Wow Tech Support

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Thursday, 28 March 2013

Low maintenance, high income PI

Posted on 23:00 by Unknown
Whatever you import to your planet is arriving to launchpads. Whatever you create in your planet is leaving in launchpads. Launchpads have mere 10000m3 storage space. A basic factory produces 40*0.38 = 15.2m3/hour P1 materials. An advanced one eats up twice as much. So if you run a P2 or P3 planet that has 20 advanced factories eating P1, you have to restock the launchpad every 16 hours. If you have two launchpads, 32 hours. Of course you could increase the amount of launchpads, but they eat up 3600 units of CPU, way more than anything else. An advanced factory needs 500 CPU. So anything beyond 4 launchpads is seriously crippling your output. 4 launchpads are still just 3 days worth of storage. So you have to choose: visiting your planets often (not just restarting extractors from afar, but flying to the POCO to restock) or toning down your income seriously.

From now on, you can have both. Behold the secret:
This is the Neocoms producing P3 factory from yesterday. It imports Silicate Glass to the launchpad to the right, Biofuels and Precious metals to the left. Since you need 2x more from those, their launchpads are doubled... by storage silos. The silos have 1/6 as much CPU need as a launchpad and just as good for storage. In the middle you can see the command center which is on full load on both powergrid and CPU, having 2 more launchpads would demand cutting down lot of factories.

How to fill them up? By the feature "expedited transfer". You move the new batch of raw materials to the launchpad, enter your planet and expedited transfer the whole amount into the storage silo. Then exit the planet and send down another batch of raws to the launchpad. Doing this you can fill both of them, like both were launchpads. Unfortunately you can't fill more than one storage from one launchpad because expedited transfer has a time limit, you have to wait about 8 hours after moving full cargo.

Utilizing storage silos you can actually set up something like this Coolant producing colony that runs all by itself for more than 6 days:

The storage-as-launchpad can be also used by those who visit their planets often. Freeing up CPU allows more factories to run which is especially useful with those pesky high-tech factories. A P4 factory can operate with a single launchpad.

Since launchpad is 100003 and the silo is 12000, you might want to equalize them, so you don't have 20003 of valuable material rotting in the silo forever. Fill it with 20003 aqueous liquids when you build up the colony!
Read More
Posted in ISK | No comments

Wednesday, 27 March 2013

Business Thursday: my planet farmed it for free

Posted on 23:00 by Unknown
"I farmed it for free" is a common statement among dumb people who are unable to understand opportunity cost. They assume that every action that earns them money is profitable, just because they got money. They ignore that they could get much more money with the same resources if they did a different action. They are practically considering the resource they had "free", hence the epic slogan.

The simple form is only common among idiots: he farms a whole evening and considers the income pure profit. However people who are not idiots, simply not careful enough can make similar mistakes. And they often do, as we will see today, with the Planetary Interaction of EVE. Imagine that you have a charming barren planet (as far as barren planets go). On this planet you have an extractor for aqueous liquids and another for base metals. Both extract enough to support 4-4 basic factories that turn these raw materials into water and reactive metals. Next to them there are 4 advanced factories eating up the water and the reactive metals, producing water-cooled CPUs. Each create 5 pieces an hour and they sell for 2300 ISK, so you generate 2300*5*4*24*30 = 33M/month with a colony. Congratulations, you made profit.

Actually not. If you'd destroy the advanced factories and just sell the water and the reactive metals for 340 and 320 ISK each, you'd earn (340+320)*40*4*24*30 = 76M/month. The profit of the advanced factories is -43M. Unless water-cooled CPU can be looted somewhere, it is created by dumb people who assume that their water and reactive metals are for free. I know, I know, they aren't dumb, just play for fun and making water cooled CPU is so much more fun than making coolants (which is actually profitable).

Making livestock and selling it for 6000*5*4*24*30 = 86M/month isn't much different from selling its P1 materials, biofuels and proteins for (110+550)*40*4*24*30 = 76M/month, so it's more or less indifferent, right? No, because simple is always better. For the first colony you have to find a planet that can support both extractors in proper amounts and not far enough from each other so you can link them. If just one material runs dry, you have to pack and go. Not to mention that the 4 advanced factories could be replaced by extractor heads and basic factories. Finally you probably noticed that 550 >> 110, so it's guaranteed that if you'd just run a single protein extractor planet with a 10 head extractor feeding 8 basic factories, you'd make much more money (550*40*8*24*30 = 127M/month). Complicated always needs to be justified with extra profit.

The above is true for higher level PI. If you are making Camera drones, Condensates, Guidance Systems, Hermetic Membranes, Industrial Explosives, Planetary vehicles, Supercomputers, Synthetic Synapses, Transcranial Microcontrollers, or Ukomi Superconductors with the current prices, you are doing it wrong. Even better: if you make any kind of P4, you are doing it wrong, each and every one of them creates less profit than a P3 factory. It doesn't mean you can't make money with them, you just could make more with a selected P3. I guess people are so obsessed with producing top tier stuff that they forgot counting. Alternatively they need the compression that P4 gives (typically in WHs)

If you make something profitable like Neocoms, it's no excuse to have an unprofitable step in it, like making Silicate Glass. Import Biofuels and Precious metals, combine them to Biocells and combine those with imported Silicate glass!

If you keep these in mind, you can get 150-200M/month per colony. People get less because they don't have an up to date spreadsheat or they use someone elses and just check the end result, not optimizing the internal chain: Neocoms are profitable even if you make them with self-made Silicate glass. It doesn't make it right though to litter your planets with silicate factories instead of more biocells and Neocom factories. Have something like this instead:
Top left receives biofuels, bottom left precious metals, right silicate glasses. Left factories produce biocells, right ones Neocoms. Something is missing from the picture, it will be the post tomorrow.

If you don't want to mess with spreadsheets, it's fine. But then stick to something simple like extraction + refining to P1 and selling it. A well-ran P1 planet is more profitable than a badly ran P3. Please note that prices can change daily, what was profitable yesterday is not surely profitable today. Again, if you don't want to bother, run P1, they are always profitable, price changes can only affect the amount of profit.
Read More
Posted in Random | No comments

Tuesday, 26 March 2013

Handling server overload

Posted on 23:00 by Unknown
TiDi is a bad answer for a problem in EVE: as players are usually distributed among the various star system groups (servers), providing low load. These servers are unable to support if thousands of players happen to jump on one system. Such events are rare but crucial moments, shaping EVE. TiDi tries to handle this with slowing down time locally, therefore decreasing the number of actions the players can perform, decreasing server load.

TiDi is bad because it allows players who are not in the besieged system to converge there. Let's say a titan is tackled by a fleet that can destroy it in 5 minutes. Only those within 5 minutes of travel time can arrive, increasing the burden of the server. However a 10% TiDi would allow everyone within 50 minutes range to arrive, making sure the system is full off observers, killmail whores and such, making the battle unplayable for those who are actually involved. Besides increasing the server load, TiDi also changes the outcome, favoring the side with larger reinforcements, practically removing large scale surprise attacks from the game.

I don't even mention the "Captain Obvious" solution: stronger servers, as they are obviously expensive. Keeping every constellation 24/7 on a server which can support an Asakai sized battle is a huge waste of money. Refusing this solution however accepts that the server can't serve everyone, in the crucial moments, leading to TiDi and the problems above.

My solution would be selective service: when TiDi reaches 75%, the system goes to "yellow mode". In "Yellow mode" frigate sized ships, shuttles, noobships, destroyers and pods can't enter the system, nor they can undock from a station inside the system. Also, those of them who are not already in combat (PvP flagged, targeting or targeted by someone PvP flagged) are logged off. When the player tries to relog or undock in such a ship, he is offered the same window we see in Jita: that offers him to magically transported to a nearby system. Fleets would be granted 1 protected slot for every 10 ships that are not "yellow-banned" themselves, so a full fleet can have 24 tacklers, warpins, cynos that can operate under yellow mode. The technical way would be a protection priority list that the FC sets and the first N ships get protection.

Yellow mode would also force drone grouping: Drones of the same type of the same ship would fly to the same spot forming a "drone group" which is a single drone for the server with corresponding damage increase (so you'd control 1 fighter-bomber that does 20x damage instead of 20 FBs). These grouped drones would have two HP bars, one for single target damage, one for smartbomb. If the single target HP reaches zero, the group becomes smaller with full HP and targeting on this group has 1/N chance to break, representing the chance that your targeted drone died (if you had a 20x FB group and a ship killed one, you have a 19x FB group and he has 1/20 chance to be forced to retarget). If smartbomb HP reaches zero, the whole group dies.

The point is to remove the ships that are likely have little to none effect, letting those who actually affecting it operate with minimal TiDi. If TiDi disappears for 5 minutes, yellow mode is cancelled.

If yellow mode is not enough and TiDi is still below 75% for 5 minutes, "orange mode" is invoked. In this mode "yellow-banned" ships are disconnected and immediately disappear from space even if they were in combat, and T1 cruisers can't enter, undock or remain unless already in combat. The protected spots for small vessels is both recalculated (you can't get a spot after T1 cruisers) and decreased to 1/15 (16 small ships for a 255 man fleet). In orange mode subcapitals can only control 1 drone group, capitals 2, supercarriers 4. So if a subcap loses 2 drones (his drone group is down to 3 members), he can't send out a second group, must recall his group and resend it full.

If even orange mode fails and TiDi is still below 75% for more than 5 minutes, red mode is invoked. In red mode everything is instantly logged off and disappearing from space except capitals, battleships, strategic cruisers, logistics, dictors and command ships. Protected positions are recalculated and decreased to 1/20. All ships are limited to 1 drone group/ship and only heavy drones, sentries, fighters and FBs can be used.

This way the server could continue to operate without heavy TiDi with little change of the event. A single black-screened titan or the fact that a dread fleet arrived from the other end of the galaxy has larger effect on the outcome than removing 500 frigates and T1 cruisers, so it's just logical to keep the battlefield clear of litter.

Please spare me from the "everyone has the right to be there" comments. The TiDi is there because the server cannot serve everyone. We can only decide who should be not served.

PS: spare me from comments that point out that this or that speciality ship (like bombers) are important. Yes, I'm bad with PvP ships, so my example list is bad. But other people are good. The point of the post is to make these people a priority list of ships and as the server can't handle the load, kick out the low priority ships.
Read More
Posted in Random | No comments

Monday, 25 March 2013

Brutal beat down of underskilled newbies and other things

Posted on 23:00 by Unknown
I got a strange comment: "How is Jester, a man who flies in one of the most reknowned PvP corps in the game a champion of the carebear? What? because he doesn't support the brutal beat down of underskilled newbies? Hilarious." Such comments are easy to dismiss and delete as idiot/troll, but they often offer a genuine belief of social people.

One of the major myths of EVE is that it's not newbie friendly. That a new player - without veterans carrying them - is lost and without hope. EVE is actually one of the most newbie friendly games, due to lack of levels and clear progression path. Until you get to lvl 95 and ilvl 9999 in WoW, you are a worthless n00b for the endgame raiding or arena play. In EVE you can go out and tackle a carrier in your Rifter on day 1 and Goon newbies literally do that. You aren't carried by the fleet, you are a useful member. Similarly I made billions on my first months by hauling for people and starting to trade. The "hopeless newbie" is a myth mostly created as ego-booster: "If you’ve played Eve for any significant length of time, there have been numerous occasions where you’ve had your teeth kicked in by this cruel internet spaceship mistress. But rather than throwing in the towel and calling it quits, you picked yourself up, dusted off your implants and charged back into the thick of it. You’ve earned your position. You made it through the days when the tutorial consisted of you being handed a gun, a mining laser and being unceremoniously thrust into space with the advice “Don’t die”."

The newbies gain protection from being worthless target. Sure, anyone can pop a newbie flying his untanked destroyer, trying to finish his career agent mission, but why? To get a 1M kill report with a 0.08M pod for 15 mins GCC and sec status loss? I've never lost a ship in highsec. I once went to lowsec and got popped on the first gate, but hey, I asked for it by moving to lowsec. I even clicked off that "Concord won't protect you" dialog.

Jester and the other "protect the newbies" people don't see that they can't protect newbies without protecting a bunch of bad veterans. He is not a newbie. If you have an untanked barge in 0.5 AFK-ing, you aren't a newbie either, you are a new farmalt. The Concord mechanics makes it impossible to profitably gank a normally fitted ship without without valuable cargo. The safety system makes it impossible to trick someone into combat using obscure game mechanics. If you accept a duel or switch off your safety you should know that a fight is coming even if you've never played EVE before. The newbie protection is already fine.

The "protect the newbies" people are actually protecting bad veterans who are full of ISK but no brain and fly around in all-cargo-expanded T1 haulers with billions in the hold or farm while AFK. They use "newbie" very loosely, including several months old players. Try to tell "this newbie is only playing for half a year, give him a break" in any other game without becoming laughing stock. Why should EVE be any different? Only because a bunch of bad players try to feel good for their "accomplishment" of having 50M SP. Congratulation for being able to renew your subscription for 25 months. You are my hero!

Jester did not have problems killing genuinely clueless newbies and his alliance doesn't accept newbies. This really good blogger turned into hypocrite politician harvesting votes. I don't know which is worse, if he want to scam votes (offer to support bad players and then don't deliver when elected) or if he genuinely push CCP to make it even harder to hit those who already make the best ISK: the highsec farmers.

There is only one way to protect newbies and casuals without protecting farmalts: if you decrease the rewards more than the risks. A genuine newbie won't care if his ISK/hour drops as he is playing a game in space. A farmalt will be hurt badly.



About CSM primary: due to the well-organized scam of James 315 those who want to fix the economy have no candidate. Therefore I suggest to not vote in the primary. The primary is needed to filter out comedy candidates and to give an initial estimation of support. This is the time for people to stand behind their candidate. We have no such. Let those who have strong affiliation choose the candidates, and then we will pick the ones that are least hostile to our case.


Personal note: reading the changes Sort Dragon implemented to HBC and Kaesong Kosmonauts leaving (or kicked, you never know due to politics) I'm wondering if I just joined TEST a bad time. I mean the point that led to my removal was definitely the forum shitstorm (mostly fueled by Kaesong members) and no one even blamed me with anything else. With proper moderation and the absence of these horrible posters my stay would probably be uneventful. Bad luck? Or maybe my case opened the eyes of leaders that it can't go on this way (the first moderation attempts were happening in my time). Or the other way: I awakened the dormant and more or less controlled trolls into burning rage? We'll never know. EVE is real.
Read More
Posted in Random | No comments

Sunday, 24 March 2013

Silver bullet: how could CCP bring back solo and small-gang PvP without a single change in EVE

Posted on 23:00 by Unknown
EVE players keep longing for the "good old days" before blobs took control. They sometimes post daydreams that CCP should artificially limit player organizations so their small and weak corp become competitive. Well, here you go, a simple solution that brings back solo and small-gang PvP, that will dissolve the blobs and make brave and skilled pirates roam the vast seas of pixel space once again!

Kill reports (both in-game and what the API query provides) should list only N pilots on the killer side. I mean if there are 10 people killing one ship, and N is 3, the kill report looks like:
- Victim: Joe Nobody
- Killers: Frank Awesome 18%, Jane Pirate 11%, Hank daKillah 8% and 7 more pilots.
There would be no possible way to know who are these "7 more pilots".

Why would this, despite having no effect in the game mechanics, change the gameplay fundamentally? Because killers go for kill reports to show off. Why bother to kill anyone if you don't get an API verified proof that you are awesome? You! Special snowflake who don't care about kills, just play for fun, please delete your API key from every killboard before commenting!

Currently the best way of getting a good killboard is flying in a blob. The larger, the more targets it can crush and the less likely that you get killed. You get a "kill" for everything you can put 0.01% damage on. An average blob fighter can easily get 2-3000 "kills" a month without taking any risk, having any skills or even making much effort. Been there, done that, wasted 60B on figuring out its secrets and find that what looks a big heap of trolling crap is actually a ... big heap of trolling crap.

By limiting the amount of killers on the API verified reports, every extra member in the blob would decrease your chances of getting on the report, so if you can get kills with smaller groups, you would do so due to higher chances of getting the report. The blobs, fed by undeserved kills would dissolve and change into N-man roams. N would decide the gang size, if CCP want to boost solo then N = 1, if they want small group of friends, then N is 3-5, if they want mid-sized corps to roam, then N is 20-30.
Read More
Posted in Random | No comments

Thursday, 21 March 2013

The scam of James 315

Posted on 23:00 by Unknown
How to get rid of an unconfortable idea? Champion it yourself.

I grow up in Hungary which was a communist dictatorship back then. The secret police did large efforts to infiltrate democratic underground movements. Not to find their members and lock them up, but to become them. As the documents of the communist secret police (which are still secret, 24 years after the fall of communism) are leaking, more and more prominent democratic "champions" were found to be secret police members. Why did they do it? Simply to outcompete genuine anti-communists who would put the communist to trial. After the fall of communism, the "democratic" underground refused to pursue communist crimes. Despite the communists killed up to hundred thousand people during the Stalinist period, during the 1956 revolution and after it in retribution, not a single communist were punished. After the fall of communism, the former communists re-emerged as rich businessman.

When a year ago I started to write that the money is in highsec, people were laughing and called me a troll. Now it's more or less common sense and the argument is shifted to "we must keep this clear unbalance or the carebears quit". Today no serious person would write "if you want ISK, join an nullsec alliance to get access to anomalies or top ores". Isn't that making a change in EVE?

The opinion about the profitability of highsec slowly changed and on August 7 an unlikely hero emerged where was only murmuring and postings: James 315 started bumping miners in Kamio to show that AFK mining is widespread and easy money print. A week later, TheMittani.com - which did not take any submissions by then - published his lengthy opinion piece. His blog was well-written from the start, unlike the "real" blogs where the author is grasping for his voice at the first weeks. Like Jester and me after years, James instantly posted lengthy posts in a regular manner, both on his site and TheMittani.com.

Due to his relentless work, he became the central figure of fighting the economic unbalance favoring highsec. Those accepting this became his supporters. He disappointed me about a month ago, at the end of February when I posted my mind-blowing results as ganker and suggested the New Order (the movement of James 315) to step up to this level and become #1 on the killboards as an unquestionable proof of the imbalance of highsec. He refused and sticked to the "for fun" approach that is unable to reach any goal - by definition, as the goal of "have fun" is to have fun.

Still, I kept endorsing him as my CSM candidate as the one who has the best platform. Recently he withdraw from the CSM election, based on excuses that were known months or years ago. Yes, NDA is a tool of CCP to silence CSM, but it was always there, along with the counter: leaking. The fact that not all CSMs go Iceland was always here too. The move that CCP decides who talks to CCP is indeed a disgusting one, clearly aimed to punish those CSMs that don't perform their intended role: protecting CCP from player anger on media the CCP can't control. But this change was published a month ago and doesn't actually silence the CSM. You can still post, practically you are only excluded from bar crawls in Reykjavík. None of these are acceptable excuses to quit the CSM election now.

The purpose of James was was to prevent any other CSM candidate to build up a campaign on the platform of fixing the economy. Everyone on this platform naturally accepted him as the CSM candidate and did not run himself. To be honest, we were happy that someone was nice enough to do this pretty work-demanding and unthankful job. It's much-much easier to post "why James is a good candidate" than go to the idiot-ridden forums to get support, then participate in endless skype nonsense about DUST with devs for the chance to grab 15 minutes pushing your agenda. CSM isn't a dream job. It's a disgusting job but someone has to do that. We were all happy that someone else did it for us.

Except he didn't. He quit the race at the very last moment, removing even the theoretical chance of a new candidate arriving, making sure that CSM8 will not have a member who talks about the elephant in the china shop: the money is in highsec and the optimal way of playing EVE is to never PvP if you want money and gank in highsec if you want kills. CSM8 will get lost in POS changes and ship rebalances which are nice to have but not really important, since if you are win-oriented you don't have any POS-es and fly only Catalysts.

Who sent James to sabotate the "fix economy" platform? My guess is as good as yours. He was a Goon and he instantly got a place on the Goon Fox News, so my suspicion is Goons, who are interested in keeping nullsec worthless, since this way no one serious want to take it from them. Would Shadoo call off a grindy but guaranteed victory if the Goon regions were actually useful?

James succeeded to keep the "fix the economy" issue out of CSM8. However he gained lot of supporters for the idea. I have to accept that his tear-extracting posts gained more attention from the average players (majority of voters) to the topic than my economic posts. I also have to accept that he taught me how to suicide gank and without him I'd never think of it as a mean to prove my point. Without James my 52B/month solo kill would have never happened. Championing your enemy is a double-edged sword, you can help them in the long run more than you hurt them in the short.

There is no point to cry over the broken teapot. CSM8 is lost for us. The rest of the candidates are either openly pro-carebear like Trebor and Jester; Goons themselves who preach griefing and competition and work on nerfing and risk-free play silently; or lost on some irrelevant issue (typically POS). I will figure out which one is the least of evil, but it is just damage control. CSM8 is not something we can win. CSM9 is a year from now, enough time to build up something that can finally fix the EVE economy.
Read More
Posted in Random | No comments

Wednesday, 20 March 2013

Business Thursday: less logins for pilots in training

Posted on 23:00 by Unknown
Many of us have pilots in training who don't do anything else, just sit in a station and learn. Future supercapital pilots, pilots for sale and so on.

In EVE you train skills in real time and you can't queue more than 24 hours worth of skills. I mean the skill (therefore the queue) can end later than 24 hours, but it must start within the next 24 hours. In case of training pilots most of the time is spent not by managing the skill queue, but the login process. Since I stopped ganking, only 2 accounts actually play out of the 11, so the other 9 only learns. I needed a method to decrease the login numbers as much as I can.

Captain Obvious says: look at EVEMon and log in only when there is 1 minute left of the last skill and fill the queue. Captain Obvious probably doesn't have to sleep or go to work. For the rest of us, pushing the login time around isn't possible. Let's say you log in to EVE every evening, in a 4 hours long window. You fire up EVEMon and it says that a training pilot has 2 hours empty queue. The next skill in the plan has the following ranks:
  1. 6 mins
  2. 25 mins
  3. 2:25
  4. 13:50
  5. 3 days 6 hours
You can queue up rank 1, 2 and 3, placing only 3 hours worth of skills into your queue. You either have to log in later today to queue the next one or hope that tomorrow you don't come home an hour late, have ISP failure or server error, because that case your training will end.

However there is a solution:
The last skill on the picture, Wing Command 5, is 95% completed. When I logged in, it was the only skill in the queue with 8 hours empty queue. Instead of putting skills to that 8 hours hole, I put 22 hours worth of short skills before the current. 24 hours later all these skills will be complete. Such pre-inserting of short skills allows you to get rid of them fast while always having a long skill at the end, so you don't have to schedule your login. After you finished the short skills, your login frequency can be further decreased. Of course you should prioritize the skills that are prerequisites of others because you can't insert skills until their prerequisite is complete, being in the queue is not enough (you can queue Gallente Frigate 4 after Gallente Frigate 3, but you can't queue Gallente Cruiser after them).
Read More
Posted in ISK | No comments

Tuesday, 19 March 2013

I go to a bar to have fun, not to talk, dance or drink

Posted on 23:00 by Unknown
Imagine that you walk to a single girl in a bar.
- Hi, would you like some drink?
- No, I'm just having fun.
- You mean listening to music?
- No, I don't care about music, I'm just here for fun.
- Would you like to dance?
- Nooo! I'm here to have fun.
- Are you waiting for someone?
- Get lost already nolifer! What's so hard in understanding that I just want to have fun?!

A weird conversation isn't it? Now let's say you are on the phone with a buddy.
- Hi, any plans for tonight?
- Yes, I go to the cinema.
- I like movies too, we can go together. Would you like to see the new action movie?
- Those aren't my thing. I just want to have fun.
- OK, comedy then!
- Nope, I just want some fun.
- Maybe romantic movies are your thing.
- Dude. Please. I'm not a hardcore like you. I just want to hang out and have some fun.

No one had such conversation, right? Cinemas, bars, football fields, bowling clubs are all places where you go for fun, yet not a single person would utter the word "fun" there. They already decided what kind of activity is their fun and they go directly for that activity.

There is only one place where uttering the words "I do it for fun" is common: sex, where it has an explicit meaning "I don't want relationship." This distinction is needed because the socially default form of sex is in a loving relationship. The reason why people use the "just for fun" statement for sex is to somewhat avoid the social stigma related to that. Saying "I don't even like you but I'm horny" would be much less acceptable, yet much more true. There is no need to use this trick in the cinema, since watching any kind of popular movies are OK, so one can openly say the truth: "I want to see an action movie". In the case of video games the situation is similar to the sex case. The pure truth would be embarrassing, that's why people use the generic and positive term "fun". The pure truth would be "I'm bad in the game, so I don't even attempt to win, I just want to kill time". Small kids who are unaware of its social stigma gladly say "I don't know, I'm just playing" when you ask what exactly Barbie do on the top of the firefighter truck with a gun in her hands. Older people are aware of the social stigma of "loser" so they try to avoid it by the "for fun" statement. If the truth wouldn't be shameful, they could be more precise on what are they doing.

My point is that the "for fun" people are aware of their loser status, try to avoid the stigma and fight back by labeling non-losers as "no lifers" or "no fun people".
Read More
Posted in Ideas | No comments

Monday, 18 March 2013

The myth of the "highsec carebear"

Posted on 23:00 by Unknown
There is a widespread resistance against the only rational balancing of EVE: nerfing the income in highsec. They claim that such action would drive the "highsec carebears" away, bankrupting CCP. But who says that? Common sense would think these "highsec carebears" do, as people most valiantly defend themselves. Yet I've yet to see a single "I'd quit EVE if I couldn't keep grinding L4s" statement. The whining always happens in third person: they would quit.

But where are they? Have anyone actually seen a "highsec carebear"? Every single EVE blog is written by a PvP-er. Before you'd point to Mabrick, I tell that he lives in WH and even post PvP videos. These magical "highsec carebears" don't have a CSM representative either. Despite they are the majority according to the myth, they failed to send a single member into the CSM during its 7 years.

Have you actually heard saying (seen posting) that EVE PvE is fun? Since a "highsec carebear" plays only for doing PvE, he must have fun doing it. Yet I've never seen a single such post. I've only seen cursing and spitting towards the PvE of EVE. Can these carebears play to suffer?

It doesn't vote, it doesn't blog, it doesn't speak and it does something that no one considers fun. The "highsec carebear", the one who plays EVE only to shoot crosses and rocks does not exist. There are of course newbies and very low playtime players who simply don't know EVE enough or don't have skillpoints or time to do anything else and still under the spell of "woot spaceships". But none of the regular EVE players are "highsec carebears".

The "highsec carebear" is a boogieman created by the PvP-ers, mostly to serve as an ego booster. No one says "I'm a PvP-er" in World of Tanks, since there is no point. Everyone is doing PvP since you can't do anything else. In EVE the "PvP-er" is a necessary adjective next to every player, corp and alliance. It is to be understood as "we might don't have Sov, our killboard is terrible and we fly T1 cruisers and frigs, but we are still better than the highsec carebears." Since there are no such beings, they are actually better than no one.

But if no carebears exist, who farms L4s and in AFK Mackinaws in highsec day and night? No, not the industrialists, they manufacture and trade for much higher income. The ones you'd call highsec carebears are alts of those who bemoan them: the PvP-ers. Almost every "PvP-er" have highsec alt(s) farming for their expenses. This is why they are AFK, this is why they play solo, this is why they don't post, don't elect CSM, don't blog: because they are alts.

The "don't nerf highsec" demands come from "PvP-ers" who fear that without the safety of highsec they couldn't upkeep their fake life of "shooting stuff and don't give a damn" because they couldn't replace ships. They could actually live and gain wealth in the dangerous zones of EVE. But this idea terrifies them because they they suck. After all they kill 1/100 as much as someone who flies a Catalyst, a ship given out for the Gallente newbie missions.
Read More
Posted in ISK | No comments

Sunday, 17 March 2013

Roleplaying an idiot

Posted on 23:00 by Unknown
I kept calling people who did idiotic things in games "morons and slackers". They kept answering that a game is a game, therefore can be played any way the player wants to, as long as he have fun. At this point the argument died as neither position can be proved. They can't prove that they have fun or they could play properly if they wanted to, I can't prove the opposite.

Now I'm trying a different approach: it is without doubt that from the point of view of the character, their actions is idiotic. Killing random orcs on Arathi Basin bridge instead of capturing a base makes the poor human paladin lose the battle and gain less rewards. Running off to lowsec to PvP in frigates will earn neither ISK nor good killboard for the poor pilot. The character is indeed a moron or slacker.

In the world of an MMO, the player is represented by an avatar. These games are called role-playing for a reason. These players simply roleplay an idiot. They roleplay the dumb paladin who can't understand that bases are more important than killing orcs or lacks the impulse control to do the right thing. They roleplay the combative, juvenile pilot who runs off fighting for no other reason than being mean to some random stranger.

These games are promising us to roleplay heroes. In the EVE Online page there is even a list of what you can be. I've seen "loyalist", "pirate", "manufacturer" there. Yet most people choose to roleplay and idiot.

Let's assume that these players are telling the truth and they are not idiots while roleplaying idiots. Then this situation is the fault of the game developer: their reward structure doesn't reward "proper" roleplaying enough. I mean the "hero" of Arathi Basin isn't rewarded enough to motivate people to roleplay heroes. If you just lol around pointlessly or simply go AFK, you still get more than enough honor points. Similarly, no one is rewarded enough in EVE to roleplay a "proper" pirate, someone who makes a fortune from piracy. The idiot pilot who runs around and shoots stuff randomly isn't much worse off than someone who hunts for a worthy prey. Actually both of them are miles behind the AFK miner.

The problem with this setting is that most people don't want to roleplay idiots. At least in their game time they want to be dragonslaying heroes, fearsome pirates or great warriors. The games must reward good play and punish bad play not because it suits the hardcore, but because only this can create an atmosphere where one can be a "hero". Even if most players won't achieve this status, being a foot soldier of the good cause is something worthy of roleplaying. Just think about how many players join large nullsec alliances despite the reward structure, just to roleplay an F1-bashing footman, or think about the fact that most people are in guilds despite most of the guilds are utterly useless. People want to roleplay belonging to a team, so a structure where they are footmen supporting an army would work.

Games that reward bad play are necessarily penalize roleplaying the hero. It makes playing the way it was advertised pointless and unrewarding. While you still can play that way, you are constantly reminded that it's pointless and dumb by the "lol u r nolifer" crowd. Funnily games without any rewards are better in this sense. I mean in such game all ways of playing are equal. In a badly rewarded game playing well is actively punished and the player have to make up extra roleplaying terms to counter it.

One of these extra terms is "skillz", these players actually play the way it was meant to be: fighting hard enemies. However their efforts are unrewarded as even an AFK miner earns more than the guy who beats a battleship in a frigate. So they make up the imaginary "skillz", an alternative world where their actions gain respect. Too bad that in the real world they are laughed at by those who bash them easily by "blobbing", by those who earn lot more by living in highsec and even by gankers who have much-much better killboard stats.

Fixing the reward structure of games would serve every players, except those who are indeed idiots therefore can't roleplay anything else but idiots.
Read More
Posted in ISK | No comments

Thursday, 14 March 2013

Nerfing highsec income doesn't hurt highsec casuals

Posted on 23:00 by Unknown
There is a common theme against the CSM platform of James 315 and the balancing of EVE economy at large: many people are highsec casual players, a new player will very likely start as a highsec casual and nerfing highsec would make them quit, ruining CCP.

At first let's define the "highsec casual":
  1. Self-definition: he calls himself a highsec casual, and not a lowsec or nullsec player. Those who claim "I'm a nullsec PvP-er, just farming ISK" are not highsec casuals.
  2. Pays for the game via subscription. If you farm enough ISK to PLEX your account, you aren't a casual player. "farming" and "casual" are mutually exclusive.
  3. He lives in highsec. Doesn't farm in highsec and spend it on lowsec PvP roams. Those who do are lowsec players, since they... [intense drumming] play in lowsec.
  4. He doesn't really care about metagame or in-game "success", just plays as he wishes. Caring about the game and doing things in it that you don't like, just to reach an in-game goal defines the hardcore.
Now, there is a clear difference between the platform of James and me: I do not support the increasing of risks of highsec. Actually I could accept decreasing of risks, by removing non-consensual warfare or making suicide ganking harder. Being ganked (politically correct term is "unconsentual PvP") directly conflicts with point 4 of the casual player list. It is possible that a player says "after a hard days night I logged in to chill in the world of spaceships but some jerk ganked me, so I quit". It is rather likely and it can cause CCP to lose revenues.

However I fully agree with him that the risk/reward ratio is completely out of balance. It can be fixed by decreasing rewards too, not just increasing risk. My point today is that even huge nerf to highsec income would remain unnoticed by highsec casuals and would only hurt two kind of players: one is the low/null players who don't farm in low/null but in high via alts. This player should be hurt as he is a faker and liar. He kills others in low/null while he can't be killed there (as he is in high, farming), and also he brags about him being a PvP-er while in 90% of his time he is the cliche highsec carebear that he bemoans.

The other kind of player being hurt by highsec income nerfs is the "carebear publord", the one who just counts his ISK and gathers pimped ships without taking any risks or providing content to anyone. Before you'd comment, I am fully aware that I am one of them. These players can be hurt because they don't pay for the game anyway and no one would miss them if they'd quit.

Now to the point: since the true highsec casual enjoys his activity, he can't care less about getting 10M or 10K ISK, doing 100 or 1000 DPS. These are meaningless numbers for him. The newbie casual starts with his Merlin, Cormorant or Venture gained from the newbie missions. He can do lvl1 missions or mine veldspar and he enjoys these activities. If he doesn't enjoy it he either quits, or he is farming for some other goal, which makes him a hardcore by definition. So he had fun with his spaceship. Mission accomplished. To have fun in a frigate you need a couple hundred K ISK. Due to the ship rebalances and the levels of missions in highsec, you can fully experience PvE killing cruiser sized rats with a T1 cruiser. You can easily complete lvl 2 missions in a T1 cruiser and can do lvl 3 missions with care. This needs a couple 10M ISK.

So a highsec casual can fully play his chosen game if he has a couple ten million ISK income per month. Even if his level of income doesn't allow him to buy a battleship or T3 in a year, it doesn't hurt his fun, just like it doesn't hurt the fun of lvl4 missioners that he can't earn for a titan or even fly it in highsec if he PLEX-es one.

Even if we mix PvP into the picture, it doesn't change. My critics always spam "frigate PvP is lot of fun". Let's turn it back: if the highsec income allows you to regularly replace lost PvP frigs, you can have PvP fun casually, so again: mission accomplished. Being able to replace battlecruisers is just as unnecessary for casual highsec PvP-ers as it is to be able to replace hotdropping dreads.

In my vision highsec is a place for newbies and casuals where they can play the way they wish, without being forced by anyone, but also being unprofitable and generally irrelevant in the EVE story.

Hell, maybe the best idea is not nerfing highsec income but nerfing highsec ships. Ban battleships, strategic cruisers and exhumers from highsec, just like capitals are banned. In a similar step, ban titans and supercarriers from lowsec. They are banned from WH space already. This would place a natural limit on income in highsec (how much you can earn with a battlecruiser?) and would create a niche for lowsec too (no supers).
Read More
Posted in Random | No comments

Wednesday, 13 March 2013

Business Thursday: Blinged Tengu taking gates and prepare for the new alphafleet

Posted on 23:00 by Unknown
Like in most weeks an especially expensive missioner ship was destroyed. Let's not get into the discussion of blinging, let's just focus on the issue at hand. This one wasn't defeated by an especially good group of specialized pirates. According to the story he was AFK on a gate, probably on its way home.

I also have an expensive Tengu that suffers the same problem: if it's AFK, it loses most of its tank, so it must be piloted actively, even if it does nothing but coming home empty. So let me share with you my solution to this problem: Put 4 large shield extender IIs, 2 EM ward amplifiers (the passive modules) and one explosive amplifer to mid slots. If you don't have powergrid for it, put the highs offline. You can put on nanofibers to low for faster autopiloting. Also replace the defensive subsystem to supplemental screening and you have 130K EHP with perfect skills assuming you only have one core defense field rig like the ALOD (and not 3 CDFE2s like me). Put the real fittings to the cargohold, maybe have a small container for this purpose.

Clearly still killable, but not by a single Tornado, it needs about 10, so it can protect your not-so-blinged ship. Of course the same trick works on other ships. Don't be afraid to double-tank autopiloting ships, like a Vargur.

Let's say that for some reason you have a very expensive missioning ship that you want to use. Here is how can you keep it safe: replace the shield boost amplifier, shield booster, propulsion, tracking with Shield extenders. Keep the active hardeners up and running. Get a damage control to low. Take the gates actively with hardeners on until the mission system. Dock in a station with a safe undock (where you can instantly redock). Refit normal fittings. Undock. If you see lot of Tornados outside, redock. If not, warp to the mission. Upon completing the mission, dock, fit extenders, travel to agents. Don't take gates with something that cost billions and have less than 100K EHP.



What you see in the picture?
The correct answer is a badly fit bad dreadnought.
What will you see in the picture after the summer rebalance?
A ship that can alpha 92K damage for 350M fitting cost and full insurability. The rebalanced Naglfar will be the new alpha ship, the counter of slowcats, supercarriers and even titans. 40 of these can alpha down a carrier, a fleet full of these can do the same to supercarriers. Put the amount of F1-bashers as CFC and HBC has into Naglfars and you can volley down Titans every gun cycle. Dreadnoughts are currently barely used in capital warfare due to having to siege to do damage and being unable to receive repairs. While the DPS of supercarriers are about the same, they can receive reps. The ability of alpha the enemy down can equalize the repair advantage. The new Naglfar will alpha 2.3x higher than the Moros and won't be bound to Therm/Kin damage. The midslot fit is intentional, if you deploy them in capital battles, no local rep can withstand being primaried. Having maximum buffer helps slowing the dread loss. The very point of dread fleets is insurance, a max insured dread cost about 1B if you can loot the dropped fitting, while the supers it pop can't be insured.

Where is the business tip in this? Here:

Warning: researched supercarrier blueprints sell under unresearched NPC blueprint prices, since people bought and researched too many. Investing into Naglfar blueprints is risky, proceed with caution.
Read More
Posted in ISK | No comments

Tuesday, 12 March 2013

Moar l33t PvP: solo capital kill

Posted on 23:00 by Unknown
After my previous display of mad skillz, it was time for stepping up my game even better: soloing down a capital. So I did.

The Chimera was sitting on the undock. The only question was if my skillz are l33t enough to overcome its shield recharge rate. Luckily they were:

As soon as it was damaged, it self-destructed, as you can see from the point of view of the pilot:
You can see the welfare window popping up for the "victim". The insurance system makes the cost of the kill to be about 1/3 of the kill report value, so I only had to pay this amount to Parasoja who provided the Chimera:

I hope this display of l33tness proved everyone that "elite PvP" is a joke and anyone and his mother can make awesome killmails. But I think there are still some delusional ones who think they can gain respect and prestige for doing something trivial as killing pixel spaceships. For them, I'm planning some even more l33t solo kill. For this I have to finish training for a dreadnought because I doubt if my Tengu can break the shield recharge of that ship. But soonTM I'll provide you the killmail that most PvP-ers are only dreaming to get on, even as a 0.1% damage killmail whore. And I'll have it solo.


PS: as a bonus I got the following mail:
I have no idea where they found the kill report. I was tempted to make up some "l33t" story to have a good laugh on the news site, but then I realized that it's another proof how seriously people take "l33t killz". I mean she had to dig the killboard for solo kills and ask for interview on the ones that look "l33t". I hope that reading this story and its predecessor will show her (and to you) that kills aren't newsworthy. Anyone can make them. Even a "highsec carebear" like myself.

PS2: I think, this kill on the other hand is genuine. I doubt if this amount of stupid can be faked.
Read More
Posted in Random | No comments

Monday, 11 March 2013

API Coincidence detection against botters and a quick answer to Shadoo

Posted on 23:00 by Unknown
You might noticed I don't like botters since they essentially cheat the game. They also flood the market with cheap things, supporting risk-free play (you don't care losing cheap stuff).

Today I post an idea of mine that could help CCP fighting botters and other cheaters by identifying their non-violating mains. The CCP policy is to ban the player by banning all his account, including non-violating ones. However to do so, they must be able to link accounts. In case of legitimate players it's not a big deal: same IP, same login pattern, often same e-mail or similar account name. However cheaters - for obvious reasons - try to hide their main account from the bot accounts by proxies, maybe even different computers.

The idea - as the title says - is API Coincidence detection. What is this? Several third party programs query your API key (that's why it's there). For example EVEMon asks the API using your keys to read the skill progression of your accounts to update the skill training plan. Accounting programs ask for your market API keys. The idea is that if the botter is lazy (and most people are), he doesn't have various instances of EVEMon. So when he starts EVEMon, it queries all his accounts at the same time, legitimate and botter alike. Using the API server log, CCP can calculate API coincidence: Qboth/min(QAcc1,QAcc2), where Qboth is the number of events when both accounts were queried within a time window. This number is zero for accounts that never query together and 1 for accounts that are always queried together. Of course accounts can be queried together by blind chance or by a third party site that queries lot of APIs (like killboards). However I believe that alt accounts will have a significantly higher coincidence number than random accounts, allowing detection of alts. The best thing is that this can be used on gathered old data, finding alts that were not found before, even if they stopped linking behavior long ago.



A quick answer to the post of Shadoo who is thinking about wargames to replace the "horrible" Sov grind. I was there with him on Sov grinding three regions and didn't find it horrible, because I'm one of the "few who've not actually ever ran or been in the FC side of running a large block war." The problem isn't Sov grind. The problem is that it waits for the same veterans who did it zillion times and don't want the Sov at the first place. Pandemic Legion which is leaded by Shadoo has 19 system Sov, practically staging systems in various points of space. The Sov they grind won't be theirs. They don't need it. They don't want it. Making someone grind down hundreds of multi-million HP stationary structures they don't want at the first place with no fight (besides bombers killing their fighter-bombers) is indeed horrible.

But the solution isn't simpler Sov grind. Without Sov grind, a weaker alliance would have no chance to rally troops, or find allies before losing everything. HBC would conquer all nullsec overnight just because they can. The solution is making people want to have Sov. Making them wanting to live there. A Sov war would be much more fun for PL if the new owners of the Sov would grind it in dreads, PL would only be cynoed in if someone shows up with force threatening the dreads. But why would anyone want Sov or even moons? Just buy a battleship V pilot and run lvl 4s in highsec. I'm damn sure that the man hours needed to capture and hold a even a Tech moon would be better spent missioning.

The solution is making living in nullsec profitable enough that "carebears" flow to it, grind it down and pay to PvP-ers to protect them. As long as nullsec Sov is nothing but bragging right - or even worse, to trigger a "good fight" - only a handful of bored nerds would try to get it who simply have nothing better to do.
Read More
Posted in Random | No comments

Sunday, 10 March 2013

TEST expansion, best expansion

Posted on 23:00 by Unknown
The developers of EVE are now rebalancing. That can stop losing subscribers and can even cause a limited increase. But rebalancing is eventually bugfix: you change the ship to be like it supposed to be at the first time it was introduced. Also, rebalancing isn't giving to everyone: nerfing an overpowered ship or feature will make its (ab)users sad. EVE haven't seen a genuine new feature for years. And looking at the long term stagnation of subscribers, it needs one.

When I realized that the New Order stopped at the level of "watch miners explode and have fun", I started to plan my own corporation. It had an ambitious plan: be #1 on EVE-kill with less than 100 members. 100 pilots beating Pandemic Legion and the 10K+ GSF and TEST would make impact on the community. It was also something I was proficient in: I did gank 52B in a month myself, ready to provide 2-3% of the goal on my own. Also had enough income to fill the war chest myself. Where is this corp?

Nowhere because my "list of things to do" became too long, full of elements I'm neither proficient in, nor really would like to do:
  • A forum with proper rights management, moderators, linked to EVE pilots
  • Skillpoint checking to weed out those who can't even fly a T2 Cata or have no Orca alt. Outperforming PL won't happen with random lollers flying T1.
  • Killboard with tools to remove low/null kills that would make our results debatable
  • Some voice chat because let's face it, social people love to chat and stopping them decrease available recruitment pool.
  • Jabber. If someone finds a deadspace Mack in 0.7, a fleet should be assembled fast, grabbing people not logged in.
  • Reimbursement tool. Like it or not, many veterans are dirt poor. They need that pathetic 10M for the lost cata. Hell, the time of processing a reimbursement request would cost me more than 10M in opportunity cost.
Let's face it: I was spoiled by IT services while in TEST. The IT services allows TEST to operate with very low management/member ratio which is great for two reasons: there aren't much people wanting to do it, and those who do are usually the worst assholes playing the game, so you want the bare minimum of them around. I attributed the success of TEST (and Goons) to their large, monolithic corporation and its management automated by IT services. Don't ask me which was first (IT allowed them to grow or growth demanded IT).

Then it hit me. This is the Jesus feature CCP needs. CCP should re-create all the IT services of TEST, integrate them into the game and make them available for every corporation and alliance. This way an aspirant corp leader would need "only" players, and not a bunch of IT experts to create the tools needed to run his corp. A bunch of streamlined IT services would also decrease management cost, which would decrease leadership burnout and the very source of their terrible manners: "if you don't like how I run it, try doing it yourself". On this front I myself failed. While I think James 315 doesn't run the New Order well, I am not skilled/dedicated enough on the IT/management front to do better, so I have to keep suffering the "let's see some miners explode and chill" slackers or quit (picked the second).

The pure existence of TEST IT shows how much EVE needs such services (otherwise TEST wouldn't spend enormous human resources building them). Let the game developer provide it so everyone can enjoy it. The major barrier stopping new leaders appearing (and leader defines the corp) is the extreme management overhead. I'm sure that a "TEST IT expansion", which decreases this overhead would make corps and alliances flourish like never before.

Also, you might say that there is already EVE Voice and chat channels and people don't use them. The problem with these is being bound to the pilot and not the player. These communications break if I log off or relog to alt. What we need are services that are player-bound and not pilot bound. It need a standalone application which is linked to the client but does not need it. So an alliance leader can configure the chat to accept every players who have pilots blue to his alliance without a single click. Also, the standalone nature of these software is needed to allow players do other things and stay alert to things happening. Just like the TEST Jabber informed me about fleet forming while I was doing something else with no EVE client on.
Read More
Posted in Random | No comments

Thursday, 7 March 2013

The meaning of "playing for fun"

Posted on 22:00 by Unknown
Enjoying what we do is needed to be happy. A happy person enjoys or at least doesn't hate his day work, his family, his neighborhood, or change them for the better. Enjoying our gaming time should be as obvious as breathing. However the post isn't about that. It's about the declaration "I play for fun". Why would anyone declare something obvious? I mean there is no one who would claim the opposite (I play to feel bad), so this statement is redundant, meaningless at best.

Social people aren't good in explaining their own actions, as they aren't logical beings. But sometimes one comes up with something clear - and usually shocking. I find this gem when I suggested a way how the minerbumping crew could make serious impact on EVE: be #1 on EVE-kill on ISK destroyed (#1 ship kills is trivial, blow up the frig of your alt until you can't make yourself log in again). It would be surprisingly easy. I mean I alone destroyed 1/20 value of what TEST did and they are #3 on the toplist. A corp of 25 players like myself ganking in different places could be the #1 ISK destroyer. Again: a corp of 25 players could beat GSF, TEST, and PL. But instead of enthusiasm to make one of those stories of EVE, I found whining and the epic "we play for fun" nonsense from members. Then I got this:
"Play for fun" is this: rejecting any form of metric that would allow you to be defeated. If you "play for fun" you can never lose as no one can claim that you are not having fun (assuming you aren't 12 and cry on some chat or forum). If you set a goal, any goal, you can fail to reach it. "Play for fun" is a complete lack of goals, therefore the theoretical impossibility to be defeated. Of course it works both ways: since you can't prove anyone that you are having fun, you can't be victorious either. "Play for fun" is removing victory and defeat from the game. Actually removing the game from the game, turning it into a Skinner box: press button, receive candy.

I'm not happy that James 315 yielded for the "play for fun" crowd instead of giving them a "step up or step out". Not only New Order failed to make an epic story that would be great for his CSM candidacy, but he aligned with the very spirit he is fighting against. "I mine because it's relaxing" is a miner bingo field. Cheap minerals allow low-cost "fun" PvP. He is trying to take away both, and it won't happen unless he can display a serious playerbase that will not quit EVE if it becomes risky or hard. Garth is damn right, the first victim of the changes championed by James would be "for fun" griefers and those who want to "farm tears" should not vote for James. James must understand that you can't have a "play for fun game" and a "game with consequences" at the same time.

While I stopped ganking (why should I make effort if no one else does) and express my disappointment here, I still support James 315 with my votes and posts. He is like Romney: not the brightest man, but fighting for the good cause, while others trying to make EVE even easier and "more accessible". I was beaten out of WoW by "accessible", so I'm ready to join with the Devil if he offers to stand against changing EVE into a "press any key, receive reward" game.


PS: don't miss the post for Monday. I found the "Jesus feature" EVE needs. No, it's not removing L4s. It's not a rebalance, it's not taking away anything from anyone. It's adding a feature. Why am I sure that it would make a difference? Because it's already working! See you on Monday!
Read More
Posted in Ideas | No comments

Wednesday, 6 March 2013

Business Thursday: industrials and their rebalancing

Posted on 22:00 by Unknown
The announcement that among many other ships, industrials will be rebalanced was already overdue. This posts shows not only why they are a mess, but - as a Business Thursday post should - but helps to find the best possible ship for the job.

The first problem is that - unlike all other ships - you fit the industrials of the various races exactly. The max-cargo version has Cargohold Expanders in lows and Cargohold optimization rigs in highs, meds have shield tank. The "max-tank" version has a Damage Control taking the place of one low and Core Defense Field extender rigs. Armor tanking an industrial would make its cargo space laughable. The max-cargo version of all ships have 1.94x larger cargo, the max-tank has 1.75x more EHP on average (STD: 0.05, no outliers), for all ships. A Merlin and a Rifter are both frigates but you fit them differently and fly them differently. But you fit and fly all 12 industrials and 4 "deep space transports" the same. Let's see the EHP and cargo space of the "max-cargo" versions of all ships:
So, this is the problem: they are all stepping stones towards the Deep Space Transports and even these transports are much worse than the Orca (which is faster to learn) and much-much worse than Freighters. Since Freighters can jetcan and scoop, there is simply nothing left of the Industrial ships than newbie freighters. While the frigates are not "combat ships for newbies", these ships have no field where they are better than Orcas or Freighters assuming there is enough cargo to fill them. The only exception is Iteron Mark V which has OK-ish cargohold but no tank, so you can carry cheap things in it until you get an Orca/Freighter. For dangerous zones there are covops haulers and jump freighters beating them again.

So which industrial you should use? Neither, get an Orca or Freighter! If you can't afford it yet, you can haul in any of them temporarily. We can see now why this class need a rebalance: they are all the same and they are all inferior to other ships. How could they are rebalanced? The different races need to do different things, like fast, fast aligning, tanked, large. The problem is that in order to be more than just stepping stones (ships that newbies use), they must be competitive compared to Orca, freighters and covops haulers. Not an easy task. If you have ideas for a role, please comment, I'll list them. I also list problematic ideas:
  • Fast hauler: I mean 500m/s without afterburner, it's good doing distribution missions on autopilot. Distribution missions are the only hauls where you need to move medium sized things that are not typical sucicide gank targets.
  • Tanky hauler: Problematic because of the Orca. It is only competitive if it's more tanky (200K+) and has other competitive property that offsets its smaller hold (faster, aligns faster).
  • Fast aligning hauler: Good for doing distribution missions manually.
  • Specialist hauler: tiny cargohold, large specialist hold for items like planetary materials, minerals, ores, fuel
  • Combat hauler: moderate cargohold, large ammo hold. Moves similarly to a battlecruiser, tanks like a battleship, has a non-zero DPS and can supply its fleet with ammo, nanite paste and some spare parts.
  • Interdiction nullified hauler: passes bubbles like a T3
  • Scanner hauler: bonused for scan probe strength, so can scan itself in and out of wormhole chains
  • ECM bonused industrial: can protect itself with ECM and ECM drones
Read More
Posted in Random | No comments

Tuesday, 5 March 2013

"Your trading reports are fakes!"

Posted on 22:00 by Unknown
Some commenters figured out a "clever" way to counter my "elite PvP can easily be faked" article: "faking elite trading is just as easy." So how can I prove that I'm indeed an elite trader and not just faking it by PLEXing thousands of real $s I earned flipping burgers or by farming L4s 12 hours a day?

The answer is simply: I can't. There is no way I can prove that I'm an elite trader. Which isn't much of a problem since "elite trader" is a term I never used. I never claimed that I have "skillz" in trading. I claimed that the methods I displayed work. The point of my blog isn't "look at me, I'm awesome" but "look at economics, it's awesome" and "look at a-social thinking, it's awesome". I detailed my methods to the last bit, making you able to fully reproduce them. You can judge them after your knowledge of economics, or simply by trying it out and seeing for yourself. Actually, if I really never traded and got my ISK by PLEX-ing, would any of my post less true or relevant? If I never hauled a single Drug Manufacturing skillbook from nullsec to Jita, would it magically lose profitability?

The main problem with "elite PvP" videos and stories isn't being fakes, but being utterly useless and serving no other purpose than bragging even if not fakes. They - purposefully - omit the important pieces of information and make the viewers believe that the situation was solved by "l33t skillz" instead of applying basic knowledge. The key of winning the encounter isn't what on the video (how he piloted) but what's hidden: he had a scanner alt on 3 gates earlier, so he knew the weakness of the target. Instead of teaching people to have scanner alts and how to design a hard counter which is also cheap, he acts like he wouldn't be piloting the hard counter and won an uphill fight by "skillz".

"Skillz" do not exist. Knowledge exist. Since anyone (besides morons and slackers) can learn, anyone can perform on that level. Again: I believe anyone can earn equal ISK as me. If anyone can do it, it's not "elite" and the performers are not "awesome", just ordinary guys who read the available information. Those who babble about "skillz" and "elite" are trying to hide the relevant information and act like the success is based on something inherently present in their person, something only a few "elite" possess and it can only be gained trough "experience" and by "learning from the best". Bullshit, bragging and faking, that's all!

If you choose to believe that economics doesn't work, the best way of gaining ISK is ratting day and night and I'm ratting too to get ISK, be my guest. Don't forget to buy some implants on the way out to ratting!
Read More
Posted in Random | No comments

Monday, 4 March 2013

I'm a carebear and I'm not happy about it

Posted on 22:00 by Unknown
Care bears are extra cute and extra nice cartoon figures. They are also used as a term on people who do not engage direct competition, instead stick to safe methods of progression. I barely undock and farm ISK instead sitting on a station. I never engage in financial speculation either. I simply buy a bit lower than equilibrium and sell a bit above equilibrium. Even miners take more risks than me. I'm probably the biggest carebear of EVE Online.

"Carebear" is used on such players because they are too soft to dare to stand face to face with an opponent, so they settle with inferior results that they can gain without competition. I'm not like that at all, you saw it countless times that I see no problem doing things that enrages lot of people. Hey, I'm the first guy who was kicked from TEST - the alliance of trolls - for trolling. The reason why I'm a carebear is that my methods aren't providing inferior results. I'm making 35-45B/month with my completely safe trading methods. When I did a PvP test, I killed 52B ISK a month solo, dozen times more than "real PvP-ers", again without risks as AFK mining barges rarely win encounters.

I did not choose to be a care bear, I choose to win and as Sirlin taught us if the optimal move is "cheap", than we do that move. Just like the camper in counterstrike (God how much they hated me in the University for being able to camp until the end of the match), the station trader and the ganker are playing in an optimal way that is "no fun" according to most. If the best way to get ISK is sitting on a station, then I sit on a station. If the best way to get kills is farming Retrievers, then I farm Retrievers.

It's not my job to fix the game. The developer must make the game "fun" while winning. As soon as the best way to get ISK will be fighting in nullsec, off I will go to nullsec, providing fights to PvP-ers. But as long as the best ISK/hour is in a station, can you give me any reason to undock?

I am supporting James 315 in his CSM campaign exactly to change the game in a way where winning doesn't mean sitting in a station or farming AFK retrievers. I agree with most that these kind of activities aren't fun. Where I disagree, is that I rather be bored than a loser who doesn't have a billions in his wallet and has a few billion ISK damage done. A fix to the EVE economy would remove this distinction, you'd be able to win while having fun.
Read More
Posted in Ideas | No comments

Sunday, 3 March 2013

Elite PvP: Cormorant kills 3 Taloses

Posted on 22:00 by Unknown
After I got 52B/month solo kills, the Elite PvP folks weren't amused. Actually they raged in 140+ comments on EN24 over my kills because they aren't "real" kills as the targets had no guns. I felt really bad that these great guys I want to belong don't approve my performance, so I went on a solo roam with a Cormorant destroyer, to get real, "l33t killz".

On my way to lowsec, luck shined upon me in the form of a suspect Talos sitting on the highsec side of a lowsec gate. Despite I was only in a Cormorant - like every l33t peep - I engaged. While it seemed to be hopeless, only by l33t skillz I emerged victorious. The ebbil piwate was mad and reshipped to another Talos to get revenge, but again he was no match to my mad skillz. Raging, he demanded one more round and as a honorable PvP-er, I granted him, but yet again l33t skillz defeated ship size. Now without doubt I've proven that I'm a real PvPr and should be respected for my knowledge of the art of pew.

OK, I think you are just as annoyed by this disgusting bragging written in kidspeak as I am writing it. Obviously, the 3 Taloses belonged to my alt who just idled peacefully while being slowly eaten by the destroyer. But still, I have 3 API verified kill reports of a Cormorant defeating 3 Taloses and there is absolutely no way for you to prove what really happened. Just like you have no way to prove that any of the worshipped "elite PvPers" are legitimate. I can call each and every one of them altkilling, remote-repped and boosted fakers who had a whole fleet of corpies clearing up gatecamps in his way, removing any threat and supplying easy kills. Again: I can call every single "elite PvP" videos and stories fakes, cheats, lies and there is nothing the author can do to disprove it, probably because most of them are indeed fakes, cheats and lies.

The only way to prove the "value" of a kill is a developer guarded tournament, like AT. Surprisingly we don't see a single ship destroying several larger ships on its own there, we see balanced encounters.

Creating "l33t killz" isn't even expensive, thanks to the several forms of welfare CCP provides to "for fun" PvP-ers. The largest - without doubt - is insurance:
53M ISK was created from thin air by CCP and given to the victim for each kills, just for being AFK while killed. But insurance isn't the only form of welfare, there are also bounties. While they aren't created from thin air, there are always idiots who have money to waste on this feature:
Add 18M more in drops and salvage and the cost of creating 316M kills was only 112.3M. Yes, you can turn every ISK you have into 3 ISK "elite solo" kills and I have no doubt that many people do so.

There is no such thing as proven skill in EVE. Ourside of AT, there is no way to tell anything about a kill besides that it happened. Therefore the only difference between PvP performance of players is ISK destroyed. So highsec gankers and alt-killing rich people are the best PvP-ers, no matter what the "elite" claims in their fake videos, made-up stories during their quest to gain false prestige among fellow lolling fakers.

Update: even if we accept that a properly skilled board of players can spot fakers by some pattern, such board does not exist so there is nothing that would stop a faker to gain elite status. Remember, CCP had to change neutral logies to suspect because using neut logies in highsec 1v1 was rather the norm. Despite the victim usually wrote a comment to the kill, no one cared and anyone looks up the pilot will accept the kill as a valid 1v1. My point is that without such board no one can be called elite, therefore the term "elite PvP" cannot exist.
Read More
Posted in ISK | No comments
Newer Posts Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Suffer mortals, as your pathetic password betrays you!
    One of the things we often don't put much thought into is password selection. Usually it is a loved-one's name or an easily remembe...
  • (I'm not) defining lowsec
    This is a rather short post, will be one more today, about my very first PvP action. Sugar reminded me of a problem that I read about a l...
  • The big EVE trick
    What is an easy game: where everyone can achieve what he wants easily. What is a hard game: where you can only advance by becoming better an...
  • You must station trade what you haul
    Well, actually you don't if you are fine with hauling for buy orders. This case you lose serious profit. If you are the station trader o...
  • The (total lack of) balance of trade of highsec
    The fact that you can be much more rich in highsec than in the competitive areas of EVE (low, null, WH) is one of my main messages. It can b...
  • Thinking about highsec POCOs
    In the next EVE patch, Rubicon, highsec customs offices will be capturable by players (actually you destroy and build your own, but it's...
  • What would happen if people could trade?
    The question of mirror-ability of strategies often comes up when I post my trading strategy. The 0.01 strategy is clearly mirror-able. If th...
  • October ganking report
    October was a great month for my corporation , We Gank Because We Care. You can see the results on the killboard but since October was 31 d...
  • The proper profit metric
    Live moron of the weekend post . Did they spent the last month under a rock? People having trouble making ISK with trading. Some rather go m...
  • ur a kid!
    The title is a troll comment I get often. It doesn't make much sense. It's clearly not an argument. While we know that socials don...

Categories

  • account
  • account theft
  • adobe
  • alpha
  • arena tournament
  • authenticator
  • authenticators
  • battle.net
  • beta
  • blizzard
  • brute force
  • cataclysm
  • diablo 3 phishing scam
  • dictionary attack
  • drive-by
  • email
  • fake
  • flash
  • game
  • Gold
  • guild
  • gumblar
  • hacked
  • hacking
  • hacks
  • Ideas
  • ISK
  • keylogger
  • march
  • mmo-champion
  • New
  • password
  • password stealing
  • patching
  • phishing
  • raiding
  • Random
  • ranks
  • remote auction house
  • scam
  • scams
  • security
  • security checklist
  • soccer
  • strong password
  • trojan
  • vulnerability
  • warcraft
  • wow
  • wowarmory
  • wowmatrix

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (242)
    • ►  November (15)
    • ►  October (25)
    • ►  September (24)
    • ►  August (21)
    • ►  July (24)
    • ►  June (22)
    • ►  May (22)
    • ►  April (22)
    • ▼  March (20)
      • Low maintenance, high income PI
      • Business Thursday: my planet farmed it for free
      • Handling server overload
      • Brutal beat down of underskilled newbies and other...
      • Silver bullet: how could CCP bring back solo and s...
      • The scam of James 315
      • Business Thursday: less logins for pilots in training
      • I go to a bar to have fun, not to talk, dance or d...
      • The myth of the "highsec carebear"
      • Roleplaying an idiot
      • Nerfing highsec income doesn't hurt highsec casuals
      • Business Thursday: Blinged Tengu taking gates and ...
      • Moar l33t PvP: solo capital kill
      • API Coincidence detection against botters and a qu...
      • TEST expansion, best expansion
      • The meaning of "playing for fun"
      • Business Thursday: industrials and their rebalancing
      • "Your trading reports are fakes!"
      • I'm a carebear and I'm not happy about it
      • Elite PvP: Cormorant kills 3 Taloses
    • ►  February (21)
    • ►  January (26)
  • ►  2012 (261)
    • ►  December (24)
    • ►  November (21)
    • ►  October (24)
    • ►  September (21)
    • ►  August (26)
    • ►  July (25)
    • ►  June (20)
    • ►  May (25)
    • ►  April (23)
    • ►  March (23)
    • ►  February (23)
    • ►  January (6)
  • ►  2011 (4)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2010 (17)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (2)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2009 (4)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  July (1)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile