These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Should Ganking be profitable?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Fractal Muse
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#101 - 2013-03-19 19:08:36 UTC
This seems like a good place to ask this question as it pertains directly to 'ganking' in highsec.

In regards to AFK mining should it be 100% safe to do?

I read this a lot that people are mining Highsec and are AFK then get upset that their ship is destroyed which, to me, begs the question about this activity. Is this something that should be 100% safe to do?
Dave Stark
#102 - 2013-03-19 19:13:45 UTC
Fractal Muse wrote:
This seems like a good place to ask this question as it pertains directly to 'ganking' in highsec.

In regards to AFK mining should it be 100% safe to do?

I read this a lot that people are mining Highsec and are AFK then get upset that their ship is destroyed which, to me, begs the question about this activity. Is this something that should be 100% safe to do?


no, it shouldn't be 100% safe.

on the other hand, you shouldn't have to make a 200m ship worse than it's 30m isk counterpart in order to be unprofitable to gank. part of the issue with ganking miners is that the mining ships are horribly balanced but i'm not sure any one even realises that because they're too busy "crying" or "not fitting a tank" or some other equally ******** "point" made by one party or the other.
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#103 - 2013-03-19 19:17:30 UTC
Fractal Muse wrote:
This seems like a good place to ask this question as it pertains directly to 'ganking' in highsec.

In regards to AFK mining should it be 100% safe to do?

I read this a lot that people are mining Highsec and are AFK then get upset that their ship is destroyed which, to me, begs the question about this activity. Is this something that should be 100% safe to do?


no, because there's no way to accomplish that without making suicide ganking officially an exploit. And that changes the role of the police to protector, rather than avenger . it effects the whole ethos of the game.

forums.  serious business.
HollyShocker 2inthestink
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#104 - 2013-03-19 19:24:46 UTC
Tippia wrote:
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:
Its not the ganking that bothers me its the fact that it can be done so cheap as well as with minimal effort.
…neither of which is true, unless the target makes it so. The target can also make it not so.

Above all, the simple fact remains that asking it to be any other way is to say that five players should not be able to beat one, just because the one guy spent a bunch of ISK. There is a word for that kind of setup — it's called “unbalanced as hell”.


Again im sure in your mind because you say it then it has to be. Sorry thats just not the case. I never mentioned the amount of guys just the amount of isk and reward vs isk and profit and effort.

I dont care how many it takes to gank someone it should not yield a profit in hi-sec. In certain cases it may only take one person to break the tank during a mission. The variables are endless.

I just asked peoples opinion on the matter. There are plenty of options avail to CCP to correct the problem without creating unbalance.

The unbalance is you can loose a high value mission specific pvp/pve ship to low value high dps ships from alt accounts.
Theron Vetrus
Doomheim
#105 - 2013-03-19 19:28:33 UTC
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:
The unbalance is you can loose a high value mission specific pvp/pve ship to low value high dps ships from alt accounts.


The largest balance issue is that extreme risk-averse players shouldn't even be allowed to post arguments on the forums.

Take what you can, give nothing back. Psychotic Monk for CSM8
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#106 - 2013-03-19 19:33:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:
I never mentioned the amount of guys just the amount of isk and reward vs isk and profit and effort.
…aside from when you did. Also, without numbers, it's far more low effort and definitely not low cost.

Quote:
I dont care how many it takes to gank someone it should not yield a profit in hi-sec.
Why not? Why should it not be profitable to relieve someone of their valuables?

Quote:
I just asked peoples opinion on the matter. There are plenty of options avail to CCP to correct the problem without creating unbalance.
What problem? Losing a high-value ship to low-value ships is not a problem, and it has nothing to do with balance — if anything it shows that we have proper game balance, since cost is not a factor and since the reason the high-value ship lost was because it wasn't fit for purpose or flown improperly.

Correcting “the problem” as you define it inherently creates imbalance. The only way for it not to is to define the problem in such a way that it no longer exists.

Quote:
Yea im not gonna give you a good reason because well because your not the president.
So you agree, then, that there is no reason to unbalance the game by making ISK a factor in survivability. Good.
/thread
Whitehound
#107 - 2013-03-19 19:38:22 UTC
Fractal Muse wrote:
In regards to AFK mining should it be 100% safe to do?

Mining never was 100% safe and in lack of real numbers will I just say that it has always been 99% save. So it may well be 100%! Just joking...

I think it makes for a bad argument, because one could ask for random ship explosions (i.e. to simulate the ageing of ships) without first discussing the need for such a feature. I can imagine ship ageing being a fun element if it is implemented in a smart way, where it is fun for everyone, and so that it not just blows up someone's Titan after a week and we all start laughing about it. So that is why I think any point made purely based on those 100% are not good points.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#108 - 2013-03-19 19:44:57 UTC
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:


Again im sure in your mind because you say it then it has to be. Sorry thats just not the case. I never mentioned the amount of guys just the amount of isk and reward vs isk and profit and effort.

I dont care how many it takes to gank someone it should not yield a profit in hi-sec. In certain cases it may only take one person to break the tank during a mission. The variables are endless.

I just asked peoples opinion on the matter. There are plenty of options avail to CCP to correct the problem without creating unbalance.

The unbalance is you can loose a high value mission specific pvp/pve ship to low value high dps ships from alt accounts.


CCP cant fix stupid and should never try.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#109 - 2013-03-19 19:47:56 UTC
Tippia wrote:
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:
I never mentioned the amount of guys just the amount of isk and reward vs isk and profit and effort.
…aside from when you did. Also, without numbers, it's far more low effort and definitely not low cost.

Quote:
I dont care how many it takes to gank someone it should not yield a profit in hi-sec.
Why not? Why should it not be profitable to relieve someone of their valuables?


Because he has valuable he doesn't want to lose, nor does he want to take the time and effort to defend them properly, thus he needs CCP intervention.

In other words, he lives in High Sec. I heard the "Highsec" is Old Aramaic for "Land of Entitlement and Welfare". it's in the bible, look it up.
GreenSeed
#110 - 2013-03-19 19:54:43 UTC  |  Edited by: GreenSeed
Runeme Shilter wrote:
GreenSeed wrote:
Tippia wrote:


Quote:
im talking about ships that cant help but pay for their own gank
There are no such ships.


a therm/kin tanked mack dies to 3 t1 cats, considering an average of 22m isk worth of stuff in the ship at the time of death (including 3m in average salvage drop)

cat fleet cost in total less than 4 millon isk.


Can you show me the fit that drops 19M from a mack?

i said 22m on the ship, if you were half as smart as you pretend to be you could have easily know that the mack would drop in average half that.

also, 1m catalysts are possible, i use 1.4m isk thrashers.


stop fitting t2. and stop pretending your fleet is compromised of "real" people.
Runeme Shilter
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#111 - 2013-03-19 20:14:49 UTC
GreenSeed wrote:

i said 22m on the ship, if you were half as smart as you pretend to be you could have easily know that the mack would drop in average half that.


Could you show me that setup?

Quote:
also, 1m catalysts are possible, i use 1.4m isk thrashers.


And what DPS does your magical 1M catalyst do? You need around 430 dps, 3 of them do 1.3k. A properly tanked mack has 31k EHP, 33k if he overheats, so you need at least 24 seconds to kill it. That means it's only possible in a 0.5 system.

[Catalyst, setup1]
Insulated Stabilizer Array I
Insulated Stabilizer Array I
Insulated Stabilizer Array I

Prototype Sensor Booster, Targeting Range Script
Initiated Harmonic Warp Scrambler I

Light Neutron Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Light Neutron Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Light Neutron Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Light Neutron Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Light Neutron Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Light Neutron Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Light Neutron Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Light Neutron Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S

Small Hybrid Burst Aerator I
Small Hybrid Collision Accelerator I
[empty rig slot]

does 429 dps with perfect skills, but costs more than 1.3M, so I'd really be interested in your fits.

Quote:
stop fitting t2. and stop pretending your fleet is compromised of "real" people.


Yeah, we are all James 315's alts, we know that already.
HollyShocker 2inthestink
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#112 - 2013-03-19 21:33:34 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Tippia wrote:
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:
I never mentioned the amount of guys just the amount of isk and reward vs isk and profit and effort.
…aside from when you did. Also, without numbers, it's far more low effort and definitely not low cost.

Quote:
I dont care how many it takes to gank someone it should not yield a profit in hi-sec.
Why not? Why should it not be profitable to relieve someone of their valuables?


Because he has valuable he doesn't want to lose, nor does he want to take the time and effort to defend them properly, thus he needs CCP intervention.

In other words, he lives in High Sec. I heard the "Highsec" is Old Aramaic for "Land of Entitlement and Welfare". it's in the bible, look it up.


Your inability to see any point of view other than your own never ceases to amaze. I actually have multiple accounts in three areas. Hi-sec low/null just not wormholes. I don’t know everything about the game or even as much as others. I do know how I see things and have the ability of being even brained and can see things from multiple points of view. I may not always agree with those views but I will state my case and stand for what I believe to be right and what may help others.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#113 - 2013-03-19 21:34:21 UTC
"i consider suicide ganking a cheap playstyle, so it should be removed from the game"

well, I consider AFK mining a cheap playstyle since it involves the most minimal interaction with the game possible

as a result, I support the scourging of those engaging in that gameplay

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#114 - 2013-03-19 21:38:20 UTC
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:
Your inability to see any point of view other than your own never ceases to amaze. I actually have multiple accounts in three areas. Hi-sec low/null just not wormholes. I don’t know everything about the game or even as much as others. I do know how I see things and have the ability of being even brained and can see things from multiple points of view. I may not always agree with those views but I will state my case and stand for what I believe to be right and what may help others.


you also want to make hisec incredibly safe to the point that players can simply get around the limitations imposed by l4/incursion payouts by flying officer fit faction battleships and printing massive amounts of ISK with absolutely no risk of losing their valuables

naturally, those of us who care about game balance are opposed to your ridiculous ideas

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Whitehound
#115 - 2013-03-19 22:06:13 UTC
Andski wrote:
well, I consider AFK mining a cheap playstyle since it involves the most minimal interaction with the game possible

Sure, point taken, but you are wrong about it, because there are more profitable and less interactive play styles. You then cannot kick miners out of the game, because you need the minerals, but you can well kick gankers out of the game, because they are not needed for anything.

So it still needs a good argument. Miners have all the good arguments. Why cannot those cheap gankers have good arguments?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Asmodai Xodai
#116 - 2013-03-19 22:31:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Asmodai Xodai
I have far too little experience in this game to comment intelligently in a broad manner. So I will simply offer an observation I have made:

It seems that ganking of a ship can occur ridiculously fast (I don't mean a titan ganking a noobship - that SHOULD occur ridiculously fast). For instance, I have had a retriever ganked by a rifter, and it died literally in seconds. I have had industrials ganked by cruisers which decloaked next to me, and they were essentially one-shotted. I just remember thinking at the time that the kills just seemed to happen too fast for the power differential between the ships.

Should ganking be allowed to occur? Of course. Should it be allowed to be profitable? Of course. But I do think there needs to be an assessment of power levels or "tiers" between ships, and adjustments to make sure that the speed at which one ship can gank another is consistent with the difference in power between ships. For instance, I think perhaps a battleship should be able to one shot gank a retriever. But I don't know that a rifter should be able to.

Again, that's simply an observation and thoughts from a noob, so take it for what it is.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#117 - 2013-03-19 22:34:00 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Sure, point taken, but you are wrong about it, because there are more profitable and less interactive play styles. You then cannot kick miners out of the game, because you need the minerals, but you can well kick gankers out of the game, because they are not needed for anything.

So it still needs a good argument. Miners have all the good arguments. Why cannot those cheap gankers have good arguments?


i too overestimate my own importance and project my own playstyle upon everyone else who engages in the same activity, and immediately assume that the hole currently filled by wretched bot aspirants would not be filled by players who choose to play more actively

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#118 - 2013-03-19 22:35:34 UTC
gankers are important because they add a dimension of gameplay to the staleness that is hisec, the fact that it's only relatively safer than other areas of the game and not to the point where you can expose the entirety of your wealth in a single ship and not risk losing it in one swoop

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Whitehound
#119 - 2013-03-19 22:36:28 UTC
Andski wrote:
i too overestimate my own importance and ...

You still do. I do not. I ask and still have not seen an argument as solid as any of the miners. So I keep asking. You keep overestimating.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#120 - 2013-03-19 22:40:30 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Andski wrote:
i too overestimate my own importance and ...

You still do. I do not. I ask and still have not seen an argument as solid as any of the miners. So I keep asking. You keep overestimating.


Miners?

The same people who refuse to fit a tank to their ships to stop them from being ganked?