Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kailiani
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 07:42:00 -
[271]
Originally by: lecrotta Edited by: lecrotta on 07/06/2008 17:54:57
Originally by: Farrqua
So what are the chances of a certain Module to drop when the ship is destroyed?
Is there information somewhere we can actually see what CCP has used to determine how they determine what modules drop and what don't? And if it is based on a random generator of some kind we can probably find out what the real chance of loot being dropped.
It would help to understand what is the real risk/reward currently and what would be the projected risk/reward based on the proposal. And hey maybe we can find a middle ground? It wont make everyone happy because it is not what every one wants, and does not satisfy their "feelings" on the matter, but maybe able to live with it and accept that it was a balanced proposal?
From experience i can say that more gets destroyed than survives always, but the exact percentage is random i think as it seems to vary but never anywhere near 50% of the mods on a fully fitted ship normally 20-30%ish.
So claiming that a individual item has a 50% chance of dropping is utter b****cks.
Of the 9 kill mails I have, it seems 50% is fairly accurate. Will check kill mail boards right now.
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 09:11:00 -
[272]
Originally by: lecrotta Edited by: lecrotta on 07/06/2008 17:16:05
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Kailiani
Originally by: abbagabba
Not signed. You seem to be missing the bigger picture and are focused on your paticular playstyle, pimped mission running.
It only takes 1 very useful module, if you call that "pimped". A gist booster, 1B+ ISK for it. It's extremely useful on a torp setup nowadays since you need flight time/velocity rigs. This makes you a viable target even if the rest of your gear is T2. Hardly "pimped"...
And the fact that the module you are referring to has a very very slim chance of dropping is why insurance should not be removed.
And the fact that a 50% chance is anything but slim is why pretty much all arguments you make are invalid.
50%!!!!!!!!!!! on what planet pal???.
19 mod slots on a raven with only 1 worth anything and only a few of them dropping per kill is not 50%.
And thats why ALL the arguments you make are invalid.
I live in EVE, and I actually prefer crunching the numbers the entire game is based on over mindlessly ganking and making an idiot out of myself fighting a fight based on epic fail at math on the forum. And common lore as well as the killboard sampling I just did both say the loss chance for mods on ship destruction is pretty much exactly 50%. (And please if you sample too do not count rigs as those ALWAYS get destroyed and thus would skew the numbers. Also do not count the lines seperating slots, rigs and cargo, easily done as those have the same color as lost items at least on our kb...)
And just to waste a little education on you, how many modules a ship has fitted does in NO way change the chance of an individual mod dropping. It is a 50% chance either way. To illustrate it, you can toss one coin 1000 times, and then toss that coin with 20 others 1000 times. In both cases, you will get roughly 500 heads and 500 tails from that particular coin. This actually had to be explained to another suicide ganker not too long ago as well, which does give quite an insight into you guys' understanding of game mechanics...
Of course there will be variance, and it might even be that you never get the good stuff, but then that is due to you having extreme bad luck, too small sample size, or both. Personally I have the opposite, if I lose something and actually get to retrieve my loot, the more valuable things survive more often than not. This variance phenomenon doesn't change the base chance though.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 11:20:00 -
[273]
Edited by: lecrotta on 08/06/2008 11:24:40
Originally by: Leandro Salazar blah blah blah i wanna mission run in safety blah blah
Fixed that for ya.
Your coin example has nothing resembling the truth about suicide ganking and how often the high value mods drop other than on paper.
Your point about "Make suicide ganking more difficult!" is really "make suicide ganking pointless" unless a ship is fitted with several high value isk items (500 mil - 1 bil+) or its not worth it. As any ship with the standard caldari navy stuff fitted will not be worth going after at all without insurance.
Think of ganking like ratting, sometimes you get a normal drop that covers your costs and maybe makes you a few mil each but now and again a high value faction rat comes along and actually drops a module that gives you a nice payday say 200 or so million each. If it was as easy and as profitable as you claim it would be going on in every high lvl mission system every day 23/7 but the fact is its not.
In fact we have moved onto ganking freighters as its a bit easier if you go for those loaded with lots of varied items BECAUSE of how the loot drops although it takes a lot more of us to do.
|
Chris Vattic
Paxton Industries Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 11:34:00 -
[274]
Edited by: Chris Vattic on 08/06/2008 11:34:15 Eve really is a cold and dark world where you can get killed just for the giggles, but law paying people for whacking others under their eyes is a bit too much, yes. Signed --
|
Varelen
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 11:44:00 -
[275]
/signed |
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 12:20:00 -
[276]
Originally by: lecrotta Your point about "Make suicide ganking more difficult!" is really "make suicide ganking pointless" unless a ship is fitted with several high value isk items (500 mil - 1 bil+) or its not worth it. As any ship with the standard caldari navy stuff fitted will not be worth going after at all without insurance.
Think of ganking like ratting, sometimes you get a normal drop that covers your costs and maybe makes you a few mil each but now and again a high value faction rat comes along and actually drops a module that gives you a nice payday say 200 or so million each.
You got that right at least. I think it wrong that people should be subject to others pretty much destroying their entire gaming experience (ab)using unreasonable game mechanics, unless these people REALLY beg for it (like with 2 bil + setups). And your comparing ratting to suiciding shows how you really think. To you, highsec players are merely content, no different from NPCs. And the ONLY reason you fight for suiciding, spewing forth tons of failures at math and at understanding the game (or intentional lies) is so you can keep on harvesting this 'content'. Personally I find that disposition disgusting, but I guess it is fairly common in EVE. But while EVE is supposed to be fairly harsh compared to other games, this particular harshness should not be promoted imho. The huge difference between earning money missioning any earning money suiciding is that the latter destroys other peoples fun while the former does not. So yes, imho the former should be a lot more viable than the latter at least in highsec.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 12:58:00 -
[277]
Edited by: lecrotta on 08/06/2008 13:03:41 Edited by: lecrotta on 08/06/2008 13:02:22
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: lecrotta Your point about "Make suicide ganking more difficult!" is really "make suicide ganking pointless" unless a ship is fitted with several high value isk items (500 mil - 1 bil+) or its not worth it. As any ship with the standard caldari navy stuff fitted will not be worth going after at all without insurance.
Think of ganking like ratting, sometimes you get a normal drop that covers your costs and maybe makes you a few mil each but now and again a high value faction rat comes along and actually drops a module that gives you a nice payday say 200 or so million each.
You got that right at least. I think it wrong that people should be subject to others pretty much destroying their entire gaming experience (ab)using unreasonable game mechanics, unless these people REALLY beg for it (like with 2 bil + setups). And your comparing ratting to suiciding shows how you really think. To you, highsec players are merely content, no different from NPCs. And the ONLY reason you fight for suiciding, spewing forth tons of failures at math and at understanding the game (or intentional lies) is so you can keep on harvesting this 'content'. Personally I find that disposition disgusting, but I guess it is fairly common in EVE. But while EVE is supposed to be fairly harsh compared to other games, this particular harshness should not be promoted imho. The huge difference between earning money missioning any earning money suiciding is that the latter destroys other peoples fun while the former does not. So yes, imho the former should be a lot more viable than the latter at least in highsec.
You are missing the point.
If insurance is removed then so is the slight risk that mission runners with 500mil or less fittings have and that is the vast majority of them tbh.
Farming mission runners is already less than highly profitable if you add the time spent hunting into the equation, unless you get very lucky and get a " uber faction spawn" with no clue how to travel safe within minutes of setting up, and tbh in all my time that has never happened to me.
In fact Ive spent hours passively scanning ships only to run out of game time and log off with nothing to show for my time, and that happens a lot, a real lot actually. Your problem is you only see the 10 secs it takes to kill the ship not the hours or days it can take finding a worthy target.
PS: Got a 24 bil freighter a few days ago but only 4 bil dropped unfortunately and we were camping that system for nearly 2 days, see how it sucks?.
Now if entire stacks did not pop or survive..........
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 16:27:00 -
[278]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: lecrotta Your point about "Make suicide ganking more difficult!" is really "make suicide ganking pointless" unless a ship is fitted with several high value isk items (500 mil - 1 bil+) or its not worth it. As any ship with the standard caldari navy stuff fitted will not be worth going after at all without insurance.
Think of ganking like ratting, sometimes you get a normal drop that covers your costs and maybe makes you a few mil each but now and again a high value faction rat comes along and actually drops a module that gives you a nice payday say 200 or so million each.
You got that right at least. I think it wrong that people should be subject to others pretty much destroying their entire gaming experience (ab)using unreasonable game mechanics, unless these people REALLY beg for it (like with 2 bil + setups). And your comparing ratting to suiciding shows how you really think. To you, highsec players are merely content, no different from NPCs. And the ONLY reason you fight for suiciding, spewing forth tons of failures at math and at understanding the game (or intentional lies) is so you can keep on harvesting this 'content'. Personally I find that disposition disgusting, but I guess it is fairly common in EVE. But while EVE is supposed to be fairly harsh compared to other games, this particular harshness should not be promoted imho. The huge difference between earning money missioning any earning money suiciding is that the latter destroys other peoples fun while the former does not. So yes, imho the former should be a lot more viable than the latter at least in highsec.
I am one of the targets that these gankers target. I do not relish the idea of being that "special" target, but I do employ measures to make sure that I do not end up on some gankers kill mail.
I am not thrilled about this. What you are pushing is the removal of the edgy part of Eve that makes it what is I believe. I have been trying to get the core of what the true risk vs. reward and wanting to prove one way or another if the proposal is fair and balanced, or what the suicide gankers is doing has any real risk at all.
I looked at the kill mails on Battleclinic. Random kill mails and found it ranged every where from 18% to 50%. No rhyme or reason for any one module nor did I see any apparent special consideration for any Faction type loot that would be what the gankers are after.
I perused through about 40 mails excluding the rigs, and just looking a what modules were fit at the time of destruction. And from what I have found is that it is hit and miss at best.
But now reading your reply you have basically came out and said you are not after numbers nor really care. You are not looking at balance. You are looking for a one sided solution for a particular player base, yours.
That is too bad really.
|
Reachok
Tres Hombres
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 16:48:00 -
[279]
/signed Yes, remove insurance payouts from Concord kills.
|
Heria Herath
Green Men Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 18:12:00 -
[280]
|
|
Dray
Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 19:11:00 -
[281]
Originally by: Farrqua
I am one of the targets that these gankers target. I do not relish the idea of being that "special" target, but I do employ measures to make sure that I do not end up on some gankers kill mail.
I am not thrilled about this. What you are pushing is the removal of the edgy part of Eve that makes it what is I believe. I have been trying to get the core of what the true risk vs. reward and wanting to prove one way or another if the proposal is fair and balanced, or what the suicide gankers is doing has any real risk at all.
I looked at the kill mails on Battleclinic. Random kill mails and found it ranged every where from 18% to 50%. No rhyme or reason for any one module nor did I see any apparent special consideration for any Faction type loot that would be what the gankers are after.
I perused through about 40 mails excluding the rigs, and just looking a what modules were fit at the time of destruction. And from what I have found is that it is hit and miss at best.
But now reading your reply you have basically came out and said you are not after numbers nor really care. You are not looking at balance. You are looking for a one sided solution for a particular player base, yours.
That is too bad really.
Listen to this guy.
Just to be clear I'm not against voiding the insurance, what I'm against is people crying for a fix when nothing is broken I'd rather not lose the insurance as its a sign that something is broken, it isn't, all thats wrong is people want bailing out instead of sorting it out for themselves, there is no easy mode in Eve nor was there ever meant to be.
Also you need to understand that voiding insurance will never stop suicide ganking, only one thing can stop that and that's figuring out how to prevent it, which at the risk of repeating myself, again, is easy.
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 19:43:00 -
[282]
Originally by: Dray Also you need to understand that voiding insurance will never stop suicide ganking, only one thing can stop that and that's figuring out how to prevent it, which at the risk of repeating myself, again, is easy.
Well, the idea IS not to stop it entirely, just to make it less profitable on 'low-profile' targets.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
Lord WarATron
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 19:47:00 -
[283]
A Intresting issue.
One once side, the Ganker has already limited his risk due to insurance. And on the other the victim can do nothing since the ganker will have scanned his setup.
Suicide Ganking should stay, but something should add the risk back to the Gankers side. Just now, the risk/reward balance is not really there. --
Billion Isk Mission |
Dray
Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 20:32:00 -
[284]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: Dray Also you need to understand that voiding insurance will never stop suicide ganking, only one thing can stop that and that's figuring out how to prevent it, which at the risk of repeating myself, again, is easy.
Well, the idea IS not to stop it entirely, just to make it less profitable on 'low-profile' targets.
To be fair low profile targets aren't worth it, that's probably a deliberate attempt at disrupting someone due to an in game dispute where a war dec isn't an option or not preferred, or just straight forward griefing, but figuring out which is another problem as well.
|
Dray
Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 20:43:00 -
[285]
Originally by: Lord WarATron A Intresting issue.
One once side, the Ganker has already limited his risk due to insurance. And on the other the victim can do nothing since the ganker will have scanned his setup.
Suicide Ganking should stay, but something should add the risk back to the Gankers side. Just now, the risk/reward balance is not really there.
A valid point but I'd argue the time spent waiting to find the right target is in itself risk vs reward, not a real risk in the sense of word but your time waiting while you could be doing something else is already costing you isk, I've spent upwards of 3 hours plus a frequent number of times in a gang waiting for the right target that ultimately never came.
I'll still argue my point that prevention is easy though and that in itself should be enough, I'd even live with no insurance because when you are selective even no insurance only hurts your return a little, but I've already said it wouldn't stop me so I don't see as a good preventative measure, the whole crux of the matter for me is that prevention is so simple.
|
cain mjolnir
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 20:50:00 -
[286]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: Dray Also you need to understand that voiding insurance will never stop suicide ganking, only one thing can stop that and that's figuring out how to prevent it, which at the risk of repeating myself, again, is easy.
Well, the idea IS not to stop it entirely, just to make it less profitable on 'low-profile' targets.
Hey Problem solved gankers don't generally go for low profile targets cause they risk losing sec status that needs to be regained from hours of ratting.
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 20:50:00 -
[287]
Originally by: Dray
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: Dray Also you need to understand that voiding insurance will never stop suicide ganking, only one thing can stop that and that's figuring out how to prevent it, which at the risk of repeating myself, again, is easy.
Well, the idea IS not to stop it entirely, just to make it less profitable on 'low-profile' targets.
To be fair low profile targets aren't worth it, that's probably a deliberate attempt at disrupting someone due to an in game dispute where a war dec isn't an option or not preferred, or just straight forward griefing, but figuring out which is another problem as well.
Actually it is more likely that our definitions of low-profile targets are quite different. An entirely navy fit CNR with not a single deadspace mod is a low profile target imho, yet under the current system would be profitable to suicide. And that is what I think is wrong.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
Dray
Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 21:03:00 -
[288]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: Dray
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: Dray Also you need to understand that voiding insurance will never stop suicide ganking, only one thing can stop that and that's figuring out how to prevent it, which at the risk of repeating myself, again, is easy.
Well, the idea IS not to stop it entirely, just to make it less profitable on 'low-profile' targets.
To be fair low profile targets aren't worth it, that's probably a deliberate attempt at disrupting someone due to an in game dispute where a war dec isn't an option or not preferred, or just straight forward griefing, but figuring out which is another problem as well.
Actually it is more likely that our definitions of low-profile targets are quite different. An entirely navy fit CNR with not a single deadspace mod is a low profile target imho, yet under the current system would be profitable to suicide. And that is what I think is wrong.
Your right that our views differ on low profile targets, our gangs certainly wouldn't gank that type of ship, if no insurance prevented those types of ganks then i'll support it, theres a lot of suicide ganks happening and I'm not doing it atm because people are getting wise and its a lot harder to find the right target, so it's in my intrest to stop it asap.
But once again I'll argue that prevention is easy.
|
Mjedesiin
Pvar Group
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 21:40:00 -
[289]
Edited by: Mjedesiin on 08/06/2008 21:42:52 remove insurance - remove zero cost ganking.
far as i'm concerned, remove it entirely from the game.
|
Dray
Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 21:56:00 -
[290]
Originally by: Mjedesiin Edited by: Mjedesiin on 08/06/2008 21:42:52 remove insurance - remove zero cost ganking.
far as i'm concerned, remove it entirely from the game.
Why remove it from the game?
Work as a team, have fun finding and implementing solutions and put the M in Multi player.
You can run missions solo and make isk but the game is a MMO and sooner or later you're going to have to make friends to move on in the game.
|
|
Shaitis
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 09:15:00 -
[291]
"What is funnier ? 20 Matari slaves pinned to one tree or 1 Matari slave pinned to 20 trees ? |
marie blueprint
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 12:09:00 -
[292]
gankers suck and fear this thread
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Terra Incognita.
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 12:15:00 -
[293]
Ive done a bit of ganking in empire over the years and the risk/time/reward does not lend itself to removing insurance at all, well unless your a total empire carebear mission runner looking for a 100% safe environment.
In fact the gankers need a boost as less and less empire rats are dropping faction loot.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Morgenrei
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 13:42:00 -
[294]
No insurance payout.
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 15:22:00 -
[295]
Originally by: Morgenrei No insurance payout.
I agree. Mission runners should not get insurance. |
Banedon Runestar
The Phalanx Expeditionary Conglomerate The Gemini Project
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 16:28:00 -
[296]
Yes, a thousand times, yes! |
Mistress Suffering
Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 01:26:00 -
[297]
No insurance for Concord kills (which is really what he proposes) is fine.
|
Kasheem Cetanes
coracao ardente
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 08:00:00 -
[298]
Suicide Ganking ISN'T POSSIBLE, if the people piloting their ships aren't DUMB. I mean, seriously, warp to Zero and align in less than ohhh. 10 seconds.
It takes me .5 seconds to lock + 2 seconds lag, plus 2.5 seconds to scan your cargo / your fittings then another 2 to 5 seconds to make a call. Then my mate takes another 2 seconds to lock you and then scram / blow you away. If your hauler doesn't take, oh 20 seconds to align and warp you are PROBABLY fine. However, if you are afk autopiloting. I mean, its your own damn fault if you are auto-piloting in a hauler filled with minerals through high sec, or in a shuttle filled with CAPITAL SKILLS AND IMPLANTS. |
Hank Cousteau
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 08:15:00 -
[299]
If your partner isn't scanning in the system before, you're doing it wrong. That reasoning is pretty artificial.
Support some kind of insurance penalty, even if is minor such as adding +1% of cost per full minus one sec rating (so maxes out at 43% cost). Also advocate the doubling of sec loss per attack/kill/podding, it's absurd you can kill over a dozen people before forced out of high-sec.
|
Dagas Hunter
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 21:50:00 -
[300]
I support this, it doesn't make sense that the insurance company should pay you when CONCORD shoots you down since it's effectively 100 % chance that your ship is doomed when they show up so and insurance is supposed to protect people from accidents etc. not when they choose to deliberately loose their ship, also destroying your own ship should be considered insurance fraud just like IRL.
The insurance companies in EVE are total suckers since they have no rules at all except that you can't repackage the item. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |