These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP please reduce GANKING!

Author
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#81 - 2012-07-11 19:58:30 UTC
Remove all non newbie PvE out from space patrolled by CONCORD.
Osirus Bayne
Sunrise Donkey
#82 - 2012-07-11 20:08:52 UTC
CorInaXeraL wrote:
I'm planning a field trip....anyone care to guess where I'm going to fly my little dessie next?



Now isnt that mature. I make a mere suggestion and I defend that suggestion and where does it end up. With threats of more griefing.

For your information, I am fairly new to this game. It was that toon's first Hulk and I was ignorant on how to fit it. I have learned from that mistake and will not make it again based on the current mechanics of the game.

I am very capable of learning and adapting to the game. You can laugh and poke fun all you want. The truth is, you could come after me and my new Covetor all you want to. I wont lose that much money over it, as you say...i have learned to not buy and use a ship until I am ready to do so. I have queued up the skills necessary to fit a new and better Hulk and at the right time I will fly it.

Hopefully in the mean time I can practice on get away tactics with my covetor if the situation ever arises.

I still firmly believe that there would be nothing wrong with implementing some sort of change to the way security stats so that new folks have a chance to get rolling good in the game without fear of ganking by 10 year old toons.

It might not be the right one, but apparently by the scathing responses from all you ganksters it must have come up before by others as you have pretty strong positions. Which is fine......I respect your position.

Why so angry and vengeful over a suggestion in a forum? If you look back at this thread I respectfully discussed my stance with you all and continually got bashed into the ground.

Why?
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#83 - 2012-07-11 20:19:12 UTC
Osirus Bayne wrote:
I bet CCP would keep alot more active subscriptions with some form of safety, somewhere in the game.


I bet the very notion of true safety in Eve runs counter to CCP's vision of the game.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Osirus Bayne
Sunrise Donkey
#84 - 2012-07-11 20:20:28 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Osirus Bayne wrote:
I bet CCP would keep alot more active subscriptions with some form of safety, somewhere in the game.


I bet the very notion of true safety in Eve runs counter to CCP's vision of the game.



It might well do that, but it still does not make my comment any less true.
Rezig Huruta
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#85 - 2012-07-11 20:20:44 UTC
It is good that you are learning. You've stated what you'll do to keep from being a victim of suicide ganking again.

The problem people are having with your suggestions is that they go against the very fabric that makes Eve different. The extra danger of not being safe anywhere except in station (unless you get scammed... of course) is what makes Eve a great game.

Your suggestions do not add anything to the game - making high-sec safer doesn't really do anything, except 'dumb down' the game. The solution to the problem is being aware, and fitting tank to the expensive ship you have. Not only that, but if you can't replace it, don't fly it.

The truth of the matter is, we, the players of Eve don't want this game turned into every other MMORPG out there. That means there will be bad with the good.

Personally, I don't care for suicide ganking, but I don't want it to be taken away. There are counters to it, you are doing that right now in the game by flying something less expensive and being aware and practicing escape maneuvers. Sounds to me like you're playing quite well. You've learned. For that, you'll save yourself many ships in the future.


Fly recklessly,
Rez
Daemon Ceed
Ice Fire Warriors
#86 - 2012-07-11 21:30:51 UTC
Osirus Bayne wrote:
CorInaXeraL wrote:
I'm planning a field trip....anyone care to guess where I'm going to fly my little dessie next?

Now isnt that mature. I make a mere suggestion and I defend that suggestion and where does it end up. With threats of more griefing.


It's not griefing if I am doing it for profit and/or personal reasons. You have officially offended a grand majority of C&P with your wistful wishes of a safe carebearfilled highsec utopia, and now you are going to accept the consequences. For your sake, I sure hope you don't AFK mine...because I'm already salivating at the thought of salvaging strip miners and intact armor plates from your Hulks dead and burning carcass.

Now that you'll be sufficiently paranoid, isn't Eve more fun and exciting?!? See, I've already improved your gaming experience and I haven't even ganked you...yet :)
Cpt Roghie
Chemical Invasion Co.
#87 - 2012-07-11 21:33:52 UTC
bloo bloo blooo i got ganked qq ok we have read it before, go make up something new. This thread is now about blobs.

This could be fun.

Bane Nucleus
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#88 - 2012-07-11 21:36:23 UTC
It's only a blob if you are on the losing end.

No trolling please

Osirus Bayne
Sunrise Donkey
#89 - 2012-07-11 21:39:13 UTC
Daemon Ceed wrote:
Osirus Bayne wrote:
CorInaXeraL wrote:
I'm planning a field trip....anyone care to guess where I'm going to fly my little dessie next?

Now isnt that mature. I make a mere suggestion and I defend that suggestion and where does it end up. With threats of more griefing.


It's not griefing if I am doing it for profit and/or personal reasons. You have officially offended a grand majority of C&P with your wistful wishes of a safe carebearfilled highsec utopia, and now you are going to accept the consequences. For your sake, I sure hope you don't AFK mine...because I'm already salivating at the thought of salvaging strip miners and intact armor plates from your Hulks dead and burning carcass.

Now that you'll be sufficiently paranoid, isn't Eve more fun and exciting?!? See, I've already improved your gaming experience and I haven't even ganked you...yet :)


I am not paranoid in the slightest. I could care less if you want to waste your free time hunting me down. Good luck! And I have no Idea what CandP is......so whatever.
Daemon Ceed
Ice Fire Warriors
#90 - 2012-07-11 21:40:52 UTC
Osirus Bayne wrote:

I am not paranoid in the slightest. I could care less if you want to waste your free time hunting me down. Good luck! And I have no Idea what CandP is......so whatever.


Oh good...then you'll be totally unaware when I jump into system to violence your spaceboat. \o/

C&P = Crime and Punishment
CorInaXeraL
The Dresdeneers
#91 - 2012-07-11 22:05:08 UTC
Osirus Bayne wrote:
CorInaXeraL wrote:
I'm planning a field trip....anyone care to guess where I'm going to fly my little dessie next?



Now isnt that mature. I make a mere suggestion and I defend that suggestion and where does it end up. With threats of more griefing.



I was only going to Amarr, but since you put the suggestion on the table....


Osirus Bayne wrote:
And I have no Idea what CandP is......so whatever.


So...you picked a forum at random, I take it? I'm offended... Pineapple would not approve of this abuse of C&P.
Betrinna Cantis
#92 - 2012-07-11 23:29:38 UTC
Quote:
That may be true, but that is not the game CCP wants to make. You'll hear it over and over from the Devs that every decision should have consequences. That is one of the main design philosophies of EVE, and more recently DUST 514. That decision you made to put 5 bill in an un-tanked hauler and undock? That should have consequences. I think ganking is a good thing not because its fun, but because it teaches the ganked a lesson. If the person getting blown up doesn't learn anything, then they will have a lot of problems with EVE.

Taking a big chunk of highsec and making it nigh impossible to gank in is not good for everyone as it allows carefree stupidity to propagate out of control. It doesnt teach new players how to play EVE and it does not benefit the incredibly risk averse as they are not forced to actually interact with the elements of EVE that make it EVE.

Also, market saturation is not necessarily a good thing. Having some scarcity generates more content. Build->Sell->Build->Sell isnt interesting. That would just be Farmville in space.
Quote:


This ^^
Space is big! Just in case you forgot. When places get overpopulated and competition get greater, there will be issues. Some Corporations defend themselves directly, some by contracting. You make 1 system a safe spot for "carebears", you turn the gates around it into a clog of camps. You will have to leave it sometime. And when you do.... they will be waiting......! Twisted

Alts have been changed to protect the Innocent. You may have mistaken me for someone who cares.....

Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#93 - 2012-07-11 23:52:14 UTC
As a bit of an aside, I'd like to address the bit where you claim suicide ganking requires no teamwork or planning or coordination. Let me tell you a little story.

So, I don't really suicide gank very much. So when I saw ten mackinaws clumped up together around an Orca, I did what anyone who has some knowledge does when faced with a large task: I called an expert. Suddenly Violence, the suicide-ganking arm of Suddenly Ninjas, hooked me up with a dude who was bringing out a pair of smartbombing battleships. Here's the steps involved in making this sort of a gank work.

1) His high sec status toon brings the battleships to the appropriate station.
2) He gets his ganking toons into that station as well.
3) I make an insta-undock so he can leave the station without getting blapped.
4) I ship-scan the targets in order to make sure we brought enough firepower.
5) I provide a warpin, ensuring all of the targets are within smartbomb range.
6) He takes the insta, warps to my warpin, I get out of the stop while he's in warp, he lands, and fires the bombs.

That was five characters needed for those steps. My covops, his suicide gankers, and his clean toons. Seems like some planning and coordination to me.

Or something simpler. Darius III (CSM of my heart) took a friend and I looking for an indy to gank a couple months back. The setup went something like this:

1) My friend in the tornado, on the gate.
2) One of my dudes in a resebo/scooping ship, making his lock time better and getting ready to nab the loot.
3) Darius on the other side of the gate, ship scanning the haulers.

This was before the inventory window showed values, so he had to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the games items and their values in order to determine what was worth the gank. My friend needed to have all the right skills and also have the sec status to burn. I needed to be really quick to get over to the loot before it got scooped out from under us.

So, that's five and three toons, respectively, each with a job they need to perform. In what way does this show a lack of planning or coordination?
Beachura
Doomheim
#94 - 2012-07-12 00:35:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Beachura
You are fairly amusing, so here's the deal:


  • High Security Space is hardly 1 / 3 of Eve.
  • There is no 'ganking issue' or 'player count problem'


Eve is unsafe from the moment your ship undocks from a station or leaves a starbase shield, your inadequate knowledge of eve is indicated by the fact you have ignored true sec (null) eg. -0.1 / -0.8 systems which mean an awful lot to individuals who are not carebears who live in null security space.

Thirdly, 'locking', is not a form of aggression, there are plenty of reasons I may wish to lock you that are not aggressive, I may wish to scan your cargo hold or your ship or simply be able to keep tabs on your transversal or indicate to you that I am paying attention to your ship.

Partially what makes eve so unique is it's complexity, dumbing it down for world of warcraft children is not happening here.
Katie Frost
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#95 - 2012-07-12 02:36:09 UTC
Let me end this thread for you Osirus (it was actually posted for you on pg 3).

John Lander, Snr Producer of EvE wrote:

The people they're going to hurt now are people who have quite a lot of security. There's not a lot of turnaround on ships and goods in Empire. I think it might be healthy if we lose a lot of this industrial power, if they have to go back and save up for their ships again and be a part of the cycle of life everyone else is a part of.

I don't like complete security, and I do like when a large group of players who live in complete security have that pulled away temporarily. It's going to be healthy.


This was his response to the Burn Jita event - when Goons ganked everything in Jita (0.9 security space).

The logic is quite simple both from a player perspective and economy perspective:

1) Player Perspective: the game is a sand-box and players can play any way they like. You can have safety, or relative safety, which is dependent on how you chose to play the game. Tank your ship and remain vigilant and you will never lose a miner to gankers.
2) Economy Perspective: completely safe mining areas would be inundated by players who would sit in these areas and mass produce ore, minerals etc. This would make the cost of production very low, which would make the market ineffective and flooded with cheap ships and modules. This would inevitably mean that death/destruction no longer becomes relevant because I can replace my ship/mods/implants for very little ISK.

Good luck in learning how to avoid ganks.

Kirtar Makanen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#96 - 2012-07-12 02:58:17 UTC
Beachura wrote:
You are fairly amusing, so here's the deal:
Thirdly, 'locking', is not a form of aggression, there are plenty of reasons I may wish to lock you that are not aggressive, I may wish to scan your cargo hold or your ship or simply be able to keep tabs on your transversal or indicate to you that I am paying attention to your ship.

Don't forget remote reps, remote sensor boosters, capacitor transfers, and the like. Locking a target does not necessarily imply that the target will be shot at with guns. If locking was aggression that triggered CONCORD, say goodbye to logistics ships in highsec for any operation involving more than one corporation (e.g. public incursions if ccp ever makes them worth it again).
InternetSpaceship
State War Academy
Caldari State
#97 - 2012-07-12 03:30:07 UTC
CCP, please change the game mechanics around the playstyle that I adamantly refuse to change.

Official Recruiter for GoonSwarm Corporation.

If you paid isk to get into GoonSwarm, you were probably scammed.  If you had the foresight to save the name of your scammer, let me know and I'll do what I can to help you.

Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#98 - 2012-07-12 08:47:13 UTC
Osirus Bayne wrote:
Sinna Sek wrote:
Osirus Bayne wrote:

I am not asking to change the whole game, just to update the security in higher level systems.


No, just a pretty significant part of it.



I wonder what the ratio of carebears vs gankers is.

There is plenty of room out there for everyone to play how they wish. Why should someone who does not want to pvp be forced to do so or quit the game.

I like the game immensely.

My actual argument is that if there were safer systems, then there would be more people actually subscribing and staying which equals more money for CCP, a more diverse environment for players, more competition on the market, more folks buying ships, mining and all that jazz.

Everyone wins!


If there were systems as safe as you want them to be they would all be as full as Jita, people would never leave them & the player economy would go downhill pretty quick. This game revolves around ships blowing up. Most peoples ships blow up in highsec.

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.

Rubenson
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#99 - 2012-07-12 09:07:38 UTC
Osirus Bayne wrote:
I posted this in the Dev blog but thought at page 44 it may not get read. So I made this thread to remedy that.

I like the new changes to the mining barges specifically.

I am not sure, that it will solve the ganking issue in high sec though.

I would suggest a slight modification to the current security status levels. Anyone can get ganked in 1.0 just as easy as in 0.5 atm which seems a little wrong IMO.

Why even have a sec status rating for these systems. You might as well just give it 3 statuses.

2.0 High sec
1.0 low sec
0.0 null sec

With the current system why not add advanced aggression from Concord and belt patrols for 1.0-0.8 space. You try and lock someone, you get a warning....you choose to actually lock them, Concord attacks you.

0.7-0.5 you can lock them, but you fire and you get Concorded. No belt patrols, but still patrols at gates and Stations.

0.4-0.1 Concord will respond eventually, so time for the ganker to retreat.

Null sec....well stays null sec.

The above are just a basic layout to make the security system actually mean more in the game. Just an idea. It does need to be looked at though and I would welcome any change at all. My idea is just an example.

The potential for people quitting the game will go down significantly.

The old heads wont quit because they cant gank folks in 1.0 systems anymore, but I am sure relatively new players have quit from being ganked after they spent all their hard earned isk just to lose it 10 minutes later to a ganker prick.

Risk vs reward comes into play as the more rare and expensive ore would be located in the lower sec systems.

I should not be getting evemail from a Goon saying I have to pay him for protection to mine in HIGH sec space.

Cops do not wait for a bank robber to execute their hostage before storming in to take said robber down. They send in the SWAT team at the first available opportunity. Security guards are there to prevent a crime, not exact retribution after the fact.


lulz
Tug McLub
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#100 - 2012-07-12 09:20:31 UTC
OMG OP, I really hope you posted on your main :)


Cya soon, kisses.