These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#61 - 2012-05-31 00:37:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Mallak Azaria
Upon thinking about this deeply, I came to the accurate conclusion that the penalty for suicide ganking is infact, too high.

Gankee: Loses a ship.
Ganker: Loses a ship & sec status.

Perhaps a compromise would be in order. The ganker could either not take a sec hit, or the gankee could also take a sec hit. This would make the situation fair to both sides.

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.
#62 - 2012-05-31 00:39:12 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
So then how would your proposed choice between exile and a bribe be anything other than paying isk if you want to escape sec hits?

It wasn't a thought through penalty. Someone asked for an example and I delivered it.

Penalties should be much more thought through with consideration to the economy and the affect it would have on the game as a whole.

Ludi Burek wrote:
With all this effort going into "save us" posts, how about even looking into any existing possibilities to protect yourself and organize your own safety. I mean you're not bound by game mechanics to mine afk without a tank in busy systems or systems with only a few belts. I don't see any "go forth and gank" buttons in the UI, yet you seem to want artificial safety.

Oh yeah "we don't want to ban ganking but make it so gankers are not allowed in high sec" . Brilliant logic and totally objective as expected Roll

Come one, I'm offering you argument here far from whatever the **** you received yours. Could you please be so kind to not give of such a completely ignorant response that I might just have to ask Mr. Darwin what went wrong with you?

No, no, Hakaari, don't be so hard on him.

Yes, I must - it's for his benefit.

No, no. He can't help it.

He has freedom of choice; born free into an absurd world, so spoke Mr. Camus.

Indeed, but that doesn't mean-

Ooooh. I was wondering how long it would take for such obvious and constant stupidity on these forums to literally drive me insane.

"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."
Julii Hakaari
Hakaari Inc.
#63 - 2012-05-31 00:39:46 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Upon thinking about this deeply, I came to the accurate conclusion that the penalty for suicide ganking is too high.

Gankee: Loses a ship.
Ganker: Loses a ship & sec status.

Perhaps a compromise would be in order. The ganker could either not take a sec hit, or the gankee could also take a sec hit. This would make the situation fair to both sides.

Did you in fact think at all, or does the gankees ship lack cargo-space?

"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."
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#64 - 2012-05-31 00:41:05 UTC
Julii Hakaari wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Upon thinking about this deeply, I came to the accurate conclusion that the penalty for suicide ganking is too high.

Gankee: Loses a ship.
Ganker: Loses a ship & sec status.

Perhaps a compromise would be in order. The ganker could either not take a sec hit, or the gankee could also take a sec hit. This would make the situation fair to both sides.

Did you in fact think at all, or does the gankees ship lack cargo-space?


Does the gankers ship also lack cargo space?

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.
#65 - 2012-05-31 00:44:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Julii Hakaari
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Julii Hakaari wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Upon thinking about this deeply, I came to the accurate conclusion that the penalty for suicide ganking is too high.

Gankee: Loses a ship.
Ganker: Loses a ship & sec status.

Perhaps a compromise would be in order. The ganker could either not take a sec hit, or the gankee could also take a sec hit. This would make the situation fair to both sides.

Did you in fact think at all, or does the gankees ship lack cargo-space?


Does the gankers ship also lack cargo space?

Is the gankees ship empty? Why, then, is it attacked?

gfldex wrote:
Julii Hakaari wrote:
in Gallente-land we obey Gallente-laws. Does the Gallente allow murder?


Can you show me those laws, please? This is a serious question because it's the first time that I hear that a capsuleer is under any form of government control. I learned from the back story that open space is dangerous and only the wealthy that can afford clones venture there. For very good reason!

You leave the safety of a station or a planet and there is no police to go after criminals. There is only CONCORD to stop unsanctioned acts of aggression. CONCORD has the simply function to keep violence at a tolerable level, what they do. The empires have their own problems (like a serious lack of presidents) that they can't deal with all those pirates that operate in open space. Why do you want to shift the burden to solve conflicts to them? Heck, there are still Minmatar children die by starvation!

We capsuleers have anything we need to handle our conflicts ourselves. There is no need of the empires to step up and start to restrict our freedom with their government bullshit.

Now, if only the rest of the forum could operate on your intellectual level, I'd have hope in this community.

Indeed, you may be correct, in which case I would openly and proudly admit my defeat in this debate.

"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."
Julii Hakaari
Hakaari Inc.
#66 - 2012-05-31 00:44:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Julii Hakaari
double-post

"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."
Hammer Crendraven
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#67 - 2012-05-31 00:46:40 UTC
Ludi Burek wrote:
With all this effort going into "save us" posts, how about even looking into any existing possibilities to protect yourself and organize your own safety. I mean you're not bound by game mechanics to mine afk without a tank in busy systems or systems with only a few belts. I don't see any "go forth and gank" buttons in the UI, yet you seem to want artificial safety.

Oh yeah "we don't want to ban ganking but make it so gankers are not allowed in high sec" . Brilliant logic and totally objective as expected Roll



Well the high sec game mechanics are the problem. They do not allow players to defend themselves. They only allow for concord retribution after the fact. That is what most peoples problems are with them or at least mine. Of course that problem goes away in low sec or null.

If a method can be found to allow players to defend themselves from gankers in high sec without getting concorded then the risk of operating in high sec would be restored IMHO. But I have no idea how to make that happen. AS of right now all of the methods that would work the best are as illegal in high sec as ganking is. In other words any method that has a real chance to defeat a ganker fleet and save the defender also will get the defender concorded. High sec needs a stand your ground rule (mechanic).
Julii Hakaari
Hakaari Inc.
#68 - 2012-05-31 00:49:15 UTC
Hammer Crendraven wrote:
Well the high sec game mechanics are the problem. They do not allow players to defend themselves. They only allow for concord retribution after the fact. That is what most peoples problems are with them or at least mine. Of course that problem goes away in low sec or null.

If a method can be found to allow players to defend themselves from gankers in high sec without getting concorded then the risk of operating in high sec would be restored IMHO. But I have no idea how to make that happen. AS of right now all of the methods that would work the best are as illegal in high sec as ganking is. In other words any method that has a real chance to defeat a ganker fleet and save the defender also will get the defender concorded. High sec needs a stand your ground rule (mechanic).

I completely agree and I'm surprised it hasn't been implemented.

"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."
Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
#69 - 2012-05-31 00:51:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Ludi Burek
Julii Hakaari wrote:

Come one, I'm offering you argument here far from whatever the **** you received yours. Could you please be so kind to not give of such a completely ignorant response that I might just have to ask Mr. Darwin what went wrong with you?

No, no, Hakaari, don't be so hard on him.

Yes, I must - it's for his benefit.

No, no. He can't help it.

He has freedom of choice; born free into an absurd world, so spoke Mr. Camus.

Indeed, but that doesn't mean-




Haha, nice. But really all your post, just like all the other crybabies, boils down to is what I said. You upset that I didn't repond to exact phrases you may have typed by pretending to be objective? You can't expect at this stage for people to even bother having intellectual arguments. Especially since the topic is born out of stupidity and willful ignorance.

Ganking has plenty of penalty. Asking if the penalty is too low is simply implying how it is bad and should be dealt with. Based on what? Opinion?


Julii Hakaari wrote:

Ooooh. I was wondering how long it would take for such obvious and constant stupidity on these forums to literally drive me insane.


The original post actually.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#70 - 2012-05-31 00:54:44 UTC
Julii Hakaari wrote:

Is the gankees ship empty? Why, then, is it attacked?


Often. Because the result is funny.

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.
Jonuts
The Arrow Project
#71 - 2012-05-31 00:54:51 UTC
I most definitely believe that suicide ganking is unbalanced. The risk/reward is completely skewed. No risk (You plan on losing your ship anyways) and plenty of reward. Basically, it's like handing out candy to the dude that sets up a machine gun nest right next to a freeway and starts unloading into passing cars.

I'd say the best solution is to levy a sizable fine OR have all modules/cargo destroyed. It's not even about protecting carebears really. It's Just the same argument against being able to make isk in high sec. If you do something with virtually no risk, there should be virtually no reward. Suicide ganking, as it stands, is really less risk than running missions.

If you institute either control, only the juciest targets will be suicide ganked, along with the occasional victim of a sociopath ganking for the laughs. And really, it's your fault if you leave 2bil in modules on a ship. It's like walking down a dark alley in the bad part of town, drunk off your ass and covered in money.

Another option is to just add in more risk. I'm not really sure how to actually add risk to such an event though. Maybe have suicide ganking come with a pod kill via concord along with an SP loss? I don't know. I really have no idea how to add actual risk to such an endeavor. Wish I did though, so suicide ganking could be somewhat legitimate instead of a game of gank the unarmed civilian and get free cash.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#72 - 2012-05-31 00:56:06 UTC
Julii Hakaari wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
So then how would your proposed choice between exile and a bribe be anything other than paying isk if you want to escape sec hits?

It wasn't a thought through penalty. Someone asked for an example and I delivered it.

Penalties should be much more thought through with consideration to the economy and the affect it would have on the game as a whole.


Ok, come up with a harsher penalty that doesn't break the rule on NPCs podding, doesn't impose artificial travel restrictions, and doesn't automagically whisk isk out of the ganker's wallet. Since none of those things happen in game currently, there's no reason to add them.

I'll wait.

"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.
#73 - 2012-05-31 00:56:37 UTC
Ludi Burek wrote:
Julii Hakaari wrote:

Come one, I'm offering you argument here far from whatever the **** you received yours. Could you please be so kind to not give of such a completely ignorant response that I might just have to ask Mr. Darwin what went wrong with you?

No, no, Hakaari, don't be so hard on him.

Yes, I must - it's for his benefit.

No, no. He can't help it.

He has freedom of choice; born free into an absurd world, so spoke Mr. Camus.

Indeed, but that doesn't mean-




Haha, nice. But really all your post, just like all the other crybabies, boils down to is what I said. You upset that I didn't repond to exact phrases you may have typed by pretending to be objective? You can't expect at this stage for people to even bother having intellectual arguments. Especially since the topic is born out of stupidity and willful ignorance.

Ganking has plenty of penalty. Asking if the penalty is too low is simply implying how it is bad and should be dealt with. Based on what? Opinion?


Julii Hakaari wrote:

Ooooh. I was wondering how long it would take for such obvious and constant stupidity on these forums to literally drive me insane.


The original post actually.

All right, more serious, then: Your post has no connection whatsoever to anything I've said; 1) I don't mine in high sec, 2) I don't afk-mine, 3) I've never bee ganked, 4) I don't want to ban ganking in high sec, and 5) I take a lot of risks in my business endeavors within New Eden.

You'd know all of this if you'd bothered to read the first post. You shouldn't expect respect when you act in such a disrespectful way.

"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."
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#74 - 2012-05-31 00:57:58 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
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.


So why does your monumentally stupid idea introduce the only game mechanic that forces a wallet to go negative, hmm?

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#75 - 2012-05-31 00:58:46 UTC
Jonuts wrote:
I most definitely believe that suicide ganking is unbalanced. The risk/reward is completely skewed. No risk (You plan on losing your ship anyways) and plenty of reward. Basically, it's like handing out candy to the dude that sets up a machine gun nest right next to a freeway and starts unloading into passing cars.

I'd say the best solution is to levy a sizable fine OR have all modules/cargo destroyed. It's not even about protecting carebears really. It's Just the same argument against being able to make isk in high sec. If you do something with virtually no risk, there should be virtually no reward. Suicide ganking, as it stands, is really less risk than running missions.

If you institute either control, only the juciest targets will be suicide ganked, along with the occasional victim of a sociopath ganking for the laughs. And really, it's your fault if you leave 2bil in modules on a ship. It's like walking down a dark alley in the bad part of town, drunk off your ass and covered in money.

Another option is to just add in more risk. I'm not really sure how to actually add risk to such an event though. Maybe have suicide ganking come with a pod kill via concord along with an SP loss? I don't know. I really have no idea how to add actual risk to such an endeavor. Wish I did though, so suicide ganking could be somewhat legitimate instead of a game of gank the unarmed civilian and get free cash.


What risk do miners have? (besides Suicide Ganks which you're trying to ban)

Why don't miners make it unrewarding to suicide gank? A tank fit hulk isn't profitable to gank. A Mining fit Rokh is even worse. The only reason Suicide ganking is profitable is because miners allow it to be.

"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.
#76 - 2012-05-31 01:01:40 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Julii Hakaari wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
So then how would your proposed choice between exile and a bribe be anything other than paying isk if you want to escape sec hits?

It wasn't a thought through penalty. Someone asked for an example and I delivered it.

Penalties should be much more thought through with consideration to the economy and the affect it would have on the game as a whole.


Ok, come up with a harsher penalty that doesn't break the rule on NPCs podding, doesn't impose artificial travel restrictions, and doesn't automagically whisk isk out of the ganker's wallet. Since none of those things happen in game currently, there's no reason to add them.

I'll wait.

To choose between a 50- 100m bribe with a low sec status (because CONCORD will keep their eyes on you) and exile. If one wishes to return from exile one must establish contact with CONCORD, which will happen when entering a CONCORD guarded gate; they will talk to you and you will offer them a bribe - with interest.

You're asking for a fast reply so you'll get a fast reply. The above example is just a possibility. The size of the bribe could of course be affected by other things, such as skills in Social and/or previous gankings, etc.

"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."
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#77 - 2012-05-31 01:03:13 UTC
Julii Hakaari wrote:
To choose between a 50- 100m bribe with a low sec status (because CONCORD will keep their eyes on you) and exile. If one wishes to return from exile one must establish contact with CONCORD, which will happen when entering a CONCORD guarded gate; they will talk to you and you will offer them a bribe - with interest.

You're asking for a fast reply so you'll get a fast reply. The above example is just a possibility. The size of the bribe could of course be affected by other things, such as skills in Social and/or previous gankings, etc.


so, artificial travel restrictions

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#78 - 2012-05-31 01:04:03 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Julii Hakaari wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Julii Hakaari wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
So then how would your proposed choice between exile and a bribe be anything other than paying isk if you want to escape sec hits?

It wasn't a thought through penalty. Someone asked for an example and I delivered it.

Penalties should be much more thought through with consideration to the economy and the affect it would have on the game as a whole.


Ok, come up with a harsher penalty that doesn't break the rule on NPCs podding, doesn't impose artificial travel restrictions, and doesn't automagically whisk isk out of the ganker's wallet. Since none of those things happen in game currently, there's no reason to add them.

I'll wait.

To choose between a 50- 100m bribe with a low sec status (because CONCORD will keep their eyes on you) and exile. If one wishes to return from exile one must establish contact with CONCORD, which will happen when entering a CONCORD guarded gate; they will talk to you and you will offer them a bribe - with interest.

You're asking for a fast reply so you'll get a fast reply. The above example is just a possibility. The size of the bribe could of course be affected by other things, such as skills in Social and/or previous gankings, etc.


So what happens if you don't pay the bribe and enter HS anyway? Are you an outlaw or do you go GCC?

Outlaw is fine. GCC is an artificial travel restriction.

"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
Jonuts
The Arrow Project
#79 - 2012-05-31 01:29:32 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:


What risk do miners have? (besides Suicide Ganks which you're trying to ban)

Why don't miners make it unrewarding to suicide gank? A tank fit hulk isn't profitable to gank. A Mining fit Rokh is even worse. The only reason Suicide ganking is profitable is because miners allow it to be.


The risk miners have is probably suicide. I know I'd put a round in my head if I had to make my isk through mining. Also, who said I'm trying to BAN suicide ganking? I'm arguing against it's profitability. If you want to go kill unarmed civilians in job lots, go do it. Go nuts. Have a field day with it. I'm only asking that the activity have a risk associated with it, or at the least, enough consequences to make it something other than free isk.

Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#80 - 2012-05-31 01:29:53 UTC
OP, you are asigning your personal morals to the NPC. They may not confided murder such a big thing. In fact, they obviously do not. Perhaps it is because we have clones and death is but an inconvience?

Plus, is not concord punishing us for not following their rules? Rules that say do not shoot other ships and pods in our space. Concord would take us out even if we did not get the kill. It seems that the murder (so dramatic) is not their care or focus. They just get irritated when we keep ignoring them. Then, they give a chance to repent by milking others until they are happy with us again (belt rats and missions for security and faction status).

After writing that, it seems like Concord is fine with murdering murders and absolving murder with murder by murders.

I think it is working as intended.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.