EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2012-08-15 14:49
  • First Forum Visit: 2012-11-13 14:35
  • Number of Posts: 17
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 11

Aesil Maril

Security Status 0.0
  • Destructive Brothers Member since
  • Brothers of Tangra Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • WTS Erebus BPC in EVE Marketplace

    Retracted, I managed to get a ME2 for quite cheaper.

  • WTS Erebus BPC in EVE Marketplace

    I'm willing to offer 3b for it. Let me know if you are interested.

  • ★★ WTS TITAN & SUPER BPC ★★ Erebus | Leviathan | Ragnarok | Nyx | Aeon in EVE Marketplace

    I'd need the Erebus BPC. Contact me to arrange everything.

  • [Finished] Scorpion Ishukone Watch in EVE Marketplace

    Bumping this on top.

  • [Finished] Scorpion Ishukone Watch in EVE Marketplace

    Bumping this thing yo.

  • [Finished] Scorpion Ishukone Watch in EVE Marketplace

    Bumping this sweet ship up on top.

  • [Finished] Scorpion Ishukone Watch in EVE Marketplace

    Well then, why aren't you looking elsewhere? For this one the start price is 18 bil. But thx for the bump anyway.

  • [Finished] Scorpion Ishukone Watch in EVE Marketplace

    Start price is 18 bil. But thanks for the free bump.

  • [Finished] Scorpion Ishukone Watch in EVE Marketplace

    Auction closed, ship no longer for sale.



    Quote:
    This ship was given as prize at the Fanfest PVP tournament and there are only 81 of them in the game. It's the perfect addition to any rare ship collection and you will enjoy the black and gold of Ishukone.

    Location: Jita 4-4
    Start price: 18b
    Buyout price: 22b

    Auction ends on the 28/08/2013 at 18:00 EVE time.

  • [CSM8] Ripard Teg for CSM8 in Council of Stellar Management

    Ripard Teg wrote:
    Aesil Maril wrote:
    Are you advocating that equal amounts of ISK spent should be a prerequisite of combat (ISK tanking) and should different rules with regards to the concept of diminishing returns apply in highsec, lowsec and nullsec?
    No, not all combat. I'm say that this concept should apply to ganking. You should not be able to gank a 200m ISK ship with a 5m ISK ship. A group of 5m ISK ships fine; one such ship, no. The risk-reward is slanted much too far in favor of the ganker otherwise, because the ganker can try ten times, fail nine of them, succeed on the tenth and still come out ahead. Until the mining barges were buffed, ganking miners was a risk-free endeavor with a guaranteed profit.

    I was pretty sure that gankers themselves were against risk-free endeavors, but perhaps I was mistaken.


    Why should this rule apply in certain types of combat and in others not? I fail to see the reason. What is the difference between an interceptor or assault frigate killing a Talos battlecruiser and a destroyer ganking a Mackinaw? In both cases if the pilot of the cheap ship (frigate or destroyer) is competent there is a low risk of getting killed, and even if they do get killed their loss is small iskwise. Yet according to you there is a difference between these two pilots, as if one of them is participating in 'true combat' and thus deserving the advantage of his enemy suffering from diminishing returns on the isk invested in his ship while the other pilot participates in second rate or less worthy combat and thus not deserving the advantage of diminishing returns and his target having the advantage of ISK tanking.
    Are there, in your opinion, different types of combat, some more deserving and others less deserving of a spot under the sun and which authority you think should decide on which types of combats are allowed and/or more deserving of existing in EVE?

  • [CSM8] Ripard Teg for CSM8 in Council of Stellar Management

    Part 2

    I have also called in question your statement of 'gankers have many more ISK and SP than their targets, by and large' and the example of the T1 hauler driven by a newbie player with all his possessions inside being ganked by a ganking Thrasher and making the new pilot quit EVE. To be more precise I wrote:

    Aesil Maril wrote:
    I disagree with your conclusion that gankers have much more ISK and SPs then their targets. And also with the conclusion that they are new players and that they are poor. A new and poor player will not mine with Hulk or Mackinaw. Or drive a freighter. He will have to skill intensely to get in those ships and have money to buy them. I would expect that by this time they would be versed enough in EVE to know that they have to tank their ships. By admission of the gankers themselves, they do not attack tanked ships, they go for those that are untanked because they are easier pray. The example you have depicted, the 50 mil T1 hauler containing all the ISK of a newbie player essentially does not happen. It might have happened a few years ago but all the nerfs to ganking have made it essentially dissapear. A ganker will not go trough all the trouble that a gank these days ensues for the eventual profit of 50 mil. Even if such a situation would occur, however unlikely, I would still like to point out that your assertion that the ganker has more ISK and SP then the T1 hauler would still be flawed. The T1 hauler and the Thrasher are more or less in the same price range and the skill requirements to fly both effectively are within the reach of a few days training for any newbie pilot.


    My objection was that what that you propose is ISK tanking which favors rich, old players much more then new ones. Since what you wave said so far, in my eyes, appears as effectively a proposal for ISK tanking, I would like your direct and non mercurial statement as a CSM candidate: are you advocating that equal amounts of ISK spent should be a prerequisite of combat (ISK tanking) and should different rules with regards to the concept of diminishing returns apply in highsec, lowsec and nullsec?

    I believe my questions are fair. They are directly related to your CSM candidate platform and what you have stated so far during your campaign. If I say that I want direct and non mercurial answers, I hope you will not take it as an insult, for it was not meant as such. I merely think that you have not given clear answers to these questions and I feel that as a CSM candidate you should answer these questions in order to clarify your stance with regards to it, for both your benefit and the benefit of the voters. Therefore I would reiterate my request to have these questions answered now, during the CSM campaign, and not later, after the elections.

  • [CSM8] Ripard Teg for CSM8 in Council of Stellar Management

    Part 1

    Again, because of my wish to quote as much as possible for reference, I will split this post in two parts.

    Ripard Teg wrote:
    Aesil Maril wrote:
    Since it would seem you have returned to this thread Ripard, I'd ask once more for a reply to my posts:

    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2654778#post2654778

    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2654781#post2654781
    I've answered this question as much as I'm going to, for now. I understand what the Order is doing and I'm philosophically sympathetic to the idea. But there's no evidence that's been presented to me that what the Order is doing comprises all ganking, or even the majority of ganking. Hell, the entire history of the alliance is only... what... three months? That's why I'm trying to learn more about this topic.


    It would seem that you are under the mistaken idea that I belong to the New Order of James315. Such an assumption would be incorrect, for I am not a member of it. I am however deeply worried about the direction EVE is heading to after the last nerfs to ganking and highsec agression. I have proven, by quoting the relevant sources, that there is ample evidence for stating that currently highsec is at a historically low level of agression. Just so you don't have to go to my threads and reread them, I will write it down again:

    Aesil Maril wrote:
    I must correct myself, the actual quote says: "For reasons that are left as an exercise to the reader, Exhumers are now blowing up at historically low rates." [CCP Meeting minutes, December 2012, p104]
    As far as I'm aware, the only thing that has changed in the meantime that could account for that is the buff to mining ship tank.


    Aesil Maril wrote:
    As far as the impact of the changes to Crimewatch on other types of ganking, it was not discussed, but seeing as it has essentially been a drastic nerf to ganking I would assume that the amount of other types of highsec gankings has gone down dramatically as well. According to Eve-kill, in the last 7 days 14 freighters and and JFs have been killed in highsec, and only one of them has been victim to a suicide gank, all the rest have been victims to wardecs or faction warfare.
    (the post was written on the 22.02, so the 7 day period referred in the quite above refers to the period between the 15th and 22nd)

    You had questioned the truthfulness of my statement and requested for a quote. I have given it. Now I would like a firm and non mercurial answer to my original question. If the current state of highsec security is still not sufficient (albeit highsec ganking and aggression are at an all time low), what level would be acceptable according to you and would that level represent either formal or de facto aggression free highsec? This assertion is part of your CSM platform and I would like a direct answer.

  • [CSM8] Ripard Teg for CSM8 in Council of Stellar Management

    Since it would seem you have returned to this thread Ripard, I'd ask once more for a reply to my posts:

    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2654778#post2654778

    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2654781#post2654781

  • [CSM8] Ripard Teg for CSM8 in Council of Stellar Management

    Part 2

    Ripard Teg wrote:
    Aesil Maril wrote:
    ...according to CCP we are at an all time low in EVE history as far as all types of ganking in highsec are concerned.


    If this is true -- and I'd love to have a link to your source -- then I'd say this is because of the difficulty in getting the loot away from the victims rather than an inherent nerf to the ability of gankers to kill their targets. CCP is trying to take the profit out of the endeavor. Once there's a tankier T1 hauler (something I also endorse), I suspect the previous equilibrium is going to reestablish itself since the gankers will be able to use these to scoop their loot and escape before they themselves can be ganked.


    I must correct myself, the actual quote says: "For reasons that are left as an exercise to the reader, Exhumers are now blowing up at historically low rates." [CCP Meeting minutes, December 2012, p104]
    As far as I'm aware, the only thing that has changed in the meantime that could account for that is the buff to mining ship tank. As far as the impact of the changes to Crimewatch on other types of ganking, it was not discussed, but seeing as it has essentially been a drastic nerf to ganking I would assume that the amount of other types of highsec gankings has gone down dramatically as well. According to Eve-kill, in the last 7 days 14 freighters and and JFs have been killed in highsec, and only one of them has been victim to a suicide gank, all the rest have been victims to wardecs or faction warfare. Comparing this number to the numbers from before the latest changes (when on 'calm' weeks this number would be at around 50-60 and touching peaks of 100+ on 'hot' weeks) we can see there has been a sharp decline of these kind of ganks as well. All of this gives me enough certainty to claim what I have stated, that ganking in highsec is at a historic low. I will not even talk about the topic of ninja salvaging which has dissapeared completely from highsec.

    As for your assertion that tankier T1 haulers will restore equilibrium because 'gankers will be able to use these to scoop their loot and escape before they themselves can be ganked' I have grave doubts about that. When you are pointed and everyone in highsec can shoot you, no amount of tank will save you. Maybe fitting some faction cargo extenders or shield mods for some ISK tanking would help? I dunno...

  • [CSM8] Ripard Teg for CSM8 in Council of Stellar Management

    I was almost tempted to not reply because I didn't want to get into a conversation that I feel will not really bring about to anything, but in the end I conceded and went looking into the CSM Meeting minutes. This will be a reply in 2 parts since the forum doesn't allow too much space and I had to quote your replies.

    Part 1

    Ripard Teg wrote:

    Aesil Maril wrote:
    You also mentioned that highsec is almost at equilibrium, maybe slightly in favour of the ganker at the moment.


    Yep, but again, it's very slight. The primary differentiating factor here, in my view, is that the gankers have many more ISK and SP than their targets, by and large. A lovely example of this are the multiple flashy ganking Thrashers that spend their time within one jump of Niarja. I'm sure dozens of such ships get lost per day and the players in them have no concern about this at all because a single T1 hauler kill with as little as 50m ISK in loot makes up for a dozen such losses. This usually represents a major loss for the much newer EVE player involved.

    I certainly have no objections to ganking and non-consensual PvP and I said as much in the Xander interview. But I believe the amount of ISK at risk to both sides should be within a single order of magnitude. Right now, it isn't even close.


    I disagree with your conclusion that gankers have much more ISK and SPs then their targets. And also with the conclusion that they are new players and that they are poor. A new and poor player will not mine with Hulk or Mackinaw. Or drive a freighter. He will have to skill intensely to get in those ships and have money to buy them. I would expect that by this time they would be versed enough in EVE to know that they have to tank their ships. By admission of the gankers themselves, they do not attack tanked ships, they go for those that are untanked because they are easier pray. The example you have depicted, the 50 mil T1 hauler containing all the ISK of a newbie player essentially does not happen. It might have happened a few years ago but all the nerfs to ganking have made it essentially dissapear. A ganker will not go trough all the trouble that a gank these days ensues for the eventual profit of 50 mil. Even if such a situation would occur, however unlikely, I would still like to point out that your assertion that the ganker has more ISK and SP then the T1 hauler would still be flawed. The T1 hauler and the Thrasher are more or less in the same price range and the skill requirements to fly both effectively are within the reach of a few days training for any newbie pilot. At the end of this paragraph I will poke a stick at the 'ISK tanking' idea that you are promulgating. And let's not mince words, because your assertion that 'gankers have many more ISK and SP than their targets, by and large' is essentially that, the concept that one should use an equal amount of ISK in ships to be allowed to kill another ship. Ever since the inception of EVE the concept that exponential increase of ISK spent does not equal exponential increase in power, diminishing returns, has been a staple of the game. By your rationale for example, a moderately fit Machariel (about 1.3 bil for hull+ 200-300 mil in modules) should not be killable by, let's say, a gank of 15-20 T1 cruisers worth approximately 200-300 mil (I'm not gonna bring to play frigates, it would be even worse). We all know that this is not the case and should not be the case. Exponential ISK expenditure should not bring immunity to loss. I think even you would agree here, since by your own admission you are a PVPer. Yet if it is so in this situation, why it should not hold true in the situation of a gank as well? I do not understand, where is the difference? Should different rules with regards to the concept of diminishing returns apply in highsec, lowsec and nullsec? Because from what you are saying this is the conclusion that I'm drawing.

  • [CSM8] Ripard Teg for CSM8 in Council of Stellar Management

    So, in your interview with Xander you stated that you do not want consensual PvP trump over non-consensual in highsec. You also mentioned that highsec is almost at equilibrium, maybe slightly in favour of the ganker at the moment. Can you elaborate on this, especially in light of the fact that according to CCP we are at an all time low in EVE history as far as all types of ganking in highsec are concerned. If we are not currently yet at equilibrium, what point would have to be reached to have equilibrium? And why your idea of the equilibrium point is right there and not for example at a previous point, like for example before or after the mining ship buff or before or after the recent nerfs to ganking?

  • Dev Blog: Back to the balancing future! in EVE Information Center

    Since I'm in the process of training for a carrier, I would appreciate an answer with regards to when the new capital skill rebalance (lvl4 BS skill for racial capital ship) is going o take place. With Retribution on 4th of december? In the next summer expansion? At the end of next year? It would be really nice to know also which will be the new prerequisites for racial capital skills, if they've been decided of course.