These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#161 - 2012-06-02 13:37:23 UTC
Thanks Tippia. I knew I shouldn't have made a TLDR. I'm terrible at it. I can never condense what I write into a single thought.

Is trial account creation monitored per IP addy? Or are violations only reported? And what's to stop someone from claiming their sister,mother,father,brother wanted to try the game so they set up an acct for them? Seems weak.

And are bans per IP addy or per account? If you ban a guy's account and he's got 12 more, that sure won't help.

I guess we can debate this all day but sec status still won't be any kind of deterrent to crime (though I keep seeing it brought up as a part of some balance in-game.) I only referenced alts because of how easily they are obtained, how many a single player potentially has access to, and the level of chaos that could be unleashed if a large enough group decided to flex real muscle.

I don't actually think increasing the sec status penalty would have much effect. I just recognize that CCP set up a system to prevent individuals from ganking forever. So, it stands to reason that a neverending gank-fest probably wouldn't be allowed to go on indefinately.

And actually I thought the earlier idea of preventing ship/cargo scanners from operating in high-sec was novel. I'm not firm on all the pros/cons but it would sure add a new variable to gameplay and potentially increase the number of unsuccessful ganks.

Yonis Kador
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#162 - 2012-06-02 13:44:01 UTC
Julii Hakaari wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Bad analogy. The better analogy is given that toolbox, I threaten to hit you over the head with a spanner every time I see you use the cordless drill. Now, the cordless drill drills holes faster than the eggbeater drill, but the eggbeater drill does the same quality job. You could use the cordless drill anyway and accept the beatings, or you could hide from me while you use it, or you can simply use the eggbeater drill.

Your choices remain the same. The possible and likely outcomes have changed, but the choices haven't.

The choice we make depends on the outcome so if we change the outcome then we also change the choices, e.g. the choices would change if we went from a publicly funded police force, which would punish you for an act of murder, to a state with no police force.


With police, I can walk down the street in South Central LA at night. Without Police, night is still available, South Central is still there, and I can still walk. My available choices have not changed. The likelihood of my surviving by choice may have, but not the choice itself.

Earlier you could choose
Action A: 3 Boon, 20% of 2 Neg
Action B: 5 Boon, 50% of 2 Neg
Action C: 10 Boon, 70% of 2 Neg

Now you can choose
Action A: 3 Boon, 90% of 2 Neg
Action B: 5 Boon, 40% of 2 Neg
Action C: 10 Boon, 60% of 2 Neg

The same actions are there, the consequences have simply changed.

Quote:

RubyPorto wrote:
If Death doesn't have consequences, why do people cry about getting ganked? The consequences are still there, gankers have just adapted and made the consequences less relevant to them. Miners can do the same thing.

When I say most of you are intellectually dysfunctional then I don't mean people like you and Tippia whom I may not agree with, but rather than trolling you engage in a discussion which is something I respect, so why do you embarrass yourself like this? We both know that suicide-ganking is act of suicide, and what is suicide? It's the choice of dying. Why would anyone make that choice in EVE? "For the lulz", apparently. Is it logical to die "for the lulz" in a "hard core game" where death should be something we try to avoid?

A suicide-ganker builds a cheap ship to suicide-gank. He doesn't spend tons of money and fills his cargo with stuff before he goes out into space and commits an act of suicide. If you fail to see the difference in self-made choice of death, and simple death, then I don't think you and I can get any further in this discussion.


If death didn't have any consequence for him, why does he fit his ship so cheaply?

"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

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#163 - 2012-06-02 13:44:29 UTC
Yonis Kador wrote:
Is trial account creation monitored per IP addy? Or are violations only reported? And what's to stop someone from claiming their sister,mother,father,brother wanted to try the game so they set up an acct for them? Seems weak.
The thing about trials is that they're a bit too short to do anything useful with — you'll have a day or three of effective ganking before they run out so you have to keep a whole bunch running at once. It quickly approaches the point where it's far more effort than it's worth (especially compared to just having a dedicated gank character that you keep at -10, and mixing up your targets so they keep forgetting it's you).

…and yes, all accounts are monitored per IP by the looks of it. Have you ever tried to log in on the forums from a new location? Blink

Quote:
I guess we can debate this all day but sec status still won't be any kind of deterrent to crime (though I keep seeing it brought up as a part of some balance in-game.)
It will be if people start making it one. Yes, some silly NPCs will hunt you, but the effect it has on other players is actually far larger and far more important.

…and then we come to the plan the devs mentioned about being able to buy your sec status back up with tags. That idea alone kind of tells us what they think of this “problem”. Twisted
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#164 - 2012-06-02 14:00:33 UTC
Yes, but you can only buy your status back once.

And, it's pretty difficult to use any long-standing game mechanics as a metric to gauge an unprecedented situation no?

Have any of the other mega-alliances in EVE's history ever declared a neverending assault on high sec?

I don't have a dog in this hunt either way. I'm not mining with Yonis. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

YK
Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#165 - 2012-06-02 14:02:29 UTC
Tippia wrote:
[quote=Yonis Kador]
…and then we come to the plan the devs mentioned about being able to buy your sec status back up with tags. That idea alone kind of tells us what they think of this “problem”. Twisted


They should only distribute those tags through hi sec miners to sell Lol


Tal

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#166 - 2012-06-02 14:05:31 UTC
Yonis Kador wrote:
Yes, but you can only buy your status back once.
No. Well, maybe, nothing has been presented yet so we'll have to see if and how they implement that idea.

Quote:
Have any of the other mega-alliances in EVE's history ever declared a neverending assault on high sec?
Only on their wallets, through the price-gouging before invention and before tech became the new bottleneck.

Talon SilverHawk wrote:
They should only distribute those tags through hi sec miners to sell
That would be hillarious.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#167 - 2012-06-02 14:09:02 UTC
Fenella wrote:
ISK loss for ganking is inconsequential, Sec penalty is easily circumvented, kill rights are a joke.

What we need is Community Service and tagging.

Force the aggressors to clean grafiti off the side of a station in a pod for 4 hours every time they gank a barge before they can leave the system or dock.

That'll teach em !

/shakes fist



I like this approach. Make it so they can only fly mining ships for a week. Evil
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#168 - 2012-06-02 14:26:58 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Fenella wrote:
ISK loss for ganking is inconsequential, Sec penalty is easily circumvented, kill rights are a joke.

What we need is Community Service and tagging.

Force the aggressors to clean grafiti off the side of a station in a pod for 4 hours every time they gank a barge before they can leave the system or dock.

That'll teach em !

/shakes fist



I like this approach. Make it so they can only fly mining ships for a week. Evil


When I first started, I mined in a destroyer for a while. Must be that Destroyers are mining ships. Twisted

"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

Wilma Lawson
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#169 - 2012-06-02 14:28:30 UTC
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#170 - 2012-06-02 14:33:33 UTC  |  Edited by: malcovas Henderson
RubyPorto wrote:
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Fenella wrote:
ISK loss for ganking is inconsequential, Sec penalty is easily circumvented, kill rights are a joke.

What we need is Community Service and tagging.

Force the aggressors to clean grafiti off the side of a station in a pod for 4 hours every time they gank a barge before they can leave the system or dock.

That'll teach em !

/shakes fist



I like this approach. Make it so they can only fly mining ships for a week. Evil


When I first started, I mined in a destroyer for a while. Must be that Destroyers are mining ships. Twisted



lets make it a retriever then. Big smile If you dont have the training for it. All other training is locked till you have trained for it. Punishment starts the moment you can fly a retriever Twisted
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#171 - 2012-06-02 14:44:49 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Fenella wrote:
ISK loss for ganking is inconsequential, Sec penalty is easily circumvented, kill rights are a joke.

What we need is Community Service and tagging.

Force the aggressors to clean grafiti off the side of a station in a pod for 4 hours every time they gank a barge before they can leave the system or dock.

That'll teach em !

/shakes fist



I like this approach. Make it so they can only fly mining ships for a week. Evil


When I first started, I mined in a destroyer for a while. Must be that Destroyers are mining ships. Twisted



lets make it a retriever then. Big smile If you dont have the training for it. All other training is locked till you have trained for it. Punishment starts the moment you can fly a retriever Twisted


Ok, so long as the punishment for miners getting ganked is sitting in a BLOPS for two weeks. All other training is locked, yadda yadda.

Having the game force people to do what they do not want to do is not how a sandbox works.
Having people force other people to CHOOSE to Adapt or Die is in the highest traditions of sandbox gameplay.

"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

Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#172 - 2012-06-02 14:48:34 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

Having the game force people to do what they do not want to do is not how a sandbox works.


Unless, of course, they liked the old inventory system.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#173 - 2012-06-02 15:04:58 UTC
Malphilos wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

Having the game force people to do what they do not want to do is not how a sandbox works.


Unless, of course, they liked the old inventory system.


Fair point. Guess I should have put "is not good game design," but even CCP noticed that they screwed up the new inventory.

"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

Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#174 - 2012-06-02 16:38:12 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Malphilos wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

Having the game force people to do what they do not want to do is not how a sandbox works.


Unless, of course, they liked the old inventory system.


Fair point. Guess I should have put "is not good game design," but even CCP noticed that they screwed up the new inventory.


I'd accept that. The further we get from the misleading misuse of "sandbox", the better.

There are also plenty of other examples (using the weak sense of "force", as in "If you choose to play in manner X, you are forced to Y") that arguably are good game design. And the weak sense of the word is the only one that applies.

An appeal to the authority of "sandbox" to enforce a style of play or prohibit an outcome is fallacious. The sandbox can and does change fairly frequently.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#175 - 2012-06-02 16:43:45 UTC
Malphilos wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Malphilos wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

Having the game force people to do what they do not want to do is not how a sandbox works.


Unless, of course, they liked the old inventory system.


Fair point. Guess I should have put "is not good game design," but even CCP noticed that they screwed up the new inventory.


I'd accept that. The further we get from the misleading misuse of "sandbox", the better.

There are also plenty of other examples (using the weak sense of "force", as in "If you choose to play in manner X, you are forced to Y") that arguably are good game design. And the weak sense of the word is the only one that applies.

An appeal to the authority of "sandbox" to enforce a style of play or prohibit an outcome is fallacious. The sandbox can and does change fairly frequently.


The strong sense certainly applies to the inventory (at least as strong as if you want to play the game, you must use it).

I don't know of any activity in EvE that has only one way to do it. Heck, mining with a single drone in a Stabber is a way to mine.


And I would say that game-mechanically forcing people to fly x ship and train y skills is going against the idea of a sandbox.

"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

EVE Roy Mustang
Doomheim
#176 - 2012-06-02 16:54:58 UTC
Yes, they should isnta kill (CONCORD, Navy, gate guns) pods when criminals enter high sec.
So you cant scoot around high sec freely in their pod


(Wait for the qq from the ppl who fear consequences for their actions)
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#177 - 2012-06-02 16:57:06 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
EVE Roy Mustang wrote:
Yes, they should isnta kill (CONCORD, Navy, gate guns) pods when criminals enter high sec.
So you cant scoot around high sec freely in their pod


(Wait for the qq from the ppl who fear consequences for their actions)


The Miners have already provided ever so much of that, what shall we do with the extra qq?

Anyway, already been suggested, still stupid.

Also, parsing that sentence per normal English syntax, you are suggesting that "They" insta kill pods owned by "(Concord, Navy, gate guns)" whenever criminals enter high sec. Oh the CONCORD tears when they start getting podded.

"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

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#178 - 2012-06-02 17:04:04 UTC
EVE Roy Mustang wrote:
Yes, they should isnta kill (CONCORD, Navy, gate guns) pods when criminals enter high sec.
So you cant scoot around high sec freely in their pod
Why?
Spikeflach
Perkone
Caldari State
#179 - 2012-06-02 17:11:46 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:


Ok, so long as the punishment for miners getting ganked is sitting in a BLOPS for two weeks. All other training is locked, yadda yadda.

Having the game force people to do what they do not want to do is not how a sandbox works.
Having people force other people to CHOOSE to Adapt or Die is in the highest traditions of sandbox gameplay.


Except in the sandbox with a bully, the gentle lamb can truely kick the bully in the crotch when they know the bully plans on kicking down his castle.
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#180 - 2012-06-02 17:11:55 UTC
Tippia wrote:
EVE Roy Mustang wrote:
Yes, they should isnta kill (CONCORD, Navy, gate guns) pods when criminals enter high sec.
So you cant scoot around high sec freely in their pod
Why?


Because Eve is sold as a heartless MMO filled with 1 sided PvP in a dimension where the undeserving die a quick death.

If Criminals want CONCORD to hold their hand and whisper sweet nothings in their ears while they defile hi-sec with their presence... then they are playing the wrong game.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!