These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Is the penalty for suicide-ganking too low?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#21 - 2012-05-30 22:45:33 UTC
Julii Hakaari wrote:
I agree that the security status is the responsibility of the character, but I don't see what that has to do with anything. I'm talking about there being fundamental differences between high security space, low security space and null security space. To commit a murder in for instance Minmatar Republic should have more severe consequences either by Minmatar Republic itself, or CONCORD. Why would they wait until your security status drops enough? Is one murder not enough? I agree that the player-base should in essence rule the game, but there are differences between the different securities of space, and these differences cannot be ignored as long as there is any kind of environmental game-play in New Eden.

Not security status, physical security as in being secure in your posessions as in not getting your shit blown up.

Quote:

No, they are not, but it is a game design problem if your reward far exceeds the risk of killing me in CONCORD/faction space.

So fit your ship in a way that makes it uneconomical to gank. You're choosing to fit a ship in a way that's worth ganking.

Quote:

I never said it has anything to due with "specific level of security status".

What this thread is about is simple: does the reward exceed the risk too much of suicide-ganking? I believe so, why else are so many doing it? I'm not saying that we should prevent it because many are doing it; merely look at it and ask if it isn't too easy after all. I'm just trying to get a discussion between two parties' going here; a break from the goon-whining and the miner-whining.

People are doing it because a group of players has decided that they can make a profit by encouraging it through significant bounties. Suicide Ganking miners is exactly as easy as miners make it.


Quote:

Yes, "eventually" that will happen. I propose a harder, more cold, if you will, punishment for committing murder in high sec.


If you're suggesting CONCORD start Podding, that breaks something that's been true for years and won't change the cost of a gank that much. CONCORD destroys the ship that performs an illegal action and puts a mark on the pilot's record. What more consequence do you want?

If CONCORD, the NPC space police starts podding, why shouldn't Pirate NPCs pod? They're criminals, they can't show more restraint than the Police, right? Now we have Rats podding newbie players who don't know what's going on. And the game would be poorer for driving newbies off like that.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#22 - 2012-05-30 22:48:51 UTC
Fiddler Hays wrote:
CONCORDS response to Outlaws/Criminals that enter Hi-sec is very underwhelming. Currently you can be -10.0 and still go anyway in EVE. Which would not be an issue if there were not ways to getting ships after entering.

I have no issues with gankers other then the impunity in which they seem to operate in hi-sec. Having CONCORD deem them Shoot on Site after they have reach a certain security status would slow down their activities and would make paid events like Hulkageddon unsustainable in hi-sec.

As was pointed out above, you are responsible for you own security. But this isn't 0.0 where you have an alliance to keep out the un-welcomed. In Hi-sec you only have CONCORD.



The only reason you don't have an Alliance to keep out the riff-raff is that you can't be arsed to organize one. Alliances aren't some NPC structure that automagically forms in nullsec; it's a bunch of players working together. HiSec has no mechanic that stops you from working together in the exact same way.

Suicide Gankers are shoot on sight once they hit -5. The Faction Police responds fairly quickly, too.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Degren
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2012-05-30 22:50:28 UTC
Yes, the penalty for suicide-ganking is too low.

If you are suicide ganked, you should be auto-podded. I think this is a fair penalty, as the suicide-ganker has to track you down, plot and scheme and LOSE HIS SHIP for attacking your immortal, guarded self.

Hello, hello again.
hank boar
Doomheim
#24 - 2012-05-30 22:51:45 UTC
Hammer Crendraven wrote:
Hmm,

Well a couple of points stick out about this:

1. Goons claim they have way too much money on their hands.

2. CCP is looking for ways to reduce ISK float in the game.

3. Suicide ganking is a great avenue to reduce ISK float in the game so make it happen.





lol actualy it puts more isk in goons pocket lol
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#25 - 2012-05-30 22:55:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Julii Hakaari wrote:
I agree that the security status is the responsibility of the character, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.
It has to do with the fact that it's your job to keep outlaws out of highsec using the tools that have been provided to you for that purpose. It's not something that NPCs should do for you. CONCORD should not be tasked with the job of blowing up outlaws (or denying them entry) just because you don't want to do that job.

Quote:
I'm talking about there being fundamental differences between high security space, low security space and null security space.
The fundamental difference between highsec and other parts of space is that aggression in highsec comes at a cost.
The fundamental difference between empire and nullsec is that illegal aggression causes a loss of standing towards CONCORD.

At no point do these fundamental differences mean that players should be kept out of any part of space by NPCs.

Quote:
Why would they wait until your security status drops enough? Is one murder not enough?
Obviously not. Sometimes, you just have to murder someone, and CONCORD can dig that, as long as you don't overdo it. If you absolutely have to overdo it, they offer very reasonable murdering rebates.

Quote:
No, they are not, but it is a game design problem if your reward far exceeds the risk of killing me in CONCORD/faction space.
Not that either. The reward is player-created and the risk is determined by player choice. Neither are game design issues — they're player decisions.

If the reward for suicide ganking exceeds the risk, it's because players want it to — and make it — be that way. If anything, it's a result of space being so inherently safe that people are making very stupid decisions about what to fit their ships with and what to carry inside them, which makes them juicy targets for the gankers. These poor choices are not something that you can really design your way out of — it's something people have to learn not to do (and lots of ganks will teach them that lesson… obviously, not enough ganks are happening to hammer the message home).

In fact, if anything, the design change should be to make space less safe so people understand that they need to adopt a modicum of safety behaviour and keep themselves from getting killed.

Quote:
I never said it has anything to due with "specific level of security status".
…aside from wanting to kick people out as a result of them being disfavoured by CONCORD — you know, that thing that is measured in security status?
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#26 - 2012-05-30 22:58:27 UTC
Possible increase in penalties:

1) Ganker pays the insurance payout to the victim. This also has the effect of reducing an ISK faucet.

2) If you have a negative wallet, you may not board any ship except a shuttle.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#27 - 2012-05-30 22:59:10 UTC
Julii Hakaari wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
there ought to be enough risk in putting me at risk to ensure i am 100% safe while afk mining at all times

I'm sitting here asking myself what I should reply. I see this ignorant and stupid post and I see that, of course - you're a goon, and I ask myself if I'm racist against goons or if I'm just a realist for not being surprised that ignorant, stupidity and goons walk hand in hand, but then I realize that I'm better off reading about Einstein's theory on relativity, so I walk away.


I underlined the part that showed us how stupid you are.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Julii Hakaari
Hakaari Inc.
#28 - 2012-05-30 23:00:02 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Not security status, physical security as in being secure in your posessions as in not getting your shit blown up.

You'll have to rephrase this. My apologies.

RubyPorto wrote:
So fit your ship in a way that makes it uneconomical to gank. You're choosing to fit a ship in a way that's worth ganking.

People are doing it because a group of players has decided that they can make a profit by encouraging it through significant bounties. Suicide Ganking miners is exactly as easy as miners make it.

People are doing it because the reward far exceeds the risk, which is the point I'm making.

No, high sec-players have a right to CONCORD interference (in penalty, not to guarantee safety); this is to allow a sandbox in New Eden. I have told miners to build an alliance and fight back, and I have told them this is not a very hard thing to do and it would probably be fun to fight for something they believe in, but the reality is also that the reward exceeds the risk too much of suicide-ganking in space which supposedly is ruled by NPC's.

RubyPorto wrote:
If you're suggesting CONCORD start Podding, that breaks something that's been true for years and won't change the cost of a gank that much. CONCORD destroys the ship that performs an illegal action and puts a mark on the pilot's record. What more consequence do you want?

If CONCORD, the NPC space police starts podding, why shouldn't Pirate NPCs pod? They're criminals, they can't show more restraint than the Police, right? Now we have Rats podding newbie players who don't know what's going on. And the game would be poorer for driving newbies off like that.

I'm not suggesting they should pod.

"Completely un-phased? You think I'm totally lacking in any phasing? The idea that I'm anything less than half-phased I actually find offensive. It greatly phases me."
Sisohiv
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2012-05-30 23:03:50 UTC
Suicide ganking for profit makes sense in the world of New Eden but when it becomes a concerted and ongoing campaign it's no longer piracy. It's bigotry.

Call a spade a a spade. EVE is seeing an attempt at culture cleansing right now.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#30 - 2012-05-30 23:04:44 UTC
Julii Hakaari wrote:

Tippia wrote:
If you think the penalty is too low, it's because you make it too low. You are willingly nullifying some of the costs. Your choices are not a game design problem.

No, they are not, but it is a game design problem if your reward far exceeds the risk of killing me in CONCORD/faction space.

Er, no. That is a problem SPECIFIC to players. If the "victim" carries stuff that is of lower value than it takes to gank, then most gankers will pass them over.
Hell... many will ignore you just for tanking your ship as they are simply looking for the easiest targets.

It is you, the player, who makes ganks worthwhile or not.

How did you Veterans start?
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2012-05-30 23:05:37 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
1) Ganker pays the insurance payout to the victim. This also has the effect of reducing an ISK faucet.


What if I empty my gank alt's wallet?

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Fredfredbug4
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2012-05-30 23:14:56 UTC
Julii Hakaari wrote:
Fredfredbug4 wrote:
The suicide ganker is 100% guaranteed to lose his ship, some modules, and sec status. It is the highest risk activity in EVE. Anyone can acknowledge that.

That's not true, though. I fit a cheap rifter if I'm looking for some fun frigate pvp, and I couldn't care less if I lost the ship.

Now, if I fit a 100m+ hurricane with 29m back on insurance, then I do care about losing it or not. My point is that losing ship A is cheaper than ship B and I can adapt what I spend with the reward I receive from suicide-ganking.


You are incorrect. You are not guaranteed to die in a Rifter and it's much cheaper. If you agress someone in ANY ship while in hi-sec you WILL die. You are also not guaranteed to actually kill your target. They may have more EHP than you anticipated, CONCORD may get you before you get them or the module drop simply isn't high enough to profit (with more people getting suicide ganked more people are **** fitting to save money).

Watch_ Fred Fred Frederation_ and stop [u]cryptozoologist[/u]! Fight against the brutal genocide of fictional creatures across New Eden! Is that a metaphor? Probably not, but the fru-fru- people will sure love it!
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#33 - 2012-05-30 23:16:25 UTC
Julii Hakaari wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Not security status, physical security as in being secure in your posessions as in not getting your shit blown up.

You'll have to rephrase this. My apologies.

RubyPorto wrote:
So fit your ship in a way that makes it uneconomical to gank. You're choosing to fit a ship in a way that's worth ganking.

People are doing it because a group of players has decided that they can make a profit by encouraging it through significant bounties. Suicide Ganking miners is exactly as easy as miners make it.

People are doing it because the reward far exceeds the risk, which is the point I'm making.

No, high sec-players have a right to CONCORD interference (in penalty, not to guarantee safety); this is to allow a sandbox in New Eden. I have told miners to build an alliance and fight back, and I have told them this is not a very hard thing to do and it would probably be fun to fight for something they believe in, but the reality is also that the reward exceeds the risk too much of suicide-ganking in space which supposedly is ruled by NPC's.


Then fit your ships in a manner that makes it uneconomical to gank them.

CONCORD provides exactly what you say you have a right to. It provides a penalty for illegal agression

Quote:

RubyPorto wrote:
If you're suggesting CONCORD start Podding, that breaks something that's been true for years and won't change the cost of a gank that much. CONCORD destroys the ship that performs an illegal action and puts a mark on the pilot's record. What more consequence do you want?

If CONCORD, the NPC space police starts podding, why shouldn't Pirate NPCs pod? They're criminals, they can't show more restraint than the Police, right? Now we have Rats podding newbie players who don't know what's going on. And the game would be poorer for driving newbies off like that.

I'm not suggesting they should pod.


Then, forgive me, what kind of enhanced penalties are you looking for?

CONCORD destroys your ship when you illegally aggress. They also mark off some Sec Status. At -5, the faction police start preemptively shooting you.

Aside from podding, how can you make the penalty for illegal aggression worse than a guaranteed loss of the ship?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Julii Hakaari
Hakaari Inc.
#34 - 2012-05-30 23:24:52 UTC
Apparently I can't have more than 5 quotes, so I will just remove your quotes and post my reply.

Tippia wrote:
text

It's not "my" job to make unless I've given my loyalty to a faction or to CONCORD.

Of course they do! If you like that kind of game-play you go to place B, and if you like that kind of game-play you go to place A; this is to ensure a diverse game-play in EVE.

People should be allowed to suicide-gank; I am not arguing for 100% safety in New Eden whatever the security status of the system may be, but I am arguing for better penalties when breaking the law committing murder. A more realistic approach from CONCORD and factions are needed to balance the equation.

The factions and CONCORD should fill a greater purpose in place A so their absence can be felt greater in place B.

If this was the case, then we wouldn't have high security systems and we wouldn't have story-lines with Caldari State and Gellente Federation fighting for the systems; just like players do around the empires.

The fundamental flaw in your rhetoric is that you're looking at this from a perspective which is incapable of perceiving change or fault in the game-play. By looking at it that way you are also ensuring the community at large that you will never criticize anything within the game; it's a bad corner to paint yourself into.

There is a difference, like I've said, between the different security systems within New Eden. You must view this from a perspective that high security space run by CONCORD and the different factions actually have an interest in punishing criminals more realistically.

You can argue for that, but in this thread we are looking at it from a perspective that NPC has a somewhat control over the space they have gone to war over, while the more desolate systems have less security, and the completely ignored systems are ruled by rogue corporations and alliances.

I don't care if they stay in or stay out; I just want to balance the equation of risk/reward.

"Completely un-phased? You think I'm totally lacking in any phasing? The idea that I'm anything less than half-phased I actually find offensive. It greatly phases me."
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#35 - 2012-05-30 23:25:05 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
1) Ganker pays the insurance payout to the victim. This also has the effect of reducing an ISK faucet.


What if I empty my gank alt's wallet?


Your wallet goes negative. See rule #2

2) If your wallet is negative, you cannot board any ship except a shuttle.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
I Accidentally YourShip
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2012-05-30 23:27:17 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Possible increase in penalties:

1) Ganker pays the insurance payout to the victim. This also has the effect of reducing an ISK faucet.

2) If you have a negative wallet, you may not board any ship except a shuttle.



1) Suicide ganking voids any and all insurance, even the 40% base insurance making this point moot.

2) See 1.
Xython
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2012-05-30 23:27:41 UTC
Another day, another "punish the meanies!!!!!" thread. -1/10
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#38 - 2012-05-30 23:33:20 UTC
Xython wrote:
Another day, another "punish the meanies!!!!!" thread. -1/10

I hope you're not surprised or anything.

Negative score? Is this like negwalleting?

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Xython
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2012-05-30 23:34:09 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Xython wrote:
Another day, another "punish the meanies!!!!!" thread. -1/10

I hope you're not surprised or anything.

Negative score? Is this like negwalleting?


Yes. In order to further participate, the OP must reach a positive clue score. Ideally, they will grind a basic logic course.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#40 - 2012-05-30 23:38:12 UTC
Xython wrote:
Another day, another "punish the meanies!!!!!" thread. -1/10


I see you've missed the front page of GD. Last I checked, it's another [unit time] another 16/20 GD threads about spanking the bad ebil people who deserve to be spanked... by CCP, ofc, OPs don't like ::effort::

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon