EVE Search - How many more players must we lose to bullying

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

How many more players must we lose to bullying

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18792	Posted - 2017.03.30 13:41:48 - [1] - Quote Dom Arkaral wrote: Salvos Rhoska wrote: Many pirates are ex-miners. Why do you think? And before you ask, no I don't mine... I'd rather punch myself in the balls repeatedly until they're numb or non-existent than to subject myself to that lmao They assume that because gankers know their victims ships better than the victims do.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18794	Posted - 2017.03.31 05:49:09 - [2] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Infinity Ziona wrote: By CCPs ******** definition of PvP WoW, Everqueat and Hello Kitty are all PvP then, at least in non-instanced areas. Not even close, because that's not CCP's definition, and in fact PVP wasn't even defined at all in anything you just responded to. It is, in fact, nothing more than competition between one or more players, but the big difference between EVE and all those other games you listed is that none are set up in such a way that a single player's actions and choices can have persistent effects on the game's environment or other players like EVE is, which is what really defines EVE as a PVP game at its very core above all else. The lack of instancing is only one component of that, and blindness to the bigger picture of EVE's nature and reality is what I imagine sets so many, like you, on this path of self-entitlement as if the game owes you something it never promised. Lol. Rubbish. Take blue EQ, you had often 10 guilds competing over NPCs that spawned often on 7 day cycles. You couldn't advance to harder content until at least the core part of the guild had obtained gear from those 7 day cycle mobs. Often people would cockblock others by killing the mobs to prevent advancement or would deliberately train the other groups to kill them before they downed the mob. That's significantly more pvpish than buying or selling wars but definitely was not classified as PvP. PvP is and always has meant direct player vs player combat. End of freakng story. In those games you cannot attack anyone anywhere unless you go to a pvp area. EVE is the game where you are open to attack every time you undock, it's the big selling point that you are never safe in space. You can't scream people are bullying you because they shot at you in a game that is well known and advertised as a pvp game. It's like complaining about pvp happening in a battlefield game.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18794	Posted - 2017.03.31 06:13:25 - [3] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: baltec1 wrote: Infinity Ziona wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Infinity Ziona wrote: By CCPs ******** definition of PvP WoW, Everqueat and Hello Kitty are all PvP then, at least in non-instanced areas. Not even close, because that's not CCP's definition, and in fact PVP wasn't even defined at all in anything you just responded to. It is, in fact, nothing more than competition between one or more players, but the big difference between EVE and all those other games you listed is that none are set up in such a way that a single player's actions and choices can have persistent effects on the game's environment or other players like EVE is, which is what really defines EVE as a PVP game at its very core above all else. The lack of instancing is only one component of that, and blindness to the bigger picture of EVE's nature and reality is what I imagine sets so many, like you, on this path of self-entitlement as if the game owes you something it never promised. Lol. Rubbish. Take blue EQ, you had often 10 guilds competing over NPCs that spawned often on 7 day cycles. You couldn't advance to harder content until at least the core part of the guild had obtained gear from those 7 day cycle mobs. Often people would cockblock others by killing the mobs to prevent advancement or would deliberately train the other groups to kill them before they downed the mob. That's significantly more pvpish than buying or selling wars but definitely was not classified as PvP. PvP is and always has meant direct player vs player combat. End of freakng story. In those games you cannot attack anyone anywhere unless you go to a pvp area. EVE is the game where you are open to attack every time you undock, it's the big selling point that you are never safe in space. You can't scream people are bullying you because they shot at you in a game that is well known and advertised as a pvp game. It's like complaining about pvp happening in a battlefield game. Its not a "selling point" if its having a negative effect on growth. CCP looked into this, they found that people people that get ganked are more likely to play longer than people who never experience pvp. It's also no coincidence that as safety has gone up (via removal of pvp) numbers have gone down. The game grew at its fastest rate when pvp was far easier to do. There is no evidence that pvp causes people to leave but we do have evidence that nerfing pvp is causing people to leave.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18794	Posted - 2017.03.31 08:12:18 - [4] - Quote Mr Mieyli wrote: Really the consequences of a wardec is... you are at war. Which is exactly what you wanted. If you attack someone you can't beat well that's kind of nobody's fault but your own. A game where everyone is trying to make trouble for you makes sense when you are actually competing over something, but honestly most wardecs are seal-clubbing. The 'victims' are not competing over anything and I refuse market pvp as a legitimate reason, they don't affect the economy and I'd have no problem with nerfs to HS income. In the ice interdictions miners were killed on sight for 3 reasons. First was to blockade the production of caldari ice, this cased a rush on this form of ice which spiked prices. When it hit it's peak we fed out vast supplies into the market and made hundreds of billions in profits. Second, untanked miners were profitable to gank. Third, back then the primary ingredient in T2 production was tech which was almost entirely sourced from CFC moons. Most of the cost of a new hulk was the price you paid for tech from the CFC. Hefty profits were made. So yea, you don't have to be doing anything to still be worth shooting.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18796	Posted - 2017.04.01 07:57:50 - [5] - Quote Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Galaxy Pig wrote: So you're giving up at this too. Huge surprise. Just concede that AG is fail and try to distance yourself from them, good strategy bro. Actually the reason why we "gave up" and did not adapt is that once it was demonstrated that CCP coddles you guys, the feeling was "why bother?". Besides, that CCP had to change your diapers was victory enough. Your success became meaningless at that point, so there was no further point in playing with you and trying to stop you. Until Brad Neece started bumping your targets and you had to resort to bombers.... You gave up because you had to move from a single insta locking thrashers to needing to use a pair of tornados Not even a month later CCP gifted freighters a buff 10x stronger but gankers adapted. That says it all about you bears.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18796	Posted - 2017.04.01 08:16:57 - [6] - Quote Mr Mieyli wrote: Overspecialize, and you breed in weakness. It's slow death. Stats don't back that statement up. EVE saw nothing but growth until 2013. What happened in 2013? CCP decided to nerf the difficulty and increased safety by nerfing pvp.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18796	Posted - 2017.04.01 08:56:47 - [7] - Quote Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: baltec1 wrote: Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Galaxy Pig wrote: So you're giving up at this too. Huge surprise. Just concede that AG is fail and try to distance yourself from them, good strategy bro. Actually the reason why we "gave up" and did not adapt is that once it was demonstrated that CCP coddles you guys, the feeling was "why bother?". Besides, that CCP had to change your diapers was victory enough. Your success became meaningless at that point, so there was no further point in playing with you and trying to stop you. Until Brad Neece started bumping your targets and you had to resort to bombers.... You gave up because you had to move from a single insta locking thrashers to needing to use a pair of tornados Not even a month later CCP gifted freighters a buff 10x stronger but gankers adapted. That says it all about you bears. We were using rifters. The 10X freighter buff was to cover their ass after realizing they handed a win to the gankers. But that cat's already out of the bag and the perception of favoritism already did damage proving that new players are food. We're still waiting for that fix to bumping. Once you make the impression that one side is played favorite, there's no more game. But we see that CCP wants only gank versus gank and yes some AG are adapting. Me I haven't played in months. My PC overheats. I'm up late working on it now in fact. But spring is here. I'll just stick around and remind players of the past in the meantime. CCP have been playing favourites but sure as **** isn't with gankers. Ganking is by a long way the single most nerfed activity in EVE. You had one nerf and even that wasn't aimed at you.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18797	Posted - 2017.04.01 16:52:44 - [8] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: Yeah right. Zombie was banned from game permanatly for exploiting grids to do what gankers now do legally every day in EvE today. What grid exploit would that be? Infinity Ziona wrote: Ganking has been buffed to hell. Should be easy for you to list these buffs then. Infinity Ziona wrote: The sec buff alone saves you around 2 weeks of grinding NPCs in null per gank session. Costs 350 mil a go and is very rarely used by gankers as they are quite happy staying at -10. Infinity Ziona wrote: The reason ganking is so common is because its now so easy. So common its now less than half what it was in 2013 and falling. Infinity Ziona wrote: When freighters first came out you needed 30 high skilled BS pilots woth 30 plat insured battleships. Now one can be ganked by a single player multiboxing 12ish bombers and sec loss is negligible When freighters came out they had far less HP, no fittings and the battleship cost less than today's T2 destroyers. Concord was also much slower in responding and did not jam or neut.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18800	Posted - 2017.04.02 03:54:44 - [9] - Quote NofriendNoLifeStilPostin wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: HiSec is by far the most dangerous area of space for a pirate to live. . that makes no sense. Its impossible to debate with someone as stupid as you are who does all kinds of heavy mental gymnastics so you be right in some weird way. How exactly is he wrong? What other area of space has an invincible force that will instantly jam and drain your cap the moment they land and cannot possibly be tanked by anything or avoided? What other area of space will a -10 sec character be chased by faction navies constantly?
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18800	Posted - 2017.04.02 04:05:10 - [10] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: baltec1 wrote: What other area of space will a -10 sec character be chased by faction navies constantly? The real question is what other area of space can a -10 character jump around in nothing but his pod indefinitely? Mr Epeen Until CCP give us a pod cannon I don't see much harm being done=ƒÿé

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18800	Posted - 2017.04.02 04:40:31 - [11] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: baltec1 wrote: NofriendNoLifeStilPostin wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: HiSec is by far the most dangerous area of space for a pirate to live. . that makes no sense. Its impossible to debate with someone as stupid as you are who does all kinds of heavy mental gymnastics so you be right in some weird way. How exactly is he wrong? What other area of space has an invincible force that will instantly jam and drain your cap the moment they land and cannot possibly be tanked by anything or avoided? What other area of space will a -10 sec character be chased by faction navies constantly? Those factors are irrelevant. The gank ship is ammo. A catylest is the equivalent of a 10 mill isk missile or charge. Its expended with the intention of it being single use and the expectation that is is destroyed just like ammo. Therefore there is no risk and no danger. Exact same logic applies to every ship that undocks. You are at risk of being attacked at any time for any reason so your freighter or battleship or frigate or even your titan is just as likely to die as that catalyst is so therefore using you twisted logic nobody has any risk or danger because all ships eventually die.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18800	Posted - 2017.04.02 05:29:53 - [12] - Quote Infi wrote: No its the opposite. The gankers undocks with the intention of destroying his cheap ammo ship. The PvPr undocks with the intention of possibly losing but hopefully winning and keeping his ship. The PvEr undocks with the intention of not losing his ship. The ganker does not undock with the aim of losing their ship, they undock with the aim of successfully killing and looting their target. Are you telling us that there is no risk or cost at all in this? Quote: Only one is intending to lose his ship on purpose and without using skill to avoid that loss. The others are taking a risk of potential loss with the payoff being avoiding destruction and getting a kill. Suicide dreads. Quote: Huge difference No difference at all. Everyone should expect to lose their ship, that why one of the golden rules in EVE is don't fly something you cannot afford to lose.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18800	Posted - 2017.04.02 06:02:35 - [13] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: baltec1 wrote: Infi wrote: No its the opposite. The gankers undocks with the intention of destroying his cheap ammo ship. The PvPr undocks with the intention of possibly losing but hopefully winning and keeping his ship. The PvEr undocks with the intention of not losing his ship. The ganker does not undock with the aim of losing their ship, they undock with the aim of successfully killing and looting their target. Are you telling us that there is no risk or cost at all in this? Quote: Only one is intending to lose his ship on purpose and without using skill to avoid that loss. The others are taking a risk of potential loss with the payoff being avoiding destruction and getting a kill. Suicide dreads. Quote: Huge difference No difference at all. Everyone should expect to lose their ship, that why one of the golden rules in EVE is don't fly something you cannot afford to lose. Gankers intension in regards to his ship is that it will blow up. The others hope for the opposite. Dreads aren't allowed in high for pvp So suicide dreads don't count but suicide tornado do? We also have things like logi, HICs, tackle interceptors, dictors, apostle that all get used in similar suicidal ways. Just because gankers accept the risks and costs it does not mean those risks and costs go away.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18801	Posted - 2017.04.02 06:46:55 - [14] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: How many of those ships are protected by concord before they attack. Trying to compare nullsec tactics with highsec suicide is idiotic. A suicide mission is a suicide mission. There is no difference between gankers and the other things I listed, they all expect to die doing their job. As for concord protection, you got it buffed, this is what you demanded. It's quite funny seeing you say gankers have no risk or cost but when we point out ganking the gankers is profitable you suddenly say it's too expensive and risky.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18803	Posted - 2017.04.02 07:47:50 - [15] - Quote Quote: Ganking the gankers might be possible, if they actually flew ships outside of a set up gank on their ganking alt. It's quite tough to bump a pod, or target one before it warps. Next unless they are low sec status they are protected by concord meaning that you will be blown up by concord for killing their cheap destroyer, hardly worth it. Risk is when things are uncertain, in a suicide gank the outcome for the ganker is very certain. He will die, and in that time put out X dmg. Ship loss to concord is a certainty, it is factored into a decision to gank or not. For the victim, being ganked is not a certainty, it is a risk. Funny how the side who doesn't deal with risk is calling the others carebears. Your gank ship might get scrammed by faction police. The gate guns might kill you first. Your target might escape. Your target might get reps. Your target might be more heavily tanked than expected. Your gank ship might get ganked. The target might pre sawn concord. You might land just out of range and fail to land enough damage. Your target might have a combat ship escort. The loot has a 50% chance per stack of being destroyed. The wreck might be blown up before you can loot it. Your hauler might be blown up. The loot might be stolen by someone else. This is against the risks a highsec hauler faces which is: You might be ganked. But please do go on about how gankers have no risks while haulers have lots.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18803	Posted - 2017.04.02 08:58:19 - [16] - Quote The hardest pve in EVE is also perfectly doable by solo players multi boxing and earns a lot more Isk. Your freighter can also entirely counter a 100 man gank fleet using a single alt in a web ship.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18804	Posted - 2017.04.02 10:06:38 - [17] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: I'm talking about PvP. Doesn't matter. Running an incursion solo with a dozen alts or killing a freighter with your dozen alts use the exact same things. Yet I don't see you ever calling for nerfs to highsec incursions even though multiboxing incursions earns vastly more Isk. Quote: You know how many freighters I've killed in low null wh? Single digits soloing / multiboxing. You know how many I could kill per day in high? Likely as many or more than my 15 years total playing EvE, per day, ganking with multiboxed bombers. That's how ridiculously easy it is. That is wrong. Those who go out to null, low and WH should be rewarded not idiots hiding behind concord exploiting a broken system. No. You can get that many because there is a much higher concentration of freighters in highsec. For every freighter you find taking a gate in null there are several thousand in highsec. Quote: As for freighters being webbed, there is the issue with suicide points to consider. Kill that ship then..
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18804	Posted - 2017.04.02 11:13:32 - [18] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: Incursions take a crapload of time and there is plenty of competition for them. They also require specialized blinged out ships. Ganking requires a bunch of SB worth max 40 mill each. Ganking takes just as much time and gankers spend much much more than an incursion player on ships and fittings. Either all multiboxing is wrong or none of it is. Quote: No the reason you don't get lots of freighters is not only numbers. A significant barrier is people can and will kill you for trying before you attack. People have intelligence networks and hotdrops. You can't hide behind concord. You dont have the option to afk float an alt freighter tp scoop and scoot. Its much more risky and difficult in space without concord. Oh please if we find a freighter it's getting either a blogs drop or a doomsday to the face. Simple fact is the reason why so many more die in highsec is because there thousands flying around in highsec for every one in null. Quote: Only need a point to stop initial web warp then its screwed. You could easily stick 1 point on each bomber but its not necessary. You could easily have several logi boats but you don't bother. End of the day if you decide to not protect your assets then you can't complain when a fleet take them off you.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18804	Posted - 2017.04.02 11:18:36 - [19] - Quote Infinity wrote: All the gankers quote that survey. What they ignore is it was only players who quit in first 14 days, hardly the targets a gankers goes for :) You missed out the other part where CCP stated less than 1% of people who cancel their subscription cite ship loss or harassment.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18804	Posted - 2017.04.02 13:22:06 - [20] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: No ganking is much easier. It's only ever as easy as the victim let's it be. Quote: Maybe PL with it's half a trillion dev dropped monocle events and ex-dev CEOs etc etc would drop it but you're average ganker doesn't have that sort of help so I imagine they'd find things a little more challenging. End of the day the ability to gank freighters and let's be honest any other ship one wishes without the associated risks faced by real pvprs oitside high makes ganking in high too easy, lucrative, and is not in the spirit of the game. So nerf concord if it's getting in the way of you dealing with gankers. Quote: Several logi boats and webber for one freighter? It'd be easier to just remove freighters from the game if that was required because noone would use them anymore. Its not a fleet if it's in highsec and not at war, more like a gaggle, brood or perhaps a gobble :) It requires a fleet to kill a freighter in highsec but asking the victims to form a smaller fleet to defend is apparently too much to ask

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18805	Posted - 2017.04.02 15:43:11 - [21] - Quote NofriendNoLifeStilPostin wrote: Exactly. Baltec1 and that so many other clowns like him are clearly just argumentative morons who do all kinds of heavy mental gynastics so they can be psuedo-right in some weird way. Those losers need to get a life Said the guy tossing around insults.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18806	Posted - 2017.04.02 16:50:38 - [22] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: You seriously think that freighter ganking is balanced at this point with bumping as it is? I just went to Zkill, I found a Charon freighter with three Caro expanders in Uedama with 12 Catalystrs on the kill and you seriously tell me that this needs to be nerfed, what to one catalyst? 12 Catalysts worth 11m each total value 132m, that lot could easily chase down a freighter trying to make a run for it along with a suicide blackbird to hold it. Seriously mate I have to laugh at you saying that it needs to be nerfed because it is too hard, define hard for me please it would be a good laugh... And people wonder why I keep posting on this subject, I do it because it is comedy gold... It is only as hard as the victim makes it.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18808	Posted - 2017.04.03 04:11:23 - [23] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: This is garbage. It was not programmed this way. When freighters came out you needed at least 30 battleships now you only need 12 stealth bombers. That would be because stealth bombers get battleship firepower and freighters fitted with cargo expanders are much weaker than before. Fittings on freighters was something the likes of you supported and the likes of me were against. Quote: When freighters came out there were no tags, you had to grind sec back which was very time consuming. Very few gankers bother with either tags or grinding up sec status. You have already been told this in this thread. Quote: When freighters came out you couldn't do (at the time battleship damage) with cheap frigates. You still can't. These cheap frigates are a lot more expensive than gank battleships were back then. Quote: Bitches will whine that battleships insurance meant using battleships was cheaper but no, even with full insurance you still lost the value of platinum insurance. 30 plat insurances for tier 3 battleships was around the cost of 60 stealth bombers. Wrong. Back then you could build battleships for less than the insurance payout (including the up front cost to insure). People would buy a stack of several hundred battleships only to insure and blow up on the undock. Gankers could buy and fit a gank battleship and after the insurance payout the cost was effectively less than a gank catalyst. Quote: Then you factor in the massive jump in isk generation today vs then. irrelevant, that's what we call inflation. Quote: It was never programmed this way, this is all about mudflation and powercreep turning ganking into the easiest form of PvP with the smallest cost (apart from frig v frig) with the least risk and significant payoff. Its out of wack with the rest of EvE. EvE WoW, EvE Light or whatever. Ganking has never been harder, more expensive or more punished than today. It is also at its lowest point in recorded history of this game.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18809	Posted - 2017.04.03 04:55:40 - [24] - Quote Quote: I think ganking was a lot less common when I first starting playing back in late 2005. In terms of per head of population it was more common back then, you just didn't see the number of threads being posted about it. Back then it was considered just another tool for fighting wars. BOB made heavy use of mercs that specialised in ganking high sec assets of enemies. Quote: The only time I remembering needing to care about it was during Wardecks, and I even remember discussions on comms about many of our players from null sec not being used to having their in-corp industrials being shot at in high sec. And if I remember right is was members of Freelancers who were pissed about the original war dec nerf that started the neutral ganking thing wholesale. The true start of ganking was M0o, they are the reason why concord can't be tanked and gate guns exist.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18809	Posted - 2017.04.03 06:39:21 - [25] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: Rubbish. Tank is largely useless. Tank doubles align time meaning twice as much damage taken. Inertial stabs half it meaning its better to fit stabs. Its better to warp out faster with less tank. I have a jump freighter here with over a million EHP omni tank. By all means keep on saying that tank is useless. Quote: Tags are used prolifically by gankers. The fact that most are forever -10 says that statement is a lie. Quote: You could build a battleship and get back more than build cost with plat insurance but it definitely did not cover plat insurance as well. It also didn't cover the costs of 8 large guns. Please post proof I'm sure there is lots of evidence for such an obvious isk faucet. The very fact that CCP had to alter the insurance to wipe this out is enough evidence. Also the fact the CCP nerfed ganking so that they could no longer get insurance too. Quote: Your last paragraph is pure science fiction :) Edit: Freighters released with Exodus in 2005. There was a small period of time in 2009 where you could make a small profit from producing your own battleships and self destructing them. Some producers did it on a grand scale self destructing battleships they built. It could not be done by none producers and only thousands of battleships would make it worthwhile. They were not fitted. From CCP referring to the issue Quote: The last QEN contained a graph show- ing the number of ships that were self-destructed, which spiked in exactly this period. This period is a time when the market price of certain ships fell below the net insurance payout for losing those ships, making it profitable to insure them and self-destruct them. [/quote] You literally posted a quote that backs me up. For someone that always claims to be a 2003 player you seem to have zero knowledge of what happened back then.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18810	Posted - 2017.04.03 07:18:32 - [26] - Quote It wasn't a bug and it went on for several years. Back then the insurance rate was fixed so movements in the mineral market were not taken into account. At that time in EVE there was a huge supply spike in minerals hitting the market which pushed manufacturing prices down. This meant ship prices became incredibly cheap and coupled with massive over supply it resulted in ships being sold for below cost. I have dug up the numbers so for example A geddon would sell between 40 and 45 mil. Build cost was 39 mil and you could pick one up for 38 mil in areas. Cost to insure was 19.975 million. Payout was 65.250 million. So you stood to make a healthy profit on the bare hull. Cost of the guns and damage mods was also much lower than today so worst case you would wind up effectively losing a few mil per gank. So nowhere near the cost of bombers or tornados that get used today.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18810	Posted - 2017.04.03 07:19:42 - [27] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: Infinity Ziona wrote: I posted a quote which makes you look like a cherry picker. I don't know about being a cherry picker, but he must be in physical therapy from dragging the goal posts around so much. Mr Epeen I simply respond. The goalpost moving is entirely done by the people I am responding to.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18810	Posted - 2017.04.03 07:46:21 - [28] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: baltec1 wrote: It wasn't a bug and it went on for several years. Back then the insurance rate was fixed so movements in the mineral market were not taken into account. At that time in EVE there was a huge supply spike in minerals hitting the market which pushed manufacturing prices down. This meant ship prices became incredibly cheap and coupled with massive over supply it resulted in ships being sold for below cost. I have dug up the numbers so for example A geddon would sell between 40 and 45 mil. Build cost was 39 mil and you could pick one up for 38 mil in areas. Cost to insure was 19.975 million. Payout was 65.250 million. Plus you had salvage profits to add in towards the end. So you stood to make a healthy profit on the bare hull. Cost of the guns and damage mods was also much lower than today so worst case you would wind up effectively losing a few mil per gank. So nowhere near the cost of bombers or tornados that get used today. It was for a 6 month period in 2009. Look up the report that quote is from. Clearly states 6 months Nov 2009 June 2010.. Your figures are incorrect as well. It had been going on since at least 2006.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18810	Posted - 2017.04.03 08:07:08 - [29] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: baltec1 wrote: Infinity Ziona wrote: baltec1 wrote: It wasn't a bug and it went on for several years. Back then the insurance rate was fixed so movements in the mineral market were not taken into account. At that time in EVE there was a huge supply spike in minerals hitting the market which pushed manufacturing prices down. This meant ship prices became incredibly cheap and coupled with massive over supply it resulted in ships being sold for below cost. I have dug up the numbers so for example A geddon would sell between 40 and 45 mil. Build cost was 39 mil and you could pick one up for 38 mil in areas. Cost to insure was 19.975 million. Payout was 65.250 million. Plus you had salvage profits to add in towards the end. So you stood to make a healthy profit on the bare hull. Cost of the guns and damage mods was also much lower than today so worst case you would wind up effectively losing a few mil per gank. So nowhere near the cost of bombers or tornados that get used today. It was for a 6 month period in 2009. Look up the report that quote is from. Clearly states 6 months Nov 2009 June 2010.. Your figures are incorrect as well. It had been going on since at least 2006. No. It only dipped to a net profit (a small one for 6 months) starting in 2009 -2010. When freighters were released in 2005 it was 70% of ship build cost. From 2005 - no link put in EvE Search itll come right up, I'm on phone Quote: Insurance is actually an isk SINK, because if you subtract it from ship cost, you get about 70% with the highest possible one. That's when they were introduced and what they were balanced around. In 2007 it was common to strip a thorax and insurance fraud it then buy a new one and insure again because you made a profit on the hull. In 2006 you could make more money self destructing incursus (40 - 50k profit per unit) than running level 1 mission.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18810	Posted - 2017.04.03 08:30:20 - [30] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: baltec1 wrote: In 2007 it was common to strip a thorax and insurance fraud it then buy a new one and insure again because you made a profit on the hull. In 2006 you could make more money self destructing incursus (40 - 50k profit per unit) than running level 1 mission. That's nice but not relevant. I don't think CCP had a crystal ball to balance freighters against incursus in 2007. In 2005 when freighters were released, and prior to that when the devs were balancing them that was not the case. Clearly you've made my point though, mudflation and other changes have caused the cost of ganking freighters to become so cheap its negligible. From requiring 30 battleships, fittings and 30% loss after insurance to 12 SB costing practically nothing in comparison. When you factor in the ease of generating isk these days its even cheaper. When you repeat things after been shown to be wrong you become a liar.

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18812	Posted - 2017.04.03 08:53:10 - [31] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: baltec1 wrote: Infinity Ziona wrote: baltec1 wrote: In 2007 it was common to strip a thorax and insurance fraud it then buy a new one and insure again because you made a profit on the hull. In 2006 you could make more money self destructing incursus (40 - 50k profit per unit) than running level 1 mission. That's nice but not relevant. I don't think CCP had a crystal ball to balance freighters against incursus in 2007. In 2005 when freighters were released, and prior to that when the devs were balancing them that was not the case. Clearly you've made my point though, mudflation and other changes have caused the cost of ganking freighters to become so cheap its negligible. From requiring 30 battleships, fittings and 30% loss after insurance to 12 SB costing practically nothing in comparison. When you factor in the ease of generating isk these days its even cheaper. When you repeat things after been shown to be wrong you become a liar. Indeed you do :) I'm the only one posting numbers and looking for evidence to back up arguments. You just said insurance fraud lasted six months till 2010. I have found threads with people talking about it and saying what they were getting dating from 2004 till 2010. After telling you this you then repeated what you said before. Aka you are now telling a complete lie.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18816	Posted - 2017.04.03 11:20:49 - [32] - Quote Mr Mieyli wrote: Lore is just backstory made up as justification you know. The lore could just as easily say that the empires are more powerful than capsuleers, but then how would you be the hero? It's amazing to me that somehow eves ego stroking is different than other games. Using lore as a reason for or against change makes literally no sense. I wish CCP would remove highsec completely for a while just to see how many people really do go in for full time pvp everywhere, so you guys could see there are more people playing eve than just to kill other players. The people that pvp are not the ones the have and still do demand the removal of other people's gameplay and content.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18816	Posted - 2017.04.03 12:51:19 - [33] - Quote Mr Mieyli wrote: baltec1 wrote: The people that pvp are not the ones the have and still do demand the removal of other people's gameplay and content. That's your opinion man, I say that at times the gameplay / content I want IS removed by gankers. Whenever someone says "I just want to be left in peace" is an example of their content being removed by someone else. It's all viewpoints. There is a very real difference between you choosing to not do something because you fear other players and people not being able to do something because the mechanics were changed to make it impossible.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18816	Posted - 2017.04.03 13:22:48 - [34] - Quote Mr Mieyli wrote: baltec1 wrote: Mr Mieyli wrote: baltec1 wrote: The people that pvp are not the ones the have and still do demand the removal of other people's gameplay and content. That's your opinion man, I say that at times the gameplay / content I want IS removed by gankers. Whenever someone says "I just want to be left in peace" is an example of their content being removed by someone else. It's all viewpoints. There is a very real difference between you choosing to not do something because you fear other players and people not being able to do something because the mechanics were changed to make it impossible. What on earth are you talking about? If I am travelling, missioning, mining, whatever, and get ganked explain to me how I am afraid? Is it not that the mechanics made it impossible for me to achieve my goal? You will say, no it's players, I will say it's players enabled by mechanics. Highsec players with no intent to pvp are victimised by eves mechanics. No they decide to victimise themselves. The mechanics do not stop you from hauling, they do not stop you from mining, it's entirely your choice. The mechanics do however stop piracy on miners because of changes made in the last few years. An entire profession was wiped out simply because carebears whined endlessly while choosing to not fit a tank that would have made them unprofitable to gank.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18819	Posted - 2017.04.04 04:17:45 - [35] - Quote Zanar Skwigelf wrote: Infinity Ziona wrote: Was before you started playing and will be long after you've gone. Where have I heard that before? Oh. Right. Oops. (I was trying to find the post where Baltec1 caught the character sale but couldn't find it anywhere ) edit: found it. I don't even have to be awake to destroy his arguments...

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.