DUST Search - Yo Protoman

Sojuro Ryo wrote:

theQube wrote:

Sojuro Ryo wrote:

Right there is the common misunderstanding, payment. The common belief amongst FPSers is that no matter what you get paid. Well, you don't. Why would a corp pay you for loosing? So it doesn't matter how good you are at killing if you can't complete the mission.

And why would a corporation employ you if you're not profitable?

Sure, the contracting party couldn't care less what it costs you, the fee is agreed in advance -- but if you spend 150,000 ISK on fits and vehicles, but only earn 140,000, the whole endeavor was pointless.

Dying lots does not guarantee success; neither does killing, but I certainly know which of those two is the more preferable from a CEO's perspective.

Do you even know how a contract works? Corp A puts out a contract wanting a merc corp to take a factory district on some planet for 1m isk. You, the leader or contract negotiator, decide to except the contract.

Outcome 1: You lose the battle. Corp A does not pay you.
Outcome 2: You win the battle and the corp gets paid 1m isk.

Now how you divide that up is dependent on how your corp is setup. And if the corp spent 1.2m isk on the battle then that is your problem and not the highering corp.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
theQube Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 44	Posted - 2012.08.05 17:52:00 - [1] - Quote Hardly seems fair to place the blame of the loss on the one player -- certainly calling him out like this smacks of an unhealthy interest in said player. As far as Proto's game is concerned, it was profitable. CEO's and CFO's will pay significant attention to individuals profitability/return on investment, because it's not beyond the realms of possibility to win a match, but to do so inefficiently and at a loss in terms of income/expense.
theQube Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 44	Posted - 2012.08.05 18:35:00 - [2] - Quote Sojuro Ryo wrote: It doesn't bother me at all how many times I die as long as the mission gets completed. Now I understand it may bother you as you need that self gratification to make you feel special. That's just something I don't need. As per my previous post, if you end up spending more than you earn, you'll soon be no use to anyone -- I'll agree, kills aren't critical for everyone, there are a number of useful roles we can take on, but deaths can potentially be very costly. A reckless attitude to life and death in this game is as unhealthy as an obsession with it.
theQube Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 44	Posted - 2012.08.05 19:08:00 - [3] - Quote Sojuro Ryo wrote: Right there is the common misunderstanding, payment. The common belief amongst FPSers is that no matter what you get paid. Well, you don't. Why would a corp pay you for loosing? So it doesn't matter how good you are at killing if you can't complete the mission. And why would a corporation employ you if you're not profitable? Sure, the contracting party couldn't care less what it costs you, the fee is agreed in advance -- but if you spend 150,000 ISK on fits and vehicles, but only earn 140,000, the whole endeavor was pointless. Dying lots does not guarantee success; neither does killing, but I certainly know which of those two is the more preferable from a CEO's perspective.
theQube Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 44	Posted - 2012.08.05 19:20:00 - [4] - Quote Sojuro Ryo wrote: theQube wrote: Sojuro Ryo wrote: Right there is the common misunderstanding, payment. The common belief amongst FPSers is that no matter what you get paid. Well, you don't. Why would a corp pay you for loosing? So it doesn't matter how good you are at killing if you can't complete the mission. And why would a corporation employ you if you're not profitable? Sure, the contracting party couldn't care less what it costs you, the fee is agreed in advance -- but if you spend 150,000 ISK on fits and vehicles, but only earn 140,000, the whole endeavor was pointless. Dying lots does not guarantee success; neither does killing, but I certainly know which of those two is the more preferable from a CEO's perspective. Do you even know how a contract works? Corp A puts out a contract wanting a merc corp to take a factory district on some planet for 1m isk. You, the leader or contract negotiator, decide to except the contract. Outcome 1: You lose the battle. Corp A does not pay you. Outcome 2: You win the battle and the corp gets paid 1m isk. Now how you divide that up is dependent on how your corp is setup. And if the corp spent 1.2m isk on the battle then that is your problem and not the highering corp. Nothing you've just said negates what I wrote -- in fact, it fully supports it.
theQube Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 44	Posted - 2012.08.05 19:28:00 - [5] - Quote Sojuro Ryo wrote: @theQube, in you second part of your statement yes but the first sentence you contradicted yourself. Explain, please.
theQube Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 44	Posted - 2012.08.05 21:55:00 - [6] - Quote Sojuro Ryo wrote: "And why would a corporation employ you if you're not profitable?" This statement implies that a corporation will not higher you because you don't make a profit when in fact, they don't care as long as you complete the contract. Corps will not higher you if you have signs of not putting effort into completing the contract. I'm unlikely to recruit someone into my corporation if they consistently find themselves in the red -- assuming we'll be able to transfer money or assets between players, thereby funding their participation, any player who is a drain on my corporations purse had better be bringing something to the table! In terms of being hired by a third party to fulfil a contract, I already stated they won't give two hoots how much it costs as the fee will be agreed in advance. I wouldn't be surprised if some paid more than a passing interest in your corporations efficiency/profitability, but it remains to be seen what information CCP will provide outside of the absolutely necessary.