Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Seminole Sun
Hell's Librarians Darkmatter Initiative
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:22:00 -
[421] - Quote
Samahiel Sotken wrote:Seminole Sun wrote:I was confused by this as well and didn't understand it. The OP was a bit of flamebait / trolling so I was kind of leaving it behind. But why would you conduct a gank session that way? The only logical "phased" combat approach would be to have alpha fleet one fire it's two volleys that are calculated to kill an unboosted, un repped freighter. If that doesn't work, beta fleet fires it's two volleys to finish off the target. So MAYBE you're talking about a 40 second engagement with some bumping needed? The only phased attacks I have ever seen are on either side of a gate when the first wave fails to kill the freighter by a small margin. Furthermore, though alpha is used occasionally among the rare suicide gank in high true sec systems, pirates drive by a profit motive almost always use DPS in a prestaged 0.5-0.6 system since the required number of ships is much lower. It's much like the lone gunman argument in security. Alpha like a determined lone gunman is nigh unpreventable. Fortunately lone gunmen and alpha suicides are rare. All legitimate strategy discussions revolve around high DPS.
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. |
Samahiel Sotken
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
78
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:33:00 -
[422] - Quote
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. |
Seminole Sun
Hell's Librarians Darkmatter Initiative
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:39:00 -
[423] - 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.
Thanks... That's a much more nuanced result then my previous mental image of "magic NPC ships go up and you find yourself in a shiny new pod" ;)
NOW I understand the roll of bumping to keep the freighter locked down for closer to a minute. Interesting. |
Samahiel Sotken
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
78
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:55:00 -
[424] - Quote
Seminole Sun wrote: Thanks... That's a much more nuanced result then my previous mental image of "magic NPC ships go up and you find yourself in a shiny new pod" ;)
NOW I understand the roll of bumping to keep the freighter locked down for closer to a minute. Interesting.
No problem, here to help. Also, since the profit margin is often so thin and the pirate is dependent on all the ships deliver as much DPS as possible it makes counter strategies like blackbirds or logis viable. Nothing ruins a pirates day than a freighter jumping out at 5% structure because some ******* good Samaritan. Except for maybe getting the wreck blown up before you can scoop it.
Note to self: Open alt corp offering safe escort through Uedama. |
Seminole Sun
Hell's Librarians Darkmatter Initiative
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:01:00 -
[425] - Quote
Samahiel Sotken wrote:Seminole Sun wrote: Thanks... That's a much more nuanced result then my previous mental image of "magic NPC ships go up and you find yourself in a shiny new pod" ;)
NOW I understand the roll of bumping to keep the freighter locked down for closer to a minute. Interesting.
No problem, here to help. Also, since the profit margin is often so thin and the pirate is dependent on all the ships deliver as much DPS as possible it makes counter strategies like blackbirds or logis viable. Nothing ruins a pirates day than a freighter jumping out at 5% structure because some ******* good Samaritan. Except for maybe getting the wreck blown up before you can scoop it. Note to self: Open alt corp offering safe escort through Uedama.
Seems like a T3 booster shadowing the freighter would be a powerful counter as well. Or do most pirates bake that in for cushion?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9532
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:04:00 -
[426] - 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 -
[427] - 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.
|
Empress BJ
FOF Research
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:09:00 -
[428] - Quote
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.
~E~
|
Touval Lysander
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
29
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:10:00 -
[429] - Quote
I had something very clever to post here. Then I looked a few things up, found some facts and realized I was totally wrong.
So I shitcanned it and posted this instead. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9533
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:17:00 -
[430] - 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.
|
|
Empress BJ
FOF Research
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:21:00 -
[431] - Quote
A JF is on the shopping list but it's a 7B$$$ isk target.
I am thinking of a solution for the masses .... think station wagon/mini van vs High end BMW SUV
~E~ |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9533
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:26:00 -
[432] - Quote
Empress BJ wrote:A JF is on the shopping list but it's a 7B$$$ 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.
|
Seminole Sun
Hell's Librarians Darkmatter Initiative
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:26:00 -
[433] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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.
I refer you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk
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. They are simply expensed (in most cases GAAP actually mandates this). Probability x cost is the Expected Value (EV). For most risk managers, Risk is defined as the range of reasonable variations of costs and/or rewards.
So flipping 100 coins and assigning heads = 1 and tails = -1. You'd have an EV of 0. You'd establish what your risk tolerance is (if it's a "bet the bank" type of risk, you're probably looking out two or even three standard deviations... if it's a simple investment decision, it's probably more like 1 or even 1/2 standard deviation). You price the deal to be ~ breakeven at that risk level recognizing that there's tail risk involved (for some definition of tail).
What has been referred to as "risk" for the gankers is, on the cost side, not anything that a risk manager would worry about. They're going to chalk up the entire fleet as a lost the moment they pull the trigger. The "risk" comes on the revenue side with what the EVE RNG gods decide to drop as loot.
More risk averse people would take a flyer on that hypothetical 5.5B implant over the 5billion in assorted minerals. Less risk averse people would not.
It's an interesting exercise and it's a type of mentality that tells you alot about null-sec vs. hi-sec dwellers. My gut is that most null-sec pirates would pull the trigger on the single implant. Most "carebear pirates" (if there is such a thing) would pass on it despite it having a higher EV they look at it as a (significantly) riskier proposition.
tl;dr I agree that ganking is "risky". I was quibbling with some people further back that were going very far afield and making confusing statements because of a poor understanding of the terminology. |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
114
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:31:00 -
[434] - Quote
Vojk wrote:Malphilos wrote:
Your wisdom smells funny, kinda like yesterday's lunch.
Personally I find that a well made Lamb Vindaloo tastes, and smells much better 24 hours after purchase. Not so 24 hours after consuming, however.
I'm still sore about that thread getting locked so soon. It was a work of art. |
Touval Lysander
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
29
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:34:00 -
[435] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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. Nothing like breaking down a plain old gank into demonstrations of numeracy and literary prowess is there?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9533
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:38:00 -
[436] - 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.
|
Seminole Sun
Hell's Librarians Darkmatter Initiative
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:39:00 -
[437] - Quote
Touval Lysander wrote: Nothing like breaking down a plain old gank into demonstrations of numeracy and literary prowess is there?
It wouldn't be EVE if there wasn't a spreadsheet involved! I wonder if I should buy and sell Microsoft stock based on the daily logins of EVE users ;) |
Seminole Sun
Hell's Librarians Darkmatter Initiative
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:47:00 -
[438] - Quote
Tippia wrote:
blahblahblah, stuff in which we agree to disagree and both cite a wikipedia article that supports and hurts our respective positions
We're arguing over stupidly nuanced semantics. 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).
I think if Concord had a 50/50 shot at killing you, you'd see ganking evolve to be more risky. Because now there IS uncertainty on the cost side. If everyone took the exact same ships that they used to take (in number and fitting) and they made the target threshold exactly the same as it used to, you're right, the risk (in the colloquial sense) would decline. But they wouldn't. They'd take fewer ships (though not half) and they'd fire at slightly less wealthy targets (again, not half). And I'm predicting (as much as you can predict something that will never happen) that their Risk Adjusted Rate of Return (i.e. their EV) would actually be HIGHER then it is now because of that increased uncertainty. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9533
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 23:10:00 -
[439] - 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.
|
Touval Lysander
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
30
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 23:20:00 -
[440] - Quote
20 pages on someone got GANKED in Eve...
inkredibull. |
|
Seminole Sun
Hell's Librarians Darkmatter Initiative
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 23:29:00 -
[441] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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]
ehh... I was going to respond to this but this mini-threadnought has sufficiently sapped my will to live as well as sucking far too much time from my employer (maybe I need to put that on the client's risk register, "Risk that employees get sucked down the rabbit hole of internet forums" :)
|
Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:07:00 -
[442] - 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.
Could it be done with lets say a Naga instead of a Talos for someone trained in caldari racial ship or is the talos used because it's THAT much better? |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4789
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:26:00 -
[443] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Could it be done with lets say a Naga instead of a Talos for someone trained in caldari racial ship or is the talos used because it's THAT much better?
The Talos has two more low slots and a hull bonus for hybrid damage to boot. please leave |
Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:36:00 -
[444] - Quote
Andski wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Could it be done with lets say a Naga instead of a Talos for someone trained in caldari racial ship or is the talos used because it's THAT much better? The Talos has two more low slots and a hull bonus for hybrid damage to boot.
Same dmg bonus on naga. I guess tracking bonus is better than optimal range for ganking and low slots beats meds too. |
Anosha de'Cavemann
Tranquility Quality Control Generic Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:58:00 -
[445] - Quote
As an uber-noob player, this thread as been extemely information.
- Lot's of what not to do's
- Lot's of game mechanics I wasn't aware of.
- Lot's of things to further research.
- How lively these forums can be.
Thanks to all. |
Seminole Sun
Hell's Librarians
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:02:00 -
[446] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Andski wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Could it be done with lets say a Naga instead of a Talos for someone trained in caldari racial ship or is the talos used because it's THAT much better? The Talos has two more low slots and a hull bonus for hybrid damage to boot. Same dmg bonus on naga. I guess tracking bonus is better than optimal range for ganking and low slots beats meds too.
There's fewer caldari + hybrid pilots out there too... Where as all of us Gallente pilots have Hybrids trained |
Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:14:00 -
[447] - Quote
Anosha de'Cavemann wrote:As an uber-noob player, this thread as been extemely information.
- Lot's of what not to do's
- Lot's of game mechanics I wasn't aware of.
- Lot's of things to further research.
- How lively these forums can be.
Thanks to all.
Please take your positive attitude somewhere else, thx. |
Ginger Barbarella
State War Academy Caldari State
133
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:16:00 -
[448] - Quote
23 pages? Really? |
PI Maker
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 16:58:00 -
[449] - Quote
Samahiel Sotken wrote:No problem, here to help. Also, since the profit margin is often so thin and the pirate is dependent on all the ships deliver as much DPS as possible it makes counter strategies like blackbirds or logis viable. Nothing ruins a pirates day than a freighter jumping out at 5% structure because some ******* good Samaritan. Except for maybe getting the wreck blown up before you can scoop it. Since you're willing to give tips etc, is my post here a viable ganker counter to slinging? |
Samahiel Sotken
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
78
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 17:23:00 -
[450] - Quote
PI Maker wrote:Since you're willing to give tips etc, is my post here a viable ganker counter to slinging?
The thing about slingshoting as a tactic is, yes we could conceivably interfere in a way that lets us get the freighter anyway, but it dramatically reduces the window in which we can react. Our scanners are looking at something like a half dozen freighters at a time trying to passively lock and freight scan them, then run the scan through a third party system we have for valuation, then making a call whether it's worth hitting. the FC then has to make sure the DPS is staged where he thinks the freighter will end up, and be sure he has concord prepped, and a spare pilot to agress in case of log off. A webber on your part means that at any one of these stages human error may interfere or a superior target may present itself.
Most likely the scanner won't pay attention to you in favor of your neighbor on autopilot. Then the FC won't be able to get the DPS organized and in position fast enough, or won't have a ship to spare shooting your webber. The reality is the pirates are limited mainly by manpower, time, and organization; anything you can do to strain that increases your chances of being passed up for an easier target.
Edit: If Mittens himself sent word from on high that he wanted your freighter dead, we would terminate it with extreme prejudice no matter where or how it was defended; but most freighter kills are targets of opportunity which is a much more narrowly defined set of circumstances. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |