These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Suicide Ganking: coming to an end?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Elyssa MacLeod
Doomheim
#161 - 2011-11-06 08:27:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Elyssa MacLeod
Tippia wrote:
Sadayiel wrote:
I think there is a difference with PvP and Grief/Punish other players weak tanked ships in *relatively* safe space
Yes. There's a difference. Griefers get banned.

People who punish other players for not fitting their ships properly or for being drunk at the wheel should be rewarded. Twisted


Yeah well... When is the last time someone was actually punished for griefing in EVE.... 2007? Kugu for griefing CCP?

Name Family Name wrote:



Freighters? Not much you can do except using an alt to web yourself into warp - a support fleet won't really help. So they still will be ganked if they haul anything worthwile

The real problem is that macro-miners are even safer than they used to be.

This game is in a constant decline - and yes - I actually mine myself in highsec occasionally...


Apparently Tippia thinks its wrong to be flying freighters.

GM Homonoia: Suicide ganks are a valid and viable tactic in EVE.

Where is your God now carebear?
Elyssa MacLeod
Doomheim
#162 - 2011-11-06 08:32:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Elyssa MacLeod
Alara IonStorm wrote:
SilentSkills wrote:
It wont affect suicide ganking much, a thorax is pretty cheap, and destroyers got buffed.

Really this. The only change is less Solo Arty Battleships and more teams of smaller attack ships.

It is part of EVE's new group content.


Well that an the one group ppl (who are even pissed off about gankers) are really pissed about suicide ganking right now is Goons and I dont see them giving 2 ***** about this.

Maybe theyll give high sec dwellers a PVP flag system

GM Homonoia: Suicide ganks are a valid and viable tactic in EVE.

Where is your God now carebear?
CCP Spitfire
C C P
C C P Alliance
#163 - 2011-11-06 08:38:33 UTC
Offtopic posts removed.

Please keep the discussion on track and refrain from personal attacks.

CCP Spitfire | Marketing & Sales Team @ccp_spitfire
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#164 - 2011-11-06 08:50:35 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Large Collidable Object wrote:
from a gameplay perspective it makes sense - which insurance would pay if you go on an amok-drive and the police wrecks your car?
From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces. Which police force teleports to the scene of the crime, automatically knows who did it, and then instantly kills almost everyone involved?



LAPD (assuming everyone involved is Minmatar)

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#165 - 2011-11-06 08:53:18 UTC
There are going to be some very disappointed miners when they find out that this will hardly affect those ganking them (On noes, no insurance on my gank Catalyst! CryCry ) but that the freighterloads of minerals from the drone regions that have been undercutting their livelihood are now even safer.

Welp.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#166 - 2011-11-06 08:57:55 UTC
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:
Anyone notice how the carebears that are completely unable to create tears of their own eagerly clutch at anything somebody that doesn't agree with them says and claim they are tears?

Just so you understand, you do know this wont save miners? Nor will it save idiots that cram several hundred million into a T1 hauler, and it wont save 5b isk Tengus either. So before you go around cheering and calling opinions "tears" you should really think about those three facts.


YOU ARE RUINING THE WHOLE PLAN.

:mad:

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
TharOkha
0asis Group
#167 - 2011-11-06 09:19:17 UTC
It will change nothing, just reduce LOL ganking (and i think its right). Hulks or t1 haulers will be still targets.

CODE. Venture hunt contest in a nutshell
Mag's
Azn Empire
#168 - 2011-11-06 09:27:31 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
There are going to be some very disappointed miners when they find out that this will hardly affect those ganking them (On noes, no insurance on my gank Catalyst! CryCry ) but that the freighterloads of minerals from the drone regions that have been undercutting their livelihood are now even safer.

Welp.

Can you imagine the whines after this change, when it carries on as before. Lol

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Shawnm339
Ministry of Furious Retribution
Fraternity.
#169 - 2011-11-06 09:40:52 UTC
it just makes sense end off......if I see a truck driving down the road and ram him to get his booty of ipads which my mate then steals I shouldnt deserve any insurance.....

If I decide I'm going to ram that Mercedes AMG whateverthefookitscalled in my Austin Maestro just for the giggles and subsequent tears should I get insurance?

Of course not it makes no sense......griefers have now got to work for their so called fun boo frigging hoo
Shawnm339
Ministry of Furious Retribution
Fraternity.
#170 - 2011-11-06 09:42:18 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Large Collidable Object wrote:
from a gameplay perspective it makes sense - which insurance would pay if you go on an amok-drive and the police wrecks your car?
From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces. Which police force teleports to the scene of the crime, automatically knows who did it, and then instantly kills almost everyone involved?



LAPD (assuming everyone involved is Minmatar)


lololol giggle of the day so far

/iseewhatyoudidthere
OmniBeton
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#171 - 2011-11-06 10:26:37 UTC
No insurance for beeing concorded is logical. But it won't stop gankers - only make them select targets more carefuly and maybe gank with swarms of cheaper ships like destroyers instead of solo.
Shade Millith
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#172 - 2011-11-06 10:33:06 UTC
Quote:
it just makes sense end off......if I see a truck driving down the road and ram him to get his booty of ipads which my mate then steals I shouldnt deserve any insurance.....

If I decide I'm going to ram that Mercedes AMG whateverthefookitscalled in my Austin Maestro just for the giggles and subsequent tears should I get insurance?

Of course not it makes no sense......griefers have now got to work for their so called fun boo frigging hoo


The police in RL don't arrive in 5 seconds either. So obviously the timer for concord should be 5 minutes.

This is just CCP bending over and nerfing suicide ganking... again, as they've been doing for the last several years.
Avila Cracko
#173 - 2011-11-06 10:34:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Avila Cracko
i hope that insurance for self-destruct is going to be removed too...
its "a little" bit stupid that you get money for car that you blow up with explosive... :/
and if you want money for that you commit insurance fraud and go to jail...

p.s.
EVE need less ISK faucets and more ISK sunks!!!
and with all this we get rid of one big ISK faucet.

truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Ariane VoxDei
#174 - 2011-11-06 10:46:30 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Max Von Sydow wrote:
Delicious Tippia tears.
What? Nothingness has a taste all of a sudden? Ugh
Igualmentedos wrote:
BEST tears! Big smile
You really shouldn't define something that doesn't exist as “best” — it will only set you up for thorough disappointment.
Dondoran wrote:
This is truly a great idea gankers not getting nearly free ships to grief the innocent with
Yeah… a couple of problems here: gankers are not griefers, the ships were not nearly free, and ther targets were not innocent.
Quote:
Anything that hurts that kind of game play is only going to have positive effects on the rest of eve.
Quite the opposite — it will only hurt the economy and make it better for botting.
Yep, sounds like (politician-)tears alright, when you resort to denial and tautologies.

Not innocent? Yes, I am sure they are guilty of repeatedly flying practically unarmed, practically untankable ships in a entirely non-agressing way. Head out of ass. Even pimped mission ships can be taken out with considerable ease, so by comparison a indy (t2 or not) or barge/exhumer is loleasy. Barrier to entry against orca/freighter/JF is a bit higher, but still just a matter of making sure the target is worth it (or worth the denial).
Fits well with the rest of your thug-think in this thread (the victim was to blame, yeah, right).
If you dont like hisec concordslappy, dont fly there, fly somewhere else. I am sure the hisec residents take a similar approach to low/null/wh if they dont like their experience of those places.
The cheap ride for highsec ganks is coming to and end, like it should have 7 years ago. And it wont stop those there, wait and see, those ganks will become harder to pull off and the punishments more severe as eve gradually ("slowly boiling the toads") moves towards a more sane and mass-acceptable system for highsec and eventually lowsec.

Also cut the bullcrap, you know better, it wont make a significant boost to botting or real nerf to "economy" by cutting demand (in a miniscule way). Dont delude yourself or anyone else into thinking that the current level of highsec unsanctioned ganks are really denting them or significantly keeping the economy going by blowing up a few ships here and there.
To the invidual victim it matters. To the group it is barely a shrug. And certainly not denting the drone region ones or nullsec bears in any way.
The goon ice project, which demonstrably has effected the market, is merely a (indirect) market manipulation effort, whether for shortterm speculation or longterm pricesetting to please the icebots - some of which they undoubtedly run themselves - who will gladly pay some % of gross for higher prices and coming under NAP umbrellas. That, after all, is just business.
Shnejder
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#175 - 2011-11-06 11:11:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Shnejder
I just see ganked victims in here crying.
As long as CCP doen't announce anything in this direction im still there and waiting for your cargo.

From my point of view we (gankers) take huge amounts of isk out of the game ccp isnt able to cause of the nice botter ccp is to ****** do ban forever instead of 3 days for the 1st time. We should be awarded by free months for our work.
okst666
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#176 - 2011-11-06 11:18:26 UTC  |  Edited by: okst666
The whole insurance system in eve is totaly ****** up in my opionion.

Why do I have to insure MY ship from damage by others?

I dont know where you live, but here it is like, if YOU crash my car, YOUR insurance have to pay MY new car...or YOU and YOUR kids till the end of their lifetime.

Also - I should be able to additionally insure my cargo and get double payout when it got lost.

[X] < Nail here for new monitor
Nalia White
Tencus
#177 - 2011-11-06 11:31:35 UTC
i like it how all the true carebears (read suicide gankers) claim that hisec will be safer with this change. well guess what, it isn't. you still have the same tools (some even get buffed apparantly), CONCORD will act the same, you now just pay more for messing with other players in a zone where people want to not engage in pvp primarly.

this is just a mechanic change which makes a lot of sense. the victim probably doesn't insure his miner/pve ship/hauler because you would lose alot of isk every 2 weeks. insurance is for risky operations where you have a high chance of losing your ship. now a ganker knows exactly that he will lose his gankerboat and can engage an other player in an uninsured ship and wins double. he gets to loot and even get more insurance money from his lost ship then the victim, how this could be ok in the first place is beyond me but i am relatively new to eve :)

so i welcome this change. and no, i was never killed in "pvp" nor killed someone yet... only ship losses are from npc's Oops

finaly: if you are no carebears and true pvp lovers you wouldn't look for helpless prey in highsec anyway. hypocrits, all of you!

Syndicate - K5-JRD

Home to few, graveyard for many

My biggest achievement
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#178 - 2011-11-06 11:32:44 UTC
Ariane VoxDei wrote:
Not innocent? Yes, I am sure they are guilty of repeatedly flying practically unarmed, practically untankable ships in a entirely non-agressing way.
They are guilty of providing resources and materials for the enemy's war effort. They guilty of this because everyone is — it's inherent in the design of the economy.
Quote:
Fits well with the rest of your thug-think in this thread (the victim was to blame, yeah, right).
The victim is to blame if his actions needlessly and pointlessly elevate the risk. Is it your fault if you drive too fast to react and thus have an accident?
Quote:
The cheap ride for highsec ganks is coming to and end, like it should have 7 years ago.
Why should it?
Nalia White
Tencus
#179 - 2011-11-06 11:34:51 UTC
Shnejder wrote:
I just see ganked victims in here crying.
As long as CCP doen't announce anything in this direction im still there and waiting for your cargo.

From my point of view we (gankers) take huge amounts of isk out of the game ccp isnt able to cause of the nice botter ccp is to ****** do ban forever instead of 3 days for the 1st time. We should be awarded by free months for our work.


haha good one. just continue your good work sir, you will be even taking more isk out of the system as you will not be rewarded by your crime with free isk.

thanks for saving eve Roll

Syndicate - K5-JRD

Home to few, graveyard for many

My biggest achievement
Avila Cracko
#180 - 2011-11-06 11:37:21 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Ariane VoxDei wrote:
Not innocent? Yes, I am sure they are guilty of repeatedly flying practically unarmed, practically untankable ships in a entirely non-agressing way.
They are guilty of providing resources and materials for the enemy's war effort. They guilty of this because everyone is — it's inherent in the design of the economy.
Quote:
Fits well with the rest of your thug-think in this thread (the victim was to blame, yeah, right).
The victim is to blame if his actions needlessly and pointlessly elevate the risk. Is it your fault if you drive too fast to react and thus have an accident?
Quote:
The cheap ride for highsec ganks is coming to and end, like it should have 7 years ago.
Why should it?



hey Tippia...
you only ask why something should change... and why not???
because you dont approve it? yea we know it, but its not (thnx god) up to you.

and

p.s.
you see that your kind is here minority... and zillion posts from one person is not zillion opinions, only one...

truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.