Freighter PvP & the Ante

PvP Gameplay Center Warfare & Tactics
102

Slightly tangential, stefnia, but may I ask how many hauling trips you’ve made, the total profit to you and the number of times you’ve been ganked?

Overall, are you ‘up’ on the deal?

Hauling for profit is best undertaken as a combined effort, wherein the risks can be shared among others if there is the possibility of disruption (in this case, by ganking), and thus, lowered. If you choose to be a sole operator, your risks will always be elevated and you must make reasonable adjustments to your business ‘model’ (if you have one).

Note especially the practices of those merchants traversing the Silk Road for 1500 years’ worth of trading.

If, despite your fear/experience of freighter ganking, you have comfortably managed to turn a profit on all that hauling, then I am compelled to regard your mewling as an unwarranted attack on gankers and ganking - for no more substantial reason than ‘I don’t like it’.

Which you could have said at the start, and saved us all some time and effort.

103

No you did not. The reason to make the trip is to gain benefit. Does not mean the value of the item goes up - it’s actually the opposite, the value of the item is the same but the price is up because it takes into account the cost of moving.

Otherwise I could move the item several times back and forth to increase its “value”, which does not happen.

But this is not the ante . The ante is the whole package, gain+freighter cost+freight cost+all other costs.

Again,

Your arguments are completely off topic.

104

Completely tangential and out of topic.

That’s BS. Spouting stupid claims won’t make your opinion look less stupid.
Just because that’s the way you want to understand it, does not mean it makes sense.

Again, you are derailing the topic towards considerations that make no sense besides rolling the off-topic freighter.

You are trying to create an ad-hoc morale to pretend you are right. But that’s wrong, with any rigorous analyzis you know the OP point holds. So you are making rigorless claims and pretend for a self-deserving morale.

105

I did say slightly tangential, stefnia. If you re-read the section of the OP quoted, above, you will see that what he is saying is that there is imbalance (as he sees it) in the Freighter vs. Ganker/s equation.

I have addressed him more directly in the body of this thread; no need to re-hash that here.

So, it is not (in my view) an off-topic response at all.

Refreshingly detailed refutation, stefnia. I’m grateful.

Not at all, stefnia. I have presented facts (hauling as it has been done elsewhere. I might have mentioned Red Frog Freight (but i didn’t) - who of course are proper business folks and who never - at least, not outside of their private channels - moan about ganking.

I also posed some questions, from the answers to which we might all have profited. You chose not to answer them. Only you know why that was, stefnia; the suspicion might arise that either a) you could not answer them, or b) the answers, if truthful, would be unlikely to support your increasingly hysterical outpourings.

If you decide to set aside for the moment your sweeping and rather pitiful generalisations, and to devote to my post/s the rigorous analysis which you appear to demand of me, I would appreciate it.

You see, I suspect that you haven’t actually thought about what you’re saying and that you are relying upon the strength of your feelings to make your case when, perhaps, cogent argument might assist you more effectively.

The OP’s general point has been dismantled by better commentators than I. Are you new to EVE? Or just to, you know, thinking?

2 Likes
106

There is nothing to refute when your claim is stupid.
Try to make an argument, like how you reach that conclusion. Otherwise it’s a stupid claim, by definition.

If I were to say “the cat is black, so you are wrong”, that would be a stupid claim. Yours is exactly as stupid. There is nothing to refute on mine ; there is nothing to refute on yours.

Who cares ? This is not fact that I was answering to, but your morale.
“I presented fact 10 days ago, so you can’t argue with me”. Again, that’s stupid.

When you say that “Hauling for profit is best undertaken as a combined effort” this is a morale : a judgement of value that you claim people should agree with. Just because it fits in your propaganda, does not mean people must agree with it. Claiming that people should consider your morale is another discussion, and completely off-topic. You are one-sidedly trying to present your morale as something universal, which is stupid.

No.
You asked for personal information, which is off-topic and the start of personal attacks.
Basically you were trolling with those questions.

Again, that’s your interpretation. You’re free to believe it, but you’re not free to pretend it’s a valid one without a rigorous demonstration. Just because you can interpret something in a way that fits your already made propaganda, does not mean that interpretation is the sole one. You need to prove, that your interpretation is mandatory, for it to make sense as an argument. Until then it’s plain stupid claims.

Not the least. On the opposite, it’s be proven correct by better commentators than I and you.

The topic is about the discrepancy in ante that is fielded by a player using a freighter to move stuff, compared the ante suicide gankers field to gank that freighter.
The ante being, what he can lose when undocking.

  • The ante of the hauler is is ship, the freight he is hauling, or the collateral of that freight, whichever is higher. The time he took to travel already is a recuring cost, it happens wether or not he encouters gankers. His gain from the encouter is nothing.
  • The ante of the ganker is nothing. Their ship is supposed to blow up, so it’s only a recuring cost. Their gain is a part (say 33%) of the hauler’s freight minus the recuring cost of their ship. (edit : the part varries a lot, depending on how they sell it)

The idea is that, if you accept that “more risk=more reward”, then the ratio risk/reward is vastly skewed in favor of the gankers, for several reasons including the low cost of their ships, the ease of multiboxing, the requirement for haulers to move by chokepoints, and of course the absence of gain for the hauler from the encounter.

A joke proposal I made was to force increase the gankers ante by requiring an artificial ante (cores) depending on the damage the gankers wanted to apply. This way, gankers would also need to field more value and anti gankers could have a higher benefit than bragging right on their channel.
This is a joke proposal because I did not give it much thoughts, only using the already existing structure core mechanism that CCP implemented to artificially reduce the usage of low-cost structures.

107

In fact, I should have written ‘safer hauling’, See? I’m perfectly capable of detailed revision, stefnia. I did imply it though, through my use of the word ‘best’ - which is, admittedly, a value judgment, but one justified in its use by CCP’s own approach to certain activities in EVE Online where, as you know, the company is trying to encourage co-operation between players.

The argument stands, though, because (no morality here - I don’t know what you mean by ‘morale’ in this context, please explain yourself. Thanks) - the argument stands because I, as a ganker, have to accept that if I wish to gank a freighter (as opposed to a Venture) I’ll need significantly more powerful vessels, and more of them.

CCP has made it so.

If you wish to trundle a freighter safely through Uedama, CCP has made it so that you could do so, either by luck or by teaming up with other players/alts, or indeed by employing other tactics. In this respect, the ganker and the hauler face similar choices.

Just as with your freighter, there is no sense in which a ganker could rely entirely upon luck without considerable potential loss.

If English is not your 1st language, know that it is not mine, either. Misunderstandings may arise upon both sides in such circumstances.

If that is not the case, I note that you are declining to address my comments, other than to brand them ‘stupid’.

The questions I asked have been asked of many people posting in topics like this one. I’ve not yet met an EVE player who was not prepared to state how successful or otherwise they had been in avoiding ganks or of hauling items to market. Except, of course, where the loss was embarrassing for them - and even then, they have sometimes shared the joke.

Ok, stefnia, I accept that. But you did not start with that statement, so naturally, I addressed what I deemed to be the important content of your comments.

The fact is, I don’t gank freighters. But I know people who do, and they have to run many Omega accounts, at considerable cost. Unless you have a lot of them, you don’t use Catalysts to gank freighters, you use the Talos - a suitably fitted version, at a cost, and lost as soon as you fire the first shot.

Gankers who are not permanently at -10 sec status have to re-do the numbers by buying and using clone tags. Look, you know all this stuff. Ganking is not cheap.

The reason gankers don’t generally complain about the cost is not that it is low. The reason they don’t complain is because they enjoy their hobby and have worked out ways to keep their costs as low as possible.

The cost has increased, along with the introduction of other factors, leading to a large number of gankers I used to know and admire leaving the game.

Instead of whining, I do wish people would just get on with their chosen EVE career. Don’t you agree?

108

No it’s not justified. Unless your interpretation is exactly as is implied by CCP claims.
Which, so far, is not : so your argument is again stupid.
If your interpretation is solely a possible one of CCP claims, then it is not implied.

Just because CCP made it, does not makes it something good.

No, they are not similar. Because the ante is not the same. Which is the topic of this thread, not your belief on what other people should do.

{{citation needed}}

Again, you consider arbitrary interpretations as universal values. They are not.

109

@stefnia_Freir is completely correct everyone. For all the players thinking of getting into hauling, it is a profit less wasteland of tears and loss. Don’t even bother. As an unrelated topic, remember, don’t ship it, Push It! Pushx is available for all your shipping needs! We will take the constant losses and complete lack of any profits whatsoever so you don’t need to!

3 Likes
110

Except I’m not talking about loss, but ante.

111

Well, stefnia, you addressed these remarks, so clearly, not everything I write is stupid. Whew!

My comment (part of which you quoted) reflects my decade-long involvement with the field from which my comments arise.

…is the relevant quote; one which you ignored, seemingly in order to make your point. The inclusion of that single word ‘generally’ clearly allows for the possibility of exceptions.

In which case, you are being dishonest in representing my views as I have expressed them. If you are going to do that, how can we properly consider these important matters, stefnia?

112

Yes of course! Let us provide the ante! Who wants to provide their own ante? Preposterous! Again, unrelated, Pushx will cover the ante for you!

113

Well it had a start of argument so even if the argument does not hold, it’s not completely stupid.

I greased the important part.

Does not change that your whole message is wrong. Claiming that your opinion is “generally” universal does not make your statement less stupid.

You message fixed is : “The reason I don’t complain” .

But anyhow this is still derailing the thread with your personal opinion on an off-topic matter presented as a universal truth. Basically, a troll.

114

Very well, that appears to be that for this particular exchange, stefnia.

However, I shall feel free to contribute to the thread as the mood takes me and, of course, to respond to those of your comments which interest me.

Neither you nor your comments have been described by me as ‘stupid’. I am a well-mannered ganker. I merely wished to tease-out certain…inadequacies.

I think it’s up to those who monitor these things to assess whether a particular comment breaks the rules. If they agree with you, then I accept judgment. If they do not, then I can continue along my merry way!

115

So, I take it you have no argument on the topic ?

You were only actively side-tracking the thread to your morale and how you have the high-ground in it ?

You were plainly trolling and the time I took here to re focus the thread on its main topic, to ensure you understood the OP point so as to avoid any subsequent strawman, was a waste because you were not willing to play by the rule to start with ?
Color me surprised !

116

Please explain your use of the word ‘morale’ in this context, stefnia. I genuinely don’t understand what you mean.

My use of the English language is not too bad, but I find this particular use of yours difficult to penetrate. I’ve checked Google and it confirms my own understanding of the term.

I notice you’ve updated your post. I never troll, and have never been accused of such behaviour by those tasked with monitoring the Forum. I am completely sincere in everything I write. I am also honest - which sometimes does get me into trouble…

117

Nope, because are under the completely wrong impression that ‘value’ is something that is inherit to the item. But it isn’t. Value is a subjective property of the item that can vary greatly depending on the circumstances. I own stuff that is of absolutely zero value for others, but a holds a lot of value for me. And thats completely independent from the ‘price’, because not everything rotates around some ‘market’.

So, if you move Items from Amarr to Jita, you had a reason to do this. That trip ‘granted your wish’ to have them in Jita instead of Amarr and thats your profit. Even if it’s only an emotional profit. Maybe it benefits your production, maybe you had completely other reasons, it doesn’t matter at all. You had something to gain from this trip and by successfully completing it you gained it. You cannot simply exclude the existance of Gankers from this equation and put them into a single-case scenario. They do exist, you have to calculate with them on every trip, like any other guy doing his business in the game. Be it the Missionrunner that can have his Paladin ganked, be it the Abyssalrunner that might have his Gila ganked.
How much preparation you are willing to put into your business to reduce your risks is up to you, but most Freighter pilots are simply lazy and greedy and don’t want to pay anyone to escort/protect them, so they cry and complain when they run solo into a 15man ganking crew and lose.

All this Ante-■■■■■■■■ with compared costs is totally useless anyway, since a ship’s ISK value is absolutely no part of the game balance. 10 Frigates for 1 million ISK each can easily kill a Battleship for 600M. Is that “imbalanced”? Heck no, there are 10 people cooperating to kill 1. Their potential spikes exponentially, thats the force multiplication of cooperation. As said a dozen times, with only HALF of the people involved (compared to what the gankers would need to bring you down) you can break through any ganker’s blocade, easily. They won’t even engage you in 99.99% of the cases just because bringing the escort messes up their profit calculation. And even the 0.01% they actually try it out of boredom you will most likely win.

If you are ganked, it’s your fault. Simple as that. The ways to avoid it are plenty, easy to learn and not that hard to execute. To be honest it is by far harder to gank a ship than to avoid being ganked in that exact same ship. BY FAR.

118

It means a set of judgements of value : basically a scale of values applied on concepts.
Of course your morale is one in which your actions are judged good, to avoid Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia . So you side-track the topic by claiming your judgements are a universal value and then proceed to deny an argument based on how it does not match your opinion, instead of addressing the actual point made.

For example “If you choose to be a sole operator, your risks will always be elevated and you must make reasonable adjustments to your business ‘model’” is a morale argument.

Another one is “If you are ganked, it’s your fault.” . In that case, it pretends that people who get ganked are wrong. It’s plainly false, people who get ganked … get ganked and that’s it.

Because of course if we accept your morale, then opposing voices can only be wrong - but the same can be said using opposing voices’ morale, that you can only be wrong.

Therefore using morale as an argument is a way to avoid the discussion.
So it is trolling, since you prevent people from discussing the actual subject

119

In HS, it is.

120

So what? 100 Atrons for 1M each can surely kill a 20B Marshal even in HighSec. Where is your balance now?

121

Thank you, stefnia, for your explanation. I understood the word you are using (‘morale’) to be termed ‘morality’, in such cases. I can find no definition of the word ‘morale’ which fits the use to which you have put it; but that may be my problem, not yours.

In any case, I think it’s simpler than I thought. CCP creates the environment in which the game is played. The moral stances of individual players are not something which the company seeks to influence.

CCP provides the tools, and the players - if they choose to do so - provide the rest. We all come to the game with prejudices of one sort or another, and they’re likely to emerge in both the way we play and the way we communicate. Perhaps that’s all that’s happening here.

1 Like