These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why High Sec Gankers?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lady Areola Fappington
#101 - 2015-08-24 15:59:18 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Avvy wrote:

That's why I said almost, as the vast majority of them will be empty as soon as the person cools down.


100% irrelevant, because it's still against the games rules to begin with. You, like so many before you, are claiming that one side should merit an exception to the rules just because that side overwhelmingly gets mad when it loses. Basically that the rules should not apply to them because they are the biggest sore losers in the game.

I say that if the rules were enforced even halfway fairly, that there would be hundreds of banned miners right now. No ganker could ever get away with even an iota of what carebears say on a daily basis and still hold an active account.


Pretty much this, in a nutshell. Ganking is a legit form of gameplay, sanctioned by the GMs. It's permitted, in both the game rules, and the mechanics/code that govern our game.

I could see, maybe, getting angry at a person who is actually cheating in one way or another at Eve. I get annoyed when people use aimbots and trainers in other games, so i'd be a little more lenient in that case.

A legitimate gameplay activity though, no. If you break the EULA/ToS in response to another person's permitted gameplay activity, then YOU are the one who is wrong. Not the person performing the action.


For the FPS perspective, it's like the guy who screams "Knife/pistols ONLY!" at the beginning of a open public server match, then pitches a fit when they get gunned down by a sniper. "I SAID KNIFE/PISTOL ONLY WEREN'T YOU LISTENING!"

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#102 - 2015-08-24 16:00:49 UTC
Bellatrix Invicta wrote:
Your action on the forum was honor, no action in-game.

Just sayin'.

The e-lawyering is strong with this one.

I approve.

And I concede the point. Well played.

Also, obligatory "The CODE always wins." Pirate

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Bellatrix Invicta
Doomheim
#103 - 2015-08-24 16:02:47 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Bellatrix Invicta wrote:
Your action on the forum was honor, no action in-game.

Just sayin'.

The e-lawyering is strong with this one.

I approve.

And I concede the point. Well played.

Also, obligatory "The CODE always wins." Pirate


Yeah, I moonlight as Babatunde B. Babatunde's protege. Someday I will be as good as the master.

If you think you've won, think again.

The CODE always wins.
Avvy
Doomheim
#104 - 2015-08-24 16:53:47 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Avvy wrote:
I've never suicided a miner, don't intent to as I have no reason to. I just see the reason people have to suicide others as a broken mechanic.
Enforcing a claim on space, either an ice belt as was traditionally done, or now all of highsec like the New Order has is a "broken mechanic"? What about loot drops from blinged-out miners? And so is interdicting isotopes Hulkageddon-style? And what about producing mining ships for sale and stimulating the demand for them by ganking?

There are many of good sandbox reasons for wanting to spend resources and time to gank miners. There is nothing "broken" about that. You are not entitled to gather resources in this game without risk and that risk is intended to come from other players. The sense of entitlement you seem to be perpetuating - that miners should be "just left alone" - is at the root of these anti-ganker whines like this thread and even motivates more gankers to stop these miners. The ice and asteroid belts have value and thus some players want to claim them - they are driving conflict as intended.

If you were in charge of CCP how would you fix highsec miner ganking which you think is "broken"? How would you engineer reasons (that are acceptable to you) for players to attack miners so that miners are at some risk while gathering resources?



Having to suicide miners because you can't attack them otherwise, seems like a broken mechanic to me, especially as EVE is a PvP game.
Bellatrix Invicta
Doomheim
#105 - 2015-08-24 16:56:47 UTC
Avvy wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Avvy wrote:
I've never suicided a miner, don't intent to as I have no reason to. I just see the reason people have to suicide others as a broken mechanic.
Enforcing a claim on space, either an ice belt as was traditionally done, or now all of highsec like the New Order has is a "broken mechanic"? What about loot drops from blinged-out miners? And so is interdicting isotopes Hulkageddon-style? And what about producing mining ships for sale and stimulating the demand for them by ganking?

There are many of good sandbox reasons for wanting to spend resources and time to gank miners. There is nothing "broken" about that. You are not entitled to gather resources in this game without risk and that risk is intended to come from other players. The sense of entitlement you seem to be perpetuating - that miners should be "just left alone" - is at the root of these anti-ganker whines like this thread and even motivates more gankers to stop these miners. The ice and asteroid belts have value and thus some players want to claim them - they are driving conflict as intended.

If you were in charge of CCP how would you fix highsec miner ganking which you think is "broken"? How would you engineer reasons (that are acceptable to you) for players to attack miners so that miners are at some risk while gathering resources?



Having to suicide miners because you can't attack them otherwise, seems like a broken mechanic to me, especially as EVE is a PvP game.


We can attack them otherwise; what part of open world PvP is confusing? I don't always get my gank, does that mean in those instances the mechanic is working as intended?

If you think you've won, think again.

The CODE always wins.
Avvy
Doomheim
#106 - 2015-08-24 17:10:45 UTC
Bellatrix Invicta wrote:
We can attack them otherwise; what part of open world PvP is confusing? I don't always get my gank, does that mean in those instances the mechanic is working as intended?


Ok, so how would you attack a miner in an NPC corp. in high-sec without losing you ship to CONCORD?
Lady Areola Fappington
#107 - 2015-08-24 17:17:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Areola Fappington
Avvy wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Avvy wrote:
I've never suicided a miner, don't intent to as I have no reason to. I just see the reason people have to suicide others as a broken mechanic.
Enforcing a claim on space, either an ice belt as was traditionally done, or now all of highsec like the New Order has is a "broken mechanic"? What about loot drops from blinged-out miners? And so is interdicting isotopes Hulkageddon-style? And what about producing mining ships for sale and stimulating the demand for them by ganking?

There are many of good sandbox reasons for wanting to spend resources and time to gank miners. There is nothing "broken" about that. You are not entitled to gather resources in this game without risk and that risk is intended to come from other players. The sense of entitlement you seem to be perpetuating - that miners should be "just left alone" - is at the root of these anti-ganker whines like this thread and even motivates more gankers to stop these miners. The ice and asteroid belts have value and thus some players want to claim them - they are driving conflict as intended.

If you were in charge of CCP how would you fix highsec miner ganking which you think is "broken"? How would you engineer reasons (that are acceptable to you) for players to attack miners so that miners are at some risk while gathering resources?



Having to suicide miners because you can't attack them otherwise, seems like a broken mechanic to me, especially as EVE is a PvP game.



Let me break it down to a simple level for you.

Suicide ganking is an expected playstyle. As in, CCP, by it's design choices, facilitates the action.

Notice how CONCORD takes time to arrive on the scene of a gank? That's intentional. CCP chose those numbers. Gankers are not taking advantage of a code weakness to get in a gank. The "broken mechanic" exists intentionally.

CCP could quite literally make the Concord response time 0.0 seconds, if they wanted to end ganking. They don't.

You really can't say a mechanic is "broken", when the mechanic is intentionally put in the game the way it is. It's the equivalent of, and just as silly as saying "Getting Tritanium from Scordite is a broken mechanic, you get Trit from Veldspar."

Now, a broken mechanic would be "It takes our servers five seconds to process and spawn a Concord ship, and you get the gank done in 4 seconds."

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Avvy
Doomheim
#108 - 2015-08-24 17:29:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Avvy
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:


Let me break it down to a simple level for you.

Suicide ganking is an expected playstyle. As in, CCP, by it's design choices, facilitates the action.

Notice how CONCORD takes time to arrive on the scene of a gank? That's intentional. CCP chose those numbers. Gankers are not taking advantage of a code weakness to get in a gank. The "broken mechanic" exists intentionally.

CCP could quite literally make the Concord response time 0.0 seconds, if they wanted to end ganking. They don't.

You really can't say a mechanic is "broken", when the mechanic is intentionally put in the game the way it is. It's the equivalent of, and just as silly as saying "Getting Tritanium from Scordite is a broken mechanic, you get Trit from Veldspar."

Now, a broken mechanic would be "It takes our servers five seconds to process and spawn a Concord ship, and you get the gank done in 4 seconds."



Doesn't change anything.

Seems to me that high-sec is trying to be both PvP and PvE and is not that successful in being either.

If CCP reduced the CONCORD response time they would have a lot of angry gankers. CCP seems to be trying a balancing act and hence the reason for the mess that is high-sec.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#109 - 2015-08-24 18:19:49 UTC
Avvy wrote:
Doesn't change anything.

Seems to me that high-sec is trying to be both PvP and PvE and is not that successful in being either.

If CCP reduced the CONCORD response time they would have a lot of angry gankers. CCP seems to be trying a balancing act and hence the reason for the mess that is high-sec.
Where do you get the idea that highsec is suppose to be PvE only? The New Pilot FAQ makes it quite clear that Eve is full-time PvP sandbox.

I am guessing you know this, but perhaps the full ramifications of this have not crystallized for you. It is impossible to make any space in Eve PvE only, at least if it provides any rewards of note. The integrated sandbox nature of Eve makes any safe PvE zone game breaking as it will just flood resources into the economy. CCP is not, nor has ever been trying to make highsec a PvE zone as they know it is impossible to do so. They are not balancing anything to keep gankers happy - if anything they are trying to maintain as much risk as possible so as not to trash the economy, while still keeping carebears happy. For the last few years they have been walking the fine line between pandering to carebears and not destroying the sandbox and some of the ills we see right now are a direct result of that.

This is why CCP has intentionally put suicide ganking into the game. Not to keep the small number of highsec content creators happy but the economy functioning and some level of interesting gameplay in highsec. Otherwise, it would just be fit max yield, AFK riches in safety, then flood the market at least for a while until there was no demand left for anything on the market. As the good Lady Fappington said suicide ganking is an intending mechanic, designed by CCP to provide a way to attack anyone in this game. This has been confirmed many times by the developers and they know the game would quickly become non-functional as a sandbox without it or some alternative risk for miners in highsec.

Let me repeat that - suicide ganking is not a mistake. It is not an exploit or a side effect of something else. It is the intended mechanic by which you can attack another player in high security space. It provides a deterrence and some boundaries on attacking other players in highsec and thus some protection, but no one was ever intended to be 100% safe there as an NPC corp member would be without suicide ganking. Claiming it is "broken" is nothing else but incorrect.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Avvy
Doomheim
#110 - 2015-08-24 21:42:48 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:

Where do you get the idea that highsec is suppose to be PvE only? The New Pilot FAQ makes it quite clear that Eve is full-time PvP sandbox.

I am guessing you know this, but perhaps the full ramifications of this have not crystallized for you. It is impossible to make any space in Eve PvE only, at least if it provides any rewards of note. The integrated sandbox nature of Eve makes any safe PvE zone game breaking as it will just flood resources into the economy. CCP is not, nor has ever been trying to make highsec a PvE zone as they know it is impossible to do so. They are not balancing anything to keep gankers happy - if anything they are trying to maintain as much risk as possible so as not to trash the economy, while still keeping carebears happy. For the last few years they have been walking the fine line between pandering to carebears and not destroying the sandbox and some of the ills we see right now are a direct result of that.


I don't have the idea that high-sec is supposed to be PvE. The game is supposed to be PvP but in high-sec it caters for PvP and PvE players and with CCP trying to make it acceptable to both groups you end up with some less than perfect mechanics.



Black Pedro wrote:

This is why CCP has intentionally put suicide ganking into the game. Not to keep the small number of highsec content creators happy but the economy functioning and some level of interesting gameplay in highsec. Otherwise, it would just be fit max yield, AFK riches in safety, then flood the market at least for a while until there was no demand left for anything on the market. As the good Lady Fappington said suicide ganking is an intending mechanic, designed by CCP to provide a way to attack anyone in this game. This has been confirmed many times by the developers and they know the game would quickly become non-functional as a sandbox without it or some alternative risk for miners in highsec.

Let me repeat that - suicide ganking is not a mistake. It is not an exploit or a side effect of something else. It is the intended mechanic by which you can attack another player in high security space. It provides a deterrence and some boundaries on attacking other players in highsec and thus some protection, but no one was ever intended to be 100% safe there as an NPC corp member would be without suicide ganking. Claiming it is "broken" is nothing else but incorrect.


Find it hard to believe suicide ganking was originally intended, seems more like a side effect of something else that they decided to leave as it is.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#111 - 2015-08-24 22:23:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Avvy wrote:
Find it hard to believe suicide ganking was originally intended, seems more like a side effect of something else that they decided to leave as it is.
When you consider that the original Eve devs were PKers from pre-trammel Ultima Online it shouldn't be hard to believe at all. It's quite literally written into the DNA of Eve.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#112 - 2015-08-25 00:43:05 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Avvy wrote:
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:


Yet, I can bop on over to minerbumping, and find hundreds of examples of RL threats, harassment, and other such nonsense directed towards gankers, coming from their targets.

I've yet to figure out how one instance of a ganker crossing the line tars every ganker with the same "cyberbully" brush, yet hundreds of examples of even more vile conduct get brushed away with "Oh they were upset you have to forgive them".

You know, looking at it from an outside, non-Eve perspective, the carebear types really do look like the horrible ones in this equation. I've shown examples of carebear rants and threats to my non-Eve friends, and they've all been disgusted at the behaviour.



RL threats, which basically means you managed to **** off the player behind the keyboard. Of course those threats are almost exclusively just empty threats.

I have to wonder what the ganking is all about with the amount of chest beating that goes on, on these forums.



You nailed it. It's about people whose definition of "winning" EVE is to **** off the player behind the keyboard.
No, the point is to defeat other players in the sandbox in this competitive PvP game. What is the point of consensual "gudfights" where no one loses anything meaningful?

You can play Eve as a space samurai or some 17th-century calvary officer if you'd like where really only honour is at stake in your game, but if you actually want to defeat another player you have to strike them when they are least prepared, or unable to defend themselves so you can diminish their power and take their resources. As Vimsy said, there is no point finding someone who wants to shoot you - you need to find players who are weaker than you, or at least not expecting or prepared for your attack. That is how wars are won - through bold and decisive actions that exploit weakness in the opposition, not through glorious and honourable battles.

If I beat those players and they rage like little children, I have no problem having at laugh at their expense. That isn't the goal however - I would much prefer a "gf" or the equivalent, or an in-game vow of revenge to the bad behaviour so many people display over losing virtual assets.


This kind of thinking makes me laugh every time I see it from one of you lot. What you do requires neither skill or intelligence. You pay a couple of extra accounts to shield yourself from consequences and streamline the process and then you shoot things that don't move or shoot back. The incursion runners you decry so much are more worthy of respect.
Bellatrix Invicta
Doomheim
#113 - 2015-08-25 03:03:38 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
This kind of thinking makes me laugh every time I see it from one of you lot. What you do requires neither skill or intelligence. You pay a couple of extra accounts to shield yourself from consequences and streamline the process and then you shoot things that don't move or shoot back. The incursion runners you decry so much are more worthy of respect.


I have the one account. I am FAR more intelligent than you even realize. The consequences cannot be mititgated; my ship is destroyed 100% of the time. I shoot things that shoot back. Incursion runners are worthy of absolutely nothing other than shiny killmails.

If you think you've won, think again.

The CODE always wins.
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#114 - 2015-08-25 03:20:37 UTC
Bellatrix Invicta wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
This kind of thinking makes me laugh every time I see it from one of you lot. What you do requires neither skill or intelligence. You pay a couple of extra accounts to shield yourself from consequences and streamline the process and then you shoot things that don't move or shoot back. The incursion runners you decry so much are more worthy of respect.


I have the one account. I am FAR more intelligent than you even realize. The consequences cannot be mititgated; my ship is destroyed 100% of the time. I shoot things that shoot back. Incursion runners are worthy of absolutely nothing other than shiny killmails.



The first loss on your kb was an attempted retriever gank with an Atron. A for effort; I guess you were still waiting on Gallente Destroyer skills.

Post with your main or gtfo. Or does that rule not apply to CODE?
Bellatrix Invicta
Doomheim
#115 - 2015-08-25 03:21:04 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Bellatrix Invicta wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
This kind of thinking makes me laugh every time I see it from one of you lot. What you do requires neither skill or intelligence. You pay a couple of extra accounts to shield yourself from consequences and streamline the process and then you shoot things that don't move or shoot back. The incursion runners you decry so much are more worthy of respect.


I have the one account. I am FAR more intelligent than you even realize. The consequences cannot be mititgated; my ship is destroyed 100% of the time. I shoot things that shoot back. Incursion runners are worthy of absolutely nothing other than shiny killmails.



The first loss on your kb was an attempted retriever gank with an Atron. A for effort; I guess you were still waiting on Gallente Destroyer skills.

Post with your main or gtfo. Or does that rule not apply to CODE?


This is my main.

If you think you've won, think again.

The CODE always wins.
Meloddy Sev
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#116 - 2015-08-25 03:57:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Meloddy Sev
Just like to say, I've built a Catalyst especially for my ganker, which hits very hard. Ready to hit them back.

I also have almost enough isk for a Skiff, though don't think I'll take that risk, maybe in a little bit

if you catch my drift.
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#117 - 2015-08-25 04:31:25 UTC
Bellatrix Invicta wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Bellatrix Invicta wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
This kind of thinking makes me laugh every time I see it from one of you lot. What you do requires neither skill or intelligence. You pay a couple of extra accounts to shield yourself from consequences and streamline the process and then you shoot things that don't move or shoot back. The incursion runners you decry so much are more worthy of respect.


I have the one account. I am FAR more intelligent than you even realize. The consequences cannot be mititgated; my ship is destroyed 100% of the time. I shoot things that shoot back. Incursion runners are worthy of absolutely nothing other than shiny killmails.



The first loss on your kb was an attempted retriever gank with an Atron. A for effort; I guess you were still waiting on Gallente Destroyer skills.

Post with your main or gtfo. Or does that rule not apply to CODE?


This is my main.


You're lying, but no point arguing the matter.
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2015-08-25 04:33:31 UTC
Meloddy Sev wrote:
Just like to say, I've built a Catalyst especially for my ganker, which hits very hard. Ready to hit them back.

I also have almost enough isk for a Skiff, though don't think I'll take that risk, maybe in a little bit

if you catch my drift.


If you really want to harass gankers, get into an insta-locking Thrasher to alpha their catalysts and pods. Or use ewar to jam them, or logi to keep victims up until CONCORD arrives. Or just train your own gank alt and use it to pop freighter wrecks.
Yang Aurilen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#119 - 2015-08-25 04:55:40 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Meloddy Sev wrote:
Just like to say, I've built a Catalyst especially for my ganker, which hits very hard. Ready to hit them back.

I also have almost enough isk for a Skiff, though don't think I'll take that risk, maybe in a little bit

if you catch my drift.


If you really want to harass gankers, get into an insta-locking Thrasher to alpha their catalysts and pods. Or use ewar to jam them, or logi to keep victims up until CONCORD arrives. Or just train your own gank alt and use it to pop freighter wrecks.



:effort:

I could do that and not make ISK or I can continually make ISK while whining about the EBIL GANKERS POWERED BY THE ILLUMITTANI.

Most carebears will choose the latter because it requires less :effort: and they can even afk mine while shiptoasting the forums.

Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!
Tremain Oldfield
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#120 - 2015-08-25 05:24:23 UTC
I'll give u 2 tips:
1. Fly a procurer with 2 med shield extenders, cheaper and has better tank,
2. Or find a nice null sec alliance to join and farm away
Big smile