These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Is the penalty for suicide-ganking too high?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1 - 2012-05-31 01:08:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Mallak Azaria
Many posts are appearing of late asking if the penalty for suicide-ganking is too low. From the gankees point of view, it probably is. They lost a ship. I will now put to you the other side of the argument.
Suicide-gankers blow people up for many reasons. It may be for profit, in response to a player event or in many cases, they do it simply because it's fun[ny]. Now lets talk about penalties.

The gankee loses a ship & it's mods, plus whatever else resides in the cargohold.
The ganker loses a ship & it's mods, whatever resides in the cargohold, sec status, gains a 15 minute GCC timer, can be shot by anyone for the duration & receives no insurance payout. Can you really say the penalties are too low?

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.
Haldor Rune
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2 - 2012-05-31 01:12:30 UTC
The only reason to say that they are too low is to point to the fact that despite the penalties that currently exist, large-scale suicide gank-fests are not only possible, they're encouraged and actively organized (or at least, it seems that way). For the gankee, the penalty must be so excessively harsh as to completely dissuade anyone from even considering attempting it.
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2012-05-31 01:13:23 UTC
As long as suicide ganking is possible, the penalties will always be "too low."

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Juess
The Order of Cerberus
#4 - 2012-05-31 01:14:00 UTC
When an entire segment of Eve's population refuses obstinently to take up arms, being flagged for PVP by them in High Sec isn't really that much of a penalty. I mean what are they going to do?

I think we all know the answer to that.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#5 - 2012-05-31 01:14:10 UTC
Bring back tankable CONCORD and the m0o Perma-Camp!

"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
James 315
Experimental Fun Times Corp RELOADED
CODE.
#6 - 2012-05-31 01:16:18 UTC
The security status penalties for suicide ganking are too high. They were more reasonable before (one of) the suicide ganking nerfs for which the carebears bleated so much. Since ratting for security status is one of the worst activities in EVE, it shouldn't require so much to repair one's security status. Fortunately many gankers are able to operate even with -10 status, but that doesn't excuse the flawed mechanic.

MinerBumping.com
Spikeflach
Perkone
Caldari State
#7 - 2012-05-31 01:17:09 UTC
Loss of the gankers ship is no loss. They know its going to be lost, and its going to profit them even if its not a monetary profit.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#8 - 2012-05-31 01:18:15 UTC
Spikeflach wrote:
Loss of the gankers ship is no loss.


If it's not a loss, why do they lose it?

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.
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2012-05-31 01:18:21 UTC
Spikeflach wrote:
Loss of the gankers ship is no loss. They know its going to be lost, and its going to profit them even if its not a monetary profit.


i know that you can only look at a spreadsheet and say "hmm yes the penalties are too low" but the fact that you have to operate very differently when you're -5 or lower is quite a substantial penalty

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Hammer Crendraven
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2012-05-31 01:20:44 UTC
Juess wrote:
When an entire segment of Eve's population refuses obstinently to take up arms, being flagged for PVP by them in High Sec isn't really that much of a penalty. I mean what are they going to do?

I think we all know the answer to that.


What a sideways argument completely off the mark.
Haldor Rune
State War Academy
Caldari State
#11 - 2012-05-31 01:23:36 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Spikeflach wrote:
Loss of the gankers ship is no loss.


If it's not a loss, why do they lose it?

It's a monetary loss, but some people like to argue in terms of utility - the satisfaction a ganker receives from ganking - which is immeasurable. Abstract concept gain outweighs quantifiable ISK loss... right. It does, to some extent, which is why ganking occurs at all, but it's no way to make an argument about changing game mechanics.
Hammer Crendraven
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2012-05-31 01:31:20 UTC
James 315 wrote:
The security status penalties for suicide ganking are too high. They were more reasonable before (one of) the suicide ganking nerfs for which the carebears bleated so much. Since ratting for security status is one of the worst activities in EVE, it shouldn't require so much to repair one's security status. Fortunately many gankers are able to operate even with -10 status, but that doesn't excuse the flawed mechanic.


I tend to agree the flawed mechanic is that negative sec status is an attempt to keep them out which is not working either.

I would rather have a stand your ground rule to allow high sec players to defend themselves from gankers rather than a pathetic attempt to keep them out. But alas I have no idea how to make such a law or rule or mechanic work. I was thinking about a pretimer like the GCC timer but it counts down and the ganker can not attack until the timer runs out. During that 15 minute window the ganker(s) are legal targets in high sec. But that is too cumbersome and would not work well at all either.
If you saw a target at a gate how could you track it for 15 minutes while your timer wound down? No not a good way at all.
Like I said no idea how to make this work.
Ashina Sito
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2012-05-31 01:32:49 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
. Can you really say the penalties are too low?




Eve is suppose to be harsh. The penalties for being a pirate in High Sec are not harsh enough.

There is no problem with suicide ganking. It should be there. It should not be common place or a day in day out operational standard for a pilot. Pilot Sec status is suppose to mean something. It doesn't amount to much. The impact needs to be. greater. Being "bad" in game should not be an easy road. It should mean something when you see someone -10, it does not at the moment.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#14 - 2012-05-31 01:36:08 UTC
Ashina Sito wrote:
Being "bad" in game should not be an easy road. It should mean something.


Being "good" in game shouldn't be an easy road either. It should mean something.

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.
Oraac Ensor
#15 - 2012-05-31 01:36:27 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Spikeflach wrote:
Loss of the gankers ship is no loss.


If it's not a loss, why do they lose it?

The point is that it's not a net loss - they gain overall.

The penalty should be much higher so that they have to think a lot harder before risking it.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#16 - 2012-05-31 01:40:23 UTC
Oraac Ensor wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Spikeflach wrote:
Loss of the gankers ship is no loss.


If it's not a loss, why do they lose it?

The point is that it's not a net loss - they gain overall.


The gankee also gains knowledge from the experience, which is far more valuable than any monetary gain on the gankers end.

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.
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2012-05-31 01:44:19 UTC
Oraac Ensor wrote:
The point is that it's not a net loss - they gain overall.

The penalty should be much higher so that they have to think a lot harder before risking it.


No, the correct answer is that they MIGHT gain, if the right loot drops, if they actually succeeded or not, and if they brought friends, the profit gets cut that many more ways.

Ganking CAN be profitable, with the right targets. They don't always exist.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#18 - 2012-05-31 01:48:49 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Oraac Ensor wrote:
The point is that it's not a net loss - they gain overall.

The penalty should be much higher so that they have to think a lot harder before risking it.


No, the correct answer is that they MIGHT gain, if the right loot drops, if they actually succeeded or not, and if they brought friends, the profit gets cut that many more ways.

Ganking CAN be profitable, with the right targets. They don't always exist.




And the availability of profitable targets is entirely determined by the potential target's choices.

"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
Juess
The Order of Cerberus
#19 - 2012-05-31 01:53:45 UTC
Hammer Crendraven wrote:
James 315 wrote:
The security status penalties for suicide ganking are too high. They were more reasonable before (one of) the suicide ganking nerfs for which the carebears bleated so much. Since ratting for security status is one of the worst activities in EVE, it shouldn't require so much to repair one's security status. Fortunately many gankers are able to operate even with -10 status, but that doesn't excuse the flawed mechanic.


I tend to agree the flawed mechanic is that negative sec status is an attempt to keep them out which is not working either.

I would rather have a stand your ground rule to allow high sec players to defend themselves from gankers rather than a pathetic attempt to keep them out. But alas I have no idea how to make such a law or rule or mechanic work. I was thinking about a pretimer like the GCC timer but it counts down and the ganker can not attack until the timer runs out. During that 15 minute window the ganker(s) are legal targets in high sec. But that is too cumbersome and would not work well at all either.
If you saw a target at a gate how could you track it for 15 minutes while your timer wound down? No not a good way at all.
Like I said no idea how to make this work.

What a sideways argument completely off the mark.
Bootleg Jack
ACME Mineral and Gas
#20 - 2012-05-31 01:54:39 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Many posts are appearing of late asking if the penalty for suicide-ganking is too low. From the gankees point of view, it probably is. They lost a ship. I will now put to you the other side of the argument.
Suicide-gankers blow people up for many reasons. It may be for profit, in response to a player event or in many cases, they do it simply because it's fun[ny]. Now lets talk about penalties.

The gankee loses a ship & it's mods, plus whatever else resides in the cargohold.
The ganker loses a ship & it's mods, whatever resides in the cargohold, sec status, gains a 15 minute GCC timer & can be shot by anyone for the duration. Can you really say the penalties are too low?


You suicide gank with cargo and mods?? Shocked

Seriously, if you are at -10 and you get your ships from a corp orca the risk is what again?

Z
E
R
O

I'm an American, English is my second language...
123Next pageLast page