These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

"Eve is a game driven by consequences for actions." Not if you're into suicide ganking
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#101 - 2011-10-24 07:58:26 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
"Loss of assets"
Insurance

"Loss of standings"
Yes. I'm sure a suicide ganker is devastated over going from a -10 to a... -10.

"Loss of time"
Except that to ill-adjusted kiddies whose purpose is to ruin people's play time that's exactly the reason why they invest their time on Eve.

"Kill rights"
This is the only reasonable consequence to a suicide ganker.

…except that insurance does not cover the loss. The consequence stands.
If they maintain a -10, you kill them. Either way, it's a consequence he has to deal with, just like with the kill rights. You accept that one, so you have to accept the standing as a consequence as well.
If they enjoy spending time ruining people's day, then not being able to do that is most certainly a harsh consequence, no?
Quote:
This is utter nonsense and I think you yourself realize this.
Really? Prove it.
Quote:
And again, you're arguing semantics. I'm sure that technically there is still a financial loss however minute (LOL). Again, how much is this loss? How does it compare to the miner's losses?
It's not semantics — it's the core issue. For one, it is, indeed, a net financial loss for the ganker. For the miners, it probably isn't, and if it is, they can quite easily mitigate that to ensure that they no longer operate at a loss. The problem is that no-one can be bothered to actually say how much the miner earns or how often (s)he gets ganked.
Quote:
It is not irrelevant.
Yes it is. In fact, that's the whole point!

It is utterly irrelevant how much a single hulk loss costs compared to a single gank ship loss if we don't know how often each happens and how much they earn inbetween. If I lose a Hulk every four years and in the meantime earn 50bn ISK from the venture then I comes out ~50bn ahead. If I lose a Hulk a week (with the same rate of income), then i end up ±0 and stop using the Hulk. If I gank for fun at full speed, I probably end up at -50bn in the same time period even with insurance “covering“ my costs”. So here, the miner comes out some 50–100bn ahead.

You're so hung up on point losses (which are, indeed, entirely irrelevant) that you forget about the bits that actually matter: frequency, probability, ability to earn the cost back. In other words: what are the [i]actual, net losses?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#102 - 2011-10-24 08:08:27 UTC
Hecatonis wrote:
i am going to help
Tippia wrote:
And the fact remains that this is completely irrelevant. How much does the miner earn between each loss? How much does the ganker earn between each loss? Your fact assumption is that the miner loses ships faster than he can earn them and/or that the ganker has a significant profit. This has yet to be proven.
proof one
proof two

as you can see the ganker does loose far less then the gankee.
No, that didn't help. You're missing the key ingredient and thus fail to answer the questions: How much does the miner earn between each loss? How much does the ganker earn between each loss? Your fact assumption is that the miner loses ships faster than he can earn them and/or that the ganker has a significant profit. This has yet to be proven.

You're just showing that gankers and miners lose ships. We know this. It doesn't mean anything.
Quote:
this seems uninformed please see attached quote
Doesn't change the fact that they can mitigate their risks. In fact, it doesn't even address this fact.
Quote:
gank ship, concord kills your ship, gank pod, concord kills pod. seems fitting. poetic even
Yeah, that's not what CONCORD does. Only players pod, by design.
Tanya Fox wrote:
People choose to be victims, what bs.
I'm sorry, but if someone chooses not to tank their ship; chooses to fly something they know is actively being hunted; choose to carry too much valuable goods; choose to do all of that in known kill zones… then yes, they bloody well are choosing to be victims.
Hrald
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#103 - 2011-10-24 08:13:22 UTC
Half the time I forget to insure my ship. I don't give a ****, I'm space rich.
Hecatonis
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#104 - 2011-10-24 08:16:35 UTC
Rutger Centemus wrote:

You do realize your 'proof' is rather worthless, as quite a few people don't generally post losses. Most killboards, be they private, corp or alliance, are set up to ignore losses to npcs (rats, Concord)...

Insurance will cover part of the loss, but will never cover the entire shiploss (let alone module cost) unless prices drop significantly without insurance getting altered to reflect these lower prices.



sorry i made the assumption that people could do the math but fear not, i am happy to do it for you

the total cost of loosing that fit on that ship is 55 mil (about)

the cost of loosing a:

hulk is 205 mil x 9 kills = 2250 mil
mack is 135 mil x134 kills = 18090 mill

total damage = 20340 mil

total loss (assuming fit) x 143 = 7865 mil

efficiency = 258%

this does not include the pod kills, loss of implants, insurance payouts and salvage collected from ship.
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#105 - 2011-10-24 08:24:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Thorn Galen
Let's speculate.


  1. IF Concord destroys your ship .AND. your Security level is less than -3, .THEN. and only then that character gets jailed for a period of time determined by some kind of formula, a sample formula shown next. (Read - 'sample')

  2. Security Level x 30 minutes x (Security level of Victim * 1.15)
    3. For example, a player with a security rating of -3 suicide ganks a player with a security rating of 1.6 : .
    -3 * 30 x (1.6 x 1.15) (You would obviously convert the -3 to a positive Integer)
    60 x 2.4 = 144 minutes = 2 Hours and 40 minutes.

  3. In the example above, the Suicide ganker would have that specific character effectively jailed, unable to log in with that character, for 2 hours and 40 minutes.
    4. In other words, the greater the "injustice" of killing an "innocent", the greater the punishment.

  4. Players who get ganked are told they have to put up with that as it is a game dynamic. It is however a flawed game dynamic, very one-sided. There should and must be consequences other than standings for criminal activity IF bust by Concord.


I am not saying that you must do away with suicide ganking, I am saying that if CONCORDED, then there are consequences in terms of "jailtime" based on how "criminal" you are and what level standing your target was.

IF CONCORDED, ladies and gentlemen. I'm not even speaking about the insurance question, Eve's insurance company obviously has deep pockets.

My question to players who love to suicide gank :-
Would you be willing to look at such a dynamic, or must it all be "get away with murder because I can" ?
If it truly is the latter you seek then this game is truly stuffed. I expect then that you will condemn this post in the lowest manner your wit may be capable of elucidating.

In a high-tech Universe like Eve, no-one can tell me that there can be crime without consequences because if that were true, technologically we would be throwing rocks at each other on some planet's surface, not Flying in Space.

Meh, blast away.

COO - Bene Gesserit Chapterhouse  CEO - Sanctuary Pact Alliance
Hrald
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#106 - 2011-10-24 08:26:49 UTC
Yeah, that's what Eve's flat-lining log ins need is to be unable to do so for hours at a time.
Hecatonis
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#107 - 2011-10-24 08:29:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Hecatonis
Tippia wrote:
No, that didn't help. You're missing the key ingredient and thus fail to answer the questions: How much does the miner earn between each loss? How much does the ganker earn between each loss? Your fact assumption is that the miner loses ships faster than he can earn them and/or that the ganker has a significant profit. This has yet to be proven.


i am sorry, but you are arguing semantics. no one was talking about loss/recovering rates but you, this is also a metric that cannot be determined at our level. the only thing that can be discussed is the loss ratio between ganker and gankee. your argument is invalid and only shows your lack of evidence.

Tippia wrote:
You're just showing that gankers and miners lose ships. We know this. It doesn't mean anything.
Quote:
this seems uninformed please see attached quote
Doesn't change the fact that they can mitigate their risks. In fact, it doesn't even address this fact.


also incorrect, as the ratio still leads itself in favor of the ganker, 3 fitting brutix still comes out to less then one fitting hulk. thus the gankers win

Quote:
Quote:
gank ship, concord kills your ship, gank pod, concord kills pod. seems fitting. poetic even
Yeah, that's not what CONCORD does. Only players pod, by design.

yes currently that is how the game works, but there is a push to change that. therefore we do not have a argument here.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2011-10-24 08:30:01 UTC
suicide kiddos will never get any consequences. this is Eve. sorry Cool

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#109 - 2011-10-24 08:37:36 UTC
Tippia wrote:
…except that insurance does not cover the loss. The consequence stands.
If they maintain a -10, you kill them. Either way, it's a consequence he has to deal with, just like with the kill rights. You accept that one, so you have to accept the standing as a consequence as well.
If they enjoy spending time ruining people's day, then not being able to do that is most certainly a harsh consequence, no?


i'm really sad about you Sad well. maybe you have bad days atm....

by your logic if somebody killed you in RL he sould not take any punishments from law and police "because he is not able to kill you again and this is a harsh consequence" already.... Shocked
crazy.....

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#110 - 2011-10-24 08:39:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Thorn Galen
Hrald wrote:
Yeah, that's what Eve's flat-lining log ins need is to be unable to do so for hours at a time.


Let's follow through on your logic, shall we ? Let's look at "the other effects" you seem unconcerned about because you are not a Carebear.

You have a character jailed for say 5 hours for ganking another pilot. You're going to be quite upset about it, but I doubt you will unsub because of it. Most have multiple accounts and Alts. It shouldn't stop you playing and you probably won't.

Here's the flipside : You and your mates will carry on playing, your character jailtime is only temporary. However, the chance that your victim will unsub is a heck of a lot higher than yours, it's probably not the first time the player has been ganked. You guys continue doing what you are doing, unabated, because you love it and you say it's Eve.

The casualties pile-up, players are unsubbing, they're not even posting in these forums. Simply unsubbing and saying goodbye.

Now please tell me again why Eve logins are flat-lining ?

I can answer that and the answer is only part of the flat-lining. - There are zero consequences for repeated criminal offences in Eve.

So yeah, no consequences = Unsubbing.

COO - Bene Gesserit Chapterhouse  CEO - Sanctuary Pact Alliance
Hecatonis
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#111 - 2011-10-24 08:45:16 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Tippia wrote:
…except that insurance does not cover the loss. The consequence stands.
If they maintain a -10, you kill them. Either way, it's a consequence he has to deal with, just like with the kill rights. You accept that one, so you have to accept the standing as a consequence as well.
If they enjoy spending time ruining people's day, then not being able to do that is most certainly a harsh consequence, no?


i'm really sad about you Sad well. maybe you have bad days atm....

by your logic if somebody killed you in RL he sould not take any punishments from law and police "because he is not able to kill you again and this is a harsh consequence" already.... Shocked
crazy.....


dont ever try a bring a real world argument into a computer game, its too easily countered.

a better argument is

even -10 sec status doesnt change the fact. a gank team can fly around in pods jump into a ship from an orca, and gank you before faction police get to them.

they already know they are loosing the ship it doesnt matter by who.

see harder to counter and bypasses the "i lack a point or even an argument, but i can still say 'this is a game not real life" argument. its a rather old and boring one
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#112 - 2011-10-24 08:46:29 UTC
Thorn Galen wrote:
There are zero consequences for repeated criminal offences in Eve


Lets, for one second, assume this is a true statement.

Now tell me what the issue with this is.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Halcyon Ingenium
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#113 - 2011-10-24 08:46:53 UTC
Tanya Fox wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Yes, and you do understand that with a nerfed CONCORD, you could do unto the gankers what the gankers do unto you… even more so than what you can now (and you can already do quite a lot, if you choose to — the problem is that people instead choose to be victims, and then want to blame others for that choice).



That's like saying conform to my playstyle or get out.



People choose to be victims, what bs. Spoken like a true pvper who has little regard for PvE players. Expected more from you Tippia.


Now I'm not intending to be a carebear, but I would not try to force PvP on people that did not wish to participate in PvP. And yes I know the but this is a PvP game but the fact is this community is made up of PvP, PvE and a mix of both players. Because of this you have to find some middle ground acceptable to both extremes of the group. If it's acceptable to them then it'll be acceptable to everyone.


Tell us more of your moral victory little underman.

By the way, since we're already talking, do you want to buy a rifter? I've got the cheapest rifters in Metropolis. If you can find a cheaper rifter, buy it!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#114 - 2011-10-24 09:29:06 UTC
Hecatonis wrote:
sorry i made the assumption that people could do the math but fear not, i am happy to do it for you
No, the problem is that your links do not contain the required information. How much did the ganker lose? How much did he gain? How much did the miners lose? How much did they gain? Over what period of time?
[quoteno one was talking about loss/recovering rates but you[/quote]I know. That's their problem, and why they can't put together a coherent risk vs. reward argument: because they just talk about point costs — nothing about frequency, probability, or payoff.

It's not semantics — it's the core part of the issue.

People are trying to paint this picture of some horrible imbalance between mining and ganking. I'm saying: prove it. What is the net ISK/h of a ganker? What is the net ISK/h of a miner? How will the removal of insurance adjust those numbers?
Quote:
the only thing that can be discussed is the loss ratio between ganker and gankee
No, that's not the only thing that can be discussed. Moreover, what you presented doesn't show it either. If you want the loss ratio, you need to figure out how often those miners lose their ships. How often are they attacked. How often does the ganker lose his ship (tip: 100% of the time).
Quote:
your argument is invalid and only shows your lack of evidence.
Fun fact: I don't need any evidence. You're the one making claims about imbalances — you are the one that needs to prove it. Once you've done that, I can use your evidence to disprove your point. I might also add my own, if I like (and can), but I don't have to. And just because you don't like to argue the full picture does not mean that the argument is invalid.
Quote:
also incorrect, as the ratio still leads itself in favor of the ganker, 3 fitting brutix still comes out to less then one fitting hulk. thus the gankers win
Still doesn't change the fact that the miner can mitigate his risks. So no, not only is it not incorrect — you didn't say anything that even addresses the point being made.

Yes, people atr pushing to change how the game works. The question is: why should it?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#115 - 2011-10-24 09:34:31 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
by your logic if somebody killed you in RL
No. That is not my logic, for the simple reason that my logic does not contain “RL”.

The moment you make the mistake of including real life, we need to start talking about a massive nerf to CONCORD. Do you really want to do that?
Hecatonis wrote:
even -10 sec status doesnt change the fact. a gank team can fly around in pods jump into a ship from an orca, and gank you before faction police get to them.
…but it does change the “fact” that they're supposedly without risk, and changes that fantasy into the fact that they risk getting blown up at any point. However (and here comes that awful word that the victims don't like to see again), the victims have to choose to apply that risk. Most of the time, they choose not to, and then complain that the risk that they chose to remove does not exist.
Quote:
they already know they are loosing the ship it doesnt matter by who.
I'd be surprised if it didn't matter to them if they lost the ship (and possibly other things) before they got the chance to gank…
Zombatar
Vectors of Virtue
#116 - 2011-10-24 09:47:55 UTC
Meh if u get ganked in high sec your doing it wrong. There are so many systems in eve that are not populated and where u can mine in peace, yet all noobs stick to regions that are full of pirates and other such people that enjoy killing you. Move your ass to a different system and get some friends around, this way i promise u'll do just fine.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#117 - 2011-10-24 10:05:16 UTC
Thorn Galen wrote:
The casualties pile-up, players are unsubbing, they're not even posting in these forums. Simply unsubbing and saying goodbye.

Now please tell me again why Eve logins are flat-lining ?

I can answer that and the answer is only part of the flat-lining. - There are zero consequences for repeated criminal offences in Eve.

So yeah, no consequences = Unsubbing.


In fact non-consensual PvP has been made steadily more difficult over the years, while at the same time the rate of increase in subscriptions has descreased and finally flatlined. In fact if you're going to argue the correlation -> causation thing, then if CCP want to see subs rising again, they should reverse those changes. Clearly, nerfing suicide ganking has caused EVE to lose subs.

PS there is no ship for which Platinum insurance completely covers the cost. Therefore there is always a consequence to losing the ship; not to mention the cost of the modules.

Apologies for introducing facts into this fascinating debate. Please carry on.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Psychophantic
#118 - 2011-10-24 10:05:22 UTC
Just confirming my alt is suffering heavy consequences from low sec status.

I now have to spend a couple of hours a week on my main to give him a steady supply of ships.
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#119 - 2011-10-24 10:54:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Thorn Galen
Malcanis wrote:


In fact non-consensual PvP has been made steadily more difficult over the years, while at the same time the rate of increase in subscriptions has descreased and finally flatlined. In fact if you're going to argue the correlation -> causation thing, then if CCP want to see subs rising again, they should reverse those changes. Clearly, nerfing suicide ganking has caused EVE to lose subs.

PS there is no ship for which Platinum insurance completely covers the cost. Therefore there is always a consequence to losing the ship; not to mention the cost of the modules.

Apologies for introducing facts into this fascinating debate. Please carry on.


Are you saying that the nerfing of PvP is the cause of Eve subscriptions decreasing ? I don't want to misunderstand what you wrote, but as it stands, that is how I understand it.

Is it possible to get hold of historical account data with details such as the introduction of new expansions, the introduction of new rules, the nerfing of items/abilities etc ?

The mistake we're all making, regardless of how long you have been playing Eve onilne, is assigning blame for loss of subscriptions to the nerfing of a single game dynamic. I would like to see a graph showing number of accounts and Eve patches/updates along the same timeline.

My response was not intended to "nerf" anything, far from it. It was a suggestion - one which is obviously being seen in a negative light.

How about getting us those details, Malcanis ? (not a member of the CSM, just noticed now, sorry) I have seen some graphs and stats, but nothing showing the events timeline. If there is such a graph, I would appreciate a link to it.

Let me stress - I am not for nerfing, anything that even slightly breaks the game is a nerf. It was an idea, it is not an accepted idea. Ie, thank you for the feedback - at least the post wasn't trolled.

How about it Malcanis, any chance on getting that information ? I'm looking and coming-up empty.

Peace out.

COO - Bene Gesserit Chapterhouse  CEO - Sanctuary Pact Alliance
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#120 - 2011-10-24 11:26:27 UTC  |  Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Tippia wrote:
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Tippia wrote:
The ganker is worse off
This is utter nonsense and I think you yourself realize this.
Really? Prove it


Tippia, your posts are full of inconsistent misinformation. You're either:

a) Purposefully lying or

b) Genuinely believe this nonsense.


If the latter, then it's impossible reasoning someone out of an argument that they didn't reason themselves into in the first place. If the former, then you need to realize that you 're not fooling anyone. The people that chant your drivel already support it, not because they believe it to be true, but because it's what they do.

Carry on, goons.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.