|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9522
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
Elliot Plaude wrote:http://eve-kill.net/?a=system_detail&sys_id=2769
40 freighters. 1 system. 1 month. Not that rare really. A bit over one a day for one of the most travelled systems in EVE, on top of one of main material pipes GÇö a system that is most likely in the top 3 for freighter traffic in the entire gameGǪ
For a most-likely scenario, that's a pitiful yield so no, the only conclusion is that they're pretty darn rare indeed. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9522
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:11:00 -
[2] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:So someone explain how giving players options in a sandbox game is bad. I'd love to hear all about it. For one, they would have to nerf the hell out of freighters if they were to give them slots.
As it is, freighters simply come pre-loaded with the tank and cargo capacity they're meant to handle, and there's no reason to change that. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9526
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 06:52:00 -
[3] - Quote
SmilingVagrant wrote:Not going to get into whatever **** argument is going on here: but capital sized ships can enter warp without being 100% aligned. This should include freighters. Technically, nothing can warp without being 100% aligned. It's just that GÇ£being alignedGÇ£ has pretty much nothing to do with which way the ship is pointing and everything to do with the direction and size of its velocity vector.
GÇ£100% alignedGÇ¥ means the ship is moving at 75% of its current max speed in the direction of the warp target. If that max speed happens to be 0.3m/s due to umpty-eleven webs and the ship model is currently pointing in a completley differnet direction, then so be it GÇö the ship is still 100% aligned. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9526
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:16:00 -
[4] - Quote
GǪnot to mention that pretty much every assumed value and time used to calculate those numbers is wrong.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9531
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:02:00 -
[5] - Quote
Andski wrote:When you're talking about the "risk" aspect you have to put it in perspective of the rewards involved, and when that reward is entirely based on a crap throw you can't really talk about it being "risk-free" In fact, even without considering the potential rewards, it's still not risk free.
Risk = probability +ù cost, and the risk doesn't suddenly vanish just because the probability reached 1. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9532
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:04:00 -
[6] - Quote
Samahiel Sotken wrote:Seminole Sun wrote: Maybe I'm misunderstanding the mechanics of a concord response (having never been stupid enough to carry enough in my ship to create the opportunity). I was under the impression that about 20 seconds (in 0.5) after the initial volley, concord comes and insta-gibs you. It doesn't matter if you had one ship or 200 ships, they're all going to die ~20 seconds after they first aggress. Most battlecruisers will get off two volleys in that time right? Destroyers (which don't get used anymore for this purpose as I understand) get off three. While it may be playing semantics, I'd consider two shots in 10-12 seconds to be "essentially" an alpha strike. There's almost nothing that a freighter can do in that 10-12 seconds and very little shield regen is going to happen.
I guess my point is that they wouldn't be shooting at the freighter over a matter of minutes with a bumper CONSTANTLY bumping the freighter. They might need ONE bump and then 15-20 seconds of shooting.
If I'm misunderstanding something, let me know. As I said, this is a knowledge gap I'm trying to correct.
A Neutron Blaster Cannon II with all gunnery skills at IV gets off I think 3-4 volleys before concord shows up, at which point they neut and ECM you. You are smart and have fitted and overheated ECCM so you have a couple more volleys, meanwhile your Hobgoblin IIs are ignored and continue to fire away merrily. It's more complicated then that, also gate guns, but it gets the point across. Either way you need significantly less ships if you use high DPS high ROF blasters than if you use high alpha artillery. Note: concord is not an instant death, it's inevitable death. You will be hit with an infinite point, a heavy neut, and a lot of webs. The DPS is high, but not instantaneous. GǪand for further details, see here. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9532
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:09:00 -
[7] - Quote
Seminole Sun wrote:Okay... Some terms are getting thrown around and clearly there's some definitional disconnects
Cost = Expense and is NOT the same thing as Risk
Risk = uncertainty Close, but not quite.
Cost = cost. Risk = probability +ù cost.
Quote:The GANKING aspect of freighter ganking (i.e. blowing the thing up) has no uncertainty (i.e. "risk") on the cost side. GǪwhich means that the risk = cost, since the probability is 1. A 100% certainty does not make it risk-free GÇö quite the opposite: it makes the risk correspond to the full value of the cost. So the ganking is all risk.
The reward is also a risk, but with a negative cost, which is added to this base risk. Since the base risk is always more than 0, and the reward can be 0, there is always GÇö unavoidably GÇö risk in a suicide gank.
Quote:What IS risky is the payoff. Absolutely. Both Malphilos and I concede that. But it doesn't change the equation on the cost side of things which is fixed with no "risk" associated with it. GǪexcept that the cost side is all risk, because that's how risk is defined. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9533
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:17:00 -
[8] - Quote
Empress BJ wrote:The main issue with freighters is they are a one size fits all solution
I would gladly fly something intermediary sized say 200-300k m3 if I could add a fitting or two
I think they should redesign freighters so that you could fit for defense or turning but have cargo drop off dramatically as you upped your fitting.
What ends up happening most of the time is I tank an orca for those high value jobs since its much safer than a freighter.
But it would be nice to have something with dedicated cargo slightly larger that I could fit. Just get a JF. You still can't fit it, but it's more sturdy, faster, more agileGǪ and it carries 300k:ish m-¦.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9533
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:26:00 -
[9] - Quote
Empress BJ wrote:A JF is on the shopping list but it's a 7B$$$ isk target.
I am thinking of a solution for the masses .... think station wagon/mini van vs High end BMW SUV WeeellGǪ doesn't that lead us right back to the Freighter (mini-van) vs. JF (Chelsea Tractor)? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9533
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:38:00 -
[10] - Quote
GÇ£Risk is the potential that a chosen action or activity (including the choice of inaction) will lead to a loss (an undesirable outcome).GÇ¥
and
GÇ£In statistics, the notion of risk is often modelled as the expected value of an undesirable outcome. This combines the probabilities of various possible events and some assessment of the corresponding harm into a single value. See also Expected utility. The simplest case is a binary possibility of Accident or No accident. The associated formula for calculating risk is then:
Risk = (probability of the accident occurring) +ù (expected loss in case of an accident)GÇ¥
So yeahGǪ risk = probability +ù cost. If probability = 1, then risk = cost.
Quote:I'm in the process of an ERM implementation. I can tell you that things that are 100% probability of occuring are NOT put in the risk bucket nor are they even included in most of our models. That's your problem. It's still a risk GÇö just one that you can count on for certain. If you want to move it to a different column to make the spreadsheet cleaner and to compare it to other values, then that's fine, but it is still a bona fide risk.
Quote:What has been referred to as "risk" for the gankers is, on the cost side, not anything that a risk manager would worry about. GǪand that's because it's too trivial a risk to have to model and makes the risk manager look unnecessary. It doesn't make it any less of a risk. In particular, when you want to balance it against the risk of a positive outcome, it's handy to be able to just slap in in there and have it all be one formula.
Ganking is risky. To say that it is not means that if you at any point afterwards say that ganking should have more risk, you're advocating that CONCORD should have, say, a 50% chance of killing a criminal rather than a 100% chance, and that this much lower probability of losing your ship means the risk is higherGǪ which is obviously just nonsense. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9533
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 23:10:00 -
[11] - Quote
Seminole Sun wrote:blahblahblah, stuff in which we agree to disagree and both cite a wikipedia article that supports and hurts our respective positions Hey, you picked it, not me. It's not my problem if the first thing it says is what I'm sayingGǪ
Quote:The broad point was that the cost is fairly well known in a gank and the revenue is where you can focus your attention (which I think we can both agree is where the largest uncertainty in the whole equation comes in). GǪand my point is that the whole Gǣno riskGǥ argument is nonsensical because there is that known cost and known probability, and that claiming that there is no risk leads to the absurd and nonsensical conclusion that lower chance of death would mean higher risk.
Quote:I think if Concord had a 50/50 shot at killing you, you'd see ganking evolve to be more risky. Sorry, no. If the cost remains the same and the probability goes down, the risk goes down. There are no two ways about it. Just because there is now uncertainty where previously there was none does not mean that there is less risk GÇö it means there is more uncertainty, which is something completely different. You are arguing about how the rewards would go down, but that is not what I'm referring to GÇö I'm referring to those who make the ridiculous claim that since death is certain, there is no risk (they don't even consider the reward part of the calculation), which leads to the aforementioned contradiction. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
|
|
|