These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

pushing for harder punishment on hi sec gankers

First post
Author
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Doomheim
#421 - 2014-09-09 00:09:50 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
How does your argument hold any relevance what so ever?


Paranoid Loyd wrote:
any player can
engage another player at any time in any place


Players are 100% safe in a station and cannot be engaged. You are clearly wrong.

But by all means, continue with your heavy mental gymnastics. Lol

*popcorn*
Steppa Musana
Doomheim
#422 - 2014-09-09 00:21:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Steppa Musana
Game of Words, S01E01, starring NoLife NoFriends StillPosting.

Wait what am I talking about, this is like S03E07 by now.

Hey guys.

Froggy Storm
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#423 - 2014-09-09 00:23:25 UTC
The only way to win is not to play then?
Paranoid Loyd
#424 - 2014-09-09 00:26:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Paranoid Loyd
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
How does your argument hold any relevance what so ever?


CCP wrote:
any player can
engage another player at any time in any place


Players are 100% safe in a station and cannot be engaged. You are clearly wrong.



Again, those are not my words, they are a direct quote from a document CCP produced.
You and I both know they were not referring to people who are docked.
Strawman FTW. Roll

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!

NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Doomheim
#425 - 2014-09-09 01:04:16 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
How does your argument hold any relevance what so ever?


CCP wrote:
any player can
engage another player at any time in any place


Players are 100% safe in a station and cannot be engaged. You are clearly wrong.



Again, those are not my words, they are a direct quote from a document CCP produced.
You and I both know they were not referring to people who are docked.
Strawman FTW. Roll

Now that we have determined you won your petty argument via strawman, would you like to address the relevant parts of my reply to your whining?



Actually, yours was the straw man but you couldn't even manage to do that correctly. LOL!

Nowhere did I say suicide ganking shouldn't be possible. Re-read and try again, or do the smart thing and stop posting to save yourself more embarrassment.
Paranoid Loyd
#426 - 2014-09-09 01:14:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Paranoid Loyd
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:

This just further proves to me that CCP Falcon does not fully understand the issues here. I don't believe CCP Falcon has control over much more than the forums and I don't think he necessarily represents the views of CCP, given the biased nature of his posts.


I only got as far as this before I noticed a false statement.

Falcon is employed by CCP and authorized to post on this forum on their behalf, therefore he does represent the views of CCP, what you believe or don't believe is irrelevant.

See I can be deliberately obtuse just like you. Blink

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!

DJentropy Ovaert
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#427 - 2014-09-09 01:58:46 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:

This just further proves to me that CCP Falcon does not fully understand the issues here. I don't believe CCP Falcon has control over much more than the forums and I don't think he necessarily represents the views of CCP, given the biased nature of his posts.


I only got as far as this before I noticed a false statement.

Falcon is employed by CCP and authorized to post on this forum on their behalf, therefore he does represent the views of CCP, what you believe or don't believe is irrelevant.

See I can be deliberately obtuse just like you. Blink


It's generally pointless. It's just another space lawyer who will come up with some wild idea, and when dozens of players who actually have a ton of experience with the subjects they are ranting on about correct them, and then CCP itself comes in and corrects them - they will always stick to their same original point, much like a dying man clings to a life raft. It's almost that they feel the more times they express a incorrect belief, the more correct it becomes.

I know of another shiptoaster who exhibits this behavior, but I will not say his name as I think it has already been said twice in this thread and I don't want to summon another "Ivy Degree educated lawyer" to parrot himself :)
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#428 - 2014-09-09 04:49:14 UTC
This will be the last warning:

Quote:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

If you have nothing nice to say, don't say it. Keep the off topic, trollish, and personal attacks away from our boards and threads. I have removed several posts. Thank you for your cooperation.

ISD Decoy

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#429 - 2014-09-09 11:01:06 UTC
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
Players are 100% safe in stations.


Tell that to the many players who have been "killed" by contract and station trading scams.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Mike Adoulin
Adolescent Radioactive Pirate Hamsters
CODE.
#430 - 2014-09-09 12:00:08 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Tell that to the many players who have been "killed" by contract and station trading scams.



And bonus rooms.......Bear

Everything in EVE is a trap.

And if it isn't, it's your job to make it a trap...:)

You want to know what immorality in EVE Online looks like? Look no further than Ripard "Jester" Teg.

Chribba is the Chuck Norris of EVE.

IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#431 - 2014-09-09 14:38:40 UTC
DJentropy Ovaert wrote:
It's generally pointless. It's just another space lawyer who will come up with some wild idea, and when dozens of players who actually have a ton of experience with the subjects they are ranting on about correct them, and then CCP itself comes in and corrects them - they will always stick to their same original point, much like a dying man clings to a life raft. It's almost that they feel the more times they express a incorrect belief, the more correct it becomes.


You mean they have "I've been playing Eve for a few months and I know more than all of you and CCP combined" syndrome? Lol

With that crowd you can have every CCP dev in existence post in this thread saying they are incorrect and they'll still insist they're right.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#432 - 2014-09-09 14:42:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:

Well reality is obviously different that what you have been led to believe. Think before you post.


The only reality is that which CCP documents. You have been presented with multiple sources explaining what that reality is.

Anything else is perception. My perception matches that which is documented, yours does not.



Players are 100% safe in stations. The statement you referenced is clearly false. Amusing that you will even try and and deny the blatantly obvious when presented with the facts. Lol

Color me surprised.Roll

Players are 100% safe from having their ship destroyed by another player while docked, yes. But you are not 100% safe in a station. You are still vulnerable to all manner of PvP while docked. Market PvP, trade scams, corporate theft, etc.

Remember folks, PvP in EvE isn't just about blowing ships up.


EDIT: The final arbiter of what constitutes valid PvP as griefing is CCP, not the forums. CCP's stance on what constitutes griefing and what doesn't is pretty clear, so, as I mentioned before, trying to settle the matter here is somewhat pointless. See my sig, and countless other CCP statements about non-consensual PvP.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Doomheim
#433 - 2014-09-09 15:18:15 UTC  |  Edited by: NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Bronson Hughes wrote:
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:

Well reality is obviously different that what you have been led to believe. Think before you post.


The only reality is that which CCP documents. You have been presented with multiple sources explaining what that reality is.

Anything else is perception. My perception matches that which is documented, yours does not.



Players are 100% safe in stations. The statement you referenced is clearly false. Amusing that you will even try and and deny the blatantly obvious when presented with the facts. Lol

Color me surprised.Roll

Players are 100% safe from having their ship destroyed by another player while docked, yes. .


Thanks for noting that I am indeed correct.

I find it comical that so many regulars have continually failed to understand what this thread is about.

Sensible People: "Suicide gankers have it far too easy in EVE and pay no significant costs or penalties for their actions. It is unfair to other EVE players who take risks for their rewards and is commonly used as a greifing tool by -10 players who receive no penalties whatsoever for their actions. We would like that to change for the sake of fairness"

The Regular Rabble: "You hate pvp and want all pvp gone from high sec! EVE is a pvp game and what you want goes against the nature of EVE!!!"

Lol

Roll

Cool
Paranoid Loyd
#434 - 2014-09-09 15:46:45 UTC
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
Ignorant People: "Suicide gankers have it far too easy in EVE and pay no significant costs or penalties for their actions. It is unfair to other EVE players who take risks for their rewards and is commonly used as a greifing tool by -10 players who receive no penalties whatsoever for their actions. We would like that to change for the sake of fairness"


I reiterate.

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#435 - 2014-09-09 15:47:34 UTC
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
Sensible People: "Suicide gankers have it far too easy in EVE and pay no significant costs or penalties for their actions. It is unfair to other EVE players who take risks for their rewards and is commonly used as a greifing tool by -10 players who receive no penalties whatsoever for their actions. "

This is not "sensible" because it is not true.

1. Folks below -5.0 sec status are pretty much denied all in-space activity in hisec except suicide ganking. They can't really stay in space long enough to do anything else without getting shot at.

2. Since they can't safely fly gank ships between systems, their activities are generally limited to trade hubs, or to systems where they can have alts/friends resupply them.

3. They will always, 100% of the time lose their ship when they suicide gank. That's an ISK penalty.

4. They will never, ever, get an insurance payout on their ship when they suicide gank. That's also an ISK penalty.

5. Comparing risk vs. reward from a purely ISK-based standpoint, any potential financial gains from a suicide gank are left entirely to chance. If the entirety of a valuable cargo is destroyed with the ship, there is no gain for the suicide ganker. If someone else scoops the loot before the suicide ganker's friend/alt can, there is also no gain for the suicide ganker.

I see some fixed risk and some severe limitations on gameplay, along with highly variable reward controlled by multiple factors that are beyond the suicide ganker's control.

What's the problem again?

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#436 - 2014-09-09 15:50:05 UTC
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
It is unfair


Wow you're so smart!
Congratulations you figured it out! ..

Eve is unfair!... If you want "fair" I suggest you look for a different game.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#437 - 2014-09-09 16:04:50 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:

1. Folks below -5.0 sec status are pretty much denied all in-space activity in hisec except suicide ganking. They can't really stay in space long enough to do anything else without getting shot at.


This is a good point... Perhaps the penalty for suicide ganking is too severe that it prevents someone who wants to occasionally gank from doing anything else.

I did maybe 20 ganks on one of my pilots and now she has open kill rights and negative sec status. Even if I wanted to spend hundreds of millions for tags I have kill rights for 30 days...


So I could

1. Don't play on that pilot for 30 days then pay a few hundred million for tags to get my sec status up.

2. Keep ganking since it's about the only thing I can do in highsec

3. Move to nullsec then wait for the kill rights to go away while I'm working her sec status up.


The thing is how many new pilots that want to try ganking can afford option #1 or have option #3? I think most would just pick #2.




NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Doomheim
#438 - 2014-09-09 16:23:28 UTC  |  Edited by: NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Bronson Hughes wrote:
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
Sensible People: "Suicide gankers have it far too easy in EVE and pay no significant costs or penalties for their actions. It is unfair to other EVE players who take risks for their rewards and is commonly used as a greifing tool by -10 players who receive no penalties whatsoever for their actions. "

This is not "sensible" because it is not true.

1. Folks below -5.0 sec status are pretty much denied all in-space activity in hisec except suicide ganking. They can't really stay in space long enough to do anything else without getting shot at.

2. Since they can't safely fly gank ships between systems, their activities are generally limited to trade hubs, or to systems where they can have alts/friends resupply them.

3. They will always, 100% of the time lose their ship when they suicide gank. That's an ISK penalty.

4. They will never, ever, get an insurance payout on their ship when they suicide gank. That's also an ISK penalty.

5. Comparing risk vs. reward from a purely ISK-based standpoint, any potential financial gains from a suicide gank are left entirely to chance. If the entirety of a valuable cargo is destroyed with the ship, there is no gain for the suicide ganker. If someone else scoops the loot before the suicide ganker's friend/alt can, there is also no gain for the suicide ganker.

I see some fixed risk and some severe limitations on gameplay, along with highly variable reward controlled by multiple factors that are beyond the suicide ganker's control.

What's the problem again?


IIshira wrote:
. Perhaps the penalty for suicide ganking is too severe




LolRoll
DJentropy Ovaert
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#439 - 2014-09-10 03:03:36 UTC
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:


I find it comical that so many regulars have continually failed to understand what this thread is about.

Sensible People: "Suicide gankers have it far too easy in EVE and pay no significant costs or penalties for their actions. It is unfair to other EVE players who take risks for their rewards and is commonly used as a greifing tool by -10 players who receive no penalties whatsoever for their actions. We would like that to change for the sake of fairness"

The Regular Rabble: "You hate pvp and want all pvp gone from high sec! EVE is a pvp game and what you want goes against the nature of EVE!!!"

Cool


Not as comical as you attempting to label everyone who agrees with your faulty logic as "sensible", ignoring all the well thought out responses that explain how you are wrong, and then jumping right into calling everyone who disagrees with you "Rabble".

You should focus on actually discussing the points that have been brought up.
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
#440 - 2014-09-10 07:25:32 UTC
DJentropy Ovaert wrote:
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:


I find it comical that so many regulars have continually failed to understand what this thread is about.

Sensible People: "Suicide gankers have it far too easy in EVE and pay no significant costs or penalties for their actions. It is unfair to other EVE players who take risks for their rewards and is commonly used as a greifing tool by -10 players who receive no penalties whatsoever for their actions. We would like that to change for the sake of fairness"

The Regular Rabble: "You hate pvp and want all pvp gone from high sec! EVE is a pvp game and what you want goes against the nature of EVE!!!"

Cool


Not as comical as you attempting to label everyone who agrees with your faulty logic as "sensible", ignoring all the well thought out responses that explain how you are wrong, and then jumping right into calling everyone who disagrees with you "Rabble".

You should focus on actually discussing the points that have been brought up.

dude, your wasting letters.
he isnt worth arguing with.