These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Hisec Ganking Roundtable Part 2 - Participant Request

First post
Author
Jin'taan
Infinite Violence
Trigger Happy.
#1 - 2016-08-22 18:04:09 UTC
Hello!

I recently was able to have a long sit down with several high profile members of the hisec ganking community to discuss the implications of changes that were talked about at fanfest, and the state of ganking in general - with regards to Freighters, Miners & Industrials - as well as the thinking and motivation behind it, and the relationship between Ganker, Gankee & Anti-Ganker.

This was something that I felt was really valuable in giving us a lot of needed information on the subject, and was incredibly productive, as they answered a lot of our questions in a fair and self reflective way. However, I feel that I need some input from the other side to truly be prepared to address this issue going forwards. As such, I'm looking for knowledgeable people who are able to discuss the issue with me some time in the next two weeks. Date to be confirmed with the participants of course.

Specific people I'm interested in hosting would be representatives from PushX, Red Frog Freight or any of their subsidiaries (especially their high value hauling members) and leaders of Anti-Ganker/Vigilante/etc. communities. However, I'm letting myself be open for applications from all areas on the issue here. If you don't wish to post publically, an ingame mail will more than suffice. I will be looking to keep it small however, as I find this works best for the format of a roundtable.

The meeting will be recorded for the purposes of helping the rest of the CSM, but will not be made publicly available, and any information shared will be considered a private matter.

If you have any other questions or suggestions, feel free to ask.
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2016-08-22 19:13:52 UTC
I don't suppose we could get a list of who turns up to these?
Ruby Gnollo
#3 - 2016-08-22 19:17:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Ruby Gnollo
Plase forgive my awful English, which might make my language more abrupt than I would like.

Since you're somehow asking for comments, let's try to express some : Eve is a hard game. It's hard for a lot of reasons everybody spends its time talking about. But what makes it even more interesting and unique is also the fact that some players organized themselves to weight in the metagame and bend the whole game towards their views. CCP makes the rules in New Eden, players play the game. If someone finds this too hard, she can join whatever organization of players trying to bend the game towards their views. If she prefers something harder, she can just belong to the vast majority of New Eden dwellers spending their time simply playing the game whatever the rules can be one day or another.

That's why, as ironic as I might be, I think whatever might comes out of this gankers roundtable is of little importance. It just adds a little spice to that unique game. And having some players lobbying publicly for rules changes make sit even more interesting, whatever the consequences might be. Nice people will just adapt, whatever comes.
Jin'taan
Infinite Violence
Trigger Happy.
#4 - 2016-08-22 20:51:06 UTC
Rob Kaichin wrote:
I don't suppose we could get a list of who turns up to these?


I prefer to keep the lists of attendees of both these roundtables & focus groups private, as I don't feel it's information that would add to the actual points of the discussion. I do try and keep them as representative as I can though.
Resaec Fitsuga
Do not disturb
Sev3rance
#5 - 2016-08-22 23:59:27 UTC
This sounds great. I hope the round table goes well. I'd be willing to be there to help point out the concerns of a pilot carrying valuable cargo but delegates from PushX and Red Frog would undoubtedly be more qualified. I have never lost a freighter and don't plan to start but I have moved packages of great value.
Lawrence Lawton
The Lawton School for Pubbies Who Can't Mine Good
#6 - 2016-08-23 01:24:45 UTC
You know, there are not always two sides to a debate.
Worthwhile changes are the type that promote highsec aggression, while counterproductive changes are the type that promote Carebearism. A Carebear, for the purpose of this discussion, is a capsuleer who plays EVE like a solo game and spends all his time grinding for ISK to buy a PLEX and bling modules for his grinding ship so he can grind slightly more efficiently for another month.
There are still some capsuleers who have actually spent their entire existence in highsec and never even experienced PvP.
The CSM should do its best to ensure that such a fate does not befall our new players.
Geronimo McVain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2016-08-23 06:10:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Geronimo McVain
IMHO one of the problems is the short reaction time of Concord. This will almost always prohibit any player interaction because the target or the ganker is dead before someone even notices what's going on. So you have to prolong the timer. To compensate this for the target they needs additional defenses. Give E-War and slots to freighters. Give weapons and slots to miners. At the moment the whole thing of ganking is to know your target and your timeframe. You can predict very accurately how many Cats you need. Normal fights have a much greater element of surprise. If you can really fit a ship you might fit it for max cargo/yield or tank or even gank: who knows. Maybe they have ewar?
Good luck with the round table. Maybe you should include someone from the mining community to get the whole picture.
Zappity
Exit-Strategy
Unchained Alliance
#8 - 2016-08-23 13:10:29 UTC
I think there should be a healthy ganking culture. But what is missing is the ability to white knight. I don't know what this would look like but it should be active and engaging, not just hanging around in a cloaky ECM ship. If it could be brought about highsec could be revitalised with quality content.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Sootsia
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#9 - 2016-08-23 22:21:54 UTC
Lawrence Lawton wrote:
You know, there are not always two sides to a debate.
Worthwhile changes are the type that promote highsec aggression, while counterproductive changes are the type that promote Carebearism. A Carebear, for the purpose of this discussion, is a capsuleer who plays EVE like a solo game and spends all his time grinding for ISK to buy a PLEX and bling modules for his grinding ship so he can grind slightly more efficiently for another month.
There are still some capsuleers who have actually spent their entire existence in highsec and never even experienced PvP.
The CSM should do its best to ensure that such a fate does not befall our new players.



One seems to often forget that without the carebears, grinding isk (salvaging, mining, gas harvesting, killing sleepers or other NPC rats for their loot and salvage, blueprints, datacores and sundry other necessary items), no ships would be would be built for PVPers to enjoy using. Without the carebear, PVPers would soon be reduced to PVPing in the CCP funded Noob ships with their civilian guns.

Carebears, ensure that PVPers, not only have the shiny ships they want to fly at reasonable prices, and actually would be even cheaper were it not for CODE, doing its best to help keep market prices stable by ensuring that the supplies of goods reaching the markets or builders was not excessive.

New players, should have the opportunity to ease into the PVP lifestye when they feel comfortable in so doing, not just unceremoniously ganked the first time they undock. THAT unfortunately leads to a lot of new players giving up when EVE certainly needs new blood. New Blood, not necessarily spilled at the first opportunity.

I am all for blowing ships up, and structures such as the KeepStar coming out of anchoring in Nalvula
https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/4z6gmz/so_ladies_who_is_coming_tomorrow_project_mayhem/

That is a perfect example of proper consensual PVP that should have more folks there shooting each other than are in Jita at any one time (CCP Please reinforce the node ahead of time) Big smile
Jin'taan
Infinite Violence
Trigger Happy.
#10 - 2016-08-24 10:48:31 UTC
Still looking for participants here. Please try and get in touch as there is limited time before the summit in which to organise this :)
Jennifer en Marland
Shiny Violent Killing Toys
#11 - 2016-08-24 21:56:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Jennifer en Marland
Hi and thanks for organising this Big smile I won't take part in the roundtable - anyone will tell you that i never speak on comms - but I can mail you any thoughts that I have about gank-related game balance, if that would help Smile

Edit: Although if Mr Patrouette and another friend of mine who is taking part are going to say everything I want to say and more besides, I probably don't need to Big smile

Army of dolls stole all your perfect imperfections.

Albrecht Patrouette
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2016-08-25 03:59:57 UTC
Lawrence Lawton wrote:
You know, there are not always two sides to a debate.
Worthwhile changes are the type that promote highsec aggression, while counterproductive changes are the type that promote Carebearism. A Carebear, for the purpose of this discussion, is a capsuleer who plays EVE like a solo game and spends all his time grinding for ISK to buy a PLEX and bling modules for his grinding ship so he can grind slightly more efficiently for another month.
There are still some capsuleers who have actually spent their entire existence in highsec and never even experienced PvP.
The CSM should do its best to ensure that such a fate does not befall our new players.


How wonderful that you, and you alone! get to define just how a sandbox is played! Congrats! So, according to your singular definitions, a player who is only interested in mining, fabricating, inventing and building --which is, you know, part of the overall sandbox-- must be some sort of failure because they have no desire to "pew pew".

You, and others of your ilk, continually bleat that Eve is a spaceship versus spaceship killing game. I have no problem with that, as that is a large part of the sandbox. But it is only a part; it is not, by any means, the sole entirety.


Jin'taan, I would very much like to be a part of this round table.

Sincerely,

Albrecht Patrouette



Lawrence Lawton
The Lawton School for Pubbies Who Can't Mine Good
#13 - 2016-08-25 08:35:36 UTC
Albrecht Patrouette wrote:
Lawrence Lawton wrote:
You know, there are not always two sides to a debate.
Worthwhile changes are the type that promote highsec aggression, while counterproductive changes are the type that promote Carebearism. A Carebear, for the purpose of this discussion, is a capsuleer who plays EVE like a solo game and spends all his time grinding for ISK to buy a PLEX and bling modules for his grinding ship so he can grind slightly more efficiently for another month.
There are still some capsuleers who have actually spent their entire existence in highsec and never even experienced PvP.
The CSM should do its best to ensure that such a fate does not befall our new players.


How wonderful that you, and you alone! get to define just how a sandbox is played! Congrats! So, according to your singular definitions, a player who is only interested in mining, fabricating, inventing and building --which is, you know, part of the overall sandbox-- must be some sort of failure because they have no desire to "pew pew".

You, and others of your ilk, continually bleat that Eve is a spaceship versus spaceship killing game. I have no problem with that, as that is a large part of the sandbox. But it is only a part; it is not, by any means, the sole entirety.


Jin'taan, I would very much like to be a part of this round table.

Sincerely,

Albrecht Patrouette


I'm not alone. The culture of EVE is with me.
We are not ilk, we are the ruling class.
We do not bleat. We preach.
You must be an anti-ganker, champion of the AFK miner, protector of the botter.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2016-08-26 02:55:31 UTC
Lawrence Lawton wrote:

There are still some capsuleers who have actually spent their entire existence in highsec and never even experienced PvP.
The CSM should do its best to ensure that such a fate does not befall our new players.


Why? If they enjoy that lifestyle who are you to 'save' them from it?

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Lawrence Lawton
The Lawton School for Pubbies Who Can't Mine Good
#15 - 2016-08-26 05:24:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Lawrence Lawton
Mike Azariah wrote:
Lawrence Lawton wrote:

There are still some capsuleers who have actually spent their entire existence in highsec and never even experienced PvP.
The CSM should do its best to ensure that such a fate does not befall our new players.


Why? If they enjoy that lifestyle who are you to 'save' them from it?

m


We are the New Order. It is the Carebears who cast the first stone. They complained and wrote endless petitions to obtain nerf after nerf to highsec aggression because they were intolerant of non-consensual PvP in a PvP game. They are a vocal minority of players whose response to losing a ship is not learning and adapting but complaining to the devs. They still demand that highsec be turned into a risk-free theme park. They seek to curtail our lifestyle and destroy the game we love.

As a result, we strive to ensure that every pilot is exposed to PvP before he is infected with Carebearism, and we aggressively attack all Carebears in retaliation for the horrible things they have collectively done, unless they are willing to bend the knee, buy a permit and pledge support for the New Halaima Code of Conduct.

Additional reading:
Why Do They Gank?
Let me tell you why people are killing highsec miners. A manifesto.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#16 - 2016-08-26 05:35:43 UTC
It seams to me that Highsec ganking is generating a lot of conflict in Highsec. This is evident by the many tear mails we see on this forums and everywhere else. For EVE, conflict is indeed the desired content, it is the motor of the industry and lifeblood of the game.

Every part of EVE which creates content will generate tears and people who say it should be nerfed on the forums. The question is, is there actually a problem or is it just people who are not aware of an already pretty good balanced game mechanic? Maybe the answer here is education?

I know the first reaction to tear post is to assume we need to fix something in the game. But what about all the other parts of the game which create no tear mails and traffic on the forums because they are pretty much dead? If you want to make EVE a better game the focus should be on this game mechanics I think. Enable the people there to create content for other people since this is what makes EVE interesting.

No one joins EVE to become an AFK miner/hauler or to run the same linear mission for the millionth time. Think about it.
Geronimo McVain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2016-08-26 08:45:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Geronimo McVain
The Problem is the design of the mining ships and freighters. They are designed to be passive in conflicts. This way of tanking is easily overcome when you know what you have to do because there is no variation. IMHO the ganking culture deserves to die, because it is bad for the game, and be replaced by a fighting culture. There should be no easy ganks but fights. There should be another way for players that don't actively search PvP then just running. Maybe miners can dig in with weapons and some one use shield restoring sentry drones which don't show on the d-scan. Or a freighter can actively Ewar atackers to keep them at bay. Cloaking disruptures that reveal cloakers but need to ankered to asteroids (nope, not for gate camps, sorry P)
OwenJ
Phildo's Dildos Incorporated
#18 - 2016-08-26 11:43:14 UTC
One thing I found a pain was the mechanic that makes ships invulnerable as they undock from a station. Having attempted to lie in wait for a suspect / criminal to undock, only to find that they can just warp off before you can even start to get a lock on them. Criminals, Suspects, and -10 security status should not have the benefit of an invulnerability timer when undocking in low or high sec.
Sasha Nemtsov
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2016-08-26 12:28:29 UTC
OwenJ wrote:
One thing I found a pain was the mechanic that makes ships invulnerable as they undock from a station. Having attempted to lie in wait for a suspect / criminal to undock, only to find that they can just warp off before you can even start to get a lock on them. Criminals, Suspects, and -10 security status should not have the benefit of an invulnerability timer when undocking in low or high sec.


....because Insta-Undock Bookmarks should be reserved for the law-abiding.....?
Irregular Apocalypse
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#20 - 2016-08-27 03:00:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Irregular Apocalypse
The big problem with freighter ganking at the moment is that Concord is too powerful.

I write here as someone who has spent some time saving bump-tackled freighters and exacting revenge upon the gankers and their loot ships. I see that first responders to a bumped freighter often struggle to do much about the Machariel that's typically bump-tackling the freighter and have to wait around until the gank fleet turn up, only then can the defenders use logi, ECM etc. against the gank fleet (but not the tackler).

Freighters getting ganked from time to time is not the problem, its Concord defending the gankers that's the problem, and I'm going to tell you why.

While neutral logi may go suspect, bump-tackling ships carrying out the rather aggressive action of holding a ship face none of the consequences of their actions that every single other combatant does. This is the big inconsistent elephant in the room regarding freighter ganking - and its a pretty big elephant given the size of freighters!

As the bump-tackling ships are defended by Concord, this means that the only players that can typically engage with these Machariels are players who don't mind giving away a killright on themselves and losing their ship. Because of the killright, the only people who can get involved are those who don't live in hisec but yet somehow happen to be in the same hisec system at the time of the gank, or those who are prepared to create a hisec alt purely to reverse-gank Machariels. So we see that engagement with the Machariels is limited to a fairly small pool of players, which exacerbates the DPS floor that Concord's misguided defence places on prospective defenders (if you don't do enough DPS to the Machariel in X seconds, it survives).

In contrast we see a much wider pool of players using ECM, Logi etc in an attempt to save tackled freighters. These players would surely be interacting with the bumping ships if those tacklers weren't protected by Concord, which shows that Concord's zeal is reducing opportunities for player interaction.

Concord defending the Machariels is like the police turning up to a robbery and shooting the person who beat off the attacker instead of going after the thief.

As its perfectly possible to module-tackle a ship for hours on end, its completely consistent to be able to bump-tackle a ship for hours on end. CCP have proposed putting a limit on the amount of time for which any ship can be bumped. But as the fundamental issue with freighter bumping is not really the time that people can do it for, but that they can do it while defended by concord, I'm sad to say that CCP's proposal somewhat misses the mark. Concord should not be defending important participants in the gank. In fact if Concord did not defend the bump-tacklers, then we would find that the problem of freighters being held for hours (if it even is a problem) sorted itself out naturally via sandbox interactions.

What can we do about Concord's sympathies then? Bumping has various uses and consequences throughout the game, so any modifications to bumping in order to fix issues around freighters are likely to have consequences elsewhere. That's perhaps the main positive feature of CCP's 3m warp proposal.

However, the existence of other bump interactions outside freighter ganking means that the natural solution of making bump-tacklers go suspect might have too widespread an impact (even if it was technically feasible to decide who is the bumper and who is the bumpee).

An alternative change might be to make freighters more heavy, so that the effect of a bump on the freighter's speed and alignment would be lower, and it would take less time to recover from bumps. As this change only affects the a parameter of freighters, it may not have much effect on other parts of the game, which is an appealing property. However it wouldn't address the issue of tacklers being protected by Concord so the solution is flawed in the same way as the one that CCP has presented.

In conclusion, freighters getting ganked from time to time is not the problem, its Concord defending the tackler that's the problem and this needs to be resolved somehow for the good of the game.
123Next page