| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
baltec1
Bat Country
2701
   |
Posted - 2012.11.03 20:18:00 -
[1] - Quote
Dont stuff 20 bil in the hold? |
baltec1
Bat Country
2701
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 21:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
Jaison Savrin wrote:
Ganking is relatively risk free. I never said "too" risk free. I don't mind ganking. I just think it is really dumb for people to claim it is a risky occupation. Admit y'all, you're just playing around shooting fish in a barrel.
Ganka ship with 20 bil in the cargo. Nothing drops.
1 billion in lost ships, sec status loss, killrights for attacked corp, GCC for 15 min, no insurance payout, possibility of other people scooping your loot, suddenly war targets and counter ganked.
Yep, not risky at all! |
baltec1
Bat Country
2701
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 22:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
Jaison Savrin wrote:
Predictable Operating costs do not meet my definition of Risk. It happens. If you do the math I bet you can even tell me how often it happens with relative accuracy. Not a risk.
Using your logic nothing is a risk if you chose to accept it. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2701
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 22:11:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jaison Savrin wrote:
Poorly worded. Let me rephrase
Gankers want their relatively risk free money.
Because an escorting rook poses no risk at all! |
baltec1
Bat Country
2701
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 22:25:00 -
[5] - Quote
Jaison Savrin wrote:
Yes, all those other activities are relatively risk free. I agree entirely. All I am saying is that ganking is no more risk filled than those activities. Although it does, as you also point out, have a higher operating cost due to the guaranteed loss. I am also not debating that. I just don't like pro-ganking players going around claiming it is anything more than "relatively risk free."
So miners get GCC, are open to attack from the corp they just stole the rock from and, come winter, are open to attack by anyone too?
Oh and there is a good change that they get nothing from the asteroid. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2704
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 12:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
What you say is EXACTLY what people are asking for with freighters. They are asking for the cargo to be nerfed, so that they can choose between cargo & EHP. At which point people who fly an all cargo fit have made a CHOICE to be vulnerable. Even if they then whine afterwards. Currently there is no choice.
As for 'escorts'. Thats a laughable suggestion. If it was low/null and they could engage any potential threat, you (being those suggesting them, not Tippia) might have a point, but if the Rook/etc tries to ECM anyone before they actually fire, the Rook gets blown up by concord. A gank takes 10-15 seconds, any longer and they have failed because Concord has gotten them, so the escorts have to pull off their defensive locks, and disrupt the targets inside that window. While the attackers since they are using the infinite time 'bump the freighter so it can never warp to anywhere so it doesn't matter how many safe spots the freighter has bookmarked' method typically, can pick their engagement whenever they want.
As a freighter pilot I do not want to have my cargo massivly reduced or my EHP gimped just so the daft ones out there can be lazy and stuff billions into their holds rather than making more than one trip. CCP should not alter perfectly fine ships to try and cure stupid.
The end result would only end up being the same bads flying around with just as much stuff in the hold but with much less tank. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2719
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 11:37:00 -
[7] - Quote
Reading between lines to get facts only leads to stupidity. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2723
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 12:17:00 -
[8] - Quote
You know, I do wonder why people are making such a simple thing so very complicated.
Fools stuff too much into their holds and we take it off them. Thats about as complicated as this needs to get. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2723
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 12:25:00 -
[9] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:
because for some reason they feel entitled to 0 risk hauling.
Fortunatly we are here to enforce the daft tax. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2723
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 12:33:00 -
[10] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:
Ok 2 frieghters fly into a system.
One has 4 billion in one contract the other 4 billion value of 50 items. 50 chances for stuff to drop as opposed to one chance for everything to drop.
The ganker has only enough ships on hand to kill one of them.
Which does he choose?
The one with double wrapped trit in it |
baltec1
Bat Country
2723
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 13:06:00 -
[11] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:
on a bad luck streak lately? :P
The other day I gankined an iteron. Everything dropped aside from one thing. So I ended up with an entire fitting for a hulk but no hulk  |
baltec1
Bat Country
2723
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 13:11:00 -
[12] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:
on the bright side, if you were only using a catalyst that's almost profitable.
I made a mil  |
baltec1
Bat Country
2731
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 08:47:00 -
[13] - Quote
Again, people demand a nerf to something when there is already very simple answers to their problem. |
| |
|