These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Sucide Ganking Needs To Be Removed - Below is why.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#41 - 2012-05-20 13:55:16 UTC
Th0rII wrote:
I would not mind having concord only go to the belts in 1.0-0.8 sectors for the noobs. In 0.7 and below let the miners etc arm themselves and fight back.

Confine Concord to the few starter systems, problem solved.
Th0rII wrote:
It's a PvP game but huge amounts of players have no chance for PvP because they cannot arm their ships, skills don't do anything for you if you have no chance of using the equipment.

Mining barges and exhumers are mining vessels. Get a bunch of buddies in combat ships to watch your back.

Remove standings and insurance.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#42 - 2012-05-20 22:03:36 UTC
meh. this thread is terrible
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#43 - 2012-05-21 02:54:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Barbara Nichole
Suicide ganking does belong in the game. It is a sandbox. That being said, there is precident for fixing things that are overpowered (many ship nerfs have happened ... including the great amarr racial laser neutering)

I think there is nothing wrong with ccp looking at the possiblity that ganking of indys is op at the moment.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#44 - 2012-05-21 03:36:26 UTC
Th0rII wrote:
Even the PvE targets can shoot back. Why can't we?


Anything CONCORD can shoot, you can.

And there's lots CONCORD can't shoot that you can. If a player has -5.0 sec status or less, any player can shoot at them. CONCORD won't until they get a GCC (exception is the Genesis constellation, but if they're shooting at you because of sec status they behave like faction police until you shoot back).

So you already have the means to take matters into your own hands. There's really no reason to complain.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Th0rII
Asgard Empire Wing
#45 - 2012-05-21 08:54:04 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Th0rII wrote:
Even the PvE targets can shoot back. Why can't we?


Anything CONCORD can shoot, you can.

And there's lots CONCORD can't shoot that you can. If a player has -5.0 sec status or less, any player can shoot at them. CONCORD won't until they get a GCC (exception is the Genesis constellation, but if they're shooting at you because of sec status they behave like faction police until you shoot back).

So you already have the means to take matters into your own hands. There's really no reason to complain.



You can't shoot if you are not allowed to put weapons on your ship!!
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#46 - 2012-05-21 09:55:14 UTC
Th0rII wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Th0rII wrote:
Even the PvE targets can shoot back. Why can't we?


Anything CONCORD can shoot, you can.

And there's lots CONCORD can't shoot that you can. If a player has -5.0 sec status or less, any player can shoot at them. CONCORD won't until they get a GCC (exception is the Genesis constellation, but if they're shooting at you because of sec status they behave like faction police until you shoot back).

So you already have the means to take matters into your own hands. There's really no reason to complain.



You can't shoot if you are not allowed to put weapons on your ship!!


You have drones, don't you?


And just fly something that isn't a barge.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#47 - 2012-05-21 10:18:23 UTC
Th0rII wrote:
You can't shoot if you are not allowed to put weapons on your ship!!
Even more good news: you are!
Duchess Starbuckington
Doomheim
#48 - 2012-05-21 13:29:03 UTC
[Rokh, COME AT ME BRO]
Damage Control II
Expanded Cargohold II
Expanded Cargohold II
Expanded Cargohold II
Power Diagnostic System II

Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Survey Scanner II

Miner II
Miner II
Miner II
Miner II
Miner II
Miner II
Miner II
Miner II

Large Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Large Core Defense Field Extender I
Large Core Defense Field Extender I


Mining Drone II x5
Warrior II x5

150,000 EHP, 1063 mining yield/minute. Ratio of tank to mining yield/cargo can be tweaked. Anyone know roughly how many Tornados it'd take to gank this?
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#49 - 2012-05-21 14:29:47 UTC
Don't want to be ganked flying unarmed in an untanked ship? Don't fly the ship. When you complain that "oh they're shooting me when I can't shoot back", you chose a ship that is defenseless. Hulks aren't meant to be flown in combat zones. They're supposed to be well-protected industrial ships munching on ore where they can't be attacked easily. You want to mine in peace? Do it in a Rokh. Take the 45% reduction in output in favor of a massive tank and enjoy the light show as all the exhumers around you get ganked.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#50 - 2012-05-21 14:35:08 UTC
Duchess Starbuckington wrote:
[Rokh, COME AT ME BRO]
Damage Control II
Expanded Cargohold II
Expanded Cargohold II
Expanded Cargohold II
Power Diagnostic System II

Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Survey Scanner II

Miner II
Miner II
Miner II
Miner II
Miner II
Miner II
Miner II
Miner II

Large Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Large Core Defense Field Extender I
Large Core Defense Field Extender I


Mining Drone II x5
Warrior II x5

150,000 EHP, 1063 mining yield/minute. Ratio of tank to mining yield/cargo can be tweaked. Anyone know roughly how many Tornados it'd take to gank this?

Replace those lows with some MLUs and co-procs if necessary and you'll get better yield. This assumes you're working with a hauler (because stopping every few minutes for a return trip kills yield)

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
L0rdF1end
Tactical Grace.
Vanguard.
#51 - 2012-05-21 14:36:27 UTC  |  Edited by: L0rdF1end
Dear Op,

I completely disagree with your views and your thread.
Eve is a harsh world and often people have to learn from their own mistakes, some mistakes are more costly than others.

Considering no where in Eve is 100% safe, players such as myself have to take responsibility for our own actions and should be educated to understand that no where is safe in Eve.

Why on earth would anyone want to carry expensive items around in a flimsy ship, surely this is asking for trouble.

To put quite simply, this game is not for those that do not accept the games mechanics.
You would be better off playing one of the middle of the road MMO's such as WOW.
This is a niche game and always will be, thankfully. Never to be dumbed down for the stupid.

I had to add these LOL quotes from the Op.
You seriously sound like a kid that gets everything he wants from Mummy.


"This mechanic really needs to be addressed because at the current market growth and rise rate, the entire eve market will crash within a year. I work as a finance consultant and i ahve researched all of this and it is pure fact".

"You are leaving yourself open to be sued for false advertising for one and there is no point in even having industrial ships if you cannot make money in high sec doing the VERY thing you advertise to with your very nice trailers".
Lucy Ferrr
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#52 - 2012-05-21 15:17:55 UTC
Jessica Sweetwater wrote:

In my research i have come to see that it serves no useful purpose, it does not help the market, it does not help the player base. If anything it harms the game.


This mechanic really needs to be addressed because at the current market growth and rise rate, the entire eve market will crash within a year. I work as a finance consultant and i ahve researched all of this and it is pure fact.

CCP why, may i ask, that you allow this to go on. If a market crash happens. The entire game will crash as has happend on other MMOS with player driven economy. This is one of the reasons that Warcraft is stress testing servers to mold upto ten servers into one because of constant market crashes.



Where are you a financial adviser at? To be honest your post scares me, not because I believe Eve is going to crash but because you say you handle peoples real money in real life. That's scary, those poor people. If you don't even understand simple concepts like inflation you have no business handling people's money. If you don't see how taking money out of a hyper-inflated economy actually creates a more healthy economy I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you should go back and take a high-school economics class.
Zyress
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#53 - 2012-05-21 16:12:25 UTC
One of the best things about Eve is that you can be attacked anywhere in space. If they are willing to sacrifice their ship to concord to do it then so be it. The sacrifice is just unbalanced when they are ganking Hulks with Destroyers. Maybe a fix would be that they are fined the price of the ship they gank but if they don't have the isk to cover the fine, what then? Do we garnish their future earnings? What if they don't partake in any activity that earns isk? Maybe Hulks and other non-combatant ships should be fully insurable, that would take a lot of the sting out of it.
Khoda Khan
Vatlaa Corporation
#54 - 2012-05-21 16:25:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Khoda Khan
Jessica Sweetwater wrote:
Hi

I have spent nearly a week running this over in my mind trying to figure out what this type of game play is allowed. I have researched the amount of ISK lost and looked at kills, tried to contact the players with huge losses, sumtimes his with replys of *had enuff, happend so many times, im quitting* to others saying *it's a shite game mechanic and needs to be removed*.

In my research i have come to see that it serves no useful purpose, it does not help the market, it does not help the player base. If anything it harms the game.


If someone quits EVE because they got suicide ganked then EVE isn't the game for them. It's obviously not the game for you either if you think there's something wrong with suicide ganking. Just to be clear, I've never suicide ganked a player. I much preferred wardecs. I personally find the idea of suiciding a ship repulsive, but I'm a bit of a stats whore and hate seeing senseless lossmails. Then again, everyone plays EVE differently.

Ganking doesn't need to serve a purpose. The best reason to do a thing is no reason at all. Least that's my philosophy.

Jessica Sweetwater wrote:
So my proposed idea is that the entire mechanic of being able to fire on non aggressed pilots should be disavowed. If Concord has the technology to allow you to fire, then it has the technology to stop you

.i.e - When you target a player in a Torndao fitted for sucide ganking a hauler and you press F1 or *click* your weapons, it should flash up so

*You are not at war with this pilot or his/her corporation and and as such are unable to fire*. I know alot of pvpers who spend alot of time doing this will disagree but the damage that the mechanic is having on the game, is irriversable.

Market prices are up 50% on almost all Modules/ships
Mining in high sec has falled by 48% (industrial players are becoming scarcer)
Trade runs and delivery pilots have dropped off 72% simply because they cannot guarentee delivery
The rise in gankers is well over 40% in well populated areas and some of our miners have even tried going 10+ jumps away from market areas and are still being targeted..


CONCORD is working as intended, as it (almost) always has. At least post fix following the Yulai Incident. CONCORD is there to provide consequences for criminal acts, not stop them. Get flagged criminal in high security space, you lose you ship. Might not happen until you've already destroyed someone else's ship, but thems the breaks for the victim.

If you're going to make a argument based on statistical figures that you've "researched" please include details as to how you've come to the statistics that you have. Market prices going up likely have little to do with suicide ganks. Have you taken into account changes to the drone regions and mission loot tables? I have a hard time believing that the price of tritanium doubled for a time (not sure where it's at now, I only log in every two weeks or so) and that miners are mining less at a time when mining has actually become semi-profitable for a change.

Jessica Sweetwater wrote:
This mechanic really needs to be addressed because at the current market growth and rise rate, the entire eve market will crash within a year. I work as a finance consultant and i ahve researched all of this and it is pure fact.

CCP why, may i ask, that you allow this to go on. If a market crash happens. The entire game will crash as has happend on other MMOS with player driven economy. This is one of the reasons that Warcraft is stress testing servers to mold upto ten servers into one because of constant market crashes.


As a finance consultant aren't you expected to look at historical trends as a part of your research? If so, then how have you managed to overlook the simple fact that suicide ganking was around long before you came to town, in a day when the player driven economy, being much smaller, was much easier to manipulate and affect. And yet EVE is still alive and kicking, despite CCP's best efforts to screw up every expansion since 2006 or thereabouts. Suicide ganking was around before you showed up, and I pray that it'll still be around long after you take your leave.

Oh, and the market isn't going to crash. And if it did, that'd be kind of funny to watch fortunes get wiped out.

Jessica Sweetwater wrote:
I ask CCP to just CONSIDER that this game mechanic may not be in eve's best interest and that it should be sorted and removed.


This game mechanic is in the best interest in EVE. The sandbox is in the best interest of EVE. Anything that takes away from the sandbox is not in the best interest of EVE. To elaborate further, people who suggest taking away from the sandbox are not in the best interest of EVE.

Jessica Sweetwater wrote:
No i have not been the victim of a gank, i even tested the theory on 3 Ret's to see how easy it was to gank them in 0.5/0.6 and i was able to get 3 shots of 8 faction ammo off before concord turned up. Which made concord pointless in those systems in the first place.


Did you lose the ship you "tested" to CONCORD? If so, then CONCORD is not pointless. If not, then shame on you for exploiting CONCORD and you should be banned. CONCORD provides consequences, not protection.

I think a lot of PVE oriented people would disagree. I know plenty of people who PVE day in day out without a single problem. High sec is relatively safe. Relatively. You can mine away all day and never get suicide ganked. But EVE is a game where one must use the grey matter they were born (or not, as the case may be) born with. Those who do, do. Those who don't, don't.

For those that don't, and "have enough" and quit, I say good riddance, didn't wantcha anyways.

EVE isn't for everyone. It shouldn't be and I wouldn't want it to be.
Th0rII
Asgard Empire Wing
#55 - 2012-05-21 17:00:25 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Don't want to be ganked flying unarmed in an untanked ship? Don't fly the ship. When you complain that "oh they're shooting me when I can't shoot back", you chose a ship that is defenseless. Hulks aren't meant to be flown in combat zones. They're supposed to be well-protected industrial ships munching on ore where they can't be attacked easily. You want to mine in peace? Do it in a Rokh. Take the 45% reduction in output in favor of a massive tank and enjoy the light show as all the exhumers around you get ganked.


First I didn't design the ship. Telling people to not use mining ships for mining is like telling you you have to use a frigate to go ganking.
Obviously there are no non-combat zones in Eve, so why is the hulk even in this game? The same goes for the Orca, and the freighters.

So again I say either remove the ships from the game or let pilots arm themselves while using the right ship for the right job.
Hans Momaki
State War Academy
Caldari State
#56 - 2012-05-21 17:26:44 UTC
Allow a hulk to fit an LSE without a MAJOR drop in Yield and no one will ever make a thread like this again. It's just not fair that a dessi can fu*k up a hulk before beeing concordokened. Dessis got a buff, Exhumers should get one too, period. Max-tank you can have on a hulk is arround 40k with fleet boosts. That's just not enough to withstand ships worth half of this (2 tornados).

There should be atleast a CHANCE to survive 2 tornados while beeing remote - repped by a single Logi. Atm, this is not the case due to the lack of BUFFER. Ty for this stupid and mentally ******** design.

The rest of this thread is pretty much bullshit, but this is the only point which should be changed for justice.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#57 - 2012-05-21 17:41:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Hans Momaki wrote:
Allow a hulk to fit an LSE without a MAJOR drop in Yield and no one will ever make a thread like this again.
Lol Humour. Of course they will, because just like now, they will refuse to actually fit that tank.
Quote:
It's just not fair that a dessi can fu*k up a hulk before beeing concordokened.
As luck would have it, if you fit a tank, it can't, so even though “fairness” isn't really in the EVE vocabulary, what you're looking for is already in the game. Dessies got a buff (which still wasn't enough to let them kill a well-fitted Hulk) so there is no good reason to start buffing a ton of other ships to counteract that buff.
Quote:
There should be atleast a CHANCE to survive 2 tornados while beeing remote - repped by a single Logi. Atm, this is not the case due to the lack of BUFFER. Ty for this stupid and mentally ******** design.
A resource extraction vessel not being able to stand up to two battlecruisers, each equipped with more battleship weapons than an actual battleship has isn't particularly stupid or mentally ********… it's rather to be expected, tbh.
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#58 - 2012-05-21 17:59:42 UTC
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow
#59 - 2012-05-21 17:59:58 UTC
I fully agree with the topic: "Sucide Ganking Needs to be Removed."

However, suicide ganking should remain as is for a number of reasons:
- It stimulates economic stability by creating more work for Industrial pilots (and thus items are removed from the market through a purchase of a replacement). Simple economics, as supply goes down, demand goes up.
- It levels out the mineral prices, because as ships are destroyed, more minerals need to be harvested to build new ships, and once again, supply down, demand up.
- EVE is a PvP game, and there should be no places of absolute safety, hence why it is called "high security" and not "absolute security."
- It is an act of piracy (as most smart gankers will have a salvager nearby), thus allowing them to profit, but in the process, they lose their ship.

I am willing to bet OP is one of those "remove PvP from high sec altogether, people should be CONCORDed for targetting" types. It is the miner's fault they are a target, because they become complacent, thinking it won't happen to them. Improvise, adapt and overcome, or GTFO, but if you do, give me your stuff.

I am the One who exists in Shadow. I am the Devil your parents warned you about.

||CEO: Order of the Shadow||Executor: The Revenant Order||Creator: Bowhead||
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#60 - 2012-05-22 01:45:14 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
I lost a billion ISK ship to a gatecamp a couple months back. While I was rather pissed off about this, I didn't go make a forum post about how gatecamps should be removed from the game. I realized my loss was my own stupid mistake and took measures to ensure it never happened again (while still flying expensive ships). And it hasn't.

Fly intelligently and you mitigate your risk of suicide ganking. Don't ask for it to be removed from the game.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)