Greedy Goblin

Thursday, February 18, 2016

"The Imperium is the safest place to rat"

I've added the 2015 ratting data to the 2014-15 killboard analysis page and calulated "ratting safety", the amount of rats killed in the Sov of an alliance for every million ISK lost. Obviously the more the better. You can see the results there, but I sorted them for you by ratting safety for the alliances that killed more than 5M rats (and I have kill data for, CVA and ALTS could be interesting). The number is "rats", not "thousand rats" or "million rats":

Ouch! Renters and RUCA are killing more than twice as much rats before losses than Goons. The rest of Imperium - except of course FCON - are even worse: in SMA you lose 5x more ships than you'd do as a renter. This means that top ratters should quit the Emporium and simply rent or look for membership in RUCA.

So much for "The Imperium life is the easiest life". I'm sure Gaara had been wiser staying with BAT with a PvP main and place the rest of his pilots to B0T.

If you are as surprised as I am, please link this post on Reddit, let the people know of one more dead myth.

PS: the Shadow of xXDeathXx report is posted earlier today.

PS2: if you want a good laugh, read these tears, but beware, the author is "a liar, untrustworthy, had stacks of hidden agendas, and is probably evil".


Jim L said...

It would make sense to quit the Imperium and become a renter if ratting was your primary goal. If your primary goal is something else (maybe SOV related) then that wouldn't make sense.

Anonymous said...

1) I think Sion tears deserve a separate and utterly glorious tear-sipping blog entry. I'm sure he lied a bunch there, but I don't follow CSM enough to know exactly where, and would love some explanation.

2) Looking at "killboards without inflation" I have noticed that you're only taking into account the total losses of an alliance. That might not exactly be fair, since ratting safety numbers should be based more on home ground losses in my opinion - losing a dread in lowsec is not exactly a ratting loss, and the only effect on the ratting it had is that the owner couldn't rat in the meantime. That said, I realize the difficulty of figuring out who controlled a system at the moment of a kill, in a year such as 2015, but I believe it can still be done for regions (or parts of it) that did not change hands in 2015. It could answer the question "how safe ratting in Deklein is compared to, for example, Oasa" in terms of losses taken only in Deklein and Oasa. I would like to see those numbers, preferably split into months. Yes, we both may find them disappointing, but it's one of those cases you either believe in numbers, or not.

@Jim L
Like what? Renters can have moons, it's totally negotiable. Renters have their own POCOs. And if you think paying sov bills is so incredibly exciting... I'll just ask you: what it is exactly a Karmafleet member can do what a renter cannot?

Gevlon said...

Losing a dread in lowsec is "PvP loss" which is then paid by the alliance from tax made from PvE players who pay for everything at the end.

Anonymous said...

> Losing a dread in lowsec is "PvP loss" which is then paid by the alliance from tax made from PvE players who pay for everything at the end.

I do not argue it has effect on alliance coffers, which are filled by PvE players. However, the topic in question is "ratting safety" not "how alliance spends money you ratted for it".

I do point out, that if a certain alliance makes a move on provibloc and gets dunked there, your method will say its "ratting safety" has decreased, while the question if it really decreased or not is actually unsolved. There might or might not have been an increase of ganking when home defense fleet was busy getting dunked in provi. There might or might not have been a decrease in ganking due to weaponized ratters getting dunked in provi and not dunked at home ratting. With total losses as our cornerstone number, we'll never know. We may speculate on the basis that said alliance had to redeploy back home, but was there more reddit posts or damage done? Need numbers.

Chris K. said...

I think it would be interesting to see a ratting safety table per region, instead of per alliance.

Also I find it ironic that in the article's comments, people are saying 'screw the CSM' but only after 'one of their own' was butthurt about it. When you said it earlier on the other hand, it was considered 'lol-worthy', but then again they still had a horse in that particular race.

Rob said...

Sions post doesn't read like tears, to be honest it reads like something you would heavily agree with, that the CSM is completely broken because it focusses more on who will buy devs a beer rather than what is good for the game. You've read it, right?

Anonymous said...

I've read it carefully and see genuine tears in it.

They start almost instantly with a "dev grrr" pitch.
They proceed with "Leeloo grrr", "CCP grrr", "Fozzie grrr", more Leeloo grrr, etc.
It assumes that Sion had an awesome proposal on nullsec in tens of pages, which nobody seen. There are only 2 reasons to not show us his great proposal: it's horribly gewnie-biased so that it needs to be kept secret, or it's so horrible the shame prevents the showing of it.

Moving on, he even complains about Manfred ("Manny") who, if you ask me, were booted for bigotry. He should've been booted as soon as PL deployed against Darkness for no other reason but Sort's CSM proposal making it live despite Manny the bigot being against it. It took CCP two months to do it and from outside it's seen as nothing but failure in CSM management.

CSM should go not because it's mismanaged. CSM should go because Mike and Sion are (used to be) allowed to be there. imo they should just drop elections altogether and start appointing people there, because elections are trivially gamed around.

Rob said...

"I've read it carefully and see genuine tears in it."
Well yeah, but is that because it's actually tears or because you don't like goons? Objectively it's not even remotely tears, it's pretty much what you would expect to see based on the stories you hear coming out of the CSM.

Elections are a representation of what the players who vote wanted. Big groups all vote for the same people and that will always be the same in any voting system. The biggest problem for the state of the CSM is how many people don't vote, putting more weight on the blocks that do. Non-goons outnumber goons vastly, so if they pushed together for what they wanted they'd get it.

Raziel Walker said...

Sion's post has so much tears I had to quit reading halfway to prevent myself from drowning.

Anonymous said...

I am a bit confused.

Your narrative is that CCP are goon appeasers, especially Falcon and Fozzie.

The article you linked claimed the opposite.

Which is it?

Gevlon said...

@Anonymous: indeed his ratting safety decreased, since he can't rat as he is commanded to orbit structures in Providence

@Rob: just because I agree with him it doesn't make it less tears. He does nothing about the situation besides venting. I am doing something about it: boycotting the election. Sion is much more powerful in this, if the Emporium wouldn't vote, that would take 1/3 voters away. Is he boycotting the election? No, he and the Mittani cry, then they bend over and send an acceptable candidate for their inside info and whatever influence their beers can buy.

@Anon: I never blamed Fozzie for anything. I did believe that Falcon is Goon, but not anymore. I now believe that he is a toxic guy who abuses anyone he can, just because it's fun for him.

Anonymous said...

It seems there are some contradictions on your ratting safety point.
First and foremost, if he's commanded to orbit structures in Providence and ends up not losing a ship, means his ratting safety, according to loss measurement, have not changed - neither rat count nor loss count bulged.
Secondly, let's suppose for a second some silly thing - let's say he went to provi, got a foothold there (for point sake, let it be a POS), and, while the fleet stands down, started ratting there, as it's what he usually does anyway. This is where rats/sov and loss/galaxy numbers go completely haywire. I do not say this is a common case, but it makes rats/region and loss/region numbers look a lot more consistent - at least it makes one region unaffected by what happened in the other.
Third, there is a comparison you have drawn between deploying alliances and renters. But renters are never ordered to orbit structures in Providence. Does it make their ratting inherently more safe? Do they rat safer being more ganked home but less in dreads in lowsec? I say no. And you?

Rob said...

"He does nothing about the situation besides venting. I am doing something about it: boycotting the election."
He's boycotting the summit, which is a much bigger message to CCP that a guy refusing to vote.

"Sion is much more powerful in this, if the Emporium wouldn't vote, that would take 1/3 voters away."
Even if he did control the goons - which he doesn't, Mittani wouldn't boycott the vote and even if he did goons would still vote independently - all it does is stop some people voting, again not something CCP really cares about. As long as some people vote they still get their candidates and can still pretend the CSM is somewhat relevant. What you're saying is they should give up the advantage they have and gain nothing from it for no reason, and that Sion is somehow in control of that.

Wilhelm Arcturus said...

Or, another way to look at it, the only thing safer than being an Imperium ratter is to be a ratter in an alliance with a non-aggression pact with the Imperium.

BBTB3 said...

"Losing a dread in lowsec is "PvP loss" which is then paid by the alliance from tax made from PvE players who pay for everything at the end."

It's paid by a lot more income than just "ratting taxes", if you are going to make this argument then you should also include Imperium moon mineral income, renter income, etc.. which runs in the trillions annually.

Your stats are based off of faulty data, ratting safety would only make logical sense if that loss data was based on the areas of ratting i.e. total Deklein losses, Fade losses, Branch etc. which would greatly affect your analysis. Hell, I bet 2 T of Imperium losses are due to suicide gankers in highsec, which make large profits off their kills.

Please, Gevlon, if you are going to do statistical research, do it right.

Gevlon said...

Moon income and such are irrelevant, since there are moons in renter regions too. The only differences between being a renter and an Imperium member is that you have to pay rent vs die a lot.

Anonymous said...

@Wilhelm Arcturus
RUCA is #1 even including all combat losses and it doesn't seem to have any sort of pact with Emproium.
I mean, look at
Thus, your point fails.

Anonymous said...

Section 8 have a good "tax for rent scheme", easy to startup, easy to go AFK for months without worrying about the monthly bill. Other renters should offer this and they would make more customers I'm sure.

Jim L said...

Where did I say paying SOV bills was exciting?

The Imperium can own and control SOV, renters do not.

Gevlon said...

@Jim L: The Mittani controls Sov. Random Imperium guy has less control than a renter.