EVE Search - Missions - nowadays impossible with faction equipment ?

All Channels

Missions & Complexes

Missions - nowadays impossible with faction equipment ?

» 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 .. 12 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tsanse Kinske WeMeanYouKnowHarm	Posted - 2008.03.04 20:07:00 - [91] Originally by: Ulstan Originally by: Sendraks Originally by: Ulstan All the risk is on the shoulders of the mission runner, all the reward on the side of the gankers You also don't understand risk vs reward. The mission runners overall risk is far lower than that of suicide gankers for what they gain. That is a fact. Wrong. Math isn't that hard, is it? Let's examine this particular scenario mentioned by the OP (expensive mission running raven jumps through gate, gets jumped by 6 suicide gank ravens). Risk for mission runner: ~1,000,000,000 worth of equipment/ship Reward for mission runner if he survives the gank: ~0 Cumulative risk for 6 suicide gankers: ~90m Reward for suicide gankers if they succeed: ~500,000,000 How exactly is that balanced risk vs reward? It's not. All the risk is on the shoulders of the mission runner, all the reward on the side of the gankers That's paying attention to only part of the story though. Not only are you ignoring the cumulative time and effort involved on the part of the gankers and focusing on just immediate isk, but the primary reason that this is so profitable and low risk is because they can always count on careless target to make it so. This really goes back to the OP's original point: No, it might not be worthwhile to fit a bunch of expensive faction modules on your mission ship, not if you're unwilling to make a lot of effort to protect it, scouting, working with others, and limiting how and where you run missions. It's just another thing to factor into your decision making. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams, writing about EVE
Durzel Caldari	Posted - 2008.03.04 20:09:00 - [92] Originally by: Leandro Salazar The big problem with suicide ganking imho is that there is jack all that the victim can do about it. Therein lies the rub. If you're in low-sec you know there's no Concord so you know what the dangers are. I fully recognise that people can take precautions to minimise the risk of being attacked in high-sec, but as already mentioned even with the best of intentions and "non-stupid" player at the helm the only thing this guy did wrong was gate into a busy system. Once he was in, that was it - nothing he could do, he even said he activated his hardeners and booster but ultimately 6 torp volleys are going to negate that quite spectacularly. A modest solution to this would simply be to void insurance payouts for Concordokken'd ships. Then, in this instance, a ~100M outlay for all 6 ships & fittings would turn into a ~500M outlay - making suicide ganks more about choosing targets rather than anyone who happens to have a Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field, for example. Suicide ganking is a valid tactic, profiteering to the extent which is currently possible due to insurance payouts - shouldn't be.
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves Black Star Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.04 20:10:00 - [93] Originally by: Thmaist Edited by: Thmaist on 04/03/2008 20:04:33 Edited by: Thmaist on 04/03/2008 20:03:30 Originally by: Leandro Salazar Some traders are actually worse than you guys... Thing is, the other forms (and even mission running is one, I run faster = I get more ISK = I inflate your prices) spread the grief on the shoulder of many others, such seriously dampening the impact. A suicide gank crashes it all square onto one player, hence the effect is a lot more ruinous. So what you're saying is: It's morally acceptable to grief many people at once, whereas inflicting suffering on just one person is ethically and morally inexcusable. Your logic is riddled with holes sir! Riddled! In fact, so far your reasoning would seem to make you a morally bankrupt hypocrite, according to your own criteria. I bet you're the kind of person that would justify experimentation on children on the principle that the research could save one person's life aren't you? I knew it! Exactly. Just like the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, the suffering of the many is preferable to the suffering of the few. Oh and lets bring RL analogies into it! Like the footie player who does many small fouls spread over all opposing players and maybe gets booked, if at all, versus the guy that jumps into one enemy player, breaks his leg, and get sent off! There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Scorpion There is no 'e' in Caldari There is no makeup in rogue drones
Thmaist Shinra Shinra Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.04 20:11:00 - [94] Originally by: Durzel Once he was in, that was it - nothing he could do, he even said he activated his hardeners and booster but ultimately 6 torp volleys are going to negate that quite spectacularly. He thought there was nothing he could do. He was wrong. At least three separate things would have all ensured his survival. (and no i'm not being a smart-arse and talking about surrendering or ejecting etc)
Durzel Caldari	Posted - 2008.03.04 20:16:00 - [95] Originally by: Thmaist Originally by: Durzel Once he was in, that was it - nothing he could do, he even said he activated his hardeners and booster but ultimately 6 torp volleys are going to negate that quite spectacularly. He thought there was nothing he could do. He was wrong. At least three separate things would have all ensured his survival. (and no i'm not being a smart-arse and talking about surrendering or ejecting etc) But do those things involve having a PvP fit? I know of the cloak/MWD trick - people generally don't fit cloaks/MWDs for missioning. He could've logoffski'd (I guess), though I imagine he would've attracted the sort of abuse usually heaped on pirates. Piloting back towards the gate? I'm guessing he wouldn't have made it due to the alpha strike, it'd take a Raven longer than the Concord response time to about face and head back towards the gate travelling 10-15km (assuming not webbed/scrambled).
Thmaist Shinra Shinra Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.04 20:19:00 - [96] Originally by: Durzel But do those things involve having a PvP fit? Nope.
Durzel Caldari	Posted - 2008.03.04 20:25:00 - [97] Well, I'll most likely never guess. :) For what it's worth I don't have a problem with suicide ganking - I see it as a valid game mechanic all things considered, and I'm currently 100% carebear. That said, I do think the risk/reward for it currently from the aggressors POV is a bit skewed - you know you're going to lose your ships in the attack, but the profits due to insurance vs ship/fitting cost make it too easy - especially when the payout itself exceeds the market value of the ship.
Qui Shon	Posted - 2008.03.04 20:28:00 - [98] Originally by: Shinigami After a few suicide ganks you have to go spend a week in 0.0 bringing your sec status back up. It's the same thing. Half the ships we suicided dropped nothing of value. Only about 25% of the kills are really profitable. That paragraph seems like a bunch of lies to me. The first sentence for certain. Unless you're doing it in an Ibis of course. Insurance in regards to suicide ganking is broken, because it's virtually free to suicide your BS. That's all there is to it. CCP better make some cost adjustment fairly soon, unless they want to reduce PvE player population. Then again, perhaps they do want that, who knows. Suiciding is also a misnomer, since nobody dies, and nothing of value is lost, on the part of the "suicide" attacker. Malcanis sig about Concord providing consequences rings more hollow every day, so much so that claiming they provide consequences begins to look like a lie as well. Concord do not provide consequences, they only make you use T1 gear when you plan to encounter them.
Thmaist Shinra Shinra Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.04 20:33:00 - [99] Originally by: Qui Shon CCP better make some cost adjustment fairly soon, unless they want to reduce PvE player population. Just thought i'd point something out... I've seen that repeated for 4 years. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there are still a couple of subscribers to this game and of them, one or two seem to be in high sec, I think there's even someone doing pve! Who could've guessed?
Case Mass Griefers On Demand And More	Posted - 2008.03.04 20:36:00 - [100] I've got a serious issue with suicide ganking. 1) You've increased the ammount of tanked nubbins carrying MY lucky charms. 2) You've copied a play style that was not all that well known until probably that Karma video and victims finally piping up wondering how they ended at their destination in a pod. 3) Now I have more competition (in which case, just lastnight someone ganked the hauler I was going to gank. WTF get your own territory, but I still got me lucky charms!) Death to all who steal my lucky charms! I provide independance to the expensive goods you carry or use against their will. They just choose to go back on the market after I pick them up.
Hugh Ruka Caldari Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.03.04 20:37:00 - [101] Originally by: Shinigami After a few suicide ganks you have to go spend a week in 0.0 bringing your sec status back up. It's the same thing. Half the ships we suicided dropped nothing of value. Only about 25% of the kills are really profitable. So what you basicaly said: After a few suicide ganks you have to go back to 0.0 into alliance protected space to rat your heart out. It is less profitable than the last gank, so you are **ed off you have to rat your sec status back up. Originally by:** Aravel Thon Originally by: Nith Batoxxx Hi my alt just leanred to fly the ferox............... I am so so terribly sorry...
Qui Shon	Posted - 2008.03.04 20:52:00 - [102] Edited by: Qui Shon on 04/03/2008 20:54:46 Originally by: Thmaist Originally by: Qui Shon CCP better make some cost adjustment fairly soon, unless they want to reduce PvE player population. Just thought i'd point something out... I've seen that repeated for 4 years. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there are still a couple of subscribers to this game and of them, one or two seem to be in high sec, I think there's even someone doing pve! Who could've guessed? Yeah, and CCP have made some adjustments in the past, including but not limited to: -evading concord is an exploit -smartbombs outside of stations -remote repping get's you flagged -wardec cost I'm sure you can think of more things that have been changed, more or less in order to retain and grow CCP's largest playerbase, during your four years in Eve. Hopefully some form of insurance adjustment can be added to that list soon.
Mangus Thermopyle Divine Retribution Divine 0rder	Posted - 2008.03.04 21:13:00 - [103] CCP will fix this problem as well for various reasons (risk-vs-reward, no counters, etc) but the bottom line is that they will lose subscribers if this continues. Remember m00 anyone? Or privateers 50 wardecs? As in this case, those problems was that griefers could grief without any risk and lots of reward. And CCP fixed it. At the very least I think CCP will remove insurance payout for ships that is killed by concord. They will probably also make concord faster to respond.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.03.04 21:19:00 - [104] Quote: That's paying attention to only part of the story though. Not only are you ignoring the cumulative time and effort involved on the part of the gankers and focusing on just immediate isk, but the primary reason that this is so profitable and low risk is because they can always count on careless target to make it so. None of that changes the risks vs rewards of a suicide gank encounter, and I am paying attention to all of the story that matters. Suicide gankers do not risk anything near the victim does, nor does the victim stand to gain any kind of reward if successful, while the suicide gankers stand to gain all kinds of rewards. Hence, the risk vs reward is completely broken. If the guy with the expensive multi billion isk faction ship is tricksy and has a couple logistics ships in the offing and manages to beat back the suicide gankers, has he hurt them as much as they would have hurt him if they had been successful? No. Does he get a reward proportional to the reward they would have got if they'd killed him? Nope. It sounds like you're trying to evaluate the profitability over time of suicide ganking as a profession compared to the profitability over time of mission running as a profession, which is another question entirely. An intriguing one, to be sure, since your profit when suicide ganking is largely dependeng on how many idiots are out there afk hauling :p
Sendraks TOHA Heavy Industries	Posted - 2008.03.04 21:38:00 - [105] Originally by: Ulstan It sounds like you're trying to evaluate the profitability over time of suicide ganking as a profession compared to the profitability over time of mission running as a profession, which is another question entirely. It is the ONLY question when comparing risk vs reward in this context. Everything else is sub question concerning this particular "careers."
Carniflex Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.03.04 21:43:00 - [106] Well in my opinion suicide ganking is part of the game. Ofc getting full insurance payout is a bit silly but insurance in general is a bit silly process in this game in my opinion. When one is investing in his mission running setup it is investment like anything else. It is wise to evaluate potential effectivity gain vs payback time vs loss propablity. What recent ganks have pointed out is that loss propability has another factor in it in addition to NPC induced propabilities and thus loss propablity is higher. It is possible to minimize loss propablity against gank by going into less popular mission running locale however that usually lowers the missionrunner average reward or iks/h. Thus it is question if few percents lower loss propablity is worth reduced reward or added hassle. Mission running is not 'risk free' even without suicide ganks, regardless of popular belief that it is so. As far as possible solutions for the problem (until CCP decides do so something about it, if they do decide that) is indeed already presented in the title. Faction gadgets make missionrunning a lot more effective, but it is wise to avoid faction/officer fits that add a lot to price but not enough into effectivity (like CN invul fields or gist boosters). It is possible also to use alternate setups and to switch into affordable setup as soon as you hear scanning sound. Scanner does quite specific sound that is easily spotted if you play with sound even if scanner is using passive targeter. Altho granted that might not quite work in locales with heavy population. There is also other alternatives available, like using Golem with javelin torps (full T2 except 4x CN BCU's) instead of CNR or bringing wingman into mission (2x T2 fited regular ravens are faster in mission than one faction pimped CNR). In general I have to agree with Ulstan. Ganking is not the real problem, real problem is the insurance where some NPC corp is covering the risk for gankers. Altho at the end of day it's still just relatively simple math where gankers have to evaluate propablity of getting those fitted modules vs the cost of their setups.
Tsanse Kinske WeMeanYouKnowHarm	Posted - 2008.03.04 21:55:00 - [107] @Ulstan: So as long as multiple pilots can kill one pilot profitably and without much risk in hisec, there's a problem? It doesn't matter to you how much time and effort the gankers take, nor what measures the gankee takes to protect his stuff? Or is there a balance point for you as well? Are you one of the people who think this would be addressed through changing insurance? Quote: It sounds like you're trying to evaluate the profitability over time of suicide ganking as a profession compared to the profitability over time of mission running as a profession, which is another question entirely. No, not really. Which is fortunate because it's not quantifiable. What I'm saying is that arguing over profitability is a red herring, and no more useful than complaining that experienced traders make money off of inexperienced ones, that scammers make money off of the gullible, or that organized groups make mincemeat out of soloers. For what it's worth, in a perfect world, I'd rather Wardecs were less limited and suicide ganks more, but until things like NPC corps get drastically changed, I'm largely satisfied with this. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams, writing about EVE
Jmanis Catharg Caldari Stickler inc	Posted - 2008.03.04 22:41:00 - [108] Edited by: Jmanis Catharg on 04/03/2008 22:41:53 Y'know,, this might sound completely daft, but if a ship and Combat fittings to the value of 2 billion isk cannot stop 240 mil worth of aggressors, what the heck justifies it's pricetag?
Tsanse Kinske WeMeanYouKnowHarm	Posted - 2008.03.04 22:56:00 - [109] Originally by: Jmanis Catharg Edited by: Jmanis Catharg on 04/03/2008 22:41:53 Y'know,, this might sound completely daft, but if a ship and Combat fittings to the value of 2 billion isk cannot stop 240 mil worth of aggressors, what the heck justifies it's pricetag? It's not daft, but it's the same issue as anywhere else in the game. #Pilots scales a lot better than iskies, That's mostly a really good thing as far as I'm concerned. It does illustrate the problem with PvE fits being so different than PvP fits, but compared to the teamwork problem that's a side issue. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams, writing about EVE
Guillame Herschel Gallente The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.03.04 23:46:00 - [110] Originally by: Durzel Removal of insurance for ships destroyed by Concord is the most practical and logical solution imo. So people who mistakenly shoot at a mission structure they shouldn't will lose their ships to Concord with no insurance payout. People in different corps who are ganged together in high sec will lose their ships with no insurance if they mistakenly use a gun or drone on a wreck instead of a tractor or salvager. I've never aggressed another player in high sec, but I've lost ships to Concord. *-- The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then. --*
Jmanis Catharg Caldari Stickler inc	Posted - 2008.03.05 00:06:00 - [111] Quote: So people who mistakenly shoot at a mission structure they shouldn't will lose their ships to Concord with no insurance payout. It's incredibly simple to distinguish between player stuff and NPC stuff, they already do it in the overview. So you could have the best of both worlds, recieve payout from concord if they make a mistake vs npcs and not recieve it other way round. Personally tho, I've attacked neutral (non outlaw) NPC structures and never been concorded, I'm fairly certain this is an urban myth,,, but that's off topic.
Jessica Darkke	Posted - 2008.03.05 00:35:00 - [112] The only thing that really needs altering here is the insurance payout on a raven. It is an anomaly that cost of producing a raven + insurance < insurance payout. AFAIK there is no other ship with this odd little equation applicable. The cost of ravens has gone down a lot and the insurance payout has not altered to match. When will the isurance company wake up? This is an insane economic situation.
Qui Shon	Posted - 2008.03.05 00:37:00 - [113] Originally by: Guillame Herschel Originally by: Durzel Removal of insurance for ships destroyed by Concord is the most practical and logical solution imo. So people who mistakenly shoot at a mission structure they shouldn't will lose their ships to Concord with no insurance payout. People in different corps who are ganged together in high sec will lose their ships with no insurance if they mistakenly use a gun or drone on a wreck instead of a tractor or salvager. I've never aggressed another player in high sec, but I've lost ships to Concord. I always get the warning, something along the lines of: Warning, you are about to commit a criminal act, blabla, Yes/No? That's when trying to shoot something I'm not supposed to shoot, or rep something I'm not supposed to rep. This warning also prevents the offending module from activating until I click Yes/No on the warning. How is it you do not get this warning?
Qui Shon	Posted - 2008.03.05 00:46:00 - [114] Originally by: Jessica Darkke The only thing that really needs altering here is the insurance payout on a raven. It is an anomaly that cost of producing a raven + insurance < insurance payout. AFAIK there is no other ship with this odd little equation applicable. The cost of ravens has gone down a lot and the insurance payout has not altered to match. When will the isurance company wake up? This is an insane economic situation. That's not the case at all. Last I checked, which was a month or two ago, I could make at least two other 850-1050+ dps (pure T1 fit to a few very cheap named mods and overloading) battleships that will cost me from as little as 0 isk at best and 15mil isk at worst after payout. Including insurance cost, bpc, plenty of ammo for the job, and all the modules needed or wanted. That's bloody broken, and it's not unique or an anomaly. It's crappy game mechanics that should have been changed a long time ago.
Sasha Renforth	Posted - 2008.03.05 00:57:00 - [115] Fitting faction hardeners on a mission is not necessary. Even the tough ones you can get out by using your light drones to kill the scramblers and overload your mods. Mission running is not meant to be easy but quite doable with T2 and good skills. If not, go do something else like gank Shinra in low sec. Gankers like lame Shinra look for easy marks. Turn the tables on them. I am sure a few BS waiting in the undock area of their favorite station would ruin their day :)
Shinigami Gallente Shinra Shinra Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.05 01:03:00 - [116] Originally by: Sasha Renforth I am sure a few BS waiting in the undock area of their favorite station would ruin their day :) We live in Delve. Please come join us soon.
Jmanis Catharg Caldari Stickler inc	Posted - 2008.03.05 01:39:00 - [117] Quote: raven + insurance < insurance payout. You realise that it's actually not a problem, and that at the same time you are wrong. If this is the case, then point me to these ravens please and the stupid indy selling them so cheap. I'll buy and self destruct as many as I can right now and make a fortune and guess what, problem solved :) If this isn't the case, then well, yeah, you're wrong. Quote: I always get the warning, something along the lines of: Warning, you are about to commit a criminal act, blabla, Yes/No? That's when trying to shoot something I'm not supposed to shoot, or rep something I'm not supposed to rep. This warning also prevents the offending module from activating until I click Yes/No on the warning. How is it you do not get this warning? Yup, I always get that message to. Did you read it rather than just summarise it to "Blabla"? You'll get aggro from the NPC faction who owns it, but CONCORD won't come stomp you. Try it at a gate with NPC customs. You'll get a whipping from the turrets, customs etc. but CONCORD won't show.
Lilan Kahn Amarr The Littlest Hobos Insurgency	Posted - 2008.03.05 03:07:00 - [118] sucide ganking is good it creats a demand for faction items "Bringing Content to you 1 round of ammo at a time"
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.03.05 03:53:00 - [119] Quote: So people who mistakenly shoot at a mission structure they shouldn't will lose their ships to Concord with no insurance payout. People in different corps who are ganged together in high sec will lose their ships with no insurance if they mistakenly use a gun or drone on a wreck instead of a tractor or salvager. I've never aggressed another player in high sec, but I've lost ships to Concord. There's always someone to trot out this nonsense. As far as coding is concerned, it would be trivial to distinguish between suicide gankers and a missioner who manages to smartbomb a mission structure. I'm not saying CCP should or shouldn't change insurance in this way, just that it's daft to assume the only options are "Insurance for everyone" or "insurance for no one"
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.03.05 04:30:00 - [120] Compare this to a hypothetical situation in which, say, people managed to figure out a way to quickly and easily kill carriers using a handful of pilots in IBIS or something. The risk vs reward for that situation would clearly be very badly out of tune. And saying "Well yes but people flying IBIS make less money than people flying carriers" wouldn't be any sort of defense at all.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: 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.