EVE Search - This is the end of trade in empire as we know it

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

This is the end of trade in empire as we know it

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Petrothian Tong Gallente	Posted - 2007.05.05 03:12:00 - [91] Edited by: Petrothian Tong on 05/05/2007 03:09:46 well, not making insurance pay on concord kill would be good enough. and yeah, time for manufacturers to build there they sell lol. edit: and to the guys screaming, get a fleet/repper BS.. 38 secounds is what?... 2 cycles on a large shield transfer? pssst... useless. -Siggi- ""PvP" isn't only direct person to person combat, it can be very indirect. Selling an item on the market which somebody buys from you is resulting in another guy not getting a sale." Oveur
umop 3pisdn Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2007.05.05 03:27:00 - [92] Originally by: Petrothian Tong Edited by: Petrothian Tong on 05/05/2007 03:09:46 well, not making insurance pay on concord kill would be good enough. and yeah, time for manufacturers to build there they sell lol. edit: and to the guys screaming, get a fleet/repper BS.. 38 secounds is what?... 2 cycles on a large shield transfer? pssst... useless. Yeah if you've seen a video of a freighter take down... remote repping will not save it unless there are only just enough BS to kill it before concord takes them out. Scouts are the future.. that and webbing might save one, though drone bumpage would probably kill it anyway.
Haffrage Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.05.05 03:34:00 - [93] I hereby present the best anti-freighter wreck looting technology known in all of Eve, a module that MUST be fitted on every freighter escort ship with the spare slot. A Salvager I Inside the wreck was a vindi and couple other BS, and some varying mods. The mods were dumped in the can. The battleships weren't so lucky though, they weren't in the can and weren't in space, nobody's entirely sure where they went ----- Tech 2 Tier 2 Battlecruisers
Badhands Gallente DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.05.05 03:52:00 - [94] Originally by: Crumplecorn As I have pointed out before, I abhor the idea of a coordinated fleet of 10 or more battleships being able to take on 1 person flying a defenseless ship alone and being able to win, suffering only the complete loss of the fleet. This is obviously unbalanced. QFT. Q ... F ... T. It is simple to get a friend to fly a jump ahead of you in a shuttle. Your cargo is worth it. .
Celestal	Posted - 2007.05.05 04:04:00 - [95] get another account with a disposable alt flying a rookie ship to scout . If you see a bunch of domis with drones out , simply shoot 1 of said domis with a civilian gatling gun gets concord on gate ready to shoot without having to warp in
Kramer Verone Amarr	Posted - 2007.05.05 06:11:00 - [96] lmao, some very interesting solutions are presented
Gort Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.05.05 06:48:00 - [97] Indeed. The solution hamsters are working overtime on this one. Regards, There is no "g" in whine. There is no "g" in whiner. There is no "g" in whining. This is a whing.
SiJira	Posted - 2007.05.05 06:54:00 - [98] Originally by: Celestal get another account with a disposable alt flying a rookie ship to scout . If you see a bunch of domis with drones out , simply shoot 1 of said domis with a civilian gatling gun gets concord on gate ready to shoot without having to warp in i like this idea ____ __ ________ _sig below_ the jet cans are made so that people that dont mine can get free ore miners ritually donate the ore to anyone wishing to take some
Coconut Joe VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD Freelancer Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.05 07:05:00 - [99] Allow freighters to equip smartbombs, problem solved.
Meer Chant	Posted - 2007.05.05 07:25:00 - [100] Originally by: Del Narveux Domis because -Theyre cheap, a full suicide fitting means you only lose like 15mil isk if fully insured requirements Remove insurance payouts for ships that get concorded. risk vs reward goes way up. They can still be ganked for military purposes, just not for profit (or very little if any).
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Frontier Trade League	Posted - 2007.05.05 07:30:00 - [101] Remove insure payouts from Concord kills. That is if you lose your ship to concord for a criminal action, SSC doesn't pay the insurance amount, you just violated article 2 of your insurance contract. This would at least eliminate casual use of such tactics. However would still make it viable for someone with intel to kill an opponent's unmarked freighter or other ship. Just with an added cost. Galactic Express Recruitment Post Thoughts expressed are mine and
Cipher7 Keepers of the Holy Bagel SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.05 07:34:00 - [102] The only problem I have is that 15 Apocalypses or 15 Tempests can't do the same, it has to be 15 Domis. Ganking haulers is and should always be a part of Eve. Hiding and using hauler alts should not allow you to bypass 0.0 hostilities. By what right does a 0.0 player call ANYTHING "griefing"? I could understand if you were some empire shmuck who mined veld every day for 3 years and had his life work destroyed by 15 random guys with too much time on their hands. But this was hauler ganking of a person who lives and profits from 0.0, which means the profits of the transfer of goods would prolly influence the Eve map down the line. Highsec is "gankable" for this very reason. So people cannot profit from 0.0 and come into empire claiming to be neutral entities. Like I said, I might have sympathy if this was some highsec carebear who got ganked randomly, but it seems you were a well-chosen target, you were not a victim of random violence, you are a party to a conflict, and that conflict came home to roost in highsec.
Cipher7 Keepers of the Holy Bagel SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.05 07:36:00 - [103] Originally by: Mecinia Lua Remove insure payouts from Concord kills. That is if you lose your ship to concord for a criminal action, SSC doesn't pay the insurance amount, you just violated article 2 of your insurance contract. This would at least eliminate casual use of such tactics. However would still make it viable for someone with intel to kill an opponent's unmarked freighter or other ship. Just with an added cost. No because ppl would still whine about it. Eve is a non-consentual open PVP environment where this can happen to anybody at any time. Thats what makes Eve Eve.
VossKarr Caldari The 6th Directorate	Posted - 2007.05.05 07:43:00 - [104] Originally by: Coconut Joe Allow freighters to equip smartbombs, problem solved. Yeah, and get your freighter Concordoken after smartbombing a gate or some innocent passerby. Bad idea. Instead, give it low/middle slots to equip tanking mods. Take away insurance payouts if destroyed by Concord. Problem solved.
Anson Halleck Lost Eden	Posted - 2007.05.05 07:44:00 - [105] Edited by: Anson Halleck on 05/05/2007 07:40:31 Originally by: umop 3pisdn Get a scout alt Get a scout alt Get a scout alt Get a scout alt Get a scout alt Get a scout alt If theres 40 battleships hugging a gate on a pipe in high sec they probably arent running missions or picnicking. Freighter loot is a good thing. Risk/reward etc. Do you seriously think they are so stupid to wait at gate so everyone can see them? Freighters dropping loot is ok. Freighters being killable by suicide sqads is ok. but Suicide attackers gettins their insurance is bad. Frigates bumping quazillion times bigger freighter forever is bad. Freighters having no single slot for defense is bad. They fixed one part, but forgot to fix also opposite part. Unbalace has been created. Scouts doesn't work - no one is gonna park 30 domis at gate. Escort doesn't work - freighter goes down too fast + there will be a lot of lag involved. Non-AFK flying doesn't work - one frig can keep freighter on place forever.
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Frontier Trade League	Posted - 2007.05.05 07:47:00 - [106] Originally by: Cipher7 Originally by: Mecinia Lua Remove insure payouts from Concord kills. That is if you lose your ship to concord for a criminal action, SSC doesn't pay the insurance amount, you just violated article 2 of your insurance contract. This would at least eliminate casual use of such tactics. However would still make it viable for someone with intel to kill an opponent's unmarked freighter or other ship. Just with an added cost. No because ppl would still whine about it. Eve is a non-consentual open PVP environment where this can happen to anybody at any time. Thats what makes Eve Eve. At no point did I say you couldn't attack them. I just said their should be no insurance payment when a crime is committed. Most every insurance policy I've seen whether fire, life, car, etc has provisions that invalidate the insurance if damage incurred was a result of the owner's criminal behavior. I suspect in the OP case that D2 suspected that it was an alt freighter of an enemy corporation or alliance. Otherwise I just can't seem to think of why D2 would waste the time and resources to attack said freighter. As I said initially removing insurance payout on criminal ships wouldn't remove the option to attack enemy shipping. You'd just have to accept the loss of the ships as a cost of the action. Goes into risk vs reward really. With insurance payments there is virtually no risk to those that take criminal actions, so therefore the reward currently is out of proportion. At least that's how I see it. Galactic Express Recruitment Post Thoughts expressed are mine and
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2007.05.05 07:52:00 - [107] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 05/05/2007 07:48:27 We need a War on Freighterism. Go Bush, smite them unholy ones! --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune
Chewan Mesa coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.05.05 07:57:00 - [108] Edited by: Chewan Mesa on 05/05/2007 07:53:05 Quote: The hole problem with using suiciding freighters as income is that it just isnt worth it. proft per person = loot dropped / number of poeple needed With an avarange of 20 people needed, this means 1 freighter has carry stuff worth more then 2 billion so that a single person get 100mil profit from that. Inculde the loss of insurance, modules used and that not all loot survives you need to target for freighters wich carry over 5billion in assets in various stacks. Finding those freighters can be utterly boring and you are better of suiciding normal haulers. Bingo.
Rasterman Ganja Minmatar GanjaCorp Security Services	Posted - 2007.05.05 08:02:00 - [109] Originally by: Scorched Evil If his unpleasant combat experience in empire has enlightened the rest of you to the grim finish under the glossy veneer of industrial life... then his destruction carries with it an inherent nobility. you say poor carebear... I say, poor us. Workers Rep. Pirate Union, Local 1337 Gone in 60 Seconds, for the win...
Galea Wildfang Inebriated Consortium Enterprises Inc.	Posted - 2007.05.05 08:19:00 - [110] Originally by: Anson Halleck Suicide attackers gettins their insurance is bad. Frigates bumping quazillion times bigger freighter forever is bad. Freighters having no single slot for defense is bad. Agreed, beside probably the last point. Freighters should have a built-in Damage Control (you can't give them a low slot as people will put cargo expanders there and carry capitals through empire again) and/or alot more hitpoints. Flamming leads to anger, anger leads to pain, pain leads to suffering, and suffering leads to teh Dark Side !
Cipher7 Keepers of the Holy Bagel SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.05 08:20:00 - [111] Originally by: Mecinia Lua At no point did I say you couldn't attack them. I just said their should be no insurance payment when a crime is committed. Most every insurance policy I've seen whether fire, life, car, etc has provisions that invalidate the insurance if damage incurred was a result of the owner's criminal behavior. No, because removing insurance could be seen as discouragement from ganking in highsec. Ppl would continue to whine about it "if ccp wanted ppl ganked in highsec, they would have made insurance payout for concord losses" and we would keep moving down the slippery slope of rampant carebearism where every loss is griefing and every wreck is a sob story. DONT FLY WHAT YOU CANT AFFORD TO LOSE. When did we lose sight of that? You put 4 billion isk worth of stuff on a freighter, made it all the way through from your 0.0 space, and got ganked in .5 Good, thats the way it SHOULD be, and the gankage should be reimbursed to encourage more of it. Believe it or not, in Eve you can profit from PVP, its called PIRACY. Attacking civil transportation in highsec for-profit is no less valid than mining veldspar.
Tai Wan	Posted - 2007.05.05 08:38:00 - [112] Man damn unlucky. sounds the CONCORD are like the Calvary (cowboys ans indians) they never seem arrive on time to do their job. CONCORD was probably have a cup of tea with CCP, nah they are in the pub drinking beer, and decided they cannot drink and fly to the rescue. man that really suck for you!!!!
Awox Infinitus Odium	Posted - 2007.05.05 08:39:00 - [113] There's no other way to kill a freighter other than suiciding an unsuspecting victim. I managed to get my gang on a gate with a freighter+escort at the exact same time, someone scrambled the freighter, it jumped, so the rest of the gang jumped after it.. But wait, it logged off mid-jump, didn't ever show up on the other side. An hour later it logged in and docked before we could get near the gate.. So as long as the "smart" players will be exploiting session changing & logoffskis there should be a way for people to target people like this. Oh, and a few bits of information for doubters: a) It was in low-sec b) It was a RA allied freighter c) Petition was useless, as always d) No, we couldn't probe it, it disappeared instantly and was not on scans on either side of the gate. - BOOST OUTLAWS (-10.0 and proud of it)
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2007.05.05 08:41:00 - [114] Originally by: Ki An I can't believe there's so much whining about this... 1. There are in game counters for a suicide gank. Remote repping BSs. They are a pain to always have to have around, but those are the facts. 2. There is an even better way to protect oneself. That is to keep an escort in the same corp as you with you at all times. Obviously you are not doing any trading. Your points are all invalid for trading freighters. They are only valid for moving around valuable corp assests. Why? 1) Trading makes only sense if you earn the same or more isk as with other business like doing L4 missions. To counter such an heavy assault you would need lots of remote reppers, 1-2 ships wouldn't be enough. So that means that you must share the profits of the trade run with several more people. And that means that trading becomes not profitable any more. And that means end of trading. 2) See point 1. Escorts = more people necessary for a trade run = less profit per person = unacceptable isk/hour ratio. Besides frighter flying is very boring. I want to see the people who happily escort a freighter 30 jumps. Do you say we need more stupid grinding here? As if pos warefare is not idiotic enough. If CCP wants freighter ganks or not, that is a complete different story. If they want it (and it is obviously that they want it because they introduced loot dropping) then people must adept. And people will adept, no doubt about this. In this case it means end of trading. You can be happy about this or you can regret it. But it is a simple conclusion that this will happen sooner or later. You can argue that end of trade is bad for Eve, maybe. Maybe not. Who knows? I don't. But that is a complete different topic. The op said 'this is the end of trade in empire as we know it' and I fully agree. You also agree, because you make several suggestions how to change the trade as we know it so that people are more safe from these ganks....
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Frontier Trade League	Posted - 2007.05.05 09:10:00 - [115] Originally by: Cipher7 Originally by: Mecinia Lua At no point did I say you couldn't attack them. I just said their should be no insurance payment when a crime is committed. Most every insurance policy I've seen whether fire, life, car, etc has provisions that invalidate the insurance if damage incurred was a result of the owner's criminal behavior. No, because removing insurance could be seen as discouragement from ganking in highsec. Ppl would continue to whine about it "if ccp wanted ppl ganked in highsec, they would have made insurance payout for concord losses" and we would keep moving down the slippery slope of rampant carebearism where every loss is griefing and every wreck is a sob story. DONT FLY WHAT YOU CANT AFFORD TO LOSE. When did we lose sight of that? You put 4 billion isk worth of stuff on a freighter, made it all the way through from your 0.0 space, and got ganked in .5 Good, thats the way it SHOULD be, and the gankage should be reimbursed to encourage more of it. Believe it or not, in Eve you can profit from PVP, its called PIRACY. Attacking civil transportation in highsec for-profit is no less valid than mining veldspar. I don't see how it would discourage hi sec ganking. Its basically asking those of your viewpoint to accept the same rule you are saying the freighter pilots have to accept. Don't fly what you can't afford to lose. If you can't afford to lose your Battleship ganking a Freighter, don't do it. The game shouldn't assist you by paying for your ship when you are acting criminally in game. You could still make a profit Pirating. However you would have to attack more high value targets to make a profit if insurance was denied. I'd much rather see criminals lose their insurance payouts rather than hi sec being made completely safe. If enough freighter attacks like this happen and it begins to affect CCPs wallet rest assured they will take some action. Better to take the lesser step and encourage it than to lose any option to attack a non war target in hi sec, don't you think so? Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts.
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.05.05 09:17:00 - [116] Ever tried filing for insurance when you used your car as the getaway in a bankheist and it got trashed when you hit that signpost ? No ? Then you shouldnt be surprised when there will be no more insurance payouts if you get concorded. It makes sense.
Auron Shadowbane	Posted - 2007.05.05 09:24:00 - [117] now that freighters are officially "frontline cpaitals" too they should receive the 500% hitpoint buff all the others got as well. 75 domis to suicide a freighter seams way more appropriate than 15 :D
DaHeaVYFo DEATH'S LEGION Chaos Incarnate.	Posted - 2007.05.05 09:34:00 - [118] Originally by: Tiberyya Za Quote: Guess we're back to killrights as a commodity then as there seems to be no way to counter this suicide gank. The damage comes from drones. Kill the drones (smartbomb) or disrupt the drones (ECM burst). Concord will eventually deal with the aggressor. smartbomb on the gate in Empire? funky.
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2007.05.05 09:45:00 - [119] Originally by: Gnulpie Obviously you are not doing any trading. Your points are all invalid for trading freighters. They are only valid for moving around valuable corp assests. No, they are valid for anyone in a PC corp. As most "trading freighters" are in NPC corps my points become invalid, but that problem is the NPC corpers', and not CCP's. Originally by: Gnulpie 1) Trading makes only sense if you earn the same or more isk as with other business like doing L4 missions. To counter such an heavy assault you would need lots of remote reppers, 1-2 ships wouldn't be enough. So that means that you must share the profits of the trade run with several more people. And that means that trading becomes not profitable any more. And that means end of trading. This isn't about maximizing profits, but about minimizing loss for the freighter pilot. A mission runner in high sec does have a minimal risk of losing his ship. A mission runner in low sec has a much greater risk. A freighter pilot in high sec had, until recently, practically no chance of ever losing the ship. That has now been changed. The freighter pilot must now accept a lower revenue in exchange for a higher security. Risk vs Reward. Just like it should be. Originally by: Gnulpie 2) See point 1. Escorts = more people necessary for a trade run = less profit per person = unacceptable isk/hour ratio. Two escorts will hardly cut into your profits enough to force you out of trading. If they will, you're not very good at trading. Originally by: Gnulpie Besides frighter flying is very boring. I want to see the people who happily escort a freighter 30 jumps. Do you say we need more stupid grinding here? As if pos warefare is not idiotic enough. So? I find mission running boring, but I have to do it to keep myself in the parts of the game I find fun. Mining is pretty boring if you ask me. Still, it has to be done to supply minerals to the market. Boring isn't an excuse for not protecting yourself. Originally by: Gnulpie If CCP wants freighter ganks or not, that is a complete different story. If they want it (and it is obviously that they want it because they introduced loot dropping) then people must adept. And people will adept, no doubt about this. In this case it means end of trading. You can be happy about this or you can regret it. But it is a simple conclusion that this will happen sooner or later. Nothing major will happen. At most, some prices will go up a bit, but that's nothing major. Prices are capped anyway by the reprocessing value of modules and ships. All this means is that lazy NPC corp traders will be forced into PC corps, or out of the business. It's a dog eat dog world, and I cry for you. Really. Originally by: Gnulpie You can argue that end of trade is bad for Eve, maybe. Maybe not. Who knows? I don't. But that is a complete different topic. The op said 'this is the end of trade in empire as we know it' and I fully agree. Yes, the sky is indeed falling. Originally by: Gnulpie You also agree, because you make several suggestions how to change the trade as we know it so that people are more safe from these ganks.... That's not really why I gave the suggestions. I gave them because: 1. People say that there is no way to protect a freighter from suicide ganks, and I proved them wrong. 2. I get tired of whining posts like this. /Ki Remember, kids: Beware: I'm a "viscous pirate"!
Marcus Tedric Gallente Tedric Enterprises	Posted - 2007.05.05 09:49:00 - [120] I have no problem with this - I just don't think it's balenced. I believe two simple changes would solve this: 1) Give freighters slots like any other ship - and adjust the stats so that they only reach current capacity by fitting a full rack of Cargo Expander IIs/Local Hulls - as a bonus - freighters suddenly become even more useful too. 2) Insurance payouts stop if you are the aggressor - everywhere. Then piracy has a higher risk where it needs to. When I went off to the Gulf the first time around I had to make some serious checks on my life insurance in a war zone. The answers came back.... Provided I didn't, personally, start the war myself then the insurance remained valid! But that was the one exclusion. So, I'm sorry - I didn't shoot ****** 17 years ago!

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

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