These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Is the penalty for suicide-ganking too low?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#81 - 2012-05-31 01:54:53 UTC
Jonuts wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


What risk do miners have? (besides Suicide Ganks which you're trying to ban)

Why don't miners make it unrewarding to suicide gank? A tank fit hulk isn't profitable to gank. A Mining fit Rokh is even worse. The only reason Suicide ganking is profitable is because miners allow it to be.


The risk miners have is probably suicide. I know I'd put a round in my head if I had to make my isk through mining. Also, who said I'm trying to BAN suicide ganking? I'm arguing against it's profitability. If you want to go kill unarmed civilians in job lots, go do it. Go nuts. Have a field day with it. I'm only asking that the activity have a risk associated with it, or at the least, enough consequences to make it something other than free isk.



Suicide Ganking isn't the equivalent of shooting people. It's the equivalent of blowing up construction equipment, stealing the scrap and selling that. The explosives you use are the equivalent of the gank ship.

Stealing scrap from construction sites is incredibly profitable in RL, judging by the number of people who get caught doing it. Getting to blow up and salvage the huge equipment would be even more profitable.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Jonuts
The Arrow Project
#82 - 2012-05-31 02:17:24 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Jonuts wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


What risk do miners have? (besides Suicide Ganks which you're trying to ban)

Why don't miners make it unrewarding to suicide gank? A tank fit hulk isn't profitable to gank. A Mining fit Rokh is even worse. The only reason Suicide ganking is profitable is because miners allow it to be.


The risk miners have is probably suicide. I know I'd put a round in my head if I had to make my isk through mining. Also, who said I'm trying to BAN suicide ganking? I'm arguing against it's profitability. If you want to go kill unarmed civilians in job lots, go do it. Go nuts. Have a field day with it. I'm only asking that the activity have a risk associated with it, or at the least, enough consequences to make it something other than free isk.



Suicide Ganking isn't the equivalent of shooting people. It's the equivalent of blowing up construction equipment, stealing the scrap and selling that. The explosives you use are the equivalent of the gank ship.

Stealing scrap from construction sites is incredibly profitable in RL, judging by the number of people who get caught doing it. Getting to blow up and salvage the huge equipment would be even more profitable.


Stealing scrap also comes with real penalties. You know, things like jail time. It has risks associated with the rewards. Suicide ganking does not. It's just free and easy isk. Sure, if you're lucky enough to find the motherlode walking around in an uncloaked stealth bomber on auto pilot, feel free to profit greatly. Outside of those extremely lucky occasions, the costs/risks associated with suicide ganking (for profit, not fun) should be substantial enough to warrant actual consideration.
Juess
The Order of Cerberus
#83 - 2012-05-31 02:18:41 UTC
Jonuts wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Jonuts wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


What risk do miners have? (besides Suicide Ganks which you're trying to ban)

Why don't miners make it unrewarding to suicide gank? A tank fit hulk isn't profitable to gank. A Mining fit Rokh is even worse. The only reason Suicide ganking is profitable is because miners allow it to be.


The risk miners have is probably suicide. I know I'd put a round in my head if I had to make my isk through mining. Also, who said I'm trying to BAN suicide ganking? I'm arguing against it's profitability. If you want to go kill unarmed civilians in job lots, go do it. Go nuts. Have a field day with it. I'm only asking that the activity have a risk associated with it, or at the least, enough consequences to make it something other than free isk.



Suicide Ganking isn't the equivalent of shooting people. It's the equivalent of blowing up construction equipment, stealing the scrap and selling that. The explosives you use are the equivalent of the gank ship.

Stealing scrap from construction sites is incredibly profitable in RL, judging by the number of people who get caught doing it. Getting to blow up and salvage the huge equipment would be even more profitable.


Stealing scrap also comes with real penalties. You know, things like jail time. It has risks associated with the rewards. Suicide ganking does not. It's just free and easy isk. Sure, if you're lucky enough to find the motherlode walking around in an uncloaked stealth bomber on auto pilot, feel free to profit greatly. Outside of those extremely lucky occasions, the costs/risks associated with suicide ganking (for profit, not fun) should be substantial enough to warrant actual consideration.

Now I know your logic is faulty. If players thought suicide ganking were risk-free, all the miners would be doing that.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#84 - 2012-05-31 02:34:55 UTC
Jonuts wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Jonuts wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


What risk do miners have? (besides Suicide Ganks which you're trying to ban)

Why don't miners make it unrewarding to suicide gank? A tank fit hulk isn't profitable to gank. A Mining fit Rokh is even worse. The only reason Suicide ganking is profitable is because miners allow it to be.


The risk miners have is probably suicide. I know I'd put a round in my head if I had to make my isk through mining. Also, who said I'm trying to BAN suicide ganking? I'm arguing against it's profitability. If you want to go kill unarmed civilians in job lots, go do it. Go nuts. Have a field day with it. I'm only asking that the activity have a risk associated with it, or at the least, enough consequences to make it something other than free isk.



Suicide Ganking isn't the equivalent of shooting people. It's the equivalent of blowing up construction equipment, stealing the scrap and selling that. The explosives you use are the equivalent of the gank ship.

Stealing scrap from construction sites is incredibly profitable in RL, judging by the number of people who get caught doing it. Getting to blow up and salvage the huge equipment would be even more profitable.


Stealing scrap also comes with real penalties. You know, things like jail time. It has risks associated with the rewards. Suicide ganking does not. It's just free and easy isk. Sure, if you're lucky enough to find the motherlode walking around in an uncloaked stealth bomber on auto pilot, feel free to profit greatly. Outside of those extremely lucky occasions, the costs/risks associated with suicide ganking (for profit, not fun) should be substantial enough to warrant actual consideration.


Suicide Ganking comes with real penalties. You know, things like getting your ship blown up. It has risks associated with the rewards. The risk of a bad loot drop. The risk of unexpected tankiness. The risk of whoops forgot to OH. The costs of suicide ganking for profit are very substantial compared to the expected reward, it costs ~10m Isk to gank something with an expected drop worth ~10m ISK.

And you can't count any player bounties in your reward calculation, because player events aren't something you balance on.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
#85 - 2012-05-31 02:43:41 UTC
gfldex wrote:
Julii Hakaari wrote:
murderer


You can't be a murderer in a world of immortals.


Oh, I don't know:
Goonswarm did a pretty good job of 'murdering' Krixtal Icefluxor and associates.

Was a pretty good show....until the thread was deleted.
Jonuts
The Arrow Project
#86 - 2012-05-31 02:52:15 UTC
Quote:
Suicide Ganking comes with real penalties. You know, things like getting your ship blown up. It has risks associated with the rewards. The risk of a bad loot drop. The risk of unexpected tankiness. The risk of whoops forgot to OH. The costs of suicide ganking for profit are very substantial compared to the expected reward, it costs ~10m Isk to gank something with an expected drop worth ~10m ISK.

And you can't count any player bounties in your reward calculation, because player events aren't something you balance on.


That's like saying going to a firing range is dangerous because if you're really stupid you can put a bullet in yourself. You can scan ships, and you can build a ship for suicide ganking with 2m ISK. Even poor loot drops are profitable unless you're throwing full T2 destroyers away firing on the first thing you can get a lock on before it warps out. You've already chosen to sacrifice the ship as well, so it's hardly a risk. You know exactly what you're losing, you can scan to make an educated guess of what you'll receive. You kinda have to put your try hard pants on induce any possibility of losing isk on this. That's an accomplishment along the lines of committing suicide by holding your breath. It takes serious dedication to do yourself harm to pull off.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#87 - 2012-05-31 02:56:13 UTC
Jonuts wrote:
Quote:
Suicide Ganking comes with real penalties. You know, things like getting your ship blown up. It has risks associated with the rewards. The risk of a bad loot drop. The risk of unexpected tankiness. The risk of whoops forgot to OH. The costs of suicide ganking for profit are very substantial compared to the expected reward, it costs ~10m Isk to gank something with an expected drop worth ~10m ISK.

And you can't count any player bounties in your reward calculation, because player events aren't something you balance on.


That's like saying going to a firing range is dangerous because if you're really stupid you can put a bullet in yourself. You can scan ships, and you can build a ship for suicide ganking with 2m ISK. Even poor loot drops are profitable unless you're throwing full T2 destroyers away firing on the first thing you can get a lock on before it warps out. You've already chosen to sacrifice the ship as well, so it's hardly a risk. You know exactly what you're losing, you can scan to make an educated guess of what you'll receive. You kinda have to put your try hard pants on induce any possibility of losing isk on this. That's an accomplishment along the lines of committing suicide by holding your breath. It takes serious dedication to do yourself harm to pull off.


Ditto goes for Hulks.

You're saying that going downrange on a firing range while the range is hot should be made safe. It takes significantly less effort to keep a hulk from getting ganked than it takes to gank a hulk. You know exactly what you're risking everytime you undock (your ship), you can d-scan to make an educated guess of what gank ships you're about to receive. You kinda have to put your try hard pants on to induce any possibility of losing isk on this.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Cyprus Amaro
Tortuga Coalition 102
#88 - 2012-05-31 05:09:44 UTC
This whole notion that a ganker is risking something is almost humorous....

By definition, "risk" implies an uncertain outcome. The ganker knows he is going to lose his ship, so that is no risk, it is a cost of doing business.

Some argue there is a risk of failure, but CCP has eliminated this risk as well. A ganker can ship scan a potential target before committing themselves. They can see what kind of tank that juicy Hulk may or may not have. This eliminates the risk of failure.

There is a potential financial risk of course. You can't be certain the number of modules that will be dropped intact. However, the Goons have tried to eliminate this risk as well. I've heard it cost about 10 Mil to fit out a gank ship. Funny, the Goons will pay out a bounty of 100Mil for every 10 Hulks. So over the long run, they have eliminated the financial risk as well.

So, gankers face no RISK.

OTOH, picture the lowly miner.

Every time they undock to mine they are at risk of being ganked.
They can't chose to engage or not (unlike the ganker who has that choice)
They don't know the outcome (unlike the ganker).

While there are things that the miner can do to reduce their risk, they are faced with RISK, unlike the Goons. So when the Goons go on and on about how whimpy the mining communittee is, remember this. Miners are taking risk, the Gankers aren't.

There are ways to introduce risk into the act of ganking. How about a variable response time for Concord, from instantaneous as soon as the ganker fires the weapon, to a slower response that just might let them escape off grid. This would introduce an element of uncertainty, or risk, to the equation. How about making ship scanning an aggressive act, such as can flipping. It wouldn't bring Concord down on them, but it would give the miners escorts the ability to engage preemptively.

Of course nothing like this will be done because the Goons would whine and pontificate. Heaven forbid that the Goons face risk or uncertainty in their activities. And it is obvious that CCP is unwilling or afraid to do anything counter to Goon interests.
Shanija
Confetti Explosion
#89 - 2012-05-31 06:02:09 UTC
I'm not sure about the penalty. Part of the problem, like someone pointed out earlier in the thread, is that Concord protects the suicide gankers as much as it protects anyone else. It prevents them from being attacked on anything but their own terms, and ship scanners mean those terms can be quite specific indeed.

The bigger problem I have with the whole thing is that you can't fight over non-combat ships. It's rare because they're going to be dead before anyone can get to them - even if someone's there already, you just can't give these things a decent tank even if you want to, to the extent that it's not economically viable to ever have to actually defend them.

I think the warp drive is the most boring defense method imaginable for all involved and would like to see it actually being possible to defend a mining ship (and probably, conversely, for the warp drive to not be the last word in tanking like it is today). Make all the non-combat ships tougher, maybe even give them a stront bay and let them reinforce themselves or something to give help time to arrive. Slow down Concord response. Change the warp mechanics so the warp drive isn't a tank substitute.

If this is a sandbox, let's add some interaction. Make it possible to fight over non-combat ships and make it feasible for bystanders to get involved.
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#90 - 2012-05-31 06:10:48 UTC
Its not high enough.

Detach the ability to grind security status from ratting in null and deny people with -2 sec or more docking rights in 0.5 or up.

After all, Eve is supposed to be cold and heartless.....a dog eat dog world

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#91 - 2012-05-31 06:22:24 UTC
Cyprus Amaro wrote:
By definition, "risk" implies an uncertain outcome.
No, it doesn't.
Risk implies a cost and a probability. That probability may very well be 100%, at which point the risk is very high (so high, in fact, that it has the same value as the cost of the projected loss).

Quote:
OTOH, picture the lowly miner.
…who, according to you, can remove the probability of being ganked by ramping up the risk of failure for the ganker, and thus have no risk.

Quote:
How about a variable response time for Concord, from instantaneous as soon as the ganker fires the weapon, to a slower response that just might let them escape off grid. This would introduce an element of uncertainty, or risk, to the equation.
That uncertainty is already there: aside from CONCORD, everything is random, and as mentioned there's the initial risk of losing the ship as well.

Quote:
How about making ship scanning an aggressive act, such as can flipping. It wouldn't bring Concord down on them, but it would give the miners escorts the ability to engage preemptively.
Makes no sense and doesn't help… well, it might help the gankers since the escort is now engaged elsewhere and the target is freely available for an gank.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#92 - 2012-05-31 06:26:46 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Cyprus Amaro wrote:
This whole notion that a ganker is risking something is almost humorous....

By definition, "risk" implies an uncertain outcome. The ganker knows he is going to lose his ship, so that is no risk, it is a cost of doing business.

Some argue there is a risk of failure, but CCP has eliminated this risk as well. A ganker can ship scan a potential target before committing themselves. They can see what kind of tank that juicy Hulk may or may not have. This eliminates the risk of failure.

There is a potential financial risk of course. You can't be certain the number of modules that will be dropped intact. However, the Goons have tried to eliminate this risk as well. I've heard it cost about 10 Mil to fit out a gank ship. Funny, the Goons will pay out a bounty of 100Mil for every 10 Hulks. So over the long run, they have eliminated the financial risk as well.

So, gankers face no RISK.

OTOH, picture the lowly miner.

Every time they undock to mine they are at risk of being ganked.
They can't chose to engage or not (unlike the ganker who has that choice)
They don't know the outcome (unlike the ganker).

While there are things that the miner can do to reduce their risk, they are faced with RISK, unlike the Goons. So when the Goons go on and on about how whimpy the mining communittee is, remember this. Miners are taking risk, the Gankers aren't.

There are ways to introduce risk into the act of ganking. How about a variable response time for Concord, from instantaneous as soon as the ganker fires the weapon, to a slower response that just might let them escape off grid. This would introduce an element of uncertainty, or risk, to the equation. How about making ship scanning an aggressive act, such as can flipping. It wouldn't bring Concord down on them, but it would give the miners escorts the ability to engage preemptively.

Of course nothing like this will be done because the Goons would whine and pontificate. Heaven forbid that the Goons face risk or uncertainty in their activities. And it is obvious that CCP is unwilling or afraid to do anything counter to Goon interests.



Goonswarms bounties, as player operated things have no bearing on this discussion, since there is nothing stopping you from providing free Hulk insurance, negating the miner's risk.

Your lowly miner seems pretty dense.
Everytime he undocks, he indicates the risk level he's comfortable with by choosing what ship to undock.
He can choose the amount of effort he wants to put into avoiding ganks through tried and true methods.
He knows the outcome; if he gets shot, he'll die. His job is, therefore, not to get shot.

Tah Dah. Miners now have all their risk mitigated by effort, just like the gankers you're complaining about did.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#93 - 2012-05-31 06:38:34 UTC
Julii Hakaari wrote:
Indeed, and I agree, my security is my responsibility, but I'm talking about the penalty of committing murder.
That penalty is death and persecution. The persecution part is up to players to enforce.

By the way
“That's why I wrote at the top of the post that I couldn't post the post because I had too many quotes; of course the result would be incoherent - I'll try to adapt from now on.”
You can always use good old quotes rather than quote tags to include text…

Quote:
I disagree. In my opinion, the different security systems fills an essential purpose to New Eden; it makes it diverse and full of life. I can choose to stay in high security space or I can choose to join an alliance in null; either way, I should feel an obvious difference rather than the lacking of useless NPC's and a failed story-line.
Yes. That purpose is to dictate what kind of cost you have to pay for aggression: material in highsec, standings in empire, SFA in null. Players might not own the systems, but empire is just as player-run as nullsec is and it's players that should generate the feel, not NPCs. In fact, as you might have noticed, they're phasing out NPCs more and more as time goes on and as players are given more and more control.

Quote:
CONCORD should have a will to protect CONCORD space from undesirables, and equally so should the factions.
They do. It's called faction police and navy (which equates to CONCORD in CONCORD space). Most of them are purposefully designed to be evadable (and even beatable, should it come to that) because players are not meant to be kept out of any part of space by NPCs — that's the job of other players.

Quote:
I guess I really don't see what harsh consequences suicide-gankers have when breaking laws in empire.
Destruction and persecution. If the harshness is somewhat less than expected, it's because players (particularly the victims) choose to make it so by voiding part of the penalty.

Quote:
Yes, you really do
No, I really don't. Just because you prefer to look at it through some RP lens doesn't mean I have to do it as well. So no “we” are not looking at it from the perspective of NPCs owning space because that perspective isn't particularly relevant and doesn't reflect how the game works (or, indeed, how it should work). EVE is a player-run game; NPCs should ideally be removed completely, not be given more prominence and be handed roles that the players already have the tools to fulfil.
Ludi Burek
Exit-Strategy
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#94 - 2012-05-31 07:22:37 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
Its not high enough.

Detach the ability to grind security status from ratting in null and deny people with -2 sec or more docking rights in 0.5 or up.

After all, Eve is supposed to be cold and heartless.....a dog eat dog world



Cold and heartless only for some right? Lol
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#95 - 2012-05-31 08:17:50 UTC
Ludi Burek wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
After all, Eve is supposed to be cold and heartless.....a dog eat dog world
Cold and heartless only for some right? Lol
It's difficult to maintain a dog-eat-dog world if some of the dogs refuse to bite… and if they decide to do so, they ca't really complain that it's only cold and heartless for them and not for the dogs on the not-receiving end of the non-bite.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#96 - 2012-05-31 08:20:08 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Ludi Burek wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
After all, Eve is supposed to be cold and heartless.....a dog eat dog world
Cold and heartless only for some right? Lol
It's difficult to maintain a dog-eat-dog world if some of the dogs refuse to bite… and if they decide to do so, they ca't really complain that it's only cold and heartless for them and not for the dogs on the not-receiving end of the non-bite.


It's a Dog-Eat-Dog world in EvE, and Miners are choosing to play "Steak."

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Gorki Andropov
I Dn't Knw Wht You Wnt Bt I Cn't Gve It Anymre
#97 - 2012-05-31 08:47:24 UTC
OP: in your signature, I think you meant to use the word 'faze', not 'phase'.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#98 - 2012-05-31 20:55:50 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
1) Ganker pays the insurance payout to the victim. This also has the effect of reducing an ISK faucet.


What if I empty my gank alt's wallet?


Your wallet goes negative. See rule #2

2) If your wallet is negative, you cannot board any ship except a shuttle.


So why does your monumentally stupid idea introduce the only game mechanic that forces a wallet to go negative, hmm?

Its not. If you smuggle and get caught, you are fined. If you do not have the ISK to pay the fine, your wallet goes negative.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#99 - 2012-05-31 21:53:15 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
1) Ganker pays the insurance payout to the victim. This also has the effect of reducing an ISK faucet.


What if I empty my gank alt's wallet?


Your wallet goes negative. See rule #2

2) If your wallet is negative, you cannot board any ship except a shuttle.


So why does your monumentally stupid idea introduce the only game mechanic that forces a wallet to go negative, hmm?

Its not. If you smuggle and get caught, you are fined. If you do not have the ISK to pay the fine, your wallet goes negative.


So people smuggle by using toons with no need to ever have a wallet balance and simply station trade at each end to someone who hasn't been fined into oblivion. At least this way, the magically created ISK isn't going to another player. If it were, that would be a problem.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Julii Hakaari
Hakaari Inc.
#100 - 2012-06-01 10:29:53 UTC
I have come to realize that you just want to play an easy game that doesn't give hard consequences to your actions - and here I thought that I was playing with cool, antisocial EVE-players, when it turns out that you're just a bunch of wow-guys who wants profit the easy way.

I am so disappointed in you.

"Completely un-phased? You think I'm totally lacking in any phasing? The idea that I'm anything less than half-phased I actually find offensive. It greatly phases me."