These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Ganking from a roleplay pov
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Akeru Matu
Holey Amarrian Inquisition
Grand Inquisitors Federation
#1 - 2014-08-22 05:46:37 UTC
As assumption is the mother of all fuckups Id like to assume that concord is advers of you ganking someone else.

Having that out of the way, in my opinion there is nothing wrong with you ganking me. Its possible and a risk of leaving the station (I cant wait for walking in stations and hired ninjas) but I do think there is something wrong with how concord handles ganks. Yes they blow you out of the sky and put a penalty on your security status. But clearly that isnt working. In our justice system we try to go after criminals in a way that works best, penalize the reason why they're destroying your ship. This excludes the occasional maniac who just destroys for fun but mostly it is done for an economic point of view so imho a fine for each transgression would be logical. Not high enouh to stop ganking as a mechanic but high enough to be a proper incentive to consider what you're ganking, cause you gotta admit, sacrificing a catalyst isnt't hurting anyone. Besides that I would only find it logical that the insurance company somehow goes after you trying to get their money back, further promoting to insure your ship.

Now this is probably a lame mechanic if it was just kill x pay y. So i would suggest to make it work like the bounty system, sort off. You make a transgression and concord or whoever detains your ship sends a fine which you have to pay whenever you try to dock. Perhaps limiting it to certain security systems or stations from the faction who held sov in the system where you transgressed.

So what do you think? Especially interested in what code thinks what would enhance rp on this matter and how to get people to 'play' the game.
And now im done with this i wonder if i should have put this in the new ideas topic, if so pls move :)
Varukka Sault
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2 - 2014-08-22 07:42:50 UTC
"Clearly that is not working." Is purely subjective. It's working just fine for lots of people.
Anal Canal
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#3 - 2014-08-22 08:02:15 UTC
Akeru Matu wrote:
As assumption is the mother of all fuckups Id like to assume that concord is advers of you ganking someone else.

Having that out of the way, in my opinion there is nothing wrong with you ganking me. Its possible and a risk of leaving the station (I cant wait for walking in stations and hired ninjas) but I do think there is something wrong with how concord handles ganks. Yes they blow you out of the sky and put a penalty on your security status. But clearly that isnt working. In our justice system we try to go after criminals in a way that works best, penalize the reason why they're destroying your ship. This excludes the occasional maniac who just destroys for fun but mostly it is done for an economic point of view so imho a fine for each transgression would be logical. Not high enouh to stop ganking as a mechanic but high enough to be a proper incentive to consider what you're ganking, cause you gotta admit, sacrificing a catalyst isnt't hurting anyone. Besides that I would only find it logical that the insurance company somehow goes after you trying to get their money back, further promoting to insure your ship.

Now this is probably a lame mechanic if it was just kill x pay y. So i would suggest to make it work like the bounty system, sort off. You make a transgression and concord or whoever detains your ship sends a fine which you have to pay whenever you try to dock. Perhaps limiting it to certain security systems or stations from the faction who held sov in the system where you transgressed.

So what do you think? Especially interested in what code thinks what would enhance rp on this matter and how to get people to 'play' the game.
And now im done with this i wonder if i should have put this in the new ideas topic, if so pls move :)


So you want Eve to be Ferguson? (Sorry to soon, but OP said a naughty word and keep local clean)

Plus CONCORD does everything you say already aside from the dock-up aspect. I mean, during the server issues today a scout went offline and I wanted to make sure that the belt rats wouldn't pop the ship while they were DC'ed. Having you tried killing belt rats with Fac-Pol? It gets dicey. Now regarding the insurance aspect, you realize that the player receives no ISK (not even default payout) for ganking. I mean that's like United Amalgamated Corporation paying out policies for suicide. Hell, the only insurance policy I know that pays for deaths due to war are issued exclusively by the military. (I am sure that there are more, but something tells me not cheap.) So from this, the gank ends up being more a cost effective statement, rather than just a ISK-Risk-Reward issue. If I want to pop something because I can, then I will. I don't really sit back and try to figure out the salvage and drop chance trying to alleviate the cost of said actions. Sometimes you get lucky, most times you don't. It's the reason CONCORD is there as retribution rather than protection.

The Artist Formerly Known As AC. 

The terminal end of the digestive system. 

The Best CSM Candidate
Akeru Matu
Holey Amarrian Inquisition
Grand Inquisitors Federation
#4 - 2014-08-22 10:16:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Akeru Matu
With not working is meant from a police side of view. If you can't stop criminal behaviour with solution A you need to find a better punishment to keep crime low. All I'm saying is that Concord isn't using the right tools to keep crime low and I'm proposing a alternate way of dealing with ganking.
Don't get me wrong I don't want to make ganking not viable, just trying to change how the mechanic works for the law enforcers.

On earth we can't stop crime altogether either but you can change the rules and laws hoping that the punishment is high enough to deter from criminal action.

Ferguson might be a good example albeit a bit too soon ;) Imho Concord does exactly what went wrong there, run in guns blazing. Instead of more subtle ways of enforcing law.
JAF Anders
Adenosine Inhibition
#5 - 2014-08-22 13:43:04 UTC
Stop right there, criminal scum!

The pursuit of excellence and stabbed plexing alts.
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#6 - 2014-08-22 22:39:57 UTC
You are forgetting that this is a game and Concorde is purely a game mechanic designed to punish those who attack their fellow capsuleers in high sec. There has never been, nor will there ever be, an effort on concord 's part to reduce criminal behaviour. They are simply there for the mechanical reason of retribution.

Faction police are in the game for realism / story related reasons, Concord are not. Your proposal is based on the assumption that Concord and it's behaviour should make sense and seem realistic. That assumption is false.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Anal Canal
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#7 - 2014-08-23 00:41:19 UTC
Akeru Matu wrote:
With not working is meant from a police side of view. If you can't stop criminal behaviour with solution A you need to find a better punishment to keep crime low. All I'm saying is that Concord isn't using the right tools to keep crime low and I'm proposing a alternate way of dealing with ganking.
Don't get me wrong I don't want to make ganking not viable, just trying to change how the mechanic works for the law enforcers.

On earth we can't stop crime altogether either but you can change the rules and laws hoping that the punishment is high enough to deter from criminal action.

Ferguson might be a good example albeit a bit too soon ;) Imho Concord does exactly what went wrong there, run in guns blazing. Instead of more subtle ways of enforcing law.



So you want Minority Report? Policy action prior to the possible engagement...

The Artist Formerly Known As AC. 

The terminal end of the digestive system. 

The Best CSM Candidate
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#8 - 2014-08-23 01:32:10 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
I think the OP missed the part where EVE is basically a libertarian dystopia populated by virtually immortal people (who fancy themselves as demi-gods) all armed with weaponry that slings around the equivalent of nuclear warheads (or greater).

I mean... seriously... suicide ganking isn't anything more than "property damage."

And gankers pay for this with more "property damage"... and a hit to their record... which can mitigated by causing more "property damage" against people the police hate even more (see: NPC pirates).

And all that can be bypassed by paying off the police to wage a "controlled" war (in high-sec).


And the reason wars and ganking might be considered ethically sound in the dystopia of EVE is because all those people mining and manufacturing are making the very same products used in ganking and war and selling them to whoever pays the most.
So to keep us "demi-gods" from waging war against the empires or police, they let us nuke each other.

It is literally the perfect setup. "Let the rabble stay distracted by killing each other while we administrate unmolested."

How did you Veterans start?
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#9 - 2014-08-23 01:51:54 UTC
There are already "fines" for ganking, and even for "legit PVP" in lowsec. You either lose the convenience of shopping in and taking shortcuts thru highsec, or you pay a few hundred million isk for clone soldier tags AND FINES to raise your status, or you subject yourself to unknown hours of painfully tedious ratting to raise your status.

\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Kohiko Sun
Stormcrows
#10 - 2014-08-23 01:56:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Kohiko Sun
Why would CONCORD want to prevent it? Every gank makes them richer.

Every ganker buys a ship, fit, and ammunition, and the SCC gets tax ISKies from all of it. The gankee buys a ship, fit, and ammunition or cargo or whatever, and the SCC gets tax ISKies from that.

Then, they meet somewhere in space, and ships asplode. The gankers don't get any insurance payment, so the insurance company doesn't lose money on them. The gankee might be insured, but that's still cheaper for Pend Insurance than paying for two or more ships.

Now, both sides have to buy more things to replace what they lost. That's twice as much taxes paid to the SCC than if the gank never happened. And, on top of that, there are the taxes when the loot is resold on the market. Oh, and if the gankers decide they want to fix their sec status with tags or ratting, that helps CONCORD, too, with more fees and taxes or asploded ebil little NPC piwates.
Ares Desideratus
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2014-08-23 02:52:15 UTC
Varukka Sault wrote:
"Clearly that is not working." Is purely subjective. It's working just fine for lots of people.

Its a video game. Everything is subjective.
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#12 - 2014-08-23 04:57:10 UTC
Ares Desideratus wrote:
Varukka Sault wrote:
"Clearly that is not working." Is purely subjective. It's working just fine for lots of people.

Its a video game. Everything is subjective.

On the surface I do not disagree with you, in the context of the OP's post I do. Concord is functioning exactly as intended and that is not subjective. The OP is claiming that Concord is not functioning as it should, and that simply is not true. The OP is disagreeing with the model of Concord as set in place by CCP, and his disagreement on that point is certainly his right, and is subjective.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Marah Matu
Holey Amarrian Inquisition
Grand Inquisitors Federation
#13 - 2014-08-23 10:24:31 UTC
Wel my main went inactive due to vacation and i forgot the forums are inaccessable then ><.

Well i see your reason on certain points, although I might not agree on them, they do make sense in a way.
Ares Desideratus
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2014-08-23 13:35:18 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
Ares Desideratus wrote:
Varukka Sault wrote:
"Clearly that is not working." Is purely subjective. It's working just fine for lots of people.

Its a video game. Everything is subjective.

On the surface I do not disagree with you, in the context of the OP's post I do. Concord is functioning exactly as intended and that is not subjective. The OP is claiming that Concord is not functioning as it should, and that simply is not true. The OP is disagreeing with the model of Concord as set in place by CCP, and his disagreement on that point is certainly his right, and is subjective.

Everything is functioning exactly as intended. Or maybe everything isnt. Theres this thing called *making the game better*. The OPs post might not be in favour of this concept, but I think his heart is in the right place at least.

And the OPs claim that Concord is not functioning as it should is actually true, if you look at it from the RP or realism perspective. In this context, Concord makes no sense at all.

But yes, as a game mechanic, Concord is working fine and hardly seems to need any work.
Lugia3
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2014-08-24 12:45:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugia3
Concord does not provide protection. Concord provides retribution.


Anyway, with your plan to "fine" gankers, nothing will happen. Gankers already use alts. They don't buy the catalysts on the same character. Their main/hauler alt just trades them over. If their wallet hit 0 or went negative, nothing will happen because those characters don't buy things.

"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik
Ares Desideratus
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2014-08-24 14:01:31 UTC
Lugia3 wrote:
Concord does not provide protection. Concord provides retribution.


Anyway, with your plan to "fine" gankers, nothing will happen. Gankers already use alts. They don't buy the catalysts on the same character. Their main/hauler alt just trades them over. If their wallet hit 0 or went negative, nothing will happen because those characters don't buy things.

What difference does it make which character they use to buy things with? Theyre still buying things, and if you charge them for ganking its still going to affect their ISK amount. In the OPs proposed situation, if you run out of money and cant pay the fine, then you cant dock. Simple.

Not sure I agree with it at all, but I definitely dont agree with your reasoning.
Lugia3
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2014-08-25 15:08:01 UTC
Ares Desideratus wrote:
Lugia3 wrote:
Concord does not provide protection. Concord provides retribution.


Anyway, with your plan to "fine" gankers, nothing will happen. Gankers already use alts. They don't buy the catalysts on the same character. Their main/hauler alt just trades them over. If their wallet hit 0 or went negative, nothing will happen because those characters don't buy things.

What difference does it make which character they use to buy things with? Theyre still buying things, and if you charge them for ganking its still going to affect their ISK amount. In the OPs proposed situation, if you run out of money and cant pay the fine, then you cant dock. Simple.

Not sure I agree with it at all, but I definitely dont agree with your reasoning.


Then they will just pick ships up from an orca instead of docking.

"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik
Ares Desideratus
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#18 - 2014-08-26 14:15:25 UTC
Lugia3 wrote:
Ares Desideratus wrote:
Lugia3 wrote:
Concord does not provide protection. Concord provides retribution.


Anyway, with your plan to "fine" gankers, nothing will happen. Gankers already use alts. They don't buy the catalysts on the same character. Their main/hauler alt just trades them over. If their wallet hit 0 or went negative, nothing will happen because those characters don't buy things.

What difference does it make which character they use to buy things with? Theyre still buying things, and if you charge them for ganking its still going to affect their ISK amount. In the OPs proposed situation, if you run out of money and cant pay the fine, then you cant dock. Simple.

Not sure I agree with it at all, but I definitely dont agree with your reasoning.


Then they will just pick ships up from an orca instead of docking.

Oh crap. Didn't think of that. You're right.
Helena Tiberius Mabata
Doomheim
#19 - 2014-08-30 18:29:06 UTC
Even if this were to be implemented there are countless ways around the system just using the current applied mechanics. Like the ones above me said you can just reship from an orca and use a noobship from said orca to pull CONCORD from the gank site. Gank alts rarely have any ISK as well so the fines do no good there either. You could deathclone back to your station free of cost as well which avoids the entire pay here to dock idea. Then theres POS's, Low Sec Stations, Null Sec, and Wormholes to use as well which only further remove the entire point of this idea.
Steppa Musana
Doomheim
#20 - 2014-09-14 23:33:23 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
Ares Desideratus wrote:
Varukka Sault wrote:
"Clearly that is not working." Is purely subjective. It's working just fine for lots of people.

Its a video game. Everything is subjective.

On the surface I do not disagree with you, in the context of the OP's post I do. Concord is functioning exactly as intended and that is not subjective. The OP is claiming that Concord is not functioning as it should, and that simply is not true. The OP is disagreeing with the model of Concord as set in place by CCP, and his disagreement on that point is certainly his right, and is subjective.

This, with a very important "NO" to the OP's suggestion.

Hey guys.
12Next page