EVE General Discussion

I took this up in an earlier post. Most mining/industrial characters simply have no combat skills. Those skills would deviate them off their chosen path. I imagine it is part of the reason that they are so often targeted. They don't retaliate. They often can't. This gives them a fair avenue to do so.

I still maintain that high-sec ganking has an extremely low amount of unknown variability on the ganker's side as it is. This gives them a ridiculous advantage over high-sec miners.

"But they can tank!" - Shut up, bring more destroyers and next time scan their ship to see if it is tanked or not.

"Ganking doesn't make me money!" - What other form of PvP (and I use the term lightly) is done for profit? Even in FW the PvP is just to protect non-PvP content that is then used to turn a profit as I understand it. To be clear there is PvP done to gain access to profitable things. Sov and FW mostly are the examples. Protecting a WH is another. The PvP itself is an operating cost though or sometimes a leisure activity. It never is the thing itself that makes you ISK.

"Sellable killrights mean I might get ganked without warning!" - The only answer I have to this is a bout of uncontrollable laughter. Perhaps maniacal in nature.

"Miners get all the love blah blah blah blah!" - Destroyer buffs meant that mining barges became to easy to gank. T3 Battle Cruisers, especially the Tornado, just made it worse. The buffs to barges were mostly needed because the tools for gankers had by far and away surpassed the old Barges/Exhumers. Even a tanked hulk was paper thin pre buff.

"But its too hard to gank now as it is!" - Seriously? Give me 5 players, five Tornadoes, and a target. As long as they aren't in a bait skiff I'll get them and if they are I'll just have to make more friends. Oh I forgot, ganking in highsec is mostly the realm of the antisocial or so it seems to me.

That's their choice. You have access to every skill that everyone else has access to. Choosing to put yourself in a position where consequence free retaliation isn't feasible is a choice.

If you can't do it yourself, hire a mercenary to do it. You can do it right now via the forums. They Suicide Gank your target (or disrupt their ganks, or whatever), and you pay them.



First, they don't need to tank in order to be unprofitable to gank now. That is the problem. Nobody was arguing that miners shouldn't be able to tank against suicide gankers. And pre-buff, the Hulk had no trouble tanking enough to be unprofitable to gank anywhere in HS.

Sov War, Gate Camping, Piracy in General, Missionerbaiting, Awoxing, hunting Ratters, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some other examples of PvP intended to turn a profit.



First, the problem is the mechanically enforced, consequence free nature of that surprise.

Crucible made ganking more expensive. Ganking a Hulk with a Destroyer costs significantly more than ganking one with a Thorax or Brutix did pre-Crucible. Good job already forgetting the part of Crucible all the miners were cheering about.



And tell me how you can make a profit wasting around 400m ISK on one Exhumer (well, Mackinaw, since it's a one ship class again)?

Kind of kills the point of an overhaul then and makes a mockery of the "consequences" effect. Who deserves a bounty more: the pirates who zap newbs, consensual pvper's and the occassional hauler in lowsec or the +5 guys who AWOX and take corp assets "legally"? Oh, and the neutral/NPC hauler/logistic/scout alts too. Bounties hunters in fiction go after guys the law can't/won't touch and smugglers played by Harrison Ford.

Note: I had to italicize quotes because it wouldn't let me quote them all.


"That's their choice. You have access to every skill that everyone else has access to. Choosing to put yourself in a position where consequence free retaliation isn't feasible is a choice.

If you can't do it yourself, hire a mercenary to do it. You can do it right now via the forums. They Suicide Gank your target (or disrupt their ganks, or whatever), and you pay them."

Sandbox means they shouldn't be forced into training those things. Transferable kill rights allow them to retaliate by hiring mercenaries without their mercenaries needing to worry about sec status hits. I am glad we agree on that point. It is a good change.

"First, they don't need to tank in order to be unprofitable to gank now. That is the problem. Nobody was arguing that miners shouldn't be able to tank against suicide gankers. And pre-buff, the Hulk had no trouble tanking enough to be unprofitable to gank anywhere in HS."

For the love of god read the rest of the thread where I posted. Ganking isn't supposed to be profitable.

"Sov War, Gate Camping, Piracy in General, Missionerbaiting, Awoxing, hunting Ratters, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some other examples of PvP intended to turn a profit."

Let me repost again so you might read what I said. I'll highlight the parts and then explain in small words for you...

"Ganking doesn't make me money!" - What other form of PvP (and I use the term lightly) is done for profit? Even in FW the PvP is just to protect non-PvP content that is then used to turn a profit as I understand it. To be clear there is PvP done to gain access to profitable things.. Sov and FW mostly are the examples. Protecting a WH is another. The PvP itself is an operating cost though or sometimes a leisure activity. It never is the thing itself that makes you ISK.

Sov War is PvP done to control space. Once that space is controlled you can then do anomalies, mine, get moon goo. The PvP is not the profit it is an operating cost to gain the space to make the profit.

Awoxing and Mission Baiting are forms of ganking and arguably PvP. Awoxing is different because you have to do more than fit a destroyer and warp to a belt. It takes actual effort so it should have reward. In mission baiting the person has to choose to engage and therefore they are at fault. Miners aren't given that choice. I am not a fan of Mission baiting either and I am fairly sure that that form of ganking will suffer the same consequences as miner ganking after the changes. So that is a yay.

Gate camping has to occur in Low or Null where PvP is expected. Not that Pipa the gankbear would know about that. Hunting ratters, similarly, requires you to be in a part of space where PvP is a part of life more so than highsec and the person that is caught should have been prepared. Arguably if they are prepared and you don't bring 20 people they should be able to cost you a little. That is rarely the case of course. Their fault.

Some PvP does turn a profit I suppose. Gate Camping and catching expensive boats in belts. Those are actual PvP examples and I will admit in some limited cases PvP may turn a profit but comparing Low Sec gate camps and Null Sec ratter catchers to ganking is like comparing a chicken egg to an ostrich egg. Technically they work on the same principles but I don't think anyone would say they are the same and one is a lot more interesting. It also has a higher risk. Imagine how much it would hurt to drop an ostrich egg on your toe!


"First, the problem is the mechanically enforced, consequence free nature of that surprise."

Mechanically enforced? You mean like sitting a belt minding your own business just to have a bunch of destroyers show up and blow up your ship without provocation? OH THE HORROR!


"Crucible made ganking more expensive. Ganking a Hulk with a Destroyer costs significantly more than ganking one with a Thorax or Brutix did pre-Crucible. Good job already forgetting the part of Crucible all the miners were cheering about."

Was that the intro of the Tier 3 Battle-Cruisers with their relatively cheap Battlship damage that could easily alpha the pre-buff hulks and still can if you bring a friend or two? That really rocked for the miners!

"And tell me how you can make a profit wasting around 400m ISK on one Exhumer (well, Mackinaw, since it's a one ship class again)?"

Do you even read other people's posts? Please refer higher up in this post where I explain PvP and making money. I will elaborate if you still fail to comprehend my argument. If you ask nicely I'll even work really really hard to write in smaller words. Words are hard, I know, it is ok, we'll get through this together.

Edit: P.S. I always use a Skiff even in Null. I like the tanky little bug. So no, not everyone uses a Mackinaw.
2nd Edit: because I fail at formatting.

They're not forced to train anything. Thats why choosing to put themselves in a position where taking retribution isn't feasible is a choice.

EVE is a Multiplayer Sandbox, which means you can do anything you want, and so can anyone else including screwing with your plans.

Once again, I have no problem with transferrable killrights. The problem is blind transferrable killrights. Why should the mercenary get a mechanically enforced element of surprise with no consequence?



So you're claiming that every ISK you put in a ship should increase its tank?



Exactly. And without the possibility of profit, suicide ganking largely disappears.



D-Scan lets you eliminate that surprise due to the constrained nature of ganking ships. Therefore, surprise is in no way guaranteed.

Blind Transferrable killright hunters are in no way constrained, so there's no ship types to look for. Therefore, surprise is mechanically guaranteed.

Name for me a current mechanic by which someone cannot find out who can legally shoot them.



Ganking a ship in a Tornado costs significantly more than ganking one with a pre-Crucible Battleship. Like I said, you're entirely (and conveniently) forgetting the Insurance nerf. Good for you.


Your argument is that ships should gain EHP based on the value of the equipment they fit.

An unfit Hulk was not profitable to gank. A Tanked Hulk was not profitable to gank. Only when the Hulk fit expensive modules without bothering to fit a tank or take any active measures to protect themselves were they profitable and possible to gank.

Post to devblog where it says this please?

They're not forced to train anything. Thats why choosing to put themselves in a position where taking retribution isn't feasible is a choice.

EVE is a Multiplayer Sandbox, which means you can do anything you want, and so can anyone else including screwing with your plans.

Once again, I have no problem with transferrable killrights. The problem is blind transferrable killrights. Why should the mercenary get a mechanically enforced element of surprise with no consequence?

No matter what you argue all I hear is "I want easy targets." You're afraid to be put in the same position you put other people in.

So you're claiming that every ISK you put in a ship should increase its tank?

Wait what? You're very good at reading what you want to read. I never said ISK is a tank. I will however claim that ganking had become too easy. The buffs to mining barges simply made the playing field more even but still in favor of the gankers no matter how much you whine about it being otherwise.

Exactly. And without the possibility of profit, suicide ganking largely disappears.

You're cherry picking. If you go back and read you will see the examples I gave of potentially profitble PvP all occur in open PvP areas and involve risks. Low and Null have risks. High sec ganking has operating costs.

D-Scan lets you eliminate that surprise due to the constrained nature of ganking ships. Therefore, surprise is in no way guaranteed.

Blind Transferrable killright hunters are in no way constrained, so there's no ship types to look for. Therefore, surprise is mechanically guaranteed.

Name for me a current mechanic by which someone cannot find out who can legally shoot them.

Current mechanics where someone can not find out who can legally shoot them in advanced I assume? There isn't currently one and frankly I don't care one way or another if the person can see who has the killright. That doesn't make your arguments for not wanting it any less flawed.

Ganking a ship in a Tornado costs significantly more than ganking one with a pre-Crucible Battleship. Like I said, you're entirely (and conveniently) forgetting the Insurance nerf. Good for you.

Please, keep making yourself ridiculous by trying to turn my argument against itself by ignoring one of the key points. Might I suggest that instead of ignoring where I say ganking shouldn't be profitable you argue against that point instead of continually discarding it. You're reading comprehension is seeming pretty poor since you keep overlooking that. Kind of a key point.


Here, before you start saying I am being obtuse for arguing that



Cited Dev Quote on this page:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=137125&p=3

After reading 9 pages of Pipa whining and crying about how his obvious suicide-ganking activities will come back to haunt him under the new system, I really don't care to read his/her posts anymore. Crying about how you won't know if someone with kill-rights is sitting right next to you until they start shooting is the height of hypocricy.

Revenge boils down to 2 tiers of retribution. (See what I did there?) First tier is criminal retaliation exercised by our law enforcement division, CONCORD. You lose your ship. Second tier is civil prosecution via kill-rights. The player can choose to either try and kill you, or they will be able to hire out the kill-right to someone they assume is more capable.

After all that crap you posted, the only reasonable thing I can find in it is that there is currently no way to know who has kill-rights on you. They don't show up differently in local or on overview.

But to be honest, you popped someone illegally, without them having any way to know beforehand that you wanted to. Do you really deserve advance knowledge when your victim had no such benefit?

Pipa, if you don't want half of eve trying to kill you, stop doing bad things! Otherwise, HTFU and accept responsibility for your actions.

Next, I would like to address the "escrow" bounty system itself. Basically, you drop cash into an escrow account held by CONCORD, and they will pay out a certain percentage of the kill value to whomever pops the bountied player's ship or pod.

I think this was already mentioned. Simply put, if the payout is not more than the cost of losing one's own ship, then no one will do it as a profession. The trick is to get the payout to sit higher than the cost of the hunter's ship - insurance, but lower than the cost of the bounty and hunter's ships - insurance combined. Otherwise, the alt problem will continue.

I also really like the suggestion of having bounties on entire corps or alliances, or categories of anything. This could be especially useful when used in conjunction with wardecs to pay corp members for killing war-targets or for player-run pvp content such as Hulkageddon. (Just an example, kthx.)

Perhaps bounties of this type could be set to pay to only a limited scope, such as a named corp or alliance. Or if Goons want to pay all of eve to go kill Solar, they could just list it as public. It could also make the financing of mercenary forces much easier and more reliable.

*smiles*

Always interesting to see heated debate based on "speculation" especially when people are already whining about finally having relevant potential consequences for their actions.

Kind of helps to really determine just how "laissez-faire" the criminal attitudes have been and seems they are forgetting that their apparent sense of entilement where a relevant bounty system hasn't existed has been a false premise for years.

More importantly which seems to be a point more missed in the above exchange, is just how much more potential fun might be brought back into empire space as a result of these changes with the additional PvP exchanges encouraged and the promise of a reawakening of what should be a valid profession by the Retribution expansion. Also the potential knock on consequences in helping to keep the wheels of industry turning with the additional gameplay that has been missing as a result of a "broken" mechanic.

If embraced more by EvE community the potential for player interaction and movements towards having mechanics and tools to help control "legal" issues from a player perspective could hopefully also help to enthuse people to have them sorted out using these in game tools more as opposed to forum tools with regard to the aspects of policing player behaviour. One can hope here I suppose even if likley a pipe dream.

Either way, thank you CCP for putting BH on the development map and hope to see some concrete facts provided in a dev blog soon (™).

What? You've lost the thread of the conversation. That post's not talking about the bounty system, it's discussing suicide ganking and the blind transferrable killright people are arguing for.