EVE Search - Sticky:A Message Regarding "Hyperdunking"

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Sticky:A Message Regarding "Hyperdunking"

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 27	Posted - 2015.01.27 18:35:14 - [1] - Quote If we want the policy changed, all we have to do is hyperdunk Chribba in his Veldnaught... CCP would reverse position on this faster than Concord could respond.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 27	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:55:17 - [2] - Quote Crumplecorn wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Except now that it legally only takes one ganker, there's a whole bunch of extra character to bump even more people. A group of 12 who used to bump and gank a freighter for example can now bump and gank 4 without worry of being banned. With the amount of gankers usually in the Amarr -> Jita pipe they can pretty much camp all the gates. Because characters are in such short supply in EVE....? Everyone in a normal gank fleet could dual client a bumping mach, if they were so inclined. Or dual client a scout, which was more my thing. So what you are saying is Freighter pilots should have friends to help... but gankers shouldn't? What a double standard
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 31	Posted - 2015.01.28 12:27:48 - [3] - Quote Tippia wrote: TheSmokingHertog wrote: He did not read the minutes it seems. You mean the bit where CCP states that they have no plans of announcing such a change, and offers no reason for it to happen? You do know NPCs are podding now and the new Sleeper AI will include podding as well right? And yes, it was in the CSM minutes and all over Reddit.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 31	Posted - 2015.01.28 12:31:26 - [4] - Quote Aralyn Cormallen wrote: Concord Guy's Cousin wrote: Commentus Nolen wrote: If I find the stash of ships the hyperdunker has stashed and they are unpiloted can i destroy them without Concord intervention? Do I get a kill mail for destroying them? As far as I know Concord will intervene if you shoot at them, but if you can fly them you can certainly board them and steal them . You can also target them to prevent the hyperdunker from boarding them, however if their "drop ship" is still around the pilot can do the same to prevent you from boarding and stealing them. Hilariously, you could also board one, shoot another to get yourself concorded, and then keep jumping in the other ships while under the GCC to get Concord to clean the lot up :P Be easier to just fit a SeBo on your Bowhead and lock the cat so ganker can't board it. I think you get 5x locks so you could take a lot of damage off the field unless you have a real slick Orca dropper.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 31	Posted - 2015.01.28 12:35:45 - [5] - Quote Arla Sarain wrote: Bagrat Skalski wrote: CCP Falcon wrote: Since the introduction of the Bowhead freighter, weGÇÖve become aware of a tactic that has been introduced which has become known as GÇ£HyperdunkingGÇ¥. This involves leaving a grid where a criminal action occurs to draw away CONCORD and reshipping to continue shooting at a target. ThereGÇÖs been much discussion among members of the community regarding this tactic, and whether or not it is considered legitimate gameplay. After meeting with members of the game design and customer support teams and discussing this in depth, we have come to the consensus that due to the fact no rules are being broken and any ship that is involved in a criminal act is being destroyed by CONCORD as intended, that this tactic is simply an unintended but legitimate use of new game mechanics, and is not in breach of the rules. Tactics similar to this have been used with previous hulls before the Bowhead was introduced, and have been considered perfectly legitimate in the past. With this in mind, at this time we do not consider this tactic to be in breach of the game rules, and as such our customer support team will not be offering reimbursements for hulls lost in this manner. Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage. So when can we expect CONCORD podding the criminals? When can we expect haulers to hire protection? Like play the game and not have CCP play it for them. It can be a Goon provided service right? No way to scam here. Let me just accept that duel request for fast align times
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 31	Posted - 2015.01.28 14:41:45 - [6] - Quote Tippia wrote: Antihrist Pripravnik wrote: It should be implemented in a way that it shouldn't be a nerf if you are doing it right. Maybe add a parameter that eliminates the tax if your loss from CONCORD included you being on an actual killmail at the time. Or maybe game designers in CCP have more creative ideas, but the point is : failure should have consequences. So really, the best implementation would be none at all since what you're asking for already exists, and adding more of it is a straight up nerf. Doing it right means you pay less; doing it wrong means you pay more. Why should an additional layer of faff be added on top of that, just to increase costs? Quote: Besides, gankers have as much reason to complain about nerfs as industrials do, with the exception of a tax that only industrials pay. No. Gankers have far more reasons to complain about nerfs since, you know, they are actually constantly being nerfed unlike the industrialists. They already pay a tax on their activity GÇö one of the highest taxes the game GÇö and there's no reason for them to pay a higher one. BS The changes to the game including the addition of BCs that shoot BS sized guns, changes to Dessies and the changes to alpha damage for certain weapon types have been a huge boost to gankers. Just because the intended purpose of a change wasn't directly related to ganking doesn't mean gankers didnt get a boost. Yes there have been nerfs, and they are a direct result of "creative" uses of game mechanics in ways CCP never intended, or that are too OP to let stand, but that is the fault of the gankers for exploiting bad game code excessively and then dancing around a fire naked about it.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 31	Posted - 2015.01.28 14:58:30 - [7] - Quote Tippia wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: BS The changes to the game including the addition of BCs that shoot BS sized guns, changes to Dessies and the changes to alpha damage for certain weapon types have been a huge boost to gankers. Oh, you mean those changes that were combined with alterations that made ganking far more costly than before, which at best maintained a status quo? The ones that continued the consistent downwards trend in ganking? Quote: Just because the intended purpose of a change wasn't directly related to ganking doesn't mean gankers didnt get a boost. No, but the adjoining changes made sure that such a boost didn't take place. In every instance, the balance was skewed further away from the gankers. Quote: Yes there have been nerfs, and they are a direct result of "creative" uses of game mechanics in ways CCP never intended, or that are too OP to let stand As you say: BS. Almost none of them have been of that type, except maybe the implementation of CONCORD as an unstoppable force. The rest have all come about because whiners have been too devoid of any kind of cognitive ability beyond slamming their heads into a pulp against their keyboard until the nice men in white coats came and cleaned up the mess and picked out what seemed like at least a consistent message out of the random garbage that ended up on the screen. Oh come on... you wanna say that insurance being denied to gankers was a nerf to ganking? Should never have been there in the first place. So you completely discount the changes that even made Cat ganking viable, or the gankers alpha of choice the Tornado and Talos? You don't place any blame on gankers for the changes made to warping in the same grid to avoid concord, or what will sure to be in the future a change in policy against this very topic because of almost certain overuse to come? Please name me a nerf to ganking that actually has had an effect or slowed the proliferation of high sec ganks... I dare ya How did you get so many likes being so selectively ignorant? Oh, that is right, the good ol boy network of "huck huck, I made a blue wreck, huck huck"
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 32	Posted - 2015.01.28 15:15:53 - [8] - Quote Tippia wrote: Stuffz Lets go through a list of all the boosts to ganking... just for you, cuz you seem to be very ungrateful to CCP for the "environment" they created for you. You now have extremely overpowered Catalysts capable of pumping out dps beyond expected for their size and cost You now have powerful alpha weapons with changes to Projectiles and Railguns You now have the Orca and Bowhead, to drop dozens of ships that can't be touched by concord give you a plethora of methods to gank with little player numbers You now have Freighters who must choose between cargo and ehp, fit for one and lose the other, making your targets potentially easier to gank You now have warp changes which give you ample time to set up on a gate before a freighter arrives because it takes them minutes to cross a system. You now have no clone costs in case someone pops your pod after you gank and forget to warp off You now have tags to get your sec status up without ever having to shoot a red cross You now have ships capable of bumping a 55m/s boat to 500-800m/s to get them away from the grid You now have changes to the log-off log-on trick so I can't log my alt in and make my frieghter pilot disappear. That last one... was HUGE. It doomed freighters to certain death as soon as a Mach bumped them. Now I agree that it was technically an exploit, but you seem to only be claiming ganking got harder, while ignoring how easy they made it. AND YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ME ONE VALID EXAMPLE OF HOW GANKING IS HARDER
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 32	Posted - 2015.01.28 15:31:23 - [9] - Quote Tippia wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Lets go through a list of all the boosts to ganking... just for you, cuz you seem to be very ungrateful to CCP for the "environment" they created for you. 1. You now have extremely overpowered Catalysts capable of pumping out dps beyond expected for their size and cost 2. You now have powerful alpha weapons with changes to Projectiles and Railguns 3. You now have the Orca and Bowhead, to drop dozens of ships that can't be touched by concord give you a plethora of methods to gank with little player numbers 4. You now have Freighters who must choose between cargo and ehp, fit for one and lose the other, making your targets potentially easier to gank 5. You now have warp changes which give you ample time to set up on a gate before a freighter arrives because it takes them minutes to cross a system. 6. You now have no clone costs in case someone pops your pod after you gank and forget to warp off 7. You now have tags to get your sec status up without ever having to shoot a red cross 8. You now have ships capable of bumping a 55m/s boat to 500-800m/s to get them away from the grid 9. You now have changes to the log-off log-on trick so I can't log my alt in and make my frieghter pilot disappear. 1 & 2 GÇö cancelled out by the much higher costs. 3. Has existed in other forms since the invention of CONCORD, 4. Has existed in other forms since the invention of freighters, and player stupidity is not a boost to ganking. 5. Has existed since the invention of freighters, and in any system where it takes GÇ£minutes to crossGÇ¥, the warp changes means the gankers have less time to prepare, not more. 6. Ooh. One thing! Neat. It makes a difference of all of one gun fitted, i.e. fsck-all. 7. Could be a boost if it offered any kind of useful benefit, which it doesn't. 8. Has existed since the invention of collisions, and is far less effective now than before. 9. I suppose. Not being able to cheese your way out of a loss is generally considered good balance. So that's two things you've completely misidentified as boosts when they're the exact opposite; two things that have been cancelled out and end up as net negatives; four things that aren't changes; two things that make no difference; and one thing that is good design. End result? Pathetic and ignorant, trying to massively inflate changes into something they're not. None of them change the fact that ganking is more costly, requires more effort, and is hellalot easier to avoid than in the past. Quote: AND YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ME ONE VALID EXAMPLE OF HOW GANKING IS HARDER Learn to read. Learn to answer the question... and you are seriously a troll if you are trying to use "cost" as a deterrent to ganking. You were nerfed by "cost" Hilarious. You use a bunch of 3 mil isk fit ships to gank a 1.5bil ship with untold isk of cargo... and you want to talk about the cost of Catalysts? Troll
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 32	Posted - 2015.01.28 15:39:09 - [10] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Hilarious. You use a bunch of 3 mil isk fit ships to gank a 1.5bil ship with untold isk of cargo... and you want to talk about the cost of Catalysts? Troll remind me why 1 pilot should be able to beat 3 pilots? especially when that one pilot willingly chose to fly a ship with 0 offensive capabilities. 1 pilot isn't "beating" anything simply by surviving... You have a warped sense of "beating"

Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 32	Posted - 2015.01.28 15:42:34 - [11] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Dave Stark wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Hilarious. You use a bunch of 3 mil isk fit ships to gank a 1.5bil ship with untold isk of cargo... and you want to talk about the cost of Catalysts? Troll remind me why 1 pilot should be able to beat 3 pilots? especially when that one pilot willingly chose to fly a ship with 0 offensive capabilities. 1 pilot isn't "beating" anything simply by surviving... You have a warped sense of "beating" the end result is some one ending up without a ship, i'd say that would classify some one as beaten. shrug The person without a ship did it themselves... consciously Seriously put more effort into this.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 32	Posted - 2015.01.28 17:04:36 - [12] - Quote Tippia wrote: Annette Nolen wrote: Bumping simply needs a mechanical counter so that it's not a black and white, all or nothing experience. It already has a number of them. All bumping does is change your velocity vector. You can approach this in two main ways: try to change it back or try to roll with it. Rolling with it generally means warping out in a direction other that the one you intended, but at least warping out. Once you're off the grid, you're pretty much home safe. The other is to use things like counter-bumps or webs or other external means to get you pointing in the right direction at the right speed. A more violent option is to simply gank the bumper. Given the setups for those ships, this is fairly easy but obviously comes at a cost. Again, the only thing that isn't a counter is GÇ£do nothingGÇ¥ GÇö the option most seem to go for for some unknowable reason. That will never, and should never, work. And to just stave off the inevitable answer: no, just because these counters mostly rely on a second ship does not mean they are not viable counters. The hauler and his helper is countering the ganker and his helper GÇö bumping without a gank is countered by simply ignoring it, so that's already a 1:1 option. But a ship with a max speed of 55m/s should never be able to be bumped to 800m/s for any reason. Period I don't even just mean for ganking, but there are other exploitable reasons why bumping should be at least limited to some reasonable multiple of your top speed. Also it should be noted that the mass/speed calculations should apply to bumping as they do aligning, which are way out of wack right now.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 32	Posted - 2015.01.28 17:16:27 - [13] - Quote Tippia wrote: Korwin Abre-Kai wrote: the actual mechanics show that concord exists to protect the trade hubs and commerce between them in order to insure that a bare minimum functional economy exists in the game PERIOD no more no less. players as individuals are expendable , losses are expected and part of the game. Not quite. CONCORD exists to do one thing: to impose a tax on aggression in highsec (which is indeed the defining characteristic of highsec). That is all. You can either pay that tax piece-meal in assets (suicide gank) or wholesale in ISK (wardec). That is all CONCORD does and it is all it is: a cost. CONCORD only offers protection in the form of a gamble: you are betting that other players' miserliness will be enough to keep them from blowing you up. You can skew that bet in or against your favour depending on what you fly, what you carry, and what people you annoy. As a basis, though, the odds are heavily in your favour and you can go through an entire highsec life without ever getting shot at because miserliness turns out to be a pretty strong motivation. Market McSelling Alt wrote: But a ship with a max speed of 55m/s should never be able to be bumped to 800m/s for any reason. Period Why not? It's not your engines propelling you so your max speed is not particularly relevant at that point, is it? Oh, and mass does play a part in bumping, much like it does in acceleration. Mass calculations in bumping is a freaking joke in this game and you know it. Be better than that. a 5mil ton ship can bump a giant frieghter 100x the mass over 15x its base speed.... that is OP and frankly not even close to lore if you want to play that card too.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 33	Posted - 2015.01.28 17:34:42 - [14] - Quote Tippia wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: But using Cats, or one guy using Cats that will at most cost him 50mil and able to take down anything in the game that can't fight back is insane. There is no risk, because the character is already -10 and throw away and the isk is minuscule. Everything in the game can fight back against one guy in a Catalyst. Zendon Taredi wrote: That is up for CCP to decide. So it's not needed, then, since that's what they just decided. How does a freighter fight back? How many locked targets can it have?
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 33	Posted - 2015.01.28 17:35:56 - [15] - Quote Alli Ginthur wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Zendon Taredi wrote: I'm okay with this if it comes with a dessie nerf so strong that gankers will be forced to use tier 3. That way they are risking something too, and not just reaping a guaranteed profit. See thats the thing. I give mad props to ganker fleets who can organize 10 Tornados or Talos and can pop a hauler the right way. Those guys have to set up, scan out and determine the risk/reward of the gank. But using Cats, or one guy using Cats that will at most cost him 50mil and able to take down anything in the game that can't fight back is insane. There is no risk, because the character is already -10 and throw away and the isk is minuscule. And the difference between one guy using the 50mil of catalysts and the fleet using 50mil of catalysts is... what? Nothing, that is why I said I respect the 10x Tornados.... I never said there was a difference, just more salt in the wound that one guy can do it. But comprehension for the barbaric seems low in this thread.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 33	Posted - 2015.01.28 17:41:19 - [16] - Quote Alli Ginthur wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Alli Ginthur wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Zendon Taredi wrote: I'm okay with this if it comes with a dessie nerf so strong that gankers will be forced to use tier 3. That way they are risking something too, and not just reaping a guaranteed profit. See thats the thing. I give mad props to ganker fleets who can organize 10 Tornados or Talos and can pop a hauler the right way. Those guys have to set up, scan out and determine the risk/reward of the gank. But using Cats, or one guy using Cats that will at most cost him 50mil and able to take down anything in the game that can't fight back is insane. There is no risk, because the character is already -10 and throw away and the isk is minuscule. And the difference between one guy using the 50mil of catalysts and the fleet using 50mil of catalysts is... what? Nothing, that is why I said I respect the 10x Tornados.... I never said there was a difference, just more salt in the wound that one guy can do it. But comprehension for the barbaric seems low in this thread. So you respect the 10 tornado fleet for planning and executing a gank, however dont respect the catalyst guy/fleet planning and executing a gank... because :reasons:? Because the Cat fleet has nothing to lose. They can gank just for tears, where the Tornados have to gank to cover their costs. And no Tippia, 5mil for a Cat is not "cost" its pennies.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 35	Posted - 2015.01.28 17:52:47 - [17] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Because the Cat fleet has nothing to lose. They can gank just for tears, where the Tornados have to gank to cover their costs. And no Tippia, 5mil for a Cat is not "cost" its pennies. Show me a t2 cat for 5 mil. Why the heck would you need to use T2?
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 39	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:28:28 - [18] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: baltec1 wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Because the Cat fleet has nothing to lose. They can gank just for tears, where the Tornados have to gank to cover their costs. And no Tippia, 5mil for a Cat is not "cost" its pennies. Show me a t2 cat for 5 mil. Why the heck would you need to use T2? Because of the shield recharge and because the Orca bay is limited. Did you actually try the tactic yourself? Have you? You know the Orca can go back to the station and get more... And a T2 fit Cat costs 4x as much as a T1... but only does 20% more damage. So it doesn't take an economics major to figure out the Maths here.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 39	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:31:51 - [19] - Quote Tippia wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Have you? You know the Orca can go back to the station and get more... Want to guess what happens while it does? Nothing because my freighter is still being bumped by anything in the game that can fit a MWD Recharge is chump... seriously even eft can tell you that.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 43	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:37:45 - [20] - Quote Tippia wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Nothing because my freighter is still being bumped by anything in the game that can fit a MWD No, what happens is that the ganker gets ganked, the target is repped up, the vultures start showing up, and/or the target just gets away. If you need the fetch more ships, you have long since failed. You keep stupidly assuming that you have unlimited time, and that drawing things out is somehow a good thing. It is the exact opposite of the truth. What are you talking about. The ganker and the orca pilot are not the same. The ganker can keep pulling concord with shuttles while the Orca gets a fresh load of cats. The bumper keeps bumping. No vultures come because you are 5 or 6k off grid by now. What are you even talking about now. Your points are unraveling and becoming desperate.

Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 45	Posted - 2015.01.28 19:08:44 - [21] - Quote Tippia wrote: Annette Nolen wrote: Well I think it's being ... disingenuous... to pretend that we aren't all aware that people saying "cheaper to gank" really mean "the breakeven/profit point for accounts involved has been lowered", which has a very real effect on target selection. Pretending to think they really meant the actual material cost of ganking has gone down is more fun to troll with I'm sure, but doesn't actually advance the conversation forward much :) If that's what they mean then that's what they say. It's not particularly difficult to say GÇ£it's easier to gank for (individual) profitGÇ¥, at which point you'd at least have the beginnings of a leg to stand on, rather than say GÇ£it's cheaper to gankGÇ¥, which is blatantly and categorically untrue. ^^^ And as mentioned, it is often clear that they don't talk about profit, but about actual cost. I do believe I said that the difference between cats and tornados was how much the recovery cost was... I said there was little risk using cats because it was cheaper. The reason the risk is lower is because you can fail to gank a few times and still recover your costs. But like Nolen said, you would rather troll than have a real discussion.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 45	Posted - 2015.01.28 19:17:56 - [22] - Quote Tippia wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: I do believe I said You are not relevant to this particular discussion. You are not the main authority on or a generalisation of the use of GÇ£costGÇ¥ throughout the thread. It has been said multiple times that this tactic makes it cheaper to gank. That is blatantly and categorically untrue, since the same number of ships (or more) are required, and the cost the same as they ever did (or more). Quote: But like Nolen said, you would rather troll than have a real discussion. Like I said, you are confusing me with you. Hilarious... the ol' I am rubber and you're glue line?! What Nolen said, albeit more beautifully than me, was that it is more profitable to gank as one guy with 50m in cats because it is split one way. As an extension of that costs are offset by the increased singular split profit.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 45	Posted - 2015.01.28 19:24:34 - [23] - Quote Tippia wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Hilarious... the ol' I am rubber and you're glue line?! If the shoe fits. You keep accusing me of your mistakes. There's no better way of describing without bringing in some rather disturbing implications about dissociative disorders. Quote: What Nolen said, albeit more beautifully than me, was that it is more profitable to gank as one guy with 50m in cats because it is split one way. GÇªand what the rest of us are pointing out is that the cost is the same using this tactic compared to piling the same amount of ships into a fleet. Trying to suggest that ganking has become cheaper is outright wrong, no matter how much you squirm. But no one claimed the actual total cost of ganking was cheaper. No one. Again, the cost of risk, the split profit, the actual reward were all mentioned. If someone used the term Cost, they were not talking about total value. I even went as far as to say 50mil in cats... I didn't say it was suddenly 40mil in cats now, or 10mil in cats. Your natural defense for being picked apart is to pull in dissociative disorders, of which you probably know nothing about.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 45	Posted - 2015.01.28 19:25:50 - [24] - Quote Alli Ginthur wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Tippia wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: I do believe I said You are not relevant to this particular discussion. You are not the main authority on or a generalisation of the use of GÇ£costGÇ¥ throughout the thread. It has been said multiple times that this tactic makes it cheaper to gank. That is blatantly and categorically untrue, since the same number of ships (or more) are required, and the cost the same as they ever did (or more). Quote: But like Nolen said, you would rather troll than have a real discussion. Like I said, you are confusing me with you. Hilarious... the ol' I am rubber and you're glue line?! What Nolen said, albeit more beautifully than me, was that it is more profitable to gank as one guy with 50m in cats because it is split one way. As an extension of that costs are offset by the increased singular split profit. Well... the goalposts were here a second ago... whered they go? Oh? Clear out in left field now? Cant even own up to you talking directly about ship cost, when your words are quoted a few posts ago? And you're calling Tippia the troll? Yeesh... goalposts... my god. I did talk about ship costs, in terms that 50mil in cats can be used to gank. I never claimed, nor has anyone else that 50mil is less than it was before whatever goal you are setting here.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 45	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:13:04 - [25] - Quote Concord Guy's Cousin wrote: Zendon Taredi wrote: Concord Guy's Cousin wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: even went as far as to say 50mil in cats... I didn't say it was suddenly 40mil in cats now, or 10mil in cats. Where are you getting this 50M figure from? Because you sure as hell aren't ganking a freighter with 5 T2 fitted Catalysts or 25 T1 fitted Catalysts for that matter, regardless of the technique that's being used to gank. Quote: And a T2 fit Cat costs 4x as much as a T1... but only does 20% more damage. So it doesn't take an economics major to figure out the Maths here. You need to recheck your maths, with a maxed skilled pilot a T1 fitted Cat costing 2M does just under 420DPS without implants and a T2 fitted Cat costing 8M does 680DPS+ without implants; that's considerably more than a 20% increase in damage. 680 dps from a 8m ship is hysterical. Should be nerfed to 300ish. Those figures are for overheated guns and refer to specialised fits that have zero utility beyond pumping out a shitton of DPS and are being flown by a max skilled pilot, also bear in mind the design parameters of destroyers, which is that of cheap DPS platforms; the clue is in the name of the ship class. No... named T1 fit is 423 dps with CN anti... unheated. Yes you are right, 20% was an exaggeration, but you still aren't getting 4x the damage from the fit that is 4x more expensive. 423 dps from a 2mil ship...
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 46	Posted - 2015.01.30 13:54:56 - [26] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: If we were going to be realistic about it, someone who committed the exact same crime 30 times in a row would be getting a life senten If we're being realistic about it, the cop's response time is thirty minutes, not thirty seconds. and then they tell you that there's not much they can do about it because apparently a man in his mid 20s wearing dark jeans and a hoodie isn't a unique enough description. ...Yeah but a license plate number is. Ok, you can have your 30 minute response time, if every time you suicide gank your character spends 3-5 years in prison afterwards
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 46	Posted - 2015.01.30 14:17:02 - [27] - Quote Destiny Corrupted wrote: Abrazzar wrote: Jus make CONCORD pod criminals and put them effectively under 15 minutes house arrest in their home station because they'd get podded again as soon as they'd undock. There. Everything solved. Indeed, this would cement an end to this unwelcome problem with EVE's undesirables. A "final solution," if you will. But but but, I should be able to be as bad as I want with nothing there to stop me because this is eve!
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 48	Posted - 2015.01.30 19:17:07 - [28] - Quote Destiny Corrupted wrote: Dangeresque Too wrote: Tippia wrote: Locke Deathroe wrote: Seems to me given the current Crimewatch 2.0 mechanic and the recent changes to clones (ie. no more skills lost or medical clone cost) why not move the same crimewatch mechanic over to the pod once the ship goes boom. Because there's no need to, since scrams and points already exist. So by that argument, Concord shouldn't blow up your ship either because guns and missiles exist? In order for a player to catch your pod they have to be in a max sebo'd slasher and catch a very lucky server tick, or use smart bombs. Even then, what good does catching your pod do? You don't have to pay for a new med clone, and you don't have implants, and if you are in a NPC corp the person that catches you will take a massive standings hit with that NPC corp. The purpose of CONCORD is to remove an active threat, which is to say the armed ship flown by a pirate. A pod isn't an armed threat. The consequence of crime in EVE is reduced security status, with all of the drawbacks that that implies. True, but the consequence of negative sec status is barely worth mentioning. If perhaps you were unable to dock in high-sec past -5 or unable to perform market transactions in high sec... now we are talking consequence. All we hear about from the shooty shooty crowd is risk vs reward and safety vs expectations. But when there is nothing of consequence for a ganker to be -10 other than they are fair game by others... (Everyone is fair game according to you guys so this isn't a consequence) then there is something broken.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 48	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:08:11 - [29] - Quote Concord Guy's Cousin wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: True, but the consequence of negative sec status is barely worth mentioning. If this were true the same could be said of AFKing while in space, the consequences of doing so are barely worth mentioning; primarily because there's not enough gankers to force a change in the way that they play, despite the best efforts of the gankers. No one should AFK in space, nor would I advocate that they do. My problem isn't that people should AFK haul, it is that being a ganker has less consequence than being in Faction Warfare... and tbh a ganker should be hunted by all empires and that should mean something.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 48	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:25:58 - [30] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Concord Guy's Cousin wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: True, but the consequence of negative sec status is barely worth mentioning. If this were true the same could be said of AFKing while in space, the consequences of doing so are barely worth mentioning; primarily because there's not enough gankers to force a change in the way that they play, despite the best efforts of the gankers. No one should AFK in space, nor would I advocate that they do. My problem isn't that people should AFK haul, it is that being a ganker has less consequence than being in Faction Warfare... and tbh a ganker should be hunted by all empires and that should mean something. They do get hunted. Oh boo hoo. Not really. And last I checked you can still use a cloak at -10 sec status. Ever tried cloaking in highsec of the opposing faction? You cant even dock at a contested station of the opposing faction. Come on man, try a little Being a ganker should mean you live your life in low security space, and risk something to come to high security to do something bad.

Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 48	Posted - 2015.01.31 00:41:24 - [31] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Dave Stark wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: If we were going to be realistic about it, someone who committed the exact same crime 30 times in a row would be getting a life senten If we're being realistic about it, the cop's response time is thirty minutes, not thirty seconds. and then they tell you that there's not much they can do about it because apparently a man in his mid 20s wearing dark jeans and a hoodie isn't a unique enough description. ...Yeah but a license plate number is. Ok, you can have your 30 minute response time, if every time you suicide gank your character spends 3-5 years in prison afterwards Or, we can abandon the ridiculous premise that this imaginary Magic Space Police in any way does or should behave like anything in real life. Since, you know, it's a videogame set in outer space featuring players who are functionally demigods, and all. Yeah, I wasn't the one trying to make that leap there chap.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 48	Posted - 2015.01.31 00:47:26 - [32] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Yeah, I wasn't the one trying to make that leap there chap. No, but you seem to have missed the whole "sarcasm" part of it. "realism" is not something any reasonable person asks for in a freaking videogame. It was just Veers trying to justify his absurd bleating for something that is totally unacceptable in this game. .... except for the large rolly eyes I put in my post. Whatever man, how are things?
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 48	Posted - 2015.01.31 04:30:31 - [33] - Quote Destiny Corrupted wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: baltec1 wrote: They do get hunted. Oh boo hoo. Not really. And last I checked you can still use a cloak at -10 sec status. Ever tried cloaking in highsec of the opposing faction? You cant even dock at a contested station of the opposing faction. Come on man, try a little Being a ganker should mean you live your life in low security space, and risk something to come to high security to do something bad. Uh, you do realize that there are no contested stations in high-sec, right? When you're in high-sec and in FW, you can dock at any station just fine. I see plenty of Minmatar Militia guys docked in the Amarr hub on my alt. Rift Tarkken wrote: "Excuse me if I thought this is EVE Online where the game is supposed to take a modicum of effort." - It's only supposed to be harder if you're a miner, mission runner, FW pilot, industrialist, hauler, etc. If you PvP or gank, it needs to be easier. Especially if you are PVP'ing or Ganking one of the above. Didn't you know that? :-) I have two questions: 1. Is the difficulty for, say, a miner, set by the game, or by other players? 2. Is the difficulty for, say, a ganker, set by the game, or by other players? In both cases, let's state that training skills isn't difficulty, because it's simply a time constant in the game. Actually that isn't true, you can't dock at any high sec faction warfare station either. But I do believe I specifically said low-sec anyways. Regardless, why is being hunted by two empires harder to deal with than being hunted by all four? I don't want to hear that crap from Tippy again about how easy FW is to deal with, or have someone tell me I need to be -10 to see for myself. There is no risk in flying around in a pod and having safe alts drop your ships for you. Again, no one -10 should be docking at any high sec station. Why would any of the empires harbor criminals?
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 49	Posted - 2015.01.31 19:59:42 - [34] - Quote Malcanis wrote: baltec1 wrote: Dangeresque Too wrote: "shoot him" And that would accomplish what exactly? All ganking ships that are t2 fitted are profitable to gank, even cats. Especially if they have a GCC, Ah but we're forgetting that gankers have infinite resources and their time is worth nothing. Also they have special powers like fitting unlimited replacement ships into SMAs WTB Ganker that flies around with GCC in his fitted T2 ship... You are smarter than that. Those ships are dropped at the time they are going to be used, you aren't going to get anything because the wreck you see will be Blue and from Concord.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 51	Posted - 2015.02.16 13:11:48 - [35] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: A friend of mine in Razor being clever and also selling escalations is averaging out at ISK 300m per hour in protected nullsec, can't see anyway to get near that in hisec. He may be over-stating it a bit, but that is the reality what smart people can do in highly protected null sec space. Recent figures show that with the lack of wars with no one shooting anyone in any meaningful way while waiting for the sov changes people are spending more and more time in protected null sec space, if hisec was so much better why are they moving to null sec for ISK generation. And I always find it so amusing seeing gankbears cry about the need to nerf hisec, cry more please! Nullsec is nice. But C5/C6 wormhole space is where the isk is. Even running C3's in a well fit ship will net you more per hour than incursions and you don't need a fleet. It is a bad myth brought forth by people trying to get more targets in lowsec and by alliance leaderships looking for more chaff to throw on the front line that highsec is some money making utopia. Gankbears don't have the balls to move to a WH. Too much... Risk
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 53	Posted - 2015.02.16 18:09:18 - [36] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Stuff Lie indeed. 90mil hour is very doable in missions in highsec... but dont sell yourself short, Incursions are around 160 an hour if done with good fleets. Oh and Null is safer than High sec, I don't care what you say. But that doesnt change the fact that 160/hour is very capable in a carrier in null doing sanctums/anoms with a fit that is 1/5th that of a bling vindi for incursions, or that C3's will pump out 30mil+ NR salvage per site for about 10 minutes of work. Again, the big isk is in C5/C6. I actually didn't even claim Null was where the isk was, but you couldn't read. Most Gankbears only see what they want I suppose.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 54	Posted - 2015.02.16 21:16:56 - [37] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: I know you don't because the actual truth doesn't matter. The chance of a player dying to another player is lower in high sec, period. Have a graph courtesy of DracVlad (see the 'risk' graph). This info graphic doesn't do anything for your case. After reading how the numbers are tallied, the graph doesn't care how ships were lost or what ships were lost, just that ships were lost in conjunction with the number of jumps for a band of space. In other words, "conflict" in null substantially inflates the risk of null in those numbers. What this means is that the graph isn't a complete picture because the point of his argument was that it is safer to carebear in null. So really what you'd need is a graph comparing carebear ship losses in null to carebear ships losses in high sec. And actually it kinda helps his case more than yours. Its telling that the "carebear" numbers for null and hi-sec are so similiar given that A. The population densities are so different. B. Null is supposed to be riskier. C. Null sec is not supposed to have as good of money making opportunities as hi-sec. Otherwise everyone would be carebearing in hi-sec. Works both ways. There are wars and ganks in high sec and STILL the overall risk doesn't compare. And Null sec is in a 'war slowdown. That means that it's 'safer' to rat null now because of less pvp and WAY fewer 'big fights' and yet null is STILL riskier than high sec. And you reallly REALLY don't want to compare carebear ships. The last time CCP gave us actual numbers it didn't make high sec look too good. Yeah I would want to disect anything that claimed Low sec had more pvp kills than that much killing. However FW might have given a nice boost to that. The problem with graphs without context is most of the deaths in Nullsec are people throwing their ships in harms way on purpose to try and violence someone elses ship. I would wager everything I have in eve that there is more non-consensual pvp in highsec than there is in Null. I contend that if you are looking to not get killed, it is much easier to not get killed in null sec than it is in high sec. By the same token if you are looking to get killed, it is easier to get killed in null than it is in high. Either way, WH space per capita is probably the single most dangerous class of space, and that with the most repercussions because being poded might be an absolute one way trip, where in all other parts of space you wake up somewhere with the change of rejoining the fight. Either way, you can't prove Highsec is safe, I can't prove it is dangerous. But I can prove that earnings potential in Null and WH is higher than High, and it has been proven from many people in many threads. Highsec caps at 160mil/hr with Incursions with high end 5bil fit vindis, the fitting requirements for which are higher than a Sentry Thanny. Null sec has the potential of billions in luck, or 160mil/hr running upgraded systems. WH's are just sick with blue loot. EDIT: Going back and looking at the original graphs it is comical that hate towards carebears even exists in Highsec. With 1/10th the population Null sec has just as much carebaring npc kills as all of highsec, according to your graph. So carebear density appears to be highest in Nullsec, by a large large per capita margin.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 54	Posted - 2015.02.16 23:43:18 - [38] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: [quote] Either way, you can't prove Highsec is safe, I can't prove it is dangerous. It can be proved that it's safe, actually. There's a much larger amount of people in highsec. And somehow nullsec has 3.5 times as many deaths. That's about as safe as it gets. Conversely, any area of space with that little kills compared to it's population size cannot, in any way, be said to be dangerous. You don't get to disagree with facts and say that it's just your opinion. No you can't say that either. There could be 1000 people docked in a station that never undock for every one that goes out and gets ganked. You don't know the whole context of the statistic. You cannot tell me Highsec is safe based on deaths alone and in the same breath ignore that there is the same number of npc kills to ship death ratio between the two. To say that Highsec is safe means that Nullsec has astronomically high rates of carebear activity, which negates the entire point you try to make that Highsec is too safe.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 61	Posted - 2015.02.17 16:15:36 - [39] - Quote Chribba wrote: ninja brain/edit /c Chribba need not worry, he has the ultimate Ship Replacement Program for his Veldnaught... you see he owns EvE. All of it
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 62	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:20:20 - [40] - Quote Hiasa Kite wrote: I don't like risk... If you want the spoils you must accept the risk. Don't be a hypocrite.

Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 62	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:25:37 - [41] - Quote Hiasa Kite wrote: Inordinately difficult and risky. Hiasa Kite wrote: Gate guns will squash the tackle long before bump tackle is established. You need something beefier (i.e more expensive) plus, the risks associated with point 1. Hiasa Kite wrote: Inordinately expensive and risky. Hiasa Kite wrote: Where did I say that? You have got to be kidding me
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 68	Posted - 2015.02.18 21:00:32 - [42] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Now seeing that, do you really think that Kaarous is wrong for proposing that highsec income be taken down a notch to encourage players to leave its NPC-enfocred safety? Is he wrong? No. The problem is that this argument has to presume that income is the determinate factor for living in an area or income is the primary motivator for what people do in game. Where is the line. Get rid of lvl 4's and people blitz level 3's. Get rid of level 3's next? Force people to leave High-sec on a timer? What other terribly bad ideas for the game can the pro-gank crowd come up with? Best isk in highsec doesn't even involve leaving the station, can be done on a sub 1mil sp alt and within 2 jumps of a starter system.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 69	Posted - 2015.02.18 21:42:56 - [43] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Where is the line. Get rid of lvl 4's and people blitz level 3's. Get rid of level 3's next? You seem to be missing the point. Nerfing highsec income is exactly the same from the perspective as buffing the income in other spaces. If you could not touch highsec income while making the other spaces more lucrative (without disrupting the economy) it is exactly the same as nerfing highsec income. Would buffing the other spaces be acceptable to you? Personally, I think nerfing base L4 incomes probably isn't even necessary if some mechanism was put in place to prevent veterans from just grinding them non-stop for their incomes instead of doing PvE in currently empty risker spaces. That would allow casual and newer players to still benefit from them while limiting their damage to the overall economy. Incursion income though is far too high as CCP has acknowledged - expect that to be nerfed when the sov revamp and/or new Jove space comes online. I wholeheartedly agree with you. There needs to be some buffs to FW, level 4 missions in LS and a bunch of added level 5's. Also nullsec needs more content that provides high end stuff for small or single groups. WH's are still my sugar daddy :)
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 70	Posted - 2015.02.19 19:55:14 - [44] - Quote Demerius Xenocratus wrote: They act as if the players have no agency, no choice as the whether they will embrace a risk averse pvp in highsec or take risks to find content elsewhere. If you force all the easy targets, in many cases people who are structurally unable to match you because of SP, to die for your amusement over and over, you'll soon find yourself with none left. What do you think the game will look like when there are no players left save for the risk averse "elite" pvp'ers. "Few avenues left to play the game." So now killing the easy targets in highsec is the whole game? Wardeccing, ganking, and baiting newbs and dumbs - that's the whole game? I'm going to have to start telling the guys in FW space (arguably the most pvp-active regions in the game) that they're doing it wrong. It is the only avenue for them though because Gankers are everything that they hate in this game, Risk adverse. They pvp by shooting things that can't shoot back because they are to adverse to risk to shoot players who are ready and willing to press F1 in defense.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 71	Posted - 2015.02.20 15:28:38 - [45] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Black Pedro wrote: This is because highsec missions and incursions pay too much compared to nullsec after you factor in the risk and/or effort needed to mitigate that risk. See here's the thing. I've been here since 2006. (Actually earlier, but details). You know what has stood virtually unchanged since then? Missions. You know what hasn't gone unchanged? Null sec. The biggest problems I have with the argument that you can make too much isk in hi-sec is it is entirely dependent on what is and is not possible in null sec. Put it this way. Why would nerfing hi-sec income in any way change the current dynamics of null sec? The answer is it wouldn't. People leaving null sec still have absolutely zero reason to go back. The only thing nerfing hi-sec accomplishes is making everyone poorer. Now you can argue about how that affects the game for good or ill, but what it won't do is fix anything anywhere else. Actually there have been two HUGE nerfs to high-sec missions. One is drone agro and agro switching, and the other is the massive nerf to warp drive speeds. So the argument that CCP hasn't already nerfed Missions while at the same time providing buffs to Null, Low (FW) and WH space is disingenuous at best. Valterra is right, high-sec is kinda like the constant lower middle-class of EVE, which is fine for a majority of players who play part-time which is why the population is so high. Black Pedro wrote: Missions haven't changed yet there have been multiple buffs to ships, and the release of new ships like marauders and their bastion mode. These have perhaps not trivialized the content, they certainly allow a player to run them much more quickly and efficiently. Being able to complete a mission in a half or a third of the time than what the developers intended when it was released is a huge buff in ISK/hour. And I won't even mention the introduction of Incursions and their affect on highsec income. Actually you are very very wrong. Isk/hr has decreased massively from a diluted LP market (incursions) and the nerfs I mentioned above. Also changes to Heavy Missiles, and several ships have been negative on Mission income. About the only buff I can see really mattering was the Marauder bastion module, but even that reduces the efficiency of missions by making you sit still.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 74	Posted - 2015.02.20 17:24:05 - [46] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Actually there have been two HUGE nerfs to high-sec missions. One is drone agro and agro switching, and the other is the massive nerf to warp drive speeds. The first didnt do much to impact mission runners and also impacted every other activity involving shooting NPCs. The second is a buff and I am now near three times faster in warp with a battleship as before. Market McSelling Alt wrote: So the argument that CCP hasn't already nerfed Missions while at the same time providing buffs to Null, Low (FW) and WH space is disingenuous at best. Valterra is right, high-sec is kinda like the constant lower middle-class of EVE, which is fine for a majority of players who play part-time which is why the population is so high. There has been no buffs to sov null sec income and there has not been any direct nerfs that only impacted high sec missions. Market McSelling Alt wrote: Actually you are very very wrong. Isk/hr has decreased massively from a diluted LP market (incursions) and the nerfs I mentioned above. Also changes to Heavy Missiles, and several ships have been negative on Mission income. About the only buff I can see really mattering was the Marauder bastion module, but even that reduces the efficiency of missions by making you sit still. Ships of today have more firepower, more tank, faster speeds and far better LP payouts than ever before. You are so full of crap your eyes are brown. BS now warp at 2/3 their previous speed and changes to the warp acceleration means it takes them even longer even if you rig them back to 3au/s http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/65418/1/numbers_table.png Just because YOU put billions into an ascendency set and nerf your fit to put put warp rigs in doesn't mean there was a "buff" with the changes. You're hilarious. Also the Drone nerf effects only mission runners and anom runners as Sleepers and Incursion rats already switched targets, they simply applied those mechanics to missions. So you fail on both retorts. Ships today do not have more firepower as a Tengu used to rip through lvl 4's with faster warps, 1000dps at 60km and the option to bring your alt in for salvage while in mission. None of that is possible now.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 74	Posted - 2015.02.20 17:37:10 - [47] - Quote baltec1 wrote: King Aires wrote: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/warp-drive-active?_ga=1.118072521.1765930751.1420584837 Actually he is right. Warp acceleration is now completely different. And your T2 Rigged Mach with full head of isk can go 8.0 au/sec. Good for you. That is a nerf to mission running because now you can't fit Burst rigs, or Crystals, or anything else to help maximize your income. Again, just because YOU sir can do something, doesn't mean it was a boost to the overall profession. So to point out, an 8au mach will earn 90+ mil/hr from level 3 missions in highsec. And? That is crap isk. Missions have been nerfed, and the more people are successful, the more they get nerfed because of LP
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 75	Posted - 2015.02.20 19:19:00 - [48] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: And? That is crap isk. That crap is is less that what you would make with the SAME HULL (Machariel, which is what I primarily fly everywhere expect Blood/Sansha space because of TDing) in null sec chaining anomalies. Best you get from a mach in SOV null is 90 mil per hour (30 mil ticks) and that's pushing hard as hell. Glad you can see the imbalance here. But at any point in time running those anoms you have the potential of getting a rare big payout. There is no random giant payout in high-sec missions.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 75	Posted - 2015.02.20 22:48:50 - [49] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: So, if you are a null pilot and you want isk for pvp ships (and maybe faction gear or hardwiring from the lp store for pvp) which makes more sense: High sec 90 mil per hour ASSURED in a gank resistant (and 'unprofitable for gankers even if they do gank it) Machariel protected mechanically by CONCORD or null sec 90 mil an hour MAYBE if their are no frig gangs or wormhole raiders about and maybe you get an escalation that if it drops nothing but the OPE you just lost isk. Rhtorical question, the answer is 'C, faction warfare bomber alt', but the point is that the imbalance exists, being able to make the same isk per hour in safety as you can in space where their is no CONCORD violates the very principle of risk vs reward. I pve in null despite this because I like to, but the fact of the imbalance cannot be disputed. Fixing the imbalance won't make people leave high sec (I don't give a flat damn about where people play), it will simply allow those of us with "out of null" alts to move those alts back to null where they belong, which is better for everyone. And it's not just high sec that needs fixing, pretty much the only space that works correctly in EVE Online along the risk/reward scheme is wormhole space, and that's a shame. Ah but you are forgetting some very important things. There are gankers in highsec, you have to watch out for them. You are also not assured anything with missions, you might get some very bad missions all in a row which drop your numbers. Anoms always have a respawn so they are much more stable. The Mach that Baltec uses has no tank, it is easier to kill than a hauler, so you are a sitting duck if you are caught by a group of gankers. Also the income in missions is primarily LP in your scenario, which fluctuates and depends on time spent making things from BPCs and market-foo. The anoms pay you today, now, every tick. If you are a null pvp pilot, you are far better off running anoms in your intel protected sov space where you know a neutral is trouble and you know when they come into your zone of concern. Also, no matter how you cut it you are taking the top of the line ships for highsec while ignoring the top of the line ships for the null anoms. Mach vs Ishtar would be more appropriate because Machs are horrible for most null space. Mach vs Thanny far better comparison. Mach+implants as Baltec used to get 90mil/hr is 4x the price of a good fit sentry Thanny.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 75	Posted - 2015.02.20 22:49:48 - [50] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: I have told you directly in several other threads as have others. But hey, lets humour you again. Worth of note is that I have improved upon his fit for even faster times. That thread seems to be missing something. Store offers aren't free. So in other words you can't just do a straight conversion of 1k lp into 1-2million isk because store offers cost items and money. Basically what ever the missions pays out in isk and bonus isk is sunk back into it when you convert the lp into items. It is also missing the cost of time to make things from BPCs, haul things to market, buying tags and market-foo for selling at best prices.

Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 75	Posted - 2015.02.20 22:59:57 - [51] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Ah but you are forgetting some very important things. There are gankers in highsec, you have to watch out for them. In 8 years I have not been been scanned let alone ganked doing missions. The risk of getting ganked is close to non existent. Market McSelling Alt wrote: You are also not assured anything with missions, you might get some very bad missions all in a row which drop your numbers. No, you wont. Market McSelling Alt wrote: The Mach that Baltec uses has no tank, it is easier to kill than a hauler, so you are a sitting duck if you are caught by a group of gankers. Its not easier to kill than a hauler and no, it will not get ganked. Market McSelling Alt wrote: Mach vs Ishtar would be more appropriate because Machs are horrible for most null space. Mach vs Thanny far better comparison. Mach+implants as Baltec used to get 90mil/hr is 4x the price of a good fit sentry Thanny. thanatox is 1.3 billion just for the hull, the mach I use is 860 million fully fitted. Check the daily kill logs in Osmon... people get scanned down and ganked every day. Yes, you will get strings of bad missions, everyone does and they either use their standings buffer or wait out the timer. Yes your Mach has about 40k ehp You didn't give us numbers for a Mach, you gave us numbers for a Mach with an Ascendancy implant set that costs 3bil... Stop playing stupid forum games.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 77	Posted - 2015.02.20 23:32:04 - [52] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Check the daily kill logs in Osmon... people get scanned down and ganked every day. Now look at the 41 carriers we have lost in our space this month alone. Chances of getting ganked is so small you can run hundreds of thousands of missions before it might happen. Market McSelling Alt wrote: Yes, you will get strings of bad missions, everyone does and they either use their standings buffer or wait out the timer. No you dont. We can dump the bad ones and have our standings be stable. Market McSelling Alt wrote: Yes your Mach has about 40k ehp[/quote[ And 1k+ firepower with a fast align time and a rep. They wont bother you unless you are stuipd and fit nothing but pimp. [quote=Market McSelling Alt] You didn't give us numbers for a Mach, you gave us numbers for a Mach with an Ascendancy implant set that costs 3bil... Stop playing stupid forum games. So your using a carrier without ascendancy impants and think you can earn good money? Its also highsec, you have to actively try to lose a pod there. Oh no, not 41 carriers (some of which consensual pvp) in your whole space!!! 295 Marauders in Osmon system alone... what were you saying?
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 77	Posted - 2015.02.21 00:07:00 - [53] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Oh no, not 41 carriers (some of which consensual pvp) in your whole space!!! None of which consensual. This is before we get into the hundreds of ishtars that die. Market McSelling Alt wrote: 295 Marauders in Osmon system alone... what were you saying? Oh we are going to play with every marauder ever recorded on the KB for that system now are we? Oh you didnt know that? Yea the number of marauders ganked in osmon this month is zero. Ok, well since we were talking about Machariels anyways, there was 218 of them killed in Jita so far this month... But if you say so. By the way, got a link to pve fit carriers killed in Goonswarm space, because your killboard doesnt allow for that level of customized search.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 77	Posted - 2015.02.21 00:19:27 - [54] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Ok, well since we were talking about Machariels anyways, there was 218 of them killed in Jita so far this month... But if you say so. By the way, got a link to pve fit carriers killed in Goonswarm space, because your killboard doesnt allow for that level of customized search. Jita isnt a mission system or on par with anything else in EVE. Also you can find those carriers the same way I did. Yeah I see 16 carrier loses for your whole alliance for the month, including 13 of them in pvp. But I am sure you are talking about renters... by the way, why do people rent that terrible null sec anyways that makes so much less than highsec
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 77	Posted - 2015.02.21 13:36:23 - [55] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Dracvlad wrote: That was the battleship numbers that I took from Zkill which were lost in Osmon in February, so wrong, we are talking PvP here not just ganked The thread is literally about ganking. Stop trying to pad your stats to suit your agenda. Confirming ganking means shooting only things that are incapable of shooting back. Your cowardice is so engrained in you that you expose your inner thoughts on your own risk aversion.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 92	Posted - 2015.02.21 20:16:37 - [56] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: I look at reality not what people say it is, there is one Goon ratting carrier killed outside of Deklin in Cloud Ring during Feb. You look at anything but reality. Come back when you learn what the CFC is not what you think it is. You are just making yourself look silly now. In all the regions with all the pets you are claiming 42 ratting carriers at around what, 2-3bil a pop killed... We just showed you that in ONE system in high-sec, a .7 none the less that almost the same number of BS class ships were ganked in the same time. That doesn't include Tengu's, Gilas, Command Ships, Ishtars or anything else used to mission. You don't think that high-sec is more dangerous than CFC space? Hilarious.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 92	Posted - 2015.02.21 23:02:59 - [57] - Quote flakeys wrote: One has to wonder why we rarely get people from low-sec complaining about risk vs reward , since we are talking about the most utterly **** risk vs reward in that part of space.... Ow sorry nevermind that , sorry i'm actually making sense , let's keep the high-sec vs null-sec income going ... I spent a long time living in Hophib and Fob before moving to a wormhole... I wholeheartedly agree. low sec needs help. it has nothing to offer that high sec has to offer and is second in riskiness only to WH space. In this thread you have a collection of panzi-candi-a$$ gankers who cant make it pvping so they shoot things with no highslots, and null-sec dwellers that want to pretend they don't live in the blue donut of wealth... sad really, now that we are on the topic they are saying somethings that completely contradict their argument for hyperdunking and ganking in the first place.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 92	Posted - 2015.02.21 23:26:32 - [58] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: You are just making yourself look silly now. In all the regions with all the pets you are claiming 42 ratting carriers at around what, 2-3bil a pop killed... We just showed you that in ONE system in high-sec, a .7 none the less that almost the same number of BS class ships were ganked in the same time. That doesn't include Tengu's, Gilas, Command Ships, Ishtars or anything else used to mission. You don't think that high-sec is more dangerous than CFC space? Hilarious. And as I said, a highsec mission system has the same population as our entire region. We cant stuff 300 ratters in a system, most cant even handle 10. So when we look at our population vs a high sec mission system we see huge losses in null for damn near none in the highsec mission hub. Remember, ganking is the only way you can get most of these mission runners. A handful of idiots undocking into a wardec does not make highsec more dangerous than null. 216 things were killed in your mission hub over the last month. Goonwaffe alone has killed 111 more targets in dek in that time, more has died in dek today than in the last 4 days in your mission hub even when we add in all of mobile structures and concorded ships. So, a similar population in both areas and we see a huge difference in kills. High sec being more dangerous is nothing but a lie. https://zkillboard.com/kill/44763183/ For the record you can stop counting carriers killed by NPCs only lol. Being bad at PVE has nothing to do with PVP lol
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 92	Posted - 2015.02.21 23:54:29 - [59] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: baltec1 wrote: High sec being more dangerous is nothing but a lie. And that's the crux of the matter, right there. What that you guys are lying to us and yourselves? http://evemaps.dotlan.net/stats/2015-02 You can stop talking out your bums now.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 92	Posted - 2015.02.22 00:00:32 - [60] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: baltec1 wrote: High sec being more dangerous is nothing but a lie. And that's the crux of the matter, right there. What that you guys are lying to us and yourselves? No, that you people think that if you lie often enough about highsec supposedly being dangerous, that eventually CCP will believe it, despite having the literal stats that show it for the lie that it is. Why do carebears lie so much, anyway? http://evemaps.dotlan.net/stats/2015-02 You can check it for the entirety of last year too: http://evemaps.dotlan.net/stats/2014 There are more ship kills in High than anywhere, Low next, Null last. Null also had almost as many faction npc kills as highsec. Most dangerous region of space: Forge, followed by Black Rise and Citadel. You wanted stats, now put your money where your mouth is and admit you were wrong.

Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 92	Posted - 2015.02.22 00:05:32 - [61] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: baltec1 wrote: High sec being more dangerous is nothing but a lie. And that's the crux of the matter, right there. What that you guys are lying to us and yourselves? http://evemaps.dotlan.net/stats/2015-02 You can stop talking out your bums now. You're failing to take population density into account, on a per capita basis highsec is extremely safe when compared to elsewhere. You are forgetting to take context into account. You have no idea how many people do or do not undock in Highsec. And you have no idea how many people do or do not travel to and from each security area. So in context to what we are discussing it doesn't matter. What does matter is, on a NPC kill / Ship kill ratio, Null is safest as there are a lot of NPC kills and little ship kills. Also interesting to note that going back to 2010,2011, 2012, 2013 we see an ever increase in Null NPC kill rates while Highsec has been decreasing every year... which contradicts the statements that Highsec income is too great when people are preferring to kill npcs in null over Highsec.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 92	Posted - 2015.02.22 00:06:44 - [62] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: You wanted stats, now put your money where your mouth is and admit you were wrong. Congrats, you're using 2 months of the year and making an error that a 3 week Statistics 101 student would laugh at. Here's the real story, from CCP themselves no less. http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/65749/1/productionVsDestruction_2013.png Now put your money where your mouth is, and admit that you lied. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Production does not equal anything into this discussion. Besides most of that production was for Null sec anyways... You don't even know what you are looking at in that picture do you
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 92	Posted - 2015.02.22 00:16:53 - [63] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Production does not equal anything into this discussion. Try reading the right side of the graph. Quote: Besides most of that production was for Null sec anyways... And you're confirmed in your dedication to your lie. Protip... the biggest bubbles are the places with the most destruction in that image... and those are in HIGHSEC While the left side is completely irrelevant, the right side proves my point.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 92	Posted - 2015.02.22 00:23:33 - [64] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Protip... the biggest bubbles are the places with the most destruction in that image... and those are in HIGHSEC Specifically, Jita, Amarr, a couple of their outlying systems, and not much else. If weren't for a handful of systems, literally less than a dozen, highsec would have functionally zero loss compared to everywhere else in the game. Please, cry more. Quote: While the left side is completely irrelevant Then why were you blathering on about it, while lying about how the left side shows more production in null than in high, when that is obviously and observably another lie? Stop lying. The biggest bubbles for destruction include Uedema, Niarja, Osmon, Josameto and then we start to get down to numbers for places like M-O and HED-GP... Regardless, I have the actual stats for the whole security area and they are far higher than Null too. I never said production was done IN null, I said it was done FOR null... learn2read
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 92	Posted - 2015.02.22 00:29:46 - [65] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: You are forgetting to take context into account. You have no idea how many people do or do not undock in Highsec. And you have no idea how many people do or do not travel to and from each security area. So in context to what we are discussing it doesn't matter. Your point is what? Population density is a valid metric that you appear to have disregarded because it doesn't suit your argument. IIRC 75% of characters reside in highsec, regardless of whether or not they undock or travel to other security areas that figure has to be taken into account when judging how safe highsec is. Not doing so is disingenuous at best. I stand by my point, on a per capita basis the chances of having your space canoe violenced is extremely low in highsec. Quote: What does matter is, on a NPC kill / Ship kill ratio, Null is safest as there are a lot of NPC kills and little ship kills. Also interesting to note that going back to 2010,2011, 2012, 2013 we see an ever increase in Null NPC kill rates while Highsec has been decreasing every year... which contradicts the statements that Highsec income is too great when people are preferring to kill npcs in null over Highsec. I mission in highsec, amongst other things; highsec bounties and mission rewards aren't where the money is. Most of my mission income comes from the LP stores, as such I don't kill every rat, just the ones I need to; in short, like many others I go for maximum returns in the shortest time period. Nullsec rats tend to pay better than highsec ones too. Do me a favor, open your in game map... zoom out. Go to statistics and click average number of players... take note Now do the same, but this time click docked and active... watch the red blobs appear. You can't lose a ship in a station. Regardless, more ships die per NPC kill in highsec. You want to talk about Kills per Jump, you might have an argument to make, but even then, the numbers aren't gonna help you much.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 92	Posted - 2015.02.22 00:42:00 - [66] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: I never said production was done IN null, I said it was done FOR null. How is production done for null if your lie claims that they lose so much less ships? Because the only thing made in this game is ships right?
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 92	Posted - 2015.02.22 01:17:27 - [67] - Quote http://evelostfound.blogspot.com/2015/01/is-pve-safer-in-high-sec-or-null-sec.html This was a very nice and recent analysis using not only ship death/npc ratios but also ship death value. Their conclusion? Null PVE is completely broken because of how safe it is. Even the worst people at defending their ratters (CFC) were more than 3x safer in terms of real isk value than comparable highsec systems.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 92	Posted - 2015.02.22 01:41:18 - [68] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: http://evelostfound.blogspot.com/2015/01/is-pve-safer-in-high-sec-or-null-sec.html This was a very nice and recent analysis using not only ship death/npc ratios but also ship death value. Their conclusion? Null PVE is completely broken because of how safe it is. Even the worst people at defending their ratters (CFC) were more than 3x safer in terms of real isk value than comparable highsec systems. So how do you explain the fact that we are taking over three times more losses than people in highsec despite the fact that highsec has six times more population? You arent, I already posted the STATS... number don't lie, but I know of quite a few Goons that do
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 92	Posted - 2015.02.22 01:45:26 - [69] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: http://evelostfound.blogspot.com/2015/01/is-pve-safer-in-high-sec-or-null-sec.html This was a very nice and recent analysis using not only ship death/npc ratios but also ship death value. Their conclusion? Null PVE is completely broken because of how safe it is. Even the worst people at defending their ratters (CFC) were more than 3x safer in terms of real isk value than comparable highsec systems. My conclusions from reading the article. More people fly blingy ships for highsec PvE than for nullsec PvE. People in nullsec dock up when there are neutrals or reds in local, people in highsec generally don't. Far more NPCs die in highsec than in nullsec, probably as a result of the much higher player population and the resulting higher number of players who kill NPCs for income. The comments on that article are bang on the money, even Gevlons.... Again, you can't argue numbers. NPC kills in nullsec are not lower by a significant margin compared to highsec. So you have 1/6th the population as you guys claim but only 25% less npc kills.... must mean you are all carebears.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 92	Posted - 2015.02.22 01:56:20 - [70] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Again, you can't argue numbers. NPC kills in nullsec are not lower by a significant margin compared to highsec. So you have 1/6th the population as you guys claim but only 25% less npc kills.... must mean you are all carebears. Primary source of income in null is from bounties. Primary source of income in highsec is LP. We have to kill a lot of NPCs in null to make isk while high sec players need to do missions for LP, killing rats is secondary at best. Back that up... And, again what does that have to do with Null being safer?

Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 92	Posted - 2015.02.22 02:01:48 - [71] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Feel free to find where anyone else has lied. How about the last few days where three posters have said: More people die in highsec than in null. Null is safer than highsec You earn more running anoms than running level 4 missions or incursions in highsec Goons are the only people ratting in Dek only 9 ratting carriers died in dek this month and so forth. All have been shown to be wrong but they continue to insist that the above is true. This is why we are calling them out for lying. More people do die in Highsec than null... API data proves that Null has less death, astronomically less death than low as well No one said goons are the only ratters in Dek... in fact I even said I wasn't counting the renters. But you only read what you want to read Only 9 ratting carriers from Goons died You are trying to find lies where there isn't any by twisting words and taking things out of context. In fact that makes you the worst kind of liar.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 92	Posted - 2015.02.22 02:02:38 - [72] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: baltec1 wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Again, you can't argue numbers. NPC kills in nullsec are not lower by a significant margin compared to highsec. So you have 1/6th the population as you guys claim but only 25% less npc kills.... must mean you are all carebears. Primary source of income in null is from bounties. Primary source of income in highsec is LP. We have to kill a lot of NPCs in null to make isk while high sec players need to do missions for LP, killing rats is secondary at best. Back that up... And, again what does that have to do with Null being safer? And shock horror, when its pointed out that you are again trying to twist the number to your argument you again try to change the subject with another lie. How the F can a question be a lie?
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 92	Posted - 2015.02.22 02:04:02 - [73] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: http://evelostfound.blogspot.com/2015/01/is-pve-safer-in-high-sec-or-null-sec.html This was a very nice and recent analysis using not only ship death/npc ratios but also ship death value. Their conclusion? Null PVE is completely broken because of how safe it is. Even the worst people at defending their ratters (CFC) were more than 3x safer in terms of real isk value than comparable highsec systems. My conclusions from reading the article. More people fly blingy ships for highsec PvE than for nullsec PvE. People in nullsec dock up when there are neutrals or reds in local, people in highsec generally don't. Far more NPCs die in highsec than in nullsec, probably as a result of the much higher player population and the resulting higher number of players who kill NPCs for income. The comments on that article are bang on the money, even Gevlons.... Again, you can't argue numbers. NPC kills in nullsec are not lower by a significant margin compared to highsec. So you have 1/6th the population as you guys claim but only 25% less npc kills.... must mean you are all carebears. You certainly can argue numbers when the comparisons are skewed, in the article you linked the author takes 3 highsec systems, and compares them to 8 nullsec systems. If you take the top 3 nullsec systems and compare them to the top 3 highsec systems the numbers are vastly different. For example: Sheroo compared to S-DN5M reveals 822,000+ more NPC kills in Sheroo than in S-DN5M for the month of december. Over double the amount of NPC Kills for 12 more ship losses (21-9) So now you just want to cherry pick? Yes certain high sec systems have far more NPC kills than any individual nullsec system, but Nullsec had so few kills that the ratios show the proof.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 93	Posted - 2015.02.22 02:23:07 - [74] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: More people do die in Highsec than null... API data proves that Null has less death, astronomically less death than low as well Massively higher population density, it's like comparing death rates in a major city like London or NYC to that of a small village in the middle of nowhere. Maybe, but given that you guys are cherry picking just as much as you are accusing him of, your argument is tainted. No one has answered the relevant question of why we should ignore the fact that despite the population density differences, null carebears just as much as hi-sec. How is the post you quoted tainted? If 1000 people die in an area with a population numbering in the hundreds of thousands and 1000 people die in an area with tens of thousands in the same time period, which has the higher death rate? Look either you have the same actual number of people in null PVEing that you do in Highsec to get the same kill numbers, or you have a very small population that is exploiting the riches of nullsec with near 24/7 PVE activity. But at the end of the day if there were 100% of that population number in highsec in PVE, then the numbers on the API would show a large difference between the two. We are of course ignoring that belts have 3-5 rats and missions have 30-50. But for the sake of simplicity no one has been able to explain how Null is dangerous when so much PVE is actually happening. Also last numbers from Dr Eyjo before he left was 21% population living in Null, 65% in High, but he admitted at fanfest that most null players return to Highsec to log off for extended periods of time so the numbers could be wrong.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 93	Posted - 2015.02.22 02:25:37 - [75] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Stuff CCP's chart shows that stuff is produced in Highsec and it dies in High and Low I already told you that zkillboard and your own killboards don't show 41 carriers, so if you have links to your data I would make a correction in my statement. But you now have made this claim over and over but I don't see said data.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 93	Posted - 2015.02.22 02:26:23 - [76] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: But at the end of the day if there were 100% of that population number in highsec in PVE, then the numbers on the API would show a large difference between the two. Another lie. No, it would not. The resources of nullsec are finite, and rather small in comparison to the literally limitless missions of highsec. BS Anoms are guaranteed to respawn, belts always get new rats. How can you with a straight face call ME the liar?
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 93	Posted - 2015.02.22 02:34:19 - [77] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: CCP's chart shows that stuff is produced in Highsec and it dies in High and Low Wrong Market McSelling Alt wrote: I already told you that zkillboard and your own killboards don't show 41 carriers, so if you have links to your data I would make a correction in my statement. But you now have made this claim over and over but I don't see said data. CFC is not just goons. LOL Keep watching past that one point... he explains how much of a moron you are.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 93	Posted - 2015.02.22 02:36:19 - [78] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: No, it would not. The resources of nullsec are finite, and rather small in comparison to the literally limitless missions of highsec. Actually that's not true. Given that you acknowledged that things like asteroids infinitely respawn, and npcs also exist in null sec space, (as well as missions) then null sec space also has infinite resources. And yet more lies. Anoms are not infinite, nor infinitely scalable to population size. Missions are. And somehow, you dispute this fact. Anoms respawn after they are finished, so yes they are infinite... also there are missions in Null as well... also belt rats respawn every tick. Because you said it doesn't make it fact...
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 93	Posted - 2015.02.22 02:37:42 - [79] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: LOL Keep watching past that one point... he explains how much of a moron you are. He literally says that stuff is built in high and low and dies in null. Because things that are made in highsec are killed in null... just because he doesn't point out that MOST ships are killed in Low, and second to that Highsec, and then Null with WH shortly behind, doesn't mean that Null is the only place things are killed. But he also shows how a couple small battles... BATTLES, CONSENSUAL PVP, screwed up his numbers.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 93	Posted - 2015.02.22 02:38:30 - [80] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Anoms respawn after they are finished, so yes they are infinite... also there are missions in Null as well... also belt rats respawn every tick. Because you said it doesn't make it fact... He really is this committed to the lie, folks. You do know how upgraded systems work right?

Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 93	Posted - 2015.02.22 02:43:02 - [81] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: the income comes from LP not rat bounties. And once again, you haven't actually proven that this is the case. The problem with this argument is that it assume everyone in hi-sec is doing all missions optimally and only for LP. Which again you have yet to prove is even a majority, or an average, of even relevant to how most people run missions. Show me evidence that most are not. All mission guides tell you how to blitz them. All advice given is to blitz them. The most popular fits are geared towards blitzing them. Proof is that if everyone was blitzing for LP then no one would run anything but SoE, Fed Navy and Republic Security. Yet we know that people run missions all over, for all corps. Also if LP was the only reason to run missions then Mission Accomplished, you get almost 2x as much LP from Hophib as you do from any .7 system and almost 3x as much with higher LP/isk ratio doing them for Guristas or Blood Raiders.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 93	Posted - 2015.02.22 02:43:47 - [82] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Anoms respawn after they are finished, so yes they are infinite... also there are missions in Null as well... also belt rats respawn every tick. Because you said it doesn't make it fact... He really is this committed to the lie, folks. You do know how upgraded systems work right? Do you? Yeah I do... do I have to explain to you what happens 10 minutes after you clear a Sanctum? Quote: There are zero missions in sov null. Nice qualifier.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 93	Posted - 2015.02.22 02:46:28 - [83] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Proof is that if everyone was blitzing for LP then no one would run anything but SoE, Fed Navy and Republic Security. Yet we know that people run missions all over, for all corps. That doesn't prove most don't run missions for LP. All it shows is that people run a lot of different missions for different factions. Explain then why Low and Null aren't full of mission runners then... since the LP payouts are 2-3x as much...
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 93	Posted - 2015.02.22 02:47:20 - [84] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Yeah I do... do I have to explain to you what happens 10 minutes after you clear a Sanctum? So tell us, how many sanctums do you get in a fully upgraded trusec system at any one time. 1, how many do you need? They just keep respawning What is the limit of upgraded systems?
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 93	Posted - 2015.02.22 02:52:26 - [85] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Shall I point to code's kill board showing you all of the stupid fits that you guys like to parade around on these forums? My point is that you can't assume that even a majority of the players read those guides, take wise advice, or even do missions for straight monetary gain. And I suppose most incursion runners in highsec don't run optimal fits for their activity either. Sorry but, LP is what you aim for when you run missions. Now you are jumping around looking for other points to bring up. Incursion runners don't do it for the LP lol@ .4 to 1 conversion. They do it for the fleet payout every site, which is a heck of a lot less than the same sites that can be found in Null sec by the way. So the game already scales to your version of Risk v Reward, you should try incursions in Dek some time.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 93	Posted - 2015.02.22 02:53:30 - [86] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: There are zero missions in sov null. Hey, if you guys want to settle bad space, what business is it of mine? But I find it telling that despite the fact that your resources are "finite", and you have one sixth the population of hi-sec, that you are still pretty close to hi-secs carebear numbers. 95% of null space has no missions and anoms are not infinitely scalable. Numbers brought to you by... his bum
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 94	Posted - 2015.02.22 03:11:46 - [87] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Some, not the bulk. Given the evidence of what people typically fly in missions systems vs your favored blitz ships would suggest otherwise. No it wouldnt. They might not be as specialised but they are built to blitz and have been for years. If true then the price of rigs would be astronomical, because no one would salvage. Not everyone blitzes and you can't say it with a straight face.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 95	Posted - 2015.02.22 03:18:29 - [88] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: If true then the price of rigs would be astronomical, because no one would salvage. Not everyone blitzes and you can't say it with a straight face. Blitz on the main, dump and MTU and use an alt to salvage. Then half the population numbers in highsec are salvage alts and don't count?
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 95	Posted - 2015.02.22 03:19:15 - [89] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Its funny how you guys argue that freighters should have to work in teams and be escorted, but you guys can't be bothered to escort your stuff in null. I bet you don't guard your incursion runners for the same reason that a vast majority of freighters in hi-sec aren't accompanied by webbers. tell me, when was the last time any highsec freighter escort came up against a 200 man ishtar fleet. So now who doesn't want to put effort into it
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 95	Posted - 2015.02.22 03:27:02 - [90] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: I fly in stratops while running missions. So, no. What I do is harder than scooping loot while you target red crosses. Didn't you just make the argument that you don't kill npcs when you blitz? or at least not that many? Anyways, irrelevant Valterra was correct, the answer was no

Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 95	Posted - 2015.02.22 03:37:56 - [91] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: I never said missioning or salvaging was remotely hard. Yes, you did. Valterra Craven wrote: I have two monitors. Its still damn hard. But I ask again, have YOU actually tried to do this? I have. Liar. No, he didn't Again with that word... it is like you are waving a white flag without actually waving a white flag every time you use that word.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 95	Posted - 2015.02.22 04:51:44 - [92] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Are you REALLY this bad at EVE that you cannot even figure out how to use duel screens? Are you REALLY this bad at debate that you cannot even prove something that you claim to do on a regular basis? http://youtu.be/HFdYO9h0H3Y so while you cant even figure out how duel monitors work this guy is multiboxing an entire incursion fleet. No he isn't, he got banned for using that method. (probably gonna get removed) http://www.dual-boxing.com/threads/51980-The-Banned-thread
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 109	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:07:10 - [93] - Quote Koebmand wrote: CCP Falcon wrote: Players are also reminded that if someone is criminally flagged, they are fair game to be attacked in self-defense. Feel free to use this to your advantage. Does this mean the Bowheads (Orca etc) that aid in the criminal actions will start become flagged so we can defend ourselves from them? No because the Orca Pilot is innocent, all they did was drop a ship. They can't control who takes it. And no you cant implement something like this because every time you go into a ship at a WH pos your pos would blow your ass up.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 109	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:56:33 - [94] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Do people want guys like him to do real PvP or not in this game? There is no "real" PvP in EVE Online, because that implies that there are things that don't fit that category. Oh, and trying to say that highsec should be safe, just so that your "friend" can carebear there and lose ships elsewhere is a facile argument at best. Loss can and should occur in highsec, not just low and null. Technically a POS shoot isn't real PVP even though it is against Player Assets. Unless it is actively defended of course. But that would be the literal definition of not real PVP... the AI playing the game legally for the player.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 110	Posted - 2015.03.02 22:33:22 - [95] - Quote Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote: Koebmand wrote: [quote]If Orca let suspect or criminal eject or board ship, Orca gets flag. The safety system was specifically designed that you cannot get flagged when it is set to green. Your proposal would make the safety switch completely unreliable. No... Orca Pilot set Green = Suspect or Criminal being denied by game servers access to the hanger. Simple I fully support this idea

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.