EVE Search - Should Ganking be profitable?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Should Ganking be profitable?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 25 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises 1225	Posted - 2013.03.19 09:53:00 - [31] - Quote Tippia wrote: Dave Stark wrote: only if that profit comes from cargo. Why? What difference does it make where on the ship the loot comes from? I'm guessing his argument comes from T2 salvage from Exhumers being ganked. Intact armour plats do a pretty good job of paying for a gank. Of course, tanking an exhumer isn't hard these days. Sure, enough catalysts will get you. But the idea is making it not viable, rather than not possible. Steve Ronuken for CSM 8 Handy tools and SDE conversions Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Whitehound 1261	Posted - 2013.03.19 10:18:00 - [32] - Quote HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote: Dev soundwave wrote. "Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender)." What is everyones opinion? He is right. Only it is not as simple as CCP Soundwave makes it sound. He knows there is more to it so he can make such statements, but for noobs to understand this do they first need to understand profit, and profit is not only about ship prices. It is about time and effort, ship roles, ISK/hour, production, player numbers, and lots of other things, too. Balance is a delicate network of factors and counter factors. If one factor becomes so overwhelming that it will outweigh others, and all the time, does it become a danger to the balance. This is what he means by saying "necessarily profitable" - a factor become so strong that it will always outweigh others. When a Hulk makes 15m ISKs/hour and costs 200m ISKs, while another ship costs 100m ISKs and makes 30m ISKs/hour, then you may have a problem. When a ship like the Hulk needs three strip miners to fill its role and these modules cost 12m ISKs and the drop-chance is 50% resulting in 6m ISKs worth of loot, but the Hulk can be ganked by another ship costing less than 5m ISKs, then you may have a problem. When a Hulk then needs a month and more of skill training and requires rare materials for building it, materials which have caused many great wars, but the ship can be shot down by practically a noob ship that is flown by many new players in their first week, then you may have another problem. It is not even about high-sec and how safe it is and how safe it should be in one's opinion, but about the imbalances, which lurk in the fundamentals of the mechanic, and where factors begin to fail countering other factors. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 8214	Posted - 2013.03.19 10:30:00 - [33] - Quote If miners don't like the danger of suicide ganking, they're welcome to come to nice, safe 0.0 where there isn't any. Admittedly, the ore isn't quite as profitable here, but that's the price one pays for safety. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread
Lost Greybeard Drunken Yordles 326	Posted - 2013.03.19 10:36:00 - [34] - Quote There should be a balance of risk and reward, as with everything. How it is now is basically pretty reasonable. You always have the option to pile on more defense, to mine in a safer area, etc, making it harder for people to gank you successfully at a profit.
Velicitia Arma Artificer 1263	Posted - 2013.03.19 10:59:00 - [35] - Quote Olf Barrenbur wrote: They'll only get ganked once, then they'll ~~learn to EVE.~~ cry to CCP to fix mechanics because of ~~falcon~~ ~hisec~ FYP. ninja edit -- wrong meme One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia Malcanis for CSM8
Princess Saskia Hyperfleet Industries xXPlease Pandemic Citizens Reloaded Alliance.Xx 936	Posted - 2013.03.19 11:02:00 - [36] - Quote TLDR: Yes stupid people will continue to be stupid. Hyperfleet Industries is selectivly recruiting. Enquire today. Killboard
baltec1 Bat Country 5620	Posted - 2013.03.19 11:06:00 - [37] - Quote HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote: Dev soundwave wrote. "Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender)." What is everyones opinion? That quote was in reference the the bare hull of exhumers and barges. He thought that they were profitable to gank with no mods fitted. This was wrong and has been pointed out countless times.
aerynn jewell Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2013.03.19 11:16:00 - [38] - Quote Suicide ganking shouldn't be as profitable as it currently is , I think the entire mechanic should be changed to only dropping current cargo of the destroyed target ,not fittings or even a salvageable wreck, just the cargo it carries then is more akin to a hold up you can even go so far as actually ransoming the target off to drop cargo or pop it for it . Of course you could leave the normal fit \ wreck drops as is for a war decced target ,making war deccing actually usefull for some thing.
Brooks Puuntai Solar Nexus. 1227	Posted - 2013.03.19 11:20:00 - [39] - Quote Suicide ganking always has the possibility to be profitable, so long as people continue to put more and more isk into their ships. There is nothing you can really do to change that. However removing insurance payouts for concord kills is one way to raise the bar on what actually is profitable and what isn't. Plus to me, it always seemed like insurance fraud, which no actual company would payout on. Don't Vote for Malcanis New Eden Training Simulation. -áIdea to improve NPE.
baltec1 Bat Country 5620	Posted - 2013.03.19 11:21:00 - [40] - Quote Brooks Puuntai wrote: Suicide ganking always has the possibility to be profitable, so long as people continue to put more and more isk into their ships. There is nothing you can really do to change that. However removing insurance payouts for concord kills is one way to raise the bar on what actually is profitable and what isn't. Plus to me, it always seemed like insurance fraud, which no actual company would payout on. This has to be a troll.
Vaerah Vahrokha Vahrokh Consulting 3960	Posted - 2013.03.19 11:22:00 - [41] - Quote Ganking should be an EvE philosophy thing: you get given tools (and weapons ), you deal with the consequences. In particular, the barges buff and also how freighters are made, are totally against EvE philosophy. Barges should be profitable or unprofitable depending on how much smart (or not) their owner is, like most other ships. Barges should be given as many slots as the other ships and then let the owner pick between yield / cargo / tank exactly like he'd do for a BC or a BS. Many would still choose for max AFK or max yield and face the consequences. The others could pick an intermediate setup out of dozens possible, and do a risk vs reward compromise. In the past the barges just sucked even when tanked (except some shameful "I am bait all tank" Hulks fittings) now they have been made an one way, no choices deal. Both are wrong. Edit: I can see the point of "those are ships that can't really dodge / flee / manouver so they deserve some "dev gods imposed buffer tank" but not as much as today. I'd shift this buffer tank "buff" more on the actual players. Freighters should have a similar compromise and thus be "player fitted". Most of the times I don't carry but half cargo, why shouldn't I be able to tank it more giving up such space? After all it's how JFs work, less cargo for more tank (and cyno ofc). baltec1 wrote: HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote: Dev soundwave wrote. "Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender)." What is everyones opinion? That quote was in reference the the bare hull of exhumers and barges. He thought that they were profitable to gank with no mods fitted. This was wrong and has been pointed out countless times. Last gank times I have been involved in, the average loot I'd get was 8M+ a pop. 2 T1 fitted catalysts for 1 tanked Mack = still profitable. And it's Macks that were the "queens of AFK", even before the revamp, as they were the ices specialized ship so those are a fair meter. Auditing \| Collateral holding and insurance \| Consulting \| PLEX for Good Charity Twitter channel
Runeme Shilter New Order Logistics CODE. 57	Posted - 2013.03.19 11:26:00 - [42] - Quote Whitehound wrote: When a ship like the Hulk needs three strip miners to fill its role and these modules cost 12m ISKs and the drop-chance is 50% resulting in 6m ISKs worth of loot, but the Hulk can be ganked by another ship costing less than 5m ISKs, then you may have a problem. Could you show me the ship fitting that will kill a properly fitted Hulk for 5M ISK? I'd be very interested in that.
baltec1 Bat Country 5620	Posted - 2013.03.19 11:27:00 - [43] - Quote Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Last gank times I have been involved in, the average loot I'd get was 8M+ a pop. 2 T1 fitted catalysts for 1 tanked Mack = still profitable. And it's Macks that were the "queens of AFK", even before the revamp, as they were the ices specialized ship so those are a fair meter. You have very different numbers to what we had.
Vaerah Vahrokha Vahrokh Consulting 3960	Posted - 2013.03.19 11:34:00 - [44] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Last gank times I have been involved in, the average loot I'd get was 8M+ a pop. 2 T1 fitted catalysts for 1 tanked Mack = still profitable. And it's Macks that were the "queens of AFK", even before the revamp, as they were the ices specialized ship so those are a fair meter. You have very different numbers to what we had. What numbers did you have? I found out I'd usually salvage from 0 to 2 intact armor plates. If it was not 2 plates it was some minor salvage, the average was about 1 plate, which at that time I could sell for 14 to 16M a piece. Add ship dropped mods = at least 8M a pop. Auditing \| Collateral holding and insurance \| Consulting \| PLEX for Good Charity Twitter channel
Runeme Shilter New Order Logistics CODE. 57	Posted - 2013.03.19 11:43:00 - [45] - Quote Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Last gank times I have been involved in, the average loot I'd get was 8M+ a pop. 2 T1 fitted catalysts for 1 tanked Mack = still profitable. And it's Macks that were the "queens of AFK", even before the revamp, as they were the ices specialized ship so those are a fair meter. [Mackinaw, Mack - Ice] Ice Harvester Upgrade I Ice Harvester Upgrade I Damage Control II Small Shield Extender I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Upgraded Thermic Dissipation Amplifier I [empty med slot] Ice Harvester II Ice Harvester II Medium Ice Harvester Accelerator I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I 32k ehp, not profitable to gank. [Mackinaw, Mack - Ore] Damage Control II Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Upgraded Thermic Dissipation Amplifier I Small Shield Extender I [empty med slot] Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I 34k ehp, not profitable to gank.
Whitehound 1265	Posted - 2013.03.19 11:48:00 - [46] - Quote Runeme Shilter wrote: Whitehound wrote: When a ship like the Hulk needs three strip miners to fill its role and these modules cost 12m ISKs and the drop-chance is 50% resulting in 6m ISKs worth of loot, but the Hulk can be ganked by another ship costing less than 5m ISKs, then you may have a problem. Could you show me the ship fitting that will kill a properly fitted Hulk for 5M ISK? I'd be very interested in that. Just go away and biomass. Do you even know from when CCP Soundwave's statement was? Probably from before you started playing EVE. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 7127	Posted - 2013.03.19 11:50:00 - [47] - Quote ganking ships for their fittings and cargo should certainly be profitable. of course, the wretches will quote soundwave on how "ganking is not supposed to be profitable" as if pirating has never been a valid profession in this game, which it has been since 2003, because these wretches want to switch their mission bots to officer-fit golems. that trash were the ones that threw their toys out of the pram when they could not be asked to put an iota of thought into how they play this game and figure out how to fit their hulks in a way that isn't "all MLUs in the lows, strip miner IIs in the highs, survey scanner in mids, cargo rigs". as they are seemingly incapable of thought, it was apparent that keeping this trash subscribed was necessary, so CCP accommodated them, changed their ships so that their ore would not drop, gave them more hitpoints in order to ensure that they wouldn't have to sacrifice their precious yield and, most importantly, wouldn't have to think, since asking people to think is just too much for the part of the playerbase that CCP has embraced for the last three years. ~a proud belligerent undesirable~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. Malcanis for CSM 8
TheGunslinger42 All Web Investigations 1111	Posted - 2013.03.19 11:53:00 - [48] - Quote The concept of isk-tanking - i.e. my ship cost X isk therefor anyone who ganks it should lose >X isk - is complete bullshit if you ask me. It's so obviously stupid and yet some people honestly still support it
dexington Caldari Provisions Caldari State 620	Posted - 2013.03.19 12:08:00 - [49] - Quote TheGunslinger42 wrote: The concept of isk-tanking - i.e. my ship cost X isk therefor anyone who ganks it should lose >X isk - is complete bullshit if you ask me. It's so obviously stupid and yet some people honestly still support it it's more complicated that x = x isk, you need to at least take the size of the group into account. 50 people flying cheap frigs or dessies can probably gank something larger then 5 people flying tier 3 battlecruiser, even if the total value of the ships are about the same. I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Whitehound 1267	Posted - 2013.03.19 12:21:00 - [50] - Quote TheGunslinger42 wrote: The concept of isk-tanking - i.e. my ship cost X isk therefor anyone who ganks it should lose >X isk - is complete bullshit if you ask me. It's so obviously stupid and yet some people honestly still support it It is all about a healthy balance. When one thing dominates over everything else then what is the point? Players will figure it out and when enough players are doing it will it ruin the game and end it. So you need to have a balance and this balance can show in many different forms. The cost factor is just one of them. It should only not be as primitive and as simple by consisting of a single factor, which is likely the thing you are concerned about - that it is too simple. "ISK-tanking" is not dumb or stupid, but it makes the bill of materials to each ship. If "ISK tanking" was actually bad then Titans should not cost 60b ISKs and only need a single Tritanium to be build. Yet, do we all appreciate the difference in costs and efforts, and we do not want this to be turned into nonsense. By the way, the only fear I have, is that destroyers may eventually lose their 8 high-slots. Rookies do not really need all 8 and it is only the experienced players who use all 8 and mostly for ganking. So if CCP ever decides to fix anything about ganking will it probably be a nerf to destroyers. The new destroyers already have less high-slots... Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Dave Stark 2054	Posted - 2013.03.19 13:05:00 - [51] - Quote Tippia wrote: Dave Stark wrote: only if that profit comes from cargo. Why? What difference does it make where on the ship the loot comes from? RubyPorto wrote: Dave Stark wrote: only if that profit comes from cargo. [Ibis, Not Cargo: must be safe] Draclira's Modified Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Draclira's Modified Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Estamel's Modified Adaptive Invulnerability Field Estamel's Modified Adaptive Invulnerability Field True Sansha Small Energy Neutralizer True Sansha Small Energy Neutralizer i didn't say the cargo had to be in the cargo hold, as apposed to the wreck... an essentially empty ship shouldn't be profitable to gank though. while i appreciate the game shouldn't be risk free i don't think simply undocking [in high sec] should be a reason for some one to want to actively gank you just because they make money doing so. exceptions being, if that profit is from bounties. should it be profitable to gank a bog standard t2 fit ship with nothing but a few reloads of ammo in it's cargo? no, i don't think it should. it should, however, still be possible. did he insult your mother? open fire. should it be profitable to gank a clueless player who thinks an officer fit ibis is a good idea? absolutely. what i'm trying to get at is that i don't think there should be a reason [profit] for ganking people going about their daily business sensibly. however; if you want to go out of your way then you should still be able to shoot whoever you want wherever you want. even as a miner i don't have an issue with people wanting to suicide gank me to ruin my day, **** me off, try to get tears, just because they can, etc. however, i do have an issue with it being profitable as if i'm nothing more than a red cross... (bounties excluded) of course, i say all this with respect to high sec and nowhere else. Want miners to move from high sec to null sec? Then give them a reason to join player corps, and stop null sec grav sites being worth less isk/hour than high sec asteroid belts. Really isn't difficult.
Vaerah Vahrokha Vahrokh Consulting 3961	Posted - 2013.03.19 13:06:00 - [52] - Quote Runeme Shilter wrote: Stuff 34k ehp, not profitable to gank. Both me and Baltec were talking of ganks before the barges buff, your fitting is irrelevant. Auditing \| Collateral holding and insurance \| Consulting \| PLEX for Good Charity Twitter channel
Roime Shiva Furnace 2269	Posted - 2013.03.19 13:12:00 - [53] - Quote Yes, but lossmails involving CONCORD should be pulled from the API by all major killboards. -á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars -
Runeme Shilter New Order Logistics CODE. 57	Posted - 2013.03.19 13:13:00 - [54] - Quote Whitehound wrote: Just go away and biomass. Do you even know from when CCP Soundwave's statement was? Probably from before you started playing EVE. So, you can't show me that magical 5M ship that can kill a tanked hulk? Thanks, no further questions.
Jonah Gravenstein Khalkotauroi Defence Labs 6620	Posted - 2013.03.19 13:14:00 - [55] - Quote The profitability of ganking is entirely down to the gankee. A correctly fitted exhumer is not profitable to gank because the cost of the ships required to reallocate its pixels > than the value of the possible loot and salvage drop from doing so. An Orca that has been fitted properly is also unprofitable to gank, cargo expanders are the primary cause of Orca accidents, regardless of shield mods. A tip for Orca pilots, an unfitted Orca has 68% of its EHP in the structure, one module on a naked hull, a Damage Control II, bumps that structure up to 80% of the EHP, and gives the structure a 60% omni resist as a bonus, that's before you even think about shield extenders, invuls and the like. A properly fitted T1 hauler can field enough EHP to survive the alpha strike from a Tornado, although tbh if someone is carrying enough value in a T1 hauler to tempt a Tier 3 BC pilot they deserve to explode anyway. I can't comment on the shiny bling like pirate Battleships and the Tech 3 cruisers, I don't fly them because I refuse to undock in something that valuable. Eve in a nutshell, it's you vs the universe, and every machiavellian space bastard in it.
Felicity Love STARKRAFT 349	Posted - 2013.03.19 13:23:00 - [56] - Quote Ganking should be profitable -- but only as a "risk vs reward" factor generated by the pilot stupidity (or bravado, as the case may be). Specifially, if you're a freighter pilot overloaded with valuable cargo OR a mission runner with a faction fitted T2 bs, AND -- here's the important part for the folks playing along at home -- you do something very risky with either ship, then good luck to you -- and thanks for the loot. Duh. Proud Beta Tester for "Bumping Uglies for Dummies"
Velicitia Arma Artificer 1265	Posted - 2013.03.19 13:23:00 - [57] - Quote Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Runeme Shilter wrote: Stuff 34k ehp, not profitable to gank. Both me and Baltec were talking of ganks before the barges buff, your fitting is irrelevant. while 34k EHP might not be profitable for the ganker in that instance, what happens when the ganker's market toon now has sold off another 100m trit at 7.xx ISK/unit, since the now-ganked miner was unable to set an order for 10m trit at (7.xx -0.01). Sure, we could say "just wait for that 1m trit to sell out" ... but in the meantime, that's ~70m ISK that's going to a someone else, and not the ganker's wallet. As long as that 70m is still more than the "cost" of the gank ... seems like profit works as a motivator. One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia Malcanis for CSM8
Jenn aSide STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries 1489	Posted - 2013.03.19 13:27:00 - [58] - Quote Malcanis wrote: If miners don't like the danger of suicide ganking, they're welcome to come to nice, safe 0.0 where there isn't any. Admittedly, the ore isn't quite as profitable here, but that's the price one pays for safety. Is this where i get to say "I see what you did there"? Yes? Ok, I see what you did there.
Dave Stark 2054	Posted - 2013.03.19 13:32:00 - [59] - Quote TheGunslinger42 wrote: The concept of isk-tanking - i.e. my ship cost X isk therefor anyone who ganks it should lose >X isk - is complete bullshit if you ask me. It's so obviously stupid and yet some people honestly still support it if isk tanking is stupid, explain the current retriever. Want miners to move from high sec to null sec? Then give them a reason to join player corps, and stop null sec grav sites being worth less isk/hour than high sec asteroid belts. Really isn't difficult.
Whitehound 1268	Posted - 2013.03.19 13:34:00 - [60] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: should it be profitable to gank a clueless player who thinks an officer fit ibis is a good idea? absolutely. If you believe this then all dumb stuff in EVE needs to pay off for somebody... You open grounds for all kinds of arguments just based on this one. Shooting a ship for its modules should not be like shaking an apple tree for catching falling apples. I am thinking modules need to drop damaged, ranging from utterly broken to heavily damaged, because this makes sense. Further does the damage need to affect the modules' performance, because it, too, makes sense. One cannot expect a broken thing to work perfectly. And last but not least should the repair costs for modules scale with the market price, because it, too, makes sense. Or why should a 4b ISK module only cost a few millions to repair? Or why should the nanos in the repair paste know how Mr. Estamel has modified his invulnerability field to be as good as it it is? If nanos were this smart then one should be able to turn all inv. shields into better ones. If you then shoot an Ibis with officer mods will it still be as easy as taking candy from a baby, but wrecking the Ibis with all those shiny stuff in it will have a massive impact on the values of dropped modules. You might still consider doing it just for the chance of getting a completely damaged officer mod and a huge repair bill, because you may find getting one an officer spawn in 0.0 to be more difficult. If one drops a bomb onto a weapons arsenal does one not expect it to rain brand new weapons from the sky either. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 25 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.