side.
Quote:
If you don't think the hawk is a level 4 mission running ship, why bring it up in a conversation *exclusively* about level 4 mission running? o.0
Besides, the hawk is a terrible ship, I'm surprised anyone flies it at all. I'd suppose that most versions are just sitting in hangars gathering dust.
So you are allowed to compare battleship losses with interceptor losses but I am not allowed to compared assault frigate losses with other assault frigate losses which in addition to hac losses show loss trends which are relevant to the argument?
But you are correct in one thing here, there is a definitive possibility that the low number of lost hawks compared to the numbers produced are in large part due to overproduction taking place shortly after the patch that boosted hawks, producers misjudged the demand and a large stockpile where created.
But that's the whole argument I am making here, the fact that there are so many things contributing to the production/loss ratio that you can not use it as a proof for anything (other than possible market saturations).
I can say one thing for sure, battleships are not stockpiled in the same way as smaller ships. This means that they will have an inherently different production/loss ratio and without knowing this ratio for other ships of the same class there is no way of knowing if the loss rates are actually high or not.
----------------------------------------
A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations |
insidion
Caldari
Last of the Technocracy
|
Posted - 2007.12.19 09:31:00 -
[117]
Originally by: Ezra
What I want to know is:
Why is it that when an artificial NPC lower limit on LP value (Nexus Chip NPC buy orders) was removed, the same artifical lower limit on tag value (NPC buy orders for tags) were not removed?
Right now, tags are artificially kept up in price, while the LPs are not. Since many LP offers depends on tags, this will cause a significant negative effect on LP value. (Lots of spare LPs with no bottom on the value, very few tags with a hard bottom on the value.)
Tags are in short supply for mission offers because:
1) Tags have infinite NPC demand at a particular price, which fixes a minimum value on them
2) Unlike missions, which will boost standing with one faction at the expense of standing with another, killing faction ships for tags will only decrease your standing with that faction. If you want people to accept these missions, standing changes for killing a faction's ships needs to behave like standing gain from storyline missions - Lose standing with some factions, but gain it with others. The "pure standing loss with no standing gain" mechanics of tag missions cause many people to avoid them like the plague as "faction killer" missions.
Exactly the issues at hand. Simply flipping tag columns in an already relatively stable market was, with all due respect, a fairly absurd choice to make. There is no realistic reason for the market to balance out to respect the new changes as opposed to already established market trends exacerbating it. I see no change whatsoever since the original Trinity changed the LP stores, and this just pushes already ludicrously priced items further into the stratosphere.
Why is this a bad thing you ask? Well for one thing it just increases the gap between the haves and the have nots, but more importantly it detracts substantially from the uniqueness encountered in PVP. For would be foolish enough to risk empire faction items/ships when they are so astronomically expensive.
|
Jarod Hawke
Gallente
Southern Cross Empire
|
Posted - 2007.12.20 13:28:00 -
[118]
How the hell does the LP store give mission runners more chances to cash in their LP's???
How in the world do you come to this conclusion given the fact that you need to do months of lvl'4 and hope to be so lucky as to get the right tags and still cannot get the module you want?
The LP store is ridulously overpriced.....
|
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |